Conservative Republicans should realize that we have reached a “new normal” for politics as usual.  We might as well get used to it and operate accordingly.  The Leftists control the Democrat party and much of the mainstream media (MSM) and their priority is their own power, regardless of cost.

1.  Although there may be, at first, a professed condemnation of the terrorist acts and a display of patriotism, reaction to terrorist attacks against American interests, citizens, or property will inevitably, eventually be dismissed as an insignificant fluke, or as an inexcusable failure of Republicans to protect us from an obvious, preventable threat, or as just (or understandable) retribution for our "mistreatment" of the Islamofascists, or as part of a conspiracy perpetrated in part by Republicans.

2. Any military action will be demonstrated against, regardless of purpose or context.  This has always been the case, but now major media, Democrat officials, and RINOs looking to suck up to the Leftist media will pay way too much attention to these demonstrations, to any inevitable mistakes or miscalculations by the military, and  the inevitable sacrifices of life and more that come with defense.  Death tolls will be emphasized.  Troubles and challenges will be dwelt upon and met with hand-wringing, finger-pointing, and defeatism.  Most demonstrations will be small and many will be destructive and anti-American, but the MSM will portray them as large, peaceful, and mainstream.  Also, any military action will be examined under a microscope and broadcasted and discussed to the point of absurdity, with a heavy focus on American casualties and any American mis-steps or difficulties, and what some people in other countries think.  The Democrat leaders will play politics with war.

3. Any elected Republican and their appointees will be accused of stealing elections and will be met with accusations, investigations, and calls for resignations and impeachment.  Criticisms from morons in other countries will be highlighted to supposedly show what other people think of our officials.  (Notice, you will never see CBS touting what someone at NBC thinks of CBS leadership, though.)

4. Any natural disaster will be attributed to Republicans via global warming, pollution, or deliberate conspiracy to hurt the people of a region, and any perceived deficiencies in the response will be blamed on Republicans.

5. Republicans will be blamed and faulted by Democrat leaders and those accusations will be reported as weighty findings from wise, learned statesmen and presented as law or gospel by the MSM.  It doesn’t matter if a Democrat did similar things or more things of the same nature – that’s in the past, you see, and they had good intentions.

6. Conservative Republicans who profess to be Christians will be called hypocrites and trashed because they aren’t as holy as Jesus Christ, a tactic that ignores the fact that one of the basic premises of Christianity is that it is the sinner who needs Christ in the first place and none of us are as holy as Him.  It is okay for Democrat politicians to do the same things or worse, because they don’t talk about Jesus.

7. Any questioning of socialist proposals will be met with MSM-amplified charges of bigotry, racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and that the Republican is cruel, heartless, out-of-touch, and “living in a past that never really existed.”

The good news is that there ARE places for us to organize and communicate to defend all that we hold dear.  The Left no longer controls all mass media.  We have journalists, authors, talk-show hosts, filmmakers, and artists who are not rabid Leftists.  There are activist organizations working to protect our rights and freedoms in the courts.  There are academic institutions that will not work to turn all students into anti-Christian, blame-America-always, godless hedonistic Marxists.  There are still churches, temples, and synagogues that promote traditional values and morality and thinking of God as Master and not a myth or cosmic bellhop, and see themselves – and not the government – as having the responsibility to facilitate charity and social programs.

We must be strong and support each other, not give in to unreasonable demands from our political opponents, and effectively communicate our positions.  We must get used to the new "politics as usual."

I invoke the Bible, moral standards, etc. in some of my writing here.  I often describe ideals, or the way things should be.  Never do I mean to imply that I haven’t messed up big time at different times in my life.  The Bible calls followers of Christ to the holiness of God.

The thing is - nobody but Jesus has maintained that level of holiness as a human being.  I sin.

Is the solution to reject moral standards, and call whatever I do right, and even fight to change laws that discourage or punish things I do that are wrong?

No.

The solution was provided by Jesus - living the perfect life and dying on the cross for my sins.  Through Him, I am forgiven, and I can turn to Him whenever I go astray… tell Him I’m sorry, and ask for His help to get me back on track and to keep me from straying again.

So when I blog about some decline or deficit in society, I’m not excluding myself from that.  I do screw up.  But I will do my best not to allow that to prevent me from calling for right and denouncing what is wrong.

Do I think everything that is wrong should be illegal?  No way.  On the flip side, though, I am reluctant to agree that people have a right that should be protected by law to do what is wrong.

Would I like to see everyone follow Jesus?  Yes.  But using government force to attempt to bring that about is not an option.  Forced Christianity is an oxymoron.  Nor do I think that people should be punished by the government for not being Christian.  A truly Christian nation will protect the freedom of religion that is expressed in our First Amendment.  So long as your religion does not promote actions that violate the rights of others, you should be free to practice it.

If you know you are a sinner and aren’t assured of your standing before God, I invite you to read through a modern translation of the Bible - the Gospels, Romans, Hebrews are good books to start – and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  He’s defeated sin and death, and will transform your life.  I still sin, which is why I titled this post "I Am a Sinner."  But He has paid for my sins.  All to Him I owe.  I am His servant, and I can't think of a better Master to have.

Regarding politicians with business ties and/or investments:

Do we really want politicians who have never worked in the private sector and have never taken the opportunity to invest?

I understand the concern that they will use their power to benefit their investments, but that is really the larger problem of how we’ve allowed elected officials to meddle so much in things the Constitution doesn’t authorize.  If the Constitution doesn’t instruct them to do something, they shouldn’t be involved.  Congress should not be rewarding and punishing select businesses with convoluted tax schemes, targeted investigations, undue regulation, kickbacks, pork spending, and sweetheart contracts.

The next time you hear something about a candidate’s potential for a conflict of interest because of their employment or investment in the private sector, keep in mind that politicians who have never worked or invested in the private sector have an apparent lack of interest – in our entire economic system.

I have occasions to speak to visitors from a foreign country with a very different governmental system.  When we discuss the governmental structure in the U.S., I explain that county governments are created by the State government, and that our national government was created and staffed by the 13 original colonies  In effect, the Federal government is comprised of the union of the 50 state governments.

At least, that’s how it is supposed to be.

The President is elected by the Electoral College, and thereby state by state, not directly by all citizens of the union.  Originally, Senators were chosen by the elected leaders of each state.  The Constitution gave most of the power to the people, and to the states, and limited the union government to a short list of responsibilities.  The Supreme Court was there to deal with some disputes between Congress and the President, and some disputes between the states and between the states, the President, and Congress.

Slowly, though, the United States of America went from a plural term to a singular.  The Federal government grew stronger, more influential, and more intrusive.  This was done through Constitutional Amendments, Congressional and Presidential actions and legislation contrary to the Constitution, taxation policies, pork, the creation of various Departments and cabinet positions, and Supreme Court activism.

Now, it seems almost laughable to see the union government as a creation of the 50 states.  The states now look like mere administrative districts of the Federal government.

Sure, it’s great that involuntary servitude structured on racism was outlawed across the country.  But I don’t like the loss of liberties that are supposed to be retained by the people and by the states.  Now we have pushes for even more “direct democracy”, including changing the way we elect Presidents.  We’re supposed to be a republic, and we’re moving more towards mob democracy, where the landowners are exploited by the collective renters, where the employers are exploited by the collective employees, where those who have built and saved wealth are exploited by the collective mob of those who haven’t.  Likewise, evildoers are given a pass because we’ve all sinned.

Punishing achievement is not a good way to do promote it.  Lowering our morals to the lowest common denominator is not a prescription for a healthy society.   This is what happens when we abandon what our founders gave us.

Isn’t it interesting how people dismiss claims about morality with “It’s the twenty-first century”?  As if there is an expiration date on morals.

What kind of argument is that?

What if conservatives used that line?

Liberal: “The rich need to pay higher taxes.”

Us: “Ugh!  It’s the twenty-first century!  C’mon - get with it!”

It’s an unresponsive statement and it shouldn’t be used to discount morality.

NOTE: SIMPLY SAYING “IT’S THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY” DOES NOT PROVE THAT SOMETHING IS OKAY.

Trying to “think” like a liberal, I’m guessing that they think the “progressive” thing as time goes by is to be more free of moral restrictions.  But they don’t really think that.  They think we are morally obligated to spend tax money on social programs, after all.

So, the next time a liberal replies to a moral judgment with "Hey, it's the twenty-first century!", reply with "And...?"

I’m in favor of property owners choosing what to do with their own property.

I’m in favor of employers choosing whom to hire, promote, and fire.

I’m in favor of employers choosing what they will offer as compensation, and employees choosing whether or not to accept.

I’m in favor of allowing each employee to choose whether or not to join a union.

I’m in favor of people choosing whether or not to pay for health insurance.

I’m in favor of people choosing whether or not they will save for the future.

I’m in favor of parents choosing which school, if any, their child will attend (if accepted), and which school(s), if any, they will financially support.

I’m in favor of people choosing whether or not they will own or carry a handgun, unless they’ve shown they can’t be trusted with a gun.

I’m in favor of people choosing whether or not they will support a business.

I’m in favor of people choosing whether or not to be charitable, and being able to choose which charitable efforts they will support.

I’m in favor of people, even if they are elected officials, choosing whether or not to publicly express their religion.

I'm NOT in favor of legally ensuring someone can choose to kill their own child without legal repercussions.

Tom Raum of the Associated Press tells us that Guatemalans resent us enforcing our own laws in our own country.


Have they not paid attention? I’d hardly call Bush a stringent enforcer of immigration law and border control.


His job is to please US, not them.


300 out of at the very least 12,000,000 – you do the math.


If only that were true - that we'd enforce our laws.


Well, Mr. Berger, the American people would prefer your citizens not break our laws and mooch of our foolishly socialistic programs.  We can promise no more deportations if no more of your citizens come to or stay in the U.S. illegally, and if the ones already here illegally go back home.  Why do you want to get rid of your own people?

Legal immigration, not illegal trespassing.  We have the right to control our own borders.

Democrats are always calling on prominent Republicans to resign.  It doesn’t matter that the Republican hasn’t been convicted of anything, or even charged with anything, or if the Republican is being accused of something less than a non-resigning Democrat ever did.

The MSM loves to portray the matter as a senior statesmen calling for the resignation of a controversial Republican.  If the roles are reversed, the media portrays a duly elected or appointed senior statesmen valiantly fending off vicious attacks from Republican politicians.

Too often, Republicans shoot their wounded, sometimes after wounding them with friendly fire.  Too often, the Republican resigns, if only to make the distracting trumped-up controversy go away.  Then, the Democrats cite the resignation as "a culture of corruption."

To Republicans, I say: Act like a Democrat, and cite the examples of Democrats by name when you answer the MSM questions calling for your resignation.

Have you ever seems homeschoolers portrayed as freaks for homeschooling?

Yeah, I’m a freak.  I’m a freak because my wife and I plan on homeschooling our kids.

I’m a freak because I think it is better for my children to be educated and supervised by an R.N. who is smart as a whip, loves them more than anything else in the world, and can immediately and effectively discipline them without red tape.  We don’t want them sitting in a room with a teacher who is a pervert, or burnt out, or powerless, overwhelmed and a captive to a union, or worse yet, believes all of the junk the union promotes and hasn’t been fired because of the union.  We don’t want them sitting a room with a bunch of disruptive kids who have no parental supervision because their parent(s) is/are working all of the time and values material things more than raising their child or has made poor life decisions that has left them alone to earn for the child.

We want our kids to be “socially retarded”, by denying them the opportunity to fornicate in a full classroom or at a school dance on the dance floor, or to learn the latest combination of derogatory terms, or the latest lies, excuses, and techniques kids are employing to subvert teacher and parental authority.  We want  them to have a little more trouble contacting the drug dealers in the schools.

We don’t want to fight over uniforms or no uniforms, or dress codes where our child can’t wear a t-shirt reflecting his or her religious beliefs but is ineffective at keeping girls from dressing like "hos".

We don’t want to deal with endless appeals for money or employing my child as a shill to raise funds, even though we’re already paying plenty in taxes to fund the school.

We don’t think “one size fits all” or even very few sizes fits all.

We don’t want our kids to have to deal with bullies who are not removed from the school after proving themselves to be thugs.  In the adult world, the bullies get fired from the workplace.

We don’t want to deal with endless PTA and school board squabbles.

We don’t want to fight over class placement.

We don’t want to fight with administrators over testing methods, or the content or method of textbooks or curricula, including material that attacks our faith, asserts philosophical naturalism, promotes pagan or New Age concepts and practices, embraces environmental alarmism, twists history, bashes America and its founders, denies the positive Judeo-Christian influence in this nation’s history, or denies the Bible’s influence on government, law, and the arts.

We don’t want to fight over which languages will be taught, or the emphasis, funding priorities, or other decisions applied to electives, sports, physical education, arts courses, etc.

We don’t want to fight over the content of assemblies.

We don’t want our kids to have to use substandard facilities, especially dirty restrooms.

We want our children to know that getting the right answer the right way and applying it to the right uses, and other accomplishments is the key to self-esteem, not touchy-feely motivational programs about how they’re “okay” no matter how badly and often they screw things up when they should know better.

We want to be able to let our kid know when he or she gets a wrong answer – with a red marker even, and help them figure out how to get the right answer instead of telling them the wrong answer is okay.

We don’t want to fight over the food offerings and quality at the school.

We don’t want to fight over reading selections and whether or not they include enough works from obese lesbian Buddhist Marxists of color.

We don’t want to fight over the nature and amount of homework.

We don’t want to have to structure our lives around the school’s schedule, or fight over extending the school year or school day.  We want to spend time with our kids.

We don’t want to fight over what to call vacations and activities clearly scheduled around Christian holidays, or struggle to allow our kids to express their celebration of those holidays.

We don’t want our children prevented from citing, referencing, or mentioning the Bible or Jesus Christ in their schoolwork.

We don’t want to fight over school prayer, or the even the school mascot.

We don’t want our children being taught the bogus notion that disapproving of a behavior or disagreeing with an opinion makes someone intolerant or bigoted.  We don’t want them subjected to speech codes with which we disagree.

We don’t want our grade-schooler accused of sexual harassment for hugging someone.

We don’t want someone else teaching our children in a way that normalizes fornication when we’re going to raise them to value the sacredness of marital lovemaking.

We don’t want school officials aiding and abetting statutory rape by taking our daughter to get an abortion without our knowledge.

We don’t want our children being taught that homosexual activity is no different from heterosexual activity, or that there is no difference between a couple of both sexes and a couple missing one of the sexes.

We don’t want our children being taught that if they have some sort of emotional or psychological difficulty, that they must be homosexual or are really the opposite sex and should have body parts lopped off.

We don’t want our children taught relativism, postmodernism, or multiculturalism, or otherwise subvert what we’ll be teaching them.

We want to teach our children with an integrated, logical, consistent worldview, to judge people based on their actions as individuals, that it is good to have traditional values and to make moral judgments, that not all religions, customs, or cultures are the same or equivalent, that some actions AND ideas are evil or just plain stupid, and that feelings can change, can be managed, and don’t necessitate action.

We know better what’s best for our child than lawmakers in Sacramento and Washington D.C, who want to micromanage.  I see all of these battles over every aspect of public schooling as arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  The government should get out of the education business, and I vote against using any more tax money (including bonds) for public schools.

I respect school teachers, I really do.  I had some great ones myself and I have family members who are or have been school teachers.  Almost all of my formal education was in public schools. But times have changed too much, and especially in California, the public schools have far too many problems.

Plus, I know my kids will not get shot at home.

A recent poll claimed that a majority of Americans want “universal health care”.  I can imagine the question being something like this:

Q. Do you want health care coverage for all Americans, regardless of their income?

A: 1.Yes.
     2.No, I want people to die in the streets of treatable diseases.

How many of these same people would like to have four day weekends every week, brand new cars, big houses, and lots of money in the bank?  Probably all of them.

What if they question had been phrased this way:

Are you in favor of:
Creating more bureaucracy?
Increasing regulation and paperwork for hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmacists?
Paying someone else to pass along some of your money to someone else?
Reducing the number of choices overall for medical treatment?
Longer waits for treatments and consultations?

Mandating universal heath care insurance will not:
Open a single new hospital.
Make one more person a nurse.
Make one more person a doctor.
Get one new medical treatment to the public.

If you think health care is expensive now, ask yourself this – who is going to make less money in order to lower the costs of health care to offset the cost of increased regulation and controls of universal health care?

Doctors?
Nurses?
Other medical staffers?
Hospital owners?
Insurance professionals?
Medical equipment makers?
Pharmacists?
Pharmaceutical companies?
Ambulance companies?
Paramedics/EMTs?
Shareholders/Investors?

Someone is going to have to pay more for the overhead, and someone is going to have to get paid less in order to keep costs lower than the free market would.  The problem is, most people are counting on someone richer than them to pay it all in higher taxes.

In most professions, if you’re not satisfied with what your employer is paying you, you can either persuade the employer to pay you more, you can go work for another employer, or you can start your own business.  The medical profession is already highly regulated, and this would be the final step in creating a monopolistic situation denying medical professionals the ability to get paid what they can command.

What happens if there is a shortage of doctors because people just don’t want to deal with all of the hassle for their capped salary?  Are we going to force people to become doctors?  Are we going to raise taxes to pay all doctors more?

Mandating someone have health insurance does not necessarily mean that person is going to maintain a healthier lifestyle, unless you want to force people to live a certain way.  In fact, it could mean they will become more lax about taking care of themselves, figuring that "the insurance" will pay for major surgery anyway.

A hospital stay may cost less up front, but you will be paying higher taxes to pay for it, or paying for it some other way.

The ideal, of course, is that people who could not otherwise afford preventative or early-remedy medical treatment will get cured or treated early, thereby saving the costs associated with emergency rooms and treatment of advanced diseases.  And, of course, feeling good because even the poorest of the poor can get the best medical care.

But would things really work out that way?  Is it worth the risks of increased intrusion, loss of quality, rising costs, longer waits?  What if someone doesn’t want health insurance?  They should be forced to pay taxes for it anyway?

Why should a teetotaling, health-nut observant Jehovah’s Witness pay for the medical costs of incurred by people who get blood transfusions, injure themselves through risky sex and drinking, or overeating?

Face it - the wealthier you are, the more access you have to better goods and services.  That’s just the way life naturally works - because you have more resources in your ownership, you have more to trade with others to get  more of what you want.  However, people can - and do - donate their wealth, their medical skills, etc. to helping those in need who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford effective treatment.

The more we force - by power of government - the wealthy to give some of their wealth to others they don’t even know and prevent the wealthy from being able to get better goods or services by paying more if they so choose, the more we take away the motivation for people to create wealth.  If I can get all the medical care I need, housing on the beach, transportation, education, food, so on and so forth without even working, and if I am restricted from being able to get something superior or more of something by paying more, where’s my incentive to earn, to strive, to create, to produce, and therefore be more useful to my fellow human being?

If you really, truly want to bring medical costs down and not simply stick it to those who have more wealth than you, you will:

Maintain a healthy lifestyle and persuade others to do so as well.

Allow those who want to build and operate medical facilities to do so with as little hassle as reasonable, and with access to as much reward (profit) as the market will give them.

Allow those who want to practice medicine to do so with as little hassle as reasonable, and with access to as much reward (profit) as the market will give them.

Allow those who offer health insurance to do so with as little hassle as reasonable, and with access to as much reward (profit) as the market will give them.

Allow those who want to develop and provide medicine, treatments, and devices to do so with as little hassle as reasonable, and with access to as much reward (profit) as the market will give them.

Break up and privatize any regulatory, accreditation, or organizing monopolies to create competition and choices.

A new layer of government is not the answer.  Forced participation is not the answer.  Artificial cost controls are not the answer.  Monopolizing anything is not the answer.  Offering more handouts to people trespassing in this country is not the answer.

I’m perplexed by many of the people who call for us to immediately withdraw from Iraq but want us to intervene in Sudan’s Darfur region.

Based on the lessons we’ve learned over the last five years in Afghanistan and Iraq, here are reasons Why We Shouldn’t Get Involved in Darfur.

Darfur didn’t attack us on 9/11.
Darfur doesn’t have WMDs.
Darfur is part of a sovereign nation, and this is a civil war with sectarian violence  - and therefore it’s none of our business.
We still don’t have OBL, dead or alive.
Someone there might attack our soldiers.
We can’t send our children there to die.
Too many "poor" and “minority” soldiers would have to go.
It may take more than a week.
It will turn into a quagmire.
They don’t deserve it and we shouldn’t impose our values or try to export democracy.
Our involvement would provide training/recruitment for terrorist organizations.
Some of the people there might hate us.
Some of the people in other parts of the world might hate us.
Bush just wants to get his hands on camels.
Our companies may profit if they are asked to help out there.
There are problems here in U.S. we need to remedy.

So, you see, we have no reason to get involved in Darfur and plenty of reason not to.

Thanks to the Drudge Report, I read that John Edwards said that Jesus would be appalled at how the United States has ignored the plight of the suffering, and that he believes children should have private time to pray at school.

Okay, well, I somehow doubt we're going to see highly publicized howls of protest from “separation of a church and state” secularist zealots about Edwards injecting Jesus into politics, or snickers from “intellectuals” who will call Edwards ignorant and superstitious.

While we could always do more to help those in need (voluntarily - not by government force, Mr. Edwards), I just don’t see that the U.S has ignored the plight of the suffering.  That’s all anyone seems to care about, when you get down to it.  We don’t even want to offend anyone because we don’t want to hurt their feelings.  Think of all of the financial giving, volunteerism, and missions trips Americans have done.  Think of all of the tax money we are also giving to relief efforts.

We should feel blessed, not guilty about our abundance.  It’s not some fluke that we’re so well off.  We’re well off because of group of brave, adventurous, faithful people started a union of states in a land that had room to accommodate them, and recognized the virtues of acknowledging God, protecting G-d given rights, and encouraging free enterprise.  We’re well off because we have been bolstered by wave after wave of immigrants – who by definition were seeking a better life and were willing to put in the effort – who assimilated and embraced being Americans and were in turn embraced by America.  We’re well off because we’ve had heroic people willing to sacrifice everything and work hard to defend us.


War is never necessary – if you don’t mind being enslaved or letting evil advance.


What about teaching school kids that fornication is fine?  What about late-term abortions on uninformed 16-year-olds without telling her parents?  What about taking advantage of a White House intern?  What about making a mockery of marriage?  What about attacking masculinity?  What about forcing laborers to pay dues to a union that misuses them and supports things that are against their core beliefs?  What about taking steps to erase signs of and deny the contributions of Christianity to the country?  Do you think Jesus would be all fine and happy with all of that, because it is a Democrat thing?

As for prayer in school - separate state and school, and it won't be an issue anymore.

The Los Angeles Times ran this uplifting piece on graffiti vandalism.


Those figures likely exclude at good chuck of private property, focusing mostly on public property.


I think Singapore had the right idea about this sort of thing.  But I don't think that is enough.  I think shooting them if they are caught in the act will provide apt deterrent.


Yeah, we all have to look at barbed wire everywhere because of these hoodlums.



Notice how prevalent graffiti is, even though the marking materials are restricted.  But I'm sure gun control would work.  Uh-huh.

Republican Unity, Winning Back the Congress, Retaining the White House

The Republican Party is a bigger tent than popular portrayal would have the average person believe.  We have leaders with a variety of stances on such issues as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, immigration, taxes, Social Security, education, the role of religion in the public square, marriage laws, gun ownership, environmental protection methods, health care reform, military deployment, and more.

We have single-issue voters, the Wall Street Journal types, libertarians, Religious Right folks, general conservatives, general moderates/mavericks, and full-out RINOs.

And yes, whenever there is a Democrat or lame duck Republican President, we’re going to have a battle within our party for what kind of nominee we’re going to put up against the Democrat.  But with all of our differences, can we agree that we don’t want the Presidency to go to the Democrat party, which is currently controlled by: environmental alarmists, class warfare fomenters, Big Labor, race-baiters, open borders advocates who seek “international” approval for all of our actions and laws, and extremists who support taxpayer-funding for abortion on demand through full pregnancy while opposing informed consent and parental notification?

So, let’s have our internal debate about who our candidate will be, but let’s do in a civil manner that doesn’t wound the party, and let’s not pretend that it would be good to have a candidate the MSM adores.  The MSM is going to side with the Democrat.  The Democrats are going to nominate a Democrat, and we might as well nominate a real Republican.

Let’s win back Congress and get another Republican elected President.

We can do it, but we have to appeal to a majority of the voters.  To do that, we need to show that Republican leadership will better for…

-Those who are currently targets of terrorism (that’s just about any American).

-Those victimized or threatened by rampant crime.

-Taxpayers who do not want their taxes increased.

-Parents who want to raise their kids as they see fit, with more choices in education, with protection from those who would contribute to delinquency or otherwise harm them.

-Employers who don’t want more government interference in their dealing with their own employees.

-Property owners and landlords who don’t want more government interference in what they do with their property or how they deal with their renters.

-Business owners who don’t want more government interference in their businesses.

-Investors who want to invest more of their own money and don’t want the government attacking the businesses in which they’ve invested.

-Religious people who want to be able to peacefully express their faith and don’t want their faith’s contribution to the nation, their state, or their municipality to be denied by suppression of their heritage.

-Wealthy people who want to use their own money and property as they choose without being demonized and punished through higher taxation, and those who aspire to be wealthy some day.

-Medical and insurance professionals who do not want more government interference in their business.

-People who really, truly want to see abortion become rare.

-People who think science should serve human life, and that human life shouldn’t be sacrificed for science, especially not with tax funding.

-Military personnel and their families who want support while deployed and after.

-Gun owners who do not want more restrictions on gun ownership.

-Married couples who understand that using government force to compel states and the people to recognize counterfeit marriages as marriage devalues marriage and is an undue interference into their beliefs.

-Individualists in general who want to be less dependent on government.

If we do this well, we will regain Congress and and keep the Presidency.

Making Things Equal for the Children, Same-Sex Couples, and More, and Protecting the Environment

It seems like every day, politicians, the media, academics, and other experts are telling us that kids aren’t getting the proper medical care, that they aren’t getting the proper nutrition, that they aren’t getting enough exercise, that too many kids in America are living in poverty, and that they aren’t getting enough self-esteem.  They call for expanding the school day and year, more after-school programs, universal preschool, and making sure kids are provided a nutritious breakfast and lunch at school.  Some parents, wary of the high costs of day care, are also pushing for full-day kindergarten and universal preschool.  Also, with the expanding school day and after school programs, it is probably a good idea to make sure the kids are having a nutritious dinner at school, too.

The experts also tell us that many kids are disadvantaged by unequal (“underfunded”) schools and households, and can’t possibly reach the very important goal of equal outcomes because of this crisis.

Thanks mainly to experts, we also know that currently:

1) Going after deadbeat dads is costing us as much or more than the child support the dads owe.

2) Children sired by a man of higher income receive more child support than children sired by a man of lower income.  This is an inequality.

3) Women who do not want children still have a right not to give birth even if they willingly engage in intercourse without contraception, though men are obligated to support a child even if they made it clear before and after intercourse that they do not want children and wore a condom.  This is an inequality in choices.

4) It is okay, even encouraged, to “safely surrender” a newborn with no strings attached (in an increasing number of states).

5) Child protective services in states and counties are often overwhelmed with children in the system.

6) The adoption process can be expensive and long, which is unfair to couples who can’t naturally conceive and carry children.

7) Anyone who wants a child has a “right” to have one, regardless of being unable to conceive naturally due to age, infertility, the lack of a partner, the lack of a partner of the opposite sex, but fertility treatments, artificial insemination, and in vitro fertilization are expensive and can be difficult.

8) It makes no difference in a child’s life if they have a father or a mother, or one parent, or two, or more, or if those parents are married or not.  A single parent of either sex is the same as having two parents of the same sex, a parent of each sex (married to each other or not), or more than two parents.

9) Having children can be expensive, placing an undue burden on the poor, who have just as much right to have children as anyone else, and we should support them with government programs.

10) Since homosexual couples should be treated equally to heterosexual couples, It is unfair for some parents to have full biological connections to their children and to be able to conceive without aid of medical professionals or a third party while homosexual couples can’t.  We can’t allow such inequality and unfairness.

11) Overpopulation is destroying the earth by paving over habitat with development and causing pollution and global warming.

12) Genetic and ethnic diversity makes everything stronger and better.

Therefore, I propose the International Child Distribution Lottery & Support Program.

Here’s how it will work.

1) Anyone who wants a child will be entered into a lottery to receive a child, regardless of marital status.  The U.N. can do “psychological” screening to qualify participants.  After all, “you need a license to drive…”

2) For population control purposes, the limit will be one child per person.  A couple can therefore receive two children, a trio can receive three children, and so forth.

3) Once a child is born, the child will be taken to be entered into the worldwide lottery to be awarded randomly to (a) parent(s), with the exception that a couple can’t receive a child for whom they are both biological “parents”.  That would be unfair and so can’t be allowed.

4) Hopeful parents must accept the child they are randomly assigned - no discriminatory requests allowed.

5) Each child will come with an equal amount of public financial child support.  I suggest taxing the rich and greedy big corporations to raise the funds.

6) All children will be required to attend government day care and then, starting at age three, full-time government school, where they will be fed three full, nutritious meals each day.  Parents will have the option of having children overnight, weekends, holidays, and vacations, and using some of their child support funding for overnight, weekend, and holiday babysitters, boarding schools, and vacation schools/camps.  The government schools will be fully responsible for making sure the child has high self-esteem yet a dependence on government, exercise, nutrition, health care, acceptable attitudes, and sex/child lottery education.

7) If there is a shortage of live births compared to demand, parent hopefuls will be required to do one or more of the following: supply gametes for conception, body cells for cloning, a womb for surrogate pregnancy, or a newborn of their own natural making for the lottery.

8) If the number of children being born exceeds demand, we can explore solutions such as more public funding to attract people to parenthood, or forced abortion, contraception, or sterilization.

That way, everything can be equal, fair, and genetically diverse, and we can protect Mother Earth.  Please don’t object with “reproductive rights” or “It’s my body” or “right to life” or anything of that sort – I'll know you are just covering for your hatred of Mother Earth and your bigotry.   After all, we’re in an environmental crisis, kids are being neglected and abused, the rich keep getting richer, and equality and diversity are so important.

Wouldn’t that make it such a wonderful, brave, new world?