There is No Arguing With the Left

One of the differences I see between liberal and conservatives is liberals seem to define themselves by the righteousness of their argument; it therefore becomes dogma. Anyone the speaks against liberal dogma is not just illknowleged as conservatives view those that disagree, but an enemy that must be de-humanized, demonized and extinguished; as Saul Alinsky promoted, your opponent must be treated with complete disdain with no redeeming value whatsoever. The left also needs to believe that they either speak for the majority, even though they represent a small minority and the only way the left makes has ever political headway is to promise for than they can ever deliver and then blame the right when it doesn't happen.

 In order for liberal dogma to be possible, they must selectively remember the past and perpetuate the lies told at the time ( If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it"). One of those I heard recently was the Bush was an AWOL draft dodger; this is repeating the lie from Dan Rather and the "Killian Documents". It turns out the documents were fabricated and than forged to appear to be from the personal files of then Lt. Bush's former commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. CBS first claimed the documents had been authenticated by experts until the very experts came forward saying the documents appeared to have been forged. The end result was CBS fired the story producer and three other CBS producers connected with the story were forced to resign; Dan Rather subsequently took an early retirement.

Then there is the Bush Patriot Act was a prelude to a Police State; this one is tricky because Obama started off where Bush ended (the Bush Patriot Act looks almost reasonable and tame, compared to that added to and re-authorized by Obama); it is Obama that (begrudgingly) re-authorized the NDAA giving him authorization for targeted assassinations and drone strikes (at the whim of the President, including American citizens outside the US),  'free rein for martial law' that has created the framework for a police state, and the government authority for the indefinite detention of US citizens. Obama also re-authorized the Bush Patriot Act, but unlike the Bush law, allows the NSA to monitor all our phone calls and computer activity, not just those to or from foreign countries. He also expanded the TSA to a "civilian national security force", "to achieve the national security objectives we've set." It should obvious to anyone that the government can not have a police state unless it has a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded (as the US military). Add to this President Obama's detain for the US Constitution and it's separation of powers, and you can have a real Police State on your hands.

The only positive that has come out of the last 6 years of President Obama's rule is the electorate can see what liberal collective rule looks like. Who they turn to is yet to be decided, but the prevailing attitude will surely be, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men" Okay not really, but they will certainly be looking for the adults to take over. 

Sanctuary Homeless Camps; Their Failure is in the Details

In Santa Cruz there is again talk of a Sanctuary camp. Like all liberal ideas it sounds good, but the devil is in the details. I wrote this a while ago and it was published in the Santa Cruz Sentential 10/2013.

In 1991 I left my position as a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy and moved to Santa Cruz  where I became a Police officer with the City of Santa Cruz. Not soon afterwards the homeless were allowed to create their own a tent city in the then vacant lot behind the Homeless Resource Center, prior to it's expansion; this was done with the tacit approval of the City Council. There was also talk of zero tolerance to drugs, alcohol and anti-social behavior, but it quickly spiraled down into lawless quagmire. You see it turns out the homeless have more issues than just needing a place to sleep and concentrating people with these issues in one place is a receipt for extreme disorder. One then has to determine who will be responsible for maintaining order in the camp and what authority will they have. 20 years ago those tasked with maintaining order simply could not contend with level of threats and violence so the city police were called numerous time daily. And it wasn't just the human campers, many of the homeless do not exert enough (or sometimes any) control over their pets. Between the human fights, dog fights, drugs and drinking that permeated the camp it was simply impossible to maintain order. Then the rain came and the Homeless Camp became a cesspool of human and animal feces and urine. The City Council finally realized that the Homeless Camp was a complete failure. Their answer? They started busing the homeless to and from local State Parks. The impact on State Park system in Santa Cruz was so unacceptable to State Parks , they had to create a statewide rule that group camping is limited to only 7 nights a year. The history of creating a Homeless Sanctuary Camp does not address any of the numerous issues behind homelessness in Santa Cruz and will probably make the problems even worse .  Remember the words of George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

How Left Tries to De-humanize the Right

History is replete with racists and bigots that have matured and grew spiritually to renounce their bigotry. However there is simply not a case for the reverse; one would have to look far and wide to find a group  that was a champion of civil rights and suddenly became bigoted toward the same group; the concept is absurd. But that is exactly what the Democrats preach when they claim the Republicans turned racist as a political ploy to take the South from the newly marketed champion of the black man during the 60's. But just prior to the 1960's is was the Democrats that eviscerated the 1957 Civil Rights Act, that was supposed guarantee blacks the right to vote. from Wikipedia;

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, whose southern bloc was anti-civil rights and northern members were more pro-civil rights. Southern senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees due to their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee, led by Senator James Eastland from Mississippi, who proceeded to change and alter the bill almost beyond recognition. Senator Richard Russell from Georgia had claimed the bill was an example of the federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill, while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for reducing it so much as to kill it.

Even Johnson's 1964 Civil Rights Act,  was heavily contested by southern bloc Democrats; when the final tally was counted less than half the Democrats in the Senate and House voting for the Act while  80% of the Republicans voted yes.

It wasn't just enough for Democrats to claim they were now champions of the black man, they had to villainize the Republicans to make it believable and Saul Alinsky provided the frame work for this;  “charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting” this “with qualifying remarks such as ‘He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband,’” one convicts oneself of “political idiocy”.  The winning strategy is to “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”; in this case Republicans are always the "establishment" regardless who is actually in charge; this is one reason the left can charge the right with racism, misogynism, homophobia with apparent impunity as they claim of ownership of victimism; where the right sees victimism a transitory stage to overcome, the left  fosters a permanent victim class from which it creates a power bloc. Alinsky says The reason for villainization of ones opponent is "Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition [is] 100 per cent on the side of the devil.” Even though the Republicans have had a 100 year head start in civil rights, the left must create a narrative fed by revisionist history to demonize them.

Do you notice the left never has a civil conversation with the right? This is also an Alinsky tactic, because any conversation with your opponent will humanize them. The end game of the left is collectivism and the real distribution of wealth is not to the middle class, but from the today's rich to the watchers of socialism. But collectivism is a hard sell, so instead they offer more than they can possibly deliver; later down the road when the left can not deliver on their promises, the right is blamed for obstructing the unattainable. The true weakness to Alinsky it is his tactics never leads to a solution; it's the unraveling the fabric of society solely for it's own purpose.

The Hobby Lobby Case and The Hierarchy of Rights

Many from the left claim the Hobby Lobby case and the striking down of buffer zones at abortion clinics were a loss for America and Woman; in reality it is a win for both. Both cases shows that there is a hierarchy of rights (aka a hierarchy of derivation). The right to an abortion is an entitlement granted by the State based on Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty. However the right to free speech (freedom of expression) trumps the right to have an unimpeded abortion. The arguments from the left on this matter is the result oft the left having their own hierarchy of rights were abortion trumps all. Generally this hierarchy is based on limiting government intrusion over impeding the actions of the people; this is the difference between laws based on individual rights vs laws based on collective rights. Most agree that the First Amendment to the Constitution sits on top the hierarchy of rights.  The idea that abortion trumps free speech or the practicing of religion would give the State a mandate to limit individual rights in the name of securing the general welfare of the collective (also termed the "greater good"). As I have written before, Resistance is Futile, You Will be Assimilated, the needs of a free state and a collective state run counter to each other. This is because the Collective State has it's own hierarchy of rights, as it determines the needs of the collective over the individual.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means government can't make a person or group violate their religious beliefs for the good of the collective and this was further affirmed by the codified Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). This law says "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability" ("general applicability," meaning the regulation of free speech and/or religion) creates a hierarchy of individual religious rights over the States presumption of a collective need..  Today we have a State intent on imposing it's perceived needs of the collective, but our founding fathers had a different idea.


In order to maintain individual rights, the citizen must exercise those rights and not leave it up to the government to protect the citizenry form itself. The Democratic Republic built by our forefathers is not for the timid or uneducated; one is expected to know and exercise their liberty and freedoms. This means one has the right to stand on a public sidewalk, but if someone is blocking your path, you need to tell them to get out of your way, because this is a free country.

Hobby Lobby and the Scripted Lies of the Left

Well it's apparent the misinformation and lies were scripted before the Hobby Lobby case was decided. Starting with Sandra Fluke and followed by the main stream press, the line is

Sandra Fluke @SandraFluke

Supreme Court rules that bosses can deny employees coverage of birth control. #HobbyLobby #NotMyBossBusiness

The truth is something entirely different so one has to ask as I read on the internet, is Sandra Fluke clueless or lying. I also see that Ms Fluke is running for the California State Senate; well she seems to have past the test of telling a bald face lie to vilify those who's world view differ from her world view.

Here is a typical letter where it reader has to wonder if the writer is a lying or clueless. From the Santa Cruz Sentinel;


Court ruling just lines pockets of corporations
July 4 is "Independence Day". July 11 is "World Population Day". There are over 7 billion people on Earth. Our species is facing drought, extreme weather, ocean acidification and extinctions, because we have over bred. The Hobby Lobby ruling by misogynist judges, on June 30 just annexed all "USDA" fertile female wombs for corporate profits. Stabilizing our human population requires that all females on Earth have access to birth control.
Future generations ought to know what it's like to live on a healthy planet, but at the rate human population is exploding we'll be passing on a dead future. Birth control pills are listing online from $37 to $162 per month if purchased without insurance. The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling just made all fertile female wombs in the USA into a cash register for corporate profits. Rescind Citizen's United now and remove justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito from the Supreme Court Bench.
— Connie Troupe, Aptos
and my response, 

Apparently someone has been drinking the Sandra Fluke koolaid. Let see if I can set the record straight; Hobby Lobby never protested paying for women's contraceptives (defined as inhibiting ovulation and fertilization); if Hobby Lobby has always agreed to pay for contraceptive birth control pills, why check the internet for retail prices? What Hobby Lobby didn't want to pay for are 4 out of the 24 FDA approved birth control pills or devices (refereed to as "emergency contraception"; which as I explained is a misnomer) that work by blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus; ie aborting a fertilized egg after contraception. Also, the ruling was so narrow that even if it had blocked the use of all birth control by other "closely held corporations", it would have no real effect on availability of employer paid for birth control; so the apparatus needed to reduce the useless eaters of the world is safe. Hobby Lobby actually won the case based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), championed by the Democrats and signed into law by Clinton in 1993; it was written to allow American Indians to smoke Peyote. There is a simple solution for the pro abortion alarmists and the Hobby Lobby case; all that needs be done is Obama change the law (something he was already done many times already), to allow these handful of closely held corporations to be treated like the non-profits already exempted under the Religious Employer Exemption (REE). In these cases a third-party administrator (TPA) pays for the birth control exempted by non-profit religious organizations.

I am also curious how it came to be that quality healthcare is defined by birth control and any company wanting an exemption is immediately tagged misogynic. It should be noted that over half the adult population of the US define themselves as pro-life, believing that life begins at conception. Rather than being misogynic, the pro-life crowd belief that an optional abortion is no different than the after-birth abortions championed by medical ethicist and population alarmists. The real issue here seems to be left's refusal to acknowledge that those that take a pro-life stand believe in every fiber of their being that an abortion is killing a fully alive baby. Instead, it has been my observations that when the left plays the racist or misogynic card, it's the sound of someone with nothing intelligent to say on the subject..

The folley that a gun has but one purpose

"A gun has but one purpose...to kill" is highly simplistic and in many cases wrong. First in most cases guns that are aimed at people are designed to stop a threat, not to kill; the Hague Convention of 1899 prohibits the use of bullets that expand when fired into a body, hence only full metal Jacket bullets are used in warfare. A full metal jacket bullet makes it less likely a person will be killed; it's also well known that a wounded soldier takes more resources that a killed soldier. There is also the fact that guns are used as a deterrent much more than they are used to shoot people; hence the saying that carrying a concealed weapon gives the carrier more options than those that don't. There are also many firearms specifically used for target shooting that are so job specific (the majority of competition/target shooters do not hunt), they don't translate well to handling/aiming hunting firearms and certainly would be impractical to use hunting or in a deadly force scenario. Yes, the purpose of a gun used to hunt is to kill, but if a police officer wounds a bad guy and that wounding stops the threat, it would be a homicide for the police officer resume shooting to make sure the bad guy was dead. Certainly if a person uses deadly force, for clarity sake there needs to always be the justification to take a life. But one can't ignore that the rate of fatal firearms injures in the US is 10 per 100,000 but the number of non-fatal wounded is 25 per 100,000. So if "a gun has one purpose; to kill" it would seem the gun is not accomplishing it's purpose very well.

The Democrats Problem with Obama's New Deal

What is  becoming more and more difficult is the Democrat left differentiating Obama's policies and Bush (43's) legacy. There is practically no Bush policy that candidate Obama ran against, that he has not now embraced (with the exception of an official policy allowing toture).  The liberal bloggers that blame conservatives for the concentration of wealth, and the middle class losing ground seem to have forgotten that it is now year 5 of President Obama's policies. Even the liberal Mother Jones has to question what happened to the Obama promises From Guantanamo to Limitless War, Obama's Failure to Live Up to His Own Five Commandments

Below is a portion of a post from a liberal blogger (WS) that is almost comical in it's hubris that they are not describing their own President.
(WS)  Modern conservatives have much in common with Fascism, they are for a strong military police type state where everyone is monitored and controlled as well as concentrating power and wealth at the top. Republicans championed the Patriot Act and are responsible for reducing many of Americans personal freedoms. Income disparity is a direct result of conservatives deregulating the financial markets and weakening unions.*

As far as fascism, very few understood what candidate Obama meant when he called for a “civilian national security force being just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the U.S. military"; we now know it was his intention to expand Homeland Security as a federal police force. While Bush may have championed the Patriot act, the vote in 2001 and the subsequent reauthorizations under President Obama; the Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and the Patriot Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 all received bipartisan approval with a majority of both parties. Then you have President Obama signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens and self derived power allowing his killing of an American citizen overseas, who are deemed terrorist without due process along with non-American citizens (he says has a list where he personally gives a gladiatorial contest thumbs down when the drone has the victim in it's sight ; and now the lawyer that wrote the law brief saying it is legal to kill American citizen terrorists has been nominated by Obama to a federal appellate court. You may remember how Obama castigated Bush and the Iraq war for invading a country and overthrowing it's leadership when the country did not constitute a national security threat, yet now Obama has been part and parcel of the overthrow of Libya, Egypt and the attempted overthrow of Syria; all three not approaching anything close to a national security threat and are now more unstable and dangerous than before.

*(continued) Make no mistake about it as discontent grows there will be a correction just as there was after the great depression which ushered in several decades of progressive power including the New Deal policies that benefit working people to this day.

Is this really the correction the Democrats are championing? Do you really think that President Obama is offering the American people anything that reeks of a new Deal? FDR put people to work, Obama has lowered unemployment by discouraged workers dropping out of  the labor force; FDR built and re-build the national infrastructure; the Obama Stimulus couldn't find any shovel ready jobs (which Obama later admitted never existed to begin with). And while the President wants universal healthcare, all that has happened is millions of cancelled heathcare policies and new policies that have less coverage and are more expensive. And then there is promise about keeping your  health-plan and /or doctor if you like both or either;  funny, I don't remember FDR lying to the American people when he was championing the New Deal.