I Thank God I Was Born in the U.S.A.

People risk and lose their lives trying to get here. People lie, cheat, and steal to get here and stay here. Me, I was blessed to be born here, making me a citizen simply by surviving Roe v. Wade.

So many people sacrificed and fought and worked to create and build and preserve this nation, from the explorers who made the journeys across the Atlantic and had to turn around and make the journey back, to the pilgrims and others who settled here, to the revolutionaries who broke away from the monarchistic mother country and later set up the greatest Constitution in history, to the pioneers who ventured west, to people who insisted that human beings should not be treated as property, to the people who went around the world to defeat Naziism and Soviet Communism.

I thank God they did. I thank God my ancestors dared to come here.

I thank God I can choose my job, choose where to live, choose what to buy (when government hasn't shut down businesses for simply operating normally), choose my doctor, choose what to drive, choose to have as many children as I can, and openly worship Jesus Christ, pray, and study the Bible.

Our nation is not perfect, but it is the best place in the world, and it does have the ingredients for further greatness. We must now implement the recipe to preserve and further that which is good and discard or change that which isn't. We must fight to make the government work to protect our rights instead of infringing on them. We must work hard to raise the subsequent generations with the morals, values, and priorities that produce good citizens and aid in limiting government.

Our way of life is under attack – from enemies both foreign and domestic.

One way we can fight them is to declare our independence, and continue declaring it - our independence from: being governed by those not operating under our Constitution; the failed promises of politicians; the failed and restrictive programs of the federal and state governments; the tyranny of the minority; the activist judiciary; socialist labor unions; academics who hate America; media with a Leftist bias or that degrade our culture; churches that have become lukewarm; family and "friends" who are sociopaths, malignant narcissists, unrepentant evildoers, or enabling cowards.

Pray. Study the Bible, the Constitution, and history. Go to a healthy, well-balanced church. Get informed. Tell others. Vote at the ballot and with your dollar. Stand between evildoers and the innocent. Civilly disobey unjust laws, rulings, or orders.

Happy Independence Day and God Bless America!

State of the Union

It's that time of the year again.

I sure with a President would stand up and say...

Locking down entire states profoundly hurt people, and we are going to be dealing with negative results of lockdowns for a long time. It should never happen again. The People should never let it happen again.

We are public servants. We are the employees of The People. Our powers are delegated to us by The People.

We must stick to the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

We are a Union of States.

Some powers should not be exercised at the federal level, but rather the state level.

However, none of us here in the federal government, nobody in your state government, nobody in your county or city government are your parents. We aren't your sibling. We aren't your boss. We are your employees. We are public servants.

It is up to you, and the connections you make with family, friends, neighbors, in voluntary organizations, to make your life the way you want it.

If you want this country to be strong, you'll make yourself as healthy and strong as you can. You'll make strong connections with others, you'll treat people right. You'll learn how to defend yourself and the innocent. You'll earn your money, invest it wisely, engage in prudent charity, and hold your public servants accountable. 

Everything anyone has is a result of someone putting in the work, and likely some trading, and perhaps some gifting and charity. It doesn't magically come from government or some big business. It takes work.

Government should take away as little of what someone earned as possible.

If someone has told you something different from any of these, they're trying to sell you lies.

It will never happen.

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.

I Thank God I Was Born in the U.S.A.

People risk and lose their lives trying to get here. People lie, cheat, and steal to get here and stay here. Me, I was blessed to be born here, making me a citizen simply by surviving Roe v. Wade.

So many people sacrificed and fought and worked to create and build and preserve this nation, from the explorers who made the journeys across the Atlantic and had to turn around and make the journey back, to the pilgrims and others who colonized here, to the revolutionaries who broke away from the monarchistic mother country and later set up the greatest Constitution in history, to the settlers who ventured west, to people who insisted that human beings should not be treated as property, to the people who went around the world to defeat Naziism and Soviet Communism.

I thank God they did. I thank God my ancestors dared to come here.

I thank God I can choose my job, choose where to live, choose what to buy (when government hasn't shut down businesses for simply operating normally), choose my doctor, choose what to drive, choose to have as many children as I can, and openly worship Jesus Christ, pray, and study the Bible.

Our nation is not perfect, but it is the best place in the world, and it does have the ingredients for further greatness. We must now implement the recipe to preserve and further that which is good and discard or change that which isn't. We must fight to make the government work to protect our rights instead of infringing on them. We must work hard to raise the subsequent generations with the morals, values, and priorities that produce good citizens and aid in limiting government.

Our way of life is under attack – from enemies both foreign and domestic.

One way we can fight them is to declare our independence, and continue declaring it - our independence from: being governed by those not operating under our Constitution; the failed promises of politicians; the failed and restrictive programs of the federal and state governments; the tyranny of the minority; the activist judiciary; socialist labor unions; academics who hate America; media with a Leftist bias or that degrade our culture; churches that have become lukewarm; family and "friends" who are sociopaths, malignant narcissists, unrepentant evildoers, or enabling cowards.

Pray. Study the Bible, the Constitution, and history. Go to a healthy, well-balanced church. Get informed. Tell others. Vote at the ballot and with your dollar. Stand between evildoers and the innocent. Civilly disobey unjust laws, rulings, or orders.

Happy Independence Day and God Bless America!

Keeping In Touch

You can keep in touch with me on various social media platforms, where I do participate frequently.

I know some people are boycotting this service or that service, but I plan to use any free service I can to promote the values I support, such as seeking the Lord, limiting government, protecting human life, and individual liberty.

Here's where else you can find me:

Facebook

Twitter

NOW ON TRUTH SOCIAL @PlayfulWalrus

And these below I haven't been using much lately:

Parler

Gab

MeWe

I do plan to blog here more in the future.

I want to connect with anyone who is at least one of the following:

Christian or follower of Christ
Pro-life

Supporter of limited government and individual rights
Supporter of the Constitution of the USA
Republican

Libertarian
Conservative
Moderate or Centrist
Classically Liberal

Trump Voter or Supporter

Concerned about countering Leftism
Interested in a National Divorce or taking the 9th and 10th Amendments seriously

If one or more of those describe you, please do reach out to connect.

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.

How Needs Get Met

Nature, or Nature's God, has provided us with, among other things:

• Water in certain places
• Plants, animals, and edible fungi in certain conditions
• Some caves in certain places

Without work, only a few people could live in a few places on Earth: any place in which 1) a cave, free of venomous animals, will provide sufficient shelter; 2) edible plants/plants with edible parts/fungi grow in sufficient abundance; 3) potable water is available in sufficient abundance. Has there been such a place outside of Eden?

Even then, there would likely still be work in obtaining the water to drink and the plant/fungus material to eat, and the plant/fungus material would likely not have all the nutrients we need to thrive. And you're out of luck if your eyesight needs correction, or you get a serious injury or infection that requires medical care.

Here's the point.

Everything we have is ultimately the result of work and trading. Even things we have inherited or someone has gifted/donated to us are the result of work and trading. 

Very few people drink all their water, untreated, directly from, and at, a stream. 

Just about everything we eat, no matter how "natural," has been cultivated for beneficial changes over hundreds or even thousands of years, and is provided by many people working.

Whether we live in a hut, recreational vehicle camper, a tiny apartment, or a palatial estate, the shelter exists because of work.

Clothes, medical treatments, transportation, energy, mass communications, entertainment, art galleries, museums - everything is a result of work and trading.

The exception involves a non-consensual transfer, through things like force, extortion, confiscation, plunder, enslavement, and various forms of theft not yet mentioned. That still involves work. It is just that there isn't a voluntary trade.

Working and trading is how needs get met.

The more interference in these things, the more theft and destruction, the fewer needs that will be met. 

Example: Printing money or confiscating it from people who are working and using it to pay people to NOT work.

If you want food, you either have to grow it and prepare for it yourself, or trade for it. Or, someone else has to work and provide it to you out of charity or force.

Who is best at knowing what you need? You. Maybe your spouse. Not some strangers in Washington, D.C., not some strangers in New York, not some strangers in Europe.

It should be YOUR responsibility to look after your needs and those of anyone for whom you responsible, like dependent children. The less those strangers in D.C., NYC, or Europe interfere in your work and trading, the better.

Stop Demanding Big Brother Bully Your Boss

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

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

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

1) You're a bad negotiator.

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

3) Your demands are unreasonable or not feasible.

4) You chose a bad employer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take the right to free speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not Funding With Taxes Does Not Mean a Ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Government funds come from us.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previously:

Not All Freedoms are Rights

Keeping In Touch

Although I haven't been blogging here much lately, you can keep in touch with me on various social media platforms, where I do participate frequently.

I know some people are boycotting this service or that service, but I plan to use any free service I can to promote the values I support, such as seeking the Lord, limiting government, protecting human life, and individual liberty.

Here's where else you can find me:

Facebook

Twitter

Parler

Gab

MeWe

I do plan to blog here more in the future.

I want to connect with anyone who is at least one of the following:

Christian or follower of Christ
Pro-life

Supporter of limited government and individual rights
Supporter of the Constitution of the USA
Republican

Libertarian
Conservative
Moderate or Centrist
Classically Liberal

Trump Voter or Supporter

Concerned about countering Leftism
Interested in a National Divorce or taking the 9th and 10th Amendments seriously

If one or more of those describe you, please do reach out to connect.

I Thank God I Was Born in the U.S.A.

People risk and lose their lives trying to get here. People lie, cheat, and steal to get here and stay here. Me, I was blessed to be born here, making me a citizen simply by surviving Roe v. Wade.

So many people sacrificed and fought and worked to create and build and preserve this nation, from the explorers who made the journeys across the Atlantic and had to turn around and make the journey back, to the pilgrims and others who colonized here, to the revolutionaries who broke away from the monarchistic mother country and later set up the greatest Constitution in history, to the settlers who ventured west, to people who insisted that human beings should not be treated as property, to the people who went around the world to defeat Naziism and Soviet Communism.

I thank God they did. I thank God my ancestors dared to come here.

I thank God I can choose my job, choose where to live, choose what to buy, choose my doctor, choose what to drive, choose to have as many children as I can, and openly worship Jesus Christ and study the Bible.

Our nation is not perfect, but it is the best place in the world, and it does have the ingredients for further greatness. We must now implement the recipe to preserve and further that which is good and discard or change that which isn't. We must fight to make the government work to protect our rights instead of infringing on them. We must work hard to raise the subsequent generations with the morals and values that produce good citizens and aid in limiting government.

Our way of life is under attack – from enemies both foreign and domestic.

One way we can fight them is to declare our independence, and continue declaring it - our independence from: being governed by those not operating under our Constitution; the failed promises of politicians; the failed and restrictive programs of the federal and state governments; the tyranny of the minority; the activist judiciary; socialist labor unions; academics who hate America; media with a Leftist bias or that degrade our culture; churches that have become lukewarm; family and "friends" who are sociopaths, malignant narcissists, unrepentant evildoers, or enabling cowards.

Pray. Study the Bible, the Constitution, and history. Go to church. Get informed. Tell others. Vote at the ballot and with your dollar. Stand between evildoers and the innocent. Civilly disobey unjust laws, rulings, or orders.

Happy Independence Day and God Bless America!

Your Employer Owes You Only That To Which You've Agreed

No reasonable person with normal empathy wants someone who is simply minding their own business to needlessly suffer and die prematurely. Emotions well up when we're presented with hard cases.

"This big company that makes billions of dollars a year, pays its CEO tens of millions of dollars per year, yet has employees who are on public assistance. There was even an employee who was living in their car and died an early death in their car, undiscovered for days!"

No conservative or libertarian I know wants people to be on taxpayer assistance. Nobody with any empathy thinks someone should be living in their car and dying an early death.

In publicly traded corporations, CEO pay is up to the Board of Directors and the shareholders. While there have been companies that have tied CEO pay to the wages of employees, in general, there is no reason for most companies to do the same.

That a CEO is getting paid a high salary does not prevent you from being paid more.

It doesn't follow that the company must be doing something wrong if employees are getting taxpayer assistance or once of them is living in their car, or that some other employees have experienced homelessness or are having trouble paying their bills. Some people with very high salaries have trouble paying their bills.

If You're a Social Network Professional or Investor

I hope you can still read this. Certain large tech companies have been silencing or at least restricting content creators and users who aren't in lockstep with the Leftist*/SJW/victicrat doctrines and practices. Some fire or push out employees who deviate from the groupthink.

A viable social networking platform is needed that won't be hostile to conservatives, libertarians, moderates, classical liberals, observant Jews, and conservative/evangelical Christians. Facebook and Twitter are two huge examples of services that have been engaging in problematic practices. A long time ago, Townhall.com, which hosted user blogs, might have been able to evolve into such a service, but that's a long dead issue.

So, if you're a "Silicon Valley", tech, or social network person with technical expertise and/or managerial skills and/or money to invest and you're NOT a Leftist, it behooves you to give the majority of us who aren't Leftists a viable alternative, once that will protect privacy. People will be willing to pay a small monthly or yearly fee or pay for extra services as long as they know they aren't being shadowbanned or otherwise restricted and that the information they've set to "private" won't be shared. People have been leaving Facebook, Twitter, and certain other services. Many more would be willing to jump ship for a viable, user-friendly alternative, or at least would add an account at the new service. Even some Leftists would join, and they should be welcomed as long as they can be prevented from trolling/harassing staff or other users.

I think such a service would offer the ability to:

• network
• form and maintain groups
• schedule/plan/invite to events
• post and share short comments/updates as well as longer-form commentaries and analysis, text, audio, images, videos
• follow/block content and other users
• commenting on content
• private messaging 

The terms of such a service could still prevent or remove activity that encourages or facilitates crime, terrorism, or even actual racism (regardless of the source).

So how about it??? Who will take advantage of the opportunity that is before them???


*Leftism is distinct from classical liberalism. An important difference is that Leftists do not support free speech. There are other examples.

Will He Be Forced to Participate in a Homosexuality Ceremony That Mocks His Faith?

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case that's exactly what we knew would come about if  marriage neutering advocates were able to get the Imperial Judiciary to do their bidding in fundamentally transforming marriage law, which they did.

"We just want to be left alone."
"Stay out of our bedroom."
"We support tolerance!"
"Nobody will be hurt."

Those were lies.

Politically expedient lies, and now the activists seek exactly the opposite of those lies.

One problem with establishing imaginary "rights" is that error begets error.

An obnoxious pair of maladjusted guys, perhaps motivated by hate, deliberately avoided going to many other cake makers and sought out a well-known devout Christian, who holds longstanding, sincere, mainstream religious convictions clearly protected under the First Amendment, and as a result, will not put his artistic expression to use in support of certain events, some of which have nothing at all to do with LGBTQQUIAPPCDEFGHJKMNORSTVWXYZ people at all.

This man was willing to serve these guys.

He simply wasn't agreeable to provide artistic services for and event they said they wanted, an event that he sees as mocking and violating his religious convictions.

This hasn't stopped they homofascist activist groups from saying that gay people were denied service based on their identity, which is a lie. The guys in question didn't suffer a bit.


Yet, this businessman has had to go through a long, expensive, time-consumer battle to defend his basic rights.

If SCOTUS rules the right way, the activists will liken the ruling to mass murder, and they will try to mess with someone else's livelihood, and they will keep going until they get a favorable ruling, because that's how they operate. If SCOTUS rules the wrong way, the activists will hunt and destroy the livelihoods of any similarly devout Christians that they can.

We knew things would get this way.

5. Parents and employees will lose any "opt-out" leverage they have when it comes to promotions of homosexual behavior or neutered marriage.

6. Religious organizations, congregations, and clergy will be pressured or outright forced to perform, host, and affirm same-sex "weddings", and will be prevented from presenting Scriptural teachings about homosexual behavior or marriage uniting the sexes.

Are we about there?

How about standing up to the activists and telling them they've done more than enough to degrade our lives and destroy good institutiona and programs?

Not Marching in Lockstep

A letter from "Adele":

I am in such a discouraged funk about our culture lately. The argument about birth control versus the freedom of religion was the straw that broke this camel’s back! Any discussions about the subject I hear are always women vs. the big bad everyone else. So, here goes...Hey women’s libbers; Hey Planned Parenthood, Hey liberal media...STOP using me as your ploy!! You never asked my opinion so stop speaking for "women" and start speaking for "some women".


You don't speak for me. I am an American; I am a voter; I am a mother of 5; I am a wife and I am a doctor. I do believe the freedom of religion is more important than the birth control pill. I do believe our constitution and it's amendments, fought for by the blood of our fathers, sons and brothers is vastly more important than an employee being forced to pay for something that will allow our sisters, daughters and friends to continue to perpetuate a "safe sex equals freedom" culture: A culture that has left us with an amoral society where young women think 'shacking up' is an integral part of a relationship. A culture where dismembering a 5, 6, even 9mt old baby in a mother’s womb while alive is considered a choice and not murder.


So, all of you who are fighting for the 'cause of women', who are standing up and banging the podium women must have the freedom of choice...ask me my choice! Stop speaking for me! You have made it so when I hear the words 'women’s health' I cringe because I know I am about to be grouped into some ideal that is against every core of my being. Do not group me with your ideals; do not include me with your rhetoric. If you are so concerned about choice then stop stifling mine!


Personally, I think these groups should held accountable for slander. No where in the media do you hear the words "some women". This means I have to be looked at as agreeing simply because I am a woman. I would like a group to speak for all men and see what happens.

That is one of many great letters you can find at DrLaura.com. Good job, Adele!

[Bumped up due to current events.]

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.

Imaginary Rights

[This entry is a little dated now, but the principles behind it endure because the truth doesn't change.]

Leftists love to say something they want is a "right". They think merely stating that something is a right should end debate.

In recent years, we've heard a lot from Leftists and those they've bamboozled that homosexual couples have a "right to marry" and that "marriage equality" is a "right".

Discussions about these matters need to be clear about what is being addressed: Are we talking about the freedom to have a ceremony and share lives? Or are we talking about getting a state-issued "marriage" license?

I personally know homosexual couples who "married" years before any country or state starting calling such pairings "marriage". Were my homosexual friends lying about getting married? That seems to be the implication of marriage neutering advocates, including those in the MSM, who refer to laws including the bride+groom requirement as "bans on gay marriage". However, what neuterists are referring to is not a basic freedom of association, but getting a state-issued license, often in violation of the freedom of association and the right to vote. There is a right for two (or more) people of whatever sex to personally associate with each other as they wish. There is not a right to force the rest of us to license such relationships and call it marriage.

Where do marriage neutering advocates get this notion that state-licensed marriage ia a right? They usually cite Loving v. Virginia, but while that is an effective emotional manipulation, logically the connection doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The right to marry is not enumerated in the Constitution, but the Constitution exists to tell government what it CAN do, and not to list all of our rights. Oh, but look. Our founding documents and the discussion surrounding their adoption indicate that we have property rights, free enterprise rights, freedom of religion, the right to associate – or not – with whomever we want.  Those seem to me to be in conflict with the "right" to force other people who have voted to keep marriage licensing to instead neuter those licenses so that they are no longer marriage licenses but "any two people of age, not closely related and neither of whom is currently married to other" licenses. The people who wrote and adopted the Constitution and all of the Amendments did so with no thought whatsoever that a brideless or groomless pairing must be licensed by states. Also, it appears that individuals and their private businesses should not be forced to participate in ceremonies they do not support.

It brings me once again to the larger question of rights. What are rights and where do they come from?  Not all freedoms and entitlements are rights. Quite often, laws that some people think give them rights are actually infringing on the rights of others. A "right" to own a slave in America violated the rights of the person enslaved against their will. Our founders maintained that rights come from God (or Nature, for those of you who get queasy at the thought of God), not the government. The government exists to protect our existing rights, and should be limited to as not to infringe on our rights. That was the thinking.  It was the kind of thinking that looked as rights as something that never obligate others without their consent or without a crime being committed.  But these days, it seems like things become "rights" simply because someone wants them to be.

We have the right to free speech because we were born with the ability to communicate. We only have the right to marry in so far as we can find someone willing to be our spouse and something willing to perform the wedding.

Legislating For Feelings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ideally, anyway.

Neutering Marriage is Not Conservative

Don’t be fooled by marriage neutering advocates who say that neutering marriage is a conservative or limited-government position.

Don’t be fooled by Leftists and other Democrats who say the same thing (Duh… do you think they want to help us?) If it was a conservative or limited-government position, why do you think it was originated and touted by extremists on the Left?

Don’t be fooled by self-identified Republicans and conservatives who have been fooled by the people above.

It isn’t conservative to call a brideless or groomless pairing a marriage. It’s an entirely new concept about 15 years old, in direct conflict with thousands of years of universal human history, legal traditions, and religious practices.

Having it be official government policy that the uniting of a bride and groom is no different than a brideless or groomless pairing is not a limited government position. Rather, it imposes government-enforced social engineering on the people and will lead to further family breakdown and more dependence on the government.