You've got to be a speaker.

No I don't mean you have to give speeches.

But if we're going to win this country back to honesty it's critical that everyone in the know makes sure that the low information voters understand that Obama is breaking the law all the time and that that's bad.

Let them know that if they like the illegal things Obama is doing--like not defending laws he doesn't like or using executive orders to make laws Congress won't pass--they won't like it if the next administration has a different perspective than they do.

Liberals win elections only when they manage to hide what they really want--you can keep your health plan-- or when people don't know what's going on--Benghazi...is that something for sore muscles?.

The Main Stream Media won't report on Obama's or Liberal's failures so it's up to us.

Don't be obnoxious but drop some bombshells into conversations like:

Wow I couldn't believe the Democrats held American hostage and shut down the government.

People can disagree on abortion but Obama opposing requiring medical care for babies that survive an abortion seems pretty cold.

Unemployment is horrible and Obama never even talks about it anymore.

Will the NSA care about our phone calls once they get their hands on all our medical records?

Be prepared to support whatever assertion you put forward.  If the folks you're talking to are sane but ignorant you might just change a vote in 2014.

Venting on atheists

There is a certain group of atheists who are very very difficult to deal with.

They basically say that the don't have to prove anything since they don't believe in anything.

The problem is they turn around and say there is no God. Not they don't believe in God but there is no God.

That is they say that if you believe in God you're wrong.

Now that's not a lack of belief; it's a strong belief that there is no God.

There are several things that have to be true if there is no God including:

• The evidence for God is wrong
• The universe can self create
• The universe can be explained by purely materialistic phenomena
• We have no free will--all we are is brain chemistry

Yet atheists can't prove any of these things is true.  These things may be true but they can't be proven based on what science currently can explain.

As a result atheists,those who say there is no God, believe there is no God based on faith not science or facts. They may be right but their faith is still faith not facts.

What is irritating is that they constantly attack and mock people who believe in God and refuse to admit that their beliefs are based on faith.

They honestly don't understand that their faith that God is unlikely is not something that is a fact.

In the end they will be converted by God not by us so all we can do is try to expose this group of atheists to logic and truth and hope that opens a window by getting them to question their faith.

Liberal hypocrisy on display

Republicans said we should delay the individual mandate for Obamacare for a year since the system clearly wasn't ready.

Democrats and their lap dogs in the media howled at how evil and stupid that was.

Now Democrats are suggesting it and voila the exact same idea is being declared to make a lot of sense.

Liberals and the media care only about power not about the people or about what's right for America.

If a Republican said God is good the Democrats would condemn him.  Wait... bad example because if a Democrat said God is good the Democrats would condemn him too.

If a Republican said that we need to care for the poor the Democrats and the media would condemn him but if a Democrat said the exact same thing he'd be commended for his compassion.

Bob Costa's bigotry

Bob Costas thinks American Indians are too stupid to know when they’re being mocked. That’s a pretty bigoted view of Native Americans.

Costas declared the term Redskins to be an insult and a slur

But think for a moment about the term “Redskins,” and how it truly differs from all the others. Ask yourself what the equivalent would be if directed towards African Americans, Hispanics, Asians or any other ethnic group. When considered that way, “Redskins” can’t possibly honor a heritage or noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term. It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present day intent.

Earlier in his tirade about the name of the Washington football team—the Redskins—he said

And in fact, as best could be determined, even a majority of Native Americans say they are not offended.[by the name Redskins]  It turns out 83% of Native Americans say that pro-teams with Indian related names should not change their names; quite a big majority.

What Costas is saying is that he needs to help American Indians understand what they should and shouldn’t be upset about because they’re too intellectually deficient to figure it out for themselves. 

After all when does a person tell someone else they think is intelligent when that person should and shouldn’t be offended by something?  That sort of “advice” is reserved for those who are assumed to be too clueless to figure out they’re being insulted.

Costas’s comparison to other racial groups is wrong because unlike Redskins the equivalent terms for Blacks and other racial groups do have a derogatory history.  Black face for example describes how racist whites painted their faces black in order to avoid having to allow Blacks on stage.

The term Redskin however is associated with fierce fighters which is why it’s a great name for a football team.

While Costas claims that the name Redskins demeans Indians it appears that Indians side with the rational folk who recognize the obvious; who in their right mind would name a team for something or someone they disrespect?

A teams name is like a totem to inspire fans. Can anyone imagine the Washington losers, the Washington traitors, the Washington welfare moms, the Washington tax dodgers, or the Washington politicians?

Of course not.  A teams name is chosen because not only do the people choosing the name have a great deal of respect for what the name represents but they also believe that the majority of fans will respect the name as well.

When real Americans think of Redskins they think of primitive but brave warriors who fought even though massively outnumbered and out gunned.  To this day when people think of Apache or Sioux they think of strong and proud warriors.

What we see here is Costas projecting his own racism on others.  Conservatives reason that if Native Americans aren’t offended there is no reason to change the name but Costas believes that he knows better than American Indians what is wrong and that he has an obligation to guide the helpless Native Americans to the “right” point of view.  What’s more racist than saying that all the members of another race are all too stupid to figure out when they’re being discriminated against?

Feel free to follow me on Twitter

The Third World slow motion

Rush made a good point awhile back. The average American isn't feeling the pain of Democrat policies. Sure taxes are high but the average person doesn't see that since taxes disappear from their paychecks before they see their real pay.

Similarly why the unemployed, and those who have given up hope, are kept buoyant by liberal welfare, food stamps, and disability payments.  Even if they blame Obama--which is unlikely since the media is constantly lying--they are probably afraid that the Republicans would let them starve--more media lies.

The stock market is doing well so people who have 401K's are feeling good. Similarly the housing market is slowly--very very slowly--recovering in spite of Obama.

But the prices of Obamacare may be one place where people see that Democrat policies are negatively impacting them.

It's unclear if it's enough.  Democrats are like people who max out their credit cards; it feels great until you can't borrow anymore and you have to start living life low in order to pay your debts. Sadly by the time we get to where Greece is it'll be too late. The Democrats will all have gotten rich and the voters who they lied to will be left holding the bag.

What' we're seeing is the slow motion looting of a country--just like in third world dictatorships--where the Democrats steal the peoples money to buy votes--just like in the third world except there instead of buying votes they buy the military.

This won't end well unless the American people wake up to what's happening.

Day 15 of Democrats holding America hostage until we allow Democrats to decide what healthcare we are entitled to.

Day 13 of Democrats holding America hostage until we give them control of our lives

If they can't even manage the bloody website how can they hope to manage our healthcare?  Yet they continue to hold the Government hostage with the deliberate intent of hurting Americans--else why but barriers around an open air unattended veterans memorial?--until we turn over more of our freedoms to them.

If you're upset about the NSA spying on you then why do you want the same government to have full access to all your medical records which are probably a lot more dangerous than a list of who you've called on the phone.

Day 12 of Democrats holding America hostage until we give them the power of life and death over us.

If they're willing to withhold the things we pay for now what will they do when we need medical care?

Urge Republicans to stand up to the Democrat coup

Democrats are interested in only one thing; getting more power over Americans.

Democrats have shutdown the government and denied Americans the services their tax dollars pay for in order to ensure that Democrats get control over Americans health care so that the Democrats will literally have the power of life and death over every American.

This is essentially a coup by Democrats because they're denying the legitimacy of the elections that gave Republicans control of the House.

They are doing so because Democrats truly believe they are ordained by their inherent greatness to run the lives of the benighted fools in fly over country who cling to their religion and guns.

It's critical that we stop this latest Democrat attempt to steal a huge section of the economy from free markets and the American people.

What good does it do us to elect Republicans if those Republicans won't stand up for the principles they campaigned for?

Will we stand by and let the Democrats threaten Americans?

The whole shutdown is about Democrats telling Americans to get in line and obey Democrats or else Democrats will prevent Americans from benefiting from the tax dollars they pay.

It's a protection racket pure and simple; let us control your medical care or we'll hurt you by closing the national parks.

It's time to expose the war Democrats are waging on taxpayers for the sole purpose of increasing Democrat power over us.

Forget the $1000 dollar military toilet seats.

Back when liberals felt safe bashing the military they used to use the hyper expensive toilet seats in some military transports. They ignored the fact that commercial airplane toilet seats cost hundreds of dollars for the same reason; they're not supposed to kill people in a crash by flying off.

But now we have a much better example of why the government will never ever be the cheap option.

For over 1/2 billion dollars the Obama administration couldn't make a working web site to buy Obamacare.  They spent more money than was needed to launch Facebook or Twitter and all they got was a lousy digital equivalent of a rock.

Now this may be intentional given that people are having sticker shock when they see how much more Obamacare will cost than their present policies. Maybe Obama wants the software to be down until after the 2014 elections.

Obamacare ads

I don't control the ad content but I can apologize for ads for Obamacare.  Mea Culpa.

Gay “weddings” and KKK Cross burnings

If a man wearing a KKK sheet walked into a bakery run by a Black man how many Americans would think that the Black man should be required to sell the bigot a cake?

We don’t know the answer precisely but we know other than the folks at the ACLU it’d be unlikely that any American who wasn’t a fan of the KKK would say that the law requires the Black baker to sell a croissant to a public racist.

While most Americans are not yet lawyers they realize that freedom of speech, in addition to protecting pornographers, protects the right of non-verbal speech, in this case refusing to sell a cupcake to a Cross burning bigot.

Similarly most Americans realize that if Black bakers all united and refused to provide cakes to KKK members the KKK members will find someone else to satisfy their sweet tooth.  Additionally it’s important to note that a cake is not necessary.  If a man in a KKK sheet walked into an ER the majority of people would probably feel sorry for the Black doctor on call but would still think that the doctor should treat the racist if a lack of treatment would result in the racists death—though it’s hard to imagine a Black doctor refusing to care even for a racist.

Now if the man walks into the store and the Black baker just thinks he looks racist but nothing he says or does indicates he’s racist then it would be possible to find some folks who might say that the baker would have to sell the man a donut even if the baker thinks the man looks like a member of the KKK.  But even in that case most Americans would probably not be enthused about the government telling a private business owner who he had to provide products for.

The most extreme circumstance would be when the KKK member walked into the bakery and said he wanted a cake for the next nights Cross burning on the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s grave.

It would be hard to find anyone, once again excepting the ACLU, who would say that the law required that Black baker to bake a cake for a KKK Cross burning.

But that scenario is identical to the one being played out in numerous cases across America relating to so called gay weddings.

These business owners aren’t refusing to provide flowers, photographs, or cakes to gays; they’re refusing to provide those services/products for so called gay weddings.  If a gay man walks into any of those businesses and asks for a cake, photo, or flower arrangement he’ll get it with no problem even if he identifies himself as gay—though why he’d do that is unclear. 

Those cases are identical in nature to when the KKK member walks into the Black bakery and asks for a cake. 

When the gay man walks in and asks for a cake for his so called gay wedding the situation is identical to the KKK member asking for a cake for his Cross burning party.

In both cases the business’s decision is based on the fact that their product would be associated with an event, not an individual, that they felt was morally wrong. Further in both cases we know the customers can go elsewhere to get the service or item they want.

We know that according to a Rasmussen poll 85% of Americans believe that business owners should not be required to provide non-essential services to so called gay weddings.

We know that the Constitution says nothing about gay weddings but explicitly declares that every American has the right to exercise, that is practice, their religion which would mean, in a rational world, that there would be no question about compelling business owners to support an activity they find morally wrong—like demanding a Jewish deli cater a Nazi luncheon.

Imagine if the law said that a Jewish deli worker would have to attend a Nazi rally in order to serve the food. Then imagine how a Christian would feel attending a gay wedding to take photos. Would any rational person believe that society was being served by using the law to force either of these scenarios to occur?

Sadly we don’t live in a rational world anymore.  The same voices who are persecuting people who object to so called gay marriage—a unique and barely 5 year old phenomena—would be taking exactly the opposite tack if a gay baker refused to provide a cake for say an National Organization for Marriage fund raiser.

We can see that from the fact that 13 gay bakeries refused to bake a cake saying gay marriage is wrong and not one liberal is upset about it.

This attack on business owners is nothing less than content based censorship.  If burning a flag is protected speech because it sends a message then refusing to provide a cake for a so called gay wedding is also a Constitutionally protected exercise of both the religious and speech elements of the First Amendment.

The liberal view of rights in America is becoming clearer.  To liberals rights are not inalienable but rather are given by government to certain people. Gays have the right to be married because government says so but people of faith don’t have the right to live their faith because government hasn’t given them that right.

Feel free to follow tom on Twitter

The "spirit" of Pope Francis

After the Second Vatican Council liberal Catholics poured through the totally orthodox writings of the Council looking for text that could be interpreted in multiple ways, at least one of which supported liberal views and went against the clear intent of the Council.

Given that the Bible, written by God, is open to misinterpretation--witness the whole Protestant phenomena where good God loving people belonging to different Protestant denominations interpret the Bible in very different ways-- it's not shocking that human documents, like those of the Council, can be misinterpreted. 

We also know that even carefully written documents can be interpreted in multiple ways based on experience with contracts and laws--which is why so many lawyers are so rich.

Those liberals aided their cause by acting as if everything the Church had taught before, which the Council felt no need to repeat, had been mysteriously destroyed.

But when the Council's words were so clear that they were not easily misinterpretable the liberals invoked the "spirit" of Vatican II.  In the minds of liberals the "spirit" of Vatican II was what the Council really intended to do even though the Council never did it.

Essentially the "spirit" of Vatican II was liberal Catholics acting like Protestants and declaring that they, the liberal Catholics, had the authority to define Church teaching.

We see the same thing in how the media and liberal Catholics are trying to reimage Pope Francis.

The Pope says that it's not his to judge a man who sinned, by homosexual relations, decades ago but since then has lived a chaste life. 

The first thing to note is that God clearly calls on us to judge actions not people, judging people is God's prerogative not ours.

The second thing is that not judging a sinner is not saying that their sins are not bad.  When the Pope says that so called same sex marriage is from the devil it takes a lot of "spirit" to declare that when the Pope refuses to judge a person suffering from same sex attraction who slipped up decades ago the Pope is saying that living an active homosexual lifestyle is ok.

Even the "harsh", in the mind of hedonists, Pope Benedict XVI said that suffering from same sex attraction is not itself sinful in any way.

Additionally it's important to keep in mind that Pope Francis is not Cardinal Dolan.  Until very recently the Popes experience has been formed by what he saw in a country where the majority of people are Catholic and where the relationship between the Church and society are very different than they are in the US.

Hence when the Pope says we should avoid condemning sins all the time he's speaking from his experiences in a country where unwed mothers have a problem finding a priest to Baptize their daughters not a country, which Dolan is familiar with, where "Catholic" politicians openly push abortion and the oppression of the Church via the HHS mandate and yet hardly any Bishops or priests condemn them.

But by effectively invoking the "spirit" of Pope Francis--by interpreting what the Pope says as though it comes from a vacuum where the teachings of the Church don't exist-- liberals claim to know that the Pope is throwing off the 2000 year old teachings of the Church.  As with Vatican II what's really happening is that liberal Catholics are going all Protestant on us but unlike the original Protestants--who had the honesty to admit they were no longer Catholic--liberals want to pretend that they can define Church doctrine.

What liberals really care about.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/what_democrats_really_care_about.html

Keep reminding your friends that the Democrats shut down the government

We're in a war for the low information voters.  The media will continue to lie and blame Republicans for the Democrats actions.

Make sure you set everyone you know straight; the Republicans voted to fund the entire government except for Obamacare and the Democrats chose to shut down the government instead of compromise.

And the Republicans are trying to fund key parts of the government, like an NIH program to help kids with cancer, while Harry Reid, the Democrat leader of the Senate, says that he won't help those kids because it isn't in his own best interest.

Democrats are on the record favoring denying medical help for children just so they don't have to compromise with Republicans.

How to show it's a Democrat shutdown

With the Obama fawning media in full gear trying to convince low information voters that the shutdown is all due to evil Republicans here's an approach to help the uninformed see the light.

At every point the Republicans have been trying to avoid a government shutdown.

They could have shutdown the government and demanded that Obamacare be repealed--after all that's why they got the majority in the house.

Instead they simply said no funding for Obamacare this year but we'll fund the entire rest of the government while we try and fix or replace Obamacare with something that won't bankrupt the country but will still address some of the problems in our medical system--such as too many lawsuits and the inability of people to carry insurance from job to job.

Given that the Republicans weren't interested in shutting down the government all the Democrats had to do is admit they lost the elections for the House in 2010 and 2012 so that in order to respect those elections Democrats had to renegotiate Obamacare.

Instead the Democrats, and the Democrats alone, decided to shut down the government.  They didn't have to, they weren't forced to, they decided it would be the best option for them.

Essentially while the Republicans were trying to minimize the impacts of this significant disagreement between Americans--most Americans aren't fans of Obamacare and even the die hard Democrat unions are now against it--the Democrats were thinking about how to hold America hostage.

This was made clear when Obama said he'd veto any partial funding measures other than for the military.  If Obama wasn't trying to blackmail Americans into supporting his demand for control over their healthcare he'd have jumped at the chance to alleviate some of the consequences of Democrats in the Senate refusing to respect the results of the last election.

At every step in the path Democrats have been acting like selfish uncaring little children who declare that unless everyone plays by their rules they're going to take their ball and go home.

Democrats are like Communists.  Communists believed that once a country became Communist it could never return to Democracy no matter what the people wanted--the Brezhnev doctrine. Democrats believe that once they get a hyperpartisan bill passed without a single Republican vote no future election can change that bill.

And Democrats are so intent on getting control of your healthcare--we all know that Obama lied about being able to keep our current plans since the news is full of stories of companies dropping their employee's healthcare coverage--that they're going to threaten the average American with a complete cessation of government functions if Americans don't give in.

To recap:
1) Republicans have done everything to not shutdown the government
2) Democrats shut down the government when they didn't have to just so they could take control of your healthcare decisions
3) Democrats are refusing to fund any part of the government until they get their way
4) Democrats seem to think that once Democrats pass a law future elections can't ever change it

Obama takes ownership of the shutdown

Obama has said he'll veto any partial budget bills that get passed, for funding the national parks for example.

That means that Obama is the one responsible for the shutdown.

He's willing to shutdown the government just so he can take over your health care.

Given that it's obvious he's been lying to us about Obamacare from day one it's clear Obama is interested in power not helping people.

Lie 1: You can keep your current insurance.  Companies drop their coverage and so workers can't keep their current insurance.

Lie 2: Prices will go down or at least not go up as fast.  The costs on the California exchange were higher than private policies before the exchange.  We're hearing stories from all over about massive rate increases.

Lie 3: Liberal conscience clauses for people of faith.  The HHS mandate orders people to violate their religious beliefs.

Obama is picking increasing the governments power over helping those who need the help of government when he's shutting down the government.

Fighting for the right to slavery

The Democrats shut down the government over Obamacare because a core belief of the Democrats is that the work of others belongs to Democrats; that Americans should be Democrat’s tax slaves.

The Democrat party has always been the party of slavery and exploitation but over time they’ve tried to paste a smiley face over their beliefs.

No longer do Democrats want those whose labor they steal in manacles; now they use the law to purloin American’s hard earned wages.  By taxing Americans to support a wide spectrum of activities that don’t benefit taxpayers Democrats are effectively enslaving the roughly 55% of Americans who pay income tax.

Of course modern American tax slavery is not as bad as what African Americans endured in the pre-Civil War Democrat run South.  But that does not mean that taking from those who work to fund Democrats pet projects and restricting the freedoms of Americans is not a type of slavery lite.

The very concept of a “right” to health care says that some people are entitled to the labor of others, just as with slavery.  A right is something everyone is entitled to and therefore if a person can’t pay for that right on their own others are required to pay even if those others gain no benefit. The rights in the Constitution on the other hand were specifically crafted to ensure that they don’t require financial subsidy by Americans. 

The absurdity of a “right” that requires other people to fund it can be seen by thinking about Somalia.  Are Somalian’s rights being denied because their country is too poor to fund American quality medical care?

That raises another issue just what level of health care do Democrats believe people have a right to?  Should every high school dropout who is too lazy to work have the “right” to the same quality of medical care as someone who has worked hard all their life? Should people who avoided buying health insurance and instead spent the money on luxuries and then developed an expensive medical condition have the same insurance bills as people who always paid for health insurance?  It would appear that Democrats would answer both of these questions in the affirmative; making tax slaves of responsible people in order to ensure that irresponsible people don’t suffer the consequences of their actions.

Further we know that Democrats do discriminate between who does and who does not have a “right” to medical care. Democrats like the medical system in England that denies care to people based on their behavior—such as being overweight-- so long as that behavior is not avoiding work or using drugs.  It appears that Democrats believe in a “right” to health care so long as people live their lives in ways that Democrats approve of—just as Democrats slaves in the South were rewarded when they were obedient and punished when they were not.

The Democrats shutting down the government in order to make sure they gain control of the health care of Americans is just the latest in a long line of Democrat actions designed to turn more and more Americans into tax slaves in order to buy the votes Democrats need to stay in power.

On one hand Democrats condemn wage slavery—working for a company and getting paid for it—while on the other they constantly work to expand tax slavery—being taxed ensure that others won’t suffer the consequences of their bad decisions—dropping out of school, doing drugs, being illegal etc.

When the country was founded the role of government was to provide services that benefitted everyone; defense, police, etc. When that was the case taxes benefitted those who paid them. But Democrats over the last 80 years—starting with FDR—have turned the government into a vast plantation of tax slaves where the fruits of the labor of Americans are used for things that don’t benefit the taxpayers.  When tax dollars are turned over to those Americans who don’t labor or are used to support policies that don’t benefit taxpayers but which Democrats would like to see but are unwilling to fund themselves the taxpayer becomes a tax slave whose hard earned dollars are confiscated by Democrats to spend as they please.

Everyone agrees that some level of support for the poor is necessary; in a society as rich as ours we can’t allow people to starve to death or freeze in the winter—even Ronald Reagan supported some sort of safety net.  But  when 79.1% of the “poor” in America have either cable or satellite TV and 84% of the “poor” have air conditioning it’s clear that Democrats have taken us far beyond any safety net.  Given that most of the growth in the poor is due to the Obama economy and Democrat policies of high taxation and massive regulation the best hope for the poor is more jobs and economic growth not converting those people who have managed to stay employed into tax slaves.

Anyone who listens to Democrats can instantly see the deliberate disingenuousness of their rhetoric.  How can an honest person simultaneously declare that the Pentagon is a huge mass of corruption and inefficiency and then turn around and say that the very same federal government is capable of administering American health care efficiently?  It would appear that Democrats believe that federal government workers who are willing to die for their country are more corrupt than those who aren’t.

The reality of course is that the bigger an organization is the less efficient it is; and there is no organization bigger than the Federal government.  Sometimes we need to have a large organization in order to achieve some necessary objective, such as defending the country, so that we must tolerate the inefficiency.  On the other hand as Catholic social teaching has taught for millennia the concept of subsidiarity is one that has been shown to work well. Basically keep everything as local as possible.

This makes sense in that no reasonable person can honestly claim, given the historical record from the socialist failures of the 20^th century, that centralized planning is more efficient than the free market.

Yet Obamacare is a massive step towards centralized control of services that spell life or death for the average American.  Democrats recognize that costs will go up which is why Obamacare includes a massive tax increase on young healthy Americans—turning them into tax slaves for those whose health care costs will be subsidized—and a variety of other taxes.  Does anyone who is not a low information voter think that the IRS and the other parts of the Federal government that will run Obamacare will be more efficient than the current private system?

Republicans have shown there are less wasteful solutions for some of the real problems with the health care system—from being able to keep insurance when changing jobs to tort reform-- but Democrats have shown no interest in any sort of compromise. That’s because the core objective of Obamacare is not to ensure that people have the “right” to health care but to increase the level of servitude of American tax slaves and restrict the freedom of all Americans to choose their health care.

It’s critical that we make sure that people realize that Obamacare will cost Americans more and will reduce their freedom and that Democrats are not interested in helping but in controlling Americans.

When American’s realize that the Democrats shut down the government in order to increase the power of Democrats over Americans and to increase the servitude of taxpayers voters may begin voting what they believe rather than buying into the Democrat lies.

Feel free to follow tom on Twitter