Conservatives Must Avoid Circular Firing Squads

Evidently I have had my head in the sand since my budget had to downsize my cable ability to watch the FOX News channel. (I almost cringe to watch the big three network news shows.) Evidently around September 20th or so some big dog Conservative pundits chased after a liberal bone tossed from the Mainstream Media (MSM) pertaining comments made by Glen Beck about Senator McCain’s run for President. Once the bone was out there the Conservative big dogs began some backbiting.

I actually became aware of this from an Our Country Deserves Better (OCBD)e-newsletter. It seems the Beck controversy has crept in other ways within the Tea Party Movement. Apparently there is some Tea Party Movement back biting and OCDB sent the e-newsletter to set their position about the back biting and to extol the Tea Party Movement with a call for unity.

JRH 10/2/09
************************
Conservatives Must Avoid Circular Firing Squads

Our Country Deserves Better E-Newsletter
10/02/2009 03:10:27 am

The past week has seen some intense behind-the-scenes discussions in various quarters of the conservative movement over a series of comments on cable TV news shows regarding Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and Joe Scarborough.

Scarborough, who has a morning news show on MSNBC, had put a call out for every potential Republican presidential candidate to denounce conservative radio and TV host, Glenn Beck.

Soon all sorts of pundits and commentators from Kathleen Parker to David Brooks were weighing in with their views about the matter, including sharing their thoughts on comments Beck had made in an interview with CBS's Katie Couric.

Amidst all the noise, we felt our heads begin to spin. And we also felt a case of déjà vu setting in. Hadn't we seen this taken from the media's playbook once before? Oh yes, we had and it was Katie Couric once again stirring up trouble for another prominent conservative, Gov. Sarah Palin - and watching with glee the conservative in-fighting that commenced thereafter.

The liberal media continues to enjoy their role in sparking a dust-up in the conservative community. Whether a deliberate effort to distract from the failings of Barack Obama and Congress (under Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid), or just for the fun of attempting to injure the conservative movement, it doesn't matter the reason.

The point is the media got their wish. The left-wing media spin group, Media Matters, even produced a video showing all of the shots being fired in the conservative circular firing squad. You can watch it - HERE.

Normally we wouldn't even be giving attention to any of the misleading propaganda produced by Media Matters. But we wanted you to watch it so you can see how this game is played by the media and the Left. We want you to be aware of the fact that this is how they define and control the news cycle - again, especially when things aren't going so well for their political idols in the White House and Congress.

Like we said, the feeling was one of deja vu for us this week. Our minds took us back to early March when RNC Chairman Michael Steele made a series of denigrating comments about conservative radio talk giant, Rush Limbaugh.

The media tried to turn the back-and-forth exchange of comments into a giant firestorm of debate on the news shows. At that time we made the same plea to fellow conservatives as we are doing now - don't fall for the media's trap! Here's what we wrote on March 2, 2009 regarding that dust up:

The bottom line is this: Rush Limbaugh is right when he rallies conservatives to fight for their principles and oppose policies and ideologies that we believe are harmful to the nation and that go against the sacred trust of individual liberty and freedom.

The Republican Party is searching for its soul right now, when it should be easy for it to find its voice in opposing taxpayer bailouts, trillions of dollars in spending when our nation is already in debt, and opposing higher taxes.

That the Republican leadership are not doing this loudly, succinctly and uniformly is what has so many conservatives concerned.

Michael Steele and Eric Cantor have fallen for the Democrats' trap. They want to see Republicans fighting each other instead of their liberal agenda.

And if that wasn't enough, this week's infighting even extended into the tea party movement.

In the days leading up to the August 28th launch of the Tea Party Express (which the Our Country Deserves Better Committee organized in conjunction with several other conservative organizations and local tea party groups across the country), an aggressive activist in the tea party movement then attempted to convince local tea party groups not to cooperate with the Tea Party Express. This individual thought that he should decide what takes place in the tea party movement and did everything he could to defame the Tea Party Express.

Thankfully, he failed!

Nonetheless, he accused us of being shills for the GOP, which if you read our comments about the Michael Steele-Rush Limbaugh dust-up as printed above, you know is quite laughable. We're conservatives first, and will speak up for those who support these principles, and we will speak out against those who don't - even if they are Republicans.

During our launch event for the Tea Party Express this individual's wife kept harassing speakers and urging them to not even mention the Tea Party Express. Finally she went so far as to push and kick one of the rally organizers in an attempt to stop one of our tour's singers, Diana Nagy, from performing her beautiful song, "Where Freedom Flies" prompting the Capitol police to escort this tea party activist's wife away.

This is no way for people to work together to advance shared causes, friends. Kicking people to keep them from singing because your own ego resents attention being given to a patriotic singer? Telling people which tea party events they should and shouldn't go to?

Now that same individual is out again emailing people and telling them they shouldn't support the Tea Party Express - yet again, as he feels he should decide what happens within the tea party movement. His actions even got a liberal alternative newspaper to write up a blog entry that was headlined "Discord in the Tea Parties?" The report was written by a writer who has described the tea party movement as "fringe" and derided Fox News Channel's coverage of the tea party movement.

When this liberal reporter showed his ignorance of our efforts in the tea party movement we eagerly set the record straight - HERE.

The tea party movement is a grass roots movement of the people. There is no one leader. We certainly are not that leader. Instead, like you, we are just one part of this massive coalition and growing movement.

Infighting by conservative commentators or among tea party activsits (sic) is not helpful, friends. We simply must make sure that ego and ambition do not undermine our conservative movement.

The same self-determination, drive and ambition that is part of our free society, and that compels us to do the best we can to provide for our families, achieve success at the workplace, and personal gratification for excelling at our hobbies and interests, can sometimes also have a dark side: ego and jealousy. It's part of human nature, and it is understandable. But our conservative movement must not allow these feelings to be played like instruments by a waiting and willing media and left-wing political machine that is just itching to turn us all against one another.

It is for that reason that we've never told you about some of the behind-the-scenes drama in the leadup of the Tea Party Express, and why we won't print this hostile individual's name here now, either. We're not out looking to perpetuate the differences of opinions and hand ammunition to our ideological enemies. In fact, when one of our principal's at the Our Country Deserves Better Committee vented on his blog about this matter we even asked him to take down his post, which he promptly did. Not because it wasn't tempting to tell the truth of what happened, but because it wouldn't serve to help anyone but our political adversaries on the Left.

We here at the Our Country Deserves Better Committee have great appreciation for the contributions made to the conservative cause by a whole host of people, groups, leaders, spokespersons and radio talk hosts. We believe this conservative movement must have a place for voices like Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Mike Gallagher, Michael Reagan, Lars Larson, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Praeger, and many others.

Each of these folks reaches people in their own ways - and they each serve a valuable role in helping to encourage the advancement of conservative thoughts and principles. We won't tell you who YOU should or shouldn't listen to, and we will always stand resolute against people like Katie Couric or the folks at Media Matters when they cook up their stunts to compel conservative figures to fight one another as a means to advance their own liberal cause.

We have a nation to fight for, friends. America faces the gravest threat from left-wing policies that she has in decades. This administration and Congress are attempting to reshape America into a very different country than our Founding Fathers envisioned.

They are pushing forward in an effort to enact a redistribution of wealth, socialistic economic policies, massive deficits and a giant growth of government power and influence. They want to control your health care, what kind of car you can drive, what kind of energy you can use to heat or cool your house, and on and on.

This fight will require a strong, united conservative opposition. We are proud to join you in this fight, and we are proud to work in tandem with dozens of other conservative organizations in this effort.

Let us all be dilligent to never fall for the media's trap and lose focus on what unites us, instead of what small differences we might have with one another at times - either be they based on tactics or personality.

Here's what we can accomplish when we work together - it's a Fox News report on the Tea Party Express, that was LIVE from our Flagstaff, AZ rally. Please take a moment to watch it [SlantRight Editor: I am unsure how long the link will last], as it is a testament to what we can do when we all work together, instead of against one another:

WATCH FOX NEWS REPORT ON TEA PARTY EXPRESS - HERE

Now, onwards to the fight ahead, good friends! We'll be posting updates over the coming week on the "Tea Party Express: Countdown to Judgment Day" at the Tea Party Express website: http://www.teapartyexpress.org/

ACORN Importing Underage Gals for Prostitution?

Remember the Slanted Right concern over a manipulative Leftist organization like ACORN being involved in America’s 2010 census? The concern is obvious: The Census oft times determines the amount of House of Representative State representation in Congress. A Leftist skewed Census could potentially wreak havoc against the voice of the politically Conservative.

Here is the good news: The Census Bureau has severed ties with ACORN. Couple this with a Senate vote of 83 to 7 to end Federal Funding to ACORN with the House expected to follow suit soon, ACORN is reeling.

A couple of independent film journalists by the name of James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles spoofed ACORN into believing they were a pimp and a prostitute respectively. The spoof was to travel to ACORN branches across America and get aid from ACORN officials in bringing in illegal immigrants for the purpose of prostitution in exchange for a – should we say – donation.

O’Keefe and Giles’ film exposés have exposed ACORN for the criminal organization that it is. Hmm … Didn’t Obama do training seminars for ACORN?





You may not have heard or read this in the Mainstream Media (MSM); they have been so silent you could hear a pin drop concerning the authentic meaning of news to report.

Read the Washington Times for details of ACORN heinous activities.

JRH 9/18/09

The Rule of Law

Here are Parts 1 and 2 to Mark Alexander’s essay on The Rule of Law. The essays are an indictment on the Left turning the U.S. Constitution into a “living” document rather than a framework for the Rule of Law in America.

JRH 9/14/09

Is American Leftist Jews a Threat to Israeli Existence?

American Jews tend to support Israel’s continued existence. Ironically a significant amount of American Jews are also hooked up to the President Barack Hussein Obama contention to force Israel into the so-called Two-State Solution which is the creation of an Arab State called Palestine within Israel’s Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and the Gaza cesspool under Hamas hegemony.

The explanation for this American Jewish support for a Two-State Solution appears to lay in the Jewish political spectrum in America. This is to say that American Jews are overwhelmingly Leftist Democrats.

Norman Podhoretz senses that American Jews think Leftist politics before they think Jewish religion. Indeed over 70% of American Jews voted for President Barack Hussein Obama. American Jews still widely support the existence of Israel; however being good Leftists they are duped into the thought that a Palestinian State will bring peace to the Middle Eastern region.

Evidently Leftists do not believe the various Palestinian terrorist charters calling for the eradication of Israel to make room for an all encompassing Muslim-Palestinian State is not a serious threat. OR possibly Leftists just simple will look the other way as Middle Eastern Arabs and Muslims rise up yet again to join a newly formed Palestinian State in driving the Jews into the sea. OR possibly Leftists who support Israel’s existence believe the USA would not let an Arab invasion get that far.

The first two thoughts are delusional thinking. The last thought is based on a history of the U.S. supporting Israel at least since 1967. Unfortunately many Democrats and a significant amount of Arabiphiles among Republicans believe supporting Israel at all costs is unrealistic and no longer in America’s National Interest. Hence self-imposed politics may deter a Democratic Party Presidential Administration to provide aid to Israel in such an invasion with a weak public denunciation to cover a Democratic Party’s politically correct butt.

As you can surmise, I believe a Two-State Solution for the creation of a sovereign Palestinian State is a formula for an Arab invasion of Israel.

Read Podhoretz’s thoughts on why America’s Left Wing Jews are prepared to unwittingly throw Israel under the Muslim bus.

JRH 9/12/09

Interesting, Covert CIA Agents’ Cover Outed

But NO Outcry to Prosecute the Scoundrels
John R. Houk
© August 29, 2009

Here is an alert from ACT! For America concerning the hypocrisy of the Left toward America’s National Security.

The ACLU took clandestine photos of covert CIA agents involved with extracting information from Gitmo Islamic terrorists. The Washington Post reported on the now public photos. It is interesting there are no cries to prosecute the ACLU for endangering the identities of covert CIA agents.

Let’s preface this alert with a little memory lane.

First there is the Plamegate scandal in which the Left was calling for Presidential impeachment and/or the clearing of the unpopular Bush Administration staffers. The Left MSM accused a leak coming directly from the White House divulging that Valerie Plame the wife of State Department hack Joe Wilson worked for the CIA.

Can you remember the LEFTIST OMG that the Bush Administration would leak information about the existence of a “covert” CIA operative out of vengeance for Joe Wilson’s hack report about Niger yellow cake and Saddam Hussein?

There was even screaming for a Special Prosecutor. That turned out to be Leftist bloodhound Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald went after everyone until he latched onto the rumor that Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff Scooter Libby allegedly divulged Plame’s information to the public.

After millions of dollars of taxpayer money Fitzgerald came up with bupkis. Evidently Fitzgerald needed some kind of justification for his license to the Leftist bidding of disrupting the Bush Administration.

So Fitzgerald’s million dollar staff poured over the ‘under oath’ statements provided to the Special Persecutor.

There was STILL no smoking gun linking anyone in the Bush/Cheney staff to outing not really so-covert Valerie Plame. Who knows how many times the statements taken received scouring until a new strategy to persecute someone among the Bush/Cheney staff?

Here is the confirmation that Fitzgerald ALREADY KNEW who released Plame’s name to the press? It was an anti-Bush Republican then working in the Defense Department, specifically Richard Armitage.

I guess it was not worth going after an anti-Bush Republican for Armitage never received a public “We gotcha” from Fitzgerald.

The new strategy entailed looking for statements that did not match from each individual under oath. Apparently Scooter Libby was the only person high enough for Fitzgerald to destroy. Libby was indicted for perjury.

Evidently it was more of a Federal crime to not remember recollections than it was for a sitting President to specifically get lying via DNA. Libby was indicted and convicted. Go figure! President Clinton perjured himself about sex with a White House intern and was impeached, but was found innocent by the then dominated Democratic Party Senate. Equal justice definitely was not spread out between the Left and the Right.

O yes, one other thing. Special Persecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent millions of taxpayer dollars and did not convict one person for his Special Prosecutor mandate to find and prosecute anyone placing CIA operatives in mortal danger for revealing their cover. Fitzgerald’s lone conviction was a lame perjury verdict over memories that had to do with meetings and little to do with insignificant Valerie Plame.

Here is the ACT! For America email alert sent to me on 08/28/2009 01:56 PM :

Political Correctness Can Be Deadly

Political correctness can be annoying, frustrating, even exasperating.

But sometimes it can be deadly.

The commentary below [Editor: Michelle Malkin commentary link] exposes what can only be described as an infuriating excess of political correctness that will not only compromise our war against Islamist terrorism — it may cost people their lives.

The ACLU, in its obsession to put the “rights” of alleged terrorists ahead of law-abiding citizens and CIA agents, has been caught surreptitiously photographing CIA agents in order to show their pictures to alleged terrorists the ACLU is defending.

By doing so the ACLU has put these agents’ lives at risk in what appears to us to be an obvious violation of federal law, such as The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

Will the Justice Department properly investigate the ACLU? We hope so.

But given Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent wrong-headed decision to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate interrogation actions by CIA interrogators, it’s difficult not to conclude that Holder’s sympathies lie more with the ACLU than they do with safeguarding the lives of Americans and CIA agents.

Many experts and observers are concluding that the direction the Justice Department is going will ultimately undermine our intelligence gathering as interrogators, fearful they may eventually be prosecuted, will choose to avoid any tactic that even remotely could be interpreted as “excessive.” How many terrorist plots will thus not be foiled, and how many people will die as a result? Only time will tell.

One of the interrogation practices that is being questioned is the blowing of cigar smoke in the face of an alleged terrorist. Can anyone outside of the anti-American left, the ACLU, and Eric Holder honestly believe that blowing cigar smoke in the face of a terrorist is “excessive,” or worse than the ACLU photographing CIA agents to show their pictures to terrorists?

This goes beyond absurd. This goes beyond political correctness run amok.

America, we must rise up against this insanity.

JRH 8/29/09

Senator Ted Kennedy: What if …?

Senator Ted Kennedy passed away on Tuesday August 25, 2009. I read some of the praise remarks of the late Senator. The one I remember best is the “Lion of the Senate.” I think a more apt description for Senator Kennedy is the “Lion of the Left.”

I have also read some of the comments by some of my fellow Conservatives which can be summed up in the invective goodbye of “Good Riddance.” Amazingly some more vile words were used as well.

I was no fan or friend of Ted Kennedy; nonetheless my fellow Conservatives who detest Leftist ideology you should respect a man who spent much of his adult life serving the United States as an elected Senator from Massachusetts.

I was about seven years old when President JFK was assassinated. I was about twelve years old when Senator RFK was assassinated. My lower working class family was staunch Democrats believing that President FDR saved America and American people from jobless poverty of The Depression. It did not matter if there were moral or political differences with Democrats. All that mattered was Joe Working American had work and thus food to put on the table.

I would even venture to say that my family could give a hoot about politics in general. The man that enabled Americans to work and take care of his family was a Democrat; ergo every President my family voted for was a Democrat. Mom would not talk about it but I bet she even voted for McGovern.

What I am getting at is that it was engrained into me the Kennedys were Democrats and hence of the line of the saviors of the American worker. Because of this familial attitude, an emerging affinity to politics in general and my impressionable youth; I too was a bastion of the Democrat Left with a huge appreciation of (neoconservative) Democratic Party Hawks like Senator Henry (Scoop) Jackson. My admiration of Jackson was to be the evidence of my current Republican Neocon slant in politics.

Nonetheless, from ages twelve (1968) through nineteen (1976 and Carter) I was an altruistic ideologue Leftist.

Then the first President I was eligible to vote for – Jimmy Carter – turned out to be an indecisive idiot. How in the world could a Democrat President manage the American economy into despair and allow America to have the air of a decrepit paper tiger abroad?

The 1980 election campaign approached. And as if Sir Lancelot came on his horse to save the honor of the Democratic Party, Senator Ted Kennedy decided to challenge the incompetent incumbent President Carter. Man as a young Leftist I was drooling. Unfortunately my fellow Democrats did not overwhelmingly share my Kennedy adoration.

Before Senator Kennedy announced his candidacy the opinion polls placed huge favor on Kennedy above the incumbent Carter. Unfortunately as the campaign came into full swing, Carterites were able to use trust issues because of the Chappaquiddick scandal that Senator Kennedy was involved in on July 18, 1969.

Was Ted drunk? Was married Roman Catholic Ted having an affair with Mary Jo Kopechne? Was there a sex act being performed before Ted ran the car into the river? Why did Ted abandon Kopechne in the submerged car swimming to safety and not call for help? Why did Ted wait until the next day to report he was the driver?

All these questions were never answered adequately probably due to big money, political familial patronage and political power in general. Kennedy’s demise to dethroning the incumbent Carter was a “Can you trust this guy?”

And so my last Democratic Party Lancelot bit the Presidential dust.

I was a confused Leftist with the choice between President Carter and Ronald Reagan. Considering my indoctrination and the Reagan Cold War rhetoric he often spoke, I thought a vote for Reagan was a vote to push buttons and launch the nuclear arsenal.

So I voted Libertarian in 1980. Thank GOD President Reagan won the day! I evolved into a Conservative.

If Senator Ted Kennedy had pulled the upset and defeated incumbent President Carter for the Democratic nomination, would I have stayed the Leftist path? As much as I despise Leftist ideology today, I cannot fathom when or if I would have become a Conservative with a President Edward Kennedy.

JRH 8/26/09

Judge Rules in Favor of Palin

Here is an example of one of the Leftist agenda of lawfare persecution of Governor Palin. Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska because the multiplicity of frivolous lawsuits became a huge distraction in the performance of her duties as Governor. Palin is not independently wealthy like some Leftists like George Soros. The financial strain was neither good for her official performance for the State and the cohesive privacy of the Palin family.

JRH 8/12/09

DHS Report on "Right Wing" Terrorists a Fraud

Remember that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released by Secretary Janet Napolitano labeling pro-military patriots and returning American veterans as prime candidates for Right Wing extremist terrorism?

Atlas Shrugs is a conduit for an Americans for Limited Government (ALG) report that the DHS was purposely skewed to publicly delegitimize the veracity all things Slanted Right.

JRH 8/12/09

Townhalls: Leftists Use Violence against Americans

Democrats falsely accuse the GOP of sending Americans to disrupt the President Barack Hussein Obama and/or Democrat townhall meetings. The reality is concerned Americans want to be heard. The further reality is when false accusations from Democrats fail to incite shame; the Left goes to the next step; i.e. to sending goons to beat up concerned Americans.

JIHAD COULD SPREAD IN U.S. PRISON SYSTEM!

Move America Forward (MAF) is one of the premier pro-troop organizations in America. MAF is rightfully investing their efforts in preventing the closure of Gitmo. The obvious reason is the inmates of Gitmo are mostly transnational terrorists captured by American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Left has whined that the continued imprisonment of Gitmo detainee terrorists is becoming a violation of human rights, due process and a violation of the Geneva Accords as relating to Prisoners of War.

MAF and most sane Americans understand that Islamic terrorists are at war with America even if President Barack Hussein Obama and his Leftist cadres deny that war. Indeed many released Gitmo Islamic terrorist detainees have returned to their ways of killing American troops.

Here is a message from MAF presenting their case to Americans for funds to continue the educational fight against the Obama Administration and the Left.

JRH 8/1/09

The Plus and Minus of Shadow Government

John R. Houk
© July 29, 2009

I just read a short blog post by Doug Powers on Michelle Malkin’s blog. Powers points to the hypocrisy of Leftists because President Barack Hussein Obama is continuing the Bush Administration’s shadow government plans allegedly developed under the supervision of Vice President Cheney.

Bloggers writing about a ‘shadow government’ would usually entail the old fashioned conspiracy theory as the actual government is submerged to the actual power elites of a nation. In America’s case it would be a de facto suspension or tossing the Constitution of the USA.

The reality is that every Western nation that has a modicum of political or military power probably has some sort of back-up plan in the case a modern crisis disable’s the operating government. I would have to guess some kind of contingency plan would have developed at least since the Cold War.

In these days of nuclear arsenals, disruptions could happen at the push of a button. In the 21st century a government disruption may be even more sudden. Regardless of how a Leftist government tries to wrap today’s reality, this planet is experiencing a Global War of Terror. This means resourceful terrorists that are well funded on a transnational basis is very capable of exploiting the openness of a Western democratic republic or constitutional monarchy. The exploitation may manifest in a dirty bomb, a suitcase nuke, chemical weapon, biological terror and/or some sort of infrastructure attack (computers, power plants, water supply, EMP or such).

America after 911 provided a situation in the effective government to more openly admit the existence of a government contingency plan that centralizes power to meet a crisis, i.e. a shadow government.

The existence of President Bush’s executive order to establish a shadow government thus came under scrutiny by both Leftists intent on whining about the conservative nature of the Bush Administration and the Slanted Right concerned about the Constitutional nullification issues that arise with such a ‘no checks and balances’ centralized government.

Now check it out! The prince of American Leftists in America is not only continuing President Bush’s Shadow government plan, but appears to be strengthening the role of the military as the arbiter of that shadow government.

Frankly the American Left and the American Right should both be raising red flags (oops the Left has already done that) or caution flags. The termination of the U.S. Constitution would affect both the altruism of Leftist ideology and the slanted Right sanctity of strict constructionist constitutionalism. The give and take that has brought balance to America for so many years prior to judicial activism would definitely tilt to the evil of corrupting power on either side of the spectrum.

And yet the dilemma is some sort of order or a path to return to order has to be in effect to confront the designs of foreign or transnational threats to the American people.

It appears there are two threats to the constitutional American way of life: well funded transnational terrorism and a necessary rapid response to confront the actions of rogue governments or transnational terrorists.

The real American hero will be an Abraham Lincolnesque person with a just intent for the American future.

The American traitor will be the Benedict Arnoldesque person willing to sell out the American way of life for personal gain or ideological elitism (Left or Right).

The former will use extra-constitutional means in order to return constitutional rule of law. The later will use the crisis to terminate the U.S. Constitution to implement an ideological centralized government eliminating the ‘checks and balances’ the Founding Fathers developed to lesson a tyranny of the government.

Abraham Lincoln skirted many constitutional restraints in order to preserve the Union of the United States of America. Lincoln and/or the relatively young Republican Party could have tossed the U.S. Constitution to force a different kind of America to evolve. If Lincoln’s leadership lost the Civil War the American States no doubt would have fractured into banana republics similar to the turmoil Latin America has experienced after slowly gaining independence from the Spanish empire.

A successful terrorist attack straining the infrastructure of America will no doubt place an individual calling the shots in a shadow government with the same dilemmas President Lincoln faced in a less complicated time. Will that person be a leader of honor in the mold of Washington and Lincoln or an ideologue wishing to transform America into a political vision of either the Left or the Right?

The Roman Republic transfer to the Roman Empire is a rough parallel that comes to mind.

JRH 7/29/09

Marginalizing Sarah Palin

Say the name ‘Sarah Palin.’ The very name evokes images that are wildly supportive to extreme castigation.

Those that are supportive are admirers of her charisma and stand for moral values.

Those that castigate Palin either propagate the lie that Palin is an unintelligent moron or are listeners to that lie. The primary sources of that lie politically are Leftists and the Mainstream Media (MSM) who undoubtedly fears Palin will have an influence in Conservative politics. The Leftist fear - if unwittingly prophetic - is probably based on an individual that can capture the minds and hearts of voters which President Reagan did in the ‘80’s. Thus the fear is another Conservative revolution that would reverse the socio-economic horrid transformation that President Barack Hussein Obama has began to implement.

So I love finding a credible writer that points out these deficient lies are indeed fabrications to propagandize mainstream America. That person I found is Bill O’Reilly.

JRH 7/21/09

Nazism, Eugenics and Abortion

John R. Houk
© July 18, 2009
Updated: August 30, 2015

When anyone writes about Adolf Hitler the reader (who is normal) thinks of unspeakable evil. It has been many years since Hitler’s Third Reich lost WWII. Due to that longevity those who have even a piecemeal knowledge of history usually connect Hitler to the Holocaust of nearly six million Jews.

The thing that people forget is that Hitler also is responsible for roughly another six million genocidal deaths as well. Who was the other half of Hitler’s evil insidious murders?

The answer is a long list. That list was based was based on racial purity versus those considered unworthy of life (Lebensunwertes Leben): races Hitler considered inferior to a master race, criminal, degenerate, dissident, feeble-minded, homosexual, idle, insane, religious, and weak (hardly an inclusive list).

So Hitler’s Holocaust meant the death of around twelve million human beings (give or take depending on who you read).

What was the inspiration for such a degenerate evil plan?

Most people leap to the Hitler/Nazi concept of the Master Race (aka Aryan Race).

How did Hitler develop the concept of a Master Race of pure Germans meant to rule the world?

The obvious answer is wicked prejudice; however prejudice was only an instigating thought that needed a plausible reason to delude people into believing in a Master Race.

How did Hitler find a plausible reason to match his deadly prejudice?

The reason was the warped science derived from Social Darwinism. Simply put, Social Darwinism is the utilizing Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in a socio-economic venue. Thus the “survival of the fittest” concept of the stronger biological beings transforming into a better being as environment eliminates the weaker beings is applied to human races.

Surely you can see where this is leading – right? Certainly the Master Race comes to mind.

Now how did Social Darwinism find its way into Hitler’s Master Race concept?

The science of the day Hitler discovered was the study of eugenics. The idea behind eugenics was to breed intelligence and prowess into humanity and breeding stupidity and weakness out of humanity.

Eugenics sounds like a lofty altruistic study; however the study of eugenics’ beginnings was not sweetness and light for humanity. A British person may have coined the phrase “eugenics” but it was American scientific embacement by which theories, studies and experimental implementation took place.

In America the State of California became the epicenter of American eugenics studies. These studies led to these kinds of concepts:

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the Twentieth Century's first decades, California's eugenicists included potent but little known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate and Polytechnic benefactor Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles M. Goethe, as well as members of the California State Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.
…

Stanford president David Starr Jordan originated the notion of "race and blood" in his 1902 racial epistle "Blood of a Nation," in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.

In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation's social service agencies and associations.

The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, trumped up confinement or forced sterilization.

The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.

Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California's quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as the Pasadena-based Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations--which functioned as part of a closely-knit network--published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics, and propagandized for the Nazis. (Excerpted from “The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics” by Edwin Black)

American eugenics practices became the model by which Adolf Hitler fueled his prejudice and find a then widely accepted scientific principle to apply to Germany to develop a genetically pure Master Race.

In my opinion this establishes the practice of eugenics as evil for its implementation was NOT voluntary. Eugenic apologists today tout their science as something that is voluntary. As far as I am concerned this is propaganda to reach funding to build on the harsh practices of early American 20th century to eliminate one human’s definition of inferior which led to the dastardly genocide of the Nazi implemented Holocaust.

You would think I am finished with this essay with getting to the point of the wickedness of early eugenics in America that inspired Adolf Hitler. I am not.

Have you heard of Planned Parenthood?

Planned Parenthood is the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care provider and advocate.

For more than 90 years, we’ve worked to improve women’s health and safety, prevent unintended pregnancies, and advance the right and ability of individuals and families to make informed and responsible choices. (About us page) [Blog Editor: "About us page" as of 8/30/15]

Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care. Our skilled health care professionals are dedicated to offering men, women, and teens high-quality, affordable medical care. One in four American women has chosen Planned Parenthood for health care at least once in her life.

The heart of Planned Parenthood is in the local community. Our 95 unique, locally governed affiliates nationwide operate more than 850 health centers, which reflect the diverse needs of their communities.

These health centers provide a wide range of safe, reliable health care — and more than 90 percent is preventive, primary care, which helps prevent unintended pregnancies through contraception, reduce the spread of sexually transmitted infections through testing and treatment, and screen for cervical and other cancers. Caring physicians, nurse practitioners, and other staff take time to talk with clients, encouraging them to ask questions in an environment that millions have grown to trust. (From the “Who We Are” page) [Blog Editor: "Who We Are" as of 8/30/15]

This sounds good and altruistic especially for women and teenage girls. It is interesting that the “more than 90 percent is preventive” also matches the percentage of women who get an abortion as a convenience. Many of these poor gals are led to believe by organizations such as Planned Parenthood that an abortion is a mere biological surgery removing a fetus like one removes an appendix. I am a proponent of Biblical Morality hence I view abortions of convenience as the murder of innocent children who have the right to live way above any individual’s right to kill for convenience.

Do you know who Margaret Sanger (1883 – 1966) was? Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood.

Let’s read some of Sanger’s beliefs from her own words:

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:

Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:

Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:

The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

…

On the extermination of blacks:

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:

In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On adultery:

A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

…

Planned Parenthood's Goal:

Dr. Lena Levine in 1953, concerning Planned Parenthood's purpose and planned course of action: "... to be ready as educators and parents to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex before marriage we will prevent fear and guilt. We must also relieve those who have these ... feelings, and we must be ready to provide young boys and girls with the best contraceptive measures available so they will have the necessary means to achieve sexual satisfaction without having to risk possible pregnancy." (Planned Parenthood News, Summer 1953) ." ("Psycho-Sexual Development," quoted in Planned Parenthood News, Summer 1953, pg. 10) [Margaret Sanger in her Own Words]

Sanger’s Planned Parenthood was implemented to practice her concepts of eugenics to build a better race in America and preventing the breeding of those she felt were in inferior. It is no wonder pro-choice gals are brainwashed to dispose the Biblical concept of life from conception.

I will allow others to debate about the morality of the death of children in the other 10% of abortions. I sense that many pro-life supporters would take offense of my thoughts about issues I have not completely solidified in my own thinking. Nonetheless, Sanger’s birth control ideology is centered on eugenics to eliminate the unworthy and 90% of abortions are performed as simple birth control when in reality it is murder.

If you doubt Sanger bought into the eugenics theories of creating a superior race and eliminating inferior races you should spend some time researching one Sanger’s pet projects: The Negro Project.

The aim of the program was to restrict—many believe exterminate—the black population. Under the pretense of “better health” and “family planning,” Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What's more shocking is Sanger's beguilement of black America's crème de la crème—those prominent, well educated and well-to-do—into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.

…

In 1929, 10 years before Sanger created the Negro Project, the ABCL (this later became Planned Parenthood) laid the groundwork for a clinic in Harlem, a largely black section of New York City. It was the dawn of the Great Depression, and for blacks that meant double the misery. Blacks faced harsher conditions of desperation and privation because of widespread racial prejudice and discrimination. From the ABCL's perspective, Harlem was the ideal place for this “experimental clinic,” which officially opened on November 21, 1930. Many blacks looked to escape their adverse circumstances and therefore did not recognize the eugenic undercurrent of the clinic. The clinic relied on the generosity of private foundations to remain in business.18 In addition to being thought of as “inferior” and disproportionately represented in the underclass …

… She convinced black civic groups in Harlem of the “benefits” of birth control, under the cloak of “better health” (i.e., reduction of maternal and infant death; child spacing) and “family planning.” So with their cooperation, and the endorsement of The Amsterdam News (a prominent black newspaper), Sanger established the Harlem branch of the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau.21 The ABCL told the community birth control was the answer to their predicament.

Sanger shrewdly used the influence of prominent blacks to reach the masses with this message. She invited DuBois and a host of Harlem's leading blacks, including physicians, social workers, ministers and journalists, to form an advisory council to help direct the clinic “so that our work in birth control will be a constructive force in the community.”22 She knew the importance of having black professionals on the advisory board and in the clinic; she knew blacks would instinctively suspect whites of wanting to decrease their numbers. She would later use this knowledge to implement the Negro Project. (Tanya L. Green, The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Plan for Black Americans) [Link Updated]

The popularity of abortion as a woman’s right of choice has its foundation in Margaret Sanger’s concept of elimination inferior races, people who seem to have heredity of poverty, those physical and mental defects.

Abortion is not only murder, it was initiated as a Leftist (yes Nazis are Leftists) scheme to eugenically improve the human race on the terms of race superiority.

The article that motivated me to find the disturbing news of the origins of Planned Parent was a critical essay by Mark Alexander entitled, “ObamaCare and the Culture of Death.” [Blog Editor: A similar version only on The Patriot Post] Alexander gets to the heart of the matter of Sanger’s motives and ties it in to the potential result of President Barack Hussein Obama’s Slanted Left concept of Universal Health Care.

JRH 7/18/09

*********************

Blog Editor: Below this point is what was posted on the original SlantRight.com archive site.

+++++

ObamaCare and the Culture of Death

Mark Alexander [Link Dead]
Published 16 July 2009
Patriot Post [Link Dead - Similar Alexander link on The Patriot Post] Vol. 09 No. 28

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson

Now that Barack Hussein Obama has undermined free enterprise by nationalizing major financial and manufacturing sectors of our economy, he has set his sights on the health care sector, which comprises almost 18 percent of the U.S. economy.

This shouldn't surprise us. After all, he did promise a "fundamental transformation of the United States of America," and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, did cite the current economic crisis as the means for doing so. "Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste," Emanuel said. "They are opportunities to do big things."

Of course, there is NO constitutional authority [Updated Link]or precedent for this massive government intrusion into the private sector. But then, when do Leftists look to any authority higher than themselves?

Considering the prospect of Socialists in charge of dispensing health care from cradle to grave, I was reminded, by none other than Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that when one is in need of health care, one should not depend on folks who advocate a "culture of death."

In an interview last week, Ginsburg said that she thought "at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

This comment was not some senile blunder from an aging jurist noted for nodding off during High Court deliberations.

In fact, Ginsburg's candid assessment of the Left's advocacy for abortion as a means for controlling propagation of undesirable ethnic groups is based upon the writings of atheist social activist and leftist icon Margaret Sanger.

Some 50 years before Roe v. Wade, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became Planned Parenthood, now the largest perpetrator of abortions in the U.S.

Sanger asserted that ministry to the poor, a fundamental tenet of Christianity, is responsible for excessive numbers of "unwanted" ethnic breeds. "Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the failure of philanthropy, but rather at its success. These dangers are inherent in the very idea of humanitarianism and altruism, dangers which have today produced their full harvest of human waste."

Ah, yes, "human waste." 

Sanger characterized the poor as "human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning ... human beings who never should have been born."

In "Woman and the New Race," Sanger insisted that women create an enormous "debt to society [by] creating slums, filling asylums with the insane, and institutions with other defectives. ... Poverty and the large family generally go hand in hand. ... The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Of blacks, Sanger wrote, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

She advocated policies that ensured "more children from the fit, less from the unfit" in order to "to create a race of thoroughbreds." (Remember this quote the next time a liberal tells you that Fascists and Socialists [Updated Link] have nothing in common.)

Sanger was certainly the 20th century's most noted American proponent of racist eugenics. However when we remind our liberal friends of the origins of Planned Parenthood, they sputter on about Sanger's support for eugenics being an anomaly of another time and context.

But Sanger's advocacy for the extermination of the "unwanted" is the basis of today's culture of death. Indeed, one of the adherents of eugenics now directs BHO's White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and is the co-chair of Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

John Holdren may not be openly advocating racial selection, but he clearly advocates mass sterilization and abortion in order to control human impact on the environment. This is nothing but a contemporary interpretation of Sanger's eliminating "human weeds" and "reckless breeders."

Holdren's modern day eugenics program is outlined in a book he co-authored, "Ecoscience," in which he calls for "a comprehensive Planetary Regime [in order to] control the development, administration, conservation and distribution of all natural resources."

One solution, writes Holdren, is "adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods" which would help weed out those "who contribute to social deterioration."

As for the constitutional authority, Holdren writes, "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children," insists Holdren, "if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility -- just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns -- providing they are not denied equal protection."

I suppose Holdren is Obama's "Czar of Compelling Needs."

As for global solutions, Holdren writes, "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization."

Holdren is of course careful about how his "Planetary Regime" might enforce these limits, but given the common bonds of Fascists and Socialists, a contemporary global solution with much more efficient ecological results than dismembering children in the womb would be to release a biological agent targeting mass populations in developing regions of Asia and Africa -- something like strains of Swine or Bird Influenza. After all, AlGorites consider climate change to be a crisis of global proportions, and such a crisis requires innovative solutions.

Holdren concludes, "This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants' destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world."

In 1931, futurist H.G. Wells wrote of Sanger's proposed regime, "The movement she started will grow to be, a hundred years from now, the most influential of all time. When the history of our civilization is written, it will be a biological history, and Margaret Sanger will be its heroine."

Apparently, Obama's director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is prepared to do his part to sustain Sanger's legacy.

Given Holdren's musings about population control, should these folks be in charge of determining who receives what medical care?

Circling back to that same interview with Justice Ginsburg last week, here is how she defended a woman's right to end the life of her unborn child: "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman."

But in regard to ObamaCare, I doubt that Ginsburg would apply a similar standard: "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice."

The Hippocratic Oath, until recently the de facto position of medicine, established the fundamental principle that a physician should "First, do no harm." Perhaps BO himself should take that oath -- not that he has shown any penchant for honoring the one he took for his current job.
__________________________
Nazism, Eugenics and Abortion
John R. Houk
© July 18, 2009
___________________
ObamaCare and the Culture of Death

The Patriot is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of our Patriot readers.

The Patriot is a publication of Publius Press, Inc. Copyright © 1981-2009 Publius Press, Inc. The Patriot is protected speech pursuant to the "unalienable rights" of all men, and in accordance with the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Sarah's Departure Viewed From Alaska

Bill Adams writing for the American Thinker gives us an Alaskan view of Sarah Palin departing as Governor of Alaska. Adams touches on the Left Wing MSM’s horrendous mercilessly attacking Palin and family not on ideas but rather on her belief system. There actually are not that many ideas to attack for Palin was a success as administrator of the State of Alaska.

Then Adams touches on how Democrats in Alaska filed ludicrous after ludicrous ethics violations within the State Congress. Nearly of have ethics violations have been dismissed that have made it to an examination. The outcome of the Leftist strategy was to bury Sarah Palin in legal bills that became a distraction as the executive administrator of Alaska.

Adams moves on to touch on possible personal options for Palin. There is also a discussion of an actual impact Palin can have on the Conservative movement in America especially in light of the Obamasiah.

JRH 7/15/09

Obama Supports Leftist Prez Regardless of People’s Will

I was watching the Today Show (NBC morning version) this morning (I had to give up cable for awhile) and heard this small piece on Honduras. According the Today Show there was a coup in which the Honduran military in which the Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales was removed from Office and expelled to Costa Rica in his PJs.

The image I received from the Today Show was that another Latin American Banana Republic went from democracy to dictatorship. There was an implied condemnation from the White House to shore up this image of an unconstitutional government change in Honduras.

I received a press release from Americans for Limited Government (ALG) this morning which tells a different story.

Evidently President Rosales was attempting a Hugo Chavez Leftist President for Life by unconstitutionally changing the constitutionally ordained term limits.

Here are the details from the email:

JRH 6/29/09
*********************
Editorial: In Honduras, Freedom Restored

Email Sent by: Bill Wilson
Contact: Alex Rosenwald
Sent: June 29th, 2009
Americans for Limited Government

The story out of Honduras is that the people of that stalwart little country have now taken it into their own hands to preserve their democracy in the most courageous action since they established their constitutional republic nearly three decades ago. Just as former Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales prepared to seize full power in direct violation of the nation's Constitution, the military leadership – with the backing of the people – removed him from power.

Unfortunately, Barak Obama, after encouraging the Zelaya coup with his complicit silence, has now condemned the people's move to uphold their Constitution and preserve their freedom. And, as expected, the mainstream media has joined Mr. Obama in censuring the restoration of democracy by censoring the full story.

Yet, what actually occurred in Honduras is a case study in the survival of freedom against the most oppressive odds.

Earlier this year, in the face of strong public opposition, Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales declared that he would stage a referendum to have the country's constitutional term limits law overturned, thereby allowing him to remain indefinitely in power. The people of Honduras had adopted the single, four-year--term limit as part of their Constitution in January of 1982. Significantly, the term limits provision is one of only eight "firm articles," out of 375. By law, cannot be amended.

The Supreme Court of Honduras declared the Zelaya referendum unconstitutional, his own Liberal Party came out in strong opposition, and the public overwhelmingly opposed his power grab. Despite this, Zelaya, a leftwing politician with strong ties to Cuba's Castro and Venezuela's Chavez, scheduled the referendum for Sunday, June 28. At midnight, Wednesday, June 24, the strong-arm president gave a televised speech accusing his opposition of promoting "destabilization and chaos" by attempting to thwart his unconstitutional referendum.

As the situation in Honduras continued to deteriorate, the Zelaya's attorney general called for his ouster; his Defense Minister resigned; he fired the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for stating that he would refuse to send out troops to put down public protests; the chiefs of the army, navy, and air force resigned; and the country's Supreme Court ordered the nation's army and police not to support the unconstitutional referendum.

Through all of this, Barack Obama abetted the Zelaya power grab through his calculated silence. Yet, the brave people of Honduras – enduring almost unfathomable duress – stood firm in support of their Constitution and the term limits embodied in it.

Now that the will of the people has triumphed over tragedy, we believe the time has come for Mr. Obama to concede the defeat of his partner and policy, and for the U.S. media to support those who, putting principle above personal safety, have let freedom ring. At ALG news, we applaud the Freedom Fighters of neighboring Honduras, even if Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will not.

Ellie Defends the Left and Homosexuality

Below are a couple of comments left by Ellie (of Vox social network) concerning one of my many cross posts: “The Immorality of Homosexuality.”

Thank you for the link, I will have a look.

With all due respect, the parades are not proof of anything. It makes me sad (and a bit crazy, to be honest with you) that we liberals and secularists are painted as perverts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I, like many liberals, am pro-military, and pro-authority.

It makes me sick to see thongs in public. I don't want to see people's private parts - whether someone's gay or straight. But gays don't have a monopoly on perversion - not at all. It's the bad stereotype of gay parades that makes all sorts feel free to act like they're porn stars. My gay friends hate it even more than I do. They are perfectly proper citizens.

I'm not touching the Bible - I have no interest in reinterpreting it. I respect other's wishes, I just wish you guys would speak to us liberals before you judge us.
…

Way2K, are you kidding me? Craigslist? That is not a scientifc study.

The article says, "One study says this...and one study says that....". They are not mentioning what studies they refer to. That must be convenient to say the study is out there in the ether but to not actually reference which study it is.

Here is an example of a scientific study:

A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men

And to explain why such published studies are important references, here is my favorite scientist discussing evolution vs creationism.

Thank you for listening to me rant, I can't think of a better thing than for our polarized citizens to talk to one another.

So because a person finds some statistics and posts them to a Craig's List link, the statistics are invalid? Hmm...

Besides it was only a cursory Google search that I found this link. I did not realize you were going to use the statistics as a scientific reference. Probably Googling those statistics will lead to the origination.

I do appreciate genial dialogue as opposed to the epithets that I receive for my stand with Christian morality.

Incidentally, contrary to probably most of my fellow Conservatives (and probably a significant portion of my fellow Christian Right brethren) I am not closed minded about many Slanted Left concepts. However, I do filter everything through the Bible as it is viewed via Charismatic, Pentecostal and Word of Faith views. I am also aware that many Christians both toward the Left (i.e. more relativist than Biblical) and toward the Right (intolerant Protestant traditional view points often equated with fundamentalism) would consider me archaic (Left) or heretical (Right). Nonetheless, the Bible is everything for me.

In saying that I have to say there is a good argument for both Socialism and Capitalism in the New Testament:

• Socialism – Acts 2:40-47.

• Capitalism – Matthew 13:44-52; 25:14-29.

I personally could find more of the Scripture supporting Capitalism than Socialism but the point is both concepts are in the New Testament. I also realize that theologians would not view these Scriptures in economic terms; rather the Biblical scholar or student would find the spiritual Truth that is the direct meaning. Nonetheless, the spiritual Truth may be the point; however the principle can be surmised.

There is evil in Socialism. When all the altruistic good of the collective is looked at through who decides what is the greater good for the collective, then abuse begins to occur. Hence Socialism too often leads to godless authoritarian Communism in which the one human (or ruling human group) decides the good for the many.

There is evil in Capitalism. When the individual (or the influential group of wealth) places greedy gain to the detriment of the mass of individuals then people are exploited for the benefit of a few.

The key for either the Socialist Left or the Capitalist Right to be beneficial for humanity is the Golden Rule: Do to others as you would have them do to you. Or love humanity as God loved humanity enough to give His one and only Son, that all humanity may have the God-Kind (Zoe) life. I am ashamed to say too many Christians fall short of the Christian ideal which does include me. I do have a tendency to get steamed over social issues like homosexuality and abortion because they definitely are not in line with the Bible. I become so steamed that I sometimes fall into the ditch of harshness.

So Ellie the biggest problem I have with the Left and alternate lifestyles is the anti-Biblical Christian path they tend to take.

Ellie now I will try the “scientific” data to which you refer.

The link to the research of Dr. Simon LeVay is fascinating stuff. LeVay’s hypothalamic studies have led to the speculation of a “gay gene.” LeVay’s thinking seems to be if there is a “gay gene” than the lifestyle of homosexuality is a normal biological part of human life.

It is the old “genetics versus environment” argument with those believing homosexuality developing due to one’s social environment is a learned lifestyle and thus reversible and not normal.

As you can expect the “science” that is in the tank to validate homosexuality has been initially excited about LeVay’s research. And those scientists (although a minority) who are Christian or social traditionalists seem to be big on proving the environmental hypothesis.

When it has looked like LeVay and/or other like minded scientists was very close to identifying a “gay gene” the social traditionalists are quick to point out it has not been proven. (SA this narth.com article) Then someone woke up among the homosexual activists. If homosexual friendly LeVay indeed discovers a “gay gene” proving biology over environment, then heterosexual parents might take advantage with a little genetic social engineering to remove any possibility of a “gay gene” to exist via abortion or other methods. This would effectively bring the modern termination of homosexuals as their so-called genetic brethren (and sistren) would slowly decrease.

Of course the American Psychiatric Association admits there is no “gay gene”. Many on the Right believe this APA reversal was due to regain a better reputation of objectivity. I believe the APA reversal was due to the headaches that genetic engineering would cause for the homosexual community.

Let me end by saying that I do appreciate dialogue without profanity. My experience is that my intransient stand with the Bible irritates the Slanted Left, homosexual activists, the pro-choice crowd and other such ideologies. That is okay as long as the Left understands that their views are often offensive to me. But hey, we all live in America. We all have Constitutional Rights of Free Speech as long as it does not cause immediate harm (e.g. falsely yelling fire in crowded area).

Thanks for your time Ellie.