skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Looks like the "purists" were right. I can honestly say that a Ted Cruz presidency looks mighty fine to me right now.
Of course, there's no way of knowing how Cruz would have reacted to House Speaker Paul Ryan, but I can say with some confidence that he would not have campaigned for this turkey known as RINOCare.
I cannot for the life of me understand how "draining the swamp" involves defending that fraud Ryan and going to bat for his preposterous health care bill which, much in the manner of Obama's TPP agreement, was kept under lock and key.
All the American Health Care Act (re: Obamacare under a different title) would have done is shuffle money around under the guise of "tax breaks," in which people would have received $1,400 per month with which to purchase their health care, but it would have had to include all ten "essential benefits" of Obamacare. Forcing insurers to cover all those benefits would do nothing to drive down costs. It rejected purchasing across state lines. It allowed insurers to charge older customers up to five times as much as younger customers, so no changes there. It would have given the same handouts to illegal aliens as the Senate Finance Committee determined that it had no jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security. The Chamber of Commerce still has its hold on Ryan.
And President Trump has this chameleon's back? Does Trump not know that Ryan said, in October, that no how, no way would he support him as President? Is Reince Preibus keeping that from him? Can he not leave Twitter alone for just one second to read a newspaper or examine web articles on his own? Now then, I can't expect the President, especially before his first one hundred days are even up, to have full and complete knowledge of every enemy, real or potential. That's why a president has advisers. But for Chrissakes, this one was obvious.
Here's the thing regarding this "health care" bill: Does anyone not notice how hypocritical it is to have robbed the Social Security fund blind so that someone currently in their 50s or younger will never see the money in their retirement that they were promised, but to provide everyone with $1,400 every month? Where does the government get this kind of money from? How about just give us our social security and let us keep a lot more of our earnings? How stupid is it indeed that we should send money to Washington in taxes only for the government to say "oh, here's $1,400 of that back. Now buy some crappy health care with it."
What happened to the repeal of Obamacare that the Republicans crafted in 2015, just two short years ago? That seems, by all appearances, to have been stored in the circular file. Instead, Ryan opted to sell a dud to his fellow party, watch it attract nowhere near the amount of votes needed to pass it and then pull the plug on it by cancelling the vote. How embarrassing. The man loses a debate to Joe Biden and he cannot rally his own troops in Congress.
We may as well have John Boehner back. It would at least have been fun to watch him cry as he told everyone to forget it and go home.
Everybody says Paul Ryan is a nice guy. Big whoop. Maybe that's the problem. They finish last, so I've heard. This latest fiasco proves the point.
I know that there are some Right-leaning folks who have affection for Eddie Munster Mr. Ryan, and that's bewildering. What conservative credentials this boob has is a mystery to me.
On Friday, Mark Levin expertly spelled it all out: "Mr. Ryan, you failed to develop a plan that embraced market capitalism and you did not involve the GOP conservatives in the early phases of drafting your plan. You tried to force this plan through, adopted a few changes, but mostly continued with big-government ideas and much of Obamacare's essential elements."
In the The American Spectator, David Hogberg asks regarding the Speaker:
I can't help but wonder if he made a mistake leaving the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee for the Speakership.
For starters, why didn't Ryan sit down with the entire Republican Conference and solicit their ideas on repealing and replacing Obamacare? That would served as a starting point for drafting legislation as it would have given him a sense of the divisions between conservatives and moderates.
Instead of taking time to put together a bill that would have been assured of at least 216 votes before it was even introduced, he put forward legislation that split the party and has left him scrambling for votes.
But never mind, we should all be relieved that the ACHA got defeated, right? Not exactly. Ryan and Trump and all of their minions immediately jumped all over the bill's conservative opponents, namely the eighteen members of the House Freedom Caucus, who rightly stuck by their principles in voting against the ACHA. They're being vilified, but not the moderate Republican members of the Tuesday Group or other centrists who took the view that their constituents would not be adequately covered or that, like Obamacare itself, it was unworkable. No, no, just blame the principled conservatives.
Even better—did you hear?—we're going to work with Democrats now! Yes, the same people who want Trump impeached and thrown in prison for unproven "collusion" with Russia are apparently going to help deliver Trump's infrastructure spending bill, tax reform and immigration policies. Oh dear God, good luck with that, buddy.
I thought this new President of ours had the smarts to recognize his enemies and the cojones and wherewithal to stick to a platform that involved conservatives. That honeymoon is over.
It would have given me the greatest pleasure to see Ryan kicked back to his Budget Chair position, from which he could never again, and should never again, emerge. I would have loved to see Trump stand up and tell everyone, "This is not the healthcare bill I previously endorsed during the campaign and I won't be making that mistake again."
If Trump wants to swim with the alligators and snakes in the swamp, he can hardly be surprised when he gets bitten.
I'm not saying all's lost and I'm not trying to, God forbid, sound like a Never Trump advocate. Michael Savage has said that even if we only get 10 percent of what we wanted or expected from a Trump administration, we're infinitely better off than under the Pantsuit. But we have a President who has no idea how to defend the principles of the base that got him where he is. At least that is what he seems to be demonstrating. His cabinet can't shoot straight. I've gotten ever so tired of Preibus and Bannon and Conway. Honestly, they're the gang that can't shoot straight and Trump is taking his leads from them.
Cruz-bots, if you turn out to be right on this, then you have my profuse apology. We'd still have had Madame Hillary in office, but at least then there'd be no surprises.
In response to a jihadi attack Wednesday afternoon that occurred by the Houses of Parliament in Westminster and which took the lives of six people, five having been run over by the assailant's vehicle and the sixth, a policeman, fatally stabbed, London mayor Sadiq Khan said:
Today London suffered a horrific attack near Parliament Square which we are treating as a terror attack.
My heart goes out to those who have lost loved ones and to everyone who has been affected.
I want to express my gratitude, on behalf of all Londoners, to the police and emergency services who have shown tremendous bravery in exceptionally difficult circumstances.
I want to reassure all Londoners, and all our visitors, not to be alarmed. Our city remains one of the safest in the world.
London is the greatest city in the world and we stand together in the face of those who seek to harm us and destroy our way of life.
We always have and we always will. Londoners will never be cowed by terrorism.
It's supposedly being treated as a terror attack, but Khan, like his hero Barack Hussein Obama, won't say which kind of terror. Apparently, that's not important. Let's just pretend the psychopath was named McFlaherty, right? Perhaps the reïncarnated souls of Sacco and Venzetti bringing their anarcho-terror to ole London Towne? The killer's name is actually Khalid Masood, but never mind. There are no lessons to be learned from this, don'tcha know.
When is the Bill banning vehicles due to be pushed through Parliament? After all, why are these dangerous items in the hands of the average slob? We have to trust our government to tell us what's best for us, you know? Cars and trucks are the new guns and certainly they can take out even more people than firearms, if you intend to use them for such a purpose, Rambo-style machine guns being perhaps the only exception. The "truck attack" in Nice last summer certainly demonstrated that; the jihadist behind the wheel saw no need to even touch the ammo that police later found in the truck.
You don't have to have a reason behind terror, just say you stand united with "the people" against it. Until it happens again and you have to shuffle the words of your speech around so you can act as though you have something new to say about a problem that has become very ingrained and familiar to everyone.
The best part? Khan's words, which I'm somehow supposed to find inspiring and comforting, came (1) via a recorded video message and (2) ninety minutes late. The deaths were confirmed by the authorities at 6 p.m. and Khan did not say a word to the public until his video, released at 7:30. Boris Johnson would have been at the scene post-haste and talking into as many microphones and cameras as he could have directed at him.
One Twitter user raged, "Where the f*** has our Mayor @SadiqKhan been since the Westminster attack? All we get is a short s****y note. Where is the moron?"
Columnist and media personality Katie Hopkins, the scourge of the liberal luvvies and do-gooders, said it best: "Sadiq Kahn't. If you are penning some naff missive about a proud city, standing together, united by shared values, think again, son." (For those not familiar with Brit-speak, "naff" means clichéd or cheesy.)
But, alas and alack, terrorism is simply part and parcel of living in a big city, according to the esteemed mayor. He actually said this. Khan's ninety minutes of what was aptly described as "deafening silence" says it all, better than words could ever convey.
Mr. Khan, let me assure you that under your tenure, I'm no Londoner. I just live here. If you decide someday that you intend to be a leader of the open sewer of humanity that is this city, and which you expect to be "united against terror," maybe I'll change my mind. Maybe. Stop grooming the deadbeats with the latest round of perks that my tax money will pay for and ruling as if advertisements featuring fit, young women are a threat to us all. Perhaps then, sir, I would consider you less the lamentable little joke that I currently do.
Come to think of it, how about we do let this terrorism dictate our lives? How about the great majority just stay home and visitor numbers decline? When the tourist industry and the hospitality services geared toward foreigners and residents alike start to suffer, maybe then we'll see some real action toward combating terror take place. Gotta hit the powers-that-be where it hurts.
Perhaps once we assert our right to govern as a nation in two years' time, independent of a bureaucratic federalist nightmare, a.k.a. the European Union, we can have our own travel ban, to figure out what the hell's going on with our no doubt broken immigration system and launch a thorough investigation of our border control agency. While we're at it, let's also reform the prison governing system so we can start cracking down on the radicalism behind penitentiary walls across the country. Just a thought and, golly gee wilikers, it might just work. It sure as hell hasn't ever been tried.
So, forgive me, but I have no use for words about being united and fighting terror together. Can you assure me that such sentiment will ensure that certain heads will be cracked, certain speech and the places where it gets disseminated closely surveilled, and security services monitor the right people instead of the average citizen? Can we for once see the blood of the monsters among us flow and not that of innocent people? The answer is no, is it not? It wouldn't be politically correct and it would upset our overlords who think keeping Britain British is a massive human rights violation. Just ask our former human rights lawyer of a mayor.
No keep calm and carry on bullshit for me, thanks. I'm done.
Addendum
Friday, March 24, 22:37
As six people have gone to their graves via an Islamofascist terrorist attack, including an American man who was here with his wife supposedly taking the trip of a lifetime, Prime Minister Theresa May opined before the Commons that we cannot use the words "Islamic terrorism" to describe the carnage that took place near Parliament Square Wednesday afternoon. The jihadist rammed some people so hard with his car that they were launched over the bridge and into the strong current of the Thames River. And our so-called leadership is more concerned with not offending Muslim sentiments.
MP Michael Tomlinson asked May, "Will the Prime Minister agree with me that what happened was not Islamic, just as the murder of Airey Neave was not Christian, and that in fact both are perversions of religion?"
"I absolutely agree, and it is wrong to describe this as 'Islamic terrorism'. It is 'Islamist terrorism,' it is a perversion of a great faith."
Islamic and Islamist, I do agree, have slightly different meanings. For instance, Turkey is an Islamic country; its leader, Recep Erdoğan, is an Islamist. But aren't we now just grabbing at straws to keep on the globalist-friendly, politically correct track?
Ensuring people's safety by correctly identifying the source and inspiration for terrorism is not exactly requesting Kristallnacht v 2.0, now is it? But we cannot fight terrorism as a united people if we refuse to regard it for what it is, what it engenders, what it entails—and why it so indiscriminately slaughters innocent people. How can we do this if we can't give it an accurate designation?
Prime Minister, I don't know if you've heard, but Barry O. is no longer in office. Were you tripping balls when you were stood next to President Trump a month ago, or what? It's okay, you don't have to worry about offending the Dear Leader, he's too busy golfing (and covering his skinny ass regarding his illegal surveillance of American citizens), free from the shackles of having to pretend to care about America and her people, to fret about what you call religiously inspired mass murder. He wouldn't approve, but that's not your problem, ma'am.
I have praised May for sticking to her guns in triggering Brexit, remarkable given that she had been in the Remain camp. In this, she has been a resolute and bullish voice for the people. Some pundits have likened her to Margaret Thatcher. I can tell you, Thatcher would not have stood for appeasing the Muslim community in the wake of an ISLAMIC terror attack.
I wasn't expecting Churchill. Chrissakes, Wat Tyler would have been just fine. Any kind of display of leadership on the side of the average Brit would have been nice.
But alas, May is obviously bought and paid for by our suicidal lords temporal after all. With this pathetic show in Parliament, she has given the game away.
When you hear a moonbat talk-show caller refer to George W. Bush as an honorable man, you know that things really have been turned upside-down.
A regular caller to WRKO-Boston's The Kuhner Report, known for being one of the audience's token Leftie rabble-rousers, took Jeff Kuhner to task for pointing the finger at Barack Hussein Obama for the surveillance on President Trump during his candidacy to the present day and which has been the source of the leaks plaguing his administration.
"Do you really believe Barack Obama would do anything to seriously harm this country?" the caller asked.
"Yes, I do," Kuhner replied. "He's done it numerous times already."
"Well, I can't believe that, that you opened up the show blasting Obama and George Bush, and both these guys were honorable men."
"George Bush? Dubya? Honorable?" Kuhner said. "I thought he was the demon to you guys on the Left."
"No, no," the caller parried. "I always liked Bush. I didn't like the characters he surrounded himself with, but I always thought he was an okay guy."
Stop the War protests? What Stop the War protests? I never carried a sign comparing Bush to Hitler. Back in 2003, I was telling everyone I knew how honorable the President was. I just didn't like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Yeah, that's it! That's the ticket!
Incredible, isn't it? George W. Bush is currently the hero of the Left for having a dig at President Trump and opining that his proposed travel ban and accusations against the media were off-base.
"I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy," Bush recently drawled on NBC's Today program. "We need an independent media to hold people like me to account. Power can be very addictive and it can be corrosive and it's important for the media to call to account people who abuse power, whether it be here or elsewhere."
Like the power to create the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration and the Patriot Act, Mr. President? Bush wasn't finished.
"It's kind of hard to tell others to have an independent free press when we're not willing to have one ourselves."
Who said we're not willing to have a free press? I haven't heard any arguments anywhere on the Right to this effect. One, they're not independent. They're Democrat operatives posing as journalists, and it's been this way for sixty years. Everyone knows this, except, apparently, Mr. Bush. He ought to know better considering how savaged he was by this same media. Two, all we ask as that they operate impartially and give us the truth and both sides of a story. It appears that all the media's reporting is controlled somehow. So our cherished "free and independent" media is neither independent nor free.
"I think it's very important for all of us to recognize one of our great strengths is for people to be able to worship the way they want to or to not worship at all," Dubya told the free and independent "journalists" on Today. "A bedrock of our freedom is the right to worship freely. I am for an immigration policy that's welcoming and upholds the law."
Alright, now who is arguing against the right to worship as one wishes? Of course that's an American value, it's covered by the First Amendment. We, the peons, the citizens who actually produce goods and services of some worth in the country, would also like to be able to worship without having to worry about some "allahu akhbar" screaming lunatic coming at us with a scimitar or a "scary assault weapon" because he came in from any one of the seven most dangerous, terrorist/jihadist-sheltering countries the good earth has to offer.
Furthermore, Mr. Bush, are you for an immigration policy that's welcoming or one that upholds the law? I'm confused. You cannot have both. Either it's welcoming or it follows the law. I think we've already welcomed well more than our fair share of valedictorians and people committing acts of love, don't you? I now think it's time we, golly gee, start following the law.
There is no need for "comprehensive immigration reform". Just enforce the laws already on the books. It's simple. This is what government does, folks. It complicates everything. We also hear about how we require comprehensive penal reform, comprehensive tax reform, comprehensive health care reform. I'm getting mighty sick of the words "comprehensive" and "reform". In the interests of trying to launch a "reform" of the TSA, the next time I fly from the United States, I'm going to wear my kilt with nothing on underneath. The belts of the kilt are guaranteed to make the metal detectors blare. And when I get pulled aside for my legalized sexual assault, I'll have to warn the gentleman, no doubt one of the children who was left behind during the Bush years, that he's due to get a "comprehensive" feel of my genitals—at least considerably more comprehensive than he was expecting. Hey, if I'm gonna get groped, I won't accept half-measures. If the TSA has standards, then so do I. I fight dirty.
Anyhoo, Bush must be so grateful. No longer is he "WORST PRESIDENT EVER" to borrow from the all-caps ragefests occurring on social media a decade ago. The pinkos have dropped Dubya like a hot potato. I suppose it's similar to conservatives declaring Jimmy Carter only the second-worst president in American history, in light of the past eight years, only they never killed any cops nor set any neighborhoods on fire in the process. That's why Bush decided to step away from his ranch in which he had sat quietly and said nothing during the eight destructive years of Honolulu Barry's reign and hog some of the anti-Trump limelight.
Listen, Donald Trump picked on his brother Fredo Jeb during the campaign. He was a big meanie to the man who would make America bilingual. You knew this was coming.
But what the former President did not do, despite the absolute certainty that he'd have preferred his family's old friends, the Clintons, back in the White House, is thoroughly step all over the democratic process. Bush has not demanded the overturning of the election based on the "popular vote".
That job has been left to the other major scoundrel from ten years ago, one Rt. Hon. Tony Blair. The prime minister from 1997 to 2007, after having overseen scandals involving candidacy funding and councillors' expenses in the early days to cash-for-influence and MPs expenses scandals in the latter, with everything from ignoring NHS funding, freeing IRA terrorists and loosening border controls in between, has urged the British people to "rise up" against Brexit.
The historic referendum to leave the European Union was won by a 52 percent margin last summer by the Leave campaign, with 17.4 million people having cast their votes in favor of it. The Remainiacs have consistently sought to deny the democratic process since, with Gina Miller, the High Court and the House of Lords all conspiring to put roadblocks in the way, trying to delay or even outright prevent Article 50 from being triggered, ensuring that every Tomasz, Dietrich and Henri can continue to be treated as legitimately as British citizens. A blue-print for the no-borders crowd on a more micro-managed level.
Mr. Blair has said that Brexit represents a "rush over the cliff's edge" and that we are required to listen to him and his good buddy Rupert Murdoch and all the other filthy rich globalists and corporatists and bureaucrats, but carefully packaged as a desire to ensure that the British public "has a right to change their minds". As ever with these odious politicians, it has always got to be about the people. Just ask the Chinese, the North Koreans or the Cubans. Actually, don't ask them. They'll be shot in their beds in the middle of the night by government spooks acting on behalf of "the people" if they speak.
Citing the "imperfect knowledge" that swayed people towards a Leave vote, Blair told an audience organized by the Open Britain campaign group—at least they advertise themselves honestly—that "Our challenge is to expose relentlessly the actual cost ... to calculate in 'easy-to-understand' ways [because we're all idiots, geddit?] how proceeding will cause real damage to the country and its citizens and to build support for finding a way out from the present rush over the cliff's edge. I don't know if we can succeed. But I do know we will suffer a rancorous verdict from future generations if we do not try."
Here we go. Now it's not just about the people, but it's about THE CHILDREN. Ohmigod, what about the children? Don't you care about the children? I'll bet you don't love puppies or clean air or water either, you rubes. Oh, the ignominy! Jeez, how could we have ever let you vote on an issue that directly affected your lives? We won't be making that mistake ever again, rest assured.
And there you have it. The architects of the Iraq War just trying to do some good in the world. I can sort of understand Bush's motives. They involve family and a vision of the Establishment GOP which he clings to. Bush is essentially asking the public, "Hey, do you miss me? Admit that you miss me. Admit that you're nostalgic for the days when a Republican president just rolled over for the media."
But does Blair not have any shame at all? I suppose you can make a comeback of sorts after nearly a decade of silence as with Mr. Bush, but when you've been on the £100,000-per-night speech circuit since leaving office? I don't know where a man like that gets off lecturing people just trying to keep their domiciles afloat in a climate of austerity that he and his people created about the pitfalls of the democratic process.
What I do know is that if a man like Tony Blair is so vehemently against the majority decision of the British electorate to leave the EU, so nakedly scared about its prospects for him and his cabal of one-worlders, it absolutely speaks to the legitimacy of the Brexit vote in the most effective manner possible.
Let's play a game, dear reader. Are you up for it? Tough, you're going to play anyway.
Here we go. Analyze the following excerpts to the best of your ability and guess from whom they originate and when they were written. Ready? Your time starts now.
- "What have the world's Whites got to be proud of! They have nearly wrecked the world! [T]hese White Devil's Angels invaded, and all but destroyed the much more learned religious, philosophical and peaceful civilisations of Southern Europe, the Near East, the Far East, and around the globe with their predatory, warlike brutality!"
- "These White Devils exploited, enslaved, suppressed, oppressed, tortured, and built massive, rich, and warring empires upon the bruised and bloody bodies of these down-trodden masses of so-called under-developed peoples! Under developed in what? Under-developed in war, weapons, brutality, cruelty, selfishness, and the desire to dominate others! Actually they were over- developed in some of the world's most beautiful and peaceful cultures—religions, art, sciences, philosophies, and beautiful, peaceful, pastoral ways of life, which the White Devils came to destroy, and to makes slaves of them."
- "For it was not until East met West in Europe, that the White Man rose to power, as God used these barbaric Whites to destroy the corrupt civilizations of the ancient past for their sins. But it was still left to their darker skinned brethren, the Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese, to pioneer the exploration of a new world—the Western Hemisphere, with the blood of Moors and Nubians flowing in their veins and pigmenting their skins! But then came the Whites again—the French and the English with their superior brutality, war machines, and desire to dominate and to rule that which others had discovered!"
- "I could not possibly tell you how shocked I was, as I began to learn the real truth about American history—a history of slaughter, carnage, brutality, torture, greed, lies, trickery, and broken promises used to steal the Indian's land and exterminate his people! It is almost unbelievable—this sophisticated savagery of the Whites!"
- "It should make one ashamed to be White ... [I]t's no wonder that the rest of the world doesn't think much of the White Man! He has a long, sad, gruesome, gory, and horrible history! But his day is coming! The vast majority of the world's populations who are poor, starving, sick, oppressed, exploited, misused, insulted, injured, incensed, and fed up with it! The White Man's Doomsday impends! The day of Black and White is about over! The whole world is about to go colour!"
Black Lives Matter (Only When White People are Involved)? The New Black Panthers? La Raza? George Soros? MOVE? Slate.com? Don Lemon on CNN? The head just spins, doesn't it? So many far-Left, anarchic, Caucasian-loathing whack-a-dos out there; so many choices.
This actually originated from that "Flirty Fishing" bunch of righteous fun-lovers known as The Family International, formerly called the Children of God. These excerpts have been taken from one of the infamous "Mo letters," written by their (dear) leader, which read like really bad, subversive blog entries, this one in particular entitled "Who Are the Racists?" and distributed to the flock in September 1971.
Yep, this America-bashing, this belief that "Whites" engender nothing but intolerance, greed and destruction—despite the fact that white cultures appear to be the very first to have come up with the idea of environmentalism and conservation and invented 99 percent of all the technology we can't do without as far as I can tell—is nothing new. If you want to read this entire poisonous screed for yourself, you can find it here. Just click on those funky purple words, friends, and reach for the Ativan.
David Berg was the failed preacher, obsessed with sex, and who tried to link fundamentalist Christianity with the hippie concept of free love. He established his Children of God in southern California in 1968, recruiting burnt-out hippies to get "high on Jesus". Cult members regarded him as "Dad." And it all just got progressively worse from there. Hundreds of people, if not thousands, were psychologically damaged from their time in the organization, most of them children at the time of their involvement.
Berg had a rich springwell of radical sentiment to tap into. In order to keep his flock faithful, he had to appeal to the lowest Leftist common denominator. At their commune deep within the Lone Star badlands, the Texas Soul Clinic ranch, cult members regularly rehearsed scenarios in which they would be accused of being "punks" for protesting America "while young men were dying in Vietnam," at which sack cloth-covered members would start chanting "Woe!" at the actors playing the role of their detractors. For your homework, mes amis, go to YouTube and watch the excellent 1971 documentary Man Alive. You'll see this for yourselves. Keep in mind, though, that this was years before Berg was wanted for sexual abuse.
Let's see ... How can I completely screw up this generation, and the next along with it ..."
The Children of God called themselves "Revolutionaries," seemingly with Father and Son all the way. They were communists. That's what they were. Don't believe me? Consider this gem from the Mo Letter published March 8, 1970:
What are the parents complaining about? They're complaining that their children are returning to the customs of their forefathers. It's the parents who are the rebels. The kids want to return to the pattern of the cooperative, socialistic, communal living of the tribalism of their forefathers. That's the most ancient and the longest lasting of any economic system—the economic system of tribalism—ancient socialism.
Berg and the COG did get young people off drugs and gave them a purpose. Unfortunately, that purpose consumed their entire being and turned them not just into Scripture-quoting robots, but against their own families. Though these kids may have been rescued from weed, booze, meth and heroin, the free love was still there. Polygamy. Children witnessing instances of "free love." I don't need to further elaborate, do I?
Berg was a sex addict and he expected the same rampant rockin' behavior from his flock. There's no end of warped, appetite-killing, soul-deflating missives Berg wrote about the subject, but I'll just give you a small taste, from the "Heavenly Bodies" entry from February 1983:
I'm looking right now at some photos I have here on my desk of a number of beautiful gorgeous delicious heavenly bodies & I'm not talking about astronomy or the stars! I am talking about God's astronomy & His stars, yes, & they are you & these beautiful pictures that you have sent me! You wonderful willing working & playing girls who have sent me your lovely photos & nudie cuties, displaying your gorgeous Heavenly charms & exciting beauties, surely God's gift of Love to all of us men!
[T]hank you for sending me your lovely photos that I look at every day all day long, that inspire me, encourage me & thrill me with your radiant smiles & invitations to love! They sure excite me! That's a promise of Heaven in itself, Heaven here & Heaven now! If I could only reach you!
The Heaven of all Heavens is still coming, & that's going to be better yet! Praise God! We'll have each other & our love & thrills & ecstasies & excitement & even sexual orgasms to enjoy together forever for all Eternity, praise God! You didn't think the Lord was going to create sex for just this World & then abandon it on the other side, did you? Anything that wonderful, that thrilling, that exciting, that pleasurable, that ecstatic, that wonderful & marvelous? No, sirree!
I think I'll pass on the Ativan. Right now, I need Kaopectate more than anything. Remember, this man was known as "Dad" to his flock, regardless of age.
I am not faulting these people—nor anyone else—for their belief in God and Jesus. That's not the issue, and please do not misinterpret what I write here as this being the case. Anyone who regularly reads this blog knows that I believe in God myself and deeply admire and defend the Judeo-Christian culture of the U.S. and Western Europe, as it used to be. I am not one of these atheistic, knee-jerk religion-haters, nor am I one of these people who can see creation all around him but cannot acknowledge a Creator. Talk about denying the scientific method. Start with that one.
Here's the deal: the whole Children of God story involved the radical politics we see today, the very same festering rot that originated from the cockroaches who managed to evade the House Un-american Activities Committee purges of the '50s. For example, it is akin to George Soros naming his anarchist organizations "The Center for American Progress" and "The Open Society Foundation." Breezy words which have subterfuge at their very core. We desperately need another Raid, new and improved, to wipe out this current breed of two-legged entomological horrors.
If you want to hear more about this insidious cult, listen to the four excellent episodes on the subject from the humorists at The Last Podcast on the Left. (Nothing to do with the political Left.)
These days, progressivism has allied with radical Islam in the name of bringing down America and the traditional ways of life of her silent moral majority. But the twinning of fundamentalist religiosity with communist fervor continues.
I don't believe Karl Marx when he opined that religion was the opiate of the masses. Marx, instead, should be proud from beyond the grave how effectively it sometimes but often has been used to advance his ideology.
