How I learned to stop worrying and love the Sequester

I was concerned that the sequester would result in meat cleaver cuts to defense.  But now I'm of the opinion that the only way we'll get DC to cut any spending is through draconian measures.

Let's face it the system is rigged to keep the power junkies in DC constantly high on the drug of choice; power.  Every dollar DC pulls out of hard working Americans pockets is a dollar that politicians get to spend to buy their next term in office or to enforce their own personal beliefs on the rest of America.

Money is power and DC is designed to extract money from everyone so as to empower DC.  They tax us so we can't afford to send our kids to college then they take some of our money, keeping a big cut as commission, and give it back to us as low interest loans. Seems stupid but when you realize that any college that takes students who use government aid is subject to having its curriculum controlled by the DC mob it becomes clear that politicians win two ways; they get our money and they get more control over our lives.

So long as people aren't rioting in the streets, a situation that even with the Obama economy and the totally out of control Obama spending is a few years off, politicians are incentivized to steal from Paul to pay themselves.

You may have heard of a new, actually recycled, liberal plan to seize your 401(k) plan and give you in return a guaranteed pension.  Essentially the liberals are saying if you give me all your money now I'll promise you a pension later. The reality of course is that the liberals will spend your money and when the time comes to pay you your pension they'll either try and pay for it by raising taxes on your children and grand children or they'll say sorry. We know this because this is what was done with social security--while they haven't told us sorry yet the simple fact is that without reform social security will be going bankrupt in the not too distant future.

The bottom line is that there is nothing holding back politicians from spending given that so many people don't pay taxes.  Until the system collapses those takers are now numerous enough that liberals don't have to swing many other voters in order to get reelected.

In all fairness to those takers they probably don't realize what they're doing. The mass media tells them that they're just getting what they're due and doesn't discuss the long term consequences of massive income redistribution.

What we should be concentrating on now is forcing the government to make the cuts in a way that benefits the taxpayers not the government.  Where I live when we refused to pass a bond measure for the libraries the libraries drastically cut library hours but not the library staff. Essentially the local government kept paying it's employees but didn't make them work as much.  Expect to see that when the sequestration kicks in. 

Thoughts on the true nature of the Papacy

While in public the Popes are well attired and look wealthy. In private they live humble essentially poor lives with little in the way of material possessions.

Benedict  XVI showed that he is a humble man by freely surrendering his role as leader of over a billion Catholics because he felt he was no longer physically able to do the job Christ called him to.

What most forget is that the Papacy is not about power but service.  Just as the God who created everything became a man and died for us, stooping to wash the dirty feet of His apostles along the way, in order to teach us that serving others is the surest way to true happiness the Pope lives a life of service and sacrifice.

Benedict did not want to be Pope; he wanted to retire, take it easy and write.  Yet when called he abandoned his own personal plans to serve God. 

In this Lenten season we should look to Benedict as an example of how serving God leads to true happiness.

Why liberals hate the First Amendment

Liberals are constantly telling the world how much they love the First Amendment. The reality is that Liberals hate the First Amendment with the same sort of fiery passion with which an evangelical hates the Devil.

The first reason liberals despise the First Amendment is that liberals hate truly free speech.  If you look at all of the cases which supposedly establish liberals support for free speech you’ll discover they’re all cases in which things liberals want to say were being obstructed.

Generally speaking liberals only invoke the First Amendment when trying to defend the publication of classified documents that could damage the US, such as the Pentagon Paper, revealing secret programs that help us win the war on terror, such as the NYT’s revelation of a secret program to monitor terrorists financial transactions, burning or otherwise desecrating the American flag, or pushing pornography into every aspect of modern life.

The problem is that saying that you should be able to say what you want is not support for freedom of speech.  Supporting freedom of speech means declaring that people who disagree with you should be allowed to speak.

In that area the liberal track record is pretty bad.  The same liberals who declare burning flags to be patriotic strongly support the FACE act which makes it illegal to peacefully offer a pamphlet to a women entering an abortion mill.  Similarly liberals who declare that it’s parents job to pay for software to filter out Internet porn declare that Fox News should be banished from the airwaves because Fox says things that liberals don’t like. Then there’s the whole Politically Correct speech movement that is unabashedly designed to silence voices liberals don’t agree with.

Back in the last millennia liberals would hold up their defense of Nazi’s who wanted to march in Skokie Illinois—a primarily Jewish neighborhood where a number of Holocaust survivors lived—as proof that they supported freedom of speech.  But that argument only holds if one assumes that liberals aren’t anti-semitic, not to the level of wanting to eradicate Jews but not too concerned if Holocaust survivors have to allow Nazi’s to march past their houses.  Yet the modern liberal movement seems to have no problem with the thought of Israel being wiped off the face of the Earth so maybe that’s why they no longer hold up the ACLU’s defense of Nazi’s as proof of liberal tolerance—though the ACLU still thinks it’s an accomplishment they should be proud of.

The liberals view of free speech is really more closely aligned with the concept embodied by the old Soviet newspaper Pravda—Truth—or Goekbbel’s than with what the Founders intended.  Liberals are all for being able to say whatever they want to but they don’t believe that people should have to endure “incorrect” statements from those who disagree with the liberal establishment. 

In a sense it’s amusing that the same liberals who constantly attack the Catholic Church for the Index Librorum Phohibitorum, books that the Church felt were so horribly wrong as to be bad for people to read, even though it was eliminated in 1966 are today in our bright new millennium calling for the censorship of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

The simple truth is that liberals abhor free speech; they only use the First Amendment to tear down social objections to things like pornography and treason.

Liberals distaste for the First Amendment does not end with their disdain for truly free speech.  Liberals also are very unenthused about what the First Amendment says about freedom of religion.

That’s understandable because in society religion is the only institution that, by its very nature, declares that there are limits on government power; the whole inalienable rights granted by our Creator thing.  To liberals who view the state as the be all and end all of life the right to practice one’s faith is a horrible error in that it limits the power government can wield.  Given that liberals view the state as the only entity that can lead men to the promised land obstructing it is a grave sin indeed.

As with freedom of speech liberals will claim that they respect freedom of worship. But of course the Constitution does not say that people are only free to worship; the Constitution says that the government cannot pass laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.  People exercise their religion when they live their lives according to the tenants of their beliefs.  Worship is part of that but the Constitution is clear that the government cannot force people to go against their faith in how they live their lives—which is why the Quakers don’t have to be snipers.

Clearly if liberals actually liked what the Constitution says about freedom of religion they wouldn’t be hell bent on forcing people who think abortion is a grave moral evil to directly fund it through the HHS mandate.

If when faced with existential crises like the Civil War and WWII the country could grant conscientious objector status based on deeply held religious beliefs why can’t the country let those whose faith condemns abortion, sterilization, and artificial contraception not have to offer insurance policies that cover those things?  No one has ever died to a lack of abortifacient chemicals or birth control pills. Additionally no one is compelled to work for individuals or organizations whose beliefs show that those “services” are both evil and bad for people so if that sort of “health” coverage is a deal breaker folks can just work elsewhere.

Another area where liberal hatred of the religious aspects of the First Amendment is visible is liberal’s constant effort to drive religion out of the public square.  To liberals a copy of the Ten Commandments—which convey the basic morality on which American was founded—in a public building is a horrible thing. 

They attempt to say that their fanatical opposition to anything Christian in the public square is based on the Constitution but that’s clearly untrue. 

The First Amendment says

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Even a casual study of history shows that the intent of the Framers was to avoid a situation that so many of the colonists had fled from in England; an official state religion.  The Framers knew that people couldn’t freely exercise their religion if there is one faith that is enshrined above all others; a lesson we’re relearning in this millennia with respect to Sharia law.

But even if one ignores everything that was happening when the Constitution was ratified the simple fact that it wasn’t until 1947 that anyone in America thought that the First Amendment contained a “wall of separation” between government and religion provides ample proof that the liberal view is based on a “living” Constitution not the law the rest of America follows.  For example in early America the government paid Priests to convert Native Americans and several states had official state religions; not really consistent with the modern liberal interpretation of the Constitution. 

The simple reality is that the liberal efforts to purge religion from government is based on the liberal desire to remove an obstacle to the unending expansion of government power which is so near and dear to liberal hearts.

Finally liberals actually also object to the Constitutions prohibition of the establishment of a state religion. That’s because liberals are working hard to establish their faith as the one and only one approved of by the government. 

Liberals are constantly working to ensure that their beliefs, ranging from same sex marriage to radical environmentalism, are enforced on all Americans through the full power of the Federal government.  In nature the liberal move to use the law to require all Americans to bend their knees to liberal beliefs, including by having to fund things many Americans find objectionable, is no different than what the Church of England did to Englishmen who disagreed with it in the old days.

Liberals object to the First Amendment for several reasons but the unifying theme is that the First Amendment limits liberal power and allows those who liberals disagree with to speak out; the simple reality is that liberals in America today are more opposed to true freedom than the state run Inquisitions that liberals so often condemn.

 

Statue of Blessed Virgin Mary at the Shrine of Our Lady of Peace Roman Catholic Church in Santa Clara California

Lent: Getting ready to die

You are going to die someday.  Hopefully it will be after a long happy life but no matter what we will all die.

Ask yourself what will make you happy on that day. 

You might be surprised.  The things in your life, and the people you treated like things, won't give you any comfort.

What will make you happy is what you did for others. 

Things never bring lasting happiness just like drugs never bring a permanent high. Both will make you feel good for a bit but in the end things fall short of bringing us true happiness.

Use this Lent as a time to figure out what you need to do to ensure that on that last day of your life you can look back and say job well done to yourself.  Anything else is really just a distraction.

From Our Lady of Peace Roman Catholic Church in Santa Clara California

The Papacy for non-Catholics

God picks the pope.  It's not politics. 

No matter who the new Pope is he won't change Catholic doctrine. That means abortion, sex outside of marriage--including homosexual sex--, artificial birth control, and women priests will all stay on the outside of what God has defined as right.

Similarly the new Pope won't reduce the Church's commitment to the poor and disadvantaged.  The Church will stand for the rights of women and children.  The Church will continue to be the largest charitable institution on the planet.

That's the nice thing about the Church while the trappings may change--Latin for the Mass then, now the vernacular-- the Truth the Church teaches hasn't changed for 2000 years.

While the Post Office may deliver rain or shine the Church delivers right through the collapse of one civilization and the rise of the next.  The peoples and nations that first embraced the Church have mostly vanished, known only to people interested in ancient history, but you can pick up a book written in 80AD, called the Didache, and see the same truths the Church teaches now.

One of the key reasons the Church has stayed the course is the Papacy.  Not the Popes. We've had a bunch of loser Popes.  Like the rest of Catholics Popes are all too clearly not incapable of sin.  But despite the failings of the Pope the Church sails on. That's because Jesus established the Church to be His agent on Earth. But He also ensured us that the Holy Spirit would protect the Church.

By having one source of Truth that is guaranteed to never be wrong the Church can always be secure in its teachings.  The Bible is great but it can be interpreted in many ways, as the huge number of Protestant denominations prove, by people who are very much in love with Jesus Christ. 

God knew we sinners tend to get confused which is why He established a Church and an office, the Papacy, to give our wandering minds a secure place where we can always drink deep of the Truth Jesus brought to us.

To those who think that the Papacy is about politics remember Blessed Pope John Paul II.  He was the darkest of dark horses. Yet he was precisely the sort of Pope the Church needed then.  You don't get that sort of miracle through Vatican politics. You need to look up a lot higher to find the source of that sort of amazing event. But the Church's history is littered with that sort of thing.

Do you think that Western Civilization would have stood against the hordes of the Muslim world at Lepanto and Vienna without the prayers of all those Catholics in Europe?

When  everything appears to be insane; when a thousand different voices shout out their own version of the truth on millions of web sites, thousands of TV channels, and innumerable Facebook pages be at peace.  You can find all the Truth necessary for living a life of contentment and peace, even in the middle of the worst tribulations imaginable, in the Church.

The battle has been won; Jesus took care of that. All that's left is for each of us to choose which side to be on.  Be smart go with the winners and follow Christ's Vicar on Earth, the Pope.

Educate the ignorant to eliminate Democrat voters

Most Americans are reasonable people who would never vote for Obama if they knew the truth.  But if only say 10% of Americans don't know the truth it would be enough to swing the election to someone like Obama.

Those who get their news from the major media had no clue as to what Obama was like.  Just as they didn't know that a famous Democrat Senator was formerly a paid recruiter for the KKK.

We can't go and buy the major media, though they may soon go out of business, but we can educate our friends and neighbors.  Don't assume that they know what you know.  I know someone who works at an aerospace company. He was facing a layoff due to sequestration but prior to the election he had no idea that Obama was telling his company to break the law and not send out WARN notices to help their employee's prepare for layoffs.

Be a conservative "missionary" and spread the truth about Benghazi, the economy, gun control, and abortion.  Most people aren't liberals but if they get their information from the popular media they don't know that Obama is a liberal either.

If conservatives use guerrilla marketing to get the truth to our friends, neighbors, and co-workers it can make a world of difference.

Liberals, not DNA, define your race

First we were told that George Zimmerman was a "white" Hispanic, not really a full fledged Hispanic by libeals.  Of course if George had been complaining about job discrimination instead of being guilty of shooting a black teenager in self defense the media would have gladly declared George to be Hispanic.

While this might be the first time the media has shown that in the minds of liberals it is a persons ideology that defines their race in the case of Hispanics it is one in a long series of cases which show that white liberals believe they have the right to define who is authentically a "minority".

When Clarence Thomas was nominated for the Supreme Court liberal's attacked him with a viciousness that would never have been tolerated if done by conservatives.  While liberal blacks label conservative blacks as Oreos, black on the outside white on the inside, it is liberal blacks who willingly conform to the demands of their white liberal "masters".

Jesse Jackson was strongly pro-life because his mother almost aborted him. He said that if abortion would have been legal he might never have been born. Yet in order to run for the Democrat Presidential nomination Jesse had to become pro-abortion in order to avoid rejection by the white liberals who run the Democrat party. 

Blacks in general favor school choice and oppose gay "marriage" yet Black politicians, beholden to the white liberals that run the Democrat party oppose school choice and support gay "marriage".

To be authentically Black in the eyes of the media African Americans have to bow to the gods of the white liberal establishment. Blacks who think independently are attacked and dehumanized by the liberal lynch mobs.

Conservatives on the other hand oppose discrimination while believing that Blacks and Hispanics--like everyone else--can have a diversity of opinions.  Conservatives don't believe that one's stand on abortion, school choice, or gay "marriage" determines a persons race.

In many peoples minds conservatives don't like Blacks but the reality is just the opposite. Liberals like Blacks only so long as those Blacks are in lock step with liberal policies.  On the other hand conservatives stand up for Blacks and their civil rights irrespective of the political opinions Blacks hold.

Which is racist; disagreeing with liberal policies like welfare or declaring that Blacks who don't agree with liberal positions aren't really Black?

LIberals label us all losers

Have you ever noticed how liberals think everyone needs to be helped by liberals in order to succeed? 

Instead of teaching the poor to fish liberals insist on making sure that the poor can live, thanks to government largess, but never thrive, survive but never excel, and most of all never be able to know that they're valuable as people.

In their hearts liberals think the poor, especially minorities, can never actually take care of themselves.

When conservatives look at the poor they see people who have either made poor choices or who need a chance to succeed, when liberals look at the poor they see failures who have to be taken care of.

In the business world liberals believe that they must decide which businesses succeed and which fail. That's because liberals don't think the people who have built their business through a lifetime, or often more than one lifetime, of sweat equity can really make an honest dollar.  In the minds of liberals businesses only succeed by ripping off their customers or fouling the environment.

People who are faithful to their spouses and who make the economic sacrifices necessary to raise children are also losers who are missing the "good" things life.  According to liberals those folks need to be taught not to have so many children, especially if they're minorities,  because liberals know that the problem in the world is too many people, not too little love.

That's why liberals are always telling everyone else how to raise children and declaring that the schools, run by liberals, know how to raise children not the parents who stayed up all night when those kids were little.

In the liberal mind liberals care more for children than the parents who've invested untold time and wealth and who would die for their kids do.

In short in the liberal world unless you are a liberal you're a stupid loser who needs liberal guidance to navigate through the rough waters of life.

The problem is that liberals are only really good at one thing; gaining political power which they use to force their "guidance" on the people who are already succeeding in life.

The bigots are out

Pope Benedict XVI had the humility to decide that he wasn't physically capable of doing the job of leading over a billion Catholics. Rather than clinging to power Benedict did what was best for the Church.

But the bigots are out attacking him.  I bet we won't see them working an incredibly strenuous job when they're 85 years old but that hasn't stopped them from attacking a man who's given his whole life to serving others.

They're pulling out the usual lies about sex abuse in the Church.

First < 1% of priests had sex with minors, the vast majority of the victims were teenagers, while too many that's significantly lower than the rate of such behavior among married men and on par with the rate for Protestant ministers. Additionally the rate has gone down dramatically; the vast majority of "new" cases are citing crimes that supposedly occurred 30-50 years ago.  I say supposedly because in many cases the supposed criminal is dead and unable to defend themselves. Additionally in a number of cases, including a very public one involving Cardinal Bernadin, the accusers has admitted to making the whole thing up.

But even if the lies told about the Church were true to attack Benedict is nuts given that it was he who toughened up the Church's response to these evil actions. 

Benedict referred to these priests actions as "filth".  It was Benedict who added Internet offenses a violation of canon law.  He also extended the definition of child abuse to all children under 18 years of age and he eliminated the statue of limitation while speeding up the process of throwing out priests who did these heinous things.

What's really amazing is that many of those who are attacking Benedict have done little or nothing to help anyone, liberals give less to charity than conservative religious people, and they are great supporters of homosexuality. The latter is significant in that the majority of priests who did these horrible things were gay; more than 80% of the victims of priests were teenage boys.  It's also interesting to note that those who are attacking the Pope were silent for the long years when the SF Gay pride parade included a group that advocated sex with 3 year old boys. They're also silent about the fact that unlike the Church which has dramatically cleaned up its act the public schools are still shuffling teachers who've been accused of sexual abuse around and covering up their crimes.

What some priests and Bishops did was bad but to condemn the Church for actions by Catholics which violate the moral teachings of the Church would be like blaming the Constitution for Obama's violations of the law.

These people attack the Church for two reasons; the Church shows that men have inalienable rights so that the government cannot be all powerful and because the Church declares the hedonistic lifestyle of liberals to be wrong.

Evil men always attack the Church because the light of the Church reveals their flaws.

American lambs

Americans tend to be good law abiding folk. The problem is that it's hard for people to reject a law even though it's obviously wrong.

Back when the law was limited Americans willingness to follow laws was a good thing. But now when liberals are using the government bureaucrats to implement a huge array of laws Americans need to return to their roots.

As Dennis Miller has pointed out the founders of America started a war because their tea was being taxed. Today Americans sit by while everything other than the air we breath is taxed.

It's time to put government in it's place before it's too late.

What are the limits on government power?

Recently the county I live in decided that people have to pay for paper bags at stores and that plastic bags can't be used.

I tried to find out who had created this new law only to discover it wasn't really a law since it wasn't passed by any elected officials.  Instead a bunch of county bureaucrats who were appointed to a board made the decision.  It was nearly impossible to find out who appointed them.

So unelected paper pushers determined what bags grocery stores could use. They of course ignored studies that show that using recyclable bags can be worse, due to bacteria on the bags, in both cost and environmental impact than disposable plastic bags.  In addition they require the stores to charge for the paper bags the stores used to give out for free.

Is this really what most Americans think of as something that unelected government employees can force Americans to do?

What can't the government force us to do?

It's a small thing but that's the point. If the government can control even the smallest parts of our lives why should we  doubt that they can control the most important things as well?

But if the government can control everything it will be impossible to find candidates who agree with even a plurality of Americans and that being the case it will be impossible for voters to vote for candidates who actually represent them in any meaningful way.

Liberals new Prohibition

America banned alcoholic beverages during Prohibition because a small portion of non-tee-totalers misused booze. That small portion, much larger back then than now, generally speaking didn’t murder anyone but they did beat their wives and children, cause public disturbances, and generate a burden on society because they couldn’t take care of themselves.

Liberals, and most Americans, have declared that in hindsight Prohibition was a very dumb idea. The simple fact is that the vast majority of drinkers do so responsibly and the idea of banning something that is only abused by a tiny minority and which provides benefits to the vast majority is stupid.  We know liberals agree with this reasoning since it’s the reasoning they use, rightly or wrongly, to show why marijuana should be legal.

Yet liberals are using the exact same reasoning used by Prohibitionists to try and keep Americans from owning guns.

When it comes to guns liberals perform some mental gymnastics and declare that anything that causes the death of children should be banned.  Liberal reasoning can best be defined by the Obama Rule; We should do anything that would save the life of even one child.

To understand the absurdity of the Obama Rule note that it would lead us to a new Prohibition on peanuts because a tiny fraction of the population, including children, can experience life threatening allergic reactions to peanuts.

As with alcohol the vast majority of legal American gun owners never do anything bad with their guns.  In fact privately owned guns are regularly used to protect innocent lives and deter violent crimes. How many people, especially single women, sleep better at night or feel more comfortable in various potentially dangerous situations because they have a gun and know how to use it? Additionally guns, like alcohol used in moderation, can improve the lives of people who hunt or like practice shooting.

But like guns alcohol is, if we use liberal reasoning where it is things rather than people that shoulder the brunt of responsibility for people’s actions, the cause of many deaths and much suffering each year.

Each year roughly 450 children die due to alcohol related traffic accidents. That’s more than 20 times the number of children who were killed at Sandy Hook; and that’s each and every year not just once every few years like gun related killings.  Accidental deaths of children due to guns runs around 180 a year so it’s clear that alcohol is a far greater killer of children than guns—children killed by criminals with guns as part of a crime will not be reduced by keeping honest people from having guns; in fact given that gun ownership reduces crime rates more children will die because of guns if liberals succeed in their new Prohibition.

If we use liberal gun “logic”, The Obama Rule, we should clearly reinstate Prohibition, of alcohol, for the children’s sake. 

But why stop at alcohol?  Every year roughly 1100 children under the age of 8 die each year in all types of traffic accidents. That’s nearly 6 times the number of children that die to gun related accidents and incidents like Sandy Hook combined.  Liberals tell us that cars are evil and we should use mass transport so to use President Obama’s reasoning we clearly need to start a new Prohibition on privately owned cars.

Then there’s marijuana.  While it’s hard to OD on marijuana it impacts cognitive abilities just like alcohol does. As marijuana use increases there will be more drug related car accidents and more children dying in those accidents as a result of legal marijuana.  According to the Obama rule if even one child dies due to legalized marijuana use we need to outlaw marijuana.

Sex is also a killer of children. Liberals tell us we can’t expect people to say no to casual sex the way liberals know that people can say no to cigarettes yet promiscuous sex, primarily gay sex, is the most common way to get AIDS.  Born babies die when they contract AIDS from their mothers. So AIDS kills children. By the Obama Rule we must immediately establish a Prohibition on all sex that could spread AIDS; which means all sex except monogamous committed sex.

Our current mental health system is a key cause of child murders.  The Sandy Hook killer was clearly unstable and his mother was desperately trying to get him committed. But liberals are so concerned about the “rights’ of the insane that liberals have made it insanely difficult to get the most troubled among us the help they so desperately need. The Obama Rule clearly states we must have a Prohibition on the dangerously mentally troubled being free to walk the streets where they can steal guns and kill children.

And the criminal justice system shouldn’t escape the Presidents eagle eye either.  Because of changes to the legal system it’s harder to convict criminals, including those who kill children. As a result the murderers of children accidentally hit in drive by shootings often are left to walk the streets and kill more kids.  If the Obama Rule is to ring true and help usher us into a new age of compassion for children the President has no choice but to immediately push for the prohibition of rules that toss out viable physical evidence due to procedural mistakes.

Clearly the Obama Rule if applied to our society would result in a number of new Prohibitions ranging from alcohol to casual sex.  Yet we have yet to hear the clamoring of the liberal chattering masses, especially the Main Stream Media, for any of these other bans that, based on our esteemed Presidents reasoning, are unequivocal moral imperatives.

While waiting for the inevitable liberal realization of the obvious need for these new Prohibitions let’s take a look at how liberals treat those who kill children.

The most obvious example of liberal leniency towards child killers is of course abortion. Abortion does not make a woman unpregnant it just makes her the mother of a murdered child.  Of course due to liberal media lies most women who have an abortion honestly don’t understand that abortion kills their son or daughter. They have been told-- by the media, by Planned Parenthood, by politicians, and by their schools—that abortion is no different than having a wart removed. 

Pro-lifers generally agree that women who have been lied to their whole lives and who are put in a tough situation by the uncaring fathers of their unborn babies deserve mercy and forgiveness.  But liberals are perfectly comfortable with giving a pass even to women who know that science unequivocally shows that every abortion kills a human being.

A similar trend of forgiving the perpetrator by liberals can be seen in how liberals treat people who kill children with guns.  Conservatives believe you can never “cure” or “rehabilitate” someone who guns down children. Liberals on the other hand have worked for decades to modify the American legal system so that the Sandy Hook killer may be found innocent by reason of insanity thereby making him eligible for parole as soon as some psychiatrist declares him to be “sane”—the man who tried to murder Reagan was found not guilty by reason of insanity and is now allowed out on his own for example.  In a bizarre twist the same liberals who have worked for decades to ensure that “cured”, as declared by psychiatrists, child killers can walk the street some day condemn those Catholic Bishops who, clearly wrongly in retrospect, listened to psychiatrists who told the Bishops that priests who had molested teenagers could be “cured”.

The new Obama Rule is clearly a bald faced lie. The President will not do anything to save the life of even one child since he won’t lift a hand to save the more than a million children killed by abortion each year, ban cars, or ban casual sex. Similarly he won’t push for modifications to the legal system that would ensure that the guilty, including those who kill children, can’t walk free on technicalities or make it easier for the mentally troubled to be helped.

The sad reality is that it is liberal policies that directly contribute to the early demise of many children in America today.  If liberals really cared about children they’d be concentrating on things that would save children’s lives not just using the deaths of children to further liberal causes. Don’t let liberals use your natural conservative sadness over the death of a child to intimidate you into silence on liberals attempt to nullify the Second Amendment.

Israel and moral compasses

Israel has done a lot of bad things, like trying to get Christians to leave Jerusalem;albeit in a non-violent way. 

But they haven't directly targeted innocent civilians nor have they advocated genocide.

That's why even though I don't support everything Israel does I have to acknowledge that even in their bad actions they are far more considerate of others than any Arab state. 

That's why I find Obama's policy towards Israel so bothersome even though I don't support the way the state of Israel was founded--I think if the allied powers were feeling guilty about the Holocaust they should have forced Germany to buy Israel from the Palestinians--; it's not right for us to abandon Israel to neighbors who openly deny the Holocaust and call for the mass murder of Jews.

Take the worst case scenario, one I don't agree with, and say the Israeli's stole Israel from the Palestinians.  Since when do we advocate executing thieves?


From  a purely selfish perspective we know that Israel will treat Christians better than any Palestinian government would based on the oppression of Christians in all Muslim countries that lack a strong secular ruler.  Additionally Israel will not serve as a training ground for terrorists who target the US; spies yes terrorists no.

From an idealistic perspective in the 1990's Israel began making huge steps towards a fair solution for the Palestinians. Steps that I'm not sure the US would have made if we were under the same sort of military threat as Israel was.  Now given how Israel was founded I believe those steps were morally required, just as the US has an obligation to native Americans even though those native Americans waged war against the US.

If the Palestinians would have been willing to put aside their genocidal hatred of Jews, which in fact contradicts at least one part of the Koran, by now we'd probably have a world with a thriving Palestinian state living next to Israel.

But because the motivating force was not a desire for a better life for Palestinians but rather a desire to punish Israeli's the Palestinians are living in poverty without a true state of their own.

Given the olive branch the Israeli's extended the only one to blame for the state of Palestinians today are the Palestinians themselves.

Which is why Obama's policy which tilts towards the militantly aggressive Muslims who surround Israel and who will continue to be enemies of the US even if the US stood by and let Israel be exterminated makes no sense from the perspective of what's good for the US.

The US should be working to get the Palestinians to be rational and ensure that any eventual solution is fair to both Israel and the Palestinians.  Instead the US seems to be siding with the Palestinians even as the Palestinians, at least in Arab language media, call for the destruction of Israel.

This is another example of Obama siding with Islam and Third World groups against the traditional interests of America and the West.  Obama is not a Muslim but he does appear to share his fathers belief that America is the evil imperialist country and we owe those in the Third World who we've supposedly oppressed or offended.

What have you done for God lately?

Most of us are constantly asking God for something. But we rarely realize we can do things for Him.

Of course God doesn't need us in any way. But He wants us to help each other.

Every act of charity is a service we do for God.

He gave you life and everything you have; pay it forward.

Liberal Logic 102: The utility of guns

A real life liberal would be meme on Facebook is that the famous former Navy SEALs sniper Chris Kyle was killed with a gun so obviously guns don't provide any protection.

Aside from the fact that Kyle was at a shooting range, not in a situation where he would expect any threats, and was probably shot in the back the same liberal reasoning used in this case would say no one should get flu shots because not everyone who gets a flu shot avoids getting the flu.  Similarly we shouldn't have seat belts since not everyone who uses one is saved in car crashes.

What makes it even better is that liberals are always telling us how much more intelligent and rational they are than us red necked conservatives.

The unaccomodating "accomodation"

Obama is still apparently unaware that Americans are guaranteed the right to exercise their religious beliefs which means that people should not be required to directly pay for things that they find to be immoral.

Americans have always accepted that some of their tax money may go to things that they believe may be immoral; funding Planned Parenthood for example.  But that is not direct complicity.

Under the HHS mandate Obama is trying to force people to directly pay for things they find immoral.  It's identical to forcing a Jewish Deli to sell pork sandwiches with the excuse that the proprietors don't have to pork themselves.

It is clear that Obama is a fan of the concept of the government as Leviathan which can force the people to do anything.  Sadly that's not what America is all about.