The Ideal of Married Mother and Father

All other things being equal, a child is best off being raised by his or her biological father and mother, who are married to each other. Every child naturally has a mother and father.

How did that become such a controversial statement? It used to be taken as an attack on "single mothers" or "fathers" who abandon their children, but that objection has been (temporarily) dropped as most marriage neutering advocates instead focus on objecting by claiming that the ideal is "two parents", including two people of the same gender who are not biologically related to the children. It has become controversial to say "mother and father" are the ideal, because that presents sex-integrating relationships as somehow different and better for parenting than a couple absent one of the sexes.

What used to be accepted and self-evident has been questioned out of political desperation.

Handy Dandy Leftist Democrat Statement Generator

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

Whatever the Republican has said, respond with...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I Don't Like Democratic Socialism

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


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



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

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

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

Brilliant.

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

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

Imaginary Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legislating For Feelings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ideally, anyway.

Dear Progressives, Socialists, Liberals, Leftists, and Democrats

We're $19,000,000,000,000 in debt, just officially on paper and just on the federal level. This doesn't count obligations that haven't been added to the balance sheets, state debts, local government debts, etc.

Our government can't keep spending more money than we have, especially not at growing rates of the size of deficits.

"Tax the rich" you say?

All of the wealth could be confiscated from "the rich" and the debt and spending would still be a problem. In fact, it would be even more of a problem because in the following years, "the rich" would be generating less economic growth, less tax revenue, and there would be more people "in need".

The cold, hard fact is that at least one of these things must happen if our nation is going to survive:

1. Government spending has to be cut significantly, and the way government budgets going forward has to change. Slashing spending on the military will not satisfy this need.

2. The federal government has to sell off land and other assets and generate more revenue (through oil drilling, for example) on some of the land it doesn't sell.

3. We need to either birth and raise enough children or import enough immigrants (immigrants are people who come to stay, not people who come here for certain benefits and then return home) who'll end up contributing more tax revenue than they'll take. With immigration, it must be taken into account whether or not these individuals either were a net cost in USA tax revenue (through receiving foreign aid) or generated a net in USA tax revenue (through buying goods and services of American businesses) when they were living in other countries. It will be better, on a global scale, to birth our own new Americans rather than moving producing individuals from other countries to here.

I understand that Leftist policies and philosophies are in conflict with those three times in the following ways:

1. Leftism demands increasing government spending. If not directly, by insisting on more and larger government programs.

2. Leftists would rather the federal government increase its land holdings and would rather NO business use such land, especially because Leftists consider such activity an environmental threat.

3. Leftists are fine with immigration, but encourage immigrants to favor larger government. Leftists are more likely to see children as people who should be de facto wards of the state most of the time, as parasites or abusers of the environment (if only through their parents' actions), as burdens, as hindrances to the empowerment of women, as things to be aborted. All one has to do is look at western Europe, which is thoroughly Leftist, to see that the birth rate does not even replace the population.

If you care about the USA having a future the only logical solution is to adopt one, both, or all three of these conservative or traditional & limited government principles:

1. Making government smaller and more limited government.
2. Selling off government/public assets and/or access to land.
3. Making more babies and raising them to avoid consuming as many tax dollars as they generate and who will also vote for smaller, limited government.

Unless we produce it from scratch ourselves, everything we receive, whether goods or services or money, has been generated by someone else. Either we use voluntary transactions to get these things, or we use force, which means government force or crime, to get these things. Even if you are content to increase confiscation for your personal benefit, we, collectively, simply can't function if there is consistently a higher overall consumption than overall production. There will be less production if producers are punished with more confiscation and decreasing freedom to engage in, and benefit from, voluntary transactions.

Lester Doesn't Understand Money or Economics

Have you seen this making the social networking rounds?

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

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

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

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

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

State of the Union 2016 Wish List

With BHO up there, it would be great to see everyone fall asleep, not just a judge or two.

I know most of these positions will be completely avoided by President Obama, 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.

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.

Esteem Human Life. Vow to prosecute anyone who is transporting people across state lines for abortions to cover up statutory rape or anyone transporting human tissue, obtained without the consent if the individual, across state lines. Encourage people to think of human life as important and valuable, whether young or old, sick or healthy.

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.Stress that ISIS and other such organizations must be obliterated, and point to recent terrorist attacks as reminders the threat it still very real.

Border Control Is a Matter of National Security. Explain that allowing illegal aliens any advantage in gaining permanent legal status ahead of legal immigrants is a slap in the face to legal immigrants and naturalized citizens. 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.

We're One Race - Human. Yes, "race"-based slavery was our national birth defect, and injustices persisted after slavery was abolished, but hostile racists have very little power now in our overall system. Law enforcement must have limited powers, and rioting shouldn't be tolerated.

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

Encourage Responsible Gun Ownership. As it is the duty of every able person to stand up to evil & crime in protection of the innocent, responsible gun ownership, training, and practice should be encouaged, and state and local laws should allow for this

Declare the Growing National Debt Unacceptable. Explain that it is a basic function of the federal government to adopt a budget, and that it is unsustainable and immoral to accumulate increasing debt, thereby burdening future generations. The government should not encourage further dependency on government.

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".

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.

Equal Access to Free Markets. Explain some of the major benefits of free markets, 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.

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. It is clear that people can succeed in the USA regardless of skin color, sex, or sexual orientation, and focusing on slights, imagined or real, based on these personal characteristics, is fostering hostility and division and self-defeating thinking, doing more harm than good.

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

Education Is a Private Responsibility. Given the state of American public education since the Carter administration, call for the dismantling of federal involvement in education.

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. 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. Call on the states to reforms laws and polices that punish people, especially men, for marrying.

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.

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

What Are You Going to Do For Me, Bernie?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I invested my money.

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

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

We lived modestly.

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

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

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

Why do you want to punish me, Bernie?

What are you going to do for ME Bernie?

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

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

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

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

Happy Thanksgiving

Times have been better. Times have been a lot worse, though, too. Let's not forget that things could be much, much worse here in the U.S.A. Let's pray we don't find out just how bad things can get.

There is so much for which we should be thankful.

Personally, I have so many things for which to be thankful it would take me all day to list them. I thank Jesus Christ for what He did and what He continues to do – He's my Lord and Savior. I thank the saints for persevering in handing down the faith. I thank those brave souls who established this nation. I thank our military men and women for preserving this nation. I thank my ancestors for making the difficult journeys to American soil. I thank my parents for birthing and raising and supporting me. I thank my wife for marrying me and birthing and mothering my children. I am thankful for the candidates, supporters, and voters who have given the GOP control of both houses of Congress. I could go on and on, but I won't.

Some Leftists go into their theatrics this time of year, braying about how horrible it was for Europeans to bring western civilization to the Americas. It makes me wonder why the ones in the U.S.A. who are European ancestry haven't moved to Europe.

This idea that the native peoples living here (who, by the way, were also newcomers at one time) were all peaceful and noble and that the Europeans who settled here were horrible, evil people who always mistreated the natives is ridiculous. All over the world, people have been overtaken and either killed off or integrated. Yet only in certain parts of the English-speaking world is the integration portrayed as evil and celebrating anything remotely connected to it is stopped.

But notice that the Normans didn't give the Anglo-Saxons any sovereign territory, nor casino operation exemptions. Such concessions are not typical of victorious peoples.

Don't let the Leftists take away Thanksgiving. Celebrate proudly.

It is time for us to pause and consider that there is much for which we should be thankful, and we should thank Him. If you're not inclined to do that, then consider all of the people in your life who have been there along the way, providing emotional support, friendship, guidance, and goods and services.

The modern American Thanksgiving meal is an overly bountiful one, a testament to how somewhat free markets and capitalism have produced plenty. From the farmer to the importer to the grocer, participants in the market have allowed us to splurge.

I bid you a safe, pleasant, and reflective Thanksgiving Day.

News Flash! Rich People Know How to Make Money!

Capitalism is Unavoidable

Capitalism is a system in which people use the resources they have to create more resources. As long as the Sun is shining, this will continue to be possible. There is nothing wrong with this. It is a good thing.

The more freedom people have to make voluntary transactions, the more ambition, perseverance, innovation, thrift, and accomplishment will be rewarded.


Rich People Know How to Make Money, and That's Good

Free market capitalism often means that rich people continue to make more than poor people. What's the alternative, really? The alternative is that the rich people stop making money. That would be disastrous, including for the poor. Yes, if a person has one dollar and another has ten, the person with ten dollars is going to have eleven dollars and the other is going to have $1.10 if they both make a 10% return on their investment. What is the problem with that???

Of course the rich are getting richer. That is because, first of all, they are still doing the things that made them rich in the first place. If they got rich in high-paying jobs, and they are still in those jobs – SURPRISE! – they are still getting paid. Secondly, almost all of them invest their money in ways that will earn even more money. That is good, because it means they are investing in companies and ventures in ways that allow other people to earn a living and perhaps get rich, too, and it is paying off. Thirdly, they tend to have good financial habits, such as not spending more money than they make.

Neutering Marriage is Not Conservative

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

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

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

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

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

The Republican Party is For White Protestant Christian Men

Can't you see that???

Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman

Best Selling Author Ann Coulter
(Photo by Alex Erde)

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings

Governor Christine Todd Whitman

Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton

Governor Jan Brewer
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao

Governor Marry Fallin

Bestselling Author Michelle Malkin
(Photo by David All)

Governor Nikki Haley

Representative Michelle Bachmann

Governor and Vice-Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Senator Susan Collins

Senator Elizabeth Dole

Senator Kay Baily Hutchison

Senator Kelly Ayotte

Senator Lisa Murkowski

Senator Olympia Snowe

Author and syndicated columnist Star Parker
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Governor Susana Martinez

Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

Governor Bobby Jindal
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Governor Brian Sandoval

Secretary of State Colin Powell

Writer David Horowitz
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Author, syndicated columnist, and radio talk show host Dennis Prager
(Photo by Nate Mandos)

Businessman and candidate for the Republican nomination for President Herman Cain
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson

Columnist, Mayor, and Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell

Author, columnist, and radio talk show host Larry Elder

Author, media critic, and radio talk show host Michael Medved

Representative Allen West

Representative J.C. Watts

Senator, Candidate for GOP Presidential Nomination Marco Rubio

Senator Mel Martinez

Professor, author, and syndicated columnist Walter E. Williams

NFL Hall of Famer, 2006 candidate for Pennsylvania Governor Lynn Swann

Representative Mia Love
(Photo by Michael Jolley)

Chairman of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele

Senator, Candidate for GOP Presidential Nomination Ted Cruz



















 

Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, executive at AT&T and Lucent, and candidate for the Republican nomination for President (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

 Ben Carson, neurosurgeon and candidate for the Republican nomination for President (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Bruce Jenner, Olympic Gold Medalist decathlete, trans woman











This is just a sample of people recently appointed by Republicans, recently elected to office as Republicans, or outspoken as Republicans. Not one of them is a white Protestant Christian man, although most of them are constantly attacked with racist, religious, or sexist slurs from the Left.

You can find many columnists (not necessary all of them Republicans), including many women, with a diversity of ethnic backgrounds, and a diversity of political viewpoints (but all either "conservative" or for limited government) at Townhall.com.

Are You Really a Christian?

There are a lot of people who identify themselves as Christian because they were born in the U.S. and aren't Jewish, or because they are conservatives, or because they've attended church services at some point in their lives, or have a Bible in their home, or were baptized, "dedicated", or confirmed.

The truth is, it is possible to attend church regularly, be active in the church, to give to a church, to celebrate Christmas and Easter, to have been baptized, and to read the Bible without really being a Christian.

A Christian is a follower of Christ - someone for whom Christ is Savior and Lord.  I know there are people who like to define Christian as anyone who attends or is a member of any church that uses the word "Jesus" somewhere in their statements or sermons or has Bibles, or anyone who identifies themselves as Christian. I suppose for broad sociological purposes that may work. But in the theological sense, there are plenty of people who attend church who aren't Christians, even if they identify as such.

Since words mean things, it is important to define who I'm talking about when I refer to Jesus Christ. Why?  Well, as the Scriptures warn, there are false Christs proclaimed by some as the genuine Jesus Christ - the one who is written of in the Bible and who walked this Earth.

The Jesus Christ I’m writing about - the Jesus of the Bible and orthodox Christian theology - is both fully God and fully man. I write "is" because He is alive. He is the "Second Person" of the Trinity - meaning He isn't the Father and isn't the Holy Spirit. He took on a human nature and grew as a normal child in Mary, a Jew. His conception did not involve a human male as it was a miracle that took place inside of a virgin. Jesus lived the perfect life without sin - quite unlike the rest of us – though He did experience much of what we experience. He lived as Jew, preached, taught, prophesied, confirmed the truth of the Scriptures (what's called the "Old Testament" in many circles these days), and performed miracles. He was beaten and crucified and died on the cross. In doing so, He became the perfect sacrifice, the fulfillment of the Jewish system and examples, taking away our sins so that we can fellowship with a holy God. After that, He was resurrected from the dead (that means bodily) to everlasting life. He still lives and will judge the world at the end of this age - whenever that may be.

Oh - and there is one God, a triune God, hence the Trinity. There is no other true god.  Nobody can "become" god. God is God and has always been and always will be God. So, it isn't like we can be just like Jesus in every way. He is unique.

Anyone who has made a decision to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior is "born again", making the term "born again Christian" a redundancy. You don't have to stand on street corners shouting about Hell to be a Christian. You don’t have to walk around saying "praise God!" every minute. You don't have to be some wimpy person people walk all over. If Jesus Christ - the true Jesus and not someone some are calling Jesus - is your Lord and Savior, you are a Christian. You are born again. Your sins are forgiven. You have eternal life. Do we still screw up? Yes. We will until we are resurrected or transformed.

If Jesus Christ is really your Lord and Savior, then there should be some evidence of that in your life:

You have a relationship with Him. 

He is your priority.

You live His way, not your own way.

You own up to your sins, repent of them, and ask forgiveness, even if you have to do it many times over. 

You seek to avoid those sins in the first place. 

You seek to help others as He has delegated those tasks to His people.

If you aren't a Christian but want to be, you can become one right now. It is between you and Him. You don't need to go to any particular building or perform any sort of ritual or lose a body part or talk to anyone else - just Him. Once you are a Christian, though, you will find it helpful (and you will be obedient to your Lord) if you do find a healthy, well-balanced Bible-teaching church to attend, study the Bible, and pray frequently. Don't know how to pray? Just start by talking to Him, and be willing to "listen".

E Pluribus Unum

According to this Associated Press story by Hope Yen, the rate of "interracial" marriage is rising in the USA, but not as fast as it has risen in the past.

As I've written before, I put interracial in quotes because I believe we are all of one race - human.

The growth of interracial marriages is slowing among U.S.-born Hispanics and Asians. Still, blacks are substantially more likely than before to marry whites.

Here's an example of why the racial categories can be a little ridiculous: how are they counting brides or grooms who are themselves the products of "interracial" coupling?

The number of interracial marriages in the U.S. has risen 20 percent since 2000 to about 4.5 million, according to the latest census figures. While still growing, that number is a marked drop-off from the 65 percent increase between 1990 and 2000.

Well of course there has to be a slowdown at some point in something like this. You can say that the obesity rates have stopped rising as fast once everyone is obese already, for example.

About 8 percent of U.S. marriages are mixed-race, up from 7 percent in 2000.

The sustained rates are much higher than brideless or groomless "marriages".

How Exactly Do We Get Government Out of Marriage

After years of saying that marriage was “nothing more than a piece of paper” or “oppressive to women”, the Left’s assault on the family has, as you are certainly aware, temporarily switched to insisting that it is vitally important for two lesbians be able to enter into such oppression by being able to legally “marry” without a groom, and if you don’t agree, it means you want to beat little girls to death for being tomboys.

Some on the Left, many libertarians, and some weary conservatives who mistakenly think it will get the whiny homosexuality advocates to shut up say, “Get government out of marriage!”

Oh, it may sound nice. However, what it really is, in addition to being the Left’s real goal in the matter (after they use neutered “marriage” to beat down anything that depicts heterosexual behavior as qualitatively different from homosexual behavior) is… impossible.

It is impossible to get government out of marriage.

Someone might say that government didn’t get into marriage until only a few hundred years ago, but they are neglecting to mention that before that, churches functioned as government, at least to some extent. With the secularization of government, the government has unavoidably retained involvement in marriage.

From a strictly legal perspective, what exactly is marriage? 



1) First and foremost, it is a financial partnership. Unless (and sometimes even if) there is an extensive, thorough, and valid prenuptial agreement that provides otherwise, marriage involves the mingling of assets and sharing of earnings acquired during the marriage. As such, in determining the amount of child support owed to a child of Spouse A, Spouse B’s income can also be taken into account. This financial partnership can also be evidenced in credit scores, judgments, etc. That marriage is a financial partnership is demonstrated severely in the event of a divorce. 

2) In most places, marriage provides default paternity. This is supposedly to protect children (and their mothers) from abandonment, but it also reduces the likelihood taxpayers will be on the hook to care for needy children and their mothers, and it also aids men who want access to their offspring and to include their offspring as dependents and beneficiaries.

3) Marriage provides default next-of-kin status. For example, absent a directive that says otherwise, if man gets into a car accident and is rushed to a hospital in critical condition, his next-of-kin makes medical decisions for him. If he has a girlfriend, but not a lawful wife, then his parents, siblings, or children will be making the decision, no matter how long he’s been seeing that girlfriend. However, if he’d married that girlfriend the year before, she is now next-of-kin. Our immigration laws also take kinship into account. As such, that same man can’t import his girlfriend as easily as he can import his wife. I frequently take and make calls on behalf of my wife, something I couldn’t do if she was not my wife.

4) Marriage provides default beneficiary status. This is much like the point above. 

5) Marriage is more intimate than a citizen's relation to the state. In certain circumstances, spouses can’t be compelled to testify against each other in court.

Marriage used to be a license to live together and have sex, but that has been almost entirely removed from the legalities of marriage. For the most part, people are now entirely free to associate in these ways without a marriage license.

Given these realities, how is it possible to get government out of marriage? 

Yes, the government can stop issuing and keeping marriage licenses, but all that would do is create more private paperwork and increase the involvement of courts, which are part of government. 

How would assets be split up in the event of a divorce or breakup? The same way as when there is a dispute between roommates - by courts, which are government. Some people will say spouses should not have joint accounts or community property anyway, but is that really the family culture we want to foster?

Yes, government can leave women entirely in control of their newborns, forcing men to sue if they want to be involved or women to sue if the man does not want involvement, and again, that would involve the courts, which are government. 

A lot of people don’t have wills, trusts, advanced directives, and other paperwork they should, and without a state marriage license, courts will have to get involved more. One of the arguments of marriage neutering advocates has been that brideless or groomless couples shouldn’t have to do all of that extra paperwork. Marriage abolitionists want EVERYONE to have to do all of that extra paperwork.

So spouses would no longer be exempt from testifying against each other? Do you want someone to have to walk on eggshells in front of their spouse for fear that the government could compel their spouse to rat them out for even thinking about the most minor offenses, or blowing off steam with figures of speech?

Why should the government “get out of marriage” but not “get out of birth”? Or, why are there government birth certificates? If you say birth certificates help protect a child’s rights, I maintain that a marriage license also does this. The natural process of birth is almost always preceded by a natural joining of a man and a woman, no matter how temporary. The paperwork deals with these realities.

No state in the union created marriage. States have simply recognized and recorded something that already existed, because such unions bring together both sexes, create a new unit that is the basic building block of families and society, usually join two families, and usually create the next generation of citizens. Abandoning state marriage licensing would only “get the government out of” an extremely tiny percentage of marriages - ones that never involve children, last until both spouses die simultaneously, never involve one spouse being unable to make their own medical decisions, etc. In reality, getting rid of state marriage licenses would bring more government into our lives, because marriage licenses are a paperwork shortcut.

Leftists who say “get the the government out of marriage” are like abortion advocates who want to implement King Solomon’s “solution” of cutting the baby in half. Are we, as a society, to say that people who do not want to be married by clergy or are unable to find willing clergy (perhaps Atheists or noncongregants of whatever sort) should not be able to get married? No more marriages by judges, justices of the peace, or other secular officials?

As written by DarwinCatholic:

The state cannot duck the situation, because arbitrating property disputes is one of its most basic purposes, and determining who constitutes a household is one of the basic elements of resolving property disputes.

As James Joyner put it:

Now, I suppose we could replace it with a set of complicated contracts:  wills, powers of attorney, adoptions, and so forth.  But that would be much more burdensome than a single legal act that solves the issues.  And there’s always the chance of sudden death that puts things into legal limbo before the parties would have an opportunity to execute a particular contract.  Say, one parent dies during childbirth or just before.  Now, custody is a non-issue if the couple is married.   If the parents were in a mere business relationship consecrated by a series of contracts, it would be murkier and require legal wrangling at a particularly emotional time.

Presumably, all of that’s solvable.   But, essentially, you’d be re-creating civil marriage under another name.   Which seems rather pointless, since we already have it.

The state gets involved in marriage because it unites a man and a woman in the kind of a relationship that naturally creates new citizens, even if not every single relationship does. The state is involved because of biological realities, not because of claimed attractions or love. The state and society simply do not have the same interest when there is no bride or there is no groom, and that is why brideless or groomless pairings were not considered or recognized as marriage in any culture in history, even ones where homosexual behavior was openly accepted and celebrated.