Why God makes Western civilization possible.

If there is no God or if god is a mean old nasty guy who likes the wealthy--think the Greek or Roman gods--then there is no basis for the most fundamental belief of modern Western civilization--that all men are equal.

If we're all not equal because we're all children of an all powerful God who loves us then there is really no rational reason to believe that an inner city crack addicted child should be equal in the eys of the law to John Kerry.

But if we aren't equal then the superior people exploiting the inferior ones is an ok thing.

In societies that either eschew God altogether, such as the Communist regimes of the last century or China today, or which embrace gods who sanction violence against non-believers--such as Muslim countries--there is no basis for the equality of all.

Any honest analysis of Western history shows that one  can only conclude that Christianity is what motivates and justifies the movement towards democracy and the rights of all people.

Your freedoms are a direct result of that little child who was born in a manger nearly 2000 years ago; yet another reason to celebrate Christmas by thanking God.

Christmas for Democracy

Christmas is a celebration of the fact that God so loved the world that He became man and was willing to be tortured to death so that we might all have the chance of spending eternity with Him.

This message of God's love has a very real secular aspect for without God's love there is no basis for declaring that "all" men are created equal.  Our equality is clearly not based on our capabilities or our inheritances; both of which vary dramatically. Rather our equality is based on the fact that we are all brothers and sisters of one Father who resides in Heaven.

Without the Christian God there is no real basis for democracy or equality; the Founders clearly recognized that when they declared that we are created equal by God and that He gives us certain inalienable rights.

 In a world where we are all just animals and there is nothing more than matter men are clearly not equal nor do they have any obligation to treat others well. In a country that believes that rights flow from government not God the concept of inalienable rights is clearly insane.

In Christ's world, the real world, not only are we all equal because we are siblings but we have an obligation to treat our family as we would have them treat us.  Our inalienable rights come from He who made us not the people who happen to have political power today.

So when you celebrate Christmas put the vast majority of your emphasis on gratitude to a God who so loves us in spite of our sins and failings that He willingly suffered all the day to day miseries of life for us, and of course died a horrible death to save us, but don't forget that without Christmas there can be no true freedom and no America as we have known it.

There are minorities then there are minorities

It is taken for granted by the liberal establishment that they are more caring and more committed to tolerance than anyone else in the world. When it is pointed out that it is conservatives who give more to charity liberals will often respond by pointing out their commitment to ensure that minorities, and not just racial minorities, are never oppressed by the majority.

Since Americans in general don’t like oppressing their fellow citizens liberals gain support among the non-politically in tune population with the claim that liberals stand for any minority.

When looking at racial minorities there is clearly no basis for liberals to claim the high ground. Historically it has been liberals, such as FDR, who supported public racism not conservatives. Conservatives have never argued for discrimination against minorities based on race, after all it was conservatives like Dwight Eisenhower who pushed strongly for integration and who voted for the Civil rights act of 1964.  

While liberals do attempt to lie about their support of racial minorities--primarily by declaring that racially discriminatory laws are ok so long as only Whites, and more recently Asians, are discriminated against-- often liberals hitch their moral back patting on liberals support for non-racial minorities.

Liberals for example champion the rights of atheists to not have to see religious symbols or hear religious speech, the right of gays to declare any non-transitory “sexual” relationship to be a marriage, the right of Nazi’s to march in a neighborhood full of Holocaust survivors, the right of Muslims to build a triumphalist building next to Ground Zero,  and the right of Occupy Wall Street to violate most any law.

Because all of these groups make up only a tiny proportion of the population--atheists are about 2.4% of Americans, Muslims, OWCers,  and Nazi’s are much less than 1%, and gays are between 1 and 3%--liberals say that supporting the positions of these tiny minorities over the position of the vast majority of Americans show that liberals are tolerant; unlike those evil conservatives.  Liberals tell voters that liberals can be trusted because they won’t oppress even minorities.

The problem of course is that the liberals do not in fact support the rights of minorities in general.

In the case of the HHS mandate liberals support the right of the government to force Catholics to directly pay for services they find morally evil. 

Catholics are clearly a minority making up only about  26% of Americans, with even a smaller portion who care enough about the Church’s teaching on contraception to be impacted by the mandate.  Therefore if liberals really believe in the right of the minority to not be trampled by the majority liberals would have to stand with Catholics who oppose the HHS mandate.

Of course liberals are clearly not standing with faithful Catholics but instead are arguing vigorously that Catholics have no right to expect to be able to exercise the Catholic faith in their daily life.

The situation is even worse for liberals than it appears at first glance.  In the case of atheists liberals believe that atheists should not be required to view Christian symbology on public property; that is liberals believe that atheists cannot even be required to tolerate being exposed to Christian symbolism. 

In the case of the HHS mandate the issue is not one of tolerance since no Catholic company has ever fired or discriminated against an employee because that employee--or their spouse--used contraception or had an abortion.  Instead the issue is the forced direct funding by Catholics of contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion inducing chemicals. The correct analogy would be if the majority wanted to make atheists  directly pay for Bibles and facilitate Bible study classes for their employees.  That is liberals are not asking Catholics to tolerate the will of the majority but to become directly complicit in what the majority has declared to be good.

Another minority that liberals have no sympathy for are gun owners. Roughly 47% of Americans own guns yet liberals are constantly trying to eliminate that minorities right to own guns.  Interestingly liberals are also quite keen on helping people who use guns to commit crimes to get off with no or minimal punishment if certain arcane procedural rules aren’t followed.

Recently the liberal establishment has picked a new minority to be declared, by liberals, to be public enemy number one; no not drug dealers or rapists but rather the top 1% of Americans based on wealth.  Liberals are clear in saying that the majority has every right to confiscate as much of this economic minorities wealth as they want. Once again liberals are declaring that the majority can target certain minority groups for special, and discriminatory, treatment.

Finally liberals clearly have no problem with the majority oppressing the minority in the case of ObamaCare. To support the right of the government to take over the health care of most Americans on a strictly party line vote is a clear case of a highly transitory liberal majority oppressing the conservative minority.

How is it possible to reconcile the liberal claims on tolerance with the actions of liberals?

The answer is simply that liberals have no interest in minority rights except to the extent that minorities can be used to further liberal beliefs.  This can be seen by looking at which minorities liberals support and why.

Liberals support atheists because liberals in general don’t like the fact that religion puts limits on the authority of government.  In the liberal universe men owe their first loyalty to the government not God.

Liberals support gays because liberals, in general, support sexual promiscuity and the decorrelation of sex and responsibility.  Additionally breaking down the traditional family gives the “village”, ie government bureaucrats, more authority over other peoples children; a key step in ensuring that men will view the government as the source of all good.

Liberals support Muslims because Muslims oppose Jews and Christians and Muslims are too scary to cross.  Since Muslims are too tiny a minority to actually oppress liberals liberals don’t worry that supporting Muslims will turn people away from the government.

Liberals support Nazi’s because liberal anti-semitism--shown by their support of those who would commit a new genocide against Jews--has been suppressed but not eradicated. It’s one thing to say that Jews and Palestinians need to get along it’s quite another to say that it’s ok for Palestinians to call for the slaughter of Jews in the Middle East.

On the other hand minorities that don’t support liberal beliefs are treated very differently by liberals.

Liberals support the oppression of Catholics by the HHS mandate because liberals believe that Catholic morality is wrong. If the HHS mandate required abstinence based sex education or women to use natural family planning we all know that liberal shrieks would be heard as far away as Tiananmen square.

Liberals want to remove guns from honest people because liberals don’t want an armed citizenry who could put a halt to government expansion and because liberals generally believe that most Americans are too stupid or unprincipled to be capable of safely owning a gun; all those red neck fly over folks who cling to their guns are not well respected by liberals.

Liberals have no problems with the majority arbitrarily raising taxes on the minority because liberals believe that government, if run by liberals, is the rightful owner of all wealth in the country. While not overtly Communist-- in that most liberals don’t believe in a 100% tax rate -- liberals do believe that the government has the right and obligation to ensure “fairness” of outcome; everyone gets the same paycheck no matter how hard or how little they work.

Liberals believe that ObamaCare can be forced on everyone because liberals believe that the same government which they condemn for bloated inefficiency when talking about the DoD is more efficient than private industry when dealing with healthcare. Because ObamaCare extends government power it doesn’t matter to liberals that 20 or more times more Americans oppose ObamaCare than oppose a Creche in a public park at Christmas.

As part of the conservative effort to deconstruct the false front that hard core liberals use to gain the support of average Americans it’s a good idea to continually point out that liberals are not tolerant and do not support the rights of minorities in America.

Taking advantage

We need to make sure that the Republican establishment doesn't try and take advantage of conservatives as a result of Romney's loss.

Romney was about as low key on social issues as conservatives could handle; I spent a lot of time convincing conservatives that it was better to vote for Romney than to vote third party.  Any moving away from the social issues which are the only reason many people vote Republican will lose votes, not gain them.

Romney was all about fiscal responsibility, making jobs, and telling Americans to be responsible.  Yet he lost. 

Part of it may be that he's Mormon.  I don't think any conservatives voted against him because of that but I suspect many were far less energetic for Romney because of that.  Romney lives a life which few Christians can emulate in terms of his love of neighbor and his charity.  But while Mormons seem to be nice people, excepting Harry Reid, their faith is very odd.

Part of it may be that Romney didn't convince conservatives to come out and vote for him.  Romney's liberal past made it easy for Obama to paint Romney as being a liberal at heart.

But it's clear that his position on social issues didn't drag him down.

It's a lie that all Republicans care about are fat cats. But it is true that people whose whole lives have been in Washington tend to worry about the fat cats.  Democrats are the ones that let the folks in Wall Street walk away with no punishment and with huge government investments to ensure they didn't lose money.  Too many in the Republican establishment don't get it. 

If Obama had been pro-life and Romney pro-abortion--in all cases--I would have voted for Obama.  Throw in gay "marriage" and the oppression of the Church I would have given Obama money even though I know he will tank the economy.

It's odd that establishment Republicans talk about a big tent when they want to include pro-aborts but they seem to have no trouble with a small tent when trying to ditch conservative social positions.

St. Francies of Assisi

The new oppression.

Emboldened by the election results liberals will soon begin a new war on God.

The rights of man, recognized by the Constitution, come from God and as such are an intolerable affront to the liberal belief that liberals have the ability and the right to replace God as the source of all moral truth.

The nanny state cannot achieve it's objective if men have rights which flow from something other than the government.  So long as people believe in something greater than government the liberals who yearn to tell everyone how to live will be limited in their ability to enforce their faith on the rest of America.

We've seen the opening move in this new wave of bigoted oppression. Liberals have changed freedom of religion to freedom of worship.  Just like Saudi Arabia tolerates Christians so long as they show no signs of Christianity in public life American liberals will tolerate Christians so long as they leave their faith at the door when they leave church on Sunday.

In the end God will win; He always does.  But we must be ready to fight the good fight to keep the religious liberty so many men have died to protect.

On a postive note

In the end when we die, starting off very positively right? :), God will not ask us who was president nor will it matter who won what political battles.

All that will matter is if we lived our lives in keeping with His teachings and if we strove to bring others to Him, including through the political process.

Additionally in Sodom and Gomorrah the good people were protected from the punishment.  We need to pray that the same will be true for near, not near enough to keep Santa Obamaclause off office, majority of Americans who still believe in the American dream and in God's primacy.

It's time to regroup and move on but not to forget that in the end God will judge us on how we live not how our country is governed.

It's time to serve Him.

We're all Marxists now!

The election results show that the nearly 80 year old Democrat plan to lock in their political power by creating a huge class of thieves who depend on the government stealing from those who work to give to those who work less, if at all, has succeeded.

In doing so the power addicted Democrats have finally proven Alex de Tocqueville right.



"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. "



To be clear Americans agree that no one should starve in America nor should they die of cold due to lack of shelter.  Helping those truly in need is something even the most die hard of conservatives can agree with.  But in American where the “poor” get free cell phones and where 63% of the “poor” have satellite or cable TV we’ve gone far beyond helping the poor. The elderly believe others should pay for their medical bills and the “poor” shamelessly clamor for far more than the minimal it takes to get by.

While the thieves are not in the majority their numbers are large enough to ensure that politicians who gleefully plunder hard working Americans to give to the thief class will win the majority of elections.

So many Americans are on the take that the President is now the commander in thief whose mission is to take from those who have to give to those who vote for him.



The modern American thief class range from the well to do who want their medical care paid for by their fellow citizens so that the well to do can continue to live a luxurious lifestyle to the folks who believe that everyone who can sneak across the border should be entitled to all the benefits of our welfare society courtesy of the government.  We should also not forget the government union workers who make much more than the taxpayers whose earnings the union workers live off of.  



The new thief class are Marxist in their outlook in that they believe that the government, not the people, own what the people produce. They believe that the government has the right to take from anyone in order to give to those who will vote to keep a liberal government in power.  Although to be fair the thief class does not think the government owns what they in the thief class have which is why the thieves only support tax increases for the “rich”; ie the non-thief class.



Because the thieves believe in the unlimited power of the government the thieves have also stolen the patrimony of all Americans; the rule of law under the Constitution.  Obama has clearly embarrassed, assuming they have a shred of honesty in them, those who called Nixon’s an “imperial” presidency through Obama’s consistent flouting of the Constitution.  Given that the Supreme Court, in it’s ruling on Obamacare, has shown that it will not be a bulwark against the erosion of Americans rights there is every reason to believe that Obama’s extra-Constitutional activities will go on unfettered.

America is no longer the land of the free for the free have become chattels for the thief class.

Which is why it’s time for those who do build things and who do actually work need to become Marxists too.



Marx proclaimed that the workers needed to throw off the shackles of their oppressors and demand their fair share of the wealth they were generating.



Today in America it’s the people who go to work every day and who build businesses who are the oppressed proletariat.  It is they who produce wealth only to have it stolen by a government which uses the money to pay off those who vote for Obama.



Now Americans are shackled not by greedy capitalists who exploit them for wealth but by greedy politicians who exploit them for political power.

It is time for those who make America work to take a stand against the thief class and the politicians who pander to and encourage the thieves.



How best to throw off the oppressive tyranny of the modern Democrat thief axis is something that conservatives need to start addressing. 

The longer the delay the more entrenched the thief class will become.

America is on a path to oppression but it is not to late to take an off ramp. But the doers must take action soon.

An Anti-Michelle Moment

Michelle Obama famously said that the first time she was proud of her country--presumably the US--was when Barrack was nominated for President.

Last night was the first time I have not been proud of my country. 

Obama is a liar who threw mud at a much better man for months.  When's the last time you saw Obama personally doing anything to help those in need? Yet Democrats ridiculed Romney for trying to help the victims of Sandy.

Obama's web site is designed to facilitate fraud.

Everything Obama has done has been a failure.

Unemployment is obscenely high, much higher than under Bush.

Obamacare is a huge tax increase and it is already causing people to lose their health insurance.

Obama's policies led directly to the murder of Americans in Benghazi.

Obama is the most hyperpartisan President America has ever had.

Obama is for the largest tax increase in the history of America which will occur in January unless new laws are passed.

Obama is going to allow sequestration to occur which will devastate the military.

Obama wants to steal from those who earn and give to those who vote for him.

Obama has run an imperial presidency creating laws via administrative fiat when Congress would not pass those same laws.

Obama is forcing Catholics to pay for insurance policies that pay for abortions and he's forcing Catholics to show employee's how they can get those abortion benefits.





In summary there is not a single positive thing that one can say about Obama. 

The people who voted for Obama did so because he is going to steal from American workers and give to them.

It's sad to see that the thieves are now numerous enough to decide elections.

Now is the time to pray, and vote.

This is a momentous election.

If Obama wins it there will be a descent into greater poverty, both in terms of money and in terms of morality.  The government will continue it's assault on the rights of individuals, currently Catholics but with no need to worry about reelection Obama will take aim at other groups.  Obama will practice an even more imperial presidency with executive orders replacing legislation and continual legal battles between Congress and Obama.

Obama shares his fathers view that capitalism is bad and that America is a problem in the world rather than the best solution.

If Romney wins we have a chance to bring back the greatness of America.  There will be sacrifice but at least the vision of our President will match the vision of our Founders.

We can't know if Romney will succeed but we can know that he will try to restore the economy and he will end the assault on individual liberties.

At this time it's even more clear than usual that in the end our best tool for advancing what is good is prayer.  As the great St. Augustine said:

Pray as though everything depends on God. Work as though everything depends on you.

We need to vote and to remind our friends to vote. But after we've cast our ballot the most important, the most powerful thing we can do is reach out to our Heavenly Father and ask His loving support.  He thirsts to guide us to Him; all we need to do is ask.

No matter what happens we will know that God did what was best.  And for that we can be grateful.

Some good prayers for this election are:

Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.

This novena is to be said at the same time every hour for nine consecutive hours in one day.

This is a good novena for urgent requests that cannot wait nine days to be prayed. You pray it every hour for nine hours at the same time. For example, if you begin praying at 12:00, your next prayer is at 1:00, then 2:00, until your ninth prayer is at 9:00.


There's nothing magical about it.  Your sticking to specific times is just a way to demonstrate your commitment and love of God. 

Remember too that God answers all prayers.  He, in His infinite wisdom, may realize that we're, unknowingly, asking for something that will hurt us.

I remember that when my dad died I thought that God hadn't answered my prayers. But He had.  A few years after dad died it was clear that if dad hadn't died when he did he would have suffered a great deal. That added an emotional oomph to the my intellectual realization that trusting in God is always the best path.

O Jesus, Who has said,
ask and you shall receive,
seek and you shall find,
knock and it shall be opened to you,
through the intercession of Mary,
Your Most Holy Mother, I knock,
I seek, I ask that my prayer be granted.
(Make your request)

O Jesus, Who has said,
all that you ask of the Father in My Name,
He will grant you through the intercession of Mary.
Your Most Holy Mother.
I humbly and urgently ask Your Father
in Your Name that my prayer be granted.

(Make your request)

O Jesus, Who has said,
"Heaven and earth shall pass away
but My word shall not pass",
through the intercession of Mary,
Your Most Holy Mother,
I feel confident that my prayer will be granted.

(Make your request)

Lose Lose

On Benghazi Obama can't win.

Either his belief that his election would change Muslim extremists attitudes about America in conjunction with Obama realizing that he walked away from Libya creating the disaster waiting to happen led to low security in Libya and a lack of forces ready to support our people in a time of crisis, not that any sane person thought terrorists would attack on 9/11, or Obama either by direct order or by not overriding his subordinates allowed Americans to die rather than risk a political debacle.

There is no option on Libya that shows Obama to be remotely qualified to lead this country.

It's lose lose.

Liberals and the truth

An old friend of mine from high school keeps sending me these messages about this or that horrible truth about Romney or conservatives.

Every single time it turns out that not only is there no basis for his claim but it's easy to find that his claim is factually in error.

Yet he doesn't ever seem to be bothered. If I posted something that turned out to be factually wrong, not just a matter of opinion, I'd be really apologetic and upset with myself.

But he, and most other liberals, have no problem posting things that are proven to be false. They don't question future "revelations" from the same source.  They seem almost unconcerned about the truth.

They then turn around and accuse those who don't agree with them of being bigots and liars; this is exemplified by Obama the liar in chief, and I'm not referring to his musical skills, calling Romney a bullshitter--sorry for the language, it used to be you could quote a President in mixed company.

I'm beginning to think that at least the hard core vocal liberals, as opposed to most who vote for liberal candidates because they have only heard one side of the story, really don't care about truth but only about power.

It's amazing how totalitarian liberals are.  They have no problem telling us how to run the most miniscule aspects of our lives--no you can't have plastic food bags at the store; we know what's best for you--even though their lives are usually a complete mess.

Gravitas?

Americans want their Presidents to be one of the people while simultaneously having a certain aura of authority.

Presidents wear suits while working but are expected to dress down when goofing off.

While it's hard to define that special gravitas that marks a President that Americans can be happy with I'm fairly sure it doesn't include calling an opponent a "bullshiter" or posting a picture of your opponent wearing a dunce cap on your web page.

It is said that the true character of a man is revealed when he is facing his greatest challenge.  If so we have discovered that Obama is a petulant and easily offended man who maintains one standard for himself and another for those he dislikes.

Obama Anti-diversity zealot

Obama hates diversity.

What else can one conclude when Obama says that Catholics must pay for abortions?

What happened to respecting diversity?

Did we make Quakers fight when we had the draft?  No because America respects diversity.

But under Mr Anti-Diversity Obama no longer wants us to be a diverse nation. Rather we must all believe as Obama does or risk being crushed by the massive Federal government.

Obama: Scrooge or Liar

Just how selfish is Obama? What could there possibly be in Obama's college transcripts and passport records that's so worth hiding it makes sense to deny $5,000,000 to a charity of Obama's choosing?

Why is it the Dems say that there must be something wrong with Romney's tax records because he wouldn't release them but when Obama turns down $5.000.000 for charity in order to keep his college transcripts and passport records under wraps it's fine?

There are only two conclusions. Either there is something truly horrible in Obama's college transcripts or passport records or Obama doesn't really care about the charities he supposedly supports.

He died for us

If you're pro-choice which candidate is more like you?

Mitt Romney supports abortions in cases of rape, incest, and threats to the life of the mother.  His position is shared by roughly 75% of Americans.

Romney does not believe that tax dollars should go to pay for abortions.

President Obama supports abortion for rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother.

President Obama supports sex selection abortions where the unborn are killed because they're a girl and the parents want a boy.

President Obama supports abortions in the third trimester; when the baby is viable.

President Obama supports abortions for any reason at any time in the pregnancy.

President Obama supports partial birth abortion where a viable fetus is fully delivered except for her head and then her brain is mulched up with a knife and her skull is crushed.

President Obama believes that Catholics should have to offer insurance policies that fund abortion inducing chemicals.

President Obama supports abortion after the 20th week of a pregnancy even though scientific studies have shown that the fetus will suffer severe pain before dying in an abortion

President Obama opposes requiring medical care for a baby that survives a botched abortion attempt and is born alive.

President Obama is not bothered that a Black woman is 3 times more likely to abort her child than a white woman.  He doesn't agree with Jesse Jackson who said that abortion was genocide directed at Black people.

I'm pro-life; I don't think any problem is solved by killing an innocent member of the human species.

But if you're pro-choice odds are your beliefs are far closer to Mitt Romney's than to Barrack Obama's extreme position.

If abortion influences how you vote consider this; unless you are one of the small group of Americans who believe that it's ok to kill the unborn at any time for any reason Romney is the candidate closest to you.

That HHS mandate

The important thing to realize is that if the HHS mandate is allowed to stand a precedent will be set that there is nothing to constrain the government from forcing anyone to do anything.

The intent of the Framers was to give American's liberty but how can there be liberty if the government can force people to do what those people believe is immoral?

Back when men were drafted into the Army we didn't make those who thought war was intrinsically immoral fight.  We did so because we realized our country would not be free if the government had the power to coerce people to do whatever the government decided was "good".

The HHS mandate however clearly demands that those that find abortion to be immoral can be required by the government to provide abortion to their employee's and to explain to their employee's how they can get poison that will kill unborn members of the human race.

If being able to force people to be complicit in what they believe to be murder is legal then what is there that the government could force people to do would not be legal?

Working towards the goal

I didn't want Romney to be the Republican candidate for President.  I am far from alone in that.

However now that the choice is either Romney or Obama it's clear that voting for a third party candidate, and thereby helping Obama win, would be a shoot yourself in the foot move.

We've seen this in the past. Back in the early 1970's after abortion was legalized there was a very good chance that we could have gotten laws passed that would have restricted abortion to just the hard cases--rape, incest, life of the mother--but too many in the pro-life movement wouldn't accept that as a first step towards total abolition of abortion. As a result we got no limitations on abortion.

Demanding perfection left us far worse off than accepting, albeit temporarily, a compromise.

On all the issues that made me want someone else other than Romney Romney is infinitely better than Obama. 

Every journey begins with the first step.  For those of you thinking of throwing your vote away, and helping Obama win, by voting third party because Romney isn't "perfect" ask yourself this question: What's the likelihood that we'll be getting a "perfect" candidate in 2016,2020,2024 if Obama gets reelected this year?

Voting for Romney does not mean we stop working to make sure his administration doesn't support the causes we are passionate about like abortion and religious liberty. Neither does it mean that we shouldn't be working to get more conservatives elected to the Congress. 

Finally voting for Romney is not saying that his positions are where we want to end up. It is saying that Romney's positions are closer to what we want than Obama's and that every step towards our final objectives is a good thing.

Don't rationalize that by voting for a third party you're not helping Obama.  Obama needs to get more votes than Romney to win; especially in the key swing states.  If you vote for some third party guy who 90% of America has never even heard of it's one less vote Obama needs to get--or manufacture-- in order to win.

Don't help Obama win just because we ended up with something other than the best possible Republican candidate.  Instead help pave the way for more conservative Republicans in the future by getting Romney elected in 2012.

The ever changing Obama meme on Benghazi

In the debate Obama said that he had declared the attack on Benghazi to be a terrorist attack the day after the attack occurred.

Reading the transcript of his talk however it's clear that was not what he was saying.

The real point however is if he was willing to admit that Benghazi was a terrorist attack rather than just a mob gone wild why did the entire Obama administration keep talking about the anti-Muslim movie for weeks?

Why did Obama and Secretary of State Clinton appear in commercials, aired in Pakistan, condemning the movie?

Why did Ambassador Rice appear on all the Sunday talk shows on 9/14 declaring that it was all due to the movie?

Either Obama is lying about what he said on 9/12 or his Administration's foreign policy is totally uncoordinated.  Both of which are reasons to let someone else run America's foreign policy.

Sunset surfer

Joe Biden Neo-Nazi

That sounds harsh.

After all the Nazi’s murdered millions of peoples and conducted a genocidal attack on Jews in Europe.



We all agree that killing innocent Jews just because they were unwanted by the racist Nazi establishment was the most extreme horror created by Hitler.   



Yet Joe Biden came out for the legalized killing of innocents in his debate with Paul Ryan.



The Catholic Church has taught since its inception, as evidenced by the Didache, that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.



Not everyone in America agrees with that. Certainly many who support legalized abortion do not believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.



But on Thursday in the debate Joe Biden said

"

Life begins at conception, that’s the Church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others..."

That means that Joe Biden believes that every abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, for what crime or sin can a newly conceived person be guilty of?, whose life began at conception.

It doesn’t matter if his belief is objectively true or not; what matters is that it is what he believes. 



But even though Joe Biden believes that every abortion is the killing of an innocent human being he does not feel that it is a good thing to end that killing. 

If Biden had lived in Nazi Germany he might have said that he personally believed that killing innocent Jews was bad but that he, Biden, couldn’t impose his personal beliefs on those Nazi’s.



It’s one thing to have a politician like Bill Clinton who just denies the scientific evidence about abortion and says that he believes that abortion is not the killing of a human being.  While one can doubt Clinton’s reasoning one can still hope that he is not comfortable with the killing of innocents; Clinton for all his other problems at least claimed to want to keep abortion “rare”.



But when Joe Biden says that he believes that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being and that he, Biden, still believes that abortion should be legal--through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason-- he is declaring that he believes it is reasonable to allow the murder of innocent human beings.



What sort of monster can believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being and still say it should be legal?

Obama loves high gas prices

I just paid $4.76 a gallon for gas. I guess Obama is more than half way to his objective of getting US gas prices to be comparable to European gas prices, about $8/gal.

Some will say that the Presidents opposition to drilling for oil--in the US he sent $2,000,000,000 to Brazil to fund oil drilling there--and building new refineries has no impact on the price of gas.

But back in 2008, when gas was nearing $3/gal, Obama and other Democrats blamed Bush. So if Bush can be held responsible for gas prices so can Obama.

The Killing Exception

If we let people avoid combat because they have a moral objection to war why can't we let Christians who oppose abortion be conscientious objectors to the HHS mandate that requires them to directly pay for and offer abortifacient "medicines" to their employees?

Due to an editorial confusion this article shouldn't have been published here.  I submitted it to American Thinker and I thought they weren't interested in it but in reality there was some confusion on their part, they have multiple editors, and they forgot to let me know they were going to publish it.

Since I promised to only send them unique material I've removed the content of this really amazing--note my incredibly humble attitude-- post but you can read it in all of its amazingly humble wonderfulness here

Natural Neon

Dragonfly as comb jellyfish

National Empty Chair day; it's never is out of style

It's never too late to say the obvious.

The Rule of Obama

Historically the American ideal has been that all men should be equal before the law.  While America hasn’t always achieved that it’s part of American DNA as evidenced by the anger that people have when it’s perceived that a rich or famous person gets preferential treatment in court.



We’ve known for a long time that Obama holds a different view of how the law is to be applied.

Among the first examples of Obama’s belief that not all men are created equal was in 2011 when roughly 1200 entities, representing 3% of Americans, received exemptions from certain aspects of ObamaCare.  Outside of the MSM significant concern was raised about the fact that those entities seemed to disproportionately consist of friends of Obama.



For example the AARP that lobbied heavily for ObamaCare was given an exemption from government oversight on the rates it charges for its lucrative “Medigap” coverage.



At the time it seemed that perhaps the Chicago rule of who you are not the law was coming into play.  The law being merely a guideline that could be modified by politicians to benefit the good--ie those who contributed--people and punish the bad--those who voted for your opponent--people.  That of course is a classical example of the corruption that most Americans associate with the Third World.



Another example of the Rule of Obama is his decision to not defend, in direct contravention of his Oath of Office, the Defense of Marriage Act, a law fully supported by Bill Clinton and the Democrats when it was passed. 

Under the Rule of Law Obama would have had to defend the law until it was either modified or repealed by Congress or the Supreme Court determined that the law was unconstitutional.  But under the Rule of Obama the President has the power to decide what laws are to be enforced and who those laws will be enforced on.



Just recently there have been two other major examples of Obama’s “nuanced” view of the law.

In early August the Obama administration told defense contractors to ignore the WARN Act, a law which requires large companies to give a 60 day warning when they are planning to lay off a large number of workers--note that Solyndra too did not provide warning to its workers.



The supposed Obama rationale was that sequestration was not foreseeable even though it is written in the law.



Defense contractors are clearly leery about this guidance from their prime customer.  They can either break the law, and suffer consequences as Solyndra has discovered--Solyndra was just ordered to pay those laid off back pay-- or they can risk alienating their only customer.



The real motivation behind the Obama administrations guidance is of course that the warning notices that the defense contractors need to send to employee’s whose jobs are at risk because Obama insists that everyone making more than $250,000 a year should pay more taxes would go out mere days before the election.  To avoid this potentially negative impact on Obama the Rule of Obama gives Obama the authority to unilaterally modify any laws which may hurt him.



Just today another example of the Rule of Obama came out.  It turns out that in the sort of ironic parody only liberals can produce the IRS has said it will not enforce the ObamaCare “tax”. 

In response to Obama’s declaration that if he is reelected he will figure out how to work around Congress conservative pundits gave an example of Romney, if elected, “working around Congress” by enacting tax cuts by ordering the IRS to not enforce the tax codes as an example of why the Rule of Obama was not a good idea. 

Today we learn that Obama apparently listens to conservatives but is apparently sarcasm challenged since he himself has just unilaterally enacted a “tax cut” for people, at least until after the election, by having the IRS not enforce the ObamaCare tax law.



The Rule of Obama appears to be that what benefits Obama, and to some extent fellow Democrats, is legal and what hinders them is not.



If Obama is reelected we can expect to see the further Chicagoization of America as who you know becomes more important than what the law says and the law ceases being a set of rules but becomes merely guidelines that the President can modify as he sees fit.

It appears that Obama is truly aiming at the first “Imperial” American presidency.

The Liberal First Amendment

Liberals both in and out of the MSM constantly portray themselves as staunch supporters of the right to free speech. To the extent that many of them worship one of their key gods is supposedly the First Amendment.



After all doesn’t the ACLU defend Nazi’s right to march in front of Holocaust survivors, the right of the KKK to advertise on public property, the most extreme forms of exploitative pornography, and any and all attacks on religion?



What better credentials, our liberal friends tell us, can there be to show how much liberals love free speech?



This week however provides two studies in contrasts which help demonstrate how to liberals really view the First Amendment.



In DC liberals are working hard to censor a man who released an anti-Muslim film.  No not Bill Maher whose film Religulous that spends 20 minutes mocking Islam and was seen by hundreds of thousands of people at movie theaters. Bill is one of the good guys in the liberal universe so apparently his attacks on Islam are fine and proper.


Instead the full power of the American government is being brought to bear on some random Coptic Christian who was probably persecuted by Muslims for his entire life in Egypt. Real persecution; the life threatening kind not the faux kind liberals always invoke for themselves. His movie, released on YouTube and seen by hardly anyone before the latest dust up in the Middle East is now public enemy number one.



You see according to the Obama administration Muslims have very very particular sensitivities. They don’t object to Obama killing Muslims with drone strikes or about Obama’s incessant spiking the football about it.  They’re not bothered by Obama’s war in Afghanistan. They won’t be bothered by a big theater blockbuster about how Obama killed Osama. They weren’t bothered by Bill Maher’s movie--presumably because Maher is a big donor to Obama and Obama has told us how much Muslims love Obama. But by George those peace loving Muslims can’t be expected to endure a low budget seen by no one YouTube video.



As a result the full force of the liberal establishment is focused on the cause of all of our problems in the Middle East; free speech in America.



The same stalwart liberals who howled like wolves at the thought that pieces of “art” that attacks Christians shouldn’t be shown in public museums are now fighting among themselves to see who can most harshly condemn a video that attacks Islam. But they are not just trying to condemn the video they are actively seeking to censor it.



To a typical fly over American it’s a bit hard to understand why putting a Crucifix in a, hopefully, sealed vat of the “artists” urine deserves to be displayed in taxpayer funded museums but a video that condemns Islam must be driven out of even the private sector.



The incongruity is even more obvious when you realize that liberals staunchly defend a porn theaters right to show a movie about raping women but would condemn that same theater for showing this anti-Islam movie.

The first internal contradiction in the Liberal First Amendment then is that attacks on Islam, and pretty much any other religion, by liberals are okay and must be promoted with public funds not just tolerated while attacks against Islam by any one else must be censored not only in the public sector but in the private sector.

The second level of internal contradiction in the Liberal First Amendment is that the KKK which advocates public racism should be allowed to speak on government signs but a cross on a city sign is odious.

In Georgia the ACLU is working hard to ensure that the KKK, a rabidly racist organization founded by the same Democrats who came up with the Jim Crow laws in the post Civil War South, can advertise its good work of cleaning up trash along Georgia highways.



The KKK claims to be a Christian group so they are religious. Yet the same ACLU who is constantly eager to knock crosses out of memorials for Christians that happen to be on public lands is eager to ensure that the KKK can declare its “good” works on public signs.



Just recently there was an outcry by the liberals because the town sign for Steubenville Ohio contained a picture of one of the major economic establishments in the town, the University of Steubenville. That evil university happens to be Catholic and as such it has a Cross on the roof of its chapel. That large chapel is a major landmark in Steubenville and as such it got added to the logo.  If the university had been Jewish there would have been a Star of David and if it had been Muslim there would have been a crescent moon or minaret.  Steubenville was trying to bring in business and tourists not proselytize for Jesus.



The city was simply doing what every city does with its logo; show what’s in town.  Yet liberals could not stand the sight of the Cross--has anyone looked to see if liberals avoid garlic; we know they don’t avoid mirrors.



But in the case of the KKK liberals believe that the government must allow the KKK to be featured prominently on public signs even though the KKK’s speech is blatantly racist.

The second internal contradiction then in the Liberal First Amendment is that racism is protected speech but even the tiniest religious symbol must be censored.



In reality in the Liberal First Amendment there is no freedom of speech. Rather there is freedom to say what the liberal elites like and no freedom for speech they don’t like.  

While this is nothing new, the FACE act passed by liberals makes it a crime to politely try and hand a woman entering an abortion clinic a pamphlet, the events of this week provide clear evidence of the truly anti-free speech core of the Liberal First Amendment.

Obama's military

In late August head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Martin E. Dempsey attacked ex-SEALs for criticizing the egregious security leaks emanating from the White House.

He said

"If someone uses the uniform for partisan politics, ... I’m disappointed in that, I think it erodes that bond of trust we have with the American people.

This displays an amazing ignorance of the relationship between the those who serve America in the military and our Democracy."

While we all agree that active duty members of the military should not campaign in uniform Dempsey seems to be saying that veterans who are no longer on active duty can’t use their service as a credential when speaking out on politics.



That would be news to Dwight David Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and John Kerry. 

It would also be news to the veterans who fought for our Constitutional rights that they are expected to give up their First Amendment rights not just when they were in the military but for their entire life.



In fact at the time many thought that Dempsey’s comments were being pushed as part of a partisan agenda in support of the President who appointed Dempsey.  But many held out hope that Dempsey would condemn all speech by all veterans thereby being ill informed but not biased.



Sadly the DNC has provided more evidence that Dempsey, and hence the military, is being politicized just as Holder has politicized the DOJ.

At the DNC retired Admiral John Nathman spoke at the DNC. While you may have heard his speech described as extolling the troops it was far more than that. The retired admiral said



"And since the day he took office, the president has demonstrated that he respects and understands the challenges for those who wear a uniform. For every branch of the service, for those in civilian clothes or the uniform, President Obama gives us a foreign policy worthy of the men and women on this stage, to ensure that wherever they serve, their uniform and dedication is respected, and that their service makes a difference for America.

For every veteran who comes home wounded, the president invested in the VA and expanded care to more than a half million returning troops who deserve that care."



The speech is a paean to the glories of all things Obama.  It is far more political than the ex-SEALs condemning publicly acknowledge security leaks.



Just as President Obama said the troops were fighting for him not America

"When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf... "

Admiral Nathman seems to think that it’s Obama’s money, not the taxpayers, that goes to the VA.  Similarly the Admiral fails to note that the Republicans in Congress fully supported the increase in VA funding.



Yet General Dempsey has been quiet.

By condemning veterans who criticize Obama and staying silent when veterans support Obama General Dempsey is doing precisely what he supposedly opposes; politicizing the military.



While the average soldier has not been corrupted by Obama’s Chicago style of management it appears a watchful eye needs to be trained on the DoD to see if the leadership is putting Obama or America first.

9/11 and the Blame Game

Because Democrats can never run on their record they constantly try and blame others for their failures.  Sadly because of the willingness of the Main Stream Media(MSM) to play along many Americans blame the wrong people for a variety of current problems.



This is especially evident today when the MSM is trying to blame Bush for 9/11.



9/11 occurred because of the execrable foreign policy of Bill Clinton.



We know that Osama bin Laden thought that America was a paper tiger, unwilling to fight back, based on Clintons running from Somalia after Americans were killed in the infamous Black Hawk down episode.  Just as earlier Democrat presidents had convinced Mao that America would not stand and fight Bill Clinton’s actions convinced Osama that he could attack America without having to worry about retaliation.

After all Clinton had done nothing substantive after the bombing of the USS Cole and Clinton had passed on multiple opportunities to arrest or kill Osama. 

While Clinton was not trying to make America ripe for 9/11 his actions had the effect of giving the go ahead in the mind of Osama.  Also keep in mind that the planning for 9/11 started long before Bush was elected.


Yet today the NYT is trying to lay the blame on George Bush. Why?  Well because Bush is a Republican and Clinton is campaigning for Obama.

There are many other examples of Democrats blaming others for their failures.  Take a look at the current Democrats meme that it is the obstructionist Republicans who are responsible for all of Obama’s broken promises.



For Obama’s first two years in office Democrats had complete control of the Federal government. They controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.  They pushed through Obama’s massive “stimulus” bill and realistically Obama could get pretty much anything he wanted.  Yet even though the steps that Obama then declared to be necessary to “save” the economy were enacted the economy tanked.



A reasonable observer would say that the Democrats were responsible.  Yet liberals and the MSM declare that it is the Republicans who are at fault.



When Bush was president Democrats blocked his judicial appointee's and anything else the could but then Democrats tell us it was necessary to protect the country.  Their obstructionism and their attacks on the war which undercut our troops were declared, by Democrats, to be the essence of patriotism.



Now when Republicans block Democrats from spending more money than we have we’re informed that obstructionism is evil and bad.  That Republicans only care about themselves and not about the country.



As with 9/11 Democrats have tried to blame Republicans for the failure of the policies implemented by Democrats.

The biggest example of this liberal finger pointing is the economic melt down in 2008.  The crisis occurred because too many people had mortgages that they couldn’t afford and that the bad loans had been allowed to grow because the impression was that since the loans were owned by Fannie and Freddie they were safe.



Because Bush was President the Democrats try to blame him for the failure even though he had tried to address the problem by reining in Fannie and Freddie. Should he  have done more? Yes. Were Republicans partly to blame? Yes. But it was the Democrats who blocked the efforts of Republicans to try and address the problem.



Few people know that in 1995 Obama was the lead attorney on a lawsuit that forced CitiBank to lend to people who didn’t really have a chance of being able to afford the resulting loans.  Interestingly in that case the settlement gave more than twice as much money to the lawyers as to the 186 “victims”.



Obama’s case was the beginning of a path that continued with the reinterpretation of the Community Reinvestment Act that saw Bill Clintons administration leaning on banks to make questionable loans in service of supposedly combating racism.



Realistically speaking lending money to people who can’t pay it back, note that a welfare check was advocated by some as proof of income in some cases, will result in a huge loss of money to investors.



That huge loss came home to roost at the end of Bush’s administration. But the loss was due to policies pushed and defended by Democrats.  While it’s true that establishment Republicans scared of being called racists did nothing much to try and fix the problem their crime of inaction is certainly less odious than the Democrats buying votes by getting minorities loans that would eventually go bad and financially destroy the borrowers.



Yet Democrats constantly talk about the evil impacts of Bush’s policies.



They seem to ignore that Bush inherited a recession from Bill Clinton, it started two months after Bush was sworn in, and that 9/11 occurred before Bush had been in office for even a year.



Strangely, if you listen to Democrats, Bush’s evil policies somehow managed to avoid the disaster that is the Obama “recovery” and unemployment was kept below 6% for years. The very policies that the Democrats condemned resulted in more years of prosperity than the supposedly superior policies that Obama  has implemented.

In order to spare America another four years of bungling, broken promises, and “reimaging” it’s important that conservatives take back the issues by making it clear to all that the policies espoused by Democrats, from weak foreign policy to spending money we don’t have to make America prosperous,  are the cause of the problems facing America today.



If voters understand that we’re in the Obama economy which came after the Democrat recession and that the war in Afghanistan is a result of Bill Clinton's foreign policy they’ll be much more likely to vote for candidates who will bring America back to economic well being.

While 1984 has shown up 28 years late it’s not too late to recast the debate in this election season so that voters will go to the polls knowing that good is good and bad is bad not that lies are truth and truth is a lie.

Akin and the Truth

In the firestorm resulting from baseless attacks on Akin the simple truth of what he said is being ignored.

Akin is being taken to task for two things:

• The use of the phrase “legitimate rape”
• The claim that women who are “legitimately raped” are unlikely to get pregnant

Akin has already apologized and said his words did not convey what he was thinking.  Just as President Obama’s reference to “Polish” death camps did not mean that Obama holds the Polish people responsible for the German Nazi death camps that happened to be located in occupied Poland.



Yet the same people who don’t even think that Obama should apologize for and correct his comment are declaring Aiken to be the epitome of evil.



While there were no “Polish” death camps there are cases where the term rape is used “illegitimately”. The most obvious are the 4-8% of reported rapes where the woman is lying.  Additionally modern liberal feminists have so distorted the definition of rape as to make it meaningless.  An extreme example of that can be seen at  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-rape/

“To put the point another way, having granted that “no” always means no, we must recognize that, in some cases, “yes” also means no. There are many kinds of explicit and implicit threats that render a woman's consent to sex less than meaningful: ... or simply to sulk and make her life miserable for days should she refuse to have sex. Which (if any) such nonviolent coercive pressures should be regarded as rape, either morally or legally, is a matter of some controversy (Schulhofer 1998; Burgess-Jackson 1996, 91-106).”

Declaring that a woman who voluntarily chooses to have sex rather than endure a man “sulking” has been raped is an insult to those women who are really raped.

By declaring nearly all heterosexual sex to be rape extreme liberal feminists help destroy the sense of outrage all should have towards rape. This is similar to what liberals who say that calling the President “angry” is on par with the odious race hatred of the KKK do to reduce the impact of the word racist.

A woman who dresses like a whore and goes to a strange mans hotel room at 2 in the morning and makes out with him is completely innocent and a victim of “legitimate” rape if she doesn’t say it’s ok to continue and the man doesn’t stop.

Akin was using the word legitimate to distinguish between what the vast majority of Americans view as rape and liberal feminists all encompassing condemnation of pretty much all heterosexual sex.



Akins use of the term “legitimate” in this context was stupid and understandably, especially in light of how it has been misreported, caused suffering for those women who have been raped. But it, just like Obama’s Poland comment, does not reflect an evil intent.



One of the points Akin was trying to make is that abortions due to rape are very rare and should not be used to keep abortions of convenience legal. 

According to research done by the Alan Guttmacher institute--a virulently pro-abortion organization spun off from Planned Parenthood--only 1% of abortions in America are the result of rape--www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf.  Yet liberal pro-abortion extremists use rape to push to keep sex selection abortions legal right up until the moment the child is born.



In reaction to those lies Akin wanted to establish that the victims of the type of rape most Americans think of when they think of rape are not very likely to get pregnant.  



There are two broad classes of rape, forcible and non-forcible. Both are horrible violations of a woman and in both cases the woman is a completely innocent victim.

When they hear rape the average American thinks of a man using force or the threat of force to compel a women to have sex against her will.  These were the cases Akin was trying to identify when he stupidly used the word “legitimate”.

In many cases when a woman is raped however she is not being physically forced to have sex.  For example when a 27 year old man psychologically manipulates an emotionally and psychologically immature 15 year old girl into having sex with him it is rape and the girl is completely innocent even if she is not actually averse to the event at the time.  We have juvenile courts because we realize the young are usually not competent enough to be held to adult standards. 

Liberals who declare that a woman is just as likely to get pregnant in a forcible rape as she would if she were making love to her husband are saying that at a physical level the woman’s body, but not her mind, is in fact consenting to the rape; her body is just as willing to make a baby with her rapist as with her husband.

The “evil” Akin on the other hand is saying that woman who is being forcibly raped is not even consenting at a purely physical level to the horrible act being done to her.  Akins position ascribes an even more fundamental rejection of the rape to the innocent victim than the liberal position does.

While liberals claim there is scientific data for their position the one study they invoke did not separate non-forcible rape from forcible rape.



There is some evidence that pregnancy is very rare in cases of forcible rape.  A typical woman who has one act of sex with her “significant” other has roughly a 4-5% chance of getting pregnant--see http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol3/5/default.htm . 

Eugene F. Diamond, MD, Professor of Pediatrics and Past Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine wrote in the April 11, 1985 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine that:

“Pregnancy is rare after a single act of forcible rape. In a prospective study of 4000 rapes in Minnesota, there were no pregnancies. In a retrospective study covering nine years in Chicago, there were no pregnancies. In a prospective study of 117 rapes there were no pregnancies among either the 17 victims who received DES or the 100 who did not.”

Similarly anecdotal evidence and other studies indicate that the pregnancy rate in forcible rapes is less than 0.2% or 25 times less than the rate when a woman has one act of sex with her husband.

We know that a woman’s emotional and psychological state can impact her ability to become pregnant so it’s hardly counter-intuitive to claim that the trauma of rape would reduce the chances of pregnancy. We also know that when forcibly raped a woman’s body does not experience several changes that facilitate the safe transport of the mans sperm to the woman’s egg.  Additionally from an evolutionary perspective a woman who would have a child with any man who could forcibly rape her would seem to be at an evolutionary disadvantage.



At this time there is no definitive scientific evidence that Akin is wrong and there are data that indicate he might be right. Hence while we may find that Akin was wrong in the future it is not as though he was claiming the Sun orbits the Earth.

The question we need to address is why conservatives always attack their own in cases like this. Rather than saying, as Democrats do when Democrats say stupid things, “yeah Akin did a horrible job expressing what he was thinking but it is the Democrats who have the warped idea that killing your daughter is a good thing to do after you’re raped” conservatives condemn their own.



If Akin meant what the liberals say he meant then by all means we should condemn him. But when he merely used the wrong word while trying to say the right thing why should we team up with the liberal media who are purposely distorting what he meant to say?

His opponent says that if a child’s father is a rapist she should be killed. Conservatives should be condemning that from the rooftops not Akins verbal misstep.



By their heroes shall you know them

You can get a good measure of a man by finding out who his heroes are.

A general who admires Patton will tend to behave differently than a general who likes Montgomery.



A politician who thinks Reagan is the greatest will be support different solutions than a politician who adores FDR.



On the first day of the DNC we discovered one of the key heroes of modern Democrats; Ted Kennedy.



The same Ted Kennedy who left Mary Jo Kopechne to die a slow death while he strategized with his lawyers on how to avoid being blamed for the accident that resulted in her death.



The same Ted Kennedy whose drinking and womanizing are legendary.

On the second day of the DNC we all saw a second hero of the Democrats; it’s Bill Clinton.



The same Bill Clinton who cheated on his wife multiple times over many years.

The same Bill Clinton who had affairs with subordinates; behavior that would cause immediate firing at any major corporation.



The same Bill Clinton who lied under oath in order to avoid admitting that he regularly sexually harassed subordinates.



It would seem that the two of the biggest hero’s of modern Democrats are both distinctly unfriendly to women.  In fact any Republican who did any of the things that these Democrat “heroes” did would be pilloried for his vicious misogynistic nature.



But does the Democrat love of these sexual predators bleed through into Democrat policy?

We hear little about supporting stay at home mom’s or equal pay for equal work at the DNC. Instead the Democrats have been showing their “pro-woman” credentials at the DNC by touting their support for contraception and abortion.



But who are one of the major beneficiaries of contraception and abortion? The answer of course is men who wish to sexually exploit women without having to be concerned about any consequences.  Men like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. 


The Republican party banned Todd Akin from the RNC because he misspoke and unintentionally offended women.  The party said that even though Akin profusely apologized he was tainted as being anti-woman and they didn’t want him around.



The Democrats pushed their vice presidential candidate aside to bring back Bill Clinton; a man who admitted to lying under oath in order to cover up his sexual exploitation of subordinates.  And Bill hasn’t apologized for his consistent humiliation of his wife or for his sexual harassment of subordinates.



If there is a war on women in America today it’s being waged by the type of men that the Democrat party views as their heroes not by the Republican party.

God, Jerusalem, Voter Suppression, and Phoning it in

President Obama and the Democrat leadership were shocked to discover that Americans reacted negatively to the Democrat platform rejecting God and rejecting Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.



In front of the whole world they tried to use the democratic process to amend the suddenly no longer suitable for prime time document.  And not once, not twice, but three times they failed.

According to CNN, that font of reactionary conservatism, the video clearly shows that the majority of the delegates to the Democratic convention opposed putting God back into their platform and declaring Jerusalem to be the capitol of Israel.

What did the Democrat leadership do? Well they did what they always do when democracy “fails”, i.e. doesn’t support the Democrat position, they rigged the vote.  



Mayor Villaraigosa, who presumably agrees with his parties attacks on Republican “voter suppression, simply declared that he had heard enough pro-voices, presumably dead Democrats coming back, to declare that the motion had a two thirds majority.

In front of the American people the Democrats disenfranchised their own people by manufacturing votes that weren’t there.



If the Democrats are willing to fake votes to crush the will of their own delegates why should anyone believe that they are not willing to cheat in the presidential election?



Having grown up in Chicago--the city whose mayors are so wonderful the dead regularly leave Heaven to come and vote for them--the mantra of the Obama party that illegal voting never happens is reminiscent of the twitching drug user who says he’s clean.



In some sense the Democrats are right. Republicans are trying to suppress the votes of non-citizens, the dead, and family pets.  Apparently Democrats believe that anyone who can make it to the voting place--even if only in spirit--should be allowed to vote.



Republicans also oppose some individuals voting multiple times.  Democrats have no difficulty with that practice, so long as only they practice it. Democrats get the concept of voting more than once from watching American Idol where voting early and voting often is a virtue not a vice.



Next time some Democrat whines about “voter suppression” and says that there is no evidence of election fraud in America pull out your smart phone and show him his own convention.

Because Democrats realize they have a major optics problem in that their delegates clearly want God shoved out of their platform and Jerusalem turned over to the Muslim Brotherhood they’ve spun the issue as the Good President Obama riding in to save the day.

The Democrats are saying, in effect, “Sure our delegates are a bunch of God hating anti-Semite neanderthals but President Obama saw their error from his mountain top and stepped in to correct his people.”



The problem with that is that Obama reviewed and agreed to the platform.  Or did he?



A key criticism of Obama, mentioned by both his supporters and his detractors, is that he seems more enthused with the trappings of power than the nitty gritty day to day work needed to govern America.



When an actor just says his lines but really doesn’t act he’s said to be “phoning it in”.  Many have accused Obama of “phoning it in” when it comes to running the country.



Democrats would now have us believe that Obama was unaware of the wording of his own parties platform.  While it’s true a presidential candidate does not have to agree with everything in his parties platform, Romney for example supports abortion in the case of rape, he should know what’s in it.



But if Obama knew that he didn’t support the platform he could have done what Romney did; simply acknowledge his differences with the platform and move forward.



Instead Obama, according to the most recent Democrat spin, was shocked to discover this oversight and moved quickly to correct the egregious error.



That leaves us with a problem. Either Obama “phoned in” reviewing his own party platform and needed the conservative media to point out the problems in it to him or the Democrats are lying about Obama having always wanted God and Jerusalem to be in the platform.



Either way this whole affair has two clear messages:

1) Democrats only believe in democracy if they win and they have no problem manufacturing votes to make sure that they should believe in democracy.



2) President Obama either doesn’t care enough to read his own parties platform or he is lying to us about his true position on both God and Jerusalem.

The Rule of Law; Not!

One of the key elements of the great American experiment was the concept that the government would be defined by laws and that everyone, rich or poor, would be held accountable to the same legal standard.  As John Adams said America was to be “a government of laws and not of men.”



Few today realize how truly revolutionary the concept was that a government would be defined by laws not by the ever changing will of one man.  At the time, and continuing on to our own times, almost all governments were based on the authority of one, or a few, leaders. Those leaders could have people they didn’t like tossed in jail, raise taxes on people they didn’t like, or even define their own new religion.  Under the rule of men those in power can, without following any rules, modify and create laws without the consent of the people. 

It’s important  to realize that it is not sufficient for there to be laws for a land to be ruled by laws. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had laws but those laws were whatever the men in power deemed them to be at any given time. Further how those laws were applied depended on the unilateral decisions of the rulers. 

When power flows from the people and the laws are created by elected representatives following agreed to rules and those laws are applied, at least in theory, equally to all citizens the rule of law exists. 

When power flows from the leaders and new laws, sometimes called regulations, are created by the anointed few and those laws are applied as the few consider “best” there is the rule of men.



While America hasn’t fully lived up to the ideal of the rule of law it is an vision shared by most Americans.  Few like seeing someone getting special treatment because of their wealth, status,race, or political status.  

Because Americans take the rule of law seriously they follow traffic laws and file their own tax returns rather than having the government send them a bill.  There are exceptions but the fact that we get mad at the rare idiot who runs a red light shows how normal following the law is to Americans.

That’s not the case in many parts of the world; especially those lands ruled by men and not laws.

Politicians used to realize the importance of following the rule of law.  In Pennsylvania the state legislator used to physically turn back the hands on the official clock so they could finish by a legally mandated deadline--and they weren’t the only state legislature to do so.  It may sound silly but it showed that the people in power realized that they too were held accountable to the law.



But new millennia Democrats seem to have decided that the rule of law isn’t really for them.  While it’s true today's Democrats can look to their ancestors, such as FDR who tried to pack the Supreme Court or the Democrat controlled Congress that kept passing laws that had exemptions for Congress itself, for examples of cheating on the rule of law the current lot of Democrats have thrown the concept of a government of laws into the dustbin of history.



The first major sign of the new Democrat view of America helped set the stage for the new millennium when in 1999  Democrats decided that perjury and obstruction of justice were not illegal if it was their guy who did them; but they still condemned Nixon so it was clear they believed that Republicans had to live by the rule of law. 

Democrats rejected the rule of law by saying that their first loyalty was to Bill Clinton not to the law.  In doing so they rejected the rule of law and substituted a rule by men. Bill Clinton was important so according to Democrats he did not have to adhere to the same rules as every other American.

There was a relatively quiet time during the Bush years though some Democrats tried to establish a parallel foreign policy which subverted the laws describing who actually spoke for America; a Democrat tradition dating to the latter part of the Cold War.

Under the Obama generation of Democrats rejection of the concept of laws has come into full bloom.



The Democrat governor of California and the Democrat Attorney General of California have refused to defend Proposition 8 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman.  In doing so they anointed themselves as ones who could decide what the rules are based on their own personal biases.  In our Fathers America, in an American run by the rule of law, government officials do not get to decide what laws to defend and what laws to enforce.  But in the view of California Democrats it is the rule of men not the rule of law that matters.

Democrat Congressmen, such as Pete Stark, have said that they don’t see that there is any limit on what Congress can do.  They are saying that they do not have to follow the rule of law--such as the Constitution--but that instead they are the men who rule us.

Similarly the US Senate run by Democrats has failed to pass a budget for more than 3 years.  They are required by law to do so every year.  But because they put themselves, but not their political opponents, above the law they are not bothered by their failure.  In the eyes of those who espouse the rule of men rather than the rule of law violating the law is nothing for the men who hold power; for the new American Nomenklatura.

Obama endorsed his fellow Democrats rejection of the rule of law when he decided he would violate his oath to uphold the laws of this country by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.  Instead Obama arrogated to himself the authority to decide which laws are valid; a role assigned by the Constitution to the Judiciary.

A quick look at the Constitution reveals that the President does not have the power to reject laws that have passed Congress--other than by vetoing them. The rule of law would say that the President must defend even those laws he personally doesn’t like. The rule of men however says that the President has the power to do whatever he wants.

Obama’s support of the rule of men can further be seen in how his justice department ignores crimes by groups that Obama favors, such as New Black Panther party members, while feeling free to distort laws in order to prosecute those groups who Obama views as “enemies”.

Obama has gone beyond merely enforcing the law in a biased manner by essentially bypassing the law and acting as a monarch.  He couldn’t get his Dream Act passed so he unilaterally decided to stop enforcing the immigration laws he doesn’t like.  He has gutted the work requirements in welfare, requirements that Bill Clinton was forced to accept in order to get re-elected, by simple administrative rulings rather than by using the democratic process. 

Obamacare, Obama’s crowning “achievement”, is designed to further the rule of men rather than the rule of law.  It does so by transferring authority from Congress to the Administration.  

The controversial HHS mandate is a result of the law saying that the Secretary of Health and Human Services can define many aspects of the Obamacare on her own.  What Obamacare actually is will be defined by the Washington bureaucrats not by the law itself. Essentially Obamacare gives carte blanche to men to make up rules on based on their own personal biases. Few realize that under Obamacare Secretary Sibelius could determine that surgical abortions are required medical treatment that have to be provided free of charge.  Democrats in Congress who pushed Obamacare through essentially told the Administration that unelected bureaucrats could make Obamacare into whatever Obama wants it to be; an example of the rule of men rather than the rule of law.

Democrats don’t really believe the law supports the actions Democrats, including Obama, have been taking.  No one believes that if a Republican president tried to lower taxes by telling the IRS to not enforce the tax code Democrats would sit by and say that the President has that power.  Similarly if some President declared he would not enforce any of the environmental laws passed by Congress Democrats would not laud him for his decisiveness.



The Democrat position then is that America should be ruled by men, the men the Democrats agree with, not the law. Democrats believe that the Constitution does not limit government power. Democrats believe that Democrats who hold elected office are not required to defend or enforce the law of the land. Rather Democrats believe that “gifted” men, ie Democrats, have the authority to rule all Americans and that it is wrong when “outdated” laws, like the Constitution, hinder that.



When Obama speaks wistfully of being able to rule American as the Chinese dictators rule China he is harking back to his Chicago roots where a corrupt Democrat establishment runs the city using the rule of men; not the rule of law.  In Chicago who you know and whose palms you’ve greased is far more critical than anything the law says. The Chinese “success” so lauded by Democrats is based on a tyrannical rule of men and is rampant with corruption; just like Chicago.  Any political body ruled by men not by law will inevitably be full of corruption as the leaders who are not constrained by the law use their position to feather their own nests.



A people whose President can chose what laws to enforce and who can declare new laws at his whim are no longer a free people.  If America abandons the rule of law then we will be doomed to live under the rule of men and suffer the fates of those in China and Putin’s Russia.



The great American experiment is already at risk due to the acceptance of several Supreme Court justices of the concept that the Constitution is a “living” document that they can freely reinterpret based on their own personal beliefs rather than a fixed agreement between the American people and their government which requires the consent of the governed to be modified.  Allowing Democrat politicians to continue to behave in lawless ways will put America far down a slippery slope that ends with tyranny. 



Do we want an America where we work for the men in power or do we want an America where power flows from the people? 

This years election allows us a stark choice between these two options.  If Americans choose to be ruled by an elite group of men we will be renouncing all that America has stood for and sentencing our children and their children to a new serfdom not unlike that experienced by the masses of Chinese ruled by the dictators that Obama so admires.