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.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
The Double Standard
Can you imagine the howls of the liberals if it were to turn out that President Bush had maintained his own private email server for official government business--including emails that contained classified data-- and that he'd deleted all the "personal" emails without giving the government a chance to review them?
Yet those same liberals are all cool with what Hillary's done.
Yet those same liberals are all cool with what Hillary's done.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
The Pope on immigration; the real story.
Sources are saying that the Pope equated rejecting immigrants with murder; that's not at all what he said. Check here for the real story.
Monday, August 10, 2015
Liberals in nature
Like human liberals these barn swallows expect their parents to feed them even after they've left the nest.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Understanding the Trump effect
It's really easy to understand why Trump is such a sudden smash success; he is pointing out that massive illegal immigration is bad for Americans and he's basically saying most politicians are not representing the people.
Given the huge dislike of government held by most Americans who work and the fact that people are tired of feeling like strangers in their own country anyone who simply speaks the truth is going to get a big following.
Generally speaking Trump would make a horrible president however the real question is why no other Republican has learned from Trump.
To some extent Cruz has with his attack on the Republican establishments oneness with the Democrat establishment but the media has been ignoring Cruz so most of the folks who support Trump haven't heard about Cruz's actions.
Similarly Walker, Carson and some other Republican candidates are starting to be more outspoken, unlike Romney and McCain, but the media is basically refusing to cover them in an attempt to ensure that Hillary lite, Jeb Bush, gets the nomination.
While Jeb Bush is a good person, unlike Hillary, his position on immigration is out of touch with what America needs. According to a recent study something like 6.4% of illegals vote which is enough to swing election results. If we legalize illegals Republicans will never win an election again.
If you doubt that look at California. It elected Reagan but now even moderate Republicans can't win a state wide office. What's changed? A massive increase in the number of immigrants, legal and illegal, and Democrat attorney generals who don't enforce voting laws.
Because illegals, and 52% of legal immigrants, often depend on welfare they can be counted on to vote Democrat.
In the end either the Republican candidate for President in 2016 will either embrace the massive groundswell of disgust with massive immigration when real unemployment in America is sky high or we'll be doomed to 4 more years of Democrat rule.
Given the huge dislike of government held by most Americans who work and the fact that people are tired of feeling like strangers in their own country anyone who simply speaks the truth is going to get a big following.
Generally speaking Trump would make a horrible president however the real question is why no other Republican has learned from Trump.
To some extent Cruz has with his attack on the Republican establishments oneness with the Democrat establishment but the media has been ignoring Cruz so most of the folks who support Trump haven't heard about Cruz's actions.
Similarly Walker, Carson and some other Republican candidates are starting to be more outspoken, unlike Romney and McCain, but the media is basically refusing to cover them in an attempt to ensure that Hillary lite, Jeb Bush, gets the nomination.
While Jeb Bush is a good person, unlike Hillary, his position on immigration is out of touch with what America needs. According to a recent study something like 6.4% of illegals vote which is enough to swing election results. If we legalize illegals Republicans will never win an election again.
If you doubt that look at California. It elected Reagan but now even moderate Republicans can't win a state wide office. What's changed? A massive increase in the number of immigrants, legal and illegal, and Democrat attorney generals who don't enforce voting laws.
Because illegals, and 52% of legal immigrants, often depend on welfare they can be counted on to vote Democrat.
In the end either the Republican candidate for President in 2016 will either embrace the massive groundswell of disgust with massive immigration when real unemployment in America is sky high or we'll be doomed to 4 more years of Democrat rule.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Why McConnell is bad for America
This week Obama introduced new imperial edicts which will drive up the cost of energy, hurt the poor, and put millions of American's out of work.
Obama did so even though he knew Congress would never support such actions and even though he knows that the Constitution doesn't allow him to do it.
So what was Mitch McConnell's, the head of the Republican majority in Congress's response?
He has said that state Governors should ignore the Obama ruling and he's challenging the rules in court.
Apparently Mitch doesn't think the Congress can do anything to stop the President so that the poor powerless Congress has to rely on the courts--which have been so good lately at upholding the Constitution and curbing Obama's imperial Presidency-- and the Republican governors to reign in Obama.
Last I heard the Congress is a co-equal branch of government with the power of the purse.
Why isn't Mitch simply passing a law that prevents Obama from spending any money enforcing this most recent imperial edict?
It really doesn't matter if it's because Mitch is scared of the Washington Post not loving him, because his big money donors like Obama's edict, or because Mitch himself is in favor of crushing the American people with huge energy price increases.
What matters is that other than Mitch's plea that someone else deal with the problem there is nothing to distinguish what Mitch has done from what Harry Reid would have done.
In the end conservatives, and America, are no better off with McConnell leading the Senate than we were when Reid ran the Senate.
This is bad for the country in several ways.
First it effectively means that we have a one party rule where the voices of anyone who doesn't agree with the minority--remember Republicans won the Congress in the last election.
Second it means that voters are going to be discouraged about voting since it's not clear why it matters.
Third it means that the Constitution is being undermined because effectively Congress is giving all its power to the President.
In the end no matter what Mitch's motives are one thing is clear; he's bad for America.
Obama did so even though he knew Congress would never support such actions and even though he knows that the Constitution doesn't allow him to do it.
So what was Mitch McConnell's, the head of the Republican majority in Congress's response?
He has said that state Governors should ignore the Obama ruling and he's challenging the rules in court.
Apparently Mitch doesn't think the Congress can do anything to stop the President so that the poor powerless Congress has to rely on the courts--which have been so good lately at upholding the Constitution and curbing Obama's imperial Presidency-- and the Republican governors to reign in Obama.
Last I heard the Congress is a co-equal branch of government with the power of the purse.
Why isn't Mitch simply passing a law that prevents Obama from spending any money enforcing this most recent imperial edict?
It really doesn't matter if it's because Mitch is scared of the Washington Post not loving him, because his big money donors like Obama's edict, or because Mitch himself is in favor of crushing the American people with huge energy price increases.
What matters is that other than Mitch's plea that someone else deal with the problem there is nothing to distinguish what Mitch has done from what Harry Reid would have done.
In the end conservatives, and America, are no better off with McConnell leading the Senate than we were when Reid ran the Senate.
This is bad for the country in several ways.
First it effectively means that we have a one party rule where the voices of anyone who doesn't agree with the minority--remember Republicans won the Congress in the last election.
Second it means that voters are going to be discouraged about voting since it's not clear why it matters.
Third it means that the Constitution is being undermined because effectively Congress is giving all its power to the President.
In the end no matter what Mitch's motives are one thing is clear; he's bad for America.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Kerry; Iranian cheerleader
Kerry has stated that if the Congress rejects Obama's deal to give Iran money, weapons, and the atom bomb the Iranians will be hurt and feel they can't trust the US.
If that's the case whose fault is it?
Well it's Kerry's and Obama's fault.
It's Kerry and Obama who didn't include Congressional leaders in the negotiations thereby ensuring that it would be hard to get Congress to approve any agreement.
Essentially what Kerry is saying is that the Congress should just sit by and let Obama do what he wants otherwise we might upset the wonderful peace loving Mullahs in Iran.
It's clear that there were no negotiations in Switzerland; there were two groups on the same side trying to figure out what they could get past the US Congress.
Kerry honestly doesn't see Iran as a threat otherwise he'd be scared to death to give the largest terrorist sponsor in the world hundreds of billions of dollars in cash today and nuclear weapons in a few years.
Perhaps that's because his son-in-law is an Iranian American with extensive family ties to Iran.
Apparently Obama thought it was great to have the chief US negotiator be someone with close family ties to Iran.
As time goes on and Kerry and Obama talk more it is becoming clear that both view the US and Israel as the problems and Iran as being misunderstood. Essentially they view Iran the same way they view cop killers; people of color who are the true victims because they are simply reacting against an oppressive system.
If that's the case whose fault is it?
Well it's Kerry's and Obama's fault.
It's Kerry and Obama who didn't include Congressional leaders in the negotiations thereby ensuring that it would be hard to get Congress to approve any agreement.
Essentially what Kerry is saying is that the Congress should just sit by and let Obama do what he wants otherwise we might upset the wonderful peace loving Mullahs in Iran.
It's clear that there were no negotiations in Switzerland; there were two groups on the same side trying to figure out what they could get past the US Congress.
Kerry honestly doesn't see Iran as a threat otherwise he'd be scared to death to give the largest terrorist sponsor in the world hundreds of billions of dollars in cash today and nuclear weapons in a few years.
Perhaps that's because his son-in-law is an Iranian American with extensive family ties to Iran.
Apparently Obama thought it was great to have the chief US negotiator be someone with close family ties to Iran.
As time goes on and Kerry and Obama talk more it is becoming clear that both view the US and Israel as the problems and Iran as being misunderstood. Essentially they view Iran the same way they view cop killers; people of color who are the true victims because they are simply reacting against an oppressive system.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
The New Nazi's
Most Americans who describe themselves as "pro-choice" only believe that abortions should be legal in the hard cases like rape and incest or when the mother's life is at stake and only then in the first trimester.
Those people, who often say they'd never choose abortion themselves, are not the new Nazis.
The new Nazi's are the hard core pro-aborts who support abortion for any reason--including killing unborn women because a man is wanted-- at any point in the pregnancy--long after the baby is viable.
Even after seeing that Planned Parenthood denies medical care to babies born alive due to a "botched" abortion these monsters--for there is really no other term for people who can be comfortable with denying medical care to a newly born baby-- say abortion shouldn't be restricted in any way.
The new Nazi's defense of denying medical care to a girl who survives an abortion attempt is that the decision should be up to the doctor and the mother. By that reasoning if a hit man fails to get a kill shot and only wounds his target we should count on the hit man and the man who hired him to ensure that the former victim gets medical care. If a viable born baby doesn't have the right to medical care even if her abortionist and her mother disagree who does?
These new Nazi's argue that utilizing the body parts of the unborn just makes sense as did the Nazi's who legally murdered Jews for "scientific" reasons and then made lampshades out of their skins.
These new Nazi's are eager to reduce the number of people they consider to be "undesirable", such as people of color, which is why they aren't bothered that roughly 80% of abortion mills are in or near minority neighborhoods. This isn't surprising given that the new Nazi's solution to the problem of the Third World consists mainly of providing contraception and abortion in order to reduce the number of brown babies.
Like the old Nazi's the new Nazi's have their own bizarre pseudo science that justifies their support of mass murder. The old Nazi's worked hard to convince people that Jews were not really human and the new Nazi's work hard to deny established science that the unborn are fully human.
Both groups like to define who is and isn't a person; that is a human being with rights. To both groups society has the authority to define that some scientifically human beings are not really human enough to have rights; like the right to life or the right not to be gassed to death.
Of course just as Bruce Jenner's DNA tells the world he's a man the DNA of Jews and the unborn show they are as fully human as any other human being including the new Nazis.
Yet the new Nazis deny the humanity of the unborn right up until they're haggling for a higher price for "human tissue" that magically comes from a "clump of cells".
Part of the problem for the new Nazis is that they view the unborn as a direct threat to their lifestyles. The new Nazi's want sex without consequences; to them the unborn are just another STD.
And like the old Nazi's the new Nazi's don't believe that any human life that stands in the way of their desires has any value; so in the eyes of the new Nazi's the unborn are "parasites" just like Jews were "parasites" in the eyes of the old Nazi's.
It takes a coldness not seen since the Nazi's and Communists to watch Planned Parenthood's baby chop shops in action and not be revolted. It's one thing to support a raped 12 year olds right to kill her daughter it's quite another to say it's ok to profit off of baby parts when abortions are the result of the mother wanting a son rather than a daughter.
These monsters need our prayers because in the end to be so cold as to be comfortable with chopping up babies for parts can only lead to despair and suffering.
The good news is that God can convert even these monsters. Bernard Nathanson, a famous abortionist who championed the legalization of abortion, became a pro-life Catholic and exposed the truth about abortionist tactics.
The Roe in Roe v Wade--Norma McCorvey-- was never a new Nazi, she was just a poor woman exploited by rich white pro-abortion lawyers-- but she's become a staunch pro-life advocate.
In fact there are many stories of abortion mill workers converting after being exposed to the horrors of that trade.
We must pray and we must continue to expose the filthy business of places like Planned Parenthood because very few of even the new Nazi's are really comfortable with that they support. Just as many Germans were appalled when they saw the camps because they could no longer hide from themselves what they supported many of the new Nazi's when forced to stare into the horror they support will recoil and rethink their beliefs.
Those people, who often say they'd never choose abortion themselves, are not the new Nazis.
The new Nazi's are the hard core pro-aborts who support abortion for any reason--including killing unborn women because a man is wanted-- at any point in the pregnancy--long after the baby is viable.
Even after seeing that Planned Parenthood denies medical care to babies born alive due to a "botched" abortion these monsters--for there is really no other term for people who can be comfortable with denying medical care to a newly born baby-- say abortion shouldn't be restricted in any way.
The new Nazi's defense of denying medical care to a girl who survives an abortion attempt is that the decision should be up to the doctor and the mother. By that reasoning if a hit man fails to get a kill shot and only wounds his target we should count on the hit man and the man who hired him to ensure that the former victim gets medical care. If a viable born baby doesn't have the right to medical care even if her abortionist and her mother disagree who does?
These new Nazi's argue that utilizing the body parts of the unborn just makes sense as did the Nazi's who legally murdered Jews for "scientific" reasons and then made lampshades out of their skins.
These new Nazi's are eager to reduce the number of people they consider to be "undesirable", such as people of color, which is why they aren't bothered that roughly 80% of abortion mills are in or near minority neighborhoods. This isn't surprising given that the new Nazi's solution to the problem of the Third World consists mainly of providing contraception and abortion in order to reduce the number of brown babies.
Like the old Nazi's the new Nazi's have their own bizarre pseudo science that justifies their support of mass murder. The old Nazi's worked hard to convince people that Jews were not really human and the new Nazi's work hard to deny established science that the unborn are fully human.
Both groups like to define who is and isn't a person; that is a human being with rights. To both groups society has the authority to define that some scientifically human beings are not really human enough to have rights; like the right to life or the right not to be gassed to death.
Of course just as Bruce Jenner's DNA tells the world he's a man the DNA of Jews and the unborn show they are as fully human as any other human being including the new Nazis.
Yet the new Nazis deny the humanity of the unborn right up until they're haggling for a higher price for "human tissue" that magically comes from a "clump of cells".
Part of the problem for the new Nazis is that they view the unborn as a direct threat to their lifestyles. The new Nazi's want sex without consequences; to them the unborn are just another STD.
And like the old Nazi's the new Nazi's don't believe that any human life that stands in the way of their desires has any value; so in the eyes of the new Nazi's the unborn are "parasites" just like Jews were "parasites" in the eyes of the old Nazi's.
It takes a coldness not seen since the Nazi's and Communists to watch Planned Parenthood's baby chop shops in action and not be revolted. It's one thing to support a raped 12 year olds right to kill her daughter it's quite another to say it's ok to profit off of baby parts when abortions are the result of the mother wanting a son rather than a daughter.
These monsters need our prayers because in the end to be so cold as to be comfortable with chopping up babies for parts can only lead to despair and suffering.
The good news is that God can convert even these monsters. Bernard Nathanson, a famous abortionist who championed the legalization of abortion, became a pro-life Catholic and exposed the truth about abortionist tactics.
The Roe in Roe v Wade--Norma McCorvey-- was never a new Nazi, she was just a poor woman exploited by rich white pro-abortion lawyers-- but she's become a staunch pro-life advocate.
In fact there are many stories of abortion mill workers converting after being exposed to the horrors of that trade.
We must pray and we must continue to expose the filthy business of places like Planned Parenthood because very few of even the new Nazi's are really comfortable with that they support. Just as many Germans were appalled when they saw the camps because they could no longer hide from themselves what they supported many of the new Nazi's when forced to stare into the horror they support will recoil and rethink their beliefs.
Monday, August 3, 2015
Obama's scare war is already here; it's just that we're not fighting back
Obama claims that the only alternative to his grievously flawed plan to reenergize the Iranian economy, rebuild their military, and let them get the bomb is war.
What Obama is apparently unaware of is that we're already at war with Iran.
Hundreds of Americans have been killed by Iranians or Iranian proxies. Iran has provided safe haven for Al Qaeda leaders for years. Iran funds international terrorism and has gone so far as to bomb a synagog in Argentina to kill Jews. Iran calls for the destruction of the United States.
Apparently Obama confuses not fighting back with not being at war.
At the present time there are multiple options for dealing with Iran ranging from keeping the sanctions in place to overthrowing the regime.
The one option we don't have is to avoid war because the Iranians are waging one against us so like it or not we are at war.
What Obama is apparently unaware of is that we're already at war with Iran.
Hundreds of Americans have been killed by Iranians or Iranian proxies. Iran has provided safe haven for Al Qaeda leaders for years. Iran funds international terrorism and has gone so far as to bomb a synagog in Argentina to kill Jews. Iran calls for the destruction of the United States.
Apparently Obama confuses not fighting back with not being at war.
At the present time there are multiple options for dealing with Iran ranging from keeping the sanctions in place to overthrowing the regime.
The one option we don't have is to avoid war because the Iranians are waging one against us so like it or not we are at war.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
Saving America vs managing the decline
The Republican leadership these days seem to have bought into Obama's vision of America; bigger government, less freedom, less economic growth.
Those "leaders" seem more interested in managing the decline of America, for the benefit of their big money donors, than they do in saving America from the abyss of socialism and European malaise.
That's why we have to work hard to make sure that the Republican presidential nominee is not some Democrat lite who thinks government is the solution and thinks that Republicans should work with Democrats even though Democrats refuse to budge an inch on their agenda ever.
The big benefit of Trump, who is really a Democrat, is that he's showing the other Republicans that in order to win you have to act like a winner; shout out the massive failures of the Democrats, explain why you care more about the average Joe than the rich liberals, stand for values--like reducing immigration--that voters like not values that the DC thought bubble endorses.
It doesn't matter if we win elections if the people we elect don't do anything to further the positions on issues that we support.
Those "leaders" seem more interested in managing the decline of America, for the benefit of their big money donors, than they do in saving America from the abyss of socialism and European malaise.
That's why we have to work hard to make sure that the Republican presidential nominee is not some Democrat lite who thinks government is the solution and thinks that Republicans should work with Democrats even though Democrats refuse to budge an inch on their agenda ever.
The big benefit of Trump, who is really a Democrat, is that he's showing the other Republicans that in order to win you have to act like a winner; shout out the massive failures of the Democrats, explain why you care more about the average Joe than the rich liberals, stand for values--like reducing immigration--that voters like not values that the DC thought bubble endorses.
It doesn't matter if we win elections if the people we elect don't do anything to further the positions on issues that we support.
Saturday, August 1, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
