Heads I Win; Tails You Lose

By the time we reached third grade or so, most of us stopped falling for the, “Heads I win; tails you lose” gambit. Those that still accept this type of deal seem to be predominately Republican and conservative. 


I understand why many good people explain that even those of us who are appalled by the Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriage should not support Kim Davis. They argue that as a government official, she should resign if in good conscience she cannot follow the law. I accept the premise that laws cannot be ignored even if we think those laws are incorrect. I get the argument that her stance will lead to other people arguing for exceptions for positions that I oppose.


Except, I’m tired of fighting battles where only one side plays by the rules. Since coming into office, the current administration has ignored the Constitution and separation of powers that underpin the United of States government. The Department of Justice has favored some citizens over others based on their race (among other factors), and the Internal Revenue Service functioned as a partisan attack dog. Cities across the United States have openly declared their contempt for law, whether on illegal immigration, homosexual marriage (prior to the Supreme Court ruling) or on other issues.  

In an editorial arguing that Republicans should not make a futile attempt to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding, the paper’s editorial board opines, “If a Republican wins the Presidency but Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren run the Senate, don’t expect any movement on Planned Parenthood—or ObamaCare repeal.” Let me see if I get this straight. When Republicans control Congress and a Democrat is in the White House, Congress is impotent. The President can even make a foreign treaty that threatens the continued safe existence of this country and Congress can’t stop him. But if a Republican is in the White House and the Democrats control Congress, the President’s hands will be tied. 

When a Republican president nominates a superbly qualified man to the Supreme Court, who liberals realize will not sign on to the remaking of the country and the finding of invisible rights in the Constitution, he, literally, gets Borked. When a Democrat nominates someone to the Supreme Court, Republicans say that even though her judicial positions are worrisome, according to the Constitution the President has the right to appoint Justices.

In other words, Republicans can never win. No one can when the rules only apply to them. When, after winning the election in 2000, President Obama said that elections have consequences he only meant it for elections that Democrats win. That is clear from his ignoring the trouncing his party took in mid-term elections. Yet, Republicans act as if they agree with his biased thinking. 

There is a phrase in Hebrew that translates as “a pious fool.” The classic case given to explain this idea is a man who sees a woman drowning and doesn’t save her because Jewish law opposes physical contact between unrelated men and women. He is a man who turns God and His law into a mockery.

I’m tired of supporting a political party which acts as a “pious fool.” Yes, we should follow the law; yes, Congress, the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch each have their own areas of responsibility; yes, the Federal government should treat all Americans as equal under the law. But when only one political party acts according to those ideas, our nation will drown and the obituaries extolling the piety of those who should have saved her, will ring hollow. 

Our office and store will close Sunday through Tuesday night in celebration of Rosh HaShana

Until then, enjoy our holy day special sales

10 Commandments CD Case   Genesis Journeys Set


14 thoughts on “Heads I Win; Tails You Lose”

  1. Bingo! Facebook exhibits videos from the German border where the Army (GSG?) has been called out to stem the riptide of young Arab bucks, minus women and children, swarming lawlessly over the border, screaming ALLAHU AKBAR! Not meaning to stoke the flames of frenzied panic, but Kanzler Angela’s welcome to the ‘Syrians’ is a trifle wholesale, i.e., not screening or even allowing for the presence of ‘Syrian or outside (Islamic) agitators.’ The thing I fear to see down the road is Islamic takeover of neighborhoods (this has already started, as in France), then German Polizei massacred, and then isolated Germans being beheaded in the streets. The Christian Bible contains this admonition about people, groups, religions, etc.: ‘By their fruits shall ye know them.’ Evil trees bear evil fruits. Not by their fine words, but by their deeds shall we know them. Today I heard a high-ranking US military officer descry Islam as a political and military imperative masquerading as a religion: ‘Islam is Islam.’ He wasn’t far wrong. If Islam is a genuine religion of peace, it is past time Muslims stand up and block their doomsday fanatics from destroying this world.

  2. You were clear. I just wanted to stay on track because so many thoughts came to mind. I agree with you, as well. Sometimes my explanations get a little muddy themselves. Your post was excellent as usual.

  3. Lora, I wrote the paragraph you quoted in order to explain that I understand that argument. The rest of my Musing was to say why I still think we need to oppose the law in this situation. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear.

  4. I am very worried about this refugee issue, both in the United States and in Europe. It is a tough, tough call because life in Syria is so dangerous and terrible. One point I haven’t seen mentioned is that refugees are usually women and children with the men staying behind to fight for their country. Here it’s mostly young men – a dangerous sign.

  5. I also agree with Gerry. The left likes to equate the issue of homosexuality to racism, but the shoe is actually on the other foot. Disagreeing with this law reminds us that others who disagreed with the Supreme Court went on sheltering escaped slaves. They were right and the Court was wrong.

  6. “I understand why many good people explain that even those of us who are appalled by the Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriage should not support Kim Davis. They argue that as a government official, she should resign if in good conscience she cannot follow the law. I accept the premise that laws cannot be ignored even if we think those laws are incorrect. I get the argument that her stance will lead to other people arguing for exceptions for positions that I oppose.”
    I quote so I can be as specific as I can. Your posts always bring up so many knots of thoughts, all tangled together.
    I can see the validity of an argument that if the law says such-n-such, one must abide it. But what happens to us when more and more oppressive laws are made and we lose more of our freedoms to oppose them? This argument that you mention is just a drop in a bucket, and that bucket is very, very big- like those ones they have at water parks that can gush out and soak an entire group of people all at once. Because in my mind, each law leads to another. That drop in a bucket that we are told will not affect us, or is only one law, or we can go get another job, or another house, or another conscience…it’s a lame argument because it is only being used long enough to keep us standing in one place to make the target easier to hit. It reminds me of when parents outright lie to their very young kids just to set them up, get the results they want, and ignore the underlying issues they just created.
    I hope I’m kind of clear here. I agree with you that the argument is spurious that if a person in gov’t doesn’t like a law, then they should leave. It can work in some situations, certainly. But sometimes a person, even a flawed person (is it true she was married four times herself?) just can’t take it quietly anymore.

  7. ‘Pious fool’ is right. The Democratic Socialist Party turns every branch of government into rubber stamps that mock the people by nodding like bobble-head dolls to every presidential outrage, whether lame congressmen or judges who legislate the Left agenda from the bench. When the chief Mullah and Community Organizer decides to flood us with ISIS operatives from the Middle East disguised as ‘refugees,’ what will our brave Republicans do then: engage them in games of tiddly-winks?

  8. Hi Susan:
    I have to say, I do see Gerry Vander-Lyn’s point when Gerry asks “What law?”
    Even if (and that is a very big if) the Supreme Court could enact legislation (which according to the U.S. Constitution it clearly cannot), then how is it that the Supreme Court’s 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick anti-sodomy case was not fixed constitutional law? It held that a Georgia law classifying homosexual sex as illegal sodomy was valid because there is no constitutionally protected right to engage in homosexual sex. Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
    Seventeen years after Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court directly overruled its own 1986 decision. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court held that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional.
    We continue to have judicial activism relying on Constitutional “emanations” and “penumbras” in order to legislate from the bench; what amounts in this most recent landmark decision as a dictatorial oligarchy of five black robed Justices.
    And yes, the Ruling Class Republicans are only too happy to continue playing the Washington Generals to the Democrats Harlem Globe Trotters; consistently willing losers.
    But the majority of We the People have not (yet) been so corrupted.
    I think it was in one of Rabbi Lapin’s Thought Tools awhile back where he explained that Israel’s transformational response in Exodus 24:7 is linked to the giving of the Torah by God to Moses at Mt. Sinai and it means that Israel was prepared to act on God’s commands and thereby to UNDERSTAND. It is this action that should (and does) lead to understanding and understanding leads to action. Neither should exclude the other. Action takes the lead.
    It has been further explained that there is not word in Hebrew of “obey”. Why? Because to obey implies mindless following of orders (the standard Nuremberg defense) and God doesn’t want mindless “obedience” from us.
    Therefore, the accurate translation from the Hebrew of Exodus 24:7b is “All that God has spoken we will do and hear”, with “hear” in the sense of “understand”. At some point, somebody has to have the guts to disobey orders, and in so doing take the lead. Otherwise, all the lemmings are marched right off the cliff.

  9. I see two separate issues here. The one I was talking about was unequal application of the law. You are talking about whether we do need to accept an immoral law. At a certain point governments turn their citizens into criminals by passing unwise legislation. This is one of those cases.

  10. Susan, I too am irritated by what I call gutless wonders in Congress. On the topic of Kim Davis I do not understand why people say, “She has to uphold the law of the land.” What law? There is no law granting marital recognition to any union except that between one man and one woman. Why do we allow the liberals to redefine terms to suit their convenience? Why don’t we discipline them by making sure they suffer unpleasant consequences (including jail time) when they break laws and misuse the checks and balances system to keep Republicans in check and unbalanced.

Comments are closed.

Shopping Cart