Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Liberalism, Killer of “Compassion”

The premise used to be quite simple:   Come here legally; be responsible for yourself and your family; assimilate; contribute to the economy; don’t cause any trouble.  In exchange you are welcome to share in the promise of the American dream. That was our standard, and it was working quite well for the country and for immigrants, which of course meant that the Left had to mess with it, because anything that is working well is a threat to liberals.  It makes them irrelevant, and we can’t have that.  Thus it was time to begin dismantling all of the natural disincentives for being in this country illegally.  Demonize the INS; fight against English as our official language; encourage the celebration of diversity and non-American heritage; insist on free schooling and welfare; misapply the 14th Amendment; deprive police of the power to check for ID and arrest those here illegally; limit deportations; weaken the integrity of our elections.
And the results are in.  The population of illegal aliens in the U.S. has swelled to somewhere between 20 million and…who knows?  Our prisons are crowded with illegals costing U.S. taxpayers billions.  Americans have lost their lives and their property to illegals who commit more serious crimes.  Our schools struggle and divert resources away from our own children to educate those here illegally.  Our healthcare systems are overloaded.  American tax dollars find their way into the pockets of illegals via fraud and waste, and these dollars are sent “home” to other nations. 

Now, as tens of thousands of children and adults flood illegally into the U.S. from other countries, liberals are crying for “compassion.”  I’m sorry but there is no place for ordinary compassion in a completely irrational world.  When compassion is no longer defined as sympathy and help but instead means playing sucker to all those with the willingness and shrewdness to take unfair advantage, I say “No thanks” to being “compassionate.”  If that leaves some who truly are victims out in the cold, they can thank liberals for that, because liberals have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted with my compassion. 

Need another example?  Look at our bloated and corrupted welfare system, courtesy of the American liberal.  Each year billions and billions and more billions are being stolen from taxpayers to be given to freeloaders and scammers.  As the sister of a man with severe mental illness who can’t possibly support himself I watch with outrage, frustration and heartache as money that’s intended to help the truly needy is stolen by parasites, enabled by liberal politicians who want to buy their votes and pat themselves on their backs for their philanthropy.  I know firsthand that the need truly exists for some and yet I can’t blame anyone whose patience for “compassion” has been exhausted.  Thanks, liberals.  I hope you’re proud. 

The nature of liberalism is such that there is nothing worthwhile that it won’t seek to destroy, because it is in the destruction that they find their power.  It occurs both intentionally and as the unintentional result of the never-ending pursuit to gratify the liberal ego.  To those who are acting intentionally to place this nation in a state of chaos, I understand that your cries for “compassion” are nothing more than a scheme to bully this nation into caving in to the Left’s demands for the agenda they like to call “reform.”  To those who have fooled themselves into believing that they are acting for the public good and who can’t understand what’s happened to the compassion that Americans are known for, I say, “Look in the mirror and you will see the culprit staring back at you.”


Thursday, July 3, 2014

An Irony to Beat All Ironies

“President Barack Obama exhorted Iraqi leaders to come up with a political solution to governing their nation because "if they don't, there won't be a military solution to the problem," he told CNN in an interview Friday.

Obama wants to see Iraq create a command structure that includes Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, which are the country's chief groups, he told CNN's Kate Bolduan.

"We gave Iraq the chance to have an inclusive democracy," Obama said on the eve of U.S. military advisers arriving in Iraq to help the government besieged by militant extremists.”

I have to marvel at the ability of the CNN reporter to keep a straight face as Barack the Usurper called for “inclusive” government in Iraq.  Mr.-I-have-a-pen-and-a-phone has done every imaginable thing within his power and beyond to exclude a chief group of citizens in this country from exercising their Constitutional rights to share power, so the irony of his lecturing Iraq is quite rich.   

Take a good long look in the mirror, Barack.  You have no business preaching to Mr. al-Maliki on anything, least of all the equitable sharing of power. 

"We gave Iraq the chance to have an inclusive democracy," he says.  Where does he suppose we came up with such an idea?


Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Why 9-0 is a Mixed Blessing

We now have 13 unanimous Supreme Court rulings against Barack the Usurper, and conservative media outlets have been quick to emphasize the shut out in the rulings:

“Supremes Smack Down Obama Administration 9-0 For 13th TIME SINCE 2012”       ~ Daily Caller

“UNANIMOUS! Supreme Court Rules Obama’s ‘Recess’ Appointments UNCONSTITUTIONAL”     ~ Tea Party News Network

It’s not hard to understand why a 9-0 ruling would garner extra attention.  When even the liberals can’t bring themselves to vote with Obama, you know the overreach must be bad.  It’s only natural that conservatives would want to highlight that, so I apologize in advance for being a party pooper but I worry that undue celebration of these unanimous rulings gives us short-term satisfaction at the expense of nurturing the growing ignorance in this country with respect to the role of the court.   I say that because the added emphasis on the unanimous nature of these rulings unintentionally reinforces the notion that the SCOTUS decisions have greater legitimacy when everyone agrees.  While it’s easy to see how that thinking arises and there may be a certain element of truth there, the true and only test of a good decision ought to be whether or not our Constitution was upheld, regardless of the size of the majority.  Thus, conservatives should be asking themselves:  “Do we want to dilute the perceived legitimacy of correct but non-unanimous decisions by touting the vote count over the substance?”  The answer should be “No.”  If this seems like a petty criticism, consider that the headline on Huffington Post immediately following the Hobby Lobby decision screamed 5-4! In giant bold letters the other day (I can no longer find it).  What do you suppose they were saying to their readers?  What subliminal message were they trying to convey?  5-4 proves the decision was partisan and, therefore, illegitimate

Thanks to liberals the Supreme Court has progressively (pun intended!) come to be viewed in the most cynical way.  Intended by the Founders to be an integral part of our checks and balances against government abuse of power, democrats have predictably tried to turn it into a political weapon for advancing their own anti-constitution agenda.  To that end they have waged a largely successful campaign to change the way people think so that they unquestioningly accept this notion of the SCOTUS as a politicized extension of the other branches of government.  People evaluate the make-up of the court based on notions of philosophical “balance.”  They’ve been groomed to forget that the justices have a duty to uphold the law and only one side is philosophically committed to doing that.

We have a tragically precarious situation with our Supreme Court right now, that being the fact that at least four of our nine justices don’t understand or agree with the purpose of the Constitution and have repeatedly failed to uphold the oaths of their offices without consequence.  By all rights they should have been impeached long ago or better yet, never allowed on the bench to begin with.  Every conservative, particularly those with the biggest microphones, should be talking about what the Constitution says and how each ruling either upholds or undermines it, because that is the true measure of the court’s legitimacy no matter what the vote count is.