In his daily news briefing, the president's press secretary said that Obama was asked about his change in position on raising the debt limit.

As a senator, Obama voted against raising the debt limit when Bush asked Congress to do so to fund the wars and respond to the financial crisis caused by Barney Frank and Acorn. Obama called the idea dangerous and stridently opposed it.

Now, when he is asking for the SAME THING Bush asked for, Obama admits that his previous opposition was purely obstructionist. He now claims Bush's request was good policy. His stance, he confessed, was not based on the merits of the issue, but rather his desire to thwart anything Bush requested EVEN IF IT WAS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY.

Obama admits he intentionally tried to harm the country for no reason other than spite.

This clearly indicates that Obama is willing to sell out his country in order to gain political points for himself and his party.

This person has no business in the White House.

Apple Inc. has once again demonstrated that it is a bigoted hate group.

Under the Orwellian claim of opposing hate speech, the fascist policy makers at the hate-spewing  advocate of outrageous intolerance pulled a church's iphone app because it advances basic Christian religious beliefs. Apple, an anti-Jewish and anti-Christian organization which routinely targets Christian and Jewish advocacy groups, claimed its justification for censoring the app is that Christianity is not in line with their far leftist, anti-American political ideology.

Apple has long viewed themselves as the only legitimate authority to determine what is "acceptable" opinion on all matters of social subjects, from politics to religion. They arbitrarily censor those opinions which do not mesh with a hard-core Marxist/Maoist political point of view, which includes absolute intolerance of relilgious expression (except extreme Islamism, which Apple embraces as benign and charming.)

As churches see their congregants denied access to apple apps, homophobic socialist aggitators, who spammed the app site with "complaints" about the standard and low-key religious app, hurled anti-gay hate slurs at the church, taunting them with insults suggesting they were gay, an therefore that homosxexuality is a shameful condition.

Just as Jimmy Carter is directly and unapologetically responsible for the radicalization of Iran, Obama will do everything in his power to guarantee that radical Islamists end up in power in Egypt.

Obama's hatred of Israel is limitless. If he could get away with it, he would personally slit the throats of every Jew on the planet.

To call Moberek a "bloody dictator" is a blatant lie. Egypt has been one of the mosst peaceful, stable, and open societies in the middle east, second only to Israel in it's tolerance of other cultures and religions.

Now, thanks to Democrats and their fellow antisemites, Egypt is poised on the brink  of becoming another Islamic Caliphate with one priority: Death to Jews and America.

Of note in the developing story about the attempted assassination of Conservatifve Democrat Rep. Giffords is the "favorite books" inclusion of "The Communist Manifesto" on the perp's MySpace page.

Democrats will none-the-less declare that the perp was a Republican. Communists magically become Republicans when they shoot Democrat politicians.

I'm one of the very few GLBT people in existence who is not twisted up in bilous rage over gay marriage.

Human society has never endorsed same sex marriage, so to manufacture a hysterical "human rights" crisis over it is divisive and an unfortunate distraction. Especially in these times when the world faces huge problems that cause real human suffering.

I have to bury my face in my hands and shake my head when activists outrageously claim gay marriage is a "human rights" issue on a par with slavery, genocide, and oppression. It's no wonder mainstream Americans - let alone conservatives - roll their eyes in disbelief.

Does all this mean I do not support gay marriage? No, I absolutely do support gay marriage. It will happen. It is inevitable. And I also believe it's necessary to nudge and push for it. Without positive action, entropy takes hold and no progress is made.

While there may appear to be a conflict in my stances on the issue, there really is not. I part company with most gay activists in the hysteria and hatred that they bring to the debate. It seems designed to push people away, and it does.

I have seen almost no hate emitted from the traditional marriage camp, and almost nothing BUT hate from the gay marriage camp. It's laughable to see a person whose face is contorted in unmasked hatred, accusing others of being haters. To read dusgusting, bigoted broadsides from those accusing others of bigotry. To hear some using the most foul hate speech in the very process of demonizing others for imagined hate speech. Again, it's no wonder reasonable folks throw up their hands and refuse to debate. You can't debate with a hyperventilating nutcase.

The gay activist camp apparently feels that heaping vile hatred and derision upon half of America (those who support preserving the traditional definition of marriage) will shame them into complying with their wishes. They have their heads so far up their backsides they can't see they are doing more harm than good.

Among many conservatives, there is a sense that they've been duped by a bait and switch on the issue. In the 70's, many Constitutional conservatives supported civil unions. At the time, the rally cry among homosexuals was for civil unions, coupled with a derisive repudiation of gay marriage! That's right.. most gay activists 40 years ago OPPOSED GAY MARRIAGE. To paraphrase the talking point of the mid to late 70's: "Marriage is an uptight hetero institution. We don't want it — you can keep it."

Turns out the people who warned that civil unions were just a stepping stone toward gay marriage were right. Many gay activists DID lie to America, and intentionally covered up their true agenda. Any wonder there is some mistrust? Any wonder that ludicrous claims about indoctrinating children in schools gains traction? You only get one chance at losing someone's trust. Once it's gone... it's next to impossible to get back.

I implore gay activists to tone down the hate-filled rhetoric. Stop demonizing Christians and Republicans and ordinary, good folks who disagree about this controversial political issue. Stop being haters. Stop being intolerant of the views of others. And for God's sake, stop comparing gay marriage to slavery, oppression and genocide. That is just wrong.

Finally, gay marriage has NEVER EXISTED. So please stop pretending someone TOOK something from you. That Christian preacher you revile didn't take a thing from you, and he does not hate you despsite the fact that you probably hate him.

We are asking society to change the way it's viewed marriage since the dawn of man. We're asking them to BESTOW UPON US a new right that has never before existed. A little humility and a lot less hatred is what we need.

Allow me to open this article promoting gay marriage with a declaration that society absolutely has the right to prohibit gay marriage.


The vast majority of human society has no historical precedent for gay marriage, and that reality is reflected in our current society's traditions, mores and laws. Instituting a new custom allowing gay marriage would be a dramatic break from the past, and should honestly be viewed as such. No dramatic societal change should ever take place without a thoughtful examination of its justifications, costs and benefits.

Society has the absolute right to define marriage as exclusively male/female. Marriage by its very definition is a social contract and as such, the society that it reflects has every right and even a cultural duty to define it in a way that respects their customs, mores, and traditions. If a society's traditions cannot reflect their own history and values, then just whose history and values should it reflect?

Uncomfortable enhanced interrogation techniques could not get me to change my opinion on society's absolute right to define marriage. In fact, that right is the cornerstone of my argument that society can and should choose to re-define marriage to include same sex couples. It's a two-way street. Society can decide an issue one way... or the other. I argue here, as a conservative, for the other.

Whether a society can be said to reflect the religion(s) it practices, or the reverse – that the religion(s) reflect the society, it is true that religion has a major role in the institution of marriage in any society. Even in a society with a secular government, religion is most likely the primary or only institution which actually defines marriage, with the state merely endorsing or validating the rites and customs of the church. Again, despite the secular nature of such governments, it is proper to do it that way.

It is important to recognize the legitimacy of any given religion's right to hold that gay marriage is either acceptable within it's congregations or not. Without freedom to define its doctrines and customs, there is no freedom for religion. So, the proper place of government is not to pre-define what a specific religion may or may not decide, but to leave open the door for them to decide for themselves, and afford them the freedom to follow it in good conscience, without penalty.

Therefore, if a legitimately recognized religion or sect adheres to a custom of allowing and sanctifying same-sex marriage, it is not the state's place to either allow or disallow it, but only to register and validate the fact for secular legal purposes. Religion cannot truly be free if one religion's mores and customs are codified as law restricting the good faith practices of other religions. Religion-based laws restricting the good faith practices of those who hold no religion are equally invalid.

For society to adopt, as secular law, some of the institutions and traditions of a religion is not entirely offensive to the idea of freedom of religion, though. While many religious customs have their basis in sound practical reasoning, the test of applicability to secular law should be whether or not the justification for that law is entirely religious or whether it also has compelling, independent secular justifications.

This is where conservatives are well implored to apply the principles of Libertarian philosophy. In order for government to be justified in compelling its citizens to do or refrain from doing a thing, there aught to be a compelling interest in the state doing so. The simple presence of a majority will or religious imperative is not sufficient. An independent justification which can withstand apolitical and areligious examination is imperative.

That joke is not only true and funny, but instructive. The unspoken part of the joke - the part that would render it less funny so it is not mentioned - is that conservatives should not want the government in ANY room of the house.

To justify intrusion and regulation of a person's personal choices, the government needs to demonstrate a reasonable and compelling interest in doing so. That is a cornerstone of conservative political thought, going back to one of our nations' founding conservative, Thomas Jefferson. Concurrently, before a society adopts a positive policy endorsing any thing, government also aught to demonstrate a compelling justification and interest.

I cannot honestly imagine any truly conservative, non-religious justification for prohibiting same sex marriage, except established custom and tradition. As I state above, the existence of established custom implies an ability to change that custom. Popular custom is one of the pure forms of democracy. It is therefore less an argument for prohibition as it is an impediment to impetuous change, acting to slow the process of change, and rightly so. The argument for gay marriage from a conservative perspective rests, then, not on tradition, but on its positive aspects which compel its adoption.

The compelling argument for society endorsing gay marriage is exactly the same argument for society endorsing heterosexual marriage: It promotes conservative family values, discourages promiscuity, and forms a familial structure that promotes stability and adherence to valuable customs and traditions. The trinity of American patriotism is God, family and country, in that order. If we kick the feet out from under any of the three, the others topple as well. When we encompass gay marriage into the fold of family, it reinforces the acceptance of God and country. When we deny gay couples the legitimacy of family, then we can expect their allegiance to God and country to erode as well. It is a three-legged stool.

Now is as good a time as any to address the sub-topic of secular marriage. Getting married by a judge, clerk of the court, or other non-religious office. I frankly oppose government involvement in religion, and as I have said, marriage is, in its inception, a religious institution. However, there are atheists out there. I would suggest that there are plenty of non-religious avenues for marriage outside of government. Remove marriage from the duties of any government employee. Marriage is private and the government aught no be involved in any way except after the fact, and then as a recorder of fact for legal purposes. As marriage is a contract, perhaps notaries public could be called upon to perform the rites in a civil format.

My fear is that I have been wholly inadequate in my efforts to defend gay marriage from a conservative perspective. There is little I can do about that. Either my reasoning is sound or it is not. Either my ability to communicate my reasons is clear, or it is not. In either case, I hope that reason and not emotion is employed in interpreting my words here.

I am certain that some who read this may be of a leftist persuasion and will as such reject many of the conservative foundational principles that I use to justify gay marriage. That's OK. Your opinions are legitimate, even if different than my own. All I ask is the same courtesy of respecting a person's right to hold a differing opinion.

I am equally certain that many who read this are conservative and will as such reject many of the conservative foundational principles that I use to justify gay marriage. That's also OK. Your opinions are legitimate, even if different than my own. All I ask is the same courtesy of respecting a person's right to hold a differing opinion.

Watching the AIPAC conference, where Americans of every political stripe were expressing their deep respect and support for Israel, was a joy.

Democrats and Republicans stood shuolder to shoulder and in one voice rejected antisemitism and the leftist calls for appeasement. They rejected the disgusting and racist positions of Ron Paul and Barack Obama, who openly lust for Jewish blood to run in the streets of the Holy Land.

The often stated lie that AIPAC is a foreign lobby group is just that... a lie. It is Americans. Americans across political, economic and ethnic lines, joining hands in solidarity with Israel.

There are few facial expressions more immediately recognizable than a Democrat who is hearing something they just hate. Their eyes glass over and take on a dead look. You can tell that they are fighting valiantly against the urge to call the speaker "stoooooopid."

This is the tale of two soldiers. Both are American servicemen who are on trial for killing attempting to kill innocent people. One is hero-worshipped and is being defended by the ACLU and one is demonized by the ACLU. You guess which is which:

CBS are a pack of liars.

In a story that is sure to turn viral, CBS falsely claims that Blue Cross refused to extend the parents' health coverage to a newborn with a heart defect, citing "pre-existing condition."

Newborn with Birth Defect Denied Coverage

Health Care Provider Tells Texas Family Baby's Artery Problem is a Pre-Existing Condition; Won't Pay for Surgery

(CBS)  For newborn Houston Tracy, the historic health care overhaul came too late.

Houston, born March 15 at a Texas hospital, suffers from a defect in his arteries. When his parents, Doug and Kim, applied to have his corrective surgery covered under their insurance, they were denied, with their carrier claiming Houston had a pre-existing condition, reports CBS station KTVT.

In fact, the parents HAD NO INSURANCE, despite the CBS claim that the parents applied under "their insurance." In effect, the parents went to Blue Cross with a very sick baby, and asked for insurance. Blue Cross rightly said, "no." Who the hell in their right mind would insure someone who is IN THE HOSPITAL being prepped for surgery?

While anyone with a heart will feel for the family, there are options aplenty. I doubt the child will go without surgery. Hospitals and doctors regularly do this sort of thing for free.  This is why charity exists. Insurance is not a charity. Blue cross was not only CORRECT in denying coverage, but they did the RESPONSIBLE and MORAL thing! To punish others in an insurance group by adding someone who they know to have a serious pre-existing condition would be much worse than forcing the parents to accept charity.

But the hysterics have begun. And the lies.

CBS should have their license revoked. How many times will they be allowed to manufacture boldfaced LIES before they are shut down?

The obscene profits of Big Food are stolen from the mouths of everyday Americans who work hard to feed their families, only to have fat cat grocery speculators take it away. We need to ensure that every American can take his groceries with him when he moves from job to job, or if he becomes obese. No longer is it acceptable for a grocery store to deny food to a customer simply because he does not pay for it, and he eats like an elephant with a tape worm. The amount of food that a person consumes is not his fault. He shuold be able to walk into a store and expect to pay the same for a truckload of groceries as he pays for a single bag.

Obviously, our Food Distribution System is broken. We need Barack Obama to nationalize the entire food system because there are children who are hungry. There are people who are malnourished because the wealthy are getting all the good food, and the rest of us have to fight for scraps under their table. Grocery stores are denying people food simply because they lost their job.

Look at poor Ema Watson of Cleveland, Ohio. She struggled to feed her family for decades. She paid into the food system. Grocers got fat on her shopping lists, and the shopping lists of people like her. But when Emma got so fat she could no longer work, and her food budget went from $150 a month to $150 a day, with no way to pay for it, the grocery store refused her food. They claimed that she had to pay for every thing she bought, including caviar, despite the fact that she had paid responsibly for food her entire life.

These grocery store abuses must end.

We need Grocery Store Reform NOW!

Some things pass from outrageous to just plain old everyday fodder that is hardly worth mentioning.

At this point in the left's assault on Christianity, these types of things have passed into the realm of, "ho-hum. Just another day in America."

From Fox News:

A college student's production of a play in which Jesus is portrayed as the "King of Queers" has outraged residents in a Texas town that fancies itself the Cowboy Capital of the World.

Just in time for Easter, Tarleton State University is playing host to a student performance of Terrence McNally's 1998 play, "Corpus Christi," which depicts a gay Jesus performing a same-sex wedding for two of his apostles.

And though Jesus washed the feet of his disciples in the traditional biblical narrative, his character (called Joshua) in the play shows Judas the full extent of his love, kissing the son of perdition at Pontius Pilate High School's senior prom.

I note that media outlets are all picking up on the latest Democrat scheme: Avoid using the "S" word: Socialism. Also, the angry denunciations of the term "socialism" as either fear mongering or hate speech.

News outlet after news outlet is airing glowing, optimistic stories about "Our New Economy" without any notation as to what is new, what makes it new, or what was the "old" economy.

It is perfectly obvious, though, from the contents of most stories: The "old economy" is banking, Wall Street, and the ultimate boogey-man, corporate greed. In other words, capitalism. That antiquated system that worked for a while, but was ruined forever by fat cat money-grubbers making gross profits off the backs of the little guy.

The "New Economy" is socialism. The media outlets know it. They are all following the same script to "ease" the American voter into the new reality. Voters must be made GENTLY aware of this 180° reversal in our national character. If it was presented in stark contrast, the citizenry would revolt. We did not elect a Socialist Party to implement a Marxist regime. However, that is what we have - a Manchurian Candidate - and the media is in full whitewash mode to make it all appear normal and acceptable.

It's not Socialism! It's "Our New Economy!"