Minor Children Are the Responsibility of Their Parents

Deferring to and respecting parental authority over minor children used to be standard for anyone taken seriously in public life.

Leftism has been chipping away at that.

The Left considers children to be property of the state, as long as they are in control of the state. This must be rejected.

Minor children are the responsibility of their parents (or legal guardians).

Anyone the parent employs, directly or by proxy, to instruct or care for their child should either defer to the parents and respect the will of the parents or shouldn't take the job.

If anyone has reason to believe the parents are abusive, there is already a process for making accusations, providing evidence, and having the parenting investigated.

A parent NOT being a Leftist isn't evidence of abuse.

Children do not belong to the state, including the state schools.

The parents made or legally adopted their child. They get to decide, short of actual abuse, what is best for their child, regardless of what anyone else likes.

Are some parents abusive? Yes. So what? So are some teachers and other state actors. Governments have killed more people than anything else.

When the children reach the age of majority, they still don't belong to the state. They belong to themselves. The people have a government. The government doesn't have a people.

Defeat Leftism. Support parental rights. Defend liberty.

The Big Government Nannies Shouldn't Get Credit For Markets and Freedoms

You're a schoolkid. A bully beats you up and steals your lunch money for two years. Then the bully eases up.

Should you support the bully? 

Hell no.

What the Big Government Nannies have done to us, especially schoolkids and small business owners, over the last two years is atrocious.

Now, playing politics, they are easing their boots off our necks a bit and they want us to applaud them and vote for them.

They were the people who screwed us over in the first place. They are the people who stepped on our necks.

Jobs are being created because government is getting out of the way, not because of some central planning by authoritarian sadists. Kids are enjoying more activities because they aren't being restrained under tyrannical lockdowns.

Don't forget who tried to control all of us in the first place.

Vote them out. 

And the ones who aren't elected, demand that the people who can fire them do so.

Do not comply with giving up liberty.

Feeding the Hungry

Surely you've seen this quote attributed to Stephen Colbert. Where to start?

1) What do we mean when we say this is a Christian nation (which, of course, the Left denies)? I go over that here. The majority of people in the USA do, and always have, identified themselves in some sort of Christian terms. I mean really, how would someone describe the USA? An Atheist nation? A Buddhist nation? It is a secular government, but the people are majority Christian, at least in self-affiliation.

2) Our government does "help" the "poor". To the extent that any new programs supposedly intended to do so are opposed or expansion of existing programs is opposed, or actual cuts are proposed (extremely rare), it is because...

3) The are many private charitable efforts in this nation, most of which are far more effective and efficient in helping people than government programs.

4) Jesus told HIS FOLLOWERS to help the poor. He didn't tell them to encourage the Roman rulers to tax everyone, believer and unbeliever, to do it.

5) Many politically involved Christians who aren't Leftists recognize the importance of Constitutionally limited government; that it isn't the federal government's role to generally take over the lives of poor people or to throw money at them.

6) Generally, being poor in the USA is a far cry from being poor in much of the rest of the world, but again, private charities work to address that.

I have compassion for the poor. We have compassion for the poor. Allowing people to become permanently dependent on the federal or state government is not compassion. I've seen up close how that demoralizes someone and causes them to constantly worry that the "wrong" person is going to get elected and they're going to starve to death as a result. It's terribly sad.

Do not invoke a Christian's duty to the needy in order to promote government programs that tax everyone while at the same time telling Christians they can't appeal to their faith in avoiding things like paying for abortions or avoiding participation in a ceremony that violates their conscience.

Capital Punishment Is Justice

It is justice for some murderers to receive capital punishment; to be put to death.

Here in California, the voters have repeatedly supported this.

Many other states and the federal government carry out such sentences, yet in California, with almost 700 murderers on "Death Row," we haven't had an execution since 2006.

Our current Governor, Hairdo McGungrabber (a.k.a. Gavin Newsom), has made it clear he will not sign off on any execution. He has actively tried to ensure there will never be another execution in California.

For each person on Death Row, there was at least one person, and quite often many, who were murdered; some very painfully. Then their surviving loved ones were put through the anguish of an investigation and a trial. The murderer always or almost always denied their guilt rather than taking responsibility and apologizing, but the evidence was overwhelming. Our fellow citizens had to sit through jury duty for a trial and the penalty phase, usually being exposed to gruesome crime scene photos. They struggled and then recommended capital punishment with all twelve jurors agreeing. Then a judge considered everything and agreed.

The just thing would be to execute every person on Death Row.

Premeditated murder warrants capital punishment.

If we value human life, then premeditated murder should bring about the possibility of being punished, through due process, with execution.

It is absurd to equate a due process execution with premeditated murder. Anyone who does that reveals that they aren't serious thinkers. I understand the argument some people make that the state should not have this power, but let's be real. The state has the power to kill. If it is going to use that power at all, executing convicted murderers is a just way to use it.

The state has that power because we, the people have delegated that power to the state. The alternative is that we take it back and go back to familial clans carrying out justice.

Unfortunately, just thirteen murderers have been executed since California resumed them in the early 1990s. Which one of these shouldn't have been executed? Answer: NONE. Each one deserved it.

People like our atrocious Governor say that capital punishment isn't applied equally.

It's true that wealthy people can afford better defense teams. That's true about any crime. Shall we release all criminals from prison immediately and shut them down? (Some of the Left say yes.) What's the alternative to wealthy people having better lawyers? Requiring all defendants have a randomly assigned lawyer?

However, none of the anti-justice people can name a single one of those executed thirteen who were innocent. They were all guilty, and they all deserved to be executed.

Lethal injection isn't "cruel and unusual punishment." Some of the same people who claim it is support people who haven't murdered anyone choosing it for themselves, calling it "death with dignity." The people who wrote and adopted the "cruel and unusual" phrase into the Constitution would laugh anyone out of the room who claimed lethal injection for premeditated murder qualified as such. But I wouldn't mind going back to the way murderers were executed in the 1780s, if that's the game people want to play.

Everyone executed in California since the early 1990s, and everyone who has been on Death Row for a while, has had their cases reviewed over and over again. If they weren't guilty, that would have been discovered. Many of them have slaughtered their own spouse and children. They have morally forfeited their life.

If the state will not carry out the duty delegated to it, then the people are going to take that power back. If I'm ever on a jury in such a case, in which a family member or associate has executed a murderer, how likely do you think it will be for me to vote to convict?

I'm not alone.

You Could Earn More If You Could Think Better

Flawed or outright stupid argumentation abounds online. I'm well aware "my" side perpetuates some nonsense and I'm willing to pick those instances apart. This is not one of those times. This is a time where we get to see a really, really stupid argument from the Left.

We can ignore that there's a missing "s" at the end of increase. Typing errors have nothing to do with whether an argument is a solid one or not, and Lord knows I make my own share of typing errors.

1) Let's agree for the sake of looking at this argument that "the minimum wage" hasn't been raised in years, and yet prices have continued to go up. That has nothing to do with whether or not raising the minimum wage would also increase prices. It's like asking "If shooting someone in the head kills them, how come people have been dying without being shot in the head?"

Nobody is saying that only raising the minimum wage increases prices. We are saying that raising the minimum wage is one of many things that increases prices.

2) The statement that "the minimum wage hasn't been increased in years" is misleading. There is a national minimum wage, yes. However, the minimum wage in states, counties, and cities, which is higher than the federal minimum wage in various places, has gone up.


3) Prices of some goods and services have risen due to other factors. Yes, there's supply and demand. Under that principle, most businesses will attempt to price their goods and services so as to take in the most revenue that the demand will support. However, their prices must be high enough to cover expenses, of which "wages" is just one, and also pay the owner*, otherwise they will go out of business due to not being able to pay their expenses, or they will leech off of taxpayer funding in the form of subsidies. Even if wages have not gone up, other forms of compensation (also an expense of the business) have increased, including sick pay, holiday pay, health insurance premiums, and so many more. Employee compensation, including wages, benefits, and more, is only part of the expenses a business has. It has many other employee-related expenses (training, travel, insurance), it has to pay for supplies and materials, buy/lease and maintain equipment, buy/lease and maintain space, pay for utilities (energy costs rise due to "green energy" mandates), pay for waste disposal (also rising in costs due to "green" mandates), pay taxes/fees/assessments, process much paperwork to comply with various laws, liability insurance (lawsuits!!!), on and on it goes. Many businesses have high expenses in research, development, and marketing.


And guess what? The costs of many of those things also goes up with minimum wage increases. It's not just the guy you see cutting the pizza at the take-out place. It's the people who delivered the supplies to that location and the people who picked the peppers. Other wages are pushed up as well, because if someone is making "a couple of bucks an hour more than minimum wage" he's not going to settle for now being at minimum wage as that has risen to where he is.

The effect of imposing a higher minimum wage from D.C. or your state capitol will not be limited to people working in certain jobs getting paid more. Businesses will react by raising prices, cutting employee hours, not filling vacated positions, and not expanding, or not expanding as much or as quickly. There are businesses that simply won't be started in the first place. A lot of these effects are not so easy to see but their impact is very real. If the cost of using a human is too high, machines may be used more instead of people.


Yes, raising the minimum wage increases prices.

There also is a moral principal at work here. Imagine you share a bite of something you baked with someone at work, and they like it so much they offer to pay you for you to bake for a party they have coming up. You agree to bake a certain amount and they agree to pay you a certain amount. Now imagine someone else who isn't involved in the party nor the baking steps in and says "No, that person has to pay you MORE." Why is it the intruder's responsibility to get involved? What would often happen in a scenario like that is the person interested in your baked goods would decide to call off the deal. Why is it a Senator's responsibility to interfere in compensation negotiation when one person agrees to work for another?



* Yes, owners need to get paid, too. Owners have put in their money, and often they also put in their time and expertise, taking risks and initiative. Some people apparently think owners will or should take all of the hit of the cost of higher wages, but that's not going to happen, and in most cases, it shouldn't.

How Needs Get Met

Nature, or Nature's God, has provided us with, among other things:

• Water in certain places
• Plants, animals, and edible fungi in certain conditions
• Some caves in certain places

Without work, only a few people could live in a few places on Earth: any place in which 1) a cave, free of venomous animals, will provide sufficient shelter; 2) edible plants/plants with edible parts/fungi grow in sufficient abundance; 3) potable water is available in sufficient abundance. Has there been such a place outside of Eden?

Even then, there would likely still be work in obtaining the water to drink and the plant/fungus material to eat, and the plant/fungus material would likely not have all the nutrients we need to thrive. And you're out of luck if your eyesight needs correction, or you get a serious injury or infection that requires medical care.

Here's the point.

Everything we have is ultimately the result of work and trading. Even things we have inherited or someone has gifted/donated to us are the result of work and trading. 

Very few people drink all their water, untreated, directly from, and at, a stream. 

Just about everything we eat, no matter how "natural," has been cultivated for beneficial changes over hundreds or even thousands of years, and is provided by many people working.

Whether we live in a hut, recreational vehicle camper, a tiny apartment, or a palatial estate, the shelter exists because of work.

Clothes, medical treatments, transportation, energy, mass communications, entertainment, art galleries, museums - everything is a result of work and trading.

The exception involves a non-consensual transfer, through things like force, extortion, confiscation, plunder, enslavement, and various forms of theft not yet mentioned. That still involves work. It is just that there isn't a voluntary trade.

Working and trading is how needs get met.

The more interference in these things, the more theft and destruction, the fewer needs that will be met. 

Example: Printing money or confiscating it from people who are working and using it to pay people to NOT work.

If you want food, you either have to grow it and prepare for it yourself, or trade for it. Or, someone else has to work and provide it to you out of charity or force.

Who is best at knowing what you need? You. Maybe your spouse. Not some strangers in Washington, D.C., not some strangers in New York, not some strangers in Europe.

It should be YOUR responsibility to look after your needs and those of anyone for whom you responsible, like dependent children. The less those strangers in D.C., NYC, or Europe interfere in your work and trading, the better.

Law Enforcement Officers Work at Our Delegation

"Cops don't prevent crime."

That's what "all cops are 'bad'" people say.

They'll point out that the police show up after a crime has been committed, and don't do much to make the situation better, such as actually retrieving stolen property.

The Left dislikes cops because they hinder their theft, destruction, child molestation, drug abuse, and prostitution. Those last two (maybe three) reasons are also why some libertarians hate police. 

The assertion that "cops don't prevent crime" completely ignores deterrence and recurrence. Ever notice how speeding drivers slow down when a marked police vehicle appears on the highway? That's deterrence. Criminals who are in prison can't assault people outside of that prison or steal things from them or destroy their property. That prevents recurrence.

It's true that, if a package is stolen off of your doorstep, the odds that the thief will be caught and successfully prosecuted for that particular instance of theft aren't good.

We have a justice system with the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt as the standard for conviction, privacy rights, and the police and prosecutors must make decisions about who to investigate, arrest, and prosecute in the first place. Also, all of the people involved are fallible people who can make mistakes and be corrupt. Like any other organization, a police department can become about protecting and empowering itself and certain individuals within it, rather than "protecting and serving" the public.

But what's the alternative? Law enforcement officers work at our delegation. They are public servants. The alternative is armed clans or their directly hired private guns engaging in a series of back-and-forth attacks. Steal from me? I or my buddy try to track you down, and if we do, we "take back" our property or the equivalent. But that's not likely to happen without violence. Who has the biggest clans and the most guns? They tend to be Right-wingers. Who can hire their own soldiers? The wealthy.

We found that "three strikes" worked. We locked up the career criminals and crime rates dropped. I can agree that law enforcement shouldn't focus as much on "sex for money" or killing yourself with substance abuse (but then I don't like government health care for most people). They should focus on assault, theft, and destruction. And yes, we should lock people up for those things, so we need enough prison space for them. The alternative is making them "work off" their debt under the direct armed control of their victims.

I am increasingly preferential of sheriffs who are elected directly by the people of a county as opposed to police chiefs who are political appointees.

But if someone wants to do away with police and sheriff departments, then we'll all need private security, surveillance, documentation, defense, and "restitution." That's going to involve a lot of guns.

National Divorce: Bring on Bluetopia

Progressives always discovering new rights. The Right hinders the bestowing of these rights by clinging to the ideas of dead, white, male colonizers and slaveowners. The Right has a fundamentally incompatible position on the purpose and role of government and most refuse to give up their ignorance and bigotry. There is no reconciliation or educating most of them.

What are the options?

1. Continue to fight endlessly. Notice that all these years after Roe v. Wade, states like Texas are still denying women life-saving medical treatments.

2. One side forcefully squashes the other. See: January 6, 2021.

3. Embracing the full and true meaning of the 14th Amendment. The Right keeps citing the 9th and 10th Amendments, which have been superseded by the 14th.

4. National Divorce. Please don't be fooled by people who try to liken this to 19th Century secession. That was about keeping slavery. Bluetopia would be about rights for all.

With a National Divorce, the deepest blue states would be free to form utopia, or, Bluetopia, unencumbered by the Right. Here are just a few of the things that could get done much faster and more thoroughly:

• Explicitly enshrine in a constitution the right to government-funded comprehensive health care for all, which would necessarily include: 1) elective abortion on demand throughout pregnancy; 2) gender confirmation surgery and treatments for people of any age; 3) high-tech, dignified euthanasia
• Abolish the Electoral College
• Make a Senate that is proportional to population, or do away with it entirely 
• Appoint Supreme Court Justices who proudly proclaim they will exercise their powers to make everything fair
• Pursue Anti-Racism, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Decolonization throughout all of public policy, including providing reparations for slavery
• Implement environmental justice, eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and defeat climate change (this alone would be worth it - there's no time to lose!)
• Ban private gun ownership or personal possession for everyone other than licensed bodyguards
• Government-paid schooling and care from six weeks of age through doctorate programs, medical school, law school, etc. This would include care before and after the instructional school day, meals, etc.
• End poverty
• Shut down prisons and jails (see schooling and poverty above)
• Increased taxation of the rich
• Taxation of churches
• Ensure voting is easy, especially for 16 year-olds, new immigrants and justice-involved individuals
• Prevent/end pandemics

Unfortunately, most of these would only happen within Bluetopia, and that could be a deal-breaker for some, since it wouldn't immediately to apply to the entire current USA. However, I think if we are serious about saving Mother Earth from destruction, which, as we all know is possible at the state level as states like California have assured us, and therefore would be possible for Bluetopia to do, it would be worth it. Also, once every other state and country sees what a shining success Bluetopia will be, they'll beg to be enlightened so as to follow Bluetopia's example.

There's no time to waste!

Yes, the details would have to be worked out, but isn't saving the planet enough of a reason to do that hard work to make it happen? And just think of what a paradise that would be, without progressive policies being hindered by racists!


(Yes, this involved some sarcasm.)

What About an Inhteritance?

If you've been fortunate enough to amass and well-manage enough wealth that you have more than you'll use up at the end of your life, what should you do with it?

First, let's address your end of life.

One of the best gifts you can give your children is to avoid burdening them with your care should you become unable to fully care for yourself. I know some people think it's honorable or otherwise positive to have a son or daughter being the nurse for their declining mother or father, but all things considered, it should be avoided. Please understand, I'm not saying that that the sons/daughters shouldn't be present. They should. They should be present. They should visit. They should sit and talk with their parent. They should take them on outings in so far as it is possible. They should make sure they are being taken care of well. But an elderly parent who is suffering mental dysfunction/memory loss or is otherwise unable to maintain their own health, hygiene, safety, and comfort, needs trained, objective professionals providing that hands-on care. That is there the money should be going before anything else is considered: a good retirement community, in-home care, whatever will work.

OK, assuming plans and insurance have been made for that, what then?

These days, I agree with Dennis Prager's idea: pay for your grandkids to be out of public school.

1. Pay for your grandkids to be OUT of public school. Pay for a good private school, homeschooling, some good alternative. If possible, keep this going through college or trade school. Pay for them to go to a college that isn't a seminary of Leftism. Current examples include Gove City College and Hillsdale.

2. Often tied to the above, fund the ability of one of the parents of your grandchildren (so, your adult child or their spouse) to be a full-time parent. If they truly can't get by without both of them "working outside of the home", then help make it possible for one of them to be home.

3. Create experiences/memories for your descendants to have with you. Group vacations, reunions, whatever. If they live far, pay to fly them to you for visits, or go visit them if you can travel; stay in a hotel so as to not burden them. Memories made with you will be better than them being able to buy a new car with money they didn't earn.

4. Hand down heirlooms as gifts while you're still alive, as possible.

5. If you still have wealth after all of this, well, then, good going! Of course there are worthy causes to which you can donate. But as far as leaving some to your descendants, split it evenly. The exception is that it is morally preferrable to disinherit someone who is evil. Don't be leaving money to a child molester, murderer, etc. But if you have three children and none of them are evil, split it into thirds. Or if they're all living comfortably and you'd prefer to bypass them for the grandchildren, total up the number and split it evenly among them. IMPORTANT: Inheritance isn't community property. You can leave money to your child but not their spouse, if that is your preference. This, however, might cause them marital problems and is one reason why you might want to have it go straight to grandchildren.

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.

Some Important Truths

In no particular order, here are some important truths...

• Not all problems are going to be solved in this lifetime.
• There are not only other - but better - ways to solve most problems, or at least improve the overall situation, than by a federal government program.
• The Constitution tells the federal government what it can do; otherwise, the federal government isn't to interfere. If you want the government to get involved in something not currently assigned to it by the Constitution, then amend the Constitution.
• Unconstitutional government involvement usually begets more unconstitutional government involvement.
• Capitalism is unavoidable. The more restrictions placed on it, the smaller the percentage of the population that will be able to use their resources to the fullest and enjoy the fruits of their work the way they see fit; only the elite, connected, wealthy, or criminal will be able to circumvent the restrictions.
• Some people are going to make more out of their resources than others, and they shouldn't be punished for doing so. People should be celebrated for making the most of the resources under their control.
• With free markets, the pie gets bigger for everyone.
• Someone else having more money than you is not automatically evidence of injustice.
• Disagreeing with a Democrat's proposals and decisions does not make someone a racist.
• People who judge other people on the natural color of their skin are being foolish.
• As long as they are minors, your kids are your responsibility. You chose to make them; they didn't choose it, and nobody else chose to make (or adopt) your kids. This means that some things you want will have to take a back seat to what your kids need.
• I don't blame women for the evils of men, but I don't blame men for the evils of women. I blame people for their own sins - including myself for my own.
• Having your genitals surgically altered, taking hormones, dressing differently, and calling yourself by a different name does not really change your sex.
• There are things more evil in this world than hypocrisy. Getting busted for doing an evil you have preached against means you should've not done that thing, not that you shouldn’t have preached against it. Someone who does that thing and fails to speak the truth by preaching against it is not more noble. This word is frequently misused, as it means saying one thing while believing something contrary. People do things they know are wrong all of the time. People also have done things in the past that they thought were OK but now they know better, and say so. In neither case are these people hypocrites, especially not in the second case.
• Not all cultures are equal. Some cultures are better than others. Migration can be one sign of this.
• The primary mission of American education should be to pass down American culture and values to the next generation.
• If you came to this country, then clearly you like something about our culture enough that you bothered to come here, and you should adopt our culture instead of subverting it; work to improve it rather than supplanting it.
• That you don't like the way the world seems to be is not proof that God doesn't exist.
• That God doesn't always do what you want, when you want, how you want is not proof that God doesn't exist.
• Whether or not Jesus Christ lives or is Lord is not determined by what any professor, politician, preacher, performer, or scientist thinks.
• Believing that some people will go to Hell is not the same as taking steps to hasten their arrival.
• Believing that some people will go to Hell doesn't mean knowing the eternal fate of any given person.
• I am not the final judge of any other person's heart.
• I will not try to force my religion down your throat, but I will represent myself with my vote and other political actions.

Happy Thanksgiving

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 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 at least 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.

What's The Truth About the First Thanksgiving?

Lincoln and Thanksgiving: Origin of An American Holiday

Government Is Not Lord

May the Lord bless public servants.

But make no mistake. They are public servants.

The government is not our Lord.

Government powers are derived from the consent of the governed. 

The Constitution of the United States of America was designed to decentralize power, so that liberty prevailed and no handful of people could usurp too much power.

Don't look to Big Brother.

Look to yourself. Look your friends and family. Look to your network.  Most importantly, look to the Lord.

They're Making Our Point For Us

There are a bunch of cartoons like this one that are used an attempt to ridicule or silence people concerned about illegal aliens (and the murders they commit and all of the other problems associated with hoardes of unskilled, uneducated, disease-carrying criminals, especially if they don't understand or communicate well in English and have stronger loyalties to a country bordering ours).

The thing is, they unwittingly make our point: Those who do not successfully defend the land from invaders will lose it.

Were there people here already before the Europeans came here? Yes.

Were those people always peaceful to each other and living in harmony with each other? Nope.

Were all of those people always peaceful, kind, and welcoming to the Europeans? No.

Did the Europeans carry diseases for which the tribal groups did not have immunities? Yes.

Did the Europeans intentionally spread those diseases to the native people? There's no evidence of that. We know a lot more about how diseases are and are not spread now.

The technologically superior Europeans established, built up, and defended colonies. Along with the technology, the Western concept of property ownership & political borders, and battles, treaties, purchases, in addition to any broken promises & outright land grabs, secured this nation. The borders of this nation have been well established and recognized internationally for much longer than anyone has been alive. For example, California's anniversary is based on the year 1850. (To say that the Europeans were technologically superior is not to say they were genetically superior.)

Invasion and conquest was not invented by the Europeans coming to the Americas. The native tribes did it to each other as well. If not the Europeans, the Asians would have eventually came to conquer the New World, just as their cousins apparently populated it originally.

What you don't see a lot in history is allowing protected lands with their own governments, as the Native Americans have. I'm not saying life on reservations is all peachy, but at least living there is voluntary, and the reservations do exist. What has usually happened in human history is obliteration and/or forced assimilation.

So what is the ultimate point of the cartoon? That we should all pack up and go back wherever we or our immigrant ancestors came from? Why us and not the Native Americans, too? I can tell you why we shouldn't but present-day illegal aliens should. We now have a formal immigration system and internationally recognized borders. This land has long been settled.

Unlike the past, we also have taxpayer-provided infrastructure and social safety net. With people illegally crossing the borders or staying past their legal visit, especially if they are living a criminal lifestyle or not paying at least as much in taxes as they are costing, we have a drain on the system. [Addition: Notice that the child in the cartoon born to the European newcomers did not gain automatic citizenship in the native community, did not get communications from the natives printed in English, did not have education (including higher education) funded by the natives, did not have food, housing, health care, and police, fire, and military protection provided by the natives, nor libraries, roads, parks, running water, etc., etc.]

We should welcome people here, from every part of the world, as long as they want to become Americans and contribute. Our immigration policy must benefit the Union. We should not reward illegal aliens, regardless of what language they speak or their country of origin - it is a slap in the face to legal immigrants.

The next time you see a cartoon like this one, a good response is "Thanks for the reminder about how important it is to defend our national borders."

Previously: Truly Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Never Forget

Never, never forget that freedom isn't free.

Blessings and praise to all veterans who have stood up for liberty.

Did Dennis Prager Advocate Marital Rape?

 NO.

Trolls who attack Dennis Prager online often say he advocates or advocated marital rape. 

There are two basic possibilities here:

1) Their definition of "rape" is ridiculous and not what most people think of when they see the word.

2) They are bearing false witness. They are libeling Dennis Prager and and lying.

Dennis Prager didn't advocate marital rape. He didn't even defend marital rape. 

The allegation comes from a column or a pair of columns published at the end of 2008. From "When a Woman Isn't in the Mood: Part I":

The subject is one of the most common problems that besets marriages: the wife who is “not in the mood” and the consequently frustrated and hurt husband.

Anyone honest about marriage will recognize that this happens a lot.

A woman who often deprives her husband of her body is guaranteed to injure him and to injure the marriage — no matter what her female friends say, no matter what a sympathetic therapist says, and no matter what her man says.

Emphasis mine.

Stop Demanding Big Brother Bully Your Boss

It is pathetic how people want the federal government to force itself further into everyone's life by interfering even more in the trading taking place between and employee and an employer.

We need smaller, more limited government, not to increase the powers and intrusion of the federal government.

If your employer isn't providing you what you want in your trading with them, one or more of the following is true:

1) You're a bad negotiator.

2) You haven't made yourself valuable enough to your employer.

3) Your demands are unreasonable or not feasible.

4) You chose a bad employer.

Stop demanding Big Brother bully your boss. Take responsibility for yourself.

Caring For the Poor in the USA

Not everyone is poor for the same reason, and I don't automatically dismiss someone as a "failure" or "loser" because they are poor, but nor do I automatically have sympathy for what we call the poor here in the USA.

Our somewhat-free markets have enabled most of the poor of yesterday to be the middle-class or even wealthy of today. Sure, there is some "luck" involved - I do not believe in some spiritual event in which people choose their parents and all that comes with it (genetics, parents' financial status, parenting ability, etc.) However, even being born to poor parents, one is not likely to be poor for very long into their adulthood if they:

A Few Reasons We Need a National Divorce

There is no compromise between:

a right to life from conception -and- a right to elective abortion

a Union of States with an Electoral College and equal Senate representation -and- a nationwide democratic vote 

a right to self-defense including the private ownership and use of firearms -and- a ban on private firearm possession

a restricted national border -and- an effectively open national border

more school choice -and- no additional school choice

individualism and equality under the law -and- identity politics

A national divorce can be achieved through letting the deepest blue states, and perhaps the deep blue counties within red states, leave to form their "utopia." This can include Washington, D.C., or whatever they'll call it once they rub out Washington and Columbus. The "red" America will probably prefer a decentralized federal government.

Many of the Leftists won't want to give up the possibility of controlling all Americans, but maybe enough people in those blue states can be persuaded by pointing out that they won't have to deal with the troublesome opposition that currently slows their progress.

Yes, there are Leftists in conservative areas and vice-versa. More people will move. Those who don't will at least have a better understanding of what future they are facing should they stay put.

Don't Kill Me

Having a walled & gated estate with an armed security team, a maintenance team to keep the estate in great condition, a reinforced automobile with a professional driver, a personal trainer, a nutritionist, a personal chef, butlers, housekeepers, an in-home medical team, and personal shoppers/couriers would reduce risks to me and thus help me live longer.

Therefore, if you oppose federal funding for these things, you are killing me.