Here here. There was a time not so long ago I didn't believe in litmus tests. However, I now have an entire battery of Litmus tests. They aren't complicated, but they quickly distinguish a patriot from a communist when looking at a candidate. Your last sentence says it all. It's worthy of a copy/past/save action. Thank you!

Just for the record, Obama didn't sign 23 Executive Orders, there only 3. (Although they were called "Memorandums" because Obama has given Executive Orders such a bad name). Obama laid out a number of "Executive Actions" which aren't the same thing. They just state what actions he plans he intends to take. Otherwise, Mr. Katz is right on the money. But then, when do we ever expect liberals to actually be rational about anything? This is why they are so dangerous.

We hate what the Democrats have done to exploit entire demographics to keep them poor and dependent in order to farm them for votes. That's not hating the poor, it's hating the evils perpetrated on Americans by the Democrats in order to keep them poor. They are two completely different things. Acknowledging that people have willingly allowed the Democrats to do this them, and as a result are partially to blame for their own problems is not hate either. It's truth. In order for an addict to begin recovery, he/she must first admit they have a problem. Only the Conservatives care enough about the poor (or gays, for that matter) to tell them the truth they so desperately need to hear.

"Gay people do not want to MAKE anyone accept their lifestyle." Yes, they do. This is the entire purpose of the so-called Gay Agenda, and like every other Leftist agenda, it is their intent to not only force people to accept it, but subsidize it as well. The LGBT activists are Taliban and NAZIs to their cores. They not only threaten, bully, browbeat, and harass anyone who DARES cross or even disagrees with them, but they go after their employers, families, and corporate sponsors (The Boy Scouts is a great example). I'm not saying every gay person is a Taliban or a NAZI (I know I'll be accused of this none the less) but the so-called Gay rights activists are the most intolerant tyrants on the face of the planet.

But I do COMPLETELY disagree with not having a problem with allowing the DEA or any other" law enforcement agency just "randomly search the premises" (assuming you mean our homes, businesses and other property). They need probable cause and a warrant. Period.

I would agree with you assuming a couple of things are true. 1. That the government is acting within it's Constitutional limits rather than one that is being turned into a jack-booted left-wing fascist regime that considers returning veterans potential terrorists. 2. They are not coming to search my home to confiscate my legally owned possessions because the same fascists Leftists don't want law abiding citizens to be armed. 3. That I am not just being harassed by government agencies, the IRS, etc. simply because jack-booted Leftists don't like the fact that I speak the truth about them. Under a tyrannical Leftist Utopia, good people have every reason to object to the harassment of unreasonable searches and property confiscation.

"Is $2.5 trillion in added debt enough to send America into insolvency? I'm not certain, but it will have a huge impact.?" Dude, I don't know to break this to you gently, but we are waaaaaaayyyy past the point of insolvency already, and it's getting worse by a $Trillion dollars a year in overspending and deficit growth.

Where to start... By all reports Sequestration actually came from the Obama camp. Granted the Republicans went along with it. Obviously Obama never intended to honor his side of it, but I don't believe it was a Republican "idea". Regardless of who came up with it, it's not a bad idea, the problem is it doesn't got far enough - not NEARLY far enough. EVERYONE knew there would never be ANY voluntary spending cuts by Obama and the Democrats. The Democrats exist because they buy votes with other people's money. Cutting entitlement spending is NOT in their OWN self interest. The notion that B'roke would EVER agree to a 10-1 spending cut to tax increase ratio is just laughable. Hagel? Really? You lost any credibility you had with that one.

My guess is that this article was erroneously released today. I think was intended for April 1st. There are times I want to be wrong, and this is one of those times. I sincerely hope there is truth to what I just read above, but right now all I hear is the klink klink of the can bouncing down the road, another $Trillion-plus dollar deficit spending spree yet again for 2013, and 4 more years of an avowed communist occupying Oval Office. There is nothing permanent about the Bush rollback of the Clinton tax increases either. America has become too stupid to effectively engage in self rule. It's only a matter of time, (and probably as early as 2014) where they will vote enough Democrats into Congress to have a majority that will raise taxes.

I dunno, sounds to me a lot like the excuse that Socialism hasn't worked just because the right person hasn't been in charge yet, or Hitler's assertion that the Soviets were doing Socialism wrong. Socialism is simply unsustainable. You always run out of other people's money. Period. Any system that relies on government as the car, the gas, the road, and the driver where citizens are just mere passengers on the State's Magical Mystery Bus will never be workable or sustainable.

Here, I'll let you decide for yourself. Go and "try" to have an intelligent conversation with a liberal acquaintance or family member. Apply critical thinking to their positions or beliefs on about any subject and try to lead them down the road to where their ideas actually lead. Let me know how that works out for ya ;-) Then come back and ask me that same question.