The Hypocrisy of Liberalism

Liberalism (also called humanism) is a philosophy of hyporcisy.

The reason any conservative's failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites.

At least Rush wasn't walking into church carrying a 10-pound Bible before rushing back to the Oval Office for sodomy with Monica Lewinsky. He wasn't enforcing absurd sexual harassment guidelines while dropping his pants in front of a half-dozen subordinates. (Evidently, Clinton wasn't a hypocrite because no one was supposed to take seriously the notion that he respected women or believed in God.) --- Ann Coulter (source...)

Ann is right! The following is a weblog of news quotes which are examples of liberal hypocrisy.

May 23, 2006; For Democrats, a Scandal of Their Own; By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, May 22 — Democrats' plans to make Republican corruption a theme of their election strategy this year have been complicated by accusations of wrongdoing in their own ranks, leading the party to try on Monday to blunt the political effects of the unfolding case against Representative William J. Jefferson.

Democratic leaders sought to distance the party from Mr. Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat who has been accused by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes. In doing that, the leaders tried to draw a distinction between the accusations against him and what they said was a much broader pattern among Republicans of trading legislative influence for campaign donations, trips and other perks. (source...)

[The iron kettles calling the stainless steel pots black.]


May 22, 2006 -- Jim McGreevey shockingly admits that before he became governor of New Jersey, he'd have anonymous gay sex at Garden State highway rest stops. "All I knew was that my behavior was getting crazier and crazier," McGreevey says of his torrid truck-stop trysts in an upcoming book that details his tortured life of lies and sexual repression.


And he describes in the book his fruitless attempts to conquer or hide his homosexuality by ogling Playboy centerfolds, frequenting strip clubs and becoming "as avid a womanizer as anybody else on the New Jersey political scene." (source...)

[For crying out loud, you don't cure a sex addition by ogling Playboy centerfolds, frequenting strip clubs and becoming a womanizer! That is crazy. The cure for any sin is to admit it is wrong and to quit cold-turkey. The Post doesn't mention that McGreevey is a Democrat, so I will. McGreevey is a Democrat.]

The Boldness of the President; Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Jul 23, 2004; Section:Editorial & Opinion; Page:10

Reading the report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, we couldn’t help thinking of Justice Scalia’s great dissent in Morrison v. Olson. It’s the case in which the Supreme Court upheld the idea of an independent prosecutor. Justice Scalia warned of the danger that unleashing an uncontrollable prosecutor against a president could shake his courage. “Perhaps the boldness of the President himself will not be affected — though I am not so sure,” he warned.

Well, look now to what the 9/11 report has to say about the man to whom President Clinton, under attack by an independent counsel,delegated so much in respect of national security, Samuel “Sandy” Berger. The report cites a 1998 meeting between Mr. Berger and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, at which Mr. Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden.

“In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted,” the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, Central Intelligence Agency memo summarizing the weekly meeting between Messrs. Berger and Tenet.

In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s “handwritten notes on the meeting paper” referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.”According to the Berger notes, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”

On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”

In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ ”

In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.

It really doesn’t matter now what was in the documents from the National Archives that Mr. Berger says he inadvertently misplaced. The evidence in the commission’s report yesterday is more than enough to embarrass him thoroughly.He is a hardworking, warm man with a wonderful family, but his background as a trade lawyer and his dovish, legalistic and political instincts made him, in retrospect,the tragically wrong man to be making national security decisions for America in wartime.That Senator Kerry had Mr. Berger as a campaign foreign policy adviser even before the archives scandal is enough to raise doubts about the senator’s judgment. (source...)

[It is the hypocrisy of the Democrates that is so disgusting---them talking like Sept. 11 is the fault of the Bush administration, when in fact they themselves are at fault for not taking multiple opportunities to prevent it.]

Sandy Berger Probed Over Terror Memos; Tuesday, July 20, 2004

WASHINGTON — Former President Clinton's national security adviser is under criminal investigation for taking highly classified terrorism documents that should have been turned over to the independent commission probing the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, FOX News has confirmed.

Sandy Berger (search) is under scrutiny by the Justice Department (search) following the disappearance of documents he was reviewing at the National Archives.

Berger's home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI (search) agents armed with warrants after the former Clinton adviser voluntarily returned some sensitive documents to the National Archives (search) and admitted he also removed handwritten notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents.

However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers said. Officials said the missing documents also identified America's terror vulnerabilities at airports to seaports.

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio. (source...)

[Berger knowingly, inadvertently put them in his socks! And these are the people accusing President Bush of coverup. What hypocrites! But this is worse than hypocrisy. Read this:

Hastert Statement on Berger Allegations

7/20/2004 12:54:00 PM To: National Desk

Contact: John Feehery or Pete Jeffries, 202-225-2800, both of the Office of House Speaker Dennis Hastert

WASHINGTON, July 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) released the following statement regarding allegations that former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger removed highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from a secure reading room during preparations for the 9/11 Commission hearings:

"I am profoundly troubled by allegations that former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger removed highly classified documents from the National Archives regarding the Clinton Administration's handling of terrorist attacks prior to the September 11th attacks.

"What could those documents have said that drove Mr. Berger to remove them without authorization from a secure reading room for classified documents?

"What information could be so embarrassing that a man with decades of experience in handling classified documents would risk being caught pilfering our nation's most sensitive secrets?

"Did these documents detail simple negligence or did they contain something more sinister? Was this a bungled attempt to rewrite history and keep critical information from the 9/11 Commission and potentially put their report under a cloud?

"It is my understanding that Mr. Berger shoved this classified information into his clothing to smuggle them out of the National Archives. Press reports indicate that Archival staff became concerned when documents began to disappear and specifically marked additional documents to track them. A number of those documents also turned up missing.

"Mr. Berger has a lot of explaining to do. He was given access to these documents to assist the 9/11 Commission, not hide information from them. The American people and the 9/11 families don't want cover-ups when it comes to the War on Terror. They want the truth. And so does the U.S. House of Representatives." ]

San Francisco rolls out the red carpet for the Clintons; by BETH FOUHY, AP Political Writer; Monday, June 28, 2004; (06-28) 19:03 PDT SAN FRANCISCO (AP)

The leftiest big city on the Left Coast was Clinton country on Monday, with former President Clinton continuing his blockbuster book tour and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton headlining a Democratic fund-raiser where she vowed to defeat the Republicans' "extraordinarily ruthless machine."

Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

[What hyprocracy! One of the first things the Republicans had to do after regaining control of he House and Senate was to recend all the exceptions to the law that Democrats had passed. In other words, the Democrats had worded hundreds of laws so that the laws applied to everyone except to the people making those laws. They had made themselves above the law. Of course this was done "for the common good."]

Published on Friday, June 25, 2004; Clinton's 'Life' Tinted Crimson; Former president’s autobiography attacks gov prof, praises Summers; By TIMOTHY J. MCGINN, Crimson Staff Writer

“We never had any conversation as he has described in his book,” Porter said last night. “You don’t remember every conversation in life, but I would certainly remember a conversation like that.”


“Why he feels the need to just make stuff up escapes me,” he added. (source...)

[Clinton lies because he is a man of strong liberal convictions. He believe it is right to lie, and so he lies every chance he gets.]

Jonathan Pollard Challenges Bill Clinton; 14:12 Jun 25, '04 / 6 Tammuz 5764

The commonly accepted version of events is that Clinton promised then-Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, during the Wye talks of late 1998, to release Pollard as part of an overall Israeli-Palestinian Authority agreement. Several Israeli participants at the talks confirm that the promise to release Pollard was indeed made, but Clinton, in his newly released autobiography, wrote that he never promised such a release. According to Clinton's latest version, he only said that he would consider it, but would have to "check with my people" first. When he did, Clinton wrote, his CIA director, George Tenet, threatened to resign over the matter.

Minister Natan Sharansky, who was present at Wye, told Arutz-7 this week that there was no question about it: "Clinton promised him - I was there when he promised."

Another participant in the talks, a top aide to Netanyahu named Uri Elitzur, recently gave Arutz-7's Yosef Meiri an eyewitness report: "Netanyahu told me afterwards that Clinton had told him that Tenet had threatened to resign. Tenet and [then-Secretary of State] Albright were sitting in the room while Clinton was talking to Netanyahu, though they could not hear the conversation. But it was clear to me that they were watching Clinton and knew the gist of what he was saying. Whether Tenet actually threatened to quit or not, I have no idea - but I do know that Clinton was a bare-faced liar, just as the entire American public later found out with the Lewinsky fiasco."

Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice-Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, has provided further proof that Clinton might not have been speaking the truth regarding Tenet. Hoenlein told a JTA interviewer that he received a phone call from Tenet immediately after the Wye Summit, in which Tenet denied that he had ever threatened to resign if Jonathan Pollard were freed.

The Justice for Jonathan Pollard Organization also says that the Tenet threat is a "ridiculous excuse." The organization says that this scenario's "implausibility was vividly demonstrated a few months later when Clinton freed FALN terrorists over Tenet's vehement objections and actual threat to resign." (source...)

[If the liberals in the press were not such hypocrites they would be pointing out these lies.]

'Destroyed' Lewinsky Speaks Out on Clinton Memoir; Jun 25, 7:50 AM (ET); By Jeffrey Goldfarb, European Media Correspondent

LONDON (Reuters) - Monica Lewinsky says she feels betrayed by Bill Clinton's failure to acknowledge how he destroyed her life in his newly released memoirs.

In an interview with British broadcaster ITV to be shown on Friday, the former White House intern best known for her affair with the 42nd U.S. president says she was disappointed at how their relationship is addressed.

"I really didn't expect him to talk in detail about the relationship," she said, according to a partial transcript of the interview provided by ITV.

"But what I was hoping, and did expect was for him to acknowledge and correct the inaccurate and false statements that he, his staff and the (Democratic National Committee) made about me when they were trying to protect the presidency," she said.

....Lewinsky, ... said she reluctantly spoke out about Clinton's tome "My Life" because he tried to rewrite history.

"He says he was proud of the way that he defended the presidency, at my expense," she said.

"In the process he destroyed me, and that was the way he was going to have to do that, to get through impeachment," Lewinsky added. "I was a young girl and to hear him saying some of the things he was saying today -- it's a shame."

Lewinsky insists during the ITV interview that she had a relationship with Clinton even though he never uses the word in the book, instead opting for "inappropriate encounter" on page 773 of the 957-page autobiography.

"This is something that I never wanted to talk about publicly and I know he wished had never become public. But this was a mutual relationship, from the way it started all the way through," Lewinsky said.

Her affair with Clinton while he was in office and his subsequent denials of it led to his impeachment in December 1998 after a lengthy and expensive investigation by independent counsel Ken Starr. (source...)

[Liberals liked Clinton, not because he was a good president, but because he was a super liar. He could promote the liberal lie and actually make it sound true. He could even tell what people knew was a lie, and make them want to believe it. If liberals had not in their fierce hypocracy defended Clinton, he would have been removed from the presidency.]

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam; By Rowan Scarborough; THE WASHINGTON TIMES; June 25, 2004

The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.

The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.

Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts.

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998 [under the Clinton Administration], charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa....The 1998 indictment said: " Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.

To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.

Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission...."bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."

He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, " 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?" (source...)

[The liberal Democrates defended Clinton at the time, but now bash Bush for coming to the same conclusions. That is hypocracy.]


Washington, DC-- In a major Washington policy address this Thursday, former Vice President Al Gore will accuse the Bush Administration of intentionally misleading the American people by continuing to falsely claim a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

He will charge that Bush and Cheney have "institutionalized dishonesty as an essential element of their policy process." (source...)

[Hey, Al. Did you really invent the internet?]

Netanyahu Denies Statements in Clinton’s Book; 22:02 Jun 22, '04 / 3 Tammuz 5764

( Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu denies reports appearing in former US President Bill Clinton’s autobiography concerning his tenure as prime minister. Netanyahu stated that contrary to Clinton’s statements, he never agreed to give away the Golan Heights in exchange for a defense agreement with America, adding Clinton or members of his administration were never involved in Israel’s secret talks with Syrian President el-Assad. (source...)

[Another of Clinton's liberal lies exposed. The man just simply cannot tell the truth--it is against his principles.]

Clinton Book Weighs Failures and Successes; Memoir Contradicts Testimony on Lewinsky; By John F. Harris and Linton Weeks; Washington Post Staff Writers; Tuesday, June 22, 2004; Page A04

Clinton's own legal battle with independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr accounts for one of the book's more peculiar revelations. In his August 1998 grand jury testimony, Clinton said he began an inappropriate sexual relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky in "early 1996." His testimony, as was widely noted at the time, was in conflict with Lewinsky's story: She testified the relationship began on Nov. 15, 1995, in the midst of a government shutdown.

Starr's prosecutors, in their report to Congress, accused Clinton of lying about the date of their relationship in order to avoid admitting that he had sexual relations with an intern, as Lewinsky still was in the fall of 1995 before being hired for a paying job in the winter.

Without explanation, in his memoir Clinton departs from his grand jury testimony and corroborates her version: "During the government shutdown in late 1995, when very few people were allowed to come to work in the White House, and those who were there were working late, I'd had an inappropriate encounter with Monica Lewinsky and would do so again on other occasions between November and April, when she left the White House for the Pentagon."

Clinton aides yesterday said they could not explain the discrepancy, and his attorney, David Kendall, was traveling and did not return a call. (source...)

[This is the champion of the liberals who are always accusing conservatives of lying.]

Times admits flawed pre-war coverage; Reporters over-relied on Iraqi exiles' claims; By David Folkenflik; Sun Staff; Originally published May 27, 2004

The New York Times yesterday acknowledged that serious flaws marred its reporting before the invasion of Iraq last year, saying the newspaper "fell for misinformation" from a now-discredited circle of Iraqi exiles seeking the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

A note to readers, written by Executive Editor Bill Keller and Managing Editor Jill Abramson, stated that The Times reported that Hussein had intensified his efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction without adequately signaling the deep reservations of some experts. It said The Times also failed to try to verify claims of an Iraqi defector or check his veracity before printing accounts of his charges about links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaida terrorist organization.

"Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper," the note stated.

"Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted," it continued. "Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all." (source...)

[This liberal newspaper has been bashing President Bush for lying about weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq. But they, themselves, thought such weapons were there, and so reported in their paper. Are we to forgive them, but not President Bush? By the way, they are only admitting to this because it was pointed out publicly by other newspapers. What hypocrites!]

Press can't let abuse story go; By Jennifer Harper; THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Tim Graham of the Media Research Center (MRC) noted yesterday that the "gay marriage story" overtook the prisoner abuse story in the press, but only for a day.

"This abuse story is just not going away. It's still the first topic on most network news," Mr. Graham said. "And there's strong focus on the court-martials, on the bad apples — it's as if those troops represent the military at large, as far as the media is concerned. That is very discouraging."

The center has been following "the bias problem" among broadcasters who use the abuse story to build a case against the war in Iraq and the Bush administration. As a sample, the group tracked abuse stories from April 29 through May 11 on NBC and found that the network aired 58 stories on the abuse in that period.

The MRC also found, however, that in the past year, NBC had aired only five stories on mass graves found in Iraq from the Saddam Hussein era. (source...)

May 15, 2004; Ni~ck Be~rg Video

The result of this debate [over whither or not the news media should show the Nick Berg beheading videa unedited] is that the press does not show the brutal murder of Berg just as they did not show people jumping from the twin towers to sure death as they sought to escape the flames. Yet we are shown fuzzy pictures of naked Iraqis in a pile or a woman holding onto one with a leash. Thus we are outraged at the actions of a few and the Democrats ratchet up the rhetoric, while ignoring the brutal murder of a pregnant woman and her four children. (source...)

[And if Americans would be shown the horrors of the millions of babies that are aborted---slaughtered in unspeakable agony---at the hands of wicked liberal thinking doctors there would not be a liberal politician left in office after the next election.]

Kerry camp asks Rumsfeld to quit; By Charles Hurt; THE WASHINGTON TIMES

As Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld answered questions yesterday about abuse in an Iraqi prison run by the U.S. military, John Kerry's presidential campaign sent out a mass e-mail calling for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation and asking for donations.

"Keep the ball rolling," wrote campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill. "Donate now!"

"Over the past week we have all been shocked by the pictures from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq," wrote Ms. Cahill. "John Kerry has called on Donald Rumsfeld to resign, and today we're asking you to support him by adding your name to the call for Rumsfeld to resign."

In addition to allowing recipients to sign a petition demanding that Mr. Rumsfeld resign, the e-mail also permitted recipients to donate cash online.

Asked if the campaign was concerned about linking fund raising to the prisoner-abuse scandal, spokesman Chad Clanton initially said there was no mention of raising money in the e-mail.

After he was sent a copy of the e-mail with the fund-raising pitch, Mr. Clanton replied: "John Kerry has made it clear that our men and women in uniform deserve a Commander in Chief that takes responsibility for the bad as well as the good. The bottom line is: We need more than just a new Secretary of Defense. We need a new president." (source...)

[The Democrats are hypocrites in this matter. They are the ones that allowed homosexuals into the military---such behavior is therefore to be expected. They are the ones that believe that sexual perversion is not wrong, and that are even teaching it in the public school system. These soldiers are just living the liberal philosopy that was taught to them by their liberal democrate teachers. Why then do these liberal Democrates complain? If they were not hypocrites they would be defending their lifestyle.

Bill Clinton, king of liberals, is the sex pervert of sex perverts. Remember Monica? Even Clinton's cigars were used for sex perversion---cigars he smoked while leading a campain against smoking! What a hypocrite. Yet his sex capades were downplayed by the liberal news media, while Donald Rumfield is being asked to resign for what was done by soldiers acting like Bill Clinton! Soldiers Rumfield never met.

And have we all forgotten that just a few weeks ago Kerry was in the news accused of having numerous sexual partners during the period between his marriages? Have we forgotten about Ted Kennedy driving into the river and drowning a young lady he had been committing adultery with? Have we forgotten pro-sodomy Hillary?

And did you notice that Kerry's spokesman lied about linking fund raising to the prisoner-abuse scandal? These are the liars acusing our president of lying.

Liberals believe that there are no absolutes---that nothing is absolutely wrong. According to their own logic then, what these soldiers did was not absolutely wrong. Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that what these soldiers did was ok, but am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democratic party. The liberal (humanist) philosophy of the Democratic party is based on atheism. Let no true Christian forget that.

Note that Rumfield is not defending the sins of the soldiers. Remember that Clinton did defend his own sins, and the liberal news media defended his evil lifestyle also, saying that his private life was no one else's business. Yet he disgraced our nation---far more than these lowly soldiers have.

Folks, America has two dangerous enemies: Islam and Liberalism. And these two enemies have joined hands to do this country in. Believe their lies at your own peril.]

Louis A. Turk, B.A., M.Div., Ph.D.


The website dedicated to the study of eternal life.