Wrong Turns on the California Roads

What a surprise! Unions of engineers and laborers who rely on taxpayer dollars want higher taxes and fees to "fix the roads" in California, and the Leftist Democrats who literally control the state like the idea of higher fees on automobiles and higher taxes on gasoline and diesel.

Mind you, the fuel is already taxed to build and maintain the roads, but the fund has been raided by politicians and what's left has often been spent on underused transit projects.

Over and over and over again, Californians have been taxed with promises of "fixing" one thing, only to have the money go elsewhere.

Not this time, say the Democrats, like Lucy offering Charlie Brown a chance to kick the football.

They claim that the law they just adopted will amend the state constitution to ensure these new taxes and fees will go to the roads. Ah, but 1) they sneak in "and transit"; 2) even if they stick to this, they'll simply redirect the existing taxes and fees away; 3) there's always a loophole that allows the money to be redirected.

To add to the nefarious nature of this, the increase is tied to inflation, so that means the pain for the taxpayers will never ease, and since raising fuel taxes causes inflation, it's a vicious cycle. Gas taxes go up, inflation goes up as a result (because just about every good and service we use has transportation costs), and so gas taxes go up again.

This is what happens when your state is completely controlled by Democrats. Every statewide office is held by a Democrat and the Democrats have enough of the needlessly bicameral legislature that they can do whatever they want. And they do. So as the socialists, unionists, and reconquistadors who control Los Angeles and San Fransisco run Sacramento, everyone else in the state has to bend over and take it.

The War On Women

Thank Chance I'm a man. I'm so glad I'm a man. And I didn't have to announce to anyone that I was now a man, nor did I have to undergo surgical procedures or get hormone treatments to "become a man". (Somehow I survived circumcision and was still able to have a happy, pleasurable sex life, too.) Why am I glad to be a man? Because there's a war on women, of course. A war! It must suck to be a woman. According to what I see on Facebook, Twitter, and political news coverage, women live in deep, constant, crippling, fear every minute of their lives that a U.S. Senator or perhaps a Vice-President (or every other male who isn’t androgynous or feminine) is going to break into their home, rape them, and then force them to carry a life-threatening pregnancy to term and then they'll be punished with raising a child, even perhaps having to cook for it and clean up after it. And the only way to prevent this is through federal funding, programs, and requirements ensuring that women do not have to pay for their own contraception, and, if they get pregnant, using federal tax dollars to pay for abortion, including a ninth-month partial birth abortion. Should the child somehow be born alive, it is war on women to provide aid to that child to keep it alive. War, I tell you! Can't you see it???

It's That Time Again in Anaheim

It seems every couple of years, or even multiple times per year, something riles up the people who have nothing better to do than assault, destroy, block traffic, and whine. Anaheim is a big city, and they do have these clownish agitators, taggers, and gangs, too.

Let's take a look at what is going on. The Orange County Register had a report about an incident partially recorded on smartphone video.

YouTube videos surfaced Wednesday that purport to show a Tuesday altercation in Anaheim with several juveniles and an off-duty Los Angeles police officer who discharged a firearm during the scuffle.

It is important to note that this is NOT an Anaheim police officer, This is an off-duty LAPD officer who was in Anaheim.

The confrontation began over ongoing issues with juveniles walking across the officer's property, Wyatt said.

STAY OFF OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WHERE YOU AREN'T INVITED. No trespassing, no confrontation. Simple!!!

Two Weeks Under Trump

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

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

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

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

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

If You Don't Want Babies Slaughtered You Have to Grow OSHA or Something

You've encountered this in different forms, probably, but we'll deal with this specific example for now.

Notice they don't deny that elective abortion kills innocent humans.

Instead, they try to either silence pro-lifers or co-opt them into Leftism by listing off a bunch of other things these Leftists CLAIM must be part and parcel with being pro-life.

Yes, "chemical" spills (I assume they mean toxic substances) into water can kill people. Dumping of toxic substances into the water support is already banned, and I don't know of elected or significant Republicans who are trying to make it legal.

Gun rampages anywhere are already illegal, too, and again, I don't know of any Republican who is trying to make them legal.

Not Marching in Lockstep

A letter from "Adele":

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


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


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


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

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

[Bumped up due to current events.]

What Are You So Afraid Of?

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

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

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

The Most Amazing Event in History

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” – John 1:14 NIV


I am a Theist. I believe Theism is a more compelling explanation for the universe than Deism, Atheism, or Pantheism. Yeah, I know there's a brilliant physicist who thinks the universe created itself but he's out of his area of expertise (physics) when making that conclusion. If things can create themselves, then we can't rely on any scientific experiments, because we can't rule out that at least some of the data is a result of something creating itself without a cause.

I also think that a being powerful enough to create the universe is certainly powerful enough to interact with that creation.

The Incarnation of Jesus Christ involved God condescending to live a human life. Jesus Christ, eternally having a divine nature, took on a human nature.

His birth to a Jewish woman two thousand years ago is the most amazing event in history. His death on the cross is the focal point of human history, and without His death we would not have the resurrection to celebrate Easter Sunday, but without His birth we would not have His death, His resurrection, or the examples and teachings of His life.

We have a Lord who knows what it is to be human, to experience pain, and to die.

December 25th is located on the calendar conveniently near pagan celebrations, thus allowing for opportunities to reach out to pagans. We aren't sure of what the actual birth date of Jesus was. Like some other things about Christianity, including having many manuscript copies of the various New Testament writings but not the original writings themselves, I think that is part of God's plan. If we had those original writings they would be erroneously worshiped by some, and if we knew the actual birth date of Jesus astrology would be consulted in that regard.

We don't need Jesus' actual birth date. We know He was born, we know He was killed, and we have good reason to believe He was resurrected and still lives today. His teachings, His miracles, and many of His resurrection appearances were public, witnessed by many people, convinced and unconvinced. Contrast that with founding of various other beliefs systems, where the claim is one person had a private vision, dream, or other experience.

Jesus, our Lord, came into the world He created as a baby. That is the core of Christmas. Whether you believe it or not, I pray that you have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

David Benkof Dismantles the Popular Vote Claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read it all.

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

Happy Thanksgiving

The Presidential Election season is behind us, thankfully, and it appears the Left has been stopped, for now, at least in terms of the federal and many state governments.

There is so much for which we should be thankful.

Personally, I have so many things for which to be thankful it would take me all day to list them. I thank Jesus Christ for what He did and what He continues to do – He's my Lord and Savior. I thank the saints for persevering in handing down the faith. I thank those brave souls who established this Union. I thank our military men and women for preserving this nation. I thank my ancestors for making the difficult journeys to American soil. I thank my parents for birthing and raising and supporting me. I thank my wife for marrying me and birthing and mothering my children. I am thankful for the candidates, supporters, and voters who have given the GOP control of both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and so many Governorships. 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.

An Election Retrospective

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


*****


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need not surrender to socialism.

*****

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



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

Handy Dandy Vote Fraud Intimidation

ATTENTION IMMIGRANTS WHO HAVEN'T BECOME CITIZENS

ATTENTION ILLEGAL ALIENS

ATTENTION CITIZENS WHO HAVE NEVER EVEN REGISTERED TO VOTE:

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

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

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

The Delusional Democrat Voter Returns

Hey folks, do you remember this?

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

Simple question: Why is our nation so divided?

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

Where Am I?

I haven't been giving nearly as much time to this blog as I used to, for many reasons, including my lack of enthusiasm for a Presidential candidate.

However, I'm on Twitter all of the time and I update my wall on Facebook almost every day. So find me in those places!

I'm not abandoning this blog. The format of blogging works before for certain things than tweets or Facebook updates, so it can still be useful.

A Prime Example of a Delusional Democrat Voter

A Leftist posted this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right now we need to be united as a nation

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

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

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

no poverty

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

where healthcare is a right

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

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

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

and we live in a way that values natural resources

Selling oil does value natural resources!

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

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

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

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

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

On that we agree.

Are You Ready For Post-Christian America?

[Note: This is something I originally posted  in July 2008. I had to retrieve it from the Wayback Machine because Townhall.com dumped their user blogs and didn't warn us or give us a way to download them. It is more relevant than ever.]

Christians in this country have had things relatively easy compared to most of the world through most of history. We haven’t had to meet in secret under threat of death, we haven’t had to take up arms to defend ourselves from invading armies or hordes of Muslims, barbarians, pagans, or atheists. We haven’t had politico-sectarian strife as in the British Isles. Since the time of Christ's earthly ministry, Christians have had to face the wrath of Jewish establishment authorities, oppressive pagan governments, violent pagan hordes, Islamic armies and terrorists, and atheist iron-fisted governments.  While we are right to stick up for our representation in our national, state, and municipal heritages, and our right to self-government under this Constitution, we hardly have faced the oppression that so many of our brothers and sisters have faced. In turn, we did not force everyone in the nation to adopt Christianity, and in general, while some identifying themselves as Christians have been clumsy or annoying in the behavior, people have generally enjoyed broad freedom.

That’s because this has been, in a sense, a Christian nation.

Okay, whenever someone claims that we are or were a “Christian nation”, someone else is likely to declare that most of our founding fathers were Deists and not Christians. Those who want us to shut up will often cite “low” church membership rolls in comparison to total population in the early days of our nation. But in those days, being a “member” of a church typically meant that one not only attended that church regularly, but had undergone baptism and/or confirmation into that church, regularly tithed to that church, and practiced, as far as anyone knew, the morals and doctrines of that church – violation of which would mean not being a “member” until repentance and restoration. Rolls were also likely to only include the head of the household. The pews certainly contained many more souls, and the influence of the church extended strongly beyond its walls. The naysayers will cite some actual or perceived historical injustices or evils as evidence that we’ve never been a Christian nation. These people can’t tell us why those things are wrong, only that they believe or feel them to be wrong, or at least contradictory to Biblical teaching...which they don’t believe anyway.

By referring to the U.S.A. as a “Christian nation”, I don’t mean that there were never injustices or evils or mistakes in our history – just like when I call myself a Christian, I don’t mean I’ve never done (and never do) unchristian things. Certainly slavery as practiced in America was unchristian, as were actions by anyone who denied the humanity and human rights of Africans and African-Americans.

By “Christian nation”, I mean that we are a nation of individuals who have traditionally identified ourselves as Christians or affiliated with a Christian church; a nation where Christian churches are the most prominent religious institutions dotting the landscape; where you can glance at our founding documents, the writings and speeches of the founders, legislation, court decisions, proclamations, public art, marketing, and other media through most of our history and find citations from, references to, and allusions to God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ; where churches and preachers have held significant influence in public opinion; where most people publicly used and accepted basic tenets of the Bible or lessons from Biblical texts; where the Bible was used in public instruction; where the prominent academic institutions, hospitals, and charities where expressly implementing a Christian mission; where in the halls of government or academia, or in the workplace, a person could loudly and unapologetically lead a group prayer, or appeal to Christ; where the religious aspects of holidays and celebrations were not downplayed; where crèches were common on city land around Christmas; where mottos, seals, and artwork on public buildings openly paid homage to the Christian foundations of that institution or the local or state or federal government.

The major movements and changes were accomplished with sturdy appeals to the Bible – the exploration and colonization of the land, the American Revolution, the Emancipation, the fight against Nazi Germany and its conspirators, standing our ground through the Cold War, the fight for civil rights. Even those who currently fought to neuter marriage licensing often misappropriated “judge not” and “love your neighbor” from the Bible.

But even as most people in the country still identify themselves as Christian (or cite Jesus or the Bible as some authority), we are becoming a post-Christian nation through the tyranny of the minority and the apathy and cowardice of those who are supposed to be salt and light.

We allowed a clause in the Constitution that was meant to prevent the adoption of one denomination as the national religion to be used to slowly but surely remove our heritage and our free exercise of our religion from the public square, to divorce our governing from natural law. Perhaps out of complacency and in a botched attempt to be welcoming to the immigrant, to be fair and tolerant and “nonjudgmental” to the atheists and hedonists as well as anyone who believed differently, we allowed the aggressive secularization of our society, the degradation of our culture, and the enshrinement of license as a “right”. Maybe we went along with it because of our own materialism. In the process, we have trampled on our basic rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and to do with our property and our labor what we will, as long as it wasn’t destructive.

We thought the family and church and its charities too constricting, personal responsibility and self-reliance too scary, raising our own children too burdensome, and now we are settling into the clutches of the nanny state, which gains more power the less moral and responsible its citizens, the less those citizens believe their rights and obligations - and those of everyone else - flow from God.

So out goes the Bible, the cross, prayer, and the Ten Commandments. Out goes discernment, sound reasoning, shame, and humility. Out go the moral constraints on sexual behavior. Out goes the expectation of marriage as a lifetime commitment uniting a man and a woman to care for each other and their children ahead of their own wants. Out goes valuing human life, in comes using human beings for our own convenience and and dispensing of other human beings when they are inconvenient.

In our churches, we’ve allowed another Jesus and another gospel. We reward people like Oprah as they recast Jesus and his teachings in a philosophical mold that is based on Eastern religious concepts antithetical to the Bible. Their “Christianity” demands nothing of them. It does not ask that they change their behavior. Yes, most Americans say they believe in God or a unifying spirit, but many don’t believe that such a being has authority over their lives, or at least they don’t act like it. After all, if we’re confronted with our sins, we cover ourselves with moral relativism, twisting Scripture (“judge not!”), and appealing to evolution as an explanation. We want God there at the wedding, at the hospital bed, and the funeral - but not in the wallet, or the marriage, or the bedroom.

So get ready for post-Christian America, where rights are granted – and can be abridged – by the government which is not "of, by,  and for the people" but rather an elite class, and we “can’t” govern by Christian principles. Heck, Christians are being told they shouldn’t even vote by their personal convictions.

We can see how far we’ve come. Years ago, for example, our current [now former] President was ridiculed for citing Jesus Christ as his favorite philosopher. Yet Thomas Jefferson, whose “wall of separation” phrase in a letter has been misused by such people, compiled and presented a codification of Jesus’ moral teachings.

Right now, they’ve got enough people believing that tolerance means we can’t do anything with which they are uncomfortable. But we are already seeing that where they gain power, they won’t even practice the true meaning of tolerance. Those who live by their Christian principles will not only be marginalized, they will be kicked out of the classroom, fired from the job, and successfully prosecuted and sued in the courtroom. I wonder if we’ll get to the point where killing a Christian will be okay, as long as you can cite that they expressed “hate speech fightin’ words” by affirming Christian morals, making someone else feel “threatened”.

Are you ready for post-Christian America?

Related post: Are You Really a Christian?

The Best Solution to the Problem of Islamofascist Terrorists in the Middle East

When I read about these barbarians murdering men, women, and children in their bloodthirsty quest for absolute control of cities and countries, when I read about them stoning women, probably because the women won't pretend to find them attractive, I get tempted to think about all of the nuclear weapons we have that are collecting dust. That could certainly end these problems in the Middle East. Of course, it would also kill millions of innocent people.

I do believe sending our own military forces in to some of the areas can do some good, but it comes at a tremendous cost, and our bending over backwards to accommodate the Muslim religions leaves the people vulnerable for radicalization.

As far as I can figure, the best solution would be to flood the region with Christian missionaries.

I know that doesn't sound politically correct. I know a lot of atheists, non-Christians, and so-called Christians who are primarily Leftists think it wouldn't do any good, but I know it would. The more of the people there who make decisions to follow Christ, the better. Allowing people to practice Christianity openly, and convert to Christianity would make a difference. That would mean ending stonings. Christians haven't been warring with each other since things settled down in Ireland (and that was really political, not religious).

These missionaries would have to be somewhat armed for self-defense, of course, especially at first. Flooding the region with Christian missionaries, the Jesus film, and other outreach tools would make a difference.

And it would be better the nuking the whole place.

Truly Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Since the issue is back in the news, here is my own plan for Truly Comprehensive Border Control and Immigration Reform.

I love immigration. It is great to have ambitious people yearning for freedom, who have the guts to do something rather than accepting the status quo where they are, come here and become productive Americans, adopting American values.

Our border and immigration policy should be designed to promote legal immigration and national stability, and fight human trafficking, importation of contraband and disease, migration of illegal aliens as long as we have public services, infiltration by terrorists, depression of wages, organized crime and gang activity.

With that in mind, the following should be adopted:

1. First , the National Guard will be immediately deployed to the borders to assist the border patrol.

2. English will be proclaimed the official common language of the federal government, with the exception of native tribal interaction.

3. An effective fence/wall/security system will be constructed along the borders.

4. The stay of legal alien residencies will be monitored to make sure people leave when they are supposed to.

5. Penalties will be increased and prosecutions will be pursued vigorously for human trafficking, voter fraud, hiring illegal aliens, document forgery, identity theft, and aiding & abetting these other crimes.

6. Criminal aliens will be deported upon completing their sentences.

7. There will be no amnesty nor preferential treatment for illegal aliens in gaining legal residency or citizenship unless he or she passes a background check and serves honorably in our armed forces. General amnesty or giving legal status via anything less than what legal immigrants endure will only encourage more illegal alien migration into the U.S.

8. Having citizen children will not necessarily prevent the deportation of illegal aliens. Citizens can return once liberated or of adult age, and apply to bring their immediate family members with them.

9. Home countries of illegal aliens will be billed for costs associated with their citizens here illegally, including but not limited to prosecution, incarceration, education, social welfare, and health care. Even if we never collect, the principle is still there. We can take it out of the taxpayer-funded "aid" we send them.

10. Ceilings will be lifted and processing will be accelerated for legal immigration for refugees and sponsored individuals passing background and health checks to make it easier for those seeking to become assimilated American citizens the legal way.

11. Should there be an actual labor shortage, temporary alien labor will be permitted.


Furthermore:

12. Tax reform separating the tax system from payrolls will be studied.

13. The legalization of illegal narcotics will be studied to see if it what effect it will have on other crimes, drug abuse, and public safety.

14. A process for confirming voters as legitimate will be studied.

The problem of what to do with the 12-20 million illegal aliens currently living in the U.S. will eventually solve itself. Those who are not caught and deported due to ongoing criminal activity, or do not voluntarily leave the U.S., or do not become citizens through the same process as those currently residing in their country of citizenship, will eventually die out.  They have made it this far as illegal aliens - they can continue to try to stay here with their illegal status. They made it here, they can make it back out of the country if they find it too difficult to stay. Any children of theirs born here are already citizens.

Brideless or Groomless "Marriage" is a Modern Invention

From that bastion of right-wing ideology, Wikipedia, comes this history of same-sex unions...

While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.

Emphasis mine. Throughout the entry until we get to the present years, these unions are presented as something other than marriage. It has only been within recent times that any culture, religious system of more than a handful of adherents, or government has started to call brideless or groomless pairings "marriage" and included those "marriages" as the same as the uniting of a bride+groom. The vast majority today still recognize that marriage unites the sexes. Same-sex unions in history were never a widespread and ongoing part of marital systems. If one cleric "married" two men in antiquity, it was an abnormality that wasn't sustained by the culture.

But of course, someone who is willing to deny that the differences between the sexes are significant enough to distinguish marriage from same-sex unions will have no problem spinning history.

Having Liberty With Your Equal Pay

Limited-government Republicans aren't against equal pay for women. We are for women, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or any other personal characteristic getting paid every cent they, or their representative, can negotiate for their labor, and for women having the right to choose careers and employers, including those providing all the flexibility they want when it comes to the hours and days they work, and the amount of work they do. We also support them being able to spend more of their money how they want, rather than how someone else wants them to spend it.


Stop the invasive Big Government Politicians who increasingly want to tell African-American women, Latina-American women, lesbian/bisexual/transgender women, disabled women, poor women, and Senior Citizen women how they can and can't spend their hard-earned money and want to take more of their money away from them.