Well now; Mr. Obama comes out in favor of ‘same sex marriage.’  He joins a significant number of people who seem to be incapable of coherent, logical thought.

In the interest of clarity I propose that we analyze the arguments being made in favor of ‘same sex marriage:’

Gays and lesbians don’t have the same civil rights as heterosexuals

Proponents of ‘same sex marriage’ say that they are being discriminated against and denied their civil rights because heterosexuals can marry and homosexuals cannot.

This is demonstrably false.  If a gay man wants to get married, he only needs to find an unmarried woman of legal age to marry him.  It works the same for lesbians – find a man who wants to legally marry them.  It’s simple.  Equal rights.

Any man or woman regardless of sexual quirk can marry any person of the opposite sex who is approved by state law to marry.  There is no discrimination; no denial of “civil rights.” The entire argument made by ‘same sex marriage’ proponents is a mirage that disappears on closer inspection.

People Must be Able to Marry the Person They Love and Should Not Have to “Feel the Pain” of Being Considered Less Than Full Citizens

This is legal humbug.  It is also logical quicksand.  If  ‘same sex marriage’ is infiltrated into the culture by faulty reasoning, the fire it will start will become a conflagration engulfing the culture.  Let’s conduct a thought experiment:

• Assume there is a small group of people – all heterosexuals – who enjoy each other’s company, have a great deal of affection for each other, pay their mortgages and taxes, mow the lawn, and pick up the newspapers – all around good people.
• Assume that the group decides that each of them is paying too much for health insurance and could benefit from discounts given to families; besides, the men have noticed that the women are hot.
• These great Americans go to a county courthouse and request the forms to complete applying for a marriage license for all seven of them to get married.  They are told that they can’t do that; and asking why, they are told that the law only permits two people to get married – not seven.

If Mr. Obama and the ‘same sex marriage’ proponents have their way, I assure you this will happen.  Let’s follow the story:

• The group files suit against the county and the state, hire an ACLU attorney who takes the state to court alleging that these people are being denied their civil right to be married.  The state attempts to make the case that state laws only permit two people to get married whether they are male and female; male and male; or female and female.
• The plaintiff argues that a civil right cannot apply only to a group of two, and not to a group of seven; in addition, these people are negatively affected economically by having to maintain separate houses, and paying more for their healthcare; and because married couples are able to take advantage of the law when filing their taxes than single people.
  The court rules against them.
• They appeal to the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California which overturns the lower court.  The state appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Justices decide that since marriage is a civil right, it cannot be denied to any group of individuals otherwise meeting the age and other thresholds set by the various states.  In addition, they point out that rights of inheritance, and the advantages of retirement savings are further denials of equal access to a recognized civil right.
• In the wake of this decision, larger groups decide to marry, and soon third graders are assigned books like, “I Have 15 Daddies and 32 Mommies.”   The point is that if homosexuals are permitted to marry because it is a civil right, there can be no barriers to marriage for any kind of group of legal age who meet state standards.

Marriage is Not a Civil Right

Marriage is not a “civil right.”  It cannot be because people are denied their “civil right” to marry all the time.  If it’s a “civil right” then why can 14-year-olds not marry?  Why do you have to wait for the state to grant a divorce before marrying someone else?  By Mr. Obama’s definition, the states deny people their civil rights all the time, and he’s apparently okay with that because he only wants “civil rights” to extend to homosexuals.  But there could be more – he’s “evolving.”

Further, if marriage is a civil right, why would Mr. Obama say that the states should decide who gets to exercise that right?  How could Mr. Obama suggest that the states should decide whether or not to deny a civil right?  What circumstances could possibly qualify this man  to be a lecturer in the law teaching future attorneys?

This was the argument used by Democrat Stephan A. Douglas defending slavery in his debates with Republican Abraham Lincoln:   let the states decide.  Borrowing the ‘logic’ of Mr. Douglas – Mr. Obama is not personally interested in entering a ‘same sex marriage’, but he thinks people who are interested should be able to do so if their state permits it.  In those states where ‘same sex marriage’ is not permitted everyone should be denied the right  The federal government should not get involved.  Senator Douglas’ argument led directly to the Civil War.  Mr. Obama’s may do the same.

The Legitimacy of Cultural Norms

Cultural norms exist for compelling reasons. They are built from the realities of life.  The realities of life in this regard are that even though sexual libertinism may sound good to people who think they will not actually ever have to give an account of their sexual life to God, the consequences of a libertine culture are far-reaching.

The homosexual community and their public champions like Mr. Obama seek to overcome cultural norms by creating legal sanctions and use force to attempt to change the natural disposition of the heart through mandated public education; but they will fail.  Draconian prescriptions like mandated curricula for schoolchildren, preventing people from exercising freedom of association; and even freedom of speech, and official government opprobrium name-calling,  and demonization are used.

But they will fail.  Such efforts inevitably fail when pitted against the realities of human nature and human relationships.  Reality inevitably mugs ideology; triumphs over theory.

The fulfillment of secret sexual desires that normal cultures do not approve results in the augmentation of disease states, deceit, fear, betrayal, and hatred.  None of which are conducive of a healthy state.  Think about acting out your deepest sexual thoughts.  What would happen if you openly acted them out?  Betrayal, fear, hatred, estrangement, loss.

Civil Rights Are Not Universal

Even if marriage was a civil right, civil rights do not extend to everyone.  We limit them for very good reasons.  Denying 13-year-olds to marry is also the denial of a “civil right.”  But what if the parents are fine with it and the teacher agrees not to consummate the marriage until his wife is 18 years of age.  Besides, the families are all Muslims, and the practice has deep historical roots in Islam.  In this case, the individuals are being denied their civil rights based on a legal discrimination against a particular religion.  We grant rights to some and not others for what we believe to be good reasons.  (Although given today’s federal judges, permission to marry in such a circumstance may indeed be granted!)

Further, the law discriminates all the time.  Cops can exceed the speed limit without repercussion; you can’t.  Sure, traffic patrol policing is important work, but it’s an arbitrary decision to say it’s more important than the work you do.  The laws grant special privileges to any sworn patrol officer that do not attach to you.  By the logic of the proponents of gay marriage, you are being denied the same rights as police officers because police officers can exceed the speed limit, and you cannot.

Following Mr. Obama’s prescription for establishing marriage law in the U.S., people who want to drive as fast as they want could begin to complain about the pain they feel because they are not being treated like full citizens.  They could get the media on their side and make the case that have been discriminated against for many decades; that they don’t have the same rights as police officers.  Worse their rights have been trampled on by the very same police officers who not only exceed the speed limit but have the power of the law to fine you for doing exactly what they are free to do.  So these people should the right to enjoy the same rights the privileged police minority have.

The other side counters with the argument that police serve the function of preventing speeders for damaging other people by driving too fast; they help keep us safe.  The plaintiffs reply that it is a fallacious argument to assume that people who want to drive fast are worse drivers than those who drive slow.  Besides, some of these people work for the TSA or are in government labs working on ways to prevent the murder of hundreds or millions of American citizens, and their work is just as important as that of patrol officers.  It may be even more important.

Would Mr. Obama support such a move to help the speeders avoid personal pain?

Further Consequences of the Move to Mainstream ‘Same Sex Marriage’

Mr. Obama considers marriage a “civil right;” and should the country follow his “logic” it is only a matter of time before any minister licensed to perform marriages in that state will lose that right because if they refuse to marry gays and lesbians, they will be charged with denying people of their “civil rights.”  In some states they may consider it luck if they are not sent to jail for practicing their religion.

What is the effect of Mr. Obama’s train of thought on Christianity?  Or Islam, or Judaism, for that matter?  Apparently Mr. Obama and other proponents of ‘same sex marriage’ are untroubled by elevating sexual gratification and the right to be free from “pain” above the right to freely practice religion.

We have already seen his hatred of Christianity with his ‘health care’ plan which requires that Christians violate their religious principles.  Now he has announced his willingness to take the country where religious people are forced to violate their own religions principles regarding homosexuality.   The only other option Mr. Obama would provide for you if you insist on your freedom of religion is for you to quit practicing the sacrament of marriage “in the sight of God.”  The law – he thinks – should force us to settle for his personal, squalid moral views:   doctor visits and sexual deviancy both should triumph over our constitutional right to freely practice our religion.

Fully 25% of the questions asked of candidates for president – 12 out of 48 questions – dealt with homosexuals and birth control!

Diane Sawyer – whose head appeared to be mounted on a spring nodding up and down without apparent purpose; and who appeared to have been drinking heavily before the debate, seemed concerned that the candidates be able to tell homosexuals what to do:

“Given that you oppose gay marriage, what do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? What is your solution?”

What?  Apparently Sawyer thinks it’s the job of the president to explain to homosexuals what they should do – they need a solution, I guess.  This seems more like a question she should ask people who approve of homosexual activity. Perhaps she should ask the nearest Democrat – surely they would know what homosexuals are supposed to do and I’m sure they would be happy to offer a solution.  Since they approve all things gay I’m sure they could say what they want homosexuals to do.

The obvious answer to Sawyer’s question about what homosexuals should do to form a loving, committed, long-term relationship from a conservative would be, “Form a loving, committed, long-term relationship.”  What else needs to be said?  I can hardly wait for the bobble head to ask Mr. Obama what he wants loving Christians in committed, long-term relationships to do who want their children protected from the nihilism of public schools which mock virtue and promote hedonism.  That should be fun – perhaps he will ask for vouchers for private education.  Well, maybe not.

Josh McElveen – a local ABC newsperson in love with the sound of his own voice – asked, “We’re in a state where it is legal for same-sex couples to marry – 1,800, in fact, couples have married since it became law here in New Hampshire. … And they’re trying to start families, some of them…” under the apparent delusion that it is possible that homosexuals can actually start families.  Perhaps he should accompany Diane Sawyer to the nearest Democrat to find out what homosexuals do, and then he would understand why they, “starting families,” could be a problem.

Of course what he was actually asking was about how important it is to take a child – currently in state custody for whatever reason – and placing him in the custody of people who abhor the kind of activity that can actually produce a child.  Apparently this sounds like a good idea to him.

Newt Gingrich responded with this zinger:

I just want to raise a point about the news media bias.  You don’t hear the opposite question asked.  Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done?  Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry?  Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias that the bigotry of the administration?  The bigotry question goes both ways, there there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side.  And none of it gets covered in the news media.

The inquisitors did not answer his questions.

Tomás de Torquemada – I’m terribly sorry, I meant George Stephanopoulos (who was fixated on birth control for some reason) spent his time asking 7 of the total of 48 questions about the burning issue of  birth control.  That’s 14% of all the questions asked during a presidential debate!  As you are well aware, people everywhere are concerned that the next president might arrange to have one of the states decide to ban birth control.  Perhaps access to birth control has been a problem for him in the past; who knows?  Who cares?

“Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception?  Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”

Makes sense that he would ask this burning question; as everybody knows one of the top issues in many states is whether or not the state should ban birth control.  And since so many states are considering banning it, George wanted to know if the constitutional right to privacy would trump their evil plan.

Of course there is no constitutional right to privacy except as outlined in the implications of the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The word “privacy” does not appear anywhere in the constitution; perhaps George should spend more time reading the text of the constitution and less time agonizing over the critical, hot button issue of birth control.

Why should conservatives subject themselves to a panel of nitwits so obtuse as to not ask even one question that is on the minds of Americans as they consider who they should vote for president?  Well, I think that answer is that ABC has an obvious intent of making Republican candidates for president look like rubes if at all possible; with the accompanying intent to re-electing Barack Obama next year.

Here’s what is not important to the ABC panel when it comes to consideration of who should be the next president.  Not one question whatsoever about the following:

• Whether or not states have the right to ban abortion; their only concern being about states banning birth control.
• The miserable state of American public education
• The constitutional violations of the EPA, like filing suit against an Idaho couple to prevent them from building a house of their own lot.  “I want to say thank you to each and every one of you, because the EPA touches on the lives of every single American every single day,” Obama to EPA staff January 10, 2012.
• Nothing about the National Labor Relations Board working to control which states a company can operate in.
• Nothing about Obamacare unconstitutional mandates.
• Apparently they are only concerned about individual privacy as it concerns Griswold V. Connecticut concerning contraception (decided by the Supreme Court in 1965) but have no concern about the privacy of medical records under Obamacare.
• National accumulated debt leading us close to bankruptcy.
• Lowered U.S. credit rating
• The high rate of unemployment
• Iran and nukes
• Unconstitutional non-recess, recess appointments
• Disemboweling our military in announcements just two days before the debate announcing plans to lay off 80,000 soldiers.
• One American in eight is on food stamps – an all-time record under the Obama administration.  Move along – nothing to see here.
• Increase in poverty.  Move right along.

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and Secretary of Education invited people who are in our country illegally to come so their departments could learn from the illegals about how to provide them more services.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services announces actions to improve, “…the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, and ” to coordinate “consideration of LGBT concerns throughout HHS’s activities,” producing, “an annual report on the Department’s key accomplishments and upcoming initiatives.”  They have developed, “an annual report on the Department’s key accomplishments and upcoming initiatives,” along with, “test questions on sexual orientation and gender identity,” and promise to, “provide guidance on the array of training and technical assistance available to state child welfare agencies to support LGBT youth, caregivers, and foster and adoptive parents.”  And in addition, “HHS will integrate an even stronger component focusing on LGBT youth in all anti-bullying initiatives and continue working with the White House, Departments of Education, Agriculture, Defense, Interior, and Justice to ensure that states, schools, and the general public are aware of the resources available.”

In other news of the sexually challenged, California has passed a law requiring all students to learn that what is really  important about history is the sexual habits of the individuals involved, not on what is historically important.  At least this keeps things consistent.

President Obama has decided that the Constitution is an outdated and unnecessary restriction on what he wants to do; scholars agree.

Three years after Mr. Obama demanded we borrow $787 billion for a stimulus package to keep unemployment to below 8% we have finally lowered unemployment to 8.7% right where he said it would be if we didn’t pass the stimulus bill.  What?

Nine out of the worst ten countries engaging in religious persecution are Islamic.

Thirty three years ago Muslims in Iran took 52 American diplomats in our embassy there hostage for 444 days from November 4 – 1979 to January 20, 1981.  President Carter couldn’t do anything about it because he had hollowed out our military and the only attempt made cost tens of $millions, lost our equipment, and resulted in no rescue, no Iranians killed, but 8 dead American servicemen.  At the same time Iran is developing nuclear weapons having promised to wipe Israel off the face of the map and complete the holocaust and is conducting military maneuvers in the Strait of Hormuz threatening to close it Mr. Obama -  following the example of his mentor Jimmy Carter – announced his plans to hollow out our military too.

Mr. Obama has created yet another enemy for the U.S!  His habit of leading from behind has resulted in overthrowing a dictator (Hosni Mubarak) friendly to America and who kept radical Islamist in check and in giving the worldyet another radical Muslim state – just what we need.

Venereal diseases are on the rise thanks to the sexual revolution.  Do you know where your children are?

Democrats find yet another way to cheat during upcoming elections.

Mr. Obama increases pay for federal workers who already receive 85% higher compensation on average than the average income for people who work for private companies.  Quit griping! you should all be thankful that you can contribute to the increased well-being of these selfless federal workers who look out for us day and night.

The government car – the Chevy Volt – costs $250,000 to manufacture, sells for $40,426, comes with a $7,500 rebate because nobody wants to purchase it, and it catches on fire; but Mr. Obama wants one million of them on the road in next 3 years!  That would make their total cost of production 250 $billion, and with a net sales price of 34 $billion and a 5% profit margin, Government Motors should make 1.7 $billion!  Hmmmmmm…total cost (not counting shipping, flooring, overhead, and sales commissions) 250 $billion; total profit, 1.7 $billion (minus taxes).  At least this has the advantage of keeping the government’s automobile business in line with their other operations in Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Amtrack; along with the Department of Education, and the Transportation Security Administration (if you don’t count getting ‘felt up’ at the airport.)

The Supreme Court is preparing to determine if the government can make you purchase what you don’t want so long as the government thinks it is good for you.

Mr. Obama will create 180,000 new jobs this summer; 38% of them are jobs that will actually pay you!  Call now operators standing by.

Two universities are offering classes in Occupy 101

And finally this: Portland, Oregon is the city where young people go to retire.  You should get there right away.

Happy New Year!  Vote conservative.

Western Civilization gave the world the concepts of the infinite value of every individual, government by consent of the governed, and the rule of law; we are losing them all.

The U.S. has been reluctant to follow the path of Europe into perdition – although the Democrat Party has tried its best for the past 98 years beginning with the election of Woodrow Wilson.

How We Got Here

Citizens in the U.S. who desire to preserve the government our Founders created with the Constitution have mostly resisted this tendency – and have lost most of their engagements with the resident enemies of the government we inherited.  With the exceptions of Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) and Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) every president of the U.S. during those 98 years has been a liberal bent on changing America.  Every one of them, with these two exceptions, expanded and centralized government in times of peace as well as in times of war.

(Eisenhower, when he wasn’t busy sleeping, presided over the period in which we had “peaceful coexistence” with the Soviet Union.  During this time, the Soviets were rebuilding their military after the war, and we were dismantling our military and partying.  They were using scientists to develop rocketry and satellites, while Eisenhower golfed in the glow of post war popularity.  Richard Nixon took his own counsel and “ran right, and governed left.”  He gave us the onerous Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act – both of which have cost millions of jobs and $trillions.  Nixon didn’t believe in free markets or capitalism:  he was the last president to impose wage and price controls, August 15, 1971.  Both George Bush the first and second increased the power and scope of the central government.  Neither was conservative.)

The American Faust is finally now considering whether to make our bargain with the socialist Mephistopheles.  The Democrat Party has denounced its past record on insisting that slavery is morally right, and has gone to negotiating with Mephistopheles to trade our Constitution for eternal, carnal delights.

Having played the role of mountebank stirring the passions of the quarter educated about not getting “their fair share,” our leaders have created a mob of tens of millions clamoring for the property earned by others.  Who are they?  from ‘occupy’ scum to minority companies which don’t have to compete for contracts; from race-baiting hustlers to Wall Street banks; from generations of welfare recipients to millions of government employees; from dynastic Senate seats and eternal federal judgeships to millions of America occupiers who have moved into our home as squatters without permission; the bed wetting ninnies we have in office have given the ankle-biters everything they want and yet they are not full.  The transfer of wealth from private citizens to favored political allies and lard-butt bureaucrats would cause a revolution if it had been done in the sunshine.

“We do not steal privately earned wealth from those who earned it to give it to favored constituents!” they thunder, ‘We believe in fairness; it’s a good thing to spread the wealth around.’”

Unfortunately, the number of takers is close to surpassing the makers.  When we reach that point, the Republic is terminal.  All that remains are the autopsy, embalming, and burial.  Our leaders have permitted the Republic to become colonized by life forms which exist only by drawing life from others who work to produce it.  And they have used this energy to multiply themselves.  I fear we are at last succumbing to the innumerable parasites we have permitted to inhabit our body politic.

The Religion of Liberalism

Not only have our leaders resorted to accommodating these life forms for political and personal gain, they have converted to a false religion of works.  Many, if they believe in God at all, don’t believe Him to be of much consequence; and have been genuflecting to another god in another temple.  But rather than an idol at this altar there is a mirror.  In this religion the rules are that one can never make judgments about what is right and wrong.  In fact, that is the only rule there is; all other rules are rescinded.

“Thou shalt not lust after women who dress like whores in public, instead thou shalt admire their mind only; thou shalt not make judgments about taking the name of the LORD in vain, or talking potty; thou shalt make no judgments about adultery;  thou shalt not consider anything holy, thou shalt trivialize everything.”

“Thou shalt not make judgments about stealing (my God we’d have to shut down the Senate!); or envy; or covetousness (we would make the ‘occupy’ people feel bad about themselves!); or murder (FREE MUMIA! and while we’re at it, let’s look for the evil elements of American culture that drove him to commit homicide and root them out!); or lasciviousness (that would destroy MTV); or human sacrifice (women must have the right to choose don’t you know).”

“Thou shalt not make judgments about those those who announce their plan to kill you (we must reach out to the Islamic world “with our hand unclenched;” after all, “Islam has always been a part of America’s story;” and we all know about, “Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings”).  Thou shalt make no judgments about the fat, the ugly, the smelly, the short, the indigent, the stupid, or the lazy.”

“Thou shalt finance, at public expense, the National Endowment for the Arts so everyone can see the Piss Christ not just the elite; the dung covered virgin Marys, the naked women on stage covered with chocolate and bean sprouts, or whores using a speculum to display their ‘inner self’” – you know, the art that truly needs public financing.  The government uses your money to pay for Christian blasphemy while our Secretary of State waxes strident, loud, and shrill demanding your free speech not include any statement that denigrates Islam.

“Thou shalt never call things by their real name, as this may cause someone somewhere to receive insufficient approval for their loser attitude, criminal activity, exhibitionistic behavior, or stupid choices.  All judgments are forbidden except the judgment against judgments.”

“Thou shalt refer to any group of sexual deviants using only the word ‘family;’ thou shalt approve all spending bills and all tax increases, all government employee salary increases, all perks for elected officials; subsidized home loans, free lunches, subsidized higher education, money for not growing crops, and free government cheese; world without end; blessed be the name of the Democrat Party!  Amen and amen.

We cry foul and accuse them of what they are publicly doing, and they quote their favorite philosopher Groucho Marx, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes…you heartless, lying, homophobic, misogynistic, Evangelical bigot.  The higher you climb the pole the more your butt shows!”

And the people intone, “Oh; huh, I’m terribly sorry; I must have misunderstood.  Sorry I made a judgment.”

In keeping with the tenets of this religion we only fight against “terror,” not Islamic radicals.  (During the war in the Pacific in the early 1940’s the U.S. Navy fought against boats, don’t you know)  The manner in which Antonio Gramsci taught Marxists to take over the world is being followed by Islam: don’t fight, just employ cultural hegemony: take over the arts, the music, the styles, the public places…

Helping the People Who Are Trying to Kill You

Our leftists – too stupid for words – drool all over the Islamic death cult the same way they drooled over rapes committed by Black Panthers in the 1960’s as a political statement (Norman Mailer, Elaine Brown, Angela Davis among them); they prove black manhood; soooo cool.  The idiotic left are falling for this tired tactic again as it is used by radical Muslims.  The fake world they live in is permitting Islam to make inroads into the Christianized world in a manner never thought possible by Saracens of the Middle Ages.  For these traitors, America is no “empire of liberty,” “shining city on a hill;” America is not “the last best hope of Earth,” in Lincoln’s words; is not the “leader of the free world,” the “indispensable nation” – not to the rats who presently run it.  No, Saudi Arabians think their country is the greatest too, we are told.  No doubt the North Koreans think the same thing when they’re not thinking about food.

This is the problem: these people refuse to make judgments about what is right and what is wrong about culture.  You know, they don’t actually want to live in Nigeria in a hut; or in a Chinese commune but they think the people who live like that think their culture is “exceptional” and are as proud of it as we are of what America has done for the world over 221 years.  Yeah, right.  They don’t want to live in Sudan where Arabs buy and sell black slaves in slave markets, but darn, those Sudanese think their country is exceptional just like us!  We know they think this because our psychotic, juvenile president said so.  Nobody should make judgments, you know.

Think of the culture of Japan  and Germany following their total industrial and economic destruction following WWII.  Now think about Iraq as the war ends.  Notice any difference?  Culture matters.

We have no Charles Martel; no Charlemagne.  There is no Alfonzo VIII of Castile to drive the Moors from our Andalusia; our nitwits greet them at the gate.  There is no Battle of Tours; there is only the multicultural approval of everything anti-American; anything that smells sort of primitive – gotta love that!  There is no Battle of Tours because our enemies don’t need to fight – we are letting them in through the front door.  Our leaders have misunderstood the poem; they think it says:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to [destroy our civilization]; the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, send these, the homeless, tempest tossed, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

They see our lamp, and here they come; through our airports, across our borders, flying jets into our offices and shooting our servicemen on military bases.

Who is looking out for them?  Well, nobody actually – they are tied up frisking 90 year old great grandmothers, hand checking retarded children, and checking out babes on the Whole Body Image Scanner.

Doing All to Help Us Fail

We have an administration that refuses to protect the capacity of the country to have sufficient energy to remain economically viable.  They desire to use “alternative” fuels instead.  Recently the Navy was required to purchase alternative fuel at $16 a gallon in place of regular fuel for military ships at $4 a gallon.  Drive your aircraft carrier right up and say, “Fill it with that premium stuff.”  I wonder how much it costs to fill up an aircraft carrier?  Maybe we should find out – we paid for it.

They take over most of the American automobile industry and then begin producing Chevy Volts.  Nobody wants them, of course, so they will give anyone who purchases one of the $41,000 dogs $7,500 as a gift for taking it off GM’s hands; GM loses money on every car they sell – probably make it up in volume since it’s now owned by the government.  Most of the cars are purchased as fleet cars by companies who feed at the government trough, and by various levels of government.  I guess they can afford the price.  Gee, I wonder if they get the rebate?

We are confronted by an Iran who has announced they plan to close the Straits of Hormuz cutting off 20% of the world’s oil supply while they build their nuclear bomb.  The duly elected bed wetters in Washington respond by castrating our military then wailing because we can’t produce.  Then they announce another round of “unclenched fist” negotiations with those who publicly vow to murder us all.  (And while we’re at it, let’s put Saudi Arabia, China, and Pakistan on the United Nations Human Rights Council of the United Nations just to show we have no judgment at all.)

We have the chance to import huge supplies of oil from friendly Canada, and the “leader” in the White House is so insecure can’t decide whether we should build a nation-saving oil pipeline from Canada, or spend more years in environmental impact studies.  Meanwhile the oil will be sold to China.  Great.  Remind me, who loves this country; who hates it?

We have leaders who arrange for citizens of other countries to vote in American elections while the Justice Department refuses to protect American citizens trying to vote from intimidation by New Black Panther Party members in black jumpsuits and berets carrying nightsticks.  So now Mexican nationals will find it easier to vote in our elections than white Americans.

We have leaders who engage in vote fraud here to get into office and then travel at public expense to Egypt and Iraq and Afghanistan making sure their elections are honest.  These leaders helped ensure that radicals in Egypt and Libya have the power to turn their countries into radical Islamic states at war with Western Civilization; with Syria, Tunis, Lebanon, and “Palestine” soon to follow.  What can we do for an encore?  I know, let’s insult and isolate Israel!

Alexander Pope first said, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”  The phrase was used by Burke as he considered the insanity of the French Revolution in Reflections on the Revolution in France.

The thing about fools is that they are absolutely convinced that the psychotic world they are seeing is the real world; their hallucination is so powerful to them they develop absolute conviction and any attempt to wake them up to the real world is dismissed as right-wing bigotry.

If “the best lack all conviction,” then fools rush in and occupy the space.  Americans are “the best,” and it is high time we re-occupy the space and move the fools aside.  Quit listening to those who rule now; who are “full of passionate intensity” about “fundamentally transforming America.”  We cannot permit them to do it.

We have an election in a year.  Let’s throw the traitors out, and reclaim America; the Beautiful.

No, not yet; but I’m tempted.

In what today passes for journalism www.thedailybeast.com (Publisher, Tina Brown; formerly of Vanity Fair, and The New Yorker) published a piece by Robin Givhan, Special Correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast titled: “Herman Cain’s Power Suit.”

Givhan’s take on allegations of sexual harassment against Herman Cain – whether true or not – are his own fault.  The fool almost invited these allegations because he wears double breasted suits!

First she finds fault with Mr. Cain’s bodyguard for wearing a pin-striped suit, “looking more like a thug named Tiny than a professional security presence.”  Apparently Ms. Givhan’s fevered, feminist mind guides her into thinking that bodyguards should look more like Pee Wee Herman; or at least have the good taste to not wear a suit.  Amazon women are fine, but male bodyguards should be small and skinny, don’t you know.

Then there are those damnable suits Mr. Cain wears.  The man invites the scorn of women because he wears double breasted suits.  The Nerve!

This kind of suit is a “menswear silhouette with its wide, peak lapels…six-on-two button suits in solid charcoal as well as those with subtle chalk stripes… have now become ill-advised,” for Mr. Cain, she suggests.  “Why,” you ask?

Well, double breasted suits make him look powerful, they make him look haughty! “They are favored by high-end designers and aficionados of bespoke tailoring. But in this more casual age—when the “suits” are feeling the rage of Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party, and anyone who has helplessly watched the rapid decline of their 401(k)—Cain’s garb carries with it a sort of haughty swagger.”  He’s sending a message with his suit, you see.

Now, of course women like Robin Givhan can wear dresses revealing most of her breasts, or most of her upper thigh, and men are not supposed to draw the conclusion that she is sending a message with her clothes.  But that’s a feminist for you.

Women can dress like high class, very expensive escorts; but men who see them are supposed to be thinking about how smart such women are instead of…well, you know.  But I digress.

“Cain’s love of double-breasted suits also links him to religion. [Wow, who knew!] He is an ordained Baptist preacher and a man with a habit of breaking out in gospel song at the slightest provocation. Ministers of a certain persuasion often seem to have a predilection for double-breasted suits, as well as three-piece ones. Some of that must surely be because of tradition and formality, but there is also an element of the hierarchal (sic.) at work. Instead of choosing the most modest and humble of suits—a sack suit, perhaps—they opt for something more regal. The fancy suit distinguishes them from the mere congregants they lead. It gives them the appearance of clout, dignity, and righteous grandiosity.”

Well!  Now we know (according to a woman who flashes her flesh) that Mr. Cain should be wearing “sack suits.”  No doubt that would keep those innocent, giggling women from making allegations about him.  At least, it would show appropriate humility on Mr. Cain’s part in the face of unexamined allegations.

But those damnable suits are even worse, because they, “don’t come with a creative flourish. They come with a standard yellow four-in-hand and an American flag pin perched on his left lapel. Sometimes he dons a ranger hat, which is about as imaginative as cowboy boots for affecting a down-home cool.”

I have no judgment about Mr. Cain’s character or the truth or falsehood of these allegations, but a black man who stands up to defend himself from allegations of sexual impropriety wears a suit to a press conference means his words can be safely ignored – we know all we need to know just by looking at the suit he chose to wear.  “Far from defining him as an empty suit, it suggests he is one filled with both hubris and sanctimony.”

In the words of Jacques Barzun, we get “The Culture We Deserve: A Critique of Disenlightenment.”

Well, finally we’ve reached the stage where a woman can dress like she is ready to have sex with the nearest man, but guys who see her are supposed to be blind, making no judgments whatsoever about her by looking at her clothes.  Her right to look like a whore MUST NOT give any man a clue about what she actually intends.  He MUST NOT reach any conclusion about what he should do next.  He should be focusing solely on her words; be thinking only about what kind of graduate degree she probably has.  But a woman “journalist” who dresses just like that can – merely by looking at a man – tell you everything you need to know about him, his character, and his internal disposition, his intentions, his attitude. Why, she must be a genius.

So a voluptuous, bottle blond with flying hair extensions giggling about Mr. Cain’s advances MUST NOT be judged at all except by what she says!

The way a woman dresses should tell you absolutely nothing about her; the way a man dresses should tell you everything.

And we permit this kind of pap to stand without a whimper.  People with power think stuff like this is worth publishing. That’s why I’m tempted to give up.  I won’t, but I’m tempted.

Throughout its history, the earth has warmed and cooled radically.  We see fossils of tropical plants in both the very northern parts of the planet, and in Antarctica.  We see evidence of deep glaciers throughout the United States.  Neither of these extremes were caused by humans, our cars, our coal-fired plants, or anything else humans do to enable our species to thrive and prosper. 

Radicals, who want to control the activities of all other humans, then, must come up with explanations as to why we should follow their advice.  First it was the communists who explained history in terms of economic destiny – kind of like astrology.  Our behavior must adapt to an unavoidable economic imperative, an unalterable destiny that Karl Marx announced he had discovered. 

 Marx was a bigoted racist; an anti-Semite - perpetually broke, filthy; a vagabond who said his understanding of history was scientific; but he wasn’t a scientist and did zero investigative work in the real world.  He never set foot in a factory – about which he had all the answers of course.  He never provided for his own children.  During one dark period when the money from wealthy industrialists he always lived on had dried up, his son Guido died because Marx refused to work.  He denied his daughters any education or career opportunities; and he had no friends who actually had jobs at all (except Helen Demuth – ‘Lenchen’ – who was a servant girl given to Marx by his mother-in-law).  Helen cooked for him, scrubbed, washed, and managed the family budget.  He never paid her a dime.  His ‘philosophy’ – Marxism- is not philosophy at all; it is only screwball nonsense, incoherent claptrap, and false prophecy.  It’s as incoherent as the screed of the Unabomber.

Hundreds of millions of people were forced to live in this squalor because of the “intellectual” and “scientific” ideas of Marx. The only place on earth where Marxism is still believed and followed is in American, land grant, government subsidized; and private well-financed Ivy League universities.

Of course this plan didn’t work out too well, so the radicals next turned to promoting the idea of scarcity – that we are running out of everything necessary to continue our way of life as a means of controlling us.  We are running out of all manner of commodities and so we must quit living like we do or there will be mass starvation (think John Holdren – Obama’s Science advisor, and Paul Erlich – perpetual false prophet and hero to the left) or the earth will freeze and life will end (again, John Holdren and Paul Erlich), or it will heat up (yet again, John Holdren and Paul Erlich), the polar caps will melt, whole cities and islands will disappear under water.  The only answer, according to them, is for us to give up our lifestyles, give away our freedoms, and let these idiots run the world. 

Their message now is much more seductive.  You are killing the earth by poison.  They show smokestacks billowing, (usually it’s steam in the pictures) iceburgs calving, a hapless Polar bear sitting atop a small ice flow, and other misleading images to make you believe a lie.  If you do you will be damned.

Carbon dioxide is causing all this they trumpet.  That CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth and comprises only 0.01 percent of the atmosphere and we contribute less than 01.% of this tiny amount is never mentioned.  We cannot see, smell, or taste it so it’s the perfect enemy.  For them, our breath is poison to the earth. 

In this view, we are not “people;” we are only “carbon producers.”   We do not contribute anything of value to our environment, to animals, to humanity with our poetry, science, mathematics; our inventions, our books; our comtemplation of God.  No, we are only a “carbon footprint.”  We do not have any God given right to life, liberty, and happiness; our freedom is limited to what is consistent with preserving the earth.  The earth has all rights for these radicals. We do not have infinite, intrinsic value – only rocks, water, and dirt have intrinsic, infinite value.  Anything people do that impacts rocks, water, and dirt must be judged in light of whether that impact is positive or negative.   

To them, the answer to the question, “What is the chief end of man?” is “To glorify Earth, and to enjoy Him forever.”  (Apologies to the Westminster Shorter Catechism.)

Carbon is murdering the earth, they say; and those of us who contribute to carbon production are guilty of a capital crime.  Their pronouncement of judgment on us for this capital crime is, of course, capital punishment.  Like Nietzche, they believe when a human is born it is a capital crime to be rewarded by capital punishment.

In keeping with this radical view the healthcare legislation they have enacted reduces contributions to health care for the elderly – let them die, they’re too expensive to keep. They aren’t contributing anything useful anymore anyway; besides they continue to exhale carbon into the atmosphere!  Get a rope.

Likewise, they propose to raise the cost of energy to prohibitive levels ostensibly to save Earth Himself.  The fact that this coincides with the communist ideal of controlling all human activity and industry is not lost on those of us still capable of critical thinking.

Kill the babies (or used forced sterilization to reduce the number of births as Obama’s chosen one, John Holdren proposes).  Kill the people.  Save the earth.   Totally control those humans remaining so they don’t infringe on the Rights of Earth!

Get a grip, people.  If you want to retain any freedoms at all, you must throw out radicals of any party who are willing to use junk science to overturn the Constitution.  We must get rid of the liars.  We must get rid of those who are so weak they are willing, for short-term political gain, to throw out centuries of progress toward the liberation of man from despots who use their power to subjugate the people.  We must not remain silent when we hear people engaging in fatuous ignorance around the water cooler.  Speak up.

Remember, subjugation by wetlands legislation, health care, ‘smart grid’ energy; or court decision regarding peaceable assembly or the right to choose to kill babies is no less suffocating of  the human spirit than subjugation by totalitarian rule.  In fact, the only difference is whether or not the totalitarian is smiling when he steals your life.

It occurred to me today as I was thinking about the so-called ‘green movement’ what an arrogant bunch they are.  Their hubris knows no bounds.  First, they presume that the rest of us are so ignorant that we actually think they are engaged in environmental causes.  We know this isn’t true because they have no interest in truth. 

They make up the loss of species out of whole cloth; they never applaud the hundreds of new species discovered each year.   They lie about Polar Bear population; and Arctic and Antarctic Ice.  They lie about the so-called ozone hole, rising sea levels, glaciers around the world, and the contribution humanity has made to the preservation of species throughout the world.   They mislead by showing certain pictures with captions that are not true.  They lie about the loss of forest land.  They lied about DDT.  They are willing to see tens of millions of children die in order to preserve mosquitoes.  They are inconsistent: they don’t want anyone to kill any animal life, but (at least occasionally) they bathe and kill tens of millions of bacteria and other flora living on their body  They are willing for thousands of accidents to occur annually on our highways injuring thousands of people when there are too many deer; they are fine with cougars killing joggers and schoolchildren.

Their real interest is in using the goodwill of the people to create a socialist, command and control power structure throughout the world.  Little wonder many communists because instant environmental converts as soon as the Soviet Union fell.  Would any of them suggest that Gorbachev and the communists throughout eastern Europe were implementing good environmental policies before the people threw them out?

But what occurred to me today is their innate arrogance.  They are of the opinion that people are so powerful they can destroy the earth; that humanity has become so godlike that we hold the power in our hands to destroy or save nature.  They have postulated this in various incarnations over the decades: global winter, global warming, mass starvation, CO2 poisoning and on and on, but their predictions universally are proven to be wrong.  Environmentalists are the true apocalyptic false prophets.  Their basic assumption is that the universe as created by God is impotent in the face of almighty Man. Move over God, here comes Man.  The rest of us remain more humble about the power of man.

Please look at these pictures and tell me you really believe these goofballs.

Please note one of man’s highest achievements in the upper left quadrant – an airplane. 

 Who in hades do they think they are anyway?  They are sufficiently arrogant that they think Man can ruin or save the earth; they even more arrogant to think we will believe them.

Most of them are of the “I think we should defy gravity in America; and I insist we rely on the settled science of physics to do it” variety.

If you need a laugh, and I suspect you do, please check out the link and see how the progressivel brain works.  Well, perhaps “works” is too strong of a word; just sayin’.

Hat tip: www.spectator.org

It was created this way because the people forming it had real life experience with a hegemonic, central governmental power – that of King George III.  The Parliament and the King instituted whatever they wanted – even if the people didn’t want it.  (This may sound vaguely familiar.)

This exercise of the power of the few over the many has been the experience of all humans from the beginning.  Dictators, Kings, Pharaohs, Emperors, and military Generals have forced the common citizens to comply with the leader’s vision of what was the good society in every corner of the world in every time throughout history.

The brief experiments at democracy and republicanism during the existence of the Greek city states are not a real exception.  Yes, citizens had input on the influence and structure of government, but in almost every case, there were many more slaves than citizens living in those cities.  Slaves had no input whatsoever, and could not vote, so government by consent of the governed wasn’t practiced at all.

Following the Dark Ages, the influence of Christian ideas about the central value and importance of individuals began to chip away at the concept of the divine rights of Kings.  Having to listen to the concerns of noblemen and barons and Pope Innocent III diminished the power of the central government in England.

The major liberty sought by those who finally left the British Isles and parts of Europe for the Americas was freedom of religion.  They came to these shores and created – over a couple of centuries – a republican, federalist system designed to forever constrain the power of the central government from gaining increased hegemony over individuals.  This is why the Constitution is a document of enumerated powers; the founders created it so the federal government could not do anything other than what the Constitution stated specifically it could do.

Unfortunately, at this period in our history the Constitution has long been disfigured beyond recognition by political manipulation on the part of Representatives, Senators, and Presidents; but most of all by the federal court system including the Supreme Court.  For some 80 years our republic has existed on the accumulated goodwill, and  moral and economic capitol of previous generations.  Not that many lately have not pursued moral and economic success, but only that our effort has been increasingly seen as immoral and bigoted by those who desire to return power to the king.

With the recent overstepping of our Congress at the urging President Obama imposing their vision of what your your life should be, we have indeed returned to government without the consent of the governed.  The imposition of what the few believe to be ‘good for us’ rather than continuing the concept of freedom for citizens probably puts any return to Constitutional federalism and the Bill or Rights out of reach.  The Democrats have just denied you significant parts of your Bill of Rights.

Mr. Obama has said in the past that the U.S. Constitution is an impediment to his vision. He has stated, “…the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.”  With those words, Mr. Obama reveals that he sees the U.S. Constitution as a roadblock to imposing the laws, rules, regulations, and benefits he wants to implement.

It also shows that his vision for the country is entirely different from what the founders created it to be, and what most Americans think it is.  He wants the government to have powers the framers denied to it.  He wants to take powers of freedom away from the people and give it back to the government as if our War for Independence to end coercive powers of government never occurred.  He does not believe in the divine rights of Kings, but it is clear that Mr. Obama believes in the divine rights of Presidents.  Because he believes in his right to force you to live the way he wants you to live rather than the way you want to live.

By his willing and open overthrow of  the U.S. Constitution with its prohibitions on any activity by government other than what is explicitly permitted, he reveals his belief that he should be free to choose for you, and you should not.  Under this regime, the government does not owe you independence from its coercive powers to control your speech, your economic welfare, your freedom to assemble with those you choose; no - in Obama’s world it owes you retirement, healthcare, income of a certain level, and so on.  This means, of course, that it will have to confiscate money from other people in order to hand out these new ‘positive rights.’

Mr. Obama has also been quite open about his intentions of taking money away from some people and giving it to others – some special people he personally wants to support.  He lamented the direction of the civil rights movement because they followed the Constitution; because they had “…a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

By “redistributive” he means that he sees wealth earned by those who sacrificed, denied themselves, and worked hard to accumulate as not belonging to them at all.  Rather, it actually belongs to the government; in his view, your wealth is a government commodity.  It is a commodity that the government has the right to “redistribute”  to the people Mr. Obama sees as more deserving of it than you.  Certainly in his mind, those who earned it and sacrificed to accumulate it are not deserving of it, else he would not use the coercive powers of government to take it away from them so he can give it to people he deems worthy of it.  And so the concept of “private property” dies with most of the remaining parts of the Constitution under President Obama.

There is no longer any doubt about what he meant when he said just prior to his inauguration that he was just 5 days away from fundamentally transforming America. Forcing us to pay taxes without our consent, forcing us to purchase a product from a government controlled entity against our will, denying us the right to enter into contracts with people of our choosing for purposes of healthcare – all of this and more is breathtaking.  We have just witnessed a coup d’état sans violence.  The Constitution was written in order to protect us from people like Mr. Obama.  Now it is gone.  The smiling, benevolent, suffocating bureaucracies he is imp0sing are no less coersive than the Politbureaus, Oligarchies, and Star Chambers we have seen elsewhere.  Denying you freedom is denial if it comes with a fist or a smile.

It only remains to ask if you are willing to throw them out of office before we lose another Constitutional right – the right to vote.  This one is no more or less sacred than the others we have already lost.

We show up at rallies only to be called an unwashed mob, Nazis, obstructionists; we show up at town hall meetings with our elected representatives and are pushed out of the meeting by union thugs, delayed until the room is filled with supporters only, ignored, denounced, degraded, treated like junk.  We are considered evil by the mainstream media outlets even as they are going broke for loss of audience share.  Without doubt we terrify the assorted communists, fascists, socialists, pinkos, bureaucratic totalitarians, and new age relativists in power now; we would ruin their (almost completed) takeover of American cultural, economic, political, and religious life.  We point our that their vaunted new clothes are only imaginary, and their naked hatred of the human condition is unsightly.

We are aghast at why they insist on instituting programs that stifle the human spirit; why they think the imposition of their utopian ideas is a better approach than the principle of liberty.  We are baffled by their naïve, child-like approach to evil wherever it exists in the republic itself or the world at large. 

For 23 years I did talk radio in Portland, Oregon, and one of my most memorable interviews was with British philosopher Dr. Roger Scruton regarding his book The West and the Rest, ISI Books 2001.  Recently Dr. Scruton wrote a brief essay titled “Totalitarian Sentimentality” you can (and should) read the essay here.   Purchase the book at a discount here.

“Conservatives recognize that social order is hard to achieve and easy to destroy, that it is held in place by discipline and sacrifice, and that the indulgence of criminality and vice is not an act of kindness but an injustice for which all of us will pay.  Conservatives therefore maintain severe and – to many people – unattractive attitudes.  They favor retributive punishment in the criminal law; they uphold traditional marriage and the sacrifices that it requires; they believe in discipline in schools and the value of hard work and military service.  They see welfare provisions as necessary, but also as a potential threat to genuine charity, and a way both of rewarding antisocial conduct and creating a culture of dependency.” 

“Liberals are of course very different.  They see criminals as victims of social hierarchy and unequal power, people who should be cured by kindness and not threatened with punishment.  They wish all privileges to be shared by everyone, the privileges of marriage included.  And if marriage can be reformed so as to remove the cost of it, so much the better.  Welfare provisions are not rewards to those who receive them, but costs to those who give – something that we owe to those less fortunate than ourselves.”

For liberals, “Far preferable to the hard life in which disciplined teaching, costly charity, and responsible attachment are the ruling principles is the life of sentimental display, in which others are encouraged to admire you for virtues you do not possess.  This life of phony compassion is a life of transferred costs.  Liberals who wax lyrical on the sufferings of the poor do not, on the whole, give their time and money to helping those less fortunate than themselves.  On the contrary, they campaign for the state to assume the burden.  The inevitable result of their sentimental approach to suffering is the expansion of the state and the increase of its power both to tax us and to control our lives.”

 Read this essay; read the book – you’ll love them both.