The In-Your-Face Amnesty

by Charles Lewis

You see, the thing is this isn't a real nation.

In a real nation that rejected amnesty and citizenship for invaders nearly a decade ago - laughing at the ludicrous claim that there were only "12-20,000,000" of them in said nation - one wouldn't see even nominal opponents of such legislation parroting that "11,000,000" nonsense - especially after all these years when, not the invaders, but the border agents who've tried to do their jobs, know they face imprisonment, doubtless exponentially increasing the illegals component.

In a real nation, the swirl of major scandals (Benghazi, IRS, Fast & Furious, Ammo-gate, Camp Bastion, Snoopergate...) enveloping an administration like Mr. Obama's would, by now, have made his legislative agenda grind to a halt.  Even his partisans in Congress would have backed off, to save their skin, and certainly he could never get a single opposition party vote on anything he proposed..

In a real nation, the juxtaposition of "IRSecution" with the revelations of at least dozens of individual addresses throughout the country where literally multiple thousands of "crimmigrants" at each location were sent literally multiple millions in checks by the IRS would set off alarm bells that would make amnesty bills a veritable third rail.

In a real nation, no Supreme Court would remove citizenship as a requirement for voting, and ban states from doing anything about the "criminaliens" who cast multiple ballots, removing the credibility of any election result in that "nation."  But even in one where that happened, its occurence this close to an amnesty vote would have sent shockwaves that would have doomed such a bill (particularly one that gives, in reality, say, 50-100,000,000 such invaders - including those who've committed multiple serious crimes - legal voting privileges, and only weakens border security) to virtual unanimous defeat.

But, seen in the light of the fact that this isn't a real nation, it all (even the 15 "Republican" Senators who joined forces with the Democrats in ensuring America's destruction yesterday - thus, ironically, preserving their chances for re-election in the new, "unreal," demographic) makes perfect sense.  Expect the "Republican" House of Reps to pass something - anything, even something sensible - in short order, and expect it to morph into the Senate version in some sort of bicameral reconciliation committee and be rubberstamped by "Betroehner" and company there in fanstasyland.

The net effect of such a travesty is a brazen endorsement - an unmitigated stamp of approval, if you will, of all of the tyranny involved in all of those scandals, and an open invitation to ramp them up.  The only thing I can perceive up that ramp is a North Korean-style totalitarian genocide state.  Get used to it.

However, don't lose hope.  If this isn't a nation, that opens the door to us forming one.  Maybe we can call it the United States of America, and maybe we can shape it into a real nation.  To be sure, the Massachusettses and Vermonts and "left coast" states - along with a New Mexico, Maryland, or Illinois in between, and, most certainly of all, Washington, D.C., are over the cliff and won't be on board.  Though there are certainly loads of precious souls living in these areas, the loss of these would be tantamount to cutting off a cancer.

The ones that would constitute a RUSA (the R standing for "real") would have most of the natural resources (as in the Dakotas, Texas, Oklahoma, Alaska...), plus all the Bible Belt regions.  And, Heaven knows, we need a bunch of blessings.

But we'd have to act fast - before a combination of the rampant election fraud that's already determining so many of the contested races, combined with the inundattion of new "unreal" voters to which the "Gangrahamnesty" law will open the floodgates permanently transform the voting demographics of even these "real" states to something unrecognizable.

That's right, fast.  And occupy, and be ready for the return of Jesus Christ to make all of this academic.

Handwriting on the Washington Wall

by Charles R Lewis


Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, Warren Burger, William Brennan, John Harlan, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter. Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart. Charles Whittaker, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, and now, most prominently, John Roberts: a list of the Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices who have participated in 2½ generations of shredding of your Constitution and dissolution of your freedoms.  These wolves in sheep's clothing have given the left victories in every crucial case over a period of more than a half century.  And the close of the latest SCOTUS session underscored that the fix is still in.


If you go back as far as I do, you should have learned by now that, no matter who appointed whom, nothing substantially good is going to come out of America's usurping "highest of the three co-equal branches."  Even if you just go back to the recent Rehnquist Court, if you were paying attention you noticed that an assemblage where the GOP-appointees outnumbered the Dems 7-2 still consistently gave the left victory after victory - from Kelo vs New Haven, which gave local governments the ability to steal people's property and give it to others who would produce more tax revenues, to McCain-Feingold, which essentially outlawed free speech in electoral campaigns, to various anti-Christian rulings, the Court gave America's enemies pretty much exactly what they wanted, time after time.


At the prevailing ratio back then, the left needed three "crossovers," and got them in the persons of Souter, Stevens, and (taking turns, as if consciously to preserve their images as "centrists," all the while giving the statists 5-4 victories) either O'Connor or Kennedy.


Flashing to the present, Roberts has completed the conversion of America into a hardcore socialist dictatorship with his convoluted rubber stamping of what I call, "Robomacare," "Robamatax," or even "Robomneytax," in recognition of the inspiration for the plan, who gives America the most vexing presidential electoral "choice" yet.  And don't forget, Kennedy is still on the Court for whenever it's his turn once again to sell us out.


Something's wrong with this picture.  America is being "played."


Supposedly, Republican presidents weren't going to appoint any more Warrens or Souters.  With the goal posts already moved light years to the left of the Founding Fathers' playing field, it was crucial that the "mistake" not be made again.


Roberts, we were led to believe, had been thoroughly vetted and didn't have a Roe vs Wade, a Miranda, a school prayer ban, or a primary runoff prohibition (the one that, ironically, got both McCain and Romney - both despised by the party's conservative rank and file - nominated without winning majorities in individual states, thanks also to seemingly planted "conservatives" who divided that vote and refused to drop out even when it was clear their presence could only result in Mitt's nomination) in his (Roberts') deliberative psyche.


Right.  Even Ann Coulter (currently Romney's self appointed spinmeister) warned us about Roberts very early in his confirmation process.  Now Robomneytax, part of a string of rulings where America lost the farm thanks in large part to Roberts,  lets us know exactly where he - along with America's rationale for trust in Republican appointees - stands.


Beware a president with (D) or (R) after his name, Mitt Romney - who appointed only nine of his fellow Republicans among his thirty-six bench appointments as governor of Massachusetts - especially.


So vote Libertarian, right?  Yeah, for Gary Johnson, who'll push to legalize every drug through heroin, and is pro-abortion (though against the death penalty for serial murderer-rapists, etc), pro-gay marriage, pro-prostitution, pro-open borders (oops, I'm a Christian and a patriot).


Constitutionalist?  Even that party couldn't find anyone better this year than a guy (Virgil Goode) who's spent about as much of his political career as a (D) as as an (R).  He championed the toxic "Equal Rights Amendment" in its heyday, has voted for huge farm subsidies and race-based spoils, and said recently he'd cut defense and not touch entitlements.  No, thanks.


Once again, that leaves America's Party, at least as viable as the aforementioned two "third parties," and ideologically pure, with a rigid policy pledge that will hold all candidates' feet to the fire, on penalty of immediate withdrawal of support.  Tom Hoefling, longtime head of the Alan Keyes braintrust, is the candidate this time around, Keyes (the previous banner waver) having retired from elective politics.


There are a couple others - Wiley Drake and Laurie Roth - with similar issue positions (I can personally vouch for all three, but Hoefling has a big head start on the others in terms of ballot access and party apparatus, and figures to be on by far the most ballots).  Yes, it's a longshot, but America is far enough gone that a candidate like Hoefling, with ballot access very likely in the vast majority of states, appears well worth our consideration, especially if the voters therein ever wake up to Romney.


Romney - you remember him, the one with a lower gun rating than his Democrat gubernatorial opponent, the one who introduced socialized medicine on the state level, imposed gay propaganda on kindergarteners, caused Catholic Charities to be shut down for not adopting out orphans to sodomite couples, and promised he'd never interfere with "a woman's right to choose," the one whose reaction to the Obamnesty executive order was, essentially, to assert it didn't go far enough, the one who was the only Republican candidate absent from most of the "Values Voters" debates - is not the one to save an imperiled America.  No way no how.  


Fool you repeatedly, shame on you.


Desperate times call for desperate measures.  Ask yourself if a vote for McCain was worth it.  Ask if he even tried to win.  Ask yourself if Romney is in any sense a better candidate or even better on the issues than McCain, or, for that matter, Obama.


And, most importantly, ask yourself what your God would have you do.  And pray for America and your children and theirs.

Paulista for Life

Ron Paul's refusal, in the most recent debate (in Iowa) to credit Justices Thomas, Scalia, et al with any moral or Constitutional superiority to Kagen, Sotomaior, Ginsberg, and Breyer (his "they're all good and they're all bad" reply makes Kerry's "I voted for the bill before I voted against it" seem forthright by comparison).  This may be the most significant tidbit yet on Paul.

Quite a few others have described a phenomenon I've encountered in my dealings with Paulistas (and in my observations of the curmudgeon himself):

If you don't march in lockstep with their views (to include military gay pride parades, "In God We Trust" off the money, "America got what she deserved on 9/11," legalized heroin and prostitution, ad nauseum), you're a brainwashed neocon propagandist.  Hence his recent smears of Bachmann and Santorum on Leno.

But you must notice that such a monolithic demand doesn't hold when it comes to leftists.  The SCOTUS response, for instance, actually elevates the Stalinist wing at the same time it demeans the originalists.  On Leno, while he lambasted the only two conservatives in the race, he had nothing malignant to spew on Romney, Gingrich, or Perry, and he actually praised lefty Huntsman, an Obama appointee with far more in common with "that one" than with the two Paul skewered.

And Paul had no problem endorsing the presidential candidacies of far, far leftists Ralph Nader and Sheila Jackson-Lee in '08.   Or lavishing accolades on collectivists like Dennis Kucinich and Chuck Hagel and co-sponsoring, with Barney Frank, a bill legalizing Intenet porn.  Meanwhile, an ex-COS for one of the few congressmen I've trusted on the Hill has long informed that if you've got a proposal that just might somehow bear fruit and would like Paul's support, you'd best not bother to apply if you're on the right.

Paul leads Iowa, a few days before the caucuses there, as of this writing, and he and Mitt Romney officially have Virginia to themselves, due to a bizarre new rule there.  His chances of winning the nomination (at which point the Obamites will beat him into the ground with his past marginally racist statements - along with his seemingly choreographed walk-off on CNN to avoid discussing them) are frighteningly real.

Many years ago, I heard a street evangelist affirm that homosexuals constitute the one class of sinner a member of which he's never seen repent; he didn't think one ever could.  The intervening years have disproven that conjecture, and my Save America Summit actually had a redeemed ex-gay serving ably.

The black hole, on the other hand, of Paulism appears to permit neither light nor adherents to escape.  Once initiated, one can no longer maintain ties to one's former Judeo-Christian-based principle set.  One embraces, in its place, a jealous god in the form of an America-demeaning, hybrid agenda, from the leftist component of which no deviation is allowed, while, for Marxists from Kagen to Kucinich, the rightist elements are fair game.

Ron Paul, a hard leftist out trolling for conservative souls.

Heaven help us.