Obama Admin. Says Legal Gun Owners are a Threat, but ISIS is No Threat At All


(NaturalNews) American gun owners can spot a gun-grabber a mile away, and they have known for several years now that their president is one of them. Time and again, Barack Obama has attempted to goad the country and Congress into backing stricter gun control laws that would do little to reduce mass shootings that are statistically rare to begin with,[PDF] according to a government study.

But statistics and facts and the truth about guns don’t matter to an ideologue like Obama; as, a Natural News indy partner site, reported recently, Obama is likely to spend his final year in office pressing for more gun control laws that will weaken the Second Amendment and actually make Americans more vulnerable to criminals.

To Obama, American gun owners are a threat and menace to society – he must obviously think so, otherwise he wouldn’t continually prioritize the pursuit of more and more gun laws when the existing laws on the books are more than enough to restrict and govern Americans and others who voluntarily choose to obey them. No new law or even gun bans would do anything to stop bad people from obtaining a firearm and doing bad things with it.

But you know who Obama doesn’t really believe is a threat to the U.S.? Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. If he did, he wouldn’t support or implement a policy that welcomes them into the United States disguised as “refugees.”

In stumping for support of his policy – he has announced that, despite the ISIS-backed terrorist attack in Paris Nov. 13, in which 129 people were killed and hundreds more wounded, he was committed to accepting some 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country.

Importing terror while trying to disarm America
“We have very robust vetting procedures for those refugees. It involves our intelligence community, our national counterterrorism center, extensive interviews, vetting them against all the available information,” Deputy National Security Advisor to the President Ben Rhodes told Fox News recently. That’s not really true, since there is no reason to have Syrian citizens in U.S. government databases, making them all but impossible to vet.

But there is also this. Syria – and Syrians – are enemies of our lone trustworthy ally in the Middle East, Israel, having fought three wars against the Jewish state (1948, 1967 and 1973), which means that the Syrian government has always been hostile towards Israel’s principle benefactor, the United States. What sense does it make to import an ethnic group that was raised to hate you – because of your alliance with an archenemy and because of your “infidel” way of life?

How many are ‘poisonous’?
The Obama Administration doesn’t want you to know such things, however. What’s more, the White House only wants you to consider that these refugees are really just harmless people fleeing a war-torn country, and that they deserve a chance at a better life in America.

There are a number of things wrong with these assertions, aside from those already mentioned. One is that radical Syrian refugees have already been involved in terrorist attacks, both within the “caliphate” of ISIS and aboard. One who was involved in the Paris attacks had a passport from Greece.

Another is that, domestically, Obama plans to infiltrate Syrian refugees into the heart of the country, and he’s already moving some into Louisiana, where one Syrian male has already gone missing. What happens when some of these new arrivals become radicalized? What happens if they already are radicalized? ISIS promised to use the refugee “crisis” as a Trojan Horse of sorts, to infiltrate its operatives into Western countries.

There are several popular memes on social media that attempt to portray, in clever but realistic terms, the fallacy of Obama’s Syrian refugee policy. One features a bowl of grapes and asks, “If I served you 10 and told you that two of them were poisonous, would you eat any?” The connotation, of course, is that while most Syrians may be harmless, a few may not be – and how many American lives are we willing to sacrifice to find out?

Obama is apparently ready to run the experiment and – if he gets his way – he’ll conduct it with a lesser-armed American citizenry.

Learn more:

Climate Scientists Dismantle Manmade Theory of Global Warming

Perhaps the only manmade thing about global warming is the theory itself. The earth goes through climate cycles in the same way that it goes through seasons. The fact that the climate changes is nothing new. It goes through warming cycles and cooling cycles. The part where the issue ceases to be scientific is the subject of who’s to blame, as if someone has to be blamed for the weather. In politics, pointing fingers at a particular group of people is how you win elections.

A group of climate scientists attacked liberals’ alarmist view of global warming. The Daily Caller reported:

A panel of prominent scientists debunked one of the most popular global warming arguments ahead of a major United Nations climate summit to take place in Paris later this month.

The scientists slammed policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as “nonsense,” and they criticized politicians and activists for claiming the world was on the path for catastrophic global warming.

“The most important thing to keep in mind is — when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc. — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point,” Dr. Richard Lindzen, a veteran climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celcius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity — meaning no problem at all,” said Lindzen, who is also a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

President Barack Obama and his activist allies are calling for U.N. delegates to sign onto a global treaty to reduce CO2 emissions. Obama has been heavily pushing for this treaty for the past year or so, even lobbying the Chinese government to sign onto an agreement.

“Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense,” Dr. Will Happer, a physicist at Princeton University, said during the panel Thursday hosted by the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation.

“They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path,” Happer argued.

According to alarmists, these people aren’t scientists, let alone climate scientists. They might have the credentials and the experience and all that, but the fact that they call into question a theory that has been politically accepted for decades shows that they do not deserve their credentials. They might as well deny gravity exists.

Conversely, a person needs no credentials to believe in manmade global warming. Think Bill Nye. He’s been a global warming cheerleader from the beginning. He has little more credentials than being a children’s TV show personality.


President Obama Planning a Major and Devasting Attack Against ISIS

It’s about damn time. Yesterday, President Obama announced that he will personally participate in delivering a devastating blow to ISIS. This news came at the same time as United States military sources confirmed that the American Air Force could not take out ISIS oil tankers because we ran out of bullets.

Undeterred, President Obama has a plan. He announced it yesterday in France with fanfare. The news is historic. This is the first time President Obama has ordered a full frontal assault on ISIS and he has put together a global coalition to make it happen. You might need to sit down for this. It is that big.

President Obama has decided to openly discuss climate change while in Paris. According to President Obama, that will be a serious “rebuke” to ISIS and show that there are more important dangers in the world than ISIS and that the world can go on about its business.

Seriously. President Obama said that. His precise words were, “What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children.”

As troubling as that is, consider Army Col. Steven Warren. In reporting that U.S. war planes had run out of bullets and therefore could not blow up ISIS fuel tankers, Col. Warren sought to assure the world by saying, AND THIS TOO IS A DIRECT QUOTE, “[T[he desire was to destroy every single truck there.”

Well if the world were run on lollipop dreams and unicorn farts, we’d all be safe now because our planes desired to destroy every single truck and President Obama is delivering a “powerful rebuke” to ISIS by talking about global warming.

These people are not serious.

And, considering Barack Obama is also now on record claiming that global warming causes terrorism, I again must ask why we are not studying why global warming only causes muslims to become terrorists. The Christians and Jews in the Middle East are not becoming terrorists. If we can spend $3 million to study why lesbians are fat, surely we can spend a few hundred thousand to find out why global warming makes only muslims become terrorists.

Obama Won’t Hit Islamic State Tankers, Says Drivers Are “Civilians”


Politicians should stay out of military strategy.
This has been confirmed, too. I first heard about this last night, Fox News Special Report. Get this. So here’s what happened. I didn’t have any backup for this. I’ve got TV on in the background, I’m doing other things, and during Special Report last night, there was a reason provided for why we have not hit any ISIS oil centers or transportation depos or trucks or any of that, and I was incredulous when I heard it. I said it’s gotta be true, it’s Obama, but a part of me couldn’t believe it. We have not hit any oil tanker trucks specifically for the last several years because the Obama administration had decides the drivers were civilians and therefore could not be killed.

You know, after the French attacks, last Friday, the French went in and had a big hit on Raqqa, which is the ISIS headquarters in Syria. And there was a question that was asked shortly after that. Why is Raqqa still standing? I mean, it’s been the ISIS headquarters for who knows how long. Why is it still there for the French to take out? And we find out that Obama never hit it and he hasn’t hit anything to do with the oil fields, the oil industry, oil wells and fields and areas that ISIS has commandeered, it’s the primary source of money, fuel, and fund their operations, and we haven’t hit it.

The usual explanation is one found in environmental concerns. “Well, we don’t want to hit those oil fields, my God, can you imagine the eruptions and the potential fires and the pollution and the economic or ecological damage? No, no, no, we can’t go out and hit the oil fields. No, no, no, no, no.” Well, it turns out none of that was the reason we left them alone. Despite the fact that these oil tankers are transporting oil that has been used to pay for ISIS’ murderous projects, we didn’t hit those trucks because the Regime said they’re more than likely driven by civilians.

And here’s the backup for it. It’s from the Washington Free Beacon: “US military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike.” This is according to congressman to Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage.”

It looks like it is more of the restrictive rules of engagement that has our hands tied in Afghanistan. “The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the US campaign to combat the Islamic State.” So we’re not even serious about this, folks. Remember the purpose of armies and the reason for war is to kill people and break things.


David Kupelian examines the president’s stunning denial of reality

by David Kupelian

“Is Barack Obama delusional?”

That’s how Bill O’Reilly led his Fox News show last night, addressing Obama’s press conference in Turkey in which the president defended his disastrously ineffective policies for dealing with the rapidly metastasizing terror army ISIS which, after last week’s hellish Paris attacks, vows Washington, D.C., is next.

After the commercial break, O’Reilly started in again: “Is President Barack Obama delusional about ISIS? Joining us now from Washington, Charles Krauthammer. Is he?”

Responded Krauthammer, a Pulitzer-winning columnist and former psychiatrist: “Judging from the press conference, there are several explanations for that appalling performance; the kindest is that he’s delusional.”

Krauthammer explained: “He said on Friday that ISIS was not gaining in strength, [though] even his own Dianne Feinstein said essentially it’s a delusion. Of course it’s gaining in strength. … But the reason that ‘delusion’ is the kindest [explanation], is I think the more likely explanation is, he knows that opposition is weakening, he knows that ISIS is strong and that it’s a threat, but in the end, he doesn’t think it matters. He’s never thought the war on terror was important or existential. …”

O’Reilly: “But how can you say that he doesn’t understand that millions of people – millions of people – are either dying, being dislocated, being tortured, being wounded … and you still, Charles Krauthammer, say he doesn’t care? It doesn’t mean anything to him?”

Krauthammer: “There’s a difference between millions of people suffering and an existential threat to the West, which is what it is, and which is what he denies.”

A little later in Fox’s primetime lineup, former CIA operative Mike Baker, a guest on “Hannity,” described Obama’s actions and attitude with regard to radical Islam as “surreal.”

Then Hannity, in an exchange with psychology expert Dr. Gina Loudon about the Paris terror attacks, observed: “Some good people have a hard time grasping that these people could go into a crowded theater and start shooting innocent men, women and children. That’s just evil, in our time. This president’s not recognizing, won’t recognize – it’s pathological that he won’t recognize radical Islam.”

“It’s absolutely pathological,” responded Loudon. “And it’s not just pathological; it’s stupid and it’s dangerous.”

“Delusional.” “Surreal.” “Doesn’t care.” “Pathological.” “Stupid.” “Dangerous.” That’s America’s 44th president they’re talking about.

For the past seven years, sane Americans have been trying to explain Obama, evoking various hypotheses – including the possibility that he’s a genuine sociopath, that is, without conscience.

Fox pundit, long-time ABC News personality and Pulitzer-winning columnist George Will described “Barack Obama’s intellectual sociopathy – his often breezy and sometimes loutish indifference to truth.”

America is unraveling! How can we heal a nation broken by a lawless government and a godless culture? Read David Kupelian’s latest blockbuster book, “The Snapping of the American Mind.”

Here’s a typical description of “sociopathy,” so let’s see how it fits: “Sociopaths are often well-liked because of their charm and high charisma, but they do not usually care about other people. They think mainly of themselves and often blame others for the things that they do. They have a complete disregard for rules and lie constantly. They seldom feel guilt or learn from punishments.” Seems like a pretty good fit, but let’s continue.

One veteran forensic psychiatrist I know – an expert witness in thousands of court cases, whose expertise is sizing up criminal/antisocial people and determining what makes them tick – has described Obama to me in terms of “malignant narcissistic personality disorder.” The modifier “malignant” signifies the version of “narcissistic personality disorder” that may cross over into criminality, he explained.

He reviewed with me a list of some of the major symptoms of NPD, comparing them with Obama’s behavior as president. Among the key markers: 1) a grandiose view of one’s achievements (everything with Obama is “historic”), 2) an utter inability to handle criticism (almost everyone criticizing Obama or his policies is attacked as selfish, “partisan” or racist) and 3) lack of genuine empathy. (Obama’s designation of the apocalyptic Paris terror attacks as a “setback” in his foreign policy was reminiscent of his televised speech on the day of the Fort Hood terror attack. With the entire nation reeling in shock and yearning for strong, reassuring words from their commander in chief, Obama instead engaged in small talk and an inane “shout-out” for two full minutes before even mentioning that the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 had just occurred hours earlier.)

Here’s how psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, M.D., explains people like Obama in his classic best-seller, “People of the Lie”:

Malignant narcissism is characterized by an unsubmitted will. All adults who are mentally healthy submit themselves one way or another to something higher than themselves, be it God or truth or love or some other ideal. They do what God wants them to do rather than what they would desire. “Thy will, not mine, be done,” the God-submitted person says. They believe in what is true rather than what they would like to be true.

… In summary, to a greater or lesser degree, all mentally healthy individuals submit themselves to the demands of their own conscience. Not so the evil, however. In the conflict between their guilt [i.e., conscience] and their will, it is the guilt that must go and the will that must win.

The reader will be struck by the extraordinary willfulness of evil people. They are men and women of obviously strong will, determined to have their own way. There is a remarkable power in the manner in which they attempt to control others.

With the catastrophic Obama-era decline of America now threatening to spin entirely out of control, many are again straining to understand what on earth is really going on inside Obama’s mind:

Some, as previously mentioned, cite the disturbing degree to which Obama manifests full-blown symptoms of narcissism and/or sociopathy.
Some cite his barely disguised Marxist worldview (Fox pundit Monica Crowley recently said on the radio, “Obama’s not a Democrat. He’s a Marxist revolutionary”), with its obsession with radical redistribution of wealth and power. Marxism, by definition, justifies as “moral” not merely lying, but ruthless suppression of dissent, violence and tyranny – as long as these measures advance the glorious (though delusional) utopian cause. “Exhibit A” for this point would be the entire 20th century.
Some cite Obama’s childhood and upbringing. His Marxist-atheist-alcoholic-bigamist Kenyan father abandoned him, his Islamic stepfather raised him as a Muslim in Indonesia, his mother essentially abandoned him, and his most influential mentor as a young teenager was Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA, a pornographer and admitted sexual abuser of minors.
Some cite Obama’s religious background – his 20-year affiliation with his “spiritual mentor,” the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who preached raw hatred of America, capitalism and white people, and whose “black liberation theology” gospel amounts to Afro-centric Marxism dressed up with cherry-picked Bible verses.
Some cite his background in “Chicago politics” – a euphemism for wall-to-wall corruption and criminality. Indeed, the state of Illinois, where a staggering total of four recent governors – Otto Kerner, Dan Walker, George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich – have gone to prison for corruption, remains a political cesspool to this day, as confirmed by a study from the University of Illinois at Chicago’s political science department. Obama is a product of this legendarily corrupt “Chicago machine” and played the game ruthlessly while rising in the ranks there.
Some cite Obama’s education, the most important part of which, by his own admission, came via Saul Alinsky. During the 2008 campaign, Obama said of his years steeped in the Chicago Marxist’s revolutionary “community organizing” methods: “It was that education that was seared into my brain. It was the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School.”
So, let’s take stock: abandonment by his father, early Muslim training, toxic teen influences, hardcore Marxist indoctrination and Alinsky training, drug abuse (“Choom Gang”), association with criminals (Tony Rezko) and terrorists (William Ayers), racist religious affiliation (Jeremiah Wright), extreme political ambition and probable mental illness/disorder. Quite a cocktail that forms the current U.S. president’s worldview and sensibilities.

The question is not whether Obama is delusional or not – that is undeniable. The question is, in what frame of reference is he delusional – the narrow one Krauthammer cites, regarding Obama’s denial that radical Islam poses an existential threat to America and the world? Or the wider context of the rest of life? For when we widen our scope, we are forced to acknowledge that Obama gravitates toward evil and delusion not just with regard to the jihad threat, but in virtually every area: He wants to force 15-year-old girls to shower naked with boys who delusionally believe they’re girls. He intentionally allows our nation to be overrun with illegal aliens and legal “refugees” from cultures that hate America (today’s headline says of the Syrian refugees already in the U.S., 2,098 are Muslims and 53 are Christians). He annually releases tens of thousands of convicted criminal illegal aliens – we’re talking murderers, rapists and drug dealers – back onto American streets. He’s a radical proponent of what can only be called infanticide, the “aborting” of fully formed, full-term healthy human babies.

In every area, Obama demonstrates an unfortunate affinity for that which normal people would describe as destructive, corrupt, evil.

Whether this is because Obama is evil at his core, or whether there’s a decent person locked up inside but who has been traumatized and brainwashed – a Manchurian president, programmed not by exotic far-off communist brainwashers, but by a nonstop sequence of corrupting influences throughout his life – is not ours to know.

Ultimately, the question is largely academic. Whatever the ultimate explanation of Obama’s delusional presidency, he demonstrates at every turn a remarkable attraction for that which is destructive and corrupting to human life, that is, “evil.” And he is dragging America – and increasingly the world – through hell in search of it, which he somehow, however inexplicably, sees as good.


Feminism, Communism and the Destruction of the Nuclear Family


Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

The above statement is listed in the 45 goals of the communist party to take over the United States. As mentioned before, these goals were entered into the congressional record in 1963, after it was revealed that there was extensive communist infiltration into our government. Today, many sources are claiming that this list is a hoax; however, the results of such goals are self-evident in our society, and one area where this is particularly true; is the nuclear family. Our families have literally been destroyed and for many reasons. Today, it is virtually impossible for the average family to raise their children without both parents working, providing the family has two parents. Divorce runs rampant in our society as nearly forty one percent of first marriages are likely to end.[2] It should also be noted that marriage itself is in a decline, less people are getting married due to several factors such as poor economic prospects and a society that is less involved in religious institutions[3]. Religion has always been one of the strongest advocates for marriage, so, the more successful the attempts to discredit religion, the more successful the attempts to break up families will be. According to Pew Research Center[4], 26 percent of today’s younger people, ages 18-32 are likely to tie the knot, compared to sixty five percent in the 1960’s, forty eight percent in the baby boomer generation, and thirty six percent among the so called generation x crowd.

These numbers reflect not only changes in marriage rates, but an overall shift in American values. The nuclear family once held the bedrock of society together as it was understood that this was the most basic unit of self-governance, which was the fundamental principle essential for liberty in the United States. With strong marriages headed by mothers and fathers, family units were solely responsible for the upbringing and education of children. This was based on the idea that men and women had equal but separate roles to play in raising and nurturing families, and this represented the true meaning of freedom to our founding fathers.[5] In fact, the concept driving marriage was based on a collective, as opposed to an, “individualistic” approach to forming society.

Coverture represents the idea that married couples form a community of interest that the married couple freely joins and that protects all members of the family better than alternatives can. It reflects equality because it is freely chosen by men and women; it protects consent because the parties think the community of love and interest protects their lives, liberty, and property. Such laws show that marriage as a union is to be exclusive and, except in extreme cases, permanent.[6]

Today, the idea of equality has drastically changed and this is having drastic effects on the family structure as well as the well being of children. The studies proving that children need both a mother and a father are numerous[7] as are the studies showing the disadvantages that growing up in single parent homes have on children. For instance, children in two parent homes are more likely to live longer healthier lives, more likely to graduate high school and attend college, are less likely to live in poverty, are less likely to get into trouble with the law, less likely to do drugs, less likely to be sexually active and are more likely to get married and raise healthy families.[8] Keeping this knowledge in mind, it is not hard to draw correlations between the declining marriage rates to the state of society today, with the high crime rates, poor academic performance in many schools and over all disrespect for society that seems to run rampant among many younger people.

The American left seems to have an entire different vision of America’s traditional family structure. To them, the family is an oppressive institution of patriarchal dominance. One where the women are oppressed and forced in a world where she is reduced to nothing more than a house keeper doing the work that is needed to be done by everyone else. She is prohibited from pursuing her own dreams as she spends the day washing clothes, vacuuming, cooking for her husband and tending to the children’s needs. The idea that this is an arrangement freely agreed upon, and that the work being done is pursued in the best interest of children is nonexistent to the left as they go about the work of discrediting the family as an institution. Where did these ideas come from? How did a nation that once espoused the traditions of the nuclear family, a nation that understood its importance in securing the blessings of liberty, become one of declining marriages and less respectful of the values that traditional family life once taught? Obviously there is communist influence here, but more notably, it is the work of Betty Friedan and her creation of the feminist movement.

Author of the book, “The Feminist Mystique,”[9] Friedan lays the ground work for what would become the modern feminist movement where women demand total equality with men and the idea that men and women play separate but equal roles in raising children is all but dead. In fact, the idea of motherhood itself has become a form of oppression to modern feminists as the idea of taking responsibility not only for personal actions, but for the life of another has become the underlying theme in today’s abortion rights movement. The Feminist perspective has not only destroyed the traditional family, it has contributed to over downfall of society as feminists generally blame men for all of the world’s problems while seeking to dethrone them from all legitimate seats of power. In fact, many may argue that there is an overall effort to feminize men because it is believed that the hormone testosterone is responsible for much of what the feminists would claim is wrong with the world. The very first paragraph in chapter one of Friedan’s book says it all.

Freidan writes-
The problem lay buried, unspoken for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women suffered in the middle of the twentieth century in the United States. Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for the groceries, matched slip cover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured cub scouts and brownies, lay beside her husband at night- she was afraid to ask of herself the silent question—”Is this all?” [10]
In that paragraph alone Friedan attempts to portray the life of an American housewife as an oppressed victim forced into a life of servitude. She goes on to give the impression that all housewives in America feel the same as they desire to go out and become politicians, scientists, businesswomen and live lives free from the bondage of motherhood, and serving the men that dominate them. Remember, to our founding fathers marriage represented the entering of an agreed upon contract where it was understood that men and women both brought to the table qualities and attributes that were essential to the raising of children and creating successful, responsible communities. This represented God’s design as it is difficult to argue that men and women are indeed created differently. Women are obviously designed to give birth and many would argue that they bring to the table a more delicate, loving touch to raising children then men do. On the other hand, men seem to have the quality of bringing discipline and teaching the hard learned lessons in life. This is why the nuclear family has been traditionally viewed in American society as the bed rock of self governance; men and women entering into a mutually agreed upon contract carrying out the work that was once believed to be Gods original intent for man. When men and women marry, bringing together their separate but equal abilities, they become one unit in the eyes of God, they become one flesh. The Feminist movement has destroyed this concept.

Today, modern feminists carry out the work of Friedan by insisting that society still revolves around the male and his never ending list of privileges. In nearly all aspects of our culture you can find a group of feminists rallying around a cause, blaming the man for some, misperceived inequality, or some form of injustice committed against women simply because of their genitalia. One of the tactics of the communist left is to continually insist that the “right wing” is waging a war on women, trying to keep them down, barefoot and pregnant, and that it is our traditional view of the agreed upon contract of marriage that is oppressing them. The truth however, is the exact opposite. So called right wing conservatives appreciate women for the qualities they bring to the table, qualities in many cases, especially when it comes to caring for children, men often lack. Men cherish women and think they are deserving of special treatment. It is the never ending, impossible quest of total equality that is the real oppressor of women and equal rights. Women are not designed like men, plain and simple. By ignoring this one fact, that there are simply different attributes that men and women were designed with, the left is forcing women as a collective group, into a role that the majority of them may very well fall short on. Society would be much better off if men were allowed to be men and women were allowed to be women. The true equality of the sexes would shine through as everyone is operating in the so called “gender roles” they were assigned.

To properly understand the feminist view, and the idea that gender is a social construct as opposed to a deliberate design created by God, it must be understood that feminists are operating from a Marxist, or Communist point of view. They simply do not believe in God, or rather; they may view God as the Patriarchal being that represents the oppression they claim to be fighting against. After all, feminism seems to be going about the work of totally remaking society in their image. They argue that gender is a social construct, separate from the fact that men and women are biologically different, and that this social construct was created to justify the subjugation of women. Freya Brown writes in her essay, “On the Social Construction of Sex,”[11] that the idea of sex being a biological difference is patriarchal in nature and in order to break from this oppressive mindset a Marxist approach is needed.

At the end of the day, the sex/gender dichotomy is part of patriarchal ideology, and it is an idea that we need to break with in favor of a theory which is revolutionary and Marxist in character. The purpose of the present article is to provide an initial counter to the idea that sex assignment is “just biology.” A properly Marxist theory of sex will be more thoroughly explored in part two. Freya Brown-“On the Social Construction of Sex”

In today’s world the idea of gender being a social construct is being pushed to its ultimate limits. In the end, this is the problem when it comes to gender based equality and not the solution. The results of this backwards ideology are creating a world where sickness in the name of equality is the rule. For example, in many parts of the country the idea of having separate bathrooms for men and women is starting to be viewed from this “gender is a social construct” theory. For example, San Francisco elementary schools are forcing boys and girls to use the same bathroom because at that age, claims the school district, children choose to be transgender, or rather, tomboys.[12] As of 2013, the entire state of California adopted laws that allow children to use bathrooms and locker rooms not based on their biological sex, but rather the sex they choose to identify with.[13] Furthermore, the law allows both boys and girls to join sports teams not based on sex, but the sex they decide to feel like. How does this idea promote true freedom and not represent oppression? A young girl that decides she ought to be able to play football on the boys team is not only setting herself up for disappointment if they are unable to perform to the standard, she is also creating the conditions where boys will be unable to live up to their fullest potential because a drop in standards will be required in order for the girl who claims to feel like a boy to be able to play on an equal footing. This is oppression of the highest order if you think about it. The same is true if a boy decides to feel like a girl and uses the girl’s restroom. Just because this is now the law it does not mean that girls will automatically feel comfortable with boys invading their space and being present while they shower, change clothes and use the bathroom. This represents nothing but a sick, twisted remaking of society in the image of people who hold an anti-God view of the world. This is the same mentality affecting our military as well. As the debate heats up on whether women should be able to join combat units, no one is stopping to consider the real affects this may have on society. While it is certainly true that there are women out there who may very well be capable of performing to the same standards of men, the majority of women cannot, and to allow all women to serve in combat roles for the sake of achieving “total equality” threatens to lessen standards of performance while putting lives in danger. For instance, an article published by the website Western Journalism by female marine Jude Eden[14] highlights some of the problems of believing that women are just as capable of men serving in the combat zone. She highlights facts such as women losing half of their strength before a menstrual cycle, making them virtually incapable of enduring the rigors of combat that men are capable of dealing with. She also highlights a fact that the left, believing in Darwinism as they do, should understand very well. Once you put men and women together there is going to be sex. She mentioned the fact that once the U.S. Navy allowed women to serve on ships, problems of pregnancy, relationships, and unwanted sexual advances became prevalent, detracting from the mission of defending the nation. These are but a few examples; however, it should be noted that because men generally view women as needing protecting, it is highly likely that men would put their own lives in danger, abandoning the mission to protect women.
To believe that equality is something that needs to be forced by government as opposed to something that is already an inherent quality given by God only serves to further oppress women, not liberate them. Whether the left likes it or not, men and women are created different, with different purposes. Nothing will change the fact that biologically women are created to give birth, that is the purpose of the design. The left, through their anti-God, Marxist view will never be able to change that, and by attempting to do so they are serving to destroy the family structure as women are being made to feel that there is something more fulfilling than raising responsible, compassionate children ready to contribute to society. It is highly likely, looking at the work of Freidan and her political leanings that this is all being done on purpose with the deliberate intent of destroying the family. This isn’t to say that women shouldn’t be able to pursue careers; however, instead of teaching women how oppressed they are perhaps they should look at the effects children suffer when both men and women decide that careers are more important.


Do Americans need a president who is ‘often confused?’

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, in Washington, DC on January 23, 2013.   UPI/Molly Riley

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, in Washington, DC on January 23, 2013. UPI/Molly Riley

Her campaign is going to have to double down on its constant attempts to make Hillary Clinton seem less like a political dinosaur after this email exchange from her confidante Huma Abedin surfaced this week.

Abedin’s email, sent to Clinton aide and frequent companion Monica Hanley during the former first lady’s time at the State Department, expressed the importance of going over key details for Clinton repeatedly because she’s “often confused.”

Here’s part of the email exchange:

Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows singh is at 8? [India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]

Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her

Abedin: Very imp to do that. She’s often confused.

The date on the emails indicate that Clinton’s confusion could have had something to do with a concussion she suffered in December 2012, just before her infamous “what difference does it make” testimony on Benghazi before a House committee.

Clinton’s concussion and the amount of time it took her to recover led some pundits to question whether she was still mentally fit enough to continue her diplomatic duties.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement that the Abedin emails prove that Clinton was desperately trying to cover up her incompetency when she made the decision to use a private email server while at the State Department.

“Huma Abedin’s description of Hillary Clinton as ‘easily confused’ tells you all you need to know why it took a federal lawsuit to get these government emails from Clinton’s illegal email server,” he said. “These emails also show that Hillary Clinton’s and Huma Abedin’s decision to use the Clinton email server to conduct government business was dangerous and risky.”



Can You Believe This? – Dems propose federal diaper subsidies


by Pete Kyasperowicz
Twenty House Democrats have proposed legislation that would create a federal subsidy to help low-income families buy diapers.

Sponsors of the bill say that one out of every three families “struggle to provide diapers for their children.”

Under current law, the federal food stamp program, formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, can’t be used to buy diapers. Sponsors of the bill also say the federal welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, isn’t enough to cover diapers and other expenses.

“Families should not have to decide between diapers, food, or rent,” said Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the lead sponsor of the bill. “With millions of families struggling to provide diapers for their children, it’s time we recognize that families are being forced to make tough decisions that affect their child’s health.”
The bill would create a “demonstration project” to let states provide diapers or diaper subsidies to low-income families. To make that change, it would amend the Social Security Act.

One of the bill’s cosponsors, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., introduced a similar bill in 2011 that would have allowed federal block grants to states to be used to fund diaper purchases for “eligible children.” That bill would have amended the Head Start Act, a law aimed at boosting school readiness among low-income children.

let’s not discriminate – Diapers for Everyone.


by Teresa Monroe Hamilton
This is literally insane. Obama has signed an executive order mandating that all government jobs remove the box on applications that require someone to indicate whether they have been convicted for a criminal offense. Our government is now opening their arms and welcoming the criminal element into federal offices. This follows Obama releasing criminals from our prisons. Sen. Ted Cruz took a stand against a major crime bill before the Senate that set him apart from the politically powerful Koch brothers as well. According to Cliff Kincaid, Cruz stood strongly against the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (S. 2123) on the grounds that the legislation, which will retroactively reduce the sentences of thousands of federal prison inmates, could lead to the release of violent criminals, some convicted of using weapons while engaged in other crimes. He said the Senate bill would release “illegal aliens with criminal convictions” when a “major crime wave” is already sweeping the nation. Cruz is now being targeted by the Koch brothers for standing against the legislation. Constitutional conservatives don’t want criminals released by these Marxists and they don’t want them in our federal government.

From the Conservative Tribune:

It has long been said by many, sometimes not in jest, that the various agencies and bureaucracies of the government are filled with criminals.
President Barack Obama’s extensive use of executive orders bears that out, but the one revealed by the White House Monday could make it literally true — and by design.
According to Breitbart, the order instructs all federal agencies to remove the box on their job applications where applicants would normally admit if they have a criminal history.
The move would purportedly shift any investigations of an applicant’s potential criminal history until later on in the screening process.
A White House fact sheet released along with the order stated, “While most agencies already have taken this step, this action will better ensure that applicants from all segments of society, including those with prior criminal histories, receive a fair opportunity to compete for Federal employment.”
Obama is set to detail this new executive order during an event in New Jersey with Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and is expected to urge private businesses in America to do the same thing.
This move follows close on the heels of the recent announcement that Obama’s Justice Departmentis releasing early from prison thousands of drug offenders, as part of their criminal justice system reforms.
It also coincides with the announcement of the creation of an $8 million fund for education grants to assist former inmates with employment and job training.
President Obama has with the stroke of a pen made it easier for criminals to apply for and possibly receive a job in the government, which would typically seem utterly bizarre and unfathomable, but is really just par for the course with this administration.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter to help spread the word that Obama doesn’t want criminals to have to admit their criminal history on job applications anymore, potentially placing American workers in jeopardy.
Background checks mean nothing under the Obama regime. The only thing that seems to disqualify you from working for the government is if you are a conservative, a constitutionalist and love your country. This is monstrous. Next, he will try and mandate that private businesses do this and that will be an extremely unconstitutional move. It will be sheer communism. America take note… everything bad, immoral, unethical and evil is being elevated under this president. Anything that is the opposite is being vilified and banned. What does that tell you? You’ve got Progressives from both sides of the political aisle pushing this. Even some of those that I considered conservative at one time are on board with this. It’s getting harder and harder to tell who is friend or foe out there. This will bring more crime, corruption and chaos into America and will speed up her demise. Just as planned.