When we think we have evolved as a society and marvel at becoming increasingly civilized, we should not forget that evil still remains in human nature.  Followers of Christ refer to this as “sin nature” or our “fallen” state.

An example of this is when punks - usually adolescent kids from a middle or upper class life – capture video of themselves attacking people who are apparently homeless and defenseless.

Are there homeless people who are homeless because of poor decisions they made?  Yes.  Are there homeless people who harass other people and commit crimes?  Yes.  Are there "homeless" people who choose not to live in a home open to them?  Yes.

Still, they are human beings and have the same rights as anyone else, and the sadistic nature of their attackers sickens me.  These punks are cowards, and they deserve to be prosecuted for their crimes and sued by their victims.  It would be fitting for their victims to gain from the perps some of the material comforts these punks apparently have, but do not appreciate.  It would also be fitting for these punks to be assigned community service in a shelter.

Thankfully, the Church (which consists of all followers of Christ) does reach out to the homeless, as the commands of Jesus and the leading of the Holy Spirit prompt followers of Christ to minister to those in need.

I do not advocate passing out money to panhandlers.  It is better to give to a church or charity that efficiently and wisely reaches out to the homeless in addressing their needs, and not feeding their vices.  It is better to either help the person get back on their feet and build a better life for themselves, or to find people willing to look after them if that is not possible.  I do not advocate government programs as the solution.

I believe in human dignity, including dignity for the homeless, and holding those who violate their rights accountable.

Kathy M. Kristof of the Los Angeles Times brings us this shocking story of a political - uh, I mean labor union taking advantage of members.

The National Education Assn. faces a federal lawsuit accusing it of breaching its duty to members by recommending a high-cost retirement plan in exchange for millions of dollars from the managers of the plan.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, was filed by two of the 57,000 schoolteachers who the suit says invested $1 billion in a so-called 403(b) retirement plan endorsed by the NEA.

The suit says the teachers were lured to invest in the plan by assurances that the NEA "conducted an extensive review of numerous financial services companies to find the best provider." But the NEA's member benefit unit "received millions of dollars … as the quid pro quo for NEA's exclusive endorsement," the filing says.

The money received by the NEA ultimately came from its members' pockets, according to the suit, through "excessive" fees charged by plan providers Nationwide Life Insurance Co. and Security Benefit Life Insurance Co. The fees reduced the returns earned by the teachers who invested in the plan, the suit claims.

C’mon!  Everyone knows the NEA is there to help teachers so that they can help students.  Next thing you know, this right-wing rag known as the Los Angeles Times will print allegations that the NEA uses member dues to support Democrats and Leftist legislation almost as if it was an extension of the Democrat Party.  Puhleez!

The homo”sexuality”-promotion activists mock Biblical principles on sexuality, and thereby Bible-believers and traditional Judeo-Christian religion in general.  They recognize that the Biblical teaching that sex is intended for a man and a woman who are bound in holy matrimony is something that rains on their parade, so to speak.  These activists believe that if we would stop believing the Bible, they could finally get everything they want, which is to have their physical acts equated with (hetero)sexual acts by the government, by academia, by the media, by churches, etc.  We are largely there already.  They are using their feelings – of attraction to members of the same sex – as their ultimate guide.  Everything that conflicts with those feelings must be wrong.

Meanwhile, someone with a high view of the Bible, especially those who say that the Bible is infallible in areas that include teachings on sexuality, are using the Bible as their ultimate guide and must not accept that the pseudo-sexual acts of homo”sexuality” are equivalent to (hetero)sexual acts, if they are going to be consistent in their convictions.

So, while homo”sexuality”-promotion activists decry that “Bible-thumpers” want them to change, they themselves are insisting Bible believers and other religious devotees change.  For some reason, it is okay for them to insist people change their entire worldview for the sake of affirming how they get their jollies as all well and good, and it is okay to mock their convictions.  But if a minister questions the value and holiness of homo”sexual” acts, they want that minister charged with a hate crime.

If we truly respect the privacy of consenting adults (which is not expressly written in the Constitution) AND freedom of religion (which IS expressly written in the Constitution), then we will:

-Not use the force of law to prevent same sex couples to do which each other whatever they desire in the privacy of their own homes. (This is already the case.)  But nobody should be forced to pay for the health care of anyone else – in other words, if someone gets an STD in the privacy of their own home, they should not be able to tax other people to get treatment.

-Prosecute anyone who destroys another’s property or attacks their person without their consent.  (This is already the case.)

-Not use the force of law to restrict anyone from speaking about sexual and marital ideals to consenting adult audiences on private property, or on public property.  (Some hate crimes legislation is attempting to do this very thing.)

-Not use the people’s money (taxes funding public schools) to attack their religions convictions regarding sexuality and marriage, especially to grade school children.  (This would mean a halt to some current programs.)

-Not use judicial activism to grant marriage licenses to couples with one of the sexes unrepresented, which would be an imposition on the people (since the people grant marriage licenses) against their will.

We can all get along well enough to function as a society as long as we do not physically attack each other or use coercion to attempt to force changes in each other.  Neither side has to like and affirm the other side’s feelings and convictions to have true tolerance and coexistence.

Bottom line: I will not pry two men apart, but they in turn should not try to pry me and my Bible apart.

Wow, stuff like this must really upset the hippie-commie types that frequent these places.


Scandal!  It is bad enough that they are a successful...business...(ick!) but to have a CEO who does this?  What a conflict for the hippies!  Where is Congress on this?  By the way, I like Trader Joe's.

Over and over again, we see politicians, academics, activists, pop artists, and media propagandists proclaiming that we have a “right” to things such as health care, education, retirement pay, mass transit, housing, a job with a “living” wage, food, abortion, and doctor-assisted suicide, all funded and/or arranged for by the government.

This is not how the people who created and adopted our Constitution saw rights.

They saw rights as something we naturally had, something coming from “nature’s God”, and that it was the government’s role to protect, not grant, rights.

Living as we do in a bountiful, wealthy society of hundreds of million of people, it is tempting to look around and think you deserve - and therefore have a right - to something you see around you and that you want.  But again, that is not how the people who created and adopted our Constitution saw rights.

Take the right to free speech.

Your right to free speech does not mean anyone should be forced to listen to you.  They can walk way, and it wouldn’t be a violation of your right to free speech.  Nor does your right to free speech mean someone else has to provide you with their billboard, printer, telephone, satellite, DSL line, cable, or broadcasting system for you to get your message out.  You can pay them to provide those things.

You have a right to free speech because God gave you the means of communication – the physical abilities to communicate.  If you found yourself on an island where there was no government employees, no politicians, no telephone, no radio – you would still be able to talk with or sign to or write to anyone you encountered.  You could believe and worship (freedom of religion) as you saw fit.  You could use a rock or anything else you could get your hands on to defend yourself (right to bear arms).

You could take care of yourself, you could learn, you could store up for the future, you could build a cart or raft, you could build a hut, you could decide to make things or do things for other people in exchange for what they had to offer you, you could eat what you had access to, you could fling yourself against a boulder to kill the life within you, you could jump off of a cliff to kill yourself... HOWEVER, you could not FORCE someone else to perform surgery on you, or teach you something new, or take care of you just because you are old, or haul you around in their cart or raft, or build a hut for you, or to give you something to do and pay you whatever you want, or to go get food for you, or to perform an abortion on you, or to kill you gently – not without violating THEIR rights to choose what they want to do.  You could make VOLUNTARY exchanges and arrangements with them, if they chose to be near you.  Maybe they would even CHOOSE to do some of those things for you for free.

The government is not “someone else”.  It is us.  It is funded by us.  Now, we can collectively use force (via laws, backed up by the military, law enforcement, etc.) to FORCE a doctor to perform surgery on someone, and then pay them what we decide is fair or not pay them at all.  That is possible.  But that doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t make it a right.

If you look at what the founders of the U.S. put in place, you’ll find a system where our natural rights are recognized and protected, and where everything else is based on a voluntary exchange in which force need not be involved, except to expose and counter theft and other denials of natural rights - crimes which involve force or deception themselves.  Health care provided by someone else is NOT a right.  It is something provided on a voluntary basis by doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc. who have put a lot of time, effort, and money into getting to the point where they can provide those services and products.

Everyone should be able to offer their services and their property to whomever they choose, for the compensation they choose.  Sometimes that compensation will simply be a warm heart (that’s called charity).  Whoever is offered those goods, services, and property should have the choice to refuse, or make a counter offer on the compensation, or to agree to it as-is.  Likewise, if you are seeking goods, services, and property, you should be able to approach whomever you want and offer whatever you want as compensation, and go from there.  That is liberty. That is freedom.  That protects rights.

If you opened up a shoe store, you wouldn’t want government force to be used to set your prices, determine what kinds of shoes you will sell, or to force you to sell shoes to someone, even if that person will immediately take that shoe and throw it at other people.  People need shoes in the same way they need specialized health care.  Why should the doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, insurance company worker, or pharmaceutical researchers be treated that way?

What most people mean when they call for “universal health care” is that they want someone wealthier than they are to be forced to provide something to them.  There are wealthier people who call for such schemes, too, but almost invariably they do so because they think it will get them some personal advantage such as being able to use their connections in the government to be able to gain a monopoly or to skim money somewhere in the system.  When a company that manufactures medical equipment endorses increased government involvement in medical care, you can be sure it is because they are confident that they can manipulate the system to their advantage.  It is far easier to manipulate something when the power is centralized in Washington D.C. or Sacramento than when the power is with multiple organizations consisting of voluntary membership or spread among millions of families and individuals making their own choices.

Health care is not a right.  It costs money, and while it certainly is a wonderful thing when a medical professional chooses to take care of someone who will not be able to provide material compensation, that professional should not be forced to work for free or less than his or her worth.

If you make voluntary plans and arrangements that provide you with what you need and want in the areas of health care, education, retirement income, transportation, housing, work/wages, and food, then good for you.  Voluntary agreements (which don’t include any conspiracies to steal from, assault, or murder someone because they victim is not a volunteer) ARE something to which we have a right.  Exercise those rights, instead of counting on “someone else” to take care you simply because you are alive.

Congress isn't answering my questions.  What are they hiding?  Why won't they answer my questions in public, under oath, on the record?  I have as much authority to demand answers from them on anything as they do to ask President Bush's current and former staffers about Executive Branch matters like commuting parts of sentences and firing attorneys.

On the bright side, the more time they spend on pointless political investigations, the less time they have to push our nation into more dysfunctional socialism.  (And yes, I realize that last phrase is redundant...and repetitive.)

Dave McKibben of the Los Angeles Times brings us more 'affordable' housing talk.


"Housing advocates".  What does that mean?  Who is against people living in housing?

Anaheim is a big place.  The Anaheim Resort area (which surrounds the Disneyland Resort), has been zoned for tourism/travel-related businesses, such as entertainment, restaurants, shops, lodging, convention space, etc.  There are many, many other places in Anaheim for housing.  As long as the City of Anaheim is going to have zoning, and thus limit landowner freedom, it might as well stick to that zoning.

The area that is now the Anaheim Resort used to be very dumpy, conditions created by a rush of cheap development designed to cash in on the Disneyland success.  When Walt Disney built the theme park in the mid-1950s, he didn’t have enough funding to buy up the surrounding area like he did later in Florida.  So, the area became a run-down tourist trap.  The Walt Disney Company later made plans to expand in Anaheim, but who wants to make significant capital investments in the middle of a dump?  So, the area leaders got together and created the Anaheim Resort, and the place is much better off now.

At the time, nearby residents, almost all of whom moved to the area AFTER Disneyland Park opened, complained about Disney’s expansion plans, saying it would hurt their quality of life.  If it is so bad, why the push now for more housing so close to the theme parks?  Disney doesn’t want the trouble with future expansions, hence their push for the City to stick to the existing zoning.


“Low-cost” to whom?  Someone has to pay for the housing.  They have to pay for the land, pay for the infrastructure, pay for the construction, and pay for the maintenance.  Perhaps the word should be “subsidized”, where people expect someone “richer than them” to pay to house them.  There is no housing crisis in Anaheim.  These people have chosen jobs that do not pay them enough to live in Anaheim  How is that the fault of anyone else?


They are shilling for a developer who wants to ignore zoning.  Why is the developer any more admirable than Disney?  Disney’s projects don’t put a burden on the public schools.  Disney’s projects bring in a lot of revenue for the area.  Disney is staying, SunCal will build and run, leaving Anaheim to deal with the aftermath.

And what’s with this “religious” community?  What about all of the sin going on - shouldn’t they be working on that?  And while the religious are called to care for the poor, they are called to do it themselves, NOT by forcing “someone else” to do it.


The RCC has a lot of money.  Let the RCC buy land and building housing on it and give it away at a loss.


We haven’t had forced internment in this country since World War II.  Why blame others for your choices?


Good, then pay for it yourself!

Here comes the “moral” card.


Where did Jesus say everyone deserves a decent living environment?  Jesus called YOU to do something about the needs of the poor, NOT to rob others.


I suppose the City Council forced you into the mobile home, and forced you to have a family that size?


Here’s what makes housing affordable: low demand compared to supply and cheap construction costs.  That means being in less desirable locations, cheaper materials, smaller and simpler construction.

The Democrat Congress has failed to meet any of the benchmark target goals that I set for them.  They are utter failures and there is no hope and the whole thing should just be shut down right now and everyone should go home.

Seriously, the Democrat-MSM Alliance is like a hostile crowd of sports fans jeering the American military and the Iraqi government, and applauding the terrorists.  Unfortunately, our fight against terrorism isn't a game.

I remember when the coalition of nations, lead largely by President George H.W. Bush, kicked Saddam’s forces out of Kuwait.  Many of the network news reporters (ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN) were literally standing the sands of Kuwait as they deliberately implemented their calculated effort to make "the economy" the new top story and convince the American people that the U.S. economy was so bad and the situation was so important and dire and that it was all the President’s fault.  They didn’t waste any time making it their top story, because President Bush was riding a wave of popularity for a successful, brief war, and that’s why they were literally doing it from the sands of Kuwait.

The economy was all that mattered.  Economic cycles?  Pfft!  If you had lost your job, it was the President’s fault.  If your investments weren’t doubling, it was the President’s fault.  Military success?  Keeping the war quick?  That wasn’t important.

Fast-forward all of these years later.  It didn’t take long for the solidarity, patriotism, and clarity provided by 9/11  to give away to partisan assaults on President George W. Bush and a constant effort to undermine, badmouth, and second/third/fourth-guess our military efforts.

Maybe it is because the economy is actually strong.  What happened to “It’s the economy, stupid?”  How about some reporting on the clear connection between tax cuts and economic growth?

No, the focus is on death and destruction in Iraq.  Our coalition overthrew Saddam.  He was successfully prosecuted and executed.  The Iraqis have had real elections.  But all that matters is spreading the talking points of the terrorists and making the situation look as dire as possible.

Why?  To win political offices for Leftist Democrats.  Fighting terrorists doesn’t matter.  Freeing oppressed people doesn’t matter.  Economic growth doesn’t matter.  What matters is doing whatever they (the Democrat-MSM alliance) can do to get “their” people elected to office.  If it weakens us and costs us lives, isn’t that a small price to pay for making sure the “right” people get into office?  You see even though we won in Iraq, the struggle against terrorists there must be portrayed as a “lost war”.  They can’t afford politically for Bush to have been right.  I can guarantee you that if we had a Democrat President, the very same conditions would be portrayed in a completely different light.  If we hadn’t taken military action at all, the Democrats would blasting Bush for “inaction”.  No matter what happens now - a pull-out, the surge working out, or coalition forces leveling the place with carpet bombing – the Democrat-MSM alliance will portray it as a disastrous defeat.  To them, it is the same mantra over and over again: “Everything is horrible, and it is all Bush’s fault.”

It’s disgusting.

I’m not thrilled with a whole lot Bush has done, but how about we concentrate on kicking terrorist butt and protecting America instead of playing politics with everything the President does?  He’s the Commander-in-Chief.  This is his responsibility.  Criticize him all you want on No Child Left Behind or for not doing “enough” to fight AIDS or "global warming".  But support our military.  Stop bashing our men and women in the military for the sake of taking Bush down.

The Democrat Congress has nothing better to do than to try to assert control over the Executive Branch with endless subpoenas, inquiries, and hearings.  Currently, the hot topics are the Scooter Libby commutation and the firing of the U.S. Attorneys.  Both of these things are the prerogative of the President, who doesn’t need to give a reason to anyone as to “why”.

Democrats balk when the Bush Administration and those siding with it say “Hey, Clinton did the same thing, and you didn't complain then.”  It’s as if these Democrats maintain precedence is completely irrelevant, and as if the next Democrat President won’t do exactly the same thing.  Please.  We know he or she will.

For some reason, these Congressional Democrats and the MSM think that Presidents should have different powers depending on their political affiliation.

Hey Congress: It’s none of your business as to “why”.  It’s something all Presidents get to do, not just Democrat Presidents.  End of story.  Don’t like it?  Don’t let your next President do it.  Stop wasting our money.

With this in mind, I urge you, if you ever get the chance, to ask Democrat Presidential candidates the following question:

“Will you pledge to never pardon or commute any part of a sentence for anyone associated with your Presidency, and pledge to never fire a U.S. attorney for any reason that could be construed as “political”, and testify before Congress to these matters?”

Californians are being asked to conserve energy during the typical summer heatwave we're enduring right now.

My response: NO!

Why should we conserve because the Federal government has allowed millions of illegal aliens to swarm our cities and use our power?  Why should we conserve when priests of environmentalism keep preventing new power plants from being built?

There is no legitimate reason why we shouldn't run our air condioners or do our laundry whenever we feel like it.  It is time for us to stop catering to the illegal alien supporters and the math-failures who are unable to comprehend the need for new power plants.

Most terrorism in the world today is motivated by a form of Islam. Whether it is true Islam or not is not for me to decide.  I don't claim to be a Muslim.

I understand the desire to be inclusive and politically correct, but publicly or privately denying or ignoring the true motivations behind terrorist actions will make us less effective in responding to those attacks, thwarting them before they happen, or discouraging such planning in the first place.

People are fallible and have been committing evil for all of history.  But now we have an organized, motivated bunch of groups who have a common goal - the imposition of Islamic Sharia law by guerrilla warfare, murder, genocide, and finally government force.  As long as there are people who interpret Muslim scriptures and traditions to that bent, we will face terrorist acts perpetrated by them.

That is why effectively reducing the threat takes a multi-pronged approach.  Part of the approach is military action.  Another part is surveillance.  But a very important part that can't be neglected is... religious.  Converting people from such murderous theology will take away a strong motivation.

As a Christian, I'm convinced that becoming a follower of Jesus is the true solution here, and for many other important problems we face in our world today.

Jesus is the Prince of Peace.  He brings peace with God so that we can have peace with each other.  True followers of Christ love peace and help those in need.  True followers of Christ do not revel in sin, vice, and evil and call it good or okay.

Contrary to what atheists have written, the problem is not religion.  It is false religion.  While atheists would not draw a distinction, I'm convinced there is true religion, expressing faith in what is true.

So, I guess I'll wrap this up by saying... fight terrorism: go to church.

If you ever get a chance to ask a Presidential candidate a question on-camera or on-mic, here is a suggested question:

"Do you pledge to protect our borders and enforce our immgration laws, including holding employers accountable?  How will you do these things?

With the shamnesty bill dead for now, this is the time for Bush to step up border enforcement.

If the Federal government can demonstrate an ability to enforce our borders and track down those who stay past their legal time here, the American people will be much more likely to support some sort of legal status for those who are already here.

Here is what needs to happen now, as far as the government:

1. Control our physical borders using agents, barriers, and technology.
2. Track visitors to our country.  Make sure they do not overstay their welcome.
3. Workplace enforcement.  Hold employers accountable.
4. Deport illegal aliens caught committing other crimes.
5. Speed up legal immigration for those who want to integrate into and contribute to American society, not live off of our foolishly socialistic systems.

What can the people do?

1. Keep pressure on your elected officials.
2. Do not hire illegal aliens.  If you don't want to pay for legal labor for various odd jobs, do it yourself (it will be good exercise), or hire some neighborhood youths.
3. Pressure businesses.  Let them know that if they hire illegal aliens, you will no longer be their customer or invest in them.
4. If you are a union member, pressure your union leadership.  Illegal aliens cost you money.
5. Seek to improve the situation in Mexico through private charity that directly helps the needy in Mexico.  Avoid letting corrupt Mexican government officials get their hands on the resources.  Many churches send teams to Mexico to provide for the needy.
6. Try to move our systems and programs towards privitization and free enterprise, and away from socialism.  The fewer handouts we offer, the less incentive for the unskilled poor to sneak into our country.

Let’s use the topic of abortion to illustrate the absurdity of the ‘Fairness’ Doctrine.

How can you possibly make sure that “each side” gets equal time for something like this?  It is not a simple “pro” or “anti” issue.

There are people who favor mandatory abortions for population control.  There are people who think abortion should be banned as a way of increasing the population.

There are people who support taxpayer funded abortions.  There are people who believe that abortion is a good thing, but that there should be no taxpayer funding involved.

There are people who support a Federal Amendment banning abortion.  There are people who want abortion made illegal who see no need for such an amendment.  There are people who think abortion should be legal, but should be a state-level issue.  There are people who think abortion should be illegal, but it should be a state-level issue.

There are people who think abortion is murder, but do not think it should be illegal for any number of reasons.

There are women who would not have an abortion but think it should be legal everywhere in the U.S.

There are people who support abortion-on-demand, and people who support abortion but with a short waiting period.

There are people who believe abortion should be legal through the entire pregnancy, and those who put other deadlines on legality, all the way back to conception.

There are people who believe abortion should never be legal for any reason.  There are people who say it should be legal only in certain cases, and those conditions vary from person to person.  There are people who think no reason should ever be required to obtain an abortion.

There are people who believe that minor females should be able to obtain abortions without any parental notification or consent; others who believe parental notification should be required; and others who think that parental consent should be required.

You can pick another topic, like say, immigration and border control, and likewise get a wide variety and complexity of overlapping and opposing opinions.

How can anyone successfully apply a ‘Fairness’ Doctrine to make sure all viewpoints are given equal time?

The notion is ridiculous.

Yes, successful talk radio is largely conservative, but that is the market at work.  Liberals, Democrats, Leftists, etc. have just as much access to that market.

However, conservatives hardly have a corner on successful talk radio.  Howard Stern is not a conservative, and certainly not a Republican shill.  Tom Leykis is not a conservative or a Republican shill.  Who would classify Adam Carolla as conservative?

KFI here in the Los Angeles market has Rush Lumbaugh.  But the rest of the station’s lineup is hardly lockstep conservative or Republican.  Bill Handel supports the activist homosexual agenda, helps homosexuals obtain children, pushes ESCR and assisted suicide, thinks the Religious Right is a bunch of wackos, and is defeatist on the Iraq war.  Dr. Laura is after Rush, and she seems to be a conservative, but her show is hardly a Republican love fest, nor is it even political all that often.  John & Ken are strongly against amnesty for illegal aliens, but they could hardly be classified as conservatives or Republican shills.  They bash most politicians rabidly.  John Zeigler is more of a libertarian and doesn’t hesitate to bash Bush or Schwarzenegger.  Coast to Coast AM is full of a wide variety of opinions, including conspiracy theories aired by guests.  On the weekend, Dr. Dean is certainly no Republican or conservative.

What about registered Democrat Tammy Bruce, an openly lesbian pro-choice animal-loving feminist who supports gun ownership, the death penalty, border control, and killing terrorists?  How would you classify her?

Even among people associated (at one time or another) with the GOP and/or conservatism, there is a huge variety.  Dennis Miller is no Michael Savage is no Hugh Hewitt is no Michael Medved is no Laura Ingraham is no Dennis Prager is no Larry Elder is no al Rantel is no Sean Hannity.  Some of these people do not want to be linked to each other in any way.  Plus, many of the radio hosts give significant airtime to people with views opposing theirs.

Leftists have most of academia, most of the network news, the news weeklies, most of the newspapers, and most of the entertainment industry.  Yet they can’t handle it that talk radio isn’t under their thumb.

How insecure of them.  How wasteful of their energy and time to try to bring back the doctrine, given the rise of the Internet.