Why They Hate President Ronald Reagan

Once upon a time, there were two great superpowers on Earth. There was the Union of Soviet Socialist "Republics," (USSR), a.k.a. the Soviet Union, and there was the USA.

The USSR was controlled from Moscow by the leaders of its Communist Party, with an iron grip over the official Soviet "republics" of Russia at the others, and the Eastern European puppet governments of East Germany and such. It was a massive land expanse all under the control of the elite Soviet men.

A "cold war" existed between the Soviets and free nations such as the USA and UK, with global nuclear war presented a serious and eminent threat.

The USA had series of Presidents as follows:

FDR - A Big Government Democrat who expanded the federal government enormously. Most terms of any President.

Harry Truman - First became President with the death of FDR, as he was FDR's last VP. A Democrat who pushed for the United Nations and national health insurance.

Dwight Eisenhower - Republican who did not make limiting government a driver of his campaign or Presidency. He'd been a successful WWII General.

JFK - Democrat. While some of his positions sound downright conservative today, since he was a young, handsome, well-spoken, charismatic Democrat who apparently won a public standoff with the Soviets (the Cuban Missile Crisis) and was assassinated, he has been revered to this day. He had been Senator.

LBJ - Democrat who pushed for the Great Society government expansion after first serving as VP under JFK.

Richard Nixon - Republican who ended the gold standard, set some price controls, ushered in the EPA, and did not make limiting government a driver of his campaigns or Presidency. He had a long political history, including having been VP.

Gerald Ford - Republican who basically prostrated himself in the wake of Nixon's resignation. He'd been in Congress and then VP under Nixon. He did not make limiting government a driver of his time in office.

Jimmy Carter - Democrat who continued to increase the size and powers of government. Americans were basically told to accept higher energy prices, and by this time more and more on the Left were accepting the Soviet Union and its control over Eastern Europe as permanent and just another, valid way of governing. Carter had been Governor of Georgia.

Then there was the election of 1980.

Of course the Left and partisan Democrats wanted Carter to win a second term over any Republican.

The Republican nomination came down to two choices: Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Bush was much like the other recent Republican Presidents. He had been in government forever and was milquetoast. He'd "waited his turn." Reagan was a "cowboy" who had served as Governor of California, interrupting the Brown Democrat Dynasty, but had been out of office since early 1975 and had no other political experience. He spoke about limiting government, government often being the problem. With talk like that, the Left wasn't going to be able to push through to nationalized health for all and all sorts of new federal governments they claim to be birthrights. He took a stance of being aggressive in defending liberty against the Soviets, and unreservedly claimed we were the good guys and the commies were the bad guys.

He cut taxes and built up the military. A terrible economy recovered well under Reagan.

What Reagan did was ruin what they saw as a great march to globalist progressivism. He revived modern conservatism and patriotism, unashamedly touting the benefits of capitalism and private industry. He lead a revival of our country.

They predicted Reagan was going to lead us into war and nuclear annihilation. Instead, his policies and collaboration with UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II lead to the collapse of the Soviet empire and new freedoms for a significant portion of the world and renewed strength and leadership for the USA.

Yes, it's true, he didn't drop everything and overhaul the organization of the federal government and spending to try to eliminate a negative consequence of the entirely voluntary activities of bloody and rough anal sex with strangers, and sharing recreational drug needles.

And he wasn't perfect. No President is flawless.

But what he did was ruin "everything" for the Left and certain political cultists, and so to this day they hate him with a passion.

He was one of our greatest Presidents.

The Gipper

Vote For Limited Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's make a difference.

Christians Should Not Abandon Political Involvement

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

What does the Bible say about political involvement?

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

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

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

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

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

National Divorce - What Are The Options?

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Peaceful Surrender - One side simply gives up. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

Want More Gun Control?

My follow Americans:

Do you want more gun control?

Want to ban private gun ownership entirely?

Let's make a deal.

Certain "blue" cities/counties/states should be allowed to secede. 

Then you can have all of the gun control you want.

You could also have no restrictions on immigration, abortion, euthanasia, drugs, or drug needles, and you could have it all taxpayer-funded. Also, plenty of more taxpayer funding of health care, including "gender confirmation" surgeries and treatments, and daycare, college, housing, and the arts. You can tax the rich all you want, you can more green energy and have more laws to fight climate change, you can reduce the prison population, and you can have mail-in voting for everyone, including anyone still incarcerated, 14 year-olds, and "undocumented immigrants". You can defund the police. You can ban hate speech and misinformation. You can ban and any discrimination by anyone against LGBTQQIA+ people, including ensuring that transwomen can compete in all women's sports.

The minimum wage can be as high as you want it!

No more Electoral College!

Think about the antiracist utopia you can create, without racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, xenophobes, Islamophobes, and bigots.

You can ditch Citizens United and have a Supreme Court with only the right people on it!

Science and experts will guide public policy! Pandemics will be prevented and handled so much more effectively.

Doesn't that sound great???

I will support you if you want to do this. I will advocate for it as much as I can.

Please, secede and form this new utopia. Show the rest of the world how it should be done!

Happy Thanksgiving

The midterm election season is behind us, kind of, with the GOP retaining the Senate.

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 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 Are You So Afraid Of?

There has never been a reaction like this to an election in this Union. Oh, sure, there were people holding demonstrations after GWB won (and he did win) the 2000 election, at least through September 11, 2001. Television news personalities and others covering the 2016 election were clearly upset, and you've seen all of the people, and you certainly know some (or maybe you ARE one) who have done everything from cry to engage in rioting as they insist that DJT is #NotMyPresident. People have been talking about how afraid they are, fleeing to "safe spaces" that are like preschool nursery rooms for alleged adults, talking about "dark times", and shunning people they'd claimed as friends and even family who not only "admit" they voted for Trump, but that are even suspected of voting for Trump because they haven't loudly decried his election. Hollywood celebrities and others appeared in a futile video to implore the Republicans in the Electoral College to become "faithless electors", there are still people hoping Congress won't certify the results and for some other shenanigans to prevent President-elect Trump from taking office. Protests are being planned for Inauguration Day.

What are you so afraid of? Why are you so upset?

Let's go over the things I've heard/read one-by-one.

David Benkof Dismantles the Popular Vote Claim

If you're a party-line partisan, you're going to have disagreements with Benkof, whether you're a Republican, Democrat, or belong to another party. I wouldn't call myself a party-line partisan, but I'm in the conservative camp consistently enough that I don't always agree with Benkof. To his credit, Benkof seeks out thoughtful disagreement, which makes his arguments better. Because of these things, I'm happy when he writes something with which I can completely agree that makes arguments I hadn't grasped before.

His latest column at the Daily Caller is an example. It is provocatively titled "The Popular Vote Is A Hoax." As he says in the column, he voted for Secretary Clinton, but his fellow HRC voters need to stop pointing to her winning the "popular vote".

Preposterously, since the election some leading Democrats have been calling the Electoral College racist and even akin to slavery. But usually leftists argue the opposite – that popular vote systems are racist, not those that count by jurisdictions. Heavily Democratic California passed a voting-rights law in 2001 that allowed minority groups to sue cities with “at-large” systems of electing councilmembers. Supporters of such laws argue that citywide systems (the popular vote) stifle minority voices, and thus only Electoral College-like district elections ensure racial fairness.

This is a very important point. I have been a witness to local governments in California being subjected to lawsuits and other objections that demand voting districts. An example is that a city might have five councilmembers and only one or none of "Latino ancestry" even though about half of the city's population fits into that category. This is seen as evidence of a problem, even though it presumes that 1) all of those residents are citizens, 2) all of those citizens vote; 3) they only vote for people of Latino ancestry. Anyway, the point is, it has been decided that each district needs representation.

Of course people will object and that mayors are often elected by citywide popular vote and districts elect members of the House of Representatives, rather than having all voters decide every member of the House. Yes, but we have to remember our nation is a union of states. Those states are republics or commonwealths that have always retained some powers, some degree of sovereignty. This is why the voters of each state elect their own Governor, Senators, and certain other statewide offices rather than having them appointed by Congress and/or the President. It is the states that collectively elect the President, not a direct national popular vote. We are a union of states, not a centralized government with 50 divisions called states, plus districts and territories.

Not that it matters much, because a popular-vote constitutional amendment would probably be unconstitutional. That seeming absurdity dates to a wrinkle the Founding Fathers ironed out in drafting the Constitution. The Electoral College is based on the two-chamber legislative structure known as the Connecticut Compromise, which gave big states like Virginia representation by population in the House; and small states like New Jersey an equal voice in the Senate.

After that careful balancing act, the Founders froze their hard work with the only permanent exception to the provision allowing constitutional amendments: that the Connecticut Compromise could not be repealed without the consent of every affected state (look it up: Article V).

How many of you were ever taught about this?!? Whine all you want about smaller or less populous states having a disproportionate influence; this was the contract to which the states agreed. Without this conditions, we literally would not have the country we do. Some states would not have joined the union. They joined, at least in part, because of what the Constitution assured.

In fact, the nominees themselves might very well have been different without the Electoral College. Candidates garner primary endorsements, volunteers, donations, and votes based mostly on their case that they would be the strongest nominee in November – under the rules of the Electoral College. Marco Rubio, to take one example, may have looked like a stronger 2016 nominee under a popular vote system, because votes from his fellow Latinos in Texas and California would matter, whereas they barely register in the Electoral College. If Trump – or Hillary – had lost the nomination, what relevance would her 2.7 million-vote margin have then?

Read it all.

Secretary Clinton and President-elect Trump, and every other candidate, entered the race under the understanding and implicit agreement that the Electoral College is how we choose our President.

An Election Retrospective

Here is the entry I posted on my Townhall user blog* on November 5, 2008,  "Why McCain Lost". I am reprinting it as it was on presented originally, except I'm going to color certain parts red before emphasis.


*****


As with the elder Bush losing in 1992, and Bob Dole losing in 1996, Senator John McCain’s loss yesterday was not a rejection of conservatism.

McCain was the GOP nominee because he was the most unlike Bush, and Bush, rightly or wrongly, has been effectively trashed in the populace.  We knew Bush wasn’t a consistent conservative before he got the nomination in 2000.  He’s proved it in his Presidency, and although there has been much he has done right, there have been things that he’s done wrong, or ineffectively, including public relations.  McCain ran against Bush in 2000.  In a year where Bush was unpopular, choosing McCain was seen as perhaps the only way to get a Republican elected President.

Unfortunately, McCain had a hard time winning over the GOP base.  His campaign finance reform, which has obviously been ineffective in removing the influence of money from campaigns, had left conservatives with a bad taste in their mouths.  Many conservatives and others were also upset with his work on the shamnesty bill for illegal aliens.  Instead of having a nominee who offered a clear difference from Obama in that regard, we had McCain.  And did it help him or anyone else in the GOP with Latino voters?  No!  So he lost some of the base and independents, and didn’t gain Latinos.

While McCain touted federalism in some areas that weren’t a major focus in this election, he failed to articulate truly conservative or libertarian positions clearly enough or early enough in the general campaign.  That’s because in many areas, he couldn’t without disavowing his own votes and previous positions.  Instead, he tried to play Santa Claus.  But a Republican can never outpromise the Democrats.  The Democrats will always promise more goodies.  So to a lot of people, McCain appeared to be doing the same thing Obama was doing – only halfway.  And they thought – why go halfway when we can get the genuine (new) deal?  Why go for someone who is always "reaching across the aisle" when we can pick someone who is already across the aisle?

People who want Democrats will vote for Democrats, not Republicans.

McCain also lost because he wanted to run a nice, respectful campaign that would be applauded by the MSM once it was over, instead of running a campaign that would win.  For far too long, he was busy disavowing comments from his own supporters instead of focusing on the weaknesses of Obama.

He lost not because of choosing Palin as his running mate, but by not letting Palin be Palin.

Obama doesn’t have all that much experience, but he had enough –and recent - experience organizing people to get out the vote, and then getting to higher and higher offices. He's good at getting the vote, but we don't have any reason to believe he can actually govern.  The MSM was already on Obama’s side, but he knew how to work them all the more.  He is more photogenic and a smoother speaker.  He can talk for hours and not say anything.  This allowed him to avoid really dealing with the facts that he was low on experience, low on accomplishment, and prone to extremist associations and thinking.

Finally – McCain lost to Obama because of racism.  It wasn’t just African-Americans who voted for Obama in part or in whole because of the color of his skin.  And that’s racism.  There is no way around it.

What we need now is for Republicans to be Republicans.  We need them to fight for limited government, federalism, and sticking to the Constitution.  We need them to fight for fiscal responsibility.  And we need them to start organizing NOW for 2010 and 2012.  Start identifying, grooming, and promoting ethical, effective people for local and state offices, as well as Congress and President.  If you contribute money to any Republican organizations, instead of donating in bulk, donate small amounts.  Donate when they do something right, and refrain from donating when they get it wrong, and let them know why.

We need not surrender to socialism.

*****

Wow! What did we see this year? We saw Trump drive the MSM crazy AND repeatedly take a tough stance on border control and dealing with illegal aliens, and it paid off. He also got a higher percentage of the Latino American voters.



*Townhall abruptly and without warning removed user blogs and our access to our own blog files, so I retrieved this entry from the Wayback Machine.

Handy Dandy Vote Fraud Intimidation

ATTENTION IMMIGRANTS WHO HAVEN'T BECOME CITIZENS

ATTENTION ILLEGAL ALIENS

ATTENTION CITIZENS WHO HAVE NEVER EVEN REGISTERED TO VOTE:

IT IS ILLEGAL FOR YOU TO VOTE IN THE UNITED STATES. ONCE YOU BECOME A U.S. CITIZEN AND YOU PROPERLY REGISTER TO VOTE, YOU CAN.  BUT UNTIL THEN, YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW IF YOU VOTE AND YOU COULD BE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED

ATTENTION ANYONE PLANNING TO VOTE UNDER SOMEONE ELSE'S NAME OR MORE THAN ONCE:

IT IS ILLEGAL TO VOTE FRAUDULENTLY AND YOU COULD BE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED

The Delusional Democrat Voter Returns

Hey folks, do you remember this?

Well, the same guy posted another round of stuff that Dennis Prager could write if he was trying to do a parody of a typical Leftist.

Simple question: Why is our nation so divided?

For one thing, it always has been divided. It was a massive feat to get our Constitution, and then we went through a terrible war between the states less than a century later.

A Prime Example of a Delusional Democrat Voter

A Leftist posted this:

This nation is in trouble, so let's be clear:

Someone's been listening to Obama speeches! Trouble, eh? Hmmm. Who's been President the last 7.5 years?

If you're still talking about Hillary Clinton's emails

Dismissing what Clinton did as just about "e-mails" is like dismissing what Nixon did as "just about tapes". Actually, Nixon did far less. And fellow Republicans dropped him and he resigned. You Democrats are not calling for Clinton to drop out.

instead of the urgent need to get weapons of war out of the hands of civilians, you are part of the problem.

What exactly qualifies as a "weapon of war"? I'm guess it is a gun that is currently legal to own somewhere in the country that this guy thinks is too big. Or maybe he's talking about all firearms. Whatever. Well, considering there are millions of people - PEOPLE, meaning things that are 100-300 pounds and need shelter, food, etc. so they can't exactly stay stashed under a floorboard - who came into this country and are here illegally and we "can't" find them or stop more from coming here, then how in the world would we effectively prevent firearms from being smuggled, at great profit, into this country?!? And is this guy talking about confiscation? So he's in favor of something that would certainly lead to stand-offs, barricade situations, groups retreating into fortified armed compounds with their children, and resulting shootouts???

If you're planning to vote for a corrupt businessman whose chief concern is his bottom line with no concern for the small businesses and workers who got him there, you're part of the problem.

I'm no fan of Trump as a candidate. He might be an awful President. He might be a great one. We know Hillary Clinton is corrupt, thinks she can get away with anything, and would do harm to this Union.

And don't feign ignorance. Clinton's biggest concern is her own finances, hence the Foundation shenanigans. Trump's successes and even some of his failures at least helped many other people.

Let's not even get into his overt racism, misogyny, and avocation of violence against his opponent's supporters.

Of course you're not going to get into it because you're probably thinking of parodies of what he actually has said. For example, saying that some illegal aliens coming here are murderers and rapists is not racism. And it is fact.

If you believe your 'good book' means that civil rights and equal rights doesn't apply to gay, trans, or other historically oppresses minorities, you are part of the problem.

The Holy Bible says that there are two sexes, marriage unites the sexes, and that sex is for marriage. That has nothing to do with denying anybody any rights. And MLK Jr. was a REVEREND. I know you like to forget about stuff like that. By the way, my argument against judicial neutering of state marriage licenses didn't invoke the Bible or appeal to theology or religion.

If the congress critter you elected has voted more than once to repeal the affordable care act or defund Planned Parenthood or for lower taxes on the rich, you are part of the problem.

So if  you don't want your tax money used to slaughter innocent human beings for convenience, if you don't like being forced by the federal government to buy a service, and if you think people should be able to keep more of their own money to invest (and grow the economy) as they see fit, then that's a problem?!?

Right now we need to be united as a nation

HA!!! This is from someone who aligns with people who are constantly trying to label and divide people and treat them differently based on their skin color, national origin, religion, sexual desires, and so forth!!!

to reform ourselves into a society where there is really respect for all,

Why are we supposed to respect clumps of cells/collections of molecules? And reform... wasn't Obama going to "fundamentally transform" the USA? Is he a liar or failure?

no poverty

There will always be poverty if for no other reason than Leftists will always say people who have less wealth are poor.

where healthcare is a right

Healthcare is already a "right". Say, didn't you mention Obamacare above? But true rights do not obligate others without their consent unless a crime is involved.

education opportunities are the same for the child in the highest income neighborhood as the poorest

So you're for vouchers? Yeah, didn't think so. There's no way to achieve this other than to criminalize private education, tutoring, and to get all children out of their homes (which may be chaotic) and stick them in uniform government dorms. After all, their parents might subvert the law and give them some sort of educational advantage if they are left with their parents. Say, who runs those school districts in the "poor" neighborhoods? Around here, Leftist Democrat Unionists do. Hmmmm...

and we live in a way that values natural resources

Selling oil does value natural resources!

so we can start making real inroads against global climate change.

I don't believe he really cares because he's not living in a cave with nothing manufactured.

The good news is there is a path forward and it starts this November by getting out the vote and installing elected officials who will actually work toward a progressive future.

So, Obama wasn't it? You were screaming "Yes we can!" when he was elected. I saw you.

We cannot stay on the path we're on today and expect workable solutions.

On that we agree.

Handy Dandy Leftist Democrat Statement Generator

Leftism is based on feelings and emotion and Stage One thinking. This can make consistency difficult to achieve during something as important as a Presidential Election campaign. So to help Leftist Democrats out, I have here this Handy Dandy Leftist Democrat Statement Generator, which should be especially helpful when asked to respond to something said by a Republican.

Whatever the Republican has said, respond with...

"That's [1] and will [2] and is just another example of how Republicans are [3]. This is backed up by [4].

"Democrats, on the other hand, fight your fair share and your rights and want to ensure everyone has equal access to services even if they haven't been lucky enough to get rich."

[1]
sexist
Islamophobic
xenophobic
homophobic
intolerant
racist
bigoted
ignorant
fear mongering
partisan
A Big Lie

[2]
destroy the arts
suppress votes
destroy education
destroy the environment
starve children
give wives cancer
prompt suicides
incite hate crimes
force women into back alleys
kill people

[3]
uncaring
secretive
trying to turn back progress
stuck in the past
out-of-touch
extremist
divisive
anti-science
anti-education
anti-intellectual
anti-worker
anti-woman
mean-spirited
hate-filled
trying to oppress women and minorities
against the poor
trying to force their religion on everyone

[4]
The New York Times
TIME Magazine
MSNBC
the SPLC
the NAACP
GLAAD
NOW
the National Education Association
the APA
the AFL-CIO
the Guttmacher Institute
the United Nations

Then, move on to one of the following, if it will fit:

1. "Oh, so you're against a new federal program? That's just like opposing local fire departments. Conservatives like you opposed ending slavery, too."

2. "Bush did it too, only worse!"

3. "We tried that and it didn't work."

4. "Your opposition to Obama doesn't put food on anyone’s plate."

What Are You Going to Do For Me, Bernie?

My dad came from very modest means. His father told him he was spending too much time on his studies and not enough helping with work, which mean working with his hands. My father was the first in his family to go to college, because some of his teachers strongly encouraged him to fill out scholarship paperwork. He graduated from a university and moved for work.

My mother came from a middle-class family. She went to a university, graduated, and went to work.

My parents met working (someone people should never do now thanks to sexual harassment issues). They dated and, before very long, they married - they didn't shack up for years and pop out children outside of wedlock. My mother had avoided getting pregnant before she married. My father had avoided impregnating before he married. But they wanted children and my mother was not going to abandon her children to daycare.

My father decided he needed to earn more money if he was going to support a wife and children, and that meant getting more education. He worked during the day and went to school at night. He completed his studies and changed careers, and subsequently worked his ass off, keeping his nose clean in the process as he climbed a career ladder. My parents started to have children and bought house that was a good place to raise a family, and they added on to the house as needed as the family grew.

We didn’t live a flashy life. My parents did not spend money frivolously. They emphasized good character and effective studying. We went to public schools. They avoided turning us in to entitled narcissists. We never were encouraged to have anger towards anyone who had more wealth than our family nor seek anything from the government.

I studied hard. I kept my nose clean. I avoided substance abuse and fornicating and putting myself at risk of deadly diseases or knocking a girl up. I was active in a sport, had hobbies, and got a job while still in high school.

Then I went to an affordable university. I never once walked out of class in protest, vandalized or trespassed or assaulted anyone while there, never shouted down any speakers, and I kept working at my job through my full-time studies. I graduated and immediately began working at my job full-time, but also took on some side jobs. After a few years of pounding the pavement, (because I knew I needed to make more money), I was hired in a career-potential job. I also kept my old job, working it part time, and still took on some side jobs. I was working my ass off. I was bringing in much more income than my living expenses, because I lived modestly, drove a used car, practiced good financial habits, avoided crime and substance abuse, and avoiding getting any women knocked up.

I invested my money.

Largely paying for the festivities myself, I married a woman with shared values and goals who’d also been financially responsible, avoided crime and substance abuse, and was never knocked up.  Despite significant challenges, she’d graduated from a university in four years and had gone to work full-time in skilled profession. Like me, she had avoided shacking up with anyone.

I dropped the part-time job and my wife reduced her work hours so we could actually BE married rather than living like mere roommates.

We lived modestly.

When we went ahead with our plans to start a family, as she had insisted and I agreed, she quit her job. We “splurged” on a new minivan by paying cash for it and selling off another vehicle. When market conditions were in our favor, we bought a house so our family would have a stable and otherwise suitable place to grow.

We continue to live modestly. Because we save and invest for our future, there are a many things we want to do NOW that we can’t. Our investments are entirely voluntary. We CHOOSE to invest in certain businesses. The people who work for those businesses ASKED for their jobs, and agreed to take them at the compensation that was offered. The people who buy the products and services of those businesses do so voluntarily. The only exception is when Big Government gets involved.

Now Senator Bernie Sanders, and other people who talk like him, want to punish me and my family. If not directly, they will punish me by attacking, plundering, and restricting the companies in which I invest, to buy votes from a lot of people who have lived beyond their means, who went to schools they couldn’t afford and, often, misbehaved while there, who have frittered away their money and health on substance abuse, who have stolen and assaulted, who’ve been popping out kids out of wedlock.

Why do you want to punish me, Bernie?

What are you going to do for ME Bernie?

Actually, you know what? I don’t want a President who does things for me, other than doing things for the Union of which I’m a citizen. I want a President who seeks to protect the Union from foreign enemies, who’ll prosecute interstate crime, who will veto legislation that does more harm than good, and who will make appointments/nominations of individuals who truly respect the Constitution. I don’t want a President to be my Daddy or Gandaddy or to promise me goodies.

The best thing a candidate for POTUS can say in response to “What are you going to do for me?” is “The same thing I’m going to do for everyone else; try to protect you from foreign enemies and limit government."

The President is not there to solve every problem. The federal government shouldn't even try to solves every problem. Some problems can't be solved. Some things some people call problems aren't problems at all, or are problems of their own making.

Stop looking for a politicians to clean up messes you've made. Stop trying to hire someone to be your bully to take from those who have produced. Make something of yourself.

Wanted: Presidential Candidate

Required Qualifications:

1. Believes in a higher power - an omniscient, judging authority and future state of rewards and punishments for actions in this life.

2. Has integrity, ethics, morality, and discipline as demonstrated in both professional and personal life. Owns up to and has worked to correct mistakes.

3. Is a proven leader, manager, and appointer as demonstrated from previous experience.

4. Takes national security seriously, including control of borders/ports, and willing to use intelligence, covert operations, and military force to kill our enemies, break their things, and disrupt their threats to the U.S. Will ensure our military personnel, active and retired, are appropriately supplied and assisted.

5. Recognizes that both Islamofascism and European-style socialism are incompatible with and a threat to Western civilization and the American way of life; believes in American Exceptionalism, and has a grand vision for the union.

6. Recognizes Israel as beneficial to American interests.

7. Accepts the Constitution as the highest law of the land, not foreign documents, courts, personalities, organizations, or opinion polls; believes that the Constitution limits government, including the judiciary.

8. Believes in the sanctity and worth of individual human life from conception until natural death; seeks to treat individuals equally based on what they do, not based on identity politics.

9. Recognizes and respects the definition, roles, differences, and necessity to the American way of life of: marriage & family, business, government, church (or equivalent), and charities and civic organizations.


Preferred Qualities:

10. Has executive and foreign policy experience.

11. Will promote and support tax reforms that will move us away from federal income taxes towards a system primarily consisting of user fees and tariffs, supplemented, if necessary, by “sales taxes”.

12. Will work to eliminate or reduce federal government involvement in education, health care, business, and any activity not clearly stated as a federal responsibility in the Constitution, instead encouraging voluntary, private action, and state and local involvement only where and when appropriate; will seek real reform of Social Security, Medicare, etc.

13. Will support easing the immigration process for those who demonstrate a desire to legally immigrate, become naturalized, and become law-abiding, productive, integrated members of American society who are loyal to our Constitution and our way of life. In the event of an actual and detrimental labor shortage, will allow businesses to import temporary labor.

14. Promotes voluntary, proven conservation as opposed to using government force to force businesses and individuals to comply with the demands of alarmist activists.

15. Is effective at communicating and defending these principles.

16. Will not fall into the siren call of MSM praise for "bipartisanship", "listening", "international cooperation", and "change" - which are all codewords for supporting Leftist causes - to the detriment of these principles.


Notice I do not mention race, ethnicity, age, appearance, education level, sex, specific religion, marital status, or even political party. That's because as long as the person is described above, I don't care about those other things.

Of the current candidates, is there anyone who meets #1-9? Who meets #10?

Why a Gay Man Would Vote Republican

Something Leftists Democrats will often say is "Why would a gay person vote Republican?"

I can think of many reasons why.

Maybe the person cares more about...

1) American values and the American Trinity (Liberty, E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust)
2) the economy
3) government (taxpayer) debt
4) government employee pension reform
5) rewarding instead of punishing private sector success
6) free markets
7) fiscal responsibility and sustainability
8) monetary policy
9) decreasing dependency on the government
10) economic liberty
11) private property rights
12) tax policy and reform
13) Constitutionally-limited government
14) Federalism
15) judicial restraint and strict constructionism
16) tort reform
17) education reform
18) protecting human life
19) protecting crime victims and holding criminals accountable
20) reformative and restorative justice and reducing crime
21) personal defense and Second Amendment rights
22) national defense
23) religious freedom
24) strong families and parental authority/responsibility

...and any number of other things than:

1) voting as part of a lockstep groupthink support for pandering politicians who divide the American people into different groups based on skin color, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

2) making sure that everyone is comfortable with - and affirming of -  everything a homosexual person does

3) reorganizing everything to make sure homosexual behavior is depicted and affirmed in each and every area of everyone’s life

4) neutering all state marriage licensing through judicial intrusion

In short, they care about other things more than whether or not a politician cheers the fact that a man gets his jollies with another man.

If our nation goes into decline because of fiscal irresponsibility, too much dependency rather than productivity, too much federal government micromanaging of our lives and businesses, identity politics balkanization, or ineffective national defense, things like whether Harvey Milk has enough space in grade school textbooks is going to be the least of a homosexual person’s worries.

The original question presumes that Republicans or Republican policies are "anti-gay". There are some Republicans who do not like people because they are homosexual, but there are some Democrats like that, too. Where in the national GOP platform is anything that is against homosexual people? Affirming that marriage = bride+groom and that such marriages are the ideal for raising children is in no way a knock on homosexual people – it is simply recognizing the difference between men and women and therefore a difference between the pairing of a man and a woman and the pairing of two men or two women. Are there any more Republicans than Democrats elected to major office (Congress, Governor) who have expressed hatred for homosexual people?

Republicans are against bullying and against violence to an innocent person or their property, regardless of their sexual orientation. I’m not aware of any prominent Republican with any power who wants to prevent homosexual people from having the freedom of association.

There are homosexual Republicans, and there are heterosexual Republicans who support many parts of the Leftist homosexual agenda. There are Republicans who want to improve things for "the gay community" through other means than judicial fiat.

So there shouldn't be anything confusing about why a homosexual person would vote for Republicans.

But the Leftist Democrats do this with all of the groups to which they pander with identity politics, including African Americans, Latino Americans, and Vaginal Americans. They identify someone by one aspect of their personal identity and tell that person they have to support Democrats... as if that person can't think for themselves and the only thing that matters about that person is what someone else is going to do for them based on their skin color or genitals or their genitals being the same as their partner's.

The Right to Vote

In early 2009, there was an entry on the Los Angeles Times blog [NOTE: The Pink Lady now has a paywall, that last I checked, kicked in after so many hits from you per month] about the LDS church contributions supporting the California Marriage Amendment. Of course, the entry prompted a bunch of the usual comments.  I'm picking out one to analyze here.
"scotch9" wrote on January 31, 2009 at 03:22 PM:

It would seem that the right wing conseravtive movement wants America to adopt a Middle easrten Style Government where religion dictates the thoughts and actions of people.

Not all right wing conservatives are traditionally religious. But I think he means the "religious right", and no, major personalities in the religious right do NOT want a theocracy. Actually, they (the Christian ones, anyway) await a benevolent dictatorship with the return of Christ, but until then they champion the Constitution.

For 233 years we have fought aganst this all around the world.

No, we haven't. We have fought tyranny in various ways, and that the California Supreme Court did by ordering the neutering of marriage licenses was tyrannical.

I know some are uncomfortable with same sex relationships. So what.

That's not the issue here (although you think state-issued marriage licenses mean affirmation). The issue here is who gets to decide state licensing requirements? A handful of people, or the voting citizenry?
The writer then goes on to compare present-day conservatives with Tories from the time of the American Revolution, defenders of American slavery, opponents of women's suffrage, segregationists, and Jim Crow proponents, before going on to this gem:

We were even attacked on Septemeber 11, 2001 by right wing conservative religious types screaming glory to the god they say is suprior to the God these American Chistains rage for, and they say,makes them superior to gay persons. These poeple seek to devide, inspire violence, murder, hate and create evil.

The hijackers were all male, too, so I guess all men are just like them.

They know all about all, just ask them.

Well if you aren't confident that you know anything, then why should anyone else listen to your opinion?

It is entirely possible that "conservatives" have been wrong on many things, but are right about this thing.

This is what people like me want: Limited, constitutional government. I don't want to come into your home using the force of law and tell you how to live. But that also means you can't come to me and take something from me without my approval. So if you want to live with someone of the same sex, exchange vows and jewelry and names with them, have a party, go on vacation together, and all of that, you are free to do so.  But when you march on down to a building that is paid for by the taxpayers, and ask a public servant to issue you a state marriage license on behalf of the people of California, then the people of California, including me, have a right to say "no" if you don't meet the requirements, as long as the requirements are clear and applied equally. And that's exactly what we do. Men and women can get marriage licenses, regardless of sexual orientation. Women are not excluded. Homosexuals are not excluded.

I also have the right to practice my religion and vote as I choose.