This jumped out at me in John Stossel's piece about the overreaction to child behaviors:

The difference between a toddler and a murderer is means.

Now it isn’t just the threat to burn the Quran that will set off the terrorists; if the Victory Mosque isn’t built near Ground Zero, the Islamists will murder more people. What are we dealing with here – savages on the intellectual and emotional level of toddlers?

At what point does sensitivity become surrendering to extortion or racketeering? "We can't write a bad review of that mob film… or we'll suffer an unfortunate accident."

Really… what's next? Oh, I know. We have to vote Democrat in November, or the terrorists will be able to recruit more losers! Why? Because Obama is a Democrat, and the savages think Obama is a Muslim. Or, they think that we think Obama is a Muslim. So, of course, voting Republican would be an insult to their prophet, holy book, or their god.

Because jihadist Islamofascists have the mindset they do, there is no winning the moment someone SAYS they are going to burn the Quran. If they DO burn the Quran, the savages will riot and blow innocent people up. If the pressure to NOT burn the Quran is heeded, then the jihadists will see us as weak (not respectful) and believe (wrongly) that it is because the Quran is true.

There is no pleasing irrational, rabid savages without surrender. When it comes to toddlers, at some point a good parent realizes that letting the toddler throw a fit is better in the long run than giving in to their demands. But toddlers aren't very good at blowing things up.

So if the dude is moronic enough to go ahead and have his childish little book burning, then let's make the best of the situation and take out the savages who will subsequently be hopping up and down in the streets of their corrupt little nations. It is us or them.

Previously: The Bible to Be Burned

I had a lot of fun with this LATimes.blog entry by Kate Linthicum. But first, let me bid a peaceful and warm Rosh Hashanah to my Jewish friends… Leshana tova tikatevu.

When the Los Angeles Police Department faced hundreds of protesters on the streets of the Westlake District, some were people drawn to the event from other parts of the city for political reasons.

I’m shocked! Shocked!!!

Twenty-two people were arrested Tuesday night after protesters clashed with police near a vigil for Manuel Jamines [just one of three names he went by – identity theft, much?], a Guatamalan-born day laborer fatally shot Sunday by an officer who said Jamines refused to drop a knife.

It is really so hard to write illegal alien?

Among those arrested was Jubilee Shine, 40, a South Los Angeles activist who heads the Coalition for Community Control Over the Police. Shine said he was arrested on 6th Street near Bonnie Brae Street just before 10 p.m.

And why would we have any reason to doubt Moonshine?

Some of the earlier unrest appeared to have been fueled by political activists from other parts of the city.

Professional agitators.

About a dozen people who appeared to be affiliated with the Revolutionary Community Party handed out literature about its beliefs and other cases of officer-involved shootings, and chanted messages over bullhorns about a communist revolution.

How about we start with the police acting like they do in communist countries, which means they would crack your skulls and disappear you, the protesters?

Meanwhile, demonstrators from the neighborhood chanted, “Police are racists and killers!”

Pot, meet kettle.

As the night wore on, protesters clashed with police. Some, including a boy who appeared no older than 13, hurled rocks, bottles and eggs at officers and at the Los Angeles Police Department's Rampart station building.

Hey, I think we have our future Mayor!

Some debris was thrown at officers from apartment house roofs. Other people burned trash bins in the street.

Make them buy carbon offsets.

Several said they planned to continue their demonstrations in coming days.

What, and miss work or High Holy Day services?

"We're not going to stop," said a man who on Tuesday night was standing in a crowd of about 200 chanting protesters near the corner of Union Avenue and 6th Street.

Yes, you will. You'll get bored and move on.

Police are hoping a community meeting near MacArthur Park, planned for 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, will help defuse tension after a second consecutive night of violence in the neighborhood.

Ringling Brothers should sue, charging unfair competition.

LAPD Chief Charlie Beck will attend, along with Los Angeles City Councilman Ed Reyes and the consul generals of Guatemala, Nicaragua and Mexico.

Oh, good. They can take their people back with them, then.

Beck identified the three officers involved as Frank Hernandez, a 13-year veteran; Steven Rodriguez and Paris Pineda, both five-year veterans. Hernandez fired the shots, Beck said.

Yup. Just the kind of people who would be racist against Latinos.

Police showed photographs of the bloodied knife, with blade that is about 6 inches long when opened, that they say Jamines, 37, was holding at the time of the shooting. Investigators are testing the blood to see whose it is, the LAPD said.

I'm looking forward to the results.

Beck said the area where the incident occurred "is not an easy place to police," in part because of its large immigrant population and widespread illegal vending.

Time to bring in federal authorities and do a coordinated federal, state, and local response – "sweep and hold". Deport illegal aliens who are committing additional crimes. Break the gangs. Enforce codes. Cite even minor infractions like littering, jaywalking, and vandalism.

Previously: Street Theater in Los Angeles

I do occasionally find something presented by the Los Angeles Times editorial board that I can commend, and I like to point it out when I do, since I am constantly disagreeing with them in my blog posts. This time, they correctly state that California Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown should defend Proposition 8 (even though the editorial board disagrees with the constitutional amendment). Read my analysis over at The Opine Editorials, where the other contributing bloggers always have something interesting to say.

It is Constitutional, practical, and necessary to treat different behaviors and different kinds of relationships differently. All of our laws do so. The pairing of two men or two women is a demonstrably different kind of behavior and different kind of relationship than the pairing of a bride and a groom. While not all will, the pairing of a bride and a groom is the only KIND that IS ABLE to naturally produce new citizens (who did not consent to the arrangement) AND provide those new citizens with a legally, financially, and socially bound role model and bonding guardian from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, cooperating with each other for the good of the children.

Actually, no, there's no big media story about someone planning to burn the Holy Bible. But I do notice that there us much coverage of the planned burning of the Quran by this guy who is pastor over a tiny flock. And in that coverage, I notice that the Roman Catholic country/church leadership, The Vatican, has said the planned burning is wrong. So have various Western, Christian, and Jewish media leaders, military leaders, other religious leaders who respect the Bible, and other public figures.

The question I have is - would Muslim leaders and personalities and politicians do the same if an imam was planning a demonstrative Bible burning?

The Islamists will not see the outcry against the Quran burning to be proof of our kindness, civility, or anything else that will bring us credit in their eyes. They'll see it as us being weak and a tacit admission that Islam is true. That is why (in their twisted minds), we won't murder people if the Bible is burned the way they will if the Quran is burned.

I am against burning the Quran. I believe in fighting the Quran through comparing it to the truth of the Bible, not in a pointless gesture of burning. But once again, we see that Bible-thumpers are not just like Islamofascists.

Victicrat protests against law enforcement are a sport in the greater Los Angeles area. The worst that can happen to the knucklehead whiners is that their voice goes hoarse. On the other end of the spectrum, they may end up with millions of dollars in taxpayer funds.

The latest excuse for illegal alien advocates, professional agitators, and gangsters to get together and cause trouble was what I'm guessing, based on the information  provided, was a justified use of force by police officers. Tony Barboza reports in this LATimes.com blog.

Four people were arrested and three officers were injured after dozens of protesters gathered near a Westlake shopping center to protest the fatal police shooting of a day laborer, authorities said Tuesday.

Dozens.

Los Angeles police on Sunday shot Manuel Jamines, a 37-year-old Guatemalan day laborer who was allegedly threatening passersby with a knife near West Sixth Street and South Union Avenue.

Bicycle-mounted officers responding to a report of a man "acting crazy with a knife" ordered Jamines to drop the weapon several times in English and Spanish just after 1 p.m., LAPD Officer Bruce Borihanh said.

"The suspect lunged toward the officers in a threatening manner with the knife over his head, then an officer-involved shooting occurred," he said.

The protesters want the police to simply stand there and get stabbed, and somehow prevent others from getting stabbed.

The protesters who gathered Monday said the man was unarmed and had been killed for no reason.

And they would know this… how? So what's their explanation? The LAPD officers were bored and decided to go murder an illegal alien?

During a tense, 12-hour standoff at the same intersection Monday, police in riot gear stood guard as protesters erected a memorial for Jamines, chanted "assassination," set trash and mattresses on fire and threw objects.

I'd like to see them try this in their home countries.

Four demonstrators were arrested overnight on misdemeanor charges of inciting a riot, Borihanh said.

Two officers were injured after protesters threw bottles at them and one was hit with a rock. They were treated and have returned to duty.

These people are trying to provoke the officers.

You can listen to a really good evaluation of the "protest" here, or download this audio.

You may have heard of the Manhattan Declaration, which was recently unveiled. It has been signed and touted by people  identified as Christians, but from a wide variety of denominations and creeds, who find a common cause in standing up for:

1. The sanctity of human life.  
2. The sanctity of marriage.  
3. The protection of religious liberty.  
4. The rejection of unjust laws.  

There are always going to be people upset with Roman Catholics team up with Protestants, or some other combination of that sort happens, because these people are vehemently opposed to some of the doctrines, practices, and personalities of one or the other. But the Manhattan Declaration isn't a doctrinal creed, or a charter for a unified church. Nowhere in the document are Roman Catholics called to become Southern Baptists or vice-versa. There's nothing in the document that offends my faith, and I'm curious as to know what in the document offends the faith of any follower of Christ. Merely attracting the signature of someone with whom I have a strong theological disagreement does not make a document unworthy of my own support. Otherwise, there are a lot of good things I would have to avoid because they are also supported by those people.

This document is a call for anyone who calls themselves Christian to stand up for basic Christian principles in the most important cultural matters. Without religious liberty, squabbling between Roman Catholics and Lutherans is a luxury. We have let ideological minorities use ever increasing and centralized government power to try to compel us to support murder, the neutering of marriage, and the removal of theistic or Christian references from the public square. We need to resist this.

A clue that the document is a good thing is that the Los Angeles Times editorial board doesn't like it.

After starting out their editorial musing about civil disobedience and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., during which the editorial reveres King because he was standing up for things they like, they go on to write...

That cautious approach has been thrown to the wind by Christian religious leaders who, even as they insist on their right to shape the nation's laws, are reserving the right to violate them in situations far removed from King's witness.

The editorial doesn't explain how this is so. It is an assertion based on the board's disagreement on the issues.

They go on to quote the document, indicating they have read it...

"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality. . . . We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

Strong words, but also irresponsible and dangerous ones.

Dangerous? Perhaps to agendas that would be more easily accomplished with a passive Church standing on the sidelines.

The idea that same-sex civil marriage will undermine religious marriage is a canard Californians will remember from the campaign for Proposition 8, as is the declaration's complaint that Christian leaders are being prevented from expressing their "religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife."

State marriage licenses reflect the official policy of the state. If they are neutered, coupled with other laws and court decisions, the state policy of neutered marriage would inevitably encroach upon religious freedom and devalue marriage. It also takes away the general liberty of self-government when it is imposed upon the people by the few.

This sweeping claim is supported by anecdotes of the sort radio talk-show hosts purvey.

So if a radio talk show host discusses it, it can't be true? At least it is "sweeping", rather than "dangerous".

This apocalyptic argument for lawbreaking is disingenuous, but it is also dangerous.

Again, "dangerous", and now "apocalyptic". Read it for yourself. Does it sound dangerous?

Did the Roman Catholic bishops who signed the manifesto consider how their endorsement of lawbreaking in a higher cause might embolden the antiabortion terrorists they claim to condemn?

Speaking out against abortion = murder, you see. Never mind the fact that abortion = murder. By this reasoning, the editorial board is inciting violence against Christians.

Did they stop to think that, by reserving the right to resist laws they don't like, they forfeit the authority to intervene in the enactment of those laws, as they have done in the congressional debate over healthcare reform?

This is so muddled. Of course we can resist laws we don't like (why would we resist laws we like?), and still participate in lawmaking. That's exactly what happened in the civil rights movement of the 1950s/1960s. The board has called for resistance of the California Marriage Amendment. So I guess this is a matter of, "Christians shouldn't stand up for what they believe. Only people who agree with us should."?

They need to be reminded that this is a nation of laws, not of men -- even holy men.

You mean like where they write:

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral.

…like that?

Again - read the document yourself. You may want to sign it after you do.

(This is a repost.)

For your friends who identify as moderates, independents, or even Democrats who have expressed disappointment with Democrat leadership...

You may be a conservative and not even know it. Do you identify with a majority of the following statements?

• The Constitution limits the federal government, and should thereby work to prevent government's intrusion into the lives of citizens.
• Some responsibilities of government are - and should be - reserved for the President, some for Congress, some for the Supreme Court, some for the states, and some for people to work out by themselves, including by forming voluntary associations.
• It isn't the responsibility of the President or the federal government in general to try to solve all problems.
• Changing something through law or government policy can make things worse.
• Human rights are God-given or natural, not granted by governments.
• People should be as free as possible to enjoy the fruits of their own decisions and work.
• People should generally be free to do what they want with what they own, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other people.
• There are real differences between men and women in addition to reproductive organs.
• Both masculinity and femininity have value and contribute positively to society.
• Parents should be responsible for and have authority over their own minor children, only overridden by government intrusion when they demonstrate they are neglectful or otherwise abusive parents.
• Unless one of them is abusive, it is best that children are raised with both their mother and father who are married to each other.
• It is better that a baby be born and adopted by such a family than for the baby's mother to have an abortion.
• If someone who practices a religion you don't says they do or will pray for you, you respond with "thank you", not negativity or hostility.
• People should be treated differently by government based on what they do, not their skin color, ethnicity, beliefs, or sexual orientation.
• Since immigrants choose to come here, they need to adapt enough to live by our laws and policies; we're under no obligation to change to accommodate their traditions.
• Our nation should defend itself with force, which will sometimes involve killing people and breaking things in other countries.

Is there an alternative to more federal intrusion into our lives, our employment, our wallets, and insurance? Yes, yes there is. And this alternative doesn't violate the Constitution, unlike the bills Congress has thrown together.

(Yes, this is essentially a repost, but I think it is warranted.)

Here is My National Health Care Plan. Spread the word!

1. The federal government stays out of health care as much as possible. See Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution. The federal government can get involved in breaking up monopolies, and prosecuting interstate crime such as fraud.

2. The state government stays out of health care as much as possible.

3. No government medical facilities for anyone other than military personnel (including veterans) and perhaps prisoners.

4. Every person is free to pursue a career in medicine, subject to the same laws as anyone else.

5. Property owners have broad freedom to host medical facilities on their property.

6. People are free to develop medical procedures, medicines, and medical equipment.

7. People are allowed to support #3-6 with donations and investments of time, money, their body, etc.

8. Every person is free to seek medical care (or not) from anyone anywhere in the world. They can demand to see licensing, such a medical license or nursing license, or certification of medical treatments from any number of organizations and watchdogs.

9. Every person is free to treat (or not) another person, and what to accept, if anything, as compensation, and when it will be due. Granted, anyone who wants a government license needs to stick to the government rules.  Any medical professional who wants to keep an association with an employer or insurance company will have to abide by their rules as well.

10. Each individual is free to either negotiate how he will compensate those who treat him or to make arrangements to that effect. They can negotiate directly with their doctor or the doctor's representative, or delegate negotiations to an insurance company, charity, their union, their employer, their religious congregation, or some other voluntary association. Their friends, family, and strangers who believe they have a right to subsidized health care are free to pay for it, too.

All of this involves personal liberty and voluntary associations. Strictly speaking, nobody is forced to do anything - and that includes paying for anything. People who are afraid of a system like this 1) believe too little in the abilities of others; 2) want to force someone else to pay their way through life; 3) want to overstep their authority to spend the money of other people, gained by force, they way they see fit; 4) are more than one or all of the above.

Patt Morrison, a Los Angeles Times columnist recently interviewed Gloria Steinem, who apparently wants to invoke and ignore the differences between men and women, depending on what is convenient.

She brought up the bogus "pay gap" between men and women, saying we should have higher pay for jobs in which more females work for the sake of equality – never mind that the jobs are fundamentally different.

Then she says:

The big step for this coming generation is to get to a place where men raise children as much as women do.

It's not going to happen, for several reasons, including, but not limited to:

1. Women are the ones with wombs.
2. Women are the sex that can breast feed.
3. Women have a physiology that is generally more favorable to caring or young children
4. Women are more likely to resent their man if they are the ones earning the income and he is home with the kids.

Are there exceptions? Yes. But you're never going to see a general 50-50 split in culture.

We seem to think that women here are better off than they are in any other country, and that's not true. We are the only modern democracy in the whole world with no national system of child care, no national system of healthcare, no system of family-friendly workplace policies.

Women are a lesser percentage of elected officials [here] than in India.

Women may pay 40% more for their health insurance than men do. [Companies] are not allowed to [discriminate] racially anymore, but they still do it on gender. They say the reason they get to charge more is we have children.

I would say having children is a socially useful act.

Being female is not a preexisting condition.

The problem with these social movements is that they never, ever, end. This is because there's a lot of fame and fortune to be made in books, lectures, movies, and Pat Morrison interviews about perceived injustices.

That’s what Leftists would say when I say taxpayers should not be feeding children who have parents or guardians. Associated Press Writer Lisa Rathke reports that more children are getting taxpayer-funded dinners in addition to lunches (and breakfast). Of course, according to Leftists, since I support the separation of state and school to being with, I must want all children uneducated as well.

More low-income school kids could soon have access to free nutritious dinners like the lasagna that Avery loved. A U.S. Department of Agriculture program in Vermont, 12 other states and the District of Columbia provides reimbursements for the suppers, served at after-school programs for at-risk kids in communities where at least 50 percent of households fall below the poverty level.

The dinners aren’t free. They cost other people money.

Around the country, about 49,000 children benefit from the after-school meals each day. The program is expected to cost a total of $8 million from 2009 to 2013, the USDA said.

They must starve during vacations.

The number of Americans who live in food-insecure households - which at times don't have enough nutritious food - rose from 36 million people in 2007 to 49 million in 2008, according to the most recent report from USDA's Economic Research Service.

Given how fat so many people are these days, I think the operative words here must be "enough" and "nutritious". So microwavable and unwrapple comfort foods don't count? But I wonder how many of these homes have cell phones, pay TV, video game systems, booze, cigarettes, etc. Oh, and I love that phrase "food-insecure". Are we sure they're not enjoying undocumented meals?

Nearly one in four children in the U.S. are food insecure and about one in five live in poverty, according to a report from Feeding America, a network of 200 food banks around the country.

Twenty percent of children here live in poverty. Really? Then why are the charities going to other countries to show us children who need charity?

Why can't we get private, voluntary charity to cover this? Are we too busy buying carbon credits?

Nature-worshipping freaks, environmental alarmists, and commie mass transit advocates knock the personal automobile. I love automobiles. There are many reasons to love automobiles.

1. It's there on demand.  No looking up schedules, no walking several blocks to a station or a stop, no scrambling to conform to a schedule, no dealing with late buses or trains.

2. It gets you exactly where you want to go, in using the route that is of your choosing, as direct or as scenic as you choose.  You don't have to go way out of your way and wait for a transfer.  If you want to slow down and pull off of the road - maybe to dump some toxic chemicals into an endangered species habitat, or eat an artery-clogging burger made from a dead cow, or hunt a defenseless little furry animal - you can.  Just try dragging a game carcass onto a public bus. Ain't gonna happen.

3. You can have some level of privacy.  This allows you to call in to Dr. Laura without anyone around you hearing. It also allows for you to have your kids sit in the back and earn their keep doing child labor while you go over their homeschooling lessons.

4. You can listen to what you want without disturbing others or having to wear earphones. The Bible on tape,  Atlas Shrugged on tape, Rush Limbaugh - you can listen to it all and still hear that siren as Sheriff Joe drives by to go round up some illegal aliens.

5. Any passengers are of your choosing. Do I need to draw you a picture? No holding on to your wallet or enduring paranoid mumblings.  You can hide "passengers" in the trunk, too.

6. The aroma is of your choosing.  See #5.

7. The climate is of your choosing. I like running the air conditioner full-blast and having all of the windows down.

8. Automobiles allow a wide-range of self-expression, from that little fish symbol, to an NRA bumper sticker, to that red-white-and-blue paint job, to that horn that plays "Battle Hymn of the Republic".

9. Automobiles allow for self-determination. On a commuter train, you are often delayed when some Leftist jumps in front of it to kill themselves, but in an automobile, you can run right over them, back up over them, and run over them again, then take off, go home, and have an adult beverage and cigar as you wait for the police to arrive to hear your explanation involving assisted suicide.

10. People used to use horses for transportation, but now horses can be sold to Europe to be turned into meat.

Of course, this all depends on the men and women who design, engineer, build, and maintain our roads, highways, bridges, and traffic systems. Without those, automobiles would just be another place to make hot passionate love to your highly attractive, and to be redundant - conservative, spouse.

Automobiles may change over the years, getting safer, more efficient, and more "environmentally-friendly", but is hard to beat the basic premise of a passenger-controlled vehicle that can be navigated to exactly where the passenger wants to go, exactly when the passenger wants to get there. Long live the personal automobile!

(This is essentially a repost.)

If saying a Mosque at Ground Zero is in poor taste leads to Muslim cabbies being stabbed...

If saying that abortion is wrong leads to abortionists being killed...

If saying that marriage is between a man and a woman leads to homosexual people being murdered...

If saying that Jesus Christ is Lord leads to strife and war...

If criticizing Obama or the breaking of our immigration laws leads to violence against people with dark skin...

And that means we can't or shouldn't say those things...

Then, doesn't that mean that James Jay Lee's eco-terrorism is proof that Algore, Prince Charles, environmentalist groups, climate change alarmists, and population alarmists should or must be kept from expressing their views?

Some good news from the California legislature, as they failed to pass a ban on certain plastic bags. Associated Press writer Robin Hindery has the story. Unfortunately, we know the Nanny Stater will try again.

The Democratic bill, which failed late Tuesday, would have been the first statewide ban, although a few California cities already prohibit their use.

The measure offered California an opportunity to emerge at the forefront of a global trend, said Sen. Gil Cedillo, who carried the measure on the Senate floor.

Cedillo is usually the guy trying to get driver's licenses (and very likely easier fraudulent voting) for illegal aliens. Who does he think is doing a lot of the littering of plastic bags?

In recent weeks, some local government officials said they would take matters into their own hands if the bill failed. According to Heal the Bay, officials in Los Angeles County, Redondo Beach and Santa Monica said they would pursue individual city- and countywide bans in the coming months.

You know, because there aren't more important issues to tackle.

Keith Christman, managing director for plastics markets at the American Chemistry Council, has a commentary about this published in the Los Angeles Times.

Recently, we at the American Chemistry Council have come under fire - on The Times' editorial page and elsewhere - for trying to make sure Californians have the facts about this legislation. Our efforts, which include the website stopthebagpolice.com, print ads and TV commercials, have been called a media blitz.

But the real blitz has come from those who would stifle choice and presume to tell shoppers how to take their groceries home from the store. It's come from special-interest California grocers who, incentivized by the prospect of no longer having to provide free bags to customers, are seeking cover behind what amounts to state-sanctioned price fixing. And it's come from a few opportunistic reusable bag companies, many of whom import their products, who without an environmental impact study promise to ramp up U.S. production and make reusable bags to replace the plastic ones the state wants to ban.

Previously: Will the Bag Ban Increase Illness?

Democrats, especially the Leftists, love to claim that the GOP is a loose, fragile, and nonsensical coalition of the Religious Right, other social conservatives, big business types, military hawks, and libertarians.

But it makes sense for social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and libertarians to stick together as Republicans.

Yes, I know that there isn’t consensus among Republicans on immigration, right-to-life, and marriage law issues, but most of the priority goals of the different factions are compatible.

Why?  Conservative social values are good for business and reduce the demand for social spending of tax money and the demand for stronger regulations.  Conservative social values make the nation strong, stable, and a good place to do business.

Conservative social values make good employees.  First of all, we’ve been aborting so much of our labor in this country that is has taken both legal immigrants and illegal aliens to supply the labor needs of the businesses that don’t move their operations outside of the country.  The low unemployment figures indicated this until this latest recession.  It is no coincidence that Roe v. Wade was in 1973 and we’ve had a massive influx of illegal alien labor since the 1986 amnesty.

But there is more to being a good employee than just being alive.  Being sober, avoiding vice, treating yourself and others with respect when it comes to sexual relations, respecting authority, adhering to integrity over easy crime, and self/family reliance over dependency are good qualities in am employee, are they not?  Who thinks that a person would make an ideal employee if he or she gets drunk or stoned, smokes, sleeps around without much discretion or with few boundaries, is openly crude in mixed company, would pilfer or embezzle as long as they were unlikely to get caught, disrespects any boss, and looks to “someone else” to do everything for them?

Since employees will be working with both men and women and may have either as a boss, being raised by both a man and a woman better prepares an employee for that arrangement.

An employee who avoids substance abuse and saves their body and heart for marriage is  more likely to be physically and emotionally healthy, and thus to show up to work and to be a smaller burden when it comes to health benefits.

Conservative social values make good citizens.  A stable, married household is more likely to teach self-restraint, self-respect, self-reliance, respect for authority, and healthy interaction with both sexes.  A religious household is more likely to teach the importance of charity.  This means less crime and less dependence on the government, which should mean lower taxes.  It means more voluntary cooperation and less dysfunction in groups.

You have a better chance of creating a lasting and healthy, stable, married household if you do not have vice addictions and you save sex for marriage.

We can’t have a more libertarian society function well without self-control.  We can’t have strong businesses without reliable employees.

That is why social and fiscal conservatism go hand in hand.  If, for the sake of libertarian ideals, we don’t maintain laws and courts that actively promote social conservatism, we should at least prevent Leftists from enacting laws and appointing judges who will undermine the social conservatism of the people.

(This is essentially a repost.)