Dana Loesch Calls Out the Anti-God/Anti-Constitutional Left

Dana Loesch exposes the global alliance of elitists, media activists, Hollywood celebrities, campus radicals and political power mongers who have openly attacked sacred American values and the people who cherish them with ruthlessness, contempt and downright hatred. She calls out these Godless Left saboteurs for sharing the same fanatical fervor to tear apart the foundations of America as the terrorists who threaten our very survival.

Good Ol’ “Uncle Joe” Goes Full Drama Queen

The straw-men are tripping over each-other in Biden’s presentation. No one in the conservative camp is saying you CANNOT love someone, or choose to love someone. Another issue (non-sequitur) is Biden’s assertion that hate is the motivating factor behind the view that marriage between one-man-and-one-woman is motivated by hatred, fear, or prejudice. Another observation is he says “hatred” should never be toleratedwhile stating his hatred for conservative Christians.

At least he honestly professes HIS hatred of conservatively minded religious persons. Here is some commentary, somewhat unrelated — but still related (? if that made sense) — by Gay Patriot:

When pandering to a group of people so pathetically insecure and high-strung they consider their lives and loves meaningless without a stamp of approval from the Government, it never hurts to go full Drama Queen.

Two years after getting ahead of President Barack Obama in saying he supported gay marriage, Biden on Saturday called LGBT workplace discrimination “close to barbaric” and “bizarre” in a speech to the Human Rights Campaign.

Bonnie Tyler’s “Total Eclipse of the Heart” video from 1984 was less over the top.  Has anyone in the Obama regime ever described the actions of the Taliban or Palestinian Terrorists as “barbaric?”

Again, to be clear, Biden sets up a straw-man at the same time his Prez is meeting the Pope:

As Obama Meets Pope, Media Mum on Biden’s Slam of ‘Bizarre,’ ‘Barbaric’ Christian Position on Gays

As the media boosted President Obama’s meeting with Pope Francis on Thursday morning, none have noticed how the reportedly weekly-Mass-attending Vice President Joe Biden made remarks in Los Angeles at a “Human Rights Campaign” event last Saturday night. Biden expressed disbelief and outrage that anyone’s still taking Catholic teaching on sexuality seriously in this modern age.

The gay newspaper The Washington Blade reported Biden used words like “close to barbaric” to describe the present system of religious liberty — the notion that a religious employer doesn’t have to hire (and can fire) gay activists. Biden even said “the world — God willing — is beginning to change.” He then cited Pope Francis (out of context) saying “who are we to judge?”

Biden called on Congress immediately to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, saying the lack of prohibition on anti-LGBT workplace discrimination is “close to barbaric.”

It’s outrageous we’re even debating this subject. I really mean it. I mean, it’s almost beyond belief that today, in 2014, I can say to you as your employee in so many states, ‘You’re fired because of who you love,’” Biden said. “Think about that. It is bizarre. No, no, no. It really is. I don’t think most Americans even know that employers can do that.”…

…read more…

Newsbusters at the end of the above article points out another contradiction of the knives Obama is leaving in Pope Francis’ back after a hug:

Pope Francis could have also asked Obama how House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi can be both Catholic and accept a “Margaret Sanger Award” from Planned Parenthood on the same day as this meeting. Penny Starr at CNS News reminds readers that Sanger wrote against “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families” and believed “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

Margaret Sanger said worse than that!

Warning, Another Racist Democratic Event

(Click Pic)

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Maragret Sanger (letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, Dec. 19, 1939)

Mt. Soledad Cross Headed to the Supreme Court? Maybe

Will this fight for a cross wake up American Christians? Gateway has the story:

Leftists Rejoice! A federal judge ruled late Thursday the cross atop Mount Soledad must be removed.

The 29 foot tall cross was erected in 1954 on top of Mount Soledad in La Jolla, California.

 The memorial at Mount Soledad also includes plaques of local men and women who lost their lives fighting for this country. (Thomas Moore)

The judge said it’s “unconstitutional.” Todd Starnes at FOX News reported:

A cross atop Mount Soledad in California is an unconstitutional religious display on government land and must come down, a federal judge in San Diego ruled late Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Larry Burns ordered the cross, which honors veterans, must be removed within 90 days — a decision that could result in the case being sent back to the U.S. Supreme Court. Burns immediately stayed his order pending an expected appeal.


Bruce Bailey, president of the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, expressed disappointment in the ruling.

“It is unfortunate that the Ninth Circuit left the judge no choice but to order the tearing down of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross,” Bailey told Fox News. “However, we are grateful for the judge’s stay that gives us an opportunity to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.”

A Christian Family Group Labeled a Terrorist Org by Our Military!? (link in pic)

Via The Blaze:

One soldier, an evangelical Christian who spoke on condition of anonymity, was so troubled by the group’s inclusion that he later sent Starnes a picture of the slide. Under the headline announcing the AFA’s placement on this list, it included an image of Fred Phelps, the virulent Westboro Baptist Church preacher, holding a sign that read, “No special law for f***.”

If accurate, this description is photo’s inclusion is particularly odd, seeing as the AFA and Westboro have no official connections to one another. In fact, Bryan Fischer, who directs issue analysis at the AFA, has spoken out against the anti-gay protest group in the past.


McCarthyism Against Religious People in the Military

This is from the Baptist Press via Pastor Dean:

SAN ANTONIO (BP) — Due to a perceived slight against homosexuality, Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk is in a fight for his career. The Lackland Air Force base first sergeant was told by his commanding officer to clear out his office on Aug. 9. The point of contention reportedly is not about anything Monk said, but what he refused to say.

“It’s all because he didn’t say anything wrong. He thought it,” said Steven Branson, pastor of Village Parkway Baptist Church in San Antonio. Monk, his wife and their three teenage sons faithfully attend services each Sunday the pastor said.

Branson said he has been in touch with Monk since the sergeant told him Sunday (Aug. 11) of the untenable situation. The pastor said Monk feels abandoned by the institution he has served for 19 years. Deployed as a medic, Monk devoted himself to saving the lives of his fellow service men and women, according to his pastor.

“Now I’m in trouble,” Monk told Branson, “and everybody’s leaving me behind.”

At issue is Monk’s refusal to reveal his personal views regarding homosexual marriage to his commanding officer. According to a Fox News report, the commander, a lesbian, asked Monk to report on disciplinary proceedings for an Air Force instructor under investigation for making objectionable comments about homosexual marriage during a training session.

According to Fox News, Monk interviewed the instructor and determined his comments were not intentionally provocative. But some trainees complained. Monk suggested that his commander use the incident as a learning tool about tolerance and diversity, but to no avail.

“Her very first reaction was to say, ‘We need to lop off the head of this guy.’ The commander took the position that his speech was discrimination,” Monk reportedly recounted.

Branson said the commander began to press Monk about his views on the issue.

Fox reported, “She said, ‘Sgt. Monk, I need to know if you can, as my first sergeant, if you can see discrimination if somebody says that they don’t agree with homosexual marriage.'”

Having witnessed the commander’s ire regarding the instructor, Monk declined to answer. He also understood Air Force policy demands silence from homosexual detractors.

“She got angrier and angrier with him,” Branson said. “So he got fired for something she thinks he believes.”

The action will be a mark on an otherwise spotless record. Branson called Monk “pure military” — a real “do-it-by-the-book” serviceman who also happens to be a strong Christian.

…read more at Fox News Insider…

Washington State Attorney General (Democrat of course) Says Jail-Time for not Accepting Government Gay Marriage (Updated with FB Convo & Video)

Of course these stories are becoming more plentiful, Via Libertarian Republican:

You will go to jail for not accepting government gay marriage, says WA State Democrat AG. From the SeattleTimes, State sues florist over refusing service for gay wedding:

The state attorney general has filed a lawsuit in Benton County Superior Court against a Richland florist who refused to provide flowers for the wedding of longtime gay customers, citing her religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The state’s suit against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, came just days after the Attorney General’s Office wrote to ask that Stutzman reconsider her position and agree to comply with the state’s anti-discrimination laws.

“Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation,” Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement. “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.”

In LR’s newest post, they make a point by saying: “Jewish Florist in Seattle forced to sell Flower arrangement to Neo-Nazis for Hitler Birthday Celebration.”

Obama Awards Racist Highest Honor

A civil rights icon who gave the benediction at President Obama’s inauguration said that he believed ‘all white people were going to hell’.

The Reverend Joseph Lowery, 91, was speaking at a rally in Georgia.

According to an account in the Monroe County Reporter: ‘Lowery said that when he was a young militant, he used to say all white folks were going to hell.

‘Then he mellowed and just said most of them were. Now, he said, he is back to where he was.’

…read more…

The point is, if one is a hate crime? Why isn’t the other considered such? In other words, President Obama shouldn’t have awarded the top civilian medal to a racist… unless Obama is a racist?

Interesting FB questions/comments and input on this story:

One friend writes:

If this florist is not a “Religious institution or business” it should allow its services without discrimination toward its buyers or customers, as well as employees who may be homosexual. I dont think this is Gay Marriage Tyranny, we all have opinions and we all have facts, hopefully, to build our opinions off of, but being a public service, or public business, they cannot discriminate on race, color, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, against hippies, or police officers, or punk rockers, or business men, or whatever.

Only in the event that they cause the business harm, can the business owner, or manager refuse service. Its kind of the same thing with Adoption agencies. These are public businesses, not so much religious institutions. It is the owners rights to close down or move its business if it doesn’t want to comply with the laws, but it is not necessarily their right to refuse service because they don’t believe its right or wrong. Remember the Chik Fila thing. They can believe what they want, but it doesn’t stop them from serving people food, regardless of their beliefs.

I know the attacks on the Institutions are coming and I hope you know Sean that I agree with you on the Christian Stance in all things. We can come up with non-faithful reasons to argue our points as well but #1 is that God is first among all things. If God is really first to this florist, then she should understand that selling flowers to someone is not condoning their behavior or their sexual orientation, its simply providing a service in which someone is paying for something. If she didn’t know they were Gay, she would have sold them flowers irregardless and this wouldn’t be a sin.

The only other option for this florist is to Close down shop. IF she really feels so strongly about it being a sin and that providing flowers for this couple would make God mad or upset with her, and the owner really loves God, then putting Him first means closing up shop. In her mind of course.

What do you think Sean?

Another friend:

What ever happened to “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”?

The first friend responds:

It doesn’t give the owners the right to Really refuse ANYONE. For example they can’t refuse you service because your wearing a blue shirt, or a hat. It can’t be some arbitrary reason. Maybe if your being offensive, or wearing something offensive, overly having a Public Display of Affection.

I respond:

Economics 101

Link through picture as well, to the section EVERYONE should read… click “Victicrats Should Take Economics 101”

I am very busy this last week-and-a-half leading up to my cruise… so I will quickley say that yes, if homosexuality were immutable, like skin color [ethnicity], I would say you would have a point. But if a person wants to not serve someone who doesn’t have shoes on, who skins animals, or prefers to catch instead of pitch… they have the prerogative to do so. Let the free market work, see the section “Victicrats Should Take Economics 101” http://tinyurl.com/ck4vcck

My wife’s family member gives her input:

I am a professional vocalist and I sing for numerous weddings. I would not sing for a same sex ceremony. I have refused to sing for weddings that I did not support – even though they were a man and woman. Does this mean that now I could be sued for refusing to take the job if offered by a gay couple? A marriage is more than just a ceremony to me. It truly is a Faith issue for me. I find it hard to believe that if I (or a florist) choose to refrain from extending my talents and abilities for hire to someone that I do not support in their marital decision than I lose MY rights. This is CRAZY and out of CONTROL. I am sure there are plenty of gay florists out there – They would probably appreciate the business.

I chime in:

Great point, would a person lose his or her right to not provide a service to a couple who didn’t get per-marital counseling from a pastor? Are they disenfranchised? Or can they simply take their business elsewhere? They should simply take their business elsewhere. That is what the free-market is for.

For the record, I would have provided the flowers, seeing that it would have been a great opportunity to befriend and witness to a lost world.

“Unfriended” for Judge Judy ~ Traditional Marriage Now Bigoted

Now, before I post the exact same critique of the above “meme/quote” I placed on a friends mom’s FaceBook, I wish to note a few things about the “interaction” that followed. Firstly, this action taken by D.N. (friend’s mom) proves yet again that conservatives are much more tolerant than liberals. A study shows that “liberals more likely to block social-media friends over political differences,” here is Daily Caller’s take:

According to a new poll from the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, self-described liberals are twice as likely than self-described conservatives to block material on social networking websites that they find politically disagreeable.

Thirty-six percent of social media users said they have blocked, “unfriended” or hidden someone because of politics, but left-leaning participants were far more likely to have taken that action to express disagreement about a friend’s political views.

“Liberals are the most likely to have taken … steps to block, unfriend, or hide” disagreeable political messages, Pew concluded. “In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS [social networking sites] because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.”

Sixteen percent of liberal users said they blocked someone who posted something specific that they disagreed with, compared to eight percent of conservative users.

Liberals are also far more likely than conservatives — 11 percent compared with 4 percent — to completely delete friends from social networking sites because they disagree with their politics.

There has been no word — nor will there likely be any — about whether liberals will enjoy reading this story. Many, if the Pew study is to be believed, will just block it from their news feeds.

Which happened, I was “unfriended.” But here is the kicker, the week prior D.N. got onto my FaceBook and essentially called me a small minded racist bigot! And I quote our conversation:

(She said) “Black people and white people weren’t allowed get married years ago either… if small minded, bigoted people had their way it would still be that way. Gay marriage Is NO different…. religious folks who believe and support same sex marriage ?? They must not be real religious people.”

(I Responded) In other words, a discussion to you is calling me and other readers here “bigots,” and impugning the character of religious gays by creating straw-man arguments of what I (we) say/mean? And when I politely point this out by not pointing out how you name call and use “cards” (sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted ~ S.I.X.H.I.R.B.)….

An interesting thought just came to mind as well. In our previous conversation she mentioned that there are religiously left-leaning people, and that I shouldn’t hold back or discount their thinking, but take into account their thinking BECAUSE they are religious. This was not clearly stated by her, but it was implied. Yet, she apparently does not see the self-refuting aspect of the graphic she posted on her own FaceBook and her previous statement to me. How convenient that she doesn’t practice what she expects others to hold to. If you are conservative and religious, you have no right to force your feelings on people. If you are liberal and religious, game-on!

I didn’t unfriend her? She got onto my FaceBook and called me a racist bigot. Yet, I pointed out the flaws in Judge Judy’s quote and for this, I was ex-communicated. Why? Because leftism is the dominant religion of her being. Here is what I wrote, and what I was doing is making two points that the Judge characterized wrongly the debate with:

  1. that this is a solely religious argument, and;
  2. she herself is pushing her morality on others.

Here we go:

This isn’t a religious argument? For instance, here is an atheist gay man explaining why he is against same-sex marriage:

One of the most respected Canadian sociologist/scholar/homosexual, Paul Nathanson, writes that there are at least five functions that marriage serves–things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:

Foster the bonding between men and women
Foster the birth and rearing of children
Foster the bonding between men and children
Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults

Note that Nathanson considers these points critical to the continued survival of any culture. He continues “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, … every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.”

Going further he stated that “same sex marriage is a bad idea” …[he] only opposed “gay marriage, not gay relationships.”

And then I posted this short video of another gay man explaining the importance of marriage and how same-sex marriage will undefine it:

Then I zeroed in on the statement that religious people are “forcing their morality on other.” I quoted the following mock-conversation to make the point clear via an old philosophy paper of mine:

You Shouldn’t Force Your Morality On Me! [1]

✤ First Person: “You shouldn’t force your morality on me.”

♚ Second Person: “Why not?”

✤ First Person: “Because I don’t believe in forcing morality.”

♚ Second Person: “If you don’t believe in it, then by all means, don’t do it. Especially don’t force that moral view of yours on me.”

✤ First Person: “You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”

♚ Second Person: “I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that statement. Do you mean I have no right to an opinion?”

✤ First Person: “You have a right to you’re opinion, but you have no right to force it on anyone.”

♚ Second Person: “Is that your opinion?”

✤ First Person: “Yes.”

♚ Second Person: “Then why are you forcing it on me?”

✤ First Person: “But your saying your view is right.”

♚ Second Person: “Am I wrong?”

✤ First Person: “Yes.”

♚ Second Person: “Then your saying only your view is right, which is the very thing you objected to me saying.”

✤ First Person: “You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”

♚ Second Person: “Correct me if I’m misunderstanding you here, but it sounds to me like your telling me I’m wrong.”

✤ First Person: “You are.”

♚ Second Person: “Well, you seem to be saying my personal moral view shouldn’t apply to other people, but that sounds suspiciously like you are applying your moral view to me.  Why are you forcing your morality on me?”


“Most of the problems with our culture can be summed up in one phrase: ‘Who are you to say?’” – Dennis Prager.  So lets unpack this phrase and see how it is self-refuting, or as Tom Morris[2] put it, self-deleting.

When someone says, “Who are you to say?” answer with, “Who are you to say ‘Who are you to say’?” [3]

This person is challenging your right to correct another, yet she is correcting you.  Your response to her amounts to “Who are you to correct my correction, if correcting in itself is wrong?” or “If I don’t have the right to challenge your view, then why do you have the right to challenge mine?”  Her objection is self-refuting; you’re just pointing it out.

The “Who are you to say?” challenge fails on another account.  Taken at face value, the question challenges one’s authority to judge another’s conduct.  It says, in effect, “What authorizes you to make a rule for others?  Are you in charge?”  This challenge miscasts my position.  I don’t expect others to obey me simply because I say so.  I’m appealing to reason, not asserting my authority.  It’s one thing to force beliefs; it’s quite another to state those beliefs and make an appeal for them. 

The “Who are you to say?” complaint is a cheap shot.  At best it’s self-defeating.  It’s an attempt to challenge the legitimacy of your moral judgments, but the statement itself implies a moral judgment.  At worst, it legitimizes anarchy!

[1] Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air (Baker Books; 1998), p. 144-146.

[2] Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies (IDG Books; 1999), p. 46

[3] Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air (Baker Books; 1998), p. 144-146.”

I ended with the “you aren’t doing this debate/discussion/national dialogue and good by posting un-truths like the above Judge Judy quote” type finisher. As she unfriended me she said I was saying wacko things? Personally, the above is astute, full of knowledge and close to the heart information by gay men.

In a final word to me, D.N. mentioned that one of her sons said this would happen? What would happen? She would not be unfriended for calling me a small minded racist bigot on my own FaceBook, but that she would unfriend me after Gay men spoke to the immutability of the heterosexual union? Her son said that would happen? I don’t think so.

And she is one who would say that the right is creating an air of divisiveness. What a crazy, unthinking, low-voter information world we live in.

One last point not included in the original conversation, but that I believe to be salient to the tactic used by Judge Judy and the myriad of other who think such statements make sense. Use Judge Judy’s words in regards to these other examples where Christianity led the way, “They have no right to impose their feelings on the rest of us.”

…Such “exclude religion” arguments are wrong because marriage is not a religion! When voters define marriage, they are not establishing a religion. In the First Amendment, “Con­gress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the word “religion” refers to the church that people attend and support. “Religion” means being a Baptist or Catholic or Presbyterian or Jew. It does not mean being married. These arguments try to make the word “religion” in the Constitution mean something different from what it has always meant.

These arguments also make the logical mistake of failing to distinguish the reasons for a law from the content of the law. There were religious reasons behind many of our laws, but these laws do not “establish” a religion. All major religions have teachings against stealing, but laws against stealing do not “establish a religion.” All religions have laws against murder, but laws against murder do not “establish a religion.” The cam­paign to abolish slavery in the United States and England was led by many Christians, based on their religious convictions, but laws abolishing slavery do not “establish a reli­gion.” The campaign to end racial discrimination and segregation was led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist pastor, who preached against racial injustice from the Bible. But laws against discrimination and segregation do not “establish a religion.”

If these “exclude religion” arguments succeed in court, they could soon be applied against evangelicals and Catholics who make “religious” arguments against abortion. Majority votes to protect unborn children could then be invalidated by saying these vot­ers are “establishing a religion.” And, by such reasoning, all the votes of religious citizens for almost any issue could be found invalid by court decree! This would be the direct opposite of the kind of country the Founding Fathers established, and the direct oppo­site of what they meant by “free exercise” of religion in the First Amendment.


Historian Alvin Schmidt points out how the spread of Christianity and Christian influence on government was primarily responsible for outlawing infanticide, child abandonment, and abortion in the Roman Empire (in AD 374); outlawing the brutal battles-to-the-death in which thousands of gladiators had died (in 404); outlawing the cruel punishment of branding the faces of criminals (in 315); instituting prison reforms such as the segregating of male and female prisoners (by 361); stopping the practice of human sacrifice among the Irish, the Prussians, and the Lithuanians as well as among other nations; outlawing pedophilia; granting of property rights and other protections to women; banning polygamy (which is still practiced in some Muslim nations today); prohibiting the burning alive of widows in India (in 1829); outlawing the painful and crippling practice of binding young women’s feet in China (in 1912); persuading government officials to begin a system of public schools in Germany (in the sixteenth century); and advancing the idea of compulsory education of all children in a number of European countries.

During the history of the church, Christians have had a decisive influence in opposing and often abolishing slavery in the Roman Empire, in Ireland, and in most of Europe (though Schmidt frankly notes that a minority of “erring” Christian teachers have supported slavery in various centuries). In England, William Wilberforce, a devout Christian, led the successful effort to abolish the slave trade and then slavery itself throughout the British Empire by 1840.

In the United States, though there were vocal defenders of slavery among Christians in the South, they were vastly outnumbered by the many Christians who were ardent abolitionists, speaking, writing, and agitating constantly for the abolition of slavery in the United States. Schmidt notes that two-thirds of the American abolitionists in the mid-1830s were Christian clergymen, and he gives numerous examples of the strong Christian commitment of several of the most influential of the antislavery crusaders, including Elijah Lovejoy (the first abolitionist martyr), Lyman Beecher, Edward Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe (author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin), Charles Finney, Charles T. Torrey, Theodore Weld, William Lloyd Garrison, “and others too numerous to mention.” The American civil rights movement that resulted in the outlawing of racial segregation and discrimination was led by Martin Luther King Jr., a Christian pastor, and supported by many Christian churches and groups.

There was also strong influence from Christian ideas and influential Christians in the formulation of the Magna Carta in England (1215) and of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787) in the United States. These are three of the most significant documents in the history of governments on the earth, and all three show the marks of significant Christian influence in the foundational ideas of how governments should function.

Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010], 31, 49-50.

Dennis Prager Responds to the Cooper/Griffin “Affair” on New Years

From Video Description:

Reading from the Baltimore Sun’s article, “Anderson Cooper, Kathy Griffin double down debasing CNN brand two nights straight,” by their movie critic, David Zurawik, Prager shows that Fox News once again keeps its head high as CNN contributes to societal decline. (Posted by: Religio-Political Talk)

For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to visit: http://www.dennisprager.com/

Anonymous` Cyber War Declared On Israel (and GOP) ~ Nothing More Than A Left-Wing Group

(Click Graphic To See Story About GOP and ORCA)

Breitbart says:

Internet leftist terrorists Anonymous have begun posting personal information on top-ranking Israeli officials online. Using Anonpaste.me to send a message to the Israeli government, Anonymous wrote, “It has come to our attention that the Israeli government has ignored repeated warnings about the abuse of human rights, shutting down the internet in Israel and mistreating its own citizens andt hose of its neighboring countries.” This newest assault follows hot on the heels of Anonymous’ attack on over 700 Israeli websites, including the Foreign Ministry website in which it deleted the Foreign Ministry’s database.

“Israeli Gov. this is/will turn into a cyberwar,” wrote Anonymous. Israel says that it has “deflected 44 million cyber-attacks on government websites.” Many major Israeli websites remain down.

One of my sons (the younger one) has some fantasy about Anonymous being the “Internet police,” so-to-speak. (He even cited a story about Anonymous harassing some kids who bullied a bus driver… and Mussolini got the trains to run on time and Hitler provided universal healthcare.)

He mentioned that this group of cyber-terrorists did this apparently to stop Israel from shutting down the internet in Gaza, saying that they said the internet should be for everyone.  I pointed out that the only place I could find the information that Israel was going to shut down the internet in Gaza was from Anonymous themselves. No reputable news organization themselves — outside of reading from Anonymous’ own statement — confirmed this:

Where did you read that the internet was going to be shut down? (In other words, the only source I can find for this is anonymous themselves… an extremist group of criminals. This is the epitome of an extreme “news” source.) Gaza has always had internet problems… they concentrate on war, not productivity and innovation? Most Gazan’s already rely on dial-up anyways. And if push comes to shove, any reporter can upload from their phone or i-pad type unit.

★ At this time, access to power and Internet connectivity in Gaza is spotty and inconsistent. Gazans have experienced power outages and are accustomed to relying on generators, but a concerted Israeli effort to shut down the Internet in Gaza has not yet materialized. In the meantime, dial-up connections can be a lifeline for residents of Gaza. Telecomix has published a guide to configuring and using a dial-up Internet connection. (EFF)

In other words, propaganda by Anonymous to mask the other statements they made:

…Anonymous, right along with how I have described them, are a political faction that has a skewed view of history. They said in their statement that Israel’s stance is barbaric, brutal and despicable treatment of the Palestinian people,” not true. Like I said, these guys are young and misinformed… like most UC students, for example.

You see, dial up is already in wide use in Gaza, if there is internet at all, because both service and power has always been spotty since the Palestinians are NOT about bettering the lives of their fellow man but really about war and killing Jews. Not to mention it is a great way for Israel to get intel, and so they would NOT want to sever the connection: “It is important to remember that dial-up connections are not secure” (EFF). Here is more on the topic taken from my FaceBook post:


They seemed to be upset about the killing of a top Hamas leader (NYT: http://tinyurl.com/cpre5qw) that was the mastermind of many deadly attacks as a response to the increasing rocket attacks. Israel may have to enter Gaza which they chose to leave completely to the Palestinian people to run… as hundreds of Katyusha rockets fly in almost daily (and a newer long-range rocket[s] from Iran and Libya [thanks Obama] that Hamas and other armed groups have smuggled in Iran and Libya). They also intimated their concern for the “children,” but the onus for this should be laid at the feet of the Palestinian people as they teach their children radicalism from birth:

★ “A book that is required reading for Palestinian six graders actually starts off stating, ‘There is no alternative to destroying Israel.’” Here are some photos of kids dressed up as Jihad fighters and wearing faux suicide belts: http://tinyurl.com/2v2qu

At the end of their long rant you get to see the education they received that many in the UC system typically get, when Anonymouse said: To the oppressors of the innocent Palestinian people, it is too late to EXPECT US (http://tinyurl.com/co3trew).

This anti-female (oppression), anti-homosexual (Hamas kills them), anti-Semitic (“drive Jews into the sea” [i.e., no two-state solution], Hamas kills them), anti-Christian (kill or force conversions) bed of extremism that these jihadists have foisted on the Palestinians (which they have swallowed in full), makes them ANYTHING BUT innocent. When a suicide bomber can go into a pizzeria, kill women and children, and then a museum is set up of the exact scene as a celebration of death and the “success” of a suicide bomber… well… the Jihadi maxim runs true: “We love death more than you love life!” (http://tinyurl.com/9ahyo48)

There are chapters of Anonymous and here a couple of them (these chapters) had many arrested and some of their activity [attacks] are explained (http://tinyurl.com/7xvsrna), as well as hacking into CIA and other orgs, “British pair admit targeting institutions including CIA, Soca and News International” (http://tinyurl.com/adrmlfy).

They are young, and engage in criminal activity. They have a warped sense of the world BECAUSE they are young, and most “revolutionaries” (anarchists and/or socialists) have a view not that different in what they are taught at major universities. For instance, that the Palestinian people had a country or were a people that historically inhabited the area of Israel. This view is false, and I would recommend these young people read a simple book on the history of this conflict: “History Upside Down: The Roots of Palestinian Fascism and the Myth of Israeli Aggression” (152 pages). Their views of what corporations are and are not are warped as well.

For instance, the “Libertarian heavyweight” Milton Freidman, makes a great point that the only monopolies are that created by the government (http://youtu.be/r6LLQdpY7wU). So, a great recent example. Government is forcing people to buy private insurance… pushing people into a system that is charging outlandish prices for services given, rather than letting the free market do its work (http://youtu.be/0uPdkhMVdMQ). In other words, a monopoly is being created by a political persuasion that says they do not like monopolies. And their view of corporations is skewed (like Democrats of today (post-JFK Democrats):

★ One last point, the most important. Unlike big business when it makes mistakes, big government cannot go out of business. Unlike corrupt government, corrupt business cannot print money and thereby devalue a nation’s currency. Businesses cannot coerce you by force (tax liens, garnishing of wages, or armed IRS officials, etc) into an action. So the “greed” of the corporation pales in comparison to the greed of government. (http://tinyurl.com/bx66syp)

So these anarchists and socialists and misguided youth are nothing but a bunch of cyber bullies who commit felonies in the guise of “helping.” Which leads me to one of my most loved CS Lewis quote that exemplifies a truth:

★ “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – CS Lewis, God in the Dock.

Reagan said, in perpetuity to Adam Smith through to our day, that “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” Similarly, Anonymous can keep their “help” to themselves. And when they do not, the anti-hacker-hackers, The Web Ninjas, are there to hack into their databases and turn over what they find to the proper authorities:

★ One particular anti-hacking group calling itself ‘Team Web Ninjas’ has already posted what they say are the names, addresses, phone numbers and pictures of LulzSec. (http://tinyurl.com/6d2a33s)

Team Web NinjasLOVE IT!

Whole Text of Anonymous’ First Press Release:

This couldn’t get more left wing/pro-Palestinian. It looks as if Hamas themselves wrote this… maybe the Turkish chapter? (RedHack is a left wing [Marxist] group of hackers affiliated with Anonymous). I will emphasize this throughout:

Greetings World

For far too long, Anonymous has stood by with the rest of the world and watched in despair the barbaric, brutal and despicable treatment of the Palestinian people in the so called “Occupied Territories” by the Israel Defense Force. Like so many around the globe, we have felt helpless in the face of such implacable evil. And today’s insane attack and threatened invasion of Gaza was more of the same.

But when the government of Israel publicly threatened to sever all Internet and other telecommunications into and out of Gaza they crossed a line in the sand. As the former dictator of Egypt Mubarack learned the hard way – we are ANONYMOUS and NO ONE shuts down the Internet on our watch. To the IDF and government of Israel we issue you this warning only once. Do NOT shut down the Internet into the “Occupied Territories”, and cease and desist from your terror upon the innocent people of Palestine or you will know the full and unbridled wrath of Anonymous. And like all the other evil governments that have faced our rage, you will NOT survive it unscathed.

To the people of Gaza and the “Occupied Territories”, know that Anonymous stands with you in this fight. We will do everything in our power to hinder the evil forces of the IDF arrayed against you. We will use all our resources to make certain you stay connected to the Internet and remain able to transmit your experiences to the world. As a start, we have put together the Anonymous Gaza Care Package – http://bit.ly/XH87C5 – which contains instructions in Arabic and English that can aid you in the event the Israel government makes good on it’s threat to attempt to sever your Internet connection. It also contains useful information on evading IDF surveillance, and some basic first aid and other useful information. We will continue to expand and improve this document in the coming days, and we will transmit it to you by every means at our disposal. We encourage you to download this package, and to share it with your fellow Palestinians to the best of your ability.

We will be with you. No matter how dark it may seem, no matter how alone and abandoned you may feel – know that tens of thousands of us in Anonymous are with you and working tirelessly around the clock to bring you every aid and assistance that we can.

We Are Anonymous
We Are Everywhere
We Are Legion
We Do Not Forgive
We Do Not Forget

To the oppressors of the innocent Palestinian people, it is too late to EXPECT US

`Freedom`As Understood in Pali-Speak:

`Defend` As Understood in Pali-Speak:

Anti-Catholic, Anti-Semitic, Homophobic Cult Leader is Big Donor to Democrats

Video Description:

Democratic donor J.Z. Knight, the leader of a cult based out of Washington State made vicious remarks about Catholics, Jews, and homosexuals that surfaced this week. Knight gave over $60,000 to both President Obama’s re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Knight has even had her picture taken with President Obama. Despite the controversy, Democrats have refused to give back the donations they received from Knight.

DNC Platform: God Removed, Jerusalem removed as Israel`s Capital, and Wants Tax Payer Funded Abortions (UPDATE!)


Democrats Boo “God” & “Jerusalem” As Platform Chaos Ensues 

Democratic party heads rammed through the revised platform, which includes updated pro-Israel language and the mention of God, against the clear wishes of those voting at the convention in Charlotte. Here’s video of the chaos:

The vote to adopt the new platform requires two-thirds. It’s pretty clear that even after asking for multiple votes, two-thirds of the vote was not received. The revised platform was adopted anyway.