When you can't get your way through honesty, change the meaning of words to suit our needs. Let's face it. In order to fabricate any case for "gay marriage", you had to change the meaning of marriage.    And the left did just that.    Rather than to accept "domestic partnerships" as the term for gay couple unions, the proponents of the "fock you, breeders" campaign decided to co-opt the term "marriage", redefine it to suit ONLY THEIR NARROW NEEDS, and then forced that redefinition onto the rest of the world.     And just to make the insult to those who believed "marriage" meant what marriage has meant for centuries, the proponents of bastardizing the language flipped the bird to society and said "are you afraid we'll have stronger marriages than breeders?" And now to insult "hero". Marriage is not the only unholy actions that have gone on in the darkness with the bastards from the left.     Now they've really done it.    They've decided to bastardize "hero".   Once upon a time, "hero" was someone who was brave and exhibited selfless actions to save lives or to assist others. Now we have HERO - "Houston Equal Rights Ordinance".    Don't think for a minute that the acronym wasn't chosen arbitrarily.    Here in the United States we have a cottage industry of leftist and non-profit causes carefully fabricating worthless, but politically correct acronyms for their chosen names.     Deciding to rape the word "hero" that suggest bravery by making it one that now panders to men who want to be women or who have gender identity issues that result in them dressing like women but carrying all the trappings of attached erectile rape instruments, the proponents of the "shove transgenderism" onto society at large wouldn't fly - so they added the trappings of goodness and spice and slipped in things you just can't be against (unless you are evil bigots from Texas) like race, age, gender, pregnancy, religion, sexual orientation, disability or military status.   Who could be against those with military status (Code Pink would be)?    Who could be against the disabled (without the disabled the Democrats couldn't show a Republican pushing someone in a wheel chair over a cliff in a political commercial)?     Republicans just love the pregnant and those who are religious (unless they are satanists who are mooslims).   So the creators of the HERO provisions put in enough things that Republicans would love and then slipped in the poison pill of having to respect men who think they are women but who are really men who want to use a women's bathroom.    And judging by how many perverts we have now in the world, it is safe to say that a man who is a real man who wants to catch a peek at women doing a number two would dress up like that to get a nice sniff.    And to make matters worse, he'll be equally as justified because his "self identification" as a part-time fish is just as reasonable as some guy who arbitrarily has invented the idea he really is a woman trapped in a war on women body.    The only difference is one pervert is a part time wanda wee wee wannabee and the other wants to make it permanent (well, until he realizes it was a big mistake a decade later and then regrets the chop-a-dick-tomy that he underwent - not to mention the add-a-bobbies therapy he also received. All of this is after the word "gay" was stolen. Once a happy and care-free word, "gay" was one of the first victims of the leftists deciding to bastardize and to rape the english language by stealing one word and to then repackage it as the rainbow flagged bookmark for all things homosexual.   Instead of just going with "queer" or "homosexual" (too honest a word), gay was stolen and raped into submission to make homosexuals the happy people they are now (unless they don't get their way and then they want to slap you silly and call you a bigot or homophobe).    I personally am happy with being called a fag or a queer - and since I am homosexual, I am fine with that.   Unfortunately I've been conditioned to usurp the happiness from gay and to label myself that from time to time - but that is when I get my elbow length white gloves dirty or someone steals my pink bunny slippers.

I am not quite sure where this column grew its roots tonight.    I do lament that things are quite different now than when I was just a budding fag in 1980 when I assumed the age of majority of 18.  Some changes are splendid - being gay is nothing like it was for me back then, and certainly to those who were of my current age back at that time, even the dark days of  the 1980's were heavenly compared to the Stonewall riots or the ages where gays were executed across the globe, not just in muslim countries today. I was doing what I normally do on a day off from work - working on my blog - setting up content for the next week - and hunting various blogs and websites for vintage images.    Sometimes I do wax nostalgic about what was once, but like those who die around us, they are frozen in time with the most perfect of memories - and history can take on a form of revisionism where we cling to what was remarkable and bury with the corpse of the past that which we never want to see again. For a queer reason, I took time to compare how utterly easy it is to get images of the nude human body during this digital age - and how we had to work at it during the twenty or thirty years ago (or more) when we first craved the image of wood and its twins. My historical perspective - having lived it as a person of 18 - starts in 1980 - when I could first legally purchase the material.    I could go back a half a decade or more when I noticed "Playgirl" behind the counter and knowing then that my desire for peen was a most interesting and intriguing desire and how I regretted that I could not see what was behind the counter on those days when my mom would take my sister and I into town to a local five and dime store there. I remember that during that same period of my life as I was experiencing nocturnal emissions and a rash of spontaneous erections during the school day, that my buddies during that time had at their disposal "Playboys" and we had them in our clubhouse.    It was a truly queer experience for me - seeing those airbrushed chest pimples that dominated the topside of a female form while a muff of fur was covering up a truly nasty looking collection of folds of skin that were oddly cut and unappetitizing to me - even at that age when being gay was not in the equation of what I might be, but my interest in my buddies certainly was greater than what they were interested in. Alas I moved with my family because of my father's duties in the Navy and my cravings for porn were neither significant nor easily satiated - though Dad did subscribe to "Playboy" for a few odd  years and I managed to sneak a look longing to see a peen - and when I did, that issue received a good workout from my parents' room to my room and back as needed. So in my life - that budding age of transforming from boy to adolescence and beyond was mainly concerned with print porn - the visual compilation of whatever intrigued the editor of the magazine and the really big pictures, the centerfolds, had the requisite staple applied somewhere above the snatch and below the belly button. Having graduated from high school days before turning 18, I still wasn't venturing forth to find porn - but this would soon change as I went to college and toured the university bookstore and landed in the vast collection of magazines.   And wouldn't you know, there on the top row were the nudiemagazines!    And there were the usual assortment of chest pimples and vajayjays lurking under the plastic covered magazines.    But there was also "Playgirl". I was so fraught with delight and giddiness and then the simultaneous shame of desiring a rag made for chicks - and I was still in process of wondering why I craved peen so and not furry covered mounds of folds of skin. It would take several trips to the bookstore before I found the courage to buy an issue of "Playgirl" and made sure I purchased some other magazines in which I could cover the treasure of my desire and at least protect me until I had to go to the dreaded checkout and those bitter old ladies who worked there. I often moved quickly to an open register and placed the magazines down and let the old biddy process them and when the "Playgirl" appeared I said I was buying it for my girlfriend.    It worked - I got my magazine of peen and I was off to admire what was within and to begin my now 34 year quest of collecting as many peens as I possibly can.    And in case  you do care, I have nearly every issue of Playgirl printed from the start until the magazine stopped monthly prints - but that is another story entirely. It wasn't long afterwards that my family had a VCR - I commuted from home to college - so I could take advantage of the new equipment - I looked around for video stores that carried porn, and bought a VHS tape and enjoyed it when the folks were sleeping.    Within the  year of moving out after graduating from college, I had my own VCR and rented movies and still collected "Playgirls" and other gay magazines that I found - visiting gay bookstores to do my shopping. As the years went buy, DVD players were all the rage and I dabbled in that as well renting movies - but having to go to stores to get rentals or to purchase movies was soon supplanted by... The internet! And what a revelation that was - nude still images by the (voice of Carl Sagan) "billions and billions" and even rudimentary 10 second video clips of a rather nasty compression schema.    And soon computers improved, the internet speeds increased, bandwidth costs were lowered, and suddenly stores were not necesary - you could subscribe to sites for all the porn you can beat off to and then video became better and now available in HD where you could see the stubble on a porn actor's crotch after having committed pubicide! No longer were images marred by staples through the navels - now you had wide screen entertainment with peens as large as a subway sub!     This was so delicious, but technology had its way of going stupid and suddenly people were watching porn on their smartphones with peens now barely half an inch long and cumshots nearly hard to watch without aid of glasses. What a joy it is now for young guys to get their fix on porn by just navigating a few screens - I've driven hours to get the porn I wanted  - in print or in VHS.    Porn has really changed the way things are presented.    It sure beats moving 15 years of magazines if you relocate from one place to another!

Media Spin Cycle Report Robertson Slurs Gays (MSN) "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson is under fire for bashing gays in a GQ interview in which he grouped homosexuality with "drunks" and "terrorists." After he complained that "everything is blurred on what's right and what's wrong ... sin becomes fine," the magazine asked what he considers sinful. "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there -- bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men," he said. The remarks create a problem for A&E, the network that airs "Duck Dynasty." The show is cable's highest-rated reality show, and second-highest rated show overall after AMC's "The Walking Dead." Also in the interview, Robertson paraphrased Corinthians: "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won't inherit the kingdom of God. ... Don't deceive yourself. It's not right." Then he offered some thoughts about anatomy. "It seems to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus," he said. "That's just me. I'm just thinking, 'There's more there! She's got more to offer.' I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical." Robertson also said he doesn't condemn people. "We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, hell. That's the Almighty's job," he told the magazine. "We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus -- whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?" GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz had an immediate response. "Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," Cruz said. "He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans -- and Americans -- who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families." Robertson has said previously that the show downplays his religious views. He surprised some viewers earlier this year when a video emerged of him speaking out against abortion. Then He Goes After Blacks (LA Times)  As anyone who's watched even a few minutes of A&E's reality hit "Duck Dynasty" can tell you, Phil Robertson is a pretty conservative guy.  But in an interview published in January's GQ Magazine, the duck call inventor and Roberston family patriarch goes on record with comments about the sinfulness of gays and black people under Jim Crow that are about as forward-thinking as his Old Testament facial hair.  In the profile, an unedited Robertson sounds off on what's ailing the country during a trip through the Louisiana backwoods.  “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he tells reporter Drew Magary. “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.” He also muses rather colorfully about his own sexual orientation: “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.” In a quote that may raise even more eyebrows than his feelings about gays, Robertson claims he "never" saw black people mistreated during the pre-civil rights era in his home state, and strongly suggests that African Americans were more content under Jim Crow.  "Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash," he said. "They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”  Robertson also shares an interesting rationale for voting for Mitt Romney over President Obama, saying he favored the candidate because he was from Salt Lake City, a safer city than Chicago. "Where would I rather be turned around at 3 o'clock in the morning?" he said.  Grow A Set, America! Editorial Sometimes being a gay man is difficult - I read ignorant comments and I find them troubling. Not because I feel any hurt - words don't hurt me - I've grown up - words are just words. I feel sorry for the ignorant bastards who say the words. I know there is a cottage industry in America that has risen up over fabricating a right to not be offended.    I understand that this industry really does not wish there to be less utterances of ignorance.    For these idiots in the race-baiting, gay-hating-outrage industry only survive when they can seize upon ignorance and then exploit it for profit. Make no mistake - these asswipes who claim to be outraged by anti-gay comments relish having the words uttered - you see - that is how these in the "hate outrage" industry get rich! There has still been no Amendment to the Constitution that carves out a right to being free from being offended.    Just because you find FREE SPEECH to be offensive to you, that does not give you any rights for remedy.   None.    There still is a freedom in America, like it or not, to think and to believe what you want.   There is no Gestapo state yet, though leftists would love to impose it, where you can force everyone to your narrow viewpoint - a line of thinking that only you approve. Is the Duck Dynasty's alleged comments distasteful?  Hell, yes! But so what? These statements show his ignorance.    Just as the ignorant former MSNBC host Alec Baldwin uttered anti-gay comments - and he is a leftist through and through.   He should have kept his gig and been made to face his stupidity.   The Duck Dynasty should be subject to the same market driven forces that force its cancellation - not from rainbow boycotts or marches by the race-pimps Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton - but by America deciding the show is no longer worth watching and its ratings tank. I don't know what the left in this world is thinking when they preach tolerance and they show none.    Tolerance has become a code word for "only allowing what the left believes in to be uttered".    There is no "tolerance" by the left to conservative viewpoints even if those viewpoints are just as valid as leftist arguments. How is it wrong for a straight guy to wonder how another man can dig focking a guy in the butt?    Hell, I'm gay and that isn't the least bit interesting to me either.   I've had it once and it was okay, but I'm not rushing to stick things up my arse.    I look at vajayjay and wonder why straight guys dig that shit too.  I've had vag several times in my early life and found it to be okay as well, but sadly I had to look at a naked chick which was a potential boner killer for me.    Then I heard her and that was even more a boner killer - so I had to imagine a guy and things worked. So what is the focking problem here, America?    So a straight guy has no clue about homosexuality.    I have no clue about loving chicks.   There is nothing about a woman I like.   Does that make me a bad person?   As far as I can tell this Duck Dynasty guy hasn't gay bashed or abused any black person.    So if his only "crime" is that he is an ignorant bastard, oh focking well.   Ignorance isn't criminal (leftists should thank the Lord for that otherwise you all would be behind bars). The First Amendment does not protect just speech that some groups find welcome or wonderful.   This Amendment is a broad one - that allows fools to prove they are fools and to allow as much latitude as possible to expression of thought.    As there is no right to be heard, you aren't guaranteed any audience to your words.    And if you don't like the words uttered, turn your back and leave.   Don't watch a show.   Don't read the magazine.    But you have no right to silence that person - your "offense" is not protected and not supported.    You are actually obligated to actively avoid what you find offensive, not to whine about it and to get it shut down.    Certainly you can protest, but your expression of outrage doesn't give you the right to silence jack shit.    If your expectation is to shut down what offends you, then you are pissing in the wind.    I fully support any groups that find what was said as upsetting to you - be as free as the Duck Dynasty guy was with his words.   Exercise your freedom of speech. And then shut the hell up. Seriously.  Get over yourselves and let others believe as they want.   And you aren't harmed in the least.

There is a troubling new trend in America where one group gets to decide what constitutes "equality" and then seeks to punish others for not sharing that same viewpoint.   Many times the "aggrieved" and "nose out of joint" group seeks refugee in the courts to force their viewpoint of equality onto others, and by doing so, rape the rights of others to their freedom.   Whether this new "tolerance" is bastardizing the word "marriage" only to suit their narrow purpose while ignoring other just and equal rights for others, the new facism in America is playing fast and loose with other people's freedom and acting by decree elevating one groups notion of "equality" over others - and in doing so, they take the notion of Constitutional rights and burn them.    What once was a right, where you exercising your action did not violate someone else's specified rights, is now an obstacle to enforce a minority viewpoint onto the majority.   And as women claim that their right to the control of their bodies trumps the right of a fetus to life, we have a new mockery of rights.   And in the case below, I will present the case that has my libertarian core burning like those in hell.   I'll present the situation and my commentary beside it. Have a differing viewpoint?    Comment on this article.    There is one rule - state your argument, don't insult me.   If you can't make your argument on the merits of logic, you certainly won't get your comment approved.   Insults are meaningless.    But if you can actually argue your case with logic, I'll be more than happy to post the comment even if it disagrees with my position.   Don't use ad hominems in the comment even if you are arguing your case.   One word of caution - Dumbasses may be fun to kick around, but don't prove you are one.   Who knows, I might not stand in your way of proving you are a dumbass and I might just publish you.    Do you have the balls to be such a dumbass or can you show that you have more than two brain cells? Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples (NBC News) A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.  Arbitrary enforcers of their rights over others  using their sexual orientation as justification for preferential treatment. The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple "because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage."  The order says the cake-maker must "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.  The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against shop owner Jack Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig, 33, and David Mullins, 29. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado.  Mullins and Craig wanted to buy a cake in July 2012, but when Phillips found out the cake was to celebrate a gay wedding, he turned the couple away, according to the complaint.  Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, said the judge's order puts Phillips in an impossible position of going against his Christian faith.  "He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck," she said. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for."  The Civil Rights Commission is expected to certify the judge's order next week. Phillips can appeal the judge's order, and Martin said they're considering their next steps.  Mullins said he and Craig are "ecstatic."  "To a certain extent, though, I don't think that this is necessarily a surprise," he said. "We thought it was pretty clear cut that he had discriminated against us."  Mullins said he hopes the "decision will help ensure that no one else will experience this kind of discrimination again in Colorado."  A similar case is pending in Washington state, where a florist is accused of refusing service for a same-sex wedding. In New Mexico, the state Supreme Court ruled in August that an Albuquerque business was wrong to decline to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony.  Colorado has a constitutional ban against gay marriage but allows civil unions. The civil union law, which passed earlier this year, does not provide religious protections for businesses.  "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Judge Spencer said in his written order. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."  ACLU attorney Amanda Goad said no one is asking Phillips to change his religious beliefs.  "But treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination, plain and simple," she said.  Be Careful of the Precedents You Set When in Power I understand the special nature of this notion that many gay people have that they feel persecuted at every turn of their lives.   This notion isn't particular to the homosexual community.  Other groups carry a perpetual chip on their shoulder - blacks, illegal aliens, and women are particular groups who think that just because they feel persecuted, they are persecuted.    As a Libertarian, I have no use for victims or those who fabricate a cause to make their particular ethnic or minority group worthy of special protections.    I believe in total equality where a man and a woman are equal - a gay and a straight are equal - and there are no color or ethnic differences to my eyes.    I do believe in the rule of law - and that those who violate the laws should be held accountable - and that a government can and should restrict immigration and that those who arbitrarily and selfishly put themselves above that law should be dispensed with in the most unflattering and immediate deportation from this country. When it comes to gay rights, I truly understand, being gay myself, this feeling that you suspect or have actually had happen overt contempt by someone else toward you just because you are gay.   I have lived that and oddly enough one of the minorities which screams the loudest about race-based discrimination is the community that showed me physical and emotional contempt for me being gay.   But I hold no grudge or disdain - just sadness that their own bigotry exists. But I've also been insulted and persecuted in school for being too intelligent - once I was sat on a snow bank in Maine during 6th grade and had a rotten banana pushed in my face as my classmates "held court" and tried and convicted me of being "too smart".    I get the feeling - I understand.   I've lived it.   There is overt persecution.   That wasn't a hate crime, but it was assault. Yet, I have matured and grown up understanding that there are ignorant pigs amongst us - and that no matter how much I wish I was loved - I won't be.   People will loathe me for being queer, being smart, being white, or being a man.   Oh focking well.   Yet I do not wear this feeling of "victimization" as a grounds to punish others.   Instead, I seek to rise above - to show that there is no amount of human stupidity that can stand in my way of accomplishing anything. When I read this article to the left, I was dumbfounded.   How is it that someone can force another person to bake them a cake if that baker does not want that person as a customer?    If the baker does have religious convictions, those are rights he has - and no State can force him to do things against his religion.   The leftists among us are always fabricating this notion of a separate between church and state even if those words never once appear in the Constitution.    But when a protected group, homosexuals, are put in conflict with another group, Christians, the Christians rights seem to be less important and protected than homosexual rights.   I take exception to this "equality by decree" where a court can tell me, a web designer, that I must design a website for a "socialist" should I have that opportunity come my way.   How is that I cannot refuse to participate in my trade in a fashion I desire?    The last time I checked, the baker and myself, the web designer, aren't mentioned once in the Constitution, and that there is not one mention that I am REQUIRED to service every potential customer that comes in contact with me.   Simply put, no one has a right to my services, paid or otherwise, and has no right to be a customer of mine. In my case in and in the one I've provided to the left, it would seem silly to enforce either of us to be compelled to participate in commerce where neither of us are the least bit interested.   If I am compelled to create something for someone I would rather not participate, I will not give my best and I should not be forced to participate.   I would no more take on a Neo-nazi website than I would one for a Democrat political candidate.   I simply am not interested and will not bust my butt to create such a website.   That baker should not be compelled to bake a cake for a gay couple and there are plenty of places that will.   But you have no right of absolute right - that is just because you are gay does not give you rights that allow you to interfere in my exercise of rights - and whether my right I am invoking is religion or my freedom of association, your homosexuality is not a trump card you get to wield like a sword of righteousness. So the next time you think being gay means something special - to you it does - but others are free not to share your viewpoint and that does not make them wrong.   It just makes them American and exercising their freedoms.

The Budget Battle From A Libertarian's Perspective --- BACKGROUND --- I am sick and tired of the games.   I know most gay people loathe my political ideology because I don't support Democrats at any level, but if you are truly concerned about politics and our nation,  you should at least read this piece and understand why we are where we are right now. One the one hand, we have the Democrats, who control the Senate and make it nearly impossible for Republican input,  and on other hand, we have the House, controlled by the Republicans, who aren't keen on soliciting or listening to Democrats. The news media is biased and reports that whatever comes out of the Senate is bipartisan while lambasting the House as being controlled by Tea Party Wackos. Who exactly is the Senate ruled by?    Conservatives?  Nope.   Centrists?   Nope.   We have a significant and vocal group of progressives - neo-communists and neo-socialists, who rule the Senate and dictate to the rest of the less socialistic Democrats what will happen.   There are about two or three conservatives in the Senate - that means there are 97-98 consistent Progressives and progressive sycophants who rule the Senate with a dictatorial hand. It is true that there is a group of conservatives in the House, swept in because of the pain that this Obama Administration has caused much of America.   For those who don't follow politics, the "tea party" actually evolved from the words of a CNBC analyst when he was remarking about the dreadful housing situation that existed during the first year of the Obama Administration.   In many ways, Obama created the culture from which the Tea Party grew because of Obamascare - the way the unconscionable law was ramrodded through the House and Senate without any Republican input or vote.    It should be noted that Obama claims to have added "Republican" ideas but when  you consider that ten words out of 2,000 pages of the law can trace their origin to anyone with a Republican attached to their party affiliation, you know why Republicans hold this law in such contempt. It is understandable that Progressives and Obama hold the Tea Party in such low regard.   When you are used to raping Republicans and having your way with the party because the Republicans are spineless weasels who don't want confrontation, when you finally have opposition that not only loathes you but wants to stop you, you start resenting any political competition.    This is particularly true for the President who fancies himself the most intelligent man in any room and will never compromise.   He thinks that his office and his elections are the hallmarks of politics and the other office holders who won their elections are simply there to rubber stamp his ideas.   Opposition to him is not only racist, it is an affront to his manhood.   These are not just hypotheses that I offer - these are the truths about a President who is so power hungry and paranoid that he has launched the most investigations on his own staff and cabinet in American history - issuing polygraphs and oath tests to preclude any transparency to the operation of the inner circle. This is not to suggest that the Democrats are the only party responsible for the mess we are in.   We do have the Republicans - the RINO's (Republicans in Name Only) to blame - sell outs to conservatism and to the Constitution - who view "compromise" as valuable even though that compromise has them giving up things and the Democrats getting whatever they want. Make no mistake - there is no "compromise" in politics these days - and when there was, it was the Democrats who bullied their way into getting what they wanted and Republicans curried favor with Democrats by caving in. The Tea Party has changed the dynamics.   No longer do fools like John McCain and Lindsay Grahamnesty represent the Republican party - these fools are celebrated for their ability to bend over and to take a Democrat rape without lube - but when the Democrats are asked to suck a little Republican cock, they just say "I have a headache". The Tea Party is elected from the most conservative congressional districts in the United States and have EVERY RIGHT to exist and to object - you see, this is a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC and these Congressmen are representing their district as they should.   The United States has never been a Democracy despite the spin of the Progressives.    The House, being the only body that was originally conceived to be ELECTED, should necessarily represent the wishes of their constituents.   The Senate was originally filled by State Appointments, not elections, and still manages to ignore minority constituency and has turned into a more national institution. There is this silly notion that many have that bipartisanship is represented by the Senate and one party rules the House.   This is simply laughable.   As I have noted earlier, the Senate has made it virtually impossible for Republican ideas to come to the floor and as a result, the Senate is a Democrat body.   Whatever it passes is only approved by Democrats with suckup Republicans pandering for crumbs of power tagging along. The news media, however, paints the House as Republican and Tea Party controlled while always saying Senate bills are bipartisan.   If the House is partisan, the Senate is as well.   If the House has its Tea Partiers, the Senate has its Progressives.   In actuality, there is no more or less partisanship in either body, but the press and the President always claim the House is the partisan body. --- As a Libertarian, who views the Constitution as the precious governing document which specifically limits Federal power and gives the majority of powers to the states, I find Progressives to be near traitorous.   By their very actions, they seek to subvert the meaning of the document and to steal power that is not of the Federal Governments and almost always do it to punish one group of folks for another. Progressives, as I have said, can be both Democrat or Republican (RINO) - spineless Republicans like Lindsay Grahamnesty, Rep King of New York, and John McCain to name a few, are really enemies of the Constitution as they seek to empower the Feds over the States and are willing to do so to get favors from Democrats when Democrats are in power; and when Republicans are in power, these RINOs become ankle biters to get special and positive treatment from the Media.   Remember when John McCain was a Maverick when he stabbed the Republican party when they had power and the news media loved him?    Then look at what happened when he became a Presidential candidate and suddenly turned into Satan.     The news media has sold out and votes for Progressives.   They donate, through their individual campaign contributions, primarily to the Democrat party and there is an alarming amount of ex-Democrat party hacks now employed as "analysts" in the mainstream media.   There is no pretense of balance in viewpoints - and it is odd that the existence of FOX is lambasted when the rest of the networks are all Democrat party mouthpieces and FOX is only 45% so! --- THE BUDGET --- Personally and politically I have no problem with this budget impasse    The Progressives had failed to deliver an annual written budget for four out of the five years of the Obama reign of terror - and have done so intentionally to hide the $1 trillion in added annual federal spending since FY2009's budget.    What Progressives have done unethically is to cloak their increase by factoring in the "emergency" spending tacked onto the FY2009 budget and then to take that new spending as a baseline for the ensuing budgets - instantly you get a bloated budget to the tune of $900 billion to $1 trillion more than any other "approved" annual budget.    And then, when someone wants to cut $80 billion like the sequester compromise for the last potential budget confrontation resolution enforced, you would have sworn that we had instantly taken back all of the $1 trillion in added spending that the Progressives have inflated in our budget! I am a firm fiscal conservative and don't believe that we should be having anything national with regard to education - we can have a national energy "policy" that establishes goals but we shouldn't have a Federal Energy Department.    We shouldn't have a national Interior Department - the states should be left to decide how best to use their resources and land.    And we should have only national environmental standards and the states should enforce.    We should not have Social Security - if people are too stupid to plan their lives, then that should default to the States to undertake whether they want to care for their old or not.   We could instantly cut our federal budget in half and then allow the states to decide how to best implement policies for their population - they know who their citizens are and what is needed.   The Feds are simply clueless about the South when blue blood leftists are running things.   And if California wants to go insane, we don't need their policies contaminating national agenda. The President has decided to hold America hostage by demanding his way or no way - ironic because he is the one making the charge against the Tea Party!    And if this is the case and the Senate refuses to pass any House bill, then I believe Senators and the President should be impeached - they are violating their oath of office.    And I have no problem having 98 traitors in the Senate being removed from office and a President who is an enemy of the Constitution being punted to the curb. --- THE REST --- Progressives cannot be trusted - they seek to inflate our voting roles by adding those who steal their presence here in the US by painting a sad and bleeding heart perspective for illegal immigration.   This is intentional since they then spin opposition to legalizing immigration thieves in racial terms and seek to exploit immigration to add new voters to gain more power. And so now have an exploding budget with a new method to make Progressive Power permanent by exploiting Hispanic race issues like Progressives have done with Black issues - forming a new wing on the plantation to trick and fool these races as if Democrats and Progressives really give a flying fuck about them - make no mistake - the only concern Progressives have about anyone is to institutionalize their power into a permanent dictatorial pathway.    If a policy does not advance permanent acquisition of power, then Progressives don't care.   Exploiting gay rights isn't about loving gays - it is to get your money and your vote.   If they manage to advance any gay issue it is because they see it as a wedge issue to fragment the nation and to gain power.    There is no love for gays in the Democrat party except for those gays who claim they are Democrat and contribute money.

Perhaps Feti Can Replace The Born On The Menu I have to marvel at the nonsense that constitutes the leftist perspective on life.   It seems that their mindset is to pander to the lowest common denominator in man and then to construct policies to devolve man's natural inspiration to succeed.    This is true because those who succeed are necessarily the most motivated and those who work the hardest.   Those who fail have something that they are not doing well and hence fail. In the real world, failure is a pretty damned motivating force - eliminate it and you have people who grow accustomed to being coddled and who seek new ways to make themselves victim of those who have more than they have. It is true that in life there are those, born without having chosen their maladies, suffer from physical, mental, and other disabilities.   These are never the people who scream the loudest for care - these are the people who cannot be exploited for political power.   These people know not what they suffer and cannot be compelled to wearing victimhood like it is this year's hot fashion trend. In these truly afflicted folks, there seems to be no argument that their care is our obligation - as humans - that those who truly cannot take care of themselves and who have created no situation that placed themselves in harm's way through foolish conduct, should be our obligation in life to protect and to support. However, it has become a national sport in the last 20 years to grow the population of infirm to include sluts, unemployed, homeless, criminals, and all of those people who have made poor choices in their own lives and should now become the obligation of the rest of us to care for. In my heart of hearts, I feel the pain of someone who is unemployed, but I also realize that life is not fair - that we are all handed a life that has a myriad of rewards and pleasures, and that hardships that befall someone else should never be my OBLIGATION to correct.   Yet, leftists have found that there is a field that is ripe to harvest to FORCE SOME OF US to care for others' poor choices because we all know leftists' hearts bleed so much more than others with more sincerity and caring.   And when it comes to caring, we all know that no one trumps a leftist when spending other peoples' money to show the compassion! Since our nation has now become saddled with the legacy and costs associated with Obamascare, I think that the ultimate leftist Nirvana should be thrown at the rest of America, without exemption for kissing ass the most with the Democrats.   You see, if we can compel a citizen to purchase healthcare insurance on the rationale that without insurance they are burdening us all, then perhaps we should look at all actions by citizens and compel some other things. And hence, I offer this modest proposal. Let's ban all sexual practices that spread diseases and causes the rest of America to have higher healthcare costs.   I think that we should only allow masturbation and then only allow male and female copulation upon proof that the two married straight people can support the possible child(ren) - we'll need income verification and proof of insurance before we'll allow reproduction.    Afterall, unprotected sex has its consequences and children are one of them.   This compulsion to end all sexual practices that shift costs to others will carry a fine or a penalty or whatever is construed these days as a tax. Let's also compel every citizen above the age of 18 to have a job.    Since those who have no job necessarily go on welfare, commit crimes, and shift their upkeep on to the rest of us, then we should compel every citizen to get a damned job.    It is not society's fault that Obama is incompetent and cannot establish an economy that will support jobs, but we must compel getting a job or you'll be fined and taxed. Let's compel that men should have to get pregnant in order for them to truly appreciate women.   Since men are the true cause of all wars and crime, perhaps just compelling them to bear children is not enough.   Perhaps men should be compelled to have a sex change.   Without men to blame for women's issues, then shouldn't that result in total leftist nirvana where women are thus equal and there is no longer any sexual discrimination? Let's also compel all pretty people to endure uglification.   It is simply unfair that some people are just born pretty and remain so while there are others so ugly that you have to avert your eyes.   If everyone were ugly and made women, then there would be true social harmony. And think of the cascade of issues that would disappear if all men were actually turned into women - we'd have no rapes, no spousal abuse, we'd have no unequal pay for equal work, we'd have no political candidates advocating against birth control, and we'd never hear about women's glass ceilings to promotions.   And we'd never have an abortion debate because all sex that could result in an unfortunate creation of a collection of cells would no longer exist! In this perfect world, this modest proposal of compulsion to create nirvana, we would also have to compel citizens to think only one way - the leftist way - you see, having an opposing view is hateful and impedes the "progress" that we know that must take place.   The elimination of opposition would create a system where all decisions are final, all debate is pointless, and all decisions would be the correct ones. Of course we would have an instant cascade of results of the conversion of all men into women - falling birth rates - populations declining as there are no longer births - the environment would no longer be subject to manmade global cooling, heating, double secret probations, or other things that homo sapiens with peni do to negatively impact lives.    The world would become more harmonious as wild life and natural consumed our cities and towns as over a span of 100 years, man would be extinct and woman would be just dead dead dead.    With a return of the world to animals who are violent and tear each other to shreds, our world would just seem more happy, happy, joy, joy.    We would no longer need FOX news to have a perspective that is not shared with the other alphabet networks. Think of the joy where all racial tensions are solved with the mere elimination of the penis and testicles!    With no replacement of population, we'd have no more disparity in gender and ethnicity populations.    Once implemented, this mandatory emasculation of the world would resolve all of our issues in a finality that leftists would so appreciate!   There would be no hate and no hate crimes - we wouldn't have Bibles raised and Christians to think that they are all superior over mere infidels.   We'd have no beheadings by mooslims with butter knives and finally there would be peace in the Middle East as Israel would cease to exist as the last Jew dropped dead and hopefully before the last Palestinian victim did. I offer this modest proposal to be a most compelling case to solving our national ills - our global problems of inequality, plagues, and wars.   We will resolve, for all eternity, the inequality of incomes and property.   We'd end hunger and all disease as our population ends the need to treat these maladies. In a world where you can compel someone to buy something under the most specious of reasons, then such a modest proposal is not only just, it is compelling in its simplicity. And we might just leave our world in such a pristine condition that some alien race might take over and impose their own form of love and conquest - but we most assuredly cannot blame man for the problems that might exist.    A world with just women solved all our problems.

Well, America. We’ve reached that point of no-return – when the total direction of America shifts from one of individual freedom to succeed or to fail to one in which you have no right to determine what is good for you and that big government knows better. We had a display of an appeal for individual liberty with Ted Cruz’s 21 hour “speech” which, not surprisingly, leftist mutts have called a fake filibuster because the Senate is controlled by Democrats and they make the rules and dare anyone decide to step out of line with the big government advocates that rule that chamber like Nazi Storm Troopers. I invoked Nazi language because I know how it turns you leftists on – you use it freely and have done so with no shame against your enemies, but dare anyone use it against you or your Progressive Republican sycophants and you get all upset. So be it. Grow a set and move on. In today’s world where we are ruled by all things Progressive, there is intolerance, no room for dissent. If you dare question this President, you are racist. He’s black (or at least half black) and any questioning of him must be because you are racist. You couldn’t possibly actually have contempt for his policies since being Progressive is the ONLY way things should be. In this world of the new Progressives, the neo-communists, you must agree with them or you are called “obstructionist”. When you disagree with Progressives, you have no right to do so and that doing so it tantamount to denying a whore birth control by telling her to go buy it her own damned self.  It was never obstructionist to question George W. Bush. He was after all, white, stupid, a puppet, and a conservative (even though he was never conservative and only progressive-lite).  It was “Patriotic” to protest against wars your party even supported and voted for and used the very same evidence from the Clinton era as justification to get involved in. But because the President wasn’t Progressive enough and was a Republican, you could obstruct without shame – afterall, even Hitlery Clinton, a woman who is like scandal Velcro, said that dissent was good and proper – but dissent against a Republican is one thing – dissent against a Progressive Democrat neo-communist is just about the worst thing you can do or be. Ted Cruz is certainly a character and independent – in some ways he is the very “maverick” that John McCain used to be, but McCain always screwed fellow Republicans on the left side of an issue. Cruz is attacked because he is left of the coward McCain and is now taking precious face time that McCain so craves. Don’t think for a minute that McCain was a “maverick” because he really stood for something – he was a maverick because that got him love from the left – and there is no greater love that a Republican can get when he rapes another Republican from the left of the aisle. Making Republicans look stupid from the right side of the aisle is just not done. Well, according to today’s weak, spineless, nutless, and asswipe Republicans, it is not done. These fools have truly given up doing what political parties are supposed to do – provide OPPOSITION to each other. These foolish asswipes like McCain and his twin sister Lindsay Grahamnesty want to be friends and have no shame selling out their party’s ideology to get love from the left. I don’t know where leftists got this notion that because they say something or advocate for something, they have a right to have it implemented without opposition. I know that most positions leftists advocate are not based on fact (or even science); their positions are based on feelings – that dismiss individual liberty when it matters and imposes Government control on our lives. For every position they advocate to promote sodomy, they seek to force us to buy health insurance because they can’t conceive of someone who would actually pay their own way for healthcare and think that those who are uninsured are merely mooches that they can whore out for votes or whore out to shame as mooches who spread costs to others anyway; and in some cases, leftists will call us mooches and try to whore us out for props and for votes. You see, leftists know no shame. Opposition is critical in a representative republic – a concept that leftists have no knowledge of as they spin our government as a democracy which it never was. And while these idiots on the left would say that the public just isn’t informed enough to know that they will really love Obamacare, so let’s not pay attention to polls which have NEVER showed a majority of public support for the program. Leftists think that their version of healthcare reform is the only way, so if you disagree with them, you don’t want to solve healthcare issues. You, in opposition to them, want to keep people uninsured. On Tuesday, it is likely the infection of Progressive politics will have migrated from the fingers of our nation to the arms – from the toes to the legs – and soon the unmitigated infection of Progressive politics will reach the torso of the nation. You need to be reminded that at no time has a Republican voted for Obamacare. Not one. Not in the House and not in the arrogant and sanctimonious Senate.  The whole program is a Democrat one, so if the policy works, the Democrats should get all of the praise they deserve. But the flip side is there – if this government program runs even half as well as most government programs, it will be a disaster so large that all of the failure deserves to be credited to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and every democrat voter. For you will bear the shame and the responsibility of the failure of the program. But even as I know in my bones that this Obamacare will go belly up quickly and with significant ramifications, leftists are leftists, and they will blame the failure on Republicans and business, sometimes simultaneously, and sometimes separately. You see, to leftists, nirvana could not possibly fail implemented by government; there have to be wicked witches to blame. Businesses will be blamed for worrying about staying in business and denying people continued coverage dumping formerly employed folks onto the exchanges even as it would be impossible for businesses to stay in business to continue to even employ people just to give them coverage; and if businesses raised prices, they’d be lampooned for being greedy. Such is the ignorance of the leftist – too smart for their own britches and too stupid to live and breathe at the same time. Republicans will of course be blamed because they never voted for the policy and have most of the time opposed the policy. Instead of carrying the water for Progressives to help make sure the plan succeeded (that means failed less), Republicans voted repeatedly to get rid of the mess. It is unfair to blame leftists (Progressives/Democrats) for the failure of the policy because only leftists can care so much – can bleed so much – can exploit its voters so much to care to implement such a wonderful plan. Make no mistake, Obamacare will be disaster as it slowly suffocates insurance companies with costs and insurance rates will skyrocket like you have never seen; and when that happens Progressives will point to the insurance companies and say “see – these greedy companies are trying to screw you” and ultimately will seek to have a single payer system that will squeeze out insurance companies and supplant them with government financed systems. And all the meanwhile, the very same government that uses the IRS, the EPA, and other government agencies to torment and to harass its political enemies will now have access to your medical records. And we are to suppose or believe that these same political hacks will leave our medical records alone. If you believe this administration or Progressives won’t exploit your medical records for their political gain, you are too stupid to remain alive.

Comments on Odds and Ends I was watching ABC News tonight and their coverage of Senator Ted Cruz's 21 hour extended speech and was struck by the outright dishonesty of the report. ABC News stated that "Cruz's speech delayed business on voting on the funding for the Government" which is an outright lie.   There was NO SCHEDULED business during the 21 hours he spoke and nothing was impeded.   Business resumed per the schedule of the pathetic piece of shit, Senator Harry Reid, who will be playing games preventing other voices to be heard or to ban all amendments to the upcoming Senate bill other than for his own which strips out defunding Obamascare. The fact that ABC News felt compelled to LIE about Cruze's speech and to later mock it with its characterization shows why the media cannot be believed on anything it reports.   The major news networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and most of FOX routinely lie and distort freedom-loving people's perspective.     Major polls show a profound lack of voters desire for Obamacare yet we are forced to have it. I will not purchase any insurance Regardless of the penalty, I will not purchase any health insurance - I shall not be threatened to do so with a penalty (which I will not pay) nor can you find any excess income that I have that would allow me to afford even the most bogus and fraudulent low ball plan that virtually covers nothing and has deductibles so high that it makes having insurance pointless.  I will be glad to be a sacrifical lamb to get punished and then to seek the assistance of freedom loving law firms and organizations to take this piece of shit law to court to have it thrown out! Virginia Gubernatorial Debate I'm watching this debate but was struck by the already biased nature of the debate - F-Chuck Todd, leftist hack and liberal from NBC News is moderating.   This already is not a fair debate. The reprehensible and potentially most dishonest human ever born, Terry McAuliffe, a guy who makes Bill Clinton look nearly like George Washington with honesty, gets to open first and starts by spewing lies and distortions no more than 1 minute into the debate with his opening statement.   McAuliffe (hereby refered to as McFluffy) is really not a Virginian - he is a carpet bagging piece of shit. The Republican candidate actually spoke about himself and positive nature and didn't launch into personal attacks as that asswipe Terry McFluffy did. McFluffy is a new yorker - a pathetic leftist northerner - the worst kind - he invokes his business experience but participated in Global Crossing which rivals the insidious infection of dishonesty that Enron did.   McFluffy was the Democrat National Chairman that continually covered up Bill Clinton's lies.  McFluffy has constantly lied - a typical Democrat from today - unethical, dishonest, insidiously bold and arrogant and foolish.   He decries that the Republican (whom I will not be voting for - I'm voting Libertarian) as not showing where any of his plans' costs come from while NEVER ONCE showing where his own plans get funding!   When McFluffy is asked REPEATEDLY how much his plan will cost and where the money will come from, McFluffy NEVER ANSWERS!     Great line from Republican - "The office of Governor is NOT AN ENTRY LEVEL JOB and it would be for (McFluffy)." It is obvious the Republican in this debate has a grasp of the Commonwealth's problems and McFluffy is just reading from the old tired Democrat talking points of pre-K education and teacher pay - never mentions his costs or funding source.   This McFluffy is like Bill Clinton without any intelligence.  Invest in  Education - which is why the NEA is running ads - the NEA is a sellout Democrat organization that ONLY supports Democrats and wants to brainwash our children with leftist ideals! Republican was asked question of specific tax loopholes that would be cut but did not come up with any as requested. McFluffy on gun rights - spouts typical leftist pig diatribe against guns - trots out Sandy hook dead children as a prop in his language - "responsible gun ownership" - this is a mask to control people and guns - trots out "gunshow loophole" which does not exist - gunshows are absolutely no different than a private citizen selling a weapon out of their garage - these shows feature almost all independent people selling weapons as private citizens and not as businesses.  Mail order gun sales - that is simply dishonest - you have to get approved for the sale like any other transaction - McFluffy just lied.   McFluffy invokes Navy Yard situation but fails to grasp that NO LAW he recommends would have prevented that - and - because of Bill Clinton, there were no weapons available on the personnel that could have stopped the dirt bag dead - a leftist pig actually signed a law that prevents a MILITARY base from being armed! McFluffy supports gay marriage - I don't - marriage is between a man and a woman and if gays want protection, get a domestic partnership instead of redefining words to your bigoted definition of marriage which PRECLUDES any other coupling of adults from being recognized.  I find it abhorrent to change the definition of a word only to continue to institutionalize bigotry. While the Republican is merely a Democrat Lite and not conservative enough, McFluffy is a joke - he is a carpetbagging asswipe who has never served Virginia and deserves to be sent back to New York where his type of dishonesty is suckled from like a cow's teets.