Of Ted Cruz, the Obamacare fiasco, and America

Okay, I started this post after getting no sleep (having been up all night watching the Ted Cruz not-a-filibuster), but I thought I’d pick it up and run with it (the first bit from a comment I left on a Telegraph article by the ever-insightful Nile Gardner), so here goes:

Ted Cruz’s Efforts to Shine Much-Needed Light on ObamaCare

The reason that I haven’t slept is that one senator (two, actually, because Mike King matters hugely in this) stood up in Jimmy Stewart fashion and told the truth.  Americans aren’t used to hearing the truth (and haven’t been in decades, so this isn’t a swipe at anyone in particular–yet), so I watched it all (well, I was a bit late getting to the party, but only by about an hour or so). I literally stayed up all night to support Senator Cruz in my own inconsequential way: I thought if he can stand there on the Senate floor in suit and tie to speak for the American people, the very least I can do is to sit in my jammies on the couch for every minute of it (bonus: I got to take “bio” breaks, he didn’t).

Here’s the thing, I listened to all 20+ hours of that not-a-filibuster, and while I cringed a tad at some of the stuff (the Darth Vader impression was . . . weird), I can’t say that anything he said or read of substance was off-key, off-base, or in any other way off.

People forget how the Obamacare monstrosity was forged and then passed, but it really does matter because even the Dems would never have made this thing law if they could help it.  What happened was the law was written, passed through committees (with this, that, and the other tacked on . . . because they can), and then . . .


Scott Brown got elected to the Senate.  He ran as the 41st vote against ObamaCare, and he won Ted Kennedy’s seat (as we all remember, Teddy was a progressive, single-payer fanatic).  That was supposed to send, should have sent, a message to Washington that we, the people, didn’t want ObamaCare.  Even uber-regressive Massachusetts was willing to send a (faux) conservative, running primarily on voting against ObamaCare, to the Senate.  And not just to the Senate, but in Teddy’s seat.

It mattered.

But it didn’t change a thing:  Dems saw it, understood fully that the people rejected ObamaCare, shrugged, and moved on with ramming this national disaster down our throats.

That special election meant that the haphazard, crazy, tacked-on, willy-nilly nature of that bill had to be either: a.) voted on as is (with Reid pulling a fast one and going with a”budget” vote that required only a majority vote), or b.) given the ideological divide, pretty much it being trashed and started over.  Reid, as majority leader in the Senate decided to pass a major piece of legislation, one that directly affects every American’s life–mostly for the worse–with an up-down vote on budget rules (it all passes or fails and does so by a majority rule).

Laws in the U. S. are supposed to be passed by a 2/3 majority, a thing Reid didn’t have when Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to the 41st seat. So he fudged it, used a budgetary gimmick, and slammed ObamaCare through with exactly zero input from Republicans and without a single Republican vote.

Americans don’t like, don’t trust, and generally ensure there is no one-party “rule.”  No major piece of legislation has ever been passed without votes from the loyal opposition.  This was shocking to us all, left and right.

We like our Dem presidents to have Republican houses of Congress and vice versa.  Some split is also desirable to we Americans, and generally-speaking, we avoid like the plague any one-party rule–one party’s control of the executive and both legislative branches of government.

Americans were–and, importantly, are–angry.  In America, our representatives are supposed to (oh, with the crazy!) represent us, our voice, our wishes to DC.  What happened with ObamaCare was that DC decided what was best for us and then tried to represent that to the people.

That’s completely backwards.

America is just not a nation of sovereign rule, Americans are not subjects of some ruler, and we don’t take kindly to being treated like subjects who must bend to the will of some centralized power that is far removed from us.  That’s how revolutions–all revolutions–start.

So what Ted Cruz tapped into was almost primal, it’s in an American’s DNA, soul, collective unconscious (whatever you want to deem it) that we are a free people, that liberty comes first, that our government and its elected officials represent us; they do not rule us, they are not our “boss,” and they damned sure aren’t our “masters,” and we are not their “servants.” Indeed, they are “public servants,” and if anyone is “master,” it is we, the people.

And that, ultimately, is what Cruz’s not-a-filibuster was about: America, our republic.  What it means to be an American, what it means when your American-ness is stripped away against your will, and that is what the fight for the soul of the republican party is ultimately about: do we continue to support weak-willed, self-serving GOP elites who are big government, big spending pawns of the Washington machine that sees us as servants and ATM machines for their largess, or do we enforce our will, that of the people of these United States, and reject that tried-and-failed socialist-communist-fascist rubric?

My vote is for the latter.

Social Security, MediCare, and Minimum Wage

Okay, so as it turned out, I was completely unable to watch the SOTU address.  And I’m glad.  The last thing I need is to get aggravated by the Commie in Chief’s latest plans to destroy our country.  So . . . yay me!

So then I was reading through my usual list and ran across a great post by the ever-fabulous Adrienne over at Adrienne’s Corner.  She writes about MediCare and about minimum wage through a very personal and understandable lens; it’s true that we have little choice but to draw on Social Security and MediCare, that the system is such that we do, indeed, depend on government.  As such, I think, we try too hard to rationalize these programs and ignore their flaws.  We lash out at the gross mismanagement of our tax dollars . . . often without considering the fundamental flaws in socialist programs and the entitlement state.  We forget that we, yes, even die-hard conservatives, are indeed–as lefties gleefully note–partaking in the entitlement state, fully-invested (so to speak) in the entitlement mentality.

Leftists just love to point out that conservatives draw Social Security and MediCare, and more recently, that we take out student loans.  This latter point, too, is flawed, when I took mine out, they were with private lenders, not the government; I would never ever have taken a loan from the government to go college, even if that meant not going at all.  But my student loans, like everyone else’s, were sold around and then eventually ended up in the government’s lap–indeed, no student loans can be issued today except through the federal government.  Another “benefit” of the 0CareTax.  But I digress, this post isn’t about student loans and the federal take-over of the student loan industry.

There’s a problem with that leftist glee in our supposed “hypocrisy”; Social Security and MediCare have become the sole means of income/coverage for seniors; there is no other option in the majority of cases.  It’s not like we can survive without these government programs, not anymore.  And they love that!  Why wouldn’t they?  The government has the teat from which even the most die-hard conservative adult suckles.  They conveniently forget that it’s the only teat in town.   Big government wins.

Until it doesn’t.

Of course in my response to Adrienne, I went on and on, but I thought it might be worth posting here as a blog post-like thing.  So here it is:

When we speak of unfunded entitlements, we don’t mean what the taxpayer is forced to pay; we mean whether or not the money is there, in a budget. As we don’t have and haven’t had a budget during Obama’s entire presidency, this gets tricky. But as an example, when the Bush prescription drug plan for seniors was passed, it was “unfunded.” In other words, there were no cuts in spending or taxes added to pay for it in that (or any subsequent) budget. The money that we all pay into MediCare and Social Security was not raised (indeed it was cut during the Bush years and only just raised to where it was by Obama), seniors were not tapped retroactively to cover the bill. It was literally an added cost to the tax payer, tacked on to all the other things we pay for . . . and those we don’t.

So that particular entitlement was the equivalent of adding some new cost to your household budget without cutting back on something else or getting a pay raise to pay for it. It can do nothing but accumulate debt and increase inflation/devalue the dollar. This is problematic because it means that the more we do this, the more we offer without the exact amount spent paid in, the higher our deficit (we spend more than we take in) and the more debt we accumulate (the deficit adds to the debt every single day).

Now, about MediCare and Social Security. These are entitlements, but yes, they are partially (almost minutely at this point) paid for by tax payers. When Social Security, for example, was first enacted, the life expectancy was significantly lower, the idea was that the government would be taking in more than it paid out because people would die before they qualified. Nice, huh? Social Security funds, further, were never supposed to be part of the federal budget, they were supposed to be separately managed (remember that “lock box” stuff?). That didn’t happen, and yes the money was thrown away, wasted, porked out to greedy politicians.

By the way, these funds were never invested (and shouldn’t be, not by the federal government). If YOU, on the other hand, had invested that money independently, knowing the risks and assuming you didn’t lose it all in ’08, you may indeed be a millionaire, but there is no guarantee with the stock market.

But, and here’s the rub, once life expectancy grew and the people drawing Social Security grew, nothing was done to address the discrepancy between what was paid in and what was paid out–most people on SS and on MediCare receive at least 50% more in benefits and payouts than they paid in during their working life. This is a problem. It’s not like a Christmas account where you take out exactly what you put in, possibly with nominal interest paid. It’s like having a Christmas account into which you deposit $500 over the course of the year and then take out $750 at the end of the year. Where does that extra $250 come from? And how can we say we’re entitled to 50% more than what we paid in?

These two programs amount to 2/3 (and growing) of federal spending, yet the taxes paid via our paychecks (the means we pay into MediCare and Social Security) barely make a dent in that amount. If we actually paid for our benefits, that would be one thing. But we do not. Not even close. Not even in the ballpark, the universe. This is why they are (correctly) called pyramid schemes. And why they, like all pyramid schemes, will definitely collapse if they continue as they are.

Now, all that said, there is a very serious problem with all of this because when both programs were enacted, they were supplemental to employer-provided pensions. Very very few employers today provide pensions, outside federal, state, and local governments (and most of those are grossly inflated and unsustainable due to union interference). As you note, you have no choice but to be on Social Security and MediCare. Few do. Something that was supposed to be a safety net (for widows, as Social Security first was introduced and passed) has morphed into a retirement plan for all seniors. That was never the intent, but it’s happened. So people have no choice but to take them because they have nothing else. And then . . . well, we are all socialists now as Newsweek once proclaimed and as the opponents of these entitlements stated in their opposition to their enactment.

What do we do now? I haven’t got the answers, but I do know that as long as even conservatives are fighting to maintain the status quo, these programs, along with our entire economy, will collapse. And it’s not a matter of “if” but when.

Now on to minimum wage. You may indeed deserve more than the current minimum wage, and personally, I think you are worth your weight in gold. But here’s the problem with federal minimum wage mandates: nothing changes. The cost of living and the price of everything simply adjusts to the new minimum, so your $10/hour gets you no more than your current $7.25/hour (not you, personally, a general “you” here).

Employers who are already cutting hours/jobs due to the 0CareTax abomination that changes full-time from 40 to 30 hours per week will simply cut more jobs to accommodate the minimum wage increase. And/or they will pass those costs on to the consumer (thus the flattening out that always occurs after a minimum wage hike–you make more but you spend more to maintain the same standard of living). We can make minimum $500 dollars an hour, but it won’t change anyone’s standard of living. All that will happen is that bread will be $45 a loaf (or whatever).

These are serious and complex issues, but the bottom line on it all is that doing more of the same will lead to more of the same until we eventually collapse.

I’ve written about these entitlements before, including providing specific data and graphs (Okay, So We Don’t Touch MediCare, MedicAid, or Social Security and Screw the Scalpel, Chainsaw Massacre of Federal Budget Needed), and the road to serfdom onto which we’ve been herded.

Until these programs are significantly overhauled, or better yet abolished, there is no shame in participating (there currently is no choice).  Let me repeat that: there. is. no. shame. in being on MediCare or Social Security.  None.  And there is no hypocrisy. The trap has been beautifully built: reject socialism?  Well, you’re a big, fat hypocrite because you rely on (totally unsustainable) socialist policies to eat and see a doctor.  Cowed, shamed, and nonplussed, conservatives fight back by stating that we paid for it.  But we didn’t, not even close.  And that’s the trap.  Fight back, and you bite the hand that feeds you . . . . But that hand is the federal government, out of control and spending more than it takes in.  The very thing you disdain.  Do not be cowed.  The system is rigged, we have to rely on it for now; however, that does not mean it’s a good system.

Conservatives have to stop thinking–convincing ourselves–that we are entitled to anything that is not specifically stated in the Constitution or to more than we actually pay into something.  Regardless of our current circumstances, circumstances that were forced upon us probably to cause this exact response, this Constitutional crisis.  Until we stop thinking that way, stop cowering in fear and shame, we really can’t make a compelling case–or any case–for the free market, for capitalism, or for liberty.


Fuzzy Shorts: TEA Party’s Future, Taxing the “Rich”/ObamaCare Tax, Israel, and Sadness

There is so much going on that I thought I’d do another “shorts” post in an attempt to clean out my links folder (that’s the one I drop stuff in when it seems like it’s potentially interesting enough to post about and that usually fills to overflowing because so much is going on–always–with this administration, there’s not enough to warrant its own post, or I just lose interest in it for whatever reason).  So let’s start with . . .

Where do we go from here?

Where, indeed.  Good question, and some great answers (including some–very necessary–President Bush/Rove bashing) out there; my two faves so far:

Klavan’s The Long Game and Whittle’s A New Beginning video:

Yes, yes, it’s long, but . . . come on, it’s Bill Whittle!  When is he not worth listening to?

There are also some very awful, truly putrid ideas out there.  Let’s learn those–after all, it’s good to know one’s enemy–but reject them.

For now, I’m good with simply promising that I will not give in, I will not give up, and I will fight until my last breath the establishment Republicans/RINOs and, of course, the regressive lunatics.  How I’ll–how we’ll–do that isn’t yet clear to me in concrete terms, but generally speaking, the plan is what it’s always been:  keep slogging away during every midterm and every presidential election and every special election to seat Constitutional, fiscal conservatives in every possible office from dog catcher/mosquito control dude or dudette/etc. to United States senator . . . and president.  We always knew it wouldn’t be easy, that we’d lose some, win some . . . granted, I guess I thought we’d win more in 2012, but it wasn’t to be.  So.  Onward to 2014 and 2016 and 2018 and 2020 . . . and well beyond if that’s what it takes.

Taxing “the rich” and dismantling American health care 

. . . makes me want to vomit.  And not because I am rich (far far far from it) and not because I’m some brain-dead wingnut (though I suppose that’s arguable) programmed to blindly follow and repeat what I’m told like some kind of Occudreg human microphone drone, but because it’s . . . how else to put it?  It’s stupid.  It doesn’t just make zero fiscal sense, it makes negative fiscal sense.  After all, when all those small business owners (who make up the bulk of the people at the $250k mark–remember, it’s NOT millionaires and billionaires being targeted here.  Without actual, meaningful tax reform–a flat or fair tax, they’ll still pay next to nothing) go out of business and/or downsize, that hurts the economy.  It hurts everyone.  Sooner or later the money will run out.  It always does.  And Obama seems to want it run out sooner rather than later.

Further, and as even the most wooly-brained leftist must be noting, businesses will simply work within the parameters of, for example, the Obamacare Tax..  Hmmm, they ponder, if I have more than 50 employees, I’ll get zapped.  I have 55, but you know what? I can get by with 49.  Swimmingly, given the money I’ll save in staying super small.  Forever.  Sure, I’ll never be able to expand and achieve my true potential, but . . . well, obviously, that’s impossible now.  Shrug.  Hmmm, bigger businesses have noted, the ObamaCare Tax monstrosity says that only full-time employees are under their thumb.  I know!  All those people I have working for me, those chumps who currently have full coverage and a plan they like?  Well, how about I make them part-time!  And both of these scenarios are happening all over the country–already playing out within weeks of the American people giving the green light to Obama’s regime.  Indeed, so many people are being laid off or having their hours cut back because of–directly and pointedly–because of the Obamacare Tax that I can barely keep up (I tweet every single one I see, so hit my Twitter feed for specific examples).

But don’t think this an “unintended consequence.”  It isn’t.  It was fully and droolingly intended; why else dismantle a system that served 253.4 million Americans to “help” 45 million people (not all are Americans)?  That makes no sense.  Dismantle a system that provides so many people with quality insurance, quality care to provide substandard care for all?  All, that is, but the very wealthy who will still be able to afford medical tourism and elite private practices . . . oh, and Congress, who exempted themselves from this fantabulous new plan they deemed exceptional and marvelous for everyone.  Except themselves.  And their aids.  And their staff.  And their immediate family.  But it has to be great, right!?  Right?

Right.  Sure.  Uh huh.

Anyway,  what happens next is that Dear Leader escalates his bashing of small, medium-sized, and big business and lays the fault for Americans by the millions (literally,  by the way, not my typical hyperbole) losing the health insurance (and it’s INSURANCE, not “health care,” never forget that–it’s about power and money, not about caring for people or their health) at the feet of . . . anyone but himself and his traitorous horde.  Those businesses, he’ll rail, defiled by the greedy and inhumane and ‘unAmerican’ (according to the Dystopia of 0) idea that they should actually turn a profit, are ::: drum roll, please ::: evil.  Deeply, truly, dripping in the sweat spawned in the hottest pits of Hades, evil.  But hey, guess what!?! There’s a simple solution!  It’s so simple, so obvious, you’d think that it was the plan all along (it was): universal health care, socialized medicine, nationalized heath care . . . whatever you want to call it.  A subpar, faulty, flawed, inadequate, cruel, callous system by any other name and all that.

But yeah, tax those “rich” people.  It’ll be fun.

Until it’s not.


I can’t really write about this yet.  I’m horrified.  And ashamed.  I keep remembering 9/11 and  the dancing, happy “Palestinians” and assorted Hamas-al Queda-equally-vile-terrorist organizations and their sympathizers among “normal” (“moderate,” yeah, right) Middle Eastern people.  And then I remember that Israel, our great friend and ally, stood by us and was among the first nations to reach out to us in total support–in, as they said at the time, “solidarity” with us–at that truly traumatic time:  Sharon declared a national day of mourning in Israel, while the savages in surrounding countries skipped about in the streets, cheered, whooped, and generally had a grand time celebrating–celebrating, wrap your mind around that one–the terrorist attacks on our nation that claimed so many lives, that shocked us to our core and caused the entire nation, left and right, most “identity blocs,” to come together, if only for a brief time.  I’m ashamed that America, this land that I love, is doing absolutely nothing to help Israel (and apparently is doing everything to help her, and our, enemies).

I have many other thoughts and feelings about this, but they are rooted in my religious beliefs, so perhaps, at least for now, I will keep them to myself.  Suffice to say that Israel is important to God, that her enemies are God’s enemies, and that I can never forget, ignore, or otherwise belittle that Truth.  No matter how many terrorists fake photos and hide behind women and children and then shriek about “abuse” or “genocide.”  As an IDF soldier tweeted, Israel is targeting civilians but has only managed to hit fifty in five days?  “Bad aim?”  Yeah, right.  Israel is treating Gazan patients; Israel did not start this.  Hamas did.  Interestingly, and notably, they held off on this pressing act of jihad in the name of their prophet until after Obama was reelected.

The sad and strange

I’ve not really been following the whole Petraeus affair scandal, at least not very closely. It didn’t come out until the day after the election (so convenient), he stepped down (as he should; he showed faulty judgement and put himself–and, as a result of his position, this country–at great risk), and then he finally gave us the goods, or at least a map to the goods, on Benghazi.  Call me torn.

Apparently, Petraeus’s mistress not only stocked up on classified documents but also on big doses of crazy.  The document thing is worrying enough (and again points to Petraeus’s lack of judgement), but the setting up of multiple online identities to harass someone . . . well, just call the men in the white coats.  Now.  And yes, again, this goes back to Petraeus, but think about this for a minute.  Seriously.  Someone is not giving you the attention or feedback or response or whatever to which you imagine you are entitled, so you . . . create another account to get through to them?  And then another.  And another.  And another.  What goes on in your mind while this is going on?  Gee, this isn’t actually the act of a mentally-unbalanced threat to national security . . . heck! It’s only just barely stalking!  It’s sort of um . . . should I call myself “Sugar Lips” this time?  My head is itchy.  Think I’ll scratch my left big toe.  Wait!  Shhhhhh.   Did you hear that!?!  Maybe I’ll call myself “Sunshine Moonbeam the Loony” this time . . . .

That’s just messed up.  But I suspect this woman is in dire need of more than our nation’s security secrets and the head of the CIA’s intimate bits; she clearly needs psychiatric help.  Post hasty.  A prayer or two may not hurt.

Next up is perhaps the saddest bit of post-election news I’ve read yet (and I’ve read lots and lots of sad stuff since November 6th . . . and anticipate reaching overload by mid-spring).  Apparently, this small business owner in Key West killed himself because Obama won.  I think this is beyond tragic, and my heart goes out to his family and to his partner.

Hate to leave you on that down note, but that’s all I have for now.

Not Hypocrisy: Inequality is the Very Foundation of a Fundamentally-Transformed America

Joel Engel writing for Legal Insurrection has penned an interesting post about Obama’s apparent double-standard when it comes to freedom of speech. From his post “Barack Obama Cannot Be Serious“:

If Barack Obama consciously intended to demonstrate his contempt for this constitutional republic and its citizens—and who knows, maybe he does—he couldn’t do it any more dramatically than tomorrow night’s event.

Think about it.  Just a few days after trying to deprive a man no one had ever heard of from enjoying his free-speech rights because some foreigners claim they were offended, the President of the United States flies off to party with another man who’s earned a pasha’s fortune exercising his own free-speech rights with language that offends many more Americans than not.

Here’s my comment on that post:

Like all leftists, Obama thinks that there is “good” speech (i.e. approved) and “bad” speech (i.e. not approved). The list of things that fall under “bad” speech is far longer than that approved but can be surmised by this administration’s characterization of “terrorists” as Americans who hold conservative values. This was first detailed in the spring of ’09 with a DHS memo that was sent to the nation’s police departments. It has since been codified by other executive branch agencies, including but not limited to the FBI, ATF, and TSA.

There is nothing really contradictory here or hypocritical. This is how totalitarianism/tyranny/communism (pick your poison) works: there are literally two separate standards. One for the “friends” of the dictator, one for his “enemies.” We keep being outraged and whinging about apparent contradictions, but there simply are none. Remember when we dems were complaining about the deadlock in Congress, and we pointed out that it’s a feature not a flaw of the Constitution? [note: I fixed a typo. Obviously not “we dems”; while writing, I switched the order of the clauses and didn’t edit carefully enough]  Think of this sort of apparent contradiction as the same thing: it’s how their worldview is constructed. To them, it’s perfectly acceptable, indeed desirable, to claim to support free speech and religious freedom while actively working against it . . . for certain people (i.e. “enemies of the state”: Christians, Jews, conservatives, et al).

Every tyrant has his enemies, and those enemies are always treated to a separate “justice” than his friends. We need to understand this because it’s important. They aren’t thinking as Americans who are bound by and proud of a Constitution that establishes liberty and justice for all. They don’t believe in equal justice, and they don’t believe in individual liberty, so the moral relativism we often engage in (I do it, too) just doesn’t apply.

I wanted to expand on this because I do think it incredibly important, particularly in light of what is going on now in the Middle East.

Conservatives often and quite naturally (and accurately, for that matter) point to the flawed moral relativism of both leftists and Ron Paul libertarians when it comes to Islamofascists and terrorism.  Yet we often forget (again, I include myself here; much of this blog is dedicated to pointing out the “hypocrisies” of the 0 administration) that the 0 “Democrats” are not democrats at all, they are Marxists and as such reject not only our free market economy (well, it’s not now, I guess, but it’s what we want to restore) but also anything that resembles individual freedom, be that freedom of speech or freedom of religion.  Remember, there is no greater enemy of Marxism than God; God means freedom, a power higher than government, real hope, real strength in a people.  Marxism cannot work, of course, but it certainly can’t work on a free, hopeful people who depend on God and not government especially if they are free to express their divergent opinions (divergent opinions are labeled “sedition” and “treason.”).  Leftists revere Mao and Che, they denounce American values and our Constitution; they hate everything we love and love everything we recognize as evil.

While it’s important to point out the vast chasm between what they say and what they do, how they unfairly apply their “justice” and “values,” it’s even more important that we not imagine it will make any difference to them.  They intend, and are fully aware that they intend, to make inequality, censorship, tyranny the order of the day, of the world.  The people we need to show this to are those Americans who’ve not yet awakened, and we cannot show them the true horror of what leftists have in store for America if we merely point to apparent “hypocrisy.”  We must also point out that it’s not actually hypocrisy at all, that unequal justice and unequal application of laws and socio-cultural norms is a part of their plan.  Their entire agenda is build on what we think of as a double standard.  It doesn’t make sense to us because we believe in equal justice, in equal opportunity, in . . . well, equality.

They do not.

We kind of know this; we point it out often enough when we express our outrage at leftist attacks on conservative radio, on Fox News, on conservative bloggers.  We point it out when we express our shock when leftists attack black and female and Latino conservatives while purporting to support and defend women and minorities.  We point it out when leftists suggest censoring conservative speech and disallowing conservative businesses.  We point it out when the administration sends out the IRS or the NLRB or the FCC or the EPA to attack conservative businesses and business owners while ignoring similar or identical offenses from leftists.  We point it out when conservatives are singled-out for legal retribution while leftists committing the same crime are either ignored or heralded.  We point this out in the treatment of the TEA Party versus that of the Occudregs.

What we haven’t managed, yet, to do is to fully grasp that this is not hypocrisy, it’s not intellectually dishonest . . . it’s reflective of their worldview: a homogenous worldview in which everyone must comply with their agenda or be damned as the “enemy,” with the full power of the state brought to bear on them.  Remember, these are people who are proud to say they are “intolerant of intolerance” and that they “hate hate.”  It’s not the intolerance or the hate they dislike, they positively revel in and celebrate their own brand of intolerance and/or hate.

Their America is a place where there is an established, intended under-class, a set group of people who are singled out for attack, regulation, injustice, suppression, and oppression.  It’s a built-in, baked-in, part of the system they seek to establish.  In their vision for a fundamentally-transformed America, there are supposed to be oppressed, silenced people; there are supposed to be people who are beneath contempt and for whom special and separate laws must be made to ensure that oppression and silence; there are supposed to be people for whom established and future law simply does not apply.

Once we grasp that quite simple fact, we may be in a better position to combat leftism for what it is, for the evil it truly seeks to inflict on this nation and her people.

Chick-fil-A, Gay “Marriage,” Religious Freedom, and God

So, we’re seriously debating whether or not the government has the right to deny licenses to businesses who don’t have the right “values” (actually lack thereof, but whatever)?  We’re having a “national discourse” about whether or not free people in a free society have a right to their own thoughts and beliefs?  Seriously?

“Corporations aren’t people” is the rallying cry of the radical left . . . unless said corporation is headed by a person with whom they disagree.  Yes, okay, Chick-fil-A is privately-held, but when has that stopped the radical left attacking “corporations” before?  But now, now corporations aren’t just people, they’re person.  One person.  Stupefying.

The heartening thing about this whole Chick-fil-A “debate” is the revelation to many Americans–who’ve not been paying attention–of just how fascist and totalitarian today’s “Democrats” are . . . and they are not Democrats, not in any sense of the word as Americans understand it, but their posturing as such has certainly fooled a lot of Americans.  But that may be changing.  Finally.  People rallied around Chick-fil-A in support of free speech, freedom of religion, in support of traditional marriage, and perhaps most importantly, against fascism.  (For those in doubt, fascism is exactly what Mumbles and Twinkle Toes were embracing: the government dictating who is acceptable and can have a business and who is–and can–not.  Fascism seeks to destroy all opposing viewpoints, control all business, and of course, strive for a “perfect” union of “perfect” people.)

The radical left (aka commie fascists) were truly surprised at the show of support for Chick-fil-A this past Wednesday.  They really don’t get it.  The ones who truly believe that supporting traditional marriage equals hate are befuddled that this Christian nation apparently disagrees, and the ones who know better–who know what this is all really about–are shocked, stunned even, that we can’t be bullied into silent complicity any longer.  That’s the real problem for them, of course.  They knew we were out here, in flyover redneck country, bitterly clinging to our guns and God, but they thought they had us cowed.  The race card worked so well, they just knew that the gay hate card would be a winner.

It’s not.  The race card expired while they were busy drumming up new bludgeons with which to beat us into submission, so they didn’t even notice that we weren’t playing along this time.  In some ways, we can thank the dinosaur media for this, of course; without their downplaying traditional American values, the TEA Party, and anything remotely resembling patriotism and Judeo-Christian morality, their little friends in the fascist “community” wouldn’t have been so gob-smacked.

Now, many conservatives are still thinking that the far left is really interested in gay “marriage.” Let me assure you that they are not.  As many have noted, heterosexual leftists often choose not to marry as either a way to “stick it” to the “man” or simply as a way to save their money (marriage is increasingly penalized in our tax code, with 0 and his horde wanting to make it still more financially taxing–as it were–to marry).  As long-time readers of this blog know, I once believed that they were after civil rights and equality, but I was very much mistaken.  They are not.  This is about destroying religious liberty; indeed, about destroying religion itself (and yes, all religions, they’re just starting with we Jews and Christians; communism requires complete submission to the state, no God can be permitted.).

How do we know they are not after civil equality?  Because the gay marriage crowd refuses to even discuss civil unions for everyone, gays and straights.  Civil unions are all that are needed to meet the “civil rights” claims of the gay “marriage” proponents, but these are rejected out of hand.  Why not move marriage out of the government sphere and back into the religious sphere?  Why not have everyone–gay, straight, religious, atheist, whatever–count equally under man-made law?  Because equality is not the goal, civil rights are not the goal.

To destroy religion, you have to put man, not God, at the helm.  You have to have man rewrite God’s law, and you have to force people to accept it.  I can’t “approve” gay “marriage” for God; I can’t say, “why, yes, God does believe that marriage can be between members of the same sex.”  He just doesn’t.  That’s God’s Word.  Not mine, not any man’s (or woman’s).  Do I think that civil unions should be recognized for gays and straights by the government?  Yep.  Do I “hate” homosexuals”?  Nope.  But that’s not acceptable to the radical left, so they have to force religious people to, in essence, refute the Word of God, to denounce Him.  And it’s got to codified in man’s law: that’s why 0 is forcing religious institutions to provide birth control and abortions, that’s why blocking businesses whose owners are religious will become the norm (oh, we haven’t won that one, not by a long shot), that’s why military chaplains are being forced to perform gay “marriages.”  The more people who turn away from God in thought or deed, the better for the commie fascists who think they are gods.

Never forget that for the radical left the personal is political, and the political is always about forcing their totalitarian “utopia” on the rest of us.  When they can do so through the political process, so much the better, but if that doesn’t work, they’ll use other means.  That’s why the far left seem to be so schizophrenic in touting the wonders of “democracy” one minute and then stating that “democracy” doesn’t work the next.  They resort to the courts, to ugly bullying and fascist totalitarianism when “democracy” doesn’t go their way Remember, when the people are able to vote on gay “marriage,” they’ve/we’ve voted it down. That’s when “democracy” is not so desirable to the far left, so they rationalize forcing their beliefs on us against our will via passing laws and penning executive orders.  And yes, banning Christian businesses.  Or trying to do so.

The radical left has taken to saying that they are “intolerant of intolerance” and that they “hate hate.”  This is really all you need to know.  They happily embrace and gleefully engage in exactly what they claim to be against.  But remember, this is not hypocrisy, this is literally how communism and fascism work.

It is inconceivable to them that someone might define marriage according to their grounding in the Bible and not hate, literally want to see dead, those who support gay “marriage.”  This isn’t a mystery; it’s how they think.  If they disagree with you, they hate you.  Period.  So they can’t understand that normal, rational people can be opposed to some belief, act, etc. without hating someone who holds that belief or perpetrates that act.  It’s not in their petty little beings to be able to disapprove of something for themselves yet let others do as they wish.  Their whole worldview is about homogeneity of thought and action; everyone must be exactly the same in every way, and if someone strays from their narrow path, they must be reviled, destroyed.  And yes, they project their hate and intolerance of diversity on everyone else . . . in the name of tolerance and diversity.

A more self-deluded crowd you’ll never meet than the radical leftist (commie fascist) “community.”  That delusion, for now, works in our favor.  They truly believe that they are superior, not only in thought but in numbers.

They are wrong.

On both counts.