Sunday, April 13, 2014

Second station of the Cross: Jesus carries His Cross.
From St. Francis Xavier Catholic church in LaGrange Il

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Liberals hate hard working Americans who don't know their place

A 300K member union is complaining about Obamacare because it costs so much. The union members can't keep the plan they liked--another Obama lie--and so now their pay has been cut by as much as $5/hr.

This is a union, Unite Here, that represents low wage workers in a variety of industries ranging from hotels to textiles.

These union members are not the grossly overpaid Detroit autoworkers; rather they're hard working folk who won't buy into Obama's welfare for all who vote for me mentality.

These are the type of people that folks who support unions think of when they think of union workers--not $100K+ autoworkers or sanitation engineers.

Yet a wealthy liberal on Facebook told me that it doesn't matter that Obamacare is hurting these people.  He specifically called out that the people being hurt were low income by the way so he knew that the folks liberals like him always say they are fighting for were the ones being hurt.

He also indicated that since it was only 300,000 workers it didn't matter.  This is from the same liberal who proudly posted that he didn't mind if the taxpayers paid for 1000 welfare cheats if that's what it took to ensure that not a single family that needed welfare didn't get aid.

This is a clear example of how liberals really don't care about the poor and the middle class. They support Obamacare because it gives them, through the government, more power over the lives of Americans.

Obamacare lets liberals force Catholics to pay for abortions, set up death panels so money isn't "wasted" on the elderly, and eventually to be able to deny medical care to smokers--unless they smoke marijuana-- and the overweight.  That's why liberals don't care about the fact that people are being hurt by Obamacare; it's not about social justice it's about giving liberals control over other peoples lives.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Liberal logic #456: Changing the law is implementing it

On facebook I pointed out that Obama was violating his oath of office, and the Constitution, by unilaterally changing Obamacare.

The liberal responded that I was wrong because the Executive Branch is responsible for implementing the laws passed by Congress!

So to that liberal implementing the laws Obama likes rather than the laws passed by Congress is Obama implementing the laws passed by Congress.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0


We’re seeing the fruits of Obama’s weakness in Russian adventurism in Ukraine.  This isn’t the first time a weak Democrat president has led our enemies to believe that they can conquer without consequences.

Few people remember that while the US won a public relations victory in the Cuban missile crisis we lost the actual fight.

Quietly after the press moved on to other issues the US removed its nuclear-armed missiles from Turkey as the Soviets wanted us to do.  Further Kennedy agreed to commit the US to not invade Cuba, another Soviet demand.

Additionally it’s mostly forgotten that Kennedy’s weakness at his Vienna meeting with Khrushchev led Khrushchev to believe that Kennedy wouldn’t do anything significant in response to the placing of nuclear armed missiles in Cuba.

Kennedy’s weakness led the US to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union because Khruschchev believed that Kennedy would not stand up to the Kremlins missiles in Cuba.

We’re seeing a repeat of that now with the Ukraine situation.

By all accounts Obama fails to project an image of strength when meeting with foreign leaders.  Certainly his laughable bowing to the leaders of third rate countries didn’t give Putin any reason to think Obama has the guts to go toe to toe in defense of liberty.

Obama saves his heroic and confrontational rhetoric for his American political opponents and the governments of allies such as Israel.

Obama’s actions reinforce the image of his weakness. Obama made a big deal of his “red line” on the use of chemical weapons in Syria and when confronted with Assad calling his bluff Obama let Putin waltz in and set up a deal that turned the tide of the war against the democratic resistance.

Similarly an American ambassador was killed in Libya and Obama blamed a US produced movie rather than sending in troops to find and prosecute the terrorists.

The problem with Obama’s weakness is that it is combined with a typical liberal desire to do whatever it takes to be elected; or in this case make sure that Democrats don’t lose the Senate in the 2014 elections.  As a result if Obama’s polling data indicates that he has to be “tough” on Ukraine Putin may get more pushback than he expected.

While that may sound good-- after all it’s better for Obama to do the right thing even if it’s for the wrong reason than to do the wrong thing right?—the reality is that presidential unpredictability can lead the US into a major war.

If Khrushchev had known how Kennedy would react there would have been no near nuclear war.  Similarly if Kennedy had rolled over and publically agreed to what he privately promised Khrushchev without the naval blockade of Cuba and the related military show there also would not have been millions of Americans wondering if they would be obliterated in a nuclear holocaust.  It was Kennedy suddenly developing a spine that lead the world to the edge of a nuclear precipice.

Obama’s weakness has placed the US in a similarly dangerous situation today.

Putin, like Khrushchev, is not a nice person but he is not a fool.  Putin invaded Ukraine knowing that it could lead to war only when he thought that Obama would not do anything that would make Russian actions too costly.

While all out nuclear war is not as likely over the Ukraine as it was over Cuba no matter what Obama does America faces the very real threat of involving America in a war with either Russia or China.

If Obama can manage to get NATO to agree to use military force-- an unlikely event given the basically liberal, ie cowardly, nature of most European governments—we may end up in a land war with Russia.

If however Obama only uses words and some mostly for show economic “punishments” he risks getting us in a war with China.

China has been making increasingly aggressive claims to the ocean hundreds of miles from China but very near to countries such as the Philippines. In fact the head of US naval intelligence in the Pacific has said that the Chinese military is training to be able to rapidly seize the Japanese Senkaku islands.  If Chinas leadership believes that Obama is a paper tiger then they will be more likely to make aggressive moves to seize islands claimed by other countries that could lead to a war with China.

Would Obama be willing to risk a nuclear Japan and Taiwan by letting the Chinese use military force to claim huge swaths of the ocean? Because if Obama fails to respond to Chinese aggression both Japan and Taiwan would see that they couldn’t count on the US nuclear umbrella and develop their own nuclear deterrents.

But if Obama calls the Chinese bluff and commits US military forces we’ll be in a war with China.

The only thing that prevents countries like China and Russia from using their military power to grab whatever they want is the fear that the US will stand against them.

Obama’s public weakness, his obvious lack of concern or knowledge about foreign affairs, and his continual support of American enemies—ranging from Iran to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt—make it easy for the leaders of America’s enemies to assume that America under Obama can be pushed around.

When Obama acts like a weakling and then turns around and becomes unpredictably aggressive when he thinks his political interests are threatened by foreign actions it sets the stage for an unintentional slide into war.

Obama is following in Clintons footsteps in making America unsafe. Remember that bin Laden thought that he could get away with 9/11 because of how Clinton ran from Somalia.

Democrat presidents who are more concerned with buying votes with food stamps than with defending America inevitably increase the risk that foreign miscalculation will lead to the US being involved in a war.

Feel free to follow tom on Twitter

Thursday, February 27, 2014

The Democrat war on women

A new study indicates that using oral contraceptives increase women's chance of getting MS by up to 30%.

You're not going to hear about this in the liberal leaning media nor will Democrat politicians complain about it for the simple reason that in the view of Democrats women should be sex objects who can also earn money.

Liberal men don't want to have to commit to a woman and they really don't like kids all that much.  As a result even though the UN has determined that the pill is a major carcinogen--which few people realize because the liberal Democrat leaning media never mention it-- and now we know that the pill can increase women's risk of getting MS liberals do nothing to either spread the news or reduce the huge risk to women's health.

Also keep in mind that Democrats support sex selection abortions which are almost always targeted at unborn women.

There is a war on women in America today, a war waged by Democrats to ensure that women can be used as sex objects no matter what the cost is to women's health.  Democrats don't care about the deleterious side effects of the pill or that fact that women are targeted in sex selection abortions.  Essentially Democrats are comfortable killing unborn women because they are women and adversely impacting the health of women just so women can be used as sex objects.

Amazingly the Democrats condemn Republicans for Republican's unwillingness to make lower income Black taxpayers subsidize rich white women's contraception even though those contraceptives hurt women.

Democrats are supportive of women so long as women are like men--in the work force making money--but they could care less about women who want to be women--having babies and raising children.  Sure women have what it takes to be great workers but they also have what it takes to be great mothers and most women at some point want to be a mother. Yet Democrats condemn women for raising their children--unless of course the women turns her kids over to strangers and works an80 hour week--while declaring that Democrats are the supporters of women.

Next time a liberal yaps about the Republican war on women ask him if he supports sex selection abortion. Then ask him if he thinks women should take the pill even though it is a carcinogen and it raises the risk of women getting MS.

If he supports either of those things point out that he, not Republicans, is the one waging a war on women.

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Hillary Clinton, Benghazi, and the best case scenario


Liberals claim conservatives are going overboard about Benghazi simply because conservatives don’t like Hillary Clinton.

To counteract that let’s look at a best-case assessment of Ms Clinton’s involvement in the disaster at Benghazi.

First let’s look at the facts which are a matter of public record and not subject to debate:

·      The US Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans died in the attack.
·      It was known that there were significant terrorist elements in Libya
·      The State Department did not increase security in spite of warnings
·      The State Department made extensive changes to the CIA talking points to eliminate references to terrorist involvement
·      The attack was not an outgrowth of a mob or demonstration
·      Ms Clinton called for the prosecution of an American who exercised his First Amendment rights.
·      An unnamed State Department source said on 9/13/2012 that there the anti-Muslim movie had nothing to do with the attack
·      Ms Clinton on 9/14/2012 continued to blame the movie
·      The State Department didn’t acknowledge that there were no protesters until 10/9/2012

Let’s assume that at all times Ms Clinton acted solely based on the best interests of America; that her political future in no way impacted any of her actions.

What can we then conclude about Ms. Clinton’s capabilities?

The bipartisan Senate report clearly concluded that the Benghazi tragedy could have been avoided because of the warnings that were available and pins the blame on the State Department and the Intelligence Community.

How Ms Clinton failed keep Americans safe and how she reacted to her failure provides insights into her suitability for the Presidency.

The first negative assessment of Ms Clinton in this best case scenario is based on the fact that she didn’t think terrorists might find attacking on 9/11 tempting.

Her reasoning could have gone one of several ways:
·      Terrorism is no longer a real problem so we needn’t be concerned
·      There are no terrorists in Libya so we needn’t be concerned
·      She didn’t bother to think about the issue at all

In the first case she would have demonstrated an amazingly inaccurate understanding of a key threat to the US.  Could we ever trust someone with that sort of outlook to run America’s foreign policy as President?

In the second case she would have demonstrated not listening to her subordinates, having selected subordinates who were not up to the task, or of having created a climate where raising the issue of terrorism was frowned on.  Clearly someone who ran such a dysfunctional organization is ill suited for running the entire government.

In the third case Ms Clinton would have demonstrated a significant failure in determining what was important.  Do we want a President who can’t prioritize critical issues?

The second negative assessment we can make about Ms Clinton is based on her declaration that she would ensure that the maker of the anti-Muslim movie would be punished.

The first key insight this provides to us is that Ms Clinton believes the First Amendment does not apply to attacks on Muslims and/or to anything that would make US foreign policy harder.  She has not gone on record condemning such anti-Christian artwork as “Piss Christ”—a crucifix in a jar of the “artists” urine – so one has to wonder if she believes that Muslims are more protected than Christians.

Sticking to the concept of best-case analysis however let’s assume that Ms Clinton believes that any artist who produces a piece of art which is offensive to any religious group should be prosecuted.  Do we really want a President who believes that the full power of government should be applied to anyone who creates offensive art?  Christians didn’t call for “Piss Christ” to be destroyed or its creator “punished” but only for condemnation of the work and for the government to not pay for it.

In a similar vein let’s suppose that Ms Clinton only feels that those individuals whose art or expression creates problems for US foreign policy should be subject to prosecution.  Given that the First Amendment was intended to protect political speech, not pornography, it would be very bad to have a President who believed that American’s don’t have the right to publically express condemnation of foreign groups.  From a liberal perspective if this is Ms Clintons belief there is an even more serious problem.  Muslims constantly condemn the US as a source of pornography. Hence Ms Clinton may feel a need to prosecute all producers of pornography that offends Muslims; something liberals would clearly find as intolerable.

Finally even if we assume that Ms Clinton actually believed that Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous riot it seems odd that her first response would be to blame a movie made in America rather than the Libyan mob. Do we want a President who thinks that the problems in the world are due to American movies and not violent Muslims?  Shouldn’t the President condemn murder more than she condemns making offensive movies?

The last major failing of Ms Clinton is that under her the State Department was completely ineffective in keeping her apprised of world events.

Long after there was clear evidence that the attack on Benghazi was not a mob gone bad Ms Clinton kept pitching that story to the American people.

Those who think ill of Ms Clinton would say that she was deliberately lying to protect Obama in return for Obama supporting her in the 2016 primaries. But from the best-case approach that can’t be true.

The only possible conclusion is that Ms Clintons own hand picked staff and advisors were either lying to her or so incompetent that they were unable to find out the facts themselves. Do we want a President who is so inept in picking critical subordinates? What sort of Cabinet appointments can we expect from Ms Clinton given her apparent abject failure in staffing at the State Department?

Using a best-case analysis where we assume that politics had no influence on Ms Clintons actions we can conclude that:

·      She does not understand the role of terrorism in the modern world: she did not understand that Americans might be at risk in a country full of terrorists on 9/11
·      She does not believe in the First Amendment: she wants to punish a man for his Constitutionally protected free speech
·      She does not know how to select good subordinates: her staff were incapable of keeping her up-to-date on what had happened in Benghazi

Even in the best-case scenario it’s clear that Ms Clinton lacks some of the key characteristics we need in a President.

Feel free to follow tom on Twitter

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Liberal Lies 203: Republicans want to cut Social Security

While perusing formerly newspaper based cartoons on the web I was targeted with the same ad over and over; Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer warning me that people want to cut Social Security and Medicare.

The only person who's cutting Social Security and Medicare is President Obama, with the support of Senators Boxer and Feinstein.

President Obama is proposing to cut Social Security by $130 Billion and Medicare by $380Billion.

So Boxer and Feinstein are trying to gin up outrage over the cuts to Medicare and Social Security that they support, since they support Obama.

Another example of how truth is not considered important in liberal land.