By their heroes shall you know them

You can get a good measure of a man by finding out who his heroes are.

A general who admires Patton will tend to behave differently than a general who likes Montgomery.



A politician who thinks Reagan is the greatest will be support different solutions than a politician who adores FDR.



On the first day of the DNC we discovered one of the key heroes of modern Democrats; Ted Kennedy.



The same Ted Kennedy who left Mary Jo Kopechne to die a slow death while he strategized with his lawyers on how to avoid being blamed for the accident that resulted in her death.



The same Ted Kennedy whose drinking and womanizing are legendary.

On the second day of the DNC we all saw a second hero of the Democrats; it’s Bill Clinton.



The same Bill Clinton who cheated on his wife multiple times over many years.

The same Bill Clinton who had affairs with subordinates; behavior that would cause immediate firing at any major corporation.



The same Bill Clinton who lied under oath in order to avoid admitting that he regularly sexually harassed subordinates.



It would seem that the two of the biggest hero’s of modern Democrats are both distinctly unfriendly to women.  In fact any Republican who did any of the things that these Democrat “heroes” did would be pilloried for his vicious misogynistic nature.



But does the Democrat love of these sexual predators bleed through into Democrat policy?

We hear little about supporting stay at home mom’s or equal pay for equal work at the DNC. Instead the Democrats have been showing their “pro-woman” credentials at the DNC by touting their support for contraception and abortion.



But who are one of the major beneficiaries of contraception and abortion? The answer of course is men who wish to sexually exploit women without having to be concerned about any consequences.  Men like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. 


The Republican party banned Todd Akin from the RNC because he misspoke and unintentionally offended women.  The party said that even though Akin profusely apologized he was tainted as being anti-woman and they didn’t want him around.



The Democrats pushed their vice presidential candidate aside to bring back Bill Clinton; a man who admitted to lying under oath in order to cover up his sexual exploitation of subordinates.  And Bill hasn’t apologized for his consistent humiliation of his wife or for his sexual harassment of subordinates.



If there is a war on women in America today it’s being waged by the type of men that the Democrat party views as their heroes not by the Republican party.

God, Jerusalem, Voter Suppression, and Phoning it in

President Obama and the Democrat leadership were shocked to discover that Americans reacted negatively to the Democrat platform rejecting God and rejecting Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.



In front of the whole world they tried to use the democratic process to amend the suddenly no longer suitable for prime time document.  And not once, not twice, but three times they failed.

According to CNN, that font of reactionary conservatism, the video clearly shows that the majority of the delegates to the Democratic convention opposed putting God back into their platform and declaring Jerusalem to be the capitol of Israel.

What did the Democrat leadership do? Well they did what they always do when democracy “fails”, i.e. doesn’t support the Democrat position, they rigged the vote.  



Mayor Villaraigosa, who presumably agrees with his parties attacks on Republican “voter suppression, simply declared that he had heard enough pro-voices, presumably dead Democrats coming back, to declare that the motion had a two thirds majority.

In front of the American people the Democrats disenfranchised their own people by manufacturing votes that weren’t there.



If the Democrats are willing to fake votes to crush the will of their own delegates why should anyone believe that they are not willing to cheat in the presidential election?



Having grown up in Chicago--the city whose mayors are so wonderful the dead regularly leave Heaven to come and vote for them--the mantra of the Obama party that illegal voting never happens is reminiscent of the twitching drug user who says he’s clean.



In some sense the Democrats are right. Republicans are trying to suppress the votes of non-citizens, the dead, and family pets.  Apparently Democrats believe that anyone who can make it to the voting place--even if only in spirit--should be allowed to vote.



Republicans also oppose some individuals voting multiple times.  Democrats have no difficulty with that practice, so long as only they practice it. Democrats get the concept of voting more than once from watching American Idol where voting early and voting often is a virtue not a vice.



Next time some Democrat whines about “voter suppression” and says that there is no evidence of election fraud in America pull out your smart phone and show him his own convention.

Because Democrats realize they have a major optics problem in that their delegates clearly want God shoved out of their platform and Jerusalem turned over to the Muslim Brotherhood they’ve spun the issue as the Good President Obama riding in to save the day.

The Democrats are saying, in effect, “Sure our delegates are a bunch of God hating anti-Semite neanderthals but President Obama saw their error from his mountain top and stepped in to correct his people.”



The problem with that is that Obama reviewed and agreed to the platform.  Or did he?



A key criticism of Obama, mentioned by both his supporters and his detractors, is that he seems more enthused with the trappings of power than the nitty gritty day to day work needed to govern America.



When an actor just says his lines but really doesn’t act he’s said to be “phoning it in”.  Many have accused Obama of “phoning it in” when it comes to running the country.



Democrats would now have us believe that Obama was unaware of the wording of his own parties platform.  While it’s true a presidential candidate does not have to agree with everything in his parties platform, Romney for example supports abortion in the case of rape, he should know what’s in it.



But if Obama knew that he didn’t support the platform he could have done what Romney did; simply acknowledge his differences with the platform and move forward.



Instead Obama, according to the most recent Democrat spin, was shocked to discover this oversight and moved quickly to correct the egregious error.



That leaves us with a problem. Either Obama “phoned in” reviewing his own party platform and needed the conservative media to point out the problems in it to him or the Democrats are lying about Obama having always wanted God and Jerusalem to be in the platform.



Either way this whole affair has two clear messages:

1) Democrats only believe in democracy if they win and they have no problem manufacturing votes to make sure that they should believe in democracy.



2) President Obama either doesn’t care enough to read his own parties platform or he is lying to us about his true position on both God and Jerusalem.

The Rule of Law; Not!

One of the key elements of the great American experiment was the concept that the government would be defined by laws and that everyone, rich or poor, would be held accountable to the same legal standard.  As John Adams said America was to be “a government of laws and not of men.”



Few today realize how truly revolutionary the concept was that a government would be defined by laws not by the ever changing will of one man.  At the time, and continuing on to our own times, almost all governments were based on the authority of one, or a few, leaders. Those leaders could have people they didn’t like tossed in jail, raise taxes on people they didn’t like, or even define their own new religion.  Under the rule of men those in power can, without following any rules, modify and create laws without the consent of the people. 

It’s important  to realize that it is not sufficient for there to be laws for a land to be ruled by laws. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had laws but those laws were whatever the men in power deemed them to be at any given time. Further how those laws were applied depended on the unilateral decisions of the rulers. 

When power flows from the people and the laws are created by elected representatives following agreed to rules and those laws are applied, at least in theory, equally to all citizens the rule of law exists. 

When power flows from the leaders and new laws, sometimes called regulations, are created by the anointed few and those laws are applied as the few consider “best” there is the rule of men.



While America hasn’t fully lived up to the ideal of the rule of law it is an vision shared by most Americans.  Few like seeing someone getting special treatment because of their wealth, status,race, or political status.  

Because Americans take the rule of law seriously they follow traffic laws and file their own tax returns rather than having the government send them a bill.  There are exceptions but the fact that we get mad at the rare idiot who runs a red light shows how normal following the law is to Americans.

That’s not the case in many parts of the world; especially those lands ruled by men and not laws.

Politicians used to realize the importance of following the rule of law.  In Pennsylvania the state legislator used to physically turn back the hands on the official clock so they could finish by a legally mandated deadline--and they weren’t the only state legislature to do so.  It may sound silly but it showed that the people in power realized that they too were held accountable to the law.



But new millennia Democrats seem to have decided that the rule of law isn’t really for them.  While it’s true today's Democrats can look to their ancestors, such as FDR who tried to pack the Supreme Court or the Democrat controlled Congress that kept passing laws that had exemptions for Congress itself, for examples of cheating on the rule of law the current lot of Democrats have thrown the concept of a government of laws into the dustbin of history.



The first major sign of the new Democrat view of America helped set the stage for the new millennium when in 1999  Democrats decided that perjury and obstruction of justice were not illegal if it was their guy who did them; but they still condemned Nixon so it was clear they believed that Republicans had to live by the rule of law. 

Democrats rejected the rule of law by saying that their first loyalty was to Bill Clinton not to the law.  In doing so they rejected the rule of law and substituted a rule by men. Bill Clinton was important so according to Democrats he did not have to adhere to the same rules as every other American.

There was a relatively quiet time during the Bush years though some Democrats tried to establish a parallel foreign policy which subverted the laws describing who actually spoke for America; a Democrat tradition dating to the latter part of the Cold War.

Under the Obama generation of Democrats rejection of the concept of laws has come into full bloom.



The Democrat governor of California and the Democrat Attorney General of California have refused to defend Proposition 8 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman.  In doing so they anointed themselves as ones who could decide what the rules are based on their own personal biases.  In our Fathers America, in an American run by the rule of law, government officials do not get to decide what laws to defend and what laws to enforce.  But in the view of California Democrats it is the rule of men not the rule of law that matters.

Democrat Congressmen, such as Pete Stark, have said that they don’t see that there is any limit on what Congress can do.  They are saying that they do not have to follow the rule of law--such as the Constitution--but that instead they are the men who rule us.

Similarly the US Senate run by Democrats has failed to pass a budget for more than 3 years.  They are required by law to do so every year.  But because they put themselves, but not their political opponents, above the law they are not bothered by their failure.  In the eyes of those who espouse the rule of men rather than the rule of law violating the law is nothing for the men who hold power; for the new American Nomenklatura.

Obama endorsed his fellow Democrats rejection of the rule of law when he decided he would violate his oath to uphold the laws of this country by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.  Instead Obama arrogated to himself the authority to decide which laws are valid; a role assigned by the Constitution to the Judiciary.

A quick look at the Constitution reveals that the President does not have the power to reject laws that have passed Congress--other than by vetoing them. The rule of law would say that the President must defend even those laws he personally doesn’t like. The rule of men however says that the President has the power to do whatever he wants.

Obama’s support of the rule of men can further be seen in how his justice department ignores crimes by groups that Obama favors, such as New Black Panther party members, while feeling free to distort laws in order to prosecute those groups who Obama views as “enemies”.

Obama has gone beyond merely enforcing the law in a biased manner by essentially bypassing the law and acting as a monarch.  He couldn’t get his Dream Act passed so he unilaterally decided to stop enforcing the immigration laws he doesn’t like.  He has gutted the work requirements in welfare, requirements that Bill Clinton was forced to accept in order to get re-elected, by simple administrative rulings rather than by using the democratic process. 

Obamacare, Obama’s crowning “achievement”, is designed to further the rule of men rather than the rule of law.  It does so by transferring authority from Congress to the Administration.  

The controversial HHS mandate is a result of the law saying that the Secretary of Health and Human Services can define many aspects of the Obamacare on her own.  What Obamacare actually is will be defined by the Washington bureaucrats not by the law itself. Essentially Obamacare gives carte blanche to men to make up rules on based on their own personal biases. Few realize that under Obamacare Secretary Sibelius could determine that surgical abortions are required medical treatment that have to be provided free of charge.  Democrats in Congress who pushed Obamacare through essentially told the Administration that unelected bureaucrats could make Obamacare into whatever Obama wants it to be; an example of the rule of men rather than the rule of law.

Democrats don’t really believe the law supports the actions Democrats, including Obama, have been taking.  No one believes that if a Republican president tried to lower taxes by telling the IRS to not enforce the tax code Democrats would sit by and say that the President has that power.  Similarly if some President declared he would not enforce any of the environmental laws passed by Congress Democrats would not laud him for his decisiveness.



The Democrat position then is that America should be ruled by men, the men the Democrats agree with, not the law. Democrats believe that the Constitution does not limit government power. Democrats believe that Democrats who hold elected office are not required to defend or enforce the law of the land. Rather Democrats believe that “gifted” men, ie Democrats, have the authority to rule all Americans and that it is wrong when “outdated” laws, like the Constitution, hinder that.



When Obama speaks wistfully of being able to rule American as the Chinese dictators rule China he is harking back to his Chicago roots where a corrupt Democrat establishment runs the city using the rule of men; not the rule of law.  In Chicago who you know and whose palms you’ve greased is far more critical than anything the law says. The Chinese “success” so lauded by Democrats is based on a tyrannical rule of men and is rampant with corruption; just like Chicago.  Any political body ruled by men not by law will inevitably be full of corruption as the leaders who are not constrained by the law use their position to feather their own nests.



A people whose President can chose what laws to enforce and who can declare new laws at his whim are no longer a free people.  If America abandons the rule of law then we will be doomed to live under the rule of men and suffer the fates of those in China and Putin’s Russia.



The great American experiment is already at risk due to the acceptance of several Supreme Court justices of the concept that the Constitution is a “living” document that they can freely reinterpret based on their own personal beliefs rather than a fixed agreement between the American people and their government which requires the consent of the governed to be modified.  Allowing Democrat politicians to continue to behave in lawless ways will put America far down a slippery slope that ends with tyranny. 



Do we want an America where we work for the men in power or do we want an America where power flows from the people? 

This years election allows us a stark choice between these two options.  If Americans choose to be ruled by an elite group of men we will be renouncing all that America has stood for and sentencing our children and their children to a new serfdom not unlike that experienced by the masses of Chinese ruled by the dictators that Obama so admires.

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.