Please consider…

I’ve been lectured and spoken at.  I’ve been told I’m insensitive.  I’ve been told that I just don’t understand.  Donald Trump was elected president, and now people have all these feelings and I’m not taking them seriously.

Believe me, I do.  I understand that you are hurting and scared.  I completely get that.  My problem is not with your feelings themselves.  My problem is two-fold.  

First, and most important for my friends and family, my problem is that your fear and pain is based on lies.  You have been fed a diet of lies for months, and you believe them.  Indeed, why wouldn’t you?  It’s not like anyone has been denying them.  Indeed, much of the supposedly Conservative media (which obviously means something different than I thought it did a year ago), is engaging in the lies just as much as the “mainstream media.”

Second, and less important personally, but more important from a practical standpoint, your engagement in this very public hysteria is dangerous.  Because good and decent people like you believe the lies, too, bad and dangerous people have the moral cover to do horrible things.

You have been told for months that Donald Trump is a racist, a misogynist, and a homophobe.  You have been told that he is anti-immigrant and wants to deport all Hispanics and Muslims.  These are all lies.  Not one of them is true.

Is Donald Trump a racist?  No one thought so until recently - and there is no evidence that he is.  It has been said repeatedly in the last year, but those statements have no basis in fact.  He has been honored by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.  He fought to change the laws in a city where one of his properties exists so he could allow Blacks and Jews to patronize his club.  His lists of nominees for positions in his cabinet are replete with minorities.

Is Donald Trump a misogynist?  Again, no one thought so until recently.  The recent evidence of that is better, but still completely overblown and taken out of context.  He regularly insults women - specific women with whom he has a specific beef.  Surprise: he regularly insults men, too - specific men with whom he has a specific beef.  That’s not misogyny; it’s equality.  Moreover, he was the first to hire a woman to lead the construction of a skyscraper.  His campaign manager was the first woman ever to run a successful Presidential campaign.  He neither fears nor hates women.  If anything, he sees them as *actually equal* which means he also pulls no punches when dealing with them.

Is Trump a homophobe?  Once more, I say no, and that no one thought so until the Media started saying he was.  When the “transgender in the bathroom” issue blew up, Trump was busy making sure Trump Tower was open to transgender people while also attempting to address the very real concerns of parents.  He has been supportive of the LGBT community for a long time.  He was pro-choice until recently, and even now I suspect is only pro-Life-ish.  He has announced no plans to fight homosexual marriage.

Is Donald Trump anti-immigrant?  If so, someone should tell his wife.  Because she’s an immigrant, you see.  Legal and everything.  Someone should also tell all of those immigrant owned businesses he uses to provide supplies and labor for his various properties and businesses - obviously they missed the memo.

Does Donald Trump want to deport Hispanics?  Again, there are no facts that support this assertion.  The worst that Trump has said in that regard is that he wants to deport all illegal aliens.  Hey, guess what?  If you’re here illegally, you should be deported - because that’s the law.  You can ask the Native American tribes, the Chinese in the 13th century, and the Romans what allowing unchecked immigration of peoples who do not wish to integrate and assimilate into your culture can do to that culture.

Does Donald Trump want to deport all Muslims, or even stop their immigration? Again, there is no evidence of this.  The closest he came to that was saying we should not be importing people from a part of the world where a large number of them want to kill us without some way of making sure the ones we let in are not those who want to kill us.  This is not even controversial, except that the Media told you it was.  If you hadn’t noticed, there is a significant portion of the Muslim world that either actively wants us dead or supports those who do.  We owe them nothing, so why wouldn’t we wait on letting them in until we had some way to verify we weren’t importing terrorists?

Donald Trump is crude, yes.  He is vulgar - in the same way that many of your neighbors are vulgar.  He’s even common and low-class.  But he is not a monster.  He’s not going deport your cousin’s mother-in-law, provided that cousin’s mother-in-law is here legally.  Even if she’s not, it’s unlikely that he’s going to get around to deporting illegal aliens who aren’t causing trouble - there are enough who *are* causing trouble to keep ICE busy for years, I think.  He’s not going to throw Muslims into concentration camps.  He’s not going to start some purge of the Gays.  He’s not going to attempt to reinstitute slavery.  The very idea that he would do any of those is a lie perpetrated by the Media, the Democrats, and even some Republicans for political gain - people who are in fear are easier to lead.

Please stop believing the lie.

Which leads to the next point - why it is so important for you to stop believing the lie.  For the last six months or so, you’ve heard the drumbeat from the Clinton camp that Trump and his supporters are literally just like Hitler and Nazis.  We’re supposed to be violent, barely restrained animals who will turn on Blacks and Gays and women in a heartbeat.  Trump is going to lead a fascist government bent on complete domination of the people.  The Clinton campaign, with the help of the Media, has made people believe that for six months.

And what has been the result?  It hasn’t been Trump supporters starting riots.  It hasn’t been Trump supporters gleefully defacing others’ property and posting it on YouTube.  It hasn’t been Trump supporters beating Clinton supporters because of their political beliefs.  It has been exactly the opposite.

And, again, why wouldn’t it be?  You yourselves believe that Trump is equivalent to Hitler.  If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be afraid of his Presidency and you wouldn’t feel “invalidated” by his victory.  You might feel disappointed.  You might be concerned that his policies would hurt the country’s prestige or economy.  You would not fear for your literal safety, or believe that his victory said anything about people’s feelings for you and your pain in any way.  Only if you accept, somewhere in your psyche, that Trump = Hitler does any of that make sense.

And if your opponent is the actual equivalent of Hitler, does that not mean you are not only morally justified, but even morally required to oppose him and those who support him with violence?  If Trump is Hitler, how can anyone complain that people are rioting in protest, or even if some call for his assassination (yes, that has already happened- on CNN, which did not bother to repudiate the statement).

In 2008 and again in 2012, I thought someone who would be disastrous for the country was elected.  I stand by that assessment, and would be more than happy to point out the ways he absolutely was that.  Yet I and those like me did not engage in violence.  We did not pull Obama supporters out of their vehicles and beat them.  We did not riot and overturn police cars.  We didn’t ask that you validate our “feelings.”

We bowed our necks, set our shoulders, and continued on as best we could.

When you fail to do the same, you validate and even encourage the kind of behavior we have seen- an old man torn from his vehicle and beaten on camera to the chants of “he voted for Trump,” children *actually beaten* (as opposed to mocked) for supporting Trump, even a child tormented by his own mother - again, placed on YouTube with pride - for supporting Donald Trump.

Your child’s hispanic friend was mocked and told their family was going to be deported?  You mean children said mean things to another child?  Why, shut my mouth.  I’ve never heard of such a thing.  I mean, I and those around me were *never* mocked for our names, or because our families weren’t as rich as others around us, or because we were socially awkward.  This is a brand new phenomenon which has only begun in the last 4 days!

I’m very sorry that mean people are saying mean things.  I’m very sorry that at some point in the past you were sexually assaulted, or that your parents brought you here illegally at the age of 6, or whatever bad thing happened to you.  I truly am - if you want to tell me about it and for me to extend my sympathy, I’ll be happy to brew up a cup of tea and sit with you on the couch.

But the public histrionics; the vociferous complaints of “I thought better of my country,” they are giving cover and even justification to those committing actual violence.  They are emboldening those who would truly overthrow our way of life - by installing their own choice for President over the justly elected nominee.

Please, I beg you: consider what you are saying.  Please stop believing and spreading the lies - lies so artfully concocted.  Those lies have very real consequences (not that you are lying - it’s not lying if you believe what you’re saying, but that the people who started them knew them to be lies) which are causing actual physical violence.

Please.

Whose Fault is it, Anyway?

One of the things you learn very quickly when you're thrust into a leadership position (if you're going to be successful, anyway) is that blame fixing and fault finding are wastes of time and energy, and ultimately are destructive.  For too long, however, our culture in general and our leaders - governmental, cultural, ideological - have focused on exactly this.

In a business environment, when you think someone is "at fault" for something, you can discipline them.  In a voluntary endeavor, you can confront them.  But what do you do when the environment is just life?  What if you think that "whites" or "cops" are targeting black men for assassination (more or less)?  What if you think that "blacks" are "thugs" or "Muslims" are vile monsters?  Especially when your frame of reference makes you see the government's non-reaction to most incidents as condoning violence, whether implicitly or explicitly?

If you really, really believe - deep in your bones - that the whole of society and the government is against you, what options do you have? 

You can surrender, certainly.  You can go about your life afraid at every moment that "they" are going to do something to you.  The problem with this option is it breeds cowardice and starts stratifying castes and classes.  We fought a war about that sort of thing about 240 years ago.

You can bury your head in the sand.  You can pretend that you believe other than you do.  In some cases, this may even be the optimal choice.  Certainly it isn't true that "cops" are "targeting black men."  In the vast majority of cases, there's not even questionable behavior.  In those cases where the behavior is questionable, quite frequently full knowledge of the circumstances makes it clear that the behavior was defensible, even if not fully justified.  So we're left with a minority of cases which are sensational and therefore repeated over and over.  Similarly, it certainly isn't true that "Muslims" are terrorists.  Mohammedanism most certainly is an evil death cult (read the book), but the vast majority of Mohammedans in this country are simply here because we're more free than they would be in the lands of their ancestors.  It certainly isn't true that "blacks" are "thugs."  Again, while some indeed are, the vast majority are not.

The problem with that choice, however, is two-fold.  First, it is very difficult to deprogram oneself.  Asking people to do it is asking them to give up part of their identity, and many are simply unwilling to do so.  Second, it can make it so that you are slower to react when there really is a systemic problem.  The unwillingness of many to acknowledge that Mohammedanism - as written - is an evil death cult makes it harder to support those who are not into the evil death cultishness and to oppose those who love blowing up the infidel.

Or, finally, you can oppose the injustice you perceive.  This can be either the best, most moral choice, or the worst, most monstrous.  It is very hard, before the fact and subjectively, to determine which any given act of opposition may be.

I do not know the motives of the murderer last night in Dallas.  I understand he told police that he wanted to kill police, and specifically white police.  One presumes this is because of recent events where two black men have been killed by police.  One case appears (though I don't know the details, so I can make no judgement) to have been a horrible event wherein an innocent man was killed.  One case is already becoming more "nuanced" as we find out more about the history of the victim and the immediate events leading up to his shooting.  Nevertheless, they feed into the balkanization of our nation.  Those who wish to see all blacks as thugs can do so.  Those who wish to see all cops - especially white cops - as racists hunting black men can do so.

This must stop.  It will stop.  What cannot continue, won't.

The problem with it stopping is that it can only stop one of two ways.

The better way is for it to stop because our leaders - governmental, cultural, ideological - stop feeding it and start opposing it.  If he hasn't already (if he has, I haven't seen it) Wayne LaPierre needs to get in front of cameras TODAY and say how horrible the shooting of Philando Castile appears.  No condemnation is necessary, simply the acknowledgement that - based on facts as currently known - this looks like a "bad shoot" and that all citizens should be secure in their second amendment rights.  Similarly, Al Sharpton needs to get in front of cameras TODAY and say how horrific the murders of 5 Dallas police officers last night were - especially if they were based on race.  Again, he does not need to indict everyone in the #BLM movement, simply acknowledge the evil of last night.  The head of CAIR needs to get in front of cameras TODAY and explain how the Islamic community rejects acts of violence and will turn its back on terrorists.

This would help healing begin.  People would be able to back down from this cliff.

The other way, the way I think more likely, is horrific.  There are over 300 million residents in the United States of America.  According to this source, as of 2015, at least 41% of households (2 out of every five) owned guns that the government knows about.  It is safe to assume, when illegal or unregistered (for whatever reason) weapons are taken into account, half the nation is armed.  There are more guns in private circulation in the United States than there are people.

If we do not back off the cliff, if we don't start seeing each other simply as humans and Americans, then the other way for this balkanization to stop is a literal civil war.  The War Between the States was not a civil war (civil war is one where one or more factions are vying for control of a government, the War Between the States was one where one group of states wanted to be out from under the control of the central government).  It was also relatively "clean" (one Northern General's March to the Sea and resulting war crimes notwithstanding).  Civilian populations (exception noted) were generally considered off limits.  Prisoners were generally treated with respect and relative care.

What will come next, if we don't stop it, will be a civil war and it will not be clean.  The only populations will be civilian populations.  Simply being a non-combatant will not grant you safety from being targeted.  Blood will quite literally run in the streets.  This great nation that (I hope) we all love will tear itself apart, and the light and freedom she represents will be extinguished, possibly never to return.

I'm not a child.  I know that Al Sharpton and I will likely never see eye to eye on most issues.  I know that Mohammedanism (world wide) will not reject terrorism overnight.  I know that police are not going to cease making mistakes - some of them quite horrible - just because we "want it real hard."

I also know that if we don't start trying to fix this now, my children will not know the relative peace and freedom that I have known.  I know that if we don't find some way to realize that we are all human, Created Equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, we're going to lose everything we hold dear.

Pray for America.  Pray for reconciliation.  And then act to achieve it.

#NeverTrump? Fine, Just Don't Be Stupid

If you've been listening to scuttlebutt, you may have heard that a large faction of the #NeverTrump movement have lost their collective minds.  By which I mean: they are openly advocating that the Republican Party self-immolate rather than actually go through with nominating Donald Trump.

Oh, they won't say it that way.  "He's behind by double digits!" they'll wail.  "He can't win!" they'll cry.  "He's a poo-poo head!" they'll whine.  Okay, I may have made that last one up, but it's in line with their opinions.  In fact, they are so certain of Trump's defeat in November (just how they were certain of his defeat in the Primaries), that they are now calling for the delegates at the Republican National Convention to change the voting rules so that those delegates elected in the expectation they would vote for Donald Trump will not do so, and instead will pick some party-insider to run for President.

To its credit, the RNC seems to be saying "That's stupid, don't do that."  That's because they're the Stupid Party, not the Self-Immolation Party.

And let us be clear: that is what this is.  This really is people who didn't get their way not merely settling for taking their ball and going home, but burning down the field and jumping into the conflagration.

Let's think this through for a minute.

What do you suppose will happen if the delegates overthrow the will of the people (pesky democratic processes anyway - you know they'll let ANYONE who is 18 or over, a US Citizen, and not a felon vote?  How plebian)? 

First, you have to select another nominee.  Who?  Ted Cruz?  Already a loser (and I say that as someone who likes the man and thinks he'd be a good president).  Seriously, he already lost to Trump, why do you think he'd fare better against Hillary?  Any of the other primary candidates were named unacceptable by voters long even before Cruz.  So not one of them.  But then who?  You think someone can put together a presidential campaign on the fly?  Seriously?

But let's say you find another nominee who you believe can put together a presidential campaign at a moment's notice.  Even assuming there is no problem getting him (or her) on the ballot (and I'm not sure about that), then you face one other problem.  Seventeen million voters whose will you just spurned.

Think about that.  Donald Trump did not just win the Republican Primary.  He won with a record number of votes.  Even assuming (as I do not, actually) that some of those are "false flag" votes from Democrats who are going to vote Hillary, what about the rest?  You think those blue collar voters who were voting to "Make America Great Again" are going to say "Oh, yes, absolutely.  Those party delegates know far better than we do, why did we ever vote for Trump in the first place?"

No.  They're going to be so royally pissed off, they'll vote for Hillary out of spite.

And then what?  Even assuming Hillary doesn't plunge us into Venezuelan Darkness in 4 years, do you think those people will come back to the Republican Party?  After that betrayal?  Who did those fighting for American Independence hate more: open loyalists, or traitors like Benedict Arnold? 

No.  You will have lost them forever.  Worse, you'll probably have lost their children and grandchildren.  "Don't listen to them," they'll tell their kids, "they lie.  They'll tell you they want to represent you and support your interests, but the moment you speak up and say 'Then this man represents me,' they'll call you stupid and racist and xenophobic and stab you in the back."

So you're #NeverTrump?  I think that's stupid, but whatever.  Be #NeverTrump.  But if you are advocating for a "delegate revolt" understand that you are advocating for the Republican Party to commit suicide.

As for me?  That's what I said nearly a year ago.  Donald Trump will kill the Republican Party.  He'll either kill it from the inside - killing the power the so-called "elites" and establishment have making them once more answerable to those they're supposed to represent, or those "elites" (note the establishment seems to have come somewhat to their senses) will do it for him.

#Brexit and Donald Trump

First: Congratulations to the People of Great Britain for their courage and commitment to self-rule and local governance.  I'm glad they voted to leave the European Union; it's in their best interests.  The days ahead will be hard, and at every bump in the road talking heads will tell them how "it's their own fault" for choosing independence.  To a degree they're right: independence, self-rule, these things are hard and not without difficulty.  But they are worth far more than the fake "security" of being ruled from afar.

As the English withdrawal from the European Union is analyzed and constantly second-guessed, let me submit to you that it was inevitable, and it shows that Donald Trump has a much better chance to win in November than the Talking Heads would have you believe.  See, I believe that Brexit and the Rise of Trump are both based on the same thing - the realization by the People that their so-called leaders have failed in their actual duties.

National governments have basically two jobs - ensure a "level playing field" inside their borders and protecting their citizens from non-citizens.  That's it.  Both of these are predicated on one foundational idea that the West seems determined to abandon: "Us First."  A nation's government should always, as its first priority, put the well-being and interests of its citizens over the well-being and interests of non-citizens. 

Whether that's non-naturalized immigrants living within its population, foreign threats, foreign business, or even just healthy old international competition, a national government's first priority should be "what is in the best interests of my citizens?"

That's a harder question to answer sometimes that it might seem.  Are trade terriffs on imports good?  How about a lax or strict immigration policy?  What about (any given) war?  Not always easy.

Sometimes, however, it is easy.  Is illegal immigration good for a nation's citizens, or bad?  Bad.  There's not even a question here.  Is unchecked immigration from majority muslim countries good, or bad?  Bad.  Again, not even a question - when your best answer is "we don't know they're a threat," you're not arguing that it's good, just that it might not be as bad as feared.  Ergo: bad.

Now, most people don't even think of these things in these terms.  I'm pretty sure the average Englishman doesn't think in terms of terriffs and duties, or immigration policy.  What they do think of is: how easy it is to find a job (harder with lax immigration, and even harder with massive illegal immigration)?  How good is my standard of living (worse with poor trade policy and massive immigration)?  How safe am I in my home (worse with Muslim Terrorists moving easily about the globe, worse with illegal immigrants)?

And that brings us back to our own shores and Donald Trump.  Donald Trump resonantes with people because he understands* these things.  He understands them in his bones.  Look at his campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again."  That says it all in four words.  America was great "before."  What is "before?"  Well, that's up to the individual.  But it's not great now.  So let's make it great again. 

Let's put Americans first.  Let's say that the well being of American businesses, the American worker, is more important to us than the well being of Iraqis, Afghans, Israelis, Austrialians, the British, Canadians, or anyone else.  Let's get control of our borders - all four of them, and stop importing unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce (what, you think we didn't have one?  Everyone starts "unskilled").  Let's stop immigration from majority Muslim countries - we owe them nothing - until either Mohammedanism can tamp down on its more violent tendencies or we can find a way to screen out the terrorists.  Let's stop engaging in wars to benefit others and not ourselves.  If American boys and girls are going to die, let's make it to the benefit of the country they serve, and not just someone else.

And that's where the leaders of Great Britain (not the EU) and the United States have failed.  By allowing massive immigration (usually without requiring assimilation), we import unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce.  The EU member nations are importing terrorists - and it won't be too long before one gets over here.  The so-called leadership of Great Britain and the United States has failed to put their own citizens first, and the citizens are crying "no more."

Of course, they also said (as late as yesterday), that the Brexit would fail.

Will Donald Trump win in November?  I don't know.  People are saying he has no chance.


* - Understanding is not the same as agreeing with or supporting.  Personally, I believe he does both, but whether or not he agrees with or believes in "America First," it is clear that he - unlike the talking heads and Washington Establishment - at least understands it.

Don't Give in to the Lie

In a famous episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Captain Picard is taken prisoner by the Romulans and subjected interrogation and attempted brain-washing.  The brain-washing attempt is fairly direct and simple and, I'm given to understand, is actually more or less how brain-washing works - get the victim to agree to something they know to be false.  Get them to agree to a lie.

Eventually, he responds one last time (just before being rescued): "There... are... FOUR... lights!"

Well, America is being brain-washed right now.  As I type this, you are being asked - even coerced - to agree to a lie: that a man can be a woman, or that a woman can be a man.

And I am here to proclaim- there are four lights.

Honestly, I'm not even sure why this is an issue, but suddenly it seems you can't turn around without tripping over someone decrying how it's unfair that men can't use women's restrooms.  It's unfair, we're told, that transgender people are "barred" from using the restroom "of the gender they identify with."  And if you bring up the idea that, hey, maybe some pervs will use reduced scrutiny to engage in their pervishness, you'll get two responses:  1) "Oh, that won't happen."  and 2) "Pervs are going to be perverted anyway, our rules can't bend to them."

Without addressing either of these responses directly (because they're both stupid and I don't have time to waste on such stupidity), it is important to see the hidden premise behind them - that transgender people really ARE transgender.  That is, that they're really in the "wrong" body.

This is absolute nonsense.  To explain, we first have to clear some things up.

First off, there is the fact that "gender" really is a social construct, and it is mostly tied to masculinity and femininity.  That is why in many Latinate languages, nouns have a gender (and the rules seem weird to us).  Gender has nothing to do with your biology, and really has nothing directly to do with any specific human.  Humans do not have a "gender."  Humans, being sexual beings (that is: we reproduce sexually) have a sex.

Which leads into the next part: you can't be the wrong sex.  Sex is a biological constant.  With such few exceptions that I'm offended I have to mention them, humans are born with two sex chromosomes - the X chromosome and the Y chromosome.  These can be paired in two ways - XX or XY.  If you have two X chromosomes, you're what we call "female" and if you've got an X and a Y you're what we call "male."  This is a biological fact which does not change in our lifetime.  If you believe you are the wrong sex it is your belief - not your sex - which is wrong.

Now, there is nothing inherently evil or immoral about having a mistaken belief about your own biology.  There's not even anything inherently evil or immoral about dressing as though you were the opposite sex.  Assuming you are someone who has a mistaken belief about your own biology and who dresses as though you are the opposite sex, there is nothing inherently evil or immoral about using the restroom of the opposite sex.

I don't think any conservative will disagree with the above statements.  What a conservative says is this:  "I should not be bound by your mistaken belief."  It should be obvious that anyone with such a mistaken belief is not viewing the same reality as the rest of us.  If you have a penis and you think you're a girl, you're not wrong in the way that someone who thinks the earth is flat is wrong (though you're not far off); you're wrong in the way that someone who thinks they're a duck is wrong.  You, in short, have a delusion.

And it is no kindness for society to indulge your delusion.  Deluded people are crazy; who knows what they'll do next?  I would be as uncomfortable in a restroom with a girl who thinks she's a guy as I would be in a restroom with some dude who was talking to the sky about how the aliens were never going to take him alive again.

So tell me, why does the deluded person's "comfort" trump my own?  Why does he (or she) get to be "comfortable" while I must be uncomfortable?  Why must objective reality comport itself to his (or her) subjective unreality?

By the way, the secret that the Progressives don't want you to realize?  Real "passing" transvestites have been using the restroom of their choice without molestation or objection for decades.  With the possible exception of random bigots no one harassed them, and even then, the bigots could only harass them if they knew.  So this isn't about them.  This isn't about "Elsa" who was born John but has been passing as a woman for five years and you never knew.  This is about "Fran" who has more hair on "her" back and arms than a gorilla and whose wang hangs out of "her" micro-miniskirt.

Choosing Thankfulness

I've had a bad year.  Actually, I've had a bad 15 months or so.  I could go into the litany of lost jobs, car wrecks, illnesses, family emergencies, and so forth.  I won’t, because specifics aren’t important here.  Several times over the last few weeks, I've mentioned that I can't wait for 2015 to be over, because it's been a bad year, and hoping that 2016 would be better.  If I can just make it to the end of the year, I tell myself, everything will get better next year.

Then the realist (some would call it the 'cynic') in me speaks up.  "You can't know what's going to happen next year," it says.  "You thought this year was bad?  It can get worse."

I'm forced to admit that my realistic side is correct.  It can certainly get worse.  I've had enough stuff go on just in the last few weeks that brought that sharply into focus.  It can always get worse.

Then, a week or two ago, while listening to our preacher give his lesson, something struck me.  It pierced me to the core.

I have spent the last 15 months of my life resenting things that happened to me.  Oh, I've put on a happy face, and certainly not everything that has happened in those months has been bad, but I have been letting the bad set the tone of my life.  Everything seemed to come back to the bad things.
I have been using those bad things as a shield against personal responsibility.  I'll pause for some of you to digest the irony of that statement; I'm a huge fan of personal responsibility.  As it turns out, I'm not quite as huge a fan of it as I thought.

Not that I've been irresponsible in any of my temporal or social duties.  I go to work, I hang out with friends, I try to be a good husband and father.  My bills get paid, dishes get washed, and my house at least does not look like a disaster area.  Usually.

But I have not taken personal responsibility for my eternal duties.  Work is important for a variety of reasons.  Being a good friend, husband and father are incredibly important.  Being a humble, joyful, and above all *thankful* follower of Christ is much more important.  I have failed in all of those. 
I can wax eloquent on how God never gives us a command to "feel," but then when it comes time to choose, I never seem to.  So today - now - I will choose joy.  I will choose humility.  I will choose thankfulness.

I will not resent the jobs lost (one for me, and one for my wife).  I will thank God for the opportunities presented – a new job at better pay with better hours for me, and the chance to be a stay-at-home mom for my wife.  I will not resent the car wrecks; I will thank God that no one was seriously injured, and that our insurance has handled things relatively smoothly.  I will not resent the illnesses; I will thank God for our health, and that none of those illnesses turned critical (and they could have).

Here I can only repeat the prayer in the parable, and hope like the character I too “go away justified.”

“Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.”

"No! Shut them all down!"

First, if you don’t recognize that line, I’m not sure we can be friends.

Second, go read this from Larry Kudlow, and then go read this from Ace.

I tend to be on Ace’s side here.  The Republican Establishment has been too open borders for too long, despite the grass roots’ very specific objections that our border situation was a National Security concern.  Either they are way too stupid to be in charge (for not realizing what us rubes in fly-over land, free-market Jesus paradise have realized for the last couple of decades), or they are simply trying to co-opt a position they don’t actually believe to make us rubes in fly-over land, free-market Jesus paradise a little less angry at them.

For over 14 years the Minute Men have been on the border between the US and Mexico attempting (voluntarily) to help US Border Patrol.  They understood (as did many of the rest of us) the danger posed by an open border way back then.  So is really that another terror attack on US soil finally got Larry’s attention, or is he trying to sound tough so that the grass roots will start trusting the Establishment again?

However, with all that said, I think Kudlow is an idiot even in his new hawkish opinion.  He reminds me rather of C-3PO telling R2D2 not to shut down “all the trash compactors on the detention level” but rather, “No! Shut them all down!”

We don’t have a problem with immigrants or visitors from England, France, or Sweden.  Not by and large, at any rate, and certainly not a recognizable terrorism problem from those countries.  Why should we prevent them from coming here and, potentially, even further alienate our allies?  Larry wants to pretend that this is not “about religion.”  To do so, he has to pretend it’s about “immigration” more generally, and so the only option is complete embargo.

Note to Larry Kudlow and the rest of the GOP Establishment:  It’s the Mohammedanism, stupid.

What is the common denominator among Iraq, Syria, Libya, Israel’s West Bank, and the rest of the Middle East?  Mohammedanism.  Who are the euphemistic “warlords” in Africa?  Mostly Mohammedans.  Who is throwing gays off of buildings, beheading Christians, and slaughtering innocents?  Mohammedans.  Who shot up a Christmas Party in San Bernadino, detonated a bomb at the Boston Marathon, and flew 3 planes into US landmarks?  Mohammedans.

It would be really nice if Mohammedanism really was “a religion of peace,” as its apologists claim.  It simply isn’t.  Mohammedanism, is an evil death cult.  Mohammed preached (and practiced) conversion by the sword, conquest, rape, and pillage.  Today, a majority of Mohammedans world-wide believe that violent jihad is a valid form of Mohammedanism.  A majority of US Mohammedans believe that Sharia Law, which has been called “completely incompatible with American Values, should be the law of the land.


Trump is certainly bombastic.  He’s a carnival barker, a narcissist, and a whole host of other unsavory things.  But between him and Larry Kudlow?  Trump is the one who is right.

The Funny Thing Is...

...that Donald Trump was right.

If you’ve been living under a rock, you might not have heard about Donald Trump's “racist” (more on that in a moment) comment saying we should stop allowing Mohammedans into America “until our Representatives figure out what’s going on.”  The reaction was predictable, and pathetic.

Most Republicans couldn’t distance themselves fast enough.  Democrats pointed with glee at the “racist” comments and said it “disqualified” Trump from being President (this from the party of the KKK, the Black Panther party, and the Westboro Baptist Church, among others).  Everyone reacted as if there was nothing of substance said.

Yes, Trump is circus clown.  Yes, he’s a carnival barker.  In many ways that’s what makes him so appealing to many.  However, he’s not actually stupid.  So let’s take a serious look at the facts behind the carnival barking.


continue...

Why I’m Voting for Donald Trump (Probably)

Because f*ck Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Jeb Bush, that’s why.

Oh.  You wanted the expanded version.  I guess I can do that.

So, I’ve seen a lot on these here inter-tubez talking about “Trump supporters” this and “Trumpkins” that.  Most of it is completely missing the point, so I’m going to try one more time.  This is going to be incredibly cynical and self-serving. Also: long.  I hope you’re ready.

First, a little history. 

President George Herbert Walker Bush enacted a tax increase not very long after promising “Read my lips: no new taxes.”  That betrayal of his word cost him the presidency far more than anything Ross Perot did.  Here’s a hint: if you don’t want challenges from the Right, don’t move quite so far to the left.  But remember those words and that tax law, we’ll get back to them later.

President Clinton was a slimy b-tard of a president, and actually pretty leftist.  At least one self-described feminist offered him oral sex simply for “keeping abortion legal,” which says a great deal both about “feminism” and abortion – none of it good.  Nevertheless he did sign a balanced budget and welfare reform.  Sure, it was under duress, but he did so.  Remember those bills, too, we’ll get back to them as well.

President George Walker Bush ran for the presidency in 2000 on “compassionate conservatism,” which, as far as I can tell, is Progressive Liberalism, but with more praying and less sex.  Less beer, too, probably.  He signed a number of bills with which he did not agree including at least one budget after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007.  Bills he did agree with – indeed: fought for, included a Medicaid expansion, Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind.  He also famously “destroyed capitalism to save it.”  Oh, and inflicted Karl Rove on the Republican Party for, apparently, the rest of eternity.

Enter Barack Obama.  Barack Obama (notorious stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor) took office in 2009 with a Democrat controlled congress including 60 Democrats in the Senate (okay, that came shortly *after* inauguration, but not long).  He rapidly passed a “stimulus” package which was nothing more than pay-day to his cronies, ignored written bankruptcy law to give GM to the UAW, and generally made a menace of himself.  The entire time this was happening, the Republican Leadership of Mitch McConnell (hereafter: Yertle) and John Boehner (hereafter: Agent Orange) in the Senate and House respectively made excuses for their failure even to slow very much of this down.  Given the headaches Democrats caused Republicans in 2001 – 2006, those excuses were a little limp, but I guess they’re all they had.

Then came Obamacare.  Now, I want to be clear here, Obamacare was passed by Republicans as much as by Democrats.  Sure, no Republican vote was needed for final passage of the Orwellian Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but Republicans had plenty of chances to stop, or at least slow, its passage.  Had they done so, then Scott Brown of Massachusetts would have been installed in his Senator’s seat in time to help a procedural filibuster kill the bill dead.  Instead, they opted for comity and show votes.  The bill was over 900 pages when it was first introduced.  A simple refusal to grant unanimous consent to waive the reading of the bill would likely have stopped the thing cold.  But Yertle and Agent Orange wanted to get home for Christmas.

Shortly after the passage of Obamacare, Republican voters swept the Republicans into office on a platform of “We’ll oppose Obama and repeal every word of Obamacare.”  The echoes of their collective recitations of their oaths of office had not faded before Agent Orange started making excuses.  The House was just “one half of one third of government.”  I guess we were supposed to ignore the part where the House controls spending.

Republican voters gave them a pass, and in 2012, despite Obama’s reelection, Yertle became Senate Majority Leader.  Surely now, we thought, with the full legislature under Republican control, we would get some things done.  Hearings were called (remember Lois Lerner?  Remember Hillary!’s “what difference, at this point, does it make?  Remember Fast and Furious?).  Much hot air was released.  And.  Nothing.  Happened.  No spending was cut.  When it looked like spending *might* be cut, Republicans panicked and passed more spending.  No, a budget “balanced” in out years does not cut, and a cut in rate of growth is not “a spending cut.”  When a few Republican malcontents (Ted Cruz among them, but there were others) succeeded in forcing a meager and very partial shutdown, Yertle and Agent Orange couldn’t throw them under the bus fast enough, and quickly moved to authorize MOAR SPENDING!!!

All along the way we’ve had excuses.  “We don’t have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.”  “Obama will just veto it.”  Remember those passed and signed bills I mentioned earlier?  Funny how not having filibuster proof majorities in the Senate or veto-proof majorities in Congress did not stop Congress from getting Presidents to sign bills in the past.  I guess there must be a new rule that says “If we’re not assured of success, we may as well not try.”  I guess I missed that memo.

That doesn’t even begin to get to amnesty and illegal immigration failures and betrayals we’ve seen since the 1980s.

All of this is to say: “Burn it down. Scatter the stones.  Salt the earth where it stood.”  We have not had a two party system since at least 2006, and possibly as far back as 2001.  There is no significant difference in outcome between having Democrats and Republicans in office.  I mean, really, what’s going to happen if Republicans aren’t in office?  Will Planned Parenthood be revealed as priests of Moloch selling the parts of babies butchered in (and sometimes just out-of) the womb for fun and profit and Congress won’t do anything?  Will the Supreme Court overstep its bounds (again) and declare a constitutional right for homosexual partnerships to call themselves “marriage” while forcing those opposed to participate?  Will the EPA dump great quantities of pollutants into a river in Colorado and face no consequences?  Will the President make an unconstitutional Treaty with Iran virtually guaranteeing that they will gain nuclear weapons capabilities while ALSO promising to provide them protection from Israel?

When it comes down to actual outcomes, and not rhetoric, there is no significant difference between Republicans and Democrats.  Just notice how fast Republicans pull out the race card themselves when confronted over their desire for amnesty.  But our system cannot survive under one party.  There must be an opposition – a real opposition acting against the majority.  It is the only way to curb the excesses of the majority against the minority, and the only way to ensure that the Federal Government only uses its powers in ways guided by the Constitution for the purpose of protecting Liberty.

Therefore it is time for a third party.  However, the game is rigged.  Democrats and Republicans get on ballots automatically.  Simply have the nomination of your party, and you show up on the ballot.  How nice.  Third parties have to have petition drives and hope they get enough signatures.  Democrats and Republicans have advertising advantages and a national structure enshrined in law (or nearly so).  Third parties must scrimp and scrape for every scrap of exposure they can get.  A third party, in short, is denied access with the two establishment parties.

So we’re faced with a conundrum.  Republican recalcitrance to be an opposition party means we need a new party.  The party establishments have basically enshrined the two party system, so a third party is not a viable solution.  What to do?

Destroy the party.  Destroy its leadership.  Destroy its ability to operate.  And then conservatives might, possibly, maybe have a shot (but it would be a long one) at seizing control of the new power structures and returning the Republican Party – no longer controlled by the establishment and their Donor Class allies/masters.

But who can do such a thing?  Not the seizing control part – conservatives will have to do that after the destruction part, and there’s no guarantee we’ll be able to do so.  The best we can hope for is a chance.  No, who can do the destruction part?

Answer – only someone not beholden to that current power structure.  But how can we avoid that?  How can one not be beholden to the current power structure.  Well, first, he’d need to be self-funding, because he’s not going to get the big power donors like the Chambers of Commerce.  And he’d need to have a lot of name recognition, because that power structure isn’t going to want his message to get out – so he’d need a way to get it out anyway.  And he’d need to have some shred of credential to say “see, I’m a success” so that people can be convinced that he’d be a successful president.

Sound like anyone you know?

Now, if it looks like this defense of Trump has been short on what Trump will do or why I support him, it’s because it’s not a defense of Trump.  I’m virtually certain Trump will be a terrible president (assuming he’s elected).  I’m virtually certain he’s only in it for him, and is only conservative insofar as being conservative is a path to the White House.  I’m pretty sure he’s saying what sells, and not really what he believes.

So be it.  I’m not supporting Donald Trump.  If there were someone else in the field who was self funded, had huge (or is that “yuuuge!”) name recognition, and the ability to sell himself as a success at something people respect, I would vote for that person instead.  Donald Trump is a means to an end, and that end is already being achieved.

The Republican Party and its enablers in Conservative Media are busy telling everyone who is mad at the Republican Party that we’re idiots.  We’re racists.  We’re fools.  And in so doing they are ensuring that many conservatives never vote for any Republican on the national level again. 

Burn it down?  Yertle, Agent Orange, Rove, Jeb, and all are doing that.

Scatter the stones?  That will depend on the burn it down phase, but I’m pretty sure I can trust the hissy fit they’ll throw when they lose (and they will lose, one way or another).

Salt the earth where it stood?  We’ll have to work on that.

No, I don’t support Donald Trump.  But Donald Trump winning the Republican Party will suit my goals far better than if anyone else does.

A Once Proud Organization

I am the Committee Chair of a Cub Scout Pack.  I knew this was coming.  Nevertheless I find myself saddened not only by the decision, but by the fact that the decision was made public before it was disseminated to local Scout Leadership.  Whether this lack of communication is a failure at the National Council or my local council I do not know, but I do know that it is a failure.

The bigger failure, however, is the decision itself.

On my Honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country, to obey the scout law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

A Scout Is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.

Whatever you believe about homosexuality, it is clear that homosexual behavior (separated by act of free will from homosexual urges or proclivities) is sin.  Indeed, being “openly gay,” is an active choice to live in sin – to engage in that homosexual behavior.

Whatever you believe about homosexuality, you cannot be doing your duty to God, you cannot be morally straight, and you cannot be reverent if you are choosing to engage in homosexual behavior.

Whatever you believe about homosexuality, those three things: duty to God, morality, and reverence are part of being a Scout.  It is one thing to allow openly homosexual children.  I believe it is sick on many levels to assume that children of 12 or 13 can *be* homosexual in any meaningful way, but allowances can and should be made for Scouts.  They are, after all, still learning about that duty to God.  Leadership, however, must be held to the strictest standards.

The Scouts do not allow consumption of alcoholic beverages at scout functions.  Why?  Is it because alcohol is morally wrong?  Is it because duty to God or Country requires one to abstain from drinking?  Certainly not.  The Scouts do not allow consumption of alcoholic beverages because it is unwise.

Openly homosexual leadership is beyond unwise.  It is undermining the very Oath and Law we expect these boys to uphold.  It is proving to them, in a way words will never be able to overcome, that the Oath and Law are “just words,” and have no meaning.  It is proving to them that morality is based on convenience, and duty to God ends at doors of the church building.

What is worse about this decision is this: the homosexual lobby will not stop with this success.  We already have proof of this.  It will not be enough that religious charter organizations can decide about their own leadership.  Ask Sweet Cakes in Oregon.  Ask Memories Pizza.  Ask any of dozens of photographers, bakers, and caterers who have been forced by the homosexual lobby with the assistance of the government to act in ways contrary to their consciences.  Ask the homosexual lobby itself- the lobby already calling for the end of tax-exempt status for churches which do not support homosexual unions.

The Boy Scouts of America had won in court many times – as a private organization, they were under no requirement to accept homosexual leadership.  Now they have thrown that away.  Obviously the Boy Scouts of America no longer find it necessary to their charter to restrict homosexual parents to non-leadership roles.  How much defense will local charter organizations and local packs have when the homosexual lobby comes again demanding acceptance?

This Has Got To Stop

So, a high school dropout racist loser shoots 9 people, and the country collectively loses it sh!t.  Seriously?

I’m not even going to bother with the racism disclaimer.  Assume it here.

The battle flag of the army of Northern Virginia did not cause this.  The civil war did not cause this.  Southern culture did not cause this.  What caused this was a high school dropout racist loser deciding to vent his loser frustrations on the innocent.  Since he’s a f*cking racist, he decided those innocents should be Black.  But the cause was his racist loserdom, not any other external factor.

So just stop it already.

No, the Confederate Battle Flag does not need to be removed from the State House grounds in South Carolina or any other government building.  Men fought and died honorably for a cause that is honorable – the right of self-determination, among other things.  Yes, that also means they were defending the right of the States to continue slavery, and that’s bad, but Real Life is messy, and by current standards (the ones to which we’re suddenly holding the Confederate warriors) one of the most celebrated Union generals – William Tecumseh Sherman – was a war criminal.  I won’t call him a war criminal (out loud) if you will similarly shut up about your belief that the CBF is somehow a “symbol of racism.”

No, monuments to various Confederate figures, including Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and others, do not need to be taken down.  They were honorable men who fought against (as they saw it) an invasion.  Go read some history, even if you don’t agree with them, at least try to understand why many Southerners still call it “The War of Northern Aggression.”

No, the CBF does not need to be removed from Civil War historical sites, museums, or stores.  Even if I accept that it “represents racism,” which I don’t, that doesn’t change the fact that in America people have the right to be racist.  You may not like it – I certainly don’t like it – but it’s the truth.  And what the CBF does represent is a commitment to fight for Freedom from an oppressive central government.  There may be a time when we want such symbols.

No, things that happen to incorporate the CBF do not need to be removed or forgotten.  Not video games, not TV shows, not books, not anything.  That is part of my culture you’re trying to consign to the flames.

Do you really want to have a “conversation about race?”  Okay, let’s have a conversation about race.

Black on black crime is much higher, per capita, than any other demographic.  Black on white crime is higher than white on black crime.  White on white crime is higher than black on white crime.  These are actual facts. 

Do you really believe “Black Lives Matter?”  I do.  So how about we stop young black men from killing each other.  That seems to be a much bigger danger to them than some high school dropout loser racist.

Do you really believe “Black Lives Matter?”  I do.  So how about we stop enabling a culture which encourages young black women to have sex and then have their babies murdered?  Black women, even controlling for income and social factors, are much more likely than whites to have an abortion.

Stop trying to blame history for today’s bad choices.  Stop trying to pretend that history doesn’t exist.  Stop trying to minimize it and put into some box labeled “Racism.”  Stop lashing out.

And start addressing the real problems.

You’re Still Not Married.

“If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does it have?” – Abraham Lincoln (attrib)

So the Supreme Court decided that it could wave its hand and redefine marriage.  Beyond the horrific precedent this sets, this is so flawed on its own (lack of) merits, that I find myself stunned in spite of the fact this is the exact outcome I was expecting.  All over my FB timeline and in my personal life people I thought were sane are celebrating as though Christmas came early.  I can’t call them “F*cking Idiots” to their faces, but perhaps I can explain, here, why this is so bad.

First we have to settle a question: is marriage something created by Man which could have been created however we want, or is it something that exists on its own whether we like it or not?  Is it, in fact, mere custom, or is it a natural Law on the order of 2 + 2 = 4?

Let us see what we can discover.

Biologically, men and women are different.  This is important, because it takes both a man and a woman to bear children.  Further, for the time she is pregnant, the woman is especially in need of protection and care – protection and care which she cannot provide for herself.  Once the child is born, the child also needs exceptional protection and care until he or she is old enough to care for him- or herself.  If men impregnated women and then left them unprotected, child birth and survival rates would be low enough to jeopardize survival of the species.  Since every species is compelled to ensure its survival, it seems likely that ours would adapt accordingly, and that men would have an urge related to the urge to procreate which would cause them to care for and protect, to some degree at least, the woman who bears their children, and those children.

Sociologically, it is true that every society of which we have any inkling of their practices has embraced the same, or at least very similar, definition of marriage- it is a union between a man and a woman.  Without getting into the intricacies of polygamous societies, none of them have accepted or condoned homosexual relationships.  Few have even accepted or condoned heterosexual relationships between adults and adolescents.  This virtually universal definition of marriage served to protect women – protect them from violence, from poverty, and from abuse – and children, while providing the best chance for young single males to have a chance to procreate (and, thus, continue the species).

So it seems that there is good evidence that marriage is just a word we use to describe a natural phenomenon – the coming together of men and women to bear and rear children and thus propagate the species.  If there is evidence that we “just made it up,” I am unaware of it.

Now, if it is true that marriage is something that exists in nature, then the following is a true statement:  It cannot be redefined.  You cannot redefine marriage any more than you can redefine gravity or 2 + 2.  You can warp the language.  You can ignore the truth.  You can claim to believe a lie.  But you cannot change what marriage is.

So for all of those who are going to rush to get “married” to their homosexual partner:  You still won’t be married.  You will never be married.  You can call your relationship whatever you want.  You can refer to your partner as your “husband” or “wife” or “potato.”  I won’t matter.  I am married.  You are not.  You cannot change that, no matter how much you wish it.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

 

The United States flag is never to be flown upside down except in times of great distress or emergency.  I believe we are in both.  We are in a perilous time in which the Supreme Court has decided on the one hand that the plain language of a law is not binding – that the Justices can read the minds of those who wrote the law, and that the will of the People is not binding upon them.  In short, the United States Supreme Court has just announced that we are no longer a Constitutional Federal Republic, that we are not even a Representative Democracy.  We are an oligarchy ruled ultimately by unelected, unaccountable judges who can now dictate law and ignore the Constitution and the will of the People.

On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court, in a 6 – 3 decision, decided that the words “Exchanges established by the States” meant “Exchanges established by the States or the Federal Government.”  This was not because of any ambiguity in the language of the law, the Justices so deciding admit that the language says only State established exchanges are eligible for subsidies under the ACA.  No, they believe they can divine the intent of the Congress by something other than their written and recorded words.  Apparently this is some magic into which Justices are initiated after they are appointed to the court.

Today, the Court found, in a 5 – 4 decision, that the People of 30 different states on multiple occasions had “acted stupidly,” in rejecting attempts to redefine marriage from it’s natural definition to one that is unnatural.  This was not based on the unconstitutionality of any law, and it was not based on any legal injustice; it was based on the fact that the way things were made 5 Justices sad.

These two decisions, between them, destroy the very fabric of our Constitution.  The Rule of Law is now dead, replaced by the Rule of the Whim of Men.

Whatever your position on Obamacare or on homosexual relationships, you should be looking at these decisions and trembling in fear.  If they can decide to ignore the plain language of the law and the will of the people, what can they not ignore?  What regime can they not institute by fiat?  How is this not tyranny?

There are few options left to those of us who believe in the Rule of Law.  Perhaps the States will finally stand up for themselves and say “Then let them enforce it.”  Perhaps an Article V Convention will be called in an attempt to reconcile Progressive’s desire to live in Utopia with Conservatives desire to be left alone.  Perhaps Conservative States will petition, and be allowed, to peaceably secede from this failed Union.

But the Government is no longer legitimate.  It no longer seeks to protect the Rights of Man.  This situation can only continue for so long before violence – violence no one wants – results.

“I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” ~Oliver Cromwell

Banning History

 

After the Colonies rebelled against England and won their independence, they operated for a time under the Articles of Confederation.  This first attempt at founding an association of free states proved unworkable, and a new Constitution was created.  That Constitution enshrined slavery, counted slaves as 3/5 of a person, and would not have been passed if it had not.  At the time of its passage, the issue of slavery was already contentious, and one of the compromises necessary to see its adoption was that for a certain period, the new Federal government would not address the issue.

As time progressed, the northern states- largely industrial- became even less dependent upon slave labor (though many prominent Northerners still had slaves) and the South – largely agrarian – did not.  As slavery became more repugnant to more people, it is perhaps not surprising that this caused a schism between the two groups.  And perhaps this would have been handled diplomatically, but, for various reasons, it was not.

Now, it is important to understand that the Civil War did not start over slavery.  Read the words of the people who were there.  Even those in the North did not believe slavery was the reason for the war.  Certainly it was a reason for the war.  Certainly had slavery been abolished voluntarily by all parties, there would have been less reason for the war.  But there still would have been reason for it.

The Southern States, already skeptical of the Federal Government, had 50 years of grievances about what they saw as Federal Overreach.  The election of Abraham Lincoln and the still new Republican party – on a forced abolition platform – was a sign to the Southern States that the North no longer respected their sovereignty.  They seceded.  A war between the states was waged.

Now, this little history lesson is not a defense of slavery, which was and is a hateful institution.  It is not a defense of the Republican party, which is and has been the party of Liberty and Union.  It is a defense of Honor.  Whatever you think of their motives – and, again, slavery in and of itself was not at issue – the Confederates were noble, honorable, and courageous.  We in the south venerate those heroes who were willing to die for what they believed.

Fast forward to today.  A crazy racist killed nine men and women in Charleston, South Carolina.  A picture was found with him holding the flag commonly referred to as the Confederate Flag, more accurately referred to as the Confederate Battle Flag, and most accurately referred to as the Virginia Army Flag.  And Progressives, some looking for anything to blame other than the criminal, others seizing main chance, immediately blamed the flag for the despicable act.

Showing an unfortunate lack of historical knowledge, Mitt Romney called for the removal of the flag from the South Carolina State House grounds.  Reacting, I must hope, more on fear than on principle, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley called for its removal.

Were that all that had happened, this post would not exist, but it is not all that has happened.  Since those two misguided announcements, the furor over the flag has grown.  Stores like Wal-Mart and Amazon stopped selling renditions of the flag.  Apple removed all games which contain the now-hated symbol from it’s app store.  Apparently representing history is now a hate crime.  People have called for the destruction of statues and monuments to Confederate figures.

This is sad and amazing to me.  Forget the flag itself – the history lesson was only to show that there is proper reverence which can be shown for it – this “Ban All the Things” mentality is dangerous and un-American.  Capitulation to these demands is even more dangerous and un-American.  It sets a precedent – one I do not believe we wish to set.

Today it is a symbol which can honestly be viewed as a symbol of hate and racism (I do not deny that the flag has picked up those connotations).  But more than that, it is calls to erase history.  The Gettysburg museum has removed all of its merchandise with the symbol.  Where does it stop?

For Progressives, it doesn’t.  Today it is the flag and some monuments.  What will it be tomorrow?  There are already calls for more “gun control” laws, as though they would have done anything to stop this horrific crime.  Karl Rove has said that the only gun control strong enough would be complete confiscation – and he is wrong, even that would not be enough.

They want to ban our Right to act on our beliefs.

They want to ban our Right to say what we think.

They want to ban our Right to defend ourselves – both from criminals and from tyrants.

The longer we wait to tell them, “no,” the harder it will be to do, and the more likely we will either be forced into silence, or be forced into violence.

Did You Hear?

“Did you hear?”

“Did you hear?”

Everyone greeted everyone else with the same question, “Did you hear?”

“He has been defeated!  Laid low!  The champion of the enemy has fallen!”

For as long as I could remember, our enemy had oppressed us.  We had been driven from our rightful homes, exiled and outcast.  Our own king had treated with the usurper king before, always to return disappointed.  Princes we may have been, but princes cast out of our kingdom wielding only that authority that came with strength.  

The usurper king had been hounding us, attacking us since time immemorial.  Now, his champion had fallen at last.  Our other victories had been fleeting; this victory would not be.  Our king had struck down his champion at last – the grave claimed the one who was supposed to be our destroyer.

“Did you hear?”

“Did you hear?”

Now, not only was the champion laid low, but the usurper king’s plans fallen apart.  While the champion was preparing – while he looked like he would win – he had gathered followers.  The followers were given power beyond their station.  They were even ceded some of the usurper’s authority to wield against us.

Now, with the champion defeated, his followers were scattered.  They fled from us, and from those who served us.  While the champion had been with them, they were brave lions.  Now, they were curs, cowering from the hand which would strike them.

As we had feared for generation upon generation, we let them fear.  They fled, and we laughed.  For once it was we who had the power and the authority!  They could suffer in shameful indignity as we had suffered.

“Did you hear?”

“Did you hear?”

The question had a different tone, now.  Something had gone wrong – terribly wrong.  

“What did you say?  Empty?  How can a grave be empty?”

“Surely this is some joke.”

“It must be a misunderstanding.”

Slowly the news percolated through us all.  The champion’s grave was empty.  Where had he gone?  What had happened?  Our servants had sworn he would be watched!

“NO! IT CANNOT BE!” the voice of our king cried across the barren wastes which had been our prison for so long.  “I DEFEATED HIM! I STRUCK HIM DOWN! NO!”

What is this?  What is this blinding light?  It burns!  The agony!  WHAT IS THIS!?

No!  It can’t be the champion!  He is dead!  We saw the act!  

The light! Oh, Great Lucifer!  The light burns!  Bring back the darkness!  

What is this sound?  Like bells and trumpets; it assaults my ears.  Bring back the violent cacophony!

“Very well,” the words are almost a whisper, but they pierce my ears like a knife, “If that is what you wish, your will be done.”

The light is gone.  The screeching and wailing return.  Darkness rules over our home; our refuge.

“Did you hear?”

“Did you hear?”

“The king is chained.  He does not even reign here.  He has been imprisoned!”

A trick!  A trick!  It was all a trick.  The champion’s death was supposed to be our crowning moment!  It should have been our greatest day!

Somehow he has broken the chains of death with which he should have been bound, and used them to bind our king.  His grave – empty.  Our king – defeated.  Our crowning moment – our ultimate defeat.

Did you hear?

Charity and the #IndianaLaw

So earlier I discussed the Virtue of Charity- and specifically what is required to see a resurgence in its practice.  Now I would like to turn to the idiocy among a certain segment of our population as it relates to the Indiana RFRA.

I am not going to explain what an RFRA really is- go over to the Ace of Spades HQ, we’ll probably be talking about it there if you’re really interested.  Or [search engine of choice] Bill Clinton’s 1993 Federal RFRA.

I’m going to discuss Charity as it relates to the RFRA.

First- that there has to be an RFRA at all shows a failure of charity.  Whether or not I agree with same sex marriage, my business is mine to conduct.  If I do not wish to do business with you, that may be bad.  In some cases it may be a failure of charity on my part (it normally is not, however).  However, it is *certainly* a failure of charity, and a much worse one, to impoverish me and have the Government force me at the point of a gun to do business with you.  Had everyone been charitable, then no RFRA would be necessary- wedding cake designers would not be having to make cakes for ceremonies they believe to be sinful, but would be as helpful as possible outside those bounds (in most cases, they are already fulfilling that second part).  The government would not be seizing sacred objects from Indian tribes, and Indian tribes would not be bothering others with their sacred items.

Second- The RFRA is not a license for Christians to be uncharitable, and I have heard of no particular case where they have been.  It is not uncharitable to say, “No, I do not wish to do business with you.”  It might be uncharitable if my objection to doing business with you was something you could not control (your ethnicity, or gender)- but it wouldn’t necessarily be.  It is certainly not uncharitable when my objection is to an action you are going to take because it violates my own moral code.

The Gay Lobby is either ignorant (or, more likely, does not care) of the fact that to Christians and Jews homosexuality is morally reprehensible.  Considering that the wedding ceremony is specifically a Religious one, homosexual weddings are not just immoral; they are making a mockery of Christianity.  And while that is not, no its own, a reason to make them illegal or even prevent them from having legitimacy in the eyes of the State, that is ample reason for a Christian to elect not to support one with his labor.

Do you want charity to rule in this case?  I agree with you.  So let’s all agree to be charitable.  But at this point, there’s only one side that isn’t living up to that bargain.