Progressives Were For Religious Freedom Before They Were Against It!

Of course, this comes as no surprise – the flip flopping of Progressive (pRegressive) politicians who will say anything for political expediency. pRegressive politicians and their Praetorian Guard in the mainstream media have their panties in a bunch over the correct Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision. Driven by either agenda or ignorance, they don’t even remember that at one time they were all champions of the same religious freedom they are now against.

The SCOTUS ruling is NOT about contraception. Instead, it affirms a law dating back to 1993 – The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This law, “to protect the free exercise of religion,” according to the U.S. Senate. Specifically, the purpose of the law is “to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is burdened by government.” That is the crux of the Hobby Lobby claim. Congress passed this law almost unanimously.

The RFRA was introduced following an unpopular SCOTUS decision curbing the religious freedom of Native Americans to use peyote. Congressman Charles Schumer introduced the bill in March 1993, a time when liberals were strongly in favor of religious freedom. The bill was cosponsored by many of the same pRegressives screeching the loudest about the SCOTUS decision, including Rosa DeLorio, Luis Gutierrez, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. The Senate passed this bill by a vote of 97-3.

I am sure you will recognize some of the names:

What a difference a new pResident and a new agenda make (despite the fact that the Constitution has remained the same)! Senate Weasel Harry Reid was in favor of religious freedom before he was against it. Voting FOR the RFRA in 1993, he is now indignant that the SCOTUS upheld the same law he voted for. Ditto for Nancy Pelosi, who is fussing about “a gross violation of workers’ religious rights.” What religious rights are being violated (must be the fact that progressivism and intrusive government is a religion to these people)? Are the Hobby Lobby employees members of a religion with a commandment, “Thou shall be provided abortifacients paid for by someone else”? Or is it the employer whose religious rights are being violated – “Thou shalt not kill” – by making him or her purchase these drugs for the employees?

Hillary Clinton also found the Hobby Lobby decision “deeply disturbing.” How ironic that her co-president husband, in November 1993, signed the RFRA into law, and when upheld 20 years later, she finds it “disturbing”. At the signing, then-President Bill Clinton remarked, “We all have a shared desire here to protect perhaps the most precious of all American liberties, religious freedom.” He also noted that “our laws and institutions should not impede or hinder but rather should protect and preserve fundamental religious liberties.” Commenting on the Founders, he observed that they “knew that there needed to be a space of freedom between Government and people of faith that otherwise Government might usurp.”

Protecting “religious freedom” was politically expedient 20 years ago. But now the dumbed down talking point is the “war on women”. It serves its purposes for speeches and fund-raising, especially when you have a captive audience of mindless drones. The RFRA passed almost unanimously, while obamacare barely passed along party lines in the House and was rammed through the Senate using budget procedural methods rather than proper voting procedures.

Don’t expect the Praetorian Guard (media) to acknowledge the flip-flops by our pRegressive politicians – after all it is an election year. The must mindlessly continue the propaganda.

The Progressive Clerisy

I wrote about this issue a while back, and just recently read this excellent article by Joel Kotkin speaking to the same, very real and very disturbing phenomenon which is hurting our country. First, a brief history:

“The very term Clerisy first appeared in 1830 in the work of Samuel Coleridge to described the bearers of society’s highest ideals: the intellectuals, pastors, scientists charged with transmitting their privileged knowledge to the less enlightened orders”.  

We see this phenomenon every day in print, on TV, in entertainment, in the digital media, and on the progressive blogs and certainly with the progressives that frequent B4V. Group think rules their world and if you stray from the orthodoxy, there are consequences. One small, but very revealing example was when one of the progressives over at AllPolytics misunderstood a post by a fellow progressive, he responded in a condescending, corrective tone. A response of which led the original poster to quickly clarify his comments. The subsequent response by the “correcting” commentator was priceless – he said, “you’re forgiven”. I had never seen anything quite like it, but it is a real and disconcerting phenomenon that this country must overcome. Joel provides another great example of this phenomenon including the cancellation of recent commence speeches by Condi Rice and Ayaan Ali Hirsi, to name a few.

The concentration of wealth and power is what fuels the Clerisy, and that also is a very real trend despite the flowery rhetoric of Obama’s endless speeches. Joel mentions that the number of federal workers earning more than $150,000/yr has more than doubled since 2007, and since 1990, the number of government workers has grown from approx. 5 million to approx. 20 million, “a growth rate roughly twice the population as a whole”. And while stock values and real estate holdings continue to increase in value and the portfolios of the rich, the country is realizing an historically low labor participation rate and a record number of people on welfare. And what is the response by the ruling elite to the current plight of the proletariat? Is it to tap into the vast reserves of domestic energy resources and ignite a boom of good paying jobs as seen in North Dakota? Is it to build the Keystone pipeline and create many well paying union jobs dotted throughout the interior of the US, and to keep that oil from going to China? Is it to reform the tax code and repatriate trillions of corporate dollars in an effort to encourage domestic corporate expansion and employment? NO! The ruling class answer to what ails the millions of people still looking for work, or of whom have simply given up is to raise the minimum wage to $10.10/hr. That’s what the progressive elite feel that they are worth, and if you oppose this effort, well then there will be consequences. A recent quote by Obama re: the Bergdahl release pretty much sums up the thinking of the ruling elite:

“It was a unanimous decision among my principals in my government and a view that was shared by my– the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And this is something that I would do again and I will continue to do wherever I have an opportunity,”

This current societal phenomenon won’t be easy to defeat, but it must be defeated if we are to ever get back to sensible healthy debates that move our country forward. And this means that we must do everything we can to defeat Hillary Clinton – she is the Queen of the Clerisy.



The Anticipated Demise of the Democratic Party

Aside from President Obama, the second most dangerous person to the health of our country both economically and socially would without question be Harry Reid. Harry has been on a tear lately explaining how the Koch Bros. are responsible for everything wrong in the world, while at the same time, extolling the virtues of other politically engaged billionaires like Tom Steyer. Harry is quickly becoming a national joke but as conservatives, we should applaud his efforts and urge him to continue. Take for example his recent denial of the Keystone Pipeline despite bi partisan and union support:

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., used a parliamentary maneuver to block a bid by pipeline supporters to include the pipeline measure in an energy efficiency bill moving forward in the Senate.”

Harry will almost single handedly assure GOP victory in November, but let’s not discount past efforts by that mental giant Nancy Pelosi and of course our fearless leader, including but not limited to:

Obamacare – recent findings have discovered that many duplicate enrollees have been counted helping boost enrollment figures, and that only 80% or so of those enrollees have actually made a payment. Even still, the ACA remains as unpopular as ever, and will probably decline in popularity considering events that still have yet to unfold – namely the employer mandate:

“Local business owners might be hoping the Affordable Care Act’s insurance mandates cover sticker shock. The law’s employer coverage mandate doesn’t take effect until 2015, but early plan renewals are starting to roll in. And for some businesses, the premium jumps are positively painful. Local insurance brokers are reporting spikes ranging from 35 percent to 120 percent on policies that renew from July to December.”

Benghazi – despite the left’s very vocal efforts to stop everyone from paying attention to this, last week’s email discovery resulting in this week’s special committee is not good news for the Democrats. The fact is that Benghazi was over run by terrorists, and because of previous attacks earlier in the year on the consulate, and that other ally countries had pulled out of the area, we knew an attack was pending, we failed to protect our people, and then the administration lied about it for political reasons.

IRS – not a good week for Lois Lerner, nor the administration and it will soon become public knowledge that there was a concerted effort to deny conservative groups tax exempt status that goes very far up the chain, and when Obama tried to pin it on “just a few rogue agents in Cincinnati” making “boneheaded decisions” – he was being less than truthful, which seems to be a pattern with this administration.

Add these three major issues to the .1% first quarter GDP growth, the loss of 800K people in the labor pool, the historically low labor participation rate, high gas and food prices, and the foreign policy mess, and it’s easy to see that the demise of the current far left Democratic party is imminent and that is a funeral I look forward to.

As If…

Dear Speaker Boehner:

There is nothing I’d like better than to keep the United States House of Representatives in *conservative* hands.

Regarding that issue, we wholeheartedly agree.

In that spirit, could you kindly resign your tenure as Speaker of the House?

Under your leadership, Obamacare is still the law of the land. Those responsible for allowing four Americans to be murdered in Benghazi are yet to be held accountable. The Constitutional abuses of the IRS scandal, the “Fast & Furious” federal gun-running scandal, and NSA scandals continue to go un-investigated, and Obama continues to be held unaccountable. Under your ‘leadership,’ the Republicans in the House of Representatives have done nothing to hold the Obama administration accountable for their overreach and malfeasance and assaults on our Constitutional liberties. You supposedly practiced brinkmanship when Obama forced a government shutdown, but then acted like you owned it, and ran with your tail between your legs. It’s been “go along to get along” ever since.

And now you want to cave and give special treatment to those scofflaws who ignore our immigration laws.

Your team put up a nice graphic on Facebook today in response to President Obama’s “I have a pen” comment, to which you replied, “We have the Constitution.”

However, as much as you hold up the Constitution and parade it around like a golden calf, you have displayed no real intention of upholding it. As your actions and inaction have clearly demonstrated, to you, the Constitution is nothing more than window-dressing in a photo-op.

Speaker Boehner, you have on many occasions taken a solemn oath and promise to uphold the Constitution.

After taking those solemn oaths, on multiple occasions, you have demonstrated that your promises are as empty as must be your conscience.

If you really believe that the Constitution must be kept in conservative hands, I call upon you to resign your office as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Whether or not your constituency in the 8th District of Ohio continues to re-elect you to as their representative in Congress is their business.

The office you hold as Speaker, however, is *our* business. You have lost the trust and confidence of those of us in the Republican Party.

You have lost the trust of the nation.

Time for you to resign, Mr. Speaker.


Leo Pusateri.Boehner

Sarah Palin Vindicated – There are Death Panels in Obamacare

Tell us something we did not already know!

The Affordable Care Act contains provisions for “death panels,” which decide which critically-ill patients receive care and which won’t, according to Mark Halperin, senior political analyst for Time magazine.

“It’s built into the plan. It’s not like a guess or like a judgment. That’s going to be part of how costs are controlled,” Halperin told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV. 

MALZBERG, HOST: A lot of people said you weren’t going to be able to keep your health care, but also they focused on the death panels, which will be coming, call them what you will, rationing, is part of it…

HALPERIN: No, I agree, and that’s going to be a huge issue, and that’s something else on which the president was not fully forthcoming and straightforward.

MALZBERG: So, you believe there will be rationing, a.k.a. death panels?

HALPERIN: It’s built into the plan. It’s not like a guess or like a judgment. That’s going to be part of how costs are controlled.

Halperin went on to say that he believes the country “can’t afford to spend so much on end-of-life care,” but those judgments need to be made by individuals and insurance companies rather than the federal government.

Did he have a moment of clarity?  ”…rather than the federal government”?

Remember when Sarah Palin was trashed and mercilessly attacked by the left (typical) for revealing the fact of Death Panels?  This is more evidence by the obame administration that obamacare was sold on a pack of lies.  I am still waiting for my annual premiums to be lowered by $2500….

…. I won’t hold my breath.  Wait until the end of the year when corporate health insurance policies will be subject to the minimum federally mandated standards…. The cancellations seen at the end of last year won’t compare to those that will be cancelled this year.

“If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.” “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.”  obame (obay me) knew the lessons learned from Hillarycare.  If people could not keep their insurance and doctors they would reject his plan like they did Hillary’s.  The need to lie was necessary to get it passed…just like the one that said “this is a penalty and not a tax”.

…. but the low information voters on the left (and they still troll this blog) will still be as ignorant as ever (voluntarily) and defend obAMATEUR while still maintaining he did not lie.

UPDATE: Obamacare continues to be the massive failure that we know it is and the pRegressive low information voters continue to deny.

The mindless drones continue to defend obamacare and regurgitate the talking point of millions have signed up.  However, signing up on a dysfunctional web-site and actually getting insurance are two different things.  Many are finding out that after signing up insurance companies through the website (when it doesn’t crash) have no records with the targeted insurance company of such an enrollment.

Now before you pRegressive drones screech about the link, notice that the article is from the Associated Press.  But we all know, you will latch onto that common pathetic tactic rather than address the real point of the post.

White House is Staging A Bloodless Coup!

OK, folks–here’s the deal- I don’t think too many people are realizing this:

1. We currently gather TEN TIMES the amount of revenue required to service our debt, EVERY MONTH.

2. The 14th Amendment states that WE MUST honor and service our debts; meaning that paying and servicing debt MUST COME FIRST.

3. Barack Obama has been threatening that we WILL DEFAULT on our debt if the debt ceiling is not raised in two days.

4. The ONLY way this can happen, is if Barack Obama IGNORES the 14th Amendment and REFUSES to service the debt. This means that Barack Obama MUST OPENLY DEFY the Constitution to bring about what he threatens will happen.

5. Understand also that I believe that Barack Obama FULLY INTENDS to carry out his threat. I believe that Barack Obama MEANS, in direct opposition to the 14th Amendment, to ALLOW the United States to go into default. Like a terrorist with his finger on the button of his suicide vest, he is threatening to DESTROY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES, placing our economy in RUIN, unless Congress meets his every demand.

6. In effect, Barack Obama is staging what amounts to nothing less than a COUP– a complete usurpation of the power of the purse that IS EXCLUSIVELY THE PURVIEW of the duly and locally elected United States House of Representatives.

7. In completely and WILLFULLY ignoring his Constitutional responsibilities with respect to the 14th Amendment, Barack Obama has effectually denounced the primacy of the U.S. Constitution. He is effectively governing by EXECUTIVE FIAT.

In other words, Barack Obama HAS THROWN AWAY THE CONSTITUTION and is in effect GOVERNING AS A DICTATOR!


Democrats Who Are for Action in Syria Don’t Want the pResident Humiliated

Dem Congresswoman: Only Reason I’d Vote for Syria Attack Is Loyalty to Obama

It goes to show that Democrats can’t think for themselves and their actions are a result of partisanship.

HOLMES NORTON: So I think he’ll be in real trouble if he then does it anyway. No president has done that.

PRESS: It’s not an easy decision for any of you, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.

HOLMES NORTON: Oh, and I’d like to say, Bill, that if he gets saved at all, I think it’ll be because, it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage.

PRESS: Yeah, right.

HOLMES NORTON: At the, at the moment, that’s the only reason I would vote for it if I could vote on it.

Wow, she has said it all.  It is a shame that a pResident who claimed to “restore our world image” is an utter failure at that as well.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan

You want to know just how we got ourselves in to this mess?  Where, here’s the level of stupidity in the Obama Administration:

…Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, hoped that a team of UN investigators — many of whom, presumably, have a longstanding relationship with Iranian leaders — could write a report that would convince Iran to abandon its ally at the behest of the United States.

“We worked with the UN to create a group of inspectors and then worked for more than six months to get them access to the country on the logic that perhaps the presence of an investigative team in the country might deter future attacks,” Power said at the Center for American Progress as she made the case for intervening in Syria.

“Or, if not, at a minimum, we thought perhaps a shared evidentiary base could convince Russia or Iran — itself a victim of Saddam Hussein’s monstrous chemical weapons attacks in 1987-1988 — to cast loose a regime that was gassing it’s people,” she said…

So, here goes the “thinking” – if we can just get the Iranians to see that Assad is a bad guy, they’ll get on board with us against him!  Genius, I tell ya!  Just where to heck to we get such idiots?  Well, Tom Elia on his Facebook page details it:

Yale undergrad; journalist; Harvard Law School; Pulitzer Prize winner (non-fiction book); professor, Kennedy School; diplomat.

We get it from the Ruling Class – the privileged elite who are supposedly just oh, so well educated and oh, so much smarter than us knuckle-dragging teabaggers.  That’s where we get it from.  Ms. Powers, a little clue for ya from the dummies:  people who hang people for being gay and stone women to death because they were raped are unlikely to have an attack of conscience over gassing people.  Its just not that likely, ya see?  In fact, people who do that sort of thing might even be in favor of gassing people…I know, shocking; but there it is.  Some people are just like that.


Now anti-war Hollywood chimes in with the most unintelligent reason for not opposing action in Syria:

Ed Asner: “They don’t want to feel Anti-Black”

Wow.  Now I have heard it all.  I am 100% positive if the President was a African-American Republican, Hollywood would have no problem “feeling Anti-Black” in that case.  Again according to the left, if you criticize the pResident you are a racist…. a bigot…. a hater.

UPDATE III, by Mark Noonan:

In between bouts of blaming Bush, I guess someone over at Team Obama realized that Team Bush could at least drum up and sustain support for war – even when things got really rough.  And, so, Team Obama sent some former Bush people to lobby House GOPers:

Top Bush administration officials have mobilized to sway a skeptical Republican party to authorize military intervention in Syria. As National Review Online reported, former national security adviser Stephen Hadley and former undersecretary of defense for policy Eric Edelman this week led a briefing on Capitol Hill for Republican legislative directors and chiefs of staff…

…Their argument: If you hope to have a negotiated settlement with Iran, they only way you are going to get there is if the Iranians actually believe the use of force lies behind America’s efforts to negotiate. Hamstringing the president’s effort to use force against Syria now will “absolutely cripple and destroy” the chance to reach a diplomatic settlement with Iran…

The idea is that if we fail to sustain Obama on Syria, then when he does go to talk to the Iranians about their nuclear program, the Iranians will know in advance that there is no credible threat of US action if Iran refuses to forgo nuclear weapons.  Its a nice theory, but it is based upon a premise that to this moment Iran believes that we’ll do something about their nuclear program.  If they do, then they are too stupid to figure out how to build an atomic bomb…or even a firecracker, for that matter.

Obama’s credibility will not be destroyed by failure to sustain him on Syria – Obama’s credibility has been destroyed for ages.  If the Assad government did use chemical weapons it is because they were convinced that no great punishment would be meted out if they did.  And, they’re right – even if we sustain Obama, he’s just going to lob a few missiles in to Syria.  Twenty or thirty more large explosions added to the scores of large explosions happening there every day.  Not exactly the sort of thing to convince a bloodthirsty dictator fighting for his life that he’s in trouble.  No war in Syria – not now; not while Obama is President.

Time for a Special Prosecutor and a Select Committee

Not, I must stress, because impeachment is on the table – that, my friends, is just about impossible.  To convict President Obama here in 2013 would require the votes of at least 22 Democrat Senators, and that is presuming that all 45 GOP Senators showed some backbone.  Ain’t gonna happen.  But, we still need the Special Prosecutor and the Select Committee.  Here’s why:

As far as the Special Prosecutor goes, because it is appears that quite a lot of law-breaking has been going on in the Obama Administration and we simply cannot trust Attorney General to enforce the law.  Heck, we can’t be certain Holder even knows what a law is (no indications that Obama knows what a law is, either).  When people break laws – and especially when they break laws in positions of public trust – then just must be done.  It is the only way to ensure that the American people have confidence that their government, on the whole, is honestly run.  If rampant criminality is allowed to flourish, then the remaining shreds and tatters of respect for the government will fall – and just about anything can happen, at that point.  Tyrants rise upon the ruins of corrupt governments, my friends – a Special Prosecutor empowered to investigate all of the Obama scandals (especially the IRS, Fast and Furious and voter intimidation issues) will go a long way towards convincing people that crime is punished, even among the powerful.

For the Select Committee, the task is to figure out just how Obama and Co have managed to subvert our government institutions and then to propose legislation to fix the problem.  Clearly, the President has far too much latitude in carrying out the duties of his office and it is time the Imperial Presidency is reigned in and brought firmly back under the rule of law.  Severe criminal penalties must be enacted for even the lowest-level government officials who engage in partisan political activity – this to prevent the bosses from getting the troops to do things, then claiming that it was just low level staffers out of control.  But a 25 year jail term on doing things like the IRS agents did and they’ll pause before following orders.  These days, Congress writes vague laws and leaves it up to the Judiciary and Executive to sort them out – that must stop.  Very specific laws need to be written clearly defining the responsibilities of personnel all up and down the federal chain of command and clearly stating what they may or may not do, especially as regards partisan political activity.  A Select Committee would be able to find out who is doing what, why and how it may be stopped.

Of course, we also need to reign in the power of Congress, and the Courts, as well – but right now it is the Executive (greedy, corrupt and incompetent) which is threatening the liberties of the American people and it must be brought to heel.

And don’t forget, if you really want to know what has happened in the past four years, pick up your copy of 150 Reasons Why Barack Obama is the Worst President in History, today.

UPDATE:  Seems that the White House, getting at a loss, has decided to go with a “we’re idiots” defense regarding Benghazi.  No, you didn’t read that wrong:

“We’re portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots,” said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. “It’s actually closer to us being idiots.”

I still think they are liars, too.

Not All Democrats

This was something that I posted as a comment at the old BlogsforBush shortly after the 2004 election, and back when I was still a registered Republican.  Amazingly, about 90% of it is still relevant after 8-1/2 years, proving that, in politics, some things never change.

This started out as a contest with a Liberal Democrat friend of mine during the 2004 election, to see which one of us could list the most things we disliked about each other’s political party. About that same time I heard a discussion on the radio about racial profiling and the war on terror. The point was made that, while not all Muslims are terrorists, the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims. Political junkie that I am, my first thought was that this same principle applies to Democrats. As the list grew, it reaffirmed the reason I am a Republican. In addition to supporting Republican principles of smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, entrepreneurship and personal responsibility, there are just so many things about the Democrat Party that I find morally repugnant and intellectually dishonest.

1. Not all Democrats compare their political opponents to Hitler and refer to them publicly as fascists, Nazis, digital brown shirts, book burners, Satan, the real terrorists, worse than Sadam, etc., but it is only Democrats who do this. (These are from public comments by prominent Democrats just during the 2004 campaign. I have NEVER heard a Republican use any of these words to describe a Democrat.)

2. Not all Democrats support partial birth abortion, but virtually all supporters of partial birth abortion are Democrats.

3. Not all Democrats are radical environmentalists who believe that man represents the greatest threat to the planet, but nearly all radical environmentalists are Democrats.

4. Not all Democrats oppose private property rights, but the vast majority of those who oppose private property rights are Democrats.

5. Not all Democrats oppose school choice, but the majority of those who do are Democrats.

6. Not all Democrats believe the government can spend our money more wisely than we can, but most of the people who do are Democrats.

7. Not all Democrats support homosexual marriage, but the majority of those who support homosexual marriage are Democrats.

8. Not all Democrats believe that the main purpose of a business is to provide jobs, but nearly all who believe so are Democrats.

9. Not all Democrats believe that our Constitution is a living document that can and should be changed primarily by the courts rather than by the will of the People through the amendment process, but most who believe this way are Democrats.

10. Not all Democrats praise and admire (or, at the very least, apologize for) brutal communist dictators like Fidel Castro, but the only people who do are Democrats.

11. Not all Democrats believe that if we just leave the terrorists alone, they will leave us alone, but the vast majority who believe so are Democrats.

12. Not all Democrats support turning over a substantial portion of our national security to the United Nations, but the only people who support this are Democrats.

13. Not all Democrats believe that by making America weaker we will make America safer, but virtually all who believe so are Democrats.

14. Not all Democrats believe that tax cuts cause deficits, but the majority of people who do are Democrats. (Federal revenue from individual income taxes grew at a nearly 50% faster rate in the five years following Reagan’s tax cuts than it did during the five years following Bush Sr.’s and Clinton’s tax increases in the early 90’s. (source – Statistical Abstract of US) Were it not for 911, the Dot.Com stock market bubble burst, the War on Terror and numerous corporate scandals that originated during the Clinton years, the Bush tax cuts would have likely produced the same result. As it is, most economists agree that the tax cuts, at the very least, dramatically lessened the severity of the recession. A noted Nobel Laureate in Economics recently stated publicly that the only thing wrong with the Bush tax cuts was that they weren’t big enough. (update – summer, 2005 – Federal revenue from individual income taxes increased dramatically)

15. Not all Democrats want to repeal the Second Amendment, but most of those who do are Democrats. If they ever mount a serious attempt at repeal, they will find out why the Founding Fathers included it in the Bill of Rights. (Hint – it doesn’t have anything to do with hunting or target shooting.)

16. Not all Democrats have a static view of the economy, but nearly all who do are Democrats. A static view holds that for every winner of life’s lottery there must, by necessity, be a loser; that the rich got that way only at the expense of the poor. A Dynamic view holds that our economy is ever-expanding, that a rising tide lifts all boats.

17. Not all Democrats believe that there are people in this world who neither desire nor deserve freedom, but virtually the only people who express this belief publicly are Democrats. (Of all the beliefs and positions on this list, I find this to be the most offensive.) This “cultural condescension” as Ronald Reagan termed it, has been soundly rebuked in such major world powers as Germany, Japan and India. In fact, the number of free, democratic governments has quadrupled in the last 30 years, a growth spurt of freedom unequaled in human history. The most absurd question posed by Democrats with regard to the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq is “what will we do if they vote for an Islamic theocracy”? That is like asking what we would do if an innocent person freed from prison voted to go back to prison.

18. Not all Democrats hold the American Military in distain, but the vast majority of those who do are Democrats.

19. Not all Democrats believe that we deserved what happened to us on September 11, 2001, but most of those who believe so are Democrats.

20. Not all Democrats are playing politics with national security, but virtually the only ones doing so are Democrats.

21. Not all Democrats believe people should receive government assistance based on the color of their skin instead of their economic circumstances, but it is almost exclusively Democrats who believe this.

22. Not all Democrats believe the First Amendment applies only to those who agree with them, but it is clearly only Democrats who believe this. During the 2004 election cycle Democrats tried to stop the publishing of the book “Unfit for Command”, then threatened legal action against bookstores that sold it. They also threatened legal action against radio and TV stations that carried the Swift Vet ads, and attempted to get the FCC to stop the Sinclair Television Network airing of the Vietnam documentary “Stolen Honor”. One Kerry campaign staffer, Chad Clanton, even went so far as to threaten Sinclair in public, saying “they better hope we don’t win”. (THIS IS REALLY FRIGHTENING!) On the flip side, anti-Bush books, documentaries and news shows have numbered in the dozens, one even based largely on forged military documents (a felony). There has been no effort (at least publicly) on the part of the Bush campaign to stifle any of these, often vicious, attacks.

23. Not all Democrats believe convicted felons and illegal aliens should be allowed to vote, but it is only Democrats who believe this.

24. Not all Democrats believe public school teachers should not be held accountable for education results, but it is mostly Democrats who believe this.

25. Not all Democrats advocate violence as an acceptable form of public protest, but Democrats have a virtual monopoly on violence as a protest tactic. During the 2004 election cycle local Republican headquarters have been shot at, broken into, ransacked and stormed by union-led mobs. Bush supporters have been assaulted and had their tires slashed. I have not seen one single report of any of these tactics being used by Republicans.

26. Not all Democrats deny the existence of good and evil, but it is mostly Democrats who are apprehensive about defining things in terms of good and evil lest they be perceived as morally judgmental.

27. Not all Democrats are radical feminists, but virtually all radical feminists are Democrats.

28. Not all Democrats confuse patriotism with loyalty, but it is mostly Democrats who seem not to understand the difference. Patriotism is a feeling, a “love or devotion to one’s country.” Loyalty, by definition, is an action word. It is “allegiance to one’s country” or “faithfulness to one’s government.” Many traitors have come and gone calling themselves “patriots.” Few would agree they were being “loyal.”

29. Not all Democrats believe we are under-taxed, but the only people who believe so are Democrats. They often point to the United States as being the lowest taxed of all developed countries as though that was a bad thing. It is the reason our unemployment rate is half and our economic growth rate is double or triple that of most of the European countries Democrats like to cite as examples we should emulate.

30. Not all Democrats support using our military primarily for humanitarian reasons but not when our interests are threatened, however, it is mostly Democrats who believe this way.

31. Not all Democrats are cheaters, but election fraud by Democrats has become so widespread that it’s even inspired a new best-selling book: “If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat”. When was the last time you heard reports of “dead” Republicans voting?

32. Not all Democrats support the exploitation of injured, ill and physically handicapped people for political purposes, but Democrats have refined such exploitation into an art form. Recent exploitations of Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox, Max Cleland and the amputee soldier reciting a litany of lies in the recent TV ad funded by Operation Truth, coupled with the blatant lie that President Bush has banned stem cell research, are simply beyond contempt.

33. Not all Democrats believe that people like Whoopie Goldberg, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, and Michael Moore represent the “heart and soul of America”, but it is only Democrats, including their Presidential nominee (who said so publicly), who believe so.

34. Not all Democrats think that Homeland Security should be held hostage to union collective bargaining demands, but it was only Democrats in Congress who opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security unless it contained a collective bargaining provision. Then they had the nerve to publicly demagogue the President because of his opposition to unionization of DHS.

35. Not all Democrats, when they’re unable to defend their positions, resort to calling their political opponents names, (ie: racist, bigot, homophobe, etc.) but this is a tactic used almost exclusively by Democrats.

36. Not all Democrats believe that America spreads nothing but evil and misery around the world, but it is only Democrats who believe this way.

37. Not all Democrats are oblivious to the Law of Diminishing Returns, but Democrats in particular seem not to understand this important concept as it applies to government spending related to problem solving. (ie: clean air and water)

38. Not all Democrats realize it yet, but their party has become defined, as the noted columnist Victor Davis Hanson so aptly put it, “by pampered New York metropolitan columnists, billionaire heiresses, financial speculators, and a weird assortment of embittered novelists, bored rock stars and out-of-touch Hollywood celebs”.

39. Not all Democrats see the desirable outcome of military conflict as an exit strategy rather than as victory, but it is almost exclusively Democrats who believe this way.

40. Not all Democrats believe the solution to energy independence is through restricting energy consumption and expanding alternative energy sources (don’t even get me started on their hypocrisy with regard to alternative sources) rather than by simply finding more existing sources of energy (or some combination of the three), but it is mostly Democrats who hold this view.

41. Not all Democrats compare Terrorists to our Revolutionary Minutemen and refer to them as “Freedom Fighters”, but it is only Democrats who have made such references publicly. (This comes in a close second to #17 in the offensive category) The real Freedom Fighters are the men and women of the United States Military. I challenge anyone who doubts this to make a side by side list of all the countries Islamic Terrorists have freed from oppression and the number that have been liberated by the US Military.

42. Not all Democrats believe the Boy Scouts is an evil organization, but the individuals in the ACLU who are waging all out war on the Boy Scouts are certainly not Republicans. As a former Eagle Scout, I am repulsed by the ACLU’s attempts to force ideologies on the Boy Scouts in the name of diversity that are inconsistent with their founding principles.

43. Not all Democrats preach tolerance but practice intolerance (of those who disagree with them), but Democrats have become highly skilled at such hypocrisy.

44. Not all Democrats value effort over results, but such a mindset has come to define the modern Democrat Party. I’m not sure if it’s because the Democrat Party is dominated by liberals who are more emotional and effort oriented, or if Democrats would rather just have specific problems as ongoing campaign issues instead of simply solving the problems in the first place. Either way it’s a difficult position to defend.

45. Not all Democrats are anti-Christian (in fact, many are devout Christians), but the anti-Christian vitriol and hostility coming from liberal Democrats is a poison that, if not checked, will lead to a marginalization from which The Democrat Party may not soon recover. One only needs to go online and read the Letters to the Editor page of any major newspaper or news magazine to see the extent of the problem.

46. Not all Democrats value equality over liberty, but I believe one of the main reasons the Democrat Party is in decline (anyone who doubts this must be living under a rock.) is the growing number of Democrats who believe equality trumps every other human condition. This kind of thinking breeds moral relativism, resulting in the elevation of immoral or amoral minorities at the expense of moral majorities.

47. Not all Democrats favor diplomatic negotiations over military victory as the surest road to lasting peace, but diplomacy clearly finds its home in the Democrat Party while history is emphatically on the side of victory.

48. Not all Democrats believe in a dependent society as opposed to an ownership society, but the opposition to President Bush’s proposals for Personal Retirement Accounts, Medical Savings Accounts and Lifetime Savings Accounts is almost exclusively by Democrats.

49. Not all Democrats confuse values with opinions, but the 2004 election proved that a large number of Democrats don’t know the difference. An opinion is what we think about an issue. Values concern what we know to be right, given what we have been taught – – religiously, ethically and morally. One can only hope that peoples’ values inform their opinions. Until a majority of Democrats understand this concept they will continue to lose elections.

50. And last but not least, not all Democrats eventually get fed up with the fact that their party has been hijacked by the lunatic fringe and become Republicans, but there are a lot more ex-Democrats in the Republican Party than the other way around. Kind of says it all, doesn’t it?

If you are a Democrat, do you admit to supporting the beliefs, principles, policies and positions stated here? If not, you are out of step with the leaders of your party. If you do, how do you defend your position without ignoring the facts and the truth? You ultimately risk being tied by interests you cannot or will not admit to arguments you cannot defend.

Discussion with a Liberal — Part 3

Before I continue addressing your points, one more word about truth, because I suspect I’m somewhat unique in the way I approach truth, certainly, I would venture, compared to most people you know. It’s been my experience that the vast majority of people who involve themselves in political or philosophical debate tend to seek out information that supports their point of view and/or refutes their adversary’s point of view. Even I fall into that trap occasionally, as I suspect it’s human nature to not want to admit you’re wrong and someone else is right, which, in fact, dovetails with your original comments about how divided we are. My first reaction, however, is often to see if I can find concrete proof that my opponent is right. A good example of this was last year when you were uber-critical of Glenn Beck’s off-hand comment (which I had not heard first hand) on his radio show that the youth camp in Norway sounded like a Hitler Youth Camp. The first thing I did was find a sound clip, or transcript (don’t remember which) of what he said to see if you were correct. You were — he did say that. He didn’t really expand on it, however, and it appeared that it was just an isolated, reactionary comment, one in which your reaction was certainly understandable, given the circumstances of the mass murder there. Next I tried to find an article that analyzed the comment in an unbiased way, or, better yet, an explanation from Beck on why he would make such a comment in the first place. I never found any evidence of the latter, and the first 5 or 10 pages of a Google search all resulted in variations of or quotes from the same article (quite common when the Leftist blogosphere goes apoplectic over something a Conservative says or does), insinuating that Beck was an idiot and a monster for even making the comment. Eventually I did come across a foreign news service article that said while Beck’s comment may have been crass and insensitive it wasn’t that far off the mark. Now does that justify the mass killing that took place there? Of course not. I think sometimes everyone says things without thinking — I know I have.

Continuing on:

One of the things that has always puzzled me about laws, legislation and the rights granted by the Constitution is why do rights, seemingly granted under the Constitution have to subsequently be “granted” through extra legislation? Voting Rights legislation, Civil Rights legislation, Right of Women to Vote being primary examples of my concern in this area.

I think you need to differentiate between natural rights vs. legislated rights. Natural rights have to do with “unalienable” rights that you’re born with. Religious people often refer to them as “God-given rights”, but even atheists are born with the same “natural” rights, and these are spelled out in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, aptly named “The Bill of Rights”. The Constitution tasks Congress with protecting those rights and prohibits the enactment of any legislation that would infringe on those rights. This is where I fundamentally disagree with Obama. He finds fault with the Constitution because he views it as an expression of “negative liberties”, ie. what the government cannot do to you, but doesn’t spell out what the government must do on your behalf. The main reason our federal government has grown so large and out of control with a corresponding exponential increase in debt, is that the government has increasingly involved itself in aspects of our lives that were never intended. The concept at the crux of the great American experiment — man governing himself, was that the power and scope of the central government needed to be about one notch above anarchy, and that most power would rest as close as possible to the people at the state and local level, and even with the people themselves. I think escaping that paradigm was probably what Obama meant the week before the 2008 election, when he said, “we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” What did you think when you heard that, and were you were excited or apprehensive?

Interestingly, there was no right to “vote” guaranteed in the Constitution, and initially only free men who owned property could vote. That eliminated virtually all women and people of color, until Congress decided that everyone, regardless of gender or color, should be allowed to vote. But Congress didn’t create a new right; it expanded an existing right to include everyone.  The rationale for why it took a constitutional amendment to allow 18-year-olds to vote is also interesting:

It also seems strange to me that rights granted to individuals have now been granted to Corporations… What is that about? Citizens United being a primary example of the latest travesty in this arena.

It seemed strange to me too, until a started researching the decision. From everything I’ve read, the main justification was that Corporations are entities made up of people, just as labor unions are entities made up of people, and yet, in terms of political clout, they were not equal.  Citizens United was, in the end, about leveling the playing field. So, while I understand the rationale behind the decision, I don’t agree with it. My personal feeling is that neither corporations nor unions should be allowed to dump massive amounts of money into political campaigns, and certainly not without majority support of shareholders and union members.

Are these terms spelled out somewhere in the document or an Amendment? And if so, why can’t these be adjusted by the “will of the people” to remain viable in today’s culture of lobbyists and special interests?

As the SC has struck down previous attempts to legislate term limits, it appears it IS going to take a constitutional amendment. The problem with that is that constitutional amendments can only originate in Congress or at a constitutional convention, neither of which appears to be likely to happen any time soon.  And, actually, a Constitutional Convention would be a horrible idea, as it would open up the Constitution for all sorts of radical changes by whichever side gained control of the Convention.  Unless we get to a point where a majority in Congress puts the good of the country over their own personal self-interest, they will never legislate to diminish their own power.

Interesting that you use the word “agnostic” in terms of social issues. I’d only considered it in terms of religious views. Personally, I find the area of abortion a personal one and one that gets legislated strictly on behalf of religious moral views. I may not agree with the concept of abortion personally and, if there is truly separation of church and state then why are religious morals driving this issue? Seems the separation isn’t working as intended.

Agnostic may have been the wrong word. Perhaps “indifferent” would be more descriptive. There has never been a constitutional separation of church and state. The concept originated in a personal letter from Jefferson to, IIRC, a Baptist minister, and has evolved over nearly 2 centuries to mean that everyone has a right to not be exposed to anything religious (except, strangely enough, anything Muslim) in the public arena. I’m not a particularly religious person, at least not in terms of belonging to an organized religion — haven’t attended church regularly in over 30 years, but I’m not offended by public displays of faith, regardless of whose faith it is. The primary dynamic that brought people to this country in the 17th and 18th centuries was religious freedom.

And for gay marriage, just what is the basis for the furor? Who cares? Who would be harmed if this “right” were granted? Why does the right have to be granted at all? Why is the government meddling in the personal lives of its citizens? Again, I blame the religious extremists for continuing to pursue this vendetta. If love is universal and blind, who are these people to denigrate love between people of the same sex when love between a man and a woman is fraught with problems and such a high divorce rate? Heterosexual couples are in no position to speak about what is right for others at all.


We’ve had numerous discussions on the blog about homosexual marriage.  Personally, I’ve resolved myself to the fact it will eventually become as universally accepted as inter-racial marriage has.  I don’t view the two the same, but many people do, particularly people in their 40’s or younger.  Much of that has to do, IMO, with how the issue has been advanced in our educational system, as well as how the media, particularly the entertainment media, has worked hand in hand with the activist component of the homosexual community to ram the homosexual agenda down everyone’s throats at an ever-increasing pace.

The term “gay marriage” has more, I believe, to do with acceptance of the gay lifestyle as normal than it has to do with marriage per se.  Interestingly, most Conservatives I know (myself included) support civil unions for homosexuals that allow for all the legal advantages of normal married heterosexual couples.  What we object to is the hijacking of a many thousands-of-years-old term that denotes the best way to raise succeeding generations, something that, absent outside help, married couples of the same sex are biologically incapable of accomplishing.  Once the definition has been changed, what’s to prevent it from continuing to evolve to accommodate all sorts of variations — 3 men, 2 men and one woman, father and daughter, mother and son, and so on?  All sorts of abnormal relationships could be made normal by simply continuing to re-define the word marriage.

In the end, this is an issue that will be resolved, IMO, not by convincing those opposed to it to change their minds, but by the attrition of those who oppose it.  If it stops with the marriage of two people of the same sex, it may well become a permanent component of our society at large.  If it continues to evolve into marriage between anything and anyone, then I suspect it will eventually go the way of prohibition: a noble experiment with unforeseen and drastic unintended consequences.  Bottom line; I look at it just as I look at most controversial issues: how does it benefit civilization as a whole?  And I don’t think a convincing argument can be made that there is any significant benefit to the advancement of civilization.

Final note: I don’t know if there will be a part 4.  It kind of depends on his next response.