Not Natural. Not Normal.

>> Sunday, June 13, 2010

"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

In a thread at Marshall Art's blog, a post regarding the endangered "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in America's military, the comments drifted to the usual discussion over whether homosexuality and the oxy-moronic "gay" marriage is normal.

Before I get into my usual rant, I want to state my personal view on both gays in the military and gay marriage:

Don't ask, don't tell:

If, somehow, some homosexual in the military has managed to conceal his deviancy up until now, I have no objection to him/her continuing to serve. As long as none of his/her fellow soldiers know, keep it that way or leave. If, however, he/she has been outed, either by self-outing or by discovery of his peers, he/she should be discharged.

When a homosexual is outed, the other soldiers become self conscious, and will likely imagine they are being leered at, or they may possibly mistake some innocent friendliness as being an unwanted attempt at seduction. It would be an enormous distraction, and effect the cohesiveness of the unit. And that, in time of war, could cost lives.

Gay Marriage:

Personally, I don't care if two homosexuals want to get married to each other.

But don't expect me to give them wedding gifts, and they'd better not expect congratulations from me. I think homosexuality is disgusting. I don't want to know about their perversion.

Other than that, they can swish their tail feathers anywhere they want. As long as they leave me out of it, I really don't care.

Now. On to my rant:

A few years ago, an article was published in the New York Slimes, which reported scientists had genetically altered a female fruit fly by injecting it with a male gene. It naturally did what male fruit flies do. It made sexual advances on another female fruit fly.

From this, the scientists drew the conclusion that homosexuality was genetic.

The writer of the article did not mention if they had tried the same experiment with male fruit flies. The article also did not mention whether they had tried the same experiment with multiple fruit flies, or with other animals.

I suppose the New York Slimes assumed we would all just believe them, because they have been so trustworthy in the past. (sarcasm)

I can't link to it, because to do so, I would have to subscribe to the New York Slimes online, and I won't waste good money on that treasonous, lying, piece of filth.

But the research was fatally flawed. Allow me to explain why.

In the first place, they started out all wrong. Instead of attempting to find a reason why the hypothesis isn't true, which is the scientifically accepted method of testing a hypothesis, they set out to prove genetic homosexuality is true. When you do this, you are starting out prepared to dismiss any evidence that conflicts with your initial hypothesis, other than which is absolutely undeniable.

Next, frankly, the conclusion reached by these scientists simply doesn't make sense.

They said homosexuality must be genetic because fruit flies injected with the opposite sex gene responded as if they were homosexual.

But, remember. They injected the gene into the fly.

The fly's genetic make-up had to be altered for it to behave in a manner opposite of it's true nature.

The gene was not already present.

It is never present in nature.

The fruit fly does only what fruit flies do. They are born, they eat, they mate. And then, they die. That's all.

Fruit flies do not and cannot choose their sexual orientation. At least, not without outside influences.

Needless to say, fruit flies are not human.

Human beings are the only creatures on this earth who have the capacity of abstract reasoning. They are also the only creatures on earth who choose their sexual preferences.

Human beings are the only creatures who can choose to defy nature.

And, homosexual human beings defy nature.

They choose to be deviant. They choose to defy nature. They choose to deny their own sexuality.


The reasons are legion.

I believe it starts with a lack of self esteem.

In the last several years, homosexuality has become fashionable. Because of the efforts of homosexual activists, many people who otherwise wouldn't have considered being homosexual have "joined the movement", so to speak. Joining this club satisfies the need to belong.

I suspect many of the members of this particular club are not really homosexual at all, but they want to belong to some group so badly, they assume the stereotypical mannerisms that all people, straight or gay, easily recognize. Probably all of them, if they continue to affect the mannerisms of what they consider to be "gay", eventually engage in some sort of homosexual activity. Once they go that far, their self esteem reaches an all time low, and the homosexual lifestyle claims another victim.

I personally know a homosexual young man who tries so very hard to convince everyone around him that he is gay, I have become convinced he is not really gay at all.

He simply tries too hard.

If it were natural and normal to be homosexual, why would one try so hard to act that way?

If it's natural and normal, just be homosexual. Be yourself. Stop trying to prove your "gayness" to everyone else. Normal people only find that behavior disgusting, and don't want to know.

Even with the strong pull of inclusiveness mentioned above, I believe very few people enter the homosexual lifestyle in this manner.

For the most part, those who eventually choose an aberrant lifestyle do so because of some childhood trauma or influence, from extreme circumstances such as rape and molestation, to merely a lack of a strong role model in the child's home.

Homosexual enablers will often say something like, "Homosexuals are disdained and hated and treated badly. Why would they choose to be discriminated against if it's so much easier to be heterosexual?"

Well, the answer to that question is this: There are people who are affected with some sort of medical or neurological disorder. They crave attention.

Read up on Munchhausen's syndrome.

As I mentioned, in spite of what certain people, such as Dan T. , Geoffrey, and scores of others, will say, homosexuality never occurs in nature. It requires some alteration by an outside force, such as the injection of an unnatural gene, as we've seen, or a traumatic influence (or semi-traumatic. It's a relative term) from some sort of outside entity.

I've said this before. If you want to be gay, go ahead. Whatever turns you on. I don't really care. I won't hate you for that. I might dislike you for other reasons, but not your choice of sexual preferences.

But, don't flaunt your perversion in front of me, please. And, stop trying to convince others that it wasn't a choice, and that you were born that way.

You weren't, and subconsciously at least, you know it.

The only thing you are doing when you insist it's natural is encouraging more confused young people to deny the fact that they are suffering from childhood traumas or outside influences instead of dealing with them and expunging those particular deviations.

And, if you are normal and pretend you believe they are, too, despite what common sense tells you, keep it to yourself. You aren't convincing anyone.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine.


Dan Trabue June 13, 2010 at 8:52 PM  

To the other members of this blog: Doesn't it embarrass you at least a little bit when someone offers SO MUCH uninformed and deliberately ignorant misinformation on a topic?

You'd have more credibility if you'd put a stop to this sort of drivel (ie, take a stand making it clear that Mark is only speaking for himself when he makes stuff up like this). I mean, I don't care if Mark doesn't believe in homosexuality or if he thinks that green elves are dancing in his hat or if he thinks that the moon is made of bleu cheese, but that doesn't mean we ought to encourage deliberately ignorant "rants" from folk on your side.

I mean, I'm embarrassed for you all...

Edwin Drood June 13, 2010 at 10:02 PM  

"uninformed and deliberately ignorant"
Thats Dan's way of saying I hate the way you think but I don't know why.

Go back to ignoring the BP oil spill Dan.

Marshall Art June 14, 2010 at 12:20 AM  

No need to be embarrassed for me. I'm well aware that the comments of one guy are his own. Unless you're looking to smear a whole group, why would you suspect that he speaks for anyone other than himself? What we MAY all agree upon as contributors to this blog may be the general point, such as the improper behavior of homosexuality and the rejection of homosex marriage as something that should be sanctioned by the state, does not mean that we necessarily agree on details explaining the reasons behind the postions of each of us. We each arrive at our personal positions individually and though there may be many aspects of those positions that match, we, as conservatives totally tolerant of other opinions, do not insist that we all match perfectly.

As to Mark's opinions as stated in the post, I would imagine he could very well elaborate exhaustively on why he feels as he does. I would agree this much: the choice is in their decision to remain as they are despite whatever lead them to feel they are homosexual, whether they chose it consciously, or gradually came to believe they are homosexual. Even if their condition IS genetic in some way doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they should accept it within themselves.

As to choice, the one homosexual to whom I was closest, claimed before he died of AIDS that he didn't know WHAT he was, but that he was searching for something that felt comfortable, something where he felt as though he fit in. Too bad his obsession killed him, but the point is that he definitely consciously chose to "try out" a homosex lifestyle and relationsip. I'm sure that once his fate was sealed he had wished he looked elsewhere to resolve his emotional issue. I only pray that he repented in his mind and came to find forgiveness from God before his time ran out.

Mark June 14, 2010 at 5:01 AM  

Hey Dan...

You throw like a girl.

Mark June 14, 2010 at 5:10 AM  

Yeah, you're right, Dan. Must be that inescapable logic you used.

ELAshley June 14, 2010 at 7:52 AM  

Dan, I appreciate your concern, though I feel its misplaced. I think Mark's incivility to you is more of a detriment to this blogs credibility, but Mark's a grown man. When I approached Mark, Marshall and others on collaborating on this blog, I did it with full knowledge that I would not always agree with them, nor they with me. I also, from the very beginning, chose to accept their opinions-- how could I reasonably expect them to accept mine otherwise? Furthermore, there is a limit to what I or any of my fellow bloggers should be expected to tolerate from each other. And because of this we lost a collaborator who, rather than tone down the hostility, chose to bail instead.

Regarding homosexuality... it is unnatural; against nature. Furthermore, whatever your beliefs to the contrary, it is an abomination in the sight of God. And there are millions of Americans who agree with this blogs position on the subject. There is more evidence in the Bible to support our position than yours.

To Mark: I have to take issue with this:

"..homosexuality never occurs in nature."

It occurs enough, and to varying extents, that the pro-homosexual defenders can point to ad nauseum; folk like Ben, for example, have repeatedly resorted to lists of homosexual animals. And then, as you stated, if these are animals without the capacity to choose against their natures.... well, you see the dilemma.

I agree with you 100%. I only take issue with the manner in which you phrased the above quoted statement.

Two male penguins take over the responsibility of an abandoned egg? So what? Doesn't mean they're homosexual, only that instinct, or what passes for social mores among penguins dictates that no egg go unattended; likewise the resultant hatchling.

As for my objection to the above quoted statement, you said it better earlier in your piece...

"homosexual human beings defy nature."

And that is as true a statement as there is.

BenT - the unbeliever,  June 14, 2010 at 4:23 PM  

Let's accept Mark's premise that homosexuality is a genetic aberration. I don't, but am willing to forgo the point to move the discussion towards practicalities.

There are lots of genetic deviations that humans present. And as a generalization none of them have moral consequences like conservatives ascribe to homosexuality.

Children with down-syndrome, another genetic deviation, aren't expected to overcome their nature. They aren't expected to be "normal". We as a society accept that our genes are a mixed bundle, some people are tall, some are black, and some are gay.

Women with genetic markers for breast cancer, genetic markers for alcoholism, a genetic predisposition for obesity. Sunday preachers never speak about these humans that have a genetic burden which can be either fought or accepted.

A modern society can accept that our definition of normal can change. We move forward as we become more knowledgeable and civilized. The Biblical society may be holy, but it is not civil or modern.

Certainly there must have been lessons of faith that Jesus would not have been able to teach a fist century society. A growing faith would seek and discover those lessons for today's world.

As to the top issue of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" I'd request that Mark respond with how he can hold his position in light of the acceptance of women in all roles in the military.

Mark June 14, 2010 at 5:02 PM  

Bent says, "Let's accept Mark's premise that homosexuality is a genetic aberration..."

I never said that. I said homosexuality is not genetic. I said it is a choice.

All those other so-called aberrations he mentioned are genetic. Homosexuality isn't, so the rest of his comment is just a waste of his energy.

"As to the top issue of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" I'd request that Mark respond with how he can hold his position in light of the acceptance of women in all roles in the military."

I don't understand the question. What does women in the military have to do with homosexuals in the military? The military doesn't make men soldiers and women soldiers bunk together. They don't make them shower together. They don't make them room together.

They do make homosexual and normal soldiers bunk, shower, and room together. And therein lies the problem. I know you see that, Bent. Why do you pretend you don't?

BenT - the unbeliever,  June 14, 2010 at 5:20 PM  

"They are also the only creatures on earth who choose their sexual preferences."

I'm sorry the above sentence was so inane my brain refused to process it. Take my words about genetics above and apply to this statement. What you believe is completely unfounded and is furthermore refuted by science.

"What does women in the military have to do with homosexuals in the military?"

In you opening post you didn't reference separate living conditions or showers or bunks. What you said was: "...the other soldiers become self conscious, and will likely imagine they are being leered at, or they may possibly mistake some innocent friendliness as being an unwanted attempt at seduction. It would be an enormous distraction, and effect the cohesiveness of the unit. And that, in time of war, could cost lives." And my question was how the same situations don't apply to women in the armed forces. Men being leered at by female coworkers. Women possibly mistake some innocent friendliness as being an unwanted attempt at seduction. How do these things not lead to an enormous distraction, and effect the cohesiveness of the unit.

And all this is without referencing the example of ALL the other military powers, who have long experience with openly gays serving in their military. Are America's armed forces somehow unique? ... despite the fact that when the military is polled they say there is no problem with ending Don't Ask-Don't Tell and many already know a gay military colleague.

Mark June 14, 2010 at 5:35 PM  

"What you believe is completely unfounded and is furthermore refuted by science."

Excuse me? Didn't you read the post at all? As I pointed out, the scientific research proved exactly the opposite of what they set out to prove. That the only way a fruit fly will behave homosexually is if it is genetically altered artificially. The research proves homosexuality never happens naturally.

That very scientific research is what my belief is founded upon, so your opinion that it is unfounded is...well...unfounded.

BenT - the unbeliever,  June 14, 2010 at 6:08 PM  

I think there's lots of things that lead to someone to be gay. I think there are elements of personal choice as you suggest, but I also recognize the role nature and nurture may play.

You seem to suggest that the human genetic code relating to sexuality is always transferred perfectly from parent to child. So everyone is genetically perfectly straight. Homosexuals choose to defy their genetics. Is this what you think?

I'm sorry but if this is what you believe you are wrong.

1. Human genetics are not always transferred perfectly, examples of genetic abnormalities abound.

2. The human genome is much more complex than a bunch of on/off switches. There are conditional genes that have to be triggered by chemicals in the mothers uterus. There are genes that only trigger if there is later environmental exposure. There are genes that are overridden by other genes and further genes that modify and alter the main set all mixed up together in a swirling soup of chemicals. And this is only the way genes were described to me as relating to hair-color, human sexuality would have to be much more complex.

Mark June 14, 2010 at 7:35 PM  

"You seem to suggest that the human genetic code relating to sexuality is always transferred perfectly from parent to child. So everyone is genetically perfectly straight. Homosexuals choose to defy their genetics. Is this what you think?"

I am not "suggesting" anything of the kind. I never said anything about transference. I said (read my lips this time), Homosexuality is not genetic.

Yes, everyone is genetically perfectly straight. No, homosexuals do not choose to deny their genetics. Homosexuals choose to deny their nature, which is always heterosexual.

Let me put it so that even the most moronic can understand it:

No one is born homosexual.

You say I'm wrong. I say I'm not. But, unlike you, I have presented a scientific study that supports my point. You have not proven anything.

ELAshley June 15, 2010 at 9:07 AM  

Genes can be turned off and on even at the ripe old age of 40. It's all in the diet. It's what you put into your body. Did you know that soy products are high in estrogen? Why would we feed infants a soy-based formula? Doesn't hurt the girls, but it wreaks genetic havoc on the boys.

Did you know that the insides of food cans, for the most part, are coated with an estrogen polymer? Doesn't effect women so much (despite the fact that they are actually xenoestrogens, and as such dangerous to health), but on men? Say hello to man-boobs, thicker middles, loss of hair from the knees down, a reduction in semen production, and, eventually, prostrate cancer. The introduction of hormones and chemicals switch on and off our genes after each and every meal. Every cell is fed by every morsel of food we take in. If we eat the same things day in and day out we keep our settings locked in place. But if we choose to eat properly we can, at our very next meal, begin to reset our genes (turn off some, turn back on others).

To that extent I will give Ben his "homosexuality is genetic in nature," but that kind of genetic sexuality is chemically based and maintained, and we all know that chemicals play a big role in how we relate to the world and to ourselves. Also, it should go without saying that we can CHANGE the impact chemicals how on us simply by changing diet. But all the genetic rewiring we do to our bodies via diet and physical environment doesn't change the fact that we have either a penis or a vagina (except of course for those rare, genuine cases with both or neither; i.e., birth defects, which are not at issue in this discussion), which clearly define our intended state of sexuality. It is utter lunacy to suggest we have any say in choosing our sexuality in spite of what nature made us. If our genes made us male, we are male no matter how loudly we protest... changing our diet does nothing for the lack of a penis or vagina.

Lastly, just because a woman has a genetic marker for breast cancer doesn't mean she will develop breast cancer. The amount of damage that has been done to some women because of the fear a doctor's prognosis has laid upon her is criminal. What about all those women who have double mastectomies simply because they were told they had the marker? The practice is barbaric. These women have been lied to.

ELAshley June 15, 2010 at 9:29 AM  

Want to learn more about how you can reprogram your genes?

Take a look at Mark Sissons book The Primal Blueprint

Also, the idea switching on and off your genes is called 'epigenetics.' You can watch the videos here, at Marks Site or click the You Tube links below.

Epigenetics - Part 1
Epigenetics - Part 2

If you want the science behind Mark Sisson's book, it's in the first 3 chapters of The Primal Blueprint. Buy the book at his site or go to Amazon, or... wait for it to come out in paperback.

ELAshley June 15, 2010 at 9:33 AM  

And for the record... 'Yes,' I've read the book, and 'Yes,' the changes are difficult to make. But 'difficult' only in that it is difficult to change a lifetime habit. When you've been eating french fries all your life it's difficult to replace them with carrot and celery sticks.

BenT - the unbeliever,  June 15, 2010 at 5:22 PM  

Chemistry can only go so far in altering someones genetic makeup. Sure chemicals in our environment can trigger the expression of certain genes, but most of our human animal is set at birth. No diet will change the shape of your bones to make you taller, after you've passed puberty. No tablet in the morning will give you curly hair or green eyes. we can swallow antacids to change the chemical composition of our stomach, but they don't permanently alter the stomach lining to change how much acid you secrete.

There was an idea to have a government office to evaluate science like these claims. Things that pharmaceutical giants wouldn't look at for lack of profitability. Then some CONSERVATIVES decided that would lead to government telling doctors how to treat people, and eventually death panels. Whoops! Can't have that. So until there's more research take Eric's health advice with a grain of salt.

The newest research does show that embryos that don't get the right chemicals at the proper time are slower to develop sexual organs and those organs are more like to be ambiguous. So that's genetic and environmental components. And it's long been known that boys with dominant mothers and absent fathers are more likely to be homosexual. So that's a mental aspect. But none of these factors are sole triggers or identifiers of homosexuality, there is as Mark contends an element of choice in sexuality.

Isn't the wonder of creation amazing! It's too bad CONSERVATIVES don't like half of it.

Mark June 15, 2010 at 6:41 PM  

LOL! Quite a dilemma, eh, Bent? You can't decide who to disagree with now. I guess disagreeing with Eric is more important to you than disagreeing with me.

Eric, I don't believe there is any naturally occurring gene that determines whether one will be born homosexual or not. And, I don't buy the premise that a gene can change that dramatically regardless of the stimulus. Besides, your examples are physical changes. Converting to Homosexuality requires a mental change.

Every person born is born heterosexual. Whatever the reason, some people choose to be homosexual.

Marshall Art June 15, 2010 at 6:43 PM  

Once again, Ben, you forget that in the case of homsexuality, no one need accept that there is no choice in how to deal with it. Just as with any proclivity, each of us has the capacity to accept or change. It really doesn't matter what brought about the proclivity. We are endowed with the capacity to be what we want to be. The question is whether what we want to be is what we should be. Biblically speaking there is only one way to go regarding human sexuality and it also requires that heteros repress urges and desires, just as we expect the naturally violent and jealous and envious to repress their natures and work to overcome them.

With regard to homosexuality, the agenda is to force as fact the lie that it is the same as race or gender and therefor unchangable. It is not. As regards the military, I see no reason why the military must bend for the sake of how 2% of the population wants to pleasure themselves. But to the homo, there is nothing that is more important than what they want. So sad and so sorry that such a small percentage of the population must make allowances for their peculiarity, just as really short, fat and weak people must (and not just in the military). Just as with every recruit, they MUST put the military first over their personal wants and desires. But they don't want to do that. Whether their peculiarity is genetic or out and out choice doesn't matter.

Marshall Art June 15, 2010 at 6:45 PM  

Oh. And as far as creation, we conservatives love it just fine. We are concerned with what libs want to do with it, however.

ELAshley June 16, 2010 at 8:56 AM  

Obviously Ben didn't bother to watch the videos from... Nova Science; PBS mainstay for decades. If he had he wouldn't have mischaracterized my comments. So, to be clear, all of you out there who thought I was claiming a change in diet could make you grow taller, or change you eye color, or make your straight hair curly... don't be a fool. The science is called 'epigenetics' and it's very real, very observable, and incontrovertible, but it won't turn PeeWee Herman into Chow Yun Fat.

And Mark, I didn't suggest homosexuality IS a product of ones genetic code, I said, and perhaps I was misunderstood, that substances in our environment (air, water, food, etc) can subvert our genetic wiring; turning some switches off and others on. But remove these subversions from our diet and we can reset those switches. Tendencies toward homosexuality can be as simple as being fed a steady diet of soy-protein formulas from birth to solid food, and beyond... especially for those children who are not breast fed.

I've said all that to say, simply, homosexuality is a choice, not a product of genetics--except in that diet can play a role in fuddling-up a child's hormones.

ELAshley June 16, 2010 at 9:02 AM  

Oh, and Dan. I don't believe God is too concerned with 'preserving' this creation. According to scripture, it is His desire and intention to RESTORE His creation to its perfect Edenic condition... pre-curse, Dan.

And, there won't be any homosexuals in heaven. We'll all be made perfect (those of us who'll be there; remember, the way is narrow and few there'll be that find it). And there is nothing remotely 'perfect' about homosexuality.

Dan Trabue June 16, 2010 at 12:07 PM  


I don't believe God is too concerned with 'preserving' this creation. According to scripture, it is His desire and intention to RESTORE His creation to its perfect Edenic condition...

According to Scripture, God will "destroy those who destroy the earth."

I would not advocate irresponsible behavior towards God's creation in the hopes that God doesn't really care about this world God made.

ELAshley June 16, 2010 at 12:11 PM  

God cares so much about this world that he's going to restore this world to its former, original perfection, glory, and holiness. This world we currently live upon is cursed. You should know this.

Dan Trabue June 16, 2010 at 12:25 PM  

The world itself is "cursed," you say. I say is not a good conclusion. This world is God's creation and we are to be responsible caretenders of it. We are not to abuse it, we are not to mistreat it or damage it so that future generations would curse us.

I suspect you would agree with me at least on that much.

Dan Trabue June 16, 2010 at 12:29 PM  

In addition to the point of being responsible caretenders for God's creation, there is also the matter of justice. IF we destroy the oceans or damage our air, then our children will not have the resources we obliterated. The ill will be further sickened.

Our actions towards this creation have repercussions, especially for the ill, the poor and for our children and future generations. Thus, EVEN IF someone thought it doesn't matter what we do to the environment for the environment's sake, it matters as a point of justice.

Again, I'd suspect you could agree with me on this point.

Mark June 16, 2010 at 12:31 PM  

Dan opines, "According to Scripture, God will 'destroy those who destroy the earth.'"


Dan finally agrees that God destroys people instead of just loving them? What about all those thousands of "God is love" comments Dan has typed out previously?

Mark June 16, 2010 at 12:32 PM  

Dan, nobody agrees with you. If we did that, we would be considered morons.

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk

Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.

Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery


"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by 2009

Back to TOP