Unicorns and Rainbows – Part 4

The typical Progressive Liberal confuses me, and quite frankly, I think they are confused as well.  What they say and do are so contradictory to a rational line of thinking leaves me with multiple WTH moments.

This is the fourth and last installment of the series.


The typical Progressive Liberal politician always states their support for the Constitution and the laws of the United States…that is, as long as it is convenient and can be used to fulfill their personal and political agendas.  When the Constitution and the laws of the United States interfere with those same political and personal agendas, then those documents are now “out of date” and are duly ignored.

The same can be said of the Progressive Liberal defense of a person’s personal liberty to live life according to your belief system within the law.  That is true if you are a minority, non-Christian, gay or trans-whatever, on Welfare, or an illegal immigrant.  Otherwise, your treated as crap in the Progressive Liberal world.

The rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are constantly being challenged by the Progressive Liberals in both Congress and Supreme Courts, and being stripped by Executive Order from the President with nary a whimper from the People.  Indeed, there are some that cheer when a right has been infringed for “the public good.”

What has happened to this country?  Has all common sense and decency been cast aside for the political correctness insanity that seems to have invaded every nook and cranny of our lives?

Let’s first take the case of a high-level government employee, accountable to the President of the United States, willingly violated the laws and policies of the office by using an email address hosted on a private server of questionable security instead of the high-security email server provided by the government.  The evolving story of why this person used the private server is ludicrous at best, and is absolutely criminal no matter what excuse is being made – the office demands absolute accountability and high security in all communications.

.facebook_1434099725060

Next, take the case of the Executive Mandate by the President to not enforce the immigration laws of the United States.  Quite frankly, the immigration laws are not broken except by those people who violate them – it is the enforcement of those laws which is broken.  From the bottom to the top, these laws are being ignored or are being subverted by the various authorities who vowed to uphold them.  If the political will were exerted to enforce the laws from deportation to employment compliance, this issues would be a moot point.

Gay marriage was ruled by the Supreme Court to be legal in all fifty states.  In my opinion, the Federal Government via the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in this matter as marriage is not a Federal matter per the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, it is up to the States to define marriage, not the Federal Government.  The Court and Federal Government have overstepped their bounds.

.facebook_1436052100671

This past week’s story of a mentally ill, homosexual, racist, black man killing two of his former white co-workers focused on the gun and what could be done to stop gun violence.  Quite unlike the white, young racist who killed several church parishioners and their pastor in Charleston, where the focus was on not only the gun, but being white, the display of the Confederate battle flag, and his racism.  The Progressive Liberal agenda is telling when these two cases are compared side by side, and it just doesn’t make sense unless it is realized that the Progressive Liberal is more concerned about their agenda than the people that agenda affects.

really

The Progressive Liberal agenda is unrepentant in their opposition to the private ownership of firearms.  If possible, they would use any and all excuse and reason to disarm the People of the United States to “make us safe” when in actuality, the reverse would be true.  People would then be defenseless against the criminals that would surely prey upon them (look at the statistics in Australia and Great Britain for assaults, robberies, and rapes since their gun bans, and they are truly chilling).

.facebook_1437513102706

However, the Progressive Liberal agenda is in favor of guns being in the hands of the government, which is surprising since the Progressive Liberals decry the use of the lethal police force sometimes used when enforcing laws or when police are protecting themselves or civilians.  But wait, that’s only when used against a “protected class” of people…

This double-standard has been placed front and center over the past several years, leading to the latest in what I would call a racist group – Black Lives Matter – which has been calling for an all-out war against whites and police in social media.  This is nothing new – there have always been groups promoting one race over the other for years – some of them violent, other not.  But what about the thought that if any group or organization that promotes one group of people over another because of heritage or color or skin is racist, then there are a whole lot of groups that would fit into this category.  Consider the following:

.facebook_1436287229439            reverse racism

The Progressive Liberal does not want to hear dissent over their seemingly contradictory rhetoric even though they state that they are open minded.  Indeed, personal attacks and public shaming with a smattering of lawsuits follow challenges over their failed arguments in light of facts and other opinions.

“Liberals claim to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover there are other views.” – William F. Buckley

Quite frankly, I’m offended that the Progressive Liberal politician makes the presumptions that they know better how to run my life better than I do, that their opinion trumps mine, and that I’m an entitled person because I work hard & as a result, reasonably successful.  Considering that the majority of the Progressive Liberal politicians haven’t worked a day in their life without sucking up taxpayer dollars for their pay tells me that they haven’t the foggiest idea of what real life is all about.

I am also offended that the Progressive Liberal does not call themselves for what they really are:  They are a rebranded Socialist that have only done so to make themselves palatable to the People of the United States.  The President’s mentor teaches this:

.facebook_1434819893472

I leave you with these final thoughts for this series of posts:

The Liberal Progressive promote that their way is the best way, the way that will benefit everyone, a path to endless prosperity for all.  We will all live in peace and security under their benevolent, selfless leadership.  All will be as a fantasyland, full of unicorns leaping over rainbows, a virtual heaven on Earth.

Such are the thoughts of dreamers and philosophers who are disconnected from reality, and the self-delusions of the power-hungry.  All that leads down this path is destruction and misery.

The United States of America is unique in history, founded by revolution, providing a system of government that placed power to the people of that country instead of an all-powerful royalty or government.  However, this system is being subverted by powerful politicians and people behind the scenes that only see paths to power.  It is not only the Liberal Progressives that are responsible, but members of both political parties with their backers.  But it is the Liberal Progressives that are leading the charge.

Hope & Change, Fundamentally Transform, Spread the Wealth, and other catch phrases only serve to capture the public’s imagination to move forward to something better, blinding the public that there is nothing wrong with what we already have should our politicians quit acting like hammers looking for nails to pound.  Why must there be change when the change is worse?

The consequences of the changes wrought by the current President’s Administration and the Congressional sessions during his first term are beginning to be felt by many.  None of the people who voted for legislation detrimental to this country will ever be held personally accountable except by being voted out of office.

.facebook_1434704430760

We the People must take an intense interest in the people that we elect to office and the political process that is used to elect them.  They must constantly be reminded that they work the People that elected them, not their political party.  We the People have an obligation to review the actions of our elected representatives.  Remember –

term limits

Supreme Disappointment

This past week, the Supreme Court handed down two decisions – one of which I predicted in a prior post (although earlier than expected), and the second which should not have been made.

The first decision was the legalization of homosexual marriage.  I predicted earlier that this would happen, although I was off by two years at the earliest.  What ramifications that this will have is to be seen, and will be highly speculative in nature, so let me take this opportunity to throw in my two cents worth.

I foresee that other groups will want legalization of their bedroom activities.  The first of these would be polygamy, which does have an Old Testament history, and is still practiced in other parts of the world.  However, I also see that other, more unseemly practices, will also come to the courts for approval, such as sex with minors (I won’t go into the other perversions that come to mind).

There is also the censorship of opinions on this decision.  Already, a Pennsylvania paper, the PennLive / Patriot News in Harrisburg will no longer accept opinion editorials or letters to the editor concerning opposition to same-sex marriage.  The rationalization is that the paper “would not print racist, sexist or anti-Semitic letters” and thus would include the topic of same-sex marriages in that editorial policy.  The politically correct speech police adds another topic to their list…

Here’s a nation, one of the founding pillars was freedom of speech and freedom of expression. And yet, we have imposed upon people restrictions on what they can say, on what they can think. And the media is the largest proponent of this, crucifying people who say things really quite innocently. – Benjamin Carson

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend people. – Brad Thor

Last on my list would be the freedom of our various religious institutions to believe and teach that homosexual unions are a violations of their religion.  Anything from hate speech charges to loss of tax-exempt status are possible with this latest decision.  For the tax-exempt angle, take this excerpt from and article on American Thinker:

Lost in the celebrations over universal gay marriage, like abortion, being deemed a right found in the “penumbras and emanations” of the Constitution is the chilling effect the ruling has on religious liberty.  In a telling exchange between the Obama administration’s Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito, detailed by Tom Blumer at Newsbusters.com, in which Verrilli admitted that churches could lose their tax exemptions if they refuse to perform gay weddings:

“Justice Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax­exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?

“General Verrilli: You know, ­­I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is­­ it is going to be an issue.”

So the administration admits that the tax exemption of institutions could be at risk if they refuse to acquiesce in the acceptance of gay marriages.  There is no reason to assume that this mandate would not apply to institutions such as the Catholic Church.  Those who think this is a red herring forget that this is the administration dragging the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of elderly nuns devoted to helping the aged poor, through the courts, because they won’t comply with Obamacare’s contraception coverage mandate…

Somehow, I think that the government will force (or attempt to make) various churches perform homosexual weddings or they would be charged with a civil offense.  I would, however, like to see them try to force an Imam to perform such a service in a mosque…

If you don’t think that the above is possible, consider the second decision that the Supreme Court made this week.  This one ignores the law that was passed by Congress & signed by the President, and reinterprets it in a way that boggles the mind.  From Townhall.com:

The issue in King v. Burwell is simple: The Affordable Care Act provides subsidies for taxpayers who cannot afford health care, but the law clearly states those subsidies are available only to those who purchase insurance in “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031].” Since its implementation, however, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), following the command of the Obama administration, has been granting subsidies to all citizens who otherwise qualify under the law, even if they live in states that are using the federal health insurance exchange, which is obviously not “an Exchange established by the State.”

This struck many observers as an open-and-shut case: The law strictly confines subsidies to state-established exchanges, but the IRS has been granting subsidies to everyone, in violation of the law.

[Chief Justice] Roberts reasons, “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

In other words, Roberts and the Court majority decided the law is “ambiguous” because the court needs it to be ambiguous to fit a particular policy goal, not because its meaning actually is indeterminate.

…All that matters is protecting Obamacare no matter the cost, as Justice Antonin Scalia illustrated in his scathing and heroic, albeit ultimately unavailing, dissent: “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

Welcome to America, where laws do not matter, but opinions and good intents do.  And it seems that the opinions that do matter are Progressively Liberal in nature, where the intent overrides any possible negative outcomes or consequences.  Here’s a list of “truths’’ that we’re to accept without question unless we want to run afoul of the Thought Police and be denounced as a hater (from National Review):

Exchanges established by the federal government are exchanges established by the state. Rachel Dolezal is black. Iran will honor an agreement not to develop nuclear weapons. ISIS is a JV team. There’s an epidemic of sexual assaults on college campuses. Michael Brown had his hands up and pleaded “don’t shoot.” Caitlyn Jenner is a woman. Obamacare is working. 2+2 doesn’t necessarily equal 4. The polar ice caps are disappearing. The IRS is doing a decent job. The border is secure.We’ve ended two wars responsibly. Hillary Clinton turned over all work-related e-mails. An $18,200,000,000,000 debt can grow without mention. People who burn down buildings and overturn cars aren’t thugs. The OPM hack is manageable. We’ve reset relations with Russia. Entitlement reform can be kicked down the road. We’re more respected around the world.

Fantasy is always preferable to reality.  However, reality is a vindictive bitch, and will eventually slap the politicians back into the situations that they want to avoid.  Reality is coming, and it won’t be pretty because these bastards will not take any responsibility for the mess they created, and it will be up to the American people to clean it up if that’s even possible.

We had better elect good, responsible people to our government, or I have very serious doubts that this country will survive in any way, shape, or form.