Category Archives: Republican Party

Oklahoma City in America’s spiritual war: 10 Commandments monument smashed into pieces

eye-of-the-storm

There is a ferocious spiritual war in America, and Oklahoma City seems to be at the center, targeted by malevolent people and forces.

In 2009 when Republicans were in control, the state legislature gave the green light for a Ten Commandments statue, paid for with private funds, to be placed outside the state capitol building in Oklahoma City.

Three years later, in November 2012, a 6-feet tall granite monument of the Ten Commandments was erected.

10 commandments monument outside Oklahoma state Capitol

Almost immediately, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) leveled a lawsuit to remove the monument, claiming that it violated the state constitution’s ban against using public property to support church or religion.

The ACLU’s lawsuit was followed by the New York-based Satanic Temple declaring their intention to build a 7 ft. tall statue of their master next to the Ten Commandments — all in the name of “religious parity.”

Then, on September 21, 2014, a local satanist group conducted a blasphemous “Black Mass” right smack in the Oklahoma City Civic Center.

Alton Nolen

Alton Nolen

Three days after the satanic Black Mass, on September 24, 2014, a recent convert to Islam, 30-year-old Alton Nolen, walked into a Vaughan Foods administrative office in Moore, a suburb of Oklahoma City, and attacked two female employees with a knife. Nolen beheaded Colleen Hufford, 54, and repeatedly stabbed Traci Johnson, 43, who survived the attack. (See “Of course he did: Obama Official Praises Mosque Of Oklahoma Beheader Alton Nolen”)

Mark Vaughan, the company’s chief operating officer, who is also a reserve sheriff’s deputy, shot Nolen, stopping the attack. Nolen was charged with first-degree murder and assault and battery with a deadly weapon, and may also face federal charges as well.

Writing for CNN, Mel Robbins is incredulous that the FBI refuses to call Nolen’s attack and beheading a terrorist attack:

It was a terrorist attack, and everyone knows it. Why won’t the government say so? The Washington Post reports that the FBI found ‘no indication that Alton Alexander Nolen was copying the beheadings of journalists in Syria by the Islamic State … adding that they are treating this as an incident of workplace violence.’

Workplace violence? You can’t be serious! Oh wait — the FBI must mean “workplace violence” as in the case of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the terrorist convicted in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting that killed 13 people and left many more wounded.

On September 19, 2014, the ACLU’s lawsuit to remove the Ten Commandments monument was thrown out by an Oklahoma County judge.

So satanists took matters into their own talons.

Zak Patterson reports for Oklahoma City’s KOCO that at approximately 9 p.m. on Oct. 23, 2014, a man drove his car into the Ten Commandments monument and smashed it into pieces.

The suspect told the Secret Service, upon his arrest, that Satan had told him to do it. He admitted that he had urinated on the monument before running it over.

The suspect reportedly also made vague threats at the Oklahoma City Federal Building and said he would kill President Obama and spit on a photo of Obama. The man was taken into custody. The vehicle involved was abandoned and has since been impounded.

The cleanup is underway and parts of the Ten Commandments monument will be restored.

The ACLU of Oklahoma made this statement following the incident:

“The ACLU of Oklahoma and our clients are outraged at this apparent act of vandalism. While we have and continue to seek the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the Capitol grounds through the judicial process, the Ten Commandments constitute a strong foundation in our clients’ deeply held religious beliefs. To see the Ten Commandments desecrated by vandals is highly offensive to them as people of faith. Our Oklahoma and Federal Constitutions seek to create a society in which people of all faiths and those of no faith at all can coexist as equals without fear of repressions from the government or their neighbors. Whether it is politicians using religion as a political tool or vandals desecrating religious symbols, neither are living up to the full promise of our founding documents.”

An official with the US Attorney’s Office said if enough evidence is found against the suspect regarding his alleged threats against the president then a report will be submitted to the US Attorney’s Office.

Anyone with information about the incident is asked to call OHP at 405-425-7709.

Michael Reed Jr.

Michael Reed Jr.

The police have since identified the man as Michael Tate Reed Jr., 29. He is from Roland and was taken to Oklahoma County mental facility for an emergency order of detention and a mental evaluation.

Reed’s mother, Crystal Tucker, said her son “would never deface something that meant so much to him. He takes the Ten Commandments very seriously.” Tucker said Reed has been battling breakdowns for two years ever since he was injured at work four years ago. (See “Psychiatric nurse says half of patients have a spiritual affliction”)

Tucker said when her son “has these breakdowns, the one thing that is foremost in his mind, his religion, is the thing he takes it out on.” But Reed does not worship Satan, the mother said. “Anyone who knows Michael, knows he loves his God. Right now, everyone is praying for him.”

Well, mom. I suggest you ask your son who “his God” is.

See also:

~Eowyn

U.S. bishops betrayed the unborn, fearing Catholics would leave Democrat Party

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.”
-2 Corinthians 11:13-15

Mark Gallagher had worked with the Government Liaison Office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference in Washington from 1974 to 2007. He was mainly responsible for lobbying Congress on abortion and programs for the poor.

In a stunning article for Crisis Magazine, Oct. 22, 2014, Gallagher gives a first-person account that after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade ruling opening the floodgates to the killing of unborn human beings by legalizing abortion in the name of women’s “right to privacy,” Catholic bishops — putting “social justice” before the right to life — made a collective decision not to aggressively warn and inform the laity because they feared doing so would drive American Catholics away from the Democratic Party into the GOP.

Our Lord Jesus the Christ had warned: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:15-16)

These bishops have nothing less than the blood of innocents on their hands. They will be called to account for their grave sins before God.

Here is Gallagher’s article in its entirety.

JesusHoldingBabyClose

The Bishops’ Fateful Decision Respecting the Unborn

Mark Gallagher – Crisis Magazine – Oct. 22, 2014

In 1973 the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion. It was projected that the decision would not just replace illegal abortions with legal ones, but that the total number of abortions would dramatically increase (it turned out by approximately a million a year). It was clear that there were only two remedies: the Supreme Court reversing it; or a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress and ratified by the states to overturn it. This required the election of presidents who would nominate Supreme Court justices not interested in creating constitutional rights to legal abortion, and the election of pro-life members of Congress to confirm the justices, and to propose a constitutional amendment. Elections were the key. How were the bishops to proceed?

The bishops’ conference staff provided two conflicting recommendations. As their pro-life lobbyist, I recommended that the bishops conduct a major campaign to educate and correctly form the consciences of American Catholics to their responsibility to elect candidates who support the Common Good, which is protecting the human life and respecting the human dignity of every person created by God (including the unborn). And those candidates who refused to support the Common Good would be morally unacceptable for public office. The laity’s responsibility included being involved in their political party so that Common Good candidates would be recruited and nominated for office.

The Social Development and World Peace staff at the bishops’ conference disagreed with this approach. They dealt with the economy, poverty, food policy, housing, human rights, military expenditures, and U.S. foreign policy, and felt their goals and prudential judgments were more reflected by the Democrats in Congress. I was told sometime later of their concern that Roe v. Wade would cause Catholics to seek the protection of the unborn by voting for Republicans (most were pro-life [90+ percent]) instead of Democrats (about 2/3rds were pro-abortion then [94 percent now]). This shift in the Catholic vote would necessarily hurt their legislative agenda. So a campaign should be undertaken to convince Catholics that there was justification to vote for pro-abortion candidates. Their view prevailed and they pursued with the relevant bishops’ committees the first-ever Catholic voters guide published in 1976, called the “Political Responsibility Statement” (now called Faithful Citizenship). It would be the primary tool to achieve their objective. The document:

(1) Did not call upon Catholics to vote against a candidate who opposed the Common Good by supporting abortion. It cited no intrinsic evil that if supported would render a legislator morally unacceptable for office. And It did not include relevant Catholic moral theology: (a) that the constant teaching of the Church is that there are “certain choices that are always intrinsically evil” (i.e. abortion: … if one could eliminate all poverty in America at the cost of permitting the killing of one innocent person, that cost was too high and morally wrong); and (b) the applicability of proportionalism. According to one authoritative source, it holds that “the moral quality of an action is determined by whether the evils brought about by proposed action are proportionate to the goods the action effects. If the goods effected by the action are not in proportion to the evils caused, then the action is evil, but if they are, then the action is morally good.” First, there are no proportionate goods achieved by the killing of a million unborn each year. Second, voting American Catholics are not faced with any moral evils equivalent to abortion that might warrant voting for a pro-abortion candidate. Voters have never been faced with the dilemma of choosing between a pro-abortion candidate and, for example, a rival candidate that would permit the killing annually of a million citizens through starvation or freezing. Or, by way of another example, Catholic voters do not have to choose between a pro-abortion candidate and a candidate advocating an unjust war that would involve a first-strike nuclear attack on millions of innocent persons. Voting for pro-abortion candidates in America has never been, and still cannot, be justified under the principle of proportionality.

(2) Listed everything they hoped a legislator would support (at least a dozen). This marginalized protecting human life by making it just one of many important issues. The candidate who supported abortion could say (and routinely did), that they supported 90-95 percent of the bishops legislative agenda.

(3) The current voter guide explicitly permits Catholics to vote for candidates who support intrinsic moral evils. It says, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil” like abortion, “if the voter’s intent is to support that position.” But what if a voter supports a pro-abortion candidate for some other reason? “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.” The moral reasons must be “truly grave,” yet as I have argued, there are no grave moral reasons that trump protecting the unborn. Also would it really be far fetched to imagine that a Catholic voter, following the guide’s exception, might support a pro-abortion candidate because, for example, his position on “climate change” echoes that of the bishops who have said that saving the planet by reducing carbon emissions was a moral obligation?

In addition to this voters’ guide, the national Social Development and World Peace staff, as well as their diocesan counterparts, informed Catholics that there was justification to vote for pro-abortion candidates. This education campaign included workshops to persuade the laity that it was better to use their vote to achieve a good (helping the poor) rather than to oppose an evil (abortion).

A final step that helped pro-abortion Catholic candidates was the bishops giving them, or permitting them to receive, Communion. Many laity concluded that these legislators’ votes for abortion were morally acceptable, and that Catholics could vote for them in good conscience. Regular reception of Communion in the Catholic Church conveys that the person is a practicing Catholic, in the state of grace, in good standing, in communion with the Church.

All of these actions decreased the number of churchgoing Catholics voting pro-life, and this prevented (and still prevents) achieving sufficient votes to legally protect the unborn.

From a political science perspective the division of the Catholic vote (those voting for pro-life candidates and those voting for pro-abortion candidates) has severely limited if not completely neutralized the effect of the Catholic vote for good. If a significant majority of Catholics were united in only supporting Common Good candidates, as the Jewish community is largely united in only supporting candidates who support the State of Israel, then Catholics would legislatively achieve protection for the unborn and many other goals. When a group can decide the outcome of elections on one issue, then it will command serious consideration of whatever it pursues. The divided Catholic vote has prevented this.

The bishops have continued on their failed course for forty years, with fateful, disastrous results. If the bishops would change course, the legal killing, now at 56 million, could be stopped. The bishops need to teach that: (a) Legislators have the compelling moral responsibility to pursue the Common Good, protecting the human life and respecting the human dignity of every person created by God, born and unborn. And those who do not, are morally unfit for office; (b) “Catholic” legislators who support abortion are not in communion with the Church and they will not be given Communion until they are; and (c) Catholic citizens cannot in good conscience elect legislators who support the killing of the unborn (for there are no proportionate reasons to justify it).

H/t California Catholic Daily

~Eowyn

Russia begins large-scale militarization of the Arctic

Dr. Eowyn:

While Russia is systematically preparing and positioning itself in the Arctic region by militarizing, the Obama administration has done nothing to implement U.S. National Strategy on the Arctic.

Surprise! Not.

At a House hearing on “Implementing U.S. Policy in the Arctic” in July 2014, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Chair of the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, said “The National Strategy calls for a strong U.S presence in the Arctic, but the Implementation Plan that accompanies it fails to identify what specific infrastructure or capabilities are required to meet those goals, or how or when they will be funded.”

Originally posted on Consortium of Defense Analysts:

A new frontier is becoming a center of great power rivalry.

It is the Arctic, believed to have vast untapped natural resources and increasingly is at the center of disputes between the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark in recent years, as rising temperatures lead to a reduction in sea ice, opening up access to lucrative offshore oil and gas deposits.

ArcticResourceBasinArctic Resource Basin

Ed Adamczyk reports for UPI, Oct. 21, 2014, that Russia has begun a large-scale militarization of the Arctic Ocean region, after recent discoveries of oil and natural gas reserves under the ocean floor, as well as the possibility that a potential Northern Sea Route — an alternative to the Suez Canal — could soon be established as global climate change causes melting of Arctic ice.

The Russian news agency RIA reports that Russia is planning to build a military command structure in…

View original 762 more words

2014 election fraud has already begun in Chicago

India voter ID

And we call India a third world country?

Shame on America’s Demonrats!

But then how else can the Demonrats carry out vote fraud?

Speaking of vote fraud, the Great 2014 Vote Fraud has already begun.

In Illinois, early voting began on Monday, Oct. 19, 2014. So Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan went to vote at Chicago’s Schaumburg Public Library using a touch-screen voting machine. Every time he tried to vote for a Republican, including for himself, the machine registered his vote as for a Democrat. (Read more here.)

In the great DisUnited Corrupt States of Amerika, you’ll vote Democrat, even if you’re not.

And what will the Republican Party do about this?

Nothing! (See “Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud“)

H/t Rebel Mouse

~Eowyn

A revolution in politics is coming

Technology drives social and political change.

Just as newspapers and magazines are going out of business because of the Internet, and brick-and-mortar store sales increasingly are eclipsed by online shops, the day will soon come when how Americans do politics will also be up-ended.

That’s what long-time journalist Ron Fournier predicts in “The Era of Political Disruption,” in National Journal, Oct. 21, 2014. Below is his article:

From time to time in this column, I predict that the United States is entering an era of great political disruption, a bottom-up revolution on the scale of what upended the music, television, movie, media, and retail industries. Fueled by the radical connectivity of the Internet, abrupt new actors in those fields dismantled the status quo, shifted power downward, and created an explosion of options for consumers.

Consider what just one change wrought. You can now choose any musician’s song from any album, download it instantly and from virtually anywhere on earth for less than the price of a candy bar, and store it on a device with thousands of other tracks from just as many different singers. That’s power.

I ask you, how long until Americans recognized they’re no less equipped to disrupt politics and government? How soon before we stop settling for an inferior product in Washington and at statehouses? When do we demand more and better from the Democratic and Republican parties—or create new political organizations that usurp the old?

I don’t know the answers. I do believe it’s a matter of when, not if. Because, while we may be a presidential cycle or two away from the Great Disruption, you can already spot green shoots of populism emerging from an otherwise bleak midterm landscape.

Unsatisfied consumers: Disruption thrives when the status quo is not serving the needs of a changing public. Netflix, Amazon, and Buzzfeed wouldn’t exist if people had been satisfied with the way the entertainment, retail, and media industries were operating. The same American public that forced change on those industries is equally, if not more, annoyed with the political system.

A majority of Americans hold a negative view of the GOP, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal survey. The Democratic Party’s image is underwater, meaning that more people disapprove than approve of the party. The percentage of Americans identifying themselves as independents is rising steadily, from 31 percent in 2004 to 44 percent in September, according to a Gallup study cited by Democratic consultant Doug Sosnik.

“Americans’ long-brewing discontent shows clear signs of reaching a boiling point,” Sosnik wrote a year ago. “And when it happens, the country will judge its politicians through a new filter—one that asks, ‘Which side of the barricade are you on?’ “

While many independents will vote Democratic or Republican, they’re doing so out of a lack of choice. Last year, NBC/Esquire commissioned a nonpartisan analysis of the electorate and determined that a full majority, 51 percent, make up a “New American Center,” voters whose attitudes and ideologies leave them without a natural home inside either the GOP or the Democratic Party. These voters share common values that run counter to the polarized, zero-sum ways of the two major parties.

Exacerbating this disconnect between the parties and the people is the public’s sour mood. Huge majorities of Americans say the country is on the wrong track. They see a grim future for themselves, their children, and their country. They believe their political leaders are selfish, greedy, and short-sighted—unable and/or unwilling to shield most people from wrenching economic and social change.

Ambitious disruptors: A handful of politicians are looking over the horizon and offering themselves as an alternative to the GOP and the Democratic Party. Independent candidate Greg Orman threatens to unseat GOP Sen. Pat Roberts in heavily Republican Kansas. Republican-turned-independent Larry Pressler has put the South Dakota race into play. A libertarian pizza delivery man may gobble up enough voters to determine the Senate race in North Carolina. In Alaska, Democrats are backing an independent Republican for governor.

In governor’s races, nearly a dozen incumbents are in various levels of danger; their challengers seizing the mantle of change.

Still, this year’s elections won’t result in a wave of newly elected independents, nor will a record number of incumbents lose their jobs. The Old Guard will conclude that the status quo is safe. But the Old Guard is a ship of fools, living on borrowed time. They remind me of smug newspaper publishers, music moguls, and bookstore-chain operators who were abruptly disrupted out of business.

“Look beneath the surface, and you’ll see this is more of an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment year than people realize,” said Joe Trippi, who helped bring modern technology to the political system while running a 2004 Democratic presidential campaign for Howard Dean. “Change is coming. Big change.”

Young disruptors: The ranks of the congressional candidates include a dozen or so millennials, people who came of age after 9/11. They include Elise Stefanik, 30, a Republican who helped me research a 2006 book about leadership when she was a Harvard undergraduate. Nick Troiano, 25, is running as an independent in Pennsylvania. “If I win, it will send a signal to Washington that you’d better watch out, that there’s a huge generation of millennials poised to disrupt politics as usual,” Troiano told me in April.

Even if the Old Guard defeats Stefanik, Troiano, and every other young candidate in November, they can’t stop the changes millennials would make to the system. This generation of Americans is relatively civic-minded, pragmatic, tolerant, diverse, and less interested in ideology than results. The only thing that can stop millennials from disrupting the system is the generation itself; young Americans are deeply disillusioned with politics and government, and their inclination to solve problems outside of traditional institutions could create a severe brain drain in Washington.

Conventional wisdom argues against even the remote possibility of an independent presidential bid; against the dismantling of old party structures and the creation of new ones; and against any structural reform to government. I get it. There are thousands of reasons why you might place your bets on the status quo.

I’ll put my money on the people. Trippi is right. Change is coming.

~End of Fournier article

the-powers-that-be-copy

The question, of course, is how this political revolution will come about. We haven’t yet figured out the way.

I propose that we begin by each of us going independent, i.e., registering as Independents unaffiliated with either of the two main parties. I did that 10 years ago.

For conservatives, the Democrats are demon rats. Voting for any Democrat is completely out of the question.

But if you think the Republican Party is the answer, think again. Please acquaint yourself with a curious legal agreement that the GOP entered into with the Dems — the 1982 Consent Decree — in which the Republican Party agreed to neither contest nor combat voter fraud. See my post, Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud.”

See also “America’s Bipartisan Ruling Class vs. the People.

~Eowyn

The demon is coming out of Obama again

Four years ago in mid-October, less than 3 weeks before the mid-term elections of 2010, it wasn’t looking good for the Democrats. Indeed, that was the election in which the Republicans wrestled a House majority away from Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Demonrats.

In campaign rallies during the weekend of Oct. 15-16, 2010, Obama was angry.

More than angry, he was frightening looking — which was noted by Drudge Report as well as Rush Limbaugh, who said, “An American president has never had facial expressions like this. At least we’ve never seen photos of an American president with facial expressions like this.”

These were some of the pics taken of Obama in those 2010 rallies. Trust what your instincts tell you.

Flash forward four years to another mid-term election campaign rally.

As in the midterm elections of 2010, once again it’s not looking good for the Demonrats.

The pic below was taken of Obama when he spoke at a rally for Gov. Pat Quinn, D-Ill., at Chicago State University on Sunday, Oct. 19, 2014, in Chicago.

Look at his eyes!!! Trust what your instincts tell you.

evil angry ObamaAP Photo/Evan Vucci (Source: WOKV)

Here’s a close-up of those eyes.

evil angry Obama eyes Oct. 2014

I see anger, desperation, madness….

And behind those eyes, there’s nobody there.

Just emptiness. A vacuum.

Earlier that day, Obama was at a campaign rally in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for the gubernatorial campaign of Maryland lieutenant governor Anthony G. Brown, in which members of the audience walked out while the president of the United States of America was still speaking. (See “Mainly black crowd walks out on Obama at Democratic campaign rally“)

As in 2010, once again Obama’s mask — the narcissistic psychopath’s charming social mask — is slipping and what emerges sure ain’t pretty.

It’s unholy and demonic.

See also:

~Eowyn

Dwindling Evangelicals will affect 2014 (and future) elections in Southern States

Robert P. Jones writes for The Atlantic, Oct. 17, 2014:

Over the last few decades, there have been few more reliable voters for Republicans than white evangelical Protestants. This year, however, GOP candidates may be getting less help from this group—not because white evangelical Protestants are becoming less supportive or less motivated, but simply because they are declining as a proportion of the population, even in Southern states. 

White evangelical Protestants have remained a steadfast Republican constituency in both presidential and midterm congressional elections ever since the Reagan presidency, which marked what political scientists Merle and Earl Black dubbed “the great white switch.” In 2008 and 2012, roughly three-quarters of white born-again Christians supported GOP nominees John McCain (73 percent) and Mitt Romney (78 percent).  In the 2010 midterm election, similar numbers of white born-again Christians (77 percent) supported the GOP House candidate in their districts.

[...] In recent years, for example, the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest evangelical denomination in the country, has reported steady declines in membership and new baptisms. Since 2007, the number of white evangelical Protestants nationwide has slipped from 22 percent in 2007 to 18 percent today.

A look at generational differences demonstrates that this is only the beginnings of a major shift away from a robust white evangelical presence and influence in the country. While white evangelical Protestants constitute roughly three in 10 (29 percent) seniors (age 65 and older), they account for only one in 10 (10 percent) members of the Millennial generation (age 18-29). In the last few national elections, however, because of high levels of voter turnout, white evangelical Protestants have managed to maintain an outsized presence at the ballot box according to national exit polls, representing roughly one-quarter of voters.

[...] there are currently five Southern states—Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and North Carolina— where polling shows that the Senate race margins are less than five percentage points indicates that 2014 may be the year that the underlying demographic trends finally exert enough force to make themselves felt. These changes are evident in analysis based on the American Values Atlas, a massive interactive online map of demographic and religious diversity in America based on 45,000 interviews conducted throughout 2013, created by the Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with Social Science Research Solutions.

Evangelicals in 5 southern states

[...] Two forces account for the declining proportions of white evangelical and mainline Protestants: the growth of non-black ethnic minorities and, perhaps surprisingly, the growth of the religiously unaffiliated across the South. Notably, each of these growing constituencies leans decidedly toward Democratic candidates.

[...] So what does this mean for the 2014 elections? Certainly, events on the ground are still paramount; the campaign machines and peculiarities of candidates matter. And in low-turnout elections such as the midterms, the real weight of these demographic and religious shifts will not yet be fully felt at the ballot box. White evangelical Protestants have a strong turnout record, while non-black ethnic minorities and particularly the religiously unaffiliated are much less likely to vote. PRRI’s pre-election American Values Survey found that while two-thirds (65 percent) of white evangelical Protestants report that they were absolutely certain to vote in the November elections, less than half (45 percent) of the religiously unaffiliated report this kind of certainty. But the underlying trends indicate that at least one reason why there are a number of close elections across the South is the declining dominance of white evangelical Protestants, the most stalwart of GOP supporters.

Do you get the feeling that we’re losing the Culture War?  :(

~Eowyn