Oct 16 2006

Liberals Trade War On Al Qaeda For One On Christians

Published by at 9:22 am under 2006 Elections,All General Discussions

While we head to the polls, we need to understand what voices and forces will be unleashed if Democrats get even a marginal victory this November. We know the Dems will bow to their liberal feverswamp base and repeal all Bush’s tax cuts. We know Democrats will try and surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda so they can redeploy our troops to Japan. We know Democrats will try and end the monitoring of terrorists overseas so we can avoid the chance communications they have with people here in the US (‘chance’, got it?). And we know all the fake promises about not impeaching Bush will fall away when serious evidence arises that he used faked documents from Niger to lead us into a war in Iraq (under a Democrat led Senate!). But do not forget that the liberals are angry, and Bush simply represents their source of their anger – Christians. The whole idea underlying all these surrenders to Al Qaeda is to free resources in the real battle – against Christianity (and no, I am not religious or attend church, so I am not feeling threatened by the goons on the left). Let’s read their intent in their own, eloquent words.

I had to get your attention, because I believe the Christian Right is a bigger threat to decent Americans than radical Islam. In fact, to many, the Christian Right is known as the American Taliban. I think that is a fair description.

I am concerned that they are forcing their will upon me. For example, let’s look at television. You know that TV has become more heavily censored every year since nipple-gate. The fines for indecency have been raised four-fold just in the last year. Does this come from the outrage of families or TV viewers?

Turns out that 99.98 percent of broadcasting complaints came from this one organization, The Parents Television Council (PTC). This group is single handedly deciding what every single person in America is to watch. That isn’t Democracy, nor is it the free market.

While this poor deprived soul is struggling to protect some personal sexual satisfaction in front of the boob tube, us parents of small children just want some wholesome TV to share with our two seven year old daughters. And we want the smut behind parental controls so we can let the girls switch TV channels without adult supervision. Is it too much to ask to keep open TV kid safe IN OUR HOMES!

This is why the war on Christians is something we all need to care about. Because Christian values underpin much of our legal system. Though Shall Not Steal. Though Shall Not Kill. We are better as a nation because we took some excellent elements of a world-class religion and applied them to our society. This wingnut is up in arms because he cannot see more breasts on TV without having to enter a parental control code???. Is this the new war we are going to wage when Democrats win the House??? My guess is yes – those on the angry left will push as hard and as far as they can, as fast as they can. Don’t believe otherwise. And will these paragons of virtue protect children or push for adult-child sex? I let this model liberal explain the views on that front:

These Catholic Church officials knew for decades [about child molestation by Priests] and shifted the offenders around the country. Guess what, Mr. Dobson; boinking is a biological imperative. It is mandated by nature, and to repress that only creates horrible and sometimes lethal consequences.

Pretty clear to me this mega-liberal is saying sexual encounters with children are a force of nature that must be accommodated. I guess just like Iraqis had to accept encounter the sexual desires of Saddam’s sons on their young duaghters, just something we have to learn to live with.

28 responses so far

28 Responses to “Liberals Trade War On Al Qaeda For One On Christians”

  1. drk says:

    I’m not sure I understand something an earlier commenter said:
    “DRK it is so nice to find debate here instead ok KOS/MoveOn dookie” — can someone help me out here?

    The Macker, I agree that there is a great deal left to be learned about human sexuality, and I will try to spare people from unwarranted generalities and undesired lectures. It happens to be a topic I know a bit–not everything, but a bit–about. I wish some people (James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, etc.) in positions of “authority” would also do the same.

    Thanks for clarification on true conservatives. I might actually agree with them sometimes if so many people calling themselves “conservative” didn’t seem to be out to kill me in order to provide me with some individual liberty.

  2. Ken says:


    Homosexuality is a choice although there might be an tendency
    in a few which could be called innate, which, even in those cases,
    can be resisted.
    “Demonstrable negative results” could be said to be failure to
    reproduce and thus contribute to a healthy birthrate among,
    particularly, members of the gradually marginalized ethnic core
    which founded America.

  3. Barbara says:


    Thanks for the link to Peggy Noonan. I got irritated with her a few months ago for an article she wrote, but this one is right on the money.

    About socialized medicine. The libs think it is super wonderful, but Canadians are having a problem with it, like waiting months for treatment and maybe dying before they can get treatment. England and several European countries are going bankrupt with all their freebies. People complain about the costs of drugs, but pharmaceuticals are a business and like all businesses are in it to make money not to be philanthropical. It costs billions to discover a new medicine and, of course, they want their money back. If they did not make money there would be no incentive to produce life saving drugs. What is not kosher is the government forcing them to give generic company their formulas that they paid so much for after 10 years. Just like forcing phone companies to let competition use their established phone lines. Government is too intrusive in our lives, but I, for one, do not want to see porn of TV. Not even for the short time it takes to change a channel. If anyone wants to see porn, then get pay TV and let the rest of us enjoy non sexual viewing. However, has anyone seen daytime soap operas. Talk about porn.

  4. drk says:

    If homosexuality is a choice, when did you make the choice against it?

    I’d be glad to point to some demonstrable negative results of heterosexuality: bringing children into the world which the family cannot support, overpopulation and the resulting overuse of the world’s resources. Those are two that I can immediately think of.

    However, the mention of “gradually marginalized ethnic core” by Ken makes it a little clearer what his agenda is: white people need to reproduce, otherwise they’ll be overrun by “the others.” Like I often say: scratch a homophobe, find a racist.

  5. AJStrata says:


    Get real. That is the biggest load of BS I have seen in years. Did you connect those dots all by your lonesome? Sounds like you are having a Walter Mitty daydream about slaying the worlds evil! Typical garbage from the arrogant left (who need all the ego patting the can apply to themselves so they can feel superior). When your done pretending you are saving the world feel free to come back to reality. Don’t let us interrupt your playtime.

  6. Ken says:

    DRK might be unbpleasantly surprised to find poll results
    indicating an even less favorable attitude to homosexuality in
    the black and Hispanic communities than in Anglo communities.

    Europeans and Russians are suffering from a much lower
    birthrate than needed to sustain their civilization. I believe
    Australians are now subsidizing a purposely increased birthrate
    among its “founding ethnic core.”

    Continued declining birth rates on these fronts do not bode
    for increased amity among peoples concerned by the way,
    which are European stock and rival rapidly growing Moslems.

    The choice homosexuals make if of going against natural
    inclinations which one doesn’t have to choose. In similar
    fashion ,a person somewhat biologically susceptible to
    alcoholism should not be encouraged to surrender to the

  7. Barbara says:

    Having children or not is one of our freedoms, but not at the cost of a human life that has been formed.

    Declining population=abortion.

    What could be simpler?

  8. Barbara says:

    Also, I don’t care what sexual orientation a person is. I just want them to keep it to themselves and not shove it down my throat. And no, that doesn’t men they should stay in a closet. I don’t want to know about anybody’s sex life. Anyone who want to talk about their sex life is an exhibitionist.