National Divorce: Bring on Bluetopia

Progressives always discovering new rights. The Right hinders the bestowing of these rights by clinging to the ideas of dead, white, male colonizers and slaveowners. The Right has a fundamentally incompatible position on the purpose and role of government and most refuse to give up their ignorance and bigotry. There is no reconciliation or educating most of them.

What are the options?

1. Continue to fight endlessly. Notice that all these years after Roe v. Wade, states like Texas are still denying women life-saving medical treatments.

2. One side forcefully squashes the other. See: January 6, 2021.

3. Embracing the full and true meaning of the 14th Amendment. The Right keeps citing the 9th and 10th Amendments, which have been superseded by the 14th.

4. National Divorce. Please don't be fooled by people who try to liken this to 19th Century secession. That was about keeping slavery. Bluetopia would be about rights for all.

With a National Divorce, the deepest blue states would be free to form utopia, or, Bluetopia, unencumbered by the Right. Here are just a few of the things that could get done much faster and more thoroughly:

• Explicitly enshrine in a constitution the right to government-funded comprehensive health care for all, which would necessarily include: 1) elective abortion on demand throughout pregnancy; 2) gender confirmation surgery and treatments for people of any age; 3) high-tech, dignified euthanasia
• Abolish the Electoral College
• Make a Senate that is proportional to population, or do away with it entirely 
• Appoint Supreme Court Justices who proudly proclaim they will exercise their powers to make everything fair
• Pursue Anti-Racism, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Decolonization throughout all of public policy, including providing reparations for slavery
• Implement environmental justice, eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and defeat climate change (this alone would be worth it - there's no time to lose!)
• Ban private gun ownership or personal possession for everyone other than licensed bodyguards
• Government-paid schooling and care from six weeks of age through doctorate programs, medical school, law school, etc. This would include care before and after the instructional school day, meals, etc.
• End poverty
• Shut down prisons and jails (see schooling and poverty above)
• Increased taxation of the rich
• Taxation of churches
• Ensure voting is easy, especially for 16 year-olds, new immigrants and justice-involved individuals
• Prevent/end pandemics

Unfortunately, most of these would only happen within Bluetopia, and that could be a deal-breaker for some, since it wouldn't immediately to apply to the entire current USA. However, I think if we are serious about saving Mother Earth from destruction, which, as we all know is possible at the state level as states like California have assured us, and therefore would be possible for Bluetopia to do, it would be worth it. Also, once every other state and country sees what a shining success Bluetopia will be, they'll beg to be enlightened so as to follow Bluetopia's example.

There's no time to waste!

Yes, the details would have to be worked out, but isn't saving the planet enough of a reason to do that hard work to make it happen? And just think of what a paradise that would be, without progressive policies being hindered by racists!


(Yes, this involved some sarcasm.)

What About an Inhteritance?

If you've been fortunate enough to amass and well-manage enough wealth that you have more than you'll use up at the end of your life, what should you do with it?

First, let's address your end of life.

One of the best gifts you can give your children is to avoid burdening them with your care should you become unable to fully care for yourself. I know some people think it's honorable or otherwise positive to have a son or daughter being the nurse for their declining mother or father, but all things considered, it should be avoided. Please understand, I'm not saying that that the sons/daughters shouldn't be present. They should. They should be present. They should visit. They should sit and talk with their parent. They should take them on outings in so far as it is possible. They should make sure they are being taken care of well. But an elderly parent who is suffering mental dysfunction/memory loss or is otherwise unable to maintain their own health, hygiene, safety, and comfort, needs trained, objective professionals providing that hands-on care. That is there the money should be going before anything else is considered: a good retirement community, in-home care, whatever will work.

OK, assuming plans and insurance have been made for that, what then?

These days, I agree with Dennis Prager's idea: pay for your grandkids to be out of public school.

1. Pay for your grandkids to be OUT of public school. Pay for a good private school, homeschooling, some good alternative. If possible, keep this going through college or trade school. Pay for them to go to a college that isn't a seminary of Leftism. Current examples include Gove City College and Hillsdale.

2. Often tied to the above, fund the ability of one of the parents of your grandchildren (so, your adult child or their spouse) to be a full-time parent. If they truly can't get by without both of them "working outside of the home", then help make it possible for one of them to be home.

3. Create experiences/memories for your descendants to have with you. Group vacations, reunions, whatever. If they live far, pay to fly them to you for visits, or go visit them if you can travel; stay in a hotel so as to not burden them. Memories made with you will be better than them being able to buy a new car with money they didn't earn.

4. Hand down heirlooms as gifts while you're still alive, as possible.

5. If you still have wealth after all of this, well, then, good going! Of course there are worthy causes to which you can donate. But as far as leaving some to your descendants, split it evenly. The exception is that it is morally preferrable to disinherit someone who is evil. Don't be leaving money to a child molester, murderer, etc. But if you have three children and none of them are evil, split it into thirds. Or if they're all living comfortably and you'd prefer to bypass them for the grandchildren, total up the number and split it evenly among them. IMPORTANT: Inheritance isn't community property. You can leave money to your child but not their spouse, if that is your preference. This, however, might cause them marital problems and is one reason why you might want to have it go straight to grandchildren.

The Most Amazing Event in History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Important Truths

In no particular order, here are some important truths...

• Not all problems are going to be solved in this lifetime.
• There are not only other - but better - ways to solve most problems, or at least improve the overall situation, than by a federal government program.
• The Constitution tells the federal government what it can do; otherwise, the federal government isn't to interfere. If you want the government to get involved in something not currently assigned to it by the Constitution, then amend the Constitution.
• Unconstitutional government involvement usually begets more unconstitutional government involvement.
• Capitalism is unavoidable. The more restrictions placed on it, the smaller the percentage of the population that will be able to use their resources to the fullest and enjoy the fruits of their work the way they see fit; only the elite, connected, wealthy, or criminal will be able to circumvent the restrictions.
• Some people are going to make more out of their resources than others, and they shouldn't be punished for doing so. People should be celebrated for making the most of the resources under their control.
• With free markets, the pie gets bigger for everyone.
• Someone else having more money than you is not automatically evidence of injustice.
• Disagreeing with a Democrat's proposals and decisions does not make someone a racist.
• People who judge other people on the natural color of their skin are being foolish.
• As long as they are minors, your kids are your responsibility. You chose to make them; they didn't choose it, and nobody else chose to make (or adopt) your kids. This means that some things you want will have to take a back seat to what your kids need.
• I don't blame women for the evils of men, but I don't blame men for the evils of women. I blame people for their own sins - including myself for my own.
• Having your genitals surgically altered, taking hormones, dressing differently, and calling yourself by a different name does not really change your sex.
• There are things more evil in this world than hypocrisy. Getting busted for doing an evil you have preached against means you should've not done that thing, not that you shouldn’t have preached against it. Someone who does that thing and fails to speak the truth by preaching against it is not more noble. This word is frequently misused, as it means saying one thing while believing something contrary. People do things they know are wrong all of the time. People also have done things in the past that they thought were OK but now they know better, and say so. In neither case are these people hypocrites, especially not in the second case.
• Not all cultures are equal. Some cultures are better than others. Migration can be one sign of this.
• The primary mission of American education should be to pass down American culture and values to the next generation.
• If you came to this country, then clearly you like something about our culture enough that you bothered to come here, and you should adopt our culture instead of subverting it; work to improve it rather than supplanting it.
• That you don't like the way the world seems to be is not proof that God doesn't exist.
• That God doesn't always do what you want, when you want, how you want is not proof that God doesn't exist.
• Whether or not Jesus Christ lives or is Lord is not determined by what any professor, politician, preacher, performer, or scientist thinks.
• Believing that some people will go to Hell is not the same as taking steps to hasten their arrival.
• Believing that some people will go to Hell doesn't mean knowing the eternal fate of any given person.
• I am not the final judge of any other person's heart.
• I will not try to force my religion down your throat, but I will represent myself with my vote and other political actions.

Happy Thanksgiving

There is so much for which we should be thankful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's The Truth About the First Thanksgiving?

Lincoln and Thanksgiving: Origin of An American Holiday

Government Is Not Lord

May the Lord bless public servants.

But make no mistake. They are public servants.

The government is not our Lord.

Government powers are derived from the consent of the governed. 

The Constitution of the United States of America was designed to decentralize power, so that liberty prevailed and no handful of people could usurp too much power.

Don't look to Big Brother.

Look to yourself. Look your friends and family. Look to your network.  Most importantly, look to the Lord.

They're Making Our Point For Us

There are a bunch of cartoons like this one that are used an attempt to ridicule or silence people concerned about illegal aliens (and the murders they commit and all of the other problems associated with hoardes of unskilled, uneducated, disease-carrying criminals, especially if they don't understand or communicate well in English and have stronger loyalties to a country bordering ours).

The thing is, they unwittingly make our point: Those who do not successfully defend the land from invaders will lose it.

Were there people here already before the Europeans came here? Yes.

Were those people always peaceful to each other and living in harmony with each other? Nope.

Were all of those people always peaceful, kind, and welcoming to the Europeans? No.

Did the Europeans carry diseases for which the tribal groups did not have immunities? Yes.

Did the Europeans intentionally spread those diseases to the native people? There's no evidence of that. We know a lot more about how diseases are and are not spread now.

The technologically superior Europeans established, built up, and defended colonies. Along with the technology, the Western concept of property ownership & political borders, and battles, treaties, purchases, in addition to any broken promises & outright land grabs, secured this nation. The borders of this nation have been well established and recognized internationally for much longer than anyone has been alive. For example, California's anniversary is based on the year 1850. (To say that the Europeans were technologically superior is not to say they were genetically superior.)

Invasion and conquest was not invented by the Europeans coming to the Americas. The native tribes did it to each other as well. If not the Europeans, the Asians would have eventually came to conquer the New World, just as their cousins apparently populated it originally.

What you don't see a lot in history is allowing protected lands with their own governments, as the Native Americans have. I'm not saying life on reservations is all peachy, but at least living there is voluntary, and the reservations do exist. What has usually happened in human history is obliteration and/or forced assimilation.

So what is the ultimate point of the cartoon? That we should all pack up and go back wherever we or our immigrant ancestors came from? Why us and not the Native Americans, too? I can tell you why we shouldn't but present-day illegal aliens should. We now have a formal immigration system and internationally recognized borders. This land has long been settled.

Unlike the past, we also have taxpayer-provided infrastructure and social safety net. With people illegally crossing the borders or staying past their legal visit, especially if they are living a criminal lifestyle or not paying at least as much in taxes as they are costing, we have a drain on the system. [Addition: Notice that the child in the cartoon born to the European newcomers did not gain automatic citizenship in the native community, did not get communications from the natives printed in English, did not have education (including higher education) funded by the natives, did not have food, housing, health care, and police, fire, and military protection provided by the natives, nor libraries, roads, parks, running water, etc., etc.]

We should welcome people here, from every part of the world, as long as they want to become Americans and contribute. Our immigration policy must benefit the Union. We should not reward illegal aliens, regardless of what language they speak or their country of origin - it is a slap in the face to legal immigrants.

The next time you see a cartoon like this one, a good response is "Thanks for the reminder about how important it is to defend our national borders."

Previously: Truly Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Never Forget

Never, never forget that freedom isn't free.

Blessings and praise to all veterans who have stood up for liberty.

Did Dennis Prager Advocate Marital Rape?

 NO.

Trolls who attack Dennis Prager online often say he advocates or advocated marital rape. 

There are two basic possibilities here:

1) Their definition of "rape" is ridiculous and not what most people think of when they see the word.

2) They are bearing false witness. They are libeling Dennis Prager and and lying.

Dennis Prager didn't advocate marital rape. He didn't even defend marital rape. 

The allegation comes from a column or a pair of columns published at the end of 2008. From "When a Woman Isn't in the Mood: Part I":

The subject is one of the most common problems that besets marriages: the wife who is “not in the mood” and the consequently frustrated and hurt husband.

Anyone honest about marriage will recognize that this happens a lot.

A woman who often deprives her husband of her body is guaranteed to injure him and to injure the marriage — no matter what her female friends say, no matter what a sympathetic therapist says, and no matter what her man says.

Emphasis mine.

Stop Demanding Big Brother Bully Your Boss

It is pathetic how people want the federal government to force itself further into everyone's life by interfering even more in the trading taking place between and employee and an employer.

We need smaller, more limited government, not to increase the powers and intrusion of the federal government.

If your employer isn't providing you what you want in your trading with them, one or more of the following is true:

1) You're a bad negotiator.

2) You haven't made yourself valuable enough to your employer.

3) Your demands are unreasonable or not feasible.

4) You chose a bad employer.

Stop demanding Big Brother bully your boss. Take responsibility for yourself.

Caring For the Poor in the USA

Not everyone is poor for the same reason, and I don't automatically dismiss someone as a "failure" or "loser" because they are poor, but nor do I automatically have sympathy for what we call the poor here in the USA.

Our somewhat-free markets have enabled most of the poor of yesterday to be the middle-class or even wealthy of today. Sure, there is some "luck" involved - I do not believe in some spiritual event in which people choose their parents and all that comes with it (genetics, parents' financial status, parenting ability, etc.) However, even being born to poor parents, one is not likely to be poor for very long into their adulthood if they:

A Few Reasons We Need a National Divorce

There is no compromise between:

a right to life from conception -and- a right to elective abortion

a Union of States with an Electoral College and equal Senate representation -and- a nationwide democratic vote 

a right to self-defense including the private ownership and use of firearms -and- a ban on private firearm possession

a restricted national border -and- an effectively open national border

more school choice -and- no additional school choice

individualism and equality under the law -and- identity politics

A national divorce can be achieved through letting the deepest blue states, and perhaps the deep blue counties within red states, leave to form their "utopia." This can include Washington, D.C., or whatever they'll call it once they rub out Washington and Columbus. The "red" America will probably prefer a decentralized federal government.

Many of the Leftists won't want to give up the possibility of controlling all Americans, but maybe enough people in those blue states can be persuaded by pointing out that they won't have to deal with the troublesome opposition that currently slows their progress.

Yes, there are Leftists in conservative areas and vice-versa. More people will move. Those who don't will at least have a better understanding of what future they are facing should they stay put.

Don't Kill Me

Having a walled & gated estate with an armed security team, a maintenance team to keep the estate in great condition, a reinforced automobile with a professional driver, a personal trainer, a nutritionist, a personal chef, butlers, housekeepers, an in-home medical team, and personal shoppers/couriers would reduce risks to me and thus help me live longer.

Therefore, if you oppose federal funding for these things, you are killing me.

Are You Leaving California or Another Blue State?

For the first time since the state was created, California recently lost population. That's not "grew at a slower rate than expected." No, we literally had a population DECREASE.

One reason is that fewer people are moving to California and more people are fleeing California.

Are you leaving California? Are you thinking about it? There are countless Facebook groups (and I'm sure other social media and websites) all about leaving California. 

I'm BEGGING you: If you leave California (or any other "Blue state"), when you get to your new state, VOTE FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT*. Even if you haven't realized it yet, one of the reasons people (and, most likely you), have left or want out is a direct result of the policies of statist/Leftist Democrats. If you're a Democrat, please don't fall into the trap of thinking it's just Newsom (or  your Governor). It's not. It's the general mentality of growing government that is one of the main reasons California has the trouble it is having,

If you're a Republican, a conservative, libertarian, or someone else who is leaving or planning to, PLEASE consider a "Purple state" instead of a "Red state." If not a purple state, at least consider moving to a purple Congressional District in a red state.

Why?

Because we have a country to save. 

We need more states to go from purple to red. 

We need more Congressional Districts to go from purple to red.

Rights Are Not Hand-Outs, and Hand-Outs are Not Rights

Over and over again, we see politicians, academics, activists, pop artists, and media propagandists proclaiming that we have a "right" to things such as health care, education, retirement pay, mass transit, housing, a job with a "living" wage, food, abortion, and doctor-assisted suicide, all funded and/or arranged for by the government.

This is not how the people who created and adopted our Constitution saw rights.

They saw rights as something we naturally had, something coming from "nature's God", and that it was the government’s role to protect, not grant, rights.

Living as we do in a bountiful, wealthy society of hundreds of million of people, it is tempting to look around and think you deserve - and therefore have a right - to something you see around you and that you want. But again, that is not how the people who created and adopted our Constitution saw rights.

Take the right to free speech.

Your right to free speech does not mean anyone should be forced to listen to you.  They can walk way, and it wouldn't be a violation of your right to free speech. Nor does your right to free speech mean someone else has to provide you with their billboard, printer, telephone, satellite, high speed Internet line, cable, or broadcasting system for you to get your message out. You can pay them to provide those things.

You have a right to free speech because God gave you the means of communication – the physical abilities to communicate.  If you found yourself on an island where there was no government employees, no politicians, no telephone, no radio – you would still be able to talk with or sign to or write to anyone you encountered. You could believe and worship (freedom of religion) as you saw fit. You could use a rock or anything else you could get your hands on to defend yourself (right to bear arms).

You could take care of yourself, you could learn, you could store up for the future, you could build a cart or raft, you could build a hut, you could decide to make things or do things for other people in exchange for what they had to offer you, you could eat what you had access to, you could fling yourself against a boulder to kill the life within you, you could jump off of a cliff to kill yourself... HOWEVER, you could not FORCE someone else to perform surgery on you, or teach you something new, or take care of you just because you are old, or haul you around in their cart or raft, or build a hut for you, or to give you something to do and pay you whatever you want, or to go get food for you, or to perform an abortion on you, or to kill you gently – not without violating THEIR rights to choose what they want to do. You could make VOLUNTARY exchanges and arrangements with them, if they chose to be near you.  Maybe they would even CHOOSE to do some of those things for you for free.

The government is not "someone else".  It is us. It is funded by us. Now, we can collectively use force (via laws, backed up by the military, law enforcement, etc.) to FORCE a doctor to perform surgery on someone, and then pay them what we decide is fair or not pay them at all. That is possible. But that doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t make it a right.

If you look at what the founders of the U.S. put in place, you’ll find a system where our natural rights are recognized and protected, and where everything else is based on a voluntary exchange in which force need not be involved, except to expose and counter theft and other denials of natural rights - crimes which involve force or deception themselves. Health care provided by someone else is NOT a right. It is something provided on a voluntary basis by doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc. who have put a lot of time, effort, and money into getting to the point where they can provide those services and products.

Everyone should be able to offer their services and their property to whomever they choose, for the compensation they choose. Sometimes that compensation will simply be a warm heart (that’s called charity). Whoever is offered those goods, services, and property should have the choice to refuse, or make a counter offer on the compensation, or to agree to it as-is. Likewise, if you are seeking goods, services, and property, you should be able to approach whomever you want and offer whatever you want as compensation, and go from there. That is liberty. That is freedom. That protects rights.

If you opened up a shoe store, you wouldn't want government force to be used to set your prices, determine what kinds of shoes you will sell, or to force you to sell shoes to someone, even if that person will immediately take that shoe and throw it at other people. People need shoes in the same way they need specialized health care. Why should the doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, insurance company worker, or pharmaceutical researchers be treated that way?

What most people mean when they call for "universal health care" is that they want someone wealthier than they are to be forced to provide something to them. There are wealthier people who call for such schemes, too, but almost invariably they do so because they think it will get them some personal advantage such as being able to use their connections in the government to be able to gain a monopoly or to skim money somewhere in the system. When a company that manufactures medical equipment endorses increased government involvement in medical care, you can be sure it is because they are confident that they can manipulate the system to their advantage. It is far easier to manipulate something when the power is centralized in Washington D.C. or Sacramento than when the power is with multiple organizations consisting of voluntary membership or spread among millions of families and individuals making their own choices.

Health care is not a right. It costs money, and while it certainly is a wonderful thing when a medical professional chooses to take care of someone who will not be able to provide material compensation, that professional should not be forced to work for free or less than his or her worth.

If you make voluntary plans and arrangements that provide you with what you need and want in the areas of health care, education, retirement income, transportation, housing, work/wages, and food, then good for you. Voluntary agreements (which don’t include any conspiracies to steal from, assault, or murder someone because they victim is not a volunteer) ARE something to which we have a right. Exercise those rights, instead of counting on "someone else" to take care you simply because you are alive.

California Should Recall Gavin Newsom and Elect Larry Elder Governor

The Sage from South Central is in!!!

Gavin Newsom has been a terrible governor for California. We know this from paying attention, but we also know it from comparing him to past governors, and before anyone tries to excuse him due to COVID-19, we know he's a terrible governor by comparing him to the governors of other states and the leaders of countries that have handled the pandemic well without lockdown or school lockouts.

Larry Elder will be a much better Governor of California, and much-needed check on the legislature. He'll certainly be able to deliver the clear messages we need. 

Support Larry Elder by:

1. Donating to his campaign.

2. Volunteering for Larry Elder.

2. Spreading the word, including on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

3. Voting YES on recalling Gavin Newsom.

4. Voting FOR Larry Elder on the same ballot you'll use to recall Newsom. (If you're a Californian who isn't registered where you currently live, GET REGISTERED NOW!)

PLEASE NOTE: 1) If your ballot envelope has holes in it, be careful that the holes will not reveal your vote FOR (YES) on the recall or your vote for Larry Elder. 2) Larry Elder IS on the ballot. If you can't find him, he might be on the other side of the paper. 3) GET YOUR VOTE IN NOW! Don't wait! It must be in by Tuesday, September 14. 4) If at all possible, take your ballot to the destination election (Registrar-Recorder) office yourself. The second best option is to take the ballot into a United States Postal Office, preferably with staff that isn't aware of your political learnings (so, not the post office that handles deliveries to your residence). 

We have a state to save!

This IS possible. We CAN do this! All it takes is "50% of the vote plus one" to go with YES on the recall. Then, the candidate who gets the most votes is elected Governor of California.

I'm Strongly Pro-Choice

You may be shocked, but I'm pro-choice. Let me explain.

I'm in favor of property owners choosing what to do with their own property.

I'm in favor of employers choosing whom to hire, promote, and fire.

I'm in favor of employers choosing what they will offer as compensation, and employees choosing whether or not to accept.

I'm in favor of allowing each employee to choose whether or not to join a union.

I'm in favor of people choosing whether or not to pay for health insurance.

I’m in favor of people choosing whether or not they will save for the future.

I'm in favor of parents choosing which school, if any, their child will attend (if accepted), and which school(s), if any, they will financially support.

I'm in favor of people choosing whether or not they will own or carry a handgun, unless they've shown they can't be trusted with a gun.

I'm in favor of people choosing whether or not they will support a business.

I'm in favor of people choosing whether or not to be charitable, and being able to choose which charitable efforts they will support.

I'm in favor of people, even if they are elected officials, choosing whether or not to publicly express their religion.

I'm NOT in favor of ensuring someone can choose to kill their own child simply for being inconvenient, without legal repercussions, and to do so with taxpayer subsidies.

So I believe women should have more choices in life than the average "pro-choice" politician.

Living Wages and Liberty with Wages

Limited-government Republicans aren't against anyone earning a living wage.

We are for individuals, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or any other personal characteristic getting paid every cent they, or their representative, can negotiate for their labor, and for working families to be able to spend more of their money how they want, rather than how someone else wants them to spend it.

Stop the invasive Big Government Politicians who increasingly want to tell women, African-Americans, Latino-Americans, LGBTQ+ Americans, disabled Americans, poor Americans, and Senior Citizens how they can and can't spend their hard-earned money and want to take more of their money away from them.

Not Funding With Taxes Does Not Mean a Ban

Whether it is a crucifix in a jar of urine, condoms, or endorsing with a state marriage license a brideless or groomless pairing, Leftists, especially Democrats, portray a refusal to fund these things with tax money or not having a government program that provides these things as banning these things.

So as a public service, I'm providing this Handy-Dandy Basic Civics Lesson that you can read over and over again, as slowly as you need to.

1. There is a document called the Constitution of the United States of America. This document is the highest governing law of the land. It assigns some functions and powers of government to the President, some to Congress, and some to the Supreme Court. It tells these branches of federal government what they can do, and everything else is left up to the states and to the people. It can, and has, been changed through Amendments.

2. There are fifty states (also some territories and a district), each with its own government. These state governments are not divisions of the federal government. Each state has its own constitution, and the states have local divisions that are county (or equivalents) governments, and within those counties there are city governments. States also can create special districts with some government powers, such as school districts.

3. Individual humans have some inherent rights. Individuals have the freedom to form voluntary associations and engage in voluntary transactions. There are marriages; friendships; businesses, including corporations; clubs and associations; religious congregations, charities and other nonprofits; etc.

4. Things can be accomplished through individual choices and effort, through voluntary associations, through state or local government, or through federal government.

5. Government funds come from us.



Keeping all of the above in mind, let's look at how there are not simply two options - a federal program or a ban - for any given thing. There can be:

A. Federal involvement (federal command/requirement to do something, federal operation, full or partial funding/subsidy, federal endorsement)

B. State involvement (state command/requirement to do something, state operation, full or partial funding/subsidy, state endorsement)

C. Local government involvement (local command/requirement to do something, local government operation, full or partial funding/subsidy, local government endorsement)

D. No federal law against, but state law against (can be done in another state through voluntary efforts, or even state funding and/or endorsement)

E. No federal law against, nor state law against, but local law against (can be done in another city or county through voluntary efforts, or even local or state funding, endorsement).

F. No federal, state, or local law against, which means it can be done through voluntary efforts.

G. Federal law against (there may simply be a law against, or the federal government may have an active enforcement program against it, or provide funding to state or local law enforcement for the purpose of enforcing law against it)


"G" would be a federal ban. "E" would be a local government ban. "D" would be a state ban.

"B" would not be banning something. "C" would not be banning something. "F" would not be banning something.

A person can be personally against something and support E, but not D or G.

A person can be personally against something and support E and D, but not G.

A person can be personally against something, and not support E, D, nor G (and thus not be for banning it).

A person can personally support something and support C and B, but oppose A.

A person can personally support something and support C, but oppose B and A.

A person can personally support something, but oppose C, B, and A.

Now that you are informed, you can no longer claim ignorance. You would be lying and bearing false witness, for example, if you said a politician's personal rejection of birth control or opposition to a federal requirement that one person be forced to pay for another's birth control is the same thing as banning or denying contraception.

If you think "A" is the only way to get anything done, you have a very narrow and limiting view of yourself, your friends, and Americans in general.

Previously:

Not All Freedoms are Rights

Keeping In Touch

Although I haven't been blogging here much lately, 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

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.