What Are You So Afraid Of?

There has never been a reaction like this to an election in this Union. Oh, sure, there were people holding demonstrations after GWB won (and he did win) the 2000 election, at least through September 11, 2001. Television news personalities and others covering the 2016 election were clearly upset, and you've seen all of the people, and you certainly know some (or maybe you ARE one) who have done everything from cry to engage in rioting as they insist that DJT is #NotMyPresident. People have been talking about how afraid they are, fleeing to "safe spaces" that are like preschool nursery rooms for alleged adults, talking about "dark times", and shunning people they'd claimed as friends and even family who not only "admit" they voted for Trump, but that are even suspected of voting for Trump because they haven't loudly decried his election. Hollywood celebrities and others appeared in a futile video to implore the Republicans in the Electoral College to become "faithless electors", there are still people hoping Congress won't certify the results and for some other shenanigans to prevent President-elect Trump from taking office. Protests are being planned for Inauguration Day.

What are you so afraid of? Why are you so upset?

Let's go over the things I've heard/read one-by-one.

The Most Amazing Event in History

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” – John 1:14 NIV


I am a Theist. I believe Theism is a more compelling explanation for the universe than Deism, Atheism, or Pantheism. Yeah, I know there's a brilliant physicist who thinks the universe created itself but he's out of his area of expertise (physics) when making that conclusion. If things can create themselves, then we can't rely on any scientific experiments, because we can't rule out that at least some of the data is a result of something creating itself without a cause.

I also think that a being powerful enough to create the universe is certainly powerful enough to interact with that creation.

The Incarnation of Jesus Christ involved God condescending to live a human life. Jesus Christ, eternally having a divine nature, took on a human nature.

His birth to a Jewish woman two thousand years ago is the most amazing event in history. His death on the cross is the focal point of human history, and without His death we would not have the resurrection to celebrate Easter Sunday, but without His birth we would not have His death, His resurrection, or the examples and teachings of His life.

We have a Lord who knows what it is to be human, to experience pain, and to die.

December 25th is located on the calendar conveniently near pagan celebrations, thus allowing for opportunities to reach out to pagans. We aren't sure of what the actual birth date of Jesus was. Like some other things about Christianity, including having many manuscript copies of the various New Testament writings but not the original writings themselves, I think that is part of God's plan. If we had those original writings they would be erroneously worshiped by some, and if we knew the actual birth date of Jesus astrology would be consulted in that regard.

We don't need Jesus' actual birth date. We know He was born, we know He was killed, and we have good reason to believe He was resurrected and still lives today. His teachings, His miracles, and many of His resurrection appearances were public, witnessed by many people, convinced and unconvinced. Contrast that with founding of various other beliefs systems, where the claim is one person had a private vision, dream, or other experience.

Jesus, our Lord, came into the world He created as a baby. That is the core of Christmas. Whether you believe it or not, I pray that you have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

David Benkof Dismantles the Popular Vote Claim

If you're a party-line partisan, you're going to have disagreements with Benkof, whether you're a Republican, Democrat, or belong to another party. I wouldn't call myself a party-line partisan, but I'm in the conservative camp consistently enough that I don't always agree with Benkof. To his credit, Benkof seeks out thoughtful disagreement, which makes his arguments better. Because of these things, I'm happy when he writes something with which I can completely agree that makes arguments I hadn't grasped before.

His latest column at the Daily Caller is an example. It is provocatively titled "The Popular Vote Is A Hoax." As he says in the column, he voted for Secretary Clinton, but his fellow HRC voters need to stop pointing to her winning the "popular vote".

Preposterously, since the election some leading Democrats have been calling the Electoral College racist and even akin to slavery. But usually leftists argue the opposite – that popular vote systems are racist, not those that count by jurisdictions. Heavily Democratic California passed a voting-rights law in 2001 that allowed minority groups to sue cities with “at-large” systems of electing councilmembers. Supporters of such laws argue that citywide systems (the popular vote) stifle minority voices, and thus only Electoral College-like district elections ensure racial fairness.

This is a very important point. I have been a witness to local governments in California being subjected to lawsuits and other objections that demand voting districts. An example is that a city might have five councilmembers and only one or none of "Latino ancestry" even though about half of the city's population fits into that category. This is seen as evidence of a problem, even though it presumes that 1) all of those residents are citizens, 2) all of those citizens vote; 3) they only vote for people of Latino ancestry. Anyway, the point is, it has been decided that each district needs representation.

Of course people will object and that mayors are often elected by citywide popular vote and districts elect members of the House of Representatives, rather than having all voters decide every member of the House. Yes, but we have to remember our nation is a union of states. Those states are republics or commonwealths that have always retained some powers, some degree of sovereignty. This is why the voters of each state elect their own Governor, Senators, and certain other statewide offices rather than having them appointed by Congress and/or the President. It is the states that collectively elect the President, not a direct national popular vote. We are a union of states, not a centralized government with 50 divisions called states, plus districts and territories.

Not that it matters much, because a popular-vote constitutional amendment would probably be unconstitutional. That seeming absurdity dates to a wrinkle the Founding Fathers ironed out in drafting the Constitution. The Electoral College is based on the two-chamber legislative structure known as the Connecticut Compromise, which gave big states like Virginia representation by population in the House; and small states like New Jersey an equal voice in the Senate.

After that careful balancing act, the Founders froze their hard work with the only permanent exception to the provision allowing constitutional amendments: that the Connecticut Compromise could not be repealed without the consent of every affected state (look it up: Article V).

How many of you were ever taught about this?!? Whine all you want about smaller or less populous states having a disproportionate influence; this was the contract to which the states agreed. Without this conditions, we literally would not have the country we do. Some states would not have joined the union. They joined, at least in part, because of what the Constitution assured.

In fact, the nominees themselves might very well have been different without the Electoral College. Candidates garner primary endorsements, volunteers, donations, and votes based mostly on their case that they would be the strongest nominee in November – under the rules of the Electoral College. Marco Rubio, to take one example, may have looked like a stronger 2016 nominee under a popular vote system, because votes from his fellow Latinos in Texas and California would matter, whereas they barely register in the Electoral College. If Trump – or Hillary – had lost the nomination, what relevance would her 2.7 million-vote margin have then?

Read it all.

Secretary Clinton and President-elect Trump, and every other candidate, entered the race under the understanding and implicit agreement that the Electoral College is how we choose our President.

Happy Thanksgiving

The Presidential Election season is behind us, thankfully, and it appears the Left has been stopped, for now, at least in terms of the federal and many state governments.

There is so much for which we should be thankful.

Personally, I have so many things for which to be thankful it would take me all day to list them. I thank Jesus Christ for what He did and what He continues to do – He's my Lord and Savior. I thank the saints for persevering in handing down the faith. I thank those brave souls who established this Union. I thank our military men and women for preserving this nation. I thank my ancestors for making the difficult journeys to American soil. I thank my parents for birthing and raising and supporting me. I thank my wife for marrying me and birthing and mothering my children. I am thankful for the candidates, supporters, and voters who have given the GOP control of both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and so many Governorships. I could go on and on, but I won't.

Some Leftists go into their theatrics this time of year, braying about how horrible it was for Europeans to bring western civilization to the Americas. It makes me wonder why the ones in the U.S.A. who are European ancestry haven't moved to Europe.

This idea that the native peoples living here (who, by the way, were also newcomers at one time) were all peaceful and noble and that the Europeans who settled here were horrible, evil people who always mistreated the natives is ridiculous. All over the world, people have been overtaken and either killed off or integrated. Yet only in certain parts of the English-speaking world is the integration portrayed as evil and celebrating anything remotely connected to it is stopped.

But notice that the Normans didn't give the Anglo-Saxons any sovereign territory, nor casino operation exemptions. Such concessions are not typical of victorious peoples.

Don't let the Leftists take away Thanksgiving. Celebrate proudly.

It is time for us to pause and consider that there is much for which we should be thankful, and we should thank Him. If you're not inclined to do that, then consider all of the people in your life who have been there along the way, providing emotional support, friendship, guidance, and goods and services.

The modern American Thanksgiving meal is an overly bountiful one, a testament to how somewhat free markets and capitalism have produced plenty. From the farmer to the importer to the grocer, participants in the market have allowed us to splurge.

I bid you a safe, pleasant, and reflective Thanksgiving Day.

An Election Retrospective

Here is the entry I posted on my Townhall user blog* on November 5, 2008,  "Why McCain Lost". I am reprinting it as it was on presented originally, except I'm going to color certain parts red before emphasis.


*****


As with the elder Bush losing in 1992, and Bob Dole losing in 1996, Senator John McCain’s loss yesterday was not a rejection of conservatism.

McCain was the GOP nominee because he was the most unlike Bush, and Bush, rightly or wrongly, has been effectively trashed in the populace.  We knew Bush wasn’t a consistent conservative before he got the nomination in 2000.  He’s proved it in his Presidency, and although there has been much he has done right, there have been things that he’s done wrong, or ineffectively, including public relations.  McCain ran against Bush in 2000.  In a year where Bush was unpopular, choosing McCain was seen as perhaps the only way to get a Republican elected President.

Unfortunately, McCain had a hard time winning over the GOP base.  His campaign finance reform, which has obviously been ineffective in removing the influence of money from campaigns, had left conservatives with a bad taste in their mouths.  Many conservatives and others were also upset with his work on the shamnesty bill for illegal aliens.  Instead of having a nominee who offered a clear difference from Obama in that regard, we had McCain.  And did it help him or anyone else in the GOP with Latino voters?  No!  So he lost some of the base and independents, and didn’t gain Latinos.

While McCain touted federalism in some areas that weren’t a major focus in this election, he failed to articulate truly conservative or libertarian positions clearly enough or early enough in the general campaign.  That’s because in many areas, he couldn’t without disavowing his own votes and previous positions.  Instead, he tried to play Santa Claus.  But a Republican can never outpromise the Democrats.  The Democrats will always promise more goodies.  So to a lot of people, McCain appeared to be doing the same thing Obama was doing – only halfway.  And they thought – why go halfway when we can get the genuine (new) deal?  Why go for someone who is always "reaching across the aisle" when we can pick someone who is already across the aisle?

People who want Democrats will vote for Democrats, not Republicans.

McCain also lost because he wanted to run a nice, respectful campaign that would be applauded by the MSM once it was over, instead of running a campaign that would win.  For far too long, he was busy disavowing comments from his own supporters instead of focusing on the weaknesses of Obama.

He lost not because of choosing Palin as his running mate, but by not letting Palin be Palin.

Obama doesn’t have all that much experience, but he had enough –and recent - experience organizing people to get out the vote, and then getting to higher and higher offices. He's good at getting the vote, but we don't have any reason to believe he can actually govern.  The MSM was already on Obama’s side, but he knew how to work them all the more.  He is more photogenic and a smoother speaker.  He can talk for hours and not say anything.  This allowed him to avoid really dealing with the facts that he was low on experience, low on accomplishment, and prone to extremist associations and thinking.

Finally – McCain lost to Obama because of racism.  It wasn’t just African-Americans who voted for Obama in part or in whole because of the color of his skin.  And that’s racism.  There is no way around it.

What we need now is for Republicans to be Republicans.  We need them to fight for limited government, federalism, and sticking to the Constitution.  We need them to fight for fiscal responsibility.  And we need them to start organizing NOW for 2010 and 2012.  Start identifying, grooming, and promoting ethical, effective people for local and state offices, as well as Congress and President.  If you contribute money to any Republican organizations, instead of donating in bulk, donate small amounts.  Donate when they do something right, and refrain from donating when they get it wrong, and let them know why.

We need not surrender to socialism.

*****

Wow! What did we see this year? We saw Trump drive the MSM crazy AND repeatedly take a tough stance on border control and dealing with illegal aliens, and it paid off. He also got a higher percentage of the Latino American voters.



*Townhall abruptly and without warning removed user blogs and our access to our own blog files, so I retrieved this entry from the Wayback Machine.

Handy Dandy Vote Fraud Intimidation

ATTENTION IMMIGRANTS WHO HAVEN'T BECOME CITIZENS

ATTENTION ILLEGAL ALIENS

ATTENTION CITIZENS WHO HAVE NEVER EVEN REGISTERED TO VOTE:

IT IS ILLEGAL FOR YOU TO VOTE IN THE UNITED STATES. ONCE YOU BECOME A U.S. CITIZEN AND YOU PROPERLY REGISTER TO VOTE, YOU CAN.  BUT UNTIL THEN, YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW IF YOU VOTE AND YOU COULD BE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED

ATTENTION ANYONE PLANNING TO VOTE UNDER SOMEONE ELSE'S NAME OR MORE THAN ONCE:

IT IS ILLEGAL TO VOTE FRAUDULENTLY AND YOU COULD BE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED

The Delusional Democrat Voter Returns

Hey folks, do you remember this?

Well, the same guy posted another round of stuff that Dennis Prager could write if he was trying to do a parody of a typical Leftist.

Simple question: Why is our nation so divided?

For one thing, it always has been divided. It was a massive feat to get our Constitution, and then we went through a terrible war between the states less than a century later.

Where Am I?

I haven't been giving nearly as much time to this blog as I used to, for many reasons, including my lack of enthusiasm for a Presidential candidate.

However, I'm on Twitter all of the time and I update my wall on Facebook almost every day. So find me in those places!

I'm not abandoning this blog. The format of blogging works before for certain things than tweets or Facebook updates, so it can still be useful.

A Prime Example of a Delusional Democrat Voter

A Leftist posted this:

This nation is in trouble, so let's be clear:

Someone's been listening to Obama speeches! Trouble, eh? Hmmm. Who's been President the last 7.5 years?

If you're still talking about Hillary Clinton's emails

Dismissing what Clinton did as just about "e-mails" is like dismissing what Nixon did as "just about tapes". Actually, Nixon did far less. And fellow Republicans dropped him and he resigned. You Democrats are not calling for Clinton to drop out.

instead of the urgent need to get weapons of war out of the hands of civilians, you are part of the problem.

What exactly qualifies as a "weapon of war"? I'm guess it is a gun that is currently legal to own somewhere in the country that this guy thinks is too big. Or maybe he's talking about all firearms. Whatever. Well, considering there are millions of people - PEOPLE, meaning things that are 100-300 pounds and need shelter, food, etc. so they can't exactly stay stashed under a floorboard - who came into this country and are here illegally and we "can't" find them or stop more from coming here, then how in the world would we effectively prevent firearms from being smuggled, at great profit, into this country?!? And is this guy talking about confiscation? So he's in favor of something that would certainly lead to stand-offs, barricade situations, groups retreating into fortified armed compounds with their children, and resulting shootouts???

If you're planning to vote for a corrupt businessman whose chief concern is his bottom line with no concern for the small businesses and workers who got him there, you're part of the problem.

I'm no fan of Trump as a candidate. He might be an awful President. He might be a great one. We know Hillary Clinton is corrupt, thinks she can get away with anything, and would do harm to this Union.

And don't feign ignorance. Clinton's biggest concern is her own finances, hence the Foundation shenanigans. Trump's successes and even some of his failures at least helped many other people.

Let's not even get into his overt racism, misogyny, and avocation of violence against his opponent's supporters.

Of course you're not going to get into it because you're probably thinking of parodies of what he actually has said. For example, saying that some illegal aliens coming here are murderers and rapists is not racism. And it is fact.

If you believe your 'good book' means that civil rights and equal rights doesn't apply to gay, trans, or other historically oppresses minorities, you are part of the problem.

The Holy Bible says that there are two sexes, marriage unites the sexes, and that sex is for marriage. That has nothing to do with denying anybody any rights. And MLK Jr. was a REVEREND. I know you like to forget about stuff like that. By the way, my argument against judicial neutering of state marriage licenses didn't invoke the Bible or appeal to theology or religion.

If the congress critter you elected has voted more than once to repeal the affordable care act or defund Planned Parenthood or for lower taxes on the rich, you are part of the problem.

So if  you don't want your tax money used to slaughter innocent human beings for convenience, if you don't like being forced by the federal government to buy a service, and if you think people should be able to keep more of their own money to invest (and grow the economy) as they see fit, then that's a problem?!?

Right now we need to be united as a nation

HA!!! This is from someone who aligns with people who are constantly trying to label and divide people and treat them differently based on their skin color, national origin, religion, sexual desires, and so forth!!!

to reform ourselves into a society where there is really respect for all,

Why are we supposed to respect clumps of cells/collections of molecules? And reform... wasn't Obama going to "fundamentally transform" the USA? Is he a liar or failure?

no poverty

There will always be poverty if for no other reason than Leftists will always say people who have less wealth are poor.

where healthcare is a right

Healthcare is already a "right". Say, didn't you mention Obamacare above? But true rights do not obligate others without their consent unless a crime is involved.

education opportunities are the same for the child in the highest income neighborhood as the poorest

So you're for vouchers? Yeah, didn't think so. There's no way to achieve this other than to criminalize private education, tutoring, and to get all children out of their homes (which may be chaotic) and stick them in uniform government dorms. After all, their parents might subvert the law and give them some sort of educational advantage if they are left with their parents. Say, who runs those school districts in the "poor" neighborhoods? Around here, Leftist Democrat Unionists do. Hmmmm...

and we live in a way that values natural resources

Selling oil does value natural resources!

so we can start making real inroads against global climate change.

I don't believe he really cares because he's not living in a cave with nothing manufactured.

The good news is there is a path forward and it starts this November by getting out the vote and installing elected officials who will actually work toward a progressive future.

So, Obama wasn't it? You were screaming "Yes we can!" when he was elected. I saw you.

We cannot stay on the path we're on today and expect workable solutions.

On that we agree.

Are You Ready For Post-Christian America?

[Note: This is something I originally posted  in July 2008. I had to retrieve it from the Wayback Machine because Townhall.com dumped their user blogs and didn't warn us or give us a way to download them. It is more relevant than ever.]

Christians in this country have had things relatively easy compared to most of the world through most of history. We haven’t had to meet in secret under threat of death, we haven’t had to take up arms to defend ourselves from invading armies or hordes of Muslims, barbarians, pagans, or atheists. We haven’t had politico-sectarian strife as in the British Isles. Since the time of Christ's earthly ministry, Christians have had to face the wrath of Jewish establishment authorities, oppressive pagan governments, violent pagan hordes, Islamic armies and terrorists, and atheist iron-fisted governments.  While we are right to stick up for our representation in our national, state, and municipal heritages, and our right to self-government under this Constitution, we hardly have faced the oppression that so many of our brothers and sisters have faced. In turn, we did not force everyone in the nation to adopt Christianity, and in general, while some identifying themselves as Christians have been clumsy or annoying in the behavior, people have generally enjoyed broad freedom.

That’s because this has been, in a sense, a Christian nation.

Okay, whenever someone claims that we are or were a “Christian nation”, someone else is likely to declare that most of our founding fathers were Deists and not Christians. Those who want us to shut up will often cite “low” church membership rolls in comparison to total population in the early days of our nation. But in those days, being a “member” of a church typically meant that one not only attended that church regularly, but had undergone baptism and/or confirmation into that church, regularly tithed to that church, and practiced, as far as anyone knew, the morals and doctrines of that church – violation of which would mean not being a “member” until repentance and restoration. Rolls were also likely to only include the head of the household. The pews certainly contained many more souls, and the influence of the church extended strongly beyond its walls. The naysayers will cite some actual or perceived historical injustices or evils as evidence that we’ve never been a Christian nation. These people can’t tell us why those things are wrong, only that they believe or feel them to be wrong, or at least contradictory to Biblical teaching...which they don’t believe anyway.

By referring to the U.S.A. as a “Christian nation”, I don’t mean that there were never injustices or evils or mistakes in our history – just like when I call myself a Christian, I don’t mean I’ve never done (and never do) unchristian things. Certainly slavery as practiced in America was unchristian, as were actions by anyone who denied the humanity and human rights of Africans and African-Americans.

By “Christian nation”, I mean that we are a nation of individuals who have traditionally identified ourselves as Christians or affiliated with a Christian church; a nation where Christian churches are the most prominent religious institutions dotting the landscape; where you can glance at our founding documents, the writings and speeches of the founders, legislation, court decisions, proclamations, public art, marketing, and other media through most of our history and find citations from, references to, and allusions to God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ; where churches and preachers have held significant influence in public opinion; where most people publicly used and accepted basic tenets of the Bible or lessons from Biblical texts; where the Bible was used in public instruction; where the prominent academic institutions, hospitals, and charities where expressly implementing a Christian mission; where in the halls of government or academia, or in the workplace, a person could loudly and unapologetically lead a group prayer, or appeal to Christ; where the religious aspects of holidays and celebrations were not downplayed; where crèches were common on city land around Christmas; where mottos, seals, and artwork on public buildings openly paid homage to the Christian foundations of that institution or the local or state or federal government.

The major movements and changes were accomplished with sturdy appeals to the Bible – the exploration and colonization of the land, the American Revolution, the Emancipation, the fight against Nazi Germany and its conspirators, standing our ground through the Cold War, the fight for civil rights. Even those who currently fought to neuter marriage licensing often misappropriated “judge not” and “love your neighbor” from the Bible.

But even as most people in the country still identify themselves as Christian (or cite Jesus or the Bible as some authority), we are becoming a post-Christian nation through the tyranny of the minority and the apathy and cowardice of those who are supposed to be salt and light.

We allowed a clause in the Constitution that was meant to prevent the adoption of one denomination as the national religion to be used to slowly but surely remove our heritage and our free exercise of our religion from the public square, to divorce our governing from natural law. Perhaps out of complacency and in a botched attempt to be welcoming to the immigrant, to be fair and tolerant and “nonjudgmental” to the atheists and hedonists as well as anyone who believed differently, we allowed the aggressive secularization of our society, the degradation of our culture, and the enshrinement of license as a “right”. Maybe we went along with it because of our own materialism. In the process, we have trampled on our basic rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and to do with our property and our labor what we will, as long as it wasn’t destructive.

We thought the family and church and its charities too constricting, personal responsibility and self-reliance too scary, raising our own children too burdensome, and now we are settling into the clutches of the nanny state, which gains more power the less moral and responsible its citizens, the less those citizens believe their rights and obligations - and those of everyone else - flow from God.

So out goes the Bible, the cross, prayer, and the Ten Commandments. Out goes discernment, sound reasoning, shame, and humility. Out go the moral constraints on sexual behavior. Out goes the expectation of marriage as a lifetime commitment uniting a man and a woman to care for each other and their children ahead of their own wants. Out goes valuing human life, in comes using human beings for our own convenience and and dispensing of other human beings when they are inconvenient.

In our churches, we’ve allowed another Jesus and another gospel. We reward people like Oprah as they recast Jesus and his teachings in a philosophical mold that is based on Eastern religious concepts antithetical to the Bible. Their “Christianity” demands nothing of them. It does not ask that they change their behavior. Yes, most Americans say they believe in God or a unifying spirit, but many don’t believe that such a being has authority over their lives, or at least they don’t act like it. After all, if we’re confronted with our sins, we cover ourselves with moral relativism, twisting Scripture (“judge not!”), and appealing to evolution as an explanation. We want God there at the wedding, at the hospital bed, and the funeral - but not in the wallet, or the marriage, or the bedroom.

So get ready for post-Christian America, where rights are granted – and can be abridged – by the government which is not "of, by,  and for the people" but rather an elite class, and we “can’t” govern by Christian principles. Heck, Christians are being told they shouldn’t even vote by their personal convictions.

We can see how far we’ve come. Years ago, for example, our current [now former] President was ridiculed for citing Jesus Christ as his favorite philosopher. Yet Thomas Jefferson, whose “wall of separation” phrase in a letter has been misused by such people, compiled and presented a codification of Jesus’ moral teachings.

Right now, they’ve got enough people believing that tolerance means we can’t do anything with which they are uncomfortable. But we are already seeing that where they gain power, they won’t even practice the true meaning of tolerance. Those who live by their Christian principles will not only be marginalized, they will be kicked out of the classroom, fired from the job, and successfully prosecuted and sued in the courtroom. I wonder if we’ll get to the point where killing a Christian will be okay, as long as you can cite that they expressed “hate speech fightin’ words” by affirming Christian morals, making someone else feel “threatened”.

Are you ready for post-Christian America?

Related post: Are You Really a Christian?

The Best Solution to the Problem of Islamofascist Terrorists in the Middle East

When I read about these barbarians murdering men, women, and children in their bloodthirsty quest for absolute control of cities and countries, when I read about them stoning women, probably because the women won't pretend to find them attractive, I get tempted to think about all of the nuclear weapons we have that are collecting dust. That could certainly end these problems in the Middle East. Of course, it would also kill millions of innocent people.

I do believe sending our own military forces in to some of the areas can do some good, but it comes at a tremendous cost, and our bending over backwards to accommodate the Muslim religions leaves the people vulnerable for radicalization.

As far as I can figure, the best solution would be to flood the region with Christian missionaries.

I know that doesn't sound politically correct. I know a lot of atheists, non-Christians, and so-called Christians who are primarily Leftists think it wouldn't do any good, but I know it would. The more of the people there who make decisions to follow Christ, the better. Allowing people to practice Christianity openly, and convert to Christianity would make a difference. That would mean ending stonings. Christians haven't been warring with each other since things settled down in Ireland (and that was really political, not religious).

These missionaries would have to be somewhat armed for self-defense, of course, especially at first. Flooding the region with Christian missionaries, the Jesus film, and other outreach tools would make a difference.

And it would be better the nuking the whole place.

Truly Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Since the issue is back in the news, here is my own plan for Truly Comprehensive Border Control and Immigration Reform.

I love immigration. It is great to have ambitious people yearning for freedom, who have the guts to do something rather than accepting the status quo where they are, come here and become productive Americans, adopting American values.

Our border and immigration policy should be designed to promote legal immigration and national stability, and fight human trafficking, importation of contraband and disease, migration of illegal aliens as long as we have public services, infiltration by terrorists, depression of wages, organized crime and gang activity.

With that in mind, the following should be adopted:

1. First , the National Guard will be immediately deployed to the borders to assist the border patrol.

2. English will be proclaimed the official common language of the federal government, with the exception of native tribal interaction.

3. An effective fence/wall/security system will be constructed along the borders.

4. The stay of legal alien residencies will be monitored to make sure people leave when they are supposed to.

5. Penalties will be increased and prosecutions will be pursued vigorously for human trafficking, voter fraud, hiring illegal aliens, document forgery, identity theft, and aiding & abetting these other crimes.

6. Criminal aliens will be deported upon completing their sentences.

7. There will be no amnesty nor preferential treatment for illegal aliens in gaining legal residency or citizenship unless he or she passes a background check and serves honorably in our armed forces. General amnesty or giving legal status via anything less than what legal immigrants endure will only encourage more illegal alien migration into the U.S.

8. Having citizen children will not necessarily prevent the deportation of illegal aliens. Citizens can return once liberated or of adult age, and apply to bring their immediate family members with them.

9. Home countries of illegal aliens will be billed for costs associated with their citizens here illegally, including but not limited to prosecution, incarceration, education, social welfare, and health care. Even if we never collect, the principle is still there. We can take it out of the taxpayer-funded "aid" we send them.

10. Ceilings will be lifted and processing will be accelerated for legal immigration for refugees and sponsored individuals passing background and health checks to make it easier for those seeking to become assimilated American citizens the legal way.

11. Should there be an actual labor shortage, temporary alien labor will be permitted.


Furthermore:

12. Tax reform separating the tax system from payrolls will be studied.

13. The legalization of illegal narcotics will be studied to see if it what effect it will have on other crimes, drug abuse, and public safety.

14. A process for confirming voters as legitimate will be studied.

The problem of what to do with the 12-20 million illegal aliens currently living in the U.S. will eventually solve itself. Those who are not caught and deported due to ongoing criminal activity, or do not voluntarily leave the U.S., or do not become citizens through the same process as those currently residing in their country of citizenship, will eventually die out.  They have made it this far as illegal aliens - they can continue to try to stay here with their illegal status. They made it here, they can make it back out of the country if they find it too difficult to stay. Any children of theirs born here are already citizens.

Brideless or Groomless "Marriage" is a Modern Invention

From that bastion of right-wing ideology, Wikipedia, comes this history of same-sex unions...

While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.

Emphasis mine. Throughout the entry until we get to the present years, these unions are presented as something other than marriage. It has only been within recent times that any culture, religious system of more than a handful of adherents, or government has started to call brideless or groomless pairings "marriage" and included those "marriages" as the same as the uniting of a bride+groom. The vast majority today still recognize that marriage unites the sexes. Same-sex unions in history were never a widespread and ongoing part of marital systems. If one cleric "married" two men in antiquity, it was an abnormality that wasn't sustained by the culture.

But of course, someone who is willing to deny that the differences between the sexes are significant enough to distinguish marriage from same-sex unions will have no problem spinning history.

Having Liberty With Your Equal Pay

Limited-government Republicans aren't against equal pay for women. We are for women, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or any other personal characteristic getting paid every cent they, or their representative, can negotiate for their labor, and for women having the right to choose careers and employers, including those providing all the flexibility they want when it comes to the hours and days they work, and the amount of work they do. We also support them being able to spend more of their money how they want, rather than how someone else wants them to spend it.


Stop the invasive Big Government Politicians who increasingly want to tell African-American women, Latina-American women, lesbian/bisexual/transgender women, disabled women, poor women, and Senior Citizen women how they can and can't spend their hard-earned money and want to take more of their money away from them.

The Ideal of Married Mother and Father

All other things being equal, a child is best off being raised by his or her biological father and mother, who are married to each other. Every child naturally has a mother and father.

How did that become such a controversial statement? It used to be taken as an attack on "single mothers" or "fathers" who abandon their children, but that objection has been (temporarily) dropped as most marriage neutering advocates instead focus on objecting by claiming that the ideal is "two parents", including two people of the same gender who are not biologically related to the children. It has become controversial to say "mother and father" are the ideal, because that presents sex-integrating relationships as somehow different and better for parenting than a couple absent one of the sexes.

What used to be accepted and self-evident has been questioned out of political desperation.

Handy Dandy Leftist Democrat Statement Generator

Leftism is based on feelings and emotion and Stage One thinking. This can make consistency difficult to achieve during something as important as a Presidential Election campaign. So to help Leftist Democrats out, I have here this Handy Dandy Leftist Democrat Statement Generator, which should be especially helpful when asked to respond to something said by a Republican.

Whatever the Republican has said, respond with...

"That's [1] and will [2] and is just another example of how Republicans are [3]. This is backed up by [4].

"Democrats, on the other hand, fight your fair share and your rights and want to ensure everyone has equal access to services even if they haven't been lucky enough to get rich."

[1]
sexist
Islamophobic
xenophobic
homophobic
intolerant
racist
bigoted
ignorant
fear mongering
partisan
A Big Lie

[2]
destroy the arts
suppress votes
destroy education
destroy the environment
starve children
give wives cancer
prompt suicides
incite hate crimes
force women into back alleys
kill people

[3]
uncaring
secretive
trying to turn back progress
stuck in the past
out-of-touch
extremist
divisive
anti-science
anti-education
anti-intellectual
anti-worker
anti-woman
mean-spirited
hate-filled
trying to oppress women and minorities
against the poor
trying to force their religion on everyone

[4]
The New York Times
TIME Magazine
MSNBC
the SPLC
the NAACP
GLAAD
NOW
the National Education Association
the APA
the AFL-CIO
the Guttmacher Institute
the United Nations

Then, move on to one of the following, if it will fit:

1. "Oh, so you're against a new federal program? That's just like opposing local fire departments. Conservatives like you opposed ending slavery, too."

2. "Bush did it too, only worse!"

3. "We tried that and it didn't work."

4. "Your opposition to Obama doesn't put food on anyone’s plate."

No, I Don't Like Democratic Socialism

Leftists either have no imagination or they are hoping you don't have any. They constantly set up and knock down straw-men arguments and talk about matters as if a large, intrusive central government is not only capable of solving most problems in life, but the only way to do it.


You may have seen this graphic depicting Tired Leftist Imagery which is making the rounds because Senator Bernie Sanders, candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States, is openly a Democratic Socialist. Some say Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Democratic Socialist as well, but lies about it. I think she's more of a Hillaryist than anything. But I digress.



I saw a good response on Facebook to this image posted a Clint Johnson who wrote:

The problem with statists is they believe that because we are against the state forcing people at gunpoint to pay for the ruling class undertaking grossly inefficient actions that are first and foremost geared to enrich cronies and buy votes for power mad sociopaths... we are somehow against the goals that the propagandists use to rationalize their self serving power grabs.

It is like saying that if I am against slave trafficking for the sex trade, I must be against sex and wish to give up anyone ever having children.

Brilliant.

I like to note that there are three branches of the federal government, as well as state and local government. In addition, there are charities and other voluntary associations. It is entirely possible for someone to want a program to address a problem or handle ongoing tasks, but not want a federal government agency to handle it. By the way, we have a governing document in this union  called the Constitution of the United States of America.  It spells all of this out (the three branches, their enumerated powers, what is left to others like the state or the people).

Let's take each specific thing in the graphic one by one.

Imaginary Rights

[This entry is a little dated now, but the principles behind it endure because the truth doesn't change.]

Leftists love to say something they want is a "right". They think merely stating that something is a right should end debate.

In recent years, we've heard a lot from Leftists and those they've bamboozled that homosexual couples have a "right to marry" and that "marriage equality" is a "right".

Discussions about these matters need to be clear about what is being addressed: Are we talking about the freedom to have a ceremony and share lives? Or are we talking about getting a state-issued "marriage" license?

I personally know homosexual couples who "married" years before any country or state starting calling such pairings "marriage". Were my homosexual friends lying about getting married? That seems to be the implication of marriage neutering advocates, including those in the MSM, who refer to laws including the bride+groom requirement as "bans on gay marriage". However, what neuterists are referring to is not a basic freedom of association, but getting a state-issued license, often in violation of the freedom of association and the right to vote. There is a right for two (or more) people of whatever sex to personally associate with each other as they wish. There is not a right to force the rest of us to license such relationships and call it marriage.

Where do marriage neutering advocates get this notion that state-licensed marriage ia a right? They usually cite Loving v. Virginia, but while that is an effective emotional manipulation, logically the connection doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The right to marry is not enumerated in the Constitution, but the Constitution exists to tell government what it CAN do, and not to list all of our rights. Oh, but look. Our founding documents and the discussion surrounding their adoption indicate that we have property rights, free enterprise rights, freedom of religion, the right to associate – or not – with whomever we want.  Those seem to me to be in conflict with the "right" to force other people who have voted to keep marriage licensing to instead neuter those licenses so that they are no longer marriage licenses but "any two people of age, not closely related and neither of whom is currently married to other" licenses. The people who wrote and adopted the Constitution and all of the Amendments did so with no thought whatsoever that a brideless or groomless pairing must be licensed by states. Also, it appears that individuals and their private businesses should not be forced to participate in ceremonies they do not support.

It brings me once again to the larger question of rights. What are rights and where do they come from?  Not all freedoms and entitlements are rights. Quite often, laws that some people think give them rights are actually infringing on the rights of others. A "right" to own a slave in America violated the rights of the person enslaved against their will. Our founders maintained that rights come from God (or Nature, for those of you who get queasy at the thought of God), not the government. The government exists to protect our existing rights, and should be limited to as not to infringe on our rights. That was the thinking.  It was the kind of thinking that looked as rights as something that never obligate others without their consent or without a crime being committed.  But these days, it seems like things become "rights" simply because someone wants them to be.

We have the right to free speech because we were born with the ability to communicate. We only have the right to marry in so far as we can find someone willing to be our spouse and something willing to perform the wedding.

Legislating For Feelings

In the ideals of American tradition, our laws have been meant to protect our God-given personal rights (such as freedom of speech and religion), protect property, and facilitate and protect honest trade. Where our laws erred is when they sought to infringe upon these things, such as with slavery.  Ideally, someone should be free to do with their property and run their business as they choose, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

In order to rectify past injustices, we implemented laws that prevented employers and landlords from discriminating against people on personal characteristics such as “race”.  But this idea has grown into a nefarious, Orwellian situation where we are now in the disturbing position of passing laws and, even worse - suffering court decisions overturning laws – in an attempt to protect feelings, to keep one person from offending another, to affirm choices in personal behavior that bring nothing productive to general society.

How did we let ourselves be ruled like there is a right not to be offended, or a right to public affirmation of personal choices that should not be society’s concern, especially when these things infringe upon clearly recognized rights to freedom of speech and religion?

I often hear that “freedom of religion doesn’t give you the excuse to perpetrate bigotry”. While some marriage neutering advocates would disagree, I don’t promote bigotry, either in law or personal interaction. However, I do believe that if a gay man wanted to open a business and staff it entirely with other gay men, he should be allowed to do so (without tax funding, of course). Protecting property rights does not mean supporting bigotry. Neither is noticing that there is a difference between the sexes and it is that difference that makes marriage marriage, and also behooves us to license marriage as a state.

When people exercise their rights, sometimes they will do things with which we disagree. Sometimes, someone will be offended, or their feelings will be hurt. That is the price of liberty. As long as someone isn’t harming the physical person of another, slandering or libeling them, or destroying or stealing their property or defrauding them, they should be allowed to do what they want with themselves and their property – including offend someone.

As far as bride+groom marriage licensing hurting the feelings of some gay people – that’s something they should learn to live with or get over. Licenses are issued by the people of a state, and are a privilege – not a right. Like all licenses, we issue marriage licenses for a specific reason, for a specific purpose, and that isn't because we think it is a great idea that this particular couple is planning a life together or that we can see they are in love. We don't issue driver's licenses based on how much we think the person will enjoy driving. A gay person can choose to obtain a marriage license the same way a straight person can. That most gay people do not want to enter in to traditional marriage does not morally obligate the state to change the licensing, despite what any court has ruled.

Finally, just because you have the freedom to do something doesn’t mean you have the right to do something. There can’t be a legitimate right to do what is wrong – only a freedom to do so. And if that wrong infringes on the rights of another, then the freedom to do it will either be curtailed or the action met with legal consequences.

Ideally, anyway.

Dear Progressives, Socialists, Liberals, Leftists, and Democrats

We're $19,000,000,000,000 in debt, just officially on paper and just on the federal level. This doesn't count obligations that haven't been added to the balance sheets, state debts, local government debts, etc.

Our government can't keep spending more money than we have, especially not at growing rates of the size of deficits.

"Tax the rich" you say?

All of the wealth could be confiscated from "the rich" and the debt and spending would still be a problem. In fact, it would be even more of a problem because in the following years, "the rich" would be generating less economic growth, less tax revenue, and there would be more people "in need".

The cold, hard fact is that at least one of these things must happen if our nation is going to survive:

1. Government spending has to be cut significantly, and the way government budgets going forward has to change. Slashing spending on the military will not satisfy this need.

2. The federal government has to sell off land and other assets and generate more revenue (through oil drilling, for example) on some of the land it doesn't sell.

3. We need to either birth and raise enough children or import enough immigrants (immigrants are people who come to stay, not people who come here for certain benefits and then return home) who'll end up contributing more tax revenue than they'll take. With immigration, it must be taken into account whether or not these individuals either were a net cost in USA tax revenue (through receiving foreign aid) or generated a net in USA tax revenue (through buying goods and services of American businesses) when they were living in other countries. It will be better, on a global scale, to birth our own new Americans rather than moving producing individuals from other countries to here.

I understand that Leftist policies and philosophies are in conflict with those three times in the following ways:

1. Leftism demands increasing government spending. If not directly, by insisting on more and larger government programs.

2. Leftists would rather the federal government increase its land holdings and would rather NO business use such land, especially because Leftists consider such activity an environmental threat.

3. Leftists are fine with immigration, but encourage immigrants to favor larger government. Leftists are more likely to see children as people who should be de facto wards of the state most of the time, as parasites or abusers of the environment (if only through their parents' actions), as burdens, as hindrances to the empowerment of women, as things to be aborted. All one has to do is look at western Europe, which is thoroughly Leftist, to see that the birth rate does not even replace the population.

If you care about the USA having a future the only logical solution is to adopt one, both, or all three of these conservative or traditional & limited government principles:

1. Making government smaller and more limited government.
2. Selling off government/public assets and/or access to land.
3. Making more babies and raising them to avoid consuming as many tax dollars as they generate and who will also vote for smaller, limited government.

Unless we produce it from scratch ourselves, everything we receive, whether goods or services or money, has been generated by someone else. Either we use voluntary transactions to get these things, or we use force, which means government force or crime, to get these things. Even if you are content to increase confiscation for your personal benefit, we, collectively, simply can't function if there is consistently a higher overall consumption than overall production. There will be less production if producers are punished with more confiscation and decreasing freedom to engage in, and benefit from, voluntary transactions.

Lester Doesn't Understand Money or Economics

Have you seen this making the social networking rounds?

"B. Lester" apparently has no clue about money or economics, or is deliberately playing on the envy of others.

There probably are people out there who literally hoard cash and keep in in their home, or wherever. Some of them are "black market" operators. (Some ignorant people think I'm talking about the slave trade.) However, these aren't the people who end up on the cover of Forbes.

The people who make the cover of Forbes as role models do not hoard cash. If they did, they wouldn't be such successful people. No, these people have built up wealth by helping to provide goods and services that people want. Even if they had stashed all of their money in a bank, they would still be helping others because the bank would be using that money.

Rich people have not impoverished this union. On the contrary, as they build wealth, they help others to build wealth as well. It is up to others, rich, middle-class, or poor, to decide whether or not they want to buy what the wealthy person is selling, or whether or not they want to work for the wealthy person, or invest in the wealthy person's business. That is all voluntary. The poor person's dollar is not taken away against his will. The exception is when a government goes beyond Constitutional mandate and spends taxpayer money on something it isn't supposed to. Even then, since the poor do not pay federal income taxes, the poor person's dollar is not taken away. On the contrary, the "poor" in this union are provided with housing, food, health care, education, military/fire/police protection, recreation, transportation, sanitation and so many other things, largely or entirely paid for by others.

Almost all of the people who circulate this picture would be considered as "hoarding cash" when compared to most of the world, yet they whine and moan about other people doing even better than they have. Being angry at others is a lot easier than working hard, making good choices, and being a success. The problem is, electing legislators who keep forcibly redistributing a wealthy person's earnings or keep borrowing to provide us with goodies is not sustainable. That is impoverishing this union. Free your mind from hate-filled Leftist dung and think, indeed.

State of the Union 2016 Wish List

With BHO up there, it would be great to see everyone fall asleep, not just a judge or two.

I know most of these positions will be completely avoided by President Obama, but permit me to dream. Also notice that with most of these, I'm calling on the President to encourage action by the people, not to use the force of law.

Explain That the Federal Government Is Not the Answer to Every Challenge, Problem, or Choice - Rather, it is the Last Resort Answer to Very Few. That is what freedom and liberty are all about. Challenge individuals, businesses, congregations, nonprofits, and local and state governments (where appropriate) to take action instead of relying on the federal government. The federal government is there to protect the union from foreign threats and to and resolve some disputes between states.

Esteem Human Life. Vow to prosecute anyone who is transporting people across state lines for abortions to cover up statutory rape or anyone transporting human tissue, obtained without the consent if the individual, across state lines. Encourage people to think of human life as important and valuable, whether young or old, sick or healthy.

Tout the Successes of the War on Terror. Laud those military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel who have uncovered and prevented terrorist plans and actions.Stress that ISIS and other such organizations must be obliterated, and point to recent terrorist attacks as reminders the threat it still very real.

Border Control Is a Matter of National Security. Explain that allowing illegal aliens any advantage in gaining permanent legal status ahead of legal immigrants is a slap in the face to legal immigrants and naturalized citizens. Announce that, effective immediately, the National Guard will secure our borders to prevent terrorists, disease-carriers, and smugglers from entering the U.S. They will stay there until suitable barriers and checkpoints are constructed – however long that takes. We will NOT encourage further invasion by offering amnesty, health insurance, and other tax-funded benefits for citizens of other countries who illegally enter/stay in the U.S. Speed up the process for legal immigration for those who want to come to the U.S. legally to become citizens and can find sponsors who will ensure they will stay off of public assistance. As for illegal aliens currently living in the United States – do not offer amnesty; they can go through the same channels of those who are trying to immigrate legally. If the border is secure, this problem will eventually take care of itself because their children born here are citizens and the illegals can continue to function as they have until they die off, if they don't want to go the legal route. Any illegal alien who serves honorably in the U.S. armed forces should be granted citizenship. If a true shortage of labor occurs (meaning American unemployment is low and employers need more temporary labor), a true guest worker program can be developed.

We're One Race - Human. Yes, "race"-based slavery was our national birth defect, and injustices persisted after slavery was abolished, but hostile racists have very little power now in our overall system. Law enforcement must have limited powers, and rioting shouldn't be tolerated.

Break the Street Gangs. Pledge federal agencies to assist state and local law enforcement "sweep and hold" gang-infested urban areas.

Encourage Responsible Gun Ownership. As it is the duty of every able person to stand up to evil & crime in protection of the innocent, responsible gun ownership, training, and practice should be encouaged, and state and local laws should allow for this

Declare the Growing National Debt Unacceptable. Explain that it is a basic function of the federal government to adopt a budget, and that it is unsustainable and immoral to accumulate increasing debt, thereby burdening future generations. The government should not encourage further dependency on government.

Don't be Santa Claus. Don't propose new federal programs and expansions of existing federal social programs. Enough already. There are 50 states in the union and a few territories that are supposed to be handling their own matters – that is, the matters that are not supposed to be left up to "the people".

Stop Using the Tax Code For Social Engineering. Tell the Congress that instead of taking the carrots (taxes) from the people and then dangling some of them back in front of the people, that the people should keep their carrots in the first place and do with them what they will. Call for tax simplification and a move away from income/payroll taxes. If someone pays taxes, everyone should pay taxes.

Individuals Should Plan for the Future. Talk about the numerous options individuals and families have for saving for the future. Encourage them to save and invest for the future and not rely on the federal government to take care of them in their senior years. Point out that a reduction in federal spending will allow people to keep more of their own money to aid in saving for retirement.

Explain that Planning for Your Health Care is Part of Planning for the Future. Call for more freedom, competition, and private decision-making in health care.

Equal Access to Free Markets. Explain some of the major benefits of free markets, and that the best thing the federal government can do to foster a good business climate that provides jobs is to provide protection from interstate crime and foreign terrorists, and to be involved as little as possibly in voluntary employment and business transactions, not picking winners or losers in business, subsidizing some and restricting upstarts while protecing established businesses.

Property Rights and Personal Freedom. Most Americans understand that people should be considered as individuals and based on their behavior and abilities, not as members of a non-ideological group (ethnicity, etc.). Therefore, the federal government should no longer be involved in preventing people from renting, selling - or not - to whomever they choose for whatever reason, and should no longer be involved with who an employer hires and fires and why. Airlines, for example, should not be forced to carry anyone who makes the majority of their employees and passengers uncomfortable. It is clear that people can succeed in the USA regardless of skin color, sex, or sexual orientation, and focusing on slights, imagined or real, based on these personal characteristics, is fostering hostility and division and self-defeating thinking, doing more harm than good.

Encourage private innovation and solutions to reducing reliance on terrorist oil.

Education Is a Private Responsibility. Given the state of American public education since the Carter administration, call for the dismantling of federal involvement in education.

Strong Marital Unions Are Good For the Union. It brings together both sexes to raise the next generation of citizens. Men and women are different, and unifying them in the marital union forms a strong, inclusive building block for society, benefiting the individuals and society. Encourage people to voluntarily take marriage seriously, thinking for the long term, getting good pre-marital counseling - and counseling during marriage as necessary. Encourage individuals, families, congregations, businesses, and the media to respect and value marriage, and support marriages instead of undermining them. Encourage individuals to save sex and childrearing for marriage, because doing so is good for them and good for the country. Call on the states to reforms laws and polices that punish people, especially men, for marrying.

Encourage Proven Conservation Techniques. Quote the scientists and activists who, in the 1970s, warned that we were heading for a new ice age, and quote those who said that by 2000, the rainforests and the oceans would be destroyed. Go on to say that we must not hastily and uncritically accept alarmist warnings and use federal government force to impose destructive restrictions on the people and business that may not result in significant environmental benefit.

Civility. Call on partisans to vigorously debate the issues, but refrain from threats of violence and character assassination, as they renew their vow to defend the Constitution.