Polygamy Will be Next (And Much More)

h/t MK





http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/03/polygamy-will-be-next-and-much-more/



Polygamy Will be Next (And Much More)

Posted 4 Hours Ago by Gary DeMar filed under Christianity, Culture, Family, Feminism, Homosexuality, Liberalism, Marriage, Morality, Poverty, Religion

There is nothing in our current legal system or  national moral climate that will stop polygamy from becoming the next liberal cause:

“Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would jettison the rationale and logic behind prohibitions on polygamous marriages, according to several friend-of-the court briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

“‘Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships,’ reads one of the briefs, filed by the Christian legal group Liberty Counsel. ‘In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well.’”

The Netherlands is a microcosm of how the homosexual community hoodwinked this once-Christian nation into accepting a perversion. A former Dutch Member of Parliament “has admitted that polygamous marriage is the ‘next logical step’ following the introduction of same-sex marriages in the Netherlands.”
Serial polygamy is already accepted in America. People get married and divorced numerous times with little regard for marriage as a covenant bond. Hollywood types change wives like some people change shoes. Others don’t get married but live together, have children out of wedlock, and few people bat an eye.
Watch the Home and Garden Channel (HGTV) and note how many times non-married couples are living together and the number of homosexual couples that are featured.
In some respects, America is becoming a third-world nation. The cultural mores that made America great are quickly disappearing. Providentially there is a Christian and conservative counter culture that is quietly replacing the disintegrating secular worldview.
Abortion kills off future generations. Homosexuality is a sterile worldview. The only way homosexuality can flourish is by recruitment. I believe a good case can be made that homosexuality is the result of failed families, and that mostly means failed fathers.
The State has become the father figure to many young people. This is especially true in the Black community. The Welfare State made it financially easy for fathers to abandon their children and for the State to become a substitute parent.

Rulers have ever been tempted to play the role of father to their people. . . . When the provision of paternal security replaces the provision of justice as the function of the state, the state stops providing justice. . . . Those who are concerned about the chaos into which the criminal justice system has fallen should consider what the state’s function has become. Because the state can only be a bad imitation of a father, as a dancing bear act is of a ballerina, the protection of this Leviathan of a father turns out to be a bear hug.^[1]

There’s something going on in the black community known as the Down Low.

“Ten years ago, the New York Times reported on a growing underground subculture in the black community known as Down Low, comprised largely of men who secretly engage in homosexual activity while living ‘straight’ lives in public.”

Why is this happening? Because a number of black men are looking for father figures, and they believe they can find it in other men.
The people who have gotten on the “gay train” don’t realize what it’s dragging behind it.

Blah, Blah, Racist, Blah, Blah, Racist, Blah, Blah, Blah, Racist

posted on November 27, 2012 by Gary DeMar

22 Comments

29

I love white meat, and if you love white meat, you’re most likely reacting to some inner anti-dark worldview, because, according to Ron Rosenbaum at Slate, “Dark meat represents slime and viscosity. Dark meat embodies all the menace of dissolution into the nothingness that is the slimy ground of being itself!” What he’s trying to say, if you like white (white meat and white bread), you’re not right. Rosenbaum’s high brow but sad piece is the end-point of how liberals think these days. They find a narrative that resonates with their constituency groups and blast its sound 24/7 from the highest media outposts. The sad thing is, it works.

When you can’t win an argument by challenging someone’s operating assumptions or marshalling of the facts, pull the ad hominem card. To argue ad hominem (“against the man”) means to attack the person making the argument instead of the argument itself. Ad hominem reasoning is an informal fallacy of irrelevance. A person making an argument can hold to horrible opinions and live a scandalously immoral life but still make a valid and sound case for or against a position. That is, he can like white meat and white bread and not be a racist.

Usually ad hominem arguments are arguments of last resort when logic and facts are not on the attacker’s side.

The attacks made against someone can be either true or false. The goal is to delegitimize an argument by calling into question the character of the person making the argument or manufacturing a charge in order to obscure the truth or falsity of an argument. If you’re a white-meat eater, there are really dark thoughts in your soul (if you even have one).

Liberals are skillful in the use of the ad hominem attack. “How can we take this man’s criticism seriously when it’s obvious that he’s a racist? Look how white he is!” It doesn’t matter if the charge is true; the goal is to divert attention away from the weakness of the argument being made by the person who makes the ad hominem allegation.

Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign, any criticism of President Obama’s policy was said to be wrapped up in a thin veneer of racism. A similar tactic was employed when conservatives objected to using tax payers’ money to pay for contraceptives. This was seen as a “war on women.” We’ve seen the combination of the racism and war on women charges when Republicans wanted to question Susan Rice, the current Ambassador to the United Nations, and the way she explained the Benghazi attacks. Sure enough, even to question anything she said or did was anti-woman and racist. What else could it be?

Now Ken Burns has joined the “it-must-be-about-racism” crowd. Burns is best known, and maybe only known, for his many documentaries. He first gained notoriety for his documentary The Civil War (1990), and then went on to direct and produce documentaries on baseball (1994), jazz (2001), the national parks (2009), war (2011), and the dust bowl.

While appearing on a Meet the Press panel to discuss Steven Spielberg’s new film Lincoln, Burns asked the guests, “Do you think we’d have a secession movement in Texas and in other places … if this president wasn’t African American?” Secession + white meat + white bread = racism. The math is easy when you know how to do it. Who knows what Rosenbaum would think if you sleep on white sheets.

If it’s always been about racism, then why wasn’t there a call for secession after Obama won in 2008?

Burns even brought up the Tea Party in his racism charge. Why did the Tea Party get behind Ted Cruz, who is Hispanic, in his Senate race in Texas if the Tea Party is all about “vitriol” and “racism”? There were Republicans Mia Love in Utah and Allen West in Florida, both black, that Democrats would not vote for.

It’s the Democrats who keep making race an issue. They are the ones who have to drag it into every conversation. The reason for their preoccupation with race is that they do not want to talk about the issues.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/8278/blah-blah-racist-blah-blah-racist-blah-blah-blah-racist/

Was CIA Director Petraeus Set Up ‘Godfather Style’?

November 10, 2012 by Gary DeMar Filed Under Corruption, Family, Morality, Police State, Politics

10

29

I’m a little suspicious of the sudden resignation of David Petraeus as CIA director based on an extra-marital affair he had. The resignation seems very well timed. This was certainly known before the election. It was Petraeus who gave what some consider to have been “misleading” testimony when he appeared before the House Intelligence Committee on September 14 about the Benghazi attack. Petraeus claimed that the attack was the result of an anti-Islam YouTube video despite an abundance of intelligence information that pointed to a preplanned terrorist assault on the anniversary of 9/11.

It gets even more interesting as The Weekly Standard reports the following:

“Obama administration officials have told reporters that Petraeus’s resignation means he will not testify before congressional oversight committees next week, as planned. This will not sit well with Republicans, who believe Petraeus is in a unique position to shed light on the intelligence on Benghazi before the attack, the decision-making during the attack and the misleading stories told after it.”

Why now and why no testimony? As I said, I’m suspicious.

I’m reminded of the film Godfather II. Pat Geary (played by G. D. Spradlin) is a senator from Nevada who’s almost as corrupt as Michael Corleone. Michael uses the senator’s moral failings to his advantage.

At the Corleone’s son’s First Communion celebration, the senator and his wife are in attendance. The senator accepts a generous donation from the Corleones for the local college in memory of Vito Corleone, Michael’s father and the original Godfather.

Soon after, the senator is in Michael’s private office. Senator Geary wants Michael to pay a bribe in return for a disputed gaming license at one of the casinos in Las Vegas. He tells Michael that he intends to “squeeze” the Corleone family for all he can get. He gives Michael a day to respond to his offer. As Geary is about to leave, Michael tells Geary that he is ready with his answer. He tells the senator that he wants the license for free and that he is to pay the $20,000 licensing fee out of his own pocket. Geary sneers and then leaves figuring he has Michael over a barrel.

It’s at this point that the Godfather goes into action in order to make it impossible for Senator Geary to oppose anything Michael will do:

Some time later, Geary spends the night with a prostitute in a brothel run by Michael’s brother Fredo in the Nevada desert. Having suffered from an alcoholic blackout, he awakens in a bed covered in blood next to [a] woman, who is dead. Corleone family consigliere Tom Hagen arrives on the scene and tells a terrified Geary that since the woman has no family, the matter can be safely covered up. Hagen promises Geary, “All that will be left is our friendship.” It is implied that the Corleones have engineered [the] situation, perhaps through drugging Geary. . . . Subsequently, it appears that the Corleones’ “help” with the incident (in other words, blackmail) sways Geary to the Corleone family’s side.

Was the Petraeus resignation “Godfather politics” in action? The FBI discovered the relationship by monitoring Petraeus’ email on what was said to be “an unrelated matter.” The information about the emails came from “an official who is not authorized to comment publicly on the matter.” I find all of this very odd. Did Obama and Co. use this information to blackmail General Petraeus? Is there more to the story that Petraeus wants kept secret?

Again, I guess I’m just a little suspicious, especially about the part that he won’t be testifying about Benghazi.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/11/was-cia-director-petraeus-set-up-godfather-style/

The Long History of ‘Progressive’ Radicalism

posted on October 17, 2012 by Gary DeMar

3 Comments

46

Support for the radical terrorist John Brown (1800–1859) of Harpers Ferry fame has a long and storied history among liberals. Trevor Loudon at the New Zeal site makes some interesting connections that include President Obama:

Why would Barack Obama choose to give a controversial speech attacking American capitalism in Osawatomie, Kansas? Hang on? Where have I heard that name before? Osawatomie? . . . back in the ’70s? Weather Underground terrorists… Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn. Didn’t Obama used to hang out with those guys? I remember! Osawatomie was the publication of the Weather Underground!

In his December 6, 2011 economic policy speech that he delivered in Osawatomie, President Obama distorted the meaning of capitalism. He stated that capitalism “doesn’t work. It has never worked” unless government is given the power to control the marketplace by smoothing out its inequities.

It’s true that President Teddy Roosevelt also spoke there. It seems that the location is a platform for “Progressive” (liberal) views. Roosevelt, often viewed as a conservative, was a “‘trust-buster’ who arbitrarily decided which trusts promoted the national interest and which ones were adverse to it.”

The most radical of them was John Brown whose violent actions against the unrighteousness of slavery began in Kansas. By the time that Brown and his men moved east, the many skirmishes became known as Bleeding Kansas, a term coined by Horace Greeley. The so-called Civil War where more than 600,000 Americans died was a direct result of Brown’s recklessness and violence.

Brown viewed himself as the self-appointed avenger of God who was fond of quoting Hebrews 9:22: “All things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission” (KJV). If it took the blood of Americans to purge the sin of slavery from the land, so be it, Brown argued. For his actions, as PBS reports, Brown was regarded as a hero by many in the anti-slavery movement of his time:

Although initially shocked by Brown’s exploits, many Northerners began to speak favorably of the militant abolitionist. “He did not recognize unjust human laws, but resisted them as he was bid. . . .,” said Henry David Thoreau in an address to the citizens of Concord, Massachusetts. “No man in America has ever stood up so persistently and effectively for the dignity of human nature. . . .”

What were the exploits that “initially shocked” Brown’s supporters but later were overshadowed by his “righteous” intention to rid the land of slavery? “On the evening of 23 May 1856, he and 6 followers, including 4 of his sons, visited the homes of pro-slavery men along Pottawatomie Creek [in Franklin County, Kansas], dragged their unarmed inhabitants into the night, and hacked them to death with long-edged swords.” (source)

Brown and his men were Progressive vigilantes. The Pottawatomie Massacre was the first act of savagery that caught the attention of the anti-slavery movement and instilled fear in supporters of slavery. “God is my judge,” Brown said.  “It was absolutely necessary as a measure of self-defense, and for the defense of others.”

In 1859, Brown hoped to start an armed slave revolt by seizing a United States Arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. His plan was to use these weapons to arm slaves who would then strike terror in the slaveholders in Virginia. Federal troops eventually arrived under the command of Col. Robert E. Lee. Brown was later tried, convicted, and executed for his act of terrorism.

How has history treated John Brown? William Lloyd Garrison (1805–1879), editor of the anti-slavery The Liberator, had a lot to say about Brown’s exploits on the day of his execution. Although he was still “an ‘ultra’ peace man,” he thanked God “when men who believe in the right and duty of wielding carnal weapons are so far advanced that they will take those weapons out of the scale of despotism, and thrown them into the scale of freedom.”

Such righteous violence was “an indication of progress, and a positive moral growth; it is one way to get up to the sublime platform of non-resistance.” Brown’s violence was “God’s method of dealing retribution upon the head of the tyrant.”[1]

In 1863, businessman George L. Stearns held a “John Brown Party” where he unveiled a “marble bust of John Brown, the antislavery martyr who had died on a scaffold three years earlier after his doomed, heroic effort to free the slaves by leading a twenty-two-man raid on Harpers Ferry, Virginia.” The comments by Richard Ellis offer a helpful commentary on the adulation given to John Brown:

The radical abolitionists’ response to John Brown and General Benjamin Butler also attests to the primacy of the hypocrisy within radical abolitionist political thought. Brown was canonized by abolitionists precisely because he embodied the idea of putting hypocrisy first. Brown’s moral zeal and uprightness exposed the hypocrisy of the shuffling and timid compromises made by politicians. Brown’s own acts of cruelty were forgiven, excused, or denied on account of his authenticity and candor.[2]

Brown remains a sainted figure. On Bowdoin College’s website under “Abolitionism” you will find the following:  “John Brown led a righteous crusade against slavery, born of religious conviction — and carried out with shocking violence.”

The Progressives follow a different approach to social change. They don’t need bloodshed to frighten the opposition. They use the power of government to force compliance to laws and regulations that bring about the same result.

Notes:

1. William Lloyd Garrison, “John Brown and the Principle of Nonresistance,” The Liberator (December 16, 1859). Quoted in Richard J. Ellis, The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America [Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1998], 36. [↩]
2. Ellis, The Dark Side of the Left, 42. [↩]

http://godfatherpolitics.com/7549/the-long-history-of-progressive-radicalism/

Did Hillary Clinton Setup The caliph خليفة Benedict Arnold for Tonight’s Debate?

posted on October 16, 2012 by Gary DeMar

185 Comments

236

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has taken the blame for security lapses at our embassies. Why would she do this the day before President Obama’s second debate with Mitt Romney? It doesn’t make sense unless (1) Obama forced her to take the blame hoping he can diffuse the political damage that the embassy violence has caused to his re-election chances or (2) she wants to damage the president by coming off as more presidential.

Taking the blame goes a long way politically. Her “the buck stops here” admission makes the president look small. Did she do this on purpose? Is she setting herself up for a run in 2016 by distancing herself from Obama’s blame-shifting political strategy?

Did Obama make a deal with her? If she took the blame and if he wins, Joe Biden will step down as vice president and he’ll pick Hillary, setting her up as the logical choice for President in 2016.

Economic numbers are looking up for the President. Michelle has said the economy is on an upswing. Unemployment is below 8 percent. While these numbers are suspect, they tend to filter through the population. The media can have an impact on how people think by how they position the news. The flip in the numbers came just at the right time for November 6^th.

Obama can dismiss the embassy trouble at the debate by saying that it was all Hillary’s fault. Of course, he won’t say it like that. He’ll most likely praise her for doing the stand-up thing by taking the blame. He can then shift the debate back to the more optimistic economic numbers that the First Lady is pushing on the talk shows.

To be honest, I don’t know why Hillary decided to fall on her political sword. I don’t trust either one of them. Hillary has Bill whispering in her ear. Does anyone know who’s whispering in Obama’s ear?

It’s up to Romney to keep the pressure on the President tonight. It’s still the economy, but Americans don’t like a cover-up. The new media has forced the old media to deal with the story.

This is much worse than Watergate. No one died in the 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/7530/did-hillary-clinton-setup-obama-for-tonights-debate/

US State Department is Financing Mosques around the World

September 20, 2012 by Gary DeMar Filed Under Islam, Taxes

5

1

The State Department is sending millions of our tax dollars to save mosques overseas. Can you imagine what would happen if tax dollars were going to rebuild churches here in the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State would be condemning the action by an appeal to the First Amendment. And I would be in line with them. Our government doesn’t have any business using tax money to repair churches, Jewish synagogues, or Muslim mosques, especially mosques.

Justification for this blatantly unconstitutional action is that the expenditure of $4 million to refurbish mosques is “a good-will effort.” A lot of good our “investment” has done given the events of the last week. It’s always easy to spend someone else’s money. If Liberals want to express good will, then let them do it with their own money.

Liberals just don’t get it. Islam is a world-dominating religion. They see the planting of a mosque as conquered territory. Every time a mosque goes, up, they believe that it’s only a matter of time before Islam will be ruling. Egyptian-American human rights activist Nonie Darwish said “that trying to buy respect in the Middle East only shows our weakness.” She went on to say:

“‘This part of the world has a lot of respect for power and America is not showing its power, it’s showing its appeasement. They are laughing all the way to the bank,’ said Darwish.”

Darwish was born in Egypt and is a former Muslim. She has written several books critical of the radical elements of Islam. She made the point that “most of the mosques in Egypt are run by extremists who have ordered former Muslims like herself to be killed.”

 “We are rebuilding mosques to support the radicals, not to support the moderates. We are building mosques to issue fatwas of death against people like me.”

Islam nations cannot survive on Islamic principles and Islamic law. Oil money is keeping Islam alive in these backward nations, and our foreign aid money is keeping Islamic governments alive. The more consistent Islam gets with its religious and cultural tenets, the sooner it will collapse under it’s own weight.

Cairo can’t collect it’s own garbage.

The same thing happened with the US and the former Soviet Union. The Soviet Union often stole our technology, and in some cases we often gave it to them. Communist leader Vladimir Ilyich Lenin said, “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” It almost worked until Ronald Reagan came along sold the Soviet Union on the belief that we were going to build “Star Wars.” The Soviets spent themselves into oblivion, and we never fired a shot.

September 20, 2012 by Gary DeMar Filed Under Islam, Taxes

US State Department is Financing Mosques around the World

5

1

The State Department is sending millions of our tax dollars to save mosques overseas. Can you imagine what would happen if tax dollars were going to rebuild churches here in the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State would be condemning the action by an appeal to the First Amendment. And I would be in line with them. Our government doesn’t have any business using tax money to repair churches, Jewish synagogues, or Muslim mosques, especially mosques.

Justification for this blatantly unconstitutional action is that the expenditure of $4 million to refurbish mosques is “a good-will effort.” A lot of good our “investment” has done given the events of the last week. It’s always easy to spend someone else’s money. If Liberals want to express good will, then let them do it with their own money.

Liberals just don’t get it. Islam is a world-dominating religion. They see the planting of a mosque as conquered territory. Every time a mosque goes, up, they believe that it’s only a matter of time before Islam will be ruling. Egyptian-American human rights activist Nonie Darwish said “that trying to buy respect in the Middle East only shows our weakness.” She went on to say:

“‘This part of the world has a lot of respect for power and America is not showing its power, it’s showing its appeasement. They are laughing all the way to the bank,’ said Darwish.”

Darwish was born in Egypt and is a former Muslim. She has written several books critical of the radical elements of Islam. She made the point that “most of the mosques in Egypt are run by extremists who have ordered former Muslims like herself to be killed.”

 “We are rebuilding mosques to support the radicals, not to support the moderates. We are building mosques to issue fatwas of death against people like me.”

Islam nations cannot survive on Islamic principles and Islamic law. Oil money is keeping Islam alive in these backward nations, and our foreign aid money is keeping Islamic governments alive. The more consistent Islam gets with its religious and cultural tenets, the sooner it will collapse under it’s own weight.

Cairo can’t collect it’s own garbage.

The same thing happened with the US and the former Soviet Union. The Soviet Union often stole our technology, and in some cases we often gave it to them. Communist leader Vladimir Ilyich Lenin said, “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” It almost worked until Ronald Reagan came along sold the Soviet Union on the belief that we were going to build “Star Wars.” The Soviets spent themselves into oblivion, and we never fired a shot.

September 20, 2012 by Gary DeMar Filed Under Islam, Taxes

US State Department is Financing Mosques around the World

5

1

The State Department is sending millions of our tax dollars to save mosques overseas. Can you imagine what would happen if tax dollars were going to rebuild churches here in the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State would be condemning the action by an appeal to the First Amendment. And I would be in line with them. Our government doesn’t have any business using tax money to repair churches, Jewish synagogues, or Muslim mosques, especially mosques.

Justification for this blatantly unconstitutional action is that the expenditure of $4 million to refurbish mosques is “a good-will effort.” A lot of good our “investment” has done given the events of the last week. It’s always easy to spend someone else’s money. If Liberals want to express good will, then let them do it with their own money.

Liberals just don’t get it. Islam is a world-dominating religion. They see the planting of a mosque as conquered territory. Every time a mosque goes, up, they believe that it’s only a matter of time before Islam will be ruling. Egyptian-American human rights activist Nonie Darwish said “that trying to buy respect in the Middle East only shows our weakness.” She went on to say:

“‘This part of the world has a lot of respect for power and America is not showing its power, it’s showing its appeasement. They are laughing all the way to the bank,’ said Darwish.”

Darwish was born in Egypt and is a former Muslim. She has written several books critical of the radical elements of Islam. She made the point that “most of the mosques in Egypt are run by extremists who have ordered former Muslims like herself to be killed.”

 “We are rebuilding mosques to support the radicals, not to support the moderates. We are building mosques to issue fatwas of death against people like me.”

Islam nations cannot survive on Islamic principles and Islamic law. Oil money is keeping Islam alive in these backward nations, and our foreign aid money is keeping Islamic governments alive. The more consistent Islam gets with its religious and cultural tenets, the sooner it will collapse under it’s own weight.

Cairo can’t collect it’s own garbage.

The same thing happened with the US and the former Soviet Union. The Soviet Union often stole our technology, and in some cases we often gave it to them. Communist leader Vladimir Ilyich Lenin said, “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” It almost worked until Ronald Reagan came along sold the Soviet Union on the belief that we were going to build “Star Wars.” The Soviets spent themselves into oblivion, and we never fired a shot.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/09/us-state-department-is-financing-mosques-around-the-world/