Where the Leftist Central Planners Want to Force Us To Go

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

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

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

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

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

Resist Leftism. Defeat Leftism. Defend Liberty.

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

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

Should you support the bully? 

Hell no.

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

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

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

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

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

Vote them out. 

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

Do not comply with giving up liberty.

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.

Legislating For Feelings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ideally, anyway.

Homofascists Sure Like to Attack Christians and Abuse Black History

Apparently, Twitter user Lithobolos ‏@Lithobolos didn't think my longtime pen pal could handle disagreeing with me himself, so he decided to jump in with the standard homofascist marriage neutering talking points, and most recently tweeted this out, along with a picture of two men (I think they're men - I guess we're not supposed to assume these days) kissing.

Weird people like @PlayfulWalrus find the best deal of these two getting married offensive. #lgbt #tcot #uniteblue

Notice that it was not written in response form, and along with the hashtags, is an obvious plea for help from fellow fascists.


The discussion was about whether people like bakers, florists, and photographers should be forced (at gunpoint, ultimately) to either participate in an event that mocks there sincerely held convictions, one of the most enduring & widely held convictions in human history - that marriage unites a bride and groom - or be forced out of a business.


Is it really "weird" of me to support liberty over fascism? To support the First Amendment rights of business owners? The arguments I have been making are not about whether I'm personally offended. It is about freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and free markets.

Opposing Fascism Draws Attacks on the Bible

I tweeted a link to a column by Matt Barber detailing how fascists were going after people for not supporting the neutering of marriage, and I got a response about how the column author was hateful, not about how the column was in error. So I wrote back:

@pauls_view Affirming the Biblical teachings that marriage is bride+groom & sex is for marriage, & resisting fascism is not hateful.

This brought three tweets back from Pauls_View @pauls_view:

@PlayfulWalrus The bible says this about marriage. Can't pick and choose. See picture and versus pic.twitter.com/SkZ4XBwQon

I could write out a long explanation myself, but Alan Shlemon did a great job with these videos responding to stuff like this:

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.

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.

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

When Government Gets Really Hands-On

Will Californians really vote to require condomns in "adult movies" filmed in California? What about "mainstream" movies that push that boundary?

What will the ads for this campaign be like?

Mind you, this is a state where 14-year-old girl can have her baby sucked into a sink without her parents ever been notified.

How will this be enforced? Will state government workers have to be on-set, or just view videos after they are produced and try to determine if they were produced in California or not? How will all of this work, given strict sexual harassment laws and policies?

The adult video industry in California has already suffered due to foreign competitors and the ubiquity of amateur porn. Will the industy move out of California? And will the tax loss be worth it?

Speaking of amateurs, what if a couple films themselves for their own viewing, then later that couple sells the video, or, as with certain celebrities, the video get's "stolen" and distributed. Will anyone be fined for not wearing condoms?
Prostitution, in which a man (it is almost always a man) pays someone else for sex will still be illegal, but if instead a third person pays that man and woman and films them, it will all be legal as long as the man being filmed wears a condom, right?
Does workplace oversight by the state really allow the state to do this, without allow the state to mandate it when no camera is around?

Do hear fiddling? Do I hear deck chairs being rearranged?

I Love Plastic Shopping Bags

Los Angeles County has banned certain plastic shopping bags in all areas that are not part of an incorporated city, and some cities within the county have banned those bags within their cities. I have written about this before (here, here, here, and here) [Sorry, links might not be working anymore].

Here's an article in the Los Angeles Times by Andrew Khouri.

Brandon Martin recalls the woman who came through his supermarket checkout line, only to find that she would have to pay a dime apiece for paper shopping bags.

Plastic bags, she was told, were no longer an option.

The woman thought for a moment, Martin recalled, and then directed him to load the groceries in the plastic trash bags she purchased.

"I thought that was a pretty nifty idea," said Martin, who bags groceries at the Ralphs in La Crescenta. "I've never encountered that."

Of course he thought that was nifty. It sells more trash bags, which take up more material, by the way.

But it may not be the last time. Since July 1, large supermarkets and pharmacies in unincorporated parts of Los Angeles County have been required to charge 10 cents each for paper bags and have been banned from using plastic grocery bags. Similar bans are in effect or pending in several cities across Southern California.

It's not good enough just to ban plastic bags. They now have to charge for the paper ones. Why? To encourage using the more expensive bags (which could lead to food poisoning).

The county ordinance was designed to encourage shoppers to bring their own reusable bags and cut down on waste.

People living in these jurisdictions should protest by 1) shopping in jurisdictions that don’t have this ridiculous law, and 2) deliberately generating more waste. How many people reuse those bags to clean up after their pets? If they use something that take more material, isn’t that a net environmental loss? Everyone who used to use the grocery bags to pick up pet waste should now toss their used batteries in to whatever else they use. And their government-mandated toxic lightbulbs.

Some customers have been using odd contrivances to lug out their purchases — including baskets, cardboard boxes, old paper and plastic bags, backpacks and even their hands.

Back the car right up to the door.

Shopper Ana Castorena said that thanks to the ban, she never forgets to bring her reusable bag to the store.

Yes, but what if you don’t bring enough?

"If we're not forced, we won't make a change," said Castorena, 33, standing outside the Hacienda Heights supermarket.

Heaven forbid!

Just down the road from a Ralphs store in unincorporated Marina del Rey, a Ralphs in the city of Los Angeles remains unaffected by the ban. Sales have risen about 5% at that market since the store less than half a mile away stopped using plastic bags, a store manager said.

Great. It will be interesting to see what happens to sales tax revenue.

Long Beach's ban took effect Monday. Santa Monica begins enforcement Sept. 1, and Pasadena and other cities are debating scrapping plastic bags as well. By January, L.A. County's ban will extend to about 1,000 smaller stores in unincorporated areas.

One more reason to move.

Don't yell at the store staff. This isn't their fault.