With Hurricane Earl bearing down on the East Coast of the United States you can be certain that Democrats and activists alike will conclude that the appearance of a hurricane along a coastal region in the middle of hurricane season can only mean one thing: Global warming (excuse me, “climate change”) is causing catastrophic disasters!
It’s all your fault
The only reason why a hurricane would hit the coast of the United States in the middle of hurricane season is because you are too stupid and selfish to drive an electric car and to power your home with natural gas. Since you are too dumb to do it yourself, the government must confiscate your money to pay for green technologies. They will mandate what and even if you can drive. They will even mandate what improvements you must make to your home!
It will never be enough
Once the watermelons have taken a stranglehold on your personal freedoms, yet another hurricane will come along. Once again it will be right in the middle of hurricane season. It will serve as proof that not enough of your liberties have been smashed. Not enough of your money and property have been taken by the government. Despite their best efforts, you will still be too stupid and selfish. Obviously the government will need to amass even more power over your day to day life.
This will continue until hurricanes stop coming in the summer, earthquakes stop shaking up the west coast, tornados stop devastating the Midwest, it stops getting cold in the winter and really hot in the summer. In fact, it will not end until the climate stops changing! It’s been over 4 billion years and it hasn’t stopped yet.
A new Pew Research poll released recently says that 18% of Americans believe that President Obama is a Muslim. This is getting a lot of attention in the press this week. People are asking why it is that so many people would hold this belief. I, for one, fall into the 34% of adults who say that the President is a Christian. But the force that truly informs the President’s values is the fact that he is a leftist.
The “Elvis” factor
In every poll, you must account for the Elvis factor. This is a reference to the number of people (I don’t have any exact figures) who will state their belief that Elvis Presley is still alive. You can find at different times shockingly large numbers of people who will respond to polls that they believe either we never landed on the moon, that President Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks, or that Dick Cheney dynamited the 17th Street Canal levee in New Orleans. Some of the 18% of respondents may fall into this category. However, his political associations may also be to blame for a lot of this confusion.
The Democratic Party was taken over by radicals
President Obama is about six months older than me. This means that he has grown up in a Democratic Party that was taken over by the extreme left wing. The famous riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968 were the battleground for this struggle. The traditional leadership of the party, largely pro-America and anti-Communist was pitted against the growing wave of radicals who were not just against the war in Vietnam, but were, in fact, supporters of Communism. In 1968, the anti-Communists won the battle and Vice President Hubert Humphrey was nominated. Four years later, the anti-Communists lost control of the party with the nomination of Senator George McGovern, a candidate so radical that Richard Nixon was re-elected and carried 49 states in what was the greatest landslide victory up to that time.
Leftists tend to side with America’s enemies
Ever since that 1972 election, the majority of the leadership of the Democratic Party has tended to side with America’s enemies. During the 1970’s and 1980’s, that enemy was unambiguously communism. Many Democrat members of Congress never fail to lavish applause and praise upon Fidel Castro. It was Democrats in Congress who doomed millions of Vietnamese to the oppression of communism when they failed to honor our country’s commitment to South Vietnam when the North invaded that country in 1975. It was Democrats again who fought vehemently to prevent the liberation of our brothers in Latin America from the evils of communism. Remember 2004 nominee John Kerry? He actually met with Nicaraguan dictator Daniel Ortega to publicly show his support. This is after he and other colleagues signed a letter addressed to him (the infamous “Dear Commandante” letter) promising their opposition to provide funding for the freedom fighters down there.
Moral equivalence
The supporters of our enemies drew a moral equivalence between the United States and the Soviet Union. At best, they felt that there was no difference morally between the two super powers. Some actually held the twisted view that the Soviets were morally superior. Now that the Soviet Union is gone and communism is no longer the great threat that it once was, the left needs a new enemy to side with. You can still see the love that leftists have for communist dictators like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Hell, the other day, President Obama landed in Austin, TX and was greeted by Governor Rick Perry when he got off Air Force One. Governor Perry tried to hand him a letter detailing his request for more protection for the Mexican border. The President refused to take the letter from him. However, when Chavez wanted to hand him an anti-American book at the Summit of the Americas last year, he had no problem accepting that!
These are people who don’t believe in American exceptionalism. They see no difference morally between the United States’ nuclear weapons and Iran possessing nuclear weapons.
Not Muslim, just a leftist
Why do people think that President Barack Obama is a Muslim? Perhaps it’s his Middle Eastern sounding name or the fact that he did have a father who is Muslim or that he treats Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East, with contempt. But as I said earlier, his true value system comes from his leftist views. When he chose to attend church in Chicago, he chose a Christian church. But true to his leftist values, it was an unquestionably anti-American church.
Ever since the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, the far left extremists have shrouded Islam with the protection of political correctness. Islam is the religion of our enemies just as communism was for our enemies of old. Now only an idiot would believe that I am equating all Muslims with our enemies. But it is a fact that almost every one of the terrorists bent on destroying our country is a Muslim. [It's a simple problem in set theory: the union of the set of all Muslims and the set of all terrorists would contain about 99% of the set of all terrorists!] Just as most Soviet citizens were good and decent people, so are most Muslims.
Ground Zero Mosque
This has been vividly illustrated in recent weeks with the controversy over the Islamic Community Center that is being planned at Ground Zero in Manhattan. (Now there’s an actual controversy! Saying that marriage is between a man and a woman is not controversial!) Nobody in this argument is claiming that they don’t have a legal right to build there. So immediately tune out any argument that brings up the 1st amendment right to freedom of religion – that is not at issue here. The argument here is an appeal to human decency and an expectation that the people planning this building act as good neighbors. But who is it that is consistently supporting the building of this mosque? It is the left. Since when does the left in this country give a damn about religious freedom or private property rights?
It’s not about any of those things, of course. Everybody who is being intellectually honest about this knows that the construction of this community center at this location is a deliberate slap in the face of this country. If the founders of this place were really interested in outreach and tolerance, they would have long ago realized that they needed to move this to a different location. If they really wanted to promote healing and tolerance, they should build the thing in Saudi Arabia! We are already the most tolerant nation on the planet when it comes to accepting different cultures and religious beliefs.
Nothing wrong with being a Muslim
By the way, let me just state for the record that I wouldn’t have a problem with the President being a Muslim as long as he shared my values. We don’t have to agree in our beliefs about the divine authorship of the Qur’an or in the truth behind the doctrine of transubstantiation. I do care if my President believes in the greatness of our country and does not feel the need to fundamentally transform it. I do care if he takes the proper side in the Middle East conflict. I do care if he abides by the constitution in deciding what role the federal government should play in our nation. I do care if he respects private property rights and does not violate them through wealth redistribution.
How the President worships is not my great concern. How he leads the country most certainly is.
The recent unrest in California over four students being sent home because they were wearing shirts with images of the American flag on them is quite disturbing indeed. This all happened because some boneheaded and spineless school administrators decided that this would cause trouble since it was Cinco de Mayo – a Mexican holiday. Some of the Hispanic students even made ridiculous comments claiming that they were somehow showing disrespect by wearing the American flag on “their” holiday.
The American flag is never offensive in America
These students might have had a point – if the school were located in Mexico! But it makes no sense whatsoever since the school is located right here in the United States of America. It is never offensive to display the American flag in America. Let me repeat that: It is never offensive to display the American flag in the United States of America! If you take offense, then you are the one who has some sort of deficiency. It would be no different than for me to go to Switzerland on July 4th and demand that the Swiss flag be removed out of respect for “my” holiday.
We should celebrate our ethnic heritage
Let me just say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with celebrating Cinco de Mayo here in the United States. We have a rich history of celebrating ethnic holidays. St. Patrick’s Day, Oktoberfest, Chinese New Year, and Cinco de Mayo are all examples of celebrations that have their origins in other countries. Many people celebrate those holidays even though they are not members of the ethnic group associated with them. We do it because they are fun and we enjoy celebrating the diversity of heritages that make up this melting pot of a nation. But the nation should always be a melting pot. That means people come from all over the world to live here but they do not remain a separate entity. Instead, they blend in and become a part of this nation’s culture.
We are Americans first
When we celebrate our holidays, we should take pride in the fact that we are Irish-American or German-American or Chinese-American or Mexican-American. But we should never forget the common bond shared among all of those terms: we are all American! All Americans (and even foreigners living here) should have respect for the American flag and the country where we live. I have visited many countries over the years and it would never occur to me to show disrespect for the local culture or their flag. I would certainly never demand that anyone remove their country’s flag to accommodate me in any way.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few . . . or the one!
If someone takes offense at something that is not offensive, then he is the one with the problem. The solution is not to remove the students who are doing something that is not offensive. The proper move here is to deal with the psycho that is taking offense at an American flag in the United States of America. Even if you are demented enough to find the flag offensive, that’s OK as long you deal with it properly and accept that nobody is going to remove that flag to satisfy your twisted sensibilities!
A friend whose opinion I value and respect told me that he was “appalled” by the Supreme Court decision that struck down the heart of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The widely publicized issue here is whether or not corporations can finance political advertisements during certain periods of the election cycle. What I find appalling is that the vote of the court was 5–4. This should have been a 9-0 vote to overturn a blatantly unconstitutional law that violates first amendment rights in a way that is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts during the John Adams administration. [OK, I exaggerate greatly when I make that comparison, but I couldn’t help myself!]
Many public servants dropped the ball on this one
When the members of congress were voting on this bill originally, they had an obligation to recognize its unconstitutionality and vote against it. Then, President Bush had an obligation to veto the bill when it came to him for a signature. After that, in 2003, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to this law in McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission. They had an obligation to declare the law unconstitutional at that time. But, by a 5-4 vote, they failed to live up to that obligation.
Government officials deciding which books and movies can be shown
As a result, we got the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Here is a case where an organization named Citizens United produced a movie that was very much an anti Hillary Clinton piece. The FEC prohibited them from making Hillary: The Movie available for video on demand distribution. To be fair, they were, in fact, following the McCain-Feingold law. The Supreme Court as it was configured in 2009 found it appalling that federal government bureaucrats had the power to decide whether or not a particular movie or a book could be allowed. As I said before, what I find appalling is that any of the justices on the court would find that acceptable. Those justices would be John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. The justices who find it unacceptable to have the government dictating which films and books can be allowed for publication are John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.
The Tonight Show and 60 Minutes become the most powerful sources of information
Under the McCain-Feingold law, corporations were prohibited from “electioneering communications” 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election. This means that during that time period, the most powerful voices in the media belong to professional entertainers and major news organizations. This, of course, gives a huge advantage to any Democrat candidate since both of those groups have a heavy left wing influence.
TV and movie stars don’t have to pay anything to appear on television in the form of gossip shows and late night interview programs. There, they have free rein to advocate for any public policy position or any candidate for office that they support – and they absolutely should have that right! If you are Rosie O’Donnell, you can get on TV and rant all you want about how your second amendment rights should be violated as a matter of public policy. If you are the NRA, you are prohibited by law. Even if you agree with Rosie and hate the NRA, the free speech issue here should still strike you.
One sided reporting with no way to rebut?
Of course, most of the major news organizations (with the exception of Fox News) are simply a satellite campaign office for the Democrat candidates in any race. Just to give one example from recent memory, during the 2004 presidential campaign, 60 Minutes would give a segment (sometimes two) to any author who wrote a book trashing President George W. Bush. Hell, Dan Rather even lost his job because, in his fervent hatred of President Bush, he allowed faked documents to go on the air in an attempt to sway the election toward John Kerry. However, when General Tommy Franks published a book that had favorable things to say about the president, he was nowhere to be found on that news magazine.
Bad decisions should not be allowed to stand
Liberals are beside themselves because this Supreme Court decision overturns the earlier McConnell vs. FEC decision as well as a 1985 decision in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. In that case, the court ruled that the Chamber of Commerce could not endorse a candidate for a seat in the state House of Representatives. They hold the principle of stare decisis sacrosanct (when it comes to rulings that they revere and know won’t hold up under real constitutional scrutiny). Stare decisis is the legal principle that holds that courts are to be bound by precedent rulings. However, if a previous court ruled incorrectly on a constitutional matter, it would be negligence of duty to stick to such a ruling when an opportunity presents itself to rule properly. I don’t think very many people would insist that the court committed an egregious violation in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education case because stare decisis bound them to honor the 1896 ruling in Plessy vs. Ferguson (when the ruling was that blacks and whites could have “separate but equal” accommodations).
Free speech with full disclosure
How do we solve this problem? Is there too much corporate money in elections? Perhaps. But do we want to grant a virtual monopoly on public discourse to celebrities and the news media? What a nightmare! I say that anyone should be able to donate as much money as they like to any candidate. However, there should be full public disclosure so that everyone knows who is backing whom. Then, the voters can decide for themselves.
We are at a critical time in our nation’s history. If we open the door to socialized medicine here in the United States, it will be almost impossible to recover from that blow. In 1964, Ronald Reagan said as he concluded his famous speech warning of the dangers posed by totalitarian governments around the world:
We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
If we turn this country into a socialist nation, we will have gone down that path. We still have a chance to save ourselves, but we are in a precarious position right now. Aiding us in this battle is an unlikely and an unwitting hero: Ralph Nader. Mr. Nader made a name for himself decades ago as a passionate consumer advocate. He crusaded against products that he felt were harmful to the general public. In recent years, he has campaigned for the office of President of the United States several times. He runs on a platform that is so far to the extreme left that it makes the Obama administration look downright reasonable. (I seem to recall hearing him suggest that the government should nationalize – that is, steal – the largest 100 corporations in America.)
Nader saved us from Gore
Most notably, Ralph Nader ran as the nominee of the Green Party in 2000. In the state of Florida, George W. Bush won the vote in that state over Al Gore by a margin of 537 votes (Yes! Yes, he did!). Ralph Nader received a tiny percentage of the vote – only 1.63%. That’s not very much at all. However, it does amount to 97,488 votes. There is no question in my mind that the presence of Ralph Nader on that (oh, so confusing) ballot prevented Al Gore from winning the state of Florida. There is almost nobody who voted for Nader who would have voted for Bush. Even if most of the Nader voters had stayed home, surely at least 1% of them would have still voted. And they would have cast their votes for Gore.
By running for President in 2000, Ralph Nader saved our country from an Al Gore presidency. Gore’s advocacy for radical extreme environmental policies could have been a disaster. (President Obama is attempting to implement those same policies now, but that is a discussion for another time.) The watermelon (remember: green on the outside, red on the inside) environmentalists are really just using their issues as a cover for wealth redistribution.
His campaign is still helping us today
By preventing a Gore victory in 2000, Nader did our nation yet another service that is benefitting us right now. Since Gore’s running mate, Senator Joseph Lieberman, did not become the Vice President, he remains in the U. S. Senate to this day. He is one of the very few senators on the left side of the aisle who is standing up and fighting this so called “public option” in the health care bill. (Despite his official label as an Independent, his is still in reality a Democrat.) If it were not for him, the advocates of socialized medicine in our government would have a much easier time.
We may still lose this battle and find ourselves trying to explain to our grandchildren how it is that we got stuck on this road “into a thousand years of darkness”. But right now, people like Senator Joe Lieberman are still giving us a fighting chance!
When you find yourself on the same side of a political debate as a large crowd of people who are consistently wrong on just about every major issue, it should make you pause and think for a moment. Back when the Obama administration was supporting the illegal move by Honduran President Mel Zelaya to run for a third term (a move expressly forbidden by the constitution of Honduras), it was Charles Krauthammer who said:
Whenever you find yourself on the side of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and the Castro twins, you ought to reexamine your assumptions.
I find myself in a similar position where I am on the same side of the debate over this health care bill as Howard Dean, Keith Olbermann, and Michael Moore. If that group of people told me that the earth was in orbit around the sun, it would cause me to go back and review all I currently understand about the solar system. However, they and I are in agreement that whatever bill is being debated right now in Congress should be voted down. Hell, I even find myself in agreement with Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont – the only socialist member of Congress who has the integrity to identify himself as such.
Of course, we are not really on the same side. They oppose it because it is not socialistic enough for them. I oppose it because it goes too far in the direction of socialism and would cause great harm to our economy and our health care system. We both agree it is a bad bill and if the end result is that it does not pass in Congress, then it will be good for our country.
I wish I could take credit for this, but I cannot. I saw it in an e-mail that was sent to me by a good friend. The e-mail had a bunch of pro second amendment posters. This one, I think, best captures the mindset of those on both sides of this debate.
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
One of the reasons given by the Nobel Committee for awarding its Peace Prize to President Barack Obama was his stated desire to provide a world free of nuclear weapons. He has done nothing, mind you, to make that happen, yet. Nevertheless the prize is his just because he wishes it so. The irony is that if we ever did find ourselves living in a world without nuclear weapons, it would not achieve peace. Quite the contrary, the world would be a much more dangerous place!
Stuck in a gun control mindset
People like President Obama and the Nobel Committee are stuck in a gun control mindset. They hold the ridiculous belief that the evil lies within the weapon itself. In reality, the weapon is neither good nor evil. It is just a tool. Good or evil can only result from the actions of the one who possesses the weapon. Those who are horrified at the prospect of a law abiding citizen owning a gun fail to understand this concept.
Peace through strength – it works!
If a violent thug and an average decent person cross paths and neither one of them have a weapon, then the odds are very high that the decent person will be badly injured or killed. If they both have weapons, then it is much more likely that no one will be harmed. Even though violent thugs don’t mind killing innocent members of our society, it turns out that most of them prefer not to be killed themselves. If they know that someone can defend himself, they are going to move on to a more helpless target. It is even better if the violent thug has no weapon and the decent person has one! In this scenario, peace becomes more and more likely when the good become stronger relative to the evil.
It works for nations, too!
Likewise, a nuclear bomb has no inherent moral value. Like a gun, or a knife or a hammer or any weapon, morality is dependent upon how it is used by someone. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran are bad. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States are good. In a world free of nuclear weapons, it becomes much more likely that evil states like Iran and North Korea will do harm to others. If the only nuclear weapons belong to the United States and its good allies, then you are much more likely to achieve peace.
It’s OK to think America is bad, just don’t run for president
The problem is that people like President Obama and his fellow travelers do not believe in the goodness of the United States. They are ashamed of this country and its values. This is why he feels the need to apologize for our country everywhere he goes. This is why he has stated that he wants to “fundamentally transform” America. These people have the wrong headed idea that there is no difference between the United States having nuclear weapons and Iran having them. They feel that we have no right to tell Iran that they can’t have nuclear weapons while we still have ours. They fail to recognize our moral superiority in this matter.
When a college professor or a friend or a neighbor holds these opinions it is harmless enough and can even lead to some interesting debate. But when the President of the United States holds these views, it makes the world a much more dangerous place to live.
On October 28, 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law “The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act”. People are always talking about how we need such legislation to prevent “hate crimes”. The irony here is that the two murder victims that the law is named after would not have been saved even if this law were in place at the times of their deaths! I’ll explain that in just a little bit.
Some victims’ lives are now worth more than others
Let’s review some scenarios just so we can know what constitutes a “hate crime”.
SCENARIO A:
Tom is a black man having a drink in a bar. He encounters Jack, a white man who takes offense at the fact that Tom’s date is a white woman. Jack confronts Tom in a fit of rage, yelling racial slurs at him. Finally, having had enough of this, Jack stabs Tom in the neck with a large knife and kills him.
SCENARIO B:
Frank is a black man walking back to his car after enjoying a delicious steak dinner. He is suddenly accosted by Hank, another black man, who points a gun in his face and demands his wallet and car keys. Even though Frank complies with these demands, Hank decides to shoot and kill him anyway.
You see, Scenario A would be considered a “hate crime”, while scenario B would not. Is the murder of Tom a more tragic loss than the murder of Frank? Of course not. But the law will now say that Frank’s life is not worth as much as Tom’s. Jack hated Tom for dating a white woman. But Hank hated Frank for having money and a nice car!
Why should it matter? Both criminals have committed heinous crimes for which they deserve to be executed. They have violated laws that have been in place for a long time. There is no new piece of legislation that would have influenced these people.
There is no law that would have saved Matthew Shepard or James Byrd
Our hearts ache when we hear a story of a brutal and senseless murder. There are those out there who believe for some reason that a “hate crimes” law would somehow do some good. But the two idiots who murdered Matthew Shepard (Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson) and the three morons who murdered James Byrd (John William King, Lawrence Russell Brewer, and Shawn Allen Berry) committed crimes for which the already existing penalty was DEATH! They committed crimes for which the law that was in force at the time provided the option of execution as a sentence.
Since this is true, then what extra piece of legislation do you think could have possibly been enacted prior to these incidents that would have triggered this thought process: “Hey, I know that we are planning to commit a capital crime for which we can be put to death, but they passed that ‘hate crime’ law last week – maybe we should hold off on this?”
Most “hate crime” law supporters advocate a lesser penalty
As I said, all five of these murderers were facing the death penalty. McKinney and Henderson made a plea deal to avoid execution and were given two life sentences each. Since the Byrd murder happened in Texas, no such deal was offered! King and Brewer are sitting on death row while Berry, for some reason, was only sentenced to life in prison.
Most “hate crime” law supporters actually advocate a lesser penalty than the one that currently exists! They do not support the death penalty and don’t think it should be applied. If they had their way, the killers of James Byrd would have gotten a lesser sentence than they are currently serving!
We do not need “hate crimes” legislation. It is already against the law to beat someone up. It doesn’t matter if you did it because the victim is gay or because you didn’t like the shirt he was wearing. You should get locked up either way. It is already against the law to chain someone to the back of your truck and drag him behind it until he is dead. We don’t need “hate crimes” laws to tell us how to deal with this. We don’t need to ask if you did it because the guy was black. We just say, “You did this. You will die for it.”
Let’s worry less about “hate crimes” and worry more about hating crimes.
Two al-Qaeda terrorists have been apprehended by a CIA team and are currently awaiting interrogation. They have vital information that could be used to thwart a serious attack on American citizens here in the United States.
The following conversation can be heard:
| FIRST MAN: | What do you think is going to happen to us after this is over? |
| SECOND MAN: | Who knows? But I’m sure we could be looking at some serious charges. |
| FIRST MAN: | What for!? We are on the side of righteousness here! |
| SECOND MAN: | I know that. But you have to understand, the American government doesn’t see it the way we do. According to them, we are horrible people who inflict pain and suffering on the helpless for no good reason. |
| FIRST MAN: | How else are we supposed to accomplish our objectives? Simple talk is not getting it done! |
| SECOND MAN: | You don’t have to convince me. I know that what we do is right and good. But there are forces out there on a mission to put an end to our operations. |
| FIRST MAN: | You know what worries me the most? I’m afraid that their tactics are going to scare away new recruits to our cause. We cannot afford to lose this battle! |
| SECOND MAN: | We just have to do our best to counteract the powerful people out there who are helping our enemies. |
| FIRST MAN: | Well, we can’t stop the Attorney General from doing whatever he wants to do. I guess we should get in there and interrogate those terrorists now! |