I wonder if the kids with the young skulls-full-of-mush who are walking out of school today to support Cesar Chavez Day as a school holiday and call for illegal alien amnesty & rewards (and, of course, just to walk out of classes they don't take seriously anyway) - realize that Chavez was opposed to illegal alien labor because it depressed wages for farm labor?

Oh, the irony of illegal aliens and anchor babies of illegal aliens walking out of classes - that LEGAL residents grudginly pay for with their taxes -  to celebrate a man who was against illegal alien labor!

I recently came across the term "toxic bachelor."

Women, instead of complaining about toxic bachelors, how about taking these steps to attack the culture that promotes “toxic” behavior in bachelors?

Save sex for marriage.  Yes, some men will marry you even if you give them easy sex with little or no commitment involved.  Other men, though, the ones you call toxic, realizing they can keep getting easy sex either from you or other women, will not bother with the obligations and expectations that come with marriage.  Apply this to all men, not just men you intend to marry - otherwise the message to the “good” men is that they have to wait for what other men got “rewarded” with more quickly, and on top of that, they get someone who has been around the block.  Most of the “toxic bachelors” are toxic because they see women reward jerks with easy sex and few demands.  You may also want to…

Encourage other women to also save sex for marriage.

Don’t Conceive and Birth Children Out of Wedlock.  See above.  As good as they may be with children, most men would rather not to commit to a woman if it means having to take on the responsibility of some other man’s child, and quite likely continuing to be on the hook for that child even if you leave him.  Also, discourage your friends from conceiving children out of wedlock in an attempt to "trap" a man.

Conversely, Make Love to Your Husband.  No normal, healthy man wants to marry a woman who will then reveal that she is tired of sex, or that she no longer has the time or energy for it, or doesn’t feel like it, or is unenthusiastic about it and acts like she is doing him a favor.  If you feel this way, you shouldn’t be getting married.

Related to the above, Keep Yourself in Shape and Feminine.  Appearance matters to just about any sighted man.  Immediately butching up, getting frumpy, and gaining weight after you get married tells a man that you don’t respect him and don’t care about his feelings or his needs.  Growing older is not a choice, but letting yourself go is.  Bachelors notice this kind of thing and it encourages some of them be “toxic.”  Don't bother to say "it is what is inside that counts."  If that was true, you'd be fine with the man quitting his good-paying job right after to married him so he could spend more time on his hobbies.  This is important to men.

Encourage a Prenup.  You buy insurance for all kinds of things you hope never happen.  Why should you let some judge who doesn’t know you apply one-size-fits-all laws to your situation should the marriage end?  Most of the time, this leaves men on the short end of the stick, and thus hesitant to marry.  A prenup can protect both of you and reassures him that you don’t see him as your free meal ticket.  You already have a prenup (the laws) – you might as well have one with which you both had some direct input.

Stay Out of Debt.  Aside from buying a home or a car that isn’t beyond your means, you should eliminate debts and stay out of debt.  Men don’t want to marry a woman who has been living high on the hog and then have to be the one who ends up paying for all of the fun she had before she met him.  Don’t bother to defend yourself by saying “hey, it’s only money” unless you would marry a man who made less money than you.

Accept Traditional Roles.  Why should a man marry a woman who will not be home when he gets there, will not raise his children, will not make sure the home is in order, and will not make sure he has a hot meal waiting for him when he comes home?  If you must pursue a career that takes you away from taking care of your husband and kids, at least agree to have him become the caretaker.

Don’t Be Toxic - Accept a Man As-Is, or Move On.  Toxic women pressure a man into commitment and then nag him about his flaws, which she knew about from the start.  Toxic women are attracted to a man because of his job (or at least his earning ability/potential) and then want him to spend less time and energy on work.  Toxic women try to separate a man from his friends and family.  Toxic women are insecure and jealous.  Toxic women disrespect men and destroy intimacy by sharing what should be between the two of them with her friends and family.  Toxic women think they can change men.  Toxic women encourage men to be toxic bachelors.

So, is all of this too much to abide by?  Still going to sleep around, buy things you can’t afford, and have kids out of wedlock?  Still going to disrespect men?  Still going to give ultimatums?  Still going to encourage your girlfriends to divorce their husbands and take him for everything they can?  Then stop complaining about toxic bachelors.  Most of them are just responding to the way things are, because women are the ones who truly set the culture of relationships.  There would be a lot fewer toxic bachelors if there was no reward in being one.

Believe it or not, the purpose of a job isn’t to be some scheme where a business charitably provides you with money, insurance, and other benefits.  A job exists because someone needs something accomplished, and you can do it for them either better, more efficiently, or less expensively than they could it themselves.  Your job is to make your boss’ job easier.  If your boss is spending too much time managing you or fixing your mistakes or otherwise reworking your work, or you are becoming more expensive than the value of what you provide, your boss is either going to replace you, do the work himself/herself, or not get that work done any more.  Your boss hires you to free himself or herself up to do other things.

That’s the way things work naturally.  Regulations, laws, and union contracts may interfere with this, but do so to the detriment of progress and growth.

We all have something to offer others.  They have something to offer us.  Agreeing to voluntary exchange goods or services for other goods, services, or money need not require any involvement by anyone else, and most of the time outside interference shouldn’t happen.

Nobody owes you a job unless they have voluntarily submitted to a contract obligating them to employ you for that length of time and you are upholding your end of the contract.  You can offer something you have for something you want, and if you find someone willing to make that exchange, you can both get what you want.

When the need to do that work no longer exists for whatever reason, the job should cease.  Sure, it would be nice to never have to worry about cash flow, to never have to look for another job, to never have to deal with an interruption of benefits, etc.  But if your services no longer meet an existing need at the right price, the natural thing is for the job to end – at least for you.

Very rarely is that the fault of a President of the United States of America.

The solution?  Make sure what you are offering makes your boss want to keep you around, or makes you valuable to some other boss.

Let’s be realistic with each other.

The Republican Party is composed of some distinct and not-so-distinct factions which don’t always like each other and sometimes have priorities and principles that clash.  There are the “religious right” types, the libertarians, the Wall Street Journal business and investor interests, the general conservatives, the RINOs, the single-issue voters (gun owners, pro-lifers, border controllers, hawks), etc.

The realistic part comes in realizing that we can’t win Presidential elections, Congressional elections, or state positions without each other, and without convincing a significant number of non-Republicans to vote with us.

You may want Roe v. Wade to stand, but care more about being hawkish in the fight against Islamofascist terrorists, for example.

Even if a particular Republican candidate has major differences from your ideal, letting Democrats keep a majority means that Democrats will run the show and control committees – and their party is animated mostly by the Leftists who go softly against those who seek to kill us, want to punish businesses and personal success, and seek to expand government.

So let’s hope that the Republican Party will make the right priorities and stand up for the values in those priorities, and if it does, let’s work together to keep the Presidency and retake Congress, because we have a lot more in common than we have pitting us against each other.

Just consider the Democrats – the party of so many pornographers is also the party of radical feminists.  Their factions are much more in conflict than ours, and yet they manage to win elections.

 I get mailers from the RNC telling me that my contributions are essential to defeating liberal Democrats in elections.

If the RNC wants more of my dollars, it has to show itself worthy.  Elected Republicans need to effectively distinguish themselves from the Democrats and show why they actually make a difference.  If elected Republicans are not willing to stand firm on the basics such as protecting the right to life, enforcing our borders, fighting Islamofascist terrorists, and limiting government spending on social programs, then why should I support them with my dollars?

I want to see Republicans not only take the right positions, but have the right priorities and effective tactics.  Otherwise, I'm more likely to give my money to organizations that seek to increase public awareness and influence public opinion towards the causes I support.

How centrist was Ronald Regan?  Not very, and yet he wond landslide elections.  Think about it.

We have universal education access in this country – education that is "FREE” to all, and subsidized college and university education, complete with remedial courses.***

And yet, so many American citizens and others who are here legally and illegally and have gone through this system are functionally illiterate, can’t perform simple mathematics, and are largely ignorant in the areas of history, civics, economics, philosophy, geography, and most of the sciences.+++

We’re spending what, $12,000+ per student per year to have kids in low-tech classrooms with a teacher who may be terrific and dedicated, or one that would have been fired long ago if it weren’t for tenure/unions.  Often, the good teacher gets paid no more than the bad teacher.

"Universal Public Education" is often so bad that people will sacrifice much to send their children to expensive private schools or home school them, even though they are also funding (by force) the public education system.

Yet somehow, so many of us think that applying the same principles – public funding, total government regulation, universal coverage – to health care is going to improve our health care and lower costs.  Does anyone have a good explanation as to why the results we’re getting with public education won’t be the kind of results we’ll get with public health care?

With Universal Education, the damage is ignorance.  With Universal Health Care, it will be disease and death.

***Remedial classes in state universities?  What were these students doing during the 13+ years of prior schooling?!?  Why are they admitted to universities instead of being sent to community colleges - or back to high school - to catch up?  Why would you subsidize university education for someone who either wouldn’t or couldn’t make good use of their access to previous schooling?

+++While the schools are sending people out to the world ignorant, they are also helping them to be arrogant.  These people who know less think more of themselves.  Sure, “reality” TV and being able to talk about themselves to the whole world via the Internet have contributed to this narcissism, but so has the feel-good, self-esteem, relativistic, every-opinion-or-answer-is-equal, youth-brings-wisdom nonsense of which public schools are so fond.  “Scientists have proven that you are the result of cosmic accidents and that you evolved from nonliving materials and there’s nothing special about human beings.  Now, let us motivate you!”

It is interesting that the Leftists are calling global warming the big moral issue of our time.

What have we learned from Leftists about moral issues?  Let’s apply their reasoning on moral issues to global warming:

1. Whose morality?  What’s true and right for you may not be for me!  Don’t force your morality on me.  Stay out of my garage.  Stay out of my electrical system.  I like global warming, and you have no right to tell me to stop!

2. People are going to “do it” anyway.  We might as well educate them about how to safely drive gas-guzzlers.  We’ll give them vaccinations, abortions, clean needles, and put condoms on the tailpipes.  That will prevent anything bad from happening and solve the problems.  After all, they prevent anything bad from happening to teenagers, right?  Or maybe we can change the oil for them, give them new brakes and shocks, correct the alignment, and wash the cars.  We want people to be able to drive gas-guzzlers safely.  Get with the twenty-first century.  Kids are going to drive gas-guzzlers anyway – you can’t stop them.

3. Why do you hate my alternative lifestyle?  You claim to have research that says it is harmful, but I can find research that says it isn’t.  I have a right to drive a gas-guzzler.

4. There should be tax funding to make sure poor people can get gas-guzzlers.

5. Don’t like gas-guzzlers?  Don’t drive one!  My vehicle, my choice!

6. You are being bigoted when you mark parking spaces as being for “compact” vehicles, or when you won’t let me drive my gas-guzzler in the HOV lane just because I have a “drive-alone” orientation and do not drive a hybrid.  You are saying my love for gas-guzzlers is inferior.  How dare you judge me and discriminate against me.  I should be able to park in those spaces and drive in those lanes – after all, aren’t I guaranteed equal protection and access?

7. We’re here, we’re BBQing, get used to it!

8. Not only do I have a right to BBQ and drive a gas-guzzler, but if I get cancer as a result, then you should pay for my medical treatments, or you are a bigot.

9. I'm going to organize a parade of mobile BBQs and idling gas-guzzlers and get really, really in your face.

10.  I need a gas-guzzler and to BBQ my food for medical reasons.

All kidding aside, one act of fornication can result in death.  People are dying all over the world due to their fornication. Also, abortion kills at least one human being each time, and can kill the mother as well.  One drug  overdose can result in death.  Growing up in a broken home makes someone more likely to engage in violent criminal activity or get trapped in deadly gang life.  How many people are dying from global warming today?

As for "evangelical" leaders signing on to global warming alarmism - Leftists should not see that as a good sign.  Such people very often "buy high and sell low."  I would take it as a sign that the alarmism has peaked and is on the decline.

Larry Kramer, founder of the circus sideshow – I mean “protest group” - ACT UP, offers an excessive lament in the Los Angeles Times, accusing the vast majority of society as being hateful.

DEAR STRAIGHT PEOPLE,

That would include me.

Why do you hate gay people so much?

I don’t hate homosexual people.  At least I don’t hate anyone because they are homosexual.  I’m fine with homosexual people in general, and comfortable being one of the few straight people in a crowd of homosexual people.  I even find it flattering when another guy makes a pass at me.

Gays are hated. Prove me wrong.

Everyone is hated.  Ever see how devout Christians are portrayed on TV?

Your top general just called us immoral.

That doesn’t equal hate.  I think my brother, who is straight, does some immoral things.  I do some immoral things.  I don’t hate my brother.  I don’t hate myself.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is in charge of an estimated 65,000 gay and lesbian troops, some fighting for our country in Iraq.

I’ll bet there are plenty of fornicators in the military, too, but that doesn’t mean I have to like that people fornicate.

A right-wing political commentator, Ann Coulter, gets away with calling a straight presidential candidate a f----t.

A married man with children.  Clearly not homosexual.  This was not hatred directed at homosexuals.  Have you ever heard her on Al Rantel’s show?  You know about Mr. Rantel, don’t you?

Even Garrison Keillor, of all people, is making really tacky jokes about gay parents in his column.

Well, if you insist on becoming parent using third parties knowing that you will deny that child either a mother or father, you should expect some jokes.  Jokes are harmless compared to what you’re doing to that child.

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama tried to duck the questions that Pace's bigotry raised, confirming what gay people know: that there is not one candidate running for public office anywhere who dares to come right out, unequivocally, and say decent, supportive things about us.

People choose not to support certain behaviors.  Get over it.  Your self-esteem should not rest on what HRC says about you.

Gays should not vote for any of them.

Yes, please stay home if you are so indignant of how representative republics function.

Don't any of you wonder why heterosexuals treat gays so brutally year after year after year, as your people take away our manhood, our womanhood, our personhood?

Some homosexuals often to that to themselves.  Surgically.

What we can leave our surviving lovers is taxed far more punitively than what you leave your (legal) surviving spouses. Why do you do this?

Marriage laws are meant to promote the kinds of relationships that are best for raising families.

My lover will be unable to afford to live in the house we have made for each other over our lifetime together.

Sounds like a tax problem to me.  Support tax reform.

But you have equality, and we don't.

Wrong.  You have the same rights I do.  You can choose not to exercise them, and so far, you have chosen not to.

President Bush will leave a legacy of hate for us that will take many decades to cleanse. He has packed virtually every court and every civil service position in the land with people who don't like us.

First, you wrongly mistake disagreeing with your agenda as hatred for all homosexual people.  Then, you write as though Bush’s appointments are any more resolute against your assault on traditional society than the appointments made through all of history.

So, even with the most tolerant of new presidents, gays will be unable to break free from this yoke of hate.

Tolerance?  You sound intolerant of anyone who doesn’t support your behaviors or who recognizes that marriage is something that brings both sexes together as an intrinsic element of its nature.

If all of this is not hate, I do not know what hate is.

Perhaps the homosexual-on-homosexual violence that plagues “the community?”

Our feeble gay movement confines most of its demands to marriage.

That’s because it isn’t feeble and has gotten everything else for which it has campaigned.  I suspect, though, that after “marriage” would be tax-funding to give you children, since a single-sex couple can’t make children themselves.  After all, we must have “equality.”

You must know that gays get beaten up all the time, all over the world.

Often by other homosexual people.  Straight people get beaten up too.  True, there are fascist countries that harm homosexual people for being homosexual – which is another reason to support the American system, which protects people.

If someone beats you up because of who you are - your race or ethnic origin - that is considered a hate crime. But in most states, gays are not included in hate crime measures, and Congress has refused to include us in a federal act.

”Hate crime” legislation should be scrapped entirely.  People should be prosecuted for beating others up for any reason other than defense.

Homosexuality is a punishable crime in a zillion countries, as is any activism on behalf of it.

Oh, you mean like those countries in Europe?  Canada?  But as for the others, we’re not supposed to impose our values on other countries, remember?

Do you consider it acceptable that 20,000 Christian youths make an annual pilgrimage to San Francisco to pray for gay souls?

Sure I do, because I believe in freedom of religion and freedom of speech.  Christian prayer is a peaceful, loving thing.

Gays do not realize that the more we become visible, the more we come out of the closet, the more we are hated.

There are people who hate you for being homosexual, but not as many as you think.  There are people who dislike very much inappropriate actions and dress in public, disruptive demonstrations in inappropriate places (like say, in a church).  People also dislike when you try to force them to approve and support counterfeit marriage as marriage, especially when they hold marriage to be sacred.

Why is it socially acceptable to joke about "girlie men" or to discriminate against us legally with "constitutional" amendments banning gay marriage?

You can’t ban something that doesn’t exist, like a squared circle.  You can keep activist judges from trying to force a new construct of society on an unwilling majority, however.

Because we cannot marry, we can pass on only a fraction of our estates, we do not have equal parenting rights and we cannot live with a foreigner we love who does not have government permission to stay in this country.

I would say not interacting with someone of the opposite sex causes you not to have parenting “rights”.  That bigoted Mother Nature won’t let you conceive and carry a child without both a man and a woman, after all.  How dare she!  You can marry, but let’s assume that all of the rights and privileges of married couples were extended to any two people – does that mean you’d stop clamoring for single-sex “marriage?”  Somehow, I doubt it.

These are the equal protections that the Bill of Rights proclaims for all?

Yes, you have the same access to marriage I do.  That you do not want to marry (someone of the opposite sex) does not negate the fact that you do have the same access.  I don’t have access to military veteran programs unless I go into the military.  But I chose not to go into the military.  Should those programs be extended to me anyway?  If you say no, you are a hateful bigot, by your logic.

Why do you hate us so much that you will not permit us to legally love?

Plenty of people love without getting married.

I think your hate is evil.

I think fornication, mocking holy matrimony, and unnecessary behaviors that easily injure and spread disease are evil.  So what?  I’m not clamoring for laws to impose my thinking on you.

What do we do to you that is so awful? Why do you feel compelled to come after us with such frightful energy?

Oh yes, homosexually-focused activist groups have just been minding their own business all these years, not trying to influence legislation, academia, media, or the larger culture, not attacking traditional values or morals or religious/speech freedoms or property rights of landlords or employer rights - and here all of these hateful people spontaneously organized to attack you because they had nothing better to do with their time and money.   You’re like the arsonist who sets fire to brush and then complains that firefighting trucks are clogging the road.

What possible harm comes to you if we marry, or are taxed just like you, or are protected from assault by laws that say it is morally wrong to assault people out of hatred?

Go ahead and marry, but you want to counterfeit marriage, and counterfeiting devalues the real thing.  I’m against “thought crimes” legislation.  Why should you be MORE protected than anyone else?  Assault should be prosecuted equally.

Wow, I hardly got through his whine.  He sounds like a sad person, and he thinks his sadness is the result of what other people are doing, but maybe it is more about how he has lived his life.  Again, I don't hate homosexual people - I worry that my friends are exposing themselves to behaviors that are harmful to them, result in higher instances of domestic abuse, homicide, addiction, depression, mental illness, risk-taking, and health problems.

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.