Political Theater

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feeding the Hungry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Could Earn More If You Could Think Better

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


Yes, raising the minimum wage increases prices.

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



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

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

If You Don't Want Babies Slaughtered You Have to Grow OSHA or Something

You've encountered this in different forms, probably, but we'll deal with this specific example for now.

Notice they don't deny that elective abortion kills innocent humans.

Instead, they try to either silence pro-lifers or co-opt them into Leftism by listing off a bunch of other things these Leftists CLAIM must be part and parcel with being pro-life.

Yes, "chemical" spills (I assume they mean toxic substances) into water can kill people. Dumping of toxic substances into the water support is already banned, and I don't know of elected or significant Republicans who are trying to make it legal.

Gun rampages anywhere are already illegal, too, and again, I don't know of any Republican who is trying to make them legal.

No, I Don't Like Democratic Socialism

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


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



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

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

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

Brilliant.

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

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

Lester Doesn't Understand Money or Economics

Have you seen this making the social networking rounds?

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

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

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

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

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

They Seem To Have Skipped Over Something

Something that made the social networking rounds is the graphic found at this link. Supposedly, it is "How to Explain Marriage Equality to an Idiot"

Tired of hearing the rightwing nutjobs claim that if gays and lesbians can get married, soon people will be marrying their dog or their toaster? Here's a handy dandy chart to help you patiently explain the obvious differences.

Good use of "handy dandy", too. Extra points for that.

Notice what's missing?

The common question asked by people who, like every great civil rights leader in history, like every major religious tradition, like every person involved in writing and adopting the Constitution, and like every President up through this writing, understands that marriage unites a bride and a groom, is "If we change marriage laws to include homosexual relationships, why not polygamous relationships, incestuous relationships, pedophiliac relationships, relationships with animals, and relationships with inanimate objects?"

The text and the graphic completely ignore polygamous and incestuous relationships. I can only guess as to why. Here are my guesses:

1. These people want those relationships to get marriage licenses, too.

2. They realize the same justification they use for neutering marriage licenses also applies to polygamous and incestuous relationships.

Of course, we all know it is ridiculous to compare same-sex relationships to heterosexual polygamy and incest. After all, the latter two kinds of relationships have been historically recognized as valid marriages.

Oh, and by the way, homosexual people can get married, whether they want to or not. What we're opposed to is equating nonmarital relationships, including brideless or groomless relationships, to marriage, not "gays getting married".

Regarding adults marrying children: There are organizations pushing to lower the age of consent, and organizations that advocate the "rights of children" in a way that would also support a child being legally able to consent to marriage over the objections of their own parents.

Regarding "marrying" animals: There are governments seriously considering recognizing some (non-human) animals as persons. Why wouldn't such persons have the right to marry other persons?

And yes, some people have "married" inanimate objects.

The point is, the marriage neutering activists, like the marriage defenders, believe that marriage means something and that whatever doesn't fall into that category isn't marriage. It is a dispute of definitions, not a matter of hatred. The definition that marriage unites a bride and groom has been the universal definition through all of the cultural differences. Two men can't consent to marry each other any more than they can consent to an ash tray being food. Without both a bride and a groom, it isn't marriage, and that some governments have recently said otherwise only shows those governments to be defective, along the line of a government that would label water as cow's milk. One bride, one groom IS marriage equality.

We have our own graphic for people having a tough time understanding this.

George Carlin, Economist?

I have no idea if George Carlin, who was often a very funny man, said this or not. It doesn't really matter. The Left circulates this, thinking it is oh-so-clever.

I am for limited, Constitutional government.  Most people would classify me as a conservative. I most certainly do not want to "give the rich more money." The rich earn their own money. What I am against is taking, by force, even more money from the rich to waste on ineffective, inefficient crap that isn't even Constitutional in the first place or out of some sense of envy.

Perhaps the quote is being circulated in reference to capital gains, which is where some rich people are making most of their money? In that case, we're talking about gains made on investments. That income isn't taxed at the same rate as wages or salary because: 1) most of the time, it was already taxed as wages or salary before it was invested in the first place; 2) it was taxed again already since corporations pay taxes; 3) we want to encourage investment; 4) when the tax rate on capital gains is raised, actual revenue collected decreases.

That is because yes, people lose their incentive to take the risk of investing in ways that will subject them to higher capital gains tax rates. Rich people have choices about what to do with their money.

Meanwhile, many poor people do lose their incentive to be productive and work to earn money if they're getting hand-outs. If someone can get food, housing, clothing, medical care, education, recreation, entertainment, transportation, fire protection, police protection, and so much more without ever working, many of people will choose not to work.

It is ridiculous to compare letting rich people keep they money they've earned (rather than taxing them even more) to increasing hand-outs to people who choose not to work or not to advance their place in life.

Also, in general, rich people and poor people do not handle money the same way, or react to money to the same way. That is why many of the rich are rich in the first place, and why many of the poor are poor in the first place. Not all, but for the most part.

If you were to take, at random, ten rich individuals and ten poor individuals and even out their net worth and liquid cash, not so long down the line from doing that, most of the formerly rich individuals would be much better off that most of the formerly poor. That is because the rich do the things they do, and the poor people do the things they do.

The Left is always looking for ways to take money from productive people who put money to good use and give it to strangers who piss it away.

Jesus Never Said Anything About Homosexuality

How many times have you heard that? Yeah, I've heard it a bunch of times. Before I get to that, though, I wanted to address another issue raised by this cartoon. I'm not a Roman Catholic. In the US, we have freedom of religion, and we APPLY to jobs. Nuns here have chosen to be part of the Roman Catholic church. If they do not like the policies, teachings, practices, or leadership of the church, they are free to leave. Guess what happens when most people disobey their boss? They get fired. Now, on to the statement that "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality."

Why is this an issue? Did the Pope all of a sudden one day just start speaking out against homosexuality, or was there something to which he was reacting? Who picked this fight? Does the church send operatives into the middle of meetings of homosexuality advocacy groups to protest and disrupt them? Something to think about.

Saying that "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality” is an argument that has been shown to be a bad one in many ways, many, many, many, many times. And check out this for good measure.

By the logic being used in this statement, we can also say that Jesus "didn't say anything" about rape, securities fraud, or torturing-for-fun polar bear cubs, either.

Quickly, 1) Jesus is God, and thus Jesus affirmed what God taught, and that included things about sexual behavior and marriage - this was reaffirmed with Jesus also being a Jew who affirmed the teachings of the Scriptures - and unlike other established practices and traditions of those days, Jesus is never recorded as changing or ending or countering or clarifying the existing teachings about homosexual behavior; 2) Jesus chose and raised up Apostles and disciples who also wrote about sexual behavior and marriage under the inspiration of God (the Holy Spirit); 3) Jesus spoke about the two sexes and the practice of them cleaving to each other.

Literally from the first book to the last, the Bible teaches that marriage unites a bride and a groom, and that sex is for marriage. The implications are inescapable (fornication is wrong, adultery is wrong, homosexual behavior is wrong). Jesus affirmed what we call the Old Testament – His audience was familiar with the Scriptures – He didn't need to repeat each word of them for them to remain valid and applicable.

Plenty of people don't give a rip what the Bible says, or don't consider Jesus an authority. Christians do, however. There are people who use all sorts of tricks, contortions, and gymnastics to try to present the Bible or just the Jesus of the Bible as neutral or even supportive of homosexual behavior, apparently in a desperate effort to take the air of the tires of Christians who do not bend... er... roll over and let homosexuality advocates go unanswered or homofascists run their lives. Sound Bible reading and study, however, reveals clear teaching about sexual behavior.

I do not think the government should attempt to prevent people from engaging in private homosexual behavior. Everyone should have their personal rights protected. Churches should be free to continue to teach the Biblical view of sexuality. These are matters of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.

For more:

Answering the Gay Christian Position

http://www.equip.org/articles/answering-the-gay-christian-position

Christianity and Homosexuality

http://www.equip.org/articles/christianity-and-homosexuality

The Bible and Homosexuality

http://www.equip.org/articles/the-bible-and-homosexuality

Does the Christian Left Bear False Witness?

The Christian Left, eh?

Oh, yes, how could I have missed it all of these years?!?

The Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ According to St. Karl, Chapter 5 Verse 1:

And Jesus said, "Go convince the Romans to take a percentage, whether 15 or 35 percent, from the more wealthy half of the people, from the faithful and unfaithful alike, and have the Romans keep a portion for themselves, then have them distribute the rest to other people for their foor purchases, both those who honor their bodies and those who abuse their bodies alike, those who have saved and those who have not, those who have worked and those who have chosen not to." - (NLV - New Leftist Version)

Hey, doesn't the Bible say something about bearing false witness? Of course, that is assuming the "Christian Left" actually cares what the Bible says.

There are no children starving in the United States of America as a result of Congress refusing to raise taxes on "the rich", who are being taxed plenty.

The fact is, most of the "poor" children in this union are fat. Plenty are obese.

If there are any starving children here, it is entirely because their parents or guardians are neglectful. That is not the responsibility of Congress. We have various taxpayer programs already, including school meals (breakfast in addition to lunch) and many private charities that provide food.

It is not Congress' responsibility, either Constitutionally or morally, to make sure every kid is getting fed (and the kids are getting fed.)  But Jesus did tell His followers to care for the poor directly. He didn't tell them to go strip other people of their money.

The Christian Left is spending spending money on all sorts of things, like getting this image out, that they could be giving to starving children. I happen to know that the person who reposted this picture for me to see spends a lot of money on booze and entertainment. Every dollar they have spent on those things, and the computer, etc. they use could have gone to feeding a starving kid.

When "the rich" can invest and donate their money, rather than sending it down the federal government drain, they help more of the poor eat well, and rise up from being poor so that they, in turn, can help others.

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.

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.

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!

Corporations Aren't There to Make You Feel Good

When a conservative these days talks about "evil", Leftists freak out. So I wonder why Lefists share this via online social networking?

What did Roosevelt mean by "evil" and "misconduct"? What do today's Leftists mean by those terms when it comes to business?

Corporations "shall be so handled"... by whom? It is not an elected politician's role to handle corporations. Funny how this quote talks about corporations as though they are persons. Hmmm.

All forms of theft should be criminalized and prosecutable. Making profit through VOLUNTARY purchases of corporation-provided goods, services, and assets, and drawing investment, is not misconduct. Businesses exist to provide goods and services for a profit, per demands for those goods and services. That serves the public. So does being able to make a return on investing in corporations, or being employed by a corporation. Corporations can often make innovations through consolidation and access to capital. That is how they may serve the public good. They do not exist for the sake of providing someone with jobs and benefits, governments with tax revenues, and the public with warm fuzzies, but those are likely effects.

Inconsistencies in the Law? You Don't Say

A Leftist who supports the neutering of marriage posted this one. Interesting that the Leftist is apparently comparing two men kissing to a man sticking it in a horse. Perhaps some bully should put up a website to smear that Leftist's name in the Google results?

The thought process on this one is convoluted in more than one way.

Brideless "marriage" isn't really marriage, but there are some states that will issue what used to be marriage licenses to bridless couples. With or without those licenses, people (and that includes homosexual people, of course) are  free to have ceremonies and share their lives together. Nobody will stop them. This is legal throughout the USA.

I'm not sure where pot fits in to all of this, but perhaps it is a clue as to why the people who created and shared this are so fuzzy in their thinking. There are all kinds of restictions on medications and other products, and sometimes the restrictions vary from state to state. Unlike marriage licenses, medicines are often made and distributed through nongovernmental organizations.

Sticking it in a horse... well, a man sticking it in a man is legal in all 50 states. So, the comparison is faulty for the intended purpose. In 27 states, if the facts cited are accurate, someone can and will be arrested and prosecuted for sticking it in a horse. In ZERO states will this happen for sticking it in another man, or having a "wedding" ceremony with that other man.

A larger-picture issue here is the fact that different states are allowed to have some different laws, so long as those laws do not violate the federal Constitution.

But yes, there are some contradictions, or at least inconsistencies, in the laws of some states. This shouldn't be surprising as laws and court decisions are made by different people over the years, and even individual Leftists have inconsistencies in their personal philosophy, such as favoring government-run ponzi schemes while also favoring limits on new births and insisting on "sustainability".

Marriage Malpractice Does Not Require Replacing Marriage

We don't need to replace marriage with a counterfeit because some people misuse marriage. Read my response to a political cartoon over at The Opine Editorial.

Funding Planned Parenthood Supports the Slaughter of Innocent Human Beings

This graph, found at washingtonpost.com, is supposed to get us to think Planned Parenhood is  a great organization. Hey, look, "Abortion Services" is only 3%.
You know, if you did a pie chart of what the KKK does (including cleaning up highways) or ever has done, "lynching African-Americans" would no doubt be less than 1%. Furthermore, you'd find that the KKK and any "Neo-Nazi" groups' combined totals of African-American murdered wouldn't even amount to a slow month for Planned Parenhood. Not even close. Planned Parenthood has slaughtered many, many more African-American babies than the KKK, and has done much, much more than the KKK to keep the percentage of the African-American population in the United States of America small relative to the rest of the population.

Most murderers don't spend more than 3% of their time killing people. It doesn't make it a good idea to pay for their overhead, or associate with them.

One laughable, but depressing thing about the title of the chart are the words "Patient Care". More than half of the patientts involved in abortion are killed as a result of that "care".

I also wonder if "Contraception" is really just about true contraception, or if some of that is something that kills the human being post-conception. That stuff should be added to the "abortion" category.

Exactly how many pregnant women Planned Parenthood has referred to an adoption agency, organization, or lawyer? And how do we know this data is accurate, anyway?

About 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s users are over age 20, and 75 percent have incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line.

So, 20 percent of PP's users (one in five) are "under 19". I wonder how many are 17? 16? 15? 14? 13? I wonder how many rapes of underage girls PP has helped cover up, and thereby helped facilitate the ongoing abuse of those girls? Interesting that the statistic isn't what percentage actually fall under the poverty line, especially if we don't include minors and students who are being supported by others.

It’s also worth noting that federal law already forbids Planned Parenthood from using the funds it receives from the government for abortions.

And how exactly is that enforced? And if the funding covers their overhead or outreach, it is going to abortion.

The services Planned Parenthood provides save the federal government a lot of money.

Yes, well, if we simply killed all of the convicts and the people asking for welfare we'd be saving all sorts of money, now wouldn't we?
It has been interesting to see this defense of "but abortions are such a small part of what Planned Parenthood does" used by people who condemn anyone even smiling at organizations like Focus on the Family because they spend a small amount of their time responding to homosexuality advocacy in addition to all of the other help they provide for families.

Charity is Saintly

I would never call anyone a Communist for asking why the poor have no food.

Interetingly enough, though, many people have starved because of Communism.

The poor in this union do not lack food. It's more likely that most of the poor in our fifty (fifty-seven?) states are overweight.

Giving your own food to those who need it is saintly behavior. Collecting donations of food and giving it to those who need it saintly behavior.

Taking food by force from one person and giving it to another is immoral, and is just one thing that happens under forced Communism.

It is dismaying that so many on the Left do not see a dffirence between voluntary interactions and forced interactions. No wonder some Leftists think all sex is rape.