Posts Tagged ‘Oklahoma’

In God Damn America, Gay Sodomy Worshiped In Obama White House While God And Religion Gets Kicked To The Curb

July 1, 2015

Only a few years ago, Elena Kagan, the woman Barack Obama would handpick to be a Supreme Court inJustice ruled, “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

Tragically, somebody tore up the Constitution of the United States of America, urinated on it, defecated on it, and then rewrote it.  So in the United States of America, “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”  But in Obama’s God Damn America, there is.

The Constitution didn’t change; it was just contemptuously disregarded by a group of perverted people that our Pervert-in-Chief surrounded himself with.

Our tyrant god-king Obama was the first to ignore the Constitution and the law.  He instructed his lawthug Eric Holder to disregard a law that was passed by Congress and signed into law by a president – the Defense of Marriage Act – and followed a strategy to simply ignore, bypass, or flat-out defy federal and state laws his activist friends didn’t like.  And having added two Supreme Court inJustices to the sewer of his regime, Obama bent that now politicized body to his political will: as a group of judges looked down from Mt. Olympus and read the minds of the American people and their lawful government enactments and decreed, “There must have been bias here.”  And basically enshrined a process that would homosexual sex the new summum bonum, the new greatest good.  Throw out religion; let’s enshrine sex.  And let no one should be able to touch homosexual perversion; it is sacrosanct, it is our highest and greatest right.

The Obama Supreme Court and our fascist autocracy that is now of the judges, by the judges and for the judges – in mockery of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address that declared “this nation, under God” – stuck its collectivist finger up at the God of the Bible and said,

And they’ve been saying it ever since.

Now, I’ve already pointed the fact out, but the Liar of the Year – actually the Liar of All Human History if the truth were to be accurately stated – profoundly and fundamentally lied in the most cynical and most depraved manner when he told the American people regarding homosexual marriage:

WARREN: Define marriage.

OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix. But —

WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?

OBAMA: No, I would not.

WARREN: Why not?

OBAMA: Because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let’s break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that — about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.

Barack Obama lied on THREE massive fronts as he deceived the American people into electing him on the basis that he was a Christian as most of them were; that he believed in the same things that most of them believed in; that no he was NOT the dangerous fascist that people like me were screaming that he truly was.  Obama lied and said he was a Christian when he was and is NOT a Christian by any biblical/New Testament understanding of Christianity.  This is the true nature of Obama’s “Christian salvation” in his own words:

“… working on issues of crime and education and employment and seeing that in some ways certain portions of the African American community are doing as bad if not worse, and recognizing that my fate remain tied up with their fates, that my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country.

“Collective” as in “collectivist.”  And “collectivist” as in “communist.”  Obama’s “collective” comes right out of Karl Marx and right out of Stalin.  Because Obama’s “Christianity” is a candy coating over a hard nut of Marxism just as Jeremiah Wright’s “Christianity” is.

Any orthodox Christian can tell you – and quote the Bible to prove it – that individuals are saved by their individual and personal faith in Jesus Christ in a dependence upon His righteousness and His substitutionary death in our place on the Cross.   My faith – regardless of the color of my skin – is not “tied up” in ANYTHING other than the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, God the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, who shares in and participates in the divine essence of the eternal Father.

What does the New Testament teach about actual Christianity and actual Christian salvation?  Take the trip down the famous Romans Road which plainly reveals the way to true Christianity:

  • Romans 3:10   —    As it is written, there is none righteous, not even one;  There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God.
  • Romans 3:23   —    for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
  • Romans 5:8     —    But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
  • Romans 6:23   —    For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
  • Romans 5:1      —    Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
  • Romans 8:1      —    Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
  • Romans 10:9,10 — If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.  For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.

Let me just beat this to death because the Word of God is simply so crystal clear on what it means to be a “Christian” that nothing has ever been more clear:

What does Jesus say about what it means to be a true follower?  Consider Matthew 16:24-25:
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If any one (individual) wishes to come after Me, he (individual) must deny himself (individual), and take up his (individual) cross and follow Me.  For whoever wishes to save his (individual) life will lose it; but whoever loses his (individual) life for My sake will find it.
Consider 2 Corinthians 5:10 for the thoughts of St. Paul:
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one (individual) may be recompensed for his (individual) deeds in the body, according to what he (individual) has done, whether good or bad.
And again, St. Paul in Romans 14:12:
So then each one of us (individual) will give an account of himself (individual) to God.
Or consider Galatians 2:20:
“I (individual) have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I (individual) who live, but Christ lives in me (individual); and the life which I (individual) now live in the flesh I (individual) live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me (individual), and delivered Himself up for me (individual).”
And, again, in the words of Jesus as recorded in Revelation 3:20:
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock.  If any one (individual)  hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him (individual) and will dine with him (individual), and he (individual) with Me.”
Barack Obama is most certainly not a Christian to so miserably misunderstand that we are EACH INDIVIDUALLY saved by our PERSONAL faith in Jesus Christ through what He did for us on the cross.  This is not some esoteric “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” sort of question; it is a core fundamental of the Christian faith.

Barack Obama’s collectivist revisionism of Christianity has NOTHING to do with the historic faith of Christianity.  Barack Obama is a PERVERT.  He is a PERVERTER of truth.

Barack Obama does NOT have a Judeo-Christian worldview in any way, shape or form.  There is NOTHING in true Christianity that has anything to do with Obama’s warped beliefs, or his warped ideology.  Rather, he cynically masqueraded as something that he is not in order to sell himself to people who otherwise would NEVER have voted for him.

That was his first grotesque, cynical, deceitful, depraved lie.  Here was his second: when he falsely said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman when he secretly lusted for marriage to be between two perverts:

Axelrod: Obama Misled Nation When He Opposed Gay Marriage In 2008
A striking admission of political dishonesty from the keeper of the Obama flame
Zeke J Miller @ZekeJMiller
Feb. 10, 2015

Barack Obama misled Americans for his own political benefit when he claimed in the 2008 election to oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons, his former political strategist David Axelrod writes in a new book, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics.

“I’m just not very good at bullshitting,” Obama told Axelrod, after an event where he stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, according to the book.

Axelrod writes that he knew Obama was in favor of same-sex marriages during the first presidential campaign, even as Obama publicly said he only supported civil unions, not full marriages. Axelrod also admits to counseling Obama to conceal that position for political reasons. “Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union,’ ” Axelrod writes.

It’s a fact, you know, that blacks were opposed to same-sex marriage, as a quote from an article describing Proposition 8’s (the people of California’s vote defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman) proving even liberal blacks in a liberal state opposed same-sex marriage by overwhelming numbers:

African American voters, who were overwhelmingly in favor of banning same sex marriage (70 percent supported Proposition 8)

You’ve just got to laugh even as you cry about Obama’s one and only display of false humility, when he said, “I’m just not that good at bullshitting.”  Because he is actually more full of bullshit than any human being who ever lived and is the ULTIMATE expert at bullshitting as a result.

There is simply no question whatsoever that Barack Obama lied, that he is a cynical liar without shame, the very WORST kind of liar that there is: the kind of liar who lies to gain your trust, only to use the position you have him because of his deception to turn on your dearest values.

But there is a third lie that is only now revealed, that makes Barack Hussein Obama one of the very most dishonest and frankly evil human beings who ever lived.  After having lied about being a Christian – (which makes us understand how easy it was for him to slip and say “My Muslim faith“) –

OBAMA: Let’s not play games. What I was suggesting — you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you’re absolutely right that that has not come–

STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.

OBAMA: — my Christian faith.

– and have to actually be CORRECTED as to his “religion” by a man we now know to have been a VERY friendly television host – And after having lied about believing marriage was as Christians have always believed it was for 2,000 years, Barack Obama refused to stand by that false profession by making it an amendment.  Why?  Well, in Obama’s disingenuous words, “Because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. … I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court ABOLISHED the right of the states to define marriage.  Obama declared that a federal definition of marriage is NOT in our Constitution.  Rather, “It’s been a matter of state law,” he said.  The Supreme Court literally dismantled EVERYTHING that Barack Obama falsely claimed he believed along with his grounds FOR that belief.  Obama declared the fact that in all previous American history, it was the STATES that defined what a marriage was.  But in the Obama Supreme Court, the inJustices decreed, “Not any more; now WE get to define what marriage is – and “marriage” is now homosexual sodomy.”

So why did Obama hold a giant ceremony celebrating the Court’s destruction of everything he claimed to stand for?

See the White House Light Up as a Rainbow to Celebrate Gay Marriage

Obama White House lights up to celebrate gay marriage - Copy

Because it was all a bright, shining lie.  Just like his ObamaCare lies.  Absolutely everything Obama said he believed in AND why he believed it – EVERYTHING – was a cynical lie from the most depraved liar we’ve ever seen.  Including his lie about not being a bullshitter.

I don’t recall Obama celebrating the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.  Rather, he personally demonized the Court and accused them of being a political body.  I recall Justice Alito mouthing the words, “That’s not true!” as Obama falsely and maliciously mischaracterized their decision.

What is funny is that Obama railed about money coming into political campaigns when this pathologically dishonest hypocrite raised more money than ANY politician who EVER lived. Our Roach-in-Chief cynically raised, cynically exploited the system, to raise over a BILLION DOLLARS for his campaign.  He dishonestly said it was the Supreme Court that “opened the floodgates” to political money WHEN IT WAS HIMSELF WHO OPENED THOSE FLOODGATES as no human being had EVER done before him.  Even THE most ardent liberals in America openly acknowledge that Obama’s ObamaCare was nothing more than a payoff of hundreds of billions of dollars as a payoff to the insurance companies who supported Obama’s campaign.

Now we have Hillary Clinton – the ultimate crony capitalist fascist whore of Big Moneyraising more money than ANY candidate in HISTORY to this point in a presidential campaign. And the left boasts and exults in it even as they falsely and hypocritically blame the party that is getting blown away for being the party of money.

Democrats are pure, demon-possessed liars who aren’t happy unless they have a giant, obscene LIAR as their candidate.

And when it comes to Supreme Court decisions, I can only now completely agree with what Obama said when he wasn’t getting his way: the Supreme Court means NOTHING.  It’s decisions mean NOTHING.  It is NOTHING but a purely partisan political body.

The Word of God told us this would happen just before God brought massive judgment upon the nation:

“The law has become paralyzed, and there is no justice in the courts.  The wicked far outnumber the righteous, so that justice has become perverted.” — Habakkuk 1:4

And when you read the next verses after Habakkuk 1:4 God brings a giant can of HELL to that nation).  And that hell is coming here.

So yes, we have Obama wickedly LYING about being a Christian in order to cynically manipulate voters, wickedly LYING about being opposed to same-sex marriage when he was actually FOR what he dishonestly claimed he was AGAINST, wickedly LYING about his claim that the states should have the right to define marriage or frankly anything else when in reality he was for the fascist dictatorship by which the all-powerful federal government alone has the right to dictate its will upon anyone or anything that disagrees with its Führer.

Obama just called the White House “my house.”  It used to be the American PEOPLE’S house; but that was before Nazism befell America.  And it was no slip of the tongue: Just today Obama says to a bunch of Boy Scouts, “What are you guys doing in my yard?”

It’s official: the White House is no longer my house.  This nation is no longer my nation.  It’s Obamanation.  Or as God called it, it’s Abomination.

And so it is fitting that on the same week that the Obama White House – a place that used to be “the people’s house,” a place that used to be federal government property, proudly calls for the wrath of what used to be the God of this nation upon the nation that the house represents, but God Himself and any symbol of Him should be told to get the hell out.

In God damn America, the Ten Commandments get booted to the curb.  Frankly as it should be.  Because in a nation that exalts homosexuality, every vestige of God and every vestige of genuine faith in Jesus Christ must be expunged.  Homosexual sodomy and Christianity go together like hell and heaven go together: the two have nothing to do with each other.

What is the true purpose that the Ten Commandments must be banned at all cost in Homosexual America?  One of the inJustices put it best years back:

“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments.”

Satan forbid.

Teach them sodomy instead.  Make schoolchildren read, meditate upon, venerate and obey their most obscene lusts instead.

Democrats are denizens of hell and hell is their home.  Everything the Democrat Party stands for comes straight out of the devil’s roach soul.  And one day, soon, to their hell they shall all go together.

THAT is the REAL “collective salvation” Obama preaches: “… And my individual salvation into the lowest level of hell is not going to come about without a collective salvation of burning hell for all my voters.”  And he has led them well with his lies.

Obama’s disgraced and disgraceful “reverend” for 23 years said it best as he spoke as a prophet in decreeing God’s judgment on America:

“No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”

Barack Hussein Obama and every single Democrat in what used to be “this nation, under God” are to be thanked for every drought, every flood, every military weakening leading to defeat, every loss of national power and prestige, every economic calamity as they have kicked God out and caused Him to abandon us to our depraved mind to wrath.  We will get weaker and weaker and weaker as our ultimate collapse comes upon us faster and faster and faster and bigger and bigger and bigger when it comes.

As we approach July 4, the American Eagle has been poisoned.  It is dead.  And it is no longer the wings of the eagle that spread over the nation, but the ugly, giant bat-wings of Lucifer.

 

 

 

 

 

The ‘Botched’ Oklahoma Execution Of Clayton Lockett And The (Un)Principled Liberal Objections To The Death Penalty

May 7, 2014

Clayton Lockett is a perfect victim for liberals.  After all, he was a black man put to death in a conservative state by a white Republican governor.

The fact that he is a vile cockroach who is getting his chance to burn in hell now after having brutally raped a woman, shot her in the head with a shotgun and then had her buried alive truly doesn’t mean one damn thing to liberals.

You read the outraged liberal accounts of the “botched” execution (from what I hear, the state was actually quite successful in accomplishing the murderer’s death) and again and again you see all the outrage directed at the manner the murderer died and nothing about the demonic horror that the murderer imposed on his victim.

A man who inflicted a horrifying death on his victim died having suffered slightly more pain than the painless death that liberals demand.  That’s what happened in Oklahoma.  And you’d think the Republican governor had personally put a poor, innocent man on a rack and flayed him alive herself.

And, of course, he same liberals who erupt in horror that anyone would so much as suggest that Obama’s use of the IRS to persecute his political opponents or his cover-up of the cover-up in Benghazi where he falsely claimed a Youtube video (rather than “a broader failure in policy”) was to blame, are essentially demanding that the Oklahoma governor resign in shame over this execution.

It’s amazing: investigations are fascist when they are directed at a liberal and heroic when they are directed against an opponent of liberalism 100% of the time.  And it doesn’t seem how blatantly evil liberals have to be to maintain their “victim.”  Even going to making a “victim” out of Clayton Lockett.

I like the way Goldberg responds:

“As for Lockett, he was entitled to a relatively painless and humane execution under the law. As for what he deserved in the cosmic sense, I suspect he got off easy.”

You’re damn right he got off easy.  It would have been a nice object lesson had 19-year-old victim Stephanie Nieman’s family members been able to administer Lockett’s execution.  I suspect it would have taken a lot longer and been an awful lot more painful.  And he STILL would have got off easy were it not for the fact that there is a fiery and eternal hell of torment awaiting Lockett and those like him as they leave this world.

Jonah Goldberg did a brilliant job dismantling several of the key arguments of the left regarding the death penalty.  I shall give a brief summary and post his article below.

The first objective liberals love to use is that the death penalty doesn’t deter crime.  They can claim that because, when it takes DECADES and a dozen lengthy court dramas to finally execute somebody, there are so many years between the act and the punishment of the act that it very likely doesn’t have much of a deterrence effect.  I know that if a powerful man walked into a bar and beat the biggest guy in there to a pulp and then asked, “Does anybody else want to be next?” the bloody unconscious body of the broken man on the floor would very much have a giant deterrence effect to the man who would want some of what that guy just got.  Nobody would want any of what that guy just got.

Contrast that with the following scenario: somebody gets to get up and punch the powerful man repeatedly in the face and the powerful man can’t do anything about it for, oh, say 25 years or so.  And then maybe, MAYBE, he will be allowed to give the guy who hit him the beat-down he deserved DECADES ago.  Does that sound like it’s going to deter anybody?  Because that’s the way liberals have “fundamentally transformed” our capital punishment system.  Only to claim it “doesn’t deter.”

That’s simply the way that human psychology works.  And unless you aren’t human, it works that way for you, too.  Deterrence is real, baby.  But only when criminals actually pay the price for their crimes.

Liberals have made it impossible for the wheels of justice to provide such genuine deterrence.

Goldberg deals with this “deterrence” objection masterfully, pointing out that it would literally be wrong to kill somebody just to provide an object lesson for other people.  As Goldberg puts it, “It is wrong to kill a man just to send a message to others.”  And when you stop and think about it, that’s entirely true.  In other words, as he demonstrates, “deterrence” doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the rationale for the death penalty; it is nothing more than a red herring that the left keeps throwing up and the right too-frequently foolishly attempts to respond to.

If anyone takes a human life, that person’s life will also be taken by human hands. For God made human beings in his own image.”  That is JUSTICE.  If it deters as well, so much the better.

Then he moves on to another red herring: racial injustice over the statistical fact that black people are proportionately more likely to be executed than white people.  He says, “Likewise, Lockett, who was black, wasn’t less deserving of punishment simply because some white rapist and murderer didn’t get his just punishment.”

How is that not true?

If you in any way, shape or form agree with the statement that one ought to be sentenced and punished according to the crimes that one committed, rather than the statement that justice should have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual criminal but ought to somehow reflect the broader society, how is any argument that guilty black murderers shouldn’t be executed simply because somewhere a guilty white murderer wasn’t executed?  How does that not amount to children squabbling over one of the children getting more of whatever and therefore they should get more, too?

We shouldn’t allow childish arguments to interfere with JUSTICE.

If we need to do a better job to make justice blind to race, then let’s pursue that: but to say that we’re going to abandon JUSTICE because of some statistical shenanigans is outrageous.

That is also how Goldberg responds to the final charge: that innocent people may have been executed in the past and therefore could be in the present or future.  Goldberg’s point is brilliant:

Some believe the best argument against the death penalty is the fear that an innocent person might be executed. It’s hotly debated whether that has ever happened, but it’s clear that innocent people have been sent to death row. Even one such circumstance is outrageous and unacceptable.

But even that is not an argument against the death penalty per se. The FDA, police officers and other government entities, with less constitutional legitimacy than the death penalty (see the 5th and 14th amendments) have made errors that resulted in innocent deaths. That doesn’t render these entities and their functions illegitimate. It obligates government to do better.

Do you understand that, liberal?  Given that we have had NUMEROUS events in which the police have killed an innocent person, do you therefore want to abolish the police the way you demand we abolish the death penalty?  Or are you an inconsistent hypocrite instead?  (That’s rhetorical because the answer is obvious: rich liberals need armed people to protect them from poor liberals who would rob them and do worse if they could).  In the same way, it actually gets hard to name a branch of the federal government that hasn’t committed some gross injustice against an innocent victim: and yet the crickets chirp in lieu of liberals demanding that these federal monstrosities be abolished as a result.

In other words, abolishing the death penalty is refuted by the very same liberals who won’t abolish all the OTHER government systems that have been FREQUENTLY documented to have trampled the rights of the innocent.  We need to do a far better job of administering the death penalty, but if you’re going to abolish the death penalty, let’s abolish the federal government along with it if we’re going to be consistent rather than being liberal hypocrites.

Clayton Lockett: A just execution, regardless
By Jonah Goldberg

Last week the state of Oklahoma “botched” an execution..

Botched is the accepted term in the media coverage, despite the fact Clayton Lockett was executed. He just died badly, suffering for 43 minutes until he eventually had a heart attack.

Oklahoma’s governor has called for an investigation. President Obama asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. (who is seeking the death penalty in the Boston Marathon bombing case), to review the death penalty.

Obama’s position was a perfectly defensible straddle: “The individual … had committed heinous crimes, terrible crimes, and I’ve said in the past that there are certain circumstances where a crime is … so terrible that the application of the death penalty may be appropriate.”

On the other hand, Obama added: “I’ve also said that in the application of the death penalty … we have seen significant problems, racial bias, uneven application of the death penalty, situations in which there were individuals on death row who later on were discovered to be innocent.

“We do have to, as a society, ask ourselves some difficult and profound questions.”

As a death penalty supporter, I agree. Although, I’m not sure we’d agree on what those questions — and answers — should be.

As for Lockett, he was entitled to a relatively painless and humane execution under the law. As for what he deserved in the cosmic sense, I suspect he got off easy.

He and his accomplices abducted two teenage girls (as well as a man and his baby). One of them, Stephanie Neiman, refused to say she wouldn’t tell the police, so Lockett shot her with a shotgun. But she didn’t die. He ordered his accomplices to bury her alive. Here’s an AP summary of his crimes, in addition to first-degree murder: “conspiracy, first-degree burglary, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, three counts of forcible oral sodomy, four counts of first-degree rape, four counts of kidnapping and two counts of robbery by force and fear.” Maybe you can weep for the man. I can’t.

Let’s get back to those difficult and profound questions. Capital punishment opponents offer many arguments why people like Lockett shouldn’t be executed. They point out that there are racial disparities in how the death penalty is administered, for example. This strikes me as an insufficient argument, much like the deterrence argument from death penalty supporters. Deterrence may have some validity, but it alone cannot justify the death penalty. It is wrong to kill a man just to send a message to others.

Likewise, Lockett, who was black, wasn’t less deserving of punishment simply because some white rapist and murderer didn’t get his just punishment.

The most cynical argument against the death penalty is to point out how slow and expensive the process is. But it is slow and expensive, at least in part, because opponents have made it slow and expensive, so they can complain about how slow and expensive it is.

As for humaneness, Lockett’s execution was botched — “inhumane” — in part because Oklahoma had to use a new drug regimen because anti-death penalty advocates had successfully lobbied the maker of a component of an earlier formula to stop making that drug available for executions.

Some believe the best argument against the death penalty is the fear that an innocent person might be executed. It’s hotly debated whether that has ever happened, but it’s clear that innocent people have been sent to death row. Even one such circumstance is outrageous and unacceptable.

But even that is not an argument against the death penalty per se. The FDA, police officers and other government entities, with less constitutional legitimacy than the death penalty (see the 5th and 14th amendments) have made errors that resulted in innocent deaths. That doesn’t render these entities and their functions illegitimate. It obligates government to do better.

Radley Balko, a death penalty opponent, in a piece in the Washington Post, says that ultimately both sides of the death penalty debate have irreconcilable moral convictions. I think he’s right. As far as I’m concerned, Lockett deserved to die for what he did. Everything else amounts to changing the subject, and it won’t convince me otherwise.

Clayton Locket is screaming in hell right now and he’ll be viscerally screaming one hundred trillion millennia of years from now.  And thank God for that justice.

 

In Obama’s God Damn America Banning Sharia Law Is NOT Okay

January 11, 2012

 

“No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God DAMN America!” — Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for over 20 years.

For the record, Jeremiah Wright was a huge supporter of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.  Barack Obama participated in the Nation of Islam’s “Million Man March,” and Louis Farrakhan said of Obama:

“You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

So the following really shouldn’t surprise anybody who ever had ears to hear.

A wise Attnorney General of the United States – and wouldn’t you like to go back to those days? – was quoted as saying:

“Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sent his Son to die for you.”

In God damn America, you get the bad religion while the one that Jesus founded gets kicked to the curb on a daily basis.

January 10, 2012, 2:23 PM
10th Circuit: Amendment Banning Sharia Law is Not OK
By Ashby Jones

Sometimes voters get behind an idea, and we think to ourselves, why? Why are they even bothering when that idea, were it to become law, would be struck down as unconstitutional faster than we can utter “temporary restraining order?”

We smugly revisited that thought on Tuesday upon hearing that the Denver-based 10th Circuit had upheld a lower-court ruling keeping an amendment to the Oklahoma constitution from becoming law.

The amendment, overwhelmingly approved by Oklahoma voters last year, prevents judges from basing rulings on international law — and specifically mentions Islamic law, often known as Shariah law.

Specifically, the 10th Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision to preliminarily enjoin the amendment from going into effect. It ruled that there is a legitimate issue as to whether the initiative violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Click here for the ruling, penned by Judge Scott Matheson; here for the Denver Post story. Click here, here and here for earlier LB posts on the challenge.

The court ruled that, for starters, the law discriminated on the basis of religion. Furthermore, the state failed to articulate any sort of plausible justification for the law. Wrote Matheson:

Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma.

The plaintiff in the case, Muneer Awad, the executive director for the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, sued over the law, arguing that the law denies him rights that are available to people of other religions. For instance, according to the Denver Post, Awad said his will instructs a judge to look to Islamic precepts in situations where Awad’s wishes aren’t clear. The initiative, Awad said, would prevent a judge from doing that, even though the judge could do that for people who are Christian or Jewish.

Today’s ruling means the injunction will stay in place while Awad’s lawsuit goes forward.

Meanwhile, in related sharia news….

“In the last few days alone, Boko Haram has killed at least 44 people… responsible for at least 510 killings last year alone… It has targeted churches in the past in its campaign to implement strict Shariah law across Nigeria…”

I mean, be grateful for the American court system: we don’t have to go through all that bloodshed to impose sharia; we have judges who will impose it on us!

I can just imagine a rapist creating a religion based on forcible rape and then arguing that preventing him from raping violated his religious rights.  It’s just that stupid.

It’s not just that sharia is repressive and intolerant; it is INTRINSICALLY repressive and intolerant.  And whereas Judeo-Christianity established Western Civilization and the United States of America, Islam is a hostil foreign invader.

But let’s get to another phrase I boldfaced in the article:

“overwhelmingly approved by Oklahoma voters last year, prevents judges from basing rulings on international law — and specifically mentions Islamic law, often known as Shariah law. “

I mean, it’s not like trying to make judges decide law on the basis of THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION is a good thing.  I mean, you can see why judges wouldn’t want something awful like that.

But in God damn America, “stupid” is as smart as we are capable of.

Newt Gingrich was right:

These fools need to be reigned in.  And I mean by putting bits in their jaws and yanking on them.

In God damn America, we get the leaders – and the judges to go along with it – that we deserve.

The beast is coming.

And America is going to eagerly vote for him when he comes.

Left Attacks Michelle Bachmann For Inciting Violence; Obama Told Crowds To Bring Guns

April 20, 2010

The chutzpah of the Democrat Party and their mainstream media lackeys is alarming.

From CBS:

Rep. Michele Bachmann, a Republican from Minnesota, railed against the “gangster government” before thousands of Tea Party protesters on Thursday, but that kind of rhetoric can have serious consequences, former President Bill Clinton said Thursday.

“They are not gangsters,” Mr. Clinton said in an interview with the New York Times. “They were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do.”

The former president, who was in his first term in office when Timothy McVeigh bombed an Oklahoma City federal building, drew parallels between the anti-government rhetoric being used now and what was being said then. He will speak about the Oklahoma City terrorist attack and its current relevance at a symposium today.

You’ll have to forgive me for being somewhat confused: Is Michelle Bachmann’s “gangster government” remark worse than Bill Clinton’s remark about Barack Obama that “he’s got the political instincts of a Chicago thug“???

You see, given the fact that Bill Clinton himself said that the country is being run by a Chicago thug, why would it be so surprising that we’ve got a gangster government?  I mean, Chicago thug + president = gangster government.  It’s like a math equation.

In any event, I’m just 100% certain that Slick Willy decried the hateful and violence-inducing rhetoric of Barack Obama:

Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight?

obamapa_art_257_20080614132543.jpg

Sen. Barack Obama talks at a town hall meeting at Radnor Middle School in Wayne, Pa., Saturday, June 14. (AP)

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.

And murder in Philadelphia is over three times the national average.

What’s that?  Bill Clinton DIDN’T decry Obama’s invocation of clearly violent metaphors?  He didn’t even say, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘bring’ is”?  But that would mean he’s just a cheap political opportunist, not to mention a demagogue.

Barack Obama implored his supporters to arm themselves with guns and shoot people who would only have knives.  He was inciting people to violence in a city that has a documented record of murderous violence.

Michelle Bachmann merely used a term to describe our government as thieves.  She didn’t advocate mowing them down with guns, as Obama did.

At least according to the “logic” of the left, he did.  Too bad they’re too dishonest to look at their own rhetoric before demonizing everybody else’s.

I’ll tell you what: let’s demand that Barack Obama and Michelle Bachmann both resign in disgrace for their hateful rhetoric.  Just don’t be a bunch of screaming hypocrite turds for decrying Michelle Bachmann unless you first yell yourself hoarse decrying Barack Obama.

Before this nonsense the Democrats and their media tools were out decrying Sarah Palin’s “targeting” Democrat seats.  It didn’t matter one iota that Sarah Palin didn’t used a “target” symbol, but rather a surveyor’s symbol; nor did it matter than Democrats used actual “target” symbols to “target” Republican seats.  Neither the Democrats nor the media are either honest or fair enough to concern themselves with such facts.

And where were either Bill Clinton or the mainstream media when the left was demonizing George Bush something fierce? Where were they when Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters got a crowd frothing mad? Where were they when that same crowd starting chanting, “FUCK THE USA!!!”??? Where were they when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told a screaming crowed, “I’m a fan of disruptors!”??? Why was it so okay during the Bush derangement years, but so terrible now?

Why was “dissent the highest form of patriotism” when dissent was directed against George Bush, but the most loathsome form of evil when it is directed at Barack Obama?

There was a time when ‘D’ stood for Democrat; today it stands for Demagogue, Dishonest, Deceitful, Despicable, and Depraved.