The Lies and Insanity of the Neo-Libs


Both Edwards and Hilary both stated that they would support the troops and would not cut off funding. That is exactly what they both did when they voted no on giving our military money for ammunition. Selfish liars are what they are!!

They would rather surrender, retreat, and bring the fight to America simply for political points. Hilary has no excuse!! How in the world can she say the Bush lied about WMD’s when her own husband attacked Iraq for the exact same reason. This was one of the reasons she herself gave when she voted for the war.

If this doesn’t show her lack of integrity, nothing will. That and her refusal to support the troops after she voted to put them there to begin with. Edwards and Gore are guilty of this as well. Obama has said that he was against the war, but since he is still a rookie senator, nobody really knows for sure where he stood. It is possible that as a muslim who has an early education in extreme muslims schools, that he was against the war, but what side is he on when it comes to the global picture? Is he going to be one of the crazies that wanted to go and “talk” with bin lauden after 9/11 and broker peace with those who attacked us??

I could never vote any of these people in office. I am not a gambler and will not put the safety of my son and the rest of America’s children at risk. They are all such wild cards, you never know what they truly believe or what they will actually do in office.

They are anti-Christian and pro muslim. They are pro aclu and pro UN. Both the aclu and un are corrupt. The one is suing the Government so that NAMBLA (north American man boy love assoc.) can rape more of our kids and the UN’s corruption are well known, I don’t have to belabor the point.

This is the group that is running Vermont and are letting child rapist off with probation or at the most 6 months for raping our children!!

This is the group that taught in a Boulder, Co High School in a required assembly that they should participate in illegal drug activities, homosexual behavior, and unprotected sex. Not only were they told that these things were ok and acceptable, but the children were “encouraged” to participate in such behavior.

Is this really the best the left has to offer? No, I do not believe so. They have got to have at least one level headed candidate that puts the lives of Americans over themselves, we just voted many more into office, there has to be one…………………

Traditional Democrats and Neo-Libs

There is a difference between the two. One is an extreme group of radicals who are wanting to turn our country into a socialist country, the neo-libs, and the other are traditional dems who are wanting the best for our country.

Traditional Democrats

These are the Democrats who have their own convictions and their own heads, the hold on to their traditional values and beliefs.

They are the ones who use a level headed approach and they take in consideration every aspect involved their decisions. These are the 86 who voted for giving the military what they need so that our men and women who are defending our country are not in further danger than they already are.

These are the ones who are reaching across the aisle in order to work together for the good of the entire country. They are willing to compromise and they fight for what is right, not what they are told to fight for.

Neo-Libs

They have rejected all of their traditional values. These are the ones who will do or say anything for political points.

This includes putting our fighting men and women in Iraq and then voting against funding them. Do they really care so little about the lives of our servicemen and women that they will have many more of them killed because they did not have the ammunition to protect themselves? Does their political career mean more to them than the thousands of lives that would have been lost because of their “my way or no way” attitude?

To Sum it Up

These are the definitions I will be using in my blog from now on. It is not my wish to offend the many moderate democrats while at the same time writing against the dangerous politics of the far left. Make no mistake, they are dangerous as I will show in future writings.

Extremes in Politics



I am speaking about the far right as well as the far left. I am proud to call myself a “Christian Conservative Republican” and I make no apologies for it. I can also understand why there are also many Christian Democrats.

“A house divided against itself can not stand”


President Lincoln also spoke these words during a speech concerning the civil war. They were as true then as they were when they were first spoken by Jesus Himself. They are still true today.

The bible teaches us that we can not serve God and the world and there are some black and white issues. The problem is that neither side of the aisle are completely correct. The fact is there is some good and some bad on both sides.


When the Republican were in power, they ignored the left on every issue and did their own thing. We can not complain now that they left is doing the same thing. BOTH sides were wrong!! We need to work together or nothing will be accomplished by anyone.


We as Americans can change things by putting true moderates in our Government. People who will make their decisions on the facts that they have and not just to make political points or because they are making their decisions because of pressure from the extremist side of the parties.

If both sides are going to dig in their feet wanting everything their way, then nothing will be accomplished. This is not why any of them were voted into office.

“If you don’t stand for something you will fall for everything”

Too many times I seen candidates say one thing and then a month later vote opposite of what they promised while they were running. Or they change their stance once they decided to run for office!!

This is the reason why I voted for Bush both times he ran .I found it impossible to vote for anyone who does not seem to have their own convictions. Their lack of convictions make them to much of a wild card to lead this country.

You never truly knew where they stood or what they were going to do in office. I would rather stick with the candidate that has enough integrity to follow through with his convictions than one who lacks any convictions at all. Agree with him or not, he at least has been honest with us on where he stands and what he believes to be the right thing to do. I respect him for that and we knew that there weren’t going to be any surprises.



The same can not be said about the candidates that he was running against or the Neo-Libs that are running today. These are not moderates they are financed by and controlled by extreme leftwing groups. Thing is, they are being defeated by the same media and groups that support them.



Have they learned nothing from the last presidential election? Or even the latest from France? Just because the media reports things from the extreme left, the majority of people are not for extremes from either side. For some reason people such as Hilary, Edwards, or Obama have not realized that as of yet. The majority of the new senators and congressman (and women) are moderates, not the extreme left as these candidate seem to think. They are just as tired as we are by the all or nothing attitude that has been prevailing and are still trying to prevail in our Government.

The First Amendment

Constitutional Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably assemble, and to petition of Government for a redress of grievances.

This is a two fold Amendment, it gives Americans the freedom to worship where and how we like. It says that the government shall NOT prohibit ‘the free exercise’, this means that every law that has been made restricting our rights is illegal and unconstitutional. It also gives us the freedom of speech. This means all speech, not only that which we agree with or not offended by.



Freedom of Religion




The idea that Separation of Church and State is NOT Constitutional, nor can it be found in our Constitution. This is a cute phrase that was found in an obscure letter that Jefferson wrote to his church. The Constitution was devised and written and agreed upon by a delegation before it was voted on by the people. The Constitution was NOT about a single persons views nor was a single person responsible for the wording of it. I have no doubt that the words “Separation of Church and State” was voted down. IT was a JOINT configuration.

Other than a single letter to his church, it can be found that he EVER spoke out against public displays of religion or the free exercise of religion. Never did he say the first Amendment was to be used to limit the “free exercise” to private homes and churches only. The idea that a single letter has more weight than the Constitution and that it goes over and above the actual Constitution is asinine and Unconstitutional in and of itself.

Our ancestors voted on the Constitution and made it into a law, they did not vote on Jefferson’s opinion.

Those who keep quoting the words from a letter and ignoring actual constitution are either ignorant of their history, which was the reason for the Amendment, too stupid to understand what that history has to do with the wording, or just do not care what our laws actually says and has chosen to spin it to say whatever they wish it to say. The truth be damned.’

Do we forget why many of our founders came into our country? Is there anyone anymore that remembers that it was because of religious prosecution that most came into America? Whether it was the Catholics that founded Maryland, the puritans that began the New England states, or the Quakers that founded Penn, it was so that they would be able to worship as they saw fit where and how they saw fit.

Now we have to worry about the same things, but from the inside and not out. This is sad and hopefully now that we have two new judges that believe that the Constitution is complete and means exactly what it says, we may be able to return to our freedoms that are outlined in the Constitution.


Freedom of Speech


The second part of the first Amendment is concerning the freedom of speech. Many today are trying to put limits on the freedom of speech. Even those who I listen to and agree with more than not on political issues. I keep hearing that there is a responsibility that goes along with the freedom of speech. In a small way I agree with this, but not to the degree that it was meant.

The freedom of speech clause does not cover lies, half-truths, or any combination thereof.

Sadly, the journalistic integrity of our news coverage is sadly lacking in today’s American society. I do believe that it is a journalist responsibility to simply inform, not to make political statements if they are to be taken seriously. CNN and MSNBC are paying for this with low ratings as people are getting smarter and they are declaring that they want the truth, not a political agenda. Even the NYTimes are losing readers because of their half truths and outright lies.

This is my opinion and as I have the right to say whatever I wish, so do the above so called news sources. This is the right of every American. This goes for Tokyo Rosie, Imus, Ann Coulter, Hannity, Jesse Jackson, or any other public figure just as it is mine and yours.

There isn’t an exception clause to the Amendment that says that our freedom of speech is only ours if we do not offend, stay PC, or speak the new liberal ease. It is a complete freedom, NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!

There is a hyprocy that has been invading our media and our society. Why is it that we have an open season on whites, republicans, and/or Christians. God help us if we happen to be more than one of these. Even black republicans are open fodder for harassment. Look at all the racial epitaphs that Condi Rice has had to deal with. Now if the same things were said about Obama or Sharpton, then there would have been a huge public outcry and we would have been bashed and called racist.

IF we as Christians say anything concerning; muslims, homosexuality, reverse racism, or any of the other so called taboos, then we are bashed and everything is done to discredit us, but if they same things are said by Sharpton or any other neo-liberal then it is ok.

WRONG!!!
When did it become ok for rappers to use words such as nigger, cracker, hoe, or many of the other offensive words and not OK for the general public. Other than the word cracker, which is always a racist term against whites, I do not see these words as racist or as having anything to do with color. If you look at the meaning of the words, color has nothing to do with it, only the perception of the words are racial. The word cracker is used to call ALL whites racist and black beaters.


But as I stated before, I disagree with the use of ALL of these words, but it is our freedom to speak and say what we wish. This gives them the right, but it also give me the same rights.

When did it become OK for only black leaders to call whomever they wish whatever they wish and get a pass for it, but not whites?? This is pure hyprocy and must be stopped. Sharpton has made racist remarks against whites, and Jews but puts himself up as if he has any rights to speak out against racism?? He goes after Imus like a tiger getting his first meal in 6 months, but is guilty of the exact same thing. Get real!!

We as a society are getting too sensitive. We do not have the Constitutional right to tell members of society what we can or can not say. That is not in-line with a democracy is. We are NOT a socialist country, we are freedoms are limited. The neo-libs are wanting exactly that. Many of us have been victims of those who try to damage and publically humiliate those of us who hold on to our principles and speak out against the wrongs and the hypocrisy of those who wish to take this vital freedom away from us.

I for one will stand up for our right to say whatever we wish as long as it is truthful, this includes the asinine comments that are made by ignoramuses such as the neo-libs at so called Christian sites as well as those who wish to cause damage to our great country.


THIS IS WHAT OUR FIGHTING FORCES ARE FIGHTING FOR!!!!

If the ignoramuses ever get a reality check and realize the freedoms that the extreme Muslims wish to take away from us and that it is their intent to “take over the world”, starting with America and Israel (two of the countries with the most freedoms), they would be speaking a different tune. They do not realize that their behaviors will get them killed just as quick if not quicker than the Christians they hate.

I think that it is ironic that the same hippies that were protesting a lack of freedom of speech are the same ones in the White House that are now trying to take away the freedoms of everyone who does not agree politically with them. That is the biggest hypocrisy of all.

The Martyrdom of John Edwards' Anti-Christian Bloggers
By Kristen Fyfe
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 15, 2007

Amanda Marcotte, one of two vitriol-spewing anti-Christian bloggers hired by the John Edwards presidential campaign, resigned on February 12, 2007.

Liberal media reported that Marcotte was “driven out” of her job by Catholic League President Bill Donohue. Last week, Donohue issued a press release detailing some of Marcotte’s anti-Christian bigotry. Fox commentator Bill O’Reilly also gave the story lots of airtime. Donohue also called for Edwards to fire the other anti-Christian blogger, Melissa McEwan, who infamously referred to President Bush’s “wing-nut Christofascist base” in a blog entry. (McEwan reportedly resigned on Feb. 13.)

Marcotte’s resignation made big news in the mainstream media on Feb. 12. Among other outlets, The Associated Press wrote a story, The New York Times carried it on its political blog, and The Washington Post dedicated a full column to it on page A-4. The common theme was political martyrdom.

Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz quotes Marcotte lambasting Donohue “and his cavalcade of right wing shills.” According to Marcotte, Donohue and his supporters, who “don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics” were to blame for her ouster. The Post repeats Marcotte’s claim that Donohue ran a “scorched earth campaign” against her, and gives her a platform to claim martyrdom: “It was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign.”

All this within the first three paragraphs of the Post’s story. AP reports the martyrdom in paragraph two. The New York Times political blog makes martyrdom the lead for the story.

The Post glosses over Marcotte’s inflammatory comments, burying them in the seventh paragraph. Of course, neither the AP nor The New York Times stories mention them at all.

For those who can stomach it, here are some samples of what Marcotte wrote:


What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.
The Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.
The Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw.
Protestant anti-choice a**holes are on the horizon.
None of these outlets reported Bill Donohue’s thoughtful arguments regarding Marcotte. The Post did quote a statement by Donohue in a press release last week: “John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots.” This quote is buried in the 10th paragraph.

Why didn’t any of Donohue’s other statements make the cut? Press releases on The Catholic League’s website, where the Post presumably pulled the statement regarding Edwards, contain some pointed comparisons between Marcotte’s vitriol and that of other press-pronounced bigots:

“Had anyone on his [Edwards] staff used the ‘N-word,’ he or she would have been fired immediately. But his goal is to loot the pockets of the Soros/Hollywood gang, and they—like him—aren’t offended by anti-Catholicism. Indeed, they thrive on it.

“When Mel Gibson got drunk and made anti-Semitic remarks, he paid a price for doing so. When Michael Richards got angry and made racist remarks, he paid a price for doing so. When Isaiah Washington got ticked off and made anti-gay remarks, he paid a price for doing so.”

Each of the celebrity rants cited above received substantial coverage by the media. But there is a double standard for bigotry and hatred aimed at Christians. Reporting such comparisons would mean giving voice to the conservative viewpoint and balance to the story.

Had Marcotte substituted Mohammed, Allah or Islam where she bashes the Pope, God, or the Catholic Church, she would have been vilified in the mainstream media. But because the object of her attacks is Christianity, the liberal media don’t feel the need to report the full story.

Martyrdom of a leftist blogger on a sword wielded by “right wing shills” plays much better to the base.







Link to Article


Comments