Back to the 1990s on Taxes?

Robert Grebner of Brea is another one of those Orange County Register letter writers who makes reading the paper's letters a pleasure. He provided this gem:

President Barack Obama has recommended that taxes should be raised to the levels of the 1990s, a time of great prosperity under President Bill Clinton. I find this proposal highly interesting, and it should be implemented with just one slight addition. As taxes are raised to 1990s levels, spending should be mandated to drop to the same 1990s levels. Problem solved.

9th Circuit Does Right, Census Rights a Wrong

I put two stories of interest up at The Opine Editorials.

Even the 9th Circuit Put a Hold on Release of Prop 8 Tapes

Census Info on Same-Sex Couples Corrected

A Different Marriage Pledge

I think marriage neutering advocates, especially politicians, should be asked to sign a pledge about marriage law. Read about it over at The Opine Editorials.

It Isn't the Same Thing

Over at The Opine Editorials, I answer a letter to the Los Angeles Times supporting the neutering of marriage.

Letters on So-Called Poverty

The Los Angeles Times ran a story on "poverty" levels for the union as a whole, and in California. They printed some of the responding letters.

Lucia Dzwonczyk of San Pedro wrote:

Poverty in the United States hits a 50-year high, children are homeless, our educational system is deteriorating and our healthcare is expensive. All this has become possible because power and greed are now the norm.

The problem here may indeed power and greed - that desire for power and greed that has gotten the federal government to wage a failed "war on poverty" and meddle in education.

Would it be too much to ask for a CEO to take home a little less pay so he would not have to lay off workers?

I believe that some CEOs may be paid too much, but that is a matter for the owners of the company to decide. Businesses should not, generally, keep jobs for the sake of keeping jobs. Absent a contract, nobody owes anyone a job.

Would it be too much to ask wealthy individuals and corporations to pay more in taxes?

The "wealthy" already pay most of the tax burden. How about asking more people to pay, given that those people are being served?

Would it be asking too much to help those who have suffered natural disasters?

We do.

Would it be too much for Congress to use a little common sense?

There's more common send in the House of Representatives now than there has been in a long time.

Would it be too much to create jobs now?

A job is created by demand. Someone can provide a good or service more efficiently than someone can do it themselves. That is what makes a job.

A country that does not care for its citizens, especially its children, cannot survive.

Is there a country with more charities than ours?

Annie Caroline Schuler of West Hollywood has too much sense to be living in West Hollywood:

If you now find yourself poor, before you blame the government, ask yourself these questions:

Did I have children that I cannot afford without taxpayer-financed handouts? Did I buy a house for which I knew I could not pay? Did I max out my credit cards, then sign up for more? Instead of buying a modest vehicle that will meet my needs, did I treat myself to a top-of-the-line one? Does my family own all of the "must have" electronic gadgets? Do I feel entitled to all of these things and demand that those doing better contribute their "fair share"?

Very good questions.

We who have been responsible can no longer be punished by being forced to pay for the safety net for those who choose to be irresponsible. What happens when the government gravy train of entitlements gets derailed because there's nobody left who can pay for it?

Perfect.

Craig P. Fagan of San Diego pointed out one of the obvious things a about California:

More than 16% of people in California live below the poverty line. Unemployment is near 13%. Democrats have dominated the Legislature for more than a decade, and California continues to reelect them.

Which is one reason why we need to split California.

How can anyone be considered poor when they are fat, have a wardrobe, have code-strong housing, utilities, have Internet and pay television, medical care, transportation, parks, libraries, and education?

A Reconquistador's Dream

Despite being deep in the hole, California is still finding new ways to transfer taxpayer money to illegal aliens. Not only can illegal aliens get in-state tuition rates at the taxpayer-subsidized state universities, but now it looks like they're going to get taxpayer-funded grants to attend... as though there is too much money for it all to go to legal residents and citizens. This is part of the Orwellian-named DREAM Act. At least the Los Angeles Times, despite support illegal aliens' lawbreaking, printed some letters against this.

Marlene K. Mariani of Encinitas:

Why do we as taxpayers have an obligation to help pay for educating illegal immigrants at our public universities? Let them become legal or get their education in their own countries.

Ann Doty-Mitchell of Los Angeles:

It is especially upsetting when, as this piece notes, you consider that "these undocumented immigrants would be allowed to earn a degree but still would not have the right to work here." Why are we financing degrees that won't be used at the expense of a deserving legal resident?

We need to move away from taxpayer-supported education in general, starting with higher education. This is just one more reason why.

Marriage Neutering Advocates Get Special Treatment Again

It is no surprise to anyone paying attention that Judge Ware has decided to treat the trial over the California Marriage Amendment differently than so many other trials, and is releasing the video of trial. Read my analysis of the LATimes.com coverage over at The Opine Editorials.

Someone Claiming to Be Glen Starkey Can't Argue

On July 15, 2010, I wrote on the previous version of this blog this post:

I Believe Glen Starkey Libeled Dr. Laura

Point by point, I carefully pointed out how Starkey was wrong.

Now, this comment, which demonstrates a common Leftist inability to argue, showed up over there, from "Glen":

I believe you're a idiot!
In what way have I libeled Dr. Laura? Your blog is a bunch of uninformed, mean-spirited nonsense, and I believe you're a big fat idiot.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, Glen?

You... called... her... a... gay... basher. She... isn't.

Go ahead, Glen, you can let your lips move when you read that. Sound it out if you have to.

Oh, and Glen - How much charity for troops have you done lately, hmmm?

The Latest on Marriage Neutering in California and North Carolina

My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.

Greg Koukl Effectively Defends Marriage

For a while now, I've been meaning to call attention to the podcast of the July 3, 2011 "Stand to Reason" program, hosted by Greg Koukl. The podcast is nearly three hours long. Towards the end of the first hour, the issue of neutering marriage comes up, and much of the rest of the program deals with that, per the callers.

Koukl's commentaries are:
Are Christianity and Patriotic Expressions Compatible?
Is America a Christian Nation?
Atheists: Freedom from Religion

The caller topics are:

What is the difference between objective and situational ethics?
How can we move the public debate on same-sex marriage to the merits of the argument instead of slogans?
Same-sex marriage is fair.
Does the Bible teach relativism?
In favor of same-sex marriage
The definition of marriage has changed and should continue to change.
Why do Christians not observe the Sabbath on Saturday?
Americans shouldn't be forced to accept same-sex marriage.
Will same-sex marriage lead to polygamy?
How can we know what the Holy Spirit is teaching us?

Here's the MP3.

Here is a larger file version, the Enhanced Podcast (AAC format - chapters and higher-res audio).

Here is the M3U format.

Koukl is fond of using sound reasoning and logic, and does so effectively in the defense of marriage.

Democracy is Great If It Goes His Way

Over at The Opine Editorials, I look at a letter published in the Los Angeles Times about who has standing to defend an adopted ballot measure.

Filtering Online Access at Tax-Funded School Terminals

Homosexuality advocates often try to have it both ways.

Uhm… maybe I should rephrase that because it sounds like the "B" in "LGBTQQUAAII?!?"

Homosexuality advocates often try to have their (beef)cake and eat it, too.

That's better.

Case in point is this editorial from the gay niche media publication, the Los Angeles Times.

This is the headline and subheadline:

ACLU's 'Don't Filter Me' Campaign Makes Sense
The campaign targets censorship of gay-themed, non-sexually explicit websites at schools.

A "gay-themed" website is inherently sexual. How do we know? Because the homosexual advocates tell us that homosexual people are just like heterosexuals - there is no "homosexual lifestyle" there is no "homosexual agenda" – homosexual people are just like heterosexual people. The only difference, we're told, is to whom the homosexual person is sexually attracted. Thus, in order to be “gay-themed”, it must be inherently sexual.

It doesn't matter if the website doesn't actually have videos of one man shoving himself into the anus of another man. Our kids are sexualized enough. They think about sex enough already. They should be accessing websites at schools, especially schools funded by taxpayer money, for academic purposes only, not for political activism, socializing, or to get their jollies. And no, at that age, their academics shouldn't include sexual topics, unless we're talking about the biology of natural reproduction, which is inherently a heterosexual topic.

Likewise, there shouldn't be sex-themed clubs, like Gay-Straight Alliances, especially where the students are too young to legally consent to sex. Again, of course a GSA is a sex-themed club, because it is based on the sexual attractions people have.

I do fully support the idea of having a club that promotes standing up to bullies and is aimed at reducing assaults, harassment, vandalism, and suicides.

Anyway, on to the editorial…

The Trevor Project is an organization devoted to preventing suicides among gay and lesbian teenagers.

Everyone else can just go off and kill themselves, apparently.

This censorship of gay-themed, non-sexually explicit sites has resulted in an American Civil Liberties Union campaign called "Don't Filter Me!" It's good advice, and not just because it might spare a school district a lawsuit.

The school district can be spared a lawsuit if the ACLU simply didn't file them over something like this. I mean really. This is just another example of why we need separation of state and school.

Some schools may have consciously banned sites such as the Trevor Project on the erroneous assumption that students can (and should) be shielded from discussions of homosexuality.

"Discussions". Hmm. Does the editorial board support discussions, or only some discussions?

Others genuinely thought they were blocking only pornography. Either way, the result has been censorship.

Uh, no. Those websites still exist, and the kids can access them other ways. Most of the kids have mobile devices that can. It isn't censorship.

It's Been Over a Year, Is Everyone OK?

The One Year Anniversary of Dr. Laura Schlessinger Using the "N" Word On the Air has come and gone, with not a little fanfare. And, of course, that prompted another round of sniping, including ever so much ignorance about who Schlessinger is and what she says on her show and in her writings. So many of her critics don't have a clue - not the slightest clue - and they take the vomit puked out by others. put it into their own mouths, and in turn spit it out all over again.

I respect honest, principled disagreements.

I don't respect libelous character assassination, especially when it is mindless parroting of something some other ignorant person said.

So with that, I bring you something I originally published on January 19 of this year...

Where's the civility For Dr. Laura?

So much for toning down the rhetoric and refraining from spewing vitriol. Dr. Laura Schlessinger has a new book out, which means she's promoting that book. And that means shrill, shrieking, and demonstrably false attacks on Dr. Laura by the logically-impaired couch potatoes, neglectful "mothers", and feminized guys out there who are upset that she's appearing on their usually Lefty-feminist televisions.


Dr. Laura does fifteen hours of radio a week. She's written many books. She blogs. She's written many columns. What she actually has said isn't hard to find or document. And yet so many people get it so wrong. Some are misrepresenting Dr. Laura's teachings and statements deliberately, usually for their own fundraising or ideological purposes. Others are relying on these dubious sources.

Update on Proposition 8

We won't know for sure for months, but it is looking like the case is going to continue. Read about it at The Opine Editorials.

California Marriage Amendment Back in Court

The California Supreme Court is taking up the issue of whether not the sponsors of the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, should be allowed to defend the duly adopted amendment in federal court. Considering the California Supreme Court previously allowed them to defend the amendment, I don't see how they can deny them this time. But marriage neutering advocates will sacrifice just about anything, including their own judicial precedents, in their fanatical pursuit of replacing marriage in our laws with a counterfeit. Read my analysis of the situation and the Los Angeles Times coverage over at The Opine Editorials.