Yes, Vote GOP in 2012

Lies and misleading statements can travel halfway around the world before the truth has the time to put its boots on. I might believe the crap in this pathetic hatchet job if all I ever did was read headlines from Leftist media.

Corporations are people. For legal purposes, a corporation is a "person". This is why there is a legal term "natural person" for individuals like you and me. The legal classification of a corporation as a "person" facilitates taxing corporate income and holding corporations criminally liable for wrongdoing. Would Democrats prefer corporate income not be taxed, and that corporations not be held criminally responsible? Then there's the fact Mitt Romney said, in response to a possibly disturbed heckler, "Corporations are people." Mitt was referring to the fact that corporations do consist of people: 1) the employees are people, and 2) the owners are people. Do Democrats deny this? Then again, Democrats do have a habit of denying that people are people. You know, like little girls who are about to be born.

Women who use birth control are sluts. Who said that? I do recall Rush Limbaugh saying that, given the costs of various common forms of contraception, an unmarried woman who says she has to spend $3,000 a year on birth control must be having so much sex that she's a slut, especially if she demands strangers pay for that contraception. Did any GOP candidate or elected official say women who use birth control are sluts? A single one??? Limbaugh is a radio host. He apologized. I do have the wonder though... in the Democrat dictionary, what is the definition of a slut?

College students are snobs. Again, name the GOP candidate or elected official who ever said such a thing. Rick Santorum, from what I recall, said President Obama was a snob in saying that everyone should go to college - he didn't say college students were snobs. Santorum has at least once advanced degree, from what I recall. He was not being a hypocrite, nor was he calling college students snobs. He does rightly point out that the purpose of Leftist universities is to create more Leftists.

Gay Americans are abomination. Again, name the GOP candidate or elected official who ever said such a thing. There have been Republicans who have, quoting the Bible, said homosexual behavior is an abomination. Did Mitt Romney say that? Have any of the GOP candidates for Senate  or Governor or current Senators or Governors said that? And what difference does it make?

Poor people deserve to be poor. Again, name the GOP candidate or elected official who ever said such a thing. Some poor people are nothing but victims of failed Democrat policies. However, people who do things like: 1) commit serious crimes; 2) piss away their partying instead of saving and investing; 3) regularly accumulate debt subject to high interest rates and incurr late charges; 4) abuse substances; 5) have children while young and out of wedlock; 6) show no educational or professional ambition or work ethic; 7) consistently eat way too much food, especially foods high in fat, sugar, and sodium and rarely get enough exercise... are more likely to be poor as a result of their own decisions. Democrats seem to think rich people don't deserve to be rich, unless they are Democrat politicians who have married into or inhereted their wealth.

Union workers are socialist thugs. Again, name the GOP candidate or elected official who ever said such a thing. Only some union workers are socialist thugs... like the ones who beat people up, picket private residences, and tout socialism. That's not all union workers. In fact, some union workers are Republicans who are more or less forced to pay dues that are then funneled to Democrats, despite how those Republican union members feel about it.

The unemployed are lazy parasites. Again, name the GOP candidate or elected official who ever said such a thing. Many of today's unemployed are hard workers who are victims of Democrat policies. But there are unemployed people who are lazy parasites. Are Democrats really so stupid as to believe that all unemployed people are hard workers who contribute more than they consume?

Latinos are illegal until proven otherwise. Again, name the GOP candidate or elected official who ever said such a thing. This is nothing but racism and race-baiting on the part of Democrats, who don't want Latinos, especially Catholic Latinos, to think about how much the Democrat policies work against strong families and freedom of religion. The Democrats don't want Latino immigrants and naturalized citizens to think about what a slap in the face it is to accomodate and benefit illegal aliens when the immigrants and naturalized citizens went through the trouble of playing by the rules.

The Bible trumps the Constitution. Again, name the GOP candidate or elected official who ever said such a thing. The Democrats want to divert attention away from the Democrats who clearly believe foreign law or judges trump the Constitution. The GOP position is that the Constitution is the highest law of the land. Personally speaking, the Constitution does not currently conflict with the Bible, but I note that Biblical arguments were effectively used against slavery when slavery was Constitutional.

Global warming is a hoax. Gobal warming is either happening or it isn't. It is some reports about global warming that have been exposed as hoxes, and we've already seen some predictions proven false. The Democrats have not proven that it is necessarily or possible to take effective actions against global warming that will benefit humanity more than harming human progress. The Left has a history of alarmism about crises that later exposed for not being problems in the first place or being overblown.

The US auto industry should go bankrupt. Any business that irreversably accumulates financial obligations it can't meet should go bankrupt so it can be restructured or the assets sold of and put to better use.  The Democrat cocern about the automakers was funneling money to unions and screwing over investors.

The US President is a Muslim agent from Kenya. Again, name the GOP candidate or elected official who ever said such a thing. But it is interesting the implication here is that Democrats believe Muslims and Kenyans are bad.

Now it's my turn...

Children not yet born should be obligated to pay for people to live well today.
It's no problem to keep introducing ponzi schemes into our government structure.
Babies who survive abortions don't deserve to live.
Catholics should be forced to pay for strangers to have partial-birth abortions.
Government should get more centralized, bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive.
White males are enemies of everyone else.
Trial lawyers should get even richer.
You should have to join a union whether you like it or not.
Gas prices aren't high enough.
Terrorists and serial child rapist-killers deserve free housing, health care, food, recreation, and security for life rather than execution.
...Vote Democrat in 2012!

Newspaper Editors Don't Trust Science

(Note: LATimes.com only allows visitors to access a certain number of articles per month for free.) The Leftist goal of portraying conservatives and Christians as ignorant, uneducated, and illogical (despite Leftism being based on emotion rather than logic) is evident in today's Los Angeles Times, in an article by John Hoeffel headlined "Conservatives' Trust in Science Has Declined Sharply".

I'm a conservative and I trust science. Most conservatives do. We must define what we mean by "science", however. People like me believe the scientific method is helpful in discerning things about the physical universe. What people like me do not trust without verification, and for good reason, is how findings by scientists are reported, especially in the Left-leaning media. Also, when a scientist makes statements that relate to metaphysics, the supernatural, or philosophy (such as expressing a worldview of philosophical naturalism), we rightly question the statement rather than trust it.

Here's how the article opens:

As the Republican presidential race has shown, the conservatives who dominate the primaries are deeply skeptical of science — making Newt Gingrich, for one, regret he ever settled onto a couch with Nancy Pelosi to chat about global warming.

Really? If we don't believe there is man-made global warming that we are able to (and better off if we do) fight through drastic restrictions on human freedom and centralization of power in government… we're "skeptical of science"? It shouldn't be news that conservatives are skeptical of political Leftism.

A study released Thursday in the American Sociological Review concludes that trust in science among conservatives and frequent churchgoers has declined precipitously since 1974, when a national survey first asked people how much confidence they had in the scientific community. At that time, conservatives had the highest level of trust in scientists.

The "scientific community" even if it were to be unified, does not equal science. This smacks of identity politics, like when the MSM reports that someone who doesn't think a brideless pairing forms a marriage is "anti-gay".

Confidence in scientists has declined the most among the most educated conservatives, the peer-reviewed research paper found, concluding: "These results are quite profound because they imply that conservative discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust among educated conservatives."

So why wasn’t the headline "The More Educated the Conservative, the Less Trust of Scientists"? That would have been more accurate. But notice how terms scientists, the "scientific community" and science are all being used interchangeably in this article. It's like saying that someone does not approve of President Obama’s job performance, or believe what he says doesn't trust the Constitution.

To highlight the dramatic impact conservative views of science have had on public opinion, [report author Gordon] Gauchat pointed to results from Gallup, which found in 2012 that just 30% of conservatives believed the Earth was warming as a result of greenhouse gases versus 50% two years earlier. In contrast, the poll showed almost no change in the opinion of liberals, with 74% believing in global warming in 2010 versus 72% in 2008.

You see, "belief" in "global warming" = science.

Chris Mooney, who wrote "The Republican War on Science," which Gauchat cites, agreed. "If you think of the reasons behind this as nature versus nurture, all this would be nurture, that it was the product of the conservative movement," he said. "I think being educated is a proxy for people paying attention to politics, and when they do, they tune in to Fox News and blogs."

In other words, conservatives don't just believe whatever the New York Times, TIME, and MSNBC say.

The study also found that Americans with moderate political views have long been the most distrustful of scientists, but that conservatives now are likely to outstrip them.

Moderates are typically less educated than either liberals or conservatives, Gauchat said. "These folks are just generally alienated from science," he said, describing them as the "least engaged and least knowledgeable about basic scientific facts."

And yet, we didn't have a headline that said "Moderates Less Educated".

Gauchat, who has been studying public attitudes toward science for about eight years, has applied for a National Science Foundation grant to investigate why trust in science has waned.

Maybe it is because of the influence of grants?

He plans to ask a battery of questions, including some focused on scientific controversies, such as those over vaccines and genetically modified foods, to try to understand what makes conservatives and moderates so distrustful.

Yes, you see, it isn't Leftists who are making any of that noise about vaccines and genetically modified foods. Oh no… it is those churchgoin’ conservatives and those uneducated moderates. Yessiree.

"cognoscenti" at 5:55 AM March 29, 2012 commented:

It's funny (ironic?) in Google News today, this LAT story is highlighted and directly beneath it is a Reuters story of how a lead cancer researcher found 47 of 53 popular scientific research 'findings' couldn't be replicated. No wonder people have lower faith in science with stories like this, Climategate, hockey stick graphs, etc etc. When scientists make up results to either gain grants, patents or notoriety for their cause the truth eventually comes out.

The same peson later added:

The one thing that bothers me about the IPCC reports over the last 10 years regarding AGW is the slow redaction of pieces of it, bit by bit. Like the claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 which turns out to be completely false. Or wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. These loose 'facts' were all a result of the lack of peer-reviews and an eagerness to push an agenda.

"moristheflorist" at 6:53 AM March 29, 2012:

A lot of this distrust might be due to the sorry state of science journalism

(see graphic: http://larvatusprodeo.net/files/2011/05/phdcomics-science-news-cycle.gif)

"basswork" at 9:02 AM March 29, 2012 gets it right:

Such comedy. The headline would suggest that conservatives mistrust science in general. But no, it's anthropenic global warming that is at issue. And by people who have studied the issue more carefully than most, including presumably those who write about it in the media.

In fact, believers in AGW behave much like religionists, smiting all heretics who dare question the popular doomsaying dogma.

Why not write about liberals who believe in feng shui, not inoculating their children and that government provided services are free?

For a reasoned argument against AGW read here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html

"nikkkko" at 10:10 AM March 29, 2012 wrote:

It’s not just science, that conservatives have a problem with. They have a problem with any fact or rational idea that conflicts with their views.

Pot, meet kettle. (A bunch of Leftists just remembered they were meaning to light up.)

The majority in this party do not believe in evolution, and many of those believe the earth is 4000 years old.

Conservatives are not the GOP, but I think it is safe to say that the majority of Republicans and conservatives do believe in "change over time" if that is what is meant by "evolution". But if you mean by "evolution" that everything that exists - including all of the woundrous biological diversity and irreducibly complex natural systems, sunsets and surfing, our sense of right and wrong, the mind of Einstein, the music of Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and great sex – are the result of nothing more than the mindless interactions of molecules that emerged from nothing without the aid of God, then no, most people don't believe that.

And Young Earthers think it is at least 6,000 years, often 10,000 years or more.

No More Shotguns

Guys, if you knock up your girlfriend, there's no need to marry her, or speed up marriage plans. Marriage isn't about children. At least, it isn't if brideless or groomless pairings are marriage.

Who Cares About the Younger Generations?

Candidate for the GOP nomination for President Mitt Romney is making an excellent point.

This clip is a good one:



The video ends too soon, however. As reported by McClatchy, Romney goes on to question why young voters would vote Democrat:

"And I say that for this reason: That party is focused on providing more and more benefits to my generation. And (amassing) trillion dollar annual deficits my generation wil never pay for.

"The interest on that debt," he said, "is going to young people in America....it's going on piece by piece. My party is consumed with the idea of getting federal spending down and creating economic growth and opportunity so we can balance our budget and stop putting these debts on you."

Just see Paul Ryan's latest budget proposals and see the reactions.

"Those debts are not frightening to people my age," he said. "Because we'll be gone."

Just look at what has been happening in Greece.

Every service, every thing that is designed, engineered, sculpted, cooked, mixed, fixed, built, manufactured, recorded, transported, or installed is the result of someone working. It takes work to provide goods and services. One person may choose to provide another with something for free, but what the person doing the questioning was asking for was for someone else to be forced to provide something to her for "free". Only, it won't be free. Someone has to pay for it, because it isn't growing naturally in large quantities on free land all around us. Given how far in debt we are as a country, it is the younger generations and generations yet unborn who would be doing the payment.

Romney's official take on this can be found here.

Some young people want to believe that they can have everything they want without working for it - that they can get a higher education and respected degree, a nice house, contraception, and anything else they want without working hard for it. That's not living in reality, and the younger generations of voters need to think about the size and intrusion of government, the national debt, and where these things are going to be when they are seasoned citizens. What kind of nation will their children and grandchildren be left with?

If you want "free stuff", vote for Obama and the other Democrats on the ticket, but realize that the free stuff isn't really free.

When is a Private Citizen No Longer Private?

In a response to a column Meghan Daum discussing Rush Limbaugh's comments and Bill Maher's comments towards women, the Los Angeles Times printed some letters of note. (Note that clicking the link adds to your monthly total of visits to LATimes.com, which has a pay wall after a certain number of visits per month.)

Christine Gregory of Beverly Hills wrote:

It is true that Bill Maher has insulted Sarah Palin, but she is a public figure who put herself into the public square — and condemnation and reverence comes with the territory.

What crossed the line is Rush Limbaugh calling a private woman who desires birth control a "slut" and a "prostitute."

Are we really to believe that Fluke did not put herself into the public square? Where, when and to whom did she make the statement to which Limbaugh reacted?

Nor was Limbaugh criticizing her desire for birth control. He was criticizing her insistence that it must be provided by a Catholic university.

Likewise, Sidney Morrison of Los Angeles wrote:

But Limbaugh crossed the line when he attacked a private citizen, a young woman exercising her right to express her views.

Doesn't the same right to express views apply to Limbaugh?

With freedom comes responsibility. Some has the freedom to choose contraceptives or abortive chemicals. Others should have the freedom to opt out of paying for it.

Democrats to Church: Shut Up But Pay Up

Cynthia Schultheis of Lakewood, California dutifully and obediently turned Democrat talking points into a letter to the Orange County Register:

I'm tired of hearing and seeing men argue and discuss women's issues, without any women present (i.e., a recent panel in Washington, D.C.).

Ms. Schulteis, I agree that Congress should not be discussing "women's issues". However, since the Obamacare unconstitutionally inserts the federal government into these matters, we don't really have a choice, ironically.

The men you cite were elected, under the Constitution, by voters. Then their peers appointed them to a committee. It isn't like they are a bunch of whiny protesters who just showed and started spouting off at the mouth., like Occupy or a group of hair-legged feministas.
Finally, Testicular Americans can have logical, reasonable points about matters under public debaste, and there's something called the First Amendment.

I feel moral outrage over an organization riddled with pedophiles expressing their moral outrage over contraception.

Feel anything you want. What does it matter to anyone else in the world what you feel? If someone felt you were a shrew, would that mean anything?

An organization riddled with pedophiles. Hmmm... who is she talking about? LAUSD? The Directors' Guild? Planned Parenthood? My guess is the Catholic Church. So the Catholic Church is never again allowed to have its teachings because there were some pedophiles in it? How does that follow? The Catholic Church isn't telling anyone they can't use contraception. It is objecting to being forced to pay for it.

How can celibate men who will never marry or have children counsel anyone on sex, contraception, marriage or child-rearing?

The same way government officials and public educators can counsel (and make and enforce law) about things they've never done themselves. The difference is, people have a choice about whether or not to support or attend a Catholic Church or follow its teachings. The church does not have the power to fine you, take your property, or throw you in prison.

It's irresponsible and inconceivable that the Roman Catholic Church preaches abstinence or forbids condoms to those who may be infected with HIV or AIDS, again only proving how out of touch and medieval they truly are.

Uh, do you know what abstinence means? There's no chance of spreading HIV if you abstain. But at least you are in touch. Sounds like literally.

The RCC has been around for 2,000 years. Does that quality as medieval? Let's grant the mistaken assumption that the teaching is medieval. There are no doubt things from that time period you believe or live by, so your use of that word might be emotionally effective, but doesn't really discount the teaching.

What consenting individuals and/or couples do in the privacy of their bedrooms is no one else’s business; it is truly a personal decision, not the government’s or the church's.

Exactly. And that's why neither the government (taxpayers) nor the church should pay for it.

Doug Sorey or Irvine also wrote in:

After reading about the $168 million judgment against a unit of Catholic Healthcare West for sexual harassment, it seems that the Roman Catholic Church, to say the least, has some serious women issues.

Mr. Sorey, anyone with a penis is at risk for being sued for sexual harassment. This includes, I presume, you.

The Catholic Church appears to be like the Republican Party: a little bunch of old white men trying to run the lives of females.

Since when is refusing to pay for someone else's private behavior trying to run their lives? And he's right. The GOP is nothing but old white men. See for yourself.


Democrat Playbook

Step 1: Pass unconstitutional federal law.
Step 2: Have some "ordinairy Jane" publicly testify before Congress about something with which Congress shouldn't be involved in the first place, demanding strangers pay for her private decisions.
Step 3: Sit around all day listening to commentators who might disagree with Jane's position, to document what they say.
Step 4: Feign outrage at a commentator's statement (even if it is like something someone on your side said that you didn't say squat about).
Step 5: Cite commentator's statement as an example of some sort of concerted war on all women.

Too bad I don't have any sponsors to harass, right?

HBO We Can't Believe In

The Leftist Democrats have the machinery of almost all of the major news outlets and most of the television media in general to get their messages out, true or not. HBO is part of that.

Poll Dancing to Claim Fauxmentum for Neutering Marriage

It is quite laughable (or perhaps sad) just how desperate marriage neutering advocates, including the ones presenting themselves as objective journalists, have gotten in trying to convince everyone else that there is some massive shift to support for replacing marriage in state law with a counterfeit.

Read all about it over at The Opine Editorials.

Men and Women Are Different

Yes, men and women are different. "Duh!" most people say, but you, too, can learn to be offended by such a statement if you read and listen to certain sources enough. Just about any sentient being, including two-year-old human beings, knows that men and women, girls and boys, are different. Yet, there are people who deny this, even as their actions go against their ideology.

Human beings are male or female. People who can't handle reality angrily refer to this as "gender binary". They point to three groups of people: men who think they are women; women who think they are men; and people born with deformed or mixed up organs. The first two groups of people could have mental illnesses or physical problems. People in the third group definitely have physical problems. All three groups combined amount to a tiny percentage of the overall human population and do not negate that fact that for all practical purposes, human beings are male or female, any more than the fact that some people are missing a leg or two negates the fact that human beings are bipedal mammals.

Other relevant facts:
1) words mean things
2) "most" does not mean "all"
3) "chances are" does not mean "all always"
4) “men tend to” does not mean “all men always”
5) that men and women are different does not mean all men are the same in every way and all women are the same in every way

I know some Leftists have a hard time with this, but holding an opinion and addressing general realities does not necessarily mean the person holding it thinks that everyone must feel, think, and live the same way. That is their projection at work. They get offended if you don’t agree with them, and refer to it as a personal attack or an attack on an entire group of people.

Some Leftists also have a habit of taking quotes out of context and mischaracterizing what others communicated. An example is some of the reaction to my posting of "Valentine's Day is Not Enjoyable to Most Men".

Notice I wrote "most" and "chances are" and "men tend to" and I clearly state that a man can enjoy Valentine's Day. However, either problems with reading comprehension or a deliberate mischaracterization were demonstrated in a couple of responses.

One response includes among the absurdities…

1) She doesn't celebrate Valentine's Day, so I must mean she is a man instead of a woman
2) A statement that I (TPW) don't like Valentine's Day.
3) A false claim that I said all men or all real men don't like it, and that all women, or all real women do.
4) Then, ironically, a statement that I can't conceive that another person might feel differently
5) Her husband doesn't fit the description I wrote. Yeah, no kidding. That's no surprise.
6) Completely oblivious to conditions in most of the world, she also apparently wants foreign kids to starve rather than have jobs.
7) She incorrectly assumes I must be describing the dynamics of my marriage, when I wasn't. I have a happy marriage, with a wife who will tell anyone who will listen she has the life she's always wanted, and is very happy as a result.

Leftist feminists often express their disapproval that a woman would use her education, power, choice, and professional experience to freely choose to marry a man on whom she can rely financially, keep their home, care for their children, and seek to meet the various simple needs of her husband, including keeping herself as healthy and attractive as reasonably possible.
On to another one….

1) She claims I maintain one size fits all. When speaks or write, they must sometimes deal in generalities that do not apply to everyone. Most people are intelligent enough to get that, instead of getting upset.
2) She then sidetracks, bringing in the kitchen sink by falsely accusing me of being "anti" a bunch of things I'm not.
3) Despite the fact that I clearly stated that married lovemaking is a mutual thing, not something bought by a man, she writes as though I state the latter rather than the former.
4) Community property laws apparently mean money is only a wife's to decide what to do with, and if a man doesn't want the community money spend on store-bought gifts for him, there's something wrong with him.

I do agree with her that Valentine's Day marketing can be banal. However, much of that banal marketing is based on extensive research into what works.


Given how they reacted from my honest, candid opinion based on my observations and experiences, would a man in their lives be encouraged or discouraged to tell them if they disagreed with their opinions? Do a man's feelings, desires, or experiences matter, or are they something to be ridiculed unless they are in agreement with their opinions? Rather than saying, "That's not my experience" or "I'm one of the women that doesn't care much for Valentine's Day", they did what I cite above.

Where the Sidewalk Ends

It's been an ongoing, well-documented problem that the Big Labor/Illegal Alien Democrat City of Los Angeles has crumbling infrastructure. A good example? The city has been unable to get the residential street sidewalks into shape. This is especially shameful in a city that takes money from drivers and uses that money to cajole people into not driving their automobiles, but rather take taxpayer-subsidized transit (which means walking), bicycling, and walking.

Not only do the crumbling sidewalks degrade neighborhoods, they open the city to personal injury claims and lawsuits by people taking full advantage of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The solution, according to some? Abandon the public-property sidewalks to the nearby property owners, or at least "tax" the sale of property in order to fix the nearby sidewalk. After all of these years of neglecting the sidewalks despite taking money from taxpayers, property owners, and developer supposedly for the purpose of maintaining the sidewalks (along with the roads), the city leaders want to throw up their hands.

I support private roads maintained with private funds, with the understanding that there will either be some public roads or at least easements over private roads for the sake of defense, law enforcement, and emergency services. But if a street and its sidewalk is going to be government-owned, it should be maintained by that government.

But this is the dysfunction you get with a Democrat-controlled city in a Democrat-contolled county in a Democrat-controlled state.

So Predicatable - Licenses for Illegals

LAPD's honcho, Chief Charlie Beck, is now saying illegal aliens should have driver's licenses from the states. I saw this coming a mile away.

One obsessed state legislator has been pushing a bill to do just that for years now.

As for Beck, he's been feeling the heat from the public because of a proposal to change the policy of impounding the vehicles of unliscensed drivers for 30 days. The change would mean that a driver, pulled over by the police who is, during that process, determined to be unlicensed, would be able to keep his car as long as he could call someone with a license to drive it away. This change, of course, means the unlicensed driver would be back to driving that car ten minutes later.

Since illegal aliens can't legally get valid California driver's licenses, illegal alien advocates have been calling for this change.

The problem with changing the policy is that unlicensed drivers kill a disproporionate number of people, so the existing 30-day impound saves lives.

The logical solution? Keep in the impound policy as it is and tell the illegal aliens we're not going to do yet another thing to accommodate lawbreakers.

But... I just knew the response was not going to be that, but rather "This is why we need to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens." Grrrr. Yes, let's deal with a problem by heading further down the path that created that problem. Call me crazy (and many people do, especially people who claim there's no difference between men and women), but I don't think this is going to make illegal aliens safer drivers. If they don't pass the driving test, they will simply drive anyway. After all, they obviously don't care about breaking the law. And should they cause a serious accident, they can simply go home to avoid justice.

Say, how difficult would be it be for illegal aliens to take advantage of "motor voter" laws to fraudently vote? Hmmm.

Beck says the illegal alien driver's licenses should be different, so it is clear they are illegal aliens. But Beck doesn't get to make those decisions, and as we all know from our marriage neutering friends, you can't have different government documents for different behaviors. But if we can go through all of the trouble of licensing these people, why can't we, oh, deport them?!? Yes, I know one is a state matter and the other is a federal matter, but the state handles things for the federal government all of the time.

STOP with accommodating the lawbreakers at the expense of legal immigrants, citizens, and our guests.

She Just Might Change Your Mind

The Republican War on Women

Only in the world of the deceptive propagandists of the Left and their useful idiots is saying that the federal government should not force religious organizations to pay, contrary to long-held and stated religious beliefs, for birth control for people who are voluntarily associated with those organization... a "war on women."

Here's a couple of ideas:

Pay for your own birth control.

Work for someone else.

Fantasyland and Fires

Ah... Anaheim, California. Home to the MLB "Los Angeles" Angels, the NHL Ducks, and the original Disneyland. Recently the Orange County Register had an article with the headline, "Is Anaheim Fire Department Too White?" Eric Carpenter reported.

The city's Fire Department is envisioning a staff of firefighters more reflective of the cultures and ethnicities found in the city.

What does that mean? Hiring illegal aliens? Gangbangers? Taggers? (Anaheim definitely "benefitted" from the post-amnesty tsunami of illegal aliens.)

That means recruiting more women, Latinos, Asian Americans and Arab Americans, among others, to mirror Anaheim's changing demographics, fire Chief Randy Bruegman said.

I see.

Anaheim's fire force overall is 73 percent white, 18 percent Latino and 6 percent Asian, while the city's population is 52 percent Latino, 30 percent white and 14 percent Asian.

I wonder what the ethnic make-up of the city's fiscal staff is? And I don't see enough color on the Ducks team.

It's not just Anaheim:

Anaheim's department is one of six in California that participated this month in a workshop aimed at better meeting the needs of a diverse community.

Perhaps we can change the name of the city to Casa Ana?

Later this year, Anaheim will participate in a national workshop to continue leadership training and education on diversity. The city is working under the guidance of a nonprofit group, Fire 20/20.

National. So this could be happening anywhere.

A Muslim family may have religious issues with modesty. A first responder should be aware that a woman wearing a hijab who is in need of medical attention may be uncomfortable being touched by a male paramedic. A female paramedic might not be available, but the firefighter could at least be aware of the hurdle.

Great. So let the woman die, then? It's okay. There are other wives to take her place, right?

Anaheim has a large, growing Vietnamese population. Bruegman said firefighters should be aware that with many Asian cultures it would be best, when practical, to talk with the eldest family member out of respect.

So what if grandma can't hear nor understand English?

Within the article is a Q & A with the chief.

Q. How about gender equality?

A. We need to work on that more as well (Anaheim has two sworn female firefighters).

We go out into the community and we still hear people talk about "the firemen." I tell them, "We are firefighters, we haven't been firemen in at least 30 years." That's another perception we need to change early.

If they are male firefighters, they are firemen.

Q. Would you institute quotas based on gender and ethnicity?

A. We would not head down that path. But we would look at changing the recruitment pool. Right now, you go to an academy and you still see predominantly white males; that's what needs to change.

Why? As long as access is provided to all, there isn't a problem.

This is what I wrote after the article that got a lot of "likes":

Regarding Fire Department staffing. It should not matter what their last name, skin color, sex, sexual orentation, religion, or anything else is... I want THE BEST people at saving lives and protecting property. PERIOD. I don't care if the entire staff is Arabian Muslim lesbians, or if it is all white, Jewish males. Regarding how the Fire Department ACTs... we are in America. We have AMERICAN culture. People who COME HERE do so voluntarily and should recognize that they live in AMERICA and we're not going to cater to all of their cultural sensitivities. If they liked that other culture so much, they can always go back to it.

The last thing we want to do is bring down the standard to meet a quota. When a firefighter is on the back of a fire truck, they need to be equally trained and capable. Firefighters wouldn't stand for anything less. Nor would the public.

Glad to see the chief said that. But as far as recruitment - if someone doesn't have the guts to apply despite the fact that they'd be in the skin color or sex minority in the department, they don't have the guts to be firefighters. Firefighters should be people who WANTED to be firefighters, who don't let barriers stand in their way. I understand wanting to better deal with "cultural sensitivities", but only in so far as it aids in saving lives and protecting property, goals which should never be compromised for the sake of feel-good political correctness. For years, the police department spokseman was Rick Martinez. I didn't even think about his ethnic background until just now. Why? It didn't matter. He was darn good at what he did. That's what mattered.

California's Taxes

Ron Mossler of Northridge wrote in to The Pink Transgendered Lady (a.k.a. The Los Angeles Times) responsing to the article "Dueling Tax Hike Measures Occupy Democrats":

Pat Hurley, a delegate to the state Democratic Party convention, remarked, "Voters might think the governor's [sales tax] plan is too broad" and that only millionaires should be targeted for increased taxes. Hurley's remark highlights the problem.

As long as there are only a wealthy few who contribute to the supply side of tax revenue, those on the demand side can remain less involved about how politicians spend a limited pool of revenue. If everyone were asked to contribute more, as in a sales tax increase, perhaps more Californians would demand more accountability and responsibility from our politicians.

As long as we pick on the super wealthy, the rest of the populace lacks an incentive to rein in spending.

Thank you, Mr. Mossler. One problem with getting a large minority or even majority of voters on the receiving end of redistribution is that the taxpayers have the resources to relocate. As Mossler noted, people become disinterested at best. At worst, they become active in order to keep up their plundering of someone else's earnings.

The Democrats control Los Angeles, San Fransisco, and California. They are doing a fine job of messing the state up. They can't blame Republicans. The Democrats have control.

I'm Shocked! Shocked!

Who knew that we shouldn't trust everything that comes out of a university, nor everything reported by The Crossdressing Pink Lady? See what I'm talking about over at The Opine Editorials.

Corporations Aren't There to Make You Feel Good

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

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

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

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

Scary Monster!

I found this list of objections someone had to Rick Santorum, who is a candidate for the GOP nomination for President.

Let's take a look.

1. Opposing birth control
Quote: "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." (Speaking with CaffeinatedThoughts.com, Oct. 18, 2011)

Reaction: This is "pretty basic: Rick Santorum is coming for your contraception," says Irin Carmon at Salon. "Any and all of it." Threatening to "send the condom police into America's bedrooms" is pretty bad politics: More than 99 percent of sexually active women have used some form of birth control, and "helping people get access to birth control is actually a popular issue," supported by 82 percent of Americans. But a national contraception ban is "clearly the world Santorum wants."

First of all, notice the switching of terms "contraception" and "birth control". Not all birth control is contraception. Contraception prevents the conception of a human being. Some other forms of birth control kills a human being. Secondly, Santorum is talking to Christians about morality. Nowhere does he state or imply that he's going to prevent anyone who wants to obtain contraception from getting it. This appears to be a case of Leftists thinking that unless the federal goverment (really meaning taxpayers) provides something, it doesn't exist.

2. Keeping moms at home
Quote: "In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don't both need to. ... What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else — or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon — find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism." (Santorum's 2005 book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good)

Hmmmm, I don't see anywhere in that where he said "moms" should be forced to stay home. It was some sexist thinking on the part of the Scaredy Cat that equated the idea of both parents not needing to earn income with it automatically being the mom who "stays home". Santorum was stating the truth - that it is possible for families to make it on one income so that strangers or hired help aren't the ones raising the kids.

3. Re-spinning the Crusades
Quote: "The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. ... What I'm talking about is onward American soldiers. What we're talking about are core American values." (South Carolina campaign stop, Feb. 22, 2011)

The fact is, the Crusades were a response to some Muslims attacking pilgrims, and as was common with war efforts in those times (and often our times) some people going along for the war did things they shouldn't have. Today, so many people say, "Ah ha! The Crusades!!!" without having any real idea of what happened and in what historical context. I highly doubt Scaredy Cat would want the kind of Islam that was being fought to spread to where he or she lives.

4. Rejecting the very idea of "Palestinians"
Quote: "All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they're not Palestinians. There is no 'Palestinian.' This is Israeli land." (Campaign stop in Iowa, Nov. 18, 2011)

That is factually true. Isn't someone born and raised in Israel an Israeli? I wonder what this person would call someone born in the USA?

5. Reminding America that some view Mormonism as "a dangerous cult"
Quote: "Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?"

He asked a question, stating a fact about what some Christians believe. So Leftists don't call Santorum's beliefs dangerous? Some certainly appear to. And what have Leftists being saying about the LDS church... hmmmmm?

6. Dissing welfare programs that "make black people's lives better"
Quote: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money." (Campaign stop in Iowa, Jan. 2, 2012)

What in the world is wrong with someone pointing out that jobs are better than welfare?

7. Bringing race into Obama's abortion views
Quote: "The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person — human life is not a person, then — I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'We're going to decide who are people and who are not people.'" (CNS News interview, Jan. 19, 2011)

Apparently the person concerned about this is unfamiliar with the fact that enslaved African Americans were classified as nonpersons under certain laws. They are so busy trying to equate any disagreement with Obama with racism. Because we all know that none of these Republican ever opposed white Bill Clinton's positions, right?

8. Equating gay marriage to loving your mother-in-law
Quote: "Is anyone saying same-sex couples can't love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?" (Santorum's Philadelphia Inquirer column, May 22, 2008)

He did not equate those two things. He pointing to the fact that "love" is not a basis for our laws.

9. Comparing homosexuality to "man-on-dog" sex
Quote: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. ... That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing." (AP interview, April 7, 2003)

Nope, comparison not made. Sorry.

So let's review. Rick Santorum...
1. Doesn't believe contraception is morally compatible with his faith. How does this impact anybody other than his wife? It doesn't.
2. Notes the fact that not every set of parents with young children that uses hired help to raise the children rather than doing it themelves needs to do this.
3. Correctly notes that Muslism agressively took over the Holy Land and attacked pilgrims.
4. Believes that people born in Isreal are Israeli.
5. Asked if having a Mormon for a President would mean more Americans joining the LDS church instead of other churches.
6. Said it is better that people work jobs than receive welfare.
7. Doesn't think it is good that some human beings are classified as nonpersons.
8. Notes that "love" is not a basis for making legal determinations.
9. Notes that marriage means one thing and not another thing.

Ooooh..... scary! Run for the hills!!!

Inconsistencies in the Law? You Don't Say

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bias in the Media, Bias in the Courts

I look at how the print edition of the Los Angeles Times covered the 9th Circus Court of Appeals decision on the California Marriage Amenmdent, a ruling that contains shocking errors... over at The Opine Editorials.

Good News, Bad News From Federal Court

The good news is that the people of California are allowed to defend ballot measures they approve.

The bad news is that at least two judges sitting in the 9th Circus Court apparently think marriage laws and customs existing all over the world all throughout thousands of years were nothing more than some massive conspiracy to stick to to homosexual people.

Read all about it at The Opine Editorials.

Marriage Malpractice Does Not Require Replacing Marriage

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

Funding Planned Parenthood Supports the Slaughter of Innocent Human Beings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The State of the City

Here's what we're dealing with the greater Los Angeles area, being part of the People's Republic of Alta California:

We're going to make it easier for people to commit fraud to get taxpayer-subsidized housing.

Some want to make it easier for unlicensed drivers who have been pulled over for traffic violations to keep driving. People who have been issued tickets and haven't paid a dime are going to be given amnesty, while people who have made some effort to pay won't.

Those of us who follow the law are being faced with being strongly limited in the automobiles we will be able to purchases due to an inherently flawed attempt to control climate.

Our utility bills are rising in a flawed attempt to control climate.

The largest port complex in the union wants to accommodate more traffic, but environmentalist whackos are just fine letting some other location in another country or state get those great jobs.

Crazy people are shouting at elected leaders to try to stop them from building new jails to replace overcrowded, aging jails, apparently preferring to let criminals and suspects run free.

Over 700 vicious first-degree murderers are being given shelter, health care, food, security, recreation, and other comforts of life on the taxpayer dime, with no execution date in sight, despite being sentenced to death.

The unemployment and underemployment rate is even worse than the national average.

The state and localities have many and high taxes, and there's a serious push for more.

We're running huge state budget deficits, but a 100,000,000,000-dollar boondoggle Unneeded Train-to-Nowhere that will be an ongoing drain on taxpayers is still being pushed.

Taxpayer-funded school teachers can tie up and blindfold elementary school kids and literally spoon-feed them Clinton-White-House-Intern-Blue-Dress-Staining Fluid, document their crime with pictures, and then resign and keep their pensions!

While all of this is going on, legislators are spending their time writing, discussing, and passing laws to make "adult video" performers wear condoms. Never mind everyone else, and the fact that the disease transmission rate through such performances has been close to zero.

You can't make this stuff up. This is what happens when Leftist Democrats are in control.

Fighting the Republican Party Establishment

If you are a registered Republican or usually vote Republican and you're not happy with "the Party Establishment" and their candidate for President...

Free Enterprise is Good, Big Business Managers Aren't Always

According to Reuters, "Six prominent Pacific Northwest companies, including Microsoft and Nike, have endorsed Washington's [marriage neutering] legislation."

Where's the outcry from the Left about corporate involvement in politics? Where are the Occupy people? Read more over at The Opine Editorials.

Charity is Saintly

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

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

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

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

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

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

So a Politician Walks Into a Bar...

Actually, a restaurant. Should a restaurant be able to refuse service to someone based on their beliefs or their politics? Read more over at The Opine Editorials.

Update on State Battles Over Neutering Marriage

Read the latest over at The Opine Editorials.

Letters to LAT

The letters printed in the Los Angeles Times can sometimes be insightful, sometimes an indicator of societal decay.

Rosemary Hagerott of Sierra Madre had a great letter:

I agree with your subheadline's characterization of what the president said in his State of the Union address: "Obama says all must pay 'fair share' of taxes."

I'd like him to start by collecting taxes from the nearly half of Americans who pay no federal income tax.

Right on!

And how about all those Americans who don't file tax reports? And how about all those who earn most of their money "under the table" and report very low income?

Such is a problem with income taxes.

Once he addresses this issue, I might listen to him about the "rich" paying their fair share. Right now, the "rich" are the only group of taxpayers paying their "fair share."

And when did it become anathema in this country to achieve the American dream by becoming rich?

When too many people decided it was better to slack off, make poor choices, and let Big Brother take care of them. And then link to blogs like this and complain about it rather than learning from the simple steps to avoid poverty.

Eugene Sison of San Dimas may have Bush Derangement Syndrome:

It has been said that men such as Obama must be "twice as good" as the George W. Bushes of the world to succeed at the same job.

Huh? It this a racial reference? If so, Obama only has to be 50% better.

So, as president, Obama listed his administration's accomplishments: preventing a second Great Depression while saving the auto industry, ending the Iraq war while getting Osama bin Laden, passing healthcare reform while reining in Wall Street. Two words came to mind: Mission accomplished.

Obama's stimulus effort made things worse.

He didn't save the auto industry - he bailed out American Big Labor.
Pulling troops out of Iraq was made possible by the decisions of the Bush administration in addition to all of the hard work of the military and contractors.
Yes, it is good that he kept up the pursuit of OBL, and didn't wimp out when it came time to kill OBL.

Healthcare reform? He inserted the federal government into private health insurance matters and is creating an new dependency program.

What exactly has he done to "Wall Street"? Wall Street PAID FOR OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN.

What a bunch of hooey.

In response to an item in the Business section, "How the wealthy get tax breaks," Business, Jan. 24, Anthony Maenza of Oceanside wrote:

If a criminal stole 35% of my money last week and 15% this week, would The Times write that the criminal's actions this week helped to increase my wealth? If not, then how does The Times justify writing that "wealthy people grow even wealthier with the help of the tax code"?

Because the article wasn't about subsidies given to the rich but instead about the wealthy keeping a larger share of their own money, one must conclude that The Times believes the money belongs to the government, which then favors the wealthy by letting them have a disproportionate amount of said government's money.

How about mentioning the earned income tax credit, which "refunds" unpaid taxes to the poor — taxes paid by others (likely the wealthy)? That would be honest journalism.

Perfect.

Al Barrett of Santa Monica is clueless, and so must be right at home in the People's Republic of Monica ("Santa" should be banned for being religious.):

Keeping Mit Romney's income tax rate no higher than 15% is necessary to help him create jobs, according to some economics experts.

Hey genius, that the personal tax rate on capital gains, which is investment income. The money used to invest has already been taxed, and the profits are taxed again before they are paid to Romney (and elderly widows), who then have to pay taxes on the money AGAIN.

It doesn't seem to be working.

Actually, Romney's efforts have created a heckuva lot of jobs. Jobs NOT dependent on taxes, unlike so many "green" jobs.

Apparently, high school economics courses need to be required and improved.

My State of the Union Wish List

I know most of these positions will be completely avoided by President Obama, never mind that they wouldn't have a chance of being implemented with the current Senate, even with a Republic POTUS.  But permit me to dream. Also notice that with most of these, I'm calling on the President to encourage action by the people, not to use the force of law.

Equal Access to Capitalism. Explain some of the major benefits of capitalism, and that the best thing the federal government can do to foster a good business climate that provides jobs is to provide protection from interstate crime and foreign terrorists, and to be involved as little as possibly in voluntary employment and business transactions, not picking winners or losers in business, subsidizing some and restricting upstarts while protecing established businesses.

Strong Marital Unions Are Good For the Union. It brings together both sexes to raise the next generation of citizens. Men and women are different, and unifying them in the marital union forms a strong, inclusive building block for society, benefiting the individuals and society. Call on the Federal government to help by continuing to affirm, as Presidents Clinton and Bush did, that marriage unites a man and a woman, and pledge that the federal government will not force states to recognize counterfeit marriages. Encourage people to voluntarily take marriage seriously, thinking for the long term, getting good pre-marital counseling - and counseling during marriage as necessary. Encourage individuals, families, congregations, businesses, and the media to respect and value marriage, and support marriages instead of undermining them. Encourage individuals to save sex and childrearing for marriage, because doing so is good for them and good for the country.

Education Is a Private Responsibility. With so many educators complaining about No Child Left Behind, and given the state of American public education since the Carter administration, call for the dismantling of federal involvement in education.

Don't be Santa Claus. Don't propose new federal programs and expansions of existing federal social programs. Enough already. There are 50 states in the union and a few territories that are supposed to be handling their own matters – that is, the matters that are not supposed to be left up to "the people".

Explain That the Federal Government Is Not the Answer to Every Challenge, Problem, or Choice - Rather, it is the Last Resort Answer to Very Few. That is what freedom and liberty are all about.  Challenge individuals, businesses, congregations, nonprofits, and local and state governments (where appropriate) to take action instead of relying on the federal government. The federal government is there to protect the union from foreign threats and to and resolve some disputes between states.

Stop Using the Tax Code For Social Engineering. Tell the Congress that instead of taking the carrots (taxes) from the people and then dangling some of them back in front of the people, that the people should keep their carrots in the first place and do with them what they will. Call for tax simplification and a move away from income/payroll taxes. If someone pays taxes, everyone should pay taxes.

Individuals Should Plan for the Future. Talk about the numerous options individuals and families have for saving for the future. Encourage them to save and invest for the future and not rely on the federal government to take care of them in their senior years. Point out that a reduction in federal spending will allow people to keep more of their own money to aid in saving for retirement.

Explain that Planning for Your Health Care is Part of Planning for the Future. Call for more freedom, competition, and private decision-making in health care.

Encourage Proven Conservation Techniques. Quote the scientists and activists who, in the 1970s, warned that we were heading for a new ice age, and quote those who said that by 2000, the rainforests and the oceans would be destroyed. Go on to say that we must not hastily and uncritically accept alarmist warnings and use federal government force to impose destructive restrictions on the people and business that may not result in significant environmental benefit.

Encourage private innovation and solutions to reducing reliance on terrorist oil.

Border Control Is a Matter of National Security. Announce that, effective immediately, the National Guard will secure our borders to prevent terrorists, disease-carriers, and smugglers from entering the U.S. They will stay there until suitable barriers and checkpoints are constructed – however long that takes. We will NOT encourage further invasion by offering amnesty, health insurance, and other tax-funded benefits for citizens of other countries who illegally enter/stay in the U.S. Speed up the process for legal immigration for those who want to come to the U.S. legally to become citizens and can find sponsors who will ensure they will stay off of public assistance. As for illegal aliens currently living in the United States – do not offer amnesty; they can go through the same channels of those who are trying to immigrate legally. If the border is secure, this problem will eventually take care of itself because their children born here are citizens and the illegals can continue to function as they have until they die off, if they don't want to go the legal route. Any illegal alien who serves honorably in the U.S. armed forces should be granted citizenship. If a true shortage of labor occurs (meaning American unemployment is low and employers need more temporary labor), a true guest worker program can be developed.

Property Rights and Personal Freedom. Most Americans understand that people should be considered as individuals and based on their behavior and abilities, not as members of a non-ideological group (ethnicity, etc.). Therefore, the federal government should no longer be involved in preventing people from renting, selling - or not - to whomever they choose for whatever reason, and should no longer be involved with who an employer hires and fires and why. Airlines, for example, should not be forced to carry anyone who makes the majority of their employees and passengers uncomfortable.

Tout the Successes of the War on Terror. Laud those military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel who have uncovered and prevented terrorist plans and actions, pointing out that is has been over ten years since terrorists have carried out a major attack in the U.S.

Break the Street Gangs. Pledge federal agencies to assist state and local law enforcement "sweep and hold" gang-infested urban areas.

Civility. Call on partisans to vigorously debate the issues, but refrain from threats of violence an character assassination, as they renew their vow to defend the Constitution.

A Status Update

Recognizing that marriage always unites a bride and a groom does not make someone ignorant, bigoted, hateful, prejudiced, or anti-gay. None of these people were ever quoted as saying marriage could exist without a bride or without groom: Moses, Jesus, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Chief Joseph, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Susan B. Anthony, Gautama Buddha, JFK, FDR, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and the other signers of the Constitution of the United State of America. Not one world religion has traditionally called anything without both a bride and a groom "marriage". No country, including officially atheist countries, in thousands of years of history, did until the Netherlands in 2001. Were they all hateful? Having a word that has always distinguished a relationship uniting both sexes into a social and legal unit obligated to each other and the newborn citizens they may naturally produce together, as only both sexes together can, is not hateful. Repost if you agree.

Two Leftist, Libertarian Issues at the Back of the Line

Libertarians and many Leftists want legalization of all drugs and elimination or almost complete opening of national borders.

The most compelling argument against drug legalization is that more people will use currently illegal drugs if they are legalized. That is based on alcohol consumption per capita before, during, and since Prohibition. Is that enough of a reason to refuse legalization? I'm not sure.

What I am sure about is that I will not be motivated to support legalization until AFTER:

1) Taxpayer money ceases to be spent on health care

2) I am allowed to control and defend my property and myself, meaning I do NOT have to rent to a druggie and I can carry a loaded firearm and shoot a druggie who is a threat to me or my family

3) Employers are allowed to not hire, hire, promote, demote, and fire people for any reason, including being a druggie.

Make THOSE parts of the libertarian dream happen first. Good luck getting the Left to go along with that.

As far as border control/immigration issues... we're always going to need some defense of our borders for national defense purposes, but see what I wrote before about "comprehensive immigration reform". I'll care a lot less if someone wants to hire an illegal aliens if society is otherwise mostly libertarian. Again, good luck getting the Left to go along with that.

So drug legalization and letting illegal aliens come and go as they please, work here, etc., are things that have to go to "the back of the line". They do not make sense unless our society is more libertarian already.

We'll Need Congress

It's primary season, so Republicans are in dispute about who will be the best nomimee for President, including who can beat Obama, who is more solidly conservative, and who will be a good leader for the GOP.

But whether we end up with Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Obama, or someone else (if something unusual happens) as President a year from now, I think it is clear that we'll need a Congress that will be strongly focused on conservative, limited government. It will be critical if Obama is re-elected. It will be important even with a Republican President.

You may not be enthusiastic about any of the possible GOP candidates. Get excited about electing Senators and Representatives who will value the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, and American exceptionalism.

They'll Always Want Government to Get Bigger

Neutering marriage would inevitably mean increasing the size of government. Read why over at The Opine Editorials.

You've Fired and Laid People Off, Too

I don't think all layoffs are a good idea or good for a business in the long-term, but sometimes they are. They are part of a free market system that maximizes liberty, generally rewards merit, encourages innovation, and grows wealth.

Those who fault Romney for his responsibility in layoffs, or for saying that he likes being able to fire people need to realize that they have likely laid someone off or fired someone, too.

When you change service or product providers (or decided to do something yourself), whether we're talking about an accountant, lawyer, tutor, bank, insurance company, therapist, doctor, personal trainer, hair stylist, phone/Internet/television provider, magazine subscription, plumber, gardener, mechanic, auto dealer, dry cleaner, clothing store, restaurant - anything for which you have paid in the past - you are laying someone off, if even on a small or fractional scale. You are firing them.

Let's take the example of a mechanic that you weren't happy about. Maybe you found a better or less expensive mechanic and you switched. What happens if enough people do likewise, no longer taking their vehicles to that first mechanic? The mechanic either has to find a new line of business, move his or her business, improve his or her business, or retire. Or, maybe there was nothing wrong with the mechanic, but you decided you needed to save money and do your oil changes yourself, or paid your nephew less money to do it. That's a layoff or firing. What would you think if the mechanic were to pick your house and say that you earn enough that you should have kept going to him or her for your oil changes? What if your mechanic cited the model of car you drive as proof that you have enough to keep paying him or her for those oil changes?

Should you be prevented from laying those people off? Are you obligated to keep using the same person/provider for the rest of your life, just because you've used them before? Not if you don't have a binding contract with them.

If you have stopped buying paper books an adopted, as so many have, the use of electronic books, you have laid off paper and ink providers and those who transport paper, ink, and finished books. If you ever bought movies on VHS buy now buy them on DVD or Blu-ray, you laid off the people making VHS tapes.

When business managers lay people off, is usually out of a responsibility to business owners, which often means shareholders, which often includes many people on Main Street. The company must slim down or die, and even more people will lose their jobs and people will lose their investments. Business managers usually are not laying people off to be mean. But when we lay people off by changing our service or product providers, it is sometimes for petty or arbitrary reasons, sometimes for nepotism. Sometimes, we do it for the same reasons as managers like Romney - for the sake of efficiency.

Ideally, more jobs are created through new businesses, new companies, and growing companies, than lost through layoffs, but layoffs are a necessary part of how the market functions.

So those who point fingers are people like Romney need to take a look in the mirror first.

Previously:

Nobody Owes You a Job

Turning Washington, D.C. Into a State?

So some people in D.C., the seat of our federal government and the place that elects crackheads as mayor (mere coincidence?), want the District to become our union's 51st state.

That would ensure two more Democrats in the Senate, so we can expect support for this to come from the Left. (Interesting how their ideas for gaining/retaining control always involve changing the rules... making voter fraud easier, making new states out of Democrat areas, getting more felons to vote, lowering the voting age, giving current illegal aliens the vote).

How about an old-fashioned compromise that allows Orange County, California (and perhaps a larger center-right area) to become the 52nd state simultaneously? If not The OC, how about some other conservative area in the western area? I'd like Orange County to escape the control of San Francisco and Los Angeles for personal reasons, and California Senators are likely going to be Democrats for the forseeable future. I'm open to other ideas, though.

Bullies and Hypocrites

What would you say if I picked one fellow American, whose statements and actions I disagreed with, and I engaged in a deliberate campaign (and had the power) to assign a definition to their name describing something most people would find disgusting and inappropriate to talk about in public, so much so that when you searched that person's name, a description of that disgusting thing would be the first to list?

Would you consider that bullying... to turn someone's name into a euphemism for something most people would find disgusting?

What if the person I did that too was a homosexual person?

What if I then started an anti-bullying campaign while continuing to bully? Wouldn't that make me a hypocrite?

This situation is not hypothetical, except that the person this is happening to is not homosexual; rather, the bully and subsequent coattail riders (to use a polite term) are homosexuality advocates.

I was disappointed when I learned this, because I support the message that bullying is wrong, and had some respect for someone taking the initiative to spread that message. But now I see that person has deliberately smeared the name of another human being. If that isn't bullying, what is it? I think if you asked most people if they'd rather take a punch to the gut and be called names while a teenager, or have their lifelong name made synonymous with something disgusting, they'd chose the former with no hesitation. If you asked them which was a more hateful form of bullying, they'd choose latter.

Bullying is being done by those who claim to be fighting bullying. And that's the most disgusting thing about all of this. But what should we expect from a savage?

(This is a repost)

How 'Bout Dem Apples?

I know you'll be shocked by this, but Reuters continues to be biased in reporting about marriage neutering, and the Los Angeles Times is still obsessed. Read my analysis of their coverage of things in the State of Washington over at The Opine Editorials.

Two Opinion Pieces in the Los Angeles Times

The paper headlined Dimitri B. Papadimitriou’s piece "Need Jobs? Call on Government".

The subheadline is:

International experience shows that direct job creation by governments is one of the very few options that has succeeded at raising employment levels more than just marginally during a crisis.

Here's how the text starts:

Is high unemployment as certain as death and taxes? Of course not. But if we depend on the private sector to bring rates down, joblessness could join those two certainties.

Huh.

It's unreasonable to expect private enterprises to solve these problems.

That's like saying it is unreasonable to expect food to feed people. You're right - it is unreasonable when you have oversized and overly intrusive government inefficiently handling the food and impeding farmers.

Full employment isn't an objective of businesses.

It's not an "objective of business" to innovate, either, but that's what businesses to do to make profits.

In contrast, direct public-service job creation programs by governments have a history of long-term positive results.

Yeah, it's worked out so well in Greece, hasn't it, Papadimitriou?

At the theoretical heart of job-creation programs is this fact: Only government, because it is not seeking profitability when it is hiring, can create a demand for labor that is elastic enough to keep a nation near full employment.

But who is the government? It is the people. Specifically, in the sense he's writing, the government is People in Group A forcing people in Group B (some of whom are not in Group A) to pay for the things Group A deems worthy.

Government jobs that are funded through taxes depend on the private sector for funding. The more people employed in such government jobs instead of in the private sector, the greater the burden on the private sector. In theory, it would be better for someone who is unemployed and collecting redistributed (tax) funds to perform some work for that money, but the problem is government jobs tend to persist beyond their need, or when a private sector job could do the same work more efficiently. Perhaps government shouldn't be involved in charity in the first place?

Alexander Edmonds wrote a piece the paper titled "Is It Time to Ban Cosmetic Surgery?"

Go head. Conservative women are naturally hot. It's the Left that will suffer. And would such a ban include addadictomies, like the one Castity Bono is seeking?

The faulty breast implants made by the French company Poly Implants Protheses, or PIP, have grabbed headlines around the world in recent weeks, and it's no wonder. The prostheses are more prone to rupture than other models, and they contain an industrial grade of silicone never intended for use in a medical device.

Is this going to turn out like the Dow Corning thing, in which hysteria and fraudulent opportunism destroyed a legitimate enterprise?

Taxing the Kardashians

Sounds like a Ryan Seacrest-backed reality show.

Yes, Kim Kardashian can pay more in taxes and still live a good life. And I'm assuming that she's being targeted because people make the assumption that she doesn't deserve all of the money she has. Her talent seems to be... keeping people interested enough in her for long enough for her to make money doing things like talking on taped, edited video.

But are most of "the rich" anything like Kim Kardashian? Most of them have put in long hours and extra days of hard work on a consistent basis for years and years. Most of them have undertaken significant risks - not for the sake of being risky, but on the chance that it would pay off by providing goods or services for which people would be willing to pay. Most of them have created great jobs, great investments, and/or useful goods or services for many people. Their hard work and creativity have paid off, and they are rich.

But since so many of the loudest people in Hollywood either directly call for higher taxes or verbally and financially support politicians who do, how about we put a surcharge on wedding sponsorships (like from Kardashian's "wedding"), and earnings from acting in, directing, or producing feature films and television shows? That would mean Kim Kardashian would pay more, right? I'm sure the unions, such as the Screen Actors Guild, would be ever so helpful in making this happen.

When Government Gets Really Hands-On

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

What will the ads for this campaign be like?

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

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

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

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

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