Fire HGTV!

In recent weeks the media's been abuzz with the saga of the Benham brothers, real estate millionaires whose tv show, Flip it Forward, was dropped by HGTV from its fall lineup because of the brothers' pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, Christian beliefs .  In response to HGTV's smarmy and cowardly move, a petition, called Flip This Decision, was started on the pro-Christian website, Faith Driven Consumer, to pressure HGTV to restore the Benhams' show.  I understand the reason for the petition and I actually signed it, but I'm not sure it's the right response to the censorship and anti-Christian bigotry of the cable channel.  Here's why.

If HGTV restores Flip it Forward to its lineup it'll be a victory of sorts for traditionalists and religious freedom.  But I can't help asking, should traditionalists have anything to do with a channel like HGTV?  Think about it.  HGTV's rapid fire cancellation of the Benham brothers' show suggests that the network is run by ardent secular progressives vehemently opposed to traditional family values.  Therefore traditionalists--Christian and non-Christian--should not support HGTV.  It's monumentally unwise to support, aid, and abet that which is against you and everything you believe.  In a shooting war no general would fight like that.  We must stop fighting like that in the culture war.

So what, then, should traditionalists do about HGTV?  I believe the correct response is to fire HGTV.  Drop it from your cable or satellite lineup.  If you can't drop it, don't watch it.  Don't buy the HGTV magazine.  Have nothing to do with the network in any way.  Instead of begging to participate, we should "come out of her" and all other secular progressive cultural/economic structures and begin building a traditionalist counter culture/economy.  That sounds like a tall order and it is.  But I now believe it is absolutely vital to preserving and strengthening the moral values on which our most basic and cherished freedoms rest.

Freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and economic freedom are all under assault in the name of tolerance and equality.  Partnering with the attackers will just fortify them.  They must be emasculated.  Fire dies when it's deprived of oxygen.  It's time to deprive the fire of the Left of the oxygen of our time, our money, our goodwill.  It's time to "come out of her".  Let's start by firing HGTV.

Fox News Isn't News Anymore

I haven't been watching a lot of TV lately.  There was a time when my day wasn't complete until I'd gotten my nightly dose of the news and commentary from The O'Reilly Factor, along with a couple of other Fox shows.  For about a year now, however, I haven't watched The O'Reilly Factor anywhere near as religiously as I used to.  So last night, after a two week stretch of no news shows at all (except for brief snippets I see during lunch time at work), I decided to check back in to The Factor to see how it was doing, and guess what I got.  Monica Lewinsky, as the lead story!

That's right.  Out of everything that's going on in the world--the Ukraine crisis, Benghazi, the Nigerian kidnapping, the Keystone pipeline, the ongoing saga of Obamacare--in spite of all that and more, a Fox News show chose to open its broadcast with Bill Clinton's former f**k buddy.  I mean, really?

Even if Lewinsky might've had something mildly interesting to say after over 15 years in the shadows, why make her reappearance the lead story?  Surely the Benghazi coverup or Putin's saber rattling are tad more important business than the narcissistic utterances of an erstwhile Clinton, ahem, protege.  That The O'Reilly Factor would treat such fluff as hard news is more than disappointing; it's disillusioning. 

I've felt for a while that Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and other Fox News regulars were losing their edge.  That's why I've been watching them less and less, and without any feeling that I was missing something.  Obviously, I'm NOT missing something.  Monica Lewinsky is not news.  And, it now appears, neither is Fox.

Time To Leave "The Walking Dead"?

It's on.  The last episode of season 4 of The Walking Dead.  And for me this episode may be the last one, period.  Why?  Because of gay character Tara Chalmers.  Before you throw rocks at me, this isn't about being anti-gay, it's about being anti-propaganda.

When I started watching The Walking Dead three years ago I just wanted to watch a scary, suspenseful tale of people trying to survive a zombie apocalypse; I didn't want to be "agendaized".  And Hollywood being what it is, you know a gay character was added to TWD only for propaganda purposes.  Gay is good!  Gays are normal!  I don't want that.

Don't misunderstand me.  If I go into a movie, book, or TV show knowing there's a message, that's one thing.  Then I can prepare myself for it and choose to overlook it if the story is good enough.  But if a show presents itself as one thing and then, later, slips "agenda stuff" in, that I don't like!  Especially when it's left-wing, secular progressive agenda stuff.  And that's what having a gay character on The Walking Dead is.

Think about it.  What does Tara Chalmers' lesbianism add to the show?  What makes it necessary?  Nothing, except its propaganda value.  Gay is good!  Gays are normal!  Gays are everywhere!

I'm a Bible-believing Christian.  I believe homosexual behavior is a sin.  I believe in traditional marriage.  Those are my convictions, and if I'm going to live by them I can't support anything that actively opposes or undermines them.  Is The Walking Dead doing that by adding lesbian Tara Chalmers to the cast?  Most likely, though I really, really hope not.  But if it is, goodbye The Walking Dead.

Conviction

A while back I read a Christian book titled The 10 Dumbest Things Christians Do, by Mark Atteberry.  While reading it it struck me that some of the dumb things Atteberry says Christians do are done by conservatives, too.  The one dumb thing Atteberry detailed that I think really applies to conservatives is this one:  living below the level of their beliefs.

Living below the level of their beliefs.

Or, as I would say it for conservatives, living below the level of their convictions.  Conservatives do this habitually, almost unconsciously, and it's maddening.  It's another reason why I no longer call myself a conservative.  However, I can't be too indignant here because, as I look over my life, I see that I'm equally guilty of this failing.  But now I've been motivated to make a change.  Let me explain.

This year--at the end of this month, actually--I turn the big 5-0.  In late 2013, as I contemplated this milestone, I resolved to make some changes in and bring closure to certain parts of my life.  Specifically, I committed to attending a Cowboys' game in my father's honor.  It was a promise I'd made to my Dad after he died of cancer without being able to attend any of his favorite team's games.  This year, 2014, would mark nine years since I'd made that promise and I determined that I was finally going to keep it, money and other issues be damned.

Then the gay marriage controversy erupted again.

Specifically, national furor broke out over Arizona's proposed "anti-gay" law that would allow business owners to refrain from serving homosexual weddings based on their religious convictions.  Under intense pressure from many sectorsArizona's governor, Jan Brewer, vetoed the law.  One of the entities pressuring Brewer to do so was the NFL.  When I heard that the National Football League had stood up against religious freedom I decided I would no longer patronize that organization.  I wouldn't buy any NFL products.  I wouldn't watch any NFL games nor would I attend any.  I decided it was time to start living my convictions.  But what of my promise?

I'm going to keep it.  I'm going to attend one Cowboys' game for my father and then I'll be done with the NFL.   This may seem like a small step for my convictions, and it is.  I don't want to make some big commitment to reorder my entire life ALL AT ONCE according to my beliefs and then fail.  I'm making small moves that will be easier to sustain.  And as one small change becomes a way of life, I will add another.  One step at a time.  Bit by bit.  Here a little, there a little.

It is now my life's work to live by my convictions, not beneath them.  I'm now dedicated to being AWARE of how I live, not just going on autopilot, and to being conscious of the impact of my choices.  And as I change myself I can change my country.  Restore America from the bottom up.  Live your convictions! That is what it means to be wise.  Join me.

That Commercial

I've heard about the commercial.

I didn't watch the Super Bowl so I haven't seen Coca-Cola's now infamous ad featuring America the Beautiful sung in different languages.  From what I've heard, though, the ad is an ode to multiculturalism, and the political right is quite riled up about it.  I understand their anger.  However, with all due respect to my friends on the right, I think they're overreacting just a bit.

There's a saying, taken from the title of a popular book, that is appropriate for this controversy:  don't sweat the small stuff.  And that commercial is small stuff.  Yes, I understand the implications of Coca-Cola pandering to multiculturalism and political correctness, and if the company had done that with The Star-Spangled Banner I'd be as upset as most conservatives.  Why?  Because The Star-Spangled Banner is our national anthem, the official hymn of our American identity.  America the Beautiful, while a poignantly patriotic song, is not. 

We have epic problems facing our country today.  We are 17 trillion dollars in debt.  We have an imperial president who ignores the Constitution.  We still have terrorists who want to kill us.  In the name of fighting "discrimination", gay activists are undermining our freedoms of association, speech, religion, and conscience.  Millions of Americans have lost their health insurance due to Obamacare and millions more will likely lose theirs in the near future.  Like I said, epic problems.  We can't afford to waste energy on small stuff.  We must stay focused on the real threats to America and a multi-lingual rendition of America the Beautiful isn't one of them.

2014--Let The Games Begin!

I know it's a day late but I want to wish everyone happy new year! 2014 is going to be a crucial year for America.  It may very well decide what path our country will walk for the next generation.  So, as we work to make positive changes in our personal lives those of the Wise must also stay focused on the course of our nation and do what it takes to keep it going in the wise direction.  That is not going to be easy.  The Wise will have our work cut out for us, but with a little guidance I believe we can turn the great ship America around.  So let's take a deep breath, roll up our sleeves, and start moving mountains.  2014 can belong to us!

Outrage In Colorado

While the nation's attention has been riveted to the government shutdown and fight over Obamacare for the last couple of weeks, other things are happening across the USA that should anger Americans even more than the smarmy goings on of Washington politics.  One of those things was an outrageous incident that happened in Sterling, CO about two weeks ago.

The grieving family of Linda Baker, wife of Baptist pastor Mark Baker, were denied their request to have the ichthys--an early fish symbol of Christianity--with "Jesus" written inside it, placed on Mrs. Baker's headstone.  Shawn Rewoldt, manager of the public cemetery where Mrs. Baker was buried, refused the family's request on the grounds that the name "Jesus" might offend someone. Stunned, the family protested only to have Rewoldt compare the Jesus-in-the-ichthys symbol to the hooked cross of Nazi Germany.  "What if somebody wanted to put a swastika [on a headstone]?" Rewoldt reportedly told the Bakers to defend his decision.  Next, the family appealed to the city council for help but the council supported Rewoldt.  Only after being pressured by a Facebook campaign launched by the Bakers did Sterling city manager Joe Kiolbasa overrule Rewoldt.  Linda Baker will get to have the symbol she wanted put on her headstone after all, but her wish should never have been denied in the first place.

Yes, I know the cemetery in question was a public, city-owned cemetery, but the manager didn't use the separation of church and state ruse to block the Baker family's religious freedom.  Oh no.  He tried to stop Jesus's name from being seen on the grounds that its "Christian connotation" might offend.  If the Bakers had asked for the name "Allah" or "Mohammed" for their loved one's headstone you can bet your proverbial bottom dollar that neither of them would've been deemed potentially offensive.

This entire incident was despicable and outrageous!  Yet, as outrageous as it was I would've expected it in the big liberal cities on the east and left coasts.  Shockingly, this attack on Christianity occurred in the heartland in a town with less than 20,000 people.  The poison of political correctness and Christophobia is seeping into and corroding every nook and cranny of America.   All the budget and policy battles in Washington will be for nothing if we don't stop the march of the Left's cultural rot through America.  To paraphrase Jesus, what does it profit a nation to gain fiscal order yet lose its soul?

Try banning that, Sterling, Colorado.

My Revolutionary Act

A couple of weeks ago I did a revolutionary act.

What did I do?

I planted veggies!

That's right.  I planted five vegetable seeds--two lettuce, two bell pepper, and one tomato--in recycled toilet paper roll "pots", an idea I got from Pinterest.  Aside from the tomato, this was my first time starting vegetables from seeds.  So far, one of the lettuce seeds has germinated and two little precious green leaves are now poking through the potting soil.  The other lettuce seed was trying to grow but I accidently uprooted it when I moved a hunk of potting soil that was laying on it.  The tomato and bell pepper seeds turned out to be duds.  I planted new lettuce, bell pepper, and tomato seeds this past Saturday.  Hopefully, these will take; and when all five seedlings come of age, so to speak, I'll transplant them into containers.  Yes, I'm a container vegetable gardener.

This is actually my third attempt at container veggie gardening.  In 2009 and 2011 I grew bell peppers and cherry tomatoes--not from seeds--in flower pots on my front porch.  They turned out pretty well.  My mother enjoyed the tomatoes in her salads (I grew them for her; I can't stand tomatoes).  The bell peppers were about half the size of the ones in stores and the flavor was a bit too mild for my taste, but it was downright awesome cooking with my own homegrown vegetables.  Oh, the feeling of achievement and independence!  Sweet!

Achievement.  Independence.

That is what makes planting those seeds 15 days ago a revolutionary act.  It was an act of self-reliance.  It was, however small, a declaration of independence from and resistance to the increasingly entrenched and poisonous entitlement mentality that twice put Obama into power.  And we need more of this bottom up resistance; much, much more!

Leftism, currently personified in Barack Obama, won't be defeated from the top down, as so many conservatives foolishly believe.  Rather, it will be defeated from the bottom up by a lifestyle revolution in which people reject the statist behemoth, reclaim personal responsibility and liberty, and provide as much for themselves as they can.  And it doesn't have to be done in one fell swoop.  Individuals can start this revolution by taking one or two small steps, mastering them, and then moving on into greater and greater self-reliance.

My revolutionary act was planting five seeds.  If I can do that, you can too.

Time to start the revolution.

Scary Stats

Earlier today while channel surfing I came across the Fox News show America Live with Megyn Kelly just as the show was highlighting some results from a survey on Americans' knowledge of and attitudes toward our 1st Amendment rights.  The results were downright scary.

According to the survey, 46% of Americans named freedom of speech as the most important 1st Amendment right.  However, a whopping 36% couldn't name even one freedom listed in the 1st Amendment and 34% of Americans thought the 1st Amendment went too far in guaranteeing our rights.  Too far?  What's wrong with those people?!

Those stats help explain why so many Americans continue to support Obama despite his disdain for the Constitution.  They also help explain why so many Americans buy the Democrats' mantra that such things as health insurance and free birth control are rights.  They believe such nonsense because it sounds good, it's something they want, and they have no other reference point by which to know what our rights and freedoms really are.  Thank you, public education.

Instead of endlessly complaining about leftists' assault on our constitutional rights, we rightists should be aggressively educating Americans on why we have the 1st Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights and just how precious and vital they are.  Then and only then can we begin to really defeat the left.  Many 2nd Amendment supporters say that an armed citizenry is vital to a free republic.  The scary stats quoted above show that an informed citizenry is, too.

An Omen for America

Blaer.

It means "light breeze" in Icelandic, and it's what a mother in Iceland has been calling her daughter for the past fifteen years.  The problem?  The government of Iceland didn't approve the name so, for her entire life, young Blaer has been identified as stulka or "girl" on all official documents.  Now she's suing the Icelandic government for the right to legally use her name.  What does this have to do with America?  Why is this an omen?  Here's why.

In the article on this story I was struck by a sentence which described Icelanders as being "comfortable with a firm state role" (emphasis added) in their lives and therefore not inclined to question the government's right to control what they can name their children.  That is exactly the kind of submissive populace that Obama and the secular progressives want to create in America.  They want and need a people "comfortable with a firm state role" because they believe state control is fundamental to realizing their version of a compassionate and just society.

Americans need to become comfortable with the government telling them what guns they can own, what light bulbs they can use, what kind of cars they can drive, even what size soda they can buy in a restaurant.  Such comfort will make it easier for secular progressives and their president to concentrate more and more power in government,  especially the federal  government.  As Americans become more submissive to and dependent upon the state, looking to it for their sustenance, they will give their votes to the party doling out the goodies, ensuring it permanent political power.  And that's the end game; creating permanent power for the Democratic party and making America a one party dictatorship.  All for the common good, of course.

But now there's little Blaer, daring to oppose the statist do-gooders in her tiny country.  She's "prepared to take her case all the way to [Iceland's] Supreme Court" to protect her "basic human right" to have the name her mother, not the state, chose for her.  A name she likes as much as she likes freedom.  Her court case is an omen for America but also an inspiration.  If a teenage girl can fight to keep the state at bay, so can we.  So can anyone.  Thank you, Blaer.

Are you listening, America?

The Year of No Fear

It's here.  2013.

Today, Tuesday, January 1st begins a new year for the world and, for us Americans, the start of the second term for the Obama regime, and a regime it is.

In the final days of 2012 the Obama Supreme Court ruled against the religious freedom of the Green family, owners of the crafts store Hobby Lobby (and the office supply store Mardel's).  The Greens, devout, pro-life Christians, sought a religious exemption to Obamacare's HHS mandate which requires businesses to pay for contraception, including abortion-inducing drugs, in their employee insurance packages.  They also sought an injunction against the enforcement of the mandate pending their court fight.  Obama Supreme Court judge Sotomayor refused, meaning Hobby Lobby has to comply with the mandate or face millions of dollars in fines.  The Greens are standing their ground even though it could put them out of business.  They are committed to their faith.  I greatly admire the Green family but they are only the beginning of the Obama regime's assault on our constitutional freedoms.  Gun owners are next.

In the wake of the horrific massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary school Obama and his leftist cohorts are gearing up to go after our Second Amendment rights.  Of course, they're claiming they just want "common sense" gun control to "protect the children", but we know what that really means.  Obama's victory in the presidential election last November has emboldened him and we can expect him to start revealing just how far left he really is.  We conservatives have to man up and stop him.

For far too long we conservatives have been afraid, yes, afraid to stand up for our values and beliefs to the fullest.  We have lived in abject terror of being branded racist, sexist, extremist, bigoted, intolerant, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, etc. by the left.  Those words have been their most potent weapons against us, wielded from their pulpits in academia, media, and entertainment.  The result has been that we conservatives have too often censored ourselves, modified our beliefs, hemmed and hawed, or did nothing when the times screamed for our action.  NO MORE!!!!

We are in a new year, 2013.  It will be the year of no fear.  There is too much at stake for us to be controlled by fear.  Yes, leftists will continue to war against us with all the ferocity that they always have, counting on our fear to paralyze us at crucial moments.  That must not happen.  The Obama regime is poised to transform our beloved nation into a government dominated, socialist, welfare state.  That will be the death of America.  We cannot let that happen!  Courage must now be the blood that flows through our veins.  Courage and cunning and absolute faith that we are RIGHT.  Nothing else, nothing less will save our great Republic.  Lock and load, conservatives; it's time to fight!

Happy New Year.  NO FEAR!!!!

Day 31

This started on October 1st but I just heard about it yesterday.  And what is "it"?  As of October 1st Medicare will fine hospitals for readmitting too many patients within 30 days.  Yes, you read that right.  If you've been discharged from the hospital but suffer a relapse or complications, your hospital will be penalized if it readmits you within a month.  Up to 2200 facilities could be hit with fines as high as $125,000.  This is one of Obamacare's cost-cutting measures.  Some consumer advocates support this "reform" but critics say it could compromise health care for the elderly, the poor, and the chronically ill because they are the people most likely to be readmitted.

This isn't how Obamacare was sold to us.  During the contentious fight to pass the legislation, Americans were told that it would insure the uninsured, improve health care, reduce costs, and even create jobs.  Now we see that Obamacare extends government control over how hospitals handle their patients.  And this control has the potential to harm the most vulnerable among us, the very people liberals claim to care about the most.

This provision of the Affordable Care Act has only been in effect for a few weeks.  It remains to be seen how it will play out.  For now, Medicare is fining hospitals for readmissions on just three medical conditions:  heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia, but that could change in the future.  The whole thing is frightening.  What if you develop complications after treatment and need to go back to the hospital?  Would you have to keep a record of how many days it had been since your discharge?  What if only 30 days had passed?  Would you have to wait until day 31 to be readmitted?  That could be one day too late.  Welcome to government health care, America.

School Daze

It's that time of year.

The end of August and the beginning of September is when America's children head back to school.  Most of these children will be going to public schools, including most children of conservatives.  And that bothers me. 

For decades conservatives have sounded the alarm about the academic failings and leftist social engineering plaguing public education.  And for decades conservative parents have kept sending their children to public schools.  Why?  If public schools have become liberalism's madrassas, as Ann Coulter called them, why do conservative parents blithely entrust their children to them?  What kind of sense does that make?

Yes, I understand that the main alternatives to public education, homeschooling and private schools, aren't feasible for some conservative parents.  But I suspect that a lot of conservatives could home school or private school their kids but just aren't willing to make the sacrifices that would entail.  They'd rather take the easier and cheaper way out and send little Johnny to public school, convincing themselves that he'll somehow escape the secular progressive indoctrination endemic there.  He won't.

Polls show that the majority of younger Americans, those 30 and under, support Obama, while the majority of older Americans don't.  Why this generation gap?  Public schools.  They have been shockingly successful at inculcating the PC, liberal, big government ideology into their captive audience of children.  Conservatives know this, yet they keep giving public schools their kids.  It makes me wonder how committed conservatives really are to the survival of their own principles.

I believe that if conservatives want their beliefs to not only survive but flourish then private education must become the norm for them.   Public schools are hostile to conservative ideals and that isn't going to change any time soon.  Entrusting their children to public education when they don't absolutely have to is, in my view, a failure of conservative parenting.  It's like Abraham Lincoln said.  The political philosophy in the classroom in one generation becomes the political philosophy of the country in the next generation.  Conservatives can stop that "prophecy" dead in its tracks.  Don't send little Johnny to the little red school house.  Teach him at home or use private education.  Aren't conservative ideals worth the sacrifice?

Using Liberal Logic...

...gunman Floyd Corkins isn't responsible for attacking the Family Research Council yesterday.

Corkins wounded security guard Leo Johnson in a shooting spree he committed at the conservative Christian organization's headquarters Wednesday.  He was armed with a 9mm handgun and had two magazines, 50 rounds of ammo, and 15 Chick-Fill-A sandwiches.  And therein lies the rub.

Corkins act of violence was apparently motivated by liberal politics.  He sympathized greatly with the gay community (it's unknown at this time whether Corkins himself is gay).  He recently volunteered at The DC Center for the LGBT Community and, according to a statement made by his parents, had "strong opinions" about people who opposed gay rights.  As we all know, Dan Cathy, president of Chick-Fill-A, recently went public with his support for traditional marriage.  The Family Research Council received a small donation from Chick-Fill-A a few years ago and has been certified a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  That, apparently, was all Corkins needed to target the group.

Using liberal logic, the Southern Poverty Law Center and everyone else who indulges in "hate group" rhetoric are really to blame for Corkins' crime.  Labeling an organization a hate group clearly sends the message that that group, and the people who comprise it, don't belong in society, doesn't it?  The steady mantra of "Hater! Hater! Hater!" flung at supporters of traditional marriage creates a climate of intolerance towards those people, doesn't it?  It sends, doesn't it, the message that traditionalists, especially the Christian ones, can and even should be treated with the utmost disdain.  And it's a only a small step from disdain to gun violence, is it not?  Using liberal logic, the answer is a resounding, yes!

So Corkins' political crime isn't really his fault.  He was virtually forced to do it by the climate of anti-Christian hostility created by liberal "hate group" and "bigot" rhetoric.  Who's to blame for the shooting at the Family Research Council?  The Southern Poverty Law Center is to blame.  The Human Rights Campaign is to blame.  NOW is to blame.  Dan Savage is to blame.  Barney Frank is to blame.  Hollywood is to blame.  Everyone and every group who share Floyd Corkins views are to blame.  Using liberal logic, you can't conclude anything else.

The Devil Came To Court Today

James Eagan Holmes, the 24-year-old "alleged" shooter in the horrific theater massacre which occurred Friday, had his first day in court today.  Holmes sat in court looking dazed and darkly clownish in his outrageously dyed red-orange hair.  As I looked at Holmes on tv I became deeply disturbed by the realization that this evil man's face and name will become more well-known that those of his victims, which included 3 children (two injured, one killed).  Perhaps that's just the inevitable result of the judicial process working itself out.  After all, that process is public and should be.  Grieving for and remembering the victims is private, and should be.  Still, it seems like there should be some kind of way of acknowledging the victims' lives during the time that James Holmes will be in the public eye.  Why should the victims die in obscurity while Holmes lives in notoriety?  I don't have an answer to my own question.  Perhaps there isn't one.  Unless a victim is already famous, e.g.Sharon Tate, mass killers like Holmes just seem to end up more renowned than their prey.  That's an injustice that not even the death penatly can rectify.

The devil came to court today.  Damn him!!!!!!

Had This Been Michelle Obama...

...there would've been riots in the streets.



Ok, maybe not riots in the streets, but there would've been shrill accusations of racism by the usual suspects had any Republican or conservative bashed a Michelle Obama pinata to bits with a baseball bat.  But let Donna Dewitt, Democrat-supporting president of South Carolina's AFL/CIO, whack a pinata with the face of  South Carolina's Indian-American governor, Nikki Haley, and the self-appointed protectors of minorities are deafeningly silent.  Hmmmm.  Are we supposed to believe that Donna Dewitt's hateful antics were just an expression of political disagreement with Gov. Haley?  Would liberals accept such an explanation if a Republican or conservative bashed a Michelle Obama pinata?  Of course not.  And we conservatives and Republicans shouldn't accept such an explanation for Ms. Dewitt's shameful "fun".   It's time we started calling progressives out on their racism and their hypocrisy.  If they get it thrown back in their faces often enough maybe they'll be put on the defensive for a change and will be forced to retreat from their favorite political weapon: yelling 'raaaaaacist!"  And that can only be a good thing for the country, especially for successful non-white Americans like Gov. Nikki Haley whose triumphs reveal how much America has overcome the poison of racism.  It's high time progressives were made to see that.

The Myth Of Income Inequality

There's a myth stalking America. It's the myth of income inequality, and it's dangerous. This myth is being used by progressives to divide Americans, stoke the fires of envy and class warfare, and promote anti-liberty, socialistic policies totally contrary to the principles of our Founding Fathers.

It's time to debunk this myth.

There is no income inequality in America. How can I say that, some might ask, in light of the blatant fact that Americans earn differing sums of money? I don't deny income differences. Of course they exist, and that's ok. It's ok for people to earn different levels of income. What's not ok is labeling those income differences an "inequality".

It's not an inequity for one person to make more money than another. Saying that it is implies that differing income levels are the result of some deliberate institutional injustice which government must intervene to correct. Wrong. Disparities in income result primarily from the choices of individuals, that is, from freedom.

People are different. They have different personalities, abilities, values, goals, and life experiences. Consequently, people make vastly divergent life decisions. These decisions then impact the financial success, or lack there of, people will have in their lives. A college graduate will be richer than a high school graduate who, in turn, will be richer than a high school dropout. And that's as it should be. Freedom, and the life choices it allows individuals to make, matters. Progressive believers in the income inequality myth hate that.

Progressives' concept of "social justice" rejects equality of opportunity in favor of equality of outcome. For now, the progressive utopians can't engineer society so that everyone earns the same amount of money regardless of their job. Instead, they seek to impose economic "equality" through wealth redistribution, i.e., government taking from the "rich" and distributing the booty to the "poor" via government programs. It's pretty obvious how the myth of income inequality facilitates the progressives' redistribution scheme. Arguing for economic and individual freedom over redistribution can be denounced as "anti-equality". By lambasting "income inequality", progressives can claim the moral high ground while pursuing a policy that will bankrupt the nation.

Income inequality is an ideologically motivated hoax. It doesn't exist. What exists in American society are income differences determined by the life choices of individuals, choices made possible by the blessing of freedom. I want to keep that freedom, even if it means I don't earn as much money as Bill Gates. Freedom means much more to me than money, which is why I totally reject the myth of income inequality. How about you?

Monique And The Magical Mystery Fuel

While driving home from Bible study tonight I was listening to talk radio. The show that was on--sorry, I didn't catch the name--was addressing the Obama administration's policy not to bring down gas prices. The show's host was positing the idea that Obama wants higher gas prices as a way to gin up support for green energy investments, which Obama believes in fervently. A woman named Monique called into the show to weigh in on the discussion. Monique opined that Obama is looking for the magical mystery fuel to replace oil and he believes he can compel its invention by making it financially painful for Americans to drive. When I heard what Monique said I burst out laughing. "Magical mystery fuel". LOVE IT! And she was so right! That IS what Obama devoutly believes in, a magical mystery fuel to deliver us from the evil of fossil fuels. And he IS arrogant enough to believe he can force it to materialize by allowing more and more pain at the pump.

Barak Obama has a messiah complex. He does not believe he was elected president to discharge the chief executive's constitutionally mandated duties and to do the will of the people. No, he believes he was elected to impose on us religion-and-gun clinging people his superior, secular progressive vision of the Good Society. Obama knows that alternative energy is better for us so he feels justified in compelling compliance with his "green energy" policies and objectives. Moniuqe nailed it. The magical mystery fuel is Obama's Holy Grail, and he's willing to permit increasing hardship on millions of Americans to get it. But hey, it's for our own good, even though we're too unsophisticated to get that. But the Anointed One is looking out for us. I'll try to remember that next time I'm pumping $4 a gallon gas.

State, Stay In Your Place!

On last night's episode of The O'Reilly Factor I learned of an outrageous act going on in California. In four of its counties, the state of California, using taxpayer money, is actually mailing condoms to kids as young as 12! You read that right. California is sending kids condoms, along with lubricant and pamphlets on avoiding pregnancy and STDs. How nice! And these neat little packages are being mailed in plain envelopes so as not to attract attention from pesky, nosy parents. This is government corruption and overreach on steroids!

Children belong to their parents. It is the sacred right and duty of parents to teach children morality and values. Consequently, parents have the right to know everything about their children's lives so they can guide them into making the right decisions. The state has NO right whatsoever to intefere with parents' rights and duties. Yes, some parents will fail in their responsibility, and that is the usual excuse used by progressive types to justify the government helping children evade parental oversight. The state must step in, they say, because some parents can't be trusted to do their job. But the failure of some parents to do their job does not justify government on any level overruling the rights and authority of all parents.

Yes, teen pregnancy and STD infection are disturbing. But state intrusion into the family isn't the solution. Not only does this shatter the cohesion of the family, but it undermines the general safety of children. As stated above, California is mailing condoms to children as young as 12, apparently without bothering to ascertain the age of these children's sex partners. That means that the state of California believes that 12-year-olds can consent to sex. How will that affect the enforcement of age-of-consent laws? It destroys the state's credibility to claim, on one hand, that 12-year-olds can't consent to sex while, on the other hand, giving them the means to do just that.

If the state wants to help stop teen pregnancy and STD infection it should flood the airwaves with public service announcements warning of the consequences of unprotected sex and give parents the correct information to discuss with their children. That is the limited role the state should have: dispensing information which parents then use according to their values. Some parents are very liberal and see nothing wrong with their (very young) teen children being sexually active. Such parents will, no doubt, give the go ahead for their kids to use birth control. Traditionalist parents wouldn't make that choice. But what ever choice parents make, the key is that they, and not the government, are in charge of their children.

We should not have government interfering with the sacred relationship between parent and child. Raising children is the job of parents, not the state. Unless abuse is happening, parents must be free to bring up their children as they see fit, even if they make choices the we-know-better progressives don't like. That is the essence of freedom, and the last time I checked, freedom was a good thing.

The God of Change

While listening to The Michael Medved Show the other day Medved played a soundbite from famous actor Robert Redford. Redford opined--and I'm paraphrasing--that change was good, accepting change was open-minded, and opposing change was narrow-minded. He was implying that liberals are enlightened for embracing change and conservatives are backwards for not.

Since I heard Redford's remark I've been pondering it, and I think he did hit on a key difference between liberals and conservatives.

Liberals are infatuated with change. You could even say they worship it. This can be seen in Obama's campaign slogan of "Hope and Change". Liberals adore Obama in large part because he promised to "fundamentally transform", i.e. change, America. Liberals accept, as a matter of faith, that change is always good and progressive, therefore they look at conservatives as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals for so often opposing change. But that is where conservatives differ from liberals.

Conservative, in fact, do NOT oppose change, certainly not change in and of itself. But unlike liberals, we don't worship change and don't adhere to the dogma that change is always good. A faithful and loving husband who starts cheating on and abusing his wife has certainly changed, but not for the better. Conservative keep that example, or a variation of it, in mind when people began talking about changing things, especially changing what Ann Coulter called the "load bearing walls" of moral values.

When change is proposed conservatives usually respond skeptically. We ask probing questions about the motives of the proponents of change. We ask probing questions about the possible unintended consequences of the proposed change and, if seeing no benefit from the change that justifies risking the unintended consequences, we will usually oppose the change. That doesn't mean, however, that we oppose solving the problem(s) the change was meant to address. On the contrary, after rejecting the originally proposed change, we'll often offer our own version, one that is usually less sweeping in scope than the original.

Conservatives aren't bigoted or narrow-minded. Our skepticism about change is rooted in the healthy and venerable desire to preserve what's best in our civilization, for the good of all. So, conservatives accept change, but only after thoroughly vetting it, or at least trying very hard to. We don't mindlessly embrace change out of the false belief that all change is good. Unlike as with liberals, change is not our god. Maybe one day Robert Redford will understand that.