The Fascists Don't Understand Liberty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Much Ado About Nothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Who Cares Who Sally Rode?

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

The Anaheim Criminal Pride Parade

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have proof that this is a lie.

The proof? There's still graffiti showing up.

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

We've all seen this movie before.

The criminals and trouble makers will get rewarded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can't let things get even worse.

Some Lies We’re Told Every Four Years Now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fauxmentum and Poll Dancing in Churches

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

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

Who Will be the GOP Nominee for VP?

What is needed in a VP candidate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think? Am I missing someone?

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

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

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

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

Green Jobs Don't Count

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

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

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

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

Relying on Big Brother For Everything

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

HORRIFYING OBAMACARE!!!

What is so terrible about:

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

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

Eliminating the lifetime cap on benefits.

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

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

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

Lowering the cost of care and medication for Medicare recipients.

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

Covering preventative care at no charge.

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

Strengthening fraud protections by increasing penalties.

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

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

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

Stopping insurance companies from arbitrarily jacking up rates.

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

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

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

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

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

Building and improving community health centers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homo Oreotic

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

Rodney King

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stealing From What You Reject

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

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

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

Justin Rosario Knocks Down Strawpeople

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

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

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

1. There is no need to regulate corporations!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What killed GM if not union greed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, what prominent conservative says this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

And...

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

And...

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

Why OC Should be Free of LA and SF

The Orange County Register frequently prints excellent letters to the editor. I generally find that the letters there are better than those printed in the Los Angeles Times, and there's never a paywall that pops up on the Register's website. I do wonder how much the hits have dropped at LATimes.com since they cut back on access. But I digress.

Here's a good set of letters.

Mike Rodgick of Trabuco Canyon wrote about road to Hell and what it is paved with:

Some, including the founding fathers, believe that liberty and personal responsibility are the highest state of man. The best way to achieve the greater good was to allow each to reap the rewards of their own labors. They were right of course, beholden to no one, following their dreams, laboring for themselves and their families. America became the most prosperous nation on Earth, others not so much.

We all agree that slavery, forcing someone to work for the benefit of others is immoral. Yet, some believe taking money, which is the product of our labors for the benefit of others, is not evil. Voluntary acts of charity are truly noble endeavors, whereas coerced charity is little more than theft and economic slavery.

We all feel sorry for those who are in dire straits through no fault of their own, but the forced subsidy of those who continuously make poor life choices, the unambitious and lazy, tattooed, drug-dealing, gun-running gang bangers and all who take advantage of our social system is counterintuitive and counterproductive. Some are truly less deserving than others. Remove the penalty for failure and remove the reward for success and we will reap what we have sown.

Tim I. Martin of Corona:

The Democrats love painting Mitt Romney as a heartless rich guy who likes to fire people. The truth is that we all appreciate the ability to fire people who aren’t providing services they were hired to do. While most of us have fired food preparers and others whose products weren’t up to our standards, let’s look at firings on an even bigger scale than that of Romney.

He goes on to provide quite the list. Then...

This November, American voters will decide whether or not to fire Barack Obama, who had no problem firing General Stanley McChrystal over comments by subordinates.

Every divorce in this country is the result of somebody getting fired. Many people have become great successes after getting fired. Both hiring and firing are integral parts of life. Ironically, our president continues to use one of his favorite campaign exhortations: “Fired up!”

He's right. There are some other great letters at that link, but there are also some at this one.

Jef Eales of Mission Viejo:

It is interesting how JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon is getting grilled by Congress, again over a $2 billion trading loss. To create some perspective, President Barack Obama and Congress (which hasn’t passed a budget since Obama has become president) have run an average $1.6 trillion deficit per year. The $2 billion loss equates to about 11 hours’ worth of deficit funding to run the country.

Furthermore, the JPMorgan loss is private capital. Accountability and risk will be appropriately rewarded or punished by the market. Unlike the president, who promotes running the country by a negative $2 billion every 11 hours, there is minimal or no outcry or accountability or grilling in the media.

Didn’t he say he would cut the deficit by half if he became president? Why does Obama get a pass on the deficit issue? Put this in perspective, folks.

He's right.

Harold Bradford of Huntington Beach: .

Rodney King was a convicted criminal in the act of committing another crime, drinking and speeding and driving, when the police intervened [“Impact of troubled life gauged,” Front Page, June 18].

Had he been obeying the law nothing would have happened to him. He wasn’t worth the sweat from the forehead of any of the officers involved. He’s lucky one of them didn’t shoot him.

The acquittal of the officers by a jury with backbone wasn’t the cause of the Los Angeles race riots. It was just an excuse for the arsonists, looters, muggers and other criminals to act like the animals they were. Their actions should have been met with whatever level of force was necessary to restore order.

He's right.

The people of Orange County should not have to endure a state controlled by San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Equal Pay

There's more BS in the news today about "equal pay". Say, wasn't Obama supposed to fix this problem?

Anyway, I've covered this topic extensively before.

Bagging on the City of LA

The highly disfunctional City of Los Angeles government, not to be confused with the somewhat less disfunctional Los Angeles County government, took up important issues facing the city, such as crumbling infrastructure. Oh, excuse me... I mean like... plastic shopping bags. Whiny loudmouth Hollywood types joined in the envirofascist call for further intruding into business and voluntary transactions, and now it looks lik the L.A. will be banning the use of plastic shopping bags.

Thank God I don't live in that city. It really is astounding how absurd the city government is, especially the city council.

I've already written about the banning of plastic bags:

http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2011/08/i-love-plastic-shopping-bags.html
I Love Plastic Shopping Bags

http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2010/06/03/bagging_california.thtml
Bagging California

http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2010/06/24/its_my_bag,_baby.thtml
It's My Bag, Baby

http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2010/06/29/defending_the_plastic_bag.thtml
Defending the Plastic Bag


And here's a good write up at Everything Must Go!
http://tunasafedolphin.blogspot.com/2008/01/heal-bag.html
Heal the Bag

Conservatives, Lefists, and Libertarians on Marriage

I take a look at Mike Adams' latest column over at The Opine Editorials.

NAACP Supports Segregation

The National Association for the Advancement of (Leftist) Colored People got much attention announcing that they are for segregation. The organization, which in the past, fought against segregation now supports segregation, this time on the basis of sex. They support government endorsement and support of associations that segregate rather than integrate the sexes.

It should not be such big news that a Leftist organization supports a Leftist cause (neutering marriage). And yet it was.

I’m glad it was big news, because this brings to mind a few things:

1) Colored people must be advanced as far as they need to be. After all, if the NAACP has made the time and effort to announce it considers the neutering of marriage to be the great civil rights issue of our time, then everything must be great for colored people. Surely, the NAACP wouldn’t take time away from its core mission of advancing colored people if there was still serious a need to advance colored people, right?

2) As others have said and the NAACP seems to agree, since neutering marriage is the "last great civil right issue", organizations like the NAACP can disband, or at leas do with a lot less money, if marriage gets neutered nationwide. I'd like to see that promised in writing.

3) How can we trust an organization that claims to be a civil rights organization that for 103 years completely ignored such a vital and important "civil right"? Where has the NAACP been all of these decades? How did Thurgood Marshall miss this one? Come to think of it, why didn't Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ever say a word about this? Was MLK a hateful homophobe?

4) Is it possible that this isn't the last great civil rights issue? What other "rights" might possibly be discovered in the future? Maybe we can speed up "inevitable" "progress" if more of us are aware of these rights we're ignorantly trampling.

Speaking of "inevitable" – why are marriage neutering advocates so despondent when a vote or ruling doesn't go their way, since they keep insisting that the neutering of marriage is inevitable? If it is inevitable, why the toddler-like reactions to votes like the one in North Carolina? Why not just be happy knowing that they are going to ultimately win? Or do they not really believe it is inevitable?

"Colored" people are not helped by this push to neuter marriage. It hurts people when you equate sexual behavior choices with skin color. Most people of African ancestry are easily identifiable as such at first glance. Not so with homosexual people, unless you walk in on them buggering each other because they have called you to set up a court case.

If a brideless or groomless pairing is marriage, then marriage can't be about children. If marriage is not about children, no man should feel the least bit of obligation to marry, marry earlier, or stay married to a woman with whom he has or is expecting children. This means that with the neutering of marriage, we would expect more children will grow up without a father married to their mother, living in the home with them, and we can expect correlating negative factors to increase as well. It does not advance "colored" people to further diminish marriage by watering down what we distinguish, endorse, and support as marriage.

The NAACP and other organizations like it are Leftist above all else, including their supposed missions. It would be great to see an organization that fights for the advancement of all people by actually fighting racism. I'm thinking such an organization would oppose race-based discrimination in legislation, government programs, hiring, academia, etc. With government programs, it would oppose them with lawsuits. With private concerns, it would try persuasion and shaming (for example, the KKK should be allowed their views, but counterdemonstrations would be appropriate). It could track REAL hate groups (not label Christian ministries as hate groups because they correctly note that marriage unites a bride and groom and homosexual behavior, like any unmarried sex, goes against Biblical teaching). Such an organization could seek to find and mitigate the REAL causes of troublesome disparities between "racial" groups – such as the negative indicators correlated to fatherless homes.

Hmmm, I wonder what the NAACP has to say about the STD rates among "colored" people who engage in homosexual behavior? I am saddened by the rates, and I would think they would be, too. But of course, neutering marriage is a more important cause.

Some recent opinions of others that might be of interest:

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/05/22/why_gay_is_not_the_new_black
Why Gay Is Not the New Black - Michael Brown

http://townhall.com/columnists/demetriusminor/2012/05/22/is_the_naacp_a_fair_representation_of_the_africanamerican_community
Is the NAACP A Fair Representation of the African-American Community? - Demetrius Minor

http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2012/05/21/blacks_and_same_sex_marriage
Blacks and Same Sex Marriage - Star Parker

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/05/should-homosexuals-be-allowed-to-marry-whom-they-love.html
Should Homosexuals Be Allowed to Marry Whom They Love? - Alan Shlemon

http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/28/the_race_card_and_prop_8.thtml
The Race Card and Prop 8 - Playful Walrus

 

Chasing Bigger Government

What am I missing?

JPMorgan Chase blew about $2 billion, or what California calls "chump change" when it comes to paying for long-retired state employees or in planning a "high speed" rail project nobody but union leaders and consultants will benefit from.

Unless some fraud or embezzlement is going on, nobody at JPMorgan wanted to blow that money. They wanted to grow the money.

At least two federal investigations are underway to make sure it wasn't some sort of criminal activity.

But that doesn't stop the Leftist politicians from calling for more power to be ceded to government and centralized in the federal government; more laws, more regulations, more programs, more staff... in some lame attempt to prevent this from happening again, even though losses are a normal part of business and nobody at the company wanted this to happen to begin with. Never mind that JPMorgan is full of financial and business experts who know more than legislators and government bureaucrats will ever know about banking and investing. Never mind that the federal government blows much more money all of the time – money that, unlike the money JPMorgan was handling, is taken from people by force.

The customers, employees, and investors in JPMorgan can decide whether or not they want to continue in those capacities with the company. We have don't have a choice about whether or not we pay taxes.

A new federal law, program, or bureaucracy will do more harm than good, and is likely to ends up costing much more money than it ever "saves".

Marriage Neutering is the Topic of Day

There's much activity over at The Opine Editorials. Here is my latest contribution.

Epic Stupidity From Being Liberal

This is the kind of crap that "Being Liberal" (which is really Being Leftist) spreads on Facebook. And I have to ask... "Really?" If this was true, then you could spend your own money on your own health. You don't need to ship your money off to Washington, D.C., to someone who doesn't know you, to make your decisions and spend your money for you. You... can... do... it... yourself. Also, if you want to spend your money on someone else's health, you can still do that without involving the government.

No, what these people really want is to force people who have been high earners (and really, the high earners of the future) to pay for the health insurance of strangers today, including those who loaf around all day and abuse their bodies. Or worse, they want the strangers to spend the money on them. But "Hey, I want to be generous with someone else's money" or "I'm selfish, entitled brat" doesn't sound so good. So they spout this ridiculous statement.

Well guess what? Want to do that? Pass a Constitutional Amendment that makes it Constitutional.

Otherwise, see my national health care plan.

Substitute other things to see just how ridiculous Being Liberal is in spreading this crap. "Who asked for free dinner? I want MY gov't to spend MY taxes on MY food." Some Leftists are asking, "Yeah, what's your point?" Sad.

Bias Yet Again Can't Hide the Truth

The truth is, the supermajority of US states have recently reaffirmed the bride+groom requirement in their marriage licensing, many by direct vote of the people. You can see for yourself even though the people who have presented the data are biased in favor of neutering marriage.

Scandal! Romney Not a Homofascist

There was a cover story in today's Los Angeles Times that makes that startling case.

Rodney and the Riots

In case you have missed all of the news outlets marking the event, it has been twenty years since thugs, opportunists, gangs, and general wastes of human potential rioted in Los Angeles, looting, burning down businesses, destroying property, assaulting, and murdering.

There are people who blame the acquittal verdict in the first trial of the officers who were simply doing their jobs, according the the law and department policy, when they apprehended unrepentant convict scum Rodeny King for driving like a maniac, which we know now is a habit of his, and then resisting arrest. (I know there were people who said their actions violated policy, but the only policy they seemed to have violated was "Don't give the anti-police circus fodder." Too may people were afraid to speak the truth.)

We know the acquittal wasn't the cause of the riots, because thugs riot when the Lakers win the NBA championship, and may riot when the Lakers lose. We have riots because we have people who want to riot. And because our leaders are too wimpy to do what should be done to quell riots. And because people sitting at home watching the news coverage think they can get away with it based on what they see on their TV. And because we reward rioters and their accomplices by offering them jobs and freebies.

Anyone who paid attention to the first trial of the officers who prevented Rodney King from killing himself or someone else could see that acquittal was a real possibility. I was not the least surprised when they were acquitted. The portion of the video that shows King getting hit with batons doesn't look good. But it never looks good when police have to apprehend a large, drugged ex-con who charged them (also caught on video, but you didn't see that nearly as often), is resisting arrest, and wasn't subdued by tasers.

People who make money off such claims played this arrest as a racist event. Which explains, of course, why his passenger, who claims the same racial identity, wasn't hit with batons, right? And of course, we know no white people were ever treated that way during an arrest, right?

What have the last twenty years shown about the people involved?

• Rodney King is a violent substance abuser who should not ever again be allowed to drive.
• One infamous attempted-murderer rioter with a sports nickname didn't learn his lesson after going to prison for a short sentence, and soon went back to prison again.
• The police officers are not troublemakers, as they have lived quiet lives ever since. It is a shame they lost their jobs and were prosecuted twice and spent any time in jail or prison.

We should never again reward rioters. Taxpayers and businesspeople threw money at the neighborhoods. How has that worked out? Oh sure, there's probably someone who is living a decent life now that got hired through the job offers... but those individuals would have made it anyway. Business owners should have been compensated (preferably with money intended for "community support") and given moving expenses under the condition that they not reward the rioters by reopening in those neighborhoods. I've already written what I think the response should be to riots:

http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2009/01/08/not_one_cent_for_evil_rioting.thtml

Thank You, Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle

And thanks to Tammy Bruce blogger Maynard for calling our attention to this:

Why Not Bully? Why Not Commit Suicide?

1) We're nothing more than meat machines, a bag of molecules; animals. We, like all life and the universe itself, are nothing more than the products of natural processes unguided by any transcendent God. Chance mutation after chance mutation has produced us – the ones fit and lucky enough to have had a series of ancestor organisms that survived long enough to reproduce. Our thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains; our actions the result of those chemical reactions, the chemical reactions themselves being the result of natural processes extending back to when the universe somehow popped into existence from nothing (ah yes… because gravity exists).

2) Our actions are dooming the planet. The human population is growing too fast and causing climate change that will destroy the planet in a few decades.

Some of the very same people who have been loudly and stubbornly insistent that one or both of those are indisputable facts and that they should be taught unchallenged in academia and in the media are now mourning suicides and speaking out against bullying, telling people they shouldn't engage in either.

Why not? Why not bully? Why not commit suicide?

Who are you to judge? Who are you to say you're right and someone else is wrong? Don’t like bullying? Don't do it. Don't like suicide? Don't do it. Who are you to force your morality on someone else?

Isn't it survival of the fittest? Perhaps the bullies are more fit, and those who can't handle or deflect being bullied are not fit to survive.

If we're overpopulated, isn't it noble to commit suicide?

The planet is doomed, and the only way to make things better is through governments we know are ineffective.

The only reason to live it to be famous. Isn't that really what it is important? But how many people will ever be famous? Looks like the easiest way, ironically, is to kill yourself as a result of being bullied.

Clearly, some cultures have esteemed bullying and suicide; isn't it arrogant to say those cultures were wrong?

Shouldn't everyone be able to come up with their own concept of life? And if their concept of life is that it isn't wrong for them to kill themselves, especially if they are unhappy, who is anyone else to say otherwise? Their body, their choice.

Can public schools – or anyone else for that matter – tell anyone why they should not bully or commit suicide without invoking morality?

Now, I can tell someone why they should not bully and should not commit suicide, but my strongest argument against these things is ultimately based on God - someone dismissed by so many of the people speaking up about bullying and suicide as a "sky pixie".
So... all of you enlightened, freethinking brights, who are unencumbered by what you see as Dark Age superstition and ancient folly... and all of you people who do not want God or the Bible cited as an authority in public discourse...Why shouldn't someone bully? Why shouldn't someone commit suicide?

Chuck Colson

So Chuck Colson passed into eternity after living a redeemed life and having ministered to millions through Prison Fellowship and other efforts. He rightly called on Christians to be aware and engaged in their communities and in the governing of their nation.

And what do some of the Leftists write about him?
That he was "antigay" and a "theocrat".

Really? Someone is a theocrat if they think Christians have just as much right as anyone else to vote and serve in elected office, and to do so according to their conscience? Please show me where Colson dismissed the establishment clause of the First Amendment, calling for the federal government to adopt a Christian denomination and mandate support of the denomination.

Someone is "antigay" because they hold to what the Bible teaches about sexuality and marriage – that marriage unites a bride and groom and that sex is for marriage? For some, apparently, the entire world must be evaluated by what makes blood flow to the genitals of a tiny minority of our population. Colson wasn't Christian, you see. He was antigay. Yup. As if he woke up every day and asked, "How can I hurt gay people today?" No, he was “antigay” because he didn't stay silent in the face of coordinated assaults on marriage law, public morality, and Christianity. And why don't these people, I wonder, describe him as anti-Islam, or anti-polytheism, or anti-alcoholism, or anti-fornication, or anti-crime? The world, it seems they believe, revolves around their genitals.

Chuck Colson did more good for the world that most of his critics combined. Shame on those who slander and libel him.

Yes, Vote GOP in 2012

Lies and misleading statements can travel halfway around the world before the truth has the time to put its boots on. I might believe the crap in this pathetic hatchet job if all I ever did was read headlines from Leftist media.

Corporations are people. For legal purposes, a corporation is a "person". This is why there is a legal term "natural person" for individuals like you and me. The legal classification of a corporation as a "person" facilitates taxing corporate income and holding corporations criminally liable for wrongdoing. Would Democrats prefer corporate income not be taxed, and that corporations not be held criminally responsible? Then there's the fact Mitt Romney said, in response to a possibly disturbed heckler, "Corporations are people." Mitt was referring to the fact that corporations do consist of people: 1) the employees are people, and 2) the owners are people. Do Democrats deny this? Then again, Democrats do have a habit of denying that people are people. You know, like little girls who are about to be born.

Women who use birth control are sluts. Who said that? I do recall Rush Limbaugh saying that, given the costs of various common forms of contraception, an unmarried woman who says she has to spend $3,000 a year on birth control must be having so much sex that she's a slut, especially if she demands strangers pay for that contraception. Did any GOP candidate or elected official say women who use birth control are sluts? A single one??? Limbaugh is a radio host. He apologized. I do have the wonder though... in the Democrat dictionary, what is the definition of a slut?

College students are snobs. Again, name the GOP candidate or elected official who ever said such a thing. Rick Santorum, from what I recall, said President Obama was a snob in saying that everyone should go to college - he didn't say college students were snobs. Santorum has at least once advanced degree, from what I recall. He was not being a hypocrite, nor was he calling college students snobs. He does rightly point out that the purpose of Leftist universities is to create more Leftists.

Gay Americans are abomination. Again, name the GOP candidate or elected official who ever said such a thing. There have been Republicans who have, quoting the Bible, said homosexual behavior is an abomination. Did Mitt Romney say that? Have any of the GOP candidates for Senate  or Governor or current Senators or Governors said that? And what difference does it make?

Poor people deserve to be poor. Again, name the GOP candidate or elected official who ever said such a thing. Some poor people are nothing but victims of failed Democrat policies. However, people who do things like: 1) commit serious crimes; 2) piss away their partying instead of saving and investing; 3) regularly accumulate debt subject to high interest rates and incurr late charges; 4) abuse substances; 5) have children while young and out of wedlock; 6) show no educational or professional ambition or work ethic; 7) consistently eat way too much food, especially foods high in fat, sugar, and sodium and rarely get enough exercise... are more likely to be poor as a result of their own decisions. Democrats seem to think rich people don't deserve to be rich, unless they are Democrat politicians who have married into or inhereted their wealth.

Union workers are socialist thugs. Again, name the GOP candidate or elected official who ever said such a thing. Only some union workers are socialist thugs... like the ones who beat people up, picket private residences, and tout socialism. That's not all union workers. In fact, some union workers are Republicans who are more or less forced to pay dues that are then funneled to Democrats, despite how those Republican union members feel about it.

The unemployed are lazy parasites. Again, name the GOP candidate or elected official who ever said such a thing. Many of today's unemployed are hard workers who are victims of Democrat policies. But there are unemployed people who are lazy parasites. Are Democrats really so stupid as to believe that all unemployed people are hard workers who contribute more than they consume?

Latinos are illegal until proven otherwise. Again, name the GOP candidate or elected official who ever said such a thing. This is nothing but racism and race-baiting on the part of Democrats, who don't want Latinos, especially Catholic Latinos, to think about how much the Democrat policies work against strong families and freedom of religion. The Democrats don't want Latino immigrants and naturalized citizens to think about what a slap in the face it is to accomodate and benefit illegal aliens when the immigrants and naturalized citizens went through the trouble of playing by the rules.

The Bible trumps the Constitution. Again, name the GOP candidate or elected official who ever said such a thing. The Democrats want to divert attention away from the Democrats who clearly believe foreign law or judges trump the Constitution. The GOP position is that the Constitution is the highest law of the land. Personally speaking, the Constitution does not currently conflict with the Bible, but I note that Biblical arguments were effectively used against slavery when slavery was Constitutional.

Global warming is a hoax. Gobal warming is either happening or it isn't. It is some reports about global warming that have been exposed as hoxes, and we've already seen some predictions proven false. The Democrats have not proven that it is necessarily or possible to take effective actions against global warming that will benefit humanity more than harming human progress. The Left has a history of alarmism about crises that later exposed for not being problems in the first place or being overblown.

The US auto industry should go bankrupt. Any business that irreversably accumulates financial obligations it can't meet should go bankrupt so it can be restructured or the assets sold of and put to better use.  The Democrat cocern about the automakers was funneling money to unions and screwing over investors.

The US President is a Muslim agent from Kenya. Again, name the GOP candidate or elected official who ever said such a thing. But it is interesting the implication here is that Democrats believe Muslims and Kenyans are bad.

Now it's my turn...

Children not yet born should be obligated to pay for people to live well today.
It's no problem to keep introducing ponzi schemes into our government structure.
Babies who survive abortions don't deserve to live.
Catholics should be forced to pay for strangers to have partial-birth abortions.
Government should get more centralized, bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive.
White males are enemies of everyone else.
Trial lawyers should get even richer.
You should have to join a union whether you like it or not.
Gas prices aren't high enough.
Terrorists and serial child rapist-killers deserve free housing, health care, food, recreation, and security for life rather than execution.
...Vote Democrat in 2012!

Newspaper Editors Don't Trust Science

(Note: LATimes.com only allows visitors to access a certain number of articles per month for free.) The Leftist goal of portraying conservatives and Christians as ignorant, uneducated, and illogical (despite Leftism being based on emotion rather than logic) is evident in today's Los Angeles Times, in an article by John Hoeffel headlined "Conservatives' Trust in Science Has Declined Sharply".

I'm a conservative and I trust science. Most conservatives do. We must define what we mean by "science", however. People like me believe the scientific method is helpful in discerning things about the physical universe. What people like me do not trust without verification, and for good reason, is how findings by scientists are reported, especially in the Left-leaning media. Also, when a scientist makes statements that relate to metaphysics, the supernatural, or philosophy (such as expressing a worldview of philosophical naturalism), we rightly question the statement rather than trust it.

Here's how the article opens:

As the Republican presidential race has shown, the conservatives who dominate the primaries are deeply skeptical of science — making Newt Gingrich, for one, regret he ever settled onto a couch with Nancy Pelosi to chat about global warming.

Really? If we don't believe there is man-made global warming that we are able to (and better off if we do) fight through drastic restrictions on human freedom and centralization of power in government… we're "skeptical of science"? It shouldn't be news that conservatives are skeptical of political Leftism.

A study released Thursday in the American Sociological Review concludes that trust in science among conservatives and frequent churchgoers has declined precipitously since 1974, when a national survey first asked people how much confidence they had in the scientific community. At that time, conservatives had the highest level of trust in scientists.

The "scientific community" even if it were to be unified, does not equal science. This smacks of identity politics, like when the MSM reports that someone who doesn't think a brideless pairing forms a marriage is "anti-gay".

Confidence in scientists has declined the most among the most educated conservatives, the peer-reviewed research paper found, concluding: "These results are quite profound because they imply that conservative discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust among educated conservatives."

So why wasn’t the headline "The More Educated the Conservative, the Less Trust of Scientists"? That would have been more accurate. But notice how terms scientists, the "scientific community" and science are all being used interchangeably in this article. It's like saying that someone does not approve of President Obama’s job performance, or believe what he says doesn't trust the Constitution.

To highlight the dramatic impact conservative views of science have had on public opinion, [report author Gordon] Gauchat pointed to results from Gallup, which found in 2012 that just 30% of conservatives believed the Earth was warming as a result of greenhouse gases versus 50% two years earlier. In contrast, the poll showed almost no change in the opinion of liberals, with 74% believing in global warming in 2010 versus 72% in 2008.

You see, "belief" in "global warming" = science.

Chris Mooney, who wrote "The Republican War on Science," which Gauchat cites, agreed. "If you think of the reasons behind this as nature versus nurture, all this would be nurture, that it was the product of the conservative movement," he said. "I think being educated is a proxy for people paying attention to politics, and when they do, they tune in to Fox News and blogs."

In other words, conservatives don't just believe whatever the New York Times, TIME, and MSNBC say.

The study also found that Americans with moderate political views have long been the most distrustful of scientists, but that conservatives now are likely to outstrip them.

Moderates are typically less educated than either liberals or conservatives, Gauchat said. "These folks are just generally alienated from science," he said, describing them as the "least engaged and least knowledgeable about basic scientific facts."

And yet, we didn't have a headline that said "Moderates Less Educated".

Gauchat, who has been studying public attitudes toward science for about eight years, has applied for a National Science Foundation grant to investigate why trust in science has waned.

Maybe it is because of the influence of grants?

He plans to ask a battery of questions, including some focused on scientific controversies, such as those over vaccines and genetically modified foods, to try to understand what makes conservatives and moderates so distrustful.

Yes, you see, it isn't Leftists who are making any of that noise about vaccines and genetically modified foods. Oh no… it is those churchgoin’ conservatives and those uneducated moderates. Yessiree.

"cognoscenti" at 5:55 AM March 29, 2012 commented:

It's funny (ironic?) in Google News today, this LAT story is highlighted and directly beneath it is a Reuters story of how a lead cancer researcher found 47 of 53 popular scientific research 'findings' couldn't be replicated. No wonder people have lower faith in science with stories like this, Climategate, hockey stick graphs, etc etc. When scientists make up results to either gain grants, patents or notoriety for their cause the truth eventually comes out.

The same peson later added:

The one thing that bothers me about the IPCC reports over the last 10 years regarding AGW is the slow redaction of pieces of it, bit by bit. Like the claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 which turns out to be completely false. Or wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. These loose 'facts' were all a result of the lack of peer-reviews and an eagerness to push an agenda.

"moristheflorist" at 6:53 AM March 29, 2012:

A lot of this distrust might be due to the sorry state of science journalism

(see graphic: http://larvatusprodeo.net/files/2011/05/phdcomics-science-news-cycle.gif)

"basswork" at 9:02 AM March 29, 2012 gets it right:

Such comedy. The headline would suggest that conservatives mistrust science in general. But no, it's anthropenic global warming that is at issue. And by people who have studied the issue more carefully than most, including presumably those who write about it in the media.

In fact, believers in AGW behave much like religionists, smiting all heretics who dare question the popular doomsaying dogma.

Why not write about liberals who believe in feng shui, not inoculating their children and that government provided services are free?

For a reasoned argument against AGW read here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html

"nikkkko" at 10:10 AM March 29, 2012 wrote:

It’s not just science, that conservatives have a problem with. They have a problem with any fact or rational idea that conflicts with their views.

Pot, meet kettle. (A bunch of Leftists just remembered they were meaning to light up.)

The majority in this party do not believe in evolution, and many of those believe the earth is 4000 years old.

Conservatives are not the GOP, but I think it is safe to say that the majority of Republicans and conservatives do believe in "change over time" if that is what is meant by "evolution". But if you mean by "evolution" that everything that exists - including all of the woundrous biological diversity and irreducibly complex natural systems, sunsets and surfing, our sense of right and wrong, the mind of Einstein, the music of Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and great sex – are the result of nothing more than the mindless interactions of molecules that emerged from nothing without the aid of God, then no, most people don't believe that.

And Young Earthers think it is at least 6,000 years, often 10,000 years or more.

No More Shotguns

Guys, if you knock up your girlfriend, there's no need to marry her, or speed up marriage plans. Marriage isn't about children. At least, it isn't if brideless or groomless pairings are marriage.

Who Cares About the Younger Generations?

Candidate for the GOP nomination for President Mitt Romney is making an excellent point.

This clip is a good one:



The video ends too soon, however. As reported by McClatchy, Romney goes on to question why young voters would vote Democrat:

"And I say that for this reason: That party is focused on providing more and more benefits to my generation. And (amassing) trillion dollar annual deficits my generation wil never pay for.

"The interest on that debt," he said, "is going to young people in America....it's going on piece by piece. My party is consumed with the idea of getting federal spending down and creating economic growth and opportunity so we can balance our budget and stop putting these debts on you."

Just see Paul Ryan's latest budget proposals and see the reactions.

"Those debts are not frightening to people my age," he said. "Because we'll be gone."

Just look at what has been happening in Greece.

Every service, every thing that is designed, engineered, sculpted, cooked, mixed, fixed, built, manufactured, recorded, transported, or installed is the result of someone working. It takes work to provide goods and services. One person may choose to provide another with something for free, but what the person doing the questioning was asking for was for someone else to be forced to provide something to her for "free". Only, it won't be free. Someone has to pay for it, because it isn't growing naturally in large quantities on free land all around us. Given how far in debt we are as a country, it is the younger generations and generations yet unborn who would be doing the payment.

Romney's official take on this can be found here.

Some young people want to believe that they can have everything they want without working for it - that they can get a higher education and respected degree, a nice house, contraception, and anything else they want without working hard for it. That's not living in reality, and the younger generations of voters need to think about the size and intrusion of government, the national debt, and where these things are going to be when they are seasoned citizens. What kind of nation will their children and grandchildren be left with?

If you want "free stuff", vote for Obama and the other Democrats on the ticket, but realize that the free stuff isn't really free.

When is a Private Citizen No Longer Private?

In a response to a column Meghan Daum discussing Rush Limbaugh's comments and Bill Maher's comments towards women, the Los Angeles Times printed some letters of note. (Note that clicking the link adds to your monthly total of visits to LATimes.com, which has a pay wall after a certain number of visits per month.)

Christine Gregory of Beverly Hills wrote:

It is true that Bill Maher has insulted Sarah Palin, but she is a public figure who put herself into the public square — and condemnation and reverence comes with the territory.

What crossed the line is Rush Limbaugh calling a private woman who desires birth control a "slut" and a "prostitute."

Are we really to believe that Fluke did not put herself into the public square? Where, when and to whom did she make the statement to which Limbaugh reacted?

Nor was Limbaugh criticizing her desire for birth control. He was criticizing her insistence that it must be provided by a Catholic university.

Likewise, Sidney Morrison of Los Angeles wrote:

But Limbaugh crossed the line when he attacked a private citizen, a young woman exercising her right to express her views.

Doesn't the same right to express views apply to Limbaugh?

With freedom comes responsibility. Some has the freedom to choose contraceptives or abortive chemicals. Others should have the freedom to opt out of paying for it.

Democrats to Church: Shut Up But Pay Up

Cynthia Schultheis of Lakewood, California dutifully and obediently turned Democrat talking points into a letter to the Orange County Register:

I'm tired of hearing and seeing men argue and discuss women's issues, without any women present (i.e., a recent panel in Washington, D.C.).

Ms. Schulteis, I agree that Congress should not be discussing "women's issues". However, since the Obamacare unconstitutionally inserts the federal government into these matters, we don't really have a choice, ironically.

The men you cite were elected, under the Constitution, by voters. Then their peers appointed them to a committee. It isn't like they are a bunch of whiny protesters who just showed and started spouting off at the mouth., like Occupy or a group of hair-legged feministas.
Finally, Testicular Americans can have logical, reasonable points about matters under public debaste, and there's something called the First Amendment.

I feel moral outrage over an organization riddled with pedophiles expressing their moral outrage over contraception.

Feel anything you want. What does it matter to anyone else in the world what you feel? If someone felt you were a shrew, would that mean anything?

An organization riddled with pedophiles. Hmmm... who is she talking about? LAUSD? The Directors' Guild? Planned Parenthood? My guess is the Catholic Church. So the Catholic Church is never again allowed to have its teachings because there were some pedophiles in it? How does that follow? The Catholic Church isn't telling anyone they can't use contraception. It is objecting to being forced to pay for it.

How can celibate men who will never marry or have children counsel anyone on sex, contraception, marriage or child-rearing?

The same way government officials and public educators can counsel (and make and enforce law) about things they've never done themselves. The difference is, people have a choice about whether or not to support or attend a Catholic Church or follow its teachings. The church does not have the power to fine you, take your property, or throw you in prison.

It's irresponsible and inconceivable that the Roman Catholic Church preaches abstinence or forbids condoms to those who may be infected with HIV or AIDS, again only proving how out of touch and medieval they truly are.

Uh, do you know what abstinence means? There's no chance of spreading HIV if you abstain. But at least you are in touch. Sounds like literally.

The RCC has been around for 2,000 years. Does that quality as medieval? Let's grant the mistaken assumption that the teaching is medieval. There are no doubt things from that time period you believe or live by, so your use of that word might be emotionally effective, but doesn't really discount the teaching.

What consenting individuals and/or couples do in the privacy of their bedrooms is no one else’s business; it is truly a personal decision, not the government’s or the church's.

Exactly. And that's why neither the government (taxpayers) nor the church should pay for it.

Doug Sorey or Irvine also wrote in:

After reading about the $168 million judgment against a unit of Catholic Healthcare West for sexual harassment, it seems that the Roman Catholic Church, to say the least, has some serious women issues.

Mr. Sorey, anyone with a penis is at risk for being sued for sexual harassment. This includes, I presume, you.

The Catholic Church appears to be like the Republican Party: a little bunch of old white men trying to run the lives of females.

Since when is refusing to pay for someone else's private behavior trying to run their lives? And he's right. The GOP is nothing but old white men. See for yourself.


Democrat Playbook

Step 1: Pass unconstitutional federal law.
Step 2: Have some "ordinairy Jane" publicly testify before Congress about something with which Congress shouldn't be involved in the first place, demanding strangers pay for her private decisions.
Step 3: Sit around all day listening to commentators who might disagree with Jane's position, to document what they say.
Step 4: Feign outrage at a commentator's statement (even if it is like something someone on your side said that you didn't say squat about).
Step 5: Cite commentator's statement as an example of some sort of concerted war on all women.

Too bad I don't have any sponsors to harass, right?

HBO We Can't Believe In

The Leftist Democrats have the machinery of almost all of the major news outlets and most of the television media in general to get their messages out, true or not. HBO is part of that.