Milo runs down a long list of ‘Hate Crimes’ that turned out to be fakes generated by leftists hoping to gain celebrity, money, or just advance a narrative of hate that the real world obstinately fails to live up to.

Victimhood is profitable. On the internet, it can get you thousands of dollars in crowdfunding donations. In the media, it can win you national prominence and a cooing audience of credulous sycophants. On campus, it can get you attention and plaudits from fellow grievance-mongers.

When #BlackLivesMatter apologists were saying, “Hey, they denounced the attacks in Dallas and said they’re committed to non-violence,” in order to absolve them of the carnage that was brought about, in part, by the violent rhetoric and actual violence that #BlackLivesMatter has promoted, or at a minimum, tolerated…. this was my response:

If BLM and its core principles really are peaceful, two things are going to happen.

1. BLM is going to crack down hard on elements within its groups that advocate violence.

2. BLM’s rhetoric is going to change from confrontational to cooperative

I will wait and see if these things happen.

Have #BlackLivesMatter activists toned down, much less rejected violence as a tactic?

This is what happened in Minnesota last night.

Protesters began throwing objects, including fireworks, rebar, bricks and a molotov cocktail at officers, according to the St. Paul Police Department. There were 21 police officers injured from thrown objects, including a hit to the head from a 25 pound item, later identified as a concrete block.

I would take that as a no.

By the way, issuing a statement to the press after the violence has happened denying that your group had anything to do with the violence is not a crackdown.

Frankly, I don’t get what these protests are supposed to accomplish anyway. What does marching through the street accomplish that is better than sitting down at a table with your opponents and talking with them? How does blocking traffic and preventing innocent people from getting to work or home to the hospital help advance the cause? Are these tactics even meant to achieve anything, or are they just to give violent people a space to act out and their enablers a space to bask in their smug sense of social justice?

Update: Interestingly, when a much larger number of dangerous assault-weapon-owners get together to engage in civil disobedience, there is no violence.

The size of the U.S. deficit isn’t the only thing they lie about. Unemployment is another.

Last week, The New York Times trumpeted, Jobs Roar Back With Gain of 287,000 in June, Easing Worry, with the official unemployment rate at 4.9%. Isn’t it wonderful?

“Wow, this one takes my breath away,” said Diane Swonk, an independent economist in Chicago.

Ooh, she’s “independent” – that makes her reaction valid! But here’s the real story.

• The same jobs report has downward-revised the previous months’ numbers (from bad to horrible).
• In the Bush years, the media would treat a jobs number in the 200k range as a crisis.
• The Obama so-called “recovery” is the Weakest. On. Record.
• Most of the jobs created in the Obama years, including the recent jobs report, are part-time and low-paying.
• In the Obama years, tens of millions of Americans have given up even hoping for a job. “Labor force participation” has plummeted to lows not seen since the 1970s.
• If we use the participation rate from early 2009 when Obama took office, the unemployment rate is 11%. (And that’s ignoring under-employment / the part-time jobs.)
• And no, the declining participation isn’t because “the Baby Boomers are retiring”. They’re not retiring. Under Obama, they can’t afford it. They’ve been coming out of retirement, to take those low-paying, part-time Obamajobs from young people.
• Young people face a crisis; many can’t get an entry-level job.

Perhaps this is why President Obama has the highest U.S. suicide rate in 30 years.

First, let’s do a National Debt update. You’ll see why, in a minute.

As of this day, the U.S. national debt is $19.3 trillion. ($13.9 trillion held by the public; $5.4 trillion “intragovernmental”, for example, Treasury bonds held by Social Security.)

When President Obama took over from President Bush, it was $10.6 trillion. ($6.3 trillion held by the public; $4.3 intragovernmental)

So, Obama has already more-than-doubled the part of the U.S. national debt that everyone agrees is important (what’s “held by the public”). And he’s on track to double the total, by the time he leaves office.

But there’s more. On this day 3 years ago, the total was $16.7 trillion. So, over the past 3 years, the U.S. operating deficit – the money that the U.S. Treasury actually had to borrow to pay for stuff – has been $2.6 trillion, or roughly $865 billion per year.

That’s funny because the three most recent U.S. budget deficits are supposed to be much smaller. 2014 – $483 billion, 2015 – $438 billion, 2016 – $616 billion; for a total of $1.5 trillion. (September-ending fiscal year means a 2-3 month shift from the dates I used above; but that does not alter the story drastically.)

What does it mean? It means they’re lying to us about the size of the U.S. budget deficit. And they’ve been lying for years, as I’ve blogged previously.

Oh, you could say “Come now, the accounting numbers are accurate, they’re just using some budget/accounting tricks to hide a big chunk of their spending-and-borrowing.” But I consider tricks to be lies. Don’t you?

According to left-wingers like MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, or even the Dear Leader Himself, His Dear Leadership has reduced the U.S. annual budget deficit by 2/3. No, pumpkins. It hasn’t. You lie.

Every grownup knows what a temper tantrum looks like. The kid didn’t get his way. It’s time to make the grownups pay – by causing obstacles, by screeching about anything and everything, by hitting, and so forth. The kid might still not win on the immediate issue X. But who knows, the grownups might just try to mollify him on another issue Y. It’s part revenge, part blackmail. We can expect a lot of tantrums now over Brexit.

Brexit doesn’t change much, “in the now”. First, it hasn’t even happened. (It will be weeks or months before Britain invokes Article 50.) Second, if and when it happens, it need not affect the existing terms of European trade, finance or hardly anything other than British border control. All that it will take to keep the existing trade going is a few new pieces of paper with a few new signatures.

No, Brexit is more of a matter for the future. Assuming it happens, it will mean that the UK’s -future course- is to avoid a full-on political merger with the rest of Europe; avoid the destruction of its borders and sovereignty; etc.

And, to the various socialist cronies of Europe, that’s unforgivable. And for years, vast problems (unrelated to Brexit) have been piling up for them. And for years, they’ve tried to not admit the full extent of their problems. Problems which they have caused and/or failed to deal with.

Guess what? Now that they didn’t get their way on Brexit, they’re going to blame everything on Brexit. Even though Brexit is mostly unrelated.

It’s as if termites have eaten away at your home for years. Your home is ready to crash. You have failed to deal with it. Now your partner insists that you stay home on Saturday night and don’t go to that casino. Guess what? Your plan is to light a little fire to help your termite-eaten home crash faster; and when the cops arrive, you’ll blame your partner for everything. Now that’s a tantrum.

It’s already begun. Earlier we had the credit downgrades on the UK. It’s pure payback, of course. Nothing fundamental has changed about the UK’s finances. The ratings companies became political, some years ago. Governments can and will torture the ratings companies; therefore, they do the bidding of governments. The downgrades then add to market turmoil. In other words: Kid throws tantrum.

Another example is, crashing Italian banks that demand massive new bailouts. European banks’ finances have been rotten for years. Their stocks were inevitably going to crash at some point, when the world admitted the reality. But guess what? Brexit! So give us new bailouts!

It’s the new Climate Change, or maybe the new Salted Caramel. Everything this year is going to be Brexit. Decaying art? Brexit! Venezuelan collapse? Brexit! Fukushima radiation levels? Brexit! Solar flares? Brexit! U.S. recession? Personal negativity? Brexit!

Why not? The world – or at least, the media-socialist-crony world – hates UK Independence (and border control) that much. Everyone will agree to join the fun and not be honest about the longstanding, real causes of a great many problems.

UPDATE – it continues: The European Central Bank’s leader, Mario Draghi, predicts low economic growth and currency devaluations from Brexit. Let’s be clear.

• Europe was already going to be stuck in years of low growth.
• Currency devaluation is what Draghi has already been wanting and attempting, for years.

But guess what? The new scapegoat, Brexit!

Woe be to anyone who questions the left-wing Rape Culture/Climate Change/White Supremacy Narrative.

The campus police chief has been fired at Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, in Georgia, after he was quoted in the student newspaper as saying that most sexual assaults are not rape but “women waking up the next morning with a guilt complex.” The chief, Bryan Golden, was dismissed on Friday, according to The Tifton Gazette.
Chief Golden was quoted in an article in the student paper, The Stallion, about sexual assault on college campuses. The full quotation was: “I might sound insensitive, but I’m not. Most of these sexual assaults are women waking up the next morning with a guilt complex. That ain’t rape, that’s being stupid. When the dust settles, it was all consensual. It [forcible rape] doesn’t happen here. It doesn’t show up here. They’re about as much a rape as a goat roping.”

Because That’s what the left does.

According to her, I said the following: “I’m a married human being, so what does this mean for me? It’s against the way I see marriage. It’s against the way I see myself.” Shapiro scoffed, “Same-sex marriage is wrong because, well . . . because it’s wrong.”

An imaginative fabrication. Apparently I’m married? (I’m not). It was frustrating that after a twenty-minute interview in which I listed numerous reasons why government redefinition of marriage is bad for everyone, Shapiro published a (completely fictional) quote that boiled down to “it’s my personal opinion.” What do you win the “LGBT Journalist of the Year” award for? Yarn-spinning? Creative hijinks?

Yet this broach of journalistic ethics is more interesting than irritating to me. Shapiro said it herself numerous times: This issue is already decided. Public opinion has ruled: There are no good arguments for traditional marriage.

So why should Lila lie? If my arguments were stupid, why not publish them?

The answer is simple enough. It must be that the complexity of the marriage debate does not only affect traditional marriage supporters, it affects everybody. As I made my arguments to Shapiro during our interview, she seemed perplexed and unable to reply with more than stock responses: “You’re not gay. Why protest something that doesn’t affect you?” “Aren’t you worried you’ll end up on the wrong side of history?” Her article ridicules the “closed-mindedness” of traditional marriage supporters, but when faced with actual arguments on the subject, Shapiro opted to pretend I’d said something else. Even on the “cusp of victory,” same-sex marriage supporters are taking no chances by engaging these dangerous, volatile truths.

You can’t rule out the possibility that Ms. Lila Shapiro was simply too dimwitted to understand legitimate arguments against same-sex marriage and replaced them with simplistic slogans that dimwitted leftists *can* understand.

That’s a quote from “Jessica”, a longtime friend-of-a-friend whom I enjoy, and whom I treated to brunch yesterday. She’s a progressive Democrat, a fan of the communist-leaning KPFA news station, and so forth.

Her comment is wrong. Of course President Reagan never signed, nor proposed, nor even encouraged the tiniest regulation or law to make poverty into something criminal. So, I was curious how Jessica could justify such a comment (she leans toward honesty and goodwill in her personal dealings). I drew her out a little.

To keep this post short, I must spare you further details of her responses. Suffice to say that, after a few gentle questions, her general meaning emerged as follows:

1. Jessica feels that, in the 1980s, “making money” became more socially respected while “being poor” became less respected, like something might even be wrong with poor people.
2. Since Jessica doesn’t view personal responsibility, success or self-support as socially valuable (even though she practices them in her small business), she thinks society was wrong to go that way in the 80s.
3. Since Jessica hates Reagan, she prefers NOT to say it as “In the 1980s, our society stigmatized poverty a little more”. Instead, she prefers the more-dramatic “Reagan criminalized poverty” although she knows it’s technically wrong.

We also got into the banking system a little. Jessica emphasized the 1980s “Savings and Loan” crisis as the beginning of our financial system’s problems – as if our much-worse problems of today had nothing to do with Presidents Clinton or Obama (or the Federal Reserve, etc.).

All I can say is, I found Jessica’s thinking typical of what I’ve run into it many times here in GP comments from liberals, or out in the media, or with left-wing friends and colleagues. And it’s retarded. It’s a level (or quality) of cognition that can only be called “impaired”.

Again, I respect my longtime-acquaintance Jessica in some other areas, outside of politics; but we must “call a spade a spade”. When it comes to politics, and at least on that morning, her thoughts were as disconnected, un-integrated, simplistic and badly-informed as they would have been from an IQ 75 person.

We must also confess that lefties don’t have a monopoly on cognitive impairment. At times, I have had the misfortune to encounter certain conservatives and libertarians whose thinking was as poor-quality. But, not quite as often.

I think there is something to the theory that, with the “mainstream” media so one-sided and fawning on left-liberals these last few decades, their thinking skills have gone soft. They are simply not up to the standard that I remember from when I was a kid. I remember arguing with liberals who read the Christian Science Monitor (a worthwhile paper – at least at that time). They had moments of weakness, but they were more often into facts, accuracy and logic.

Left-liberals have gone downhill. It’s a pity.

Leftist WaPo columnist Johnathan Capeheart admits that “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” was a falsehood embraced by the left in order to advance a political agenda.

Thanks, John, now admit the same thing about “Global Warming.” And Trayvon Martin. And the “War on Women.” And “Voter Suppression.” And “Republicans hate minorities.” And…

You know the saying “There are no accidents”. First, consider how the Left’s beloved fake-Native American, Elizabeth Warren, is an unusually wealthy member of Congress – probably worth over $6 million. Courtesy of ZH:

Next, consider how the Left’s beloved fake-Native American, Elizabeth Warren, opposes a bill to audit the Federal Reserve Bank.

I say the 2 things are connected. You see, Elizabeth Warren is a phony. That doesn’t only mean that she has repeatedly lied about her racial (non-)heritage for personal gain. It also means that she lies about being a populist who would support the little guy against Big Banking.

For the last 6 1/2 years, the Fed – the privately-owned, biggest bank of them all – has (in accordance with Obama’s wishes) pumped boatloads of newly-created cash into our financial markets, to make financial bubbles that benefit “the one percent” – who include the top earners of Big Government and Big Banking (plus Big Government’s general deficits being financed). And Elizabeth Warren has no real problem with any of that. She does claim to oppose it. But her actions tell another story.

If she really opposed it, she’d be leading the charge to get the Fed audited. Instead, Rand Paul leads the charge (and Ron Paul before him) – while she carps, or puts up obstacles. “Follow the money.”

Unrelated follow-up: After noting in early December that holiday spending was off to a weak start, I should note that indeed, December consumer spending plunged by the most since 2009, as people’s incomes stagnated. At least by *conventional* economic wisdom, that means a bad economy – and shouldn’t be happening.

NBC’s Brian Williams is taking some time off to try and extinguish the flames shooting out of his Dockers. A lot of people seem kind of upset that Brian Williams has been caught lying about… oh, riding in a helicopter that was hit by a missile, watching bodies float past his hotel room in New Orleans, being robbed at gunpoint while selling Christmas trees… and a bunch of other stuff.

But let me ask you a question… and I am quite serious about this… don’t progressive leftists lie about everything all the freakin’ time?

I’m not kidding. Pretty much everything that comes out of the mouth of a leftist… including “and” and “the” is probably a lie.

Don’t believe me? How about a stroll down Amnesia Lane.

“I did not have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinsky, not one time, ever!” – Progressive Democrat President B.J. Clinton

“If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” – Progressive Leftist President Barack Hussein Obama.

“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” – Progressive Leftist Hillary Rodham Clinton

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam.” – Progressive Leftist Senator Dick Blumenthal who did not serve in Vietnam (but Democrats elected him anyway, because lying is not a big deal).

“Somebody hacked my Twitter account!” – Progressive Leftist Anthony Weiner.

“Mitt Romney hasn’t paid taxes in ten years.” – Progressive Leftist Senator Harry Reid.

“One in five college women will be raped.” – Bogus claim promoted by radical feminists in order to strip men of civil rights.

“There have been 74 (or 90 or more) school shootings since Sandy Hook” – Bogus claim promoted by progressive leftists who want criminalize private firearms ownership.

“The murder of Matthew Shepard was an anti-gay hate crime.” – Lie.

“Trayvon Martin/Mike Brown was an innocent Black schoolboy murdered by a trigger-happy white racist protected by a racist society.” – Lie.

Yeah, Brian Williams is a liar. But who on the left isn’t? Name one.

When President Obama signed a federal “hate crimes” law in 2009, many people at the time were calling it The Matthew Shepard Act. There was just one problem: The murder of Matthew Shepard, while horrible and grotesque, wasn’t a hate crime (i.e., crime of bias). It had nothing to do with anti-gay bias until after the fact, when it suited many persons’ interests to make it seem like it did.

Matthew Shepard was a methamphetamine addict – and possibly a small-time meth dealer/courier – who was well-acquainted with his chief killer, Aaron McKinney. “Well-acquainted” meaning that McKinney and Shepard had done meth together more than once, had conducted business as small-time meth dealers/couriers, and yes, had occasionally even had sex with each other.

It’s probable that Shepard didn’t know the other convicted killer: McKinney’s then-recent acquaintance, Russell Henderson. But there’s evidence that Henderson wasn’t homophobic and, on the night of the killing, may have even taken a knock from McKinney as Henderson spoke up for Shepard (against McKinney’s raging, meth-fueled violence). Which, if true, would make Henderson’s *murder* conviction unjust. (He would still deserve a lesser conviction as an accessory.)

Shepard’s killing was most likely a criminal-style ‘debt collection’ by McKinney that went wrong because McKinney was a troubled and cruel person coming off of a multi-day meth binge. So, who fabricated the myth of a hate crime perpetrated on Shepard by two homophobic total strangers, and why? It was a combination of personal and political interests.

• McKinney’s higher-up meth connections wanted to remain hidden, and they would be able to kill McKinney (even in prison) if he squealed on them. Which meant: McKinney would desperately need to avoid naming them. Which meant: McKinney needed to hide his own meth dealings, and therefore, the true nature of his relationship with Shepard.
• As a short, little guy (135 lb) headed for prison in the late 1990s, McKinney also needed to hide his own bisexuality. Which, again, meant: hiding the nature of his relationship with Shepard.
• McKinney, his girlfriend and his lawyers all thought (at the time) that a “gay panic” defense, however unfaithful to reality, would be McKinney’s best shot at acquittal (or reduced charges).
• Certain friends of Shepard may have also wanted to distract people from their, and Shepard’s, meth use and dealings.
• Gay activist groups – ranging from GLAAD and HRC to what is now the Matthew Shepard Foundation – obviously gained benefits, both political and financial, from the myth.
• The media gained a big “story”.
• Once the public/media frenzy started over the (perceived) Shepard hate crime, Bill Clinton got involved in it – at least partly to try to blunt the impact of his Monica Lewinsky scandal. Shepard was attacked on 10/6/1998 and died on 10/12/1998 – roughly around the time Kenneth Starr released his reports and the House of Representatives opened its impeachment inquiry on Clinton.

All this, and more, is cited or documented in The Book of Matt, by Stephen Jiminez. It was published in 2013 and V the K posted on it. I had the book and recently, after talking with liberal friends who were still unaware of the revelations about Shepard, I finally read it.

Despite the horror of its subject, the book is a powerful work of investigative journalism. No such book can get everything right. But this one is readable, gripping, and honest about Jiminez’ own fears and doubts as he slowly comes to understand the falseness of the Shepard “hate crime” myth. The book weaves together a wealth of recollections and coherent detail from dozens of sources who knew Shepard or his dealings, including two of Shepard’s more important boyfriends. The book evaluates the credibility of its sources and, where that may be lacking, provides multiple sources for key claims. (more…)

In October 2013, I noted that the U.S. national debt leapt over $300 billion – the day after they raised the debt ceiling. It went from $16.75 trillion to $17.08 trillion, just days after President Obama had publicly lied that “…raising the debt ceiling…is not raising our debt. This does not add a dime to our debt.”

Update: Today, the U.S. national debt is about $18.01 trillion (or as this post is being written, $18,005,549,328,561.45).

$18 trillion! Up from $10.63 trillion when Obama took office on January 21, 2009. The Obama administration is 70% of the way to doubling the U.S. national debt – and still has two years to run!

But here’s the fishy part. Officially, the U.S. budget deficit for FY2014 was only $483 billion. If that’s true, our debt should have gone up a lot less. It should be just over $17.5 trillion.

There are two basic ways to measure the deficit.

1. The official number: What the government budget states as revenue minus spending.
2. The reality check: What the government had to borrow, to actually pay its bills.

Let’s take a look at the second one. I don’t have the exact numbers for the U.S. national debt for FY2014′s beginning vs. ending. But it should be obvious that, with the debt increasing by about $1 trillion from late October 2013 to end of November 2014, the real FY2014 deficit (covering twelve months from start of October 2013 to end of September 2014) had to be something larger than $483 billion. Otherwise, the FY2015 deficit would have to be $500 billion in just the last two months alone; and it isn’t.

So if an Obama supporter tries to say “The Dear Leader has reduced the deficit to $483 billion!”, you say: Then why did the national debt rise by roughly a trillion, over that same period? BALONEY.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has found yet another way of lying to us. I’m becoming convinced that all of the ‘headline’ statistics put out by this administration are manipulated to the point where they’re a fraud, at least partly.

Hey, did you know Jonathan Gruber was paid over a million dollars to concoct the lies used to deceive the public about Obamacare? And have you ever thought about how deception is at the heart of every element of the left-wing agenda? Just to cite a few examples:

1. “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”

What they claim: The Gang of 8 Bill that passed the senate will tighten border security and legalize illegal immigrants only after they meet really tough requirements: background checks, hefty fines, back taxes, learning English.

Why it’s a lie: The tough “border security” provisions in the Gang of 8 bill amount to a requirement that the Executive Branch submit a plan for securing the border; and the penalty for not submitting a plan is that Congress will form a bipartisan committee to find out why they didn’t submit a plan. And all of those “really tough requirements” can be completely waived by the Executive Branch. The only thing the Gang of 8 bill guarantees is Amnesty, which happens regardless.

(more…)

HotAir pointed out yesterday that “Consistent liberals” are most likely to block others on social media for disagreeing with them politically.

Hence, my question. I’m honestly divided. In this complicated world, we’ve all known some lefties who are plain jerks, while some other lefties may be fairly nice people – apart from their never wanting to hear or know of any information that could make them question their prejudices.

I ran into the second kind of person just the other night, at my dad’s. “Cynthia” is a highly-educated neighbor in his retirement community, very nice in terms of watching out for my dad’s disabled girlfriend, and with a pleasant demeanor. So far, “not a jerk.”

But narrow-minded. As one example, she’ll dismiss (as in, will not hear) any information of Sarah Palin being anything other than a total dummy. Which is funny because the prominent Obama supporter and former “green jobs czar”, Van Jones, has now admitted in essence that the Left lied to people about Palin in the 2008 campaign:

“Sarah Palin .. people forget. She had the Democratic party shaking in our boots in 2008. She came out, she gave that speech at the convention. That was, hands down, one of the best convention speeches – not by a woman, by anybody in 2008. People were running for the hills…

Now it can be told! Now it can be told! We were scared!”

It must help the Democrats that their most officially ‘educated’ supporters are among their most dogmatically-gullible supporters. The Democrats can lie to such people and they won’t even care. For another example, we have President Obama’s recent admission that the Democrat candidates who are staying distant from him this year are engaged in a lie:

Well look, here’s the bottom line. We’ve got a tough map. A lot of the states are contested this time are states that I didn’t win. And so some of the candidates there – it is difficult for them to have me in the state…

The bottom line is though, these are all folks who vote with me. They have supported my agenda in Congress…These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me, and you know, I tell them, I said, ‘you know what? You do what you need to do to win.’

Dogmatically-gullible people: They enable the Democrats to get away with it. Some of them are jerks, some of them are nice – but narrow-minded.

Remember how the Left used to chant “Bush lied, people died” and claim that Iraq under Saddam Hussein didn’t have any chemical weapons, and the whole Iraq War was ginned up to make money for Dick Cheney and Halliburton?

Yeah, it turns out pretty much all of that was a lie.

But, hey, just because the left spend the entire Bush presidency lying for political purposes doesn’t mean they aren’t totally being honest when they tell us that Global Warming is the most dangerous threat our country faces, the borders are totally secure, and unemployment is only at 6%.

Hat Tip: GayPatriot Bruce for the screencap.

A lot of gay people seem determined to live in a fantasy world of oppression; where everyone hates them and is only barely restrained from committing violence against them. The leadership of the Democrat Party and the gay rights movement fosters and encourages this delusion as it is both politically and monetarily valuable to them.

In this world of fantasy and delusion, Christians are nailing gay people to fenceposts every day while their churches cheer this on. But what do actual Christians … as opposed to deranged gays and their cynical leadership… have to say about violence against gay folk?

The Roman Catholic Church position: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

The United Methodist Church: ““We affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends…. Moreover, we support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.”

The Episcopal Church: “In 1976, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church declared that “homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church.”

The Southern Baptist Church: While wrestling with the issue of whether homosexuality is compatible with membership in the church, nowhere does the SBC call for gay people to be subjected to violence.

The LDS Church: “The Church has advocated for rights for same-sex couples regarding “hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”7 In Salt Lake City, for example, the Church supported ordinances aimed at protecting gay residents from discrimination in housing and employment… We are to love one another. We are to treat each other with respect as brothers and sisters and fellow children of God, no matter how much we may differ from one another.”

In the real world, no Christian denomination advocates for violence against gay people. Not even the Westboro Baptist Street Theatre Troupe advocates violence against gay people.

On the other side.

(more…)

They said Christians would not be forced to participate in gay marriages. They lied.

They said there would be no push to normalize paedophilia. They lied.

They said gay marriage would not lead to a push for polygamy. They lied.

So, seeing as the gay left has lied about everything else…

Bestiality remains out of the mainstream for now, although some on the hedonist left are a bit ahead of the curve.

So, GOP Chairman Reince Preibus said this…

“I don’t think [marriage equality] is a top here issue for the midterms,” he said. “I think long term it’s an issue in regard to what we need to do in the country to have a strong economy, a strong defense and a strong society.”

And the left is claiming he said this…

RNC Chairman thinks marriage equality is a threat to our economy and national security.

Huh?

Hey, they said Mitt Romney was going to outlaw tampons and their voters believed it. They said Sarah Palin claimed she could see Russia from her house, and their voters believed it.

Lying works.

B.J. Clinton was in Arkansas campaigning for Mark Pryor… another one of those ‘Dynasty Democrats’ like the Udall Brothers, the Kennedies, and Mary Landrieu … who inherited their seats from their politically powerful families. And in defending Obama’s economic record, he said this.

The economy is coming back but nobody believes it yet because you don’t feel it. But remember what I said four years ago — or two years ago — in Charlotte. Financial crises take an average of 10 years to get over. We just crossed over and we’re now creating more jobs above where we were before the crash.

So, basically, he is saying the economic prosperity of the Clinton years was just the Reagan policies kicking in 10 years later.

Nice of him to finally admit it.

Oh, and that bit about “we are creating more jobs then we did before the recession” is bullsh-t. Last month, for example, the economy created 240,000 (mostly part-time and temporary) jobs… but 315,000 people left the workforce, and the percentage of Americans working is at a historical low.