What Is A Neocon?

The word “neocon” has become a common term in our political lexicon. However, I don’t think most conservatives truly understand its definition.

First, people need to understand that many neocons call themselves “conservative” on domestic social issues. Not all neocons are truly conservative on these issues–some aren’t. But many neocons DO trumpet themselves as socially “conservative.” These folks like to identify themselves as “pro-life” or “pro-family” or “pro-defense” or “pro-limited government,” etc. But these titles are mostly meaningless.

At this point, it is imperative that we understand how politicians in Washington, D.C., operate. Here is a quick primer: Congressional leaders know which congressmen and senators are controllable–and most of them are. Only a handful of our federal congressmen and senators are “untouchable.” My guess is less than 100 out of the 535 House members and U.S. senators are truly NOT controlled–and that includes liberals and conservatives.

The vast majority of our congressmen and senators are either morally tainted, which make them prime targets for bribery and manipulation (can anyone say former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert?), or they are egotistical, ambition-driven narcissists who will do most anything to advance their careers (this is the largest group, in my opinion.)

Before ANY vote is cast in Congress, leaders take note of the political makeup of the districts and states that elected their representatives. Was he or she elected by a liberal or conservative district? What are the issues at home that the legislator campaigned on? All of this is readily known by congressional leaders.

Heads are counted before voting to test whether a given bill will comfortably pass or not. If there is a comfortable margin of support for a bill, members who come from a district with opposing views can vote according to the way that will keep the constituents back home happy. Only if a bill’s passage is so close that it requires members to vote against the will of their constituents will they be asked to do so. And the ones who are controlled WILL vote with their congressional leadership–regardless of how much it riles up the constituents back home. Of course, leadership has professionals that will coach the legislator on how to explain the bad vote to the people back home. And, since most votes are not that close, these tactics are not always required and the legislator’s voting record can appear “very good” to the folks back home. That’s how you come up with these congressional scorecards. When legislators vote against their constituents on a bill, you can mark it down: congressional leaders required the cooperation of the legislator or senator–and the legislator caved to the pressure. That’s how you know that the congressman or senator is controlled.

Again, there is only a small handful of congressmen and senators who are untouchable and will vote their convictions–and the convictions of the people they represent. (Controlled congressmen and senators don’t really have convictions to begin with.) Congressional leaders refer to these legislators as “rebels.” And they are punished by not being appointed to plush committee assignments or by being overlooked for leadership positions. Plus, leadership will often target these rebel legislators for defeat in future primary elections in an attempt to replace him or her with a “team player” (meaning controlled toady for leadership).

Second, please understand that the fundamental goal of those elitists who control the neocons is GLOBALISM. For the most part, these people care absolutely nothing about domestic social issues. It doesn’t matter to them one whit whether a congressman is pro-life or pro-choice; whether he or she is “pro-family” or pro-gay marriage; whether he or she is identified as a conservative or a liberal. These issues don’t even enter the mind of a globalist. They have but one goal: GLOBALISM. Accordingly, everything they promote promotes globalism. EVERYTHING! Never forget that!

Therefore, “conservative” scorecards are little indication as to whether a congressman or senator is a neocon. A congressman or senator can easily have a “B” or “80%” or better conservative rating, and still be a totally-controlled neocon. Most of the issues on these “conservative” or “Christian” or “Family Values” scorecards do not even grade congressman on most neocon issues, so a high score on these rating systems means little. This helps explain why so many Christian voters have little discernment in the voting booth. Their entire reason for voting is skewed. Plus, don’t forget that many of the so-called Christian leaders who put together these scorecards are themselves controlled neocons.

So, just what is a neocon? Remember, the goal of globalists is GLOBALISM. Therefore, here are the issues that promote globalism. Here are the issues that form a common denominator among neocons. When you observe your professing “conservative” congressman or senator supporting these issues, you can KNOW that they are, in reality, globalist-controlled NEOCONS.

*Pro-International “Free Trade” Deals

From NAFTA to TPP, these so-called “free trade” deals are nothing more than international loopholes that discriminate against the manufacturing jobs and labor class of individual countries and favor the billionaire class that conducts business internationally.

America has lost (and continues to lose) millions of manufacturing jobs–and now even high tech jobs–due to these international “free trade” deals. There is nothing “free” about these “free trade” deals. Quotas are often established for American exports but not for foreign imports. Taxes, duties, tariffs, etc., almost always favor foreign imports and punish U.S. exports. As a result, U.S. businesses are forced to take their companies overseas to compete. Entire factories close down resulting in millions of displaced U.S. workers. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Following the implementation of NAFTA by Congress in 1994, our trade surpluses with partners Mexico and Canada quickly became trade deficits, soaring to nearly $200 billion. Over one million U.S. jobs were lost and illegal immigration doubled almost immediately. Beyond that, U.S. workers that were somehow able to maintain their jobs watched their wages shrink. That’s right, SHRINK.

In Mexico, NAFTA has wreaked indescribable havoc. Already depressed wages plummeted. The availability of goods did NOT increase; it substantially DECREASED. While, guess what? Prices INCREASED. It was the passage of NAFTA that started this entire morass the U.S. currently finds itself mired in regarding illegal immigration.

And now neocon Republicans have just collaborated with President Barack Obama to pass another giant “free trade” bill, called TPP (nicknamed Obamatrade). Many people have rightly called TPP “NAFTA on steroids.” Indeed it is. And, yes, Ben Carson enthusiastically endorses Obamatrade. Ted Cruz also voted for it.

Not only are neocons Boehner/Ryan/McConnell enthusiastically passing TPP, they are happily giving “fast track” authority to Obama. This allows Obama (or any President) to negotiate and sign a trade agreement without congressional approval–including language that may completely alter established U.S. laws. Subsequent trade legislation proposed to Congress by the President would not be subject to committee markups, and Congress would have only 90 days to approve it–and floor amendments would not be allowed.

See the report:

NAFTA At 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality

Support for these international “Free Trade” deals is a dead giveaway that a congressman or senator is indeed a neocon.

*Pro-Illegal Immigration

The great goal of globalists is to blur or even eliminate national borders. National borders, and the laws that protect them, are VERY burdensome to multinational traders. National borders restrict globalists in their pursuit of international wealth. They envision a global economy with a global government in place to protect that global economy. Individual nationhood is an obstacle to that goal.

The EU is the quintessential prototype of the globalists’ dream of global government. Until individual states within the United States stopped it (temporarily, no doubt), neocon Republican President G.W. Bush collaborated with Canada’s Paul Martin and Mexico’s Vicente Fox to establish an EU-type regional government in North America. It was called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” or SPP. It was also called the “North American Community” and “North American Union.”

The goal of these so-called “partnerships” is to erase national borders and establish regional government over participating nations that exercise authority over the flow of goods and services between countries. As an example, the current TPP passed by the Republican House and Senate and signed by Obama has copious rules that further circumvent America’s current immigration laws. Plus, the invasion of illegal aliens from the Middle East into European countries is facilitated by the enactment of lax immigration policies established by the EU.

The SPP was the brainchild of what must be regarded as the top neocon think tank of all: the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). And, yes, one of the movers and shakers for this proposed EU-style regional government in North America was CFR member Heidi Cruz, wife of Senator and Presidential candidate Ted Cruz.

Thankfully, public pressure from the State legislatures in Texas and Oklahoma derailed SPP. (This is another example of how states can–and should–use their constitutional authority of interposition to thwart the overreach of federal and even international government.)

Another way illegal immigration helps globalists remove national boundaries is it serves to remove a country’s (any country’s) national culture and identity, thereby transforming it into a “sanctuary nation.” In the U.S., this includes removing our Christian heritage.


NOTHING rings the cash register for globalists like war. War helps to replace recalcitrant national leaders who refuse to give international financiers carte blanche in their countries. War helps to redraw national boundaries that favor the global economy. War brings HUGE profit windfalls to the military-industrial complex that is mostly in bed with high-paying globalists. War causes citizens in free countries to accept more governmental authority (which ALWAYS includes an international component) over their affairs that would never be the case in peacetime. War is also the perfect solution to resolve the economic problems of a sinking financial system.

In this regard, religious bigotry and intolerance makes it EASY for globalists to manipulate the passions of people in favor of war. Pitting Christians against Muslims and Muslims against Christians–and putting Israel in the middle–is the current tactic favored by globalists. And, Boy! Is it ever successful! Muslim terrorists, the Israeli army, and the U.S. military are pawns in the hands of the globalist elite (yes, globalist facilitators can be found in London, Ankara, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, and Washington, D.C.) who are using the neocons in Washington, D.C., to manipulate war in the Middle East to further their greater goal of creating war between the United States and Russia.

Another World War would be a HUGE benefit to globalists. “Who would win a war between Russia and the United States?” you ask. GLOBALISTS, that’s who. And it seems clear to me that that is exactly what the neocons in D.C. are striving for.

President George W. Bush was the first U.S. President to be totally and thoroughly dominated by neocons. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had been planned in neocon war rooms for years, just waiting for the right provocation. And the continuing U.S. wars in the Middle East are every bit neocon inventions. Yes, folks, Barack Obama himself is but a puppet of the neocons. In truth, neocons are now thoroughly ensconced in our Justice Department, State Department, DOD, CIA, etc.

And at this early juncture, the only two 2016 presidential candidates who MIGHT NOT be puppets of the neocon war machine are Rand Paul and Donald Trump–and at this point, I’m not certain about Trump. But it is more than interesting that it is Paul and Trump that the GOP establishment seems determined to destroy. As one GOP adviser said recently, the Republican Party must “put a bullet in Trump.” Now you know why.

*Pro-Police State

Freedom is anathema to globalists; an armed citizenry is anathema to globalists. In order for globalism to succeed, people must be restrained. They must be surveilled. They must be regulated. They must be controlled.

The so-called War on Terror (and the federal War on Drugs before that) is the biggest ruse ever invented to put a Police State in place. False flag terror attacks, a plethora of seemingly “random” mass shootings, and a perpetual media barrage against the right of citizens to defend themselves are all tactics of globalists to reduce liberty–and increase government dependence–in a nation.

Neocons are the ones who are the loudest cheerleaders for war in the Middle East, increased surveillance of the American citizenry, the militarization of our local and State police agencies, and antagonistic policies against Russia.

Look at the congressional votes for The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, NDAA (especially sections 1021 and 1022), NSA spying, etc. Look at the voting records regarding bills or amendments that would stop the federal government from supplying military armament to our local and State police agencies. You will find that the vast majority of our current presidential candidates, and perhaps even YOUR congressman and senators, voted to facilitate the burgeoning Police State in our country. Folks, these are neocons.

*Pro-Deficit Spending

Neocons support deficit spending. In this, they are far worse than overt liberals. For example, liberals in the Democrat Party want to tax-and-spend, while neocons in the Republican Party want to borrow-and-spend. Between the two, deficit spending is worse because it gives the federal government (and the globalists who influence and leech off them) unlimited spending–and thus unlimited profits. Beyond that, the inevitable result of unrestrained spending is WAR: globalists’ biggest cash cow of all. They win coming and going.

Notice how neocons John Boehner and Paul Ryan (with support from the vast majority of congressmen from both sides of the aisle) so quickly and easily raised the federal debt ceiling again–and for, not one, but TWO YEARS. This, in essence, gives Barack Obama his ninth year in office. Why would they do this? They are neocons, that’s why.

So, folks, forget party labels. Forget the left-right, liberal-conservative paradigm. These are the issues that neocons in Congress are using to drive national politics today–and these are the issues that are killing independence and freedom in the United States.

Folks, keep this list and use it to gauge your congressman and senators, as well as our presidential candidates. No matter what they call themselves, if they support these issues, they are NEOCONS.


P.S. I invite readers to order James Jaeger’s brand new film, “Midnight Ride: When Rogue Politicians Call For Martial Law.” Distinguished patriot luminaries such as Pat Buchanan, Larry Pratt, Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Sheriff Richard Mack, Stewart Rhodes, Edwin Vieira, Jr., and several others are featured in this film. I am honored to also be featured.

I invite readers to go to my website and order the DVD of this brand new film. And please tell your friends. Order “Midnight Ride” here:

Midnight Ride: When Rogue Politicians Call For Martial Law


© Chuck Baldwin

If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Federal Court Makes Gigantic Ruling Against Obama That Could Destroy His Big Plan

When the federal government was formed, the Founders gave the power to make laws to Congress, not to a president wanting to impose his will on the nation.

President Obama was reminded of this fundamental truth on Monday when a federal appeals court rejected his attempt to grant amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants.

The decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower federal court’s injunction blocking the edict, which Obama said was his attempt to “change the law.”

Obama’s words from last November came back to haunt him and were cited Monday by federal Judge Jerry E. Smith, who said in the majority ruling that only Congress can revise the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

“The INA flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization,” Smith wrote.

“Today, the Fifth Circuit asserted that the separation of powers remains the law of the land, and the president must follow the rule of law, just like everybody else,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. “Throughout this process, the Obama Administration has aggressively disregarded the constitutional limits on executive power, and Texas, leading a charge of 26 states, has secured an important victory to put a halt to the president’s lawlessness.”

The ruling is likely to be appealed. Regardless of the outcome of any appeal, Obama’s executive order is unlikely to be implemented during his presidency.

Although Monday’s ruling does not mean illegal immigrants targeted by Obama’s amnesty will be deported, it does block any action to give them work permits, Social Security numbers and to promise them they will not be deported.

“The court’s decision is a vindication for the Rule of Law and the Constitution,” said Texas Governor Greg Abbott in a statement. “The President’s job is to enforce the immigration laws, not rewrite them. President Obama should abandon his lawless executive amnesty program and start enforcing the law today.”

Texas was joined in the lawsuit by the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

h/t: Fox News

The House Just Looked Obama Right In The Eyes And Did Something They Know He’ll Hate

The House easily passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on Thursday, which funds the military through fiscal year 2016. However, the bill did not contain a change requested by President Obama when he vetoed an earlier version of the bill last month.

When Obama vetoed the NDAA, he listed the budget situation under the sequester and his desire to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility before the end of his term as reasons. Regarding the former, the president specifically mentioned $38 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funding, which was a way the House used to get around the sequester defense spending budget cap.

The budget deal worked out later in the month, which lifted sequester caps on military and domestic spending (a stated goal of the president), addressed, at least in part, his first concern; but the revised NDAA left the restrictions on transferring prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in place. It also cut $5 billion from a defense budget plan submitted by the Obama administration.

The bill enjoyed broad bi-partisan support, passing the House 370-58, which means even most House Democrats were willing to buck the president on closing Guantanamo, which still holds 112 suspected foreign terrorists.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., has indicated he wants to see the House version go through the Senate without further amendments, according to the Washington Post.

“Democratic lawmakers and aides said they expect Obama will sign the revised bill, even with the Guantanamo restrictions, but the White House has not made his intentions clear,” Reuters reports.

“We’ll have to take a look at exactly what passes Congress before making a determination about what the president will sign,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters. He added that the president has not ruled out using an executive order to close Guantanamo, according to Reuters. 

h/t: Washington Examiner

15-Year-Old Wants Debt Limits On Government

Last week around midnight, a new “spending bill” passed the House, increasing the national debt by billions. This was John Boehner’s final act as Speaker of the House. The bill was reportedly enacted to prevent a government shutdown. Instead of allowing more spending, unnecessary and unconstitutional areas of the government should be cut. Many Federal agencies, not enumerated in the Constitution and thus illegal, are spending freely and increasing the debt. The allowance of more debt will not solve the debt crisis; it will only enslave the people! If the government would exercise only the powers enumerated to it in the Constitution, the crisis of debt and government shutdowns would be stopped and resolved.

The national debt is over 18 trillion in principal alone; the total debt is over 65 trillion including interest. There is no Federal budget, just increased spending. With the increasing national debt, the United States is becoming a slave to foreign countries who lend money, just as Solomon states in Proverbs 22:7, “. . . and the borrower is slave to the lender” (NIV).

An example of a non-enumerated government program is the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which claims to provide “fair housing” and “equal opportunity.” This agency violates the Constitution by its mere existence, because housing and urban development is an issue for the states or the people, as stated in the Tenth Amendment–“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” HUD is just a small example of the illegal overreach of the Federal Government, exercising power which has not been enumerated in the Constitution.

Before the creation of the Constitution in 1787, America was governed under the Articles of Confederation. These articles gave more authority to the individual states than the Federal Government, and were basically an agreement of alliance among the states. These articles did not strengthen the Federal Government enough to unify the states for war, for the suppression of rebellion, or for the national collection of taxes. To solve this issue, the Constitution was created, giving enumerated powers to a unified, stronger Federal Government which protected the people and secured their representation in the new Republic. The Federal Government was not strengthened to build agencies like HUD, which violates the Constitution. Instead, the Federal Government was created to protect the country as a whole. Under this protection, the states and the people have the liberty to manage themselves.

The enumerated powers of the government, listed in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, do not include the authority to pass “spending bills” to raise the debt for virtually unlimited government spending on illegal programs. These destructive constitutional violations must be stopped immediately to keep the debt from becoming worse. Finally, we the people must be the greatest check on the government, keeping it inside the bounds of its enumerated authorities to save the nation from destruction by debt.

Grant Thumbnail Image

Learn more about your Constitution with Grant Carson and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

LGBT ‘Equality Act Of 2015,’ Marriage, And Intolerance

I am having another one of my “Stop the world, I’m getting off” moments. This stuff is nuts now.

It really is the Twilight Zone. Congress is set to pass a new LGBT “Equality Act of 2015,” which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 toward outlawing discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and “gender identity” or transgenders. Already, Google and other corporations such as Facebook, General Mills, Nike, Levi Strauss, Apple, Dow Chemicals and American Airlines support this addition, despite that it will be used by activists to push their particular social agenda onto those who believe in more traditional lifestyles.

Lesbian couples who have sued and persecuted bakers or photographers who wouldn’t serve them, even though the couples easily found others who would serve them, are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to using the armed power of the State to forcibly impose one’s lifestyles onto others who oppose such lifestyles.

But to me, the activists are like the traditionalists pushing “Defense of Marriage” acts of legislation, those who believe that their view of marriage is the one and only way that all people must legally be allowed to have a marriage or contract. Just how Christian is it to use the armed power of the State to forcibly impose one’s personal lifestyle and marital or relationship preferences onto others? Just who are these traditionalists to use the State to prohibit others from their right to freedom of contract?

Sadly, still many of those on the traditional Left and the traditional Right just don’t get private property, private property rights, contract rights, self-ownership, freedom of association, freedom of non-association, and freedom of thought and conscience. If you own property, regardless of what that is, your home or your business, you have a private property right to not associate with anyone you don’t want to associate with, for any reason, no matter how repugnant others feel your reasons are. They don’t have a right to force themselves onto you, or to force you to do extra labor to serve them.

And in the area of marital contracts, you and your neighbors have no moral right or authority to interfere with others’ right to establish voluntary contracts regarding their personal lives, finances or romances.

Only those who are the parties to contracts have the sole right to determine the terms of contracts and who may be the parties to such contracts, because all individuals have a property right in their own persons, lives and property to participate in any voluntary contract they wish. And that includes marital contracts.

And in the same way in modern America, Christians or otherwise traditionalists shouldn’t have to provide services for those whose lifestyles they find counter to their own values system. And it is immoral to force them to do so, or take them to court and extort finances from them because their rejection of you “hurts your feelings.”

Such intrusiveness and aggressions go against the “Live and Let Live” philosophy of liberty that came from the Enlightenment and contributed a great deal to modern civilization. These days, I’m not really sure that most Christians believe in “Do unto others what one would want others to do unto you,” and “Don’t do unto others what one would not want others to do unto you.”

That is exactly what we have when the LGBT activists such as the lesbian couple sue those Christian cake bakers. And that is what we will have when “Civil Rights” will include a Christian school being forced by law to hire homosexual or transgenders as teachers against the will and personal values of the owners.

The social activists on the traditional Left and the moralists on the traditional Right remind me of the pre-1960s public schools forcing Jewish, atheist or otherwise non-Christian kids to participate in Christian-centered religious prayer or ceremonies, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Abington School District v. Schempp decision. Look, as a Jew, I shouldn’t be forced to participate in Christian-centered Bible reading, or be made to proclaim some belief in “Our Lord Jesus Christ” (because, if you don’t mind my saying so, I don’t happen to believe in Jesus as “The Lord” or “Our Lord”!).

So to further confuse things during the 1960s, the 1964 Civil Rights Act that outlawed segregation should not have included private property or privately owned businesses, regardless of their “accommodations” status. The Act should only have addressed the public schools, parks, City Hall, the local buses, etc. That confusion between privately owned and “publicly owned” (cringe) property has been used to give some people who belong to specially-protected classes extra “rights” to enter other people’s property or to force others to associate with them. That’s the bottom line here.

But this new group of people to be protected from “discrimination” added to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 now has to do with social lifestyles, not even gender or skin color, some social lifestyles which many people find extremely objectionable–and they have every right in the world not to associate or do business with such people.

Forced acceptance or association with those who practice certain lifestyles and behaviors, regardless of the personal beliefs and religious views of those who are being forced to associate, is just as much a violation of the right of association and voluntary contract as were the Jim Crow laws which forced private people to not associate with others regardless of their own personal preferences. In the South, white private business owners who wanted black people to patronize their businesses and were openly allowing them on the premises were being arrested and beaten up by local police goons and racist thugs.

And regarding society’s intolerance of non-Christians, the outspoken atheist activist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who was involved in the Supreme Court’s decision banning forced prayer and Bible-reading in public schools, was the target of much criticism as well as police brutality. Mrs. Murray (prior to her remarrying and adding “O’Hair”) did not believe in God or Christianity, and she believed it was her right not to have her child forced to participate in Bible reading in school. In this 1965 interview with Jerry Williams on WBBM in Chicago, Murray tells of her experiences, including her being the victim of Baltimore police breaking into her home and beating her “savagely,” as well as her 74-year-old mother. When they dragged Mrs. Murray outside her home, she said there were over 100 of her neighbors outside, some of whom she heard yell things such as “Hit her again! Kick her again! Kill her!” She said the hospital, Union Memorial, thought that her 74-year-old mother had either a “brain concussion or a fractured skull.” She said that there were “11 to 14″ police officers. And guess who was charged with “assault”? (Hmmm, why am I being reminded of Saudi Arabia at this time?) Online, most sources such as Wikipedia go with the police account of Mrs. Murray’s “allegedly assaulting five Baltimore police officers.” (The linked interview is Part 1. Hear the other parts of the interview.)

I would bet that many people cheered on the police at that time, just as William F. Buckley, Jr. cheered on the Chicago police in their brutality against the 1968 Democrat Convention protesters, as that is how a lot of people viewed “non-believers” in the old days. Police violence is how some protesters of Jim Crow laws were treated and how liberal private business owners were treated if they violated segregation laws on their own premises.

And, given how the LGBT and other social activists turn to the violence of the State to impose their own views, morals or values onto others, when traditionalist business owners continue to refuse to associate with those in certain groups because the traditionalists find such lifestyles objectionable, please do not be shocked to see the same kind of brutal police “enforcement” of the newest addition of LGBT to the Civil Rights Act against those traditionalists who engage in civil disobedience. Especially in Obama’s America.

Yes, I am aware that homosexuals have in the past been targeted for violence by criminal goons. But in Obama’s America, we may be seeing it go the other way; and activists merely suing businesspeople who refuse to serve homosexual couples might not be all that happens.

Like the intolerance against atheists (and Jews and others as well) of the Madalyn Murray O’Hair era and the intolerance toward segregation of that earlier time as well, what we have in 21st Century America is political correctness, censorship and the thought police. For the intolerant on the Left, it is no longer about “tolerance” of homosexuals or transgenders, but forced acceptance. And it’s not, “This isn’t about sex, it’s about living a life just like everyone else but just happening to be gay,” because yes it is about sex. Not just sex, but sex and freakishness. It’s about flaunting their sexuality and bringing attention to themselves. And yes, a lot of people such as those Christian cake bakers find it all objectionable; and they have a right to not have those things forced on them and their families.

And speaking of freedom of speech and association, anti-bullying laws now are attempting to outlaw speech consisting of criticism of homosexuality or of the LGBT lobby and force “diversity training” in the schools. And Laws mandating teaching alternative lifestyles in the schools. Teaching acceptance of homosexuality in kindergarten. Kids in nursery school having to sign a form promising to refrain from “transphobic language.”

And besides all the made-up “diseases” now that kids are being labeled with, such as Asperger’s, ADHD, ADD, etc., we have very young children now being encouraged to be the opposite gender if they show the slightest signs of opposite-sex characteristics. For instance, this lady named Mimi tells us in her Boston Globe op-ed that her daughter, referred to as her “son” and “he” rather than the correct “she,” is just fine with being a boy, as that is what the child has decided, and by several years ago already. A little girl who is now … only 5.

Stop the world, I’m getting off.

I hope that this lady Mimi (I assume Mimi is a lady, as “Mimi” is usually a female’s name.) doesn’t sue me for defamation or slander. But in my opinion — and I do have a right to express my opinion on this — it is terribly sad what today’s parents and the schools are doing to the kids, wrecking them emotionally and intellectually. According to CNS, Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins Hospital has pointed out that, besides the higher rates of depression and suicide of transgenders, among those who at a young age had expressed “transgender feelings,” 70-80% had shed such feelings over time. I guess Mimi is a little too impatient to let nature take its course. Oh, well.

And now there are bathroom bills or laws in which the ladies will have to deal with males going into the ladies room. You see, for the one transgender going into the wrong rest room, it doesn’t matter to him how he is making the ladies in there feel (like, really uncomfortable, self-conscious, violated — ya think?). No, what matters to the narcissistic restroom intruders is what they feel.

In fact, it’s all about emotion and not tolerance or reason. For example, the lesbian couple who sued the Christian cake bakers felt offended by the bakers rejecting their patronage. Even though they easily found another baker to serve them, their feelings being hurt was what mattered to them here, and they wanted to punish the Christian bakers for hurting their feelings. And that’s it. The hurt feelings industry is what “anti-bullying” is all about now. Perhaps all the people who criticized Madalyn Murray O’Hair for her fight for freedom of thought also felt their feelings were hurt by someone who merely didn’t believe in religion as they did.

I really wish I could get those “Marriage is defined as one man and one woman, and that’s it!” robots to see how their wanting to use the power of the State to interfere with others’ right to freedom of contract and pursuit of happiness is the same thing as these activists and lobbyist groups using the governmental powers and “Civil Rights” to impose their own personal views onto others. I probably will not convince most, however.

But to conclude, adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected groups covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will secure for the hurt feelings industry and the homosexuality promoters a new government-police-enforced power to shut people up, those who object to perverse lifestyles and don’t want to associate with people who practice them. And it will stifle critics of the phony transgender cult. The activists are really getting to the masses via media and the government schools, with political correctness, censoring those who question the absurd, and stifling the non-compliant traditionalists.

This article originally appeared on Scott’s blog

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.