Alexander's Column

The Consummate Liberal Hypocrites

Do as I Say, Not as I Do

By Mark Alexander · Jun. 27, 2013
“Be not intimidated … nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.” –John Adams (1765)

To paraphrase Mark Twain, “Suppose you were a liberal. And suppose you were a hypocrite. But I repeat myself.”

Decisions by the Supreme Court this week to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Prop 8 prohibition against same-sex “marriage” set the bar to overturn every other state codification of heterosexual marriage.

Don’t get me wrong – as a conservative in the “classical liberal” tradition, I hold that government has no business dictating the type of relationships individuals choose, though on a personal level I believe homosexual behavior is, most often, the result of gender disorientation pathology, and thus, I grieve for those so afflicted – no matter how “gay” they might seem. However, I also hold that government has no arbitrary power to redefine marriage as anything other than what our Creator expressed through nature for all time. Regardless of how government defines marriage in legal terms, they have no power to redefine nature as defined by our Creator.

So, to the point: Liberals are endeavoring to institutionalize the abject LBGT violations of nature, while simultaneously advocating for the most stringent preservation of every minuscule aspect of natural order in the rest of the environment.*

And that irrefutable fact reminded me of a near-universal truth about Leftists: They are consummate hypocrites.

So, how is it that such a minuscule but vocal constituency is able to successfully challenge the timeless order of marriage and family, the third pillar of Liberty, without any Beltway Republicans and media types “outing” this hypocrisy?

Because undermining marriage and family is critical to the Left’s statist agenda, and anyone who steps in the way of that agenda will be labeled xenophobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, etc., etc., etc. Too many Republican politicos fear their own shadows – and are incapable of articulating a defense against such derogatory references. But the reality is that Leftists use those slurs to divert attention from their own unmitigated hypocrisy in pursuit of their political goals.

Indeed, they have taken the tawdry art of political hypocrisy well beyond the outer-most limits of decency. Leftist protagonists have taken the once-noble Democrat Party and converted it into the Socialist Democratic Party. Today’s party leaders are case studies in the exhibition of double standards, pretense and duplicity.

Leftist hypocrisy, of course, is not a recent revelation. In his 1944 book “Bureaucracy,” economist and classical liberal Ludwig von Mises wrote, “The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent.”

But the current ranks of Obama’s sycophantic NeoCom cadres would have embarrassed even their ‘40s-era forerunners.

Obama is the prototypical face of Leftist hypocrisy, as he lives the life of the rich and famous all the while feigning to be a “man of the people.” This week for example, the Obama family is on a $100 million taxpayer-funded “heritage tour” of Africa.

He spews his class warfare rhetoric while he, Michelle LaVaughn, and their entourage, jet around the nation and world for political junkets and exotic vacations – all at enormous expense to taxpayers and Air Force resources. He condemns corporate executives for using private aircraft, while he has frivolously used one of DoD’s most expensive military assets, Air Force One ($228,288 per flight hour), with the added and much larger expense of all the backup aircraft, Air Force cargo planes airlifting limousines and support vehicles, helicopters, security and support personnel, and their political entourage, all with first class accommodations.

And Obama blames the “Republican Sequester” for massive DoD cuts to critical military spending. (Time to sequester Air Force One!)

Of course the quick rebut is, “Bush did too,” and for the record, I have always objected to presidents of ANY party wasting tax dollars for vacations and political junkets. However, Obama has used these assets more than any president, all the while spewing his class warfare rhetoric against the one-percenters. Writing about the opulence of the Obama administration in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal,” author Robert Keith Gray notes that $1.4 billion in taxpayer funds was spent on the Obamas last year, including “the biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever” and Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.” Notably, all of the support costs for travel are not included in that $1.4 billion.

It is worth noting that Obama’s Democrat predecessors mentioned poverty three times more often in major addresses than Obama – and Republicans mentioned the plight of the poor twice as often as Obama. Maybe that is because when Obama took office in 2009, the poverty rate was 13.1% and it is now over 15%.

Another reason he might not mention poverty is that Obama is on pace to break his 2011 all time record for presidential golfing junkets – 34 resort outings. He is now on pace to chalk up 50 golf trips this year. His sycophantic adherents must be complete idiots – rallying around all his “rich” rhetoric.

In advance of his annual outing to Marthas Vineyard island, Obama offered this advice to young people about “conspicuous consumption”: “I do think what’s shifted is a notion that the wealthier you are, the more conspicuous consumption you engage in. The more successful you are, the more society should stay out of your way as you pursue the bigger house or the fancier jet or the bigger yacht.” This from the “community organizer” who won the propaganda lotto and now engages in the most “conspicuous consumption” all, living in the most expensive public housing, and using the fanciest transportation on earth.

Obama is in the top bracket of “One Percenters” who, along with Michael Moore and other members of the Socialist Bourgeoisie, rally the 99 Percenters with their slick classist rhetoric designed to lock up the votes of the Left’s largest constituency – those they have enslaved on Poverty Plantations across the nation.

He is the latest and greatest of Leftist hypocrites, following the tried-and-true models of Bill Clinton, Albert Gore and John Kerry – akin to the limo-liberal Roosevelt and Kennedy dynasties that gave rise to such hypocrisy.

"Depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

Who can forget Bill Clinton’s staunch defense of women’s rights, all while he was groping White House visitors and having sex with at least one intern – approximately the same age as his daughter – in the Oval Office? Who can forget his finger wagging lies to the American people, and his henchmen’s efforts to destroy the reputations of the women who dared tell the truth about him? This is the same Slick Willie who said: “The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with the destruction of the truth.”

Poor Al Gore, who produces more hot air than any dilapidated coal plant, takes private jets around the globe to pontificate about “global warming” all while leaving one of the biggest carbon footprints around. Recall, if you will, that Gore sold his failing cable network to oil-rich Islamofascist Al-Jazeera TV for $500 million, and pushed the closing of that “deal” in order to avoid Obama’s impending capital-gains tax increase. Nothing hypocritical there…

John “Ketchup” Kerry married one heiress and then another. His current wife, Teresa, is the former wife of Republican Jack Heinz, and she took control of his fortune after his death. John and Teresa manage to scrape by with just seven vacation homes. They also own a $7 million yacht, which, as you recall, he parked in a Rhode Island marina in order to dodge $500,000 in taxes that his home state of Massachusetts would have assessed on that purchase. But he is a “man of the people”…

Consider if you will the following short list of other notable examples of Leftist hypocrisies, and, by all means, use the comment links to add your own entries.

Liberal protagonists are, for the most part, wealthy elitists, and yet pretend to be aligned with common grassroots folks.

They talk about individual rights but promote statist tyranny.

They spout John F. Kennedy’s challenge, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country,” but their policies promote the antithesis of that challenge, instead promoting constituents to demand what their country can do for them.

They hold up Martin King’s dream, “that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” but their policies promote the antithesis of that dream, judging all by the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character.

Bloated Hypocrisy

They talk about personal responsibility but are master purveyors of blame-shifting, victimhood and dependence on the state.

They say they want to lift up blacks and Hispanics while promoting policies that instead keep those constituencies on Poverty Plantations.

They talk about harmony and peace between those of different racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds, but do all within their power to foment disunity between those groups. Their constituent allegiance depends on the promotion of disharmony and inequality, and they are master race-bating political hustlers.

They talk about “justice” but depend on the perception of injustice to stir the classist and racist pots.

They call themselves “pro choice” as long as you choose what they choose.

They are pro-abortion but anti-capital punishment. They support killing the most innocent among us while providing free accommodations and accoutrements for the most heinous of criminals.

They manufacture economic crises, blame them on Republicans and then call for government solutions.

They talk about cutting and balancing budgets yet Obama and congressional Democrats have burdened our nation with far more debt than any administration in history.

They subscribe to Darwinian evolutionary theory, but penalize the most successful humans and reward the least productive – including subsidizing that lack of productivity and guaranteeing the reproduction of future generations of urban plantation slaves.

They object to Islamist profiling while suppressing Christian expression in any public venue.

They admonish us to refrain from judging Islam or its adherents as a whole by the actions of a few terrorists, but they endeavor to undermine the Second Amendment and condemn more than 60 million law-abiding gun owners based on the actions of a few murderous sociopaths.

They demand tolerance and diversity but are wholly intolerant of diverse and dissenting views.

They talk economic growth but want to constrain free enterprise with oppressive taxes, laws and regulations.

They promote education but condemn school choice.

They condemn “hate” and preach unity while building their political empire by fomenting disunity.

They call those who disagree with their homosexual marriage agenda “bigots,” so is Obama a bigot for not supporting “gay marriage” as a candidate and for the first three years of his White House occupancy?

They condemn “trickle-down wealth” but promote “trickle-up poverty.”

They condemn racism while promoting classism.

They condemn Paula Deen (who rose from food stamps rolls to become a Food Network show host) for admitting the use of a racial epithet decades ago to describe a black man who robbed her at gunpoint. However, they do not condemn Obama, who described his loathing of white in his autobiography – and also admitted to hard drugs use. (Recall, if you will, the racist rants delivered by Obama’s “pastor,” Jeremiah “G-d Damn America” Wright.)

The list of Leftist political hypocrites is endless, headlined by Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Feinstein, Reid, Bloomberg and many others.

The list of Leftmedia hypocrites is endless, headlined by nearly every anchor at CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, PBS and NPR.

The list of Leftist pop-culture hypocrites is endless, headlined by Bill Maher, Whoopi Goldberg, George Clooney, Rosie O'Donnell, Spike Lee, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Arianna Huffington, Bruce Springsteen and many others.

But the biggest hypocrisy of all is Leftist talk about Liberty when the terminus of their political policies is, unequivocally, tyranny.

They talk about Rule of Law when they really mean rule of men.

They condemn fascism while promoting socialism, but conveniently omit that NAZI stood for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party). In the words of British historian Dr. John Joseph Ray, “The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin’s Communism.” Libertarian Jacob Hornberger adds, “There is no difference in principle, between the economic philosophy of Nazism, socialism, communism, and fascism and that of the American welfare state and regulated economy.”

Journalist and political critic H.L. Mencken once concluded, “The chief difference between free capitalism and State socialism seems to be this: that under the former a man pursues his own advantage openly, frankly and honestly, whereas under the latter he does so hypocritically and under false pretenses.”

Now – it’s your turn…

*For the record, I support the protection and conservation of our nation’s most incredible natural habitats, but certainly not the Orwellian climate change legislation that Barack Hussein Obama just re-warmed in order to win back some of his disillusioned constituents. The “war on coal” has everything to do with Leftist socialist political agenda rather than environmental preservation.

View all comments


john in kalamazoo said:

Now that's what I call one of the best opinion pieces that I have ever seen. Nail it right and post it high, it needs to be posted on the court house door all over this land. we have no one to blame if we sit and sleep and let this pass without a peep, cut up the credit cards and park the plane, the bank is broke, the political discourse is one sided and ugly, clean the slate and start over. we did it once and can do it again. Rise up ole sluggard and begin a new day. it takes just one to begin.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:09 PM

LibertyIsUS in Arlington, VA replied:

Nailed to the Supreme Court door just like the 95 Theses of Martin Luther nailed to the door of All Saints Church.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:21 PM

R.C. in Colorado said:

WOW MARK! Great work, one of your best. I would love to see you as a primary adviser to the Republican presidential candidate in 2016. Well, actually, I'd like to see a Conservative Party come about, with no ties to the DC crowd and with you as a prominent leader.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Mark Alexander in Tennessee replied:

Bud, thanks. You may recall that we published a CRITICAL "Grassroots Memo to Mitt" ( and sent it up the line to his staff. It stalled with his communications director, because Romney surrounded himself with too many wealthy young folks who have no idea what "grassroots" means. We believe had Romney paid attention to these suggestion prior to the second debate, he would now be President -- not because I wrote these talking points, but because they truly reflect the wisdom of our grassroots readers.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Hawkfan in Cedar Falls, IA replied:

Agreed, Mark. However, I think you are too smart to actually run because you would have to work with so many idiots. It would be maddening to see the continued destruction of the constitution despite one's best efforts. The reader to whom you commented is correct, however. We do need non-traditional leaders (i.e. non-career politicians) who espouse views similar to yours. I pray we can find them.

Monday, August 19, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA said:

As far a resistance to tyranny and fighting against a very powerful force, victory will always be lost to tyranny if we are not willing to pay the price. D Day June 6th 1944 thousands died on the beaches and over the next few months hundreds of thousands died in our quest to defeat Nazi Germany. Each battle fought, GI’s died and sometime whole companies were wiped out. My Marine friend who did two tours in the Republic of Vietnam was one of 7 of his company that survived a battle with North Vietnamese Soldiers his first week in country. Point is a fight against tyranny will have it casualties but the sacrifice of anyone who gives their lives to resist tyranny will only make those left to pull the trigger fight that much harder.

With God in our hearts and the freedom and rights granted by our savior one of two things will happen when tyranny kicks down my front door; They will go to their maker or I will, I just hope I am on the ball enough to not be caught flatfooted. If you are enforcing tyranny I have no problem in sending you to one with understanding and one that may forgive you for your evil intentions.

Life is precious but not so precious as for me to lick the hands of those who would chain me to the yoke of tyranny.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Leon Francis in Edwardsville, IL said:

My opinion is given by a well known author of the last century:
..."There is no greater tyranny than one who forces me to pay for something that I do not want and do not need because they think that it is good for me".
......Robert Heinlein

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Bud in The D-ivided States of America replied:

Heinlein has been my favorite author since I began to appreciate 'learning from what I read', as a boy. 'Take Back Your Government' (written 1946) could have been written today. Also, the AGW crowd could learn something about 'real' science by reading Heinleins science fiction. LOL!! Seriously though, it is not like we haven't been warned about the way things are right now.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:37 PM

LibertyIsUS in Arlington, VA said:

Wonderful editorial, Mark. I hope it will be read by our youth, but fear they are too pre-occupied to take notice of this society's destruction by their vaunted leader.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Gemma in NY State replied:

Dear One VA Patriot our youth are glued to their i phones. We lose all humanness this way. Its sad. Thank you Mark for a great editorial. God Bless

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Bud in The D-ivided States of America replied:

Good news is when Iran nukes us with a high altitude EMP, we can blame the loss of all cyber-space on Obama. Oh, the Obama phones won't work either. Ham Ops will rule the airwaves!! Leftist's are too retarded to learn Morse Code!! See? Obama is asking for that EMP, but it will work against him!

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Bud in The D-ivided States of America replied:

Sorry, meant this to be under One VA Patriot. Wild mouse.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:43 PM

John in Texas replied:

Thankfully, not all the youth are that way. I'm not, and I personally know several hundred others whose lives look nothing like what you described. There is hope. Fathers and mothers need to disciple their own children and teach them the Word of God, rather than shipping them off to government institutions for thousands and thousands of hours of their youngest, most impressionable years to be indoctrinated by pagans in the ways of paganism. Governments and nations consist of families. Until we reform the family, government is irreparable.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Beau in Ohio replied:

Hey now. I might be glued to my Android, but it's to keep up on real news and some of us are paying attention. Unfortunately most of my generation is an illustration of the generation Jesus spoke of when He discussed the Signs of the Times.

Friday, June 28, 2013 at 7:16 AM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA said:

Wake up, the line has been crossed. There is no ammo on the shelves because it is in the hands of 60 million armed freedom loving Americans.
FYI Obama and Company, the worlds largest Army is not in China.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Tom H. in Rock Island, IL said:


Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Tom Hoskison in Okla City, OK said:

Powerful TRUTH!

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA said:

Thank you Mark Alexander for showing the dedication and bravery needed to protect and restore Liberty.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:31 PM

John Johnston in Wichita Falls TX said:

I have always found it amazing when the left wingers would compare Republican to the NAZI's when their tactics were exactly the same as the Brown Shirts. I have always found myself fortunate to have a teacher in the past that was able teach me the face of Socialism and Communism before the dumbing done of children started.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Vicky Kaseorg in Charlotte said:

What more is there to say? Eloquent and concise, and makes me even prouder to reject liberalism.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Don Bell in IL said:

Well said. But look at his picture - third finger. I wonder?????

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Honest Abe in North Carolina replied:

Don, he's just getting in practice for ObamaCare!

Saturday, June 29, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Rod in USA said:

They say they want to lift up blacks and Hispanics while promoting policies that instead keep those constituencies on the Poverty Plantation.

- - - This bears some proving r explanation, lest the low information recipient class dismiss it while failing to understand its truth. The policies of big government, give-aways or "wealth re-distribution" destroy the means of individual opportunity. The left demonizes success and confiscates the wealth it generates, thus reducing motivation and opportunity for all.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:36 PM

MikeD in Fairfax, VA replied:

I don't think they miss the point. I was astounded to hear, in a bus I was driving, where I was the only White person among 52 Black people, when one lady, whom I suspect was stopped before completing her education, nonetheless explained eloquently to all the youngsters on the bus, exactly how hard it is to get off of subsidized living, and how it was the intent of the designers to keep it that way. Unfortunately, she pegged the design at the feet of the Republicans. But, nonetheless, she knew the issue. And several of the younger folks, in their teens, attempted to explain that it was NOT the Republicans, but the Liberal Left that designed it, 40 YEARS ago! And this all happened in the 90's. That generation is NOW the voting block. I hope they haven't forgotten!!

Monday, July 1, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Stephen Jamison in Rockaway NJ said:

I am about as constitutionally conservative, patriotic, and libertarian as you will ever run across, but to define gay as "gender orientation pathology" in terms of "natural order" is based on religious values and has no place in our government.

Humans have mental processes and hormone disparities that do not occur in other species. If you look at some four year old child, you sometimes already know he is gay even though in his / her heterosexual household there are no such overt influences. To label this child "abnormal" is so arrogant I am disgusted by you, Mr. Alexander. The only thing you will accomplish by this labelling is to destroy a life.

In your household, YOU may define marriage any way you see fit. Among your chosen associations you may shun gay people or any group you want. To use the force of government to institutionalize those views is to deny the Constitution and "equal protection."

THAT, Mr. Alexander, is called hypocrisy. You cannot claim to be a patriot and supporter of the Constitution and then finish with, "except you folks, we don't like your kind."

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Bill in Phoenix. MD replied:

NJ boy - You chose to ignore the preface to his comment: "I hold that government has no business dictating the type of relationships individuals choose" and then he expressed a personal opinion. He is entitled to that opinion as you are, yours. The KEY point is that the Government should keep its collective nose out of our personal business. I believe that you owe an appology. We need to keep our eye on the ball which is to thwart the trend of bigger government in favor of a smaller, less intrusive one.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Stephen Jamison in Rockaway NJ replied:

MD child, no apology is forthcoming.

"However, I also hold that government has no arbitrary power to redefine marriage as anything other than what our Creator expressed through nature for all time."

While God is being used as the reason for discrimination, the argument holds. Whether it is "personal opinion" or not, it remains the justification for imposing that opinion and denying an identified group their constitutional rights. That is out of bounds.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:51 PM

LibertyIsUS in Arlington, VA replied:

Mr. Jamison;

You are definitely not a conservative, since your definition of the social order comports primarily to a subjective rather than objective definition of marriage.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Stephen Jamison in Rockaway replied:

That would be correct, I am libertarian. Conservatives want to impose their values on everyone, much as liberals do. The only difference is the values.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Greg in Millersport, OH replied:

So your beef is with Mr. Alexander's citing of nature's God as a basis for law? But all law derives from nature's God, and the US government in particular is predicated on nature's God endowing us with certain unalienable rights. If you throw out God, justice becomes arbitrary.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Stephen Jamison in Rockaway replied:

Mmmmm, yes and no. I believe in, "God," but probably not as you do. Assuming "God" is a monotheistic entity is probably where we would separate. We can all agree walking into a store, shooting the clerk into the face, and cleaning out the register is bad. Basing definitions for behavior you find objectionable yet do not affect you directly as "against God's law" is only a few chromosomes away from the Taliban. YOU don't get to decide that, then proceed to inflict it others. That is how liberals function.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Elsie in Decatur, Il replied:

Then you don't believe in the God of Universe, you only believe in "your" god. That is a horrible mistake with eternal consequences.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Stephen Jamison in Rockaway NJ replied:

How do you know your God is the right God? Maybe I'm right and you're the one whose eternal soul is in jeopardy.

And to suggest that God, in whatever form it takes, would damn my soul to eternal fire because I mentally defined "Him" differently is just plain ignint. My actions on this rock will determine my future, not how I organized my religious thoughts.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Greg in Millersport, OH replied:

Humbly seek, ask and knock -- that's how you know God. The one true God, creator of the universe, reveals himself tangibly to those he wishes. When you meet him, all your what-ifs are exposed as arrogant foolishness.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Capt. Call in New Mexico replied:

Of course God does not "damn your soul to eternal fire because you mentally defined "Him " differently. In fact, God does not damn anyone to hell at all. But you are choosing to go to hell, just like you are choosing the lifestyle you lead. The Bible is very, very clear on this in John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He believes in Him is not judged; he does not believe has judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God." [NASB].

You may protest and claim that you do not know that the God of the Bible is true, but you would then only be lying, because God has made it evident to you, and to everyone else in the world that He exists. (Read Romans Chapter 1) So, no human being has any excuse before God; the playing field is level. Whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or not. That's life. Since you know in your heart that God exists, your rebellion against Him is all the more heinous. Yes, your actions on this rock will determine your future; but you are defective, as are we all, because: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,..." Romans 3:23 [NASB]. So you stand before Him as lost sinner, as do I; but there is one difference: I am a "forgiven sinner." "....When the roll is called up yonder, I'll be there!" What about you? While you have breath you still have the opportunity to accept Him. But after you die, it will be too late.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 2:43 PM

elsie in Decatur, Il replied:

Read the rest of the book, Capt. It's best not to take a verse of two out of context and make it say what you want. That's dangerous and eternally wrong.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Stephen Jamison in Rockaway replied:

Do Buddhists, Jews, or Hindus go to hell if they lead a good life? Their religious thoughts are organized differently, but I would argue they follow the teachings of Jesus more closely than some of you quoting scripture. I thought tolerance was one of Jesus' mandates.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Brian in Newport News replied:

Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father except by me." Also, "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of ourselves: it is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." God is very clear: good works do not equal salvation.

Friday, June 28, 2013 at 7:22 AM

Stephen Jamison in Rockaway NJ replied:

So if I'm understanding, so poor kid twiddling in a mud puddle in North Korea gets run over by a truck, and due to no fault of his own, simply by being born in the wrong part of the world, to parents who do not know of *your* God, goes to hell. Nice. That makes perfect sense.

Or . . . "through me" means recognizing that there is, "the other side," living a good life, and being a good soul will see salvation.

Honestly, I don't think "God," in whatever form it takes, is that much of an egomaniac.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes." :)

Good people . . . of all races, denominations, and orientations exist all around you. Accept them as you think a loving God would want you to. Fight them where they need fighting, where they desire to control *you personally* with evil intentions (as I believe leftists do.) Do not fight those that have no quarrel with you because of your interpretation of the Bible, a book contaminated by the thoughts of men with desires to control the population through fear and bigotry.

I know I am going to get nowhere with most of you, but I want to save this country from the left and while the south determines the GOP candidate due to the primary process, we will continue to get candidates that folks like me have to hold their nose and vote for.

Until we jettison the religious aspect and come together to fight for the Constitution, fiscal sanity, and personal freedoms, the left will advance by degrees while we fight amongst ourselves over nothing.

Extreme right is no better than extreme left, and they are better organized.

Friday, June 28, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Brian in Newport News replied:

I have heard that arguement before. Can't tell you about the kid in Korea as I don't know his heart. Only God does. Believing in God is the key. Abraham existed before Jesus came to earth as our Savior. Abraham believed God and was counted righteous because of it. Thus, I believe that if someone is a good, moral person who believes in God and seeks His will though without the benefit of having heard the Gospel of Jesus, has a good shot at heaven. But, one who having heard the Gospel, rejects it has no chance, despite being a good, moral person.

Tell you what. I'll fight for the Constitution right along side you, but I won't let go of my Bible. Guess I am one of the crazy clingers...hehe.

Friday, June 28, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Stephen Jamison in Rockaway NJ replied:

Not at all, Brian, I respect and encourage people to be spiritual in whatever form makes them happy on this earth. It is only when people try to force their version of "what is right" on everyone else using it as justification.

What those folks don't realize is that makes them just as wrong as leftists who try to force their version of morality on them. The biggest Facebook argument I ever engaged in was when I accused lefties of forcing their religion on us and I took a Christian position.

I made the argument that their religion was "big government," their hierarchy was a huge bureaucracy that inflicted their version of tithing and then used the money to enforce the dogma they created to redistribute that money to impose a morality they felt was right.

With the religious right it is, "do as I say because God says so, and no I don't care if you share my views," with the hard left it is "do as I say because I am smarter than you and I don't care if you share my views."

Speaking of hate and vitriol, I was the beneficiary of quite a plate full.

Friday, June 28, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Thompson in Raleigh, NC replied:

"Until we jettison the religious aspect and come together to fight for the Constitution, fiscal sanity, and personal freedoms, the left will advance by degrees while we fight amongst ourselves over nothing.

Extreme right is no better than extreme left, and they are better organized."

Very well put. We will never change the opinions of the ones that are trying to "save" you on this site. Instead, we must try to gain the support of freedom lovers across the country...regardless of their belief in Jesus.

Don't get me wrong, Jesus taught wonderful things, and I admire the people on here with a strong faith...and you should be able to practice it anyway you want!! But, most of the guidelines of how to treat our fellow man and our natural rights are covered in all religions. And to say "mines better" is extremely close minded.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Elsie in Decatur, Il replied:


Friday, June 28, 2013 at 1:15 PM

rab in jo,mo replied:

"Do Buddhists, Jews, or Hindus go to hell if they lead a good life?"

While that ultimate decision is not mine to make, God tells us that If they deny Christ, they are certainly in danger of hellfire.

Friday, June 28, 2013 at 8:41 AM

elsie in Decatur, Il replied:

Then is it correct that you also do not believe the Bible is what it says it is?

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Stephen Jamison in Rockaway NJ replied:

And so we are all on the same page, the founding fathers, notably Madison and Jefferson, were deists, not theists.

(lifted from Wikipedia,) Critical elements of deist thought included:

Rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.
Rejection of all religious dogma and demagogy.
Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries".

Constructive elements of deist thought included:
God exists, created and governs the universe.
God gave humans the ability to reason.

The most important aspect of those thought processes is:

Rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.

So for anyone to say the Constitution would define marriage based on God's word as defined by, I don't really know, like, another guy said God said so, is ridiculous.

The Constitution, as I read it through the lense of the Federalist Papers and Deism in general, makes reference to "God" in very generic terms, laying no claim to a particular theistic entity, but really "general goodness." Understanding that there is a level of existence we cannot experience directly with the senses we were born with or have the vocabulary to describe is to realize the point of "God" in government is to encourage behaving in "good" way. "Be honest and faithful while you are here, it matters."

It doesn't address aberrant behavior like cuckolding, self mutilation, or autoerotic asphyxiation. Whatever you do to get your freak on is your business and as long as you aren't kidnapping people and insisting they play along . . . have at it.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, Ky replied:

Our Founding Fathers were not deists, as deists believe that God created everything then sent it spinning off on its own allowing it to do whatever it chooses. They attributed the successfulness of the revolution on "divine providence" or the "hand of the Creator", which is something a deists would never do because they believe in the "hands off policy" of the divine.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 4:20 PM

MikeD in Fairfax, VA replied:

"We can all agree walking into a store, shooting the clerk into the face, and cleaning out the register is bad."

Without a "God", an omnipotent, RIGHTEOUS Creator, why? If I can get away with it without getting hurt, I win! Where could that be a bad thing? So the weaker guy lost? What a loser! But I got ahead! And absent a moral code (where did THAT come from?), why should I care if the loser loses? After all, that's his role in life. He's a loser by definition, so he SHOULD lose!
Tongue in cheek, I hope you realize! But if God didn't define the moral code, there is no moral code. And if He did, maybe we need to ask Him what He said about homosexuality. Love the sinner, but hate the sin. And the sin is in the practice.
I try to control my wandering eyes, because I believe it is what God wants of me. Absent that, as the Apostle Paul hinted, why should I bother? Absent God and His control, promises, and requirements, and my WILLING (I think THAT is where we diverge) obedience to them, as Paul did say, "We are of all men, most miserable.".

Monday, July 1, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Bobbi Bennett in NJ replied:

Basic biology makes homosexuality an exception to the natural order of things - homosexuals can not reproduce except by engaging in heterosexual activity. That's simply a fact. That doesn't mean we should treat homosexuals any differently than anyone else. But neither should we be coerced into abandoning the ideal family unit in favor of celebrating homosexuality, transgender or bisexual lifestyles, which in the end are personal sexual behaviors and none of anyone else's business.

Wednesday, July 3, 2013 at 12:28 AM

MIResident in Michigan replied:

It is my opinion that it is you who are forcing your belief onto others - you want others to believe that what is known since written history that marriage is to procreate between man and woman a family is wrong.

What I can never get progressives (your not a liberterian) to answer is where does it stop? If homosexuals can marry there is no logical stopping point -

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Brian in Newport News replied:

No one is denying anyone anything. I believe the vast majority of patriots are behind me on this one: what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their own business, no one else's. The main reason two men or two women want to marry is a construction of government: marriage benefits (social security, health benefits, inheritance, etc.) If our federal government had remained within the bounds created by the Constitution, we would not be talking about this now.

Friday, June 28, 2013 at 7:10 AM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Then you do the same thing you accuse Mr Alexander of. What an idiot.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Craig in Emeryville replied:

Well put, Stephen. I love this site for the most part, at least when it actually deals with patriotism and the constitution. But using religion to invent a disease so you can mistreat people is indefensible bigotry. It's also every bit as bugnutty as the Imams who make "scientific" pronouncements about, well, anything, but especially women.

This site is at its worst when it lets religion intrude, especially when it wants religion enforced at gunpoint.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Rod in USA replied:

I have never seen Mr. Alexander advocate for enforcing his Christian beliefs on anyone, least of all at gunpoint. Similarly, expressing your opinion about homosexuality and its place in society is not mis-treating people and it is not indfensible bigotry. It is Mr. Alexander's opinion and he is entitled to express it. You really should read the text more closely, word for word.

Getting to the point: The real issue is that the left is forcing the right to openly embrace and support homosexuality, promiscuity and host of other ills that are not in sync with our value systems. Why should any person be forced to support something which he finds morally objectionable? You cannot win this argument: By forcing tax dollars to be spent supporting it in numerous ways, by forcing religious institutions to provide funding for abortion and contracteptive programs the government is using its power to coercively enforce ITS will at the expense of OUR morals. Again, you cannot break this argument.

In the case of religious institutions paying for contraception and other things through health care, why does a person of secular belief system then have a right to work at that non-secular institution? Could they not just leave and find employment at an institution whose moral compass compares favorably with their own? That would be a better solution, and also one that does not trod on the rights of the non-secular person.

And it is the same with homosexuality. In all manner, heterosexuals are being told that their position is irrational.

You cannot prove beyond a doubt that homosexuality is not an illness, disease or disorder, any more than I can prove that it absolutley is.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Mike McGinn in People's Republic of Maryland replied:

I can find nowhere in which Mark calls for the shunning or institutionalization of homosexuals thus your comments reflect the typical tactics of the liberal left, to discredit with lies and hearsay.

As for "abnormal", anytime something is outside the "norm", it is abnormal. At 6' 5" I am "abnormally" tall as only 0.4% of the population of men in my age group are taller than me (

It is not normal for a human to be homosexual, particularly a 4 year old child, as children of that age "normally" do not exhibit sexual behavior. Your “uncomfortableness” with the term “abnormal” merely reflects the problem with our society today in that no one is willing to accept a description that defines a person.

It’s like trying to call a spade a spade when all you’re allowed to say is one of several suites in a deck of cards.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Craig in Emeryville replied:

Mike: "Normal" is an expression of statistics, though you know full well that in colloquial speech it connotes acceptability. But Mark is using "pathology", which has a specific medical meaning.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Mike McGinn in People's Republic of Maryland replied:

I have no problem with the use of the term "pathology". The "proven science" about the cause of homosexuality is still not in yet, but I personally believe that homosexuality is a combination of genetic mutation and some triggering environmental influence, all of which fits it in quite nicely as a "pathology".

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, Ky replied:

Whatever homosexuality is it does not fit in with scheme of nature, as the behavior does not propagate within itself and has no place in the continuation of any species. That type of activity strictly adhered to within a species leads to the end of that species, that alone makes it unnatural (against nature) especially within the theory of evolution.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 4:31 PM

VoR in Ohio replied:

Then why is so much homosexual activity seen among the animals? It's not entirely outside the "scheme of nature".

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, KY replied:

So what you are saying is those that participate in homosexual activity are no better than the "beasts of the field". I knew we could agree on something.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 5:49 PM

jbetatum in NM replied:

Well put!

And thank you Mr. Alexander for a well-written column.

And as the title of the column says, "...Do As I Say, Not As I Do", I think Mr. Jamison, your comments merely prove the point.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Elsie in Decatur, Il replied:

Mr. Jamison; I certainly appreciate the fact that you are constituionally conservative, etc, etc and I would fight to the death for your right to believe anything you want to believe because I, too, am all of those; however, for those of us who believe to our core that the Word of God is supreme over all man-made law, and for those of us who understand that this great nation was founded upon the laws of God realize that we must "love the sinner, but hate the sin". Therefore, we will never agree with your thesis. As true believers in Jesus and his sacrifice for our sins, we know we must stand upon the Word as our only source and guide. While I can't speak for Mr. Alexander, I believe that is where he stands ans well and I must support him in his endeavors.

I truely have great concern for you and those like you that totally disregard scripture and it's teaching because you will have to answer to the All-Supreme Creator of the Universe one day and that will not be a pleasant beginning to your life in eternity. My sincere prayer for you is that God, in his infinite wisdom, will see fit to open you eyes to the truth of His Word before it is too late for you to repent.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:31 PM

JtC in TX replied:

Elsie, God has set up these divine appointments for Stephen andCraig to get the gospel right here from me, you, and others. They reject it and then they claim God condemns them to hell when they are only comdemning themselves. I too hope they realize it before it is too late but the fact is some people are bound to condemn themselves to hell and blame God just like the chief liar himself, the devil.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Stephen Jamison in Rockaway replied:

Just so I'm clear, God is going to send me to hell because I stand up for an oppressed group? Can you identify for me the sin for which I will be tried? My defense is going to be, "That which you do for the least of these my brethren, you do also for me."

Governing as though you have a mandate from God may sound wonderful now, but how would you feel if there were a Muslim majority and they are inflicting their version of Allah's will on you? I think it is best we treat all people with respect and dignity and not be casting stones.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Alan Allison in Spokane replied:

Yes, I can show you where approving of homosexuality is condemned in scripture.
Take note of this phrase in Romans 1. "approve of those who practice them"
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Friday, June 28, 2013 at 12:48 AM

Stephen Jamison in Rockaway NJ replied:

As soon as you start quoting scripture, the argument is over. Making laws for *everyone* based on any one "good book" is not allowed. How would you like it if Congress starts making laws based on the Q'uran and you have to wear a hajib when you leave the house?

You really don't want to open that can of worms.

Friday, June 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM

JtC in TX replied:

There is only one source of truth, Stephen, and that is God's Word. Not because I said so, but because it is the fact. Do yourself a favor and read it -at least the NT but preferably the entire thing. Neither God nor I want to see you burn in hell.

Friday, June 28, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Jim in Western NC replied:

Hey Stephen J., I got here late and just read your comment. Just out of curiosity, what do you believe the source of our laws should be? Also, should those laws, from whatever source you claim, apply to "everyone" equally?

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 at 1:29 AM

Bud in The D-ivided States of America replied:

"To use the force of government to institutionalize those views is to deny the Constitution and "equal protection." sniff, sniff, sniff ... Smells pretty hypocritical to me. Seems it's ok for queers or fag's or fairies or homo's or gender disoriented or whatever you want to call the swaggering anti-hetero perverts these days --- to use the force of government to institutionalize their views and destroy valued conservative ideals in the process. Not to mention it is ok to also corrupt children in the process. Your damned right cupcake. I'll never get your kind, and never will so long as you insist on sticking your business into my everyday.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Mark Alexander in Tennessee replied:

"Natural Order" what? I am guessing you are among the vociferous LGBT 3.4% minority? Anyone who does not understand that LGBT violates natural order has not spent much time in nature. Among my more useful graduate degrees is one in psychology, particularly in regard to interpreting human behavior, and I can assure you, personal preference aside, LGBT offends nature, and that offense is often based in pathology. I stated that government should not dictate sexual behavior, but nor should it institutionally redefine marriage for society.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Rod in USA replied:

As usual, Mark, BRAVO!

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Craig in Emeryville replied:

OK, Mark. I think I'm done here. You have demonstrated a bigoted unwillingness to honestly observe nature. I respect most of your constitutional news, but this kind of stubborn ignorance just won't do.

I'll miss the Post. I'm sure the likes of Gerbil and many others whose violent, vile, racists posts do not get deleted, will be happy here in their echo chamber.

Shame on you.

Friday, June 28, 2013 at 9:15 AM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Craig, you are a pathetic soul, good riddance to you and your ilk, you are what is wrong in this country, you have no idea what is right and wrong, and I hope you enjoy your aberrant filth in the failed state of Calipornia, and your sodomite society in Bezerkley.

Friday, June 28, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Jim in Western NC replied:

Craig, just because people don't see eye to eye over issues (especially those as important as marriage) doesn't mean they're bigots or ignorant. I think reasonable people can agree to disagree with a certain amount of respect. I believe it's better to make your case and have vigorous discussion without the name-calling and attacks on character. It helps to sort out what we really believe, without parroting others, and keep the mind sharp.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 at 1:37 AM

Publius in IL replied:

True. There are some issues that simply do not belong in National debate and in a true Republic - should be left to the States. Narrowly defining anyone or group based on "religion" has no place in politics or government. We are all equal before the law or we are all doomed by it.

Friday, June 28, 2013 at 8:29 AM

Debi in Medway, MA said:

Great piece and so true. I am amazed that people can fall for the "words" that are completely disconnected with actions taken. I pray that God will keep our great nation in His care but have some grave concerns that these liberal elitist, who seem to put themselves before God &
Country, would like to destroy this Country and its Patriots. Keep up the good work!

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:38 PM

BuzzardB in Havertown replied:

Many years ago, I sat at the kitchen table of a U.S. Congressman of the Democratic Party,( who was later convicted in Abscam) as he and his aides spoke of helping " the little guy". I was in college at the time. I was mesmerized by the way he spoke of using the government's cash to "lift : people from their problems. It dawns on me 38 years later that the elitists cannot raise anyone out of misery, but they are able to keep you there. They do not recognize the sovereignty of the individual. BTW, I did, by some odd occurrence become a Democratic ward leader, only to quit in disgust a year later (circa 1981) God bless all of us.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 12:58 PM

LibertyIsUS in Arlington, VA replied:


I trust God will keep our great nation in His care, but realize that in order to merit that care we must take up the task of preserving our liberty in the face of this tyranny.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 1:00 PM

JtC in TX replied:

A simple five step process to recovery:

Joel 1:14

And it takes this to do it:

1 Corinthians 16:13

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, KY replied:

I take it you also keep your gun powder dry.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 5:50 PM

JtC in TX replied:


Friday, June 28, 2013 at 8:25 AM