How to Lose a War in 7 Simple Steps

One peculiar aspect of American war fighting is our enthusiasm for fighting with self imposed handicaps.

This began in Korea, where we refused to attack certain targets or fight in certain areas, and became standard in Vietnam.  We never lost a battle, but we managed to lose the entire war.  The loss was ultimately political -- we lost the will to win, and the fighting on the ground was dragged out because we severely handicapped our troops ability to win.

We are now recreating the circumstances of the Vietnam war in Afghanistan, and it seems we are bound and determined to lose this war too.

So how do you lose a war against an enemy that is 1/100th your size and mired in the stone age? 

Easy, if you follow the 7 Simple Steps:

1.  Announce that you plan to lose -- the object of war is to defeat the enemy.  To kill them if necessary, but more likely, you convince them that the cost of fighting the war exceeds the benefits.  When you tell the enemy that you plan to leave in a few years, you tell them that all they have to do is wait you out. We have occupied Germany for 70 years with no end in sight.  We occupied Japan for 50 years. What is the point of telling the Afghans that are leaving other than to demoralize our own troops and embolden the enemy?  Why would our troops fight for a place we plan to give back to the savages in a few months?  Why would the savages surrender when they know they only have to endure this pain for a few more months?  Announcing a timetable for withdrawal is announcing that you plan to lose the war.

2.  Cede the Moral High Ground -- we are fighting a just war against people that are trying to kill us and destroy all of Western Civilization.  We do not need to be ashamed of what we are doing.  When we allow the press and the Left to portray the war as nothing more than white man's greed and the deliberate killing of innocents, we have lost the moral high ground.


3.  Defer decisions to the locals -- no offense to the Afghans, but why in the world would we consult with 7th century savages on how we conduct a 21st Century war?  We are fighting over there precisely because the locals were unable to defeat the Taliban in the first place.  Allowing them to plan and run the war is folly.  Like Vietnam, our 'ally' is of dubious loyalty and capability. Letting them plan and run the war effort is like letting a monkey drive a bulldozer.  It ain't gonna end well.

4.  Telegraph your punches --Our Afghan 'allies' in this war have not exactly earned our trust over the past 10 years.  Allowing them to veto night raids, telling them the location of planned patrols, and sharing the location of our ground forces is the same as giving this information directly to the Taliban.  During Vietnam we shared the location of our Green Beret teams with the South Vietnamese, who promptly shared it with the North Vietnamese.  We will come to find out that the exact same thing is happening in Afghanistan, and we are foolishly telling the enemy where to find us.

5.  Give the enemy a safe haven -- War is hell, and it helps to have a place to rest and refit. We lost in Vietnam because we respected borders that the enemy did not.  The Viet Cong routinely used bases in Laos and Cambodia as safe haven from attack, and we lost the war because we would not root the enemy out of these bases.  We are now doing the exact same thing in Afghanistan.  We are respecting a Pakistani border that neither the Afghans nor the Pakistani's respect.  We are allowing the enemy to rest and refit in plain sight in Pakistan, and we will lose this war unless we go after them in these safe haven training camps.

6.  Fight like a bunch of lawyers -- In order to reduce friendly fire and civilian casualties, we are requiring soldiers to get permission to fire from people many levels higher in the chain of command.  Watch some of the video coming out of the war.  It is infuriating to watch Taliban soldiers fighting in plain sight while our troops do nothing but wait for permission to return fire.  These rules of engagement are insane, requiring men bleeding in a muddy ditch to get permission to return fire from lawyers sitting in an air conditioned office a thousand miles.  There are countless examples from Vietnam where these policies got troops killed and helped the enemy win the war.  Why are we not letting the troops fight?

7.  Tell the enemy where to hide -- We have not only placed entire countries off limits, but we placed specific building off limits as well.  We will not strike or attack mosques, as an example.  This is the height of stupidity, as it give then enemy a base of operations that is immune to attack.  Now we have extended that immunity to nearly EVERY BUILDING in Afghanistan(!!!).  Seriously.  We will no longer target buildings for fear of creating civilian casualties. This is a far cry from our attitude in 1945 where we deliberately killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima. We have zero chance of killing the enemy if we allow them safe haven in every building in the country.

When you look at the war as a win-lose proposition, it does not appear that we have the will to win.  We have the technology, the firepower, and the most capable army ever fielded.  We simply lack the will to allow them to win the war.

In fact, the current rules of engagement are so restrictive that we appear to be actively trying to lose the war.

It is criminal to place our troops in harm's way and then prevent them from defending ourselves.

Either win the war, or admit defeat and get the hell out.

Maybe, just Maybe...

Maybe the tide has turned. 

Perhaps in a few years or decades, we will look back and see this as the turning point.

Like the moment the Germans surrendered at Stalingrad as the Japanese carriers disappeared beneath the water off Midway, the failed ouster of Scott Walker may be viewed as the pivotal defeat of the Left. 

The Unions have been working on a grand bargain with politicians for 50 years: The politicians deliver super sized salaries, pensions, benefits, and entitlements, and the Unions deliver votes.

This bargain has made government workers the best paid workers in the land, with the average salary well above the average household income.  The low retirement ages and incredibly rich pensions have allowed cops, firefighters and teachers to retire at 50 years old with 80% of their pay, often more than $100k per year. 

It has also bankrupted virtually every state, county, and city in the land.

Scott Walker, Wisconsin Governor, fought to break that cycle by depriving the Unions of a small sliver of that bargaining power and by forcing the union workers to kick in a small payment towards their retirement.

The Media, the Unions, and the Left reacted with fury.  Democratic representatives fled the state rather than vote.  Protesters disrupted the capital, occupied government buildings, and burned the governor in effigy.

When all that failed, they initiated a recall election.

Well, that recall effort appears to have failed.  And failed big, with a 60-40 split in a very liberal state.

Wisconsin taxes are stable, the budget is under control, and the economy is starting to grow.  If the people of Wisconsin can figure it out how to break the control of the unions, anyone can.

The Unions have lost face, lost power, and they are starting to lose members.  Now that Union membership is no longer a requirement for a government job, Union rolls are down sharply.

Politicians no longer need to fear the power of the Unions.  The people have spoken, and they have spoken loud and clear:  We will not stand by idly while the country drives over a Union created cliff.

Perhaps this is the moment where the rest of the country realizes what we are capable of doing, and standing up in November and throwing Leftist and Statists and RINO Republicans out of office.

Our situation is much like that of the Allies in 1942 -- things look bleak, and we have a lot of fighting left, but we may have just turned the tide. 

Stupid is as Stupid does...

Forrest Gump is one of the greatest movies of all time.  It makes me cry every time I watch it.

It is not only a great film with wonderful acting, state of the arts special effects, and a tear-jerker of a story, it serves as a morality play for the the modern era.

I don't pretend to understand what the motivations of the people involved in the film were, other than to make great art and more a lot of money, of course.  But I do know that they have created a snapshot of the last half century that clearly defines the Left from the Right in this country.

Robin Wright plays Jenny, the abused and neglected child that grows up to be a stripper, drug abuser, free love hippie, and communist that eventually dies of AIDS.  She lies, she degrades herself, she abandons people, and otherwise destroys herself in the pursuit of hedonism.

Tom Hanks plays Forrest Gump, the mentally challenged boy who grows up to be a college sports hero, a warrior that wins the medal of honor, a business man, philanthropist, and loyal and devoted lover and husband.  He defends women's honor, keeps his word, works hard, makes a great fortune, gives it away to those to whom he is in debt, and protects and nurtures the ones he loves.

The contrast between the leading characters could not be more stark, and the lives that they lead  could not be more different.

We are not told about Forrest Gump's politics, but we see where Jenny stands. She hangs out with the abusive leader of the SDS and the Black Panthers, and attends an anti-war rally.

We can presume that Forrest's politics would be opposed to this leftist milieu, but this is presumably confirmed when Forrest becomes the mortal enemy of the commies when he defends Jenny against the SDS hippie who hits her.

So what does this movie tell us?

Does it say that everyone who plays sports, serves their country, works hard, keep promises, starts a business and gives back to the community is a low IQ moron?

Or that the hip and cool people take drugs, have recreational sex, and rage against the machine?

Well, in the end, the results of these lifestyles becomes clear.

The intelligent, hedonistic, self absorbed, anti-Establishment, and anti-capitalistic lifestyle ends badly when Jenny is dying of AIDS and leaving a young son to make it in the world alone. Even during her life she seems empty and unfulfilled, constantly searching and never finding.

The simple life, where honor and courage matters, promises are kept, our country is served, hard work is done, risks are taken, charity is given, and love is eternal results in a young man being loved and raised by his father.  Forrest is simple, but he puts everything into the task at hand, and he never wavers or breaks his promises.

While it is possible to read too much into a film, I think the message is loud and clear.

The self absorbed lifestyle of the Left ends in personal ruin, while a life based on serving others with honor gives better results.

When you view Obama and the modern Left through the lens of Forrest Gump, it becomes very apparent who the stupid ones are in this world.

Forget Sharia, let's use Klingon Law

The United States government has officially lost it's mind.

There is currently a debate over the enforcement of Sharia law in our courts.  Several US courts have overturned bans on enforcing Sharia law in the US, claiming that it create religious discrimination.

Those in favor of the ban on Sharia in US courts make a few interesting points:

• Sharia is antithetical to US law as it does not provide equal protection to women
• Sharia provides for punishments that would be 'cruel and unusual' and therefore unconstitutional

Those against banning sharia claim that banning it would discriminate against Muslims and create a hostile legal environment.

I would like to point out the following: This is an insane conversation!  It misses the most important point: Sharia law is NOT THE LAW.

To wit:

Sharia law has not been passed by a legislature and is therefore not the law.  Period.  It is NON-LAW.

Passing a law that says judges can only use the laws passed by the legislature to interpret the law is, well, redundant.  

What the hell are judges using now if not the laws that have been passed?  Since when does a judge think they have the power to use laws that have not been passed to interpret the law??

Who actually thinks that we should use laws from other places to interpret our laws? 

"Hi, you are under arrest for selling alcohol."

"But, it is legal to sell alcohol here in Illinois"

"Yes, but we are using Arkansas law for this, so you are guilty"

This is absurd.  You are subject only to the laws of the jurisdiction that you are in, not the laws of some other land.

It is literally insane that we are having this discussion.

If I walked into a courtroom and demanded that the case be tried under Klingon law as laid out in the Star Trek series, they would laugh me out of court.

Why?  Because Klingon law is NOT THE LAW.  It is non-law.

So why in the heck are we even talking about enforcing other non-laws in our courts of law?

It is not relevant to the discussion that Sharia is a hateful 7th century mysticism that is mired in bigotry and misogyny.  What matters is that it is NOT the law.  Even if Sharia law was all sunshine, ponies and flowers, it would still be non-law.

How have we so badly lost our bearings that courts are rendering decisions that allow the use of non-laws to be used to interpret the law?

How Dumb can Catholics be?

In the wake of Obama's demands that Catholic institutions provide free contraceptives and abortions, the Catholic Church has started to fight back.... by surrendering.

Oh, sure, the Catholic Church is making some noise.  They are claiming that they are going to fight back. They have filed lawsuits.  But when it comes time to make hard choices, the idiots running these places decide to surrender without a whimper.

The Franciscan University of Steubenville, a small Catholic college in Ohio has been providing insurance to its students and faculty for many years.  It is now dropping that coverage due to the Obama regime's requirements and the increased cost due to other mandated coverages.

This is exactly the wrong response.




This is what Obama and the Left want to happen.  Now all these students will have no coverage or have to run to the open arms of the Federal Government.

Stupid, retarded, moronic, cowardly Catholic leadership.

The correct response to to ignore the Unconstitutional mandates and carry on as before.

Tell the Feds to screw.  Dare them to arrest you for the crime of freely exercising your religion.

When they send you letters throw them in the trash.  When the show up with guns force them to arrest you and close the place down.  Do not surrender.  

Make it very clear who the bad guys are, and who is using force.

By dropping health coverage you not only push more people into dependency, you allow the Left to paint you as uncaring and greedy.

"See? The Church does not care about women.  It will kick you to the curb rather than pay a few extra dollars to protect your health.  Only the Democrats really care about you, and we will give you lots of free goodies if you vote for us".

I was worried that the Catholic laity did not possess the faith and fortitude to resist the temptation of filthy lucre from the devil of statism.  Now we see that the  leadership is even weaker and more craven than the people themselves.

If this is the best that the Catholics can do, we are doomed.

Worst. President. Ever.

As we draw closer to the end of Obama's first term I think we can officially call it: Worst. President. Ever.

There are a few ways to measure his 'success':

• Economy -- His performance in this area is rivaled only by that of Hoover and FDR.  The damage done by FDR is huge, but we have survived 80 years or so since he left office.  I doubt we will last 80 years with the debt that Obama has run up, and the wholesale nationalization of industries.  The subsidization of 'green' companies has destroyed billions in wealth and created huge future liabilities.  The denial of the Keystone pipeline alone will cause billions in economic damage and almost guarantee a future environmental disaster as the oil is shipped to China.

• Foreign Policy -- the legacy of Obama will be the 'Arab Spring' that he so actively promoted. IT has turned out to be nothing more than Islamo-fascists rising to power all over the Mideast.  We are helping replace moderately bad regimes with evil Islamic theocracies that will engulf the region in the flames of war within the next 18 months. Our Allies have been snubbed and our enemies have been coddled while Obama bows down before the Saudi King. The has promised to unilaterally disarm, and to 'be more flexible' with the Russians after he is no longer accountable to the voters.



Forward!

• Legal and Civil Society -- Obama has destroyed the Rule of Law.  When Black Panthers walk because they are black, and George Zimmerman is charged because he is 'white', we have lost the rule of law.  When Arizona is sued by the DoJ of enforcing Federal Laws, and when Obama ignores court orders, overrides bankruptcy laws, install unelected officials as 'czars', and appoints officials without Senate approval, we have lost the rule of law.  When Obama makes overt threats against the other branches of government, when Congress 'deems' laws to have been passed instead of voting on them, and when the President ignores the will of Congress and funds foreign powers and projects, we have lost the rule of law.  He has fanned the flames of racial tensions and will be largely responsible when these fevers erupt in rioting and racial violence. His brand of proto-socialist class warfare is dividing the country along economic lines as much as he is dividing us along racial lines. His support of the Occupy Wall Street thugs and low lifes says a lot about where his sympathies lie.

Each of these areas has been an unmitigated disaster for the United States.  Obama and his team have proven themselves unprepared (at best), incompetent (very likely) or actively opposed to American ideals (increasingly likely).

 

We will know very soon what the future impact of the Obama administration will be. The damage to our economy, our allies. our civil society are huge and will be manifest in short order. The CBO is now predicting that we will 'hit a wall' in 2015. In other words, the United States of America will cease to exist in 36 months due to the mismanagement of Obamanomics alone. The CBO makes no comment on the coming race wars and Islamic revolution.

 

Obama:  Worst. President. Ever.

 

 

 

Global Warming Theology

The Global Warming people have finally just come out and admitted that what they preach is not science, but religion.

As a religion, it has it's holy writ, it's ceremonies, and it's sacrifices.  It also has a message for all you heathens out there:


The angry, birth-giving God, judging human sin against the planet is the theological reflection we Christian theologians need to provide for Earth Day 2012, and from now on. Our message to the whole society must be strong and direct so that people can grasp the extent to which climate catastrophe is already starting, and we must act.

God is judging our sin against the planet, and She is very, very angry about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/a-new-earth-day-theology/2012/04/22/gIQAvxLmZT_blog.html

May Day, and the rise of Laziness

The Socialists and Anarchists from the Occupy movement are trying to create a general strike on May 1. 

So far it looks like a huge non-event.  But they are trying really hard to advertise this.  Here are some examples of ads they are using to entice people to protest.
 
 “Work, it takes so much from us. Other than headaches and hassles, it gives back so little”

“We are forced to sell our bodies and our time to survive. Every day we work, and everyday you squeeze your profit from our labor”

It is truly amazing how ignorant some people can be.

Apparently they subscribe to Rousseau's world view where noble savages idled their days away in the garden of Eden. It has not occurred to them that mere survival is damn hard work.

Not one of these hot house flowers would last a week if the had to exist outside the comfort and protection of the  modern industrial society they hate so much.

The amount of work required to live has dropped precipitously since the industrial revolution. 40 hour work week too much for you? Try working 80-100 hours a week to survive on a pre-industrial farm.

If you think the 'evil bosses' are exploiting you with their factories and capital-driven businesses, try living without them. Go live for a month without anything produced for you by a corporation or gained through free trade.  Then we shall see who needs whom.

One final rant: no one is forcing them to do anything. There is no such thing as 'wage slavery'. Shut the hell up and leave us alone. Seriously, there are many places on the globe where you will not be exploited by 'wage slavery'. Go there, please, give it a try.  

But be sure to bring a gun so that you can avoid the actual slavery that is so prevalent in those areas of the world.  And make sure your shots are up to date...

Not-So-Green Green Jobs

When people are employed to clean up HazMat sites left in the wake of another Obama debacle, do these count as ‘green jobs’??

The Obama administration funded Solyndra to the tune of $500MM in taxpayer funds.  It promptly went belly up, leaving behind a giant mess and a half a billion dollar hole in our pockets.

The also left behind a huge HazMat site:

MILPITAS (CBS 5) — Three months ago, CBS 5 caught Solyndra tossing millions of dollars worth of brand new glass tubes used to make solar panels. Now the bankrupt solar firm, once touted as a symbol of green technology, may be trying to abandon toxic waste. . . .

CBS 5 found the building locked up, with no one around. At the back, a hazardous storage area was found. There were discarded buckets half filled with liquids and barrels labeled “hazardous waste.”
The building’s owner, a company called iStar, claimed in court documents, “there may be serious environmental, health and safety issues” at the premises. According to the documents, they include, “numerous containers of solvents and chemicals. . . and processing equipment contaminated with lead.”

 
This exposes a few things that the Left would rather not let you see:

Green Technology Ain't So Green:  The Left likes to tout solar and wind as the 'energy of future' that does little or no damage to the environment.  We already know that wind power is useless because power companies cannot rely upon it and have to keep an equivalent amount of carbon-based generation running at all times to make up for the variability of output.  Plus the blades of the wind turbines mince up a few hundred thousand birds every year, including raptors on the endangered species list.  This is a net-negative to the environment no matter how you slice it.... (what, too soon?)

Solar panels are supposed to be benign, passive devices that reduce our impact on the planet. Now we see that the processes used to manufacture them are soaked in hazardous chemicals. So much for being green.

Green Jobs Are a Myth:  We 'invested' $500MM in Solyndra which went bankrupt less than 2 years later.  It created a few thousand 'green jobs' for a few months before the fraudulent business model doomed the enterprise.  It would have been cheaper just have given each employee a few hundred thousand and told them to take the year off.  We would be $250MM ahead, and without a giant mess to clean up.

Government can Invest Wisely: It should be obvious by now that private investors jump on all the 'good' ideas early.  Many of these ventures go broke anyway.   By the time Solyndra came begging at the public trough they had already been turned down by every private venture fund and every bank.   There was a reason that no one would fund it: It was a bad idea.  The business model for Solyndra was broken, new technology had superseded it.  It was doomed to fail and no rational investor would touch it.   But that did not stop the Obama administration from pouring a half billion down that sewer.  It is easy to bet wrongly when you are betting other people's money. 

Political investment with other people's money will NEVER work. 


Green People Ain't So Green:  The executives Solyndra were on a crusade to free mankind from the shackles of carbon based energy.  They would sacrifice everything and stop at nothing to make the planet a little greener.  Unless, of course, they were going to lose some money. Then they don't have quite as much environmental fervor. 

Team Obama set up the loans so that the equity investors got paid back first (unheard of in non-fraudulent loans, by the way).  Now that the 'green investors' might have to pay to clean up the HazMat mess they left behind, they run away screaming like selfish children that they should not be held accountable.

It seems their devotion to the planet is closely aligned with their personal financial interests. If they can be 'green' in a get rich quick scheme, they are all in.  But the moment that they might lose money, they run for the exits, leaving the taxpayers to foot the bill.

Obama Bans Free Speech, No One Notices

President Obama recently signed into law a measure that effectively ends First Amendment protections for political speech.  The law says that it is now a felony to protest in the vicinity of anyone that is under Secret Service protection.

Given that the Secret Service protects a number of people, and that the President has the authority to grant protection to anyone at any time, this is a major limitation to free speech. 

The fact that this is a felony charge is outrageous.  

A felony conviction means:

• You can never vote again for the rest of your life
• You can never own a gun again for the rest of your life
• You will have a felony on your record whenever you apply for a job
• You will have 'one strike' down in states that have Three Strikes laws, potentially sending you to prison for the rest of your life.
• Professional licenses such as lawyer, doctor, plumber, hairdresser can all be revoke due to felony convictions

In effect, your life is completely shattered by a felony conviction.

All because you happened to say something when the Secret Police Service are nearby.

This law has enormous potential for abuse. 

The enforcement of the law is at the discretion of the protectee.  This means that the President can order the arrest of his enemies, while tolerating the protests of his pals. 

When Joe Biden was booed at a parade last summer it was shrugged off as a sign of the general discontent of the people.  Today, the Secret Service can sweep into the crowd and arrest people for the thought-crime of booing the person that is under their protection.

When Michelle Obama got booed at a baseball game recently it was embarrassing for the First Lady.  Now she has the power to order the mass arrests of everyone in the stadium.

This is no different than the secret police in North Korea arresting people for the crime of not crying hard enough when the Dear Leader passed away.

I used to be optimistic that the Supreme Court would strike down nonsense like this. But the court has been very unreliable on matters of free speech.

The way the laws are interpreted currently, strippers and degenerate artists dunking things in urine enjoy unlimited First Amendment protections, but people taking out political ads and holding political protests are subject to arrest at any time.

We are standing by and watching the dismantling of America, the stripping of our Liberties, and the end of our way of life.

Lovelock Lied, People Died

Global Warming's leading 'scientist' has finally come clean -- he was lying the entire time.

From MSNBC:
James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.
 http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite:

He goes on to admit that he has no idea what is really going on with the climate:

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“All right, I made a mistake.”

So here we have one of the leading experts in Climate Change admitting that he was wrong, and that his claims are wildly overblown.  He also names names, pointing out that Al Gore and other's claims are grossly exaggerated and false.

Can we put a fork in this topic yet?

Seriously. 

Apparently not:
This self-evident truth is not enough to stop the true believers in Climate Change.  Just today President Obama announced that he wants to spend $700MM to combat Global Warming in Africa.

This would be insanity if we had the $700MM laying around with nothing better to so with it.  In a time when when are running trillion dollar deficits, it is beyond insane, it is tantamount to treason.

When we are taking resources out of the private economy and squandering it on global warming studies and other crap, and when we are create carbon taxes and dump cash into solar companies that go bankrupt within weeks of being funded, we are destroying the economy and making us all poorer.

When money diverted into cars that won't drive and wind turbines that won't spin, we lose the chance to invest in lifesaving drugs, or to buy a better air conditioning unit, or save for the future.

When that happens people die.  Life expectancy is correlated to wealth, and when you destroy wealth people die younger.

Since the Left likes stupid chants, perhaps they can shout this one when then gather for their next inane protest:

Lovelock Lied, People Died

Republicans are Better People, and Smarter, too.

As if it was not enough that studies show Republicans are better human being than Democrats, now we know Republicans are better informed as well.

From the Daily Caller:

Yet another new survey shows that Republican supporters know more about politics and political history than Democrats.

On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points, according to a new Pew survey “Partisan Differences in Knowledge.”
The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.

“Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge,” said the study, which noted that Democrats outscored Republicans on five questions by an average of 4.6 percent.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/science-say-gop-voters-better-informed-open-minded/#ixzz1spOMgOdP


There have been many studies in the past that have shown Republicans are better, more compassionate, more civic minded people than the Democrats.

Republicans vote more often, contribute more to charity, contribute more to charity even if you exclude donations to religious organizations, donate blood more often, coach little league more often, and beat their wives less often.   OK, so, I made that last one up, but the point is that in every dimension that defines actual compassion and humanity, Republicans trounce Democrats.

It comes as no surprise that that Republicans are better informed.  We have the facts, truth, logic, and history on our side.  They have emotion, greed, and envy on their side.

Since the cannot win a debate or even prevail in a friendly conversation without any facts or logic, their only recourse is to call you names, shout you down, or refuse to talk to you: 

A Republican tries to speak on a college campus: Shout them down, ban them, or throw pies at them.

A Republican proposes a reasonable budget (something Democrats have failed to do for three years: call him a racist, create ads showing him pushing old women off cliffs, and denounce him as a zealot.

A Republican points out that Obama has not been a very effective President based on the economy, foreign policy, and the deficit: call him a racist, accuse him of using racial code words to hide his racism, and call him a racist.

Time to face the facts, Democrats: Republicans are better people, and smarter, too.

LIberal's Idea of Helping: Get someone else to help

Tipper Gore is a typical rich Liberal.  She cruises around in limos, lives in mansions, and feels morally superior to the rest of us.

Gore, like many Liberals, adopts pet causes and makes an ostentatious display of 'caring' and helping all while personally doing very little other than showing up at parties and testifying before Congress.

This behavior is the exact opposite of true charity and reveals the spiritual and moral depravity of the Left.

From the Post Gazette:
Gore, who is the wife of former Vice President Al Gore, started work as an advocate for the homeless in the mid-1980s, after her children -- who were in grade school at the time -- asked her about a homeless woman they saw on the street.

They wondered how they could help the woman and asked why she had no home. Eventually, Gore decided to take action.

"In their childhood innocence, they were absolutely right," she said. "There's a moral imperative for all of us to end homelessness."

Gore herself bragged in speeches that her daughters caught sight of a homeless woman from their limo one day, and demanded that they stop and help.  Tipper, presumably horrified at the thought of bringing a filthy stinking alcoholic inside their little bubble, suggested an alternative. 

She had the girls write letters to Congress about the plight of the homeless and demanded that something be done.   That's right.  She can't be bothered to slow down and offer the woman some Grey Poupon, but she can demand Congress take action!

Note the word 'eventually'. This means she left that woman to die in the gutter, and when it was convenient, she decided to take decisive action and write some beautifully crafted letters on her very expensive personally engraved stationary. 



Charity begins in other people's wallets!!!  -- Tipper Gore*

Sure enough, Congress responded by increased funding for the homeless, and Tipper Gore set up a foundation to receive these grants and begin the arduous task of aiding these poor creatures. 

With other people's time and money, of course.

This is the definition of Liberal compassion: speed past the homeless laying in the gutter, but demand that taxpayers pony up some of their hard earned cash so you can grab some headlines as the 'defender of the homeless'.

Real charity would have looked very different.  Real charity would have been to stop the limo and save that woman at your own expenses and in your own home.  And to never speak a word about it in public.

Instead, Gore confuses compulsion for charity, and fawning headlines for good deeds.  She thinks that by forcing you, the taxpayer, to give your money to the homeless that she is the paragon of virtue.

The opposite is true.  She is a selfish, immoral harpy who lives off of self-promotion and stealing credit from other people.

In other words, she is a Democrat.





*Note from our attorney: Not an actual quote.

A Night to Regulate

Chris Berg claims that a failure of regulations sank the Titanic. (The Real Reason for the Tragedy of the Titanic, Friday April 13)

This is narrowly true, but it misses the real point and allows us to draw the wrong conclusions.

The disaster was caused not because the regulations were too lax, but because the regulations existed at all.

What happens in the real world is that the regulatory 'minimums' become the maximums as well. When the designers of the Titanic were determining the number of life boats the conversation centered on what was required, not what was prudent or safe.

The presence of the regulations relieved the builders and designers of the burden of reason and thought. They did not build the ship to be safe, only to comply with the safety regulations.

Thus a a great tragedy was born. 1,500 people perished in the cold dark waters of the North Atlantic, but the myth of 'safety regulations' lives on.

Regulations are pure evil.  They do nothing to increase actual safety.  And many regulations are shown to decrease safety.  CAFE standards for vehicle mileage lowering vehicle mass and increasing death is the classic example.

Regulations are the slow gentle path to tyranny.  The people become accustomed to government officials hold power over every aspect of their lives.

It is hard to reconcile the idea that we are a free people when you look at the hundreds of thousands of pages of Federal, State, and local regulations that govern every aspect of our lives.

From the mundane to the inane, regulations have been slowly destroying our liberties for over a century.  

Here it comes!

Several months ago I told you that Romney was unelectable, and that the Democrats would use his Mormon faith against him.

Well, here it comes....

Senator: '[Obama] Going to Throw the Mormon Church at [Romney] Like You Can’t Believe It'
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-obama-going-throw-mormon-church-romney-you-can-t-believe-it_635549.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I hate being right all the time.

Destruction of the Country, Obama Style

There have been rivers of cyber ink spilled discussing Obama's apparent campaign to destroy the country. Most of it has really been a discussion of opposing philosophies. Socialism against Capitalism. Progressivism opposed to Conservatism.

It has been easy to view many of the things he has done as destructive, even anti-American.

• Race baiting
• Class warfare
• Disrespect for he rule of law
• Ruinous deficit spending
• Coddling of terrorist and terrorism

But there has been little evidence of a naked assault on the core values of the country.

Until now.

He is launching a direct assault on the separation of powers and the very foundations our Republic.

The Supreme Court is poised to undo the crowning achievement of his administration: Obamacare. Rather than accept the fact the Constitution does not permit the Federal government to wield such powers, he and is allies in the media and the congress have launched an unprecedented assault on the court.

           PRESIDENT OBAMA: So there is not only an economic element and a legal element to this, but there is a human element to this, and I hope that is not forgotten in this political debate. Ultimately, I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a Democratically-elected Congress. I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow return or overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Here’s a pretty good example. Well, I am confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step. As I said, we are confident this will be over, this will be upheld. As I said, we are confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. Again, that’s not just my opinion. That’s the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they’re not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency.

  

Said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), a former attorney general of Connecticut. “The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the court risks grave damage if it strikes down a statute of this magnitude and importance, and stretches so dramatically and drastically to do it.”

The Cover of Newsweek: Will the Supreme Court Bertay Us?

 

This is disgusting behavior from Obama and his allies. They routinely applaud when the courts overturn laws they do not like. If he really believes this he is profoundly ignorant of the Constitution. Since he supposedly taught Constitutional Law at Columbia, ignorance of the content of the document he is sworn to uphold is unlikely.

Which leave the obvious: he knows full well what the Constitution provides, but he does not like the limitation on his power. And therefore he aims to destroy the Supreme Court.

He and his allies are waging a war with two objectives:

• Intimidate the court into keeping the law on the books
• Create a campaign narrative that somehow the will of the people has been usurped by a small group of 1 percenters.

It is understandable that he would want to keep the law from being overturned, and he wants to get reelected. To do this by diminishing the authority and the position of one of the other branches of government is in excusable.

Worst Demagogue Ever

President Obama is surely the worst demagogue we have had as a President.  Ever.

He seems incapable of normal speech and reasoning.  Everything out of his mouth is warped and twisted to the point of being the opposite of the truth.

For example:
Via Beltway Confidential:

Obama said that Republicans have “one message and that is, we’re going to make sure that we cut people’s taxes even more — so that by every objective measure our deficit is worse and we will slash government investments that have made this country great,” he argued, “not because it’s going to balance the budget, but because it’s driven by our ideological vision about how government should be. That’s their agenda, pure and simple.”


Government investments have made this country great? 

Silly me.  All along I thought it was Freedom and Capitalism that made this country great.

But before we discuss that, let's look at his other points:


"one message and that is, we’re going to make sure that we cut people’s taxes even more"

The Ryan budget includes tax cuts.  But it also includes spending cuts.  Not enough spending cuts, mind you, but they are there.  To claim that Republicans have one message is a lie.


"so that by every objective measure our deficit is worse"

The Reagan tax cuts produced record receipts to the Federal Treasury.  The Clinton tax cuts produce a surplus.  Tax revenues are at historical averages.  20% of GDP or so.  It is spending that has risen out of control at 27% of GDP. To claim that tax cuts increase the deficit 'by every objective measure' is a lie.


"will slash government investments that have made this country great"

The only 'investments' the government has made that can be argued as increasing our greatness are roads, bridges, and dams.  These actually do add value, even if they are not exactly Constitutional. The Republicans have not proposed cuts to the highway program. Even if they did, the highway bill is such a small fraction of the budget that it would not make our deficit materially worse.  To claim that Republicans will "slash government investments that have made this country great" is a double lie.

Obama has proposed a budget that was such a farce it was voted down 414 to 0.  That's right.  Not a singly Representative voted in favor of his budget.   Not ONE.  Not even the looniest Democrat in the House would go on record as supporting Obama's budget.

The Democrat controlled Senate has not proposed or passed a budget in over three years.

So Republicans produce a plan while the Democrats do not.  Ryan proposes budget that gains support from his own party at least.  Obama proposes such a ridiculous budget that NO ONE votes for it. 

Who are the ideologues, Mr. Obama?  Who is agenda driven, pure and simple?

Worst.  President. Ever.

Obama the Dictator

President Obama just released an updated executive order giving himself unlimited powers during an emergency. 

He also gave himself unlimited powers during a non-emergency.

Obama, President for Life

Here is the link if you want to read the full order:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness


A rehash of previously earlier orders, the new order lays out the powers granted to the cabinet Secretaries to plan and manage every aspect of the US economy.  Most of the language refers to national defense and threats to national security.

But here is the phrase that pays:

The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.


So he has granted the power to control the entire economy to himself under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.  In other words, all the time.

Previous versions referred only to threats to national security.  This is more explicit about the powers being available all the time.


Interpreted benignly, this act gives the executive branch the power to centrally manage the econony in the event of a war.

Interpreted realistically, it gives Obama the power to do anything he wants in the run up to this election to improve his elections chances.  Gas prices too high?  Order the prices to be lowered.  Unemployment too high? Order every company to hire 10% more people.  The powers granted here are unlimited.

Interpreted darkly, Obama has no intention of giving up the Presidency, and will simply nationalize the economy and cancel the election in order to remain in power.

Unless Congress reviews this order and removed the non-emergency language, we are now subject to the full dictatorial powers of the President and his cabinet.

Iran Helps Obama Get Relected?

Iran in is in the process of helping Obama get re-elected, and Obama is trying to manage world events to make sure that this come to pass.

At the moment, the Middle East is set to explode. 

Most of the governments are in the hands of radical Islamists.  They are unstable, aggressive, and aligned against American and Israel.

When this tinderbox explodes it will send oil prices through the roof, crashing the US economy, create an international crisis and potentially, a world war.  This will be a huge factor in the upcoming election, and it will either help or hurt Obama depending on how it all gets started. 

If Obama looks inept, indecisive, or weak, he is finished.  If he fails to support Israel or if Israel suffers huge losses, the Jewish vote will abandon him, and he is finished.  If he initiates aggressive military action he will anger the Occupy part of his base, and he is finished. If an oil shock sinks the economy he is finished.

He needs to look strong and decisive.  He needs Americans to unite behind a war-time President.  He needs the oil shock and the war to be someone else's fault, and he needs someone else to start the war. 

Most of the scenarios play out with Obama getting booted out of office.  Only one plays out in his favor:

Obama launches pre-emptive strike:  Obama authorizes a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.  The Iranians try to close the Straight of Hormuz, and oil prices skyrocket.  The anti-nuke strike is only partially successful, requiring additional hostilities to destroy more facilities and keep shipping lanes open.  Russia gets antsy, threatening war.  Iran attempts to widen the war by attacking Israel.  Pro-Islamist goverments throughout the Middle East attack Americans or stage massive demonstrations. The UN announces sanctions against the US.  The American people support the strike, but are dismayed by world reactions and $15 per gallon gasoline.  Obama loses in November.

Israel Launches a Pre-Emptive strike:  Israel launches a pre-emptive strike.  US forces detect the strike, but to not interfere or assist.   The Iranians attempt to close the Straight of Hormuz, and oil prices skyrocket.  The strike is only partially successful, requiring additional hostilities to destroy more facilities and keep shipping lanes open.  Iran attempts to widen the war by attacking the US forces in the gulf.  Pro-Islamist goverments thoughout the Middle East attack Israel or stage massive demonstrations. Russia gets antsy, threatening war.  The UN announces sanctions against the Israel and Obama must choose to veto and support Israel, or pass the measure and alienate the Arab world.  The American people support the strike, but are dismayed by world reactions and $15 per gallon gasoline.  The American Jews are angry at Obama, the economy collapses, Obama looks weak, and he loses in November.



The Iranian - Israeli conflcit is about to become important to Obama

Iran attacks Israel or closes the Gulf:  The Iranians make good on their threats and attack Israel.  The Iranians close the Straight of Hormuz, and oil prices skyrocket.  US forces retaliate, clearing the shipping lanes and defending peace.  Hostilities continue.   Pro-Islamist goverments thoughout the Middle East attack the US or Israel or stage massive demonstrations. The UN announces sanctions against the Iran and praises Obama for defending the world. The American people are dismayed by $15 per gallon gasoline but blame the Iranians, not Obama.  The American Jews are delighted with Obama, the economy is bad but people view it with war time stoicism, Obama looks strong and he wins in a landslide in November.

Since Obama will never attack first, the only two scenarios in play are Iranian or Israeli aggression. It is imperative to Obama, therefore, that Israel be prevented from striking first. 

As you watch this develop over the next few months, watch how Obama makes it clear to Israel that we are not their friend and that we will not support them in the event of a first strike.  In fact, I predict that the US will leak intelligence that we have detected Israeli preparations and training for such a strike in an effort to dissuade the Israelis. 

Obama is not stupid.  He knows that if Israel attacks he is screwed.  Obama will betray and sabotage the Israelis at any cost.

Also watch for demonstrations of weakness or appeasement to the mullahs in Iran.  He needs them to think that we will not be aggressive in response to an attack.   We can expect Obama to do everything he can to invite a strike by Iran.

UN out of the US!

The UN is charged with ending war, supporting human rights, enforcing treaties, and promoting social progress.  It is hard to do that when you were educated at Patrice Lumumba University and live in the Bronx.  Their appointed ambassadors never do anything, and they constantly work against the United State and support our enemies.  The United Nations is a bloated, anti-American, anti-freedom mess.

The UN staffers are burdened by working in the best place in the world trying to grasp the issues that affect the worst places in the world. This is too difficult.  They need to be closer to the problems they are trying to solve.  Otherwise, they see the US as the problem, an work against our interests.

It attracts thousands of eager bureaucrats from the myriad Third World hell holes to work and live in New York.  Naturally, they never want to leave.  They get very used to the levels of luxury that only a free capitalist country can provide. 

New York provides a standard of living that is unattainable back in their socialist, tribal homeland, so naturally they go to work each day with the intention of destroying the United States.

I think the people at the UN have lost their perspective and their sense of urgency.

I have a solution:  Move them out of New York

UN headquarters should be moved from the best place in the world to the worst place in the world.  I nominate Zaire, but, really, any country in the bottom of the Heritage Foundations rankings would be just fine.

Spend a few hundred million building the roads, power grid, and other infrastructure required to house the UN.  Make the staffers live in the hellish conditions where there is no rule of law or basic sanitation. Let them live much closer to the real problems in the world.

Once you build the buildings, bars and restaurants, dry cleaners, taxis, and other services will quickly follow.  It will create a pool of capitalism in a despotic swamp. 

It should not take the UN staffers too long to grasp the fact that liberty, property rights, and the rule of law are the basic building blocks of prosperity.

It will be instructive to see how quickly things get cleaned up in the new host country.  A new found appreciation for the rule of law might do the UN some good, and it will certainly do Zaire some good.

Watch as bureaucrats suddenly decide that 20 years at the UN is enough, and that they should return home to help build their own countries.  This is a win for the member countries, who now see their brightest students disappear into the maw of the UN, never to return.

The UN would remain headquartered in the new host country for 10 years.  Then the General Assembly would move to the next country on the list.

Repeating this over the next 50 years will do more good for the world than the UN has done in the last 50 years.

Wrong Answer, Rick!

Rick Santorum demonstrated over the weekend why he will lose in a general election against Obama.

In response to questions on Face the Nation he announced his opposition to amniocentesis:

GOP presidential candidate and former senator Rick Santorum sharply criticized President Obama’s health-care law again Sunday for requiring health-insurance companies to cover certain prenatal tests, because some procedures are used to identify abnormalities and “encourage abortions.”

“The bottom line is that a lot of prenatal tests are done to identify deformities in utero and the customary procedure is to encourage abortions” said Santorum.


This is the wrong reason for the right answer.

Santorum is opposed to this particular government intrusion into our privacy because he doesn't like the results.  He apparently support the intrusions that have outcomes he likes.  

This is no different than Obama, or any other big government statist. 

In an argument over which form of government oppression is more palatable, Republicans will lose.  Democrats have already staked out the emotionally appealing easy positions.  Santorum is conceding that the government has the power to make amniocentesis mandatory.  He just disagrees with the outcome, so he wants to exclude that particular procedure.

Americans should be opposed to mandatory amniocentesis coverage on the grounds that it is a GROSS violation of privacy and is not permitted under the Constitution.

A proper statement would be as follows:

Obamacare mandates every single aspect of your relationship with your doctor and your insurance company.  As an example, it demands that all insurance companies cover amniocentesis for free. This is un-Constitutional.  The Federal government has no power to regulate the relationship between you and your doctor. This is an issue of Freedom, and as your President, I will restore your freedom seek medical care as you see fit, without the Federal government dictating every procedure and test.

Instead, he is arguing that the ends (more abortions) are not justified, so he does not like the means (testing).

I am personally opposed to amniocentesis and declined the procedure when it was offered to me. This is a personal issue, and Rick should keep it that way.

This is a dead end philosophically, and a huge trap that will sink him faster than the Titanic.

Recess Appointments Palooza!

Executive appointments are once again in the news. 

This was once a relatively orderly and legal process that has descended in to anarchy.  And it is entirely the fault of the Democrats.

It started with the treatment of Bork when he was nominated to the Supreme Court, and has gone down hill since that time.

The Democrats refuse to bring any nominee to a vote when the Republicans are in power.  During the Bush administration there was a back log of several hundred appointments.

When the Republicans held the Senate they began to return the favor, blocking review of Democratic nominees.

But here we have something entirely new.

A Democratic president is being blocked by a Democratic Senate.  For the first two years of the Obama presidency, the Democrats had a super majority in the Senate, and could nominate and approve anyone they wanted.  Republicans could not stop them.

Democrats lost the super majority after the 2010 elections, but they still retain control of the Senate.  He is whining that there are some 90 nominees that have not been voted on in the Senate that he controls.

If Harry Reid wanted to schedule votes on these nominees he could.  But he has not.



Democrat Nominees are being blocked by hyper-partisan Harry

Why?  I am guessing that the nominees are so radical or unfit that he cannot get the 50 votes he needs from his own party.  Democrat Senators facing re-election know that they cannot go on record having voted for radicals, communists, and other fellow travelers.  They will get bounced out of office in their state elections.




So we now have the Democratic Senate declining to vote on Democrat nominees and placing the blame on Republicans. 

Harry has now gone so far as to call for Obama to make recess appointments of these nominees.  This is clearly dereliction of his Constitutional duties.  It is crystal clear in the document that the Senate has the power and the DUTY to perform this function.

Harry Reid should be impeached for this.

I will again call for a Constitutional Amendment to address this issue.

I proposed the following changes:

The Senate must vote on every executive appointment within 90 days. Failure to hold vote will be considered dereliction of duty, and will result in the automatic impeachment of all Senators of the party that control the Senate at that time.  Special elections will be held to fill these seats.

All recess appointments shall be subject to Senate confirmation within 30 days of congress being convened.  All officers appointed during a recess shall not remain in that office for more than 120 days.

This will return the process to the balance of power envisioned by the Constitution.

My previous post on this topic:

http://simplemusingssimplemind.blogspot.com/2011/03/executive-appointments-stop-madness.html#!/2011/03/executive-appointments-stop-madness.html

Unilateral Disarmament too Risky.... for his Campaign

President Obama made two interesting announcements this week.

They are unrelated, but provide an interesting perspective on the priorities of the man charged with protecting and defending this nation.

After many direct criticisms of Super Pacs, including negative remarks during the State of the Union address, Obama has changed his mind and is now forming a Super Pac of his own. This is seen as a way to increase the amount of funds available to him to ensure his re-election.  When he was asked about the flip flop on this issue, USA TOday reported the following:

“We’ve got some of these (Republican) super PACs that have pledged to spend up to half a billion dollars to try to buy this election,” Obama said yesterday in an interview with WBTV, the CBS affiliate in Charlotte, N.C.  “And what I’ve said consistently is, we’re not going to just unilaterally disarm.”

He also announced this week that his administration plans to reduce our nuclear arsenal by 80%.  They plan to do this without seeking corresponding reductions from our enemies. In other words, they are unilaterally disarming our nuclear deterrence capabilities.

So now we see President Obama's priorities. 

His re-election bid is so critical a battle that he cannot risk unilateral disarmament.  



But the survival of our nation in a world awash in hostile powers and nuclear weapons, well, there we can unilaterally disarm with no concerns. 

General Welfare Indeed!

The current argle bargle over free contraceptives under Obamacare raises some interesting Constitutional issues.

General Welfare in Pill Form!

I am not referring to the obvious infringements on the First Amendment freedoms.  Rather, I am wondering how the Federal government is authorized to demand or provide free contraceptives in the first place.

The prevailing logic at the Supreme Court is that free contraceptives are authorized under the 'general welfare' clause of the Constitution.

This is where, in the Preamble and Taxing and Spending clause, the founders revealed their true intentions to grant the Federal Government unlimited powers, thus invalidating every other part of the document that keeps referring to limited powers.

Some critics have scoffed at the idea that this falls under the general welfare clause, but, if you think about it, free contraceptives are just about as close to 'providing for the general welfare' as you can get.

Other freebies from the Feds only help the person who gets the cash.  Food Stamps, HUD, WIC, etc, provide direct benefits with little or no benefit to the general welfare.

But free contraceptives are different.  They do directly benefit the general welfare.

Now millions of women are free to have no-strings-attached sex with little downside or the need for a long term commitment.

This not only benefits those women, but every un-attached male in the land.

General Welfare indeed!

Bill Whittle for President

I have been looking around the web for voices of reason, people who can effectively communicate the vision of america that Ronald Reagan was able to evoke in the hearts of americans.

I have found such a man.

Bill Whittle.

In addition to his work at Declaration Entertainment, Pajamas Media,  and his YouTube channel, he spoke at Mike Munzing's Conservative Happy Hour.  (http://ww.munzingfor2012.com/)

I could tell you how fabulous Bill is at capturing the essence of our current challenges, but....

I will let him speak for himself:


Part 1: Our Progressive Nightmare

Part 2: The Conservative Solution

Part 2: The Conservative Solution

Waterloo for Catholics

The Obama administration is forcing religious affiliated institutions to provide free abortions and contraceptives to all employees as a part of their mandated health plans. 

The Catholic Bishops are objecting, claiming this infringes on the free exercise of religion.

The Obama administration claims that women's health matters more than religious freedom, and that free contraceptives are the cornerstone of women's health.

I have several thoughts on this:

He who dines with the Devil should bring a long spoon:  The Catholic church has been a supporter of and willing accomplice to the leftist agenda for 50 years.  When the Democrats started building the welfare state the Catholic church went right along with it, calling it 'charity', and proclaiming it to be the moral thing to do.  When Obamacare was being debated the church came out and supported it, again under the auspice of Christian charity.  Well now they are hoist on their own petard.  The Left is not a friend of religion, and only regards the Catholic church as useful idiots.  Now that they are no longer needed, the Church will be attacked and destroyed. 

Free Lunches are the key to a socialized future:  Obamacare is the Trojan horse for socialized medicine and a single payer system.  Once the nation has such a system, freedom and liberty are doomed.  But people will not give up Liberty for nothing.  They must be bought off with baubles and trinkets.  The 'free' goodies in the early years of Obamacare are the key to locking this system in place forever.  Once women get used to the idea that free contraceptives are a god given right, it will be impossible to repeal the health care law.  Obama is fighting hard for this because he knows that once people start getting free stuff, they will sell their souls to keep the swag flowing.

Ex-communication is under rated:  The Pope should immediately excommunicate the politicians who passed this bill or support this law.  A Catholic can, as an individual, go astray from the teachings of the Church without being removed from the church. If we could not, well, there would be a lot fewer Catholics.  But there is a huge difference between personal sin and passing laws forcing other people to sin.  People who use government power to force people to commit sins are agents of the devil, and as such, should not be allowed to call themselves Catholic.   The Pope should give notice that any politician casting a vote that forces Catholics to violate the teachings of the Church will be removed from the Church.  The Democrats can advance their evil plans, but they should not be able to claim they are Catholics while doing it.

Waterloo for Catholics:  This crisis will be a defining moment for the future of the Catholic Church in the United States.  If the Church takes a firm stand and wins, it will energize the laity and reshape the political landscape.  If it loses, however, it will mark then end of the Church as an influence in American life.  If the Church cannot defend it's teachings in such an obvious and important area, it is doomed to the shadows of ineffectiveness. 


All of this will turn on one simple question: will Catholic women side with the teachings of their faith, or will they deny the Church and line up for free goodies from Obama?   At this point I am betting on the filthy lucre.