Unicorn in the (Rose) Garden

A liberal group, Left Action, is charging that the GOP's presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, should be required to prove he is not a Unicorn. CNN, of course, has picked up the story. The liberal activists say they are just extending the logic of the "birthers" who question whether Obama was born in the U.S., and that they are satirizing the birthers.

It's not odd that CNN would pick up the story; CNN has moved so obviously left in its reporting style and leftward bias that many Americans are simply rejecting it as a credible news source. CNN's ratings for viewership made news as they reached a twenty-year low.

It's also not odd that a liberal group would try to tie the "birther" groups together with Romney's campaign. The media has done everything possible to avoid vetting Obama, and thanks to their hard work, virtually nobody really knows who Obama actually is or what he believes. And as part of the process of avoiding a vetting of Obama, the media and liberal groups have worked hard to marginalize and demonize those who do try to vet Obama.

The "birther" controversy arises out of claims that Obama may be ineligible to serve as President since he may not meet the citizenship requirements of the Constitution, and it is the perfect example of liberal's demonizing of those who question them.

By comparing the "birther" controversy to the fabricated "unicorn" controversy, Left Action and CNN suggest that the "birther" controversy is likewise without merit.

Despite that effort to mislead the electorate, the "birther" controversy does have merit. First, the "birther" controversy could have been stopped years ago by Obama simply releasing a certified long-form Birth Certificate (as Romney has already done); by choosing to refuse to release any records and dodging any vetting, Obama has subverted the electoral process into a guessing game of rhetoric, finger-pointing, and name-calling. Secondly, there are those whosuggest the copy of the Birth Certificate is a forgery; if Obama cared about truth, he and his campaign would go to some lengths to disprove that claim. Third, and not least, assuming the Birth Certificate is accurate, why did Obama, his supporters and the media claim he was born in Kenya for so many years?  

You see, Romney never claimed to be a Unicorn; that's just another liberal strawman to entertain and mislead the gullible- and by releasing his Birth Certificate (a fact CNN should know but chose or neglected to mention), he has already proven he is no unicorn. Obama and his cronies, however, have long claimed Obama was born in Kenya, themselves raising the spectre of ineligibility. The Hawaiian Birth Certificate, if true, indicts them of lying- maybe not all of them, but in that case Obama himself had to know "Kenyan-born" was a palpable lie. America is already watching the Senate campaign of Elizabeth "Cherokee" Warren deal with allegations that she lied to claim minority status as a native-American when in fact she had no proof and even the Indian tribe is denying her status.  With Obama, we see the same problem. The question is only whether he lying then, or is he lying now, and can America afford to have a proven liar as President?

Obama has changed his back story so often that even he seems to get confused. And we thought we had an actor in the White House when Reagan was President. With apologies to Thurber, perhaps Obama is as mythical as a Unicorn in the White House Rose Garden.

Salut Inclusivity!

The Muslims in France are worried, or so we are told; they don't feel included. According to a CNN article, the Muslims in France feel that they are being scapegoated for France's economic woes.

Now, it's pretty obvious that France's economic problems are not really the result of the actions of its Muslim residents, or any other minority group. Since World War II, France has embarked on a leftist course, regularly electing socialist and left-of-center leaders. French leaders, following enlightened socialist thought, always increased the role and size of government, expanded citizen dependency, burdened business, shrunk private capital- and borrowed to make up "revenue shortfalls," timorously at first, and then in increasing amounts as a regular practice of budgeting.  They've simply run out of other people's money.

The real problem that the Muslim community is facing is that they are being asked to give up their religious identity. According to one Louisa Zanoun, who appears to be sympathetic to the plight of these poor Muslims, the Muslims are finding it hard to integrate into French culture. That shouldn't be surprising; French culture since the revolution has been secular, and groups with religious identity have, to say the least, not been particularly well accepted.

Ms. Zanoun says, "Originally, it was supposed to be inclusive. It was about including all the people who believed in the values of the Republic. Nowadays, it's very exclusive because to belong to the Republic, you have to give up your religion." Inclusive should be captialized here, because this is the definitive example of the liberal version of Inclusion. Read that quote more carefully. Ms. Zanoun says that "inclusive" meant including only the people group that held the values of the Republic. Salut Inclusivity! Anyone but a liberal would recognize that as the very definition of exclusivity. It's worth repeating; to be included in the secular Republic by definition meant that a citizen necessarily gave up values other than those of the Republic.

It is not a corruption of the ideals and values of the Republic to require Muslims to suppress the public expression of their religious beliefs. Rather, it is a tenet of liberal secularism. In America, liberals have to be cautious of overt attacks on religion, framing them with at least a specious argument that the purpose of a regulation or law is not to infringe believers' First Amendment rights. France, on the other hand, has no real limitations in that regard, and the French Muslims find themselves caught between the exclusivist nature of Islam and the exclusivist nature of secularism.

War on Women?

War on Women? War on Women is the latest empty slogan loudly proclaimed by those who want to avoid discussing issues- like the "hope and change" mantra that gave us Obama. Obama promised us his nearly trillion dollar stimulus was necessary to avoid 8 percent unemployment. He must have been right; it hasn't been that low since. Obama gave us the highest number of people pushed off unemployment and out of the workforce in years, the highest number of people on food stamps, and the lowest homeownership rate. Evidently, Obama does love the poor, since he wants us all to be. Further, he gave us another little change; spending ten trillion dollars and borrowing five trillion dollars over three years, without once passing the legally required yearly federal budget.

So what about this alleged "War on Women"? Liberals simply use this slogan as a code for abortion, as they do "reproductive health services." They aren't talking about health checkups or medical care at all; remember, pro-abortion liberals fight tooth and nail against medical oversight of abortion clinics because they know it's not about women's health care. It's about babies, and babies aren't healthier when they emerge from an abortion clinic; they are dead.

If there is a war, it was started by Obama and our former governor when they issued the HHS regulation that all businesses- including churches- must provide "health services" including contraceptives, abortifacient drugs and abortions. The churches objected; the GOP stood with the churches, and the Liberals responded with the hysterical rant about the new GOP "War on Women".

The liberal socialist mantra is that rights are given by the government, so if you oppose a government mandate, you are opposing a newly minted "right". So you find liberals angrily demonstrating for their "rights" because the government mandated Obamacare and "reproductive health services" (until the government changes the rules again).

Conservatives believe that rights are not fabricated, but are found in the moral structure of the Bible. Yes, the Constitution does require separation of the Church and the State as institutions, but nowhere does it require separation of morals and State. The Founders could and did explicitly choose Christian morals as the basis of American government. To quote James Madison: "We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments." James Madison, Father of the Constitution and author of the Bill of Rights, probably understood Constitutional government.

Yet anyone making such a comment today is typically branded an intolerant radical, for liberals in education, media and the Courts have worked hard to wash America's heritage out of the history books, confusing and misleading many, and ensuring that the brains of the youth are washed as well. They may not perform academically, but they feel very good about themselves and they believe in socialism.

This is the crux of the culture war in America: whether the people will follow God or government. The Founders chose God, and they built a country which they told us cannot work if the citizens reject God's laws.

If you accept blindly the socialist views of the liberals, rejecting God and refusing to see or acknowledge the suffering and millions of deaths socialism has caused just in the last century alone, you will choose government. Once you surrender your freedoms for the chains of government, all the cute slogans in the world won't make them go away. Samuel Adams, Father of the American Revolution, had a word for those who would choose government dependency and socialism:

"We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." Adams meaning was and is clear: Americans must choose between the independence of freedom, and slavish government dependency.