What’s Wrong With Los Angeles?

Let's get local.

Even if you don’t live in California, you probably know that we have a legislature that is controlled by anti-family Big Labor socialists and open-border advocates who want to educate, insure, license, and feed any citizens of Mexico who can make their way here, taking money from Americans to do so.  As for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger - he looks more and more like a Republican In Name Only (RINO) with each passing day of his second (and final) term.

You also surely know that San Francisco is controlled by socialist thought police types.

And then there is Los Angeles.  The City of Los Angeles’ formal government is led by a mayor, a 15-member city council, and a patchwork of boards and commissions.  The mayor and a majority of the city council were elected with Big Labor money and with the help of some voters who are likely socialist in their thinking, illegal aliens voting illegally, children of illegal aliens, and in families with street gang affiliations.  The mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, is a philandering egomaniac who has truth issues and loves to pander to the illegal aliens, and clearly has his sights set on being Governor of California.  So much so, that he’s constantly traveling and at every photo-op imaginable.  One of the few truly good moves he’s made of late was vetoing an absurd multi-million dollar settlement for a city fireman who claimed racial discrimination for being subjected to pranks after perpetrating pranks himself.

To give you an idea of how bad it’s gotten, the powers-that-be recently arbitrarily singled out hotels near LAX to try to dictate the wages and benefits they offered to their staff.  The proposed regulation was temporarily put aside through an “agreement” the hotels and the city government made.  This is what they spend their time on while the city’s infrastructure literally rots.  A few years back, parts of the city tried to secede, but weren’t allowed to because the other parts of the city that leech off of them didn’t want to lose the gravy train.

Neighboring city Santa Monica is aptly referred to as “The People’s Republic”.  And there’s also neighboring Long Beach, with a strong activist gay community and a sizable gang problem, where nine teenagers (some of them 17 at the time of the crime) recently got slaps on the wrist for severely beating three women while making racist statements, then perjuring themselves in court.  The twist?  The victims were white, the racist convicts were black.

Those three cities, along with 85 others and many unincorporated towns, are all within the County of Los Angeles, which has over ten million residents.  The county’s government is a little more efficient.  For example, the county is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors.  With a quorum of three, the Board hires and fires any department chief who isn’t elected directly by the voters.  Almost all county departments are helmed by a single person, not a board or commission.  Still, though, a majority of the Board of Supervisors leans left (and is beholden to Big Labor and Big Government Labor), with the two others leaning right – only one of whom is a staunch conservative.

One of the highest-profile problems with the county government as of late has been the embarrassing inability for the county to hire a replacement for their admired Chief Administrative Officer, who just retired.  He’s sticking around until they figure out what to do.  Why?  Well, the second in command in his office didn’t want the job.  She finds church work much more productive and rewarding.  The Board offered the job to two other people who both turned it down.  The position has an annual salary close to $300,000 and excellent benefits and perks, mind you.

Now the Board is saying that the key to solving this problem and other major problems facing the county is giving the CAO more power, including the power to hire, discipline, and fire department chiefs.  One Supervisor, with his eye on his own future, actually wants to create a County Mayor position with the power to do those things.

But giving a single person the power to hire, fire, and discipline department chiefs will not change these facts:

1. The courts and correctional system are overcrowded.  Illegal aliens are a significant factor in that overcrowding, but are not contributing enough to the system to pay for themselves.

2. Hospital emergency rooms are overcrowded.  Illegal aliens are a significant factor in that overcrowding, but are not contributing enough to the system to pay for themselves.

3. Thanks to Federal and State laws, and labor unions, it is extremely difficult to fire a county employee who underperforms.  It can’t be that the employee is lazy or somehow deficient in capability - it must be a lack of proper training, supervision, or funding.

These are facts that will not change with a new CAO or a Mayor.  The city of Los Angeles has a mayor and is broken into fifteen districts for a supposedly better representation ratio, but the city is certainly not run any better than the county.

While I know that the county government has no control over the national border or immigration enforcement, they can put pressure on the Federal government.  Instead, they spend their time doing things like looking into banning trans fats in restaurants.  (Turns out the state government has jurisdiction, but now the restaurants are “voluntarily” going along with the plan.)

The County’s Department of Children and Family Services is also overwhelmed, but what should we expect in a society full of women who make poor choices in husbands and casual sex partners, don’t use contraception, and make babies when they are too young or otherwise unprepared to take care of them, and men who duck their responsibility and don’t take precautions to avoid making babies?

Housing costs are ridiculous, but instead of reducing government involvement in that business and shortening the process where it can take ten years to build new housing, the local governments instead sometimes force builders to include a few token “affordable” units, meaning that everyone else is subsidizing those units, further raising costs.  Instead, new housing is built in the distant outlying areas, further contributing to traffic congestion as people have to live further from work.

Los Angeles Unified School District extends beyond the city and is not controlled by the city council or mayor, but Villaraigosa, as if he didn’t have enough to do, has been trying to get some power in that area.  However, his involvement would still not change some of the major factors contributing to the problems of LAUSD: illegal aliens speaking scores of different languages but not good English and not attending consistently, and families and subcultures who do not value formal education.  Teachers and administrators in public schools have their hands tied up too much to deal with most of the problems.

It’s not all doom and gloom.  The Los Angeles area is a beautiful area with some terrific industries and a rich cultural variety (I love LEGAL immigration).  The city has a good Police Chief and the county has a good Sheriff.  There are some great local leaders and public servants.  There appears to be a real, credible effort to crack down on gangs.

But there are some problems that will not be changed by getting the right CAO and giving him or her more power.  They are problems with the larger culture and with a lack of action by churches and the Federal government, and with the socialist thinking ingrained into too many people in L.A.  The problems of Los Angeles are going to need the cooperation of residents, families, businesses, nonprofits, religious congregations, and all levels of governments.

No wonder it's tough to find someone willing to take the blame.

If you really believe that an impenetrable wall should separate church and state, to the point where Bible quotes or "In God We Trust"  or crosses should be removed from currency and government property and the President and other government officials should refrain from invoking God, the Bible, or religion, then you should also agree that government officials should not be able to prosecute Catholic priests for crimes, especially crimes against members of their church.

After all, how can a wall be a wall if one side is allowed to control, influence, or inform the other?

The Island of Genetically Modified Crops & Animals

Just a brief thought about the assumptions, presuppositions, and conclusions in the Naturalistic Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate:

Group A, genetic engineers, work on a small island, breeding genetically modified crops and livestock.  They decide to leave the island and let things continue without them for a while.

During their absence, Group B, a group of biologists, visits in the island.  They do not see any obvious indication that Group A was ever there.  They examine the crops and livestock, and conclude that the crops and livestock evolved into their current state – that no intelligent design was involved.

Wouldn’t they be wrong?

What if the entire Earth is like that island?

Amy Norton reports:


I’m shocked – SHOCKED!  It took a study to determine this?


Just like those prudish, repressive Bible-thumpers have been telling us.  I’m surprised UCSF had the guts to publish this.  How long before the City authorities shut them down?

Actually, I’d imagine that those who promote teen sluttery will cite this study as proof that we need to stop stigmatizing teen sex.


Thank you, Bill Clinton.


Well, duh.


How about, oh, I don’t know – men/boys and women/girls are different?


They are pressured to be teases.


See what I mean.  Since boys aren’t called sluts, we should discourage the term being used to describe girls.  How about we call both “fornicators”?


You have to love what public high schools are doing with their time.


It’s difficult to get pregnant through oral sex, yes.  But then there are women who try to get pregnant by obtaining the necessary substance this way, clearly against the wishes of the guy they are, uh, servicing.  Boys should be warned.


They are teens!  Ask them again in 10 or 20 years.  What mature woman says “I really wish I would have lost my virginity at a younger age”?  Unless she's talking about getting married younger, you won't hear this.


When I eat a double bacon cheeseburger on the way home, it tastes really good,  But when I get home and my wife has healthy, home-cooked meal for me, I’m not going to feel so good about that burger.  I’ll feel even worse when my doctor weighs me and shakes his head.

It'll be hard for a lot of parents who are shacking up or having casual sex or fornicating with a regular non-live-in partner to explain to their teens why they should wait for sex.  But if absolutely nothing works, appeal to their greed.  Tell them they should be concentrating on doing well in school, completing a marketable level of formal education, and launching their careers, instead of dealing with pregnancy and child support and being tied to someone who isn't right for them and all of the drama that goes with it.

A couple named Luis and Maria Gomez raised a low-life Harbor City, California son who terrorized people and tried to commit a robbery in Torrance, California.  Now they’ve gotten attorney Conrad Herring to file a civil rights lawsuit because their robber son was shot and killed while committing a crime.


Jose Gomez of Harbor City was trying to rob a business.  Shame on him!  And now his parents, Luis and Maria Gomez, the people who raised this amoral creep, want to use the courts to rob!

When you put on a ski mask and brandish what appears to be a weapon in order to commit a robbery, I do not think there should be any expectation of protection until you are safely subdued and in the custody of authorities.  If you get shot, it is your own fault.  The same goes for these people who lead the cops on a chase, and drug-filled jerks who use their children as human shields while shooting at cops.

Law-abiding people are tired of these whiny criminals who bully the rest of us and then turn around and sue when they get stung while committing a crime.



I would love to see the people terrorized by this attempted robbery sue Luis and Maria Gomez for raising such a creep.


How are the police supposed to know Jose Gomez wasn't a threat?  He put on a ski mask and brandished an item that looked like a gun and was robbing a business.  How were they supposed to know he didn't have a real gun?

Hey Luis and Maria - if you have any other kids you did such a horrible job of raising, tell them not to do this kind of stuff, and maybe they won't get shot by the police.  I hope you get NOTHING.  Shame on you and your dead son.  It's sad that he's dead, but it is his own fault.  I've never been shot at by cops.  I wonder why?

There was the snack advertisement that called attention to it.  The announcers called attention to it.  And then there was an Associated Press story with quotes from people who admit cheering for people based on race, and now were having trouble because both coaches in the Superbowl were of the same race.  Just imagine that AP story if "black" was replaced with "white".  It sounds absurd, and it should.  I can understand cheering for someone because you know them personally, or even if they are from your hometown or chose to go to the same college as you.  But cheering for someone because of their race?  Isn't that the definition of racism?

The celebrating of the fact that a "black" coach was going to win the Superbowl or the first time was a little much.

Real progress would be not noting the color of their skin at all.

As a Bible-believer, I note that the Bible does not divide humanity into races.  We are all of the human race. Neither the shameful discrimination by skin color of the past, nor the current situation is acceptable.  If you grew up in the same neighborhood I did, you and I likely have more in common than people who didn't, regardless of skin color or eye shape.

I was happy that the winning coach quickly took the question about race and diverted to his faith.

Do I think God really cares who wins?  No, but if I were a coach or player, I'd pray for safety, sportsmanship, and to display well the abilities God gave me.  I think the coach did exactly that, and was a good example to ALL of us, regardless of our skin color.

The Leftist Marriage Dilemma

For decades, we’ve heard from the Left how marriage is stifling, hopelessly antiquated, and oppressive to women, breeding misery and abuse against women, who were enslaved by the institution.  Male activists have relatively recently picked up on this theme of marriage being stifling, too, noting that while marriage used to mean getting access to sex, a respected way to create and raise legal heirs/helpers, and having someone to handle domestic tasks, marriage may no longer mean any of those things, and, in fact, men can get access to all of those things without getting married and without the risk of having to pay alimony for tlife if the marriage ends.

Also we were told that marriage was a private matter, which is why it was none of anyone else’s business if someone was not being true to their vows.

Yet now, with the relatively recent advent of the movement to issue marriage licenses - public legal government documents, mind you - to couples excluding one of the sexes, we are told by the Left how important it is to extend this institution to include same-sex pairings.

Some quip “I think gay people should be as miserable as everyone else.”  Perhaps this statement is truer than the Leftist would like to admit.  Attempts at getting laughs aside, either the Leftist is lying when he says that marriage is a bad thing, or he must actually want to bring misery upon his gay friends.

Therein is the Leftist Marriage Dilemma.  If the Leftist activists who say that marriage is oppressive to women would clarify that only traditional (both-sex pairing) marriage is oppressive, then they acknowledge that there is something fundamentally different about the nature of heterosexual pairing and homosexual pairing.  Yet, if they admit there is a difference, they are agreeing with one of the major premises leading to the understanding that marriage requires both a man and a woman.  By demanding that same-sex pairings can be “marriage”, the Leftist activist must admit that either marriage is a good thing or that men and women are not interchangeable.

I’m sure there are Leftists who would respond to this with “You on the Right say marriage is such a good thing, but you want to deny it to gays.  Why would you be so cruel?”  However, the Marriage Dilemma does not work both ways.  The Right maintains that one of the most basic factors contributing to the beneficial nature of marriage is the uniting of both sexes, forming a microcosm of society in which both (all) sexes are represented.  The Right has long maintained that men and women are different from each other, are not interchangeable, and that marriage brings the complimentary elements of humanity together in a beautiful partnership of the masculine and feminine.

We do not want to deny happiness and fulfillment to gay people, but we will not pretend that simply extending marriage licenses to same-sex couples will bring about the same social, personal, emotional, spiritual, physical, and psychological benefits to the couples or the individuals involved, nor will it bring the same benefits to society as marriage (to someone of the opposite sex).  For sure, it would make the gay people who want their same-sex pairing recognized as marriage happy in the short term, because they would feel like society was approving of and supporting their “marriage”, even if it was actually just a single judge who made the decision to impose this on society.

But it would not change the fact that men and women are different, and that most of the positive benefits of marriage are a product of uniting those different sexes.  It would, however, water down the already-battered institution of marriage by confusing a counterfeit with the real thing.

The Right loves people enough - including people who are gay - not to lie to them.  We maintain:

-Marriage between compatible people is a good thing.

-A marriage license will not bring about the same benefits of marriage to same-sex couples because men and women are different and complimentary, which is a major reason why marriage can be beneficial to them.

Attention everyone who is convinced that global warming is real, is a threat, and is caused by humans:

Stop everything.

Stop driving. Even if you drive an electric car, generating the electricity surely contributes to global warming, as does the manufacturing process for the vehicle.  Bicycle manufacturing surely does, too, so forget switching to a bike.  Mass transit presents the same problems.  Don’t travel anywhere you can’t walk.

Do not buy any more manufactured products.  Surely their creation and shipping contributes to global warming.

Don’t shop any grocery store or supermarket that uses any power whose generation may contribute to global warming.  Plus, unless they are growing/making all of their products within walking distance of the store using non-warming methods and hand-harvesting, buying those products will encourage the use of shipping methods that contribute to global warming.

Don’t cook.  For Gaia’s sake, isn’t it obvious that the heat – and usually the fuel/energy used to generate it - is contributing to our self-destruction?

I hope you don’t smoke...anything.

Don’t eat beans.  Do I really need to spell out the reason?

Turn off all of your utilities, unless you have self-contained water supply, sewage removal, telephone/DSL, natural gas, and electricity systems that don’t generate heat, then surely they are using power and contributing to global warming.  That’s right – no radio, no TV, no more computer.  I don’t want to hear you calling in to talk shows anymore, or writing letters to editors, or see you blogging, or e-mailing, or anything else like that, because then I’ll know you’re either insincere about global warming or just trying to kill the rest of us.  Batteries are no good, either.  Just think of what it takes to manufacture them.

So, there you have it.  When you’re done reading this, implement all of these environmentally-necessary steps.  Walk to the nearest cave and live there off of whatever you can grow.

Come to think of it, just to be safe, why not just keel over and die?  After all, you are taking up valuable resources that other animals could be enjoying, you horrible, greedy human being you.

On the other hand, maybe the doom & gloom of predictions about global warming’s negative effects are overstated or mistaken.  Maybe, if it is happening, there are positives about it.  If our planet truly has a past that include ice ages, then perhaps climate fluctuations are cyclical and happen with or without humans.  For all the power and destruction we can unleash with nuclear technologies, nature still outdoes us with volcanoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes.  The natural world appears to have many balancing and adjusting techniques to deal with changes.

So, either calm down or go live in a cave.  Either way, stop your fear-mongering.

Too many people want “the government” to do too much for them.  They want “the government” to educate them all the way through college, to feed them, to house them, to ensure their access to medical care, to ensure they have a job, and to make sure they have money when they retire.  Most of those people do not understand the ramifications of this kind of thinking.

There are many other ways to meet your needs than having “the government” take care of you.

You can take care of your own needs – self reliance.  As long as there have been people, people have provided for themselves by growing their own food and maintaining their own shelter.  They traded resources with others.  For instance, if person A had more of one crop than he needed and person B had more of another crop than he needed, they could trade the surplus with each other.

You can mutually agree with others on a voluntary basis to provide services/resources that may not be needed regularly – insurance.

You can rely on the kindness of friends and family to meet a need you haven’t been able to meet on your own, and hopefully help them in return when they are in the same situation.

You can join a congregation where you can have your needs met and you can meet the needs of others.

You can seek help from charitable/service organizations, where people have volunteered to share their resources.

You can negotiate with a business (such as your employer or a supermarket) to get what you need in return for supply something the business needs.

You can even voluntarily join a local commune.

As you can see, there are many ways to meet your needs without getting “the government” involved.  And you should seek to get your needs met that way, instead of by “the government” because the government really isn’t some separate, magical entity that can conjure up resources out of thin air.  The government gets resources by taking them from YOU, and people just like you, because you ARE the government.  We all are.  We’ve elected fellow citizens who then hire more people to be our public servants and govern day to day.  But we pay them.  We fund their work.  All of their resources come from us.

So, in order for the government to do something for you, it has to take resources from you and other people like you in the first place.  In this case, let’s say the resource is money - which represents goods and services and thus can be traded for goods and services.  In order for you to receive a service from the government, you are taxed.  The money is then filtered though your local, state or Federal government, where overhead costs (staffing and the like) take a chunk out of it.  Sometimes the state will not directly meet your need.  It will send the money to your county or city government, who will then try to determine how to meet your needs.  Likewise, sometimes the Federal government will not directly meet your need, but will send the money to the state or local governments.  In each case, someone has to be paid to administer all of this, so less money is coming back to you.

Now, for sure, I’m discussing the average person who is paying an average amount of taxes and getting an average amount of government services.  Yes, if you are paying less money in taxes than the average person and/or getting more government assistance than the average person, you could be coming out ahead, because you are using the force of government to take money from people who have more than you and to give it to you, even though you may not ever meet those people or have anything to do with them.

Is that fair?
Is that efficient?
For most people, it is a loss.

You may look around at people who have more wealth than you and say “I want that, too”.  Guess what?  You can get it without using force to take it away from someone who already has it.  How?  You can generate your own wealth by using the resources you have, and you’d have more resources immediately if you were to keep more of what you pay in taxes.

Now, to be sure, the rich people would be keeping more of their own money, too.  After all, if someone is paying $10 million in taxes and you are paying $10,000 in taxes, and you each get to keep ten percent of that because of a tax cut, the rich person will be keeping $1 million and you will be keeping $1,000.  Just imagine if you took that $1,000 and invested in a new idea, and you worked hard to make that idea successful, and you ended up turning that $1,000 into $500,000 (it has happened before).  Would you like it if someone else came along and took that money away from you by force and gave it to someone else?  Would you be likely to repeat what you did before, given that your reward would be taken away?

When people keep more of their own money instead of having to pay higher taxes, that money doesn’t just disappear under a mattress.  Rich people often donate much of their wealth to charitable causes, or put their money to work by buying new things, hiring people and starting up businesses, stimulating the economy.  That means you will have more opportunities to acquire more, too, because someone needs to ready these goods and provide these services.  But the more that is used up in government overhead, the less money there is that can be used to develop new business, or be donated to people who are in need of help.

Will every need be met under such a system?  No, but is every need met under the “government does something” system?  No!  My point is that more needs will be met if people have more freedom with more of their own resources instead of having the government take their resources and try to figure out how to redistribute them, using up some of the resources in the process, and creating a class of people who just sit around waiting for the government to take care of them.

Government’s role is set forth in the Constitution.  It is supposed to be limited to what is in there.  Each branch is supposed to stick to what is in there for that branch.  Everything else is supposed to be up to the states, municipalities, and the people.  The "people" is YOU.

So the next time you catch yourself or someone else saying that “the government” should do something about a perceived problem, check to see if the government is specifically told to do something about it in the Constitution, and if it isn’t, then it isn’t up to the government.  It is up to YOU and other citizens to “do something”, and maybe the state you live in or the municipality you live in.

I maintain that it is better that YOU decide what to do with your own resources.  I prefer liberty, freedom, and personal choice over forced wealth redistribution and more government involvement in our daily lives.

Ask yourself and others: Should our government be doing this?  Can’t this be handled some other way?

The illegal alien activists are complaining about “racism” and a crackdown on “immigrants”, vowing to hold demonstrations on May 1 again.

They think that if they scream “racism” enough, we will back down from actually starting to enforce our laws, which apply to people regardless of race.  It just so happens that the majority of the illegal aliens are from Latin America, because it borders the U.S., so racism is a convenient excuse.  However, “immigrants” are not being targeted.  Immigrants are people who come here legally.  Criminal illegal aliens are being targeted.

Out of at least 12 million invaders, less than a thousand have been targeted for deportation in this latest effort.  Most of those were in jail or prison already for various offenses, and the rest were committing crimes and had been ordered to leave the country before.  It certainly isn’t like illegal aliens who are otherwise law-abiding are being yanked out of their homes.

The May Day demonstration date is no accident.  These people are communists because they demand other people pay for their schooling, their medical care, their housing, public services, and so forth.

Americans, both native-born and naturalized, are sick of this.

I actually find their boycott demonstrations make my life better.  If they stay off the roads, traffic magically disappears.  It is an amazing reminder just why our infrastructure isn’t keeping up – we’re being invaded by tens of millions of people entering and/or staying in this country illegally.

Unfortunately, Mexico loves sending its citizens up here to be a burden on our system.  Too many businesses love the cheap labor.  And, apparently from their actions and proposals, President Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger love to encourage them to illegally come here.

No mas.

Let’s secure our borders – if nothing else, let’s do it to prevent terrorism.  Let’s move our society towards privatization so that we don’t force taxpayers to take care of other countries’ citizens.  If Americans want to voluntarily assist people in need around the world, we already have that option.

Now Hillary says she never would have voted to authorize military action in Iraq if she knew then what she knows now.

So, Hillary, if you think it was wrong for Bush and the coalition to actually use military force in Iraq, or you are unhappy with how that military campaign has been conducted, please tell us exactly what you would have done and how you would have done it.

In the Vietnam era, they protested in the streets, declaring "The draft sucks!  End the draft!"

Now, they complain about the make-up of the volunteer army, and some have introduced political-theater attempts to bring back the draft.

In 1990/1991 they shrilly and frantically proclaimed "Getting Iraq out of Kuwait will bog us down in a quagmire!  It will be Vietnam all over again!  Aaaaagh!!!!!"

Then, it was "Okay, we didn’t get bogged down in a quagmire, but those oil fires will take years to extinguish!"

Then, it was "Okay, the fires are out, but G.H.W. Bush should have ignored the coalition and continued the war and removed Saddam!"

For every year until 2003, they insisted that G.H.W. Bush should have ignored the coalition and removed Saddam.

Then, in 2004, all of a sudden they said we should pass a "global test" with our plans before protecting ourselves.

All along, their cry has been "No blood for oil!"

And yet they complain about high gasoline prices.

When Clinton got us involved in Yugoslavia’s civil war, that was okay. America has been involved with many civil wars in other countries, and yet now they insist that Iraq is in the middle of a civil war and therefore we should retreat.

The liberals tell us that "Bush should have prevented 9/11!"  They insist he should have known exactly the who, when, and how of the 9/11 attacks before they happened, and yet they also shout "No wiretapping phone calls between terrorist havens to the U.S.!" and "Don’t hold terrorist combatants in Gitmo!  Don’t ask them questions!"

Some of them insisted that "Getting into Afghanistan will bog us down in a quagmire!  It will be Vietnam all over again!  Aaaaagh!!!!!"

But later it was "Okay, so Afghanistan wasn’t a quagmire, but Iraq will be.  What’s that I remember hearing about a broken clock?"

So many prominent liberals are on the record saying "Let’s take action! Saddam must be removed!  We know he has WMDs!" and they voted for the war in Iraq.  Now, so many of the very same people say "Bush’s war, Bush lied, people died."

They also insist that Saddam was not involved in terror, yet they also say "W only went after Saddam because Saddam tried to have his father killed."  Some of them also add "And for oil.  And to give money to Halliburton."

They complain that Bush is a dictator, clearly ignorant of what it is like to actually live under a dictator, and yet some of them now say Iraq would be better under a dictator (Saddam).

They want us to "do something" about Dafur, but they don’t want us to break anything, kill anyone, or risk losing any of our soldiers.

Liberals insist that we shouldn’t have gone in Iraq because Iraq didn’t attack us, and yet they want us to do something about Darfur, and supported Clinton’s orders regarding Yugoslavia.

Many liberals had been saying that we need more troops in Iraq, and now when Bush takes that action, they say "No more troops!"

Liberals hold the popular opinion as sacred when it comes to Iraq and that the Commander-in-Chief must bow to the will of the people, but it is okay to ignore the will of the people when it comes to laws about marriage and abortion.

Liberals throughout history have insisted (rightfully) that people be treated with equality, and yet now American liberals say that Iraqis don’t deserve freedom, liberty, and democracy.

If you oppose military action defense consistently, I can respect that.  (By the way, please let me know when I can come in to your home, take your possessions, and make you my slave without your resistance.)  What I can’t stay silent about, though, are the inconsistent, wishy-washy, fair-weather types who demand protection from terrorists, demand we intervene in troubled areas around the world, and support military action, but then turn around and bash the President when he takes action because he is a Republican, say we have no business intervening in the matters of other countries, and call for us to retreat.

Is Islamofascist terrorism a threat to the people of the United States?

Yes.  That was demonstrated by 9/11, the previous attack on the World Trade Center, and other planned attacks that were thwarted.  The terrorists' ongoing actions and declarations indicate that they will continue to attack the United States unless we convert to their form of government, under their control.

I think most people understand this point.  There are some crazies that think Karl Rove/Dick Cheney/Don Rumsfeld/George W. Bush and/or some military-industrial-intelligence agency conspiracy orchestrated these attacks and fabricated these threats, but most sane people, including the various Democrat leaders, agree that the terrorists are a real threat.

So what are our options, if we don’t want to surrender to the terrorists?

Option 1: Killing or capturing terrorists and destroying their camps and havens while trying to avoid killing innocent civilians or their property, or harming the environment.  This requires military action that takes money, time, and exposes our soldiers to injury and death.

Option 2: Completely destroying the general area where these terrorists are by bombing it to oblivion.  This will kill many innocent people, destroy all infrastructure, be harmful to the environment, and will draw more international condemnation than option 1, and will strongly upset anyone living/visiting elsewhere who had friends, family, and property there.

Option 3: Diplomacy.  This will not work.  History shows this will not work in dealing with Islamofascist terrorism.  The leader of Iran, for example, is trying to bring about world destruction for religious purposes.  How do you have diplomacy with someone like that?

So, we are left with Option 1 and Option 2.

My hunch is that the Leftists would rather not nuke Iraq, disliking that option the most, so our only other hope for protecting ourselves is to continue risking the lives of our brave men and women in the military by continuing military action.

For a Senator or Representative to agree with the premise that these terrorists are a threat to the American people and yet refuse to support continued military action in Iraq is to knowingly encourage what will lead to more attacks on American civilians - a new terrorism-sponsoring state.

We removed a government that supported terrorism, allowing an ally government to form.  We must not abandon that ally government and allow terrorists to turn Iraq back into a nation with a government that supports terrorism.

I know most of these positions will be completely avoided by President Bush, never mind that they wouldn’t have a chance of being implemented by the current Congress.  But permit me to dream.  Also notice that with most of these, I’m calling on the President to encourage action by the people, not to use the force of law.

Strong Marital Unions Are Good For the Union.  It brings together both sexes to raise the next generation of citizens.  Men and women are different, and unifying them in the marital union forms a strong, inclusive building block for society, benefiting the individuals and society.  Call on the Federal government to help by continuing to affirm, as President Clinton did, that marriage involves a man and a woman, and that the Federal government will not force states to recognize counterfeit marriages.  Encourage people to voluntarily take marriage seriously, thinking for the long term, getting good pre-marital counseling - and counseling during marriage as necessary.  Encourage individuals, families, congregations, businesses, and the media to respect and value marriage, and support marriages instead of undermining them.  Encourage individuals to save sex and childrearing for marriage, because doing so is good for them and good for the country.

Education Is a Private Responsibility.  With so many educators complaining about No Child Left Behind, and given the state of American public education since the Carter administration, call for the dismantling of Federal involvement in education.

Don’t be Santa Claus.  Don’t propose new Federal programs and expansions of existing Federal social programs.  Enough already.  There are 50 states in the union that are supposed to be handling their own matters – that is, the matters that are not supposed to be left up to “the people”.

Explain That the Federal Government Is Not the Answer to Every Challenge, Problem, or Choice - Rather, it is the Answer to Very Few.  That is what freedom and liberty are all about.  Challenge individuals, businesses, congregations, nonprofits, and local and state governments (where appropriate) to take action instead of relying on the Federal government.  The Federal government is there to protect the union from foreign threats and to and resolve some disputes between states.

Stop Using the Tax Code For Social Engineering.  Tell the Congress that instead of taking the carrots (taxes) from the people and then dangling some of them back in front of the people, that the people should keep their carrots in the first place and do with them what they will.  Call for tax simplification and a move away from income/payroll taxes.

Individuals Should Plan for the Future.  Talk about the numerous options individuals and families have for saving for the future.  Encourage them to save and invest for the future and not rely on the Federal government to take care of them in their senior years.  Point out that a reduction in Federal spending will allow people to keep more of their own money to aid in saving for retirement.

Explain that Planning for Your Health Care is Part of Planning for the Future.  Call for more freedom, competition, and private decision-making in health care.

Explain That There Are Other Ways to Get Stem Cells Other Than Killing Human Beings.  Explain that ESCR means killing human beings, and the other ways to get stem cells.  Explain the reality of what we currently know and don’t know about stem cells.  Explain that promising research can easily find funding sources other than tax money.  “Science must serve human life – it should not be the other way around.”

Encourage Proven Conservation Techniques. Quote the scientists and activists who, in the 1970s, warned that we were heading for a new ice age, and quote those who said that by 2000, the rainforests and the oceans would be destroyed.  Go on to say that we must not hastily and uncritically accept alarmist warnings and use Federal government force to impose destructive restrictions on the people and business that may not result in significant environmental benefit.

Encourage private innovation and solutions to reducing reliance on terrorist oil.

Border Control Is a Matter of National Security.  Announce that, effective immediately, the National Guard will secure our borders to prevent terrorists, disease-carriers, and smugglers from entering the U.S.  They will stay there until suitable barriers and checkpoints are constructed – however long that takes.  We will NOT encourage further invasion by offering amnesty, health insurance, and other tax-funded benefits for citizens of other countries who illegally enter/stay in the U.S.  Speed up the process for legal immigration for those who want to come to the U.S. legally to become citizens and can find sponsors who will ensure they will stay off of public assistance.  As for illegal aliens currently living in the United States – do not offer amnesty; they can go through the same channels of those who are trying to immigrate legally.  If the border is secure, this problem will eventually take care of itself because their children born here are citizens and the illegals can continue to function as they have until they die off, if they don’t want to go the legal route.  Any illegal alien who serves honorably in the U.S. armed forces should be granted citizenship.  If a true shortage of labor occurs (meaning American unemployment is low and employers need more temporary labor), a true guest worker program can be developed.

Property Rights and Personal Freedom.  Most Americans understand that people should be considered as individuals and based on their behavior and abilities, not as members of a non-ideological group (ethnicity, etc.).  Therefore, the Federal government should no longer be involved in preventing people from renting, selling - or not - to whomever they choose for whatever reason, and should no longer be involved with who an employer hires and fires and why.  Airlines, for example, should not be forced to carry anyone who makes the majority of their employers and passengers uncomfortable.

Tout the Successes of the War on Terror. Laud those military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel who have uncovered and prevented terrorist plans and actions, pointing out that is has been over five years since terrorists have carried out a major attack in the U.S.

Call the War Flip-Floppers on Their Fair-Weather Support.  “For years, many called for the removal of Saddam Hussein. [Insert quotes from prominent Democrats about the threat Saddam posed and the need for action.]   When he repeatedly violated cease-fire agreements, we lead a coalition to take action to remove him.  His genocidal totalitarian rule kept Iraq orderly through oppression, brutality, and murder.  With freedom and democracy came the ability for terrorists to attack Iraq’s citizens and the Americans there helping to rebuild.  Iraq, which is no longer a state bent on regional domination and support of anti-American terrorism, needs our help to fight these terrorists.  I understand that many in America want our troops to come home right now.  I would like that, too.  They are some of our finest men and women.  But like life-saving surgery, some things are necessary even if they are painful and not pretty to watch on TV or enjoyable to read about in the newspaper.  Retreat without further progress will only bring more death and destruction to Iraq, to the region, and quite likely to America and its allies.  We will not abandon the people of Iraq and let the terrorists take control the country.  Denouncing our efforts from the halls of Congress emboldens and encourages the terrorists, and while it is free speech, it is shameful speech.  We are giving our armed forces more tools to destroy these terrorist groups.  Let’s also give them our support and appreciation.”

Now the social engineers are whining about the numerous choices in fast food businesses that we're all voluntarily frequenting.


Uh, that's because grocery and produce stores tend to be larger places that you can hit about once a week and choose from a large selection of products, while each fast food outlet is usually a smaller place with a narrow focus of what they offer, and you may hit a different one every day or two, for breakfast, lunch, or dinner.


I'm confused.  I thought people couldn't help being fat and we should accept, embrace, and celebrate people being fat.  Now you're telling me that it is really those evil business people running fast food joints who are FORCING people to be fat, and it isn't a good thing?  Notice the phrase "national obesity crisis" - yes, everything is a crisis!  In this case, it is because of socialist medicine.  If you really thought "universal" health care came without strings, you're sorely mistaken.  You see, some people have a right to stick their nose into the lives of others - in this case, people who voluntary purchase fast food - because we're all going to be paying for everyone else's health care, and it will be rationed.


You mean if I live by a union-controlled supermarket, I'll never die?  Amazing!

It couldn't be that fast food places open up where there is a demand, could it?  Nah - all of these people would choose to eat only "healthy" union food if it weren't for those pushers who open up those fast food places and create demand out of thin air.


In California, the further you get from the shore, the fatter people get in general because they don't have to look good in a swimsuit.  The fast food goes where the demand is.


What kind of fascist nonsense is this?  Why can't people be allowed to eat where they CHOOSE?  So now cities are supposed to add the fast food places next to Wal-Mart and Costco on the list of businesses they are supposed to scare away, despite what the residents want, as evidenced by their dollars.


Bingo.


So say no to the cookies! And then go somewhere else if you are hungry.  Have some discipline!

These socialists want to force us to eat spinach and carrots.  This is the inevitable result of 1) union control of California supermarkets, 2) socialist health care, and 3) a lack of self-control and discipline.

If I want to buy a bacon triple cheeseburger and wash it down with a large chocolate shake, that is between me and any businessman who is willing to sell it to me.  And if I put on weight, that is between me and my doctor.  It isn't the business of some egghead in an ivory tower with social engineering dreams.

Nobody is forcing anyone to go to McDonald's.  Nobody is forcing anyone to avoid the healthier items on McDonald's menu.

Why don't these do-gooders open up their own chain of drive-through, fast, convenient, cheap food places that only offer healthy items, like whole fruits, vegetables, tofu, etc.?  There has to be a market for places like that in the large metro areas like greater Los Angeles and New York.  Vegetarian, vegan, low fat, low sodium, kosher, organic, diabetic... lots of niche markets.  Just try it!  If it works, great... or maybe there really isn't a market for that.  Put up or shut up.  Offer alternatives instead of trying to force consumer and business owners to do things you way.

Earlier tonight, I voluntarily bought and ate a Double-Double animal style.  Mmmmmmm.  But you know what?  If I could drive though a fast, inexpensive place that would offer me a tasty alternative made of low-fat ingredients, I would do it sometimes.  If there are enough people like me, then it will work.  Otherwise, it won't.  But that's part of living in what is supposed to be a free society.  I have an orange in my kitchen.  I could have eaten that instead of the burger.  I'll eat it during another meal, but only because I choose to, not because some nanny-stater demands it.  I'm not a toddler in a high chair.  I'm a grown man who can make my own decisions, and has made my own decisions and lost weight.