Obama didn't get Osama according to Barrack

In declaring that businesses are not actually built up by the hard work of their founders and early employees President Obama has created a bit of a problem for himself.

He said “If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen“

Well it was Navy SEALS who put the bullets into Osama--and who risked getting killed themselves. They were the somebody else's the President seems to be referring to in the context of the removal of Osama.

According to Barrack Obama Obama can’t take credit for killing Osama, just as business owners can’t take credit for their businesses, because of those somebody else’s who actually did all the work.

Of course in the case of business owners it was they who worked the long hours and made the sacrifices while in Obama’s case he simply had to do the opposite of what Joe Biden suggested which is a no brainer in anybody’s book.

Isn’t it odd that our President is so quick to deny credit to hard working Americans who drive the economy and provide good jobs to their fellow citizens but so quick to give it to himself?

The Imperial Obama

In flip flopping on gay marriage Obama said ( Fox News)

“...when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf...”

I think most Americans, and most members of the Armed Forces, think the American military is out there fighting for the American people not just for Obama. 

He probably was trying to say something like “...who are out there fighting under my command...” but the words that left his mouth remind us that to Obama it’s not about America; it’s about Obama. 

Obama’s disdain for the limits imposed by the Constitution have been on display constantly.  He has acted more Nixonian than Nixon in using executive power to circumvent Congress.  He’s told the Supreme Court they can’t declare any law unConstitutional that he happens to favor.  He clearly has no interest in the concept of inalienable rights since he wishes to change the freedom of religion to the freedom of worship.  He’s complained about having to deal with Congress rather than just rule like a despot.


America is built on the basic principle that power is from the people and that each individual has inalienable rights.  Obama on the other hand believes that power flows from the government and that individuals must bow to the edicts emanating from the seats of political power. 

Obama believes that because Obama views the majority of Americans the way slave owners viewed Blacks; as people too simple to be capable of running their own lives. Both perspectives are incredibly wrong but sadly Obama’s take is still fashionable amongst the liberal elites.



In Obama’s America it’s the people who serve the government not the government that serves the people.

Irrespective of the total failure of Obama’s specific policies is it a good idea to have someone who is so sure that the Constitutional principles that America is built on are wrong, out-dated, and no longer useful as President?



If this is how Obama talks today when he’s facing a reelection battle how will he rule us mere mortals if he wins another term? If he gets a liberal majority in the Supreme Court will any of our rights be safe?

The Two Americas

Lately we’re hearing a lot about the legally disenfranchised in America in the context of the Trayon case. But it’s not Blacks who are on the lower rung of a two tiered justice system in America.

According to liberals there are two classes of Americans; liberals, including their supporters, and the lower class. Like other historical aristocracies liberals believe in one set of laws for themselves and another for the hoi polloi.



The concept of a dual track system of law has been around for awhile in liberal circles; think of FDRs court packing scheme. However it didn’t enjoy real success until the 1960’s.



Liberals laid the foundation for their coup by changing the definition of what the law is. Historically the law was a written representation of a concept. Liberals changed the law to a bunch of words which can be interpreted in different ways, ways totally alien to the intention of those who voted for a given law. 



For example the First Amendment protection of free speech was a written representation of the idea that people should be able to express their opinions without being persecuted by the government. Clearly the Founders did not intend the First Amendment to protect pornography, which is hardly an opinion, because they and every court for over 170 years found laws against pornography to be quite consistent with the Constitution.

But if the First Amendment is viewed as words torn from the mooring of the intent of those who ratified the Constitution then it can be interpreted in many ways, so as to protect pornography for example. This is convenient because it means that all that is necessary to create new laws is to get a majority in the Supreme Court.



Once liberals converted the law from something with a fixed meaning to just words liberal judges could effectively create new laws by interpreting those words in unique and fanciful ways. 



The first major example of this legislation by interpretation was based on civil rights laws. The vast majority of Americans agree that civil rights laws designed to prevent discrimination on the basis of race are a good thing.



However liberals are capable of turning even the nicest thing to evil ends, witness liberal Christians who claim that Christianity really supports the elimination of religious liberty in the HHS mandate, so it’s not shocking that civil rights laws are being used to discriminate on the basis of race.



When a Black American, or a member of any other group with the liberal seal of approval, is attacked the people who did the crime are subject to prosecution through the same process used when Asians or Whites are attacked. But if the crooks get off the Federal government will step in and try them again because when a Black is attacked his or her civil rights are violated.



When a Black gang attacks a Korean you won’t find the Federal government stepping in to defend the victims civil rights. Blacks apparently have more civil rights than other Americans.



This is an example of the dual track. Blacks, LGBTs etc get two chances at justice while those not favored by liberals only get one.



When Americans didn’t rise up in arms about liberals first foray into dual track school of jurisprudence liberals turned the civil rights laws to the purpose of governmentally sanctioned racism. 

Liberals publicly declared that it was not only necessary but good to discriminate against whites, solely on the basis of their race, in order to make up for offenses against Blacks in the past.

It wasn’t necessary for the Whites, and Asians, who were to be discriminated against to have ever committed a discriminatory act or to have even harbored a racist thought. The pallor of their skin qualified them for legal oppression. To liberals two wrongs do make a right; a right for special privileges for Blacks in employment and college admittance.



The dual track system also insulates liberal supporters from the impacts of liberal policies. Liberals created a monster by tilting the legal process so far in favor of criminals that crime began to grow rampant. Liberals themselves, living either in rich neighborhoods or colleges with their own police forces, generally weren’t impacted. Sadly many liberal support groups such as Blacks, LGBT folk, and Jews were.



A reasonable person would have fixed the problem by removing some of the insane rules that favored crooks, like throwing out physical evidence because some arcane rule was not properly followed, so that criminals would end up in jail and innocent folks, of all races and sexual orientations, would be safe.



Instead liberals came up with the hate crime. On the surface the reasoning is not totally irrational. After all a Nazi killing a Jew has more significant societal impacts, although the impact on the victim is obviously the same, than the case where a neighbor kills a Jew because the Jew’s dog made too much noise. Of course addressing the virulent sort of hate that can adversely impact society was not the real intent of hate crime laws.



This is obvious because when Black gangs attack Koreans or Whites the phrase “hate crime” is never to be found. Only when someone attacks a person on the official liberal victims list--Blacks, LGBT, illegal aliens, Hispanics some times-- do hate crimes come into play.



This is the second example of the dual track. Attacks on members of groups sanctioned by liberals are upgraded to “hate crimes” as necessary, unless the attacker also belongs to a protected group . That classification ups the ante and effectively returns the prosecution of criminals back to a level comparable to that found prior to the liberal unbalancing of the legal system.

Sadly Americans did not rise up to protest this second phase in the liberals shadow legal system. Probably because most Americans find the sort of beliefs that “hate crimes” are supposed to punish, such as racism, to be odious.



Feeling empowered by the public's acquiescence to “hate crimes” liberals decided that politicians and government officials had the right to decide what laws they would enforce. This has popped up recently in a number of cases:



1) President Obama refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act



2) Two Governors and two Attorney Generals in California refusing to defend the peoples vote on Prop 8

3)The Justice Department decided that Blacks with baseball bats in front of a polling place were not really a problem--even though a court had ruled otherwise



4) The decision by the LA Police Department to not enforce a law they have decided discriminates against illegal aliens.



In all of these cases Democrats, and one Republican, have determined that it is unnecessary for the courts to decide what laws are legal or illegal. Instead politicians can simply pick and chose what laws to obey. In the voter intimidation case the Obama Administration even decided it could ignore a court ruling.



Ignoring laws is a privilege that is reserved for the cultural elites; the new liberal aristocracy. That’s why blockading a military recruiting office won’t get you in trouble but trying to hand a pro-life pamphlet to a women entering an abortion mill will land you in jail. In the dual track system of law the First Amendment is very sensitive to the content of your speech.



Liberals have arrogated to themselves the power to be above any law that they determine to be flawed. Unlike the lower class liberals don’t have to bother to fight long drawn out legal battles in order to effect change. Nor do they have to pass unpopular laws, or change popular ones, that might keep them from getting reelected. They merely need to win an election and then ignore the laws they don’t like.



The Obama administration has also put forth the concept of a new process for producing laws that impact the lower class. Liberals have championed the use of the Federal bureaucracy to create laws outside of the standard Constitutional process.



In declaring that politicians can ignore laws they don’t like and that unelected bureaucrats can make new laws liberals have taken America away from being a country of laws and onto the threshold of totalitarianism. The brave new liberal America is a country of men not laws. The powerful need not be hindered by laws and what laws are created must be approved of by the powerful.



That’s why the same liberals who condemned Nixon could, with a straight face, defend Clinton even though he was convicted of perjury. It didn’t matter what Clinton did; he was one of the aristocrats and was therefore above the laws that apply to non-liberals.



The liberal dual track approach to the law is much like the system in Iran where the Mullahs allow “Democracy” but retain the right to select which laws are allowed.



Liberals have effectively placed all non-liberals in a legal ghetto with special laws that apply only to non-liberals. A ghetto where liberals get to define all the rules with little or no effort while non-liberals are constrained to the resource intensive approaches, such as amending the Constitution, to reverse liberal fiats.



If Americans do not take a stand now and demand that all Americans should be equal in the eyes of the law we will soon have precious little freedom left; freedom will be reserved for the new aristocracy. Even worse the Civil War should have taught us that a Republic cannot persevere when there are two classes of citizens.

Success by the liberals in their endeavor will have devastating long term impacts on America for a county where the majority is oppressed is not a country that will prosper; instead it will be a country that will explode.

What's the price of freedom?

According to liberals it’s $9.00 a month. The current HHS Mandate is based on the rationale that requiring a woman to spend $9.00 a month for contraception is more heinous than violating the religious liberty of a Catholic. Makes you yearn for the old days when buying someones soul required 30 pieces of silver.



But historically liberals have been quick to sell off other peoples liberty on the cheap. 

In fact one of the core processes of modern liberalism is using the peoples wealth to buy peoples freedom from them.

Liberals use tax money like child molesters use candy. They offer some group a chunk of the federal pie with “no strings attached” because liberals are so caring; and so generous with other peoples money. But once they get you in the government van you learn just what freedoms you’ve given up.



Historically liberals have used government funding of medical care as a rationale to allow government to take away peoples freedom. The Government helps pay for your care so the government can decide what you must do. This began when the government role in medical care was infinitesimal compared to what it is under ObamaCare.



Think motorcycle helmets. Clearly anyone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet is insane. However freedom is not only for what the ruling establishment declares to be “sane”. Especially when the ruling liberal elites think that believing a condom will protect you from AIDS is sane--seasoned citizens will remember when, prior to the AIDS epidemic, condoms were mocked because they were so ineffective.



The liberal establishment declared that the right of motorcyclists to be stupid was null and void because if they got hurt the all benevolent state would have to pay for their medical care. But what about bikers who had their own insurance? Didn’t matter; the government had a finger in the medical care pie so all must bow to its edicts.



Liberals lure innocent Americans into ObamaCare with promises of taxpayer funded largess; a compelling sell in the midst of the Obama recession--Obama backing trial lawyers driving up medical costs with frivolous lawsuits helps close the deal. Then the liberals declare what types of health care are allowed. Don’t look behind the curtain; no death panels there.



You’ve got AIDS acquired due to your promiscuous lifestyle? No problem the government will tax your neighbors until it hurts to cover your insanely high medical bills. After all casual sex is a sacrament and promiscuity a merit badge to the liberal mind.

You’re overweight? Well no hip replacement for you; you’ve been a bad person. Unlike recreational drugs and casual sex there is no excuse for overeating in the liberal universe. And if you’re a smoker you might as well just give up the ghost today.



You’ve worked hard all your life and paid your taxes. Now you’re retired and need a lot of medical care. That may not come to pass since really what are you going to do for society in the future? Liberals rate people, especially non-liberals, based on their value as assessed by liberals. And we know that liberals really like euthanasia. That old people need to fall off the tree and become humus was a liberal talking point back in the last millennia.



Your right to life as “seasoned citizen” will be placed on the scales by the liberal elites and their agents in the government bureaucracy. Your value will be measured not by how hard you worked, what acts of charity you performed, or how responsibly you saved for your golden years, but by how much value the ruling class places on you. The same liberal elites who think that Blacks and Hispanics should get special treatment and be placed ahead of Asians in college admission lines and who have no problem with union thugs using violence against business owners will get to decide what care you “deserve”. 



Your freedom to use your own money to pay for your own medical care has been whisked away by liberals. They tax you so you can’t save and they use ObamaCare to be sure you don’t have an option to get the health care you want even if you manage to have two pennies to rub together--and you can’t run to Canada because the Canadian system will be even worse.

Liberals tax you to pay for the health care they insist you have but then they get to decide what the health care will cover. Unlike a regular business where the money is yours until you get what you paid for liberals believe the money was never really yours and what you get to keep of your pay is a gift from the government. They don’t believe that your taxes buy you a seat at the table when decisions are made about your health care. 



Liberals buy your freedom with the tax money you pay. And since it’s a law unless 50.01% of politicians agree with you, or 66% if Obama disagrees with you, you’re stuck up a polluted creek without a paddle. 



What’s really interesting is that liberals put a very high price tag on their own liberty. 



Obama has supported denying medical care to babies who survive an abortion because he was afraid that actually caring for a new born baby might undermine the right to kill your daughter up to the second before her head pops out. In Obama’s calculus a few born babies dying due to lack of medical care is a small price to pay to ensure that his daughters won’t be burdened with a baby.

Similarly liberals believe that their right to view porn on public library computers is far too precious to be compromised by emplacing filters, even in the kids section of the library. Even though those same liberals declare that parents should use those filters to protect their kids rather than requiring the companies that make billions of dollars on internet porn do something to limit children's access.



Liberals declare that they have the freedom to burn flags and blockade Marine recruitment offices. They have the freedom to call any conservative woman a “ “ and any conservative black man an “Oreo”. Liberals inform us that the price of their freedom to express themselves is far more valuable than parents right to expect that prime time TV shows won’t be obscene; that veterans won’t have to put up with being called baby killers; that women shouldn’t be denigrated; that Americans have to watch their flag being burned.

All well and good except that liberals are eager to sell off the freedom of anyone who says things they don’t like.

Condemn homosexuality, but not homosexuals, and you’re guilty of a hate crime--so far only in Canada but liberals here are working to fix that. Blockade an abortion clinic and you’re a monster who should be incarcerated forever.

Want to put up a Nativity scene at Christmas and you’re a Christian jihadist--according to liberals the only bad type of jihadist since for Muslims jihad is a purely spiritual struggle.

Utter a politically incorrect thought--is there even such a thing if one reads the First Amendment as it was written?-- and you’re doomed.



Liberals really do believe in freedom. In a funny way they’re a lot like the Catholics they mock and revile. Catholics believe that true freedom comes from obeying God for God only wishes what’s best. Catholics believe that true freedom does not come from doing evil; a position echoed by Lincoln's belief that there is no right to do that which is wrong.



Liberals believe that true freedom comes from obeying the liberal tenets, whatever they happen to be this week. Liberals declare that being able to do “evil”, i.e. whatever liberals don’t approve of today, is not freedom.



Liberals don’t even realize how bizarre that sounds. After all Catholics, who liberals mock, are doing what they believe the Creator of the entire universe Who died on a cross for them says is good while liberals are doing the same except Bill Maher gets to be god.

And unlike Catholics who aren’t calling for the government to force non-Catholics to stop using contraception liberals insist on establishing a “liberocracy” where all knees must bend to the liberal gospel.



The HHS Mandate is the latest example of how liberals believe that your freedom is worthless unless it conforms to what they believe to be good. If you wish to remain truly free rather than just “free” to be liberal you must stand against the liberal tactic of getting Americans to trade their rights for kickbacks from the federal government of their own hard earned money.

A promise Obama has kept!

Obama has delivered on his desire to raise the price of gas.

Obama stated in June 2008 on CNBC that he had no problem with high gas prices he just wanted the price to rise slowly.

In September 2008 Obama's Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, told the Wall Street Journal “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.[roughly $8/gallon]”

It’s not surprise then that the average price of gas in American on Jan 19 2008 was $1.84 and it is now $3.72 and going up by the minute it would seem.

Keep in mind that high energy costs hit the poor and middle class the hardest, the 1% won’t even notice.

Obama is anti-Choice!

No not on abortion.

He still favors killing the inconvenient, especially if they are Black or Latino--Black women are 5 times as likely to kill their unborn child as whites and Latino's are 3 times as likely.

While he believes its ok to kill the unborn he doesn't think Americans should be allowed to chose to buy safe light bulbs.

When the new energy efficient bulbs break they release toxic mercury vapor. In fact the EPA has some pretty scary instructions on what to do when one of these new bulbs breaks--see them at the end of this post.

But Obama feels that a mother who doesn't want to risk exposing her children to toxins shouldn't have a choice.

I guess the only choice Obama supports is killing the unborn.

Here are the instructions from http://epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html

Before Cleanup

• Have people and pets leave the room.
• Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment.
• Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.
• Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb:
  • stiff paper or cardboard;
  • sticky tape;
  • damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces); and
  • a glass jar with a metal lid or a sealable plastic bag.

During Cleanup

• DO NOT VACUUM. Vacuuming is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken. Vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor.
• Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder.
• Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.

After Cleanup

• Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly. Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.
• If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.

A Lesson from Chairman Mao

In his little red book, Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong, Mao said “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

That’s the voice of the French revolution speaking.

In America we followed a different path. We believe that all men receive inalienable rights because God has given those rights to us.

In America political power was not intended to be unlimited and all encompassing. The Founding Fathers envisioned a society where people controlled most of their own lives and the governments role was minimal.

In the American view people are adults who can, in the vast majority of cases, regulate their own lives and their interactions with their fellow citizens. Not children who need a constantly watching nanny state to ensure that they don’t hurt themselves.

But since the rise of fascism and communism in the last century a growing segment of the West’s population have become entranced by the siren call of governmental power.

Initially many are seduced by the concept of the all powerful government because they believe that it is the only way to care for the poor and the helpless. The state is so big and so wealthy that only it can possibly care for those in need.

It sounds reasonable but history has shown it to be wrong.

Governments might help some but always at a terrible price in freedom. Moreover government help rarely brings people back into mainstream society. Rather since the power of government is a function of the peoples dependency government help generally works against returning people to independence.

Once hooked on the concept of government as savior the next step on the path to Mao is the belief that the masses are stupid and need to be controlled, not convinced. At this stage one believes that one has all the answers and if only the mechanisms of government weren’t so slow; so held back by reactionaries we could achieve a heaven on earth.



An example of this type of thinking is Obama saying it would be easier to run China and wishing that he could just do what he knows is right for the country without having to deal with those who deny the validity of his vision. 



Having accepted government as their personal savior people look to politics to solve all problems. But since they have accepted the concept of government control of every aspect of their lives that means they cannot accept losing any political struggle.



The protests we see in Wisconsin by unions are their reaction to the fact that they lost a political struggle. When your livelihood depends on the largesse of government rather than your own hard work political defeats hit you where it hurts.



Like welfare addicts in England, Greece, and Spain the unions know that losing the political fight has immediate and significant financial repercussions.

Unlike people who actually make their own way in the world modern government addicts are aware that their whole way of life is at risk every time there is an election. That’s because while the non-addicted know that the typical liberal might raise taxes a bit it will be a small thing and they’ll be able to cope. To them a bad government is a nuisance not a disaster.

To the government addicted politics is life. By ceding their independence to the government they have become dependent on the outcome of the political process.

That’s why the government addicted liberals are so single minded in their efforts to ensure their candidates win. That’s why all of the vote fraud is on the left. That’s why Al Gore dragged the country through a crisis even though there was no vote fraud while Richard Nixon accepted the results in 1960 and ignored the vote fraud that cost him the election.

Till now the majority of Americans have accepted the increase in government size because it didn’t seem to impact them directly. Few realize how much the government takes in taxes because the cash disappears before we ever see it. And in the main areas of our lives, such as health care, the adverse impacts of the government did not immediately show up. More importantly most Americans could live a lifestyle that was reasonably correlated with how hard they worked.

But now with Obamacare, the failure of the government to help with the recession, and the fact that it’s harder to make up for the money the government takes the non-government addicted have begun to react.



The productive Americans have begun to realize that America is at the limit of government power and control that can exist without degrading their lives. Americans are kind and generous. They accept that a big chunk of their effort goes to help others.



That does not mean however that they will allow their own lives to go down the tubes. Productive Americans, the ones who pay taxes and work for a living, generally like their health care. They feel that they are taxed enough and they fear for their jobs. 



They worried about the massive debt increase and the huge spending bills that the government addicted advocated but they trusted the government when they were told that those huge expenses would restart the economy.



Now they know better. Now they are saying enough is enough.

Where I live the first sign of a break in the monolithic left was a very liberal newspaper complaining about how much city workers were paid. Something I’d never expected to see. Perhaps it was related to the fact that many workers at that paper had been let go because of the economy while the unions defended the huge, and unaffordable, retirement packages the government gave city workers.



Since then across the nation there has been an upswelling of feeling that we’ve drifted too far from what productive Americans want and too close to the sort of government that Mao would endorse. The Tea Party is not just about specific economic policies but about the general concept that the government is too big, too powerful, and too generous with other peoples money.

If your income depends on the government and the people who pay the bills, via their taxes, have said no more what do you do?

Up until now in America the fanaticism of liberal government addicts has been enough to keep them from suffering cuts. Sure those on welfare were impacted by the changes to welfare the Republican Congress forced down Bill Clintons craw but they tend to not vote. In any case the economy was doing well so they could live with the cuts.



But now the number of Americans getting significant money from the government has gone up and the government unions are suddenly feeling the heat as well. It looks like merely being committed will not be enough to keep their entitlements flowing.



What do you do if you’re government addict? You turn to a giant in the field of governmental worship. You turn to Mao, or any number of other all government all the time people, and you embrace the use of force, or the threat of force, to get your way.

After all in the minds of liberals laws only exist to further the good of those who worship at the feet of government so when laws do not work in the favor of the government addicts they should be ignored. Similarly civility is a one way street since in the mind of the government addicted the other side is intrinsically selfish and evil.



Wisconsin made minor changes to the economic outlook of workers who made significantly more than their private sector counterparts. Yet those workers felt entitled to lay siege to Madison, skip out of work, and try to physically intimidate politicians they didn’t agree with.



We should not be surprised at this violence. It’s the natural result of the modern liberal philosophy that politics is all. If the scope of the government is such that its decisions are life and death then no one can accept a compromise.

Right now only a minority of Americans are so dependent on the government that they cannot survive changes without having to accept personal responsibility for their lives. But that minority is large enough that it can cause a great deal of trouble.



We need to prepare to stand strong against violence on the left. To give in to their terrorism, true terrorism not the made up version ascribed to those who would limit the scope of government, is to ensure our children will suffer what the Greeks are currently going through.