Thursday, August 26, 2010

Obama is the Mosque

One of the reasons that middle America is squarely against the Ground Zero Mosque is because they sense it represents a stealthy step toward a different America than they know or want. America senses that, as an Arab might say, agreeing to this mosque is tantamount to letting the camel’s nose into the tent. It is no coincidence that this hue and cry rises at once with the implosion of the Democratic party. The issues are the same and the American people know it.

Barack Obama is the Mosque and all of America is Ground Zero. Obama has failed to show himself to be as he was labeled; a uniter, a bridge between races, a maker of peace and a solver of problems. For many reasons, he does not belong where he is ensconced. Many Americans believe he has perpetrated a monstrous fraud as he used our good will against our own interests. He has infiltrated himself into our midst by playing on our sense of fairness and ignoring questions about what he is really all about. The media was complicit in hiding the truth, in ignoring a search for the truth about his past, his values, his mentors, his loyalties. The progressives implored us to listen to our hearts and not our heads.

Obama is the Mosque. His purpose is to bring an ideology that reflects injustice, to destroy opportunity, to invoke a failed moral structure, to return to another time and right imagined wrongs. We agreed to let him build his presidency.

He dismissed charges against armed men who brazenly threatened the sanctity of the voting booth with cameras rolling.

He took jobs away from thousands of men and women who were victimized by an accident, then he blamed the accident.

He bribed legislators to ram through the largest tax ever imposed on the American people - against their will - with a program that will surely result in a reduced quality of life for most Americans.

He claimed to want to bring the nation together. Then he prosecuted a sovereign state for trying to maintain its border against criminal trespassers who have been killing, raping, poisoning and robbing innocent Americans, and he threatens to pardon the criminals and leave them in our midst.

All of this because we let him.

Lately, most of us have decided that was a mistake, and if it isn’t too late we will undo it. The Mosque will not be built - it will go away, remembered only as a terrible idea that should never have reached such levels of serious consideration.

In that respect, the Mosque is Obama.

Friday, August 20, 2010

The Undoing

Democrats, or more accurately Liberals and Progressives in the Northeast and a few other financially-ailing locales will probably vote the party line this November, and thus vote against their own best interests.

The Democrat party is about to be so marginalized that it will have left only the power the media gives it, which, though substantial, will not be enough to derail GOP plans. In large part, those plans are being driven by fear - the sheer terror that the GOP senses of what might happen to this country if they don’t deliver what the people are demanding.

Any winning Dems are going to be relegated to minority status - a position they can’t handle emotionally. Their districts will not benefit from having towed the party line. I would hope that the GOP would force the Dems in those districts to finally fail - to run out of money, to run out of ideas and to #MajorFail as leaders and politicians.

Earmarks may end. Pork may become a thing of the past. With a little luck, there will be a conveyor line of investigations. Fannie and Freddie, the DOJ and any number of other targets need to be hit and sunk with extreme prejudice. Dammit, the people are saying, someone needs to go to jail for what they’ve done to us. If any of us committed similar offenses, you can bet we’d have been convicted.

And Obamacare must go away. If that doesn’t happen, and happen fast, there’s a very good chance there will be a violent attempt to replace the administration. Why? Because the fire has been lit. Pat Caddell, the pollster, said this week that the numbers he is seeing and the disdain and disrespect they represent show that this government no longer has the consent of the governed. His word to describe the overwhelming numbers was, “pre-revolutionary.”

A number of Americans, many of whom have very good and healthy imaginations, cannot see how the morass of legislation, taxation, regulation and litigation that plagues our society can be taken from our backs without throwing it off. If the GOP fails to release the pressure of this great offense, it may explode.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

How Gay

No one should be surprised that a Federal Judge in San Francisco has ruled that California’s ban on gay marriage - the ban approved by 7 million California and federal tax-paying citizens - is unconstitutional.

Judge Vaughn Walker cited two reasons the ban was unconstitutional: due process and equal protection.

Let me give you my thoughts on the equal protection argument.

The concept of equal protection is designed to assure citizens that no matter what their station, or race, or physical incapacity, for example, they’ll be treated by the law just the same as everyone else.

But homosexuality isn’t in any of those categories. It’s characterized only by a set of behaviors, and laws mostly regulate behaviors because that’s how you identify and can enforce standards that the community has established. Using laws to regulate behavior usually results in discriminating against a minority of people whose behaviors might offend the majority. Thieves, for example, have behavior that is regulated. You can be a thief and exist in society with all the rights and privileges of a non-thief, as long as you don’t steal. You can even live with another thief and pretend to steal. You just can’t actually steal with society’s blessing because it’s offensive - some might say “immoral”.

No one has yet argued that laws against thieves should be changed because thieves are a class of people who WANT to steal and therefore should not be denied just because the majority don’t want to. It probably wouldn’t fly.

Homosexuals want to be a class of individual who receive protection for their behaviors in the way protection is usually granted to others in a situation of being unrelated to behavior - a handicapped person, for example.

A woman might be discriminated against if she is not permitted to join a public group, say a Men’s Club, just because she is a woman. Being a woman, however, is not characterized by a set of behaviors. it is characterized by physical gender attributes - her sex, not her sexuality. For homosexuals to argue that they deserve the same considerations as women, therefore makes their argument absurd. A homosexual woman could therefore argue that she could be discriminated against both because she is not allowed to join the Men’s Club and because she does not have the right to take a wife. It shows how troubled her thinking really is and how twisted the Judge’s reasoning.

This is not an argument about the rights of homosexuals. It is an argument about the rights of Society and its need to defend against the tyranny of the minority. The score so far is 1 to 1.