July 06, 2015

Papal Planet?

Dana Mathewson forward's this:


Do the Pope and I live on the same planet?
 
 
image
 
 
 
 
 
Do the Pope and I live on the same planet?
Having read through Pope Francis’ new encyclical, I am dismayed at how many groundless assertions it makes. From a strictly scientific point of view, Laudato Si is ...
 
Preview by Yahoo
 
 
 
 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 2 kb.

Obama's Economy

Brian Birdnow


Here is the forward of a message I sent to the Washington Post fool Dana Milbank needling him about the Obama economy:

Dear Mr. Milbank,
I remember this past winter that you, and your colleagues at the Post were agog at the Obama boom. You said, yourself, that we were witnessing a "...suddenly surging economy..." The latest economic news shows 432,000 people leaving the labor force, the percentage of Americans in the labor force is the lowest it has been since 1977, and the revised numbers from the spring show that 60,000 fewer jobs were created than the Obama mouthpieces claimed.

Since you obviouslyjumped the gun when talking of a suddenly surging economy last winter, I wonder if you would like to revise your estimate downward. We know what you said in January...what do you say now?

Brian Birdnow

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

They’re Just Committing the Crimes Americans Won’t Commit

By Selwyn Duke

With the San Francisco woman murdered by one of Barack Obama’s "new Americans,” we should ask: how much innocent blood will be spilled on the altar of the Left’s "fundamental transformation” of America? While callow and cowardly corporations are severing ties with Donald Trump because he dared speak a truth in an age of lies, the reality of far too many of the illegals invading our country is this:
They’re just committing the crimes Americans won’t commit.

Some will say, of course, that Americans sometimes do such evil as well. But it’s also true that Americans do sometimes take the menial jobs so often performed by illegals, yet we nonetheless hear the statement, "They’re just doing the jobs Americans won’t do.” So since we’re indulging rhetoric and generalizations here, turnaround is fair play.

Will people ever rise up and make that sickening agenda-facilitating suppression of truth known as political correctness exactly what it should be: a recognized vile heresy, to be stamped out with extreme prejudice? I recently heard someone take exception to the term "illegals,” making that now stale point that "no one is illegal” (cue the tiny violin). This person argued that bank robbers break the law as well, but we don’t brand them "illegals.” Point taken. We call bank robbers "criminals.”

And if the Left wants to apply the same descriptive to illegal aliens, it works for me.
(Or would "undocumented criminals” be preferable?)

It would be wholly accurate, too. Generally lost in our self-flagellating, suicidal pander-fest is that every illegal migrant is a criminal by definition. This is why the lying Left — ever engaging in language manipulation — dislikes the word "illegal”: accurate terminology relates the truth of a matter. This is intolerable when your agenda is completely contrary to Truth.

An even better adjective for illegals, however, is "invaders.” And Francisco Sanchez, the vile murderer of the San Francisco woman, Kathryn Steinle, certainly fits the bill. He repeatedly invaded our country for the purposes of destruction, dealing drugs and being convicted of felonies seven times until he finally took a life. Yet he is not the only one culpable in his malevolent act.

What do you call government officials who not only abdicate their responsibility to halt an invasion, but actually aid and abet it? Quislings? Traitors? Leftists? But I repeat myself.
These terms are not too strong. I previously  HYPERLINK
"http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/obama_amnesty_plan_legalize_foreigners_take_over_the_host_push_citizens_into_the_shadows.html" reported on Obama’s plan to "seed” communities around America with foreigners who would, as the scheme goes, "navigate” and not assimilate as they "push citizens into the shadows” (that is, those they don’t push into graves). Again, what do you call such people?

It isn’t just Obama, of course. These traitors have many names, such as Jerry Brown, Jeb Bush, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Luis Gutierrez and Mark Zuckerberg. But, hey, who can blame them, right? They’re just pushing the policies Americans won’t push.

Unfortunately and as has been said before, treason today is now the norm. If you don’t drink deeply of the cup of multiculturalism, internationalism, Western demographic genocide and cultural suicide, you’re a "nativist” or, worse still, a "racist,” the latter of which has just come to mean "anything bad” to young skulls full of mush whose now putrefying gray matter endured endless sanitary spin cycles in the propaganda mills masquerading as universities. The inmates not only run the asylum, they’re numerous enough to classify the normal as abnormal. You’re a boy who’s sure he’s a girl? You’re white but identify as black? You think an invader is the equivalent of a citizen? Those people who’d cramp your style with that pesky Objective Reality are the problem. Off to re-education camps with them.

Another fancy is that Mexico isn’t a dangerous enemy. If you’re an illegal alien in Mexico, the best thing that can happen to you is that you merely get deported; also possible is that the police will beat you Pelosi-senseless or even kill you (it’s said that you can buy your way of a fatal hit-and-run in Mexico for $450; the rule of law isn’t exactly big there). And no ACLU will come running and sue the government on your behalf. None of this stops that dysfunctional cartel-ridden nation from issuing its people actual instructions on how to better invade the U.S. and game our system. Nor does it stop them from lecturing us on the humane treatment of undocumented criminals. This is why a real president would tell the Mexican regime that if it didn’t stop weaponizing its population against us, we’d demonstrate that borders can be transgressed both ways and make Black Jack Pershing look like a missionary.

Instead, people are more worried about the Confederate flag flying in America than the Mexican flag flying here. As for Obama and his ilk, they welcome invaders because, upon being naturalized, 70 to 90 percent of them vote for leftists. And our leftists truly would rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.
But who is really to blame? Our Hell-raisers are only in power because far too many of us are just voting for the politicians Americans wouldn’t vote for.

HYPERLINK "mailto:selwynduke@optonline.net" Contact Selwyn Duke,  HYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/SelwynDuke" follow him on Twitter
or log on to  HYPERLINK "http://www.selwynduke.com/" SelwynDuke.com

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 887 words, total size 6 kb.

July 05, 2015

A Catholic Criticizes the Pope

Jack Kemp

In case you haven't seen this...

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/president_francis_and_pope_obama.html#ixzz3f1QK6Yem


July 5, 2015
President Francis and Pope Obama
By Jonathan David Carson

When I was fourteen, one of our cows gave birth, but the afterbirth did not come out. The men stood around and moaned and groaned about the afterbirth that wouldn't come out until I got so tired of listening to them that I walked up to the cow, put my arm in past my elbow, and pulled the damn thing out.
I took a step back, wiped my filthy hand on my filthy shirt, turned around, and saw all these men puking.
Readers will forgive me for remembering this nauseating experience when they reflect that I too read the news.
As a Catholic, what disgusts me more than any of the other disgusting events of the last few weeks is not the encyclical calling for an end to freedom and prosperity and for rule by tyrannical world authorities under the tutelage of the author of the encyclical. No, the worst of it is that so many bishops, priests, and laypeople excuse the inexcusable.
"The Pope’s critics are acting like children,” screams a headline in the Catholic Herald. "The environmental encyclical makes us squirm because it exposes our greed and recklessness with the powerful searchlight of the Gospel,” reads the pull quote. Of course, the Catholic Herald does not really squirm: it thinks critics should squirm because their greed and recklessness have been exposed.
Excusers of the encyclical attribute all criticism of it to bases motives. The Catholic Herald continues:

He [Francis] is not entering into an argument with the self-interested opponents of the science. Instead, he simply exposes their views to the radiance of Gospel teaching, and, like the rich young man and the Pharisees and Sadducees, they cannot bear its brilliance.

If you do not believe that what President Obama or the United Nations or Pope Francis advocates will actually help either the environment or the poor, you are "self-interested,” "rich,” a Pharisee or a Sadducee, someone who cannot bear the light.
The encyclical calls for "dialogue,” but the Catholic Herald certainly does not want a dialogue and does not think that Francis does, either. "He is not entering into an argument with the self-interested opponents of the science.” There you have it. No dialogue with self-interested opponents, and all opponents are self-interested.
"Anti-capitalism activist Naomi Klein … praised Pope Francis for standing up to Republicans” at a "high-level conference at the Holy See.”

"I do believe that given the attacks that are coming from the Republican Party and fossil fuel interests in the U.S. it was a particularly courageous decision to invite me here,” Klein, who lives in Canada, told journalists at the Vatican. "It indicates that the Holy See is not being intimidated and knows that when you say powerful truths, you make some powerful enemies.”

So now I am rich and powerful. How did I miss that?

She was speaking alongside Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who described the current environmental situation as "one of the biggest global crises of our time.”
"From this perspective, the encyclical is quite clear that the denial of climate change is no longer a quest of scientific truth but it is an effort to protect private interests against those of the common good,” he said.

"Denial of climate change” – "denial,” not "skepticism” – is but "an effort to protect private interests.” No one is allowed to have an opinion based on anything but greed unless they agree with President Obama, the United Nations, and Pope Francis.
Perhaps a little embarrassed by the many misstatements of fact in the encyclical, excusers reassure us that we don’t have to agree with the scientific part. But then they turn around and say that global warming is a moral issue, and as Catholics know, the faithful must believe what the papacy says on faith and morals.

"This is an all-embracing moral imperative: to protect and care for both creation, our garden home, and the human person who dwells herein — and to take action to achieve this,” said Cardinal Peter Turkson, who heads the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

Read carefully, and you see that the "dialogue” that Francis and his supporters are calling for is not a dialogue between Francis and his critics, but a dialogue between people inside and outside the Church who agree on global warming. It is a dialogue between the Vatican and the United Nations, among the Church and Naomi Klein and Ottmar Edenhofer, between the Holy Father and the president of the United States. They all get together and agree that we are evil.
Oh, yes, Francis calls for dialogue. He is like the liberals who say we need to have a conversation about race. Try it, and see what happens. Obama's attorney general said we are cowards because we know better than to enter such a one-sided conversation. Francis's minions say that we can have a dialogue with Francis as long as we uphold Church teaching – that is, uphold what Francis says.
The haters are taking their cues from the encyclical, which betrays the same hostility to critics. Francis says we consume too much: "it is not possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed countries." We have "harmful habits of consumption." We have a "habit of wasting and discarding [that] has reached unprecedented levels."
He says that we are worshipers of a "deified market." He says we exhibit "indifference" to the plight of refugees, who are fleeing, in his telling, the environmental destruction we are causing, not genocidal maniacs.
The encyclical says five things that are false and five things that are true, and the excusers say, Look, it says true things. Someone objects to the falsehoods, and they say, See, you don't believe the truths.
Obama says that just because someone doesn't use the n-word doesn't mean he is not a racist. That is true. Obama is still a liar. And the pope is still a man who mistakes his political beliefs for divine wisdom.
Obama, a man Francis much resembles, stood in the pulpit and gave a eulogy that used a lot of religious rhetoric to mask a political objective. That is what Francis has done.
Jeannie DeAngelis in American Thinker:

Fresh off a victory lap in the Rose Garden where the #LOVEWINS president narcissistically defined agreeing with him as "love,” President Obama segued from LGBTQ rights into racial rancor and Biblical misrepresentation during a eulogy where he also defined "God’s grace” as agreeing with him.

Obama and Francis are men who began with great acclaim because people thought them to be men they are not. They thought Obama was post-racial and Francis humble. George W. Bush was the post-racial one. He thought that black children needed high expectations, just like white children. Benedict was the humble one, so humble that he thought, falsely, it turned out, that the papacy would be all right without him.
The president says that slavery and segregation are not truly over, that racism just won't come out of America. The Holy Father says there is too much sin in the world, particularly in America. I say, stop all your whining, put your arm in past your elbow, and pull it out. I once knew a boy who could do it.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1240 words, total size 8 kb.

July 02, 2015

Southern Culture TV Long Before Hazzard County

Jack Kemp

With all this Confederate Flag "controversy," including a guy from Louisiana being refused his ordering a cake with a Confederate flag (he then embarrassed Walmart by their accepting a cake design with an ISIS flag)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/walmart_apologizes_for_making_isis_themed_cake.html; it brought back a childhood memory from way before "The Dukes of Hazzard" or "The Beverly Hillbillies."

In the 1950s, there was a CBS tv comedy program called The Phil Silvers Show where Phil played a fast talking NY type who was a Sergeant in a U.S. Army Motor Pool named Sgt. Bilko. He always had some scheme up his sleeve that fell through. There was one show called The Hillbilly Whiz which can be seen on YouTube athttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WchkrhR3EpI

In that show, Dick Van Dyke plays a Southern soldier (with an awful Southern accent) who is a great baseball pitching whiz. Sgt. Bilko negotiates a contract with the New York Yankees and tries to get the young :Southerner to sign. Starting at the 17 minute 20 second mark, the Southerner complains that he visited Yankee Stadium and didn't see one Confederate flag among all the banners flying! And his family certainly didn't like the name "Yankees," either.

To persuade Van Dyke to sign, Sgt. Bilko tells him that the Yankees players are all from the South - and gets various NY Yankees to come visit the young soldier, the visitors dressed up in long frock coats and string ties, looking like Kentucky Senators from the early 1900s. These include Yankees President Dan Topping and players Phil Rizzuto, Gil McDougald, Whitey Ford and Yogi Berra! It was all in good natured fun but Sgt. Bilko's deal falls apart, even though Van Dyke later signs with the Yankees without Bilko profiting from it, the Yankees using one of their Southern accented announcers named Red Barber (the other one was Mel Allen).

At the obvious risk of seeming like a guy who grew up in a different time - which I am, I think this piece of 1950s nostalgia had its merits. Yes, Sgt. Bilko's platoon rarely showed black or hispanic soldiers on the Army on base - but at least the whites from different regions of the country tolerated one another, which is more than I can say for current media social trends.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

Fourth of July Freedom Isn't Free - Lessons from a Rear Echelon Veteran

Jack Kemp and Veteran "Steve"

This is an unusual July 4th story. It is a about an Air Force veteran I know who I will call Steve (not his real name) and his complaints about the story I wrote about the Memorial Day Parade in Little Neck-Douglaston, NY this year which didn't express his concerns about the real meaning of the holiday: those veterans who died in the service of their country. This thought wasn't easy for Steve to convey to me because he had previously told me that he didn't want to be quoted about anything he said in casual conversations when I visited him. Respecting his desire to remain private and anonymous - and also wanting to express his own feelings (with my assistance) were two impossibly opposition positions to hold. He finally relented and let me tell some meaningful parts of his story and what he had learned about patriotism and sacrifice in the Air Force from his work supporting the front line airmen and combat ground troops.

Steve was a young man during the Vietnam War with a low draft number (most like to be chosen for service) and had decided to join the Air Force. One of his young relatives and two of his high school buddies had been drafted and had died in Vietnam. Although Steve wasn't a pilot or a Combat Weatherman, an Air Force specialist who parachuted out of planes to accompany ground troops into a combat zone, his behind-the-lines position still didn't keep him separated or anesthetized from the Horrors of War. His early assigned task was where he first got a profound understanding of those that made the Ultimate Sacrifice for their country.

Steve was given the task of moving sealed aluminum boxes containing the remains of service men and women recently arrived from Vietnam (yes, service women - generally nurses - were killed in Vietnam as a result of artillery shelling of military bases or aircraft crashes). Many boxes Steve lifted had the full weight of an adult but some were very light - too light. This happened because the remains of the  service veteran in that box consisted of merely a leg. That was all that could be found of that Serviceman after an explosion, often occurring in the jungle. It is a memory that never left Steve. I don't know if I was the first person Steve told this to - but I gather this isn't something he talks about at Fourth of July picnics with his family and friends.

"I had a good time in the Air Force," Steve said. "I did my job but when it was over, I got to come home. Those guys didn't."

That's why Steve feels the hoopla and parades of Memorial Day don't do the holiday or the memories of those that died in the Services justice. Only a visit to a military cemetery (or perhaps a veteran's grave elsewhere) is in the true spirit of the holiday. Parades and fireworks are more fitting for the Fourth, but as Steve reminded me, the memories of those that died in the service of their country deserve to be remembered at any time of year. I know I'm starting to sound somewhat morbid but sometimes it is necessary to be serious about serious topics. A balance of more upbeat thoughts can return quickly after we recall those who gave us the freedom to be joyous in America.

Later in his military career, Steve worked on a Strategic Air Command base as ground support. Some of you readers may remember the term "Fail Safe" from the movie of the same title. He constantly saw strategic bombers take off towards the North Pole in a full out rush headed for target cities such as Moscow and (then) Leningrad. The crews never knew if they would receive the Fail Safe radio signal  in time to order them to turn around and come home. It was either that or fly forward to face the air defenses of the Soviet Union in what would probably be for many of them a one way trip, whether they were able to drop or launch their nuclear weapons or not. And this was the daily job stress understood by everyone on the base. There were no dress rehearsals - just performances cancelled in progress.

I once attending World War II Days at the Reading, PA, Regional Airport. The organizers arranged to fly in a bunch of old nostalgic warplanes and transports - and people dressed up as soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines of that time. But there were a few senior citizens there who were the real deal from World War II. One of them who had set up a table was Bill Fili, who flew in an attack on the Ploiesti oil fields in Romania, was shot down and became a POW. An unassuming man, he sat at a table selling his DVD and wearing an old leather flight jacket. I'm a history buff and had read "Masters of the Air" by Donald Miller, the story of the Eighth Air Force in WWII. So I knew that Ploiesti was vitally strategic location of oil fields and refineries that the Germans defended with as much or more anti-aircraft units and fighter planes as were deployed around Berlin itself. In the first attack on Ploiesti, about one third of American bombers were shot down, 660 air crew members died as five flyers received the Congressional Medal of Honor - all five posthumously.  When I saw the word "Ploiesti," at Bill Fili's table, I immediately shook his hand and said, "You were on a suicide mission." Mr. Fili did not show any false modesty. He silently accepted my grateful handshake.

Recently bestselling author and former Air Force Lt. Col. and fighter pilot Dan Hampton published a book about the early days of the Wild Weasels. http://www.amazon.com/Hunter-Killers-Extraordinary-Maverick-Dangerous/dp/006237513X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1435539809&sr=1-1&keywords=the+hunter+killers   These are the fighter pilot-electronic warfare officer (EWO) teams who, starting in 1965, flew together while inventing modern anti-radar-guided ground missile tactics against Soviet SAM-2 missile sites in North Vietnam.  At that time, the U.S. had no effective tactics to stop the Soviet made (and often manned) SAM-2 missiles. To impress the officers in charge of the Wild Weasel program, they received a visit from none less than the Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. Harold Brown, as this Youtube story of their exploits mentions at 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEtHmGcl6Y 

The first Wild Weasels were two seater F-100 fighter jets equipped with newly created electronic systems that dueled with ground missile sites trying to track and kill them. Every lesson could be final one. In fact, about one half of the Wild Weasel teams flying in F-100s (and later in bigger and faster F-105 fighters) didn't make it back alive. And, if the mission wasn't dangerous enough, there were politically correct orders to not shoot at anti-aircraft ground guns (this included ones with radar the EWO could track and be aware they were tracking him plane) nor blow up dams or SAM-2 sights being built but not yet completed. The early Weasels also had no air-to-ground missiles designed to home in on ground radar signals as later Vietnam era Weasels had.

This political correctness recalls a comparison with story I once heard a college professor tell about native northern peoples that hunted grizzly or polar bears. Because they tribes considered an animal that stood up on its hind legs to be something akin to humans and almost sacred, the hunters were not allowed to spear them from a distance, so they had to hold a sharp tipped spear high between their underarm and shoulder and fall back towards the ground when the bear attacked them. In this way, the spear slid forward and could (sometimes) kill the attacking bear. The Rules of Engagement in Vietnam - and in later Middle Eastern wars - were at times not that much of a conceptual or tactical improvement on these primitive bear hunting methods.

Even the first such missiles the Wild Weasels soon got, the AGM-45 Shrike, had to be fired at from five to ten miles from the the SAM ground sites, increasing the risk to the aircrews. Later air-to-ground anti-radar missiles used by the Weasels had a greater range and these newer missiles could turn around if they overshot the target. This resulted in new tactics that were incorporated to benefit from this air-to-ground missile flight corrections. But this obviously still wasn't - and isn't - a "milk run," as both sides improved and still improve their weapons and tactics over time.

So why did these early Wild Weasel pilots do this? Basically, they were leading - as sophisticated decoys - groups of fighter planes in their attacks on major ground targets and, by taking out the major ground missile threats, they protected their fellow pilots who flew along side them in fighter-bombers that didn't have anything like the Wild Weasels' electronic warfare capabilities. I'm going to put this into terms that civilians can more quickly relate to: the Weasels play an X-Box game - but with real cannon and missiles and brain pounding g-force pressures. The Wild Weasels were - and are - the Air Force's high tech personification of sacrifice for their fellow air men and women and their country.  

This past Memorial Day, I went to the starting area of the Little Neck-Douglaston parade. There were small, indirect reminders of fallen veterans such a sign by the Korean community saying they will not forget what Americans did for them and small wooden float showing a Boy Scout leaning in front of the gravestone of a World War II veteran who had died in recent years. But the official commemorations were the closing ceremonies held a mile away, where a flag was ceremonially folded into a triangle and speeches were made. Next year I will station myself at the closing ceremonies location of that parade, near the acts showing the real meaning of Memorial Day and how it differs from other national holidays such as Veterans Day. And that's a worthy New Year's resolution to make, even on this July Fourth.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1706 words, total size 10 kb.

Three-base hit -- or three home runs

Dana Mathewson

These were from our home page, and I think all three of these folks hit 'em out of the park. Pardon me for sending three, but I just couldn't decide among them.

http://news.investors.com/IBD-Editorials-On-The-Right/070115-759890-george-will-says-some-republican-candidates-are-losing-it.htm?p=2
 
 
image
 
 
 
 
 
George Will: Some GOP Candidates Becoming Unhinged
Ted Cruz wants to turn the Supreme Court into a third political branch by requiring judicial retention elections.
 
Preview by Yahoo
 
 
 
 http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/062915-759492-obamacare-decisions-show-how-supreme-court-has-been-subverted.htm?p=2
 
image
 
 
 
 
 
Thomas Sowell: Supreme Court Disasters Erode Freedom
The recent Supreme Court decisions about ObamaCare and same-sex marriage erode our freedom under the Constitution.
 
Preview by Yahoo
 
 

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/062515-759043-church-killings-wouldnt-have-been-prevented-by-gun-control-or-no-confederate-flag.htm?p=2
 
 
image
 
 
 
 
 
Charles Krauthammer: After Church Murders, We Risk ...
After a massacre like the one at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, our immediate reaction is to do something. But doing something can go too far, like trying to get...
 
Preview by Yahoo
 
 

For sure, the left has no thinkers like these!
See our website at:www.danamarthamusic.com

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 11 kb.

Obama to Forfeit Guantanamo Bay Base to Castro

Timothy Birdnow

Raul Castro is demanding the return of Guantanamo Bay to Cuba as the price for normalizing relations with the U.S. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/07/raul-castro-demands-return-of-gitmo-to-cuba-before-diplomatic-relations-restored/#!

According to Fox News:

"As President Obama announced that Cuba was restoring full diplomatic relations, reopening embassies in Washington and Havana after more than five decades, Cuba was once again demanding the U.S. return Guantanamo to the country.

"To achieve normalization [of diplomatic relations] it will be essential also that the territory illegally occupied by the Guantanamo Naval Base is returned,” read a declaration posted on Granma, the official organ of the Communist Party in the island."

End excerpt

So we give up our claim on Gitmo, or Obama doesn't get his legacy. What way do you wager we will go?

Actually, there is no doubt about what we will do; "restoring" relations with Cuba means we are recognizing the communists as the legitimate government of Cuba. This means we have to give the base up.

Here is a little history of our lease on Gitmo:

"n 1898, the Spanish American War united Cuba and the United States. Aided by the U.S., Cuba fought for independence from Spain. That same year, the U.S. captured Guantanamo Bay, and the Spanish surrendered. In December of 1898, the Treaty of Paris was signed and Cuba was granted independence.

At the wake of the 20th century, the U.S. formally leased this 45 square mile parcel from newly independent Cuba to use as a fueling station. The lease was renewed in 1934 under Fulgencio Batista and President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration. The agreement required consent of both parties should either want to withdraw; that is, reconsider U.S. occupation of the base. Diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba were severed in January of 1961. In hopes the U.S. will forfeit the base, Cuba no longer accepts the $5,000 annual American rent. In 2002, Cuba officially requested that Guantanamo Bay be returned. Interpretation of the 1934 mutual consent agreement differs, causing frequent squabbles between the two countries."

End excerpt.

As long as we did not recognize the Castro regime we had a claim to the lease. Now we have none, and Guantanamo will be closed or we will be trespassers violating international law and a duly signed treaty. Cute trick; Obama has always wanted to close Guantanamo and now he has a way to do it without his personal involvement.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.

Why African Americans should Honor the Confederate Battle Flag

Timothy Birdnow

The recent attack on a black church in South Carolina has led to a renewed call for the banning of the Confederate battle flag. The killer posed for a photograph with the Stars and Bars prior to his attack on the historic church in downtown Charleston, and, in usual "never let a good crisis go to waste" fashion the Left immediately began a blitzkreig campaign to ban the offending symbol, managing to stampede people like Nikki Barbour of Alabama into issuing the ban. This iconoclastic feeding frenzy is a bit reminiscent of the Taliban dynamiting the giant Buddha statues in Afghanistan, or of ISIS destroying ancient artwork, but let us put that aside for the moment; we are told that the Stars and Bars is a symbol of oppression and a hateful image insulting to the African American community and it must be destroyed. Is that the case?

First, it should be remembered that the Stars and Bars were not the flag of the Confederacy, but of the armies defending southern soil. This is an important distinction in itself because it was the political entity of the Confederacy that imposed slavery, not the military wing. The Confederate army had as it's principle goal the defeat of the invading armies sent down by Lincoln and the Republicans. For most Southern soldiers slavery was not the reason why soldiers fought (it wasn't for most Northern recruits, either, but rather to preserve the Union - Lincoln was very careful to keep the slavery issue out of the discussion in the early days of the war.) The political entity that was the Confederacy was represented by it's own flag. The Stars and Bars represented a high calling; the Confederate flag did not.

In his inaugural address on March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln stated that he had "no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." and yet he launched an invasion of the South anyway. To most Southerners this was a fight to defend their homes, their families, their land and their honor.

That said, one can perhaps still see why many blacks want the battle flag gone. But there is more to this.
Whites weren't the only ones fighting under that banner.

In his Douglass Monthly column of September 1861 the esteemed Stephan Douglass described the battle of Bull Run:

"It is now pretty well established, that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of the traitors and rebels. There were such soldiers at Manassas, and they are probably there still. There is a Negro in the army as well as in the fence, and our Government is likely to find it out before the war comes to an end. That the Negroes are numerous in the rebel army, and do for that army its heaviest work, is beyond question. They have been the chief laborers upon those temporary defences in which the rebels have been able to mow down our men. Negroes helped to build the batteries at Charleston. They relieve their gentlemanly and military masters from the stiffening drudgery of the camp, and devote them to the nimble and dexterous use of arms. Rising above vulgar prejudice, the slaveholding rebel accepts the aid of the black man as readily as that of any other. If a bad cause can do this, why should a good cause be less wisely conducted?"

end

There has been criticism of Douglass by liberals who claim he had no way of knowing this, although Mr. Douglass was in Washington at that time and may well have gone out to witness the battle as did so many Washington citizens.

The fact is, an indeterminate though sizable number of black men fought alongside whites to defend their homes, their families, and their honor. http://www.confederatelegion.com/Black_Confederate_Soldiers.html Early in the war they were generally relegated to support roles - cooks, musicians, stevedores, etc. - but March 13, 1865 the Confederate government formally approved recruiting black soldiers. It was too little too late, but the point is that there were black soldiers serving under the Stars and Bars. And there had been many serving all along.

The Census of 1860 showed 240,747 free blacks in the Confederate territories. http://www.civil-war.net/census.asp?census=Total There were 15,000 more free blacks in the South than in the free North. And some of those, I might add, were slaveholders in their own right; consider South Carolina's William "April" Ellison http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/african-americans/William-Ellison-bio.htmwho owned 63 slaves, according to the census of 1860. Ellison certainly supported the Confederacy as did many of the free blacks, and it is likely at least some sought to serve in the Confederate army. It is difficult to get exact numbers on how many black Confederates there were (the most modest estimate places that number at 3000 http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/09/black-confederates/ although some estimates show a much higher number), because they were not officially allowed to serve.

Why not? Gun control.

Slaves were not allowed to possess firearms in the South. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/01/gun_control_a_failed_american_experiment.html Southern society feared a slave uprising, as happened in Haiti, and there was an omnipresent fear of the slaves rising up to kill their masters. Strict prohibitions against the possession of firearms were enacted. Since there was little in the way of manufacturing in the South most soldiers had to supply their own personal firearms. Black recruits certainly didn't have any, and would not be given any by a Confederacy fearful of those same guns being turned on them. As a result, the black Confederate was generally relegated to supporting roles.

It is interesting to note that Barack Obama called for gun control when speaking to the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/18/obama-politicizes-charleston-shooting-calls-for-gun-control-slams-america/ In other words, he called for the reimplementation of the very thing designed to keep slaves under the thumb of white oppression.

And he has also called for the scrubbing of history, the banning of the Confederate battle flag. Does Mr. Obama want to forget the sacrifices made by African America men and women who defended their homes and their families?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/20/white-house-obama-believes-confederate-flag-belongs-in-a-museum/

He and the others who demand the removal of that flag from public life dishonor those brave men (and the women they left behind). It is tantamount to dismissing their service as inconsequential. It is an insult to every Southerner of any and all races.

It is an insult to Native Americans; The "Five Civilized Tribes" formally allied with the Confederacy and fought at the battle of Pea Ridge http://www.historycentral.com/CivilWar/people/Native.html and numerous other Native American tribes battled Union forces in the West. Why? Most tribes held slaves themselves, and had no love for an American government they felt was duplicitous and encroaching on their territory. These Indian Confederates are equally dishonored by the move to ban the Stars and Bars.

It must also be pointed out that the Stars and Bars represents the ultimate victory of African Americans. The suffering that reached it's climax in the Civil War brought freedom to those who had been in bondage. Is it better to forget this? Removing the Confederate battle flag is equally an insult to the triumph of freedom, the overthowing of an evil institution. If that is the case, why do we not forget the march on Selma or Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. Do not these things hearken back to a distasteful time? They are part of our history, and to remove the bad is equally insulting to removing the good.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1318 words, total size 10 kb.

June 30, 2015

Judge Orders Brady Center to pay legal fees

Dana Mathewson


Let's hoist a glass in honor of the judge!

I thought you might be interested in this articleJudge orders Brady Center to pay ammo dealer’s legal fees after dismissing lawsuit.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/judge-orders-brady-center-to-pay-ammo-dealers-legal-fees-after-dismissing/

 

A federal judge has ordered that the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence pay the legal fees of an online ammunition dealer it sued for the Aurora movie theater shooting.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

The Pope & the SEIU

Jack Kemp

From the National Catholic Reporter:

http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/organizers-union-leaders-seek-influence-francis-us-visit-through-vatican-meetings
Organizers, union leaders seek to influence Francis' US visit through Vatican meetings

Joshua J. McElwee | Jun. 9, 2015
Francis in the United States
Rome

A group of some 20 American community organizers and union leaders are holding meetings with Vatican officials this week to sway Pope Francis into addressing a number of lingering national social justice issues in his upcoming visit to the United States.
Organized by the national faith-based action network PICO and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the leaders are meeting with four pontifical councils, the head of two pontifical academies, leadership of two global religious orders, and the executive director of Caritas Internationalis.
Among the key issues they are asking officials to advise the pope to consider discussing with President Barack Obama or during his address to Congress: immigration reform, economic injustice for low-wage workers, pervasive racism in U.S. institutions and society, and mass incarceration.
In an interview Monday at the beginning of their visit, five of the organizers laid out the specific requests they might make to Vatican officials and what brought them to make the trip from various parts of the U.S.
"Pope Francis' words and example really resonate with people," said Joseph Fleming, who helped organize the group as the Catholic engagement coordinator for PICO.
 
The pope, Fleming said, is "speaking to a spiritual hunger that people feel and a sense that things are out of balance. There's growing economic insecurity and pressures on families that are not being spoken to and addressed."
The group, he said, came to the Vatican "to share the experience of our people and to deliver a message to close advisers to Pope Francis about some of the key themes that we hope he'll address."
A national organizing network first founded under Jesuit leadership, PICO works with approximately 2,000 faith congregations nationwide, including some 500 Catholic parishes.
The pope is to visit the United States in late September after spending a few days in Cuba.
In the United States, the pope will visit Washington, D.C., New York and Philadelphia. He will become the first pope to address a joint session of Congress Sept. 24 and will also address the U.N. on Sept. 25.
Protestant Bishop Dwayne Royster, a Philadelphian who made the trip as the executive director of Philadelphians Organized to Witness, Empower and Rebuild (POWER), said he hopes to influence the pope to speak about economic dignity during the visit to his city for the World Meeting of Families.
Almost 30 percent of Philadelphia's population lives in poverty, and some 12.5 percent there make do with less than $5,000 a year, Royster said.
"We hope the Holy Father is going to address the issue that poverty destroys families," said Royster, who is also the assistant presiding bishop of Higher Ground Christian Fellowship International.
"I think it's incredibly important that when we talk about families and the challenges that families are facing, poverty is a major challenge for families right in Philadelphia," he said. "And we need to talk about how the structures of institutional racism manifest themselves to keep people in poverty over generations."
Scott Washburn, an official with the international staff of SEIU, said the union in its message to Vatican officials wanted to focus particularly on the struggles low-wage workers face in the U.S.
Two U.S. women who are fast-food workers will join the group in its meetings to talk about their lives, Washburn said.
"They want to tell exactly what the experience is of being women of color working in the United States' economy and how what the pope has been saying and doing has just given an energy and enthusiasm and hope to millions of people," Washburn said.
The organizers have meetings this week with officials at the Pontifical Councils for Inter-religious Dialogue and for the Promotion of Christian Unity. They are also meeting with Cardinal Peter Turkson, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko, president of the Pontifical Council for the Laity.
They also have sessions arranged with the director of the peace and justice office for the Order of Friars Minor, one of the main Franciscan orders, and with Fr. Adolfo Nicolas, the superior general of the global Jesuit order.
They are also to meet with Michel Roy, the Caritas Internationalis executive director; Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences; and with officials at the U.S. embassy to the Holy See.
Fleming said the group arranged their meetings on the advice of several U.S. bishops and with the help of Honduran Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, the coordinator of Pope Francis' Council of Cardinals.
Rodriguez -- the former Caritas president and archbishop of Tegucigalpa -- addressed a national PICO conference last month, where the group launched a yearlong effort to host reading groups for Francis' apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium ("The Joy of the Gospel"). Fleming said the cardinal later offered his thoughts on who organizers might meet with at the Vatican.
Included in those coming to Rome was one Catholic deacon, Allen Stevens, who is a pastoral associate at St. Peter Claver Catholic Church in New Orleans.
Stevens, who also works with a PICO affiliate in the city called Micah, said he wanted to stress the impact that mass incarceration and institutional racism is having in the U.S.
"Pope Francis talks about the economy of exclusion," Stevens said. "There are so many people of color who are excluded," he said, mentioning statistics that 1 in 7 African-American men in New Orleans are either on probation, parole or incarcerated.
Sarah Silvafierro, another member of the group who leads the Las Cruces, N.M., PICO affiliate NM CAFe (Comunidades en Accion y de Fe), said any words the pope can give addressing immigration reform could accelerate permanent change on the issue.
"What we want to be doing is continuing to work with our bishops ... but also know that the pope and the larger papal office supports and encourages our work in the U.S.," she said. "We could actually accelerate something permanent around immigration reform with the spirit that the pope will bring and the work that we'll continue to do locally."
The Vatican has yet to announce the official dates of Francis' U.S. trip or exactly in what engagements he might be taking part. Fleming said he and the organizers will attend the pope's weekly audience Wednesday and said they hope they might have an opportunity to speak to the pope personally about his visit.
Washburn, the union leader, said people in the United States are "as divided as we've ever been by race, by economics, by politics, by everything."
Saying that the pope's decision to tie the visit to the U.S. with a visit to Cuba shows that "old wounds can heal," he said he hoped Francis' words in the U.S. highlight reconciliation and show "we're at our best when we're together."
[Joshua J. McElwee is NCR Vatican correspondent. His email address is jmcelwee@ncronline.org. Follow him on Twitter:

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1186 words, total size 8 kb.

A Call to Arms?

Dana Mathewson

Here is a call for aid by the F.B.I. http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2015/06/a-call-for-help-to-all-militia-and.html

This looks good. Probably is legit. But who, after all, is the F.B.I.? Part of the DOJ. Who oversees the head of the DOJ? Why, The Great Zero. What is one of Zero's fondest wishes? Universal disarmament.

What's one of the ways to achieve that? Gun registration -- or any other way to FIND OUT WHO'S GOT THE GUNS. Doesn't using your gun(s) to help out the F.B.I. sound like a way to tell the D.O.J. that YOU'VE GOT GUNS?

I have faith in my fellow citizens. I believe that if ISIS starts blasting away, we'll start blasting back. I don't think we'll need any F.B.I. types to tell us how.

Am I paranoid? You can't say Zero hasn't given me reason not to be. And as they say, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they AREN'T out to get you.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

Where is Francis' Encyclical on Christian Persecution?

Jack Kemp forwards this:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259132/wheres-popes-encyclical-christian-persecution-raymond-ibrahim
Where’s the Pope’s Encyclical on Christian Persecution?

If even the Pope does not speak up for persecuted Christians, what can be expected of Western, secular politicians?

June 25, 2015
Raymond Ibrahim

Pope Francis recently released a new encyclical. Portions of it deal with environmentalism, global warming, and climate change. Naturally, this has prompted controversy.
It’s noteworthy that Francis didn’t merely opine on global warming during this or that sermon, but that he issued a papal encyclical on the matter. Encyclicals are much more formal and significant that passing comments made during mass. They are letters written by a pope and sent to bishops all around the world. In turn, the bishops are meant to disseminate the encyclical’s ideas to all the priests and churches in their jurisdiction, so that the pope’s teaching reaches every church-attending Catholic.
All this leads to the following question: Where is Pope Francis’ encyclical concerning the rampant persecution that Christians—including many Catholics—are experiencing around the world in general, the Islamic world in particular?
To be sure, the pope has acknowledged it. On April 21, during mass held at Casa Santa Marta, Francis said that today’s church is a "church of martyrs.” He even referenced several of the recent attacks on Christians by Muslims (without of course mentioned the latter’s religious identity).
Said Pope Francis:
In these days how many Stephens [early Christian martyred in Book of Acts] there are in the world! Let us think of our brothers whose throats were slit on the beach in Libya [by the Islamic State]; let’s think of the young boy who was burnt alive by his [Pakistani Muslim] companions because he was a Christian; let us think of those migrants thrown from their boat into the open sea by other [African Muslim] migrants because they were Christians; let us think – just the day before yesterday – of those Ethiopians assassinated because they were Christians… and of many others. Many others of whom we do not even know and who are suffering in jails because they are Christians… The Church today is a Church of martyrs: they suffer, they give their lives and we receive the blessing of God for their witness.
The pope is obviously well acquainted with the reality of Christian persecution around the world. So why isn’t he issuing an encyclical about it? Such an encyclical would be very useful.
The pope could instruct bishops to acknowledge the truth about Christian persecution and to have this news spread to every Catholic church. Perhaps a weekly prayer for the persecuted church could be institutionalized—keeping the plight of those hapless Christians in the spotlight, so Western Catholics and others always remember them, talk about them, and, perhaps most importantly, understand why they are being persecuted.
Once enough people are acquainted with the reality of Christian persecution, they could influence U.S. policymakers—at least to drop those policies that directly exacerbate the sufferings of Christian minorities in the Middle East.
Whatever the effects of such an encyclical—and one can only surmise positive ones—at the very least, the pope would be addressing a topic entrusted to his care and requiring his attention.
In 1958, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical that addressed the persecution of Christians. A portion follows:
We are aware—to the great sorrow of Our fatherly heart—that the Catholic Church, in both its Latin and Oriental rites, is beset in many lands by such persecutions that the clergy and faithful … are confronted with this dilemma: to give up public profession and propagation of their faith, or to suffer penalties, even very serious ones.
 
[…]
Missionaries who have left their homes and dear native lands and suffered many serious discomforts in order to bring the light and the strength of the gospel to others, have been driven from many regions as menaces and evil-doers…
Note that Pius does not mention the burning and bombing of churches, or the abduction, rape, enslavement, and slaughter of Christians. The reason is that Christians living outside the West in 1958 rarely experienced such persecution. In other words, today’s global persecution of Christians is exponentially worse than in 1958. Pius complained about how Christianity was being contained, not allowed to spread and win over converts.
Today, indigenous Christians who’ve been in the Middle East before Islam was conceived are being slaughtered, their churches burned to the ground, their women and children, enslaved, raped, and forced to convert. "ISIS” is the tip of the iceberg.
Even in the West, statistics indicate that Islam is set to supersede Christianity, at least in numbers.
Yet no encyclical from Pope Francis on any of this. Instead, Francis deems it more fit to issue a proclamation addressing the environment and climate change.
Whatever position one holds concerning these topics, it is telling that the pope—the one man in the world best placed and most expected to speak up for millions of persecuted Christians and Catholics around the world—is more interested in speaking up for "the world” itself.
Bear in mind, the Christian worldview is not about "saving the earth”—"where moth and rust do corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal”—but in saving souls, both in the now and hereafter. The Lord questioned Saul of Tarsus as to why he was persecuting his flock, not about the environment.
Yet here we are: if even the Catholic Pope does not deem the ongoing, systematic assault on Christianity and Christians a priority issue in need of its own encyclical, what can be expected from the average secular/atheistic politician in the West?
The answer is before us: brutal persecution and slaughter of Christians on the one hand, and absolute indifference from the West on the other.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 941 words, total size 7 kb.

June 29, 2015

Roberts Saves Obamacare of Tlhe Great Pain Robbery

The Great Pain Robbery; John Roberts and King v. Burwell

Timothy Birdnow

In the case of King v. Burwell (more aptly named King V. Emperor) Chief Justice John Roberts robbed the American People in a monumentally hypocritical ruling upholding the intend of the Obamacare legislation over the actual wording of the law.

Roberts wrote:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14114_qol1.pdf&sa=U&ei=_iyMVYCDDof4yASZ4IvgCQ&ved=0CDwQFjAI&usg=AFQjCNFtkesCtADxPIBe0HlrvWWiYdb4Yg

"If the statutory language is plain, the Court must enforce it according to its terms. But oftentimes the meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context. So when deciding whether the language is plain,the Court must read the words "in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 133. Pp. 7–9.
(b)
When read in context, the phrase "an Exchange established bythe State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]” is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges."

What Roberts is doing here is an interesting sleight-of-hand. He is setting himself up as a strict constructionist of the Law, using the concept of Original Intent to discern not the Constitutionality of the Law itself but rather to determine if the law is following the intent of those who drafted it.

Original Intent is defined as:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Original+Intent

"The theory of interpretation by which judges attempt to ascertain the meaning of a particular provision of a state or federal constitution by determining how the provision was understood at the time it was drafted and Ro

So robbin' Roberts determined that the completely partisan vote (one requiring payoffs, kickbacks, and all manner of parliamentary skullduggery) intended to create these Exchanged whether the individual states agreed or not. And we know that is the case because grubbing Jonathan Gruber said in 2012:

"f you're a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. … I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it.”

But this point seems lost on Roberts, who seemed determined to make this the law of the land.

If Roberts wants to stick to an original intent view of the Law, why did he uphold Obamacare in the first place? He was quick to seek the intent on the partisan Congress that barely pushed this morbidly obese elephant through the narrow iron gates of jurisprudence, but he ignored the original intent of the framers of the Constitution who would never have agreed to a central government forcing people to purchase a product as a requirement of existing in these United States. Roberts signed off on a fundamental redefinition of the relationship between the citizen and the central government with a derisive snort:

"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

And yet the good Justice is more than willing to to protect the Administration and Congress, the powerful elites who brought us this horror, from the consequences of their political choices and their mistakes. He is also quite willing to make political judgements, as he has shown in King V. Burwell:

"The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement could well push a State’s individual Aninsurance market into a death spiral"

So what? What Roberts is doing here is making a policy judgement. He further states;

"Petitioners respond that Congress was not worried about the effects of withholding tax credits from Stateswith Federal Exchanges because "Congress evidently believed it was offering states a deal they would not refuse.” Brief for Petitioners 36. Congress may have beenwrong about the States’ willingness to establish their own Exchanges, petitioners continue, but that does not allow this Court to rewrite the Act to fix that problem."

But it is Roberts who is rewriting the law - as he did in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. If the law is flawed it is supposed to go back to Congress, not receive a rewrite from SCOTUS. Here he admits that there was political gamesmanship involved, but that doesn't matter. He also admits in this opinion that the usual open political process was short-circuited, but says that doesn't matter either.

"The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting. (To cite just one, the Actcreates three separate Section 1563s. See 124 Stat. 270, 911, 912.) Several features of the Act’s passage contributed to that unfortunate reality. Congress wrote key parts of the Act behind closed doors, rather than through "the traditional legislative process.” Cannan, A LegislativeHistory of the Affordable Care Act:"

[...]

"And Congress passed much of the Act using a complicated budgetary procedure known as "reconciliation,” which limited opportunities for debate and amendment, and bypassed the Senate’s normal 60-vote filibuster requirement."

So, Roberts admits that this Act was a con, a snow job designed to pass without an actual intent of Congress. He knew that there was no "sense of Congress" because most members didn't even know what was in the Bill, a point made by Nancy Pelosi prior to passage. There was no reason to look to the intent of the law; it had no intent, at least none that was meant to be understood. It was a trick from the beginning.

So Roberts should have simply allowed it to fall of it's own weight. That is judicial restraint. Saving this was an egregious act of judiciall activism. If Roberts gave a flying frig about Original intent he would have sent the law back to Congress. The Republicans would have dutifully amended it anyway.

This ruling, coupled with the gay marriage ruling that SCOTUS just handed down that has fundamentally redefined an institution that has always held a specific meaning, illustrated the absolute politicization of the court system. No longer content to rule on points of laws as they are written, the courts have instead taken to writing their own law, and as such they are now a rival to Congress, a rival that hides behind the cloak of lifetime appointments. The original purpose of lifetime appointments was to shield judges from excessive political pressure. Now it makes them tyrants, capable of making any law they wish. What is needed is a Constitutional amendment that at least forces judges and SCOTUS to face retention votes, and possibly recall. This would be a catastrophic move, but at this juncture something must be done. The courts, which were intended to act as conservative bodies that would restrain the more radical public passions, are now at the vanguard of revolutionary appetites.

Something must be done.

Roberts concludes:

"In a democracy, the power to make the law rests withthose chosen by the people."

So why is he changing the law? If he weren't a hypocrite he would allow the representatives of the People to rewrite the damned thing. His actions are not those of an honest man.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1224 words, total size 8 kb.

Killing Spree in Tunisia

Dana Mathewson

W-w-wait! This only happens in the U.S.! I know because Zippy told us! Nowhere else!
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/06/27/tourists-flee-tunisa-after-deadly-attack-on-beach-resort/

I thought you might be interested in this article Beach massacre gunman reportedly told Tunisians to flee during shooting.

The gunman who fatally shot 38 beachgoers Friday at a popular Tunisian tourist location reportedly instructed his fellow Tunisians to get away while he fired his assault rifle into the fleeing crowd.

A QUESTION FROM TIM

Was the shooter carrying a Confederate battle flag? We know racist white Americans who venerate the Stars and Bars are the ones who do these things.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

Walmart Baking ISIS Cakes

Jack Kemp

On top of this, journalist Humberto Fontova pointed out that Walmart is still selling Che Guevara posters, idolizing a murderous, racist thug who wrote very negatively about black people.

Jack

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/walmart_apologizes_for_making_isis_themed_cake.html


June 28, 2015
Walmart apologizes for making ISIS themed cake
By Rick Moran

Walmart has removed all traces of the Confederate battle flag from its stoes and websites because they don't want to "offend" anyone:

"We never want to offend anyone with the products that we offer. We have taken steps to remove all items promoting the confederate flag from our assortment -- whether in our stores or on our web site," said Walmart spokesman Brian Nick. "We have a process in place to help lead us to the right decisions when it comes to the merchandise we sell. Still, at times, items make their way into our assortment improperly -- this is one of those instances."

Apparently, that "process" that helps them make the "right decisions" broke down a bit at a Walmart store in Slidell, LA. The store refused to decorate a cake with the Confederate battle flag but decided it was OK to decorate a cake with the black flag of ISIS.
Daily Caller:

Chuck Netzhammer, a local resident, presented his story in a YouTube video Friday, saying, "Alright, Wal-Mart, you’ve got some explaining to do. I went to go buy a cake from you all the other day with this image on it and y’all wouldn’t do it. I went back yesterday and managed to get the ISIS battle flag [cake instead].”
Netzhammer shows the ISIS battle flag cake to the camera as well as the rejection letter Wal-Mart gave him for the confederate flag cake request. Netzhammer also shows the receipt that went along with the ISIS battle flag cake that Wal-Mart agreed to bake.
"Wal-Mart, can you please explain why you’re alienating Southern Americans with this trash that you allow to be sold at your store, while at the same point Confederate flag memorabilia is not allowed?” Netzhammer asks.
The Daily caller was contacted by Randy Hargrove, a spokesman for Wal-Mart, who said in an email, "Our local store made a mistake. The cake in the video should not have been made and we apologize.”
Hargrove later explained to TheDC, "We made the decision to stop selling Confederate flag related items promoting the flag’s image. For that reason we did not make the cake. [Netzhammer] brought in the other image of ISIS and really, what happened, was our associate didn’t recognize what that image was and what it meant or it wouldn’t have been made.”

The Walmart "associate" is one of the densest and uninformed people on the planet. The black flag of ISIS has been all over the news for a year and this dummy didn't recognize it?

Most retail companies that axed the battle flag still sell Nazi themed merchandise, not to mention the communist flag, images of Che, and other hate-inspired products. It would be nice to expect the same standard applied to all such products but nobody is screaming to get rid of Nazi or Communist paraphenalia so it's safe for the retailers to continue selling it.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 3 kb.

June 28, 2015

Tim on Roberts and Obamacare at American Thinker



Timothy Birdnow

I analyze the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare at American Thinker.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/6_26_2015_14_18.html

Roberts logic is twisted worse than an Archimedean screw.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 3 kb.

June 27, 2015

NY Times Dynasty founder Ochs buried with a Confederate Flag!

Jack Kemp

The little mosaic flag pattern at the 42nd Street subway platform is secondary to the historical fact that NY Times dynasty founder and late president Adolph Ochs was buried with a Confederate flag - and his mother was a spy for the Confederacy!

To paraphrase James Carville, drag a $100 investigation through the NY Times and you never know what you will find. Maybe we can start a petition demanding that the Sulzberger-Ochs family dig up their ancestor and remove the Confederate flag from his burial site. But his mother still remains a charter member of the United Daughters of the Confederacy! This is a good thing to introduce into any conversation with a liberal who quotes the NY Times. Their Ochs is gored!

From the NY Post:

Confederate flags adorn this Times Square subwaystation

June 25, 2015 | 11:33pm

Tiny Confederate flags are right under the noses of millions of straphangers passing through the Times Square subway station every day.

The tile mosaics honor the late New York Times head Adolph S. Ochs, a Southerner with "strong ties to the Confederacy,” said Civil War historian Dr. David Jackowe.

The tiles were installed more than 90 years ago when stations were adorned with symbols to honor prominent figures — in this case, the Tennessee-raised Ochs, who was buried with a Confederate flag after his death in 1935.
But commuters are disgusted, especially after last week’s slaughter at a Charleston, South Carolina, church allegedly by Dylann Roof, a Confederate flag-waving racist.

"As a black man, it’s insulting, and it’s racist,” said Cain Steed, 38. "It hurts. It shouldn’t be represented here.”
Isjad Choudary, 20, also wanted them gone.

"Erase! Done!” the student said. "With what just happened, you can see it’s still influencing racist behavior. No way! Kaput!”
Erwin Minerve, 42, said: "Take it down! I want my son to be aware because it’s history, but I don’t want it to be blatantly plastered in our face in the subway like that.”

Although born in Ohio, Ochs had ties to the rebel cause, Jackowe wrote in Civil War Times in 2012.
His mom, Bertha Levi Ochs, was a charter member of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and helped smuggle spies and quinine during the war, Jackowe said.

Ochs would run editorials and pictorial editions devoted to Dixie, Jackowe wrote.

The MTA dismissed any similarity to the flag.

"It is a geometric pattern, not a flag design, and has no reference to anything beyond a pattern,” said spokesman Kevin Ortiz. "Similar patterns in other palettes of colors are found in various subway stations.”

End

Jack sends us this little ditty:

Come listen to a story about a man named Ochs
A poor news man
Rebel flag on his coffin box...

And Tim writes the ending:

And now it's time to say goodbye to Ochs and all his prat
buried in his coffin as a good confederat
He might have been a liberal and was sure a Democrat
but now he's gone and gone along and that's the end of that!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 5 kb.

Non-Religious Arguments against Gay Marriage

Timothy Birdnow

Here is an e-mail I banged off to a local radio personality (on our conservative station) about gay marriage. He said there are no non-religious arguments against ssm, and I begged to differ. Here is my rebuttal.

Dear Tony Columbo,

This is a bit lengthy, and it is short on citations (I was in a bit of a hurry to get it done) but you can no doubt look them up yourself. At any rate, I hope you read this whole thing with an open mind..

I caught your comments on The Dave Glover Show about gay marriage. You stated "there is no non-religious argument against gay marriage" and were clearly quite sincere. Dave, to his credit, offered the slippery slope argument, and that is a powerful and valid one indeed; it is what the late Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan meant by "defining deviancy down". Once we have accepted this novel concept (one that has never existed in human history) than where does it stop? Certainly polygamists have a stronger historical claim to marriage, and we can no longer deny them. Who else? An Imam issued a Fatwah saying a man may have sexual relations with his dead wife for up to twelve hours after her passing. Do we now start issuing marriage licenses to corpses? Necrophilia is a real thing, and it used to be thought of as no worse than homosexuality. Do we go to incest? If not, why not? As long as they do not procreate it should be their decision, right? How about bestiality? Why shouldn't a boy marry his dog? A woman and her horse? Why stop there; shouldn't a person be allowed to marry anything or anyone, be they animal, vegetable, or mineral. Engineers are working on humanoid robots for sex purposes; why not offer true "mail order brides"?

We don't agree with any of this because marriage has a specific meaning. It is a specific, narrowly defined thing. It is not just a commitment between two or more people. It must be consummated, for instance, for a marriage to be legally binding. That means if you don't get it you don't have it. Granted, many a marriage winds up platonic, but there must at least have been one good try. And marriage, rather than a general relationship, is about children and family building. While people do skirt the rules on that, the actual purpose of marriage is procreation. It is a partnership to raise children if and when they come. It is based on complementary natures of the partners involved - something impossible for homosexual couples, or any of the other configurations mentioned above.

Words mean things. Insanity can be defined in part as making words mean whatever one chooses. Marriage is a very specific thing.

That is why the objection that is often tossed out to this argument - that there once were laws to prevent interracial marriages - is so faulty. Yes, such laws once existed, and they were even well-intentioned; the children of such a union had a hard life in those days, being a part of neither community. But the reality is mixed marriages met the criteria for marriage; a man, a woman, interfertility. A family was created. The parents raised the children. But gay couples must adopt (or at least one does), and then they cannot give the children a normal life experience when they do. The children do not receive the benefit of a complementary parental union. learn only one sexual role.

Dave's objection to your point was a good one. But there are many others.

History

Did you know that the first country to actually legalize homosexual marriage was Holland, and that was in the year 2000? Prior to that there was no such thing as gay marriage anywhere, at any time. The closest one can come to such a thing was a practice in ancient Greece where scholars sometimes apprenticed young men, trading sexual favors for education. The practice had no permanent aspects; after the boy finished his schooling he moved on, perhaps becoming a patron himself or marrying a woman. But the Golden Age of Greece lasted only a century, and the Greeks suffered a dreadful reputation as reprobates among the rest of the ancient world. People locked up their sons when Greeks came to town out of fear they would sodomize them. And THAT is as close as you will come to finding any society accepting homosexual marriage. There have been isolated cases involving individuals who may have claimed to be married to another of the same sex, but they are isolated instances. There is no society that has approved of this until now.

And the U.S. is only the 17th nation to adopt gay marriage - and this the result of a court ruling, not a national referendum or act of Congress. In fact, of the 34 states that had gay marriage prior to the SCOTUS decision, only 12 were the result of a referendum or legislative action; the rest were based on court orders or the immanent threat of judicial action. And of the twelve most did it to avoid a likely judicial ruling; there was and has been no groundswell for gay marriage. Bear in mind homosexuals are only about 3% of the population, so why should we make such monumental changes in our beliefs and legal and societal structure to accommodate such a small group?

Through all of human history there was no concept of gay marriage. Now we know better than everyone who has gone before us. (I know the counter-argument; slavery was accepted until the 19th century too. But does that mean that they were wrong in this instance? shouldn't we take our time and try to understand WHY homosexuals were not allowed to marry before going off half-cocked?) This is clearly a monumental experiment we are conducting; uncharted waters.

Human beings are historical creatures; we base our actions on knowledge gleaned from past experiences. History must be our guide on many issues.

And bear in mind that nobody is saying we should have sodomy laws preventing gay people from marrying, or dating, or having sex. We are simply saying that marriage is an act demanding societal approval, nay, celebration. We are not blessing homosexual acts, not celebrating them. That is a far cry from discrimination. Gay people can covenant any way they wish. They are free to marry in commitment ceremonies to each-other. They do not have a right to demand we bless their union. There is no "right" to marry.

Doubt that last? I mentioned a number of disapproved marital relations above. It used to be that you couldn't get married if you had a disease such as syphilis; you would be denied a license. If you were unable to perform sexually, if, say, you were injured and lost the family jewels you were not allowed to marry. Our modern sensibilities have led to many of these restrictions being relaxed, but you get the idea. You can't marry someone in a coma, either.

Language

What's in a word? Words mean things. Sometimes those words are the difference between life and death. A mushroom and a toadstool look identical (more identical than a straight couple and a gay one) but if you eat the wrong kind you will wind up at Barnes Hospital with a stomach pump. Things may bear a resemblance to other things but not be the same. A marching band is not an army, although both wear uniforms and march. A corporate family is no more a family than a gay family, although both use the word family when in fact neither meet the definition.

It's called deconstructionist, and it is a tool that has been used by the Left for decades, to sneakily change the meaning of words to affect fundamental societal change. The word gay is itself an example; gay means light-hearted, fun, bubbly, happy. It was co-opted by homosexuals and now gay means something very different.

which brings us to Health:

The American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a mental disorder until the 1970's. Why? Because it does not exist in a psychological vacuum; gay people suffer from any number of psychological disorders, with depression and anxiety being at the top of the list. They tend to die young - late forties or early fifties - often from suicide. Alcoholism and drug addiction are rampant in the gay community. Is this a function of societal disapproval as they claim, or rather a function of neurological misdevelopment. In short, is being gay a symptom rather than an ancillary?

I ask you; how many gay men have you met or seen who have lisps? How many can you recognize as gay immediately? No, there are a huge number who do not and you can't tell, but there are a large number of obviously gay men, and one way to tell is the lisp. A lisp is a neurological problem, not learned behavior.

In fact, homosexuality was considered a medical condition, and it was believed it was possible to treat it. Gays didn't want that, so they claimed it was a lifestyle choice. Now we are back to the medical claim "I am born that way" even though there has never been a gay gene uncovered, nor even the actual markers for an epigenetic cause. Why the change? Because people are held morally responsible for choices but not inborn problems. I think both are at work; there are tendencies but a choice is also possible. How do you explain bisexuality otherwise? Do they have two sets of genes? But we are not supposed to suggest that perhaps someone can work on a medical cure.

(By the way, the APA recently downgraded pedophilia from a mental disorder; how long before we start hearing about the rights of child molesters to defile the young?)

It is rather like obesity; we are told by Michelle Obama and others that obesity is a social problem, and it can be addressed by attacking fast food restaurants and cutting kids lunches and whatnot. But how much is nature and how much nurture. I wrote about this a while back. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/the_gay_food_nazis at my website and at Canada Free Press. Why is it possible to do something about obesity, but we can't do anything about homosexuality? The point is, there are differing assumptions made in these cases. The purpose of society not celebrating homosexuality is to not promote it. How many young people, confused over sex in general, wind up experimenting with homosexuality because it's "cool" or some other stupidity. We don't have to be intolerant, but must we elevate the concept? Perhaps we should do that with obese children? Start a beauty pageant for hugely fat people? We don't because we don't want people to get fat. We don't want people to be gay, either.

Why? There are other health reasons than psychological. Homosexuals tend to contract a plethora of illnesses. Syphilis is rampant, as is Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and other such std's. There are some weird things, too; there is a fairly common malady colloquially known as gay bowel disease, a parasitic infection of the rectum. AIDS, of course, is predominantly a homosexual illness although there are certainly heterosexuals who contract it.

Speaking of AIDS, there is another interesting psychological disorder that effects some gay people. They are called bug chasers, and they actively seek to contract HIV. They do this to confirm their own "authenticity" as a member of the gay community. Only homosexuals see their identity bound up in their sexual behavior. And they are willing to die a terrible death from illness to embrace this identity. Is that rational?

So, it is clear that there is illness - both psychological and physical - in the gay community, and it makes for an unhealthy family relationship. Do we really wish to raise children, to give children to gay couples, under such circumstances?

. I would also point out that the concept of commitment is a bit different in some gay circles, with some practicing "free nights". It is a dangerous practice from a health perspective. Do we want sick parents? Do we want children raised with this as an example?

Do not be fooled; children of gay couples often have a lot of psychological baggage. Google Robert Oscar Lopez, the child of a lesbian couple, to learn more.

That said, let us move on to Natural Law.

Natural Law is a concept going at least back to ancient Greece, and it is a time-tested concept in philosophy and in science. It has fallen out of favor in the last century, primarily because atheists and liberal radicals have waged a war on it since it refutes their individual positions; they advocate reductive, which says that all knowledge is learned from the ground up, as it were. Natural law says there are things we all know. It's fairly easy to see the truth in that; animals, who cannot communicate complex ideas, still know a great many things about their world, and they simply know it. How? They sense it by looking at their world. It is a part of the genetic heritage, perhaps. Natural Law was the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were all believers in Natural Law. You do not need to be a religious person to believe in Natural Law, just a person who thinks it does not require a direct experiment to prove that a red-hot coal will burn you.

In matters of Natural Law gay marriage fails.

It fails for the reasons I cited above, but also because it is, in terms of Natural Law, an unnatural situation. Nature made our sexuality for the purpose of procreation. Homosexuals are subverting that purpose to pleasure alone. Now many heterosexual people do this also; it's clearly a common human failing. But with heterosexual couples it is at least possible to fulfill the primary natural function. It is not with homosexuals.

Why have societies never had gay marriage? Religion? Prohibitions against homosexuality certainly predate Christianity or Judaism. No; people have always sensed there is something wrong here. They may not be able to put their finger on it, but something bothers them about it.

Human beings, like all animals, have specific parts of their brains that tell them how to deal with their environments. There are specifics involved in mating, and there are things that tell an organism not to mate with an inappropriate thing. Scientists are always experimenting with that, and have done brain surgeries that led to animals trying to mate with rocks and other things; there is a sense of what is and what is not acceptable.

There is a revulsion to, say, bestiality; one does not lust after a horse. Oh, there are people who do this, and it is largely, in my opinion, the thrill of decadence and moral rebellion. There is an equal revulsion to homosexuality, not as a concept, but as an actual act. How many straight men will go to a gay strip club and have other men dangle their junk in their faces? Most will leave with a nauseated stomach; it has a visceral effect on them. Why? Because they know it is wrong; men do not mate with other men. This is Natural Law in action.

There are bisexuals who don't mind, but they are few and, I might add, they knock the whole "born that way" argument out; there can be no gay gene if you swing both ways.

So what is happening with gay people? It's likely hard to say, but I would suggest that the disgust felt by an act the individual knows is wrong is part of the kick, and I suspect gay people desensitize themselves by first seeking the thrill. It has been said that many gay men have a secret fantasy of being raped, and many do get into BDSM, for instance. These are desires that have gone haywire in some way, a kind of masochism. They are likely the result of poor neural wiring, perhaps inborn. It is possible to rewire your brain; Google Jeffrey Schwarz. So does the act lead to a desensitizing in the brain? Perhaps. But it is clear that it is a violation of Natural Law.

And now we come to religion. You want to subtract that out of the equation, but most people are believers in something, and if you are, and if it is the basis of your moral code, you cannot accept gay marriage. O.K. there are some people who are not believers, but they should at least accept the Natural Law argument, as well as the others I have put forward here. But the point is, accepting gay marriage on the basis of non religion is itself a religious act, because you are making claims about the nature of higher things. A small minority is imposing their views on the matter and expecting the larger public to bow to their wishes. It is a religious statement as much as any. Why do gay marriage advocates get to put their morals ahead of others? Why do they get to decide what society will accept and celebrate?

None of this is meant to be construed as some condemnation of gay people. In fact I understand how they feel about this and don't like having to keep inserting myself into this fight, but we have a culture that must be defended. Gay people suffer a great deal, and it is in society's best interest not to encourage and promote homosexual behavior. Remember, this is about societal acceptance and celebration, not just tolerance. It is about fundamentally changing the nature of our culture and tradition. Oh, and it will destroy the family in years to come. Karl Marx would have loved it - see the Communist Manifesto to understand that the Left has always wanted to break the family.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 3004 words, total size 18 kb.

June 26, 2015

Kung Pow Ruling

Wil Wirtanen

Justice Scalia on the gay marriage ruling:

The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 1 of 530 >>
140kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 0.0502 seconds.
28 queries taking 0.0092 seconds, 177 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.