The San Bernadino Massacre: Innocent Lives Lost, Constitutional Rights Threatened, and a Prediction Horribly Fulfilled

wpid-fb_img_1435357963373.jpgYesterday, a nightmare, shared by the overwhelming majority of American Citizens, became a harsh, horrible, bloody reality.

The New York Daily News reports that

As California county workers mingled Wednesday morning at a holiday banquet, a pair of maniacs intent on murder barged in with guns blazing.The merciless masked killers, in matching military garb and body armor, executed 14 helpless victims and wounded 17 more at the Inland Regional Center in a lightning strike sparked by either a simple dispute — or terrorism, authorities said.

The mass murderers — a couple identified as Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27,— were gunned down four hours later and 2 miles away when police pumped a fusillade of bullets into their fleeing SUV on a quiet residential San Bernardino street.

Cops said Farook and Malik were either married or dating.

One police officer was wounded in the wild gun battle that left the SUV shattered in the middle of the street. Its windshield was riddled with bullet holes, its tires shot out and its other windows blasted to pieces — a ghastly scene in a stunning day of violence.

A third person was captured as he fled from the scene of the afternoon gunfight, said San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan. But the chief could not say if that person was linked to the earlier killings.The suspects had escaped the blood-spattered murder scene without swapping a single gunshot with the horde of law enforcement descending on the center, a social services facility for people with developmental disabilities.

Farook, an American citizen, worked for the San Bernardino County Department of Health for the past few years and had a young daughter, his shocked father told the Daily News.

“I haven’t heard anything,” the elder Syed Farook told The News before his son’s name became public. “He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.”

The shellshocked dad said his son worked as a health technician inspecting restaurants and hotels and graduated from La Sierra High School in Riverside in 2003.

Farook’s brother-in-law said he was in “shock” over what happened.

“I have no idea why he would do that, why would he do something like this,” Farhad Kahn said during a press conference hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “I have absolutely no idea. I am in shock myself.”

Kahn said he last spoke to Farook about a week before the massacre.

The FBI later rammed down the door and searched a home in nearby Redlands where Farook was living.

Neighbor Andrea (Annie) Larsen said Farook lived at the home with his wife, mother and small child.“They sounded really happy. I did notice there were lots of packages being dropped off and he was in the garage working on stuff. But that seemed normal to me. It’s Christmas and people are getting packages dropped off,” she said.

Asked if she now suspected that some of the packages might have been ammunition or other material related to the attack, Larsen said it was a scary thought.

“If I think out it like that, absolutely, it’s terrifying. I have hope in the world and hope in people, and it’s hard when that hope is challenged in such a terrifying way,” she said.

Co-workers said Farook had traveled to Saudi Arabia and returned with a new wife he met online, according to reports. The couple had a baby and appeared to be “living the American dream,” Patrick Baccari, a food inspector who shared a cubicle with Farook, told the Los Angeles Times.The slaughter inside the center marked the worst American mass killing since 26 people were executed three years ago at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“These are people who came prepared,” Burguan, the police chief, said about the killers. “They were dressed and equipped in a way to show they were prepared . . . They came in with an intent to do something.”

The attackers left behind some sort of explosive device as they drove off, terrifying scores of office workers cowering in their wake.

The two slain killers were wearing “assault-style” clothes and carrying assault rifles and handguns when their bodies were pulled from the black SUV, the chief said. At least two of the guns were purchased legally, according to officials.

David Bowdich, head of the FBI’s Los Angeles office, said there were indications that terrorism was the motive — but said it was too soon to say so for sure.

“I am not willing to go down that road just yet,” he said. “We will go where the evidence takes us.”

Police said that Farook bolted from the holiday bash after arguing with another attendee, and then returned a short time later with his accomplice.

The massacre took mere minutes, another sign that the killers — each toting an assault-style weapon — marched inside “with a purpose,” said Burguan.

The trio disappeared into the San Bernardino sunshine immediately after the 11 a.m. shooting spree.

Their freedom was short-lived. The pursuit that left the pair dead and a cop injured began at Farook’s home in Redlands, where cops went after receiving a tip, the chief said.

Cops exchanged gunfire with the pair in the SUV before the wild shootout ended, less than 2 miles from the Inland center.

The morning began with the San Bernardino County Department of Health holding a holiday banquet inside the building, said Inland CEO Marybeth Field.

Terrified workers hid behind locked doors, lying facedown on their office floors, or crouched inside closets until they were led out by police who conducted a painstaking search of the property.

“People shot,” one of the trapped employees texted her dad. “In the office waiting for cops. Pray for us.”

…The Inland Center, which opened in 1971, assists individuals with developmental disabilities in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Its staff of 670 people treats more than 30,000 clients.

Yesterday, while the majority of Americans watched, in abject horror, the story of this massacre unfold before their eyes, there were some among us, including the President of the United States, that were making their case for restricting our Constitutional rights, before the bodies were even cold.

Liberals, across the nation, as evidenced on the Internet, including, quite probably, the Dhimmi-in-Chief, himself, Barack Hussein Obama, were hoping that it was some sort of Right-wing Military Group.

However, it wasn’t.

This massacre was perpetrated by “devout adherents” to “the Religion of Peace”.

Why is it that Liberals are so dadgum naive about Islam? For example, let’s look for a moment at Barack Hussein Obama, President of these United States…

On October 21, 2014, Muslim Terrorists attacked the Canadian Parliament.

The next morning, I reported the following…

On September 24, 2014, Obama  spoke before the UN General Assembly. Joseph Curl, in an Op Ed for the Washington Times, titled “Obama’s Breathtaking Naivete at the United Nations” wrote,

“He asked delegates from nations across the world to mull this “central question of our global age: Whether we will solve our problems together, in a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect, or whether we descend into the destructive rivalries of the past.”

His answer? “It’s time for a broader negotiation in the region in which major powers address their differences directly, honestly, and peacefully across the table from one another, rather than through gun-wielding proxies.”

Simply believing something doesn’t make it so. The president’s desire for a world in which nations talk openly about their true feelings, perhaps share a good cry together, and sing kumbaya around the campfire, is the height of naivete.

So is this passage of his speech: ” … the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them, there is only us.”

But Islam and the holy Koran on which Muslim militant groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State base their actions do call for the extermination of all who do not follow Islam, do demand that followers kill anyone who leaves the religion, do subjugate women. For the record, the Koran contains more than 100 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers.

Mr. Obama said in his speech that “all people of faith have a responsibility to lift up the value at the heart of all great religions: Do unto thy neighbor as you would do — you would have done unto yourself.” But that is not a cornerstone of Islam. Militant Muslims have a very different belief: “Fight in the name of your religion with those who disagree with you.” And that edict comes straight from their holiest book.

To the president, that ideology “will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed and confronted and refuted in the light of day.” Again, the callowness is astounding. While he urged the world, “especially Muslim communities,” to reject the ideology that underlies al Qaeda and the Islamic State, nothing will change the fact that cold-blooded killers are determined to destroy the West, wipe all infidels from the face of the earth and build a new caliphate based on strict adherence to Shariah law (which leans heavily toward beheadings, lashings, stonings).

The president let loose some passing platitudes — “right makes might,” “the only language understood by killers like this is the language of force” — but in the end Mr. Obama still labors under the delusion that the Islamic State group and its ilk have “perverted one of the world’s great religions.” He still rejects “any suggestion of a clash of civilizations” — despite al Qaeda’s and Islamic State’s express declaration of war against western civilization (and anyone who is not Muslim).

Obama, like every other Modern Liberal, American or Canadian, truly believes that there is no difference between Islam and any other religion, even Christianity, the religion which the overwhelming majority of the citizens of America, the country which he is supposed to be the advocate for, practices.

Islam and Christianity present two very different Deities, who may share some similarities, but who have different identities and ultimately different standards. To pretend they are the same is not only to be clueless of the faith of 76% of the citizens of this nation, but, to be ignorant of an integral part of our American Heritage, the legacy of Christian Faith, which America’s Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

Now, I am not saying that every Muslim is on a jihad against “the infidels”.


As I have written before, when Christians become “radicalized”, we want to share the testimony of what God has done for us through His love, with everyone we meet. We get involved in our local church and we become better fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and American citizens.

When Muslims become “radicalized”, they want to “kill the Infidels” in the name of “Allah the Merciful”.

Like the Canadian Military and members of their Parliament, for example…

And, now the innocent victims of the massacre in San Bernadino, California.

Can what happened in Ottawa, Canada, happen in Washington, DC?

Well, aother idiot tried to bust into the White House, yesterday.

So, I would say, the answer is YES.”

Yesterday, at a “Holiday” (i.e., CHRISTMAS) Party for County Employees, the unthinkable became reality, as my prediction came true.

And, all President Obama can think to do, is take our guns away.

God protect us.

Until He Comes,


The War Against Christianity: Sublimating Christianity For The “Will Of The State”

American Christianity 2What is Fascism? Per, it is a

political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Remember this definition as you read the following… reports that

Three California churches have filed a complaint against the state over a recently implemented health insurance provision mandating the coverage of elective abortions.

Foothill Church of Glendora, Calvary Chapel in Chino, and Shepherd of the Hills Church in Porter Ranch filed the complaint last Friday in U.S. District Court. The suit, filed against the director of the California Department of Managed Health Care, seeks injunctive relief from the abortion mandate.

“Plaintiffs believe, as a matter of religious conviction, that it would be sinful and immoral for them intentionally to pay for, participate in, facilitate, or otherwise support abortion, which they believe destroys innocent human life,” reads the complaint.

(Photo: Reuters/Robert Galbraith)California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown speaks at a news conference following his debate with his Republican opponent Meg Whitman at Dominican University in San Rafael, California, October 12, 2010.
“Because federal law requires plaintiffs to offer health insurance to their employees, the mandate illegally and unconstitutionally coerces plaintiffs to violate their religious beliefs under threat of heavy fines and penalties.”

In August 2014, the DMHC sent an official letter to Anthem Blue Cross and Kaiser Permanente stating that insurance companies in California could not restrict abortion coverage.In their letter, DMHC stated that “it erroneously approved or did not object to such discriminatory language in some evidence of coverage filings.”

“The purpose of this letter is to remind plans that the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Knox Keene Act) requires the provision of basic healthcare services,” read the DMHC letter.

“… [T]he California Constitution prohibits health plans from discriminating against women who choose to terminate a pregnancy. Thus, all health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally.”

DMHC’s declaration that abortion coverage cannot be limited came in response to two Catholic academic institutions, Loyola Marymount University and Santa Clara University, seeking a reprieve for their insurance coverage regarding abortion.

In response to the announcement, the Life Legal Defense Foundation and the Alliance Defending Freedom sent the DMHC a letter of protest to the change.

“DMHC cannot deny approval to or otherwise penalize a health insurance plan for failing to provide coverage of some or all abortions and remain in compliance with the Weldon Amendment,” read the letter.

“In its failed lawsuit against the amendment, California admitted that all of its departments are subject to the amendment due to some of those departments receiving over $40 billion in federal funds for programs in the areas of education, health, and employment.”

The ADF is representing the three churches in their complaint. ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley said in a statement last week that congregations “should not be forced to pay for the killing of innocent human life.”

“The government has no right to demand that church health insurance plans contain coverage for abortion – something that violates these churches’ most sincerely held religious beliefs. California is violating the Constitution by strong-arming churches into having this coverage in their plans,” Stanley said.

There continues to be a lot of debate on Facebook Political Pages concerning whether Christians must sublimate our faith to the “Will of the State”.

The Kim Davis Case in Kentucky, in which two lesbians from Ohio, came into the County Clerk Office of Kim Davis, a known Evangelical Christian, elected by Christians, and demanded that she issue a Marriage License to them. Even though, there was another county clerk office a scant 15 minutes away from that location. Ms. Davis refused to issue one, on the grounds that it violates the tenets of her faith and God’s Holy Word. Cameras and lawyers swiftly following, as the “Gay Mafia” did its thing, attempting to bully Ms. Davis into sublimating her faith for the “Will of the State” and the appeasement of the god of popular culture.

Eventually, it was settled that the license would be issued, but, Ms. David would not and could not be forced to personally issue a Marriage License to a homosexual couple.

Others in the office would do it, instead.

On January 1, 2014, in a post titled, “The Hobby Lobby Decision: The First Amendment Holds. Religious Freedom Stands.”, I reported the following…

The Supreme Court, in a in a 5-4 ruling, found that “closely held” businesses do not have to provide contraception to their employees, if the ownership of said company opposes birth control on the grounds that it conflicts with the Religious Beliefs.

In other words, if you want to behave like Sandra Fluke, and if I am a business owner of a “closely held” business, I cannot be forced by the Obama Administration to provide your “protection”, either before or after that “special moment”.

The Supreme Court, in a in a 5-4 ruling, found that “closely held” businesses do not have to provide contraception to their employees, if the ownership of said company opposes birth control on the grounds that it conflicts with the Religious Beliefs.

In other words, if you want to behave like Sandra Fluke, and if I am a business owner of a “closely held” business, I cannot be forced by the Obama Administration to provide your “protection”, either before or after that “special moment”.

Rush Limbaugh, per usual made an excellent point on his nationally-syndicated radio program, yesterday:

…the thinking everywhere on the left, is either Obama’s gonna pay for it from his stash like they think exists in Detroit, or the insurance company will be forced to pay for it. But they won’t pay for it, they’ll just bill it back to Hobby Lobby. (interruption) No, the principle stands, that’s the point. When all this is said and done, the Supreme Court still ruled that the federal government cannot make a “closely held” corporation violate its own personal religious beliefs. I’m gonna have to double-check this, but I really do think that in that sense we’ve not had a ruling this direct in that regard before, whatever the issue was. I think I saw that somewhere this morning in the mounds of show prep that I was going through.

Look, it means here that Obama cannot unilaterally dictate how religion is to be practiced via laws or regulations or executive orders. It means that the First Amendment is not a casual plaything for cavalier statists whether in the executive branch or whether in Congress. There also was another ruling on the union’s and whether or not parents and nannies taking care of their own loved ones at home can be forced to pay union dues, and that was rejected, too. The headline says: “Sweeping Loss for Unions.” Oh, horrible, the Supreme Court just dealt a devastating blow to public unions. But this one really is kind of narrow. But the principle still stands.

What is really important, yet really small in this case, is that even after the Hobby Lobby decision, women can still go to Target or Walmart and buy a month’s worth of conception for nine dollars. What’s kind of being overlooked here in all this — and we did look at it in great detail on the previous occasion on this program — is that somehow we’ve gotten to the point where women should not have to pay for their own birth control. Somebody else is gonna pay for it, no matter how much they want, no matter how often they want it, no matter for what reason, somebody else is going to pay for it. That’s the root of all this. The employer should pay it, the insurance company will pay it, but in no way in 2014 America are women going to being pay for it, even though you can go to Target or Walmart and get a month’s supply for nine bucks.

So the ruling does not apply to, say, an Exxon or a General Motors. That’s not a “closely held” corporation. But the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby cannot be forced to fund the contraception mandate. Their liberty was defended here, no matter how narrow the left wants to say the ruling was, no matter what the practical application is, when it’s all over the First Amendment was enforced, or maybe reinforced today.

What applies to a closely held organization, most certainly applies to a Faith-sponsored Organization.

On March 8, 1983, President Ronald Wilson Reagan gave a speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, which came to be know as the “Evil Empire Speech”. Here is an excerpt:

Well, I’m pleased to be here today with you who are keeping America great by keeping her good. Only through your work and prayers and those of millions of others can we hope to survive this perilous century and keep alive this experiment in liberty, this last, best hope of man.

I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods, communities–the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law under God.

 Now, I don’t have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a–a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they’re freeing us from superstitions of the past, they’ve taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority. [Applause]

An example of that vocal superiority is evident in a controversy now going on in Washington. And since I’m involved, I’ve been waiting to hear from the parents of young America. How far are they willing to go in giving to government their prerogatives as parents?

Let me state the case as briefly and simply as I can. An organization of citizens, sincerely motivated, deeply concerned about the increase in illegitimate births and abortions involving girls well below the age of consent, some time ago established a nationwide network of clinics to offer help to these girls and, hopefully, alleviate this situation. Now, again, let me say, I do not fault their intent. However, in their well-intentioned effort, these clinics decided to provide advice and birth control drugs and devices to underage girls without the knowledge of their parents.

For some years now, the federal government has helped with funds to subsidize these clinics. In providing for this, the Congress decreed that every effort would be made to maximize parental participation. Nevertheless, the drugs and devices are prescribed without getting parental consent or giving notification after they’ve done so. Girls termed “sexually active”–and that has replaced the word “promiscuous”–are given this help in order to prevent illegitimate worth/birth (quickly corrects himself) eh or abortion.

Well, we have ordered clinics receiving federal funds to notify the parents such help has been given. [Applause] One of the nation’s leading newspapers has created the term “squeal rule” in editorializing against us for doing this, and we’re being criticized for violating the privacy of young people. A judge has recently granted an injunction against an enforcement of our rule. I’ve watched TV panel shows discuss this issue, seen columnists pontificating on our error, but no one seems to mention morality as playing a part in the subject of sex. [Applause]

Is all of Judeo-Christian tradition wrong? Are we to believe that something so sacred can be looked upon as a purely physical thing with no potential for emotional and psychological harm? And isn’t it the parents’ right to give counsel and advice to keep their children from making mistakes that may affect their entire lives? [Slight crescendo of voice and emphasis–Long Applause]

Many of us in government would like to know what parents think about this intrusion in their family by government. We’re going to fight in the courts. The right of parents and the rights of family take precedence over those of Washington-based bureaucrats and social engineers. [Applause]

But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to water down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy. Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. [Applause] When our founding fathers passed the First Amendment, they sought to protect churches from government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government and the concept of religious belief itself.

Truth is still truth.

Regardless of the recent law-making by the United States Supreme Court (whose job is to interpret the laws, not make them) Americans’ First Amendment Rights still stand.

If you try to talk to a Liberal about this New Fascism, they will deny that there is any Fascism going on at all. In fact, they will tell you that this is “the will of the people” and they will site Democratically-stacked push polls in order to back their opinion up.

When you ask Liberals if , for example, “homosexual marriage” is the “will of the people”, why did voters in the overwhelming majority of states, including California, vote against it? And, if there is “no Fascism”, what do you call the fact that 2% of the population is having activist judges overturn the actual will of the people in order to get their way, in their attempt to redefine a word that has meant the same thing since time immemorial?

In response, you will usually see their eyes glaze over, like a deer in the headlights, or experience a dramatic pause in posting, if you are on the Internet.

Liberals can not legitimately defend the suppression of the First Amendment Rights of Christian Americans.

During Hitler’s rise to power, the German Press demonized European Jews, betraying them as evil and money grubbing…painting them as being different from normal German citizens. It was this classification of the European Jews as the enemy that almost led to the extinction of them in that horrible attempted genocide, known as the Holocaust.

Now, in the early 21st century, the Far Left, the Democratic Party, and the Obama Administration (but, I repeat myself) are using propaganda to isolate and demonize average Americans, who through hard work, have risen to a high station in life or through their strong Christian faith and love of their country refuse to follow a popular culture- worshiping Administration, when it issues Executive Orders or has its Democratic Congress pass legislation which clearly contradicts the Word of God and the Judeo-Christian Belief System upon which America was built.

Considering what is happening in the world around us, thanks in a large part to Obama’s failed Foreign Policy, if America keeps on the path we seem to be headed on, we will find out why America is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools. – Romans 1 : 22

Until He Comes,


Huntington Park Appoints 2 Illegals as City Commissioners

illegal immigration 3The Los Angeles Area is the world’s biggest bowl of granola. “What ain’t fruits and nuts, is flakes.”

The local CBS Affiliate in Los Angeles reports that

HUNTINGTON PARK ( — Huntington Park is making history and not everyone is happy about it.

Councilman Jhonny Pineda announced at Monday night’s city council meeting the appointment of two undocumented immigrants as commissioners, CBS2/KCAL9’s Kara Finnstrom reports.

“You are out of order!” one woman in the crowd yelled at the councilmembers during the meeting.

Some critics say Pineda, who joined the council in March, specifically picked Medina and Zatarain because they worked on his campaign. Others say they don’t believe undocumented immigrants should serve the government this way.

“We’re sending the wrong message: you can be illegal and you can come and work for the city,” a woman told Finnstrom.

Pineda stresses that the two appointees would not be paid – federal law prohibits that – and that they will have no power to determine city policy.

Frank Medina will join the health and education commission and Julian Zatarain will be working with the parks and recreation commission. Both are young men who Pineda says have a long history of volunteering for the city and the undocumented community.

The 32-year-old councilman says he picked these two men, first and foremost, for their accomplishments and because he promised voters on the campaign trail he’d create opportunities for the city’s sizable undocumented immigrant demographic.

“We need to make sure that we bring everyone together to the table here in Huntington Park so that we can make sure we’re sharing the same vision,” said Pineda.

City Mayor Karina Macias threw her support behind the appointments.

The appointments won’t be official until processed by the council and Medina and Zatarain pass a LifeScan background check.

Pineda says the move is historic, and would make Huntington Park the first city to have undocumented immigrants on city commissions.

Rush Limbaugh said the following about this jaw-dropping situation:

We got no problem putting noncitizens on our town council or on our board of supervisors, or whatever it is, their commissioners.  We got no problem with it whatsoever.  “Both these gentlemen have accomplished a great deal for the city. For that, on behalf of the city council, mayor, and our city, I want to say thank you to them both and I am confident they will do an excellent job on their commission posts.

“The announcement was met with uproar at a city council meeting held in Huntington Park on Monday night.”  I mean a not-positive uproar.  “One resident told Mr. Pineda, ‘You only want to appoint these specific individuals only, too, because they’re your personal friends that worked on your campaign.  Shame on you.'”  Who cares the reason?  Look at the precedent.  But there you have it. 

“Sharing the same vision”.

A vision in which those who have broken the laws of our nation by crossing our borders illegally have the same Constitutional Rights as American Citizens?

Let’s pretend I broke into your house. When you discover me there, you insist I leave. But I say, “I’ve made all the beds, washed the dishes, did the laundry, and cleaned the floors; I’ve done all the work you don’t like to do. I’m hardworking and honest (except for breaking into your house). Not only must you let me stay, you must also add me to your insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide these benefits to my husband, too (he will do your yardwork, he’s honest and hardworking too–except for that breaking in part). If you try to force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house and proclaim my right to be there! It’s only fair, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m trying to better myself. I’m hardworking and honest…except for, well, you know. I will live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness and prejudice.

Oh yeah, I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me.

Good plan..don’t you think?

Do these lawbreakers deserve the same Constitutional Rights as America Citizens?

Is this a behavior we should be rewarding?

How far has the Democrat Party fallen.

The last bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform happened during President Bill “Bubba” Clinton’s tenure. Bubba appointed former congresswoman and Democratic icon Barbara Jordan as its chair. Jordan came from humble beginnings to become a lawyer and the first Southern black woman elected to the House of Representatives.

A DEMOCRAT, she was a leader in the civil rights movement, a professor of ethics, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a world-class orator (two of her speeches are considered among the greatest of the 20th century). Her appointment gave the commission instant credibility. According to Jordan, she believed her responsibility as the head of the commission was to restore credibility to the U.S. immigration system. On the issue of illegal immigration, Jordan was very clear and succinct:

Unlawful immigration is unacceptable. Those who should not be here will be required to leave.

In their self-absorbed Political Greed, America’s professional politicians are setting the stage for the possible fall of our nation.

Legal Immigrants earned their citizenship. They showed that they were willing to become a part of the Great American Melting Pot (from the Schoolhouse Rock video of the same name).

They demonstrated that, as the US Citizen and Immigration services states, that they were willing to…

Support the Constitution;
Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
Bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
A. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or
B. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; or
C. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.

Additionally, these legal immigrants also took the following oath:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Illegal Immigrants do not respect the laws of our land, to begin with. Why would that change, if they were given the same rights as American Citizens?

The right to hold public office does not apply to non-citizens.

Until He Comes,


The War Against Christianity: The “Gay Mafia” Vs. Elaine Photography

gay marriageSuppose that you are a small business owner, who just happens to be a Christian, and you own a doughnut shop. Through your door walks a young man, positively reeking of marijuana usage, cursing at the top of his voice to someone on the other end of his cell phone, with his pants “saggin'” half-way down his rear,showing his boxers to everyone who sees him..

Do you have the right to to refuse service and ask him to leave?

Most Americans would say that you do.

In fact, according to, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that free exercise of religion extends to how you run your business.

For example, if a Christian wedding photographer who has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage is asked to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, 85% of American Adults believe he has the right to say no. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only eight percent (8%) disagree even as the courts are hearing such challenges.

That being said, have you heard about what happened in New Mexico?

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court of New Mexico decided that a small business, Elaine Photography,  violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA).

The judge ruled that their refusal to phtograph the “gay wedding” of  Vanessa Willockand her “partner”, violated the act, which “prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation”.

According to Justice Richard C. Bosson, the case “provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice.” He also said that the case “teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”

Bosson wrote in his ruling that the owners of Elane Photography, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, “are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish” Nevertheless, in the “world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.”

Doing so, Bosson wrote, is “the price of citizenship.”

The ruling upholds a grant of summary judgment for Willock against Elane Photography by New Mexico’s Second Judicial District Court and holds that Elane Photography’s free speech rights were not violated. The case was first decided by the New Mexico Human Rights Council, which ordered Elane Photography to pay Willock $6,637.94 in attorneys fees and costs. Elane Photography appealed to the Second Judicial District Court based on the court’s original and appellate jurisdiction.

The Hugueins were made an example of because they stood strong in their Christian Faith. They believe that a marriage consists of one man and one woman.

Guess what? New Mexico law agrees: it has no legal same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriages.

And, you know the kicker? There were other photographers in the Albuquerque area who could have photographed the ceremony.

The Free Exercise Clause,found in the First Amendment to the Constitution, protects our absolute freedom of belief. According to our Founding Fathers, religious liberty is a natural right.

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

The First Amendment ensures that all people have an equality of rights to practice their faith. Although it was originally written to apply to actions of the federal government, it was incorporated into state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court in the case Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940).

The Free Exercise Clause was a direct descendant of the English Bill of Rights, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The English Bill of Rights expanded religious freedom for Protestants who did not attend the Church of England, but not for Catholics or non-Christians. The Virginia Declaration of Rights held that “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion.” The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom asserts that “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion.

The First Amendment also guarantees all Americans the right to Freedom of Association.

All Americans, including us Christians, may peacefully assemble with whomever we choose, whether it’s in a church building on a Sunday morning, or a church-sponsored small group in someone’s home on a Tuesday night.

As Americans, we have the right to practice our faith 7 days a week, at home, in our community, and in our business.

This activist judge, as in the case of the homosexual activist judge in California overruling the vote of the people, who had voted against allowing gay marriage in that state, overstepped his bounds, trumping the Free Exercise Clause for the sake of Popular Culture and his own Political Ideology.

Remember when the whole gay marriage brouhaha started being the cause celebre for Gay Activists and their Liberal supporters? They went around assuring us that they would not force anyone, whether small businesses or churches, to be involved in the organization or performance of their phony “marriage” rituals.

They lied.

As I, and others have insisted all along, this is a political movement, spearheaded by a political ideology, whose express purpose is the remake the fabric of our society. They wish to make what was once considered deviant behavior by both popular culture and academia, by the use of the word “marriage”, “normal”.

Ask the Roman Empire how that worked out for them.

Heck, ask Modern European Nations, who have put God in a box in their “enlightened” societies, how things are working out for them, as a Modern version of the Barbarian Hordes who destroyed Rome, radical Muslims, install Sharia Law in their countries,

American churches and their leadership will be sued, next, and forced to perform gay marriage rituals or pay an exorbitant fine. 

Don’t be surprised if a ruling comes down from the Halls of Power that preaching against Homosexuality as a sin, becomes a “Hate Crime”.

America’s free-fall down the oft-referenced “Slippery Slope” of Relative Morality and Situation Ethics has kicked into high gear.

Caligula’s Horse approves.

Until He Comes,


“Anti-Bullying” Campaigns and California’s Bill 1266: Socially Engineering Our Children


Bullying is wrong. Trust me. I was a victim of it.

I have probably related this before, but, when I was young, I was a small, sickly kid with asthma. In fact, when I graduated high school at 17, I was only around 5′ 4″. Between a growth spurt and taking Weight Training as one of my required Physical Education courses, by the time I graduated college, I was 5″ 10″, 210 lbs.

But, I digress…

I was picked on a lot as a kid, so much so, that, during what would be called now my Middle School Years, I would carry a lead-filled Baseball bat around the neighborhood with me, given to me by the local church team.

Back in the 1970s, the Federal Government was not involved in the everyday lives of America’s School children. Washington left the raising of children up to their parents, family, churches, and communities.

There were no “Headstart Programs”, no Michelle Obama School Lunch Menus, and no Federal and State Government “Anti-Bullying Campaigns”. We had to stand up for ourselves.

Thank God. 

If you haven’t been paying attention, or haven’t already figured it out, these government-sponsored programs, under the guise of “protecting our children”, are propaganda tools, designed to mainstream LGBT  sexual behaviors.

Through programs like World Wresting Entertainment’s “Be A Star” providing celebrity-endorsed camouflage, these programs have grown in in popularity and gained steam at the state level.

For example, from their own .pdf propaganda page…

“Seth’s Law” is a new law that strengthens existing state anti-bullying laws to help protect all California public school students. Seth’s Law requires public schools in California to update their anti-bullying policies and programs, and it focuses on protecting students who are bullied based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity/gender expression, as well as race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, disability, and religion.

Why did the California Legislature pass Seth’s Law?

California law says that all public school students should have equal rights and opportunities. Yet many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students report that they experience significant bullying in California schools. And teachers, administrators, and other staff often fail to address the bullying when they see it.

Seth’s Law is named after a 13-year-old California student who tragically took his own life in 2010 after years of anti-gay bullying that his school failed to address.

AT A GLANCE: What does state anti-bullying law require school districts to do?

n Adopt a strong anti-bullying policy that specifically spells out prohibited bases for bullying, including sexual orientation and gender identity/gender expression.

n Adopt a specific process for receiving and investigating complaints of bullying, including a requirement that school personnel intervene if they witness bullying.

n Publicize the anti-bullying policy and complaint process, including posting the policy in all schools and offices.

n Post on the district website materials to support victims of bullying.

School Personnel Must Intervene

Seth’s Law specifically contains the following requirement: “If school personnel witness an act of discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying, he or she shall take immediate steps to intervene when safe to do so.”

Also, in California, the state House and Senate have taken it a step further.

California transgender kids can now use any bathroom they like and if a school tries to prevent a student from doing so, it will be a violation of state law. The California state senate has voted 21-9 to pass A.B. 1266, a K-12 transgender rights bill that will change the education code to specify that regardless of the gender listed on a piece of paper in the front office, a student can participate in sex-segregated activities, athletic teams, and yes, use bathroom facilities consistent with his or her gender identity. “We know that these particular students suffer much abuse and bullying and denigration. We can’t change that overnight, but what we can do is make sure that the rules are such that they get a fair shake,” Sen. Mark Leno told the Associated Press.

Governor Moonbeam (Jerry Brown) should be signing this outrage into law any day now.

Would somebody out there, please tell me when a child realizes that he is actually a little girl trapped in a little boy’s body?

Does it happen when they’re in the bathtub with Ernie’s rubber duckie?

Oh, by the way, did you see where the New Yorker Magazine outed the Sesame Street Muppets Bert and Ernie as being gay? Who next? Batman and Robin? I mean, an older and younger guy running around in tights…

What is it with Liberals and sexual deviance? Are they brought up so sexually repressed, that they think about deviancy all the cotton-picking time?

I recently read the story about a wacko couple who decided that their little 6 year old boy was transgendered, and started dressing him and referring to him as a girl. Wishcasting ?

And, that brings us back to California Bill 1266, allowing the “transgendered’ to use whatever restroom and locker room in school that they want to walk into.

Can you imagine the possibilities?

Uhhh…yeah, coach. I have to go shower with our High School Girls’ Track Team. I’m transgendered.

Now, I remember when the macho girl on our Girl’s High School Basketball Team walked into the boy’s locker room on the Cross Country guys, but that was just her being obnoxious.

When I was in my early 20s,  back in the early 1980s, I sang with a young adult singing group. We would perform at nursing homes and events. One of the programs we would do, featured songs about the states. We usually would engage in some snappy patter before we sang, in order to introduce the song.

I introduced the song “California, Here I Come”, by saying the following:

…and, folks you know, California is the world’s biggest bowl of granola. What ain’t fruits and nuts…is flakes.

Danged, if I wasn’t a prophet.

Until He Comes,


Gay Wednesday, or, How to Change the Fabric of American Society in One Fell Swoop

gay marriageIn my post yesterday, I warned that what the Supreme Court was about to do, could possibly change the fabric of our society.

God in Heaven, I hate it when I’m right.

The robed ones yesterday destroyed the uniqueness of the marriage bed between man and wife, and the sovereignty of a state’s voters, all in one fell swoop.

First, the Court ruled that the part of the Defense of Marriage Act denying equal benefits to homosexual “married” couples was “unconstitutional” in their eyes, so they struck down that codicil.

Now, homosexual couples who have been “married” in states which allow that doppelganger of a “sacrament”, are entitled to all the governmental benefits that normal married couples enjoy.

In the second ruling of the day, the highest court in the land ruled that the ruling by a Gay Appeals Judge, which negated the results of a popular vote on the  California Referendum on Proposition 8, would stand, basically pulling a Pontius Pilate, killing the sovereignty of Californians to decide their own fate, in regards as to whether or not to allow Homosexual Marriage in their state.

You see, the good citizens of California stood up on their hind legs and voted against allowing homosexuals to imitate the oldest sacred ceremony known to mankind.

And, Lord knows , we can’t allow Americans to decide for themselves, can we? If you think I’m joking, remember Chief Justice “Benedict Arnold” Roberts’ ruling on Obamacare?

Of course, the Prevaricator-in-Chief thought that yesterday was the most wonderful thing  he had heard, since his next door neighborhood Frank Marshall Davis used to regale him with tales of his pedophiliac conquests.

In fact, he called a homosexual couple to congratulate them on live TV.

Funny…just 18 months ago, ol’ Scooter was saying,

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.

So, was Obama lying then, or is he lying now?


Now, there are those who will argue that these are just small steps and what happened yesterday is no big hairy deal. There are also those who believe that yesterday was the greatest day in the history of the world.

Side note: It wasn’t. That day will be when we hear a trumpet sound above us…and, it won’t be Doc Severenson. But, I digress…

Normalization of this deviant behavior has already happened to our Brightest and Best, with the overturning of DADT.

Just the other day, the four-star idiots in the Pentagon declared that our country is now safer with openly gay members in our military.

Safer from what? Inter-service pregnancies?

Now that homosexual activists know that they can overturn the will of the people of a state, if the Liberal State Government does not support their citizens in a legal defense of sovereignty, all bets are off.

Like Gov. Moonbean (Jerry Brown) of California, all it takes is one Liberal weasel of a State Governor to overturn an anti-Homosexual Marriage Vote in any state in the Union, if the state’s gay activists are willing to take their action all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

Here is another thing that makes me wanna hurl, cry, and bang my head against the wall, all at the same time:

The National Cathedral in Washington, DC rang its steeple bells in celebration when the rulings were announced.

What part of God’s Word do they believe supports Homosexual Marriage? What book of the Bible is that found? 1st Babylonians?

Genesis 2:21-25 states:

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

We’ve come a long way, baby…and, it appears that our country is beginning a descent down the ol’ porcelain receptacle, a societal voyage not unlike the one Ancient Rome experienced.

In Paul’s letter to the Romans, Chapter 1, Verses 24-27, he writes, concerning the Roman Empire’s depravity,

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

That is where we stand, Americans.

Grab those who matter to you and hold them tight. I am afraid that there are dark times ahead…and we are well on the way to finding out why America is not mentioned in the Book of  Revelation.

Until He comes,