Federalist Press | Defending Liberty — Informing America

Breaking News and Political Commentary

Susan Rice Drops Out of Running for Secretary of State

By Leave a Comment

Embattled U.N. ambassador Susan Rice is dropping out of the running to be the next secretary of state after months of criticism over her repeated misrepresentations about events that led to the deaths of the U.S. Ambassador and others in Benghazi.

“Today, I made the decision that it was the best thing for our country, for the American people that I not continue to be considered by the president for nomination of secretary of state,” Rice said.

Rice has been under intense fire for mischaracterizing the 9/11 assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, as a spur-of-the-moment response to an anti-Muslim film. “What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video,” Rice had said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and a number of other news programs five days after the attack.

“Opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya, and it escalated into a much more violent episode,” she told the American people in the name of the Administration, while she and other authorities were well award that the opposite was true–that the attacks were carried out by Muslim extremist terrorists.

Ambassador Rice will be grilled by congressional committees attempting to get at the truth of the terrorist attack and subsequent coverup over the next several days.

PIBLIUS

Should GOP Rethink Abortion Policy?

By Leave a Comment

Following one of the worst performances for an American president in this nation’s history, Americans awarded Barack Obama a second term. What was the pitch from the far left that got him re-elected following four years of economic upheaval and government socialization of the medical industry?

The winning formula was 1) convincing voters that an honest business genius who had turned around the failing Olympics and the State of Massachusetts in short terms and had served his fellow humans all his life without fanfare or recognition was a greedy and uncaring monster to be avoided at all costs; 2) that the government should be the only source of one’s hope for prosperity and happiness; and 3) that government supplied birth-control and abortion-on-demand are the only rights worth preserving.

There has been much armchair quarterbacking post-election, and we hear of many in the GOP wringing their hands as they contemplate a strategy to again gain the White House and Senate. Proposals such as caving in on tax increases, ala George “Read My Lips” Bush are bandied about. Or winning strategies like “go along to get along” are being trumpeted by the party’s old guard.

The Federalist Press suggests that the GOP consider adopting a democratic party long-term strategy. Indeed, democrats have exercised control of American government for much of the past 100 years by long-term planning—which became necessary following the beating they took in the Civil War and post-war reconstruction, as republicans freed the slaves and passed and enforced the civil rights amendments.

Democrats have had 4 simple strategies for reacquiring power. 1) Class warfare, promulgated by taxing citizens at different rates—taking from some and giving to others. 2) Spending escalation, making the government the provider of goodies. 3) Create dependent underclass by impoverishing minorities and opening borders, making over ½ of voters dependent on government handouts. 4) Re-educating population through leftist takeover of media and education systems, to believe that socialism is the fairest system of government.

It’s that simple. So, can the GOP learn anything from the left?  Perhaps, but these tactics are naturally repugnant to those who espouse personal liberty, so it is doubtful.

What is in the abortion issue that could help the GOP, if as polls indicate, it is minorities who are voting in extremely high percentages for Democrats? Let’s revisit the founding of the birth control and abortion movement, and see what is behind it.

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, and like-minded racists, like Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf and Lothrop Stoddard, a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Margaret Sanger was an ardent proponent of sterilizing those she considered “unfit,” which would be the “salvation of American civilization.” Who was unfit? Those of African descent.

Margaret Sanger and her followers were the regents of Western Eugenics, the practice of improving the human gene pool by eliminating undesirable DNA. She and her associates admired the Aryan dreams of the Nationalist Socialists (Nazis) in Germany, and like their counterparts, thought that exterminating lower life forms (Jews, Blacks) was a service to God and country. For those who might doubt that the founder of Planned Parenthood held these beliefs, please refer to some of her many articles and speeches on the subject such as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925), “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), and many others.

Indeed, as a direct result of the Sanger movement, even today, American black children suffer death by the millions at the hands of abortionists. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America, with 78% of their clinics in minority communities. Although blacks make up only 12% of the population, 35% of all the abortions in America are black babies.

So when it comes to the political parties’ struggle for dominance in America, where should the parties come down on the abortion issue? With Democrats clamoring for dependent minority voters, they should be the ones who immediately outlaw the practice of murdering minority babies.  They would have at least 13,000,000 more black voters on the rolls if they had not killed them all.

Where does that leave the GOP on the abortion issue? Should they embrace the practice of killing minority babies to purify the voting gene pool?

That’s right America. This is who we’ve become. Embrace the left.

PUBLIUS

Undecided? Watch This to See Your Real Choice

By Leave a Comment

There are still a few people who claim to be undecided about today’s elections. Do they want to continue to support Barack Obama, or has our country reached a point where we must make a change of leadership . .  from the top down?

This is a video documenting the development of Obama’s policies, and how he made certain representations to the public while making different promises to special interests, and made political decisions different than he promised.

Watch this video, then share it with your friends and associates.

Obama, in his own words:

PUBLIUS

‘Islamization’ of Paris – a Warning to the West

By Leave a Comment

Friday in Paris. A hidden camera shows streets blocked by huge crowds of Muslim worshippers and enforced by a private security force.

This is all illegal in France: the public worship, the blocked streets, and the private security. But the police have been ordered not to intervene.

It shows that even though some in the French government want to get tough with Muslims and ban the burqa, other parts of the French government continue to give Islam a privileged status.

An ordinary French citizen who has been watching the Islamization of Paris decided that the world needed to see what was happening to his city. He used a hidden camera to start posting videos on YouTube. His life has been threatened and so he uses the alias of “Maxime Lepante. ”

Lepante’s View

His camera shows that Muslims “are blocking the streets with barriers. They are praying on the ground. And the inhabitants of this district cannot leave their homes, nor go into their homes during those prayers.”

“The Muslims taking over those streets do not have any authorization. They do not go to the police headquarters, so it’s completely illegal,” he says.

The Muslims in the street have been granted unofficial rights that no Christian group is likely to get under France’s Laicite’, or secularism law.

“It says people have the right to share any belief they want, any religion,” Lepante explained. “But they have to practice at home or in the mosque, synagogues, churches and so on.”

Some say Muslims must pray in the street because they need a larger mosque. But Lepante has observed cars coming from other parts of Paris, and he believes it is a weekly display of growing Muslim power.

“They are coming there to show that they can take over some French streets to show that they can conquer a part of the French territory,” he said.

France’s Islamic Future?

If France faces an Islamic future, a Russian author has already written about it. The novel is called “The Mosque of Notre Dame, 2048,” a bestseller in Russia, not in France.

French publisher Jean Robin said the French media ignored the book because it was politically incorrect.

“Islam is seen as the religion of the poor people, so you can’t say to the poor people, ‘You’re wrong,’ otherwise, you’re a fascist,” Robin explained.

The book lays out a dark future when France has become a Muslim nation, and the famous cathedral has been turned into a mosque.

Whether that plot is farfetched depends on whom you ask. Muslims are said to be no more than 10 percent of the French population, although no one knows for sure because French law prohibits population counts by religion.

But the Muslim birthrate is significantly higher than for the native French. Some Muslim men practice polygamy, with each extra wife having children and collecting a welfare check.

“The problem of Islam is more than a problem of numbers,” said French philosopher Radu Stoenescu, an Islamic expert who debates Muslim leaders on French TV. “The problem is one of principles. It’s an open question. Is Islam an ideology or just a creed?”

“It doesn’t matter how many there are,” he aded. “The problem is the people who follow Islam; they’re somehow in a political party, which has a political agenda, which means basically implementing Sharia and building an Islamic state.”

In Denial or Fed Up

From the 1980s until recently, criticizing or opposing Islam was considered a social taboo, and so the government and media effectively helped Islam spread throughout France.

“We were expecting Islam to adapt to France and it is France adapting to Islam,” Robin said.

About the burqa controversy, one French Muslim man told a reporter that Europeans should respect Muslim dress. One Parisian woman wearing a headscarf said “the veil is in the Koran” and “we only submit to God and nobody else.”

But even if many government elites are in France are in denial over Islam, the people in the streets increasingly are not. Some have become fed up with what they see as the growing Islamization of France.

They’ve started staging pork and wine “aperitifs,” or cocktail parties in the street. They’re patriotic demonstrations meant to strike back against Islam.  Another national demonstration is planned for Saturday, Sept. 4.

A Warning to the West

The French parliament debated the burqa law in this year. Jean-Francois Cope, president of the Union for a Popular Movement political party, has a warning for the West and for America.

“We cannot accept the development of such practice because it’s not compatible with the life in a modern society, you see,” he said. “And this question is not only a French question. You will all have to face this challenge. ”

For more insight on the slide toward a post-Christian Western society, check out Dale Hurd’s blog Hurd on the Web. 

For more insight on ‘Islamization’ around the world, check out Stakelbeck on Terror.

Reprinted from CBN.com

By Dale Hurd, CBN News Sr. Reporter

DNC Platform – More Taxes, Abortions and Sodomy

By 3 Comments

As the Democratic party faithful gather together in Charlotte, NC, to launch their final appeal for votes in the November general election, their new platform has been shaped to maximize support from the fringes of American society.

Indeed, the Rainbow Coalition that has become the Democrats’ base has wandered ever farther from the center-right mainstream of America.

In an all-out class warfare charge up the final hill of this election cycle the Democrats have focused their efforts on diverting voters’ attention away from President Obama’s abysmal record, especially on the economy.

Indeed, democrats have been pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into attack ads attempting to refocus the issues on the GOP challenger’s record, re-written by the Democrats to make Governor Mitt Romney seem like a blood-thirsty capitalist who cares nothing about the average person or women, instead of the successful, hard-working, kind and generous man that thousands who know him personally have testified.

Rather than admitting that their leadership has plunged the nation into the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression, and condemned 23,000,000 Americans to the permanent unemployment roles (most of whom are women, many of whom have descended into poverty) or burger flipping jobs, Obama and his surrogates tell us that all is well, that his policies are working, and that the private sector is doing just fine–although we do need to increase government jobs.

Indeed, rather than propose anything that might put American’s back to work, the Democratic party is offering us higher taxes on job creators, which would gut their ability to create jobs, and the revenue from which would run the government for just 9 days.

They additionally assume that most American’s feel that taxpayer funded birth control and abortions are paramount, and that we need to immediately expand programs that pay for them.

And last, homosexual marriage is being proffered like candy at Halloween. That’s just what working American families need and are clamoring for–government sanctioned sodomy, and just like traditional marriages to be endowed with all of the benefits that are offered to loving couples who enter into a lifetime covenant of fidelity and mutual care, and who take upon themselves the responsibility of rearing children to promulgate society.

The election decision between the traditionally centrist platform of the GOP and the extreme left proposals of the Democrats has never been so clear. This election will truly determine whether America rediscovers its greatness, or continues its slide down that slimy hill into the abyss of every other society that has corrupted itself into oblivion.

PUBLIUS

 

Liberal Terrorist Attack In DC

By 2 Comments

America gets a good look at the face of tolerance. Yesterday a heavily armed liberal terrorist associated with the LGBT movement made his way into the headquarters of the pro-family, pro-life organization, Family Research Council (FRC), and opened fire when challenged by unarmed building operations manager, Leo Johnson.

Floyd Lee Corkins, a 28 year old volunteer affiliated with The DC Center for the LGBT Community, reportedly exclaimed, “I don’t like your politics,” before pulling his semi-automatic weapon from his backpack and shooting Johnson. Although Johnson was hit in the arm, he still attacked the terrorist and wrestled him to the ground and disarmed him before Corkins could gain access to the areas where dozens of FRC employees and volunteers worked. Corkins cried at that point, “Don’t shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for.”

Corkins’ backpack contained 50 rounds of ammunition and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches, accessories that Corkins apparently felt were appropriate to a terrorist attack on innocent, unarmed family people.

Leo Johnson is a hero for disarming the terrorist before he could carry out his mandate, force-feeding bullets and Chick-fil-A sandwiches to those who have the audacity to speak up for traditional morals and pro-family matters in America. Liberal groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center had recently dubbed the Family Research Council a “hate group,” which leftists call anyone who disagrees with their radical views.

Mainstream news outlets are doing their best to bury the story that one of their own has launched a terrorist attack on a peaceful, family centered organization just blocks from the White House.  He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named has similarly had precious little to say about the attack. The FBI has officially indicated the attack a terrorist hate crime.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is the only candidate to express appropriate concern:”There is no place for such violence in our society. My prayers go out to the wounded security guard and his family, as well as all the people at the Family Research Council whose sense of security has been shattered by today’s horrific events.”

America will be watching to see if this attack, like many others that have been tolerated by the liberal mainstream media and those who currently but temporarily run our national government, will go unreported and undenounced.

PUBLIUS

Harry Reid Releases Romney Taxes

By 5 Comments

After making shocking but unsubstantiated claims recently that Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney has failed to pay taxes for 10 years, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released secretly obtained copies of Mitt Romney’s tax returns today according to an unnamed source, proving that Romney has paid no taxes for at least one of those recent tax years.

Upon close inspection of the tax returns the White House authorities who authenticated the birth certificate of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named have similarly attested to the authenticity of the Romney tax returns.

The most disturbing information discovered in the tax returns is that Presidential hopeful Romney made over $23 million and paid absolutely no income taxes.

The Senate Majority Leader made his stunning public announcement from a makeshift podium set up at the Disney World Dumbo ride, according to an unnamed source. Aids passed out copies of the 2009 Romney tax returns as Reid put on his Mickey Mouse ears and boarded the ride.

PUBLIUS ;)

Feds Retaliate Against Romney Supporters

By 3 Comments

Frank VanderSloot is a good man, personally known to the Federalist Press editors in a non-political context for over 30 years.

The hardworking Idaho businessman was recently targeted by the re-elect Obama campaign for giving $1 million to “Restore Our Future” to support Mitt Romney, and his personal information was posted on leftist websites. As a result of being singled out by the administration for his poor taste in presidential candidates Mr. VanderSloot has been harassed, investigated, maligned and threatened by thugs on the left, all in an effort to convince other potential financial supporters that the price of backing Mitt Romney will always include personal destruction.

Mr. VanderSloot’s story was publicized in the press and he blew the whistle on the Obama campaign’s dirty tactics by telling what Obama supporters had been doing to defame him.

Now, in an abuse of power of Orwellian proportions the administration has personally gone after Mr. VanderSloot, serving him with an audit notice from the IRS. Two weeks after receiving the IRS notice, VanderSloot was served notice that the Labor Department would be auditing records related to “foreign employees” working on his Idaho Falls cattle ranch. Suddenly, the Obama Administration is interested in illegal aliens working in the U.S.

Mr. VanderSloot is a longtime supporter of state and national republican campaigns, and serves on the Romney campaign as a co-chairman.

The Obama campaign has not returned press inquiries about their assault on Mr. VanderSloot, and nor have the IRS or Labor Department.
The documents requested by the IRS have been turned over to his accountant, VanderSloot said, and the Labor Department audit is just getting started, but he will fully comply and expects no problems.

Stand firm Frank, Americans support you, and you will be vindicated in November. We have seen this before, and tyrants and despots are eventually overthrown, one way or another.

PUBLIUS

Congressman Nugent On SCOTUS Obamacare Ruling

By Leave a Comment

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling on the President’s healthcare law a few weeks ago, a lot of people on both sides of the issue have asked about my reaction to it. It probably goes without saying at this point that I think the law was an enormous mistake from a policy standpoint – $800 billion in new taxes ($675 billion in the most recent estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation plus roughly another $125 billion in taxes from their 2010 estimates of the individual mandate, employer mandate, and other revenues – likely to go up further), plus $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, zero done to control the growing costs in healthcare, etc – but setting aside the specific issue of health reform, my biggest concerns surround the ruling itself and the precedent it sets. These are issues that frankly, I think the media has a responsibility to make sure Americans are informed about.

Here is the short version. The Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance could not be allowed under Congress’ constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. The Court said very plainly that the federal government does not have the authority to require you to buy something and penalize you for failing to do it.

But in the same breath, citing Congress’ authority to levy taxes, the Court said that although the federal government can’t force you to buy health insurance, they can compel you to buy it by taxing you if you don’t. In a nutshell, the government can’t fine you for not buying something, but they can hit you with a tax penalty if you don’t… I frankly don’t see a meaningful difference between the two.

Think about it this way: the federal government has long been able to encourage certain behavior through the tax code (think about the mortgage interest tax deduction), but it has never been able to compel you to go out and buy a house by threatening to hit you with a tax penalty if you didn’t. That is a huge difference. On page 39 of his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts used the example of energy efficient windows. He suggested that although the federal government couldn’t require you to buy energy efficient windows, it could essentially force you to do so by levying a tax on you if you don’t.

I don’t think anybody out there disputes the benefits of having health insurance or lowering your electricity bill, but in the United States of America, those decisions have always been up to the people – not up to the federal government. And regardless of how you feel about the healthcare law, I think this is something that all Americans should consider very carefully. Should Congress have the power to force American citizens into buying things that they don’t want? Should the federal government be able to force you to buy a certain car, or windows, or insurance, or anything else that the Congress thinks you should have? Is that a power that We The People want to surrender?

I don’t believe it is. But that’s what the Supreme Court has done here. Regardless of whether or not the President’s healthcare law is repealed, the precedent has been set. The government now has the legal authority to force you to buy things. That wasn’t the case before the ruling and it is not something that is easily undone. Following on the heels of our Independence Day, when all Americans gather together to celebrate our freedom and the sacrifices of those who made it possible, this is an issue that I think we should all consider very carefully. Are we less free as a people in the wake of this ruling and is that something we should be comfortable with?

You know where I stand.

Congressman Richard B. Nugent

Adult Stem Cell Miracle

By 2 Comments

Few appear to understand that stem cells that cure an array of illnesses and conditions have already been discovered, and are being utilized in clinics around the world to heal thousands of patients. The stories that are reported on network news and in other mainstream media outlets about “scientists” working on the development of stem cells are essentially propaganda of Pharmaceutical giants and the political left to hide the truth that “adult” stem cells are here and working.

In our article of May 16, 2012 titled The Stem Cell War is Over, we outlined the political resistance by the current Administration to allow this miraculous new treatment in the U.S., based on the left’s support of embryonic stem cells–a technology that is doomed to fail.

In fact, treatment with “adult” stem cells to replace diseased tissues and dead or dying cells is here. Adult stem cells is a term that is a little confusing, because any stem cell that does not come from a fetus is “adult.” Nonetheless, these stem cells are being used to treat thousands of patients suffering from many diseases and conditions, such as arteriosclerosis, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, autism, muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy and spinal cord injury, to name only a few, are leaving clinics in Panama, Costa Rica and China healthy and often completely cured.

The treatment technology is based on a discovery made in 2003 that isolated adult stem cells. These cells are located in one’s own body fat, where they have been stored in dormancy since the cells were new, or in umbilical cord blood, which until recently has been routinely disposed of as medical waste.

To clarify, stem cells that actually heal are non-embryonic, or “adult” stem cells. The stem cells that we often hear about in mainstream media news reports are embryonic stem cells–cells removed from aborted fetuses and put through an exhaustive and expensive series of modifications to make them suitable for transplanting. These cells are tumorous by nature, and often become cancerous in the recipient’s body, which is why the technology is a massive failure.

The Adult stem cells we are discussing are completely natural, and can be transferred from one patient to another without risk of rejection. The adult stem cells are simply injected into the recipient through an I.V., and they automatically “home” their way to the sick or injured area, and replace the dead or sickly cells. When the bad cells have been replaced, the illness or injury is repaired–permanently, in most cases.

In his new book Cells That Heal Us From Cradle To Grave: A Quantum Leap in Medical Science, Dr. Roger Nocera reveals that this medical science discovery has been developing in medical clinics around the world and proven to be effective in the treatment of many heretofore incurable diseases. Cells That Heal Us From Cradle To Grave explains how this medical science discovery is on a par with Immunology discovered two centuries ago with the smallpox vaccine, and with the discovery of antibiotics a century later. These non-embryonic stem cells have proven to be the answer to many medical problems and will become the solution to our health care cost crisis if the FDA will lift its ban on adult stem cell treatments. Dr. Nocera’s book is a primer on how this amazing new medical technology will transform our current medical health care and pharmaceutical research systems.

Although Americans spend 18% of our GDP on health care, over twice that of most Western countries, we are ranked 72nd in overall health of our citizens by the World Health Organization. As this Healing Cell Quantum Leap in Medical Science becomes widely available Dr. Nocera predicts that the ever rising costs of medical care in this country will diminish significantly and treatments will often actually cure the underlying diseases rather than merely mask the symptoms.

Fox News has recently been running stories about aspects of the new technology, although its full importance and potential ramifications for long term health care costs and prognoses in the U.S. and around the world have not yet been fully examined in those reports.

PUBLIUS

VIDEO: Doctor dying of heart disease is cured with stem cell treatment>

VIDEO: Fox News story and video: Cord Blood Being Used to Save Lives>

VIDEO: Fox News story: Cord Blood Miracle>

 

Benedict Roberts and Stare Decisis

By Leave a Comment

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts exploded from the closet last week, revealing himself for the undercover leftist that he is, forever propelling the US into an Orwellian nightmare of government control and loss of personal liberty.

As the White House braced for a Supreme Court ruling on its Health Care legislation, which is not only extremely unpopular among voters, but had been telegraphed as facially unconstitutional by a majority of the Court in oral arguments, only a few die-hard socialists believed the act would be upheld upon judicial review by the Court. White House spokesman Jay Carney was already carrying out the left’s Talking Points Memo agenda of trying to saddle the GOP with the idea of the unconstitutional mandate, which forced Americans to buy a government mandated commodity, or suffer a penalty for disobedience.

The usual luke-warm judicial slug on the Court, Justice Kennedy, was thought to be the only conservative-leaning justice with the poor judgment to actually consider such an expansion of government power. He had made it clear during oral arguments, however, that even he was opposed to such an exponentially compounded expansion of government intrusion into the lives of American citizens. As the ruling came down, all of us, left and right, were shocked that Chief Justice John Roberts had actually made himself the swing vote to uphold the draconian law, shifting heretofore unconstitutional powers to the federal government.

Since that fateful day last week we have heard members of the left and their media propaganda outlets spiking the ball in celebration. We have simultaneously heard those on the right analyzing Justice Roberts’ written majority opinion, incredulous, sifting for some scintilla of logic or constitutional authority to make some sort of sense of it all. Perhaps the dear boy was telegraphing a method of ensuring Obama’s defeat in November, we have heard.

In fact, no such response for the ruling is possible. What many pundits fail to understand is the concept of stare decisis. This is the principle that once the Court has decided a constitutional principle, it remains decided–forever!

Indeed, the law of the land will always be that the federal government has no restrictions on what it can force the American people and the states to do, as long as it can be imposed under the taxing authority. The implications of this contorted theory of constitutional law cannot be overstated. The long-term ramifications of this unmitigated power shift are incomprehensible, and WILL become a source of unspeakable sorrow for this people in years and decades to come.

The Constitution written by our Founding Fathers is no more. The Tenth Amendment is dead.

Now, we are at the fork in the road.  We either follow Obama and his socialists down the path they offer, or we turn them out of office, forever, and put those into office who value the personal liberty we obtained and fought to maintain in every war since the Revolution.

Perhaps the time has inexorably arrived that we must re-invoke the wisdom of one of those Founders:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson

Born This Way?

By Leave a Comment

On June 10, we reprinted an article from The Weed that we titled Gay Confession – Loving The Straight Life, in which a happily married father of three explains that in spite of his same sex attraction, he chooses to live a normal life, and finds it entirely satisfying . . . emotionally, spiritually and sexually.

The article is very revealing, and should be used as a primer for every person and organization that reaches out to people with same sex attraction.

The left has adopted gay people as one of their rainbow coalition special interest groups, and everyone from the president to Hollywood types to screaming Occupy anarchists agree that there is only one possible life path for someone who has a natural same sex attraction—engage sexually with those of the same sex.

The editors of the Federalist Press were inundated with a barrage of ugly comments for reprinting the article, most of which merely claimed that the article was a hoax, but many of which claimed that some sort of coercion was brought to bear or that the editors are actually closeted gays with more empathy than sympathy for those who bear this burden.

America’s brainwashing on the subject of homosexuality is complete. The subject has been so shoved down our throats (what can we say?) and the orthodoxy of the lifestyle so thoroughly ingrained in our collected psyche that anyone who dares step out of line and asks a question is immediately shouted down with mean-spirited epithets—a common practice of the pro-free-speech left.

Let us pose a thought . . . one that has not been dictated by the government or disseminated by its media outlets . . . that perhaps those who have natural inclinations toward same sex attraction don’t need to pursue those inclinations. Oh, what hell there will be to pay for such a concept in such modern and tolerant times . . . but just hear me out.

We have many behaviors, which, even in our decaying society, are still considered to be abhorrent. For instance, there are the pedophiles. These are people who have a natural sexual attraction to children. Do we as a society say to them, “Well, because your sexual attraction to children is natural, then go right ahead and have them sexually at your leisure”? In fact, we don’t.

One might say, we don’t allow that because it is wrong to impose an adult’s will over a child’s will, especially in such a critical area (notwithstanding the millions of children who lose out to adults’ “choice” every year and end up getting flushed in a medical waste bag). If that is true, then what about those who have a natural sexual attraction to animals? Yes, bestiality is quite alive and thriving in many quarters. Do we say to those who are different than ourselves in their sexual desires, “No, you may not satisfy your sexual lusts with critters around the yard?” In fact, we do. There are very few places where one can freely engage in sexual activity with animals.

In fact, a viable society puts many restrictions on the sexual behaviors of its members, notwithstanding the many and varied natural inclinations of those members to the contrary. Is this wrong? Perhaps we need to rethink the entire proposition. Perhaps we should follow our heroic president (yes, he had the courage to come out of the closet for gays and collect $ millions from Hollywood, and he gunned down Bin Laden at great personal risk) and broaden the scope of marriage to all of those whose tastes for sex differ from the norm. Marriage between men and boys is at the top of the list for NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) members, and marriage between people and farm animals and house pets would suit thousands.

Yes, rethinking our entire underlying moral and social philosophy is something that an enlightened society like ours must do if we are to follow our president and his social engineers on the left. In fact, all great societies have done so . . . just before collapsing, as we are doing now.

The editors laud all of those who seek to live healthy, fulfilling lives, despite any burden that they may be called upon to bear. Life is not easy, for any of us. We all bear secret burdens that those around us know little or nothing of. An overwhelming desire to bed a favorite movie star? Must society encourage that sexual inclination? Or perhaps an insatiable appetite for Big Gulps, or Big Macs. Of course, the government is there to save us from ourselves when it comes to those choices.

If we were to all follow the 1960s chant of the left, “If it feels good, do it,” we would have already disintegrated into a drug-riddled, immoral, godless, self-absorbed, child-aborting, socialistic . . . oh. Perhaps the president is correct . . . marry anyone or anything, and never go against your natural inclinations. Rising above your natural circumstances and proclivities and becoming a better person is old fashioned.

PUBLIUS

Obama vs. Catholic Church

By 1 Comment

President Barack Hussein Obama’s open war on Christianity was officially launched less than three months into his presidency on April 15, 2009, when he insisted that the gold “IHS” monograms for the name of Christ be covered up with black painted plywood in Gaston Hall at the Catholic church’s Georgetown University, where he delivered a speech on economics. Didn’t that very thing happen in “Damien: Omen II”?

Of course, Barack Obama has always been hostile toward Christianity, and Christian principles, championing anti-Christian causes like gay marriage (although he flipped against it for a few years to get elected, then recently flipped back to rally his base), abortion (which has eliminated tens of millions of American blacks from our population), the poverty and servitude of debt and the government dole, and general principles of immorality (yes, Christianity teaches virtue and honesty). Although he claims to be Christian, when it serves him, his professed brand of “Christianity” is a Black Liberation Theology, which has its roots in Marxism–an anti-Christian philosophy.

Then there was the contrived “war on women” that Obama declared was extant in the conservative camp. Of course, “pro-woman” according to the left necessarily means anti-baby (kill them where they live), anti-child, anti-marriage, anti-family, and anti-virtue (a characteristic becoming of both sexes, but a 4-letter-word to the left). Stay at home mothers “haven’t worked a day in their lives” according to those in the Obama camp, and are unworthy of inclusion in a serious discussion of what women desire in America. Ms. Fluke was paraded out as the poster child for women who demand that the government provide free contraceptives for their extramarital, recreational sex. If conservatives feel that the open availability of contraceptives is sufficient for women, then that just shows how anti-woman they are, according to the Obama camp, because American taxpayers should be burdened with the costs of extramarital recreational sex for law students and other leftist activists who no longer believe in personal virtue before marriage. If Rush Limbaugh dares enumerate the type of women that flaunt premarital recreational sex, then he is necessarily a bigot. How completely Orwellian.

Most recently, when the Catholic Church declared that it was abhorrent to their religious beliefs and practices to provide birth control to Catholic Church employees, as mandated under Obamacare, the administration told them to sit down and shut the hell up, because Obama decides what the church will do, not God and his word. The church has filed suit against the administration, as have the majority of the states in the union who have received similar abuse by a power-mongering administration run amok.

The president and his anti-Christian cronies have done everything they set out to do, and the constitutionality of their acts will be weighed in the balance by Article III courts. The left has waged war against Christianity for several decades, chipping away at the First Amendment with every prohibition of free exercise.  Now, they are attacking actual establishments of religion, taking on the largest in the country, with over 60 million members. For those on the left who have no idea where the terms “free exercise” and “establishment of religion” come from, let us provide a brief lesson in Constitutional law:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” First Amendment to the Constitution.

POTUS is not the PONTIFF. The federal government has overreached–again–and its time they got their wings clipped. We urge all Catholics, and all other Christians to vote against Obama’s anti-Christian rampage in the upcoming elections.

PUBIUS

Bringing Fairness to Taxes

By 1 Comment

As the propaganda press stirs up the occupying proletariat in our nation, and our streets become filled with couch potatoes demanding their fair share of that which has been earned by others, the insanity and impossibility of the scene serves as ample proof that too much weed indeed dulls the human brain’s ability to reason.

The 99 percent demand that they be supported by the 1 percent. They demand that taxation be applied “fairly.”

Indeed, 47 percent of the country pays no federal income taxes whatsoever, and the top 25 percent of earners pay 87 percent of the total burden. The top 1 percent pay 36% of all federal income taxes, while the top 5 percent pay 58%.

In fact, this distribution scheme is unfair, but it is not those who now bear a significantly higher portion of the burden who should be made to shoulder even more of the load.

There is a story that I heard years ago about the fairness of the distribution of tax burdens that I think will be instructive. It’s precise origin is unknown as far as I know, but I would like to give proper credit if I could find the person who developed it.

Suppose that every day ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Publius

Global Warming, Climate Change, and Big Foot

By Leave a Comment

In the 1970s we were told by the media, university professors, Hollywood stars, and NOAA that the earth was slipping into global cooling, the precursor to an imminent ice age. They assured us that it was our own fault – carbon emissions, etc.

When the data just didn’t add up they changed their minds, and stories, and against all logic and acceptable methods of scientific inquiry began to preach the gospel of Global Warming—a religious-like dogma of the left that required strict acceptance of the proposition, regardless of the lack of evidence.

The press, media, and politicos treated us to an incessant barrage of lectures and finger wagging for several years, insisting that global destruction was imminent, and that we had to immediately cut back on Western industrialization and go entirely green if we wanted to survive. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth became the bible of the left, and every social and political consideration came to be filtered through the lens it created. Gore even proffered a petition signed by thousands of “scientists” (most of whom turned out not to be scientists) bolstering his theory. International treaties intended to hand over American sovereignty to international bodies have been waved in our faces and entire economies have been destroyed by the adoption of “green jobs” policies.

Then came was Climategate, where it was discovered that climate “scientists” and government employees were actively falsifying data to prove that human activity is causing earth’s weather to change substantially. Why the need to falsify data if it’s true? That has become the trillion dollar question.

We who are impartially considering the data have been disparaged and derided by those who have drunk from the chalice of Climate Change dogma. It is interesting that no one ever asks what our opinion is. In fact, there is a current petition in circulation signed by more than 31,000 real scientists, including more than 9,000 with Ph Ds (we know that because they must certify their degrees on the petition), which certifies:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Here is an inconvenient truth for the left. During the early Dark Ages global temperatures were reported to be higher than normal. Then there were the memorable “little ice age” conditions that inundated Europe and North America between 1600 and 1900 with lots of snow and ice. During those centuries witnesses reported that the Thames River in London would freeze so solidly that folks roasted oxen on the ice for months during the winters, and that iceboats could sail down the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. In fact, the famous December 25, 1776 raid on the British in New Jersey was impeded by a Delaware River choked with ice. (Refer to the famous painting)

When is the last time anyone saw the Delaware choked with ice, or the Thames frozen over? It was over 100 years ago that average temperatures rose to the point that those rivers no longer froze in the winter. Is that due to carbon emissions? Anyone who tells you it is, is just falsifying data.

Publius

True Champions of American Blacks

By Leave a Comment

Under the British system, a system where the king could do no wrong, and all subjects were essentially his private property, indentured servitude and slavery were common. It is how many young people escaped the class poverty of Europe, by indenturing themselves until the age of 18, or later, then receiving their freedom. Others were indentured to repay family debt. Many of these became successful free citizens under the system, while many never escaped the bonds of servitude. Europeans had developed quite a system of slave trading before the foundations of America, and under the British Empire slaves were tasked with working the vast agricultural holdings of the colonies, including those in the New World.

Most of the founders were very hostile to the system of servitude, and although they existed within it, they sought to extinguish it. When the founders declared our liberty from Great Britain, they did so with the intent of retaining the new nation’s faith and credit. Huge holdings were offered as guarantee of repayment of war loans, including vast agricultural empires, which included the slaves that worked them. The slavery question was hotly debated in the forming nation, and it is the one failing of the founders that they were unable to win the day against slavery—due mainly to the collateralization of debt issue—but could only “kick the can down the road,” as our current government does daily.

The intent of the founders was to phase out slavery, but agricultural interests in the southern states resisted all attempts. Finally, the Republican Party was formed and at the peril of national civil war, its candidate, Abraham Lincoln, ran on the platform that slavery must finally be abolished. Over a half million Americans lost their lives in the ensuing conflict, but the issue was officially, if not finally settled. In fact, hundreds of Republican whites and blacks were murdered in the South even after the Civil War, during “Reconstruction.”

Republicans in the 1950s and 1960s attempted to enforce voting and civil rights to the descendants of African slaves emancipated during the Civil War, but they were blocked by the Democrats and Southern state “Dixiecrats,” who blocked passage while they blocked black students from entering Southern universities. Who were these Democrats who filibustered and voted against civil rights and voting rights for blacks? John F. Kennedy, Al Gore, Sr., Lyndon B. Johnson, George Wallace, and Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, otherwise known as the Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan, to name a few.

It was when “progressives” adopted the charlatan policy that they “adopted” African Americans and other “minorities” as their charges. In the name of the oppressed, the disenfranchised and the downtrodden, most of whom were that way because of the old prejudices of the Southern Democrats or have become that way through the taxation and confiscatory policies of the expanded left leaning US government, “progressives” have created a fatherless and helpless nation of minorities in America. Once all left leaning politicians received the Memo that all things were possible in the name of the downtrodden, those very politicians who had so vehemently opposed voting and civil rights for American minorities suddenly became their “champions.”

The Republican voting and civil rights bills were immediately redubbed Democratic legislation, and were passed, with several new powers being given to the federal government in the deal.  The “Great Society” was born and American blacks instantly went from struggling to get into the middle class to dropping directly into the abyss.  American minorities are well on their way to becoming completely dependent on government handouts, and feel beholden to politicians who keep them on the public dole.

Does every American liberal or moderate set out with these leftist results as their goal? No. They are fooled by their leadership, who have their own secret agenda, as recently lamented by Bob Beckel, Liberal Commentator:

“We liberals made a terrible mistake, going back 30 years ago.  We made a dependent society because we thought we were doing the right thing.  We had things like public housing, and we had welfare payments, and all that bred dependence.”

African-Americans would do well to return their support to those who have their collective well-being and personal liberty at heart.

Publius

So What’s the Problem with a $16 Trillion Debt?

By Leave a Comment

President Obama and his associates on the left follow the Keynesian theory of economics, the idea that when economies wane, government deficit spending will reignite the flame. To that end the Obama administration has spent trillions of dollars in 3 years, around 40 percent of which has been borrowed, and on which the country is now paying interest.

The national debt stood at $10 trillion when Barack Obama moved into the Oval Office just three short years ago. That nearly incomprehensible amount represented the unbridled deficit spending of generations of left-leaning presidents and congresses—Democratic and Republican.

Today the national debt stands at $15.7 trillion, more than a 50 percent increase in so short a time. If the congress complies with the President’s demands for increased spending, the national debt will exceed $17.5 trillion by next year.

What’s the problem, you ask?

When Americans turn off the alarm clock and hustle off to work, the first $1.2 billion they generate every day must be siphoned off of the economy just to pay the current interest on the national debt. That amount grows each day as additional money is borrowed to run the government, and as unpaid interest on the debt compounds.

The federal budget is up to $4 trillion a year, with multiple stimulus packages filled with crony payoffs and pork barrel spending wasting additional trillions, without any economic return to the American people. The economy is worsening, with real unemployment and underemployment over 15 percent.

Government leaders should have put the country on a fast-track to pay off the national debt 20 years ago . . . and 10 years ago . . . and 4 years ago. Those on the left boisterously proclaim that the only answer is to raise taxes. We challenge the left to demonstrate to the public when raising taxes has ever improved the economy. In fact, it has never happened. It is when taxes are slashed that money is freed up and businesses invest in new jobs, putting people to work and heating up the economy. President Kennedy proved this, as did Ronald Reagan.

Time after time Keynesian economics has failed. So why do our universities still tout it as the model for our own economy? Why are our government leaders drawing all available dollars, current and future, into the abyss of federal spending? How many jobs were created with the shovel ready projects promised by President Obama as he highjacked nearly $900 billion in the first stimulus package?

Debt creates poverty. Ever family knows this. Those who frequent the check cashing-payday loans establishments have learned the hard way that it is a recipe for financial disaster. So when will our government leaders learn the lesson? We recall well as Jimmy Carter addressed the nation and scratched his head in confusion as he explained that he had implemented all of the university approved, liberal orthodox policies, yet the country appeared to be languishing in a “malaise.” These are people that don’t seem to learn from past mistakes. Debt equals poverty. Perhaps this is why Americans are becoming poorer with every passing day.

Publius

The Stem Cell War is Over

By 1 Comment

Those who read George Bush’s Decision Points may have been interested to learn that up until the 9/11 attacks the most important issue facing his administration in his opinion was stem cell policy.

The stem cell problem is rooted in the abortion issue. Liberals support embryonic stem cell research because it bolsters their argument that abortion is socially desirable. President Bush echoed the conservative dilemma as he wrestled with the cost/benefits analysis of stem cell research—at what cost would stem cell benefits come?

President Bush wrote that he labored over the issue, holding out hope that adult stem cells (non-embryonic) would become available and the problems inherent in embryonic stem cells would become irrelevant.

According to Roger Nocera, M.D., that day has arrived. In his book Cells That Heal Us From Cradle To Grave: A Quantum Leap in Medical Science (Amazon ebook), Dr. Nocera reveals that useable adult stem cells were discovered in 2003 and have been used to treat serious diseases in clinics around the world since then.

Although Dr. Nocera is a self-described liberal Democrat who supports Roe v. Wade, and admits in the book that the Democrats have been backing the wrong horse on the stem cell issue, because of their misguided devotion to the abortion issue.

The completely naturally occurring adult stem cell discovered in 2003 has been utilized in treatments in offshore clinics—offshore, because stem cell treatment is currently banned by the FDA. This newly discovered adult stem cell is found stored in our own body fat or is left in umbilical cords and thrown out as bio waste.

Many incurable diseases, conditions and injuries are being cured with simple treatments. One of my favorite cases is a middle-aged doctor who needed a heart transplant and would die within a few more months, and was given a simple I.V. with these Healing Cells, and his heart is now as good as new.

This new technology completely vindicates conservatives, and it WILL LOWER HEALTH CARE costs dramatically . . . by cheaply healing serious conditions that currently drag on for years, requiring expensive drugs and medical care.

Publius

A Failure to Excommunicate

By 6 Comments

It shouldn’t surprise many people that most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly referred to as Mormons, are politically conservative. Indeed, LDS Church members believe that the Constitution of the United States is a divinely inspired document, and that adherence to its original meaning constitutes living according to God’s will. Church members adhere to a strict code of morality, which includes not just matters of sex outside of marriage, but extends to personal areas such as how they dress in public, what they view, and even what they ingest into their bodies.

Much whispering behind the scenes has been accumulating because GOP Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney is not only a high profile Mormon, but a very dedicated member and leader of the church. While Romney endures off-mic rumor and innuendo for his membership in the LDS Church, the arguably second most powerful politician in the nation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, receives not an utterance about his lifelong membership in the same church.

What is the difference between Mitt Romney and Harry Reid? Politically speaking, the two couldn’t be further apart on almost every issue. On religious and moral issues, however, some might suggest they are kindred spirits—not most LDS Church members, but others might.

In fact, much of what Harry Reid espouses in his public life is repugnant to LDS-Christian doctrine. High taxes, exorbitant debt, burdensome governmental intrusion and regulation into the lives of citizens, socialistic schemes, anti-family policies, welfare dependence, the funding of anti-Christian arts, organizations and lifestyles are only the tip of a burgeoning and murky iceberg that is growing exponentially beneath the waters of American society under the leadership of Reid and his hard left associates.

So how does Harry Reid justify his political views and his divergence from the basic tenets of Mormonism? “I don’t believe in abortion,” is his explanation.

That’s it? He doesn’t support abortion in his political life?

I disagree that Harry Reid’s stated opposition to abortion is enough to save him (in a secular or religious way). Like congressmen who attach their pork barrel projects to bills they know will pass without their votes then quietly vote against them so they can claim fiscal responsibility while collecting campaign contributions for success at “bringing home the bacon,” Harry Reid is only fooling himself that he is a good LDS Church member.

There is a reason that most LDS Church members are conservative. It is a question of morality and personal liberty for them. Harry Reid has supported every anti-American, anti-family, anti-decency piece of legislation that has come down the pike. He is responsible for nearly every dollar of the $15.7 trillion debt—and in case he doesn’t understand it, debt robs liberty and creates poverty. Although he personally votes against direct abortion legislation, he supports candidates and elected officials whom he knows will support it—and that’s supporting it.

So what is the real difference between Mitt Romney and Harry Reid regarding their membership in the LDS Church? On the surface, anyway, the difference is that Romney reflects his religious values in his policies while Reid utterly tramples them in his.

For Harry Reid, and all of those who make a pretense of following Judeo-Christian principles while leading our nation, and indeed, the Western world down a path of fiscal and moral destruction, let me share a scripture that you might recognize, and find helpful in your future career.

“I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I would you were cold or hot. So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.” Revelation 3:15-16.

Publius

Obama Comes Out

By Leave a Comment

Pundits scratched their heads at Vice President Joe Biden’s unexpected declaration of support for gay marriage. In the following days speculation grew that the White House was telegraphing a major policy shift announcement. For anyone who was paying attention or who cared to look at the record, President Obama has never been opposed to alternate lifestyle trends, and has specifically been a consistent supporter of gay “rights,” championing the end of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the U.S. military.

In fact, pressure has been building for some time in the President’s base as a result of his reluctance to come out of the closet on the gay marriage issue. On Wednesday, President Obama announced during an ABC television interview, that he now supports gay marriage. Newsweek magazine, which has featured Obama on several of its covers, this week added a rainbow halo, canonizing him with the epithet “THE FIRST GAY PRESIDENT.”

Predictably, within days of making his position clear on the issue the President has received a deluge of campaign contributions from his hard left supporters—who were overtly withholding funding support pending his public announcement. Starting with the $40,000 per plate Hollywood bash hosted by George Clooney, the re-election campaign has garnered a quick $21 million resulting directly from the President’s change of public position on gay marriage.

The President insists that he has not flip-flopped on gay marriage, but has simply “evolved” his views. Regardless of the President’s assertions on his reasons for changing his stance, a CBS/New York Times poll reflects that American voters are ignoring contrived social issues coming out of the White House, and that 62 percent believe that the economy is the pivotal issue in this election—an issue that the President is apparently trying to obscure with a recent flurry of social issues discussions.

While the President is calling on the congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, GOP challenger Mitt Romney has confirmed his agreement with the American people that marriage is between a single man and a single woman. A full 67 percent of Americans believe the President’s revelation on his gay marriage views is politically motivated; a clear attempt to gather support and money. Over 25 percent of those polled say that the President’s announcement has caused them to reconsider their support of his re-election.

Will the President’s obvious pandering to the far left hurt his re-election chances? The CBS/New York Times poll shows Mitt Romney pulling ahead in what has been a close race. Why is the President’s campaign flailing? It could be that Christian African-Americans who are strongly opposed to gay lifestyles and other issues of morality are beginning to reassess their carte blanche endorsement of the man who promised them so much, and has delivered nothing but skyrocketing unemployment in their families and neighborhoods.

Publius

Economy

Elections

Foreign

Crime

Science Tech

Reader Responses