Reminder: Nazis Were Executed As War Criminals for Doing EXACTLY What Obama Approved Planned Parenthood is Doing

It’s time we look at banning all abortions, except those where the life of the mother is legitimately at risk. This is the 21st Century, not the Middle Ages. We know what causes pregnancies and have readily available and relatively cheap ways to prevent pregnancies. DOZENS of ways. There is no excuse for slaughtering innocent children.

It shames me to know that Americans will go down in history as the greatest mass murderers ever known, thanks to Obama, his democrats, and their buddies at Planned Parenthood and other members of the multi-billion dollar abortion industry.

~ Gary P Jackson


By Gary P Jackson

At the end of World War II trials were held at Nuremberg to dispense justice to Nazis for the human atrocities they participated in. One of those atrocities was the sale of human body parts. Left over parts from the SIX MILLION Jewish men, women, and children they slaughtered.

The Nazis routinely cut the hair of Jews before sending them to the gas chambers. [then ovens] They then used the hair for wigs, to stuff cushions, as well as lining boots for U-Boat crews and making rough work clothes. A German auto parts maker was part of this scheme.

Nazis also developed a process for making soap out of human body fat, and though some experts disagree about the scale of the operation, no one argues that it wasn’t happening.

It’s also known the Nazis would take the gold teeth right out of their victim’s mouths, and sell that to help fund the war effort.

The Nazis also took the shoes their victims were wearing and reused them. They were BIG on recycling.

Shoes From Jews Killed By Nazis

Nazis also confiscated wooden legs, crutches, etc:


Photo: courtesy, Auschwitz Holocaust Museum

The end result:


As evil as the Nazis were, and they were pure evil, it must be noted that democrat party approved abortionists have SLAUGHTERED more than TEN TIMES the number of innocent babies than the Nazis killed Jews during the Holocaust, and murdering innocent babies has proven to be a VERY profitable business. At roughly $800 a “procedure” these abortion mills have brought in roughly $52 BILLION [gross] since 1973. And that’s a conservative estimate!

No … Embryonic Stems Cells ARE NOT Curing Diseases, So Don’t Fall For THAT Line Of Bullshit!

One of the lies those frantically trying to justify what Planned Parenthood is doing, selling the body parts of babies they slaughter, for an additional profit, is that these “clumps of tissue“, as these sub-human bastards refer to human babies as, are “curing diseases.”

It’s been known for a LONG time that, while ADULT stem cells are capable of all kinds of miracles in medicine, embryonic stem cells are of little scientific use.

From Practical Problems with Embryonic Stem Cells: [emphasis mine]

While some researchers still claim that embryonic stem cells (ESCs) offer the best hope for treating many debilitating diseases, there is now a great deal of evidence contrary to that theory. Use of stem cells obtained by destroying human embryos is not only unethical but presents many practical obstacles as well.

Major roadblocks remain before human embryonic stem cells could be transplanted into humans to cure diseases or replace injured body parts, a research pioneer said Thursday night. University of Wisconsin scientist James Thomson said obstacles include learning how to grow the cells into all types of organs and tissue and then making sure cancer and other defects are not introduced during the transplantation. I don’t want to sound too pessimistic because this is all doable, but it’s going to be very hard,’ Thomson told the Wisconsin Newspaper Association’s annual convention at the Kalahari Resort in this Wisconsin Dells town. ‘Ultimately, those transplation therapies should work but it’s likely to take a long time.’….Thomson cautioned such breakthroughs are likely decades away.

-Associated Press reporter Ryan J. Foley “Stem cell pioneer warns of roadblocks before cures,” San Jose Mercury News Online, posted on Feb. 8, 2007,


Although embryonic stem cells have the broadest differentiation potential, their use for cellular therapeutics is excluded for several reasons: the uncontrollable development of teratomas in a syngeneic transplantation model, imprinting-related developmental abnormalities, and ethical issues.”

-Gesine Kögler et al., “A New Human Somatic Stem Cell from Placental Cord Blood with Intrinsic Pluripotent Differentiation Potential,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, Vol. 200, No. 2 (July 19, 2004), p. 123.


From a major foundation promoting research in pancreatic islet cells and other avenues for curing juvenile diabetes:

Is the use of embryonic stem cells close to being used to provide a supply of islet cells for transplantation into humans?

No. The field of embryonic stem cells faces enormous hurtles to overcome before these cells can be used in humans. The two key challenges to overcome are making the stem cells differentiate into specific viable cells consistently, and controlling against unchecked cell division once transplanted. Solid data of stable, functioning islet cells from embryonic stems cells in animals has not been seen.

-“Q & A,” Autoimmune Disease Research Foundation,, accessed July 2004.


I think the chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer’s brains by putting in stem cells is small,’ said stem cell researcher Michael Shelanski, co-director of the Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer’s Disease and the Aging Brain at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York, echoing many other experts.I personally think we’re going to get other therapies for Alzheimer’s a lot sooner.’…

“[G]iven the lack of any serious suggestion that stem cells themselves have practical potential to treat Alzheimer’s, the Reagan-inspired tidal wave of enthusiasm stands as an example of how easily a modest line of scientific inquiry can grow in the public mind to mythological proportions.

It is a distortion that some admit is not being aggressively corrected by scientists.

“‘To start with, people need a fairy tale,’ said Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.Maybe that’s unfair, but they need a story line that’s relatively simple to understand.‘”

-Rick Weiss, “Stem Cells an Unlikely Therapy for Alzheimer’s,” Washington Post, June 10, 2004, p. A3.


ES [embryonic stem] cells and their derivatives carry the same likelihood of immune rejection as a transplanted organ because, like all cells, they carry the surface proteins, or antigens, by which the immune system recognizes invaders. Hundreds of combinations of different types of antigens are possible, meaning that hundreds of thousands of ES cell lines might be needed to establish a bank of cells with immune matches for most potential patients. Creating that many lines could require millions of discarded embryos from IVF clinics.

-R. Lanza and N. Rosenthal, “The Stem Cell Challenge,” Scientific American, June 2004, pp. 92-99 at p. 94. [Editor’s note: A recent study found that only 11,000 frozen embryos are available for research use from all the fertility clinics in the U.S., and that destroying all these embryos for their stem cells might produce a total of 275 cell lines. See Fertility and Sterility, May 2003, pp. 1063-9 at p. 1068.]

Read more here.

More on the subject:

Embryonic Stem Cell Research – Unethical and Not Working

Scientists involved in embryonic stem cell research are now admitting that they have not achieved the advancements that were sold to the public. “Many of the technologies we hyped to the general public haven’t worked yet,” Celgene Corp. president Alan Lewis said Wednesday at a biotechnology trade show in Philadelphia.

James Thomson, the Wisconsin biologist who was the first to isolate embryonic stem cells also admits they have been oversold.
At an international meeting of cloners and stem cell in San Francisco, even the most outspoken proponents of the technology concede they are years away from actual drugs based on stem cells.

Given the amount of hype and money that is being poured into ESC research, I find the news quite troubling. Individuals suffering from chronic diseases have been mislead into believing that a cure is around the corner in an effort to secure research funding. The voice of the suffering has been exploited to compel the public into supporting investigations that are speculative and unproven and that represent a significant departure from ethical standards that respect the sanctity of human life. Yet, no approved treatments have been obtained using embryonic stem cells and there are presently no therapeutic applications on the horizon.

However, the dismal track record and unattainable promises of ESC research is not the fundamental problem.

The fatal flaw of current ESC research is that scientists must “destroy” (a synonym for “kill”) a human being to extract the stem cells they need. Emotionally based appeals are made to justify the practice by demeaning the unborn and undeveloped person and claiming an embryo is not as important as someone who has developed and is in need of the embryo�s parts. However, the mystical point in time that a human embryo develops into a human who cannot be sacrificed for science is unknown.

What is known to ESC researchers is that human embryos are fully human. This is not a controversial conclusion but one supported by contemporary human embryology and developmental biology.

More here.

As The Great Ronald Reagan once pointed out: “The closest thing to life everlasting is a government program!

Embryonic stem cells aren’t working, but government gives more funding anyway:

Just before Christmas, the National Institutes of Health made three more lines of embryonic stem cells eligible for federal funding.

Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that a month before, a major private company decided that there was no profit in embryonic stem cell research?

You see, in November, the drug company Geron announced that it would be abandoning its embryonic stem cell research program. Geron was a leader in the embryonic stem cell field, the first company to be approved to run trials with these stem cells.

Geron’s particular project — treating spinal cord injuries — was incredibly ambitious, and Geron’s willingness to spend money on it showed a seemingly unshakeable faith in the power of embryonic stem cells.

So why did Geron abandon the trial? I wish I could say that it was for ethical reasons, but that is not the case.

Its decision was due to the hard facts of economics: There’s no market for a product that doesn’t work! As you probably know, for years we’ve been told that the use of embryonic stem cells, which destroy human embryos — that is, people — will lead to miracle cures for all kinds of diseases and conditions. The problem for embryonic stem cell advocates is that they failed to produce a single cure.

Geron’s decision shows that private companies will not put funds into something which has no possibility of profit. Drug companies all the time spend billions because they know it will pay when they get the results. But the cold economic reality here was that Geron had to abandon embryonic stem cells research because it isn’t economically viable.

But economic reality is clearly no barrier to the federal government, which barely a month later decided to make more taxpayer funds available for this ethically barbaric and ultimately unprofitable line of research. Scientists want the money to do research whether there is any payoff at the end or not.

Never mind that adult stem cells, which are produced without the destruction of embryos, are continuing to show promise and are already being used to treat over 70 diseases and medical conditions. Just this year, a team of UCLA researchers showed they can be used to engineer blood cells that could attack skin cancer. They hope this discovery will lead to treatments of other types of cancer as well. And a firm in Israel has recently started using them to slow the progress of Lou Gehrig’s disease.

All of this goes to show that we can care for the sick and suffering and use the best science to help them without destroying other lives, as embryonic stem cell research does. Scientific advancement and the sacredness of human life don’t have to stand opposed to each other.

But when it looks like they do, we are right to stand for the sanctity of life.

Scientific knowledge can change, of course – in fact, it does so all the time. But the fact that human lives are precious and made in the image of God will never change. And when we ignore that, it seems like the science and even the economics don’t work out very well.

Planned Parenthood Sell Human Body Parts, For Profit

As you undoubtedly know, undercover videos have surfaced showing just how barbaric the people who work at democrat party approved Planned Parenthood are. [What a perfectly Orwellian name for a slaughterhouse such as this!]

A brand new video has dropped, third in what promises to be a long series of videos. In this video, former StemExpress employee Holly O’Donnell speaks candidly. O’Donnell, a licensed phlebotomist, unsuspectingly took a job as a “procurement technician” at the fetal tissue company and biotech start-up. “I thought I was going to be just drawing blood, not procuring tissue from aborted fetuses,” says O’Donnell, who fainted in shock on her first day of work in a Planned Parenthood clinic when suddenly asked to dissect a freshly-aborted fetus during her on-the-job training.


For 6 months, O’Donnell’s job was to identify pregnant women at Planned Parenthood who met criteria for fetal tissue orders and to harvest the fetal body parts after their abortions. O’Donnell describes the financial benefit Planned Parenthood received from StemExpress: “For whatever we could procure, they would get a certain percentage. The main nurse was always trying to make sure we got our specimens. No one else really cared, but the main nurse did because she knew that Planned Parenthood was getting compensated.”

Episode 1 also shows undercover video featuring the Vice President and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) in Denver, CO, Dr. Savita Ginde. PPRM is one of the largest and wealthiest Planned Parenthood affiliates and operates clinics in Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nevada. Standing in the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic pathology laboratory, where fetuses are brought after abortions, Ginde concludes that payment per organ removed from a fetus will be the most beneficial to Planned Parenthood: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).

Dr. Katherine Sheehan, Medical Director emerita of Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest in San Diego, describes her affiliate’s long-time relationship with Advanced Bioscience Resources, a middleman company that has been providing aborted fetal organs since 1989:We’ve been using them for over 10 years, really a long time, you know, just kind of renegotiated the contract. They’re doing the big government-level collections and things like that.

Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby parts is an offensive and horrifying reality that is widespread enough for many people to be available to give first-person testimony about it,” notes David Daleiden, Project Lead for The Center for Medical Progress.CMP’s investigative journalism work will continue to surface more compelling eyewitness accounts and primary source evidence of Planned Parenthood’s trafficking and selling baby parts for profit. There should be an immediate moratorium on Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding while Congress and the states determine the full extent of the organization’s lawbreaking.

As expected, democrats, instead of being horrified by all of this, have sought to defend the absolute indefensible, instead. These bloodthirsty fanatics have attacked CMP, the videos’ producers, and [of course] claim the videos are either totally fake, or “highly edited.” Well, the FIRST video is almost 3 HOURS LONG! [2 hours:42 minutes:22 seconds, to be exact] If THAT ghoulish conversation is “highly edited,” I’d hate to see the evil that was left on the cutting room floor!

Video 1 IN FULL


Video 2: “I Want A Lamborghini!”

I Want A LAMBORGHINI-730x730

LOS ANGELES, July 21—A second undercover video shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Medical Directors’ Council President, Dr. Mary Gatter, haggling over payments for intact fetal specimens and offering to use a “less crunchy technique” to get more intact body parts.

It is similar to last week’s viral video showing PPFA Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola admitting to using partial-birth abortions to get intact parts and suggesting a price range of $30 to $100 per specimen.

Gatter is a senior official within Planned Parenthood and is President of the Medical Directors’ Council, the central committee of all Planned Parenthood affiliate medical directors.

Actors posing as buyers ask Gatter, “What would you expect for intact [fetal] tissue?

Well, why don’t you start by telling me what you’re used to paying!” Gatter replies.

Gatter continues: “You know, in negotiations whoever throws out the figure first is at a loss, right?” She explains, “I just don’t want to lowball,” before suggesting, “$75 a specimen.

Gatter twice recites Planned Parenthood messaging on fetal tissue collection, “We’re not in it for the money,” and “The money is not the important thing,” but she immediately qualifies each statement with, respectively, “But what were you thinking of?” and, “But it has to be big enough that it’s worthwhile for me.”

Gatter also admits that in prior fetal tissue deals, Planned Parenthood received payment in spite of incurring no cost:It was logistically very easy for us, we didn’t have to do anything. So there was compensation for this.” She accepts a higher price of $100 per specimen understanding that it will be only for high-quality fetal organs: “Now, this is for tissue that you actually take, not just tissue that someone volunteers and you can’t find anything, right?

By the lunch’s end, Gatter suggests $100 per specimen is not enough and concludes, “Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine, if it’s still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.”

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).

Gatter also suggests modifying the abortion procedure to get more intact fetuses: “I wouldn’t object to asking Ian, who’s our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS [manual vacuum aspirator] at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen.

Gatter seems aware this violates rules governing tissue collection, but disregards them: “To me, that’s kind of a specious little argument.” Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

The video, like last week’s featuring Dr. Nucatola, was produced by The Center for Medical Progress and is part of CMP’s nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study, “Human Capital.”

CMP’s Project Lead David Daleiden notes, “Planned Parenthood’s top leadership admits they harvest aborted baby parts and receive payments for this. Planned Parenthood’s only denial is that they make money off of baby parts, but that is a desperate lie that becomes more and more untenable as CMP reveals Planned Parenthood’s business operations and statements that prove otherwise.”

Seven State Governments have opened investigations into Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal body parts, as have three Congressional Committees. The House Energy and Commerce Committee has called PPFA’s Senior Director of Medical Services to testify this month about the organization’s fetal tissue harvesting.


God Bless Planned Parenthood ~ Barack Obama

In 2013, Barack Obama, actually made a speech sending much love to the murderous pigs at Planned Parenthood, even saying “God bless Planned Parenthood!” Evil personified!!

As long as we’ve got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way,” said Obama. “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.

Of course, this should surprise no one, as this evil little man once said he wouldn’t want his daughters “punished” with a child.

As an Illinois state Senator, this piece of human garbage successfully BLOCKED a bill [The Born Alive Infant Act] that would have OUTLAWED the practice of killing babies who SURVIVED an abortion attempt. Live, breathing, HEALTHY BABIES that are then KILLED in cold blood. This is not something a human being would ever involve himself in, let alone support.

Make no mistake, what Obama [and democrat party] approved Planned Parenthood is doing is evil, and a crime. Again, Nazis were executed as war criminals for doing EXACTLY what these money-hungry, blood thirsty ghouls at Planned Parenthood are doing …. on a MUCH larger scale.

It’s time we look at banning all abortions, except those where the life of the mother is legitimately at risk. This is the 21st Century, not the Middle Ages. We know what causes pregnancies and have readily available and relatively cheap ways to prevent pregnancies. DOZENS of ways. There is no excuse for slaughtering innocent children.

It shames me to know that Americans will go down in history as the greatest mass murderers ever known, thanks to Obama, his democrats, and their buddies at Planned Parenthood and other members of the multi-billion dollar abortion industry.

Gary P Jackson
Executive Editor and Publisher

A Time For Choosing

Gary Signature

Leave a comment

Filed under In The News

Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA

Originally posted on Real Science:

The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.

ScreenHunter_10009 Jul. 27 12.16

Measured : ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz
Reported : ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52j.tar.gz

They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.

ScreenHunter_10008 Jul. 27 12.08

The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.

ScreenHunter_10010 Jul. 27 12.20

The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”

View original

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Poll: Which GOP Candidate/s Would Welcome Palin in an Administration?

Sarah Palin  Tapp

By Isabel Matos

The first GOP presidential debate is just around the corner (only ten days from now). The ball is already rolling, so it would be curious to see how many of the candidate/s would offer Sarah Palin a cabinet position she would accept in their administration should he/she become POTUS? Your responses as vote results can be seen immediately and anonymously. Thank you for your participation.

white elephonat

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized, Politics, In The News, sarah palin

Why Doesn’t Sarah Just Declare a Run?

By Isabel Matos

On July 21st, 2015, Republican Governor of Ohio, John Kasich, declared a run for president (making a total of 16 GOP nominees!) I kind of joked about it on my wall saying most of the candidates are there to run for Jeb’s VP slot since he is the inevitable choice the RNC will back. But really, every politician except the one who should be in the race, is in the race.  So that begs the question: Why doesn’t Sarah Palin just declare a run?  What is keeping her from doing so?

Even Donald Trump, who I do not consider politically trustworthy, shares an opinion that could be considered unanimous by all Sarah Palin supporters: “I don’t even think she knows how important she is.” This is the full quote:

“I can tell you she’s just an amazing woman. She is given great credit, but she should be given even more credit because she is someone that people respect and admire. She speaks to so many people. I don’t even think she knows how important she is. And maybe that is part of the beauty of Sarah Palin, but I just see it all over. So many people revere her, so I think it’s great. I think she is terrific.”





Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin, Uncategorized

Video, Transcript: Loving Farewell to American Freedom Fighters (Bilingual)

Portraits George Washington (34) 
By Isabel Matos Revisiting the best one given in years if not the best ever, a full transcript and partial voice over of Governor Palin’s speech at CPAC earlier this year has been completed. As I have said before on this blog and elsewhere, language is not the barrier of communication in the media or among politicians, agenda is. Spanish is used to pander, not to share the principles this country was founded upon, to teach about the sacrifices that being a true American patriot entails, or to give lessons on its history. The message in the article and video below is for conservative Americans who happen to be bilingual. All material is Copyright © 2015 Isabel Matos. Enjoy.

Dakota Meyer

Introduction: Señoras y señores, denle la bienvenida al condecorado con la Medalla de Oro, el Sargento Dakota Meyer.

Dakota Meyer: Muchas gracias. Yo quisiera darle las gracias a todos nuestros veteranos y a los cónyugues de militares, también a las familias estrella de oro en el público hoy. Nuestra siguiente invitada no necesita una presentación formal. Pero quiero decir que me sentí muy honrado cuando la Gobernadora Palin me pidió que la presentara.

Yo quiero hablarles un poquito sobre la Gobernadora Palin que yo conozco, que no sólo sirve al público; pero que también es una madre, una esposa, y la madre de un miembro activo en el ejército. Y esto es importante porque hoy día, menos de medio porcentaje de la población – así es, el .5%, sirve en el ejército.

Y a pesar de eso, tenemos políticos en cada partido que se creen expertos en política exterior y quieren comprometer al ejército de EE.UU. cada vez que hay una pelea en el jardín de niños entre dos barones del petróleo en el Medio Oriente.

Y miren. Nosotros no le tenemos miedo a combatir, de ninguna manera. Confíen en mí en eso. Pero ¿por qué no nos dan una lucha que podríamos ganar? Una lucha.. Una lucha donde los políticos y los burócratas se quedan fuera de nuestro camino, porque nosotros lo haremos.

Ese .5% de la población está llevando la carga del 95.5% de este país. Hemos oído mucho hablar del 98% y del 2% en los medios por parte de estos políticos. Pero ¿saben qué? Están hablando de dinero, de lo rico o pobres que somos, del tamaño de refresco que podemos tomar, de quién ganó y quién perdió.

Pero ¿saben de lo que nadie está hablando? Del .5%. ¿Y saben qué? Está bien. Porque nosotros, el .5%, estamos orgullosos de servir. Porque gracias al servicio de tantos de los hombres y las mujeres de nuestro país, Washington tiene la libertad de discutir lo que Washington considera importante discutir.

Washington puede estar ahí y preocuparse de quién consiguió la asignación al comité, a quién lo invitaron a qué fiesta y a quién le dieron el desaire.. y a quién lo cogieron desprevenido por la cámara.

Pero aquellos de nosotros como Track Palin que sirvió en Irak, y como la Gobernadora Palin, una madre que se quedó desvelada muchas noches preocupándose por lo impensable – si su hijo regresaría a casa..

Pues, seguiremos sirviendo.

Y ahora muchos de ustedes estarán pensando ¿Adónde va esto? ¿Va a presentar a la Gobernadora Palin o no?

Pero digo todo esto para demostrar algo. La increíble mujer que estoy presentando, la Gobernadora Palin, sabe lo que los veteranos han estado pasando y lo que sus familias están pasando. Ella sabe que no somos unos casos de caridad, y que no queremos nada más que servir a nuestra gran nación.

Ella sabe que cuando la campana se toque de nuevo, nosotros estaremos listos. Estaremos presente.

Nosotros estaremos preparados para responder otra vez a las ordenes de la nación en un instante, y lo que sea necesario para defender nuestros derechos como americanos, pero también los menos afortunados que nosotros en el mundo.

Ella lo sabe porque lo ha vivido. Señoras y señores, por favor den la bienvenida a la Gobernadora Palin.

Governor Sarah Palin

Gracias. Estoy contenta de estar aquí. Muchísimas gracias. Me siento tan honrada de estar aquí..

Muchas gracias. Y me siento muy honrada de poder hablar sobre los mejores de los Estados Unidos, nuestros veteranos. A mí me pidieron que hablara sobre los veteranos. Y yo dije, absolutament!  Que tema tan cercano y querido a mi corazón.

Sargento Dakota Meyer, le agradezco muchísimo esa presentación. Su servicio desinteresado nos hace recordar ese amor, ese amor patriótico sobre el cual este país fue construido. Su servicio desinteresado nos inspira. Él y su generación de veteranos nos recuerda esa valentía que fundó este país.De hecho, quisiera hacerles un cuento de los primeros veteranos de América, y lo que el tocayo de la ciudad dijo acerca de ellos. 



Unos cuantos días después de que las últimas tropas británicas
dejaron nuestro suelo, y el padre de nuestro país, el
general George Washington, él reunió a sus
oficiales en una taberna en la ciudad de
Nueva York para despedirse de
ellos.  Estos hombres endurecidos
habían luchado por años contra el poder
militar más grande del mundo en aquel tiempo.
Contra toda esperanza, ellos ganaron libertad: libertad
para ellos mismos, y libertad para cada americano desde entonces.

Y parado frente a ellos, Washington se abrumó de emoción, ya que sabía los sacrificios que habían hecho.

Él dijo:
Con un corazón lleno de amor
y gratitud, me despido de ustedes
ahora. Es mi ferviente deseo que sus
últimos días sean tan prósperos y
alegres como los primeros
han sido gloriosos y

Ese fue el deseo para nuestros primeros veteranos y debería ser el nuestro para cada veterano que les ha seguido. Pero tenemos que preguntar si lo hemos honrado.


Desde entonces y hasta ahora, ha habido una larga lista de veteranos heroicos que han conectado nuestra historia, desde George Washington hasta, digamos, Chris Kyle. Millones como ellos.. Millones de americanos comunes, equipados para cosas extraordinarias, y se han presentado para servir, y para salvarle las vidas de americanos. ¿Cuántos han hecho más que esta generación en uniforme?

La guerra contra el terror es el compromiso militar más largo en la historia de los Estados Unidos. Muchos han servido en Irak y Afganistán. Decenas de miles de heridos. Más de 6,800 muertos. El peso sobre los militares y sus familias es enorme. Durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, el despliegue averaje en el teatro de operaciones era de seis meses. En la Guerra de Corea: nueve meses. Vietnam: trece meses. Para Irak y Afganistán, una primera misión era 45 meses. Los costes de estos despliegues han sido enormes, y no divulgados.

Mientras más tiempo están desplegados y luego re-desplegados, más son las probabilidades que ellos padecerán de PTSD, y acerca de medio millón de nuestros veteranos que regresan sufren de él en alguna forma. Sufren también de un número desproporcionado de desempleo. La tasa media de divorcio es de alrededor del 80%. Y peor todavía, amigos, la tasa de suicidio entre nuestros mejores y más brillantes es de 23 al día.

Mientras estamos aquí reunidos, estamos a salvo, nos sentimos seguros. La estamos pasando bién.. cuatro días juntos en una conferencia. En estos cuatro días, 92 de nuestros veteranos se habrán quitado la vida.

Entonces, ¿hemos honrado el deseo de Washington para nuestros veteranos? Yo no pregunto esto como política, como Dakota estaba sugeriendo. No. Yo lo pregunto como tantas madres de veteranos de combate. Cuando mi hijo se fue a la guerra por primera vez era todavía adolescente. Yo enfrenté la misma realidad que las demás mamás tienen que enfrentar. Y es cuando uno se da cuenta que: Contra, no iba a poder estar ahí para ayudar, para proteger. Las mamás no pueden estar ahí cuando están lastimados. Puedo rezar. Y lo hice. Y lo hago..

Pero hay pocas cosas mas difíciles que darle un besito a un hijo antes de mandarlo al camino del peligro, sabiendo que no vas a estar ahí para proteger. Esos primeros despliegues.. Ah. Ese es el momento cuando un padre deja de llamarlo ‘hijo’ y comienza a decirle ‘señor’.

América entrega sus hijos y sus hijas al servicio con la promesa que serán cuidados. A nuestras tropas les prometen: Nadie será abandonado en el campo de batalla. Les prometen que una nación agradecida no medirá gastos para enmendarlos, y sanarlos cuando están heridos. Y ahora. Regresan a casa heridos. Demasiados de ellos con sus cuerpos y espíritus quebrantados. Bueno pues, nosotros sus madres sus padres, sus esposos y sus esposas estamos aquí para exigir el cumplimiento de lo que se les ha prometido.

Nosotros no podemos esperar para que D.C. arregle sus meteduras de pata burócratas. Esta burocracía está matando a nuestros veteranos.  Ellos esperan meses y años para recibir tratamiento en el VA y están  perdiendo esperanza. Los errores del VA y esos encubrimientos han costado la vida de 500 veteranos sólo en los últimos cuatro años, y eso no incluye los que tomaron su propria vida.

Hemos sido testigos de la manera en la cual el gobierno corrupto trata a nuestros veteranos: el VA poniéndolos en esas listas de espera secretas, y engañando al Congreso.. espiando a los investigadores simplemente porque quieren llegar al fondo de eso.  Y no vayan a pensar que el problema esta resuelto sencillamente porque los medios ya no cubren los escándalos durante la sesión saliente.

El hecho que un tipo de arriba renunció, no significa que los problemas desaparecieron. El motivo por el cual no se oye hablar de ellos es porque nuestros veteranos no lloriquean. No les nace quejarse.Por eso esto ha estado bajo el radar por tanto tiempo.

Bueno, nuestra deuda de gratitud empieza el pago con tres soluciones sencillas que el gobierno puede y debería hacer ahora mismo, porque ya es hora de exigir soluciones.

  • Primero con el Cuidado de la Salud: Dar vales (‘vouchers’) para tratamiento fuera del VA (Departamento de Veteranos). Darle a nuestros veteranos la misma libertad que nos dieron a nosotros. Y en vez de premiar a extranjeros ilegales que se cuelan en la fila, recibiendo beneficios de EE.UU. que se les entrega.. ¡No, exigimos que los veteranos sean los primeros en la fila!
  • Segundo: permitirle a un veterano que está reintegrandose a la fuerza de trabajo civil, que utilise las técnicas que aprendió en el ejército. Hoy. Digamos, un veterano con capacidades excepcionales en la informática o con abilidades mecánicas, muchas veces tienen que ir hacia atrás, y volver a tomar cursos para poner un título o un papelito en la pared que dice que están certificados en un área que ya conocían. ¡Que se examinen y transfieran su certificación del ejército! Sentido comun.. ¡Sentido comun! (Yo sé que es una especie en peligro de extinción por aquí..)
  • Tercero: asegurar sus beneficios. En el Congreso aseguraron sus beneficios.  Sabían ustedes que el año pasado votaron para reducirle los beneficios de jubilación de los veteranos por 20%? Votaron ellos para reducir los suyos? No. Ellos solamente corrijen su rumbo cuando un número suficiente de nosotros se alza para protestar. ¿Votaron ellos para reducir los suyos? No. Ellos solamente corrijen su rumbo cuando un número suficiente de nosotros se alza para protestar. Entonces, quítenle el asunto a los políticos, después de pasar legislación que asegura beneficios permanentemente.

Ahora bien. El Cuidado de la Salud y los Beneficios.. esto es sólo parte de la equación. El deseo del general Washington para nuestros veteranos que sus acciones en la guerra fueran reconocidas como gloriosas y honorables. Y las han sido, no cabe duda.

Pero la cosa que esos veteranos de la guerra revolucionaria tuvieron las tropas de hoy no tienen es victoria. Y esa es la cosa que más aprecian. Ellos merecen saber que sus sacrificios no son en vano. ..saber que por lo que ellos lucharon y por lo que sus amigos murieron ¡valió la pena!

Dicen que los viejos declaran las guerras y luego mandan a los jóvenes a combatirlas. Entonces, es el deber del que los manda de estar seguro que podemos ganar esas guerras. Y es nuestro deber de elegir un comandante en jefe honorable que esté dispuesto a hacer los mismos sacrificios que manda a otros hacer.

Tenemos que proveerle a nuestras tropas la voluntad política para ganar, y las normas para entablar combate para ganar. Cuántos americanos han sido lastimados por las normas “políticamente correctas” para entablar combate, o por aquellos que están demasiados incomodos en darle a las tropas la confianza y herramientas que necesitan para ganar.

Eso nos lleva a una pregunta muy desagradable, y es una con la cual cada mamá estrella de oro y cada veterano vivirá para siempre. ¿Ganamos de verdad en Irak y Afganistán.. antes de ondear esa bandera blanca? Todavía no se sabe.

Pero cuando los malos terroristas islámicos están en marcha gritando “ala Akbar” desde Syria, hasta Irak, Libia, Yemen, y en las calles de Paris.. Bueno, no luce como victoria. El Medio Oriente es una caja de fósforos y se está cayendo a pedazos. Es un parque de recreos para un culto de muerte. ISIS se expande. Recupera terreno que acabamos de derramar sangre para asegurar. Un califato se extiende desde Baghdad hasta Damascus, hasta Jerusalén.

Sólo en Egipto, el Jihad está en retiro, y eso no es gracias a la administración de Obama. Recuerden, ellos apoyaron a la Hermandad Musulmana, que el pueblo al fin derrocó en uno de los levantamientos más grandes en la historia.

En el 2009 cuando Obama tomó cargo de la Guerra Contra el Terror, los Islámicos estaban en retiro, y Al Qaeda era una fuerza derrotada. Ahora controlan más territorios que nunca. Es donde entrenan y lanzan mas ataques contra nosotros y nuestros aliados. Y eso era predicible.

Los mandos militares nos avisaron: No se retiren de Irak sin una fuerza residual para mantener control sobre aquello y para retener el terreno que los buenos habian acabado de ganar. Amigos, la expansión de ISIS es el resultado directo de la denegación de este presidente de hacerle caso a ese aviso.

Y ahora donde quiera que miren los Islámicos están en marcha. Desde Boko Harem tomando niñas y vendiendolas como esclavas, a ISIS crucificando a cristianos y quemando a inocentes vivos en jaulas, y descabezando niños y bebitos.


Aparte de Dios Todopoderoso, ¿cuál es la única fuerza lo suficientemente potente que mantendrá esta marea barbárica alejada? Lo único que nos separa a nosotros de esos salvajes es El Rojo, Blanco y Azúl ¡Son los Militares de los Estados Unidos! 

Estamos en una lucha a largo plazo entre civilizaciones contra las fuerzas del mal. Y más vale que tomemos en serio la victoria. Las consecuencias de debilidad: retiro y derrota. En el pasado nuestros líderes enfrentaron el mal con claridad moral. Eliminanaron el fascismo y los Nazis. Ellos echaron el comunismo al cesto de basura de la historia.

Que no quepa duda, el islamismo radical es tan peligroso como esas ideologías. Y los Islamistas ahora juran que van a traer la lucha a nuestras costas. ISIS amenaza de subir su bandera negra sobre la Casa Blanca. Le dijeron al presidente Obama: Le cortaremos su cabeza en la Casa Blanca. Pero nuestro presidente que dirige por detrás piensa que podemos co-exisitir con estos matones genocidas. Él piensa que el Estado Islámico no es realmente islámico. Pretendiendo que no está ahí no lo hace desaparecer.

Llamándolo otra cosa no asegura que sea así.  Y dándole sermones a cristianos de bajerse de sus pedestales sobre el radicalismo islámico no detendrá a los islámicos de matar a cristianos.

Deje de echarle la culpa a la víctima y ¡despierte, Señor Presidente! Mientras los cristianos bajamos nuestras cabezas rezando por usted, los islámicos quieren cortar su cabeza.

El mundo que ellos quieren es un mundo que se someta. No nos someteremos jamás al mal! Nosotros echaremos el radicalismo islámico a las cenizas de la historia, igual que a los Nazis antes de ellos. Ay, el ingenuo departamento de estado de Obama.. ellos dicen que no podemos salir a matar para ganar la guerra.  ¿De verdad? Díganle eso a los Nazis. Ah. Esperen. No pueden porque están muertos. Los matamos.

La historia prueba que la destrucción del aparato militar de un enemigo – eso da victoria. Y de la victoria a la paz. Entonces no vamos a tolerar a políticos que desperdician las vidas preciosas de nuestros hijos e hijas en el campo de batalla, y luego, cuando vuelven a casa, los políticos se niegan cruelmente a respetar lo que le debemos.

Nuestros veteranos merecen mejor que eso, y lo exigimos. Porque amigos, si buscan las virtudes que distinguen a esta nación a la del enemigo, las encontrarán en los que están en uniforme que prometen pagar el precio por nuestra libertad.

Los Jihadis luchan porque tienen odio. Le tienen odio a los cristianos, a los judios, a las mujeres, a la diversidad y a la libertad. Nuestras tropas luchan por amor: el amor por la familia, la patria, y por la libertad.

Y si ustedes aman la libertad, ¡denle las gracias a un veterano! Yo les pido a aquellos que estan aquí hoy, cualquier veterano o miembro activo en servicio, honrennos, por favor, con ponerse de pie. Le queremos dar las gracias. Los saludamos. Les pedimos que se paren. ¡Nosotros los queremos! ¡Gracias!

Nosotros los amamos. Miren. Llamada a la acción. Acción conservadora. Esta es nuestra llamada la acción. Y no sólo aquí, pero donde quiera y todos los días. Encuentren a un veterano. Háblenles. Honrenlos. Denles las gracias y díganles que ustedes saben a quién darle las gracias por ella.

Portraits George Washington (28)Entonces, nosotros honraremos el deseo de George Washington, dicho con un corazón lleno de amor y gratitud para lograr victoria honorable y gloriosa en el campo de batalla, y para ayudar a nuestros luchadores por la libertad tener días civiles tan prósperos y alegres como su servicio fue valiente y sincero.

Entonces, con una voz digamos, ¡dque Dios bendiga los militares de los Estados Unidos! Les damos las gracias, veteranos y ¡que Dios bendiga los Estados Unidos de America! ..

Muchisimas gracias, y por supuesto, estoy contenta de tomar algunas preguntas que ustedes tengan para mi que el tiempo permita de contestar.

Moderador: Buenas noches. Bueno, Gobernadora, tenemos tiempo para hacer unas cuantas breves preguntas en una ronda relámpago. Cada respuesta será con una sola palabra.

Moderador: Barack Obama.

GSP:  Lo siento.

Moderador: Hillary Clinton.

GSP:  Lo siento.

Moderador: Margaret Thatcher.

GSP:   ¡Hierro!

Moderador: Y Gobernadora, tenemos muchos jóvenes aquí  en el publico hoy. Gobernadora Palin,  ¿cuáles son los asuntos mas importantes que deberían de estar presentes en sus mentes, ya que serán los líderes de la próxima generación?

GSP:  Bueno, ojalá a través del ósmosis parte del mensaje que yo envié hoy, pero yo sé que los que están en este salon entiendien lo que está pasando. Ellos tienen ese gran amor y honor para aquellos que darían todo en términos de servicio y en nombre de la libertad para nosotros.

Estos chicos tienen que entender como dijo Thomas Paine: Si hay problemas, que sea en mi día, para que mi hijo entonces tenga paz. Eso significa que tenemos que sacrificios hoy y no ser tan sumamente egoistas, los políticos en particular, que le dan a estos chicos, a sus hijos, y a sus hijos después, una deuda que los encadena y los restringe. Yo creo que lo que estamos haciendo hoy es immoral e injusto, y en mi opinión, esa deuda es ilegal.

Moderador: Una ultima pregunta. Cree Usted que la prensa trata diferentemente a una mujer política republicana a una mujer política democrata?

GSP: Sí.


Please share this article and the full Tribute-to-our-Veterans Video!


Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

And So It Begins! Montana Man Files For License to Marry TWO Women

Collier and Wives

Nathan Collier [center] and his wife Victoria [left] along with wife to be Christine [right] are moving to legalize their plural marriage based on the recent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage

By Gary P Jackson

A couple of days ago I wrote Congratulations Polygamists, Pederasts, Oedipalists, et al.: Your Case is Made, the Precedent is Set! Call the Wedding Planner! where I predicted we’d soon see any number of deviations from traditional marriage, now that the Supreme Court has declared marriage a “right.”

I included a Politico opinion piece that made a pretty solid case for plural marriage [polygamy] based on the arguments used to convince the Court to grant the new “right” for gays to marry.

This from the Associated Press, via The Blaze:

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man has applied for a marriage license so he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier of Billings said Wednesday that last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage inspired him to try to force the acceptance of polygamous marriages.

He says he’ll sue the state if his application is rejected.

Collier says Yellowstone County Courthouse officials initially denied the application Tuesday. When he told officials he planned to sue, they said they would consult with the county attorney before giving him a final answer.

Collier married his first wife, Victoria, in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but didn’t sign a marriage license.

The trio recently has appeared on the reality cable television show “Sister Wives.

Collier and Wife to be

Since plural marriage is currently illegal in all 50 states, Collier [left] has only been legally married to his first wife Victoria. He is moving to now legalize his marriage with Christine [right] who he wed in a religious ceremony in 2007

Part of me mourns civilization, the other part says: “Good for him!” If he is denied the right to marry he should sue the living hell out Yellowstone County and everyone involved! The Court has ruled!

The Daily Mail has more:

It’s about marriage equality,’ Collier said Wednesday. ‘You can’t have this without polygamy.

Collier and his second wife were met with confusion when they went to the Yellowstone County court house on Tuesday to fill out the application.

So, are you legally married, you didn’t get divorced?‘ one clerk asked, when he saw that Collier marked ‘not applicable‘ on a question asking the dissolution date of his previous marriage.

Collier responded that he was indeed still married and trying to marry for a second time.

We’ll have to deny that, let me go grab the other supervisor real quick so I can get confirmation but as far as I’m aware you can’t be married to two people at the same time,’ another clerk said.

County clerk officials initially denied Collier’s application, then said they would consult with the county attorney’s office before giving him a final answer, Collier said.

Yellowstone County chief civil litigator Kevin Gillen said he is reviewing Montana’s bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Collier by next week.

I think he deserves an answer,’ Gillen said, but added his review is finding that ‘the law simply doesn’t provide for that yet.

All we want is legal legitimacy. We aren’t asking anybody for anything else. We just want to give our marriage and our family the legitimacy that it deserves,’ Nathan Collier said.

In a Facebook post on Wednesday, Nathan Collier said he had yet to hear an answer from the county attorney on their decision to grant or deny the marriage license.

However, he says that he has told through ‘other sources‘ that the attorney general’s office is considering charging him for bigamy.

I knew the risks I faced when I asked the State to grant legal legitimacy to my family, and I accepted those risks.
‘I only ask that if their intent is to lock me in a cage
(and we wonder why they keep asking for more money to expand the jails?!?!?) over my family dynamic, contact me privately and I will walk in your front door. ‘I have no reason to run or hide. Please, don’t kick my door in and shoot my dogs,’ Collier wrote.

Collier goes on to say that he is ‘saddened‘ that his family faces such challenges in the ‘land of the free‘.

You can believe that the entire nation is and will be watching your choices and actions. There is no honor in destroying functional families,’ Collier added.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday made gay marriages legal nationwide. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.

Collier, 46, said that dissent inspired him. He owns a refrigeration business in Billings and married Victoria, 40, in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but did not sign a marriage license to avoid bigamy charges, he said.

Collier said he is a former Mormon who was excommunicated for polygamy and now belongs to no religious organization. He said he and his wives hid their relationship for years, but became tired of hiding and went public by appearing on the reality cable television show ‘Sister Wives.’

In the episode, the Colliers hosted the show’s stars – the Brown family – at their home in Billings and discussed their polygamist lifestyles. The Colliers and the Browns had never met before.

The three have seven children of their own and from previous relationships.

In an interview with the Examiner, Nathan Collier said he courted both of his wives at the same time.
He says he fell in love with both and couldn’t choose so they decided to start one family together.

Christine and Victoria said they are so happy with their lifestyle that they are thinking of adding another wife to the mix.
When they first started their family, Victoria and Christine lived in separate houses on different sides of town with Nathan splitting his time between the two.

But now they live together all as one, which they say works better.

My second wife Christine, who I’m not legally married to, she’s put up with my crap for a lot of years. She deserves legitimacy,’ he said.

Collier said he sent an email asking the ACLU of Montana to represent him in a possible lawsuit. ACLU legal director Jim Taylor said he has not seen the request.

Taylor said he has no opinion on Collier’s claims, though the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage ‘is about something very different.’

Anne Wilde, a co-founder of the polygamy advocacy organization Principle Voices located in Utah, said Collier’s application is the first she’s heard of in the nation, and that most polygamous families in Utah are not seeking the right to have multiple marriage licenses.

Callier All In The Family

All in the family: Nathan, Victoria and Christine Collier pictured top center, surrounded by their children who they are raising as one family in Billings, Montana

If we want to get serious for a minute, we must acknowledge that plural marriage, polygamy, is far more legit than gay marriage. Polygamy has been around for thousands of years. It’s spoken of in the Bible. In many societies it is still practiced, often times with these marriages being arranged. Gay marriage, on the other hand is a construct of the mid-to late 20th Century and has almost no history.

If we, as a nation are going to allow something, whose concept is younger than I am, it’s going to be hard to deny one that is older than the Bible! Especially when the applicant can successfully claim the same 14th Amendment “equal protection under the law” protections that gays were granted by the Court!

Welcome to the brave new world of “anything goes“!

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

Government Gone Bad: It’s Time to Let the Export-Import Bank Die

Export-Import-Bank.Logo png

Crony Capitalism on Steroids!

By C.A. Bamford

With US debt spiraling into trillions of dollars, our economy growing at a snail’s pace and reports of mismanagement, blatant corruption and incompetence in every branch of our government surfacing almost daily, ordinary Americans are beginning to pay more attention to what is going on in the no longer hallowed halls of our nation’s capital.

One troubling example of blatant cronyism is the Export-Import Bank, which provides taxpayer-backed loans and loan guarantees to foreign countries and companies to purchase U.S. products. Its charter was set to expire on September 30,, 2014, but with growing opposition to the bank, a 5 year renewal was rejected and supporters settled for a 9 month extension of its existing charter. That extension expired at the end of June.

While Ex-Im claims that 90% of its 2014 transactions supported small business, The Heritage Foundation and George Mason University’s Mercatus Center data shows that only 20% of total Ex-Im authorizations go to small businesses. A number of reports have found that the agency benefits a small number of politically-connected businesses like Boeing, General Electric and Caterpillar. These are all fine companies, but do they really deserve taxpayer-funded handouts when so many other equally fine companies are struggling? In 2013, approximately 30% of the banks transactions benefitted Boeing, earning Ex-Im the nickname “Bank of Boeing”.


General Electric Chairman and CEO, Jeff Immelt says letting Ex-Im bank’s charter expire, ending their export subsidies for GE and others would be “economic catastrophe”, but the facts say otherwise.

House Finance Committee, Jeb Hensarling, after holding a number of hearings on Ex-Im’s future, chose not to bring a bill reauthorizing the bank through his committee. Hensarling has called the bank a form of “corporate welfare”, stating that big banks primarily profit off Ex-Im. JP Morgan & Chase Co. for example has received more than $5.1 billion from Ex-Im. “To support more robust economic growth, economic justice and equal opportunity for all, it is time to wind down Ex-Im,” Hensarling said.

Meanwhile, Ex-Im officials have revealed that there are 31 open fraud investigations and the potential for many more indictments stemming from Ex-Im transactions. A former bank loan officer, Johnny Gutierrez, pled guilty to accepting bribes 19 different times from 2006 to 2013.

Currently a non-partisan government accountability organization has submitted a FOIA request for text messages between bank officials from a top Ex-Im official, Scott Schloegel. Unfortunately, Schloegel claims that he accidentally deleted the text messages.

Only Congress has the authority to reauthorize the bank’s charter. And although support for the bank has been steadily eroding, the Senate once again voted in favor of reauthorization. In the true spirit of political gamesmanship, Democrat Senators Maria Cantwell of Wa State, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and GOP Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina held the Pacific Trade legislation hostage until (with a little encouragement from President Obama via phone) Senator Mitch McConnell caved and provided the winning margin to extend the life of Ex-Im. Graham bragged about the deal-making on Twitter; “Most important aspect of agreement is we will also have the opportunity to vote on #ExIm reauth attached to the Highway Trust Fund reauth.

The House is now set to let the bank expire and there have been discussion of the Highway Trust Fund being the vehicle for reauthorization. House and Senate Leadership should use this as an opportunity, especially after the recent Supreme Court rulings, to log a win for conservatives.

How Export-Import-Bank Works

Now based in Alaska, longtime contributor Charlene Bamford is a policy adviser and intellectual thinker who teaches at the International School


Filed under In The News

Congratulations Polygamists, Pederasts, Oedipalists, et al.: Your Case is Made, the Precedent is Set! Call the Wedding Planner!

By Gary P Jackson

In what is certainly the most egregious example of judicial overreach in our nation’s history, the Supreme Court created a “right” that has never before existed. [every state in the USA, and most countries, have put numerous restrictions on who may, or may not marry, and for good reason] By declaring marriage a “right,” The Court opened the door, not only for gay marriage, but for any and all unions that were heretofore unthinkable, and totally unacceptable.

Not since Dred Scott, which essentially said Negroes were not human, but mere property …. farm implements if you will …. and thus, had no constitutional rights whatsoever, and Roe v Wade, which was ACTUALLY about the right to privacy, but was interpreted as creating a “right” to slaughter an innocent child and call it a “choice” [which has led to the slaughter of at least 80 MILLION innocent children, including over 20 MILLION black babies, since 1973] has The Court got it so wrong, and the potential damage to civilized society so great.

As it did in Thursday’s ObamaCare [SCOTUScare?] ruling, The Court has essentially rendered the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, and the concept of state’s rights, null and void.

Full disclosure before we go any further. While I’m not exactly what you’d call an “enthusiastic supporter” of gay marriage, I have absolutely ZERO problem with allowing gays to marry IF it had been done legally, and with the blessing of the American people, not through judicial fiat and activism. In other words, a constitutional amendment that would forever define marriage.

Look for an upcoming post outlining a constitutional amendment that could, and would, satisfy most Americans and ease their legitimate fears of being persecuted for their religious beliefs, while still allowing gay marriage.

In the headline I mention polygamy, the act of marrying more than one person at the same time, and living in a plural relationship, not to be confused with bigamy, being married to more than one person, usually without the other participants’ knowledge of that fact. [though laws against this may be voided as well] I also mention pedophilia, and incestuous relationships. Many will scoff, but the fact is, the happy-happy, rainbows and unicorns, let’s all sing Kumbaya wording in Justice Kennedy’s majority ruling opens up marriage to include any paring, or combination of parings, one can think up. Wanna marry your pet goat? OK. How about your color TV or your toaster? Sure, why not! [you can thank Frank Zappa and Joe’s Garage for that imagery!]

Don’t laugh, in other countries, run by lunatics, people have been allowed to marry trees, cars, and other random things. Nothing like the government indulging the mentally ill!

And yes, the United States is run by lunatics too. The inmates have taken over the asylum!

Here’s the thing, the arguments used to claim gay marriage was a “right,” based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, can be used by ANYONE in a relationship that, until now, has been illegal, or otherwise forbidden by civilized societies.

Don’t laugh! People seem to want to laugh at and ridicule those who talk about “slippery slopes” and the “law of unintended consequences ,” but in most cases, we are usually right on the money. Sometimes it takes years to be proven right, other times we see it almost immediately!

For example …. Friday, while the Court ruling was still sinking in for most people, the left wing website Politico published an opinion piece by Fredrik Deboer entitled: It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.

In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?
Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.

Why the opposition, from those who have no interest in preserving “traditional marriage” or forbidding polyamorous relationships? I think the answer has to do with political momentum, with a kind of ad hoc-rejection of polygamy as necessary political concession. And in time, I think it will change.

The marriage equality movement has been both the best and worst thing that could happen for legally sanctioned polygamy. The best, because that movement has required a sustained and effective assault on “traditional marriage” arguments that reflected no particular point of view other than that marriage should stay the same because it’s always been the same. In particular, the notion that procreation and child-rearing are the natural justification for marriage has been dealt a terminal injury. We don’t, after all, ban marriage for those who can’t conceive, or annul marriages that don’t result in children, or make couples pinkie swear that they’ll have kids not too long after they get married. We have insisted instead that the institution exists to enshrine in law a special kind of long-term commitment, and to extend certain essential logistical and legal benefits to those who make that commitment. And rightly so.

But the marriage equality movement has been curiously hostile to polygamy, and for a particularly unsatisfying reason: short-term political need. Many conservative opponents of marriage equality have made the slippery slope argument, insisting that same-sex marriages would lead inevitably to further redefinition of what marriage is and means. See, for example, Rick Santorum’s infamous “man on dog” comments, in which he equated the desire of two adult men or women to be married with bestiality. Polygamy has frequently been a part of these slippery slope arguments. Typical of such arguments, the reasons why marriage between more than two partners would be destructive were taken as a given. Many proponents of marriage equality, I’m sorry to say, went along with this evidence-free indictment of polygamous matrimony. They choose to side-step the issue by insisting that gay marriage wouldn’t lead to polygamy. That legally sanctioned polygamy was a fate worth fearing went without saying.

To be clear: our lack of legal recognition of group marriages is not the fault of the marriage equality movement. Rather, it’s that the tactics of that movement have made getting to serious discussions of legalized polygamy harder. I say that while recognizing the unprecedented and necessary success of those tactics. I understand the political pragmatism in wanting to hold the line—to not be perceived to be slipping down the slope. To advocate for polygamy during the marriage equality fight may have seemed to confirm the socially conservative narrative, that gay marriage augured a wholesale collapse in traditional values. But times have changed; while work remains to be done, the immediate danger to marriage equality has passed. In 2005, a denial of the right to group marriage stemming from political pragmatism made at least some sense. In 2015, after this ruling, it no longer does.

While important legal and practical questions remain unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s ruling and broad public support, marriage equality is here to stay. Soon, it will be time to turn the attention of social liberalism to the next horizon. Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners. It’s time to legalize polygamy.


Conventional arguments against polygamy fall apart with even a little examination. Appeals to traditional marriage, and the notion that child rearing is the only legitimate justification of legal marriage, have now, I hope, been exposed and discarded by all progressive people. What’s left is a series of jerry-rigged arguments that reflect no coherent moral vision of what marriage is for, and which frequently function as criticisms of traditional marriage as well.

This is, sad to say, an incredibly well thought out argument, and one that can be made without the necessity of another court battle. Again, the precedent is set, not only for polygamy, but absolutely ANY relationship and union that has formerly been considered taboo and forbidden. Welcome to the brave new world where court rulings are based on feelings, rather than the Constitution, and common sense!

Let’s visit what Chief Justice Roberts wrote in dissent of the ruling, that strongly warns the ruling opens the door for polygamy: [emphasis mine]

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr. 23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J. 1977 (2015).

I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 6. But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

Think this is no big deal?

In September of 2014 a German ethics committee ruled that INCEST is a “fundamental right“: [emphasis mine]

Incest a ‘fundamental right‘, German committee says

Anti-incest laws in Germany could be scrapped after a government-backed group said relationships between brothers and sisters should be legal

Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said the they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.

Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.

Their intervention follows a notorious case in which a brother and sister living as partners in Saxony had four children together. The couple had been raised separately and only met when the brother, identified only as Patrick S, was an adult, and his sister Susan K was 16.

Patrick S was sentenced to more than three years in prison for incest and the couple have since failed in their bid to have the guilty verdict overturned by the European Court of Human Rights.

The family was forced to live apart after the courts ruled that there was a duty to protect their children from the consequences of their relationship.

Two of the couple’s children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.

But the Ethics Council dismissed that argument, on the basis that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children.

The Council said it based its recommendation on extensive research, in which it found many incestuous couples are forced to live in secret.

In one case, it found a woman was being blackmailed by her father and ex-husband, who threatened to depive her of access to her children unless she ended a new relationship with her half-brother.

Incest remains illegal in the UK and most European countries, although France abolished its incest laws under Napoleon I and there has been growing debate over the taboo in Germany.

Around two to four per cent of Germans have had “incestuous experiences”, according to an estimate by the Max Planck Institute.

But a spokeswoman for Angela Merkel’s ruling Christian Democrats indicated the government was unlikely to adopt the Ethics Council’s recommendations.

The abolition of the offense of incest between siblings would be the wrong signal,” said Elisabeth Winkelmeier-Becker, legal policy spokeswoman for the party’s group in parliament.

Eliminating the threat of punishment against incestuous acts within families would run counter to the protection of undisturbed development for children.

It’s not speculation that incestuous sexual relationships can lead to disability and abnormalities among children. Not just physical deformities, but mental deformities as well. Inbreeding was once the “in thing” among European royalty. Study up on the Hapsburg family. Aggressive inbreeding among this royal family led to a distinctive deformity of both the lips and jaws of their offspring, that still exist today. Inbreeding has effected the British Royals as well.

Included in the above article are links to these equally disturbing articles:

Marriage between uncle and niece is ruled legal by New York Court
29 Oct 2014

Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

10 Jul 2014

Father wanted over Australia’s worst incest case ‘hiding in UK’
30 Jun 2014

Switzerland considers repealing incest laws
13 Dec 2010

For those of you of the more libertarian bent, who are wondering why such a fuss, study up on the fall of ancient Greece and ancient Rome. Two civilizations that gave the world many great things and concepts, that crashed and burned because of their “if it feels good, do it” attitudes. These two great civilizations were destroyed by liberalism, of the sort America, and civilization, battles today.

Civilized societies have certain rules, norms, and taboos for a reason. These aren’t concepts that are willy-nilly and created on a whim. The need for these rules has been proven valid through thousands of years of human history.

America is the greatest civilization the world has ever known, but I’m afraid it is no match for the evil that is liberalism.

The slope is well greased, and we are about to slip down it at warp speed.

The American Experiment …. it was fun while it lasted.


Filed under In The News, Politics

New Video Poll: Too Bold or Just Right?

By Isabel Matos

This is an important message that needs to be sent loud and clear: the Spanish Media is like the Lame Stream Media. Its bias is just not getting the attention it should. Language is not the barrier in programming we should worry about, agenda is. This video is captioned and narrated in Spanish and in English to get our conservative message out.  Vote (or add to) your opinion in the poll below.


Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin, Uncategorized

As We Honor the Heroes of D-Day, Watch Ronald Reagan’s Iconic 1984 Speech at Point-du-Hoc


By Gary P Jackson

June 6, 1944,

Allied Forces stormed the beaches of Normandy, France. It was the largest amphibious invasion ever attempted. Many brave men died on this day, but those who lived went on to liberate Europe from the evils of Nazism.

Many great movies have been made, memorializing these heroes, with The Longest Day being my personal favorite. Not many movies have John Wayne and Sir Richard Burton as bit players! Like the invasion itself, the movie was a major undertaking with a huge cast of players. Shot in black and white, it’s one of those, if you haven’t seen, you simply must.

One of the groups portrayed in the movie is the “Boys of Point-du-Hoc,” United States Army Rangers. These brave men scaled a sheer cliff, that was occupied, at the top, by Germans. It was an amazing act of bravery and determination, as they fought for every inch they moved up those cliffs.

In 1984, on the 40th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion, President Ronald Reagan was on the beaches of Normandy and gave a beautiful tribute to the “Boys of Point-du-Hoc.” 31 years later, this speech, reportedly crafted with Peggy Noonan, will still give you chills.

As we honor the heroes of D-Day, and honor men who literally freed the world from tyranny and oppression, lets listen to President Ronald Reagan honor them, as only he could:

President Reagan’s continued push for peace in the world, as he speaks to Soviet aggression, is a very noteworthy part of this speech as well. Ronald Reagan was an amazing champion of Liberty and Freedom. A true hero. Lord we miss him so.

* Video courtesy The Reagan Foundation at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library


Filed under In The News, Ronald Reagan