We Come For Your Children!

I remember reading in the great book "Menace of Multiculturalism" about a gay activist group standing outside a San Francisco area church chanting "we come for your children!"

I think this is, as a greater concept, the main strategy of Liberalism these days. Not only does the MTV crowd push "Gay Chic" convincing many of the young that they are gay, and that it's "cool."

But we must look at it in a greater context. The Leftist core in this country are rabid supporters of abortion and a self-absorbed lifestyle reminiscent of France. In the red states, Evangelical Christians are more than replacing themselves in birthrates. In more Liberal circles, population is dropping like a rock.

I think it has dawned on the powers that be among the Left that they are losing. They hoped Hispanic immigration would bring enough new Liberals into the country to bring about their fabled "emerging Democratic majority." But Socially Conservative Hispanics have been slowly drifting towards the Republican Party. At the prsent rate, Hispanics could be 51% Republican in a decade or two.

So how will the Left replace itself? They cast their covetous gaze at the children of Evangelicals and Catholic Conservatives.

They will continue to create garbage like gangsta rap which fills young minds with nothing but garbage. Rap music is narcissistic and written to engender anger where none is needed. It turns youth in on themselves. Look to see the Liberals in the music industry churn out more this dreck. And don't expect them to have any shame about it either.

Look for Liberals to push for more of their agendas, especially the Gay Agenda, into our schools, while silencing the free speech of Christians.

Watch for more "Gay Chic." This is a real threat. A girl in my family, as hetero as you get, has been convinced that she is a Lesbian.

Yes, Liberals, we know that you come for our children.

The Culture War will be won or lost among the youth. Either we will go with Liberalism and death, or Conservatism and strength.

Decline of the North

When you study electoral college results from past elections, it's amazing to note all the changes that have taken place over the years. For instance, one views say, the election of 1896, and sees almost an entire juxtaposition of Republicans and Democrats, with William Jennings Bryan the Democrat-Populist winning mostly today's "Red States" and William McKinley, the Republican, winning almost only today's "Blue States." You could win the states North of the Ohio and Potomac Rivers and East of the Mississippi, plus Minnesota, and lose all others, but still win the election. The North had that kind of lock on things. In the 1930s, if you won the aforementioned states, you'd only need four more electoral votes to put you over the top.

And how are the mighty fallen! As a result of the 1930 census, New York proudly possessed 47 electoral votes. It is projected that after the 2010 census, the Empire State will drop below thirty.

Well, any recent poli-sci major in college has studied the rise of the Sun Belt and the decline of the Snow Belt, aka the Rust Belt. But why has the North declined? there are many reasons. One is that air conditioning makes one hundred degree summers bearable, and so more people have moved here. There are many others.

But the North has lost its leadership role in America. Once upon a time, the North was the center of American gravity. It was the extension of the Puritan dream of a New Jerusalem where people would prepare for the return of Our Lord. Christian activists took the lead in the abolitionist movement and brought slavery to an end. Immigrants like my ancestors from Poland and Lithuania, as well as those from many other countries entered this country under the shining light of the Statue of Liberty. My grandfather told me about it. Seeing her for the first time left him awestruck. I sometimes wonder if Lady Liberty ever feels like turning to face New York and saying, "I don't know you any more" and maybe move to Florida like much of the rest of the sane remnant of New York has.

Our immigrant fathers were all of different creeds and nationalities, but nearly all of them trusted God and worshipped Him and believed His Bible. Nobody got offended, or acted the fool, like the ACLU, who tries to make America look more and more like East Berlin with each passing year. There was truly the diversity and tolerance that today's Left talks a good talk about, but doesn't follow up on.

Our Judeo-Christian heritage was the glue that bound our society together. Our Constitution was based on the premise that God makes men free and men make men slaves. That is why the Constitution says in the preamble that its purpose is "to secure the blessings of liberty." In those days, blessing only meant one thing- a gift from the Almighty.

People in the North during its height from 1865-1970 knew their Godly heritage and walked in the Power of God. And they got a lot done. They did great things. And they made America a haven for Godly people, and a place where non-believers were free too. Today, the Atheist has organizaed himself into Marxist hit squads who go around terrorizing people and filing frivolous lawsuits against them over the slightest mention of God, in total violation of our Constitution. But back then, Atheists were good neighbors, who respected the beliefs of others.

In those days, the North had a leadership role in America. Where it led, the rest of America followed. But then came the '60s and its radicalism. Within a couple of decades it seems that the North has forgotten what made it great and has embraced decline. Yes, another reason for the flight to the Sun Belt is that many are refugees from the tyranny of Political Correctness.

Let's stop and examine PC just a moment. I would point out that it is a COMMUNIST concept, that Trotsky and Mao used. It no doubt became popularized in America by all the Mao's Red Books that were being distributed in America during the 1970s. Just like Separation of Church and State, which is in the Soviet Constitution, but nowhere in the American.

And that's the sad new reality of the North. It is no longer a shining city on a hill, but more like an ashheap. People want to emulate pinheads like 50 cent and Sarah Jessica Parker more than they do Jesus. Secularism has molded its iron collar around the neck of Northerners, and they do not seem to mind their chains. they have forgotten Locke's old principle on which our Constitution was based- that God makes men free and men make men slaves. And they are doing so.

Unless we have a serious revival in the North and they return to the ways of their forefathers, who made this country great and led it for a long time, they will continue to decline. With the rampant moral decay, the North will just become more and more irrelevant as time passes by. And that would be a sad thing for a golden land which once held so much promise.

Where Does John Kerry get off?

Imagine an American War Hero whose superior generalship won some of the greatest victories in American history. In the greatest of these, he personally led a charge, getting shot in the leg, while crushing the enemy. This decisive blow to our foe draws important allies to America's side in the war and, it can be argued, ultimately led to victory. Is this man a great American Patriot no matter what?


If you said yes, you think Benedict Arnold is a great American hero.

What is the point of my mentioning this? The point is that Liberals point to Kerry's four months in a swiftboat as some sort of shield against his treason. The point is that Benedict's Arnold's victories in Saratoga and elsewhere far outweigh four months of swiftboat duty. And handing over West Point to the British is far outweighed by perjured testimony to Congress and aiding and abetting an enemy to defeat the US.

Benedict Arnold's name is synonymous with traitor. John Kerry's should be too. He led marches through the streets with the North Vietnamese and Viet-Cong flags waving high, this great American "patriot".

So where does this traitor, Kerry, get off thinking he has ANYTHING to say to George W Bush, our president who has done an excellent job of leading us in the War on Terror?

His current attack on the President, with the so-called "Downing Street Memo", which he hopes will get the president impeached, is merely Kerry whining about not being able to be the first Viet-Cong president.

Only a state as messed up would make people like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry have safe Senate seats. But the rest of America must mobilize and say, "we will not knuckle under to a traitor."

Liberal Pride

The Great Discovery of the identity of "Deep Throat" (*yawn*) has swelled Liberal pride in their actions during the Vietnam Era. When one watches Liberal Media outlets about that era, hippies are portrayed as heroic social crusaders for justice. They are never portrayed as the drugged out fools who spat on soldiers and loved Marx and Mao that they were. Do we go to a crackhouse and listen to the rantings of a crackwhore as "great wisdom"? No, we hospitalize her and get her some serious help. So why do we lionize hippies, most of whom were every bit as bad?

Ben Stein's June 1st article at Spectator.org catalogues the Left's true accomplishments of that era best. It can be summed up in one word- genocide. Nixon's downfall empowered many Anti-American elements in the Senate in 1974, like Ted Kennedy. Kennedy was the architect of the bill that cut off the fledgling democracies of Southeast Asia that year. Would the genocide in Cambodia been possible if the US had remained? How about the three million Vietnamese who fled their home country with the clothes on their backs? How about anyone who makes the slightest disagreement with the Hanoi Politburo and winds up in a "Re-education Camp"? This is the true legacy of the Left in the Vietnam Era- a triumphant enemy murdering millions and turning the most lush garden spot in the world into a gulag.