Thanks to all those who have or are serving in the Military

America would not exist and would not have survived if some brave Americans hadn't been willing to risk everything.

The rest of us owe a debt to not only the soldiers but also to their families who suffer separation, constant moves, and the fear that the one they love may not survive.

I will keep all of you and your families in my prayers and I want to thank you for the ultimate service; being willing to risk your life for your neighbor.

The downside of incompetence

Liberals seem to have fixated on the incompetence defense as their best hope of getting Obama through the latest perfect storm of scandals.

Being incompetent means never having to say it’s your fault is the new liberal mantra.  Holder, a lawyer, recuses himself without leaving any paper trail and tells us that he had no idea what his subordinate was doing; for all Holder knows the guy may have even voted for Romney.  Obama is doing his best Sargent Schultz imitation, “ I know nothing!” when asked about any of the scandals. 

In the new defend Obama at any cost liberal universe Obama is a man who has no clue as to what is going on in his own administration.  That in itself is an unappreciated condemnation of the man who would be the messiah; if Nixon and Bush could know when a mote of dust fell off the desk of a junior CIA analyst how is it that the liberal savior didn’t know that his Justice Department was seizing AP phone records?

This reasoning may work with the low information voters who reelected Obama because they just knew that he cared for them but it does have some consequences that should be used to help rebuild the America Obama is trying to destroy.

If liberals must destroy Obama to save him it would seem reasonable that we should all pitch in to help. It is after all only the neighborly thing to do.

If Obama is so clueless on his admirations tyrannical actions it is obvious Obama must be unaware of the horrors lurking in Obamacare.  After all Obama’s people knew of the IRS issue back in June 2012, according to the NY Times, yet Obama was never informed.  If Obama couldn’t spare a moment to hear about the IRS channeling Nixon it’s obvious Obama didn’t have the time to read the bill that was so big we had to pass it in order to find out what’s in it; the most public instance of the Cracker Jack® theory of government.

That means that as all of those horrible features of Obamacare come to light the new brighter shiner Obama, refined by the fires of the current scandals, will undoubtedly say that those features are “inexcusable”.

The new reinvented Obama can build his street cred by undoing the horrors implemented by the old oh so last week Obama who knew nothing.  His attempt to oppress the Catholic Church, the HHS mandate, will undoubtedly be tossed into the dustbin of history—kept according to Trilateralist sources in Debbie Wasserman Shcultz’s maid’s quarters.

But if Obama is too old of a dog to learn new tricks then it is the duty of all of the uninformed masses who voted for him to help him help himself; even if he is so confused by the complexities of that demon city DC that he doesn’t realize he needs help. When those who care for us fall down Americans join together to help them up even if they want to continue to play in the mud.

The information challenged people who voted Obama in will understand how the man who didn’t know he was spying on the press just didn’t know that Obamacare would result in 16,000 new IRS employees and massive increases in the cost of health care.  If the ever caring Obama is just too flustered to keep up with all of that silly political stuff going on in Washington who can blame him?  But to help him we must join together to right the wrongs that were foisted on America by the back room political dealings of those politicians for life in the Congress.

Similarly the Obama loving voters will understand that Obama’s massive across the board tax increases that impact everyone weren’t what Obama really wanted. After all Obama, the caring one may his name be always honored, said time and again that he would never raise taxes on whatever audience he happened to be speaking to.

Working together all of those who helped Obama win the election can now help him win the presidency by correcting the horrible and “inexcusable” errors that have corrupted Obama’s caring vision.

In fact those who would try and preserve the tainted and twisted implementation of Obama’s pure vision—Reid, Pelosi, Biden—are revealing themselves as mere opportunists who clung to Obama’s coat tails but who were really stabbing him in the back for their own personal gain.

Once the Americans who think the national debt is a grunge rock band out of Portland realize that their man is being used by the demon politicians they will be more than glad to rally to Obama the Demosthenes of modern speech's positions and against the Obama the Clueless's implementations.

Reagan said “There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.”.

Let us therefore join arms in solidarity with our brothers who think the President’s personal stash pays for their free cell phones and march joyfully and in brotherhood into the future correcting the misinterpretations that plague Obama’s poorly implemented but masterfully conceived vision for a freer, wealthier, bipartisan, and God loving America!

For those of more brutish demeanor who are offended by the thought of Obama getting credit for things he opposes with a truly fiery passion take heart; when in due course Obama goes to his reward he will look down while strumming his harp and gnash his teeth as he is proclaimed the second Reagan; and shame on you who predict that Obama might end up elsewhere for we must all pray for the salvation of our enemies especially now that we know that Obama isn’t evil only clueless.

Liberals do have standars; double ones in fact

We know that the IRS deliberately targeted conservative groups by making it much harder for them to get tax exempt status than liberal groups.  That's a fact admitted to by even President Obama.

Yet liberals are telling us it's no big deal.  Now we know that those same liberals howled about Nixon's unsuccessful attempts to use the IRS against his enemies so we know that liberals believe the IRS shouldn't be used against liberals.  The only conclusion is that liberals have a double standard; it's ok to use the IRS against conservatives but not against liberals.

But that's no surprise.  If the unemployment rate had been above 8% under Bush we'd have heard no end of it but under Obama it's an economic recovery.

To liberals the ends, giving liberals power over everyone else's lives, justify the means.

The Haters at work

It's amazing how many liberals have declared that the recent tragic tornado's in OK are God castigating those conservatives.

First what sort of monster uses something like the horror in OK to push their political agenda? Oh wait the Dems did that with Hurricane Katrina too, even though it was the Dem governor who refused to release the buses to evacuate people.

But wait if the tornado in OK was God castigating conservatives what were hurricanes Sandy and Katrina?  They both hit liberal states. 

Could you imagine the reaction if some conservative had said that Hurricane Sandy was God's way of punishing liberals? Wait you don't.  When some religious fundamentalist blamed Katrina on the moral degeneracy of America the liberal media pilloried them mercilessly.

But liberals always hold themselves to lesser standards.  Liberals hate those who stand in the way of paradise; which to liberals is a world where liberals run everything and conservatives do all the work.

Liberals; a modern name for would be plantation owners.

Incompetence: The Liberals defense of choice

We are now being told that while the Federal Government has pursued a Nixonian set of policies-- using the IRS to attack Obama's foes, seizing reporters phone records, lying about Benghazi-- none of the Democrats who run the government knew a thing about it.  Apparently it's credible to liberals that the government on it's own will spontaneously discriminate against conservatives.

Obama is still the messiah because he can't be held responsible for what he didn't know about; incompetence means never having to say you're sorry.

Now a reasonable person would then say well ok let us assume that the liberals are right. That must mean that we should repeal Obamacare and make sure none of the other policies Obama supports are enacted. After all if Obama and all of his supporters say Obama is without blame because he's incompetent they can't turn around and declare that we should support his "brilliant" policies can they?

Trick question!  Of course they can.

Liberal journalists as enablers

There's a lot of talk these days about how the liberal media will react to Obama's attacks on them--lying to them about Benghazi, seizing AP phone records, etc.  People are talking about liberals as though they were jilted girlfriends of the President.

But historically there have been two types of liberals; those who lust for power and those who are idealistic fools--labeled useful idiots by the Communists.  Sadly the ones who lust for power tend to go into politics, like Obama, but the ones in the media are more likely to be useful idiots.

Now those useful idiots tend to be very proud and self absorbed so they may react negatively to a personal attack on them by the President.  But they may also be like the enabling girlfriend who makes excuses when her boyfriend beats her.  Just as the abusive boyfriend knows he can get away with it Obama may be counting on the useful idiots need to get approval from the first Black President.  Now Obama didn't plan on this because he probably thinks himself above making mistakes but when confronted with a discordant note from the normally fawning press he can either try and admit mistakes and mend fences--which is not the sort of thing he seems capable of--, double down like an abusive boyfriend and make the press feel guilty for complaining about him, or he can buy the press flowers by doing something they'd like.

I'll wager a guess that Obama will shortly be doing something dramatic for an extreme liberal cause.  He'll do that to convince the useful idiots that while he's trampling on the Constitution he's advancing the "idealistic" agenda that the useful idiots in the media are so enamored of; just like he embraced gay marriage before the election.

Another option though will be to blame some low level fall guy so the useful idiots can realize that their one true love, Obama, was just betrayed by some undeserving flunkies in the Washington bureaucracy.

It'll be interesting to see if any of the major media is awoken from their stupor by the revelation that Obama is like Nixon on steroids.

The lust for power

To be a modern liberal is to leave any pretension of honor behind.  No action by a Republican is good and no action by a liberal is evil.

To liberals the end, which is always more power for liberals,justifies any means.  If Nixon misused the IRS it was an impeachable offense but if Obama does it it's a mistake by underlings.  If Bush lied about Iraqi it's an impeachable offense but if Obama lied about Benghazi it's no big deal.  If Nixon lied about Watergate it's the epitome of evil but if Clinton lied to a Grand Jury in order to avoid being prosecuted for sexual harassment it's nothing to be concerned about.

To a liberal all that matters is that liberals get to run the show and force everyone else to conform to the liberal faith on every issue.  Liberals have no tolerance for any view other than their own and the only diversity they honor is lock step liberalism. That's why liberals like Harry Reid are saying that what the IRS did isn't that bad since those nasty conservative organizations are evil.

Because liberals constantly lie and the media lets them get away with it most people who vote for liberals are doing so without knowing what the candidate they voted for really stands for.

In the end modern liberalism is the antithesis of what America stands for because the American dream is to maximize the freedom of each citizen while liberalism is about forcing everyone to do what liberals want by using the coercive power of the government.

The Magic Gosnell Moment

Gosnell was convicted of murdering 3 babies.  Yet if he'd done the exact same thing to those babies, cutting their spinal cords, 5 minutes sooner he'd have done nothing illegal.

Liberals contrary to all that science teaches believe that while in a womans womb a baby is a wart, a blob of tissue. But magically when the last part of the blob leaves the mothers womb it suddenly becomes a baby girl.

Even better if the blob is killed without the mothers consent the blob also magically becomes a baby girl.

The reality of course is that there is no magic moment.  The unborn are people from the moment of conception based on science, it's the DNA.  But if liberals want to have sex without consequences or if they, like Margret Sanger, want to kill off minorities they have to support killing people who can't defend themselves.

 

A happy Mothers day to all you mothers out there!  Since we're celebrating the Ascension and Mothers day today I figured this would be an appropriate photo. This is from Our Lady of Peace Roman Catholic Church in Santa Clara CA.  http://www.olop-shrine.org/

Obama; Not your fathers President

We now know that the Administration deliberately lied about what happened at Benghazi because it would make the White House and the State Department look bad.  That Americans died due to incompetence and Obama's hubris is bad but that his administration deliberately lied and tried to blame a movie maker is unconscionable.

We also know that the IRS deliberately targeted conservative political groups to keep them from getting tax exempt status before the election--and if you don't think in the Obama high tax environment that being able to take tax exempt contributions is a big deal you don't live in the Obama Economy.

Nixon was hounded out of office for covering up an inconsequential break in at a Democrat campaign office. Yet the media seems to be cool with Obama's IRS targeting Obama's political opponents. Shades of Nixon's enemies list that never resulted in any government action. But unlike Nixon's list which was not fed to the IRS or any other government agency the folks Obama says are bad get the full power of the government bureaucracy dumped on them.

Obama is the first president to say he wished he could run America the way a dictator--the ruler of China--runs a country.  I guess Obama's experimenting with how he can get his wish.

Using the liberals version of the First Amendemnt against them.

We live in a time when the First Amendment is highlighting the fragmentation of American society.  The Amendment itself is pretty clear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The words are clear and any ambiguities can be cleared up by reading what the Founders wrote. In the mind of liberals however the clear intent of the Firs Amendment is replaced with highly complex and obtuse interpretations that, magically, always conform to what liberals believe the Constitution should say.

One of the key liberal “interpretations” is that the free exercise of religion only covers being able to worship God.

That interpretation coupled with liberal rejection of Judeo-Christian morality is creating significant conflicts within modern American society.

The problems arise from liberals attempting to enshrine their own moral code, their own religion if you will, into the law of the land.  In the case of gay marriage for example liberals are not satisfied with ensuring that gays can pretend to be married but rather that it be illegal to not support the massively promiscuous gay lifestyle.  This leads to the direct demand that the First Amendment rights of those who disagree with gays, and other liberal favorites, be revoked.

Recently a poor florist has been sued not once but twice because she won’t provide flowers for a gay “wedding”.  It’s clear that the woman is not a bigot since she had no problem selling flowers for the two grooms for other occasions; she just believes that she can’t support an event which goes directly against her deeply held religious beliefs. She is asking that she be allowed to exercise her religion.  The gay men were not harmed in any way since there are plenty of other florists who are only too glad to sell the men flowers.

Her lawyer raised the enticing prospect of a First Amendment freedom of speech based defense. After all if burning the flag is speech why isn’t not selling flowers speech too?  Clearly the woman is trying to send a message.

One might suggest that while burning the flag is a positive action not selling flowers is a negative action and hence different in nature. But we have just been taught by no less than the Supreme Court that not buying health insurance—a negative act—is in fact a positive action that can be taxed so the negative nature of the florists actions should have no bearing; in any case who would doubt that a hunger strike—a negative act—is not in fact speech?

The lawyer’s concept of using the liberal First Amendment to ensure protection for people who don’t wish to be oppressed for not agreeing with liberal “truth” is an example of making lemonade out of the sour fruit of the new liberal First Amendment and use that lemonade to hoist liberals on their own petard.

If it’s ok for people to object to a government policy by burning the flag why can’t someone object to a government policy, gay marriage, by not selling chapel bound gays flowers?

While significantly distorting the intent of the First Amendment activist judges have clung to certain principles in order to justify their actions. One of those is that speech cannot be limited based on its content; they use that to explain why burning the flag or pornography should be legal even though most people find them to be offensive.

But in the case of gay marriage this creates a problem.  If not selling flowers to a gay “couple” is to be found to be illegal the judges will have to make the case that the speech is so offensive that it must be banned. Given that the majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage it will be hard to declare that speech opposed to gay marriage is so odious that it must be prevented—especially in a country where it’s ok for Nazi’s to march through a Jewish neighborhood.

Additionally there is the whole free exercise of religion concept. We’ve seen that Obama and liberals believe not in the right of Americans to freely exercise their religion but in the right of Americans to freely worship; that is liberals are willing to deign to let people of faith go to their own little government approved ghettos and do whatever primitive things people who believe in God do.

Contrary to liberal misconceptions a core aspect of exercising one’s religion is not cooperating with that which one thinks to be evil. Can anyone doubt that abolitionists were exercising their religion when they did not turn slaves back to their owners?  The situation is the same when a state has legalized so called same sex marriage. People are not calling for gays to be strung up; all people are asking for is the right to not be forced by the full power of the government to cooperate with things that violate their religious beliefs.

The situation is no different than if the government made a law saying that it would be legal to marry 5 year old girls.  In that case the fact that not cooperating with the marriage of a 40 year old man and a 5 year old girl is a good thing is one that few would object to. But at the core of it the only real difference is that most Americans, even liberals, oppose child molestation while liberals believe that gay marriage is morally fine while many Americans disagree.

This reveals the core of the problem. Because America no longer has a universally shared moral code there are more and more cases where there is disagreement about the role of government in morally related issues. This in turn sets up conflicts between the groups that manage to enshrine their morality in the law and those who based on their faith object to the moral position the government takes.

America is therefore confronted with a conundrum; if the law says gay marriage is legal to what extent can the government force those who disagree with that law to not exercise their First Amendment right to freedom of religion and speech?

The answer is very simple of course so long as the objective is supporting the religious diversity of the American people and not enforcing a crushing conformity by creating a single moral code, religion, that is enforced by the government.

Just as pacifists are not required to shoot people when in the military people like the florist should not be forced to cooperate with things they believe to be morally wrong. If liberals are right and most people support gay marriage then there should be no problem for gays to find florists.  If America has historically declared that freedom of religion is so important that in existential conflicts like the Civil War and WWII people could not be forced to violate their beliefs to fight for their country on what basis can liberals claim that florists must be forced to sell flowers for gay weddings?

Irrespective of one’s opinion of gay marriage letting two people who can never have biological sex get “married” is not of sufficient value to throw out the First Amendment and declare that those who don’t conform to the government defined morality have no right to either free speech or to exercise their religion.

Incompetence is to be expected but lies reveal a lot

That no one in the Administration thought that an American in Libya, where terrorists were common in the aftermath of the overthrow of Kaddaffi, would be in danger on 9/11 is a sign of the huge disconnect between the Obama administration and the rest of the world.

Obama honestly believes that he is so wonderful that Islamic terrorists will love the US because he's president. But Obama isn't alone.  Liberals like Hillary Clinton oppose US military spending not only because they want to use that money to buy votes but also because they honestly believe that all of the worlds problems are due to the US and once the US is run by liberals everyone will love us.

Those insane attitudes--and I kiddingly mean insane in the clinical sense because liberals are living in a fantasy world disjoint from reality--are not evil; no one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. Those attitudes are a good reason to ensure that liberals never have any say in matters related to foreign policy because the one thing the government can't afford to be incompetent on are existential threats to the US.

However the deliberate lies and coverups that followed 9/11 in Benghazi show that Obama and his administration are not merely incompetent but in fact deeply evil.  They railroaded an American by scapegoating him for a demonstration that never occurred. It was clear from the beginning, based on unclassified sources on the Internet, that the attack was planned.  I assumed that in the confusion of the situation a terrorist attack had used a demonstration as cover. But now we know that the Administration knew that there was no demonstration at all.  The administration, lead by Hillary Clinton, lied to the American people and deliberately lied about an American video maker in order to avoid responsibility.

Incompetence can be forgiven but deliberately accusing an innocent man and lying to the people in order to maintain political power is something that should not be tolerated.

The stateless liberals

In computing a stateless protocol is one where every message stands alone and is not related to any previous message.

Liberals are stateless in that they refuse to connect the past to the present.  We're told by the White House press secretary that it no longer matters if the Administration lied about what happened at Benghazi since that was so last year.

Because liberal policies always fail and never live up to the promises liberals make in order to get them enacted liberals have been forced to develop a stateless view of life.  Past promises are irrelevant and temporal contradictions don't matter in the liberal world; though liberals have no problem declaring any present past disconnects heinous crimes if they apply to conservatives.

Similarly the fact that Bill Clinton lied under oath and was disbarred means nothing to liberals who honor him because those crimes were in the past and the past doesn't mean anything.

To liberals not only is past performance not an indicator of future success but past performance doesn't exist when trying to assess the likelihood of current promises of what will happen.

In the liberal mind all that matters is the never ending growth of liberal power.  Just as liberals didn't care about how welfare was destroying black families so long as blacks continued to vote for Democrats liberals don't care if an American ambassador was killed so long as it didn't keep Obama from being elected.

One of the key reasons liberal policies are always failures is that they ignore the past. As George Santayana said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."