Pedophilia

(I am changing some of my “Pages” to “Posts,” so some of this info is older to my site)

Pedophilia ‘rights’ next civil rights battle

…In 2003, a group of mental health professionals formed B4U-Act to begin a slow but inexorable push to redefine pedophilia as a sexual orientation in the same way homosexuality was in the 1970s.

The organization calls pedophiles “minor attracted people,” and the website states its purpose is to “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma, and fear.”

B4U-Act later held a symposium in which a new definition of pedophilia was proposed for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

In 2010, two psychologists in Canada made national news when they declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality.

Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

He went on to say: “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied: “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

Dr. Vernon Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem, saying pedophiles’ sexual interests cause them to prefer children, and “there is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

In July 2010, Harvard Health Publications declared: “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”

If the APA would declare pedophilia a sexual orientation on a par with homosexuality, it would have huge ramifications for existing anti-discrimination laws….

In 1977, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In it, Ginsberg advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. She writes:

  • “Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years” and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. … A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. … [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.” (SavageSchlafly; Schlafly; CNS-NewsMore)

She was an attorney for the ACLU at the time and later appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton. She remains on the Supreme Court today.

MORE…

Ruth Bader Ginsburg co-authored the book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code in 1977 with a feminist, Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, for which they were paid with federal funds under Contract No. CR3AK010. The 230-page book was published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. It was written to identify the federal laws that allegedly discriminate on account of sex and to promote ratification of the then-pending federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), for which Ginsburg was a fervent advocate. Here are some of Ginsburg’s liberal recommendations set forth in her book Sex Bias in the U.S. Code.

Ginsburg called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (101) She called for the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.” (145) She insisted on sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.” (169) She even cast Constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.” (146)

Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to persons who are “less than 12 years old.” (102) She asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (195) She objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (97) Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (98)

Ginsburg said that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle,” (206) and she called for “a comprehensive program of government supported child care.” (214) She demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating that “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (218)

An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel), even though most of these words with the -man suffix date back to Middle English in which it meant “human” and not specifically “male”. (15-16) She even wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the Memory Hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (52-53)

(CONSERVAPEDIA)

1993 “Homosexual” Platform

  • The implementation of homosexual, bi-sexual, and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.
  • The lowering of the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.
  • The legalization of homosexual marriage. Custody, adoption, and foster care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people.
  • The redefinition of marriage to include the full diversity of all family structures.
  • The access to all programs of the Boys Scouts of America.
  • Affirmative action for homosexuals.
  • The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health care plan.

1972 “Homosexual” Platform

  • Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons, equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.
  • Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.
  • Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one’s personal demesne.
  • Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.
  • Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.
  • Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
  • Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

Okay, we know this was a fast transition for polygamy, as I showed and Gateway Pundit showed:

The Politico reported:

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family…

And one of the leading leftist lawyers who has already won some acceptance in law for polygamy has said this of last weeks same-sex marriage ruling:

Could Friday’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country make polygamous marriage a legal reality nationwide in the near future?

Jonathan Turley, the attorney who won the polygamy marriage case in Utah for Kody Brown and his four “Sister Wives” thinks the majority opinion “resonates” with the arguments he made to the Utah Supreme Court to decriminalize polygamous consensual relationships.

“The cases are actually different in that the Brown case is about the criminalization while today’s case was about recognition.  We have not argued for recognition of plural marriages. Indeed, the Browns have never asked for multiple marriage licenses,” Turley said in an e-mail statement to The Daily Caller.

“Like many plural families, they have one state license for one marriage but chose to live as a plural family with “spiritual marriages.” In that sense, our case is more like Lawrence v. Texas that was handed down ten years ago.”

Turley explained, “Having said that, much of the language of the majority clearly resonates with our arguments against the criminalization of private consensual relations.  It also speaks to the stigma that is borne by families in being excluded in society.  That is an even greater danger when your entire family is declared a criminal enterprise merely because the parents chose to cohabitate as a plural family.”…

But we already have another player in the mix that supports the VERY slippery slope argument.

Excerpted from the Northern Colorado Gazette via ALLEN WEST:

Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits.

[….]

“Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

B4U-Act calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”

In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”

Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”
Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.”

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”

Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of age.”…

…more…

The DNC Star ~ Khizr Khan (Hillary’s Close Associates to Wahhabism)

…Drip… Drip… Drip…

(The above is with a h-t to PowerLine)

As one learns to do after a political event such as the excellent speech and patriotic swelling up during the speech of Khizr Khan at the 2016 Democratic National Convention… wait.


By-the-by, if you have not watched Mr. Khan’s speech, I suggest doing so (HERE). COL. ALLEN WEST simply responds to it by saying, “Yes sir, Mr. Khan, I’ve read our Constitution[!]…”

Col West continues:

…and firmly recognize the preeminent responsibility of our federal government is to “provide for the common defense.” I also comprehend the relationship between the three branches of government…you know separation of powers, checks and balances, coequal branches of government.

I would offer a simple recommendation to Mr. Khan. Perhaps you should have asked President Barack Obama if he had read the Constitution — undoubtedly you would agree we have witnessed a few unconstitutional actions from him.

And while you were at it, Mr. Khan, perhaps you could have asked Hillary Clinton about handling classified information — since I’m quite sure your son, Captain Khan, had at a minimum a secret clearance. 

I don’t think your son would have been able to, well, have his “careless” mishandling of classified materials and information simply excused. Perhaps Mr. Khan, you could have addressed the necessity for high standards of honor, integrity, and character in a commander in chief.Also, I found it interesting Mr. Khan, that you and your wife, an American Gold Star family, would take the stage to support a sitting president and one desiring to be president, who had abandoned Americans in a combat zone and lied about it…

(read it all)


WAIT

However, this simple response aside, and Trump’s atrocious response as compared to John McCaine’s response ALSO set side… AS WELL AS MIKE PENCE’S excellent response… I see much more information like the below coming out in droves. In other words, this is only the beginning.

Typically, just like in wartime theaters, the first reports are wrong. And more vital information gets added. We see this starting to happen, and I knew it would when the Khan’s asked to be out of the political limelight… as they made another appearance in the media.

The DAILY CALLER notes Khan is a proponant of Islamic Sharia Law, and promotes this in a way antithetical to U.S. interests in my minds eye. Robert Spencer connects some dots that the Clinton Cash documentary has alerted us to:

…Khizr Khan, and the Clinton campaign, have extensive ties to the Saudis – far more extensive than any possible connection that Donald Trump’s campaign may have had to Russia’s alleged involvement in the leak of emails that revealed that the entire Democratic Party presidential nominating process was rigged from the start. Not that the mainstream media will pause from speculating about Trump and the Russians long enough to tell you any facts about Khizr Khan, Hillary and the Saudis.

Intelius records that Khizr Khan has worked at Hogan Lovells Llp. According to the Washington Free Beacon, “Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show. Robert Kyle, a lobbyist from the firm, has bundled $50,850 for Clinton’s campaign.”

The Free Beacon added that the Saudi government has “supplied the Clinton Foundation with millions. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given between $10 and $25 million to the foundation while Friends of Saudi Arabia has contributed between $1 and $5 million.”

And so we were treated to the spectacle of an employee of a firm that is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia lambasting Donald Trump at the Democratic National Convention, and then (lo and behold!) becoming a media darling as he excoriates Trump for his “black soul.”

(JIHAD WATCH)

In another JIHAD WATCH (JW) post it is mentioned that mentioned that “Khan specializes in visa programs accused of selling U.S. citizenship.” This is a controversial programme to say the least, JW continues via the Washington Examiner:

The father of a Muslim-American soldier killed in Iraq who is caught up in a war of words with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is an immigration lawyerwho specializes in a highly controversial program accused of letting immigrants buy their way into the U.S.

Khizr M. Khan’s website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members.

It also said that he helps in the purchase of U.S. real estate and businesses. The website lists his ability to practice in New York, though it gives a Washington phone number for the lawyer who lives in Virginia. A man who answered the phone said the website was correct, though he would not identify himself.

“The E-2 and EB-5 are two of the most notoriously abused visa categories that essentially allow wealthy foreigners to buy their way to U.S. residency, and possibly citizenship, with a relatively modest investment,” said Jessica Vaughan, the policy director for the Center for Immigration Studies.

The EB-5 program has been caught up in multiple scandals and critics are pressing Congress to kill it.

“The EB-5 is literally a ‘citizenship for sale’ program in which a visa for a whole family can be bought for as little $500,000,” Vaughan told Secrets. “It is literally a ‘citizenship for sale’ program, and it’s an amazing deal. Compared to other countries, America is the Walmart of investor visa programs,” she added.

HumaAbedin

CREEPING SHARIA notes as well in their excellent culmination of Khan’s writings on Sharia Law, that Khan thanks a Muslim Brotherhood luminary/scholar. One must always keep in mind that “Sharia is in direct opposition to the US Constitution and they cannot co-exist,” period. Here is an excerpt from that post:

At the bottom of the page, Kahn [sic] shows his appreciation for an icon of the Muslim Brotherhood: “The contribution to this article of S. Ramadan’s writing is greatly acknowledged.” S. Ramadan is Said Ramadan, head of the Islamic Center in Geneva and a major icon of the Muslim Brotherhood.

...Other Boss?

The declassified “28 Pages” released by Congress Friday afternoon concerning 9/11, terror funding, and Saudi Arabia contains a bombshell piece of information: The World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) is specifically named as having connections to terror funding and support for a number of worldwide terror groups…. (Breitbart)

[….]

On September 11, 2001 Huma Abedin — Hillary Clinton’s aide for twenty years and co-chair of her current Presidential run — was working for an organization located in the offices of Saudi Arabia’s Muslim World League.

That’s a Wahhabist Islamic group that Breitbart News recently reported was going to be put on a list of terror funders by U.S. government but was removed, reportedly under pressure from Saudi Arabia…. (Breitbart)

Ramadan was a writer who wrote material for the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia, an organization that has been promoting Islamic revivalism and indoctrination to recruit young people in Malaysia to jihadism. It is actually a Malaysian branch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Ramadan wrote a book called, Islamic Law: Its Scope and Equity, and a version of it was published for the Malaysian Muslim Youth Movement (a branch of WAMY)… 

[….]

World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY) was created through the collaboration of the Wahhabist and Muslim Brotherhood led by Said Ramadan who was the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood including Ahmad Bahefzallah, the boss of Huma Abedin (Hillary Clinton’s aid) and her parents Mahmoud and Saleha Abedin. It was also financed by the wealthy Abdullah Omar Naseef, another boss of the Abedin family.

Said Ramadan, Kahn’s [sic] source for his writing, was major leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, according to the Islamic scholar, Kemal A. Faruki. 

[….]

According to a recent report, Khan moved from Pakistan to the United Arab Emirates, a hotbed for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Kahn [sic] currently runs a law firm in New York City called KM Kahn Law Office. According to the website, the the law firm specializes in “immigration services.” Most likely Kahn [sic] was working to bring Muslims into the country.

(read it all)

WOW! And these people are gonna be in charge of the number one spot! So it seems that many people close to Hillary Clinton are Wahhabist influenced with direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course this does not matter to a Democrat… because what Khan offered in his moving speech about his son, who is an American hero, is the emotive basis for all this to be ignored. They can never separate the son from the father. Because U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan is a hero, ergo, so to is his father… and no amount of ties to the same ideology that has influenced 29,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 will change their minds.

Military Hero Heroes Army Marine Navy Airfoce

In a equally moving open letter from another combat veteran (his bio can be found here) to the Khan family that should not be ignored:

Dear Mr. Khan,

I want to preface this letter by stating that I respect your son’s sacrifice for this great nation. By all accounts, he is a true hero that sacrificed himself in service to our country. For that I am thankful.

As a veteran, I watched your comments at the Democratic National Convention with a mixture of sadness, and anger. The United States has a military comprised of volunteers. Every single member has made the conscious choice to join the military and serve. There is not a single service member who has been forced into service. It is important for all service members (and apparently, their families) to understand that service to this great nation does not imbue one with special privileges or rights. I found your comments troubling when you said: “Have you ever been to Arlington cemetery? Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America. You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one.”

Does it matter whether Mr. Trump has sacrificed “…nothing and no one?”…has Ms. Clinton “..sacrificed” for this nation? How about Mr. Obama? Your comment stating that Mr. Trump “…has sacrifice no one” is alarming. Are you intimating that YOU sacrificed? Sir, your son willingly sacrificed himself. As a father I cannot imagine the pain you must feel but his sacrifice is his own. He was not forced to serve.

I am troubled that you would allow a party that has little more than contempt for the US Service Member to parade you into the DNC to denounce Donald Trump. Did you watch when protesters at the DNC booed and heckled Medal of Honor recipient Capt. Florent Groberg? Did you notice your party interrupting the moment of silence for slain police officers? Your own hypocrisy in not denouncing these acts and instead using the DNC as a platform to make a political point is disgraceful. The simple fact is that whether one served or sacrificed does not give greater power to their statements. One vote is as valuable as another. That sir, is why our Country is great. Your condemnation of one person for a statement while standing idly as your party disparages veterans and police officers is the height of hypocrisy.

To conflate the need to prevent potential terrorists from entering our country with the belief that ‘all Muslims’ should be banned is simply wrong and disingenuous. As a reminder, Mr. Trump said: ” “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” The irony of your son’s own death at the hands of these very people in Iraq should not be ignored. I have little doubt that your son would have recognized the need to protect our country from these very people. In fact, he held is own troops back so that he could check on a suspicious car. Your son understood sacrifice and how to protect “his people”…’his soldiers’….’his fellow Americans’…

As you continue to make the media circuit and bask in the glow of affection cast upon you by a party that has little regard for your son’s own sacrifice, and veterans in general, I would ask you to consider your comments and your position more closely.

Respectfully,

Chris Mark

US Marine and Navy Veteran.

OF COURSE the typical reaction by the Left’s use of SIXHIRB (sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted) came into play about the above veteran’s viewpoint. You see, the only viewpoint allowed as genuine and reflexively caring is the Left’s position on all matters.

I want to share some of the comments from Hillary Clinton supporters [take note that Chris Mark had cleaned up the cuss words… I put them back to the original]:

  • The Republican Party is a terrorist group
  • Go FUCK Yourself
  • You are a Fucking racist
  • You are a Faggot
  • You are Uneducated
  • You believe Gays shouldn’t have any rights and everyone should carry an AR 15 to work
  • Do I really have to guess what you look like you inbred sister fucking hillbilly
  • You piece of garbage, trash, facist, racist, zenophobe
  • When did we become a nation of redneck hillbillies?
  • Trump and his supporters, the fact that they are a bunch of racist and bigots
  • You would not have made that comment if the Khans had been White and Christians
  • You all need to stop clinging to your God and guns
  • Please tell me where to meet you so I can spit  in your face
  • I want to slap you
  • You are a traitor
  • You are retarded

The list goes on and on…these (including the physical threats) are from the ‘Tolerant left’ in response to the fact that I said I would vote for Donald Trumpover Hillary Clinton.  With regard to the White and Christian comment I pointed out that I had written a blistering piece on Sarah Palin who is both White and Christian.  This did not seem to matter.  The coup de grace however is this gem:

  • “You are a fucking racist Chris.”

I responded politely asking the reader to query everything I have written and find where I was racist. Her reply?

  • “Just because your posts and other comments are not racist does not excuse you from being a racist.” (emphasis added)

So simply by virtue of supporting someone that this person does not agree with paints one as a racist.  In short you are guilty of racism with zero evidence until they “excuse you” from that label?  This is the height of intolerance from the tolerant Hillary Supporters.

I think Hillary Clinton’s campaign should consider adopting the 1980’s Rush song SubDivisions.  One of the lyrics says:

“Conform or be cast out!”

Yep

The Best & Worst Presidents Since WWII ~ Media Spin

Muslims buck the tide, Via Politico, h/t Drudge:

President Barack Obama’s approval rating is higher among Muslims than any other religious group, a new poll says.

According to a Gallup poll released Friday that tracked responses for the first six months of 2014, 72 percent of Muslims said they approve of the president, compared with just 20 percent who disapprove.

Mormons were the least approving religious group, with 18 percent of Mormons approving and 78 percent disapproving of the president. Mormons in the past have ranked as the most conservative major religious group in the U.S.

The survey underscores a religious divide when it comes to presidential approval — Obama is more popular among non-Christians and less popular among Christians.

Those who classify as “Other non-Christian” gave the president a 59 percent approval rating, while Jewish Americans gave Obama a 55 percent approval rating and atheists or those who subscribe to no religion have a 54 percent approval rating.

Catholics, on the other hand, have only a 44 percent approval rating of Obama, compared with 51 percent disapproval. Protestants and other Christians are more critical, with 37 percent approving and 58 percent disapproving….

In fact, a poll the left (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and the like) was VERY vocal about was President Bush [43] getting top grades in this poll. Now, I don’t hear a peep from NEWS (yeah right) organizations.

(Breitbart) The winner of America’s best president since World War II is Ronald Reagan, who beat second and third place combined. A full 35% of voters chose Reagan. Bill Clinton and John Kennedy won 18% and 15%, respectively. Obama only received 8% in the best presidents poll.

Col. Allen West says this in his rightly title post, “Racist poll shows Obama is worst president since WWII”

Did you all hear the latest? A new undeniably racist poll from Quinnipiac University shows people think Barack Hussein Obama, the first black president — actually the first half black president — is the worst president since World War II.

Well, you can be certain the NAACP, National Urban League, Congressional Black Caucus, MSNBC, and other liberal progressive media outlets will decry this as proof that America is still a racist nation. We simply don’t want to accept the “hope and change” of their self-proclaimed progressive socialist messiah.

(Washington Times) …Quinnipiac found 45 percent of voters say the country would have been better off if Mr. Romney had been elected, while just 38 percent say Mr. Obama remains a better choice. Even Democrats aren’t so sure — just 74 percent of them told the pollsters Mr. Obama was clearly the better pick in the last election.

Voters also rated the man who swept into office in 2009 with a promise of “hope and change” as worse than even his predecessor, Republican President George W. Bush, who left office with terrible approval ratings.

“Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll….

Here are some examples from the biased media for comparison:

  • On January 22, 2006, the late Tim Russert asked then-Senator Obama, “Will George Bush be considered one of the worst presidents in history?”
  • On May 21, 2006, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos profiled then-Senator John Edwards. He wondered, “You’ve also said the President is the worst President of our lifetime…Worse than Richard Nixon?”
  • On Wednesday, MSNBC downplayed the bad news for Obama. Chuck Todd dismissed, “These great and worst lists, they’re terrible…because they always reflect the moment in time.” Yet, in 2006, the same network hyped a “devistating” poll finding the same result for George W. Bush.

(NewsBusters)

Census Bureau Under White House Information Umbrella

On Wednesday, MSNBC’s Al Sharpton scoffed at the latest allegations that the White House is trying to cook the books on ObamaCare numbers by changing the Census questions.

I previously posted on this in a post entitled, “Another Republican Claim Proven Right — Census Bureau.” Much to the Party Line chagrin of not so sharp Sharpton, when a respected centrist wonk like Megan McArdle is cracking open her thesaurus to describe her alarm and disgust over the changes — and thus the baseline — in the Census Bereua’s matrix, you know the fit is hitting the shan! Here is HotAir’s post:

….For several months now, whenever the topic of enrollment in the Affordable Care Act came up, I’ve been saying that it was too soon to tell its ultimate effects. We don’t know how many people have paid for their new insurance policies, or how many of those who bought policies were previously uninsured. For that, I said, we will have to wait for Census Bureau data, which offer the best assessment of the insurance status of the whole population. Other surveys are available, but the samples are smaller, so they’re not as good; the census is the gold standard. Unfortunately, as I invariably noted, these data won’t be available until 2015. I stand corrected: These data won’t be available at all. Ever.

Why?  Because as the New York Times reported, the Census Bureau has decided to throw out its 30-year formula (and therefore its baseline) on measuring America’s uninsured population, and replace it with a new methodology.  The revised math, according to Census officials, will result in much sunnier-looking results.  Independent of the statistical merits of this change, the timing, quite literally, could not be worse.  McArdle is aghast:

I’m speechless. Shocked. Stunned. Horrified. Befuddled. Aghast, appalled, thunderstruck, perplexed, baffled, bewildered and dumbfounded. It’s not that I am opposed to the changes: Everyone understands that the census reports probably overstate the true number of the uninsured, because the number they report is supposed to be “people who lacked insurance for the entire previous year,” but people tend to answer with their insurance status right now. But why, dear God, oh, why, would you change it in the one year in the entire history of the republic that it is most important for policy makers, researchers and voters to be able to compare the number of uninsured to those in prior years? The answers would seem to range from “total incompetence on the part of every level of this administration” to something worse.

She affirms that she does mean every level of the administration, citing this passage in the Times piece:

The White House is always looking for evidence to show the benefits of the health law, which is an issue in many of this year’s midterm elections. The Department of Health and Human Services and the White House Council of Economic Advisers requested several of the new questions, and the White House Office of Management and Budget approved the new questionnaire. 

This tectonic shift was requested and approved by the White House…

 …read it all…