Saturday, August 31, 2013

Time to wage lawfare against out of control politicians

Is it time to wage lawfare against politicians who think themselves to be above the law, like Obama and Jerry Brown?

See my article on American Thinker

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Why Syria but not Iraq?

President Obama condemned liberating Iraq and installing a non-sharia law based democracy in that formerly oppressed land.

But now he's getting all Rambo about Syria?  Obama is so enthused about putting American lives at risk he's not even going to get Congressional approval like Bush did for Iraq.

While using nerve gas against civilians is not a nice thing it appears that we don't even know if the Syrian government approved of the strike.

Thirty months ago when al Qaeda wasn't a key player in the anti-Assad movement it would have been a no brainer to assume that it was the government not the rebels who sprayed nerve gas on civilians. But today the idea that an al Qaeda mole in mid level management took advantage of the command and control confusion in the Syrian military to manufacture an incident is not totally insane.

But even if Assad did order the strike why should the US get involved? It's not like the current rebel movement is all that appealing. Sure many are good Muslims who don't want Sharia law and who would oppose murdering people for the crime of not being Muslim. But based on past history there's a good chance that the mass murdering Islamic fascists will take over the post Assad Syria.

The only reason for limited US involvement would be to send a message that using nerve gas against civilians will be expensive for the user.

A limited strike therefore might be a good idea. Even if the Syrian government wasn't behind the attack they deserve to be punished since any nerve agent used by the rebels would have had to have come from the government.

The basic idea is that a limited strike would punish the Assad regime either for using nerve gas on civilians or for not closely guarding its nerve gas supplies well enough.

If however Obama goes all out for the rebels it'll be hard to not conclude that he likes Muslim extremists. Syria alone is not sufficient evidence but when you throw in Obama's support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, his unwillingness to condemn the Islamists in Libya, and his silence when the Iranians were trying to be free it seems credible that Obama really has no problem with Muslim extremists.

Democrats declare the Constitution doesn't apply to them

See my blog post at American thinker

Democrets declare the Consitution doesn't apply to them.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

President Waffle

The best way to avoid a fight is to convince your opponent that you have the ability, and even more importantly the will, to take steps that will ensure that he will suffer more than you will if he starts a fight with you.

No one picks fights with big athletic men unless they are bigger more athletic men or the potential victim is known to be unwilling or afraid to fight. Then all bets are off.

American has the capability to trounce any other country on earth yet under President Obama we can't get any hostile foreign country to do what we want.  Obama couldn't reach an agreement with Iraq on legal protection for our troops so that now, without a minimal US presence to provide support to the Iraqi military and police terrorism in Iraq, essentially eliminated under President Bush, is once again a booming business.  Due to Obama's incompetence Iraq may end up worse than it was, in terms of being a threat to the US, when we liberated it thereby essentially wasting the lives of all the Americans who died there.

Is it surprising after things like that and Obama's infamous bowing apology tour where he lauded Islam and said how bad the US is that Syria paid no heed to Obama's red lines?  In a world where terrorists can kill a US ambassador and the Secretary of State says "what difference does it make now" what self respecting mass murdering dictator is going to lose sleep over a threat uttered by the school yard coward?

Any country that fails to show resolve is doomed to have to fight; just ask the British about Czechoslovakia.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Profiling Trayvon

It's clear from the evidence that Zimmerman only profiled Trayvon based on Trayvons actions; loitering in the rain, wearing a hoodie etc.

But people still insist that Zimmeram profiled Trayvon on race while ignoring that Trayvon told the "ear witness" that Trayvon was profiling Zimmerman based on Zimmermans perceived race.

But this all misses the point. Trayvon was a drug user and, quite likely, a petty thief. If a profile showed him to be a crook it would be right.

The liberal ruckus about all this is really liberals saying that they like crooks and that honest people shouldn't be able to defend themselves by noticing which people are, to use the vernacular, sketch.

Remember that it was Jesse Jackson who said

“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
- See more at:
“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
- See more at:
“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
- See more at:
“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
- See more at:
“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
- See more at:
“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
- See more at:
“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” - See more at:
“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” - See more at:
“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” - See more at:
“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” - See more at:
"There is nothing more painful to me ... than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

The vast majority of Blacks are honest.  Only about 6.6% of Black men 18 and older are incarcerated. Which means 93.4% of Black men are honest; not a bad record. The problem is that only .9% of white men 18 and older are incarcerated.  That means that a randomly selected Black man 18 or older is 7 times more likely to be a crook than a white man 18 or older.

Profiling in dangerous situations is a wise thing to do--few people want to gamble with their lives. Profiling job applicants when there is more time to assess the individual safely is not as wise since as we've seen above the vast majority of Blacks are honest people.
“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” - See more at:

Sunday, August 25, 2013

The Syria conundrum

Right now we have a brutal dictator, who happens to respect the rights of religious minorities, squaring off with a rebellion was started by Muslims who were not religious fanatics but which has, to some level or other, been co-opted by Islamofascists.

The choice is not too appealing.  Siding with the government, as the Russians have, would be supporting a ruthless tyrant who's shown no compunction about murdering Syrians who don't like him. On the other hand the extremist elements of the rebellion are already killing Christians.

The situation is far worse than in Egypt in that the Mubark government was not actually murdering large numbers of Egyptians.

In Syria the choice is between a Muslim Brotherhood like organization and a murdering dictator.  And it's Obama's fault.

A year or more ago the rebels were dominated by Muslims who weren't extremists. By waiting so long to make a decision Obama allowed the corruption of the rebellion by Muslim fanatics which in turn presents the US with two unappealing choices.

The US needs to find some way to get rid of Assad while ensuring that the moderate Muslims take over Syria. Given Obama's support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt it's unclear if the US even realizes that the Muslim extremists in the Syrian rebellion are a problem.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

The real child molestation scandal

Because the media hate the Catholic Church when a tiny fraction of Catholic priests did horrible things the media started on a decade plus long tirade against the Church.  Instead of covering the full extent of sexual abuse of children in America the liberal media concentrated all their attention on only a tiny portion of the problem.

While the media should have reported on the problems in the Church their attacks have, in general, only been against the Church and not against the much larger problem in public schools; student abuse in public schools could be greater than 100 times that in the Church. Similarly the rate of child sexual abuse in the general population is 2.5 to 5 times higher than for Catholic priests.

Once again a single case of sexually abusing a teen—few of the victims were prepubescent children-- by a Catholic priest is too many but the media, and liberals, fixation on Catholic priests is due to bias not a real concern about child abuse. 

If the media and liberals really cared about abused children they would have been closely covering the much greater problems in public schools, where offending teachers are still routinely shuffled from school to school, with at least as much vigor as they covered the problems in the Church.

The recent decision by the Obama administration to allow girls as young as 11 to get the “morning after” pill over the counter without any sort of parental notification is a sign that liberals really don’t mind the sexual abuse of children. Any girl that young who gets pregnant has been raped. To allow them to use the morning after pill without notifying either the police or the children’s parents allows the rapists to cover their tracks.  In addition the younger a girl is the more likely her rapist is an older man rather than a young boy.

We know that liberals historically have apparently had no problem with helping child rapists get away with their crimes.  Planned Parenthood was caught on tape helping underage girls get abortions without reporting the statutory rapes to the police.  Yet even in the face of such video evidence the media has said nothing.

When the North American Man Boy Love Association(NAMBLA) used to march in the yearly San Francisco Gay Pride parades nothing was said by the media.  Does this mean that gays are all child molesters?  Of course not but if liberals were really interested in ending child abuse they’d be highlighting the problem in the gay community and working to make people aware of the issue. Instead there is silence.

By helping child molesters get away with their crimes, by making it easy for young girls who think they are in “love” to cover up their sexual activity without their parents’ knowledge, the Obama administration is the source of todays real molestation scandal. While the rate of complaints against priests has plummeted the Obama administration is helping molesters continue to exploit children.  Similarly by not calling Planned Parenthood out on its covering up of statutory rapes the liberal establishment is effectively siding with child molesters.

The Catholic Church has taken huge steps to reduce the misuse of children by priests as it should have. The media coverage helped make that happen which shows that shining a light on this horrible problem can have a real and very positive. But now that the rate of abuse reports against priests is approaching zero the real problem in our society is in the public schools and among the general population. 

If the media and liberals really oppose child molestation they should use the same aggressive tactics they used to help the Church end its crisis to help end the much larger problem of sexual abuse in the public schools and the general population.

The new child molestation scandal is that the media and liberals in general seem to have no problem helping molesters get away with their rapes or in not shining a light on the significant problem of sexual abuse of children in America outside of the Catholic Church.

Feel free to follow tom on Twitter

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

The chemical weapon attack in Syria and hatred of Israel

I have no idea if the Assad regime used nerve gas against his people; it could have been staged.

What's interesting is that those who swallow every story about supposed Israeli atrocities are saying well gee maybe we should check this out more thoroughly.  I agree that that is the right approach but why is it only used when the alleged perpetrators are people liberals like?  Remember how Obama was cozying up to Assad prior to the start of the revolution and how he avoided siding with the Democracy seeking rebels before non-Syrian Muslim fanatics started flowing in?

The lie about government dependency

When you see figures about how many Americans receive government benefits they are often distortions of the truth.

They tend to include social security, medicare, and unemployment insurance. But those aren't really benefits in that in order to get any of them people have had to pay taxes for a long time.

If one looks at those cases where the government gives something to people who have contributed nothing we see a very different picture of the dependent class in America.

Roughly 1/3 of Americans receive means tested welfare.

By grouping people who are receiving that they paid for, ie social security, along with people who are getting a free ride via welfare is very disingenuous.  The Federal government spends about $717 billion each year on welfare programs that don't require people to have paid the government in the past and States contribute another $219 billion each year.  That's nearly a trillion dollars each year in welfare.

Clearly some welfare is well spent; we need to care for the disabled and those who are trying to work but can't find a job in the Obama economy.  But to say that all of that is well spent in light of the multitudes of scandals--such as people having 3 or more Obamaphones--is not reasonable.

But in any case grouping people who are receiving benefits they worked for in with those on welfare is a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue by liberals desperate to expand government and hence their own power.

One liberal told me that those who have retired to the military are on the government dole because of their military pensions as though having been willing to risk their lives defending America for 20 years was not a payment.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Can Sharia law Muslims be part of a civilized society?

The answer, sadly, is not really.  Sharia law institutionalizes the inequality of men and women and the inferior status of non-Muslims. Sharia law is the epitome of not tolerating differences.

Modern civilization can use the morality of the majority to define law but it can't define different levels of citizenship based on an individuals faith.

Note that this is not saying Islam is not civilized in some sense nor is it saying that all Muslims--many of whom do not support Sharia law even in Muslim countries--aren't civilized. But those Muslims who contend that women are intrinsically inferior to men and that it's mandatory for the government to discriminate against non-Muslims are not civilized.

That's why it's wrong to view the situation in Egypt as a war between democracy and a military coup.  Rather it should be viewed as a war between civilization and Muslim barbarians.

The Muslim Brotherhood won the elections because they have only one objective; power. The rest of Egyptians were not unified because they had different visions of what would be best for Egypt. Given the short time they had to prepare for the elections they couldn't match the long standing Muslim Brotherhoods military like organization and religious fanaticism.

But precisely because the Muslim Brotherhood opposes Democracy and the rights of all human beings they can have no role in a true Democracy.

Obama's apparent abandonment of the Egyptian people now and his support for the Muslim Brotherhood in the past shows either a complete ignorance of the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood or a support for Islamic fundamentalism.

Only an evil man or a fool would declare that the non-Nazi's, even though they were in a minority in Nazi Germany, had an obligation to accept Nazi rule and only an evil man or a fool could declare that Egyptians who oppose the bigotry of Sharia law must accept it just because they are in the minority.

Some things are right and some are wrong. Sharia law's discrimination against women and non-Muslims is wrong and no person should have to live under it who does not willingly agree with it.

If the Muslim Brotherhood had made their new Constitution a good one and restricted Sharia law to those Muslims who voluntarily chose to be subject to it the situation would be different but no man or woman should be forced to live under Sharia law against their will.

It's time for America to acknowledge that while the Egyptian military is not perfect any rule by them will be far better than letting the terrorist supporting human rights squashing Muslim Brotherhood run Egypt.  Of course the situation is better than that.  If the Egyptian military carries through with their promises Egypt will have a democracy where the Muslim Brotherhood can be as Muslim as they want but they won't be able to force others to practice Islam the way the Muslim Brotherhood says they should.

Real unemployment 14% but Obama doesn't care.

The U6 unemployment number which includes all eligible workers who can't get a full time job but does exclude anyone who's given up looking for a job is 14%, not the 7.4% the media has been trumpeting.

If liberals really cared about American's and about the working man they'd be trying to fix the problem. Instead all they do is try to increase their own power by increasing tax rates and giving the government more power over the lives of Americans.
 From the Thomas Aquinas College chapel Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity

 From the Monterey Bay Aquarium

 From the Monterey Bay Aquarium
 From the Thomas Aquinas College chapel Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity

Saturday, August 17, 2013

Liberals have no care for the Christian

To many liberals Christians are the epitome of evil because Christians believe in sexual morality and that people should bow to God not government.

That's why liberals have no problem trying to remove the First Amendment rights of Christians while constantly condemning any perceived slight towards Muslims.

Do you remember how incensed liberals were about "ethnic cleansing" in Serbia? Are you hearing those same voices now demanding US intervention to protect Christians in Egypt as they demanded we risk American lives to protect Muslims in Serbia?

Christians are what stand between liberals and godhead; for in the liberal mind liberals should be able to dictate every aspect of how everyone lives. If you doubt that ask why liberals think it's fine for a mayor to decide how much soda the citizens who elected him can drink?

You hear liberals condemn smokers and fat people because they cost too much in terms of medical care but when have you heard liberals condemn gays for the medical bills associated with AIDS?

A Christian can explain why those cases are different which is another reason why liberals hate them. You can't be a liberal if there is an absolute truth. Liberalism thrives on gray and ambivalence along with morality that changes with the situation.

Liberals are like vampires they can't stand the sight of the Cross. If you think that extreme ask yourselves why liberals are constantly campaigning to ensure that High School valedictorians can't voluntarily mention God in their speeches?  Have you ever heard of a Christian demanding that a High School speaker can't mention Nietzsche?

These are all reasons why liberals are siding with Mursi in Egypt even though he supports Sharia law.  An enemy of my enemy is my friend and Mursi probably despises Christians as much as liberals do.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Do liberals love crooks?

See my article at American Thinker
Do liberals love crooks?

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

What gay history will be taught?

In California a new law requires that children in Public schools learn gay history.

I wonder which gay history will be taught?

Will it cover how gays fought tooth and nail to keep the bath houses open when it was known that the massively promiscuous sex that occurred in those establishments was how people contracted  the then inevitably fatal HIV virus?  Probably not since that would show that gays are so addicted to sex they'd rather die than forgo it.  We need to feel sorry for anyone with such a severe addiction but at the same time it's powerful evidence that the gay lifestyle is a pretty self destructive one.

Will it cover how the North American Man Boy Love Association(NAMBLA) marched in the San Francisco Gay Pride parade for years?  Probably not since that would show that many gays are far more comfortable with molesting children than are heterosexuals.  It would also undercut a lot of the faux anger at the Catholic Church since the vast majority of children who priests abused were teenagers, instead of the 3 year old NAMBLA "loves", and were males.  Yeah you read that right; the child abuse crisis in the Church--which ended decades ago by the way--was driven by gays.  Another thing that will probably not be covered in the children's lessons.

Will it cover how wife beating groups are still marching in the San Francisco Gay Pride parade?  True they're called sadomasochist groups not wife beaters but wanting to hurt someone you supposedly love is the same as wife beating for heterosexuals. But once again the truth of being gay has to be carefully managed so as not to shock and offend people so this is also unlikely to be mentioned.

Will it declare lots of historical figures to be gay who never said they were? Probably. Like all fringe groups gays declare historical figures to belong to their group even though the only "proof" is that the guy never got married.  Nor will it be likely that  the course cover how gays will out gays who wanted to stay in the closet if it helps the gay movement.

Will it talk about all the negative characteristics of historical gays the way the students are taught that dead white men like Jefferson and Washington were flawed?  Off course not. The kids won't read about how a spy ring of gay men helped Stalin against the west or about how many serial killers have been gay.  Now it's true that just because some gays have been bad not all gays are bad. But if kids are going to learn about all the warts of everyone else in history they should learn about the warts in historical gays lest the impression be that gays are better than the Founding Fathers.

Will it talk about the true nature of the gay lifestyle, the massive promiscuity or the infatuation with looks?  Probably not because if a child learned that typical gays have sex with hundreds or thousands of people they might think that being gay is different than being straight.

Will it talk about the real percentage of gays in society?  Probably not since if people realized that gays make up 1-2% of the population they'd realize that being gay is not "normal".  Gays are loved by God but their lifestyle is not normal.

Will it talk about how according to science gays are defective?  Now Christians realize that gays are loved by God and valuable because they are His children and hence no more "defective" than the rest of us. But according to science our only "purpose", to the extent we have a purpose, is to send our genes to the future. Well in that respect gays are more "defective" than pretty much any other person. If kids learned that they might start to wonder if it's Christians who say that gays are not defective that perhaps Christian condemnation of the massively promiscuous gay lifestyle is not motivate by hate and those who encourage gays by saying their lifestyle, that leads to all sorts of STDs and AIDS, are not motivated by love.

My guess is that the new course material will be one sided propaganda designed to completely mask the real nature of the gay lifestyle.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Democrats working to become rulers not representatives

The single biggest thing that the Republicans did when they took over Congress in 1994, other than saving Bill Clintons reputation as a successful president, was to change things so that laws Congress passed applied to Congress.

Since then Congress has had to live with the consequences of the laws they pass.  Obama is working to change that.  Obamacare is a disaster so Obama is ensuring that the folks in Congress who support it are not going to have to suffer through it.

By making the government special, just like in the old days when the Democrats ran Congress, Obama is reestablishing a Master government where those who govern have special privileges denied to the people they supposedly represent.

This is a first step towards the end of truly representative government in that if the ruling class are treated differently by the law they are no longer representatives but rulers.  And historically rulers have looked after their own interests first and then the interests of the ruled.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Democrats admit they're phony

President Obama and other Democrats have condemned the "phony" scandals that have been plaguing Obama.

Specifically Democrats have identified the IRS being used for a political agenda and the slaughter at Benghazi of several Americans as phony scandals.

In the case of the IRS the IRS's own internal auditors disclosed that the IRS had engaged in a systematic attack on organizations who were political opponents of the Obama administration. The facts really aren't in dispute; the IRS denied tax exempt status to conservative groups while granting it quickly to equivalent liberal groups and the IRS illegally released tax information to Democrat political operatives.  While liberals claim that there is no scandal the fact that the key IRS official in the whole mess is trying to take the 5th, amendment not whiskey, when testifying is pretty good evidence that it wasn't just an innocent mistake.

Clearly then the IRS scandal is quite real.

Our Ambassador, and several brave men, died in Benghazi because of Obama's bizarre belief that Muslims wouldn't hate America because of Obama's Muslim roots.  Because Obama thinks of radical Muslims as friends he didn't think it necessary to provide significant security to our Ambassador to Libya even though Libya was far from recovered from its revolution and there were lot's of terrorists running around.

But that's not the scandal.  Incompetence is abhorrent when it leads to the deaths of innocent Americans but it's not a scandal to be a total failure at foreign policy; look at Jimmy Carter, he was a failure but nothing he did was scandalous.

The scandal was that the administration knowingly lied to Americans for weeks after the event in order to help Obama be elected. The administration went so far as to blame an innocent American film maker in order to avoid the country finding out that the disaster was due to Obama.  Obama and Hillary Clinton knew within hours that there was no demonstration but they, and their stooges, kept blaming a spontaneous riot right up till the time Hillary Clinton could tell Congress, referring to the government actions which lead to the deaths of brave Americans, "what difference does it make?".

Those blatant and intentional lies are the real scandal.  They're the reason why it's hard to trust the government with all of our private information; it's clear the government can't always be trusted so long as Democrats run the show.

So if the two scandals are not phony what are they?  Well first and foremost they're Democrat scandals; not a single Republican involved.  That means that if Democrats are saying
"phony scandals" = "Democrat scandals"
it means that Democrats are saying that
"phony" = "Democrat"
a astonishingly accurate assessment.