Pre-2012 Election Letter to a Young Pro-life Homosexual Man

(I wrote this letter to a 30ish homosexual Republican hating pro-life male I've known for many years.  I will keep his identity secret -- for now.)

My dear nephew,

Rather against my will, our relatives keep sending me what you write about politics on Facebook, that invaluable aid for finding the self-obsessed, the venomous, and the ignorant. I am concerned that you are unknowingly destroying your own reputation, and you should be concerned, also. If you continue to write in this way (meaning both content and tone), you may find yourself stuck with labels that a lifetime will not enable you to shake. I have been assured more than once that it is pointless to try to reach you with logic, as you're mind has made up by your self-perception. However, as a courtesy due to a relative, I will give it one try, and I promise to be far more polite than you have been in your published remarks. Make no mistake, anything posted to Facebook has been published, and there is no way to erase it.

I have been informed that one of our family members gave you very sound advice, and it was "Don't be a jerk about politics." Very sound advice and very clearly completely ignored.

If you are going to be a success at political mud slinging, you are going to have to improve in a few areas. I have had considerable success in this field, so please consider my advice carefully. Otherwise, you will wear that deadly label "crank".

If you are going to insult the intelligence of Republicans (like your grandparents), you need to spell and capitalize correctly. Publishing phrases like "brain-dead republicants" will lead unkind people (some related to you) to postulate that the last brain-dead person you saw was in your mirror.

I add here as an aside that you should give thanks every day that you never tried to debate your late grandfather on politics. He would have done to you (speaking metaphorically) what a high-explosive bomb does to a daffodil.

More recently, I am told that you referred to presumptive Republican (note spelling) presidential nominee Mitt Romney as a "robot". This is juvenile name-calling, without point or punch. Does being neat and clean and having a ready smile make you a robot? Readers may end up wondering about your hygienic habits, or lack of same. Name-calling is seldom effective; it hurts your reputation more than your target's.

In your recent posts, you accused Romney of the usual, tired litany of supposed heartless policy goals -- meaning to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ad nauseum. Are you aware that your preferred candidate, Barack Obama, cuts $600 billion (that is to say, $600,000,000,000) from Medicare as part of his Obamacare program? Can you produce one statement during the last decade by any Republican leader that they intend to cut the benefits of any of the three programs I mentioned earlier this paragraph? Please note that pledging to make the programs financially sustainable or pledging to eliminate fraud and waste in the program(s) is not "cutting". All three of these programs are going bankrupt, and will take the country with them if something is not done quickly. It could have been done relatively easily a decade or two ago, but now the holes are so deep that the task has grown greatly difficult. One of the parties has consistently blocked all attempts to make the programs financially stable and self-supporting. It wasn't the Republicans.

Returning to an older post, you seemed amused by the fact that 65% of Republicans who participated in a survey in (I believe) January said they would vote for the Republican nominee no matter who it was. Why should that surprise you? If you were to ask registered Democrats if they are going to vote for Obama no matter whom the Republicans nominate, I predict that you would get a percentage closer to 95% than 65%. I am depressed that only 65% of my party (if the poll is accurate, which experience tells me is not to be assumed) is unconditionally committed to voting against the most disastrous president in American history, and the first president who can be credibly accused of being a disaster for the country deliberately.

What I find most frustrating is that you proclaim your intention to vote for Obama even as you proclaim that you are pro-life. If you were not my nephew, I would perhaps content myself with wishing you all happiness in Jews for Hitler. Because of our family bond, I will address the subject more politely. Hard as I try to give you the benefit of the doubt on this matter, several disquieting theories present themselves.

The most obvious and perhaps the ugliest possibility is that you are acting from supreme selfishness. You somehow see yourself getting something from the re-election of Obama that is worth more than thousands, perhaps millions of dead babies worldwide. Are you aware of the fact that the Obama administration spent millions of dollars of taxpayer money (at a time when inconceivably bad economic policies have already pushed our budget deficits to world-record-shattering levels) to persuade Kenya to pass a pro-abortion constitution? At this point in his term, it seems pointless to point out that the expenditure was illegal, but I will all the same.

The above is just one item in a frightening CV when it comes to abortion. Keep in mind that as an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was the only speaker against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which extended legal protection to babies who had survived an abortion attempt and were now completely outside the mother’s body. By all precedent, that baby would not only be considered legally a person, but indeed would be a citizen of the United States, with all of the legal protections that come with citizenship. Even radical pro-abortion groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America (who changed their name from the National Abortion Rights Action League when they discovered that that name was too honest) didn’t dare publicly oppose this act. Barack Obama didn’t just oppose it, he stood up and spoke AGAINST extending life-saving treatment to innocent American citizen babies, gasping for breath and struggling for life.

Since that day when he voted against the BAIPA, Obama has been trying to come up with some reason for his vote that sounds at least believable. His attempts (or ten of them, anyway) are available at http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html.

Similarly, he opposed the national Partial-Birth Abortion bill, because he claimed that the bill did not include an exemption for the mother’s “health“. That’s “health” instead of health, because they are not referring to physical health. Pro-aborts like Obama want the “health” exemption included because experience shows that including such a clause in effect nullifies the law, since a pro-abort judge can always be found to grant the exemption regardless of the health effect alleged. Certain judges (well-known to the pro-abortion groups) will vote to take a babies life if the mother (or her lawyer) says she’ll be depressed by the weight gain that comes with a full-term pregnancy.

Now we have the $1 abortion surcharge mandate under Obamacare. As Steven Ertelt explained in Lifenews.com on March 12th:

“Nestled within the “individual mandate” in the Obamacare act — that portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government — approved insurance or pay a penalty — is an “abortion premium mandate.” This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion.  As a result, many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs.” (Complete article at http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/12/obama-admin-finalizes-rules-1-abortions-in-obamacare/)

In ancient Rome, the conspirators who slew Julius Caesar all bathed their hands in his blood” so that they would all share in the guilt of the crime. Similarly, Nazi (the radical leftist National Socialist German Workers Party) SS Chief Heinrich Himmler gave a surprise speech to his fellow Nazi leaders telling them about the Holocaust, the horrible industrialized slaughter of Europe’s Jewish population. He did this to deprive every attendee of the “I didn’t know” alibi. Although it never proved of any value to Himmler, the speech led to deadly consequences when the National Socialist regime collapsed and it came time for guilt to be assigned and punishments to be meted out to surviving Nazis.

What the Obama-ites are attempting is arguably worse, as they, with the $1 abortion mandate and the contraceptive mandates (which includes drugs that can cause early abortions) attempt to force all Americans to share in the financing of abortion, and thus share in the guilt for this tremendous, horrendous crime crying out to Heaven. The Roman conspirators joined the murder conspiracy willingly, and the attendees to Himmler’s speech had joined the Nazi Party leadership. Today, the vast majority of pro-life Americans are fighting determinedly to avoid having guilt for the abortion nightmare assigned to them.

Since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 (I assume you’ve heard of it), over 53,000,000 babies have been slain in this country. (If you want to know why Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are going bankrupt today, you might consider this massacre of 53 million future wage earners and taxpayers.)

What could you possibly gain from BO’s re-election that could possibly be worth more than the lives of all of those babies?

A relative opines aloud (many others I’m sure opine silently) that your support for Obama is dictated by your sexual orientation. I personally have never been able to understand why so many of those of your SO (to save typing) see every issue through that prism, and often see things darkly. (I have some theories, which I will keep to myself because my purpose in writing is not to offend you.) If our relative is right, those of your SO are a remarkable subset of the American population. Consider:

They must not need jobs. The bizarre actions of BO and his merry band of Keynesians have given us a situation unknown in our history -- a recovery that features higher unemployment than that in the recession from which we have supposedly “recovered” from.

They must not drive gasoline-powered vehicles. When Barack Obama was inaugurated, the price of gasoline was under $1.90/gallon. It is now at or over $4.00/gallon, and fixing to go higher, largely because BO and his environmentally radical administration has done everything they can to strangle domestic gasoline production. From the Gulf Oil Drilling moratorium, which the administration has persisted with despite two court rulings that held that the President does not have the authority to unilaterally stop drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The EPA, headed by Obama-appointed radical environmentalist Lisa Jackson, pulled a filthy trick on Sunoco by allowing them to spend $2 million dollars on an off-shore oil drilling project well off the Alaska coast, and then stopping Sunoco from proceeding for a stomach-turningly spurious reason -- they claimed that Sunoco’s Environmental Impact Statement was inadequate because they had not considered the possible health impacts of a possibly necessary icebreaker on an Alaskan village 400 MILES AWAY! They also refused to allow construction of the Keystone Oil Pipeline from our friendly neighbor Canada, supposedly for safety concerns, despite the fact that the EPA has done a risk assessment on the project and declared it safe -- SIX TIMES!

How is it safer to ship our oil from the Persian Gulf from hostile nations in tankers? Have you ever known a pipeline to sink, run aground, or be hijacked by pirates?

Every time you put $40 in your gas tank, you are robbed of over $20. I resent it. Every American should.

They must not need to buy any products, be they food, clothes, or anything else. When fuel prices go up, transport prices go up, and inevitably retail prices go up. The administration so far, with the assistance of a (to put it mildly) friendly media, has managed to conceal the resulting inflation by omitting food and fuel from the official inflation rate calculation. The rest of America has been rather less successful in omitting food and fuel from their budgets.

They must not need affordable energy. The Obama administration is clearly attempting to destroy the domestic coal industry by imposing impossible and useless standards on emissions. Even those pushing these industry-destroying regulations can point to no benefits from the stricter standards.

The EPA is now trying to satisfy the watermelon environmentalists (who will help bankroll BO’s re-election campaign) by finding some spurious reason to oppose the rapidly expanding, wealth-creating, energy-price-dropping natural gas industry. Hydro-fracking has been used safely for over 6 decades worldwide, but now suddenly anti-fracking zealots are trying to claim that the process is dangerous. In fact they are transparently trying to cripple the American economy by crippling the American energy industry.

There are words that describe the people who are attempting the crippling. “Reasonable”, “honest”, and “Patriotic” are not among them.

Just this month, the Interior Department (headed by Obama-appointed environmental radical Ken Salazar) announced that they are “locking up” 100 million acres of land in Arizona. This land contains the richest uranium deposits in the country. Having crippled the domestic oil industry, the administration now appear to be “focused like a laser beam” on the domestic nuclear power industry.

When Obama made that declaration that his energy policy is “all of the above”, apparently he forgot to add “...except the ones that work.”

Most important for you, in my opinion, is Obamacare’s orientation toward the elderly, the disabled, and the brain-damaged or otherwise disabled. Obama’s appointees have included zealots like Ezekiel Emanuel and Donald Berwick, who believe that doctors should only provide medical care to their patients if it is also good for “the system”. While Emanuel and Berwick have left their government posts (Berwick because his views and past statements were so extreme that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid informed Obama that Berwick could not win a Senate confirmation vote), their spirit lives on in the Health and Human Services, headed by Obama radical appointee Kathleen Sebelius, who recently publicly stated that the Obamacare health care regime (implication intended) will start saving money once the population starts declining. How cold-blooded do you have to be to see population decline as a financial goal?

Now that we know that the Obama HHS wants population to decline, we need to consider where they will try to cut what their ideological predecessors the Nazis called “useless feeders’. The obvious targets will be the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly. To these dehumanizers, each of these groups uses medical resources without adequately benefiting “the system”. To the continued massacre of the babies, we will add the massacre of the disabled (like our cousin Todd), and the elderly.

So I guess those of your SO don’t have grandmothers, either, do they, nephew?

Please consider carefully what I have written. At lot is at stake in the election in November -- both for the country and for you personally.

This would be a bad time to be wrong.

Quite sincerely,

Uncle Hermit Crab

PS I can back up every assertion I made here with evidence. Can you do the same with your assertions?

Diagramming liberal logic

Major premise:  Republicans and conservatives oppose ObamaCare because Barack Obama is black.

Minor premise:  Republicans and conservatives also opposed HillaryCare (very similar to ObamaCare) in 1993 and 1994.

Conclusion:  Republicans and Conservatives opposed HillaryCare because Barack Obama is black!

Pelosi clears the air of (one) Democrat falsehood

When I watched Democrat Minority Leader Nazi Pelosi tell the assembled media that if the House Republicans were going to pass their bill, she declared that they would have to pass it with 100% Republican votes, to me the key was that she declared it.  Apparently she was admitting that every Democrat in the House of Representatives represent not their district, not their constituents, but the House Democratic leadership.  No dissenters allowed.  No votes against the will of the commissars.  Zero!

If Americans knew how to listen to politicians, this would end the congressional careers of every Congressman in a "red district".  It is clear in my district, where long-term misRepresentative Louise Slaughter (the woman who wears formaldehyde as make-up) doesn't even bother attending town meetings and only appears in tightly controlled forums where her staff has the right to choose the questions that she will condescend to answer.

Just remember, you "my Democrat is okay" voters.  Barack Obama, Dead Man Talking Reid, Nazi Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, et al didn't become Democratic leaders by accident.  Their fellow Democrats voted them into leadership positions, including "your Democrat".

Think about that.

Just another venomous liberal

Even when you're used to it, it's hard to believe the amount of sheer ceaseless hatred on the modern Left.  I recently participated in a fun hashtag discussion on Twitter.  The tag was #namesomethingmoresuccessfulthanObamacare or some such.  My contribution was "Roseanne Barr's Presidential run".

Of course, some nasty had to post "Sarah Palin's retard kid."  Leaving aside the fact that I thought they were against ridiculing the disabled, I responded "In what way can a beloved disabled child be considered a failure?"  Can you guess the brilliant, annihilating answer I received in response?

He responded "BooHoo".  I left off of the "debate" at this point.  Instead I tweeted to Sarah Palin herself and told her to ignore the vicious responses she received to her simple declaration that she was going to attend the Million Veteran March on Sunday.  I told her that I had Hillary Clinton on my side, and Sarah Palin were on my opponents', I'd be angry too! 

"One nation, under God..."

While I find it heartening that so many Catholic institutions have risen to the challenge of the Obamacare contraceptive and abortifacient insurance mandate forcing every Catholic institution that isn’t actually centered on an altar to offer these “services”, I am growing uneasy about the too-narrow grounds upon which they are basing their legal and Constitutional argument. I fear we are storing up trouble, the kind that can cost us the war even if we win this battle.

Of course it is wrong to force Catholic and other organizations to subsidize and in effect promote life-destroying technologies that violate their deepest beliefs. Of course the "exception" to the rule is drawn so narrowly that one pundit stated that Jesus himself would not qualify. Of course the "compromise" offered to indignant pro-life organizations (that they wouldn't pay for the morally repugnant services, their insurance companies would -- with the money they got from the pro-life organizations) was a transparent dodge and an insult to intelligence. Of course these organizations have the right and the obligation to oppose this mandate.

However, the true foundation of the right to oppose this dreadful imposition is being omitted in all of the arguments in court and in the court of popular opinion. We cannot afford the risk of leaving it unsaid, so I'll put it simply and clearly.

We do not derive the right to oppose this monstrous diktat from our membership in a Catholic organization, be it the Catholic Church, the Knights of Columbus, or any other organization. We are not given our rights by the government, or even the Constitution. We betray the founding of this nation under God when we think so.

We are children of God, and from God do we receive our rights of conscience! The founders of this nation knew this very well. It is not the purpose of government to grant us rights; it is the obligation of government to protect our God-given rights from the impositions of others, even if (perhaps especially if) those imposing are in the government.

By not pressing this argument of individual, God-granted rights, we risk allowing the idea that only groups of people large enough to battle other groups or the government bulldozer possess rights that our rulers are bound to respect. (I'm hoping that at least some of my readers were angered at seeing the word "rulers" in the previous sentence.)

The genius of the founding of this republic, a genius that has at times worn perilously thin in the last 50 years was that an individual's God-given rights could not be taken away or diminished, even if the rest of the country were against him. In the classic movie Judgment at Nuremberg, Judge Haywood (played by Spencer Tracy) speaks of the value of "a single human life". Here in America, we speak of a single human's rights. While we must band together to defend our right to refuse to violate our consciences, no matter who insists that we must, our rights do not come from numbers. They come from God.

My ruler does not abide in Washington or Albany. My only ruler dwells in Heaven, and it is to Him that I will one day have to answer to. He tells me that life is the sacred gift of God, and is most demanding of my defending when it is at its most helpless. He tells me that His law is above all human law. He says that the unborn child in the womb, no matter the stage of development, is my brother or sister in Christ. He says that marriage is, and can only be, a union under God of one man and one woman. He says that I have rights from His grace, and not from the "grace" of any earthly master.

And I believe.

Other Brief Reflections on the Obamacare Mandate and the Future of Liberty

Isn't it odd that some lefty pundits say that chief Justice John Roberts “saved” the reputation of the Supreme Court by voting with the lockstep-left justices, but they see this decision, a decision that threatens to destroy whatever remained of the liberties that our founders fought and suffered to hand down to their descendants, as being perfectly legitimate even though the deciding vote was cast by the very same Elena Kagan who developed the strategy used in the oral (and most likely written) arguments? How can that be legitimate?

If (God forbid) the court goes on to have a 5-4 liberal majority in the future, and starts tearing down our heritage of liberty and the rights of the individual, do you suppose that the same pundits who today say that every 5-4 decision in which the lockstep-lefties are in the minority is a the decision of a bitterly partisan majority will accuse the Gang of Five of the future of being equally partisan, or indeed partisan at all?

This, of course, is a rhetorical question.

Contrary to what's being published now, I believe this dreadful decision will at last put an end to the naïve belief that the Supreme Court and the judicial branch in general will protect our rights for us, and that therefore we do not have to protect them ourselves. This belief should have died with the decision of the court on the McCain-Feingold free campaign speech strangulation law, when the majority of the justices sided with the politicians against the people. Funny – when I was young (admittedly a long time ago), we were taught that liberals believed in expanding free speech. This concept died sometime in the 1990s, as uber-liberal Alan Dershowitz noted when he wrote “In today's America, the greatest threat to free speech is not coming from the Right. It's coming from the Left.”

Give up that fantasy, lovers of liberty. No-one is going to defend the freedoms we have left for us. If we're going to reclaim our rights, or even defend the ones we still have, we are going to have to fight for them ourselves.

The liberal fascists (not an oxymoron – read Jonah Goldberg's book of the same name) must be giddy with this decision. At the beginning of this noble experiment in self-government, the federal government largely left its citizens alone entirely. As the decades went by, the reach of the national government waxed and waned, but didn't immediately grow into a leviathan. Libertarian legend says that Abraham Lincoln was the father of big government, but this is twaddle, as by 1872 (only seven years after the shooting stopped) the federal government had shrunk back to its pre-war size.

As America was drawn into World War I, liberal icon Woodrow Wilson began to expand the powers of the government at the expense of liberty. Censorship grew, and this time the controls on behavior did not all come off at the end of the war. It's a pleasing irony to think that Eugene V. Debs, repeat socialist Party candidate for President, jailed for interfering with the draft and the recruitment for the Armed Forces (jailed for making a speech!), was not released by Wilson, either at the end of the war or even at the end of his term. He would have to wait to be released by that supposed disaster of a Republican President, Warren G. Harding, who answered objections to Debs' release on Christmas Eve of 1921 by saying “I want him to eat Christmas dinner with his family.” Typically, the socialists who edit Wikipedia do not give Harding credit for his rather touching statement. They also do not give Harding credit for actually inviting Debs to the White House the moment he was released from prison, an invitation that Debs accepted. After meeting with Harding, Debs pronounced Harding a kindly gentleman.

Take note, liberals. Liberal icon jails citizen for exercising free speech, and conservative Republican releases him.

As the decades went by, the number of actions that became crimes grew exponentially. After this, in a trend that many of us find appalling, the concept of “hate crimes” appeared. Now not only were our actions suspect, but our motives and thoughts as well. Many, including this writer, found the new trend in law disturbing, for it has long been a tenant of American jurisprudence that it was the act which was the crime, not the motive. By “hate crime” logic, it can be more of an offense (leading to greater punishment) to assault a 24 year old homosexual bodybuilder that to assault an 82 year old asthmatic grandfather. Anyone who doesn't see this as a howling idiocy is an idiot themselves.

Not satisfied with the partial subjugation of the American citizenry, we now have the real purpose of the Obamacare law, and its true purpose. Having already criminalized (and thus controlled) our actions, our thoughts, and our motives, they now move to control our inactions as well. Don't buy a product our self-proclaimed rulers demand that we purchase, and pay a fine or go to jail. Presumably, if you resist like free people often do, and you will be shot. Once they establish that principle, freedom in this country is over. Perhaps forever.

The leftists will be in La-La-Lenin Land, though. Their dreams will have have come full circle – as a noose around our necks.

Easy explanation for the "Shut-Down" brutality

Many people are aghast at the brutality of the B.O. Administrations actions during this so-called "Shut-Down".  Open-air memorials closed and blockaded, elder Americans whose homes sit on federal land (of which there is all too much anyway), the shutting down of memorials on foreign soil (such as Normandy, which even Barry, who is notoriously ignorant of geography, should know is in France), even attempts to cut off recreational and fishing access to stretches of ocean -- all these seem brutal even for King Rat himself.  Why should they do such things?

Well, it isn't just meanness, although that certainly is part of it.  The Demoncrats have to make these actions as painful as possible, not only because this way their RoboMedia will blame the Republicans no matter how clearly the tracks of the beasts lead to the Dems' lair, but also because if they made these cuts any way other than brutally the people would catch on to the fact that their country is in fact running not only cheaper but better without 800,000 superfluous federal employees looking for ways to make their lives costly, complicated, and down-right miserable.

Why, the American people might actually realize that non-essential operations of the federal government are functions that need to be shut down, and their employees need to find more suitable jobs, many of which involve paper hats.

(Quick quiz -- From what famous document is this sentence drawn?

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

I'll give you a hint -- this document used to be taught in American schools.  Don't let me down!)