Pat Robertson Passes

Most of what I saw and heard from Pat Robertson was from news and outrage reports, meaning if his actual words were included, they were just snippets out of context. If I recall correctly, I read one book attributed to him and some fundraising pleas, watched one political convention speech, and maybe heard him talking to radio program hosts over the years.

I'm not going to even try to defend everything he said or did. Nobody is perfect, and anyone who appears in as much media as he did, especially if any of it is unscripted, is going to say things that are erroneous or sound strange. Whatever he did wrong is now between him and the Lord.

I will say that Robertson was not wrong advocating that Christians participate in politics. Christians have every right to run for office, vote, speak up, support candidates, causes, and actions, and oppose others, including doing so based on their religious beliefs. 

Also, I have noticed outrage reports about him have often taken what he's said out of context have "interpreted" what he said without quoting him. Assuming he actually said some of the more strange things attributed to him, such as about the rumored actions of some people on the Left or who identify themselves by certain behaviors, Robertson and conservative Christians hardly have a monopoly on that. I don't know if a day goes by that I don't see some bizarre claim from the Left, or antitheists, or abortisexuals about what Republicans/conservatives/Christian are planning to do or are already doing.

It isn't some wacky fringe idea that there is Divine judgment for nations, and that a nation turning against the Lord is going to suffer some judgment as a result. This has been something believed throughout history by many cultures. That doesn't automatically make it right, but it is a Biblically sound idea, and Robertson considered the Bible to be Scripture. Sexual morality and ideals of the sort proclaimed by Robertson also haven't been fringe and certainly aren't unique to a few prominent religious broadcasters. Like it or not, if more people lived by them, there would be a lot less disease, unwanted pregnancies, and broken hearts.

The haters, predictably, are celebrating the passing of Robertson. Every time they react this way to the death of a prominent Christian preacher, Republican, or conservative, those haters are reminding many of us why they should never have power over any of us. The hate, the vitriol, the bloodthirsty behavior should remind everyone why limiting government and being prepared to defend yourself and the innocent are necessary.

Checking in on Quantum Leap

Last year, before the series started (or, resumed), I wrote about what we might see and not see in this revival of Quantum Leap. 

Was I right? And what are my other thoughts and observations?

It was smart of them to make this a continuation instead of a remake. This instantly hooks those of us who were fans of the original series and are willing to give a revival a chance.

So far, this series seems less "playful" than the original, although I could just be missing a lot of easter eggs. For example, in one episode, when the lead character organizes a makeshift Rube Goldberg operation, he gives a nod to The A-Team.

Like the original, it makes use of the Universal Studios backlot and various episodes seem inspired by hit movies from other the years. For example, one episode was reminiscent of "The Bodyguard."

A significant difference this time around, which, given what's happened to television and sci-fi isn't a surprise, is that much more of it is set in the present day, at Project Quantum Leap headquarters and mostly nearby, with ongoing storylines involving the characters who work there. As such, episodes typically bounce back and forth between where and when the Leaper (Dr. Ben Song) is, and PQL HQ (and where the members of the team go). In the original series, Sam was pressured to leap because of official government actions. This time, Ben apparently went rogue even against the staff of PQL, including his own fiancee. So while the original consisted of mostly self-contained episodes, this is more of a primetime soap opera. So far, it's working.

So far, 12 episodes in, elements from my previous post I've noticed are:

• Promotion of Leftist ideology regarding gender (transgender, genderfluid, non-binary, etc.)
• Greedy landlords and business owners/executives
• "Dreamers" and "undocumented immigrants" with hearts of gold and contributions to the USA

I'm not sure they well full-speed on the last one. The character might be a legal immigrant, but he joined the military for citizenship purposes, and was portrayed as having a clean record.

One of the actors is out as nonbinary, and their character is, too. Amazingly, there was great restraint in not mentioning it until several episodes in. Anyone who can see and hear knows from the start "something is up" with the character. I looked up the actor. But don't worry! They made up for their restraint in Episode 12!

Episode 1 touches on healthcare costs.

Episode 3 depicts PTSD from Vietnam.

Episode 5 depicts an old west town in the Nineteenth Century with "diverse" residents, fighting off the greedy railroad. I'll give you one guess at the gender and skin color of the main villain.

Episode 8 depicts am abusive boarding academy for troubled teens in 1996. Of course one of the several who have been abused and are running away is pretty much just there at the academy because she's a lesbian.

Episode 10 kind of does a bit of "The Fugitive" thing with Big Pharma.

Episode 11 features a military cover-up involving nuclear technology in the 1960s.

Episode 12 gets us a double dose! Ben leaps into a high school basketball coach in 2012 who has a son who thinks he's a girl, and wants to play basketball. Of course it has to be that way, because nobody gives a damn if a girl who thinks she's a boy wants to play on a boys basketball team. And in the present, team members visit a transgender poet. The Leftist narrative on transgenderism wasn't pushed in the original series. I guess the people who made that series must have been a bunch of bigots? Or is it that the current push didn't start until about midway through 2015. Hmmm... I WONDER what happened then?!? (A disclaimer: This is the one episode I haven't seen yet as of this writing. I'm relying on an episode description. But yeah, do I really have to watch it to know it unquestioningly accepts the Left's narrative on transgenderism? How about leaping into someone, who in the original timeline, underwent "treatments" and later detransitioned, so that they don't make the mistakes of getting "treatments" in the first place? Or even better, their parent??? Detransitioners do exist, like or not. Denying that they exist and their understanding of themselves is valid means you want to kill them, or so I've been told.)

This may be when I cease watching and simply read recaps. Leap the shark?

Quantum Leap Is Coming Back

I was a loyal viewer of the original Quantum Leap series.

Yes, I know some of the episodes were pushing liberal themes.

Dennis Prager is right. Liberal and Leftist are not synonymous.

There's a revival of the series that's premiering soon.

I hope it is good.

If it is good, I hope it does well.

I hope it isn't Leftist/partisan Democrat. These days, though I expect it will be.

My pessimistic side predicts we can expect the following elements, provided there are enough episodes made:

• Climate change alarmism
• Critical race theory (USA is racist, on stolen land, built on slavery, etc.)
• Negative digs at Trump (he is portrayed briefly as a child in the original series) and/or his voters and/or his SCOTUS picks
• Digs at prominent Republicans from the last 30 years
• Promotion of Leftist ideology regarding gender (transgender, genderfluid, non-binary, etc.)
• Affirmation of marriage neutering
• Negativity about private firearm ownership
• Police corruption and brutality
• Pro-union messages
• The "gender wage gap"
• Pro government expansion messages (government health care, for example)
• Greedy landlords and business owners/executives
• "Dreamers" and "undocumented immigrants" with hearts of gold and contributions to the USA
• Negative portrayals of someone concerned about degradation of media/arts/entertainment

We'll see. Maybe someone should make bingo cards?

I predict we will NOT see the show:

• Making a point of the positive benefits of a conservative, churchgoing married feminine heterosexual "cisgender" stay-at-home mother and masculine heterosexual "cisgender" breadwinning father 
• Portraying the perils of underage sex, other than showing screaming protestors when the minor goes for an abortion
• Pointing out the harms of a lack of school choice
• Depicting benefits of homeschooling
• Honorable people being compelled to pay money to unions even though they object to the political spending of the unions
• Portraying the hate from the Left against honorable "Black Conservatives"
• Climate alarmists making dire predictions in the past that have since proven false

UPDATE: 12 episodes in, here are my observations.

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?

When Evil Brings Mass Murder to School

Most government schools in the USA turn children, teachers, and other staff into sitting ducks for evil people to commit mass murder. 

We can never eliminate murders at schools, but we can do something to reduce them.

Many other government buildings are protected by securing the grounds, limiting and screening entries, and armed guards. Yes, that's expensive, but we clearly have the money, considering how much we're already spending on government schools, and how much we're sending to other countries. It's a matter of priorities.

Legally banning guns is not the solution. Even forgetting the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the rest of our Constitution, the USA is different from other countries. The demographics and history of this union of state is different. The geography is different. We share a long, porous border with the corrupt country of Mexico, where cartels already easily smuggle people and other contraband. Bans on firearms would further enrich those cartels and not prevent smuggling of firearms. Also, how exactly would banned firearms be confiscated from residents in the USA who previously owned them legally? It would take armed raids to do it, which would result in countless deaths, which defeats the purpose - unless you're trying to kill otherwise law-abiding citizens and law enforcement officers, which I wouldn't put past the Left and other Big Government statists. Meanwhile, more people would be radicalized and hoard firearms.

We Should Defend Our Borders

Remember when the latest Leftist panic was guns (again)? As I type this, the Left's panic-du-jour is "children separated from their parents" at the nation's borders. The Left is desperately pushing this panic with everything they have. This is probably an effort to derail momentum for border security (because the Left doesn't actually believe in national borders but will gladly use them to their advantage anyway) and distract from devastating things like the IG Report and Hearings.

Plenty of people generally not the Left have hopped onto this bandwagon, and understandably so. We can all agree it is sad that kids are placed in the position of being detained in a different location than their parents. It looks awful and it sounds awful. But how did things get this way?

It's really awful when a surgeon has to cut into somebody, especially a kid. It looks bad. It's going to cause a lot of pain. It would be great if the surgeon never had to do that. But the surgeon is reacting to events that were set in motion when someone assaulted someone else. Then the victim was brought to the surgeon, who has to deal with the mess with no perfect way forward that looks tidy and won't cause any pain.

What's really going on?

Absurdities in California

Time for the March of the Criminals and Commies again, since it is May 1. And of course it is pure coincidence that the Caravan of Wannabe Invaders came all the way to the California portion of the border and arrived at this time. Riiiiiiight. What a bunch of stupid theatrics.

Someone forgot they were supposed to be in the shadows!

Speaking of stupid cultural appropriation of kabuki theater, Larry Lopez, appearing under his stage name Nativo, is still doing a very poor imitation of Jesse Jackson. Or maybe Gloria Alred? Whichever. Larry, whose attempt to beat a criminal prosecution had him either feigning dementia eight years ago, or making a miraculous recovery since, or perhaps is still demented (I'll let you decide), made it into the Orange County Register and either the reporter was too lazy or agenda-driven to note the paper's previous coverage of Larry, or the editors decided to cover for him. It even appears to me that they have prevented comments from being made on the article.

If you're not interested, at least scroll down for a reminder that rioting has lasting negative consequences.

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.

Without DACA Trump Will Eat Your Children!

We seem to be in a perpetual state of bad political theater, panics induced by the media-activist complex, in which each and every thing people think President Trump has done is treated like some outrage. Quite often, the objections are completely bogus or entirely partisan. Yesterday it was the bleating over DACA.

To make a long story short, DACA pertains to illegal aliens who were children when they came here, most brought by illegal alien parents. Many of them (contrary to what the mob says,  it is certainly not all) don't really know any other country as home other than the USA. That's squarely on the people who brought them here. Make no mistake about it. They are in this situation because of the people who sent or brought them here, not because of Trump. If they want to blame a politician, they should blame former President of Obama.

President Obama could have worked with his Democrat-controlled Congress to pass laws dealing with "dreamers", to give them some sort of permanent legal standing, but he didn't. Then in 2011, he correctly said it was something he couldn't do himself; Congress had to do it, because of the Constitutional separation of powers.

But in 2012 he did it himself anyway, prompting a flood of children to head for our border for a few years. It was a crises and Lord only knows how many children didn't make it or were severely abused along the way.

Obama knew damn well his unilateral Executive action was 1) unconstitutional, and 2) reversible by the next POTUS.

Most of the elected officials with their bluster in the media over the last couple of days know this, but they figure they'll rile people up anyway, and the usual activist groups are all too happy to put on a show. It's theater of the absurd. So many of these loudmouths are fakers or liars, if they're not completely ignorant of what's really going on.
It's really clear that states are going to get the courts to rule against DACA, striking it down as unconstitutional, so President Trump rightly decides to drop it and calls on Congress to pass legislation. This isn't some wild policy change, or some nefarious action. It is exactly what any President should've done. Any threat to sue President Trump over dropping DACA is an empty threat, unless someone can find a judge so bereft of integrity who is willing to issue a ruling that will be definitely be overturned.

President Trump did NOT announce that "dreamers" are going to be deported. They're all still here, you'll notice. He simply announced that he's not going to engage in the futile exercise of defending an unconstitutional order, which was supposed to be temporary anyway even according to Obama, that gives some illegal aliens privileges over others. That's it. You'd think from all of the whining that Trump had announced "dreamers" are going to be rounded up and tortured to death.

Hey, I get it. People were fleeing hellholes of corruption, crime, failed big government, and poverty and felt like they didn't have time to waste, so rather than dealing with the hassles of our legal immigration system, people came here or sent their kids here, and so you have these people who came here as kids because they didn't have a choice in the matter and are now adults with "illegal alien" status, and most of them have been socialized as Americans, and they want to go to school here, work here, etc. and being illegal aliens makes that problematic, and especially if they have to go back to their country of origin (which is unlikely unless they've been really bad criminals), it'll be a real mess for them. I understand. It sucks.

But this attitude of entitlement-that-must-not-be-questioned needs to be dropped. There are still consequences to doing things outside the law. If your parents stole a bicycle, gave it to you, and you got used to riding it, it is still your parents' fault, not the police officer, if you have trouble claiming that bike as your own.

This idea that Americas are all supposed to bend over backwards because the parents of these kids did things outside of the law is insulting. Yeah, it would be a nice thing to do to pass legislation to allow "dreamers" with clean records to stay permanently (but NOT allowing them any edge over legal immigrants and naturalized citizens). But that shouldn't be tried until the border is secure, or we'll get another flood of children being shoved across the border.

You should listen to the audio linked at the ends of this entry (if it is still there) for a good overview of what has really happened when it comes to DACA.

A few other thoughts:

Anyone who refuses to distinguish between naturalized citizens and legal immigrants on one hand, and illegal aliens on the other, can't be taken seriously when it comes to matters of law.

Saying that "dreamers" or any illegal aliens commit crimes as low rates should be answered with "They wouldn't commit any crimes here if they weren't here!!!"

What's with people using the line "But these young people don't know these countries they'd be sent back to!" First of all, very few of them are going to be sent back to those countries. Secondly, they didn't know this country when their parents dragged them here. Nobody mentions that. The difference is they are adults now and have some control over their own lives.

Then there are the people who say today's American "whites" can be held liable for the evils of the past, but these "dreamers" shouldn't suffer for parental crimes

And notice some people pleading to keep DACA make it sound like Mexico and other countries are awful places. I thought it was racist to do that? At least according to them.

While some of these "dreamers" have jobs right now, that might not always be the case. After all, some of them might think marriage unites a bride and groom, or that men and women are different, or that men can't become women and vice-versa, which according to many people makes someone unfit for employment. So maybe they should all be quizzed before being granted immunity from deportation?

The 14th Amendment is generous enough when it is interpreted to confer citizenship of a baby that drops out of a woman who is a national of another country who illegally crossed the border ten minutes ago. It doesn't apply to children born on foreign soil to citizens of that country who've never been naturalized here.
Finally, it's great to see Leftists pause from saying how oppressive, xenophobic, & racist this country is to say it would be cruel to send poor illegal aliens of "minority" ethnicity back to their country of origin.

Playing Dumb About the Traditional Family

Note: I am reposting entries I made over at The Opine Editorials. This one is from mid-2011...

Under the headline of "How traditional a family?", Michael McGough blogged at LATimes.com...

When conservative politicians talk about the "traditional family," it's usually by way of denouncing same-sex marriage. But former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (though no supporter of marriage equality) uses the concept for another purpose: to critique contemporary child-rearing practices.

In 2005, Santorum was criticized for suggesting in his book "It Takes a Family" that working women should give up their jobs and stay at home with the kids.

Actually, the offending passage was gender-neutral: "In too many families with young children both parents are working when, if they took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them don't need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do."

Yes, that silly Santorum thinks that raising children actually means being present to parent, rather than letting hired help be the primary caretakers. Silly him! What's next? Expecting employees to actually work for their paychecks?

The idea that mothers are superior caregivers for young children is politically incorrect these days, but it's widely held by the social conservatives to whom Santorum appeals.

I don't know, I agree with the idea that is generally preferable that mothers do the early primary caretaking, but maybe it is because my breasts did not inflate with milk. Maybe it is different for other men? Seriously, there are many ways women are, literally, naturally more suited -  everything from bone structure to hearing to smell to hormones and so many more. You don't have to be a social conservative to hold such an idea, though when you realize that the social Left's insistence that there's no difference between mothers and fathers is a lie that denies such an obvious reality, it may lead you to social conservatism.

Those who fight against idealizing the traditional family play dumb or act like we can't define a "traditional family" or that only a minority of families were what we call traditional at any given time in history.

Two Weeks Under Trump

Under the headline "Yes, All This Happened. Trump's First 2 Weeks As President" (which allows writer Jessica Taylor to throw in things other people did and associate it Trump), we get a recap from National Public Radio.
She starts off noting the claims about Inauguration crowd sizes, and returns to it a few times (because Trump and his reps kept addressing it). I can believe Obama's crowd was larger. His Inauguration was especially historic, and Washington D.C. and some nearby areas have a high percentage of Democrats and government employees who directly benefit from enlarging government, as Obama promised to do, and African-Americans who felt a connection to Obama because his father was African.

It's not like Trump was promising you can keep your doctor. If he was lying, it's a rather silly lie.

The biggest news happened when Trump met that evening with both Republican and Democratic congressional leaders, reviving his unfounded claims that there were between 3 and 5 million illegal votes cast in the 2016 election that caused him to lose the popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton.

It's probably a hyperbolic statement. Trump should have left it at noting that there were probably some illegal votes cast, and, combined with the fact that if the process of electing the President was based on the popular vote he would have taken a different strategy, and he would have won a legitimate popular vote.

The fact is, California, which is where Clinton got her high numbers, 1) has millions of illegal aliens; 2) gives driver's licenses to illegal aliens; 3) has a "motor voter registration" program. Is it far fetched to think that there was significant voter fraud?

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.]

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.

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.

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.

It’s Not a Ban on Gay Marriage

Marriage amendments, such as the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, and "defense of marriage" laws are often referred to in news articles, commentaries, and other media as "bans on gay marriage."

I frequently point out that this phraseology is inaccurate and misleading – and I don't like it when it is used by "marriage defenders" or the marriage neutering crowd.

I maintain that "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron akin to "dry liquid".

Even granting that a man could marry a man, or a woman could marry a woman, the use of the phrase "ban on gay marriage" is still sloppy.

First, notice that there is a difference between "gay" and "same-sex". I don't know of anyone who is asking that the sexual orientation of the individuals obtaining a marriage license together be noted anywhere in the paperwork. It has never been part of the process. Consequently, a man of any sexual orientation and a woman of any sexual orientation have always been able to obtain a marriage license together, provided neither one was currently married to someone else, and provided they were not close relatives and were of age. A gay man could marry a lesbian or a straight woman. Likewise, a straight man could marry a lesbian. All of these combinations have happened more than once.

When and where neutered marriage licensing occurs, there is nothing preventing two straight men from obtaining such a license together, nor two straight women – provided they meet all of the requirements (marital status, age, non-relation). Thus the phrase "same sex" is more accurate than "gay".

The word "ban" is also wrong. Our marriage laws are no more a "ban" on same-sex marriage than they are a "ban" on polygamy.

Same-sex (and presumably homosexual) couples were having "marriage" ceremonies for years before any state our country neutered their marriage laws. They have exchanged rings, have had a minister officiate, have lived together, have referred to each other with spousal designations, have changed names, have held receptions and gone on "honeymoon" vacations, so on and so forth. Employers and other organizations could recognize them as married if they so chose. Neither California's Marriage Amendment, nor any other similar law prohibits any of this. Thus, it is not a ban.

Incestuous marriages have been recognized in the past, though now they are actually banned as people are prosecuted in most places for sexual activity among consenting adults who are closely related. People go to jail for this activity – forget about being a denied a state-issued marriage license.

Some – not all - states in the USA had actual bans on "interracial" marriage in the past that were struck down by a SCOTUS decision. Marriage neutering activists frequently compare this to the situation with neutered marriage licensing, but the comparison is flimsy.

With the adoption of the California Marriage Amendment or any other such law in other states, no couples were forced to split up or forced to stop living together. Not a single legal entitlement was lost, as the federal government has never recognized a same-sex coupling as marriage, and California still treats domestic partners as spouses. Contrary to a shameful television ad, no Mormon missionaries forced their way into the homes of sex-same couples to destroy or take their property.

Affirming traditional marriage licensing is not a "gay marriage ban". Such language is used by media outlets who abandon objectivity and engage in advocacy and manipulation.

Love and Hate

In response to my posting on negative perceptions of evangelical Christians, this comment was left by Anonymous:

I don't think anyone can deny that while evangelicals preach love, they are more prone to hate. Especially anything that falls outside of their beliefs, which given how backward many of them are, is a ton! I respect all religions and know that there are good evangelicals out there, I just haven't met any. Having lived in Georgia, I have been told that eating ethic food such as Lebanese or Indian is against the will of God, that yoga is spiritually dangerous, that Harry Potter fosters witchcraft. For among these reasons, while I respect all religions, I can't respect a religion that hates so much and denies science and hates anything it considers outside. Their message on Homosexuals is completey against their message of love, and their repression of women through their beliefs on contraception is rediculous and backwards. Their hating has turned me into a hater 

Clearly this person has bad feelings about experiences with evangelicals. I have no doubt that Christians have some amount of blame in that. We are called to give a reason for the hope that we have with gentleness and respect, and we don't always do things that way.

I want to take a closer look at the comment.

Cracking the Republican Code

It’s time to come clean. People like Chris Matthews and critics of this blog are on to us, so there’s no point trying to disguise our true intentions. I’m ‘fessing up.

We Republicans have been talking in code.

Here is your guide to our nefarious secret code, which some bloggers have apparently figured out already.

Coded statement: "Well, [insert first name of question-asker here]…"
Real meaning: I completely dismiss you and everyone of your race, you subhumans

"14-year-olds should be able to earn money cleaning their schools for an hour or two"
I want six-year-olds to be forced to work for 16 hours per day, 365 days per year in coal mines without safety equipment or standards, for pennies a day.

"welfare", "food stamps", "felons"
All black people are lazy criminals

"It is better for people to have the opportunity to get jobs rather than be handed food stamps."
I need slaves for my plantation.

"Obama"
All black people

"I'm less than completely satisfied with President Obama."
I hate him because he's black. I also believe he's a commie Muslim Kenyan.

"free enterprise"
A return to race-based slavery

"Tenth Amendment"
A return to race-based slavery

"property rights"
I want to own black people and women.

"Second Amendment"
I want to be able to shoot at my will anyone who isn’t a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group, but especially black people.

"Constitutional"
Only what property-owning, healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group want.

"voter fraud"
When anyone votes who isn't a healthy, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age.

"Obamacare"
I want everyone to die who isn't a heathy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age… painfully, after going bankrupt.

"Social Security is unsustainable without some changes."
I really, really want old people to be poor, starving, miserable, sick, and then die early.

"values”
Hating everyone who isn't a virgin-or-married, healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"morality"
Hating everyone who isn't a virgin-or-married, healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"American exceptionalism"
There is nothing good in the world that hasn't been provided by a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"restoring American greatness"
Stealing from, torturing, and killing everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"I love this country!"
I only love healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group, and I want everyone else to die… painfully.

"God Bless America!"
I'm a dominionist Christianist theocrat who wants all people who aren't healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group to die… painfully, so that everyone remaining can be forced to live under a Christian equivalent to Sharia law.

"I want everyone to succeed."
I want everyone who is a healthy, American, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group to own slaves.

"We shouldn't raise taxes on anyone."
I want all people who aren't healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group to be poor, starving, homeless, living in a toxic waste dump, without fire protection, health care, or education, only to die… painfully.

"Burdensome regulations"
I want total anarchy so I can steal from, torture, and kill everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"I'm not convinced that man-made global warming is a serious enough threat that can be effectively alleviated if we simply cripple the progress of human civilization with confiscation and redistribution of private earnings and totalitarian intrusion into private life."
I don't believe in proven, settled, scientific fact and I want everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group to be poor, starving, homeless, living in a toxic waste dump, without fire protection, health care, or education, only to die… painfully.

"I'm not convinced that all of the biological diversity and symbiosis, beautiful nature, human capabilities, and vast universe we see are the result of nothing more than purposeless, undirected, random physical forces that emerged from nothing, caused by nothing."
I don't believe in proven, settled, scientific fact and will use a Ouija board to make my decisions.

"I don't believe federal tax dollars should fund art, especially art that is highly offensive to a large number of taxpayers."
I want to ban all art.

"school vouchers"
I want to funnel any money anyone spends on education to flat-Earth religious groups who want to kill anyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman."
The day I get into office, we're going to literally roast all gays and lesbians over open fires, and then we're going to nullify any interracial marriages that have ever existed.

"All other things being equal, I believe a married man and woman should get preference in adoptions."
The day I get into office, we’re going to literally roast all gays and lesbians over open fires, and then we're going to nullify any interracial marriages that have ever existed. And THEN all single parents are going to be hanged.

"I'm not convinced homosexual behavior is healthy."
I'm gay and in the closet.

"I wouldn't want to receive anal sex from ten men in one session."
I'm gay and in the closet AND I want to literally roast all gays and lesbians over open fires.

"I don't think taxpayers should be paying for a woman's fifth late-term partial-birth abortion."
I want all women to be raped by their father, uncle, or brother until they experience a life-threatening pregnancy, and the I want them forced to raise the resulting children themselves, and then I want the women tortured and killed in a back alley.

"I support the death penalty."
I want all people who aren't healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group to die… painfully.

"Foreign terrorists should be punished as enemies of the state, rather than treating them like domestic citizen criminals."
I'm Islamophobic and I want all people who aren't healthy American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group to die… painfully.

"We have to defend our borders and have a good immigration policy and enforce that policy."
I want to round up everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group and kill them, first in America and then everywhere else in the world.

"I'm against race-based quotas"
I want to round up everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group and kill them.

"Activist judges"
Any judge who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

Now some of my fellow Republicans will claim to sincerely believe that every human being has inherent worth and certain rights and that limiting government helps to protect those rights, but isn't it better to ignore any argument they might offer by calling them bigots?

At least one of my critics is bound to miss that this is a sarcastic post.

Evangelical Christians are Ignorant, Uneducated, and Illogical

Conservative or evangelical Christians are anti-science, stupid, hateful hypocrites. The evangelical community consists of liars and the deluded, mindless followers of the liars who deny science.

That's the message I see day in and day out in everything from Facebook updates from people who are listed as my friends to tweets and television broadcasts from celebrities such as Bill Maher, and so many others.

Consider this recent tweet from actor Michael McKean (@MJMcKean) to film critic Roger Ebert:

RT @ebertchicago Evangelical professors in trouble for doubting Adam and Eve//"evangelical think tank"=priceless!

The idea of an evangelical think tank is funny? I think it is safe to say McKean hasn't bothered to attend a conference of the Evangelical Theological Society or the Evangelical Philosophical Society, or check out Glenn M. Miller's Christian Think Tank.

Now, I might have the same opinions and so rudely state them, complete with sarcasm and derision and mocking of others, if I based my opinions on what I was told by sources with a demonstrable anti-evangelical bias such as the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, on CNN, MSNBC, Leftist books, radio and websites, depictions in primtetime television, and if my main exposure to "evangelicals" consisted of the likes of some of the more showy personalities on TBN.

But to judge evangelicals by watching a few minutes of TBN is like judging all athletes based on watching a few minutes of WWE.

There are serious evangelical thinkers whose work isn't difficult to find.

How many of these people, who do not hesitate to insult and dismiss a significant minority population of the nation*, have ever sat through a single service in an evangelical church? Anyone can listen to services online, though doing so does not allow one to mingle with the people attending the services, so one can still listen to the services while still assuming that everyone in attendance is a freak. How about listening to something from Chuck Swindoll or John MacArthur? How about reading just one issue of First Things, Touchstone, or the Christian Research Journal (go ahead and highlight the factually incorrect statements, the logical fallacies, and the unsubstantiated claims and tweet them)? How many of these people have ever bothered to read or listen to anything by any of the following when addressing what they believe and why, and what it means for how they live:

William Lane Craig
J.P. Moreland
Gary Habermas
Chuck Colson
Francis Beckwith
Greg Koukl
R.C. Sproul
Hugh Hewitt
Nancy Pearcey
Joni Eareckson Tada
Francis Schaffer
Josh McDowell
Frank Turek
Dinesh D'Souza
William Dembski
Hugh Ross
Peter Kreeft
Paul Copan
Max Lucado
N.T. Wright

All of these writers have their critics, of course, but will any of these famous people who so casually shout their disdain for the intellectual capacity of evangelicals please name which one of those listed is or was uneducated, illogical, or stupid? Which of them are hypocrites, hateful, or reject the scientific method as a way of gaining knowledge? Don't merely make assertions based on what someone else tells you; go to the source.

"Evangelical" is certainly not antintellectual, antireason, or antiscience. What makes someone an evangelical Christian? Generally, our beliefs can be boiled down to what is found in these three creeds, and we believe the Bible to be the authority in how to have a relationship with Jesus Christ and be His disciples, we believe in serving others, and we believe in making disciples through proclaiming and defending the Gospel. We don't leave our faith in the pews six and a half days out of the week or only mention it during certain holidays, at our weddings, or at funerals - rather, we try to live by our faith in every aspect of our lives. How does any of that imply we don't think?

I'm an evangelical because of thinking, not because a lack of thinking. The Bible, and the leaders from whom I've learned, have encouraged people to use their minds – to be reasonable and use sound judgment, to discern truth from error; I'm to love God with all of my mind. Christianity is the only major religion that depends on events that either happened in history or they didn't; we are called to believe because those things happened, not to just believe blindly, or because of a feeling.

I have taken comparative religion courses. I graduated from a secular university after attending schools teaching anything but evangelical teachings for my entire formal education. It's not that evangelicals have ignored or irrationally dismissed what our critics have said. I'm barraged with assertions and claims that run counter to my beliefs many times every day, whether in the media or via social networking or anywhere out in public. Every Easter and Christmas season, we can expect another round of television broadcasts and features in periodicals that claim to debunk some core Christian belief or popular Biblical account.

Dear critics and mockers, we hear you and read you constantly. You're unavoidable. We've studied other faith traditions and claims. We have read the arguments of atheists. We've heard your claims of alleged fatal contradictions in the Bible, forgery and plagiarism, your assertion that miracles could never have happened, your claims that the God of the Bible is cruel, evil, or otherwise lacking. We've heard it all, and we'll keep hearing it.

We have thought things through, and we have arrived at a reasonable faith.

I don't automatically think that all Wiccans, Muslisms, observant Jews, people who identify as Christians but not evangelical, secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, New Agers, Buddhists, Hindus, or others are stupid or ignorant, or that they don't think. Why are there so many people like McKean that dismiss evangelicals as thoughtless?

Go ahead, Mr. McKean - why don't you try calling up Greg Koukl while he is doing his radio show, and expose him for the thoughtless man he must be. I'd love to hear that. Better yet, ask to join him in studio. I challenge you, and anyone else who thinks that evangelicals are not serious, careful thinkers, to do some reading and listening, attend some classes at a school like Biola, or otherwise see what serious evangelicals have to say. You might be a little more respectful, and enjoy some diversity while you're at it.

= = =
*About 40% of Americans have identified as born-again or evangelical Christians. (Anyone who follows the true Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is born-again and a Christian, so the terms are redundant.) And yet how often have we heard that these Christians are just like the Islamofascist terrorists? The mocking of such Christians and their beliefs demonstrates the comparison to be ridiculous and slanderous, as I have yet to see Christians rioting, doing suicide bombings, and doing decapitations on webcams in response to the mocking.

Fascist Constitutionphobes and Religiophobes Hope You Won't Read

Have you heard about the legislation recently passed by the Arizona legislature? Have you heard that it is "anti-gay"? Do you know the name of the legislation? Have you even bothered to read it? It's not very long or hard to find. I easily found it here. It is SB 1062.

The way the marriage neutering and homosexuality advocates have been engaging in their dramatic whining and over-the-top theatrics, and the way so many of their repeaters in the MSM have called it "anti-gay", you'd think the legislation authorizes people to hunt down homosexual people where they live and burn down their homes.

Go ahead and search through the text.

You won't find one mention of any of the following words or phrases:

gay
lesbian
homosexual
sexual orientation
same-sex
heterosexual

You won't find euphemisms for those words or phrases, either.

What you will find is that the core language of the legislation is:

"STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion..."

However, there are some very important and sizable exceptions:

"In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest."
"The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

More core language:

"A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding..."

Again, there are some very important and sizable exceptions.

What is the big deal?

This seems to me like this is an application basic rights - rights specifically enumerated in the First Amendment.

If we consider this in the context of recent government actions, then this would appear to be a reaction to recent cases involving bakers and photographers who have opted out of participation in events that have offended their consciences and sincerely and strongly held religious convictions that have a long, public, mainstream, and widespread tradition and can be informed by a basic reading of Scripture. These businesspeople have been sued or prosecuted by their own government. These situations have also been misportrayed as the someone "refusing to serve gay people". I recall that one baker in particular had gladly served the homosexual people in question on different occasions. It was only when the baker was asked to participate in a specific event, a same-sex "wedding" ceremony, that the baker declined. Still, some people might insist that such a denial was "anti-gay". However, I can demonstrate that it wasn't. The same baker would have refused if two heterosexual women had asked for the baker to participate in their "wedding".

Notice that the legislation does not mention such professions or events. The legislation could apply to many other things that have nothing to do with what homosexual people do with each other.

So why is it being called "anti-gay"?

I can think of two reasons right now.

1) Leftist homosexuality advocates are malignant narcissists. Everything in the world has to be about their orgasms. They see the entire world through their genitals and anal openings. Other people are to be judged by whether or not they think it is just groovy that one man likes to stick it in another man's anus. They have some bizarre fixation on what other people think about their private bedroom (or public restroom) behavior. Legislation is to be evaluated by whether or not it will encourage one man to stick it in another man's anus, or whether or not it empowers or celebrates such men nor not.

2) Homofascists want to reorganize all of society around their feelings, including the practice of religion, and anything that exempts anyone from being under the control of homofascists is labeled "anti-gay". That would mean they are getting so upset because they fully intend to use the force of government to force everyone, even the deeply religious, to celebrate homosexual behavior.

Whatever happened to "leave us alone"? Now that's not enough. Now they seek you out, quiz you, and if your answers aren't right you're facing a trip to economic Siberia.

Even if you disagree with the legislation, the hysterics from the Leftist homosexuality advocates, and the lockstep following of low information voters should concern you. Really, if signed into law and implemented, how would this law hurt a single homosexual person? Someone might ask a baker for a "wedding" cake with two grooms on top of it. The baker would say "Can't do it." Then the homosexual person could go to another baker. Who got hurt? Judging from the circus-like response to the legislation, there would be plenty of other people willing to participate in the "wedding" by making a cake. Comparisons to Jim Crow do not hold up. Jim Crow included government-enforced blanket segregation based on skin color. This would be a business, not government, deciding they could not participate in an event.

Is such legislation Constitutional? I don't see how it isn't. It is essentially a building upon the First Amendment.

Will it actually be implemented if signed into law? Don't count on it.

As we're seeing repeatedly, the Constitution doesn't matter. The Executive Branch is under the control of Leftist homosexuality advocates who do not believe in letting states handle their own matters or being bound by existing legislation, and they have more and bigger guns than Arizona. Don't kid yourself. That's all it boils down to these days. Even if Arizona refuses to prosecute a baker for being true to their faith, Obama's Department of Justice will.

UPDATE:

A question opponents of Arizona SB1062 don't seem able to answer: What is the objectionable text in the bill?