Vote For Limited Government

My fellow Americans, if you haven't done so already for the November 2022 elections, vote. Vote now. Vote for limited government.

If you have a ballot that was sent to your home, it is best that you take it directly to its destination so it doesn't get "lost" on the way.

If you can't do that, try mailing it from a location (such as a USPS facility) where the people don't know your political affiliation. For example, my postal carrier and local post office can tell mine from the mail I get.

If you can vote in-person, then do so.

Voting for limited government can help even if you're a deep Blue state or deep Red state. It doesn't matter what the polls say: VOTE.

In almost every race for the House or Senate or Governor, there are two realistic choices: a Democrat and a Republican. It would be better to have Republican control of the House and Senate even if you aren't thrilled with the individual Republican for whom you can vote. So vote for the Republican.

Get your like-minded relatives and neighbors to do the same.

Let's make a difference.

Quantum Leap Is Coming Back

I was a loyal viewer of the original Quantum Leap series.

Yes, I know some of the episodes were pushing liberal themes.

Dennis Prager is right. Liberal and Leftist are not synonymous.

There's a revival of the series that's premiering soon.

I hope it is good.

If it is good, I hope it does well.

I hope it isn't Leftist/partisan Democrat. These days, though I expect it will be.

My pessimistic side predicts we can expect the following elements, provided there are enough episodes made:

• Climate change alarmism
• Critical race theory (USA is racist, on stolen land, built on slavery, etc.)
• Negative digs at Trump (he is portrayed briefly as a child in the original series) and/or his voters and/or his SCOTUS picks
• Digs at prominent Republicans from the last 30 years
• Promotion of Leftist ideology regarding gender (transgender, genderfluid, non-binary, etc.)
• Affirmation of marriage neutering
• Negativity about private firearm ownership
• Police corruption and brutality
• Pro-union messages
• The "gender wage gap"
• Pro government expansion messages (government health care, for example)
• Greedy landlords and business owners/executives
• "Dreamers" and "undocumented immigrants" with hearts of gold and contributions to the USA
• Negative portrayals of someone concerned about degradation of media/arts/entertainment

We'll see. Maybe someone should make bingo cards?

I predict we will NOT see the show:

• Making a point of the positive benefits of a conservative, churchgoing married feminine heterosexual "cisgender" stay-at-home mother and masculine heterosexual "cisgender" breadwinning father 
• Portraying the perils of underage sex, other than showing screaming protestors when the minor goes for an abortion
• Pointing out the harms of a lack of school choice
• Depicting benefits of homeschooling
• Honorable people being compelled to pay money to unions even though they object to the political spending of the unions
• Portraying the hate from the Left against honorable "Black Conservatives"
• Climate alarmists making dire predictions in the past that have since proven false

UPDATE: 12 episodes in, here are my observations.

Where the Leftist Central Planners Want to Force Us To Go

While small businesses, including restaurants, were locked down by government force, Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom partied with a group at an expensive restaurant. The California Democrats have decreed gasoline-powered automobiles won't be sold in California in a little over a decade from now, while the state's power infrastructure can't handle current demand for electricity. In the county of Los Angeles, freeways can't handle existing traffic, but the "road fund" is regularly spent on buses, rail, and non-transportation projects and programs.

What the Leftist Democrats are doing in California - which they'd love to take national - might not make sense to someone who has common sense, who doesn't seek to control others. But what the power-hungry social engineering central planners are doing makes sense when you realize what they want, and they've publicly said so and/or demonstrated, is to:

• Install most of our children into government-controlled institutions from six weeks of age into their twenties.
• Get those children dependent on government for most of their meals, served at or distributed by the schools.
• Move most of us into large apartment buildings, especially ones with commercial space on the first level or three.
• Ensure those apartment units will have water and power controlled and limited by remote, and waste (like the trash you throw away) controlled, limited, and analyzed.
• Force us out of automobiles we control into government-run mass transit.
• Discourage entrepreneurship and small businesses so that we're all working for government or large businesses, which can be more easily controlled by government, or dependent on government redistribution of money.
• Get most of us dependent on the state for health care.
• Disarm private citizens when it comes to defending themselves, their family, or their property.

We can see this at the state level and with the counties and cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles. They are constantly seeking to make government bigger, more intrusive, and more controlling, and get as many of us dependent on government as they can.

They hate liberty for anyone other than their own little clique.

Resist Leftism. Defeat Leftism. Defend Liberty.

Christians Should Not Abandon Political Involvement

There are a lot of people out there who wish Christians would get out of politics entirely, and most of them will say (and, sadly, some politically active Christians would agree) that Christians should not vote for a seriously flawed candidate, but should instead simply not vote, or vote for the other major candidate, a write in, or a third party candidate.

What does the Bible say about political involvement?

The Bible tells us to live for the Lord wholeheartedly and that everything we have, including our money and our bodies, is His; we have been temporarily delegated control over these thing. It also recognizes that we live among people who aren't Christians, some who are pretenders, and people hostile to Christianity. We are to live moral and virtuous lives, including caring for the poor and protecting against evil.

When the Bible was written, there was no government structure like ours, with a Constitutionally-limited secular federal government of three equal branches representing a union of secular states, all being of laws rather than men, with democratically elected representatives from an electorate of men and women regardless of ethnicity, religion, creed, education, or class. In the Bible, a benevolent dictatorship, with Jesus Christ as Lord, is presented as our ultimate destination, inhabited by the redeemed and glorified. Until Jesus appears again and we have the New Heaven and New Earth, we have to deal with each other as fallen mortals.

Our Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by the Bible and history. They knew that people are fallen, that government power had to be limited, and that a system that involves separation of powers and checks and balances was needed. 

Unfortunately, over the course of our Union's history, more and more power has shifted to the federal government, especially the federal judiciary, which has, in some cases, become activist. The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. However, with certain limits and exceptions, each citizen still has the right to vote, the freedom to run for elected office and to support campaigns with our time, talent, and treasure.

Should Christians vote? And if so, should they only vote for people who are apparently Christians with a lifetime of outstanding, moral behavior and unassailable character?

Is This Any Way to Treat a Loyal Customer?

I have been a Dr. Laura Schlessinger fan for decades, listening to her radio program and reading many of her books, and interacting with her program's social media. She read at least one essay I posted on my blog on her radio program, approvingly. It was in her defense from attacks directed her way. She's read letters I've written to her on her program.

Her program, which airs live on SiriusXM, is also sold as a paid subscription podcast. I subscribe to that podcast, because I want to be able to listen to every moment of the program; the implication is that the podcast is going to be the program that aired, minus the breaks.

Unfortunately, too often, it isn't.

Sometimes, an hour or all three from weeks or months ago will be uploaded instead of that day's live program. Some other times, the 48-minute long hour will have one segment repeat back-to-back, meaning we are hearing the same 12 minutes we just heard 12 minutes ago. And since the hour isn't extended, that means we are missing 12 minutes of that hour.

This is NOT when she plans to be off and they run "Best of." Or when old calls are dopped into her "live" program to give her a break or make up for a lack of callers (all talk programs are getting fewer callers). This is the person handling the podcast (which isn't her) botching the podcast. Now, we all make mistakes. But a botched podcast can be fixed. And it should be.

Dr. Laura says she reads all her e-mails (just not all on the air). I wonder if that's true, or if she only reads the ones her staff allows her to read? I know she interacts with comments on the program's official Facebook but does NOT interact with the program's Twitter account.

It became clear that Tuesday [not Monday, as I originally wrote], July 19, 2022 podcast's third hour (at least), wasn't (or, substantially wasn't) what aired on the SiriusXM program. There were several ways to know:

• Some people catch parts of the program on SiriusXM, then later listen to the podcast, and some podcast listeners discuss the program with people who listen live. Differences become apparent. "Did you hear the call about....?" Well, no, because it wasn't included in the podcast. Something else must have been, instead.
  
  
• Some close, avid listeners of the podcast recognize old calls from past editions of the program.
  
  
• Dr. Laura reads an "Email of the Day" and that also gets posted on the official program website. The "Email of the Day" read during that podcast hour is NOT a recently posted Email of the Day, and her Facebook posted the Email of the Day for Tuesday (see below) and it wasn't one heard by podcast listeners. 

In addition:

• That hour was labeled on the website as "Jasmine's 7-year-old daughter is holding back her emotions." However, there was no such call during that podcast hour.
  
  
• Dr. Laura does a live promo for her "Marriage 101" course. That was something she was doing promos for months ago. She's currently doing live promos for her book about surviving "Shark Attacks" on land, and indeed, later in the hour there was also one of those.
  
  
• Dr. Laura mentions that she's going to tell story after a break, then never tells the story.

The first one of those three is an indication that the wrong file got uploaded for podcast listeners. The second and third are indications that whatever was uploaded was "spliced together," at least partially from one or more previous programs. The third almost certainly isn't a matter of Dr. Laura forgetting to tell the story. Using old calls isn't the problem here, if they were used during the live program. The problem is that we podcast subscribers aren't getting the program that aired that day.

So what are paying podcast subscribers to do, if they want what aired that day instead of retreads from weeks or months ago?

Well, they can try the customer service tied to the podcast subscription. What if we think Dr. Laura needs to be aware of this recurring problem? We can write her an e-mail about it, and hope she sees it. I tried alerting her through the program's Facebook. This was posted there:



That was precisely the Email of the Day podcast listeners DID NOT get to hear her read. None of her podcast listeners (as of this writing, anyway), got to hear that.

So I was the first to comment:


For that, I was quicky banned from the program's official Facebook (and that comment removed), despite being a longtime "Top Contributor" who behaved respectfully and expressed my appreciation for the program there.

Now here's the question I have, other than "Will that hour of the podcast ever get fixed?":

Was it staff that banned me (I wonder if Dr. Laura even knows how to ban, as she is self-admittedly not that technical), and is Dr. Laura being informed of when her podcast is getting botched, or is that being deliberately kept from her? If she doesn't care, or doesn't want customers talking about it because she doesn't want to discourage people from signing up, that's one thing. If her staff is hiding important information from her, shame on them.

I'd really like to know which it is.

As things are right now, I'm considering ending my subscription, as this isn't the way customers should be treated, and if podcast subscribers aren't going to get what they paid for (especially given there are still ads included, just not the ones during breaks), they shouldn't keep paying. No, my one subscription isn't a big deal, ...but if you lose me, surely you're losing many others.

I'd be happy to do a positive update to this post. If someone needs to reach me, they can contact me through my Facebook or my Twitter.

Do the right thing, indeed.

National Divorce - What Are The Options?

There seems to be increasing talk about a "national divorce" or "civil war" or "secession" lately, and it is something I've thought about for years. 

The Founding Fathers envisioned a nation in which the average person didn't have to think much about the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, or various federal agencies. The Federal government was to be limited, with the states having powers to govern in diverse ways from each other. People referred to "the United States" in the plural. If things were still like that, we wouldn't be talking about a national divorce, civil war, or secession. But things aren't like that. The Federal government has grown enormously and usurped many powers, and people are trying to use that force to coerce everyone else into doing whatever it is they want.

When I mentioned what the Founding Fathers envisioned, any Leftist reading this thought "I don't give a s--- what the Founding Fathers envisioned. They kept people enslaved." This is part of our problem. Yes, slavery as it was in the USA was a terrible evil, and I'm thankful it's long gone.

Flawed as they were, the Founding Fathers created the best system of governance fallen people could. It is one the main reasons the USA quickly rose to be a world superpower.

Now we're at a point in history in which we have a bitterly divided nation again. It's not cleanly delineated into "North and South." Instead, it is between Deep Blue States (particularly, the large cities within them) and Deep Red States. The divisions involve things like elective abortion, private gun possession, immigration and border control, identity politics, religious freedom, the Electoral College, the structure of the Senate, and more.

What are the options? Let's examine each of them.

1. Peaceful Surrender - One side simply gives up. 

2. Violent Oppression - One side violently enforces its will on the whole country.

3. Wild Pendulum Swings - One side gets what it wants, but when the other side is back in power per elections, the pendulum will swing wildly to their side, over and over. An example: Elective abortion being legal nationwide with no restrictions for several years, then being severely restricted nationwide for several years, then repeat the cycle. These wild swings could be every two, four, or eight years, depending.

4. Constant Struggles - Kind of like what we have now, only growing more intense. Court battles, legislation, media campaigns; demonstrations, acts of vandalism, rioting, and terror; corporations picking sides; more and more of the "average person" having to spend their day thinking about national policy and what they can do to try to tip things their way, where they can work, where they can spend their money, etc.

5. Compromise - The two sides make some grand compromises to largely eliminate the contentious culture.

6. Violent Separation - Some states decide to leave and the rest of the states try to stop them. This was attempted with what is commonly known as the Civil War.

7. Peaceful Separation - Some states decide to leave and the rest of the states don't try to stop them.

8. Two Or More Sub-Unions - Rather than full secession, states are allowed to form sub-Federal unions that act almost like a new federal government, with the Federal government still retaining all states.

Number 1 would be the best, if it was the Left surrendering. Either way, it isn't going to happen.

Number 2 is what some on the Left are publicly saying is happening right now, because SCOTUS... is allowing states to determine abortion laws in their states rather than SCOTUS imposing it on everyone. We are not living in the same realities. Many on the Left want to violently oppress everyone else. It's a terrible thought, but if it happens it would be better if the Right won. Except that the Right favors federalism, so... the Right wouldn't do this.

Number 3 is a terrible way to live and will result in more corruption of elections and less confidence in elections.

Number 4 is also a terrible way to live, but it is encouraged by those who make money off it: politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, political scientists, campaign managers, activist organizations, media, etc.

Number 5 is something people profiting off of Number 4 won't allow, and a "compromise" won't work on many things.

Number 6 would be terrible, but could be better than aptly numbered Number 2.

Number 7 could be great, right behind "Number 1 with the Left being the side to surrender." However, it would be extremely complicated to pull off, and again, plenty of people are profiting off of Number 4 and will resist this.

Number 8, at first glance, looks like it could be the second-best choice behind "Number 1 with the Left being the side to surrender," but it probably wouldn't work out, because it would essentially add yet another layer of government (no doubt requiring major Constitutional Amendments) and there would still be irreconcilable differences at the federal level.

Do I want to see a breakup of the United States? No. But what are the alternatives?

The Left wants to do away with the Electoral College, two Senators per state, and the Second Amendment. There are also many other irreconcilable differences federalism won't alleviate. The Left doesn't want federalism anyway. There's no compromise on these. What's the compromise on the Electoral College? Any "compromise" will shift more power from the states with lower population. How can there be compromise on the Senate? By making PR and DC states? No thanks!

What can we do right now? Here's one possibility.

I Thank God I Was Born in the U.S.A.

People risk and lose their lives trying to get here. People lie, cheat, and steal to get here and stay here. Me, I was blessed to be born here, making me a citizen simply by surviving Roe v. Wade.

So many people sacrificed and fought and worked to create and build and preserve this nation, from the explorers who made the journeys across the Atlantic and had to turn around and make the journey back, to the pilgrims and others who colonized here, to the revolutionaries who broke away from the monarchistic mother country and later set up the greatest Constitution in history, to the settlers who ventured west, to people who insisted that human beings should not be treated as property, to the people who went around the world to defeat Naziism and Soviet Communism.

I thank God they did. I thank God my ancestors dared to come here.

I thank God I can choose my job, choose where to live, choose what to buy (when government hasn't shut down businesses for simply operating normally), choose my doctor, choose what to drive, choose to have as many children as I can, and openly worship Jesus Christ, pray, and study the Bible.

Our nation is not perfect, but it is the best place in the world, and it does have the ingredients for further greatness. We must now implement the recipe to preserve and further that which is good and discard or change that which isn't. We must fight to make the government work to protect our rights instead of infringing on them. We must work hard to raise the subsequent generations with the morals, values, and priorities that produce good citizens and aid in limiting government.

Our way of life is under attack – from enemies both foreign and domestic.

One way we can fight them is to declare our independence, and continue declaring it - our independence from: being governed by those not operating under our Constitution; the failed promises of politicians; the failed and restrictive programs of the federal and state governments; the tyranny of the minority; the activist judiciary; socialist labor unions; academics who hate America; media with a Leftist bias or that degrade our culture; churches that have become lukewarm; family and "friends" who are sociopaths, malignant narcissists, unrepentant evildoers, or enabling cowards.

Pray. Study the Bible, the Constitution, and history. Go to a healthy, well-balanced church. Get informed. Tell others. Vote at the ballot and with your dollar. Stand between evildoers and the innocent. Civilly disobey unjust laws, rulings, or orders.

Happy Independence Day and God Bless America!

Political Theater

Tonight, a round of performative, propagandistic, political theater kicks off, scheduled for "prime time" specifically because it is theater. It isn't an attempt to get to the truth and hold criminals accountable. Rather, it's a mere partisan political skit.

The political party that encouraged, enabled, and excused rioting and looting for months on end, that has left our borders wide open and encouraged illegal border traffic, that wants non-citizens voting, that colluded to push hoax after hoax, lie after lie, and a doomed impeachment to undermine a legitimately elected President whose success is an ongoing embarrassment in comparison the disastrous failures of, and restrictions placed on the American people by, the current President.

With all of the problems going on - war in Europe, inflation, crimes, baby formula shortages, supply chain disruptions, bare shelves, record gasoline prices, loss of energy independence, threats to "conservative" Supreme Court Justices, border failures, drug deaths, stock market struggles - they are intentionally wasting time and redirecting attention out of desperation. 

While an extremely tiny percentage of the people at the Capitol on January 6, 2020 engaged in shameful, destructive behavior, it can hardly be called an attempted coup or insurrection. People on the Right own many firearms; they didn't bring them to the Capitol that day. Because it wasn't an organized attempt at insurrection or a coup.

Instead of this symbolic performance, people are better of watching something else.

UPDATE: Michael Medved keeps asking, rhetorically, what President Trump thought was going to happen when he encouraged his supporters to march (peacefully, as Medved usually leaves out) to the Capitol after he spoke to them on January 6, 2021.

Well, Medved, how many marches on the Capitol have there been? What did the people who called for those protests think was going to happen? It's called PROTEST.

There were many thousands (tens of thousands?) of people there while he was speaking, and the crowd he was speaking to was peaceful.

Please, Medved. Stop unquestioningly accepting the narratives of the Left and swamp-dwelling Democrats. You may have been in Seattle a little too long. And how about focusing on the bad things Democrats are doing? There's plenty to talk about. If you want your terrestrial radio show to be the method for shaping the GOP into what you want it to be, why should most people bother listening?

When Evil Brings Mass Murder to School

Most government schools in the USA turn children, teachers, and other staff into sitting ducks for evil people to commit mass murder. 

We can never eliminate murders at schools, but we can do something to reduce them.

Many other government buildings are protected by securing the grounds, limiting and screening entries, and armed guards. Yes, that's expensive, but we clearly have the money, considering how much we're already spending on government schools, and how much we're sending to other countries. It's a matter of priorities.

Legally banning guns is not the solution. Even forgetting the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the rest of our Constitution, the USA is different from other countries. The demographics and history of this union of state is different. The geography is different. We share a long, porous border with the corrupt country of Mexico, where cartels already easily smuggle people and other contraband. Bans on firearms would further enrich those cartels and not prevent smuggling of firearms. Also, how exactly would banned firearms be confiscated from residents in the USA who previously owned them legally? It would take armed raids to do it, which would result in countless deaths, which defeats the purpose - unless you're trying to kill otherwise law-abiding citizens and law enforcement officers, which I wouldn't put past the Left and other Big Government statists. Meanwhile, more people would be radicalized and hoard firearms.

A Safe and Reliable Water Supply is a Basic Element of Civilization

The Leftist Democrats controlling California and Los Angeles county are failing again. They are failing at some basic, core responsibilities.

Despite people literally fleeing the state, there is again a water "shortage" and residents are yet again being told to reduce their water usage.

Ever look west? California, including Los Angeles county, is on the world's largest body of water.

There isn't a shortage of water. There's a shortage of competent, dedicated service to the residents of California by people who are supposed to be public servants.

The Leftists running the state will blame "climate change" for their failure.

Hogwash.

Tom Leykis Is a Political Idiot - In My Opinion

"Who is Tom Leykis?" you might be asking. And for good reason. He's irrelevant now, but yes, here I am writing about him. Because I can.

Tom became "a thing" because radio station KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles needed a "liberal" to balance the legendary and unmatchable Rush Limbaugh. Leykis benefitted enormously from Limbaugh's coattails (and the Fairness Doctrine, IMO), as Limbaugh had the 9am-Noon slot, and Tommy had afternoon drive. Somewhere along the way, Tommy had the luck to get the same agent as Howard Stern, and, as a result, was paid very good money, which he constantly claims to have invested well. 

Apparently, that, along with prenups at least in his later marriages, and having all of his children that he knows about aborted, has kept him financially comfortable. And hey, except for the multiple babies he's had slaughtered in abortions because he was apparently, in my opinion based on his own words, too much of a wimp to get a vasectomy even though he knew he didn't want kids, good for him.

Keeping In Touch

You can keep in touch with me on various social media platforms, where I do participate frequently.

I know some people are boycotting this service or that service, but I plan to use any free service I can to promote the values I support, such as seeking the Lord, limiting government, protecting human life, and individual liberty.

Here's where else you can find me:

Facebook

Twitter

NOW ON TRUTH SOCIAL @PlayfulWalrus

And these below I haven't been using much lately:

Parler

Gab

MeWe

I do plan to blog here more in the future.

I want to connect with anyone who is at least one of the following:

Christian or follower of Christ
Pro-life

Supporter of limited government and individual rights
Supporter of the Constitution of the USA
Republican

Libertarian
Conservative
Moderate or Centrist
Classically Liberal

Trump Voter or Supporter

Concerned about countering Leftism
Interested in a National Divorce or taking the 9th and 10th Amendments seriously

If one or more of those describe you, please do reach out to connect.

Dear Bob Chapek: You'll Never Be Woke Enough For the Left

Dear CEO of The Walt Disney Company Bob Chapek:

As you'll see over and over again, you can never be woke enough for the Left.

I'm not talking about liberals. I'm talking about Leftists. There is a difference.

Like many business leaders, you are going to be forced to decide: Attempt to appease the Left (which is futile), or endure their vitriol & hissy fits, and focus on everyone else: liberals, centrists, independents, libertarians, conservatives, the politically disinterested.

Keep in mind the Leftists don't want your company to own anything, create value or payments for shareholders, make decisions about who you hire and how much you pay them, or make profits. No matter how much you try to appease them culturally or politically, they do not believe your company should exist independent of being an arm of centralized government.

The recent battle was over Florida's HB 1557, falsely labeled the "Don't Say Gay" bill by professional liars.

What did the legislation actually say?

• Parents have to be able to access to their child's school records, including health records
• School district staff can't be prohibited from telling parents about their child's health
• Third grade or before, no instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity
• Inform parents at the beginning of the school year what health services are offered and allow the parents to opt their students out of a service
• Third grade or before, any health questionnaire given to students must be approved of by their parent

That's it. What the problem with that? Who objects to that?

Leftists do. They want to be able to use taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate Kindergartners into the Leftist ideologies on sexual orientation and gender identity. So, they want to be able to encourage Kindergarteners to think of their penis as a problem they'll need to remove, and talk with them about sex. And they want to hide from parents that they are doing this. This is evil. This is insanity.

These students shouldn't be subjected to that. They should be learning how to read, write, speak, and understand English; mathematics; and hopefully some geography, history, science, and art.

On one side, you have people who want to be able so sexualize Kindergartners and promote mutilation to them.

On the other side, you have people who want parents to be able to object to this.

This shouldn't be a hard decision.

Yes, there are some very noisy people in your company, on social media, and in media who screech about how this legislation is bad. Perhaps you should do what you can to keep those in your employ from having access to children when they are on your dime? You should definitely not bend over for them.

It's time to stand up to them and say "No, I'm not going to bend over for you."

It is time to stand up to them and tell them the core of your corporation is about family entertainment and you're not going to push the agenda of people who want to sexualize Kindergarteners. If they stop coming to Disneyworld or Disneyland, if they quit working for you, then your company will be better off in the long run.

UPDATE: People who mock your groveling before them because they don't like the medium of presentation are proving my point. There is no appeasing this mob of unstable, unhappy people who are being agitated by people bent on sexualizing children and putting division between children and their parents.

Nature Doesn't Care if Your CEO Bends Over

There are two distinct sexes, men and women, who are different from each other. That someone of one sex does some things associated in our culture with the other sex doesn't change that fact that there are two distinct sexes. Nor the does the occasional genetic anomaly or the occasional newborn appearing to be "intersex." An adult human female is a woman. An adult human male is a man. 

The pairing of a man and woman is objectively different than the pairing of two women or two men, or not being paired. This naturally follows from the first premise. The pairing of a man and a woman is how all of us got here; even people conceived in a lab from donated gametes wouldn't exist if there hadn't been a long line before that moment consisting of repeated instances of a man and a woman getting together.

These things are true regardless of what:

• any law says
• any court says
• any politician says
• any public policy says
• any media depicts
• any theatrical or comedic presentation or performance depicts
• any celebrity says
• any academic program teaches
• any church teaches
• any activist group claims
• any workplace training or policy
• any corporate policy or signaling 
• anyone feels about it, especially anyone on Twitter or any other social media

If you hound a corporate CEO into denying any of this, bending over for you, repeating your scriptures or doctrines, and donating to your slush funds, you haven't changed the facts. You have cajoled someone into acting against reality. Acting against these basic realities doesn't change them. Rather, it results in dysfunction. But if you're empowered/financially enriched for now, you might not care. But decent people do care.

Minor Children Are the Responsibility of Their Parents

Deferring to and respecting parental authority over minor children used to be standard for anyone taken seriously in public life.

Leftism has been chipping away at that.

The Left considers children to be property of the state, as long as they are in control of the state. This must be rejected.

Minor children are the responsibility of their parents (or legal guardians).

Anyone the parent employs, directly or by proxy, to instruct or care for their child should either defer to the parents and respect the will of the parents or shouldn't take the job.

If anyone has reason to believe the parents are abusive, there is already a process for making accusations, providing evidence, and having the parenting investigated.

A parent NOT being a Leftist isn't evidence of abuse.

Children do not belong to the state, including the state schools.

The parents made or legally adopted their child. They get to decide, short of actual abuse, what is best for their child, regardless of what anyone else likes.

Are some parents abusive? Yes. So what? So are some teachers and other state actors. Governments have killed more people than anything else.

When the children reach the age of majority, they still don't belong to the state. They belong to themselves. The people have a government. The government doesn't have a people.

Defeat Leftism. Support parental rights. Defend liberty.

The Big Government Nannies Shouldn't Get Credit For Markets and Freedoms

You're a schoolkid. A bully beats you up and steals your lunch money for two years. Then the bully eases up.

Should you support the bully? 

Hell no.

What the Big Government Nannies have done to us, especially schoolkids and small business owners, over the last two years is atrocious.

Now, playing politics, they are easing their boots off our necks a bit and they want us to applaud them and vote for them.

They were the people who screwed us over in the first place. They are the people who stepped on our necks.

Jobs are being created because government is getting out of the way, not because of some central planning by authoritarian sadists. Kids are enjoying more activities because they aren't being restrained under tyrannical lockdowns.

Don't forget who tried to control all of us in the first place.

Vote them out. 

And the ones who aren't elected, demand that the people who can fire them do so.

Do not comply with giving up liberty.

Feeding the Hungry

Surely you've seen this quote attributed to Stephen Colbert. Where to start?

1) What do we mean when we say this is a Christian nation (which, of course, the Left denies)? I go over that here. The majority of people in the USA do, and always have, identified themselves in some sort of Christian terms. I mean really, how would someone describe the USA? An Atheist nation? A Buddhist nation? It is a secular government, but the people are majority Christian, at least in self-affiliation.

2) Our government does "help" the "poor". To the extent that any new programs supposedly intended to do so are opposed or expansion of existing programs is opposed, or actual cuts are proposed (extremely rare), it is because...

3) The are many private charitable efforts in this nation, most of which are far more effective and efficient in helping people than government programs.

4) Jesus told HIS FOLLOWERS to help the poor. He didn't tell them to encourage the Roman rulers to tax everyone, believer and unbeliever, to do it.

5) Many politically involved Christians who aren't Leftists recognize the importance of Constitutionally limited government; that it isn't the federal government's role to generally take over the lives of poor people or to throw money at them.

6) Generally, being poor in the USA is a far cry from being poor in much of the rest of the world, but again, private charities work to address that.

I have compassion for the poor. We have compassion for the poor. Allowing people to become permanently dependent on the federal or state government is not compassion. I've seen up close how that demoralizes someone and causes them to constantly worry that the "wrong" person is going to get elected and they're going to starve to death as a result. It's terribly sad.

Do not invoke a Christian's duty to the needy in order to promote government programs that tax everyone while at the same time telling Christians they can't appeal to their faith in avoiding things like paying for abortions or avoiding participation in a ceremony that violates their conscience.

Capital Punishment Is Justice

It is justice for some murderers to receive capital punishment; to be put to death.

Here in California, the voters have repeatedly supported this.

Many other states and the federal government carry out such sentences, yet in California, with almost 700 murderers on "Death Row," we haven't had an execution since 2006.

Our current Governor, Hairdo McGungrabber (a.k.a. Gavin Newsom), has made it clear he will not sign off on any execution. He has actively tried to ensure there will never be another execution in California.

For each person on Death Row, there was at least one person, and quite often many, who were murdered; some very painfully. Then their surviving loved ones were put through the anguish of an investigation and a trial. The murderer always or almost always denied their guilt rather than taking responsibility and apologizing, but the evidence was overwhelming. Our fellow citizens had to sit through jury duty for a trial and the penalty phase, usually being exposed to gruesome crime scene photos. They struggled and then recommended capital punishment with all twelve jurors agreeing. Then a judge considered everything and agreed.

The just thing would be to execute every person on Death Row.

Premeditated murder warrants capital punishment.

If we value human life, then premeditated murder should bring about the possibility of being punished, through due process, with execution.

It is absurd to equate a due process execution with premeditated murder. Anyone who does that reveals that they aren't serious thinkers. I understand the argument some people make that the state should not have this power, but let's be real. The state has the power to kill. If it is going to use that power at all, executing convicted murderers is a just way to use it.

The state has that power because we, the people have delegated that power to the state. The alternative is that we take it back and go back to familial clans carrying out justice.

Unfortunately, just thirteen murderers have been executed since California resumed them in the early 1990s. Which one of these shouldn't have been executed? Answer: NONE. Each one deserved it.

People like our atrocious Governor say that capital punishment isn't applied equally.

It's true that wealthy people can afford better defense teams. That's true about any crime. Shall we release all criminals from prison immediately and shut them down? (Some of the Left say yes.) What's the alternative to wealthy people having better lawyers? Requiring all defendants have a randomly assigned lawyer?

However, none of the anti-justice people can name a single one of those executed thirteen who were innocent. They were all guilty, and they all deserved to be executed.

Lethal injection isn't "cruel and unusual punishment." Some of the same people who claim it is support people who haven't murdered anyone choosing it for themselves, calling it "death with dignity." The people who wrote and adopted the "cruel and unusual" phrase into the Constitution would laugh anyone out of the room who claimed lethal injection for premeditated murder qualified as such. But I wouldn't mind going back to the way murderers were executed in the 1780s, if that's the game people want to play.

Everyone executed in California since the early 1990s, and everyone who has been on Death Row for a while, has had their cases reviewed over and over again. If they weren't guilty, that would have been discovered. Many of them have slaughtered their own spouse and children. They have morally forfeited their life.

If the state will not carry out the duty delegated to it, then the people are going to take that power back. If I'm ever on a jury in such a case, in which a family member or associate has executed a murderer, how likely do you think it will be for me to vote to convict?

I'm not alone.

You Could Earn More If You Could Think Better

Flawed or outright stupid argumentation abounds online. I'm well aware "my" side perpetuates some nonsense and I'm willing to pick those instances apart. This is not one of those times. This is a time where we get to see a really, really stupid argument from the Left.

We can ignore that there's a missing "s" at the end of increase. Typing errors have nothing to do with whether an argument is a solid one or not, and Lord knows I make my own share of typing errors.

1) Let's agree for the sake of looking at this argument that "the minimum wage" hasn't been raised in years, and yet prices have continued to go up. That has nothing to do with whether or not raising the minimum wage would also increase prices. It's like asking "If shooting someone in the head kills them, how come people have been dying without being shot in the head?"

Nobody is saying that only raising the minimum wage increases prices. We are saying that raising the minimum wage is one of many things that increases prices.

2) The statement that "the minimum wage hasn't been increased in years" is misleading. There is a national minimum wage, yes. However, the minimum wage in states, counties, and cities, which is higher than the federal minimum wage in various places, has gone up.


3) Prices of some goods and services have risen due to other factors. Yes, there's supply and demand. Under that principle, most businesses will attempt to price their goods and services so as to take in the most revenue that the demand will support. However, their prices must be high enough to cover expenses, of which "wages" is just one, and also pay the owner*, otherwise they will go out of business due to not being able to pay their expenses, or they will leech off of taxpayer funding in the form of subsidies. Even if wages have not gone up, other forms of compensation (also an expense of the business) have increased, including sick pay, holiday pay, health insurance premiums, and so many more. Employee compensation, including wages, benefits, and more, is only part of the expenses a business has. It has many other employee-related expenses (training, travel, insurance), it has to pay for supplies and materials, buy/lease and maintain equipment, buy/lease and maintain space, pay for utilities (energy costs rise due to "green energy" mandates), pay for waste disposal (also rising in costs due to "green" mandates), pay taxes/fees/assessments, process much paperwork to comply with various laws, liability insurance (lawsuits!!!), on and on it goes. Many businesses have high expenses in research, development, and marketing.


And guess what? The costs of many of those things also goes up with minimum wage increases. It's not just the guy you see cutting the pizza at the take-out place. It's the people who delivered the supplies to that location and the people who picked the peppers. Other wages are pushed up as well, because if someone is making "a couple of bucks an hour more than minimum wage" he's not going to settle for now being at minimum wage as that has risen to where he is.

The effect of imposing a higher minimum wage from D.C. or your state capitol will not be limited to people working in certain jobs getting paid more. Businesses will react by raising prices, cutting employee hours, not filling vacated positions, and not expanding, or not expanding as much or as quickly. There are businesses that simply won't be started in the first place. A lot of these effects are not so easy to see but their impact is very real. If the cost of using a human is too high, machines may be used more instead of people.


Yes, raising the minimum wage increases prices.

There also is a moral principal at work here. Imagine you share a bite of something you baked with someone at work, and they like it so much they offer to pay you for you to bake for a party they have coming up. You agree to bake a certain amount and they agree to pay you a certain amount. Now imagine someone else who isn't involved in the party nor the baking steps in and says "No, that person has to pay you MORE." Why is it the intruder's responsibility to get involved? What would often happen in a scenario like that is the person interested in your baked goods would decide to call off the deal. Why is it a Senator's responsibility to interfere in compensation negotiation when one person agrees to work for another?



* Yes, owners need to get paid, too. Owners have put in their money, and often they also put in their time and expertise, taking risks and initiative. Some people apparently think owners will or should take all of the hit of the cost of higher wages, but that's not going to happen, and in most cases, it shouldn't.

How Needs Get Met

Nature, or Nature's God, has provided us with, among other things:

• Water in certain places
• Plants, animals, and edible fungi in certain conditions
• Some caves in certain places

Without work, only a few people could live in a few places on Earth: any place in which 1) a cave, free of venomous animals, will provide sufficient shelter; 2) edible plants/plants with edible parts/fungi grow in sufficient abundance; 3) potable water is available in sufficient abundance. Has there been such a place outside of Eden?

Even then, there would likely still be work in obtaining the water to drink and the plant/fungus material to eat, and the plant/fungus material would likely not have all the nutrients we need to thrive. And you're out of luck if your eyesight needs correction, or you get a serious injury or infection that requires medical care.

Here's the point.

Everything we have is ultimately the result of work and trading. Even things we have inherited or someone has gifted/donated to us are the result of work and trading. 

Very few people drink all their water, untreated, directly from, and at, a stream. 

Just about everything we eat, no matter how "natural," has been cultivated for beneficial changes over hundreds or even thousands of years, and is provided by many people working.

Whether we live in a hut, recreational vehicle camper, a tiny apartment, or a palatial estate, the shelter exists because of work.

Clothes, medical treatments, transportation, energy, mass communications, entertainment, art galleries, museums - everything is a result of work and trading.

The exception involves a non-consensual transfer, through things like force, extortion, confiscation, plunder, enslavement, and various forms of theft not yet mentioned. That still involves work. It is just that there isn't a voluntary trade.

Working and trading is how needs get met.

The more interference in these things, the more theft and destruction, the fewer needs that will be met. 

Example: Printing money or confiscating it from people who are working and using it to pay people to NOT work.

If you want food, you either have to grow it and prepare for it yourself, or trade for it. Or, someone else has to work and provide it to you out of charity or force.

Who is best at knowing what you need? You. Maybe your spouse. Not some strangers in Washington, D.C., not some strangers in New York, not some strangers in Europe.

It should be YOUR responsibility to look after your needs and those of anyone for whom you responsible, like dependent children. The less those strangers in D.C., NYC, or Europe interfere in your work and trading, the better.

Law Enforcement Officers Work at Our Delegation

"Cops don't prevent crime."

That's what "all cops are 'bad'" people say.

They'll point out that the police show up after a crime has been committed, and don't do much to make the situation better, such as actually retrieving stolen property.

The Left dislikes cops because they hinder their theft, destruction, child molestation, drug abuse, and prostitution. Those last two (maybe three) reasons are also why some libertarians hate police. 

The assertion that "cops don't prevent crime" completely ignores deterrence and recurrence. Ever notice how speeding drivers slow down when a marked police vehicle appears on the highway? That's deterrence. Criminals who are in prison can't assault people outside of that prison or steal things from them or destroy their property. That prevents recurrence.

It's true that, if a package is stolen off of your doorstep, the odds that the thief will be caught and successfully prosecuted for that particular instance of theft aren't good.

We have a justice system with the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt as the standard for conviction, privacy rights, and the police and prosecutors must make decisions about who to investigate, arrest, and prosecute in the first place. Also, all of the people involved are fallible people who can make mistakes and be corrupt. Like any other organization, a police department can become about protecting and empowering itself and certain individuals within it, rather than "protecting and serving" the public.

But what's the alternative? Law enforcement officers work at our delegation. They are public servants. The alternative is armed clans or their directly hired private guns engaging in a series of back-and-forth attacks. Steal from me? I or my buddy try to track you down, and if we do, we "take back" our property or the equivalent. But that's not likely to happen without violence. Who has the biggest clans and the most guns? They tend to be Right-wingers. Who can hire their own soldiers? The wealthy.

We found that "three strikes" worked. We locked up the career criminals and crime rates dropped. I can agree that law enforcement shouldn't focus as much on "sex for money" or killing yourself with substance abuse (but then I don't like government health care for most people). They should focus on assault, theft, and destruction. And yes, we should lock people up for those things, so we need enough prison space for them. The alternative is making them "work off" their debt under the direct armed control of their victims.

I am increasingly preferential of sheriffs who are elected directly by the people of a county as opposed to police chiefs who are political appointees.

But if someone wants to do away with police and sheriff departments, then we'll all need private security, surveillance, documentation, defense, and "restitution." That's going to involve a lot of guns.