Monday, December 28, 2015
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Dealing with Muslims
It's true that most Muslims, especially in the US, aren't big fans of terrorism.
One of the reasons is that far more Muslims die due to Muslim terrorism than do non-Muslims; groups like ISIS make the Westboro Baptists look inclusive.
But given that terrorism doesn't require much support even a small number of Muslims who believe that since Muhammad spread Islam via violence it's ok to use violence in the name of Islam can create a disproportionate amount of damage.
Further many Muslims believe that Islam should be in charge of civil affairs, i.e. sharia law, even if those Muslims don't support violence.
That creates a problem in the US. As a Catholic I look to my faith to define my morals and then I try and implement those morals through the law following the legal processes. But since the Church does not say we should be intolerant of other faiths or that the Church should run civil society my beliefs don't conflict with the Constitution.
Many Muslims however believe that the Quran comes first and that the Constitution is a bad thing; since Islam does not teach religious tolerance in general. That means that those Muslims, however many or few they may be, can't really become Americans; they can't assimilate.
Since America does not benefit from bringing in people who reject America's founding principle it would seem obvious that screening would be immigrants would make sense.
One of the reasons is that far more Muslims die due to Muslim terrorism than do non-Muslims; groups like ISIS make the Westboro Baptists look inclusive.
But given that terrorism doesn't require much support even a small number of Muslims who believe that since Muhammad spread Islam via violence it's ok to use violence in the name of Islam can create a disproportionate amount of damage.
Further many Muslims believe that Islam should be in charge of civil affairs, i.e. sharia law, even if those Muslims don't support violence.
That creates a problem in the US. As a Catholic I look to my faith to define my morals and then I try and implement those morals through the law following the legal processes. But since the Church does not say we should be intolerant of other faiths or that the Church should run civil society my beliefs don't conflict with the Constitution.
Many Muslims however believe that the Quran comes first and that the Constitution is a bad thing; since Islam does not teach religious tolerance in general. That means that those Muslims, however many or few they may be, can't really become Americans; they can't assimilate.
Since America does not benefit from bringing in people who reject America's founding principle it would seem obvious that screening would be immigrants would make sense.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
READ THIS: Critical warning from California Democrats!!!!!!!!!
Democrats in California have posted an urgent warning:
It appears that a new synthetic life form has broken into the wild.
They appear to be guns but they not only act on their own they can control people they come in contact with.
If we are to stop the plague of "gun violence" we have to be alert for these sentient weapons. If you spot them, or anyone who votes Republican, you must immediately retreat to a "safe space" and when you're done crying call the suicide hot line for support.
If you feel strong enough you can call 911, so long as the sentient weapons haven't taken over minorities or Muslims, and report the horror you've seen.
Be at peace because we Democrats are working tirelessly to ensure that you will never ever have a chance to have a gun to defend yourself from the sentient weapons.
While when you're being gunned down you might incorrectly think that the amazingly short 4 minutes it takes the truly brave police officers to respond isn't really all that short be assured that your death is a small price to pay for Democrats to know that anyone who attacks our armed security guards won't have guns.
Remember Democrats want sensible gun control laws where if you like your gun you can keep it.
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
Climate Science for real people
All you need to know to realize that the media are lying to you is this: Every single climate model has been shown, based on real world data, to be wrong.
Every single climate model predicted steadily rising temperatures for the last 18 years but even climate nuts admit the temperature has stayed constant.
The way science works is the following:
1) We make a guess about why something works the way it does
2) We create models or formulas that predict how things should behave if our guess is right
3) We compare those predictions to data:
a) If the predictions match the data we have reason to believe our guess is right
b) If the predictions don't match the data we know our guess was wrong
Here's what the models for man made global warming predict vs what we see
Given that the models predictions are wrong, though a few models are still within the statistical limit based on their errors, we know for a fact that the assumptions in those models were wrong and that the assumptions in those models, that man made C02 is causing the earth to warm in a particular way, are wrong. Now it may be that further studies could show that something man is doing is impacting the climate but remember:
AS OF NOW THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR SAYING MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
Last summer some folks wrote a paper claiming the earth has in fact warmed in the last 18 years. Aside from the fact it only addressed one set of temperature measurements and other sets of measurements show that temperatures haven't gone up there are other huge problems with the study:
1) The study is basically saying that for more than 18 years all the same climate scientists who we are supposed to now trust have gotten the temperature records all wrong. Apparently now they are new and improved scientists.
2) The "fix" to the data essentially lowers all measurements before 18 years ago and raises all temperatures after 18 years ago. The chance that honest calibration errors would result in such a fortuitous situation just before a major climate conference is vanishingly small
3) The authors of the paper have a direct financial and career interest in keeping the global warming scare alive; no climate change fears and the funding for climate scientists falls through the floor.
One last note; the man who gave a speech in Paris saying that mass shootings like the one in Colorado only happen in the US also says that the climate change is real and that it's the cause of Islamic terrorism.
Every single climate model predicted steadily rising temperatures for the last 18 years but even climate nuts admit the temperature has stayed constant.
The way science works is the following:
1) We make a guess about why something works the way it does
2) We create models or formulas that predict how things should behave if our guess is right
3) We compare those predictions to data:
a) If the predictions match the data we have reason to believe our guess is right
b) If the predictions don't match the data we know our guess was wrong
Here's what the models for man made global warming predict vs what we see
AS OF NOW THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR SAYING MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
Last summer some folks wrote a paper claiming the earth has in fact warmed in the last 18 years. Aside from the fact it only addressed one set of temperature measurements and other sets of measurements show that temperatures haven't gone up there are other huge problems with the study:
1) The study is basically saying that for more than 18 years all the same climate scientists who we are supposed to now trust have gotten the temperature records all wrong. Apparently now they are new and improved scientists.
2) The "fix" to the data essentially lowers all measurements before 18 years ago and raises all temperatures after 18 years ago. The chance that honest calibration errors would result in such a fortuitous situation just before a major climate conference is vanishingly small
3) The authors of the paper have a direct financial and career interest in keeping the global warming scare alive; no climate change fears and the funding for climate scientists falls through the floor.
One last note; the man who gave a speech in Paris saying that mass shootings like the one in Colorado only happen in the US also says that the climate change is real and that it's the cause of Islamic terrorism.
Saturday, November 28, 2015
Does Colorado show we should hate Transgendered?
So far no one knows what exactly happened in Colorado or more importantly why it happened.
All we know is that a politically unaffiliated bearded individual who identifies as a woman on their voters registration and who therefore might be transgendered went on a shooting spree in which a cop , but apparently no Planned Parenthood employee's, was killed.
First no good person should be enthused about a random person going in and killing people, especially police officers no matter what their motive.
Second Christian's aren't Muslims; Jesus never said we could go around and kill even horrible sinners like abortionists so no matter what the evil or insane shooter says it won't justify his actions.
Third the media and PP are being rather quick to attack pro-lifers even though they don't know what caused the attack. It's odd that they're not attacking transgendered people however.
Fourth the Unabomber, who killed 3 and wounded 23 others, was a big fan of Al Gore and the whole green movement. Yet the media never said that the Unabombers violence discredited the green movement or that the few fringe greens who supported him meant that all greens were evil. Yet we're already hearing that the Colorado attack is another reason to hate the folks who think it's wrong for mothers to kill their unborn daughters.
Back in 2012 a big fan of gay marriage went to a conservative groups headquarters and planned to kill as many of them as possible. He planned to smear Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his victims faces since the founder of Chick-fil-A opposed redefining marriage. He was stopped by a brave security guard before he could kill anyone.
No one came out and condemned gays nor should they have. Yet already PP and the left wing media are trying to blame the whole pro-life movement for what happened in Colorado even though we know nothing about the motives of the shooter.
But even if the shooter turns out to claim to be pro-life why would his actions reflect on the pro-life movement anymore than the actions of the man who tried to advance gay rights by killing people who disagreed reflect on gays? If the "guy" turns out to be transgendered no one, rightly so, will condemn all transgendered people. Yet apparently tolerance ends when you reach anyone who disagree's with Obama or the white liberal Democrat elites.
The key lesson from all of this is that in spite of not knowing what happened liberals were more than eager to politicize this tragedy to further their own political goals. Something they never do when the perpetrator is a liberal. I guarantee that if it turns out this shooter was upset because Planned Parenthood stopped selling baby parts we'll never hear about this shooting again.
All we know is that a politically unaffiliated bearded individual who identifies as a woman on their voters registration and who therefore might be transgendered went on a shooting spree in which a cop , but apparently no Planned Parenthood employee's, was killed.
First no good person should be enthused about a random person going in and killing people, especially police officers no matter what their motive.
Second Christian's aren't Muslims; Jesus never said we could go around and kill even horrible sinners like abortionists so no matter what the evil or insane shooter says it won't justify his actions.
Third the media and PP are being rather quick to attack pro-lifers even though they don't know what caused the attack. It's odd that they're not attacking transgendered people however.
Fourth the Unabomber, who killed 3 and wounded 23 others, was a big fan of Al Gore and the whole green movement. Yet the media never said that the Unabombers violence discredited the green movement or that the few fringe greens who supported him meant that all greens were evil. Yet we're already hearing that the Colorado attack is another reason to hate the folks who think it's wrong for mothers to kill their unborn daughters.
Back in 2012 a big fan of gay marriage went to a conservative groups headquarters and planned to kill as many of them as possible. He planned to smear Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his victims faces since the founder of Chick-fil-A opposed redefining marriage. He was stopped by a brave security guard before he could kill anyone.
No one came out and condemned gays nor should they have. Yet already PP and the left wing media are trying to blame the whole pro-life movement for what happened in Colorado even though we know nothing about the motives of the shooter.
But even if the shooter turns out to claim to be pro-life why would his actions reflect on the pro-life movement anymore than the actions of the man who tried to advance gay rights by killing people who disagreed reflect on gays? If the "guy" turns out to be transgendered no one, rightly so, will condemn all transgendered people. Yet apparently tolerance ends when you reach anyone who disagree's with Obama or the white liberal Democrat elites.
The key lesson from all of this is that in spite of not knowing what happened liberals were more than eager to politicize this tragedy to further their own political goals. Something they never do when the perpetrator is a liberal. I guarantee that if it turns out this shooter was upset because Planned Parenthood stopped selling baby parts we'll never hear about this shooting again.
Monday, November 16, 2015
Liberal insanity; right wingers a greater terrorist threat than radical Islam.
It's clear that liberals hate conservatives and democracy far more than they dislike Islam.
On FB liberals are claiming that the real terrorist threat is right wing organizations not Islam. They do so by ignoring 9/11 and misclassifying some terrorist attacks as work place violence. They also think the unibomber wasn't a liberal and that the terrorism the left used during the Vietnam war doesn't count.
If one looks at all the conflicts around the world the nearly universal common denominator is that one side is Muslim.
While many Muslims are good people Islam was created by Mohammad to get worldly power, wealth, and the ability to marry a 6 year old girl. Hence it's strong on persecuting and waging war on non-Muslims.
Thankfully many Muslims reject the really bad parts of Islam but even those Muslims don't seem to understand that Islam is a political system that discriminates against women and wishes to oppress people of any other faith.
Strangely liberals attack Christians for opposing gay marriage but are silent about Muslims throwing gays off of buildings.
The real question is are liberals scared of Islam or do they view it as a tool to crush Christianity?
On FB liberals are claiming that the real terrorist threat is right wing organizations not Islam. They do so by ignoring 9/11 and misclassifying some terrorist attacks as work place violence. They also think the unibomber wasn't a liberal and that the terrorism the left used during the Vietnam war doesn't count.
If one looks at all the conflicts around the world the nearly universal common denominator is that one side is Muslim.
While many Muslims are good people Islam was created by Mohammad to get worldly power, wealth, and the ability to marry a 6 year old girl. Hence it's strong on persecuting and waging war on non-Muslims.
Thankfully many Muslims reject the really bad parts of Islam but even those Muslims don't seem to understand that Islam is a political system that discriminates against women and wishes to oppress people of any other faith.
Strangely liberals attack Christians for opposing gay marriage but are silent about Muslims throwing gays off of buildings.
The real question is are liberals scared of Islam or do they view it as a tool to crush Christianity?
Saturday, November 14, 2015
The Holiday whose name dare not be spoken
see my article on American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/the_holiday_whose_name_dare_not_be_spoken.html
Friday, November 13, 2015
Eco-nannies produce hidden eco tax
see my blog post at American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/hidden_eco_taxes.html
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Friday, November 6, 2015
Why there are no transgendered
The simple, obvious, scientific truth is that there is no
such thing as being transgendered. If you doubt that ask yourself this simple
question. If a high school boy claimed
to be Napoleon instead of a girl would any sane person think the loving
response would be to bow to him?
A boy who thinks he’s a girl is no different than a white woman who thinks she’s black. Both are insulting, probably unintentionally in the case of the child, those who they claim to be but aren’t. It’s hard to imagine what someone like Ben Carson or Justice Thomas who worked their way up from poverty think about some white girl raised in “privilege” who claims to be Black. Given their nature they probably forgive her but that doesn’t change the fact that the woman’s claim is an affront to Black Americans.
Allowing a boy to claim that he’s a girl just based on his feelings is an assault on the very nature of what it means to be a woman. It’s saying that a boy can be a girl just by saying so. Of course that boy is just play acting. He can never be a mother. He can never nurse a baby. He doesn’t have a womb. It doesn’t matter how much surgery he has he will never ever change his DNA. One doesn’t become a vampire through dental work and a boy does not become a girl through self-mutilation anymore than a woman becomes a man if she has her breasts removed due to cancer.
The magnitude of the insanity surrounding the transgendered craze is shown by how eager liberals are to reject truly settled science. We’ve known for a very long time that one’s sex is determined by DNA, not personal opinion. Yet the same liberals who condemn anyone who doesn’t believe in the experimentally unverified theory of global warming…er climate change as fools who should be jailed have no problem rejecting the very well verified theory that our sex is defined by our DNA.
The “transgendered” craze is just the latest example of liberal’s god complex. Liberals believe that men and woman are infinitely malleable clay in the hands of the inspired liberal “intelligentsia”. While liberals reject that God made them man and woman they believe that they can transform people into whatever liberals think people should be.
A boy who thinks he’s a girl is no different than a white woman who thinks she’s black. Both are insulting, probably unintentionally in the case of the child, those who they claim to be but aren’t. It’s hard to imagine what someone like Ben Carson or Justice Thomas who worked their way up from poverty think about some white girl raised in “privilege” who claims to be Black. Given their nature they probably forgive her but that doesn’t change the fact that the woman’s claim is an affront to Black Americans.
Allowing a boy to claim that he’s a girl just based on his feelings is an assault on the very nature of what it means to be a woman. It’s saying that a boy can be a girl just by saying so. Of course that boy is just play acting. He can never be a mother. He can never nurse a baby. He doesn’t have a womb. It doesn’t matter how much surgery he has he will never ever change his DNA. One doesn’t become a vampire through dental work and a boy does not become a girl through self-mutilation anymore than a woman becomes a man if she has her breasts removed due to cancer.
The magnitude of the insanity surrounding the transgendered craze is shown by how eager liberals are to reject truly settled science. We’ve known for a very long time that one’s sex is determined by DNA, not personal opinion. Yet the same liberals who condemn anyone who doesn’t believe in the experimentally unverified theory of global warming…er climate change as fools who should be jailed have no problem rejecting the very well verified theory that our sex is defined by our DNA.
The “transgendered” craze is just the latest example of liberal’s god complex. Liberals believe that men and woman are infinitely malleable clay in the hands of the inspired liberal “intelligentsia”. While liberals reject that God made them man and woman they believe that they can transform people into whatever liberals think people should be.
In the Soviet Union liberals believed they could change the
nature of man and produce a new “Soviet” man who would gladly work for the
benefit of others and be bereft of any desire to personally benefit from the
fruits of his own labor.
Similarly liberals believe that they can run the economy and the lives of all Americans better than anyone. Liberals without children have no problem telling parents how they should raise their children and liberals who’ve never run a business feel perfectly capable of telling businessmen what they’re doing “wrong”.
Similarly liberals believe that they can run the economy and the lives of all Americans better than anyone. Liberals without children have no problem telling parents how they should raise their children and liberals who’ve never run a business feel perfectly capable of telling businessmen what they’re doing “wrong”.
Like the mad Greek gods liberals lack any concern for those whose lives they ruin. Liberals appear to be totally unconcerned about the impact on a 13 year old girl of having to shower with a boy. But then liberals also have no problem with Roman Polanski raping a 13 year old so perhaps this is not example of liberal hubris but rather an example of how liberals lack any concern for real women.
Liberals use the “transgendered” just as they use gays; as
battering rams to destroy Christian morality.
Liberals don’t care that the gay lifestyle leads to early death and
horrible diseases, AIDS etc, nor are they bothered by the fact that the
massively promiscuous gay lifestyle
treats gays as sex objects to be used not as people to be loved. All that
matters to liberals is that by pushing gay “marriage” they can weaken or
destroy the historical concept of marriage as the source of children.
Similarly liberals don’t care that by pretending that people can arbitrarily define their own gender they’re hurting people who are truly suffering. While there is no such thing as a woman trapped in a man’s body there are people who, for whatever reason, think they are not what they should be.
If we love those people we know that we need to help them realize how wonderful they are as they are not agree with them that they are failures as they are and that they must change to fix their “problem”. Conservatives see people with gender identity confusion as people who need our help not as tools to use to further our political agenda.
Similarly liberals don’t care that by pretending that people can arbitrarily define their own gender they’re hurting people who are truly suffering. While there is no such thing as a woman trapped in a man’s body there are people who, for whatever reason, think they are not what they should be.
If we love those people we know that we need to help them realize how wonderful they are as they are not agree with them that they are failures as they are and that they must change to fix their “problem”. Conservatives see people with gender identity confusion as people who need our help not as tools to use to further our political agenda.
The political motivations of liberals are obvious because of
their total lack of concern about the beliefs and feelings of others. If liberals were truly caring they wouldn’t
be forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to cooperate in providing abortion
causing drugs, they wouldn’t force Christian bakers to provide cakes for gay
“weddings”, they wouldn’t demand that 13 year old girls shower with boys, and
they wouldn’t push for more immigrants when Black unemployment is nearly twice
that of white unemployment.
But a key characteristic of the liberal God complex is that they rarely, if ever, seek compromise. After all if you’re god everything you claim is true and it would be wrong to water down that truth merely to avoid bothering others.
If you think about it liberals never accept compromise. To liberals it’s essential to crush anyone who doesn’t agree with them. That’s why liberals aren’t bothered if their all gay all the time policies destroy people’s businesses. It’s why a liberal can say that yes raising the minimum wage will eliminate jobs but those jobs weren’t worth keeping without ever considering that the people who held those jobs might disagree.
Conservatives are always seeking compromise. Few conservatives, for example, object to providing separate showering facilities for the “transgendered”.
But a key characteristic of the liberal God complex is that they rarely, if ever, seek compromise. After all if you’re god everything you claim is true and it would be wrong to water down that truth merely to avoid bothering others.
If you think about it liberals never accept compromise. To liberals it’s essential to crush anyone who doesn’t agree with them. That’s why liberals aren’t bothered if their all gay all the time policies destroy people’s businesses. It’s why a liberal can say that yes raising the minimum wage will eliminate jobs but those jobs weren’t worth keeping without ever considering that the people who held those jobs might disagree.
Conservatives are always seeking compromise. Few conservatives, for example, object to providing separate showering facilities for the “transgendered”.
It’s time for Americans to stop feeling guilty about not
supporting liberal fiats. The MSM and
the rest of the liberal establishment try to use American’s caring nature to
make us feel guilty for using common sense.
American’s hesitate to speak out against liberal oppression, such as
forcing young girls to shower with boys, because we’re told that in doing so
we’re really hating on the “transgendered”.
But in the case of the “transgendered”, as with all liberal policies that go against science and common sense, the reality is that it’s the liberal position that is based on hate, or at least a lack of concern.
Given that there is no way to turn a biological boy into a biological girl which is more caring helping a boy who thinks he’s a girl realize that he’s a great boy or telling him he’s a failure unless he mutilates himself?
Once one strips away the liberal lies the reality is that to properly live the love and compassion that comes so naturally to most Americans one should not follow unscientific and disproven liberal dogma but rather help people suffering from delusions about what they are become comfortable with reality.
feel free to follow tom on Twitter
But in the case of the “transgendered”, as with all liberal policies that go against science and common sense, the reality is that it’s the liberal position that is based on hate, or at least a lack of concern.
Given that there is no way to turn a biological boy into a biological girl which is more caring helping a boy who thinks he’s a girl realize that he’s a great boy or telling him he’s a failure unless he mutilates himself?
Once one strips away the liberal lies the reality is that to properly live the love and compassion that comes so naturally to most Americans one should not follow unscientific and disproven liberal dogma but rather help people suffering from delusions about what they are become comfortable with reality.
feel free to follow tom on Twitter
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Time magazine proves that liberals hate Democracy
At the store the other day I spotted what I presume is a special issue of Time magazine.
The cover said something like "Supreme Court decisions that changed America"
In a Democracy the role of the courts is to ensure that the laws passed by the Congress are followed. Hence in a Democracy, or more accurately a Representative Republic, the Courts can't change America because all they're supposed to do is make sure that the rules defined by the people's representatives are followed.
Hence under the Constitution all the court should be able to do is ensure that the changes passed by Congress are followed.
But of course the reality is that liberals hate the idea of the people having a say in their government and they hate the whole idea of Democracy.
That's why liberals rejoice in an autocratic court changing America over the protests and votes of the people.
That's why Obama wishes he could rule like the Chinese dictators and why people like Tom Friedman say that a dictatorships ability to impose it's views comes in handy.
Liberals hate Democracy and they hate those of us who disagree with their bizarre beliefs--boys should be allowed to shower with girls and women should be able to kill their viable pre-born daughters.
Modern liberals are really fascists who disdain the Constitution and lust for power.
The cover said something like "Supreme Court decisions that changed America"
In a Democracy the role of the courts is to ensure that the laws passed by the Congress are followed. Hence in a Democracy, or more accurately a Representative Republic, the Courts can't change America because all they're supposed to do is make sure that the rules defined by the people's representatives are followed.
Hence under the Constitution all the court should be able to do is ensure that the changes passed by Congress are followed.
But of course the reality is that liberals hate the idea of the people having a say in their government and they hate the whole idea of Democracy.
That's why liberals rejoice in an autocratic court changing America over the protests and votes of the people.
That's why Obama wishes he could rule like the Chinese dictators and why people like Tom Friedman say that a dictatorships ability to impose it's views comes in handy.
Liberals hate Democracy and they hate those of us who disagree with their bizarre beliefs--boys should be allowed to shower with girls and women should be able to kill their viable pre-born daughters.
Modern liberals are really fascists who disdain the Constitution and lust for power.
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Are all Democrats perverts?
Obama's regime is saying that girls have to shower with a boy who is visibly male but who says he thinks he's a girl.
I guess this means that Obama's DOJ will not enforce laws against public indecency.
What sort of pervert do you have to be to demand that any boy who simply says he thinks he's a girl gets unfettered access to the girls locker room?
It's not totally surprising given liberals support for Bill Clinton's sexual harassment, they attacked the victims, or liberals support for Roman Polanski who raped a 13 year old girl.
Apparently girls have no rights when Obama is in charge. Only boys who think they're girls have rights.
I guess this means that Obama's DOJ will not enforce laws against public indecency.
What sort of pervert do you have to be to demand that any boy who simply says he thinks he's a girl gets unfettered access to the girls locker room?
It's not totally surprising given liberals support for Bill Clinton's sexual harassment, they attacked the victims, or liberals support for Roman Polanski who raped a 13 year old girl.
Apparently girls have no rights when Obama is in charge. Only boys who think they're girls have rights.
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Liberal logic: Enabling drug users is good!
Liberals object to making welfare recipients take drug tests. Liberals claim that it's fine for addicts to have money for drugs and still force hard working Americans to ensure that addicts get good food.
Apparently forcing addicts to choose between drugs and food is anathema to liberals.
The rest of us call that enabling.
Apparently forcing addicts to choose between drugs and food is anathema to liberals.
The rest of us call that enabling.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Does Obama love Assad?
While President Obama has said that Assad has to go the Presidents actions say something different.
In the early years of the rebellion in Syria, when the rebels were not Islamists, Obama stood by and did nothing.
Obama told the world that that would change if Assad used chemical weapons. But when Assad did Obama once again did pretty much nothing; some half hearted support for some rebels.
Eventually in the face of genocide against Christians-- I know that Christians, unlike Jews, aren't a race so technically what ISIS is doing is not genocide but the term fits so I'll use it-- and the collapse of Iraq--due to Obama's premature withdrawal of all US forces-- Obama allowed some limited air strikes which didn't appear to do a whole lot other than let Obama say he was acting. But even those air strikes were against ISIS not Assad's forces.
Now Russia has stepped in and basically said that it will use military force to ensure that Assad stays in power.
And Obama's response is to say that Putin is making a mistake.
If I were Assad I'd be feeling the love from Obama.
In the early years of the rebellion in Syria, when the rebels were not Islamists, Obama stood by and did nothing.
Obama told the world that that would change if Assad used chemical weapons. But when Assad did Obama once again did pretty much nothing; some half hearted support for some rebels.
Eventually in the face of genocide against Christians-- I know that Christians, unlike Jews, aren't a race so technically what ISIS is doing is not genocide but the term fits so I'll use it-- and the collapse of Iraq--due to Obama's premature withdrawal of all US forces-- Obama allowed some limited air strikes which didn't appear to do a whole lot other than let Obama say he was acting. But even those air strikes were against ISIS not Assad's forces.
Now Russia has stepped in and basically said that it will use military force to ensure that Assad stays in power.
And Obama's response is to say that Putin is making a mistake.
If I were Assad I'd be feeling the love from Obama.
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Obama; a study in liberal charity
To liberals raising taxes on the "rich", while doing your best to avoid taxes yourself, is charity.
Liberals are often people who want to be philanthropic with other peoples money.
That's why Obama can claim he's all in for helping the poor while sending not a dime to his own half brother in Kenya who lives in a 6x9 hut.
If Obama can't spare a dollar for his own brother how sincere do you think his claims are that he wants to help strangers?
The reality is that to liberals helping the poor is about control and power. If a man lives on welfare he is beholden to the politicians who give him other peoples money.
If liberals really cared about the poor why has poverty not gone down even though we spend trillions on Democrat programs? If liberals cared about the poor they'd have decided that since after 50 years their game plan isn't working and they should try something new. But liberals don't change.
That tells us that liberals really don't care about the poor. If they did they'd be coming up with entirely new approaches not merely throwing good money in after bad for the same failed policies.
As Pope Francis has pointed out the poor deserve a job not a hand out. Yet liberals fight tooth and nail against anything that would give the poor jobs.
Liberals object to work related requirements for welfare--they think it's wrong to require able bodied person on welfare to be either working or looking for work
Liberals object to enterprise zones in inner cities where tax cuts would bring jobs to poor neighborhoods.
Liberals object to reducing government regulation which would create new jobs.
Liberals demand higher minimum wages that reduce the number of jobs.
Never believe a liberal who says he cares about the poor unless he gives what is his to help them.
Liberals are often people who want to be philanthropic with other peoples money.
That's why Obama can claim he's all in for helping the poor while sending not a dime to his own half brother in Kenya who lives in a 6x9 hut.
If Obama can't spare a dollar for his own brother how sincere do you think his claims are that he wants to help strangers?
The reality is that to liberals helping the poor is about control and power. If a man lives on welfare he is beholden to the politicians who give him other peoples money.
If liberals really cared about the poor why has poverty not gone down even though we spend trillions on Democrat programs? If liberals cared about the poor they'd have decided that since after 50 years their game plan isn't working and they should try something new. But liberals don't change.
That tells us that liberals really don't care about the poor. If they did they'd be coming up with entirely new approaches not merely throwing good money in after bad for the same failed policies.
As Pope Francis has pointed out the poor deserve a job not a hand out. Yet liberals fight tooth and nail against anything that would give the poor jobs.
Liberals object to work related requirements for welfare--they think it's wrong to require able bodied person on welfare to be either working or looking for work
Liberals object to enterprise zones in inner cities where tax cuts would bring jobs to poor neighborhoods.
Liberals object to reducing government regulation which would create new jobs.
Liberals demand higher minimum wages that reduce the number of jobs.
Never believe a liberal who says he cares about the poor unless he gives what is his to help them.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Ignoring the law a liberal trait
Liberals are screaming about the fact that Kentucky clerk is refusing to issue marriage licenses to gays.
Given that the people of Kentucky voted to ban gay marriage and that the Supreme Court's ruling in the words of Chief Justice Roberts is unconstitutional:
"The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent."
why would anyone think that the Supreme Courts ruling should be obeyed?
The reality is that liberals are all for people not following the law so long as liberals don't like the law.
Liberals support sanctuary cities where immigration laws are not enforced.
Obama and Holder refused to enforce DOMA.
Jerry Brown refused to defend Prop 8.
The list goes on. Liberals make a habit of ignoring laws they don't like but they are appalled when others follow their lead.
The reality is that liberals are the new monarchists. They believe themselves to be above the law, which is why Hillary thought she could put classified information on an insecure server.
But because they are tyrants at heart they believe that they and only they can, with impunity, make up laws--such as the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage-- and ignore laws the don't like--such as DOMA.
Liberals are the enemy of America not only because they want to bring in millions of illegals to steal jobs from Blacks and let rich liberal pay low wages but because liberals oppose the very idea of Democracy and the rule of law.
Given that the people of Kentucky voted to ban gay marriage and that the Supreme Court's ruling in the words of Chief Justice Roberts is unconstitutional:
"The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent."
why would anyone think that the Supreme Courts ruling should be obeyed?
The reality is that liberals are all for people not following the law so long as liberals don't like the law.
Liberals support sanctuary cities where immigration laws are not enforced.
Obama and Holder refused to enforce DOMA.
Jerry Brown refused to defend Prop 8.
The list goes on. Liberals make a habit of ignoring laws they don't like but they are appalled when others follow their lead.
The reality is that liberals are the new monarchists. They believe themselves to be above the law, which is why Hillary thought she could put classified information on an insecure server.
But because they are tyrants at heart they believe that they and only they can, with impunity, make up laws--such as the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage-- and ignore laws the don't like--such as DOMA.
Liberals are the enemy of America not only because they want to bring in millions of illegals to steal jobs from Blacks and let rich liberal pay low wages but because liberals oppose the very idea of Democracy and the rule of law.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Monday, August 24, 2015
Anchor babies and the Constitution
Liberals endorse the concept of the “living” Constitution
that says that the meaning of the Constitution evolves as society changes.
As would be expected these liberals believe that only rich
unelected liberal judges are capable of discerning just how the Constitution
has magically evolved. Unsurprisingly
all the changes that liberals see in the Constitution support liberal views.
We see that in the current debate over “anchor” babies. After all it’s clear that there was no intent by the Americans who passed the 14th Amendment to legalize any baby whose mother managed to enter the US just long enough to give birth. If that had been the case it wouldn’t have taken until 1924 for Congress to pass a law making Native Americans citizens. The objective of the 14th Amendment’s authors is very clear; ending the denial of civil rights to Black Americans by Democrat politicians in the South.
While supporters of the living Constitution declare that the Constitution must change with changing social situations for some reason many of the changes-- such as abortion and so called gay “marriage”-- have been unable to garner the support of the voters. That leads to the paradoxical situation of liberals declaring the Constitution has to change because society has changed when society has specifically rejected at the ballot box those changes liberals declare have occurred.
The reality is that when liberals say that the Constitution has to change to reflect changing times and values they mean changing liberal values not changing values on the part of the people as a whole.
We can see this in the abortion and gay “marriage” cases. In the case of abortion the Supreme Courts view of the “living” Constitution overthrew the laws of all 50 states, including the most liberal ones. Not even in liberal New York State had society embraced abortion at any time before birth and for any reason. In fact today, over 40 years later, only about one quarter of Americans endorse the Supreme Courts position. Clearly the Court was not reflecting the views of society in its discovery of abortion rights in the “living” Constitution.
The gay “marriage” case is even clearer. California, a hot bed of liberalism, had resoundingly voted to reject gay “marriage” as had many other states. Clearly society had not yet decided that gay “marriage” was a good thing but the liberals on the Supreme Court went with the liberal consensus and revised the meaning of the Constitution, which does not mention marriage.
In the case of immigration the situation might actually reflect the criteria espoused by liberals but in the exact opposite direction to what liberals want. Ignoring for a moment the obvious historical intent of the 14th Amendment it’s unclear if Americans cared about the Courts revision at the time it occurred back in 1982. However today it’s clear that most Americans don’t believe that sneaking across the border and then getting a free taxpayer paid for delivery in an American hospital confers citizenship on the criminal’s child.
Under the concept of the living Constitution however even if the intention of the authors and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment had been to grant citizenship to the children of illegals the changing societal consensus should lead the Court to declare that children of illegals are not citizens.
However since the whole “living” Constitution concept is merely a verbal sham to provide plausible deniability for judges engaged in rampant illegal and unconstitutional judicial law making none of the supporters of the “living” Constitution are arguing that the changing societal consensus on babies born to illegals means that the Constitution has changed.
Interestingly the Framers believed in a truly living Constitution that reflected the will of the people. Recognizing that over time the US might change the Framers provided a way for the people, as opposed to a few unelected rich and mostly white judges, to determine what the Constitution should mean. That process to amend and update the Constitution has been used on multiple occasions to fix problems where there was a change in societal consensus such as the ending the denial of civil rights by Democrat politicians to blacks, the right of women to vote, and the right of 18 year olds to vote.
The 14th Amendment is a great example of how the Constitution was amended to reflect the changing societal consensus that recognized that Blacks are just as human as whites. While that attitude has taken a much longer time to be accepted in the Democrat run South—change not occurring until the South became Republican—the 14th Amendment reflected the change in American society as a whole.
However liberals, bruised by the defeat of the so-called “equal” rights amendment, decided that it’s really too much bother to have to have the “living” Constitution follow the people. Instead the Constitution is to be used as a battering ram to change the societal consensus by redefining what is legal.
Liberals know that many Americans tend to equate moral truth with legality and hence by changing the Constitution liberals know that over time they can change attitudes.
This practice is similar to that used by Muslims to convert the masses of non-Muslims that were conquered by Muslim invaders. Make the law endorse something and condemn something else and over time the less committed people will change their views. While the coercion used by liberals has not historically been on par with Sharia law the recent drive to deny Christians who oppose gay “marriage” and abortion the right to own businesses shows that liberals are stepping up their game.
In the end those who say that the concept of citizenship for the children of illegals is not in the Constitution are 100% correct if one looks at what the Constitution actually says.
We see that in the current debate over “anchor” babies. After all it’s clear that there was no intent by the Americans who passed the 14th Amendment to legalize any baby whose mother managed to enter the US just long enough to give birth. If that had been the case it wouldn’t have taken until 1924 for Congress to pass a law making Native Americans citizens. The objective of the 14th Amendment’s authors is very clear; ending the denial of civil rights to Black Americans by Democrat politicians in the South.
While supporters of the living Constitution declare that the Constitution must change with changing social situations for some reason many of the changes-- such as abortion and so called gay “marriage”-- have been unable to garner the support of the voters. That leads to the paradoxical situation of liberals declaring the Constitution has to change because society has changed when society has specifically rejected at the ballot box those changes liberals declare have occurred.
The reality is that when liberals say that the Constitution has to change to reflect changing times and values they mean changing liberal values not changing values on the part of the people as a whole.
We can see this in the abortion and gay “marriage” cases. In the case of abortion the Supreme Courts view of the “living” Constitution overthrew the laws of all 50 states, including the most liberal ones. Not even in liberal New York State had society embraced abortion at any time before birth and for any reason. In fact today, over 40 years later, only about one quarter of Americans endorse the Supreme Courts position. Clearly the Court was not reflecting the views of society in its discovery of abortion rights in the “living” Constitution.
The gay “marriage” case is even clearer. California, a hot bed of liberalism, had resoundingly voted to reject gay “marriage” as had many other states. Clearly society had not yet decided that gay “marriage” was a good thing but the liberals on the Supreme Court went with the liberal consensus and revised the meaning of the Constitution, which does not mention marriage.
In the case of immigration the situation might actually reflect the criteria espoused by liberals but in the exact opposite direction to what liberals want. Ignoring for a moment the obvious historical intent of the 14th Amendment it’s unclear if Americans cared about the Courts revision at the time it occurred back in 1982. However today it’s clear that most Americans don’t believe that sneaking across the border and then getting a free taxpayer paid for delivery in an American hospital confers citizenship on the criminal’s child.
Under the concept of the living Constitution however even if the intention of the authors and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment had been to grant citizenship to the children of illegals the changing societal consensus should lead the Court to declare that children of illegals are not citizens.
However since the whole “living” Constitution concept is merely a verbal sham to provide plausible deniability for judges engaged in rampant illegal and unconstitutional judicial law making none of the supporters of the “living” Constitution are arguing that the changing societal consensus on babies born to illegals means that the Constitution has changed.
Interestingly the Framers believed in a truly living Constitution that reflected the will of the people. Recognizing that over time the US might change the Framers provided a way for the people, as opposed to a few unelected rich and mostly white judges, to determine what the Constitution should mean. That process to amend and update the Constitution has been used on multiple occasions to fix problems where there was a change in societal consensus such as the ending the denial of civil rights by Democrat politicians to blacks, the right of women to vote, and the right of 18 year olds to vote.
The 14th Amendment is a great example of how the Constitution was amended to reflect the changing societal consensus that recognized that Blacks are just as human as whites. While that attitude has taken a much longer time to be accepted in the Democrat run South—change not occurring until the South became Republican—the 14th Amendment reflected the change in American society as a whole.
However liberals, bruised by the defeat of the so-called “equal” rights amendment, decided that it’s really too much bother to have to have the “living” Constitution follow the people. Instead the Constitution is to be used as a battering ram to change the societal consensus by redefining what is legal.
Liberals know that many Americans tend to equate moral truth with legality and hence by changing the Constitution liberals know that over time they can change attitudes.
This practice is similar to that used by Muslims to convert the masses of non-Muslims that were conquered by Muslim invaders. Make the law endorse something and condemn something else and over time the less committed people will change their views. While the coercion used by liberals has not historically been on par with Sharia law the recent drive to deny Christians who oppose gay “marriage” and abortion the right to own businesses shows that liberals are stepping up their game.
In the end those who say that the concept of citizenship for the children of illegals is not in the Constitution are 100% correct if one looks at what the Constitution actually says.
But even if one denies that then the doctrine of the “living
“ Constitution, as it’s articulated as opposed to how it’s implemented, tells
us that the Constitution clearly rejects the concept of citizenship for the
children of illegals.
In fact if one is a true believer in the concept of the “living” Constitution one has to condemn the rigid and historical intent based reasoning of the Court in upholding citizenship for the children of illegals.
Of course as on most issues liberals don’t actually believe in what they say. Rather they use words in an Orwellian way to disguise their extremist anti-populist agenda.
When discussing this issue with people point out that whether one uses original intent or one uses the concept of the “living” Constitution the result is that the children of illegals are not citizens according to the Constitution.
Feel free to follow tom on Twitter
In fact if one is a true believer in the concept of the “living” Constitution one has to condemn the rigid and historical intent based reasoning of the Court in upholding citizenship for the children of illegals.
Of course as on most issues liberals don’t actually believe in what they say. Rather they use words in an Orwellian way to disguise their extremist anti-populist agenda.
When discussing this issue with people point out that whether one uses original intent or one uses the concept of the “living” Constitution the result is that the children of illegals are not citizens according to the Constitution.
Feel free to follow tom on Twitter
Friday, August 21, 2015
The Big Constitutional Lie
The other night Bill O’Reilly repeated the Big Lie about the
Constitution; namely that the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution says.
In all fairness it’s clear Bill wasn’t intentionally lying.
Rather he was espousing a philosophy that has crept into the mainstream of
American thought since the 1960s.
At first glance the idea that the Supreme Court has to decide on Constitutionality makes sense but a simple question will show that the idea has serious problems.
Does anyone think if the Supreme Court judges were clones of Thomas or Scalia we’d have seen abortion legalized, same sex marriage mandated, or ObamaCare’s fees turned into taxes? Yet if we know that the definition of what is “Constitutional” depends on men not the law and that definition changes with a changing of the guard on the Court we have to acknowledge that the Court is an unelected political, not judicial, body.
It’s precisely because liberal Justices are biased that every nomination to the Supreme Court is a huge political war; people know the liberal Judges aren’t really interpreting the Constitution in light of the intent of the folks who wrote or passed it but rather in light of what they would like America to be.
Jefferson pointed out this precise problem when he wrote:
You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves
Historically the Court took on an imperial role in the
1960’s creating rights and warping the Constitution to fit the member’s liberal
perspectives.
Imperial is a valid description since it’s nearly impossible to overturn a decision by the Court, unless different judges are put in place.
However impeaching a judge is nearly impossible unless both parties hate them thereby guaranteeing lifetime sinecures for liberal judges no matter how off the wall their decisions might be. Similarly changing the Constitution is a huge process that can take decades and is hardly a viable mechanism to counteract 60 minutes of work by a liberal majority on the Court.
The Big Constitutional Lie(BCL) is bad because it makes Americans think that we were intended to live in a society where 5 rich lawyers can completely change society as they please so long as they invoke the magic word Constitutional.
When the Court has completely changed American culture the people, who tend to be law abiding, have presumed that the Court was acting honestly and gone along with it. That’s why the legalization of pornography and abortion were met with relatively little response; people believed the BCL.
But it’s time to confront the BCL and listen to what Abraham Lincoln said in his first Inaugural address:
Imperial is a valid description since it’s nearly impossible to overturn a decision by the Court, unless different judges are put in place.
However impeaching a judge is nearly impossible unless both parties hate them thereby guaranteeing lifetime sinecures for liberal judges no matter how off the wall their decisions might be. Similarly changing the Constitution is a huge process that can take decades and is hardly a viable mechanism to counteract 60 minutes of work by a liberal majority on the Court.
The Big Constitutional Lie(BCL) is bad because it makes Americans think that we were intended to live in a society where 5 rich lawyers can completely change society as they please so long as they invoke the magic word Constitutional.
When the Court has completely changed American culture the people, who tend to be law abiding, have presumed that the Court was acting honestly and gone along with it. That’s why the legalization of pornography and abortion were met with relatively little response; people believed the BCL.
But it’s time to confront the BCL and listen to what Abraham Lincoln said in his first Inaugural address:
[T]he candid citizen
must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting
the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court,
the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal
actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that
extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent
tribunal.
Over most of the history of the US the Supreme Court Judges
tried to adhere to the intent of the Framers and the actual wording of the
Constitution but that has changed.
Lawyers have been lured by the sweet scent of power to embrace the concept of the Constitution as a “living” document. By that they mean that unelected Judges and the lawyers who bring cases to the Court can change the intent and meaning of the Constitution without having to bother with the messy task of actually convincing the American people.
The liberal judges on the Supreme Court adhere to the idea of a “living Constitution” that they can mold to fit their view of what America should be.
Lawyers have been lured by the sweet scent of power to embrace the concept of the Constitution as a “living” document. By that they mean that unelected Judges and the lawyers who bring cases to the Court can change the intent and meaning of the Constitution without having to bother with the messy task of actually convincing the American people.
The liberal judges on the Supreme Court adhere to the idea of a “living Constitution” that they can mold to fit their view of what America should be.
For example judge Ginsberg said:
"It's intended to be looked at in the context of contemporary events, in the context of history, in the context of past precedent, and the intent of the framers. Put all those things together and hopefully what you get is the right answer to some perplexing issue that the court is confronting,"
"It's intended to be looked at in the context of contemporary events, in the context of history, in the context of past precedent, and the intent of the framers. Put all those things together and hopefully what you get is the right answer to some perplexing issue that the court is confronting,"
“I would not look to
the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year
2012.”
“I might look at the
constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a
fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an
independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was
done.”
Clearly when Judge Marshall defended judicial review in Marbury v Madison he was not thinking of Justices who thought the Constitution was a badly written document that didn’t do a good job at embracing basic human rights.
To see the hypocrisy of the liberal position let’s look at a hypothetical situation. Suppose that a Democrat run Congress had passed a law requiring President Bush to remove troops from Iraq as quickly as possible. Bush then sent more troops to Iraq saying that the quickest way to get the troops out was to defeat the insurgents and that required more troops. No liberal would support a Supreme Court that sided with Bush and ignored the intent of Congress yet those same liberals gleefully support the idea of freeing the Supreme Court from the “shackles” of original intent when the judges rulings impose abortion or same sex marriage on America.
Clearly when Judge Marshall defended judicial review in Marbury v Madison he was not thinking of Justices who thought the Constitution was a badly written document that didn’t do a good job at embracing basic human rights.
To see the hypocrisy of the liberal position let’s look at a hypothetical situation. Suppose that a Democrat run Congress had passed a law requiring President Bush to remove troops from Iraq as quickly as possible. Bush then sent more troops to Iraq saying that the quickest way to get the troops out was to defeat the insurgents and that required more troops. No liberal would support a Supreme Court that sided with Bush and ignored the intent of Congress yet those same liberals gleefully support the idea of freeing the Supreme Court from the “shackles” of original intent when the judges rulings impose abortion or same sex marriage on America.
Given that the Court is clearly no longer an impartial body
honestly striving to adhere to the intent of the Framers Americans have to
realize that our freedom is being stolen.
Liberals use the Supreme Court to impose their policies without getting the consent of the people thereby essentially making the US a country where power resides not in the people but in the lawyers and judges. That effectively repeals the American Revolution. After all how is an unelected appointed for life King George imposing an arbitrary law any different than an unelected appointed for life Supreme Court imposing an arbitrary law?
How we can restore the Supreme Court to an impartial body is a very thorny question in light of liberals rejection of the rule of law the first step we can take is to refute and reject the BCL.
Liberals use the Supreme Court to impose their policies without getting the consent of the people thereby essentially making the US a country where power resides not in the people but in the lawyers and judges. That effectively repeals the American Revolution. After all how is an unelected appointed for life King George imposing an arbitrary law any different than an unelected appointed for life Supreme Court imposing an arbitrary law?
How we can restore the Supreme Court to an impartial body is a very thorny question in light of liberals rejection of the rule of law the first step we can take is to refute and reject the BCL.
An exercise of raw judicial power does not define what the
Constitution says it only defines what the law is. The difference is that the
Constitution, viewed in the light of the Framers, is unchanging where as the
rulings of the Court can change whenever the ideology of the majority changes.
When Americans realize that the Supreme Court is not an honest broker but a radicalized revolutionary agent of change many, but sadly not all, will recognize the danger.
We need to change the American attitude of viewing the Supreme Court as an infallible source of truth as a first step in what will be a long process of remaking the Court into an impartial agent intent on ensuring that the laws of the land are followed.
When Americans realize that the Supreme Court is not an honest broker but a radicalized revolutionary agent of change many, but sadly not all, will recognize the danger.
We need to change the American attitude of viewing the Supreme Court as an infallible source of truth as a first step in what will be a long process of remaking the Court into an impartial agent intent on ensuring that the laws of the land are followed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
