I understand the desire for political gain.  What I don’t understand, though, is doing it at the expense of national security.

Islam, which has always been spread by the sword, is now being spread by liberal immigration and accommodation.  While only a small percentage of Muslims engage in radicalized behavior such as terrorism, it stands to reason that the more Muslims there are, the more radicalized Muslims there will be, and with the growing Muslim enclaves in Europe and the U.S., the more likely it will be that radicalized Muslims will entrench themselves into Western civilization.  And we facilitate this by bending over backwards no to “offend” them.  We make accommodations for them that we have deliberately stopped making for observant Christians.

Do I think we should bar Muslims from immigrating to the U.S.?  No, not if they’re demonstrated themselves to be upstanding citizens of their country of origin and have demonstrated respect for the U.S. and desire to contribute to our society.  But those immigrants must realize that we already have a culture, and it doesn’t involve making sure their feelings are protected.  We have the freedom here to publish cartoons that portray the actions of Muslims, including Mohammed, in a negative light, and reacting with threats or violence is unacceptable.  Women here sometimes need to be examined for medical and security purposes.  We have the freedom to produce and sell smut here.  Or wear bikinis.  And eat bacon.  Friday is often party time.  We have a strong Judeo-Christian thread to our heritage.  If that is going to be a problem for them, they should not come here in the first place.  It is they who must adapt to the U.S. if they want to live here.

Likewise, we should not tailor our foreign policy to appeasing Muslims, especially terrorists and the nations that support them.  If we make them mad, we are probably doing something right!  They’re going to attack us either way.  It is naïve to think that we can do anything less than bow in submission to their imams in order to make them happy.  They’re going to try to kill us, and we’re better off strongly defending ourselves and killing them.  Truly, these are people who hate America more than they love their own children.

The fact is, we’re in Iraq, regardless of whether anyone likes it or not.  We’re there because there was a genocidal tyrant in control of the place who sponsored terrorism and threatened the world with WMD, and after 9/11, we could no longer sit around and wait to be attacked.  Once the tyrant was toppled, various terrorists took advantage of the freedom to make a play for control of the nation.  Is it sad that Americans are getting killed over there?  Yes.  It is sad that anyone (except for the terrorists) get killed over there.  The surrenderists maintain that no matter how long we stay, the end result will be the same – genocide, first through chaos and then through tyranny - so we might as well save Americans and save money by getting out now.  This view dismisses the capabilities of our men and women in the military and the ability of Iraqis (Kurdish, Sunni, Shi’ite, whatever) to build a stable republic.

Our efforts in Iraq can be more successful, but the more our own politicians, media, and activists denounce our efforts and the men and women involved, the more the terrorists are emboldened.  Emboldened terrorists mean more Americans killed.  That is why these surrenderists are disgusting.

We should be putting forth a unified front of determination and resolve to destroy the terrorists before worrying about being politically correct.  We shouldn’t be working on losing the fight against the terrorists in Iraq just to make it easier to elect a Democrat President in 2008.  Sending a message to the terrorist that you hate them more than George Bush will aid getting things to the point where most of our troops in Iraq can come home.

But if you surrenderists would rather focus on political gains for 2008 than national security, then God help us all.

Previously, I wrote about what makes someone an authentic Christian, as there are many people who identify themselves – or are identified by others – as Christians, but in the strict theological sense, they aren’t.

Now on to the question: “Is Jesus a Republican?”

My short answer is “no”.

But he certainly isn’t a Democrat, either.

The GOP is a U.S. political party, and as such, is a man-made organization, the main purpose of which is to get members elected and appointed to government offices.  It is a flawed organization founded and comprised of flawed people.

I do believe, though, that conservatism can be consistent with Christian principles, and in fact I maintain that my own conservatism is consistent with my Christian worldview.  And, in the U.S., it is the GOP that is a home to the conservative movement and is one of the two dominant, effective political parties, hence my support for the GOP.

In an ideal situation, the perfect form of government is a benevolent dictatorship - an absolute monarchy, actually – with the monarch being eternal, unchanging, unequaled, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, holy, loving, merciful, and just.  (That’s God, to those of you who are slow on the uptake.)  But since He has given us the freedom to govern ourselves for now, and we are a mix of unrepentant sinners and repentant-but-still-unperfected sinners, I do not believe there is a better governmental system than the brilliant one devised by our mostly Christian-influenced founders – our union of states in a capitalist, constitutional, democratic, representative, republic with separation of powers and checks and balances.

It is that system that recognizes that people will generally look out for their own self-interests and in doing so will cooperate where mutually beneficial, and will also engage voluntarily in private charity.  It is that system that recognizes that since sin has marred each of us, none of us should have too much power.  It is that system that recognizes that people will do wrong, and some of those wrongs demand a collective response from the people as a whole.  So, it is a system that understands that true nature of people.

This is a system worth conserving.  Hence - conservatism.

Conservatism promotes respect for human life; defending and esteeming marriage; respect for authority; personal freedom, responsibility and accountability; punishment and restitution for wrongs; private charity; and encourages acknowledging God in all areas of life.  These are all very much part of what Jesus taught and affirmed.

Leftists, including some Democrats, cite God as Creator and Jesus’ acceptance of prostitutes and others marginalized by society during his earthly ministry, His message of forgiveness, His “cast the first stone” and “take the plank out of your own eye” statements, His commands to take care of the needy, His “turn the other cheek” statement, and His willingness to be beaten and crucified as examples of why Republicans and conservatives are wrong and why Christians should support Democrats in their efforts to:

-expand government social spending (including allowing illegal aliens to come here, stay here, and receive such spending)
-socialize health care
-implement “environmental protection” legislation
-promote pacifism
-promote licentiousness, especially in sexual behavior

Such applications take Jesus’ words and actions out of context and twist His words.

It is bizarre to me that people who so stridently promote and defend philosophical naturalism (claiming that we and everything else in the universe are the products of nothing more than natural processes alone) appeal to our belief in a Creator to promote their “environmental protection” agenda.  Many of these people are the same people that see nothing wrong with dismembering babies in the womb.  Many of the same people who promote government-funded (meaning taxpayer-funded) health care for seniors by appealing to our compassion would just as soon put our seniors to death, claiming it is for dignity and pain-relief, but in actuality because the seniors would become an expensive inconvenience.

Yes, Jesus accepted and forgave people who admitted and repented of their sins.  You can’t repent of sins if you don’t recognize them as sins in the first place.  The phrase “Go and sin no more” comes to mind.  He saved their souls but did not necessarily protect them from the earthly consequences of their sins.  The repentant thief on the cross comes to mind – Jesus told him “Today, you will be with me in Paradise,” indicating he was forgiven, but Jesus didn’t use His power to remove the man from the cross and stave off death.  And yes, people should take the plank out of their own eye before trying to remove the speck in someone else’s eye, and if you have repented of your sins and turned to Jesus, then the plank has been removed.

He’ll judge the world in the future, but Jesus certainly wasn’t “nonjudgmental” during His earthly ministry.  According to the written accounts of His teachings, He talked a lot about Hell and had some choice words in public for certain people, and don’t forget what He did to the money changers.

Jesus ordered His followers to take care of the poor, not the government.  He didn't advocate stealing from the rich to "care for the poor".  He told a rich man to sell everything he had and give it to the poor himself, not to sell all he had and give it to Rome for redistribution.  

Jesus did not teach pacifism, either.  As Greg Koukl points out, “turning the other cheek” likely refers to dealing with insults.  Jesus sent His disciples out with swords.  I’d agree that Jesus would be against using force unjustly, but not all use of force is unjust.

(Oh - and despite what PETA would say, Jesus was not a vegetarian, either.)

I’d like to note that nowhere does Jesus command us to spread Christianity by force.  He commanded us to make disciples, true, but everything about His earthly ministry teaches us to make disciples by preaching the Gospel through our words and living the Gospel in our actions.  Promote clean living.  Care for those in need, including telling them when, where, and how their sins are causing their problems (IF their own sins are causing those particular problems).

So, while I wouldn’t say that Jesus is a Republican, I would say that being a Republican is entirely compatible with being a Christian.  Being a Christian is much more than just being involved in politics, however.  It also includes living a moral life and giving of your time, talent, and treasure to those who need it.  We can’t insist that the government get out of social spending and then not pick up th slack ourselves by tending to the legitimate needs of others.  That is all part of having a relationship with Christ as your Lord and Savior.

As David Limbaugh points out in his column, there are very few sins that our culture considers sins anymore, and few crimes a politician can commit that rile people up.  One of the worse things someone can do now be is a “hypocrite”.  Yes, supposedly you are a “hypocrite” if you understand that marriage is something requiring the participation of both sexes and you have pled guilty to charges stemming from an alleged solicitation of a same-sex encounter in a restroom.  You are a hypocrite if you are a parent who did drugs as a teen and you now tell your own teen not to.

Since none of us are perfect, the easy solution, of course, is to never take a stand on anything.  After all, isn’t it worse to be a hypocrite than to say, rob a bank?  This is what the hedonists and career criminals want us to believe.  They want to disarm everyone by calling them hypocrites so that nobody will echo their conscience in reminding them that there are some things they ought not do.

Never mind that the true definition of hypocrisy is professing to believe one thing and really believing something opposite.  While saying something would seem to indicate that you believe it, it isn’t necessarily so, and while doing something would ideally be based on your true beliefs, it isn’t always the case.  It is possible to truly believe that fornication is wrong but still enjoy doing it when you are in that moment.

Just because someone votes for something (marriage requires the participation of both sexes) that you assume comes with all sorts of baggage (homosexual behavior is wrong), doesn’t make someone a hypocrite even if he really did seek out homosexual behavior.  There are just too many factors at play.

A true example of hypocrisy would be, say, telling everyone you believe that we all need to cut down on carbon emissions for the sake of the environment but really believing that carbon emissions aren’t harming the environment, but controlling them will give you the power you want.  We don’t know anybody like that, do we?

But what to do?  Should we cave in and drop our standards?  No.  Just because we may err does not mean we should shy away from recognizing the distinction between right and wrong.  It means we should strive to make restitution for our errors, confess our sins, and highlight as examples people who do right when they do right.

People who elevate suspected hypocrisy to a major crime against humanity, especially in the case of a parent who warns their kids about drugs, are making as much sense as someone who takes Jesus’ admonition about “committing adultery in your heart” as an excuse to cheat on your spouse because you’ve already fantasized about doing it.

Don’t fall for it.  Hypocrisy is not good, but to the solution is to improve our behavior, not lower our standards.

Ah, the bluster from south of the border.

Okay, I know this is going to be blogged about and talked about by many others (it has already been blogged about in the main Townhall blog), but I couldn’t resist.

Chris Hawley brings us this story containing some “interesting” comments from Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón


Hey – don’t like it? Stop sending them here!  Go ahead!  Cut us off.  DO IT!


Hey, why should Mexico do that when it can simply send its people to the U.S. for jobs and education?


Ah, Leftists.  You can always count on them to provide the entertainment.


Don’t like the wall?  Too bad!  And “insensitivity”?  You mean by accommodating them with health care, schools, welfare and Spanish-language assistance?  I didn’t realize that was insensitive.


Great.  Well let your lawbreakers stay inside those consulates.


I can imagine the uproar if Bush said a similar thing about U.S. citizens.  But he’s right, you know.  Just look at the gangs, code violations, and rooster fighting rings we have in the U.S. that are straight from Mexico.



Yet another reason to go with nuclear power.

This guy has a lot of nerve, though, considering the steps Mexico takes to protect its southern border, how they treat illegal aliens from the south, and how American citizens and others get treated while visiting Mexico if they bump into the authorities.  He should be ashamed of himself that millions of people flee his country into the U.S.

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

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

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

Since words mean things, it is important to define who I’m talking about when I refer to Jesus Christ.  Why?  Well, the Jesus Christ of the Watchtower is different from the Jesus Christ of the LDS church is different from the Jesus Christ of New Agers is different from the Jesus Christ of Islam is different from the Jesus Christ of ‘Word of Faith’ televangelists is different from Jesus Christ of the Bible and traditional, orthodox Christianity.  (Here come the comments!)

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

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

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

If Jesus Christ is really your Lord and Savior, then there should be some evidence of that in your life:
You have a relationship with Him. 
He is your priority.
You live His way, not your own way.
You own up to your sins, repent of them, and ask forgiveness, even if you have to do it many times over. 
You seek to avoid those sins in the first place. 
You seek to help others as He has delegated those tasks to His people.

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

Getting back to politics...

Is Jesus a Republican?  I'll save that for another posting.

Democrats usually seem to remain defiant in the face of scandal, circle the wagons, and the subject of the scandal stays in place.

Republicans, on the other hand, tend to shoot their wounded.

Why is that?  Is it because we are holding ourselves to a higher standard?

Lots of illegal alien news today!

Peter Prengaman of the Associate Press tells us about a planned boycott.


Great.  Why don’t you really teach us a lesson and do a really thorough boycott and go back your countries of citizenship?  You keep telling us how bad off we’ll be - prove it!

Boycotts like this don’t work for a couple of reasons.  First, most of the spending that won’t happen on September 12 will translate into higher spending on the 11th and the 13th.  Also, these boycotts remind citizens and legal residents just how pleasant it is to eat out, shop, etc. without illegal aliens crowding us.  I look forward to September 12!

These groups claimed that they were reunited because of the lawbreaking illegal alien single mother Elvira Arellano, who arrogantly and ungratefully flouted our laws in public.  Now she wants to be an ambassador so she can return legally to the U.S.  Why should we accept an ambassador who has already broken our laws and shown contempt for them?


Oooh- hundreds!

Richard Winton of the Los Angeles Times tells us that the LAPD will stop impounding the cars of people they catch driving around without licenses – largely illegal aliens.  Who wants to inconvenience criminals, after all?


Bingo!

If illegal aliens can ignore these laws, too, then how about allowing citizens to ignore all sorts of other licensing laws?  How would the Lefties feel if we ignored hunting and fishing license laws?


That would be “One-Bill Gil”, who keeps trying to get a bill passed to give licenses to illegal aliens.  Most have the chance to get licenses in their country of citizenship, by the way.

Hey- is it unconstitutional to impound the vehicles of prostitution johns?  Please don’t tell me that is still okay to do but it isn’t okay to take a vehicle away from someone who doesn’t even have a license to drive it in the first place.

Finally, it is hot around here (that happens in the summer), and we’re being asked to conserve energy so as to not put a strain on the power grid.  Yeah, we wouldn’t want blackouts.  The million of illegal aliens adding strain to our power grid and the rest of our infrastructure might suffer.

Illegal aliens: Remember to boycott by not using any electricity!

Let’s check in with the socialists in my home state.

First up is socialist racist reconquistador Fabian Nuñez, speaker of the State Assembly.  He wrote an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times promoting more socialism in health care.

In the next 15 to 18 days before the Legislature adjourns, the narrow window of opportunity we have to achieve healthcare reform in California -- reform that expands access for those who don't have health coverage and keeps costs down for those who do -- will start to close.

Everyone in California, including prison inmates, illegal aliens, and tourists, already has access to health care.

If history is a guide, we can expect an anything-goes campaign in the next few weeks to delay, derail and demonize healthcare reform.

Translation: We don’t want to hear from the taxpayers and employers.  We simply want to ram socialism down their throats.

Basically, our legislation would call on employers to spend at least 7.5% of their payroll on worker healthcare, with employees also contributing to the premiums.

It should be none of your business how much I pay for my health care.  It should be none of your business how much my employer will contribute.  This should all be between my health care provider, my employer, and me – NOT YOU.  And if my employer declines to contribute, I can go to another employer if it is so important to me.

The state would subsidize insurance for the poor.

Translation: Some people will be forced to pay for the health insurance of people they don’t even know, with some of the money being skimmed to support government beauracracy.  A teetotaling, observant Jehovah’s Witness will be forced to pay for blood transfusions and other health care for a promiscuous drunkard.   Who decides the definition of “poor”, anyway?

Not that Schwarzenegger’s plan is good.

The governor's plan…would require everyone to have insurance, and funding for it would come from a levy on doctors and hospitals in addition to employer contributions. That levy would count as a new tax, according to the legislative counsel, and new taxes require a two-thirds vote in the Legislature.

He’s not worried about the sneaky tax.  He’s worried that it won’t be passed.

The governor's inability to get Republican senators to vote for his state budget -- and that's more a knock on them than him -- shows the folly of trying to win support from the hyper-partisan right.

“Hyper-paratisan” means “Not enthusiastic about forcibly transferring the wealth of U.S. citizens to Mexico.”

Does this mean that I don't want to include my Republican colleagues in the process of creating reform? Not at all.

No, he wishes they would be socialist reconquistadors, too.

But should the fate of healthcare reform be dependent on far-right Republican senators who only support a laissez-faire/free-market approach that Californians overwhelmingly reject? No way.

Right. We should screw over the middle-class while the rich people move out of state and continue to get healthcare wherever they want.  And we should do everything to encourage more of Mexico to move to California illegally.  the majority of Californians also voted to protect marriage, but I guess it is okay to ignore the majority in that case, right?

We should not pit one generation of Californians against another.

No, just brown against everyone else, and "poor" against "rich".

Those who want to see more complete coverage also will object to our plan because they'd rather see a single-payer system -- in which a government-run entity contracts with doctors and hospitals and handles all claims.

I embrace the idea; it is a noble goal and may one day prove to be the ultimate answer.

But he understands that it is easier to boil the frog slowly.

We're not trying to turn this state into Cuba (with socialized medicine) or Canada (with a single-payer system).

Yes you are - just incrementally.

There’s Los Angeles City Councilmember Richard Alacón, writing in the Los Angeles Daily News, about forcing taxpayers to bail out people who bought homes they couldn’t afford.


You mean it has nothing to do with people buying homes they can’t afford and making other bad decisions?


Did someone put a gun to their head to force them to take the money when it was loaned to them?  Why should it be someone else’s burden to bail them out so they can live in a home they can’t afford?


Nope.  Wrong.  Just because it happens a lot doesn’t mean there’s a problem with the system.  We have choices in this country.  People choose to behave like their adjustable rates will never increase, or that they will never be earning less income, or will never have an emergency.


Why?  I want to upgrade.  Why shouldn’t I be able to benefit from this?  Why should someone who can’t afford to live in a bigger/nicer/better located house than me do so at my expense, making it more difficult for me to upgrade?


This fund shouldn’t even exist – not as a government fund, anyway.


Yes you do.


In other words, people who don’t know about saving for emergencies.


These people are already defaulting on loans, and you want us to believe they will pay this loan back?


That’s part of the problem!


You already have people in public schools for at least 13 years.  That's not enough?


Finally we get the real reason he’s so concerned.  He’s afraid of losing tax revenues.


Maybe there shouldn’t be taxpayer-sponsored assistance in the first place.  Ah, but that is such a foreign notion to guys like this.


Wrong!  The market is self-correcting.  No government intrusion needed!


Please.  Property rights, smaller government, and border control would go a long way to boosting homeownership.

Chuck Schumer, the senior Senator from New York, said that the Justice Department has been unable to function lately under Attorney General Gonzales.  If that's true, is there any doubt as to why?  Gee, could all of those investigations - most of them purely political posturing - have had anything to do with that?  Schumer is like the arsonist who drives by a house he set fire to and says "What a shame.  It looks like the place is uninhabitable."  It's disgusting.

I hope Bush nominated Judge Judy to replace Gonzales.

If the nominee is Anglo, I can't wait for  the Democrats to whine that the Administration is too white.

I frequently hear or read in the supposedly unbiased drive-by media things like “The U.S. lags behind other industrialized nations in covering all citizens with health insurance” or “in the amount of government-paid paternity leave” or “in educating nine year olds about sex and giving them the HPV vaccine and condoms.”… as if all those things are inevitable and beneficial progress.

I never hear such matters phrased as “The U.S. continues to maintain more self-reliance, independence, and liberty for its individual citizens as countries x, y, and z continue to expand government control of every aspect of their citizens’ lives.”  I never hear “The U.S. lags behind Muslim nations in arming its citizens with the latest and most powerful weapons for personal defense.”

Every time some hand-out seeking person who demands “someone else” to pay for his health insurance blathers on about how “The U.S. is the only industrialized nation without universal health care” or whatever, reply with “The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that has the U.S. Constitution.” That pesky Constitution is what limits government activity, and sometimes people actually pay attention to it.

While were at it, how about mentioning some of the other instances where the U.S is “the only nation”?  For example just how much aid does the U.S. (through taxes and voluntary donations) send to other countries?  How much disaster relief do we provide?  How much military support do we provide?

How many other countries would allow illegal aliens to demonstrate openly in the streets and speak out against their elected leaders and wave the flags of foreign countries?  I think we are lagging behind in cracking down there.

Ah, but the very same kooks who demand “universal health care” (as if they don’t have access to hospitals, when even illegal aliens do), strangely, are the very same people who claim Bush is a dictator.  I guess their point is that dictatorship is fine, as long as THEIR choice is the dictator.  They push for larger and more intrusive, controlling, and centralized government, and then they are outraged when elected Republicans use those powers, as if they are supposed to magicly disappear if the Leftist activists don’t like the people who have access to them.

Isn’t it better to maintain liberty and self-determination in the first place?

Recently, I saw that there was a story about a bunch of people getting nekkid and draping their bodies on a melting glacier for a photo op.  Excuse me, but wouldn’t their body heat speed up the melting of that glacier, and thereby contribute to the death of us all, according the global warming alarmist priests?  We’re all going to drown now, thanks to those exhibitionists!!!

The cold couldn’t have been very flattering for the guys.

This reminded me of the women who were getting nekkid and using their bodies to spell out things like “Peace” (no, not Piece) a few years back to protest us defending ourselves from terrorists.  Protests like that only work if the women are ugly.

Anne K. Ream disses the “modesty movement” in an opinion piece in today’s Los Angeles Times.


Maybe it is women going against the flow of immodesty and degrading hook-ups.  If some women can be modest and be successful, accomplished, and accepted, then other women lose their “I have to flaunt it or I’ll be left behind” excuse.


Oh, the horror!  What’s next?  Men being expected to be faithful to their wives, be the primary breadwinner of the family, protect their families, and lift heavy objects?  Oppression!


Maybe that has to do with the differences between men and women and how they relate to each other.  Nobody complained about the behavior of my female bosses more than my female coworkers.


As if men who stand in line are in the headlines every day.  Susan Smith, Andrea Yates... they made history, didn't they?


No, if you can find a man who either likes drama and craziness in his personal life, or is too insecure to do anything about it, then I guess you don’t have to make nice.  Me, I’d rather live in a home that is warm, peaceful, and pleasant.  Silly me.


Of course not.  It is one the main ways feministas punish their husbands.


Maybe it is both.  While it is correct that men should control themselves regardless of what a woman wears or does, immodesty can make a woman a more likely target.  All other things being equal, most harassers and rapists are going to target a woman who is dressed less modestly or behaves less modestly than another equally accessible woman.  If you go to a guy’s bedroom naked with a bottle of vodka, he doesn’t have the right to rape you, but it will be much easier for him to do so.  And yes, he can and should be prosecuted and thrown in prison, and even sued.  But you’d still be the victim of a rape.  Liberated, but raped.


Maybe you consider your sexuality and body something to be given away to another casually and lightly, but not everyone woman does.  Hence the modesty movement.  And guess what?  Something that can benefit men can also benefit women.  Things can work that way when men and women are considered complimentary partners, not enemies and rivals.


Oh, you should definitely not live solely in anticipation of a man.  Don’t run up debts expecting a man to come along and pay them, for example.  One the flip side, you could say that a man who is saving up his money and building his career beyond what he needs to support himself is living in anticipation of a woman.  Should he not do so?  Should he instead cut back on work and spend more time with his buddies and hobbies?


There are many ways to do that without showing us if the carpet matches the drapes or if you have hardwood floors.


The parallel for men would be all about not flashing their money.  Let’s be honest here.  Women are immodest because they think it will give them an edge over other women and attract a “better” man.  Men flash the cash (nice cars, expensive suits, etc.) because they think it will give them an edge over other men and attract a “better” woman.

Look, there’s a side to me that enjoys fashions that have allowed me to picture a woman naked with minimal effort.  That’s how men are built.  But the reality is, our nature also brings the result of us focusing on the body of that woman to the extent that we fail to deal with her as a person.  You’ll get attention, but you won’t be taken seriously.  That’s reality, and no amount of social engineering is going to change it.

You have the freedom to be immodest and to write in a way that knocks those who aren’t.  But the modesty movement is on to something, and you can’t bring all of those women down to your level no matter how hard you try.  We're not going to let all of our young women fall into the trap of hook-ups and amateur online porn.

Go ahead and let it all hang out.  That way, decent men who want a woman they can take seriously know to avoid you.

In our Brave New World with donated eggs, donated sperm, donated human beings (as embryos), and rented wombs (surrogate “motherhood”), there are people who are helping singles and same-sex couples obtain children.  The intent is to raise these children in a home where they will be deprived of either a mother or a father.  (This may also happen with adoption in the traditional sense.)

There have been court decisions granting financial child support to children from men who have donated sperm, regardless of the contracts or agreements entered into by the adults at the time.  The reasoning is that the financial child support is for the child, and the adults could not consent to waive that child support on behalf of the child.

This makes me wonder if a child who was, say, raised by two men could successfully sue a “surrogate parenting” business for intentionally depriving him of a mother?

I think a clever lawyer could make a good argument for this case, especially based on precedents.

People have been successfully sued for “alienation of affection” for “stealing” a spouse.  Grandparents and even those not related to a child have successfully sued for visitation rights.  Why couldn’t a child sue for alienation of parentage?  Isn’t emotional support and role modeling more important than financial support?

Or is child support really about getting the state off of the hook for the expense of raising a child  - even though enforcing child support can cost more that the amount of child support itself – and punishing people (mostly men) for not staying in a relationship, and not really about the child’s well being?

Although people exercise their freedom every day to conceive children without a committed relationship, and thus, quite often the child will be raised without having both a mother and father present, it is another story when a third party gets involved for profit and knowingly, intentionally assists in assigning that child to a life without a mother or without a father.

Those businesses have a financial stake in denying the difference between men and women and the benefit a child will have by having both a mother and father present in the home.

Children should have a mother and father who are married to each other.  This is another reason why people should not risk conceiving children unless they can provide such a home, and another reason why someone should not donate sperm or donate eggs, or engage in procedures that can create “extra” embryos.

"Democrats Preach Virtue of Labor Unions"

That was the headline for an AP story on Yahoo News.

What's next?  A headline that says "Child Touts Virtue of Increased Allowance"?  Or perhaps "Employee Enjoys Getting Paycheck"?  "Waiter Extols the Importance of Big Tips"?  "Hugh Hefner Thanks Implant Industry"?

Democrats like labor unions because most are essentially arms of the Democrat party, automatically taking dues and fees from their "members" (many of whom had no choice but to join the union in order to take the job) and funnel the money to Democrat candidates and causes.

When I was in high school, I took a semester in Economics.  I don’t recall if it was required that everyone take Economics, or if it was one of several options that would fulfill my school’s high standards for graduation.  Another class I took was definitely an elective, and it was about how to live on your own, including, among other things, renting, buying, banking, and signing contracts.

I can’t help but think most of our population needs more education in economics and personal finance, considering the financial mess people make of their lives and the fiscal policies we’re allowed our elected officials to implement.

The current “crisis” of people not being able to deal with the bad home loans and mortgages to which they voluntarily tied themselves, and the proliferation of “payday loan” businesses is a testament to bad personal finances.  That people think new government programs mean “someone else” is going to give them something for free shows ignorance of fiscal reality.  That people think more government involvement in business will make us all more prosperous shows ignorance of economics.

I heard an ad on the radio in which one woman laments to another that a dress she wants is on sale, but that she can’t get it because she is waiting for her next paycheck to have enough money to buy it.  The second woman tells her to use a payday advance loan to get the dress.  What is scary about this ad is that it was effective enough for the payday loan business to run, when anyone with the slightest understanding would see that any savings on the dress would be more than negated by the interest on the loan.  But I suppose a woman who has to wait for her next paycheck before being able to make another purchase wouldn’t pick up on that.

Every tax means less money that you - and anyone else subjected to the tax - will have to invest, save, or buy goods and services.

These matters should not be complicated.  If you want better personal finances, spend less money than you make.  Don't buy a home if you can't do it without a loan that can have skyrocketing payments.  To help the larger economy, vote for politicians who will spend less, tax less, and interfere less.