My Response to ‘Wild Bill’

NO!!! For a thousand and ones reasons no. I find this horrifically insulting…not on my behalf but on the behalf of all those I know who experienced Hitler’s horror. Comparing Planned Parenthood (not all of which perform abortions and in which most services performed are actually birth control, pap smears, and breast exams for women who can’t afford a doctor…but you know, facts, blech) to a place such as Auschwitz is not only unfair and inaccurate but diminishes the horrors that took place. When a PP clinic takes a set of twins, amputates arms, stitches them together to create a pair of conjoined twins…often without anesthetics, then you can compare them to a Death Camp. Though he is right, Hitler wasn’t Christian…but he claimed to be and he quoted scripture and used people’s devotion to the religion to gain power and execute his goals. He may not have been a Christian but he sure took advantage of mis-teachings to corrupt a nation of people.

Also, Liberals are not the only ones throwing Hitler comparisons around…Glen Beck has been doing it since the middle of 2009. Personally, I feel comparisons of any American to Hitler (with the exception of neo-Nazi’s and the Aryan Brotherhood because, well, they admit it) are not only inaccurate but also diminish the horrors committed by that bastard, they make it trivial…makes Hitler out to be less evil. Liberals do not admire dictators. Like all groups of people there are those on the fringe…most Liberals do not admire Mao. Most would agree that a big Liberal “hero” would be John Lennon…many believe his ideals the core of modern Liberalism. In his song, Revolution, he wrote: But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow. The point being made is that those who truly cling to a liberal doctrine would not admire such a man…those people are extremists. Like the ‘conservatives’ who bomb abortion clinics are extremists…they hijack the term to explain their twisted philosophies but in no way do they represent anywhere near the majority of the conservative philosophy. Liberals do not support dictators…at all. In fact, one of the things that angers us the most is the fact that the US government has not only supported dictators in the past but also took action to make sure the dictators they liked came to power. We object to supporting any and all dictators. If a person supports someone like Mao then they are an extremist and do not represent the values of the philosophy.

Next, it is not the fact that Israel exists that bothers Liberals…but instead how it was created. Land was stolen from its inhabitants and then gifted to another group of people. It, not surprisingly, resulted from British colonization attempts and was sanctioned by the UN. What we don’t like is that Palestinians are judged harshly for fighting the takeover of their land and continue to be judged for their anger. Want a comparison…it’s pretty much the same thing that we did to the aboriginal peoples of what is now the United States. The problem is that a third party decided the partition of a nation, which had done nothing wrong, without and against the will of its people. We may object to how it was created, and it was done in a pretty crappy way, but now that it exists we agree that a mutual peace…benefiting both parties…is the best course of action. With regards to that peace process, Israel is just as guilty as Palestine for failing to come to an agreement. I remember a few years back Palestine offered a cease fire if Israel ceased expanding settlements into the Palestinian region around the West Bank. What happened? Israel continued to expand into Palestinian territory.

Hitler’s control of the media in no way resembles the Fairness doctrine…how so…um because broadcasters who speak out against the government are not executed. How do I know we do not live in a dictatorial fascist media controlled society…because Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity and Coulter are still alive (and on the other side so are Maher, Cooper and Schultz). It is a fiction of history that Hitler disarmed the people actually, he relaxed the gun control laws of the previous administration. That being said the Jews were not applicable to these new laws relaxing the ownership of firearms because of the mass of discriminatory laws against them. The US has laws that apply to all not just a specific group of people (no one is saying that Christians no longer have the right to bear arms). Since US gun regulations, or rather proposed regulations…actually misconceptions of the proposed regulations…do not single out a group of persons to discriminate against then any comparison to gun regulations to Nazi policies is pure crap.

“Crack down on people of faith because they oppose his agenda”…ok, this one really pisses me off. First of all, as long as ‘people of faith’ are not being thrown in prison, tortured, or executed there can be no comparison…once again, trivializing the horrors of the Holocaust. Second, America was founded on democratic (that is democracy not the party) principles. We are supposed to be able to debate our differences. Why is it when I disagree with a conservative (at least some, not all…I do not believe in absolutes) I am persecuting them, cracking down on them, declaring war, etc. …and yet when a conservative disagrees with me it is just in the spirit of democracy? (Look, I am aware some on both sides are guilty of this…I am only speaking from my own experience at this point) The whole point of this government is to debate our differences…not run to the hills proclaiming persecution when people disagree with your viewpoint. Furthermore, when one uses speech to denigrate and dehumanize a group of individuals it IS hate speech.

OK, now the Muslim Brotherhood thing…first let us be very clear, not all Muslims are terrorists. So, Hitler had a Muslim SS decision…I am pretty sure a number of German Lutherans were SS as well…shall we denigrate all of them for the rest of the sects existence or do they get a pass because they are not brown? As far as sending weapons to Egypt (at least I am assuming that to what he is referring) I did not see many complaints when we were sending weapons to Mubarak. Nor do I hear anyone denigrating Reagan for doing the exact same thing with Saddam Hussein. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have provided aid and weapons to those with questionable purposes…no side is innocent in that endeavor and I am tired of the assumptions that it was all the fault of a single party…either Democrat or Republican.

“Use the word of God to convince people of the righteousness of their cause, just like liberal churches do today…” Um, ok, but don’t conservatives use that as well to promote their cause. What makes it right for a conservative to do so but not a liberal? If you really want to address this issue, most people of a faith use their religious doctrines to justify their actions and affirm the “righteousness” of their cause. This is not just a liberal thing and I fail to see how he can say that with a straight face when it is the CONSERVATIVE position that same-sex marriage should be illegal because it goes against the WILL OF GOD. Sorry, but it seems a little hypocritical to accuse liberals of having commonalities with Hitler for using their faith to support their beliefs (some liberals, not all) when a priority of an entire political party (Republican/conservative) does the exact same thing? Does it make it right that everyone uses their belief system in such a way…of course not…but you cannot denounce one while supporting the other. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.

In no way, shape, or form does Liberalism share the same goals and ideologies of Hitler. Liberals are not seeking to exterminate an entire race of people from the globe. Liberals are not seeking to imprison or execute those who disagree with our beliefs. A liberal’s goal is that of freedom and liberty…for all. We believe civil rights belong to all people regardless of their race, nationality, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Since Hitler had a program executing homosexuals I have a hard time believing he would side with us on that one. We believe that all people should have religious freedom…the ability to practice whatever religion they choose/ or don’t choose…we also refute the idea that one religion is superior to another and thus refuse legislation that favors a particular religious viewpoint.

This is something that is very personal to me. If Hitler had his way my husband wouldn’t exist and as a result neither would my children. I find it thoroughly insulting to the survivors of this period of time for any American to in anyway insinuate that their struggles are even remotely similar to those faced during Hitler’s reign. It diminishes the death and suffering of millions to equate our petty grievances and imagined sufferings to such events. It is an analogy in American politics that needs to die solely on the basis that it is no way near a realistic comparison. Until people in the US are being led by the millions to execution simply based on what they are…religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation…then no. single. person in America—on either side—today can claim that the opposing side is in any way resemblant to Hitler and his Nazi regime. And trust me, compared to being gay, colored, a Jew, a Slav, or Polish in Eastern Europe during that period of time our ‘imagined’ struggles here in America today are petty and insignificant.


Dear Senator

In an opinion article recently on CNN, Mr. Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky, outlined his arguments on why the US should stay out of Syria. Frighteningly enough, in the beginning I was starting to agree with him. Though it was a rather simplistic historical view that left out a few important points (like how the US supported the coup that eventually put Assad in power) it was beginning to make a valid point about why we shouldn’t use arms and troops to support the Syrian rebels. That point being that we have a tendency to screw it up. But then, just as I was getting excited that a logical argument would finally be made, Sen. Paul dropped this little nugget: There is also the quandary of nearly 2 million Christians who are uncertain of what to do. The Christian community in Syria has traditionally sided with, and been protected by, Bashar al-Assad’s regime. It is troubling to think that American arms may be given to Islamic fighters who may in turn be firing them at Christians. Wait, what? Sooooo, the concern is not with us screwing it up so much as how are screwing it up may effect a minority population that supported a dictatorial regime that has spent the last 50 years subjugating the majority? Sure! What could possibly be wrong with that idea? Only Everything.

There are so many things wrong with this statement that I don’t even know where to begin. Let’s start with the first part of the statement: …2 million Christians who are uncertain of what to do…the community has traditionally sided with Assad. Here’s an idea, how about stop supporting a government that for the last half century has been persecuting, subjugating, torturing and murdering those who are now known as rebels. I fail to see how anyone can support a regime such as Assad’s that has accumulated a laundry list of human rights violations over the last 50 years. Maybe it’s just me but that doesn’t sound very Christian. Then comes the second part: It is troubling to think that American arms may be given to Islamic fighters who may in turn be firing them at Christians. Well, isn’t that dandy? I think Sen. Paul is confused as to how a war works. If we support the rebels and the Syrian Christians support Assad wouldn’t it seem logical that the rebels (who happen to be Muslim) would fight these Christians? Also, who gives a crap if they are Christian or not? Did it ever occur to anyone that if a Christian supports a dictator then a Muslim rebel overthrows said dictator and said Christian is killed by said Muslim that the religious affiliations of the two parties have ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with it? Perhaps, these ‘Christians’ shouldn’t continue to support a government that is involved in the wholesale slaughter of a number of its own citizens.  Perhaps then these ‘Christians’ wouldn’t have to fear the retaliation of ‘evil Muslims.’

    As if that wasn’t bad enough, Sen. Paul said shortly thereafter: Empowering Islamic extremists to achieve questionable short-term goals does not serve America’s long-term security or interests. Nor does it serve the interests of nearly 2 million Christians in Syria who fear they could suffer the same fate as Iraqi Christians who were abused and expelled from that country as radical Islamic forces gained influence and power. These Christians are natural allies of the United States, and if we’re going to seriously discuss any American interests in Syria, the welfare of these Christians is more important than arming Islamic extremists. Seriously? This gets a giant WTF from me for a number of reasons…primarily because every single part of this statement is inaccurate. First, why are the rebel’s extremists? Because they want freedom and equality? Because they want to be able to speak out against their government without fear of murder, torture and rape? All evidence points to the Free Syrian Army as NOT being extremist. One al-Qaeda based group has crossed into Syria but while they fight Assad (most likely for their own ends) the FSA does not support them and has, in fact, accused them of hijacking their cause. Yep, sounds like an extremist to me. Let’s toss that right out the window…those that are asking for our help are not the extremists but the FSA.

“Questionable short-term goals,” man I like that one. So, getting rid of a ruthless dictator who has set up dozens of torture facilities, has used cluster bombs and chemical weapons (violating the Geneva Convention), ruthlessly targeted women and children, recklessly bombed his own cities, and has purposely left innocent civilians without power, food and water is a ‘questionable’ goal. Removing Assad from power is not, I repeat not, questionable…he needs to go, and the vast majority of the world agrees with me. Furthermore, the accusation that it would “not serve America’s long-term security or interests,” is so blatantly false one has to wonder if Sen. Paul understands foreign policy at all. Why would that be, you ask? Well, let us look at those who have chosen to side with Assad: Iran, Russia, China and Hezbollah. Forgive me if I fail to see how that could NOT affect our long-term security. Do we really want Iran and China to have a stronger footing in the region should the Assad regime win? Add that to the fact that, for whatever reason, the US has deemed it essential to protect Israel at any cost for any reason how can you say it doesn’t serve our interests. A stronger Hezbollah, also a terrorist organization that seeks to destroy the Israeli state, in the region definitely affects our long-term interests.

“Christians are the natural allies of the United States,” what exactly, makes them our allies? The fact that they support a tyrannical regime that despises the United States…or is it merely because they are Christian? Exactly how delusional are you when it comes to foreign relations? Christianity does not automatically make one an ally. Remember the Cold War, the USSR wasn’t exactly an ally then and I am fairly confident in declaring the majority of that region as being Christian. In case you haven’t noticed all Christians do not agree and have a tendency, like any group of people, to fight about it. You know, like the whole Protestant v. Catholic thing. Forgive me if I doubt the allegiance of a group of people who would support Assad. “The welfare of these Christians is more important than arming Islamic extremists,” now here is where I really get upset. First, we have already established that we cannot definitively say that we would be arming extremists. Apart from that the rest of this statement is one of the most egocentric and exclusionary statements I have ever encountered. Holy crap. As you state yourself, there are only two million Christians in Syria, which has a population of 20 million souls. So, let’s go ahead and put those 2 million above the other 18. Because we all know that Christians are inherently better. Would you please explain to me when the needs of the few began to outweigh the needs of the many? Or do you feel that only the Christians count? I was taught that we should ‘love our neighbor,’ to me this is not exclusionary. It means we should care for each other as human beings, regardless of color, gender, religion, national origin…you know, the insignificant parts of ‘who’ we are. But I guess it is ‘love thy neighbor’…unless it could have the vaguest possibility of harming real people (i.e. Christians) in the future. Sen. Paul, millions of people are suffering. They are living without heat, running water and food. There is a lack of medical supplies that is leading to spreading disease within the besieged cities. How many could that kill? Not to mention having to fear tanks, chemical weapons, mortars, bombings and missiles that could at any moment destroy hundreds of lives.

Seriously?!? All the arguments you could have gone with against US involvement in Syria and this is the one you go with? Let’s not even mention that we don’t have the resources. Let’s not even mention how, should we become involved we could spark an all-out war within the entire region. Nope, we are going to worry about what MIGHT happen to 10% of the population when the dust settles. Honestly, who gives a crap ‘what’ they are? Millions are being persecuted in what could easily spin into a modern day genocide. Sen. Paul, is it not the Christian duty to act? To do whatever we can to alleviate the suffering of others? Should not the Christians of Syria be supporting the rebels instead of the murderous regime simply because, “Hey, they treat us OK.”? I am sorry, Sen. Paul, but are not the ‘darkest places in hell reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis?’ With all due respect, Sen. Paul, bugger off.

Bleeding Heart

I was questioned lately on what made me a liberal. I believe in God, I must be a conservative. I am a stay at home mom with a husband that leads our house like the bible says, I must be a conservative. (Actually, while I am a stay at home mom my husband and I are equal partners in our house.) Because of my belief in God, I must be against marriage equality, abortion, taxes…I must be a conservative. All of this ending with the claim that John F. Kennedy would be a Republican under the current structure of the Democratic Party that had been high-jacked by liberals. I find it amusing that liberal has become a dirty word. I find it amusing because liberalism was founded on liberty and equality. Below is the response I gave.

I am a liberal. Just because I am a liberal does not mean I can’t believe in God. Just because I have a traditional family does not mean that I think that is the only or even best way to go. I believe one of the basic requirements for a free society is the freedom to pursue whatever religion you wish including the freedom to not pursue religion. I am a Christian, but I do not believe that a free society can legislate a single religious belief. When we do so we are no longer free.

I fail to see how a government based on freedom of religion can regulate a religious institution such as marriage. I am fine with the churches’ position. I am less fine with any government telling two consenting adults that they can’t get married. There are churches out there that support same-sex marriage and I have a HUGE problem with the government telling them what they can and cannot support. Personally, I have absolutely no problem with same-sex marriage. Their love and relationships are just as valid as mine. Marriage in a church is a religious ceremony before God and I feel that the church can determine who they can and cannot marry. I think they are wrong to do so but perfectly free to make that choice. Marriage is also a legal contract and I have problems with this legal contract being restricted to certain types of people by the government. I equate these with Jim Crow laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage. If you look back, the arguments are even the same.

I am for tax reform yes…but probably more different from what you would think. First, I am in favor of a flat tax with no stupid deductions (like for yachts, private jets, and show horses). You get a standard deduction and that is it. Since that will never happen I am in favor of creating new tax brackets for the super-wealthy. I find it horribly unfair that persons making $400,000 pay the same rate as those making millions. We need brackets for those higher incomes. With regards to FICA, the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax removed from every paycheck for Social Security and Medicaid, I am willing to pay more. Currently, Medicaid is at 1.45%. That’s $14.50 for every $1,000 earned bumping it up to a full 2% would only increase it by $5.50 for every $1,000. I am more than willing to pay that to help more Americans. And all income should be subject to the Social Security portion of the FICA tax…not just the first $110,000. I am poor; I get a return most years. I would give up every single penny, regardless of how much it helps my family, if it could guarantee every single American quality health care.

I am not for partial birth abortions and I would argue that no liberal really is…however, my views on abortion could take up a huge amount of space. Some of them though, can be found here:

As far as the Islamic religion is concerned…I support it 100%. The reasons why are many. First, we have freedom of religion in this country. Second, not every Muslim believes what the extremists believe. “Islamic Extremism is to Islam what the KKK is to Christianity”—it may be from an old ‘West Wing’ episode but I really do believe it. Furthermore, I studied religion in college and have read the Qur’an. I know that what it says is so very different from what is presented by the extremists. I know many Muslims who are good Americans that do not believe a single thing coming from the mouths of terrorists. Christianity’s history hasn’t exactly been all flowers and roses either. Judging all Muslims for the beliefs of extremists is akin to judging all Christians based on the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church.

I am not for the government restricting my diet…but making recommendations to how I should eat is pretty much the job description of the Surgeon General. Making healthier food cheaper and crappy food more expensive is no different from taxing alcohol and tobacco. I also feel that one shouldn’t be able to buy candy and soda with food stamps.

I have no problems with doctors, teachers, and others whose duty it is to care for my children to ask if there are guns in the home. If it prevents even one child from a preventable death or injury because their parents were too stupid to figure out on their own that they should keep their pretty pink gun out of the reach of their 3yo then I am all for it. I find it to be similar to asking about lead in the home. Or smoking. Or car seats. Frankly, someone has to look after our kids and American parents, by and large, are failing miserably.

Now, looking back at history I have found a lot of Executive Orders that I disagree with. Pretty much every President since FDR had a few I disliked. A few have had some that I agree with. They are nothing new and the Executive Orders Obama has signed have made him disappointingly average. As far as taking control of our infrastructure, that has been an Executive Order since Truman was President. Wire taps, search warrants, and what not are due to the Patriot Act, which I oppose vehemently. But a conservative President and a conservative Congress enacted it. Detention of US citizens is also not new…technically FDR did it…but the tenets in National Defense Authorization Act (which is currently being blamed solely on Obama) actually began with Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. AUMF was also passed under conservative leadership…on September 14, 2001…quietly, while America was distracted. We should speak up about these actions but we should also be clear of the whole history of such actions and not lay blame solely at the feet of the individual holding the Presidency. What we need to do is take such tenets to court and get them deemed unconstitutional (which is what we are doing with NDAA now) so no one can do it again.

A liberal is: “someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties—someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal’, then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘Liberal’.” according to John F. Kennedy. Personally, given the quote, I think JFK would fit nicely into this Democratic Party. Lincoln I have a hard time believing would still be a Republican given his liberal and progressive stances on a number of issues. I am a liberal. Furthermore, I am a bleeding heart liberal and I wear that title like a badge of honor. Just like I don’t believe I should pick and choose parts of my Bible, I also do not believe that I can pick and choose parts of my Constitution. I believe, with my whole heart, cemented by my faith in God, that all men are created equal and therefore are equal under the law.