Sunday, May 10, 2015

"Don't Give 'em an Inch," Ch. 30 of BUT...AT WHAT COST

As I write this, I am forced to recognize the profound political ignorance of the common man. I have been the common man (okay, out of deference to the feminists – the common woman), and the more I studied the political history of the twentieth century and on into the twenty-first, the more apparent my ignorance became to me. I’m all but convinced, our nation, as I knew it to be a mere fifty years ago, has succumbed to a political paradigm which has few moral aspirations and little chance of long-term economic success.

I don’t think we are bound toward an Orwellian “1984” or Stalinist-type communist state, but enough so, that we should study very seriously the underlying tenets of today’s progressivism. David Horowitz in The Black Book of the American Left states, “… the quest for social justice, pressed to its logical conclusion, leads inexorably to the totalitarian result. The reason is this: to propose a solution that is utopian, in other words impossible, is to propose a solution that requires coercion and requires absolute coercion.”

Horowitz goes on to quote Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty, “It is just not true that human beings are born equal; … if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position; … [thus] the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently.”

That would describe all our affirmative-action mandates. To treat any group differently under the law is inherently unfair and, in my opinion, unconstitutional. To favor a whole racial or ethnic group is not only unfair, but assumes racial or ethnic inferiority doesn’t it? Our Constitution demands equal treatment under the law – not sometimes, for some people – but at all times, for all people. That is just; that is fair; that is moral. Treating people differently under the law is not just; it is not fair; it is immoral.

We recognize the immorality of discriminatory practices. Frankly, it blows my mind that most Democrats in this country are willing to accept the kinds of restrictions that favored whites over blacks in the past, to favor blacks over whites now. Granted, it’s not slavery, but Asians and whites are definitely discriminated against for college entrance – and in many work places where Jesse and Al show up to blackmail the companies. Racial discrimination is never a moral choice. It’s as if the civil rights community is more about “getting even” with Whitey, for his past sins, than about equal opportunities.

The thing is: most people would like nothing better than a world free from racism, ethnocentrism and discrimination of all kinds; utopia would be nice, but we gotta stay real. Equality of outcomes is not possible, no matter how hard any government tries to accomplish it. As Ashley said when he was twenty-one and trying to discourage my idealism, “As long as there are people, some will always be more competent than others, and some will always have purely selfish motivations.”

As much as most people want to live in a utopian village where birds sing and all people are selfless, fair, and congenial, there will always be some out-of-tune birds and selfish people. To think otherwise is misguided and naïve. To think utopia is something that can be achieved by changing our legal standards of right and wrong to match the social expectations of each discrete groups is not only naïve; it’s wrong. Most people know instinctively what is fair and what is not; it is not fair to favor or disfavor any racial or ethnic group over another – ever! The legal standards of judgment must be the same for each and every individual – regardless of group identity and regardless of what each group stands for.

Conservatives tend to be realists by nature and big-time believers in either the Bible or our Constitution (or both) as the standard for moral expectations and legal precedence. The Bible’s allegories have much to do with natural human inclinations, both good and bad; The Bill of Rights and the Constitution reflect most of those very same moral values.

The details of allegories or documents, which are inevitably signs of the times in which they are written, are not nearly as important as the underlying intents of the writers: to establish a set of moral values or legal standards for the community at large to follow.

When I was younger and had less life experience, I questioned how the Bible could recommend both “an eye for an eye” and “turn the other cheek.” Well, I know now – it depends on whether justice or mercy is paramount; and that’s, in part, why we have so damned many laws trying to describe all possible circumstances and establish which right takes precedence over another. Obviously, some standards (laws) need to be somewhat modified to comply with the knowledge of the times, but it’s imperative not to undermine the basic intents of the Constitution when modern legal precedents are tweaked to meet modern needs. The details of our ever-changing cultural beliefs mustn’t infringe on the founder’s basic intention – to protect the people from the government.

Determining legal priority is a very sticky business – as shown in a recent Arizona attempt to establish the right of religious freedom over the right not to be discriminated against by those with religious objections to their practices. By the way, this was never proposed as anti-gay legislation as stated by the media – it was offered to protect the right to freely practice one’s religion. One right was infringing on another. It was clearly a precedence argument, nothing more.

Governor Brewer had it correct in that religious freedom is rarely undermined in Arizona, so they probably didn’t need a new law to address it. Besides, this whole hooha was politically contrived by gay activists… as if there were hordes of gay people being refused service. That’s not happening, and even if it does happen on occasion, so what? Go somewhere else. Personally, I wouldn’t want to hire anyone who didn’t want to be hired. These things take care of themselves in a free-market system. These days, there’s no need for special treatment for anyone – not for blacks, not for gays, and not for religious fundamentalists. Any time the government intrudes to favor one group over another, everyone else loses a bit of freedom.

Our freedom of speech, for example, has been trampled by political correctness. We always use “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” as the primary example for limiting speech. Personally, I can’t think of anything more elementary; any nitwit can agree with that. But, that was not the kind of speech with which our founders were concerned. Their intention was to prevent government tyranny… by ensuring everyone can say anything they want to say. It doesn’t matter if it’s “not nice.” The Constitution protects the people from their government – not so much from each other. That’s the intent we must keep in mind in the midst of a tweaking exercise.

But look what’s happened under the Progressives (both Republicans and Democrats): a word can put you in jail… not only yelling “fire” with the intent to injure, mind you, but merely having said the “N-word” in the midst of a fight can turn an ordinary argument between two people into a “hate crime” and double your time in jail. Where in the Constitution is the government given permission to have “word” and “thought” police? That’s what it’s come to – the long arm of the law can now reach down your throat or into your brain to determine your intentions… and prosecute, if your intentions are deemed “unacceptable” or “different” by the powers-that-be. Klan members, as hate-filled as they may be, must have the same freedom to speak and gather as anyone else. If they don’t, then no one will be free from government tyranny.

Consider the reasons behind the proposed Arizona legislation again. If there were ever a case of “no harm, no foul,” this was it. There were plenty of alternative bakeries and wedding photographers around to serve the needs of gay couples.

Never should have gone to court! Yet, there we were, waiting with fangs bared to see the outcome. First, religious beliefs can be just as wrong-headed or misguided as any other personal belief, so they shouldn’t really be granted any special dispensations (even though the Constitution does so). The complaint of the original lawsuit was discrimination. The defense was based on religious freedom.

To me, this case was much broader: what constitutes discrimination? And more to the point – do proprietors have the right to NOT enter a contract? There are many reasons folks might not want to work for someone – some misguided, some not – but is it not a basic human right to refuse someone service whether your reasons are religious or not? Do we want the government to determine what is a “reasonable” complaint? I don’t. I want the freedom to choose my clients. I don’t want to bake a cake or take pictures for a Klan party… and NO, I’m NOT comparing gays to the Klan. There are plenty of individuals with whom I’d rather not do business, which I guess is legal… as long as that individual isn’t black or gay. Then, apparently, my right to refuse is voided because they are members of a legally favored group and, as such, can sue me. That’s the coercion Horowitz and Hayek were talking about.

It wasn’t until the anti-discrimination laws were on the books that these commercial/personal freedoms were in danger. As much as we should and do detest “Irish need not apply” signs, should it not be the right of any employer to hire anyone he wants? Should the government be allowed to force me to hire a Klan member? It’s the same issue… our leaders probably wouldn’t do that because the Klan is certainly not a favored group, but what if……? Do you want the government to control with whom you are allowed to do business or hire? As a culture, we are so far beyond the need for anti-discrimination laws, it is counterproductive to have them. Do you know what happens to businesses that discriminate? They lose business – and probably fail… and that’s good enough for me. We don’t need more damn laws that result in less tolerance and further alienation… and are in direct conflict with our Constitutional rights to free speech and association – including in the context of business practices.

What’s next? Well, our Liberal politicians and judges and justices are continually trying to undermine our personal freedoms. By definition, Liberals, Socialists, Statists, Progressives, or the Left (whatever you want to call them) want a strong central government. They think they know better than the people and must control them, but…at what cost?

It is essential that all citizens retain their Constitutional freedoms. Fortunately, for us, our founding fathers were particularly keen at recognizing mankind’s worst traits and tried to protect future generations from those in power, by strictly limiting the government and giving the power to the people. Too many of “we the people” are now willing to relinquish that power to the bureaucrats in Washington – to let them make our decisions for us.

Think about this: by outlawing hate speech (don’t say the “N-word“), they have opened the gates to control all speech… and they are doing it in history books, in literature – everywhere, not necessarily by decree, but by limiting exposures to authors through Common Core initiatives. How dare they change the words of Mark Twain to something more politically correct! That’s censorship… and it changes historical realities.

Our states are being coerced or nudged (by offering federal funds) to follow Common Core standards to indoctrinate our kids into a socialist belief system. If you enjoy your freedoms and want your children to be exposed to and debate opposing ideas and ideals, I think you had better question these tactics before it’s too late. We want to encourage “diversity of thought,” don’t we?

To continue along a different path – I consider everyone with whom I choose to associate a moral person. Some have had abortions; some would never. Some are against homosexual marriage; some are for it. Some totally support the Second Amendment; some don’t. Some are Democrats; some are Republicans, and some are Independents. Some are church-goers, and some are atheists, but all are moral… or I would disassociate myself. They differ mainly in the extent to which they are willing to arbitrate our basic freedoms… for the common good. That’s the big question. Ultimately, which system of government serves the “common good” best – being forced to yield to the biases of the Left (or Right, if they are the ones in power) or having the absolute freedom to choose whom to serve or not serve?

I think the “diversity” mantras are severely flawed. There is no moral equivalency between a cultural Muslim belief in Sharia law and our cultural belief in equal rights. I had an opportunity to compare the two up close and personal. I found out a Muslim woman student of mine was routinely beaten by her husband. She had stopped coming to class, and I had asked her friend (another Muslim woman student) if something was wrong. She told me. I told her we had agencies that could help if she wanted it. “Oh, no, no. Can’t say.” Amina clearly was afraid to get involved. We had many cultural discussions in that class – even about sexual practices and gender roles. They were enlightening conversations for all – a Korean, a Columbian, a Pakistani, and me, an American. Many cultural expectations were different, but acceptable to all of us, except for Amina’s extreme lack of freedom. We loved her, but didn’t approve the culturally imposed restrictions on her life choices at all.

Our political ruling class does us no favors when they skew the beliefs and motivations of the opposition. It’s usually hyperbolic rhetoric. People who believe such outrageous generalities are… well, hopelessly gullible and easily manipulated – Dave!

Connie revealed some comments her Liberal friends had made about Tea Partiers. Her friends are smart, but thoroughly indoctrinated into the “Tea Partiers are radical, anti-women, anti-gay, and anti-black people” dogma of the Left. According to the Left, Tea Partiers are pretty much anti-everybody except white, rich capitalists. It’s as if Democrats have two separate brains – one for real life, and one for politics… and never connect the two. Aunt Tillie is great until she joins the Tea Party or criticizes our President’s policies… then she inexplicably becomes a racist? It’s crazy.

The vast majority of us in the Tea Party are not anti-people; we oppose Progressive, big-government policies. We have, I might add, well-thought-out rationales to back up those beliefs.

To begin with – we don’t favor rich people; we just don’t hate them. I think most, if not all of us, opposed the corporate bail-outs. We want free markets to prevail, not the whims of a political group. The government must not be allowed to choose the winners and losers.

Next, as a group, Tea Partiers are very far from being radical. They are the antithesis of radical; their values are rather old-fashioned and traditional. Unlike the “Occupy” groups, they don’t leave behind messes, attack the police, break store-front windows, or spit on detractors. All most Tea Party activists do is to carry a few signs and hand out Constitutions.

Third, Conservatives are said to have a “war on women.” This belief appears to have been generated by the radical, pro-choice feminists. I don’t know why any woman would engage in a war against herself, but that’s their belief: we Conservative women are all too ignorant to recognize the error of our ways, I guess. Well no, we’re not ignorant; we have different priorities. I already covered the abortion issue and remain very wishy-washy, so I will not get into it again. However, there are other angles to cover.

To my mind, the war on women Democrats cite never existed. Republicans as a group never opposed equal pay for equal work. They had different priorities and opposed feminist’s anti-housewife rhetoric, but never equal pay. Anyway, what needed fixing was fixed and the pendulum has swung to the point that men and boys are now being discriminated against. By refusing to accept the inherent differences between the sexes (in competitive and impulsive tendencies, for example) and issuing rules that favor feminine behavioral tendencies in our classrooms, they’ve turned “nature” up-side-down and delivered way too many “hyperactivity” drugs to normal boys. Social engineering by drugs? Please! The list is long and sad because feminist dogma is wrong and bad!

There are inherent differences between men and women and those differences should be applauded and managed fairly, not by strangling boys with unnecessary meds or enforcing Title IX sports participation “equality.” Is there anyone out there who believes the numbers of men and women participating in college sports should be the same, when by nature, far more men than women want to participate? How crazy is that?

“Equality in paychecks by group” – have any of you Democrats out there ever considered what that means? That’s what you voted for, so think about it. The Supreme Court outlawed quotas, but that’s essentially what Progressive activists strive for – and what we’ve mostly got: equal pay for unequal work.

Any discrepancies in pay – I’ve heard every amount from 77 – 90% on the dollar for women – can be easily explained by an individual’s choice in careers, years of experience, and the numbers of hours individuals are willing to work. The wage numbers represent all women versus all men, without accounting for the jobs more men than women are likely to have.

In other words, damn the realities, the mean incomes must be the same regardless of what one chooses to do or how effective he/she is at doing it. When one compares men and women actually doing the same job for the same number of hours per year, with the same amount of experience, men and women usually get paid the same amount of money. That should be the comparison, but that is not the comparison Progressive feminists cite. They are comparing apples to oranges. Hey, if you want a female hairdresser’s pay to equal the pay of a male engineer, that’s your prerogative, just understand that equal pay for unequal work is, in its essence, socialism – “to each according to his/her needs.”

And then there is the Left’s anti-gay rallying call against Republicans. Being against gay marriage is NOT being anti-gay. This issue strikes me as wholly contrived. Gay activists sound to me like three-year olds demanding a cookie, being refused, and then shouting, “You don’t love me.” There’s no nexus between the refusal and the kids’ response. One has nothing to do with the other. Sorry, kids, I love you, but you can’t have the cookie. We’re running out of cookies.

A change in the definition of marriage is primarily a slippery-slope problem… and an economic one. It has nothing to do with who anyone likes or doesn’t like. Granted, some people have a problem with gay sex. The thought makes them very uncomfortable, and many consider it abnormal, perverse, and wrong. I do not agree with them, however – and neither do most Conservatives or Tea Partiers I know. Even those from the Religious Right, who do think of the act as sinful, tend to judge the sin, not the sinner. Put another way, most of the Religious Right are not anti-gay so much as pro-traditional family.

I came very close to quitting the Tea Party when one (I repeat one) man in our group of 30 started spouting off about “the perversity.” I approached our leader and said I wouldn’t remain in the group if he was representative of the majority. She agreed that he was out-of-line, and I think she spoke to him about it. He was less objectionable in the future, anyway.

I subsequently talked in depth on the subject with a few fundamentalist Christians in our group. I explained my point of view – that being anti-gay was a lot like being anti-blue-eyed people. That’s when they said, “We judge the sin, not the sinner. We are all sinners and all deserve respectful treatment.” I knew these people and had no reason to doubt their sincerity; it was a frank and open discussion.

I probably didn’t convince them “the act” wasn’t immoral because fundamentalists adhere to many of the details of Scripture as opposed to the broader, generalized principles of the Bible; however, I did make some inroads into their dogmatic adherence with the “what is morality?” argument. A sexual act between two or more consenting adults doesn’t infringe on the rights or well-being of anyone else, so therefore, should not be deemed illegal or immoral. To me, being “immoral” requires actual damage to someone other than the subscribers to the act… and for both my fundamentalist and Democrat friends – “damages” should go well beyond being personally offended. A sexual act can be circumstantially unwise, unusual, or icky, maybe, but certainly not immoral if done by consenting adults without marital infidelity.

I must say at this point, I find the public displays of hyper-sexuality that many marchers in gay pride parades exhibit quite icky and wholly counterproductive to their cause, but I wouldn’t necessarily call the marchers immoral, just wrong-headed. However, I do think anyone exposing his/her children to such activity is making a wrong, if not immoral choice. I draw a line where children are concerned. Shouldn’t the marchers use some common sense and draw a line, too?

Seems to me, it would be much more advantageous to march as doctors, dentists, athletes, teachers, builders, and ditch diggers than to reinforce all the negative stereotypes, but that’s me – I don’t appreciate public displays of blatant sexuality by gays or straights.

My objection to changing the definition of marriage is based on the fact that every developed culture has recognized the need for marriage only as it applies to men and women. As do all other mammals, people couple to procreate. I don’t know exactly when this coupling was first sanctioned by the tribe leaders, but marriage between a man and one woman or many women has been officially sanctioned by some entity since modern civilization began. Why?

I expect it was necessary to keep males at home and protect the women and children from abandonment. Even plural marriages, though some may also measure status, still ensure the security of the family. Once a marriage contract is codified, the guys have to bring home the bacon, no matter how often they go elsewhere to spread their sperm. In the words of Tina Turner, “What’s love got to do with it?” Not much. Love is weakly joined to marriage in our culture – not necessary, but highly desirable. Though we may promise to love and honor and all that good stuff, legally and historically, marriage always has been the primary means to make men do the right thing and take care of their wives and progeny. Men get sex; women and children get fed. It’s a contract that enables and assures a stable society… if those long-standing rules provoked by the natural differences between men and women are followed.

The surprising irony of this debate is that many of the same feminist activist groups who devalued heterosexual marriage and women’s roles in it are many of the same activist groups fighting for gay marriage “rights” today. Given the reasons marriage was officially sanctioned in the first place – to protect women and children – and the fact that marriage is, in today’s culture, nearly irrelevant to having sex for most people, I’d say marriage is becoming pretty much passé as a desirable or necessary social institution. That seems particularly true for gay couples, most of whom will not raise children together. That’s the reality.

Besides, most of the same responsibilities and benefits are available to gays by contract and/or civil unions – excepting a few important ones such as the transfer of social security benefits and the joint filing of income taxes.

So let’s face the facts: gay marriage “rights” have less to do with love and commitment, which can certainly be accomplished without validation from a church or government, and more to do with financial security (same as straights).

As far as I can tell, our natures have not changed. Men are still more promiscuous than women tend to be (though I admit, since the feminist movement, women seem to be catching up in that area). With rare exceptions, women are still better at nurturing than men. Men are better at discipline than women. Men are hunters; women are gatherers. Men Are from Mars... but those inborn traits that distinguish the sexes from each other also tend to complement each other – especially in survival-of-the-species areas (i.e., child-rearing roles within the family group).

There are, of course, exceptions and degrees to which any individual will lean, plus the ever-changing culturally induced expectations that will influence each group; however, the natural genetic differences between the sexes persist and will always persist. Why ignore them when they are so beneficial to family life and community success?

My only real objection to gay “marriage” is the presumed need for it. How will its official status benefit society? Because there are more women and usually a lot of children to protect in plural marriages, sanctioning plural marriage might have more practical benefits than sanctioning gay marriage. Frankly, I don’t give a damn who sleeps with whom or with how many they sleep, but federal laws need to have a universal purpose besides making a minority group feel good.

What is the difference between Kate and Allie, two straight women, living together for financial benefit versus Gwen and Maddie, two gay women, living together for financial benefit? Is it the fact that the latter couple love each other and have sex together? That’s the only difference I can see. So, what’s to stop Kate and Allie from wanting the same benefits Gwen and Maddie have? Each couple has the same needs, so should they get the same benefits? I’d say they should, if we use the same reasoning gay marriage advocates (mis)use. That’s the slippery slope we’re headed down… and it will cost the government, thus taxpayers, a lot of money.

As far as marriage for gay males is concerned, I can hardly think of anything more unnecessary. I’ve been to a wedding between gay males, and my friend in that particular union had as many sexual liaisons at highway rest stops after his marriage as he had before – which numbered plenty. Sexual commitment between gay males is quite rare, I think. At least that is what one of the grooms and other gay male friends have told me. Both in the partnership are male and therefore tend to forgive those biological drives toward promiscuity that all males tend to have. The partners love each other… but sexual monogamy in a gay marriage is seldom a requirement as it usually is in a heterosexual marriage.

So, I wonder: if a marriage doesn’t have any expectation for monogamy and therefore doesn’t reduce the spread of AIDS and other STDs – which is a legitimate government concern – why should the government sponsor or encourage it?

There is also the likelihood that male couples share a higher income than women couples do. As stated earlier, this is not because of discrimination, but because of their chosen career fields. Anyway, most male couples probably don’t share the same circumstances that heterosexual couples do – not the same circumstances that initiated the tax breaks for heterosexual couples. They will not create children and will rarely raise them together. Traditionally, women have been the ones who put aside twenty years or so to raise children, or, if they did work, accepted lesser paying jobs because they needed to stay home more often. That’s why the government gave women a break – allowing them to reap the rewards of their husband’s Social Security earnings upon his death.

There was a reason for society to reward these partnerships with tax and Social Security benefits. Until very recently, initiatives and incentives that supported the traditional roles in marriage were advocated for a good reason. Everyone knew that’s the way it was and is supposed to be. It’s nature’s way, but I guess the leaders of the clan decided a long, long time ago that Mother Nature sometimes needs a little help to make men and women do the right thing, so provided some carrots and sticks.

Do you see where I’m going here? There is no need for the government to provide carrots and sticks for couples not intending to raise children. There is no societal benefit to providing incentives for gay relationships – not back in the old days, and certainly, not now in a culture that has a “whatever” attitude about nearly everything. Divorce rates are near 50%; live-in rates are higher than ever; and in some communities the out-of-wedlock birthrates stand at 72%. Seems to me we’re about to encourage the wrong group.

I was for gay marriage before I was against it. On a purely emotional level it seemed “fair”… until I thought about it. After some thought, with “equal rights” (fairness) being the only criterion, anyone can see Kate and Allie are entitled to the same benefits marriage provides – and so are sister wives, and so are any other couples (mother and son) or groups (a hippy commune or a religious sect) who deem themselves financially dependent on each other. That’s “fair,” but should we go there? I don’t think so.

Neither should “love” (or sex) be the salient requirement of a marriage contract. Remember, anybody can have sex with or live with anyone they choose… this fight is about incentives and entitlements from the government – which were originally intended for only those planning to raise children together. Maybe having children should be the basis for any entitlements. After all, in today’s culture of marriage devaluation, and having a national debt of over seventeen trillion dollars, we should be looking for ways of eliminating unnecessary entitlements, not for ways of adding to them.

I approve of marriage. It usually requires two people to successfully raise children. Yes, it can be any two people, but it is surely best if the inborn traits of those two people are biologically designed for rearing children together. Now, we live in a culture that has devalued marriage between a man and a woman by throwing money at single mothers, and is aiming to further devalue it by throwing more money to any two people or group of people who claim they love each other.

Perhaps the reader should visit some of these cultural realities. Do you really want to encourage the current trend toward the irrelevance of marriage as an institution? Which culture do you want… the one that follows Mother Nature’s plan and recognizes the societal benefits of traditional marriage, or one that ignores nature to favor the supposed “rights” of the self-interested? Laws have cultural and economic consequences and we best address them logically, not emotionally.

Equal rights are very important to all of us, but “rights” obtained by taxing other people must be measured and defined in the context of societal need versus fiscal responsibility, at the least. There needs to be a cost/benefit analysis before handing out favors to self-interested individuals or groups. To me, this is NOT a “rights” issue; it’s a “wants” issue. Do you know how fast we’ll go broke if everyone feels entitled to (and gets) everything he wants?

To help put this “problem” in perspective, I have a Gram story to relate. Many years after my grandfather died, Gram met a special man. They wanted to get married, but would lose some financial benefits if they did. They moved in together. It was a hard decision for them because they’d be “living in sin.” Gram even asked me if I cared…. No, being a practical person and unencumbered by the teachings of the Bible, I’m sure I cared a lot less than she did. The point is: they had options and were free to make a choice. They had the “right” to live together without benefit of marriage. Marriage was, to them, at that time, the cultural and religious expectation, but they had the “right” not to follow that tradition.

Now, there is hardly any cultural expectation for marriage (even we grandmothers expect our grandchildren to “sleep around” first) unless the couple intends to have children. In this aspect, marriage was never a “right;” it’s always been a cultural expectation. A “right” just as often allows an individual to avoid convention, or avoid an expectation – in other words the right not to be coerced into an activity. So far, Big Brother can’t force you to get married – only to take care of your kids. Count your blessings. Bottom line on gay marriage: it’s so far down on my list of “things I care about,” I don’t know why I addressed it. Well, yes I do – because almost everything politicians, especially Progressive ones, hype are contrived issues to gather and maintain voting blocs – not to advance equality or solve real problems.

Read the Constitution and check out the Amendments. The first ten (our Bill of Rights) are all protections from government interference – protections that are being stripped clean by Progressive “anti-discrimination,” big-government policies.

Take a look at some court dockets and peruse some of the outrageous lawsuit settlements. How many of them would you say are frivolous? And how many of those are the result of Progressive policies? Which party does the lawyers’ group, The American Bar Association, support? Our courts are filled with cases that in days gone by would have been laughed out of court – just like the “discrimination” case in Arizona should have been. And, by the way, as any case claiming “discrimination” in the opposite direction should have been. A gay proprietor should have the right to refuse to enter a contract with a Bible-thumper too. It wouldn’t be a good business decision, but hey – no harm, no foul. Beyond that, even if the would-be customer, gay or Catholic, might be harmed, the sellers of goods and services should have the legal right to abstain, except in exigent situations.

We’ve got to get back to using the sense we were born with and stop looking for government solutions to everything. Power tends to corrupt. Lawyers and politicians have selfish motivations to encourage alienation. Lawyers want business and pols want votes. Alright, alright, not all of them, but in general, their powers need to be curtailed, not broadened.

Don’t give ‘em that inch!


We are serializing Judy Axtell's BUT...AT WHAT COST: A Skeptic's Memoir, which I am proud to have edited and to have served as her coach. It has been published by Outskirts Press and is available from OP and from and and other on-line booksellers.

My other site is

No comments:

Post a Comment