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.

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.