Simple Reason I Never Bought Into Birther Conspiracy

All (or at least most) of the people who buy into the idea that President Obama is somehow ineligible to serve as President due to his birth also believe that the Clintons (or someone backing the Clintons) literally murdered a bunch of people before and during President Clinton's terms as President.

If Obama was actually ineligible, HRC surely would have had access to that information and used that information to secure the nomination in 2008.

Dang It

Yeah, I know that people who defend the bride+groom requirement in marriage licensing sometimes send in letters that are less than stellar. Time and time again, though, I see this letters like this one from Dang Dinh of Fullerton, California, submitted to the Orange County Register:

Marriage is about more than procreation; therefore, gay couples should not be denied the right to marry because of biology [“Supreme Court will review Prop. 8,” Front Page, Dec. 10].

Cars are about more than driving; therefore, someone who won't drive should not be denied the right to a driver's license.

It is inaccurate to perceive marriage merely as an institution for child-raising purposes.

Correct. It is intrinsically about uniting the two sexes by joining a bride and groom. It is the ability and tendency of such unions to naturally produce new citizens that gives the state an interest it does not have with other kinds of voluntary associations.

Many married couples in society today do not have children of their own, often by choice.

Irrelevant.

They marry because marriage symbolizes a long-term commitment to one another, not a pledge to reproduce for the state or for humanity as a whole.

Irrelevant. People can commit to each other without a state license.

In any case, gay couples may adopt children in countries where they are permitted to do so, revealing society’s view at large that homosexual couples can readily act as capable parents and provide loving home environments.

No couples missing one of the sexes provides a child with both a mother and a father. All children will grow up to deal with both men and women, and having a parent of each of the two sexes is beneficial for preparing them for this. and thus is the preferable relationships for raising children. If homosexual couples have to be treated equally to inclusive, married couples, then adoption agencies will be unable to function according to this ideal.

Furthermore, the advance of medical science has also enabled same-sex couples to have children of their own through surrogate mothers and sperm donors.

Bad idea. It's also a bad idea when unmarried heterosexual people do that.

It can no longer be said that homosexual couples should not be granted the right to marriage because, either, they cannot have children or that they cannot raise children adequately. Both claims are false.

That's not my argument. My argument is that bride+groom couples are objectively, demonstrably different, and can provide government documents attesting to this, than a brideless couple or a groomless couple, and that it is Constitutional to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently.

Marriage Equality

Oh, it's so confusing!

Marriage neutering advocates have been saying that there is NO DIFFERENCE between brideless couples, groomless couples, and bride+groom couples, and demanding equal treatment for all three.

However, British policymakers are wrestling with how brideless or groomless marriages would be legally consummated, since that still matters in British law.

Since it's all about "equality" why not leave the consummation requirements exactly as they've always been... hmmmmmmm? Wouldn't that be equal treatment?


 

God Doesn't Lead By Polls

The Los Angeles Times ran a commentary, as the paper is prone to do, in which someone warned that churches need to stop teaching the Bible if they want to stay relevant. This one was written by Robert D. Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard University, and David E. Campbell, a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, the  authors of American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us.

The most rapidly growing religious category today is composed of those Americans who say they have no religious affiliation.

Well, yeah. When 95% of a group identifies as either A, B, C, or D, then the 5% who identify as E will grow 100% if it numbers switch to 90%-10%.

While middle-aged and older Americans continue to embrace organized religion, rapidly increasing numbers of young people are rejecting it.

Guess what? Young people tend to get older. They tend to get married and have kids, and get more serious about religious identity.

As recently as 1990, all but 7% of Americans claimed a religious affiliation, a figure that had held constant for decades. Today, 17% of Americans say they have no religion, and these new "nones" are very heavily concentrated among Americans who have come of age since 1990.

So 83% claim an affiliation. If 83% of scientists say they believe in manmade global warming, if 83% of voters were to say they support abortion-on-demand being legal and taxpayer funded, if 83% of voters were in favor of neutering state marriage licensing, it would be call an "overwhelming majority" and dissenters would be portrayed as crackpots. Perhaps people in the past who claimed an affiliation were not regular churchgoers or people who practiced a religion, and young people are refusing to pick an affiliation out of honesty?

So, why this sudden jump in youthful disaffection from organized religion?

Assuming the premise of your question is true… it might have something to do with the rabid militarism of secular humanism or moral relativism in the public square and public institutions.

The surprising answer, according to a mounting body of evidence, is politics.

Here's where they get to the point of their commentary, which is to tell us that we should stop taking religion seriously when deciding which political issues are important to us and how we vote.

Very few of these new "nones" actually call themselves atheists, and many have rather conventional beliefs about God and theology. But they have been alienated from organized religion by its increasingly conservative politics.

Organized religion is hardly getting more conservative politically. It is that the Leftists are finding it harder to move the country Leftward.

During the 1980s, the public face of American religion turned sharply right.

What happened was that people woke up and realized that staying out of politics and letting the elitists, ivory tower hermits, and hedonists run everything was becoming a huge problem.

Political allegiances and religious observance became more closely aligned, and both religion and politics became more polarized.

Politicians are more likely to be seen speaking in liberal churches.

Abortion and homosexuality became more prominent issues on the national political agenda, and activists such as Jerry Falwell and Ralph Reed began looking to expand religious activism into electoral politics.

Why don't these commentaries every bring up Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.?

Church attendance gradually became the primary dividing line between Republicans and Democrats in national elections.

Yes, Democrats should really get to church more often.

Some Americans brought their religion and their politics into alignment by adjusting their political views to their religious faith. But, surprisingly, more of them adjusted their religion to fit their politics.

You mean the liberal churches, who abandon the Bible in favor of political correctness?

But a majority of the Millennial generation was liberal on most social issues, and above all, on homosexuality. The fraction of twentysomethings who said that homosexual relations were "always" or "almost always" wrong plummeted from about 75% in 1990 to about 40% in 2008.

Gee, I can't imagine why, given what they are bombarded with the media and academia.

If being religious entailed political conservatism, they concluded, religion was not for them.

Religion is good as a social club and motivational exercise, but when the logical application of religious teachings means not forcing other people to pay your way through life and saving sex for marriage, well, that's just too much.

Continuing to sound the trumpet for conservative social policy on issues such as homosexuality may or may not be the right thing to do from a theological point of view, but it is likely to mean saving fewer souls.

From a Christian perspective, you are not saving souls at all if people don't have Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He's not Lord if you don't let Him lead when it comes to sexuality.

More likely is that as growing numbers of young Americans reject religious doctrine that is too political or intolerant for their taste, innovative religious leaders will concoct more palatable offerings.

This has been going on since the beginning of time. People want to mold God in their image, rather than being transformed to following the will of God. There are plenty of churches that cater to the former, and they are the ones who are dying. Bible-teaching churches, like my own, are growing. You think I like everything in every sermon? Nope. It would feel great to have the minister say that everything I'm doing is okay and I don't need to change a thing about how I live my life. But the minister would be lying.

The Gospel is offensive, because it requires that people recognize they are sinners that there is a Lord and His way is the only right way. I agree that we need to be gentle and respectful and relevant when presenting the Gospel and making disciples and ministering to the needy, but there is no compromising when it comes to the truth.

Previously [Townhall links might not work]:

Losing Their Religion
Evangelical Collapse
Are You Ready For Post-Christian America?
Steamed Rice
On the Manhattan Declaration
On Jesus, the Bible, and the Religious Right

Unions Are Like Horse Droppings in the Street: An Anachronism

A couple of letters to the Orange County Register explained why unions are mostly obsolete and now do more harm than good.

Bob Wildenberg of San Clemente wrote:

In response to Patti Worley’s question in her July 8 letter, I say, “Yes, I am naive enough to think that employers will not return to the 19th century if unions were abolished.” I think Federal and State regulators have done quite enough to take care of that problem. In fact, maybe too much. In the 21st century, unions are just another mini-government. They levy taxes on their members, and impose yet another set of rules to be followed.

That's exactly what they are – another level of government.

And tell me Ms. Worley, are you naive enough to think that the average grocery worker, who is striving to make ends meet, and typically is fighting for more hours rather than less, will be happy when her union masters (who to me appear to be very self-serving) tell her she can’t work for awhile?

Unions want workers to be depenedent on them. And government unions want residents to believe they are dependent on government workers.

Breck Rowell of Placentia explains that times have changed:

Patti Worley trots out the same tired old boogey-men in her defense of unions; 80 hour work weeks, 16 hour days, dangerous working conditions and of course child labor [“Without unions, employers would abuse us” Letters, July 8]. 100 years ago, when those events were happening, unions were necessary because employers could get away with that kind of thing. But America is a different place today. We have numerous government agencies such as OSHA to insure safe working conditions. We have an active media and abundant trial lawyers standing ready to expose and punish abusive or criminal employers. We have a higher density of companies than in the past that offer similar jobs, which gives the employee the power to find a less abusive employer if they feel they aren’t being treated right. Oh, and last time I checked, child labor is now illegal. Almost 90% of American workers work in non-union businesses and experience none of the conditions Patti is worried about. For her to make the argument that we continue to need unions today despite the fact that they are obsolete makes about as much sense as saying we need to continue using wagon wheels because 100 years ago they enabled us to colonize this great nation of ours.

If the unions disappeared today, all of our minor children would be put to work in coal mines and factories tomorrow, working 12 hours per day 365 days a week for mere pennies and with no safety measures! Isn't that obvious?!? Only by paying union dues that are then spent on Democrats and for Leftist legislation and to print stuff in Spanish can this be avoided!

Admit it! You'd put your child to work in the coal mines tomorrow if it weren't for those wonderful, pure-hearted union managers stopping you!

Democrats to Republicans: Be Pigs Like Us

Considering how hateful, crude, and willing to lower the political discourse Obama-supporting Democrats were before the election (while claiming, in a classic case of projection, that their opponents were doing just that), it should come as no surprise how arrogant, hateful, and crude they have been since the election.

Part of that arrogance is the nonstop lecturing supposedly directed at Republicans, but is really just Leftists babbling to each other and slapping each other on their back(side)s. "Be like us," they tell us, "And you'll win." No thanks. We're not going to commit massive vote fraud to win, Democrats. We'll never be able to get the repeated votes of dead felon illegal aliens like you will. Let's get real. While some Democrats will vote Republican on occasion, Democultists never will, even if the Republican's positions are closer to their own than the Democrat's.

Hello! Nothing much has changed. For all of the euphoria being experienced by the Left (no doubt many are taking advantage of newly relaxed pot laws), we still have the same President, we still have a Democrat-controlled Senate (still without a supermajority) and a GOP-controlled House of Representatives. The popular vote wasn't lopsided, but rather relatively close. The way the Democultists are carrying on, it is apparent that they realize that if the electorate had been sensible, Mitt Romney would be President-elect and the Senate would have a GOP-majority. They know they should have lost, rather than retained. They are admitting that Obama's performance and the economy have been lousy, and so they see the ability of the Democrats to keep the Senate and White House as a chance to blame GOP "extremism".

Which is funny, considering that Obama lost several times over the number of voters from 2008 to 2012 than the number of voters who voted for McCain in 2008 but didn't vote for Romney in 2012.

Yes, Republicans had been counting on changes so that Obamacare could be countered and religious freedom protected, the economy allowed to flourish, to deal realistically with the debt and deficits, and to keep the USA an international leader that supports Israel and is serious about countering Islamofascist aggression. Yes, we are disappointed that people chose other priorities. The lecturing, however, is absurd. I don't recall Repulicans lecturing Democrats after GWB kicked John Kerry's behind, or in 2010, or when incumbent Democrats were sent packing and conservative Republicans elected in such great numbers in 1994 that Bill Clinton announced that the era of big government was over.

As we well know now, Big Government came back, stronger than ever. Limited government principles can, too. Sure, it will be more difficult than ever for that to happen. Once a massive new federal ponzi scheme is put in place, it seems like removing it is never going to be a possibility. Still, I'll be just fine if the Democultists get a false sense of security along with all of their smugness.

The Democultists were not elected to run the GOP. We still have some amount of freedom of association. They're lecturing us anyway, telling us how to "win". Right. Because they want us to win, right? Again, it is just self-serving BS. They are saying things like:

"Support abortion!" Uh, Mitt Romney's position on abortion is very much in line with the majority of Americans - that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape, incest, and threats to the life of the mother. Democrats, on the other hand, have the position in line with current law: As long as the baby hasn't been born yet, even at week 40, you should be able to kill it, AND have people who have deep convictions against such barbarism be forced to pay for it. Obama even voted to let babies who survive abortion die without any lifesaving or pain-relieving aid or just mere comfort. Who needs to change their position on that one, hmmmmm? Time for Obama to evolve on something else.

"Support gay marriage!" My own marriage is quite gay, thank you. The GOP should continue to oppose the neutering of state marriage licenses, however. Most states have relatively recently voted to affirm the bride+groom requirement, after all. What we do need to do is counter the BS marriage neutering advocates are constantly piling on young people in academia and the media. The right polling will show that the people support a distinction between marriage and same-sex pairings.

"Hush Rush!" This one of their favorites. They tell us to get rid of conservative radio talk show hosts, columnists, and talking heads. However, most of these Democultists have never paid much attention to what these conservatives have actually said or written, only what Leftist groups and basement-dwellers claim the commentators meant. No, this will NOT help Republicans. Democrats have academia, most media, control of major online information sources, the government employee unions, professional associations, and so many other things. People who believe in American values such as liberty, In God We Trust, and e pluribus unum, people who believe in Constitutional, limited government also need a voice.

"Diversity!" The Left is obsessed with race, gender, class, sexual orientaton. So Democrats focus on one issue said to be the most important to each "minority" group, and insist conservatives (and thus Republicans) want to deprive the groups of their respective "rights". What's supposed to be important to women, you see, is to have other people forced pay for their birth control. Latino voters are supposed to care most about amnesty for illegal aliens. Never mind the fact that most Latinos here are natural born citizens, and those who are naturalized citizens or legal immigrants shouldn't have to take a back seat to cheaters. The Democrats insist that any opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens is nothing but anti-Latino racism, as if most people opposed to amnesty aren't just as opposed to, say, Canadian or German illegal aliens getting amnesty. It's divide to conquer. Meanwhile, Republicans attempt to appeal to people as Americans, including treating people, regardless of sex or skin color, as capable adults. Every single woman or person of color voting is an adult American, supposedly. The Democrats are gushing over each example of someone elected to office with this (non-"white") ancestry or that (non-Christian) religion, and how many females are going to be in the Senate, or openly homosexual elected officials there are now. Uh, except they've cheered for the defeat of Allen West and Mia Love, and any other Republican woman or person of color. So they lack credibility when they tell the GOP we need more diversity in our candidates. Contrary to the evidence, they insist we're only bunch of old rich WASP heterosexual males (and sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, racist, and bigoted ones at that), and anyone else in the party is a deluded or self-loathing token or sell-out, worthy of being subjected by the Democrats to the very hatred the Left claims the GOP harbors. Even as they sneer and hurl epithets at them, these Democrats, completely devoid of self-awareness, say more people should be begging for such despicable treatment. They act like Michael Steele was never a GOP honcho, and like they didn't reprise their historic role as the actual racists with opposition to integration and civil rights laws. For all of the Democultists' talk of diversity and inclusion, they deride white heterosexual males, especially wealthy ones, and are calling on the GOP to take a discriminatory stance against people who are actually serious about following Christ.They tell us to purge our racists, which the GOP did so swiftly a long time ago that no blatant racists remain in power within the GOP, but there are far more racists in their party. They tell us to get serious about the treatment of women, even as they continue to give President Clinton and Tony Villar a prominent role, an deify late Senator Ted Kennedy. We ARE serious about women. We think women can, for the most part, take care of themselves without Big Brother, thank you. Contrary to the constant bleating of the Democultists, Republicans, except for the odd rarity, really don't care whether a politician is male or female, or care about their skin color. We care about values, priorities, positions, plans, and character. Such things have no gender or skin color.

"Restrain the Rich and Make Them Pay More!" and "Let the tax cuts expire!" and "Boycott companies announcing layoffs!" The people saying these things either want to bring down the quality of life in the USA or simply don't understand basic economic realities. The businesspeople even warned ahead of time what would happen without a change for the better in the election. The angry Obama worshipers deny that these are the logical and natural consequences of increased costs to business and increased regulation to business - they instead chalk it up to greed, spite, and racism towards Obama. Where is this heading? Many of these people would cheer if Obama and the Senate had the federal government seize these businesses to stop layoffs and to dictate salaries, dividends, etc. These people think they know how those businesses should be run, based on their concept of what is fair. Just see here. The people running these businesses are the ones who had the creativity & ambition, busted their humps, put in the blood, sweat & tears, took the risks, worked the long hours, made the hard decisions, invested their own money and convinced others to invest theirs, and thus have provided goods, services, and employment. Why should they have to give up more based on what outsiders want? Outsiders don't get to tell them how to run their businesses (beyond what they've already put into law) or how to live... not yet, anyway. Yes, they have the freedom to boycott, and in doing so, will mostly hurt the people they claim to be concerned about.


Nope, that is not the way forward for the GOP.

We'll let the Democrats be Democrats. We can have big wins again without becoming clones of the Democrats (which wouldn't lead to winning anyway).

How? Here are a few ways:

1) We will show that the looming problems are not the fault of the current House of Representatives or "greedy" private sector people, but the failing model of increasing government expansion.
 
2) We will show unmarried women that they can be responsible for themselves. Relying on Big Brother is not independence and in the long run, makes them and everyone else worse off. In relying on Big Brother, they are actually dependent on men as well as burdening other women.

3) We will show that blanket amnesty for illegal aliens would hurt citizens "of color" and legal immigrants the most.

4) Cracking down on vote fraud while pointing out to citizens concerned about this that fraudulent votes devalue theirs.

Sorry, Democultists... we're not going away. We're going to stand up for American values and the Constitution, for free markets, and yes, we will continue to follow God and share the good news. Deal with that.

No Really, Gays Can Vote Romney

Even the Leftist marriage neutering advocates say about 20% of homosexual people are going to vote for Romney, yet I found Christopher Hennessy's great example of Stage One Thinking at the Huffing & Puffington Post.

If I hear one more person explain how, even though they believe in gay rights, they're voting for Romney, I'm going to lose my mind.

He's (I'm assuming the name "Christopher" means the person is a he) claimed to have a mind to beging with. He claims a Romney Presidencey would be "dangerous" and would may come at "the high cost of decimating right for gay people, women, the poor, and immigrants". Really? What rights? He never bothers to say. He just wants you to believe there is a monster under the bed and only Obama, who just four years ago said that marriage is between a man and a woman, can save us from the monster.

Then he quotes the hissy fit whine penned by Pulitzer and Tony Award-winning playwright Doug Wright. Then, an open letter from Broaway star Max von Essens, and finally paraphrases someone who disagreed. (Does Hennessy get paid for columns that essentially are copy & pasted from elsewhere?)

I responded by pointing out what I saw as the first of our ironies in this story: that Obama has been thwarted at every move by a happy-to-admit-it obstructionist Congress, inherited a problem so large we're lucky we've made any progress at all, and had to deal with Greece and the EU and other realities of globalization that make completely fixing the economy in four years a ludicrous expectation.

But that's what Obama promised everyone. It is the kind of government Obama's trying to create that caused problems in those other countries to begin with, and dealing with Congress is something every President has had to do. It is how our Constitution is written, like it or not.

Then Hennessy writes delusional fiction dialogue about the dissenter's children, having been thoroughly indoctrinated by the marriage neutering advocates, being upset at her.

Then he tells us not to care about the future of our kids. After all, there are people who ... uh... might... have to... uh... go to a different state to get a neutered "marriage" license. CAN'T ANYONE SEE THE HORROR?!? I mean it is practically as if towns are getting together with chains, picthforks, and bonfires to lynch same-sex couples in broad daylight!!!

More importantly, we need to make clear to our friends and family what the stakes are for them. The stakes are our relationships with them, our continued willingness to meet them without rancor, to feel like part of the family, to not wonder how a slight decrease in their yearly taxes could mean more to them than we do.

So in other words, if he doesn't get what he wants, he's going to disown everyone. Toddler much? Hey, President Clinton SIGNED DOMA. Would Hennessy rebuff him?

Then he takes a swipe at the Boy Scouts, but manages to wrap up without bashing Chick-fil-A. Perhaps an editor wanted to keep the piece shorter for the sake of the website's target audience.

Homosexual people are free to live their lives and share their lives, which I think is a good thing, and that's not going to change with President Romney. This drama-queen nonsense is ridiculous. For years, homosexuality advocates called for tolerance, and now many of the same advocates call for intolerance. Their shades of fascism are enough reason to be wary of their political endorsements.

To insist that everyone must vote to re-elect Obama because he's now in favor of neutering marriage and Romney opposed neutering marriage shows a lack of perspective and priorities.

Vote for Romney. If you have some unstable, petulant person in your life who would react like Hennessy if they knew, don't tell them. The ballot is secret. All of us, including homosexual people, will be better off with Romney.

Please read Why a Gay Man Would Vote Republican.

The MSM Has Neglected Benghazi

Bill Ossiginac of Anaheim, California had this letter printed in the Orange County Register:

Why isn’t the aftermath of Benghazi on the front page, above the fold, every day, until we pressure our government enough to tell us the truth, or at least get some answers? If this were any other president it would be a huge story. I think we will find out later this is worse than Watergate.

The U.S. media are not doing their jobs and do a disservice to the people of this once-great country. Not letting the people know the truth from the media is the first step in taking away freedoms from the very people that you are suppose to inform.

Please give the people some front-page coverage of the things that really matter. If the aftermath and cover-up of Benghazi doesn’t matter, then God help our country.

Nobody died in Watergate. This is far, far worse than Watergate. Have we become a country resigned to the kind of corruption and cover-ups typical in other countries? I pray not.

What We Should Do, But Mostly Won't

Bob Gault of Laguna Niguel had a great letter printed in the Orange County Register:

In 2010, 90 percent of the nation voted for fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, California did not. Now we are stuck with a governor and Legislature that will not make the tough decisions to get us back to solvency. In fact, they are doubling down on debt with a bullet train costing billions of dollars and an attempt to tax us more with Proposition 30.

Please California, do the right thing with these four easy steps:

Vote for Mitt Romney. We cannot afford four more years of President Barack Obama’s incompetence in all aspects of the presidency.

Vote for Republican representatives to Congress and Senate, both federal and state.

Vote No on Prop. 30 to stop the taxation.

Vote Yes on Prop. 32 and stop politicians and unions from misusing your contributions.

Vote like your lifestyle and America depend on it, because they do.

Thanks, Mr. Gault!

The taxes in California are already ridiculous. The size of government has grown alarmingly, and California government is spending too much while stifling business.

The rest of the country should care, because at some point the rest of the country might be asked to bail out California. Are the people in the rest of the country ready to throw their money away covering the mistakes of the reconquistadors, nanny staters, environuts, Big Labor thugs, and gender confusion advocates?

Thoughts on the Passing Parade

Considering how much of our national debt is owned by foreign nationals, our national debt IS a foreign policy issue, and Obama is weakening our standing in the world with the increase in the debt alone.

Then there's the mess of the Middle East.

Laws about abortion or marriage won't matter if we aren't protected against debt and terrorism. Keep in mind that is isn't  "free" contraception if YOUR government saddles you, as a citizen, or your daughters with even more (national) debt in order to provide or mandate it.

Republicans need to be extremely careful how they word things, because anything they say will be mocked, taken out of context, misrepresented, and because so many Leftists have comprehension problems. We all know people who were conceived in less than ideal circumstances, even abhorrent, traumatizing circumstances such as rape. Are these friends and neighbors any less human? Are they not also children of God? Doesn't God work in their lives? Don't they contribute to society? Aren't they also loved, and in turn, don't they also love others? Don't they have the same rights as anyone else? We WASP Republican Males (and just about every other Republican) HATE rape and believe rapists should be locked up in a very bad place for a very long time. AND... most of us do not want innocent human beings ripped to pieces because their sperm-source was a dirtbag rapist.

Vote Romney/Ryan. Obama can't do the job.

Obama Doesn't Want to Serve a Second Term as President

Yes, he's officially campaigning for a second term. Yes, he tells you he wants your vote (and his supporters want you to vote early and vote often, even if you're a dead illegal alien felon). But based on my observations, I don't think Obama really wants to serve a second term as President.

I assume he likes the perks and powers of of being President, and very much enjoys having an attentive audience.

However, I also think he's frustrated and overwhelmed. He can barely tolerate enduring the critical scrutiny, or sharing power with the Judicial Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the states.

He's used to climbing quickly from promotion to promotion, and now that's over. It's not fun - it's deadly serious and his decisions often involve matters of life and death. He's having to campaign just to keep the same job. There's no more taking pot shots at the more powerful guy and claiming he can do better. There's no more "Oooh, he's going to be the first black ____!" There's no more "Oooh, he's going to lower the rising seas and heal the planet! He's going to give me a nice house!!!"

He'll be able to earn millions and millions of dollars with much less pressure once he's out of office. He won't have to wonder what Biden is going to say to embarrass this Administration next. He won't have to deal with the military, of which he's not all that fond. Same goes with the whole "God, country, flag" stuff. So why did he run for a second term?

There are probably several reasons. In addition to the perks, powers, and attention, in no particular order:

1. I'm sure his wife and daughters also don't want to vacate the White House and lose any of their perks.
2. His party, his staff, major supporters, and political connections begged him to campaign hard for a second term, as they all do better the longer he's there, and there's a part of him that doesn't want to upset them.
3. They don't want a Republican to be President.
4. He doesn't want a Republican (or perhaps anyone else) to be President as long as he is eligible, and it is easier for an incumbent Democrat to win this next term than a new Democrat facing a new Republican.

Really, though, I don't think he's looking forward to actually serving. He likes to defend himself, but a passionate vision for the future is lacking.

If you really like Obama, set him free by voting Romney.

Columbus Day

I like to celebrate Columbus Day by going to an Indian gaming casino with a Leftist friend, who enjoys tobacco while explaining to me how evil Columbus was. Meanwhile, this person thinks we don't need a strong immigration/naturalization policy. Go figure.

I suppose when people blame Columbus for bringing disease to the natives, we should ask why the natives didn't recognize that Columbus, as an illegal alien, had a right to free health care on the dime of the natives? Those natives should have cured the Europeans of their diseases.

Please see this classic Playful Walrus entry, "Trashing Columbus".

There Are Different Kinds of Relationships

It's rather sad that so many people now fail to grasp basic concepts such as the difference between marriage and other kinds of relationships. I have answered a challenge that started at Twitter by posting a response to another blogger's assertion that governments should dilute the meaning of marriage, over at The Opine Editorials.

What a Three Year-Old Knows

My son seems to have a natural inclanation to enjoy music and an ability to dance. He didn't get the dance moves from me, that's for sure. His sister was enrolled in dance classes. They take boys, too, so we enrolled the boy just after he turned 3.

We took him to class. He was the only male. The students were all female. The instructors were all female.

My boy refused to join the class, saying, "I'm not a girl. I'm a boy."

After showing him video of famous male dancers in action, we tried to get him to join the class the next time.

Nothin' doin'.

All he saw was girls. He didn't think he belonged.

Now, if the sexes had been reversed, it would have been our politically correct duty, along with the help of Gloria Allred, to convince him of the importance of making sure the class didn't stay all-male. But as it was, we left the girls alone and I was proud of my boy for defending his masculinity.

Diversity is so important to Leftists, with rare exceptions. The only voluntary association men should be allowed exclude women is a marriage.

My son knew he was a boy. He knew he was not a girl. He knew the difference mattered. Even babies can tell there's a difference. But... argue with a marriage neutering advocate for any length of time, and they'll actually try to maintain with a ...straight... face that that there's no difference between men and women. If you say "penis vs. vagina, XY vs. XX" they'll cite some very rare cases where someone has a genital mutation or some chromosomal problems, as if the fact that some dogs end up with three legs means that dogs are not quadrepeds. And yet, they will also maintain that a homosexual woman is not attracted to men, and thus doesn't have access to marriage. But if there is no difference between men and women, how is this possible? This is one reason why basing the demand to neuter marriage on homosexuality being an objective and inherent condition is an argument that kills itself.

It doesn't matter if their girlfriends are butch or their boyfriends are effeminate. Everyone has government-issued documents called birth certificates and identification, and those documents, at least until the gender confusion advocates change things, note whether someone is male or female. It is those documents that are used as references when state marriage licenses are issued. In most places, marriage licenses aren't issued where there will be no bride (woman) or no groom (man). Why? Sex integration is inherent to marriage.

It takes a lot of brainwashing or conditioning for people to deny the obvious differences between men and women and marriage and other relationships.

Will the People of Maryland Defend Marriage?

Although the marriage neutering advocates would have you believe otherwise, one does not need to be "anti-gay" to oppose the neutering of marriage. I take a look at the opinion piece penned by a self-identified gay man over at The Opine Editorials.

The Importance of Marriage

I almost forgot to tell you that I have posted and entry at The Opine Editorials about a quick way to point out that marriage does matter.

Tony, Zev, Dick, and God

Poor Tony Villar.

Don't know who Tony Villar is? Just as Barry Soetoro became Barack Obama, Tony Villar became… Antonio Villaraigosa. Going by "Antonio" became politically advantageous, going by "Villaraigosa" became personally advantageous, as it is a combination of Villar's surname and his now ex-wife's surname. I wonder if he ever stands to urinate?

Villar was Speaker of California’s joke of an Assembly, City Councilmember in Los Angeles, and is now in the last lap of his term-limited reign as City of Los Angeles Mayor.

The political wonks/nerds in greater Los Angeles had expected County of Los Angeles Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, also a former City Councilmember, to run for Mayor and to get elected to follow Villar. Yaroslavsky, who is Left of center on much (he voted to remove a mission cross from the official county seal... one must wonder what would happen to the rosary beads on the city seal), is nonetheless no dummy. He's sharp and woe to anyone who gets into an argument with him, especially if they don't have their facts together.

The five-member County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors governs the county, each member representing over 2 million people. They hold legislative, most executive, and a little judicial power. There are still many parts of the county that are unincorporated, and this the Board serves as the direct governing authority for those areas. In addition, many cities contract with the county government for certain services rather than hire their own staff, and there are some government functions generally retained at the county, rather than city, level. The County of Los Angeles, which is run much better than the City of Los Angeles (but that's not saying much), has to deal with raids of funds by the disastrously-run State of California as it has various disputes with the city.

The City of Los Angeles is so poorly run they can't even fix their sidewalks. The city's infrastructure is crumbling, and businesses find the climate there to be hostile.

While the City of Los Angeles has a Mayor and a 15-member City Council, The county does not have a Mayor or equivelant; not long ago the Board of Supervisors elevated the office of Chief Administrative Officer to Chief Executive Officer with some reorganizing, but the position is appointed by the Board. A slot of the five-member Board of Supervisors was essentially a lifetime position (the last time an incumbent was defeated was 1980), but now term limits are taking effect.

Yaroslavksy has long wanted to be City of Los Angeles Mayor. Term limits will remove him from his county position. So why wouldn't he go for it, and extend his political career longer than he could by staying on the County Board of Supervisors?

My guess is that he agrees with businessman Richard Riordan, the last good Mayor the city has had for at least 39 years. (It is no accident that Riordan is registered as a Republican.) Riordan predicts the city will declare bankruptcy in 2013. So it seems obvious to me that Yaroslavsky doesn't want that to stain his legacy. Why will the city go bankrupt? Well, eight years of Tony Villar hasn't helped matters.

Villar is infamous around southern California for his desperation to be on-camera as much as possible. To put it in crude terms, he's an attention whore. He's even ended up dating local news anchors/reporters, one such relationship coming at (or causing) the end of his marriage. At least one of these anchors reported on him and his marriage at the time. So it must have been a painful twist of fate for Villar to be given a prominent role at the Democratic National Convention, only to have the first moment in his entire life during which he regrets being on-camera.

The bogus "let's boo God" fraudulent vote must have been a very painful experience for Villar, who clearly had his marching orders of cleaning up what was either a botched piece of the Democrat platform or an intentionally set-up trial message to Lord-knows-who. But the delegates were not cooperating. Villar needed 2/3rds of them to approve. He got perhaps 1/2... far short of what he needed. He polled them twice more, which was a stupid move, and like Peter denying Jesus three times, at least half of the delegates present denied God three times, then some of them grumbled after the bogus vote, because Villar went ahead and declared the matter approved. One must wonder if Obama plans on having Villar count the votes in November?

Villar will probably be out of office by the time the City of Los Angeles has its fiscal collapse, but people should remember that the guy who did this slimy thing at the DNC had eight years to do something to prevent the collapse, and he failed. It's a shame Yaroslavsky won't be taking the Mayor's office. If it must be a Democrat, Yaroslavsky has at least some sense.

You can read more about the bogus DNC vote and see video:

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2012/09/06/act_of_god_jerusalem_a_disaster_for_dems

http://www.dailynews.com/columnists/ci_21498589/doug-mcintyre-los-angeles-mayor-antonio-villaraigosa-brings

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2012/09/08/villaraigosa_on_god_jerusalem_vote_i_definitely_heard_a_23_majority

http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2012/09/09/the_dnc_as_i_saw_it

Who Needs Drugs?

Whenever I want to giggle or get a look at the world through a distorted lens, I look at how gender-confused Leftists and radical feminists have reacted to something I've written. Quite often, they complete misrepresent what I've written and assign all kinds of sinister motives to me. There's either some projection going on with them, or they lack reading comprehension, or they just can't handle logic and reason, or they are deliberately lying. But it IS good for a giggle, and it reminds me just how much I've been blessed to have married my wife, who is a follower of Christ, kind, intelligent, virtuous, smoking hot, and devoted to her husband and children. I feel sorry for someone who has chosen to be with some of these obviously misandrist and emotionally disturbed people.

Obama is the Extremist on Abortion

I like to say that I survived Roe v. Wade, but here's another legitimate survivor of abortion, who wants you to know just how extreme Obama is when it comes to abortion.



There's no way around it. Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.

Legitimate Rape

Warning: possible triggers and explicit language ahead.

A Real Sign Obama Will Not Be Re-elected

I don't personally assign any more or less weight to celebrity political endorsements. I don't favor or disfavor any political candidate or legislation based on what a celebrity says. I also believe celebrities have just as much right to give their opinion as anyone else  - though they need to be mindful if what they say will hurt the people they work with, who might be struggling financially.

That all being said, I think Clint Eastwood's endorsement for Romney spells trouble for Obama. Eastwood has long been involved in politics, even serving as Mayor of a California city. Comedian John Lovitz, a Democrat who voted for Obama, has spoken out against some of Obama's statements, tactics, and policies. Even adult video performer Jenna Jameson, a name known widely even among people who do  not view such material, has endorsed Romney.

Centrists and even people who lean a little Left, people who usually vote Democrat, are thinking a change is needed - and more importantly, they are speaking up about it. Are there prominent Republicans or conservatives speaking up, saying they will vote to give Obama a second term? We could be in Jimmy Carter territory here. To me, it is very telling that someone of Eastwood's stature and entrenchment in politically-active Hollywood is willing to endorse Romney and appear at a Romney fundraiser.

This should give us hope, but not assurance. We must reach out to conservatives and libertarians who are leaning towards not voting at all, or voting for a third party candidate (which would really be a de facto vote to re-elect Obama. We need to reach out to centrists and classical liberals. We need to get the word out, get people registered, and get them excited about voting.

We need to elect Romney, and we need to elect Senators and Representatives who will support limited government policies. This will help the economy to recover. We can make this happen!

Hope For Anna Drive in Anaheim?

I haven't made a secret of my opinions on current events in Anaheim. I did see something I like from residents of Anna Drive, however. They told outside agitators By Any Means Necessary to stop hijacking their issue. Greg Hardesty and Eric Carpenter reported on this at the Orange County Register. If the people of Anna Drive have enough sense integrity to rebuff BAMN, maybe they can and will help kick out the gangs.

A planned march organized by a Los Angeles-based group from the Anna Drive neighborhood where a man was shot and killed by police July 21 fizzled Wednesday evening, with about 12 participants instead exchanging words with some residents who didn't want them there.

With TV cameras rolling and no police presence apparent, the group from BAMN, which advocates for social issues such as immigrant rights, started gathering about 5 p.m. near the spot where Manuel Diaz, 25, was shot after fleeing from officers, touching off days of civil unrest.

BAMN's lead organizer, Adam Lerman, 42, led his sign-carrying group off Anna Drive shortly before 7 p.m. after some locals said the neighborhood wants peace and quiet and that BAMN's presence was not welcome.

If they encourage illegal aliens, then they actually trample on the rights of immigrants, who should never be confused with illegal aliens.

"What are they doing here?" resident Yesenia Rojas said. "They don't even live here."

Good for her.

Community advocate Gloria Alvarado did not want BAMN members to interfere with a 7 p.m. prayer and rosary for Diaz.

Good for her.

Following a Latino and Catholic tradition, rosaries are being held for him for nine consecutive days that began Sunday.

And Diaz, from what should be clear from his behavior and statements about himself, was clearly a devout Catholic. </sarcasm>

Lerman told Alvarado, Rojas and other residents that his group wants to continue putting pressure on city leaders to get to the bottom of the shooting, which is being investigated by local and federal agencies.

Lerman wants attention more than anything. The investigations are going to take their course whether or not anyone else whines at this point.

The Fascists Don't Understand Liberty

Being Liberal is the gift that keeps on giving on Facebook, where there photos get passed around like a barely legal man at a bathhouse.

There are so many things wrong about this, and it gives a glimpse into the mind of a fascist.

First of all, there's the charge that Chick-fil-A is an "anti-gay" company. What is this based on? Certainly not the Cathy position (held by at least half of Americans and virtually everyone in history) that marriage is between a man and a woman. Because that would mean President Obama was was "anti-gay" up until a few weeks ago.

If someone sincerely believes there positions will actually make things better for people with homosexual feelings, are they really "anti-gay"?

Nor am I going to concede that "gay" has to mean homosexual, but that's a tangent.

I don't recall seeing anyone allege that Chick-fil-A discriminates in its business operations. Rather, Cathy's words in interviews with Christian media express his conviction that God knows best about family, and that God has made that opinion known to us, and he and/or the company donates for Christian ministries that seek to strengthen families. Among some of those companies many positions is opposing the neutering of state marriage licenses. Is someone who opposes the neutering of state marriage licenses necessarily "anti-gay"? Was say, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. anti-gay? After all, in his leadership for civil rights causes, not once did he ever say that there was a right for a brideless or a groomless pairing to get a state marriage license.

Notice the requisite use of the word "bigot". Nobody can disagree with a Leftist without the Leftists considering that person a bigot of some sort. In the Leftist mind, it isn't possible to have a different opinion, reached at through reason, experience, feelings, or anything else - no, you re just a bigot. That way, the Leftist doesn't need to defend their opinions, because any contrary opinion is dismissed as mindless bigotry.

Did the Palins say they were supporting Chick-fil-A because it is, let's assume for the sake of argument, "anti-gay"? Or was that an assumption made the Leftist mind-readers?

We can even assume for the sake of argument that Chick-fil-A is actually "anti-gay" and that the Palins were supporting them because of that, and that still doesn't mean there is any conflict in buying goods and services provided by "pro-gay" companies.

One can be against Cathy's positions and statements and still want to show support for Chick-fil-A. This is what the fascists don't comprehend because, for all of their talk about diversity, they are intolerant. Many people who identify as gay or lesbian supported Chick-fil-A yesterday, because they wanted to support a company after elected officials implied that the company would not be allowed the freedom of enterprise due to an executive exercising his freedom of speech. Like them, the Palins could have been demonstrating against fascism. There is a Constitutional right to freedom of speech, especially about political matters. (Speaking of the Constitution... the 14th Amendment that marriage neutering advocates use because they insist it compels us to neuter state marriage licensing was written and adopted by people who were not supporters of neutering marriage. Does that mean they shouldn't use it?) The fascists want everyone to believing marriage unites the sexes and that our laws should reflect that is necessarily a hate-filled attack on people who identify as gay or lesbian, and that is a lie. Where does it stop? Is tithing to the Roman Catholic Church hateful and "anti-gay"?

There are many people who were involved in this demonstration who do agree with Cathy, but they have no problem buying products and services from companies whose donations or whose executives have publicly expressed an opinion contrary to theirs, because for them it is a matter of free enterprise and free speech. Dennis Prager has said be buys Ben & Jerry's ice cream fully aware that Ben and Jerry have positions he finds to be wrong and even destructive. For more about this, see "We Are Your Family and Neighbors" over at The Opine Editorials.

It was so great to see what was happening yesterday as Americans, including gay people and lesbian people, supported free speech and FREE ENTERPRISE and told fascists and radical activists and hypocritical politicians "We will NOT let people be bullied that way!" It was a clear demonstration that the homofascists (who do NOT represent all gays and lesbians) are in the very, very small minority. It will be very interesting to see how the size and behavior of the crowds yesterday compares to the organized sexual harassment planned for tomorrow.

The same freedoms that allow you to NOT support Chick-fil-A and allow you to commit to - and have ceremony with - someone of the same sex... allow people to NOT endorse that relationship as "marriage." For example, Californians have TWICE voted to reiterate that state marriage licenses, issued on our behalf, are to be reserved for bride+groom unions (you know, "marriage".) Freedom is for more than just expressing Leftism.

Much Ado About Nothing

Tim Martin of Corona, California noticed how the Leftist-MSM Complex fabricated an anti-Romney story, and he wrote to the Orange County Register about it.

Mitt Romney is getting crucified over his supposed comments that England wasn’t ready for the Olympics. A little fact checking is in order. In a 17-minute “allow-me-to-twist-this-honey-laden-dagger-in-your-back” interview, the opening question from Brian Williams was, “In the short time you’ve been here, do they look ready to your experienced eye”?

Romney then gave a direct answer to this direct question, noted there were three areas of concern, and concluded, “We’ll know once the games begin.” How in the wide world of political sports is that an attack on England?

Then magically, Mark Phillips from CBS interviewed Michelle Obama at the Olympics, who properly said “They know what they’re doing.”

More magically, the interview, on the CBS site, edits out Phillips’ final comments on “the reputation of the city and country are on the line, they want to look good” (and is nervous about how it will turn out). Sorry, I didn’t take notes quickly enough, and didn’t realize that CBS would cut the part where Phillips basically echoes the answer that Romney gave to Williams.

Just like with the Sandra Fluke fracas, Romney gets assailed for saying nothing, gets attacked for an honest answer and gets pilloried for something somebody else said... It doesn’t matter what the facts are. The media will paint Romney as the out of touch “other” that can’t be trusted.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Who Cares Who Sally Rode?

A Leftist is someone who believes that a marriage is the ONLY organization in which men have the right to exclude women. Read the latest on chicks, chicken, scouts, and what the homofascists are doing, over at The Opine Editorials.

The Anaheim Criminal Pride Parade

Ah, Mickey Mouse, the Los Angeles Angeles, and the wastes of human potential who are "gangstas" or the foolish people who aid & abet them. They can all be found in Anaheim, which is not the official seat of Orange County, California leadership, but might as well be.

In addition to the high-end bedroom area of Anaheim Hills, the Anaheim Resort District, the Honda Center, and Anaheim Stadium are the highlights of the city. Venture mere yards from these gems and you can easily run into gangland and neighborhoods overrun with uneducated, unskilled illegal aliens who speak little to no English.

But you don't have to mingle with the tattoo-covered 32-year-old grandmothers handing their grandkids lead-tainted candy - you can have your car stolen from the Resort District by some career criminal whose little brother is busy applying graffiti to a nearby wall.

Mirroring what has already happened to nearby Santa Ana, the actual seat of the OC, Anaheim's illegal alien and gang population, of which there is much overlap, are growing. In addition to property crimes, vandalism, and illegal garage apartment fires, it seems that stabbings and shootings are now to be expected every night, or even every day.

And true to the playbook, the very neighborhoods and families that raise career criminals are the same ones whining and complaining and threatening police officers who are trying to do something about the menaces to society. Playing to the MSM, the professional agitators are joining the automatic whining with each shooting.

"There have been too many police officers shooting people lately" they say.

We have proof that this is a lie.

The proof? There's still graffiti showing up.

As long as the taggers and gangstas are still active, I want the APD to keep shooting.
Having attracted media attention, the usual demographic of troubled youths on the failure track, and the professional police blamers and urban terrorists, the "how dare they shoot my career criminal brother" types are literally rioting in the streets of Anaheim. One of the more "brilliant" things people are doing is bringing their little kids (if they're 15, grandkids if they are 30) to these riots, presumably willing to sacrifice their child's safety for a crack at a large financial settlement from the city when the police clear the rioters.

We've all seen this movie before.

The criminals and trouble makers will get rewarded.

The police will have their hands tied and will be punished.

And the productive, taxpaying, legal residents and citizens of Anaheim and all of Orange County will have to pay even more.

I support the police, and I support a severe crackdown by the police, even if it doesn't look pretty.

Why? Because the alternative is the fed-up people of Orange County taking the law into their own hands in fighting these career criminals and their enablers, and that would get very ugly.

What we need is a "sweep and hold" approach.

The Anaheim Police Department and the Orange County Sheriff's Department need to be fully supported. Bring in the CHP. Target the troubled neighborhoods with constant patrols, conducting traffic stops for the slighest infraction, stopping and citing pedestrians for so much as jaywalking or littering. Bring in code enforcement. Bring in ICE. Deport illegal aliens and any noncitizens commiting serious crime. It should be so unpleasant for the criminals that they literally flee.

We can't let things get even worse.

Some Lies We’re Told Every Four Years Now

It's the President's job to make sure you get a high-quality free education, from all-day kindergarten through college degrees.

It's the President's job to make sure your kids are getting breakfast and lunch at their school even though it is also his job to make sure you are getting food stamps which are supposed to pay for your kids to eat.

It's the President's job to find you a nice place to live and to pay for it.

It's the President's job to help you out if you run up your credit cards.

It's the President's job to find you a doctor, pay your medical bills, and make sure you visit.

It's the President's job to make sure you are getting paid as much as you want to get paid for your job.

It's the President's job to make sure any stocks in which you've invested only increase in value.

It’s the President's job to make sure you feel like doing something worthwhile.

It's the President's job to make sure you feel good about who turns you on, and to force everyone else to call brideless or groomless pairings "marriage".

It's the President's job to make life easier for someone whose parents brought them here illegally.

The truth: Some things just aren't the responsibility of the Executive Branch of the federal government.

Fauxmentum and Poll Dancing in Churches

Greg Koukl did an awesome job dealing with two news articles from a few weeks back about the issues of marriage neutering and general homosexuality advocacy in churches in general and the PCUSA specifically, dealing with issues which I have referred to as fauxmentum and poll dancing. You can download this MP3 of his broadcast, at least for the time being. If you can't, you might need to register with his site at STR.org or depending on when you're reading this (if many months later), it might be too late. The portions of the podcast to which I'm referring are from 0-18 minutes, and 56 minutes to 1 hour and 16 minutes.

Although Koukl does offer nonreligious arguments for marriage as uniting a bride and groom, his comments are being offered this time in relation to church matters. If you don't personally care what the Bible says or do not consider the Bible an authority, this won't be relevant to you.

Who Will be the GOP Nominee for VP?

What is needed in a VP candidate?

In addition to what I wrote about what I wanted in a Presidential candidate, from a political science consideration, a VP candidate should:

1) Round out the ticket as far as experience and appeal to the electorate. Does the person experience the Presidential candidate doesn't? Does the person appeal to a voting demographic the Presidential candidate isn't reaching, or reaching strongly enough? Will that person help carry states the Presidential candidate might not otherwise carry? Romney was Governor of Massachussetts but has otherwise been a businessman.

2) Be a good prospect to run for President in 8 years and likely to build, rather than shrink, the GOP and its influence. Will the candidate help unite the GOP and motivate the GOP donors and voters? Will he or she help recruit new voters to the GOP?

3) Not leave vacant a critical office that will likely be filled with a Democrat.

4) Make the Presidential candidate look good, rather than overshadowing or embarrassing them. (Of course, Obama still got elected with Biden.)

Call me cynical, but I think it will help if "white, male, Mormon" Romney is also "balanced out" with someone who is "ethnic" and/or female. Sex or ethnic background matters not to me, but apparently it matters to enough voters, and it certainly matters to the media.

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has been mentioned a lot. Advantages: experience in the Senate, ability to carry Florida, Cuban/Latino, Roman Catholic and attends a large Evangelical church, young

Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico. Advantages: former District Attorney, ability to carry New Mexico, female, Latina, Roman Catholic.

Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina. Advantages: former legislator, female, daughter of immigrants from India, Methodist with a Sikh background, young, was endorsed by Romney

Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Advantages: fomer legislator, entrepreneurial experience, ability to carry Louisiana, son of immigrants from India, Roman Catholic, young

All of them are decidedly conservative, which should motivate conservative GOP voters who think Romney isn’t a solid conservative. It looks to me like any of them would be a great President, and thus would be a great pick to the VP candidate.

What do you think? Am I missing someone?

We're Freaks - We Want a Decent Education For Our Kids

Have you ever noticed that homeschoolers are portrayed as freaks for homeschooling?

Yeah, I'm a freak. I’m a freak because my wife and I are homeschooling our kids.

I'm a freak because I think it is better for my children to be educated and supervised by an R.N. who is smart as a whip, loves them more than anything else in the world, and can immediately and effectively discipline them without red tape. We don't want them sitting in a room with a teacher who is a pervert feeding them semen-covered cookies or doing worse, or burnt out, or powerless, overwhelmed and a captive to a union, or worse yet, believes all of the junk the union promotes and hasn't been fired because of the union. We don't want them sitting a room with a bunch of disruptive kids who have never had parental supervision because their parent(s) is/are never around, stuck them in day orphanages almost from birth, and values material things more than raising their child or has made poor life decisions that has left them alone to earn for the child.

Green Jobs Don't Count

When talking about job creation, "green" jobs or any other jobs that are government jobs - or rely on government funding - don't count. The only government jobs I'm happy to see more of are police, prison guard, and military ones.

The Left thinks green jobs count because they think jobs are all about providing people with another way of acquiring self-esteem (and, getting women away from the horrible life of actually raising their own kids who made it out of the womb without being aborted).

But the real reasons why more jobs is better than fewer jobs include: 1) they generate wealth; 2) they help provide goods and services. Most government jobs consume wealth or impede the generation of wealth, and don't provide goods or services, or at least not ones that couldn't be provided more efficiently and better through free markets.

It is absurd to say - as RINO former Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger did - that legislation that hinders legitimate private businesses creates green jobs because it funds the installation of solar panels.

Relying on Big Brother For Everything

I found this list posted by a Leftist who is dutifully repeating Central Government's talking points.

HORRIFYING OBAMACARE!!!

What is so terrible about:

Keeping your kids on your policy until they reach the age of 26.

If you want to do that, and your insurance company agrees, fine. This is not something that should be forced upon anyone by Central Government.

Eliminating the lifetime cap on benefits.

If you want to do that, and your insurance company agrees, fine. This is not something that should be forced upon anyone by Central Government. What if someone could force you to keep working for them?

Stopping insurance companies from canceling your policy if you get sick.

Insurance companies should keep a contract with you if you keep our end of the contract. I'm not sure why this is a Central Government matter. There are civil lawsuits a person can bring, and your state has an Attorney General and perhaps an Insurance Commissioner.

Lowering the cost of care and medication for Medicare recipients.

Costs are not being lowered. What is going on is that people who aren't getting the service are going to have to pay more for others to get the service. Do you like being forced to pay for services other people you don't even know receive?

Covering preventative care at no charge.

If you want that, and your insurance company agrees, fine. This is not something that should be forced upon anyone by Central Government. Preventative care costs money when it is performed – even if it saves money down the line. (By the way, preventative care that does not actually detect anything harmful is an added expense, and more people will be demanding preventative care.) Clearing brush off of your property is "preventative care" for your home in terms of fires. Should Central Government force your homeowner's insurance company to cover the costs of brush clearance? Do you want someone being able to force you to work without getting paid?

Strengthening fraud protections by increasing penalties.

Great. Fraud should be prevented and punished, and it if happens interstate, then the federal government should be able to assume jurisdiction.

Stopping insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.

Don't like the terms of insurance a company is offering? Go to another insurer, or go without insurance. Should my homeowner's insurance company be forced to extend coverage if I want to add a house that is in the path of a raging wildfire?

Stopping insurance companies from arbitrarily jacking up rates.

Don't like the terms of insurance a company is offering? Go to another insurer, or go without insurance. Should Central Government have the power and the bureaucracy to tell other private businesses whether and when they can raise their prices? Would you want some Central Government stranger to come in and deny a raise you just asked for from your boss?

Getting a rebate if your insurance company spent too much on ads and CEO bonuses.

Don't like how an insurance company is spending its money? Go to another insurer, or go without insurance. Should Central Government have the power and the bureaucracy to tell other private businesses how much they can pay their employees and how much money they can spend on ads? Would you want a Central Government stranger taking money from your bank account and giving to back to your employer because someone didn't like an ad you put on a website, or thought you were paying your plumber too much money?

Tax credits to small businesses so they can afford quality health coverage for their employees.

Why should Central Government encourage small businesses (at the expense of other businesses, individuals, families, etc.) to provide health insurance to employees, while not doing the same when it comes to motor vehicle insurance, homeowner's insurance, renter's insurance, etc.?

Building and improving community health centers.

Why should this be Central Government's responsibility? So many hospitals were built or started by churches. Why not leave this to voluntary associations such as businesses and nonprofits and charities? Or even state and local governments?

Giving working Americans a tax credit so they can afford insurance (begins in 2014).

Why should Central Government encourage working Americans to buy health insurance? What other products and services should Central Government encourage working Americans to buy?

Also in 2014, ending discrimination against adults with pre-exiting conditions.

Don't like the terms of insurance a company is offering? Go to another insurer, or go without insurance. Should my homeowner's insurance company be forced to extend coverage if I want to add a house that is in the path of a raging wildfire?

Preventing insurance companies from charging higher prices to women based solely on their gender (2014).

Don't like the terms of insurance a company is offering? Go to another insurer, or go without insurance. Why not have Central Government prevent life insurance companies from charging men more even though men die younger, and car insurance companies from charging young men more than young women, even though young male drivers cost more? I know this will come as a shock to the gender confused, but men don't get pregnant, never get injured in abortions (although plenty of boys are killed), never give birth, never need lactation consultants, don't get ovarian, uterine, or cervical cancer, are less likely to get breast cancer, etc.

Creating insurance exchanges where people can shop and compare and get the most for their health insurance dollars (2014).

People can already shop and compare health insurance plans now. They could do that a lot more if government retreated from some of their existing controls on insurance companies.

More government involvement in health insurance and health care will make those things less affordable, not more. Government control of something never makes things more affordable. Rather, costs are redistributed, and additional costs are often added in the process, especially if an individual or company thinks "someone else" will pick up the tab so that they will not have to deal with the financial impact of their decisions.

Will some individuals come out ahead because of Obamacare? Yes. Some people come out ahead by robbing others directly too. The difference is, someone who has been robbed by a mugger may get their money returned or may at least see the person who forcibly took money from them brought to justice. People who use Central Government to force strangers to pay their way through life may never have to face those strangers.

There are "hard luck" stories out there, to be sure. But those stories do not justify usurping more choices in voluntary interactions in Central Government, and turning even more of economy over to federal bureaucrats.

That SCOTUS has ruled Obamacare Constitutionally permissible under taxation powers doesn't mean it should stay in place, or that it will make anything better.

Homo Oreotic

Kraft Foods' Nabisco has decided to make Oreo a homosexual cookie. That's fine. I shouldn't eat them anyway. Read about it at The Opine Editorials.

Rodney King

Rodney King was a convicted criminal, lifetime substance abuser, serial dangerous driver, and blew through (perhaps literally) millions of dollars in taxpayer money. But at least he came across as a nice guy on TV and radio.

After leading police on a high-speed chase, disobeying police commands, and then charging at police (yes, that was caught on tape, too... have you seen that part of it?) he was struck with batons as he repeatedly tried to move towards officers and get up off his knees. Eventually he stopped and the baton blows stopped, and he was taken into custody. It didn't look pretty, but a jury of twelve people failed to find it to be criminal on the part of the police officers. Then a federal "civil rights" trial was held in a different location and the police officers were convicted of violating King’s civil rights... by... doing something that wasn't criminal. Whatever. It was seen as a necessary verdict to avoid more riots, which opportunists and violent criminal wastes of human potential perpetuated after the not guilty verdicts in the first criminal trial. Oh, and look, one of the jurors became his "fiancée". Nothing shady there, right?

This also helped to bring more political meddling into the LAPD.

Rodney King was not a hero. He did nothing heroic.

The best thing I can say about him is that he at least he didn't die as I thought he might: in a horrible incident of vehicular manslaughter, killing innocent people as he killed himself.

Instead, it appears that his substance abuse did him in.

Sad. Not heroic. Don't let the activists hide the truth.

UPDATE: King's family wants donations for his funeral. The guy was awarded 3,800,000 million dollars of taxpayer money about 20 years ago. Nobody should give a dime for his funeral.

Stealing From What You Reject

Why do so many marriage neutering advocates say what matters to children to having two parents? They are stealing from something they reject.

This is common Leftist problem... "borrowing" from and enjoying the fruits of something while attacking where it comes from. A good study of Western history shows this over and over again.

In this particular example, see what I wrote at The Opine Editorials.

Justin Rosario Knocks Down Strawpeople

Justin "Filthy Liberal Scum" Rosario (that's what he calls himself) had a piece called "Crazy Conservative Contradictions". There's more straw around there than a barn. Notice you won't see sources cited in the original piece.

There’s a reason liberals look at conservatives like they might be insane. Often, a conservative will say one thing and then, almost immediately, contradict it.

Actually, it is Leftists who usually reach their positions through feelings, and thus have many contradictions. Most "constradictions" of conservatives are only contradictions if one refuses to look beyond how conservative positions are depicted by Leftist media types.

1. There is no need to regulate corporations!

That might a position held by some libertarians, but it is not a conservative position. Conservatives are in favor of Constitutionally-limited government, which means some regulations for any individuals or organizations, including corporations.

The free market dictates that all corporations will act in the best interest of the consumer or be put out of business by the “Invisible Hand.”

Not quite. For-profit corporations, like any business, can only stay in business by providing goods and/or services at a price and with such customer service and with such civic responsibility so as to get people to voluntarily purchase those goods and services, which may or may not actually be in the consumer's best interest. (Fast food may not be in my best interest, but I will buy it anyway. Even soft drinks over 16 oz!)  Conversely, government can simply confiscate wealth from people.

2. Corporations should have all the rights of a person.

See here. Corporations, for certain legal and financial purposes, are "persons". And yes, corporations are comprised of people who invest in them and people who form the workforce.

They should be free to exercise their First Amendment rights and buyinfluence elections just like any other citizen of the United States.

How do you stop corporations from speaking to influence elections? Who owns the Hollywood studios that fund and distribute films and television shows with Leftist viewpoints? The television networks? The "record" companies? The book and magzine publishers and sellers? The companies that produce live theatre? Leftists want David Letterman to be able to go on national television night after night and give his views, after all. But George Soros forbid some conservative businessman buy ad time or donate to a candidate.

The Contradiction: Corporations are not people so they cannot be treated like any other citizen of the United States. You can’t arrest them for manslaughter or negligent homicide even if they DID add known carcinogens to that baby food on purpose.

WRONG. One of the reasons corporations are "persons" is so that not only the inviduals, but the organization as a whole can be held criminally responsible.

Ultimate Contradiction: Unions (basically, a group of people pooling their resources) should not be allowed to influence elections. It corrupts the democratic process.

The problem with this statement is that there is a distinction between public employee unions and private sector unions. But of course, the "nuanced" Leftists don't bother to note this nuance.

3. You should never try to organize labor. That’s selfish.

Huh? Who says this? You should never force someone to join or fund the union.

Unions extort money from corporations, inflate the salaries of workers and give them unearned benefits, like maternity leave and pensions.

Hey, how about this - don't like what an employer offers? Don't work that for that employer. Slavery was abolished.

Union workers are greedy and do not care about the companies they work for. The fact that they are paid so well is a sure sign that they are wrong.

What killed GM if not union greed?

The Contradiction: How dare you try to limit CEO pay and severance packages?! Those people work hard and earn every penny they get, even if they drove the company right into bankruptcy! So what if they took billions of tax payers’ money to stay afloat, they still deserve those bonuses!

Businesses should not be offered taxpayer money unless they are performing a service for government, and nobody's pay, including the CEO's, should be set by outsiders. The owners of the company should determine the pay, and the CEO or any other employee can say "no thanks" and look for a better offer. As a shareholder, there are times I do object to certain compensation packages.

4. All liberal celebrities should shut the hell up. They don’t know what they’re talking about and should leave politics to politicians. Liberal celebrities aren’t real Americans anyway because they’re from Hollywood!

There are some conservatives who say stuff like this, but I think that everyone has the freedom of speech. However, if someone makes such a point of expressing their political opinions, I might not be able to set that aside when I see them in a role. Ever notice how Leftists hound celebrities (or even restaurant workers) that say something they don't like?

The Contradiction: Here to explain to you how liberal policies are unpatriotic and probably illegal are Victoria Jackson, Kelsey Grammer and Jon Voight.

Given that there are Republicans elected and appointed to major office who are African Americans, Vaginal Americans, and Latino Americans, by this same count Rosario will have to admit that the GOP is not overly white and male.

5. The Government cannot create any jobs at all and can never reduce unemployment, only the private sector can do that. The Contradiction: The Government has too many people on its payroll; we have to reduce the number of public sector jobs.

Government jobs do not grow the economy. They are often a drain on the economy. It is private sector jobs that grow the economy. If Bush had taken all of the Hollywood Left's money and "employed" millions of people with it (let's say to build a train nobody would use, going from nowhere to nowhere) would that have been legitimate job creation?

6. We really invaded Iraq to get rid of a terrible dictator and it had nothing to do with 9/11.

Of course it had something to do with 9/11. 9/11 changed the playing field. We had to be more aggressive.

The Contradiction: Why is Obama invading Libya?! To take down a terrible dictator?! How is that our problem?!

We'll see how things really turn out in Libya.

7. Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 because he gave the order to carry out the attack. The Contradiction: President Obama can’t take ANY credit for the death of Osama bin Laden because all he did was give the order to carry out the attack.

Of course President Obama deserves credit for making the decision. But he did not carry out the raid himself, and he used taxpayer funds to do it. OBL used his money to finance his evil terror operations.

8. Any journalist, politician or private citizen that questions President Bush during a time of war is a traitor.

This is the sort of wild exaggeration President Obama uses all of the time in speeches.

The Contradiction: During this time of war it is our patriotic duty to question President Obama about every little detail of his agenda.

We all know Leftists never ever do things they bash Republicans for doing. No, only Republicans ever act in a partisan manner. What's that? Did someone say "executive privilege"?

9. Providing billions of tax-payer money to people in dire financial straits is Socialism and will lead to the destruction of the country. The Contradiction: Providing trillions of tax-payer money to banks in dire financial straits is Capitalism and will lead to the salvation of the country.

I'm not in favor of corporate welfare or bailouts. Many, maybe most, conservatives aren't. That was a major point of the TEA Party. Does Rosario support the TEA Party?

10. We must protect innocent fetuses by any means necessary. Terrorism and assassination is justifiable because we are protecting children!

Very few people who can be called conservatives support terror or assault/murder in defense of the unborn. All signifant conservatives denounce such actions. You know, like how the Left speaks up so loudly about the crimes of environmentalist whackos? Oh they don't? Never mind then.

The Contradiction: Providing pregnant women with medical care and proper nutrition is a burden on the tax-payers and we can’t afford it. We need that money to fight terrorism!

National defense is assigned to the federal government by an obscure, pesky little thing called... oh, the Constitution. The Constitution does not permit the federal government to confiscate money from one person, and spend it on the medical care for someone's voluntary condition (remember - reproduction is a choice!) unless that person is performing a Constitutional function like serving in the military. However, there are private aid and medical organizations. Who do you think funds Crisis Pregnancy Centers?

11. Islam is a religion of terrorists! They murder innocents in the name of Allah and that’s just wrong! That’s why we’re better than they are!

Obviously, only a tiny percentage of Muslims are terrorists. However, most terroism these days is done in the name of Islam.

The Contradiction: All homosexuals should be put to death! They are the work of Satan! If we cannot pray away their gay then we must do as the Jayzus commands and stone them to death!

Name one prominent conservative who says this. Crackpot preachers roundly condemned by just about everyone else don't count. And noting that homosexual sodomy is not the same thing as heterosexual coitus, or even that homosexual behavior is wrong, is not saying that homosexual people should be put to death.

12. My freedom of religion is absolute! It says so right there in the Constitution! You can’t restrict my right to worship where and how I want!

I don't know of any prominent conservative who says this. For example, if someon's religion involves child sacrifice, they can't do it... unless they are an abortionist.

The Contradiction: Those damn Muslims keep putting up mosques wherever the hell they want! Who do they think they are?! That should be illegal!

Again, what prominent conservative says this?

13. The Constitution is inviolate! Why are liberals always trying to shred the Constitution?! The Contradiction: We should just ignore the 14th Amendment! It allows anchor and terror babies! We have to protect ourselves from the furrners!

I believe people born here are American citizens, period, and I'm not in favor of changing the Constitution to override the SCOTUS decision that says so.

14. Damn liberals always trying to select activist judges that will just “interpret” the Constitution however they want to fit their Socialist agenda! The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing and we should also follow their intent, not just make it up as we go along! The Contradiction: Citizens United? I think the Supreme Court did a fine job of interpreting the Constitution to fit our much more complex times, don’t you?

This was a non argument, so it doesn't need to be countered.

You know, there are some apparent contradictions one can find in conservatism that Rosario didn't bother to cover. Off the top of my head, I'd say the assertion that porn creates rapists and murders is one. There are some important Leftist contradictions, too, like:

Marriage is just a piece paper
Marriage oppresses women
It is vitally important that two women get a marriage license from the state

And...

There's no difference between men and women
A gay man can't be happily married to a woman

And...

Nobody can ever change their sexual orientation
Cutting off his penis, being injected with female hormones, and wearing a dress makes a man a woman