Honduras: Why Must Obama Be Wrong On Every Single Issue?

You often know if you're on the right path by whom your detractors are.

I had to do a double take recently to make sure our main Latin American detractors Castro and Chavez weren't right for a change. It turns out nothing has changed. They are still evil men and Obama still finds himself on the wrong side as usual. *sigh* There seems to be a pattern here.

When I saw the news that Honduras just had a military take over, I figured they were following the path of other dictators in South America. Surprisingly, they were preserving the rule of law and enforcing a Supreme Court order and the vote of their Congress. Maddeningly, Obama has sided with Castro and Chavez (Chavez became a dictator in a similar fashion as Zelaya attempted) and demanded it's reversal. Notice how Obama quickly condemns Honduras but is silent for a week when Iran murders defenseless students?)

Obama is on the same side as the dictators Castro and Chavez in condemning Honduras's military for ousting dictator wannabe former President Zelaya of Honduras. President Zelaya was exiled for attempting to unconstitutionally reform election laws as decided by their Supreme Court and attempted to use the military to do so. When the military refused, Zelaya fired the head general. In response, Honduras's Congress voted to replace the President and hold new elections as their law allows. This was a worst case scenario that ended with the actual rule of law being enforced and democracy prevailing.

Readers, this kind of good outcome historically hardly ever happens. Amazing.

More amazing still: Obama finds himself constantly on the wrong side of what is right and true. Every. Single. Time.

The Church of Global Warming Demands Your Tithes

Yesterday the House passed the biggest tax increase in the history of mankind.

The Waxman-Markey (Obama-Pelosi) bill attempts to cut CO2 emissions, (like the ones that we use to turn on our computers to read this) at least 17% by the year 2020 and a further 80% by the year 2050. They do this by putting an arbitrary cap on pollutants and gradually cranking the allowances lower and lower. Companies that can't meet their limits must buy permits from other companies that were able to cut their emissions below their caps, or the government would likely sell more allowances so they could line their coffers for the Democratic National Committee.

This monstrosity of a bill is blatant thievery of Americans by the Global Warming crowd. They are attempting to force their religion on us and make us pay it tithes.

Don't believe it's a religion? Only two decades ago the same liberals were playing Chicken Little with the topic of "Global Cooling" Imagine the laughable remedy for that! There is some evidence that the recent lull in sunspot activity has caused the earth's temperatures to stop rising over the last few years. Further evidence shows that during the last decade when temperatures were increasing, the other planets in the solar system were warming as well! I'm sure all of you in the "true believers" camp can agree that the Martians will have to give up their SUV's to prevent the warming of Mars.

Historically, climate fluctuations are a natural part of life. It turns out during the time of the Vikings, Greenland was actually green! They had forests along the coasts to build structures and repair their ships.

But wait! My argument apparently isn't water tight. To be fair, the "true believers" state there is some evidence this change was man made. Everybody knows the Vikings had dirty diesel engines to power their boats, and after realizing the harm they were causing, they gave them up for clean and renewable wind power, thus averting Global Warming in their time.

There's further evidence of the malice of polluters and their direct link to Global Warming.

The dinosaurs were nasty emitters of CO2.

After all, they were the ones that brought us fossil fuels.

The proof in the pudding is that during the Paleozoic period (definitely dinosaury sounding) CO2 levels were up to 18 times higher than they are today. Unfortunately for Al Gore, it turns out there were occasional Ice Ages during this period.

The consequences if the Senate passes this bill:

You don't think that prices for energy will go up? A company has to pass it's costs along to consumers so they can stay in business. It's simple economics 101 that nobody in the Democrat congress bothered to study.

In regards to the timing of this disaster of a bill that just passed, Congress usually rams through things like this on Fridays because our attention is away from the news for the weekend and Sunday talk shows typically have a one day attention span. Just so you know, this tax hike was fully supported by President "95% of Americans will get a tax cut" Obama. He's encouraging the Senate to pass it now. Much of it will be squandered to pure GDP and productivity loss either in general or to countries abroad.

What can we do? Coming midterms, vote in your primary elections for conservatives. Check out Mitt Romney's Political Action Committee "FreeandStrongAmerica.com" to see who he's supporting as a start, and please do some of your own research so you can be informed. Come 2011, get on Mitt's team to help turn this tide when he runs for President again. Our futures are at stake here.

Irony: Gay Activists Tell Gays To Stay Out Of the Federal Courts On Prop 8

The Washington Times just confirmed my suspicions about the fight against Prop 8, here's a quote from my last article:

"These gay activists would prefer to have a liberal Democrat President(s) stack the court with liberal Justices first so they don't have to overturn a precedent that struck down gay marriage ... those seeking a subtle and effective coup will choose otherwise. They'll probably bide their time for now, attempting to overturn several state amendments and laws."

In the Washington Times today:

"Gay Leaders Counsel Against Federal Suits"

"Make change, not lawsuits," said appeals to federal courts are premature before a grass-roots effort "to change hearts and minds in all 50 states." It said gay rights groups should push for gay marriage through selected state courts and legislatures.

"We need to start with states where we have the best odds of winning," said the coalition, headed by the American Civil Liberties Union, before approaching Congress and the president.

"When we've won in a critical mass of states and have basic support in federal law and policy, we can turn to the federal courts and ask that the U.S. government end any remaining discrimination against LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgendered) people," the document said.

It added: "Pushing the federal government with multiple lawsuits before we have a critical mass of states recognizing same-sex relationships or suing in states where the courts aren't ready is likely to lead to bad rulings ... . The U.S. Supreme Court typically does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states."

If the federal courts start to rule on this, they could attempt to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act ironically signed into law by President Clinton. If they fail, a court precedent is set that makes the fight more difficult for Gay groups to gain traction. On the flip side if they succeed there could be voter backlash, especially from requiring the current approximately 28 states that constitutionally ban gay marriage, which might be enough to oust the Democrats from Congress and the Presidency. This would allow us a reprieve from the assault on the courts Democrats and their gay activist allies are staging.

This is unlikely unfortunately as the article indicates, since the activists want to wait until Obama and the Democrats can trash the judiciary with liberal "empathetic judges" before they start challenging in federal court. (That's what the highlighted phrase "basic support of federal law" subtly indicates) If activist groups get their way and can discipline some of their outlier groups, they'll have devised a formidable strategy for us to contend with.

Fortunately for us, we just got done with a magnificent eight years of Bush putting judges in all positions in the federal judiciary including two of his greatest triumphs, the confirmation of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. It'll take a while for Obama to destroy that progress. We should make sure we work hard so the next time Governor Romney is up for the Republican nomination he will get our collective nod to put a stop to Obama's subversive agenda.

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8, But With a Schizophrenic Twist

A law degree means nothing if Judges can't understand the most simple language possible in California's Marriage Amendment.

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"

California's Supreme Court upheld the amendment, but allowed previous gay marriages to still have legal protection. This is a blatant violation of the law, but neither the legislature nor the court are going to do anything about it so the decision will stand. (California voters, this is your fault since nobody else elected your officials)

How difficult is it to understand the phrase: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized"...?

For the gay couples already married, it's as if Proposition 8 never passed.

This opens a can of worms for legal recognition of gay marriage. Remember that in U.S. courts, cases must be brought to the Judges, they cannot go searching for cases themselves. So to aid that process, these newly "wed" Gay couples will attempt to force their special legal status on California and other states. For those approximately 18,000 gay couples in California, they did get married according to the court and there's nothing voters can do about it. This will create a constitutional crisis when other legally sane state's judges say that the California ruling was a farce, and liberal blue state judges will attempt to force their own states to recognize the illegitimate California marriages.

There's the bigger picture to ponder about. The gay activists eventual showdown goal is to overturn every state amendment in the country via the U.S. Supreme Court and force them to recognize gay marriage.

These gay activists would prefer to have a liberal Democrat President(s) stack the court with liberal Justices first so they don't have to overturn a precedent that struck down gay marriage, thus losing some moral authority and indicating an arbitrary and fickle court. Many would still happily take the damaging results from such a ruling, but those seeking a subtle and effective coup will choose otherwise. They'll probably bide their time for now, attempting to overturn several state amendments and laws.

Ominously, if we lose one of the five majority conservative Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, we are sunk. This highlights the importance of choosing good, moral, conservative (typically Republican) Presidents and Senators to confirm their nominees every election year or face the consequences.

I was worried that a complicit California Supreme Court would simply disregard the law completely and overturn Prop 8.

Allowing the previous gay marriages to stand comes very close.

I worry the time is coming for such flagrant violations of the law to be common (typically by liberal judges) but hopefully not quite yet. Judges need to look semi-professional and objective or they'll lose the moral authority to enforce their verdicts. Unfortunately, had the Court believed this was potentially a more permanent amendment, I still think they would have overturned it. Since the Court believes it can be overturned through another amendment attempt every two years or so, they'll let the gay activists fight for them for the time being.

Turnabout Is Fair Play

Drudgereport recently highlighted Obama's nomination to the SCOTUS, Sonia Sotomayor with the following quote:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.

Try switching the race and gender.

“I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.

This reminds me of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin's "Chocolate City" comments. *sigh* Why do Democrats get away with racist comments so often?

College Students OK With Spreading the Wealth, Just Not Their G.P.A.

Here's a fascinating piece regarding the disconnect between what comes out of college student's mouths, and what goes on in their brains. I've truncated and highlighted in bold some parts of this article from Townhall's Ashley Herzog. You can get the rest of the article by clicking here.

Socialism, College Style

If you’re baffled by college students’ enthusiastic support for Soviet-lite economic policies, you need to watch several short videos created by members of Young America’s Foundation (YAF).

In the videos, YAF members approach their classmates with a petition calling for the redistribution of student GPAs. “It would make it so that all students have an equal opportunity to go to grad school,” University of Oregon YAFer Kenny Crabtree explains. Students with bad grades would therefore be entitled to points earned by straight-A students.

Their classmates are flabbergasted.

“Is that, like, a joke or something?” one guy responds.

“Why would you take points from people who are higher up and give them to people who didn’t meet the requirements?” another asks George Mason University YAFers. But when asked if he supports Obama’s wealth redistribution schemes, he says “yes.”

Shocking? Not really, most college students are economically illiterate... they simply have no idea how capitalism works.

But they do understand grades. Students who study hard get good grades; students who skip class and binge drink every night get bad grades.

Every sane college student realizes the immorality of “spreading the grades around”—regardless of who benefits.

“I don’t think people who worked for their grades should have to suffer because someone else slacked off,” one student says. Then how can she believe in wealth redistribution? “Money is different.” Another explains,"Earning money is not the same as earning grades.”

"It’s amazing how students only care about the immorality of socialism when it hurts them," said George Mason University student Alyssa Cordova. Her classmates were universally opposed to a GPA redistribution plan.

Hannity's Great Mistake: Michael Steele

I believe Sean Hannity had great influence in getting Michael Steele selected for RNC chairman. I had no problem with it, he seemed like a good person for the job, and Hannity has always been a friend of America and conservatives, and shown good judgment. I preferred Saul Anuiz in lieu of Steele or the joker Saltzman, but I was willing to come to a consensus with fellow Republicans for the good of party unity.

Then it started: Steele attacking Rush Limbaugh on CNN, calling his words incendiary and ugly (what is wrong with Steele?!) and the last straw was when Steele recently filled in for Bill Bennett's radio show and began claiming Americans are bigots and Romney was an economic waffler. When I read that I was stunned, and even though he has already run off with his mouth numerous times I still couldn't believe Steele could be that careless and injurious to the party.

As far as I'm concerned, that's it. Michael Steele needs to go.