Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: ICE ∙ sex offenders ∙ homicide ∙ Mike Lee ∙ Congress ∙ public lands ∙ Utah ∙ national monuments ∙ Barack Obama ∙ email probe ∙ Matthew Whitaker ∙ recuse ∙ House of Representatives ∙ border security ∙ PewDiePie ∙ internet ∙ Senate ∙ Democrats ∙ Donald Trump ∙ border wall ∙ UK ∙ Brexit ∙ EU ∙ Spaniish Civil War ∙ anarchists ∙ private property ∙ individual rights ∙ eminent domain ∙ small business ∙ Al Gore ∙ green energy ∙ gamble

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ ReasonTV ∙ Remy ∙ Stan Lee ∙ comic books ∙ censorship ∙ Senate

In Democratic circles, anti-Semitism is becoming normal

The ACLU Condemns DeVos's Title IX Reforms, Says These Due Process Safeguards 'Inappropriately Favor the Accused'

Household debt hit a record high of $13.5 trillion last quarter

A Warm-Up For 2020: Arizona’s Maricopa County Just Stole The Senate Election

GOP Audits Elections Office In County That Swung To Democrats

Hanging On: Republican Congresswoman Mia Love Is Now Favored To Prevail In Tight Re-Election Bid

Stacey Abrams Acknowledges Loss In Georgia Governor's Race

Is an ‘Internet of Ears’ the next big thing for smart homes?

SAF, NRA File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Initiative 1639

Kansas City Health Department pours bleach on food meant for homeless people

Debra Messing Joins Alyssa Milano, Condemns Anti-Semitic Women's March Leaders

Gridlocked, in Fair Weather and Foul

Bubble Trouble: Seattle-Bellevue Metro Housing Market Goes South

Democrats’ Way Back: Is the Resistance rooted in reality?

Identity Politics and American anti-Semitism

Brenda Snipes submits resignation as Broward elections supervisor

Hell Hath No Fury Like a Liberal Scorned: The Media Turns on Facebook and Google

Trump backs sentencing reform bill he says will give ex-inmates 'a second chance at life'

The Institutionalization of Social Justice

There's a Good Reason Many Women Make Less Than Men

Loggers support Trump's claim that wildfires caused by 'poor forest management'

Global warming alarmists pissed off by Canadian gov’t report that nukes their narrative about polar bears

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ women ∙ Rick Scott ∙ Florida ∙ Senate ∙ global warming ∙ polar bears ∙ climate change alarmists ∙ loggers ∙ wildfires ∙ forest management ∙ wages ∙ social justice ∙ sentencing reform ∙ Democrats ∙ anti-Semitism ∙ Broward County ∙ media ∙ Facebook ∙ Google ∙ Brenda Snipes ∙ Betsy DeVos ∙ Title IX ∙ ACLU ∙ debt ∙ Arizona ∙ election ∙ Maricopa County ∙ Utah ∙ Mia Love ∙ Stacey Abrams ∙ Georgia ∙ internet of ears ∙ smart house ∙ Second Amendment Foundation ∙ SAF ∙ NRA ∙ National Rifle Association ∙ lawsuit ∙ Washington state ∙ Debra Messing ∙ New York ∙ snow ∙ housing market ∙ bubble ∙ Seattle ∙ identity politics

Maryland files federal court challenge asking judge to block Whitaker, install Rosenstein

Tags: Attorney General ∙ Maryland ∙ Federal court ∙ Matthew Whitaker ∙ Rod Rosenstein ∙ President ∙ Senate ∙ courts ∙ separation of powers

As His Final Move in Office, Jeff Sessions Limits Use of Court Settlements to Reform Rotten Police Departments

I Think I Have Lost the Plot -- When Did AG Jeff Sessions Become a Liberal Icon?

What Causes a Normal Election to Spiral into Tribal Warfare?

Senate Judiciary Committee Report: 45 Interviews, Zero Evidence To Corroborate Claims Against Kavanaugh

China’s president vows to lower tariffs, increase imports amid tensions with US

Harvard's Racist Diversity

Why Are so Few Americans Able to Get Ahead?

Keith Ellison, Farrakhan groupie and go-to Congressman for anti-Israel activists, elected Minnesota AG

Note to Resistance media: The First Amendment wasn’t written to protect a reporter’s right to grandstand in the White House

Devastating wildfire blazes through California town: 'The community of Paradise is destroyed'

Florida Official Overseeing Vote Count Destroyed Ballots, Accused of Not Removing Dead Voters from Rolls

McSally vs. Sinema ballot update: About 9,600 votes separate the candidates, with Sinema in the lead

ABC, NBC Ignore Antifa Mob Assaulting Home of Fox News Host Tucker Carlson

Saudi prince MBS tells US evangelicals the world should focus on Iran, not him

Tags: Jeff Sessions ∙ reform ∙ police misconduct ∙ Brett Kavanaugh ∙ Senate ∙ China ∙ trade war ∙ Harvard ∙ diversity ∙ Keith Ellison ∙ resistance ∙ First Amendment ∙ White House ∙ Florida ∙ election ∙ Arizona ∙ Martha McSally ∙ Kyrsten Sinema ∙ ABC ∙ NBC ∙ Antifa ∙ Tucker Carlson ∙ Saudi crown prince ∙ Bin Salman ∙ Iran

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Do Half of All Marriages Really End in Divorce?

NATO to Deploy 45,000 Troops Near Russian Border—Calling it a “Defensive” Move

China confirms detention of former Interpol chief Meng Hongwei

U.S. not invited to Canada’s upcoming trade meeting — only ‘like minded’ nations allowed

How the mushroom dream of a ‘long-haired hippie’ could help save the world’s bees

ACLU's Opposition to Kavanaugh Sounds Its Death Knell

BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors

Politico: 'After Failing to Stop Kavanaugh, Dems Wonder If It's Time to Be More Ruthless'

Former Google boss launches scathing Silicon Valley attack urging tech giants to end the delusion that it's making the world a better place

Trump Isn’t a Self-Made Man. His Wealth Is the Product of Years of Government Subsidies.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: 'Eliminate' Electoral College, It 'Undermines' Democracy

IPCC Report Reaches Dire Conclusions Based on Models that Overstate Rate of Warming

The Democrats' Complaints About the Senate Being Undemocratic Are Pure Whining and Excuse-Making: Here's Why

Tags: marriage ∙ divorce ∙ NATO ∙ Russia ∙ troops ∙ China ∙ Interpol ∙ Meng Hongwei ∙ Canada ∙ trade ∙ mushroom ∙ bees ∙ ACLU ∙ Brett Kavanaugh ∙ global warming ∙ Democrats ∙ Silicon Valley ∙ tech giants ∙ Donald Trump ∙ subsidies ∙ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ electoral college ∙ Al Gore ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ IPCC ∙ Senate

❝❝For the record, I'm from Arizona. I've also actively worked against John McCain's reelection for decades. I was willing to give him a pass until the Keating Five scandal.

Being a prisoner of war doesn't not give license later in life to screw your constituents. John McCain is selfish, as proven by his last stunt. There's almost no chance of his returning to the Senate. So why hasn't he resigned? Why did he even run in 2016?

---

I don't care if it was talking about George Washington. John McCain is a dishonorable scumbag who is in it only for political advantage. He's cashed in on that POW experience so many times that it ought to have disintegrated by now.

I can't help but wonder if it would have defending John McCain so hard in 2008.

---

No. I mean running for office when one is pretty sure one will be dead before the term ends.

That should have been incredibly obvious by how I worded it.

Obviously your understanding lacks something. If you are not sure what I mean, ask me and I will explain.

One thing I will explain now is that I am not Republican.

ETA: Speaking of incredibly selfish actions, why is anyone discussing John McCain's funeral and his disagreement with Trump before the man has passed?

---

But why is McCain's funeral being discussed in the national press? And don't tell me it's because McCain is a National Figure.

It's not anyone's business except the family until after the man has passed.

Unless McCain thought he could get one more bit of of political posturing at Trump's expense out of it.

Like I said, the man is selfish.

---

I wish I could agree. Unfortunately, the man fancies himself a part-time kingmaker and has done harm to my state.
And. You. Are. Not. Allowed. To. Criticize

---

Sometimes not even then.

You get lectured on how he is an Institution.

Goldwater was an institution, and earned that status. Funny thing is, he didn't have people around him telling other people how important he was.

I met Goldwater when I was in high school. He makes McCain look like a drunk javelina with a missing back leg.❞❞

Tags: John McCain ∙ Barry Goldwater ∙ javelina ∙ Keating Five ∙ funeral ∙ prisoner of war ∙ Senate ∙ 2016 ∙ selfish

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Second Amendment ∙ Pennsylvania ∙ dental care. ∙ islamist ∙ jihadist ∙ Palestine ∙ census ∙ citizenship question ∙ Syria ∙ Rex Tillerson ∙ Mitch McConnell ∙ Senate ∙ FirstEnergy ∙ Skripal ∙ Silicon Valley ∙ regulation ∙ competition ∙ Andrew McCabe ∙ DoJ ∙ FBI ∙ gun control ∙ David Hogg ∙ free range kids ∙ hemp ∙ Congress

Rand Paul is right

““When Rand Paul took control of the Senate floor just before 6 p.m. Eastern, virtually every one of his Republican colleagues grimaced. Five years ago, they would have cheered him.

Paul's speech, which slowed attempts to pass a massive budget deal before the government shuts down at midnight, was a savaging of his party -- a party that appears to have turned 180 degrees from the deficit hawks of the mid 2010s who insisted that government spending was ballooning out of control and was crippling the country.

"When the Democrats are in power, Republicans appear to be the conservative party," Paul said at one point. "But when Republicans are in power, it seems there is no conservative party. The hypocrisy hangs in the air and chokes anyone with a sense of decency or intellectual honesty."

He is 100% right.

The simple fact is that Republicans in the Obama era defined themselves primarily as committed to reducing government spending and shrinking the nation's debt. The ur-document of that age was Paul Ryan's budget, in which he proudly touted the need to confront entitlement spending and make the hard cuts necessary to keep the country solvent for the foreseeable future.””
     — Chris Cillizza

Tags: Chris Cillizza ∙ clipping ∙ guest content ∙ Rand Paul ∙ CNN ∙ budget process ∙ Senate ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans

““If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering an award to be an illegal immigrant. No sane country would do that, right? Guess again.””
     — Sen. Harry Reid, Senate floor, 1993
Source : Take The 'Racist Xenophobe' Quiz: Who Said This About Illegal Immigration?

Tags: Harry Reid ∙ 1993 ∙ illegal immigrants ∙ Senate ∙ Senator ∙ Investors Business Daily

““In approaching immigration reform, I believe we must enact tough, practical reforms that ensure and promote the legal and orderly entry of immigrants into our country.””
     — Senator Barack Obama, Senate floor, 2007
Source : Take The 'Racist Xenophobe' Quiz: Who Said This About Illegal Immigration?

Tags: Barack Obama ∙ 2007 ∙ illegal immigrants ∙ reform ∙ Senator ∙ Senate ∙ Investors Business Daily

““I continue to believe that we need stronger enforcement on the border and at the workplace. And that means a workable mandatory system that employers must use to verify the legality of their workers.””
     — Senator Barack Obama, Senate floor, 2007
Source : Take The 'Racist Xenophobe' Quiz: Who Said This About Illegal Immigration?

Tags: Barack Obama ∙ Senator ∙ Senate ∙ 2007 ∙ illegal immigrants ∙ Investors Business Daily

““If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides — and that's a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of babies born at taxpayer expense (in) county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?””
     — Senator Harry Reid, Senate floor, 1993
Source : Take The 'Racist Xenophobe' Quiz: Who Said This About Illegal Immigration?

Tags: Harry Reid ∙ 1993 ∙ Senator ∙ Senate ∙ illegal immigrants ∙ child ∙ citizen ∙ public services ∙ Los Angeles ∙ alien mothers ∙ Investors Business Daily

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: FEMA ∙ rent control ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ George Soros ∙ Brexit ∙ #MeToo ∙ women ∙ corporate accountability ∙ Senate ∙ budget ∙ nutrition rules ∙ Congress ∙ goverment ∙ government spending ∙ government accountability ∙ Lee E. Goodman ∙ FEC ∙ regulation ∙ Drudge Report ∙ internet ∙ Nunes Memo ∙ Grassley-Graham Memo ∙ Christopher Steele ∙ FBI ∙ FISA ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Rose McGowan ∙ New Orleans ∙ strip clubs ∙ Ivanka Trump ∙ Democrat ∙ conservatives

Tags: FBI ∙ DoJ ∙ Carillion ∙ Barack Obama ∙ terrorist attack ∙ bad cops ∙ budget process ∙ Rand Paul ∙ Senate ∙ surveillance ∙ police union ∙ police privilege

The White House Is Refuting A Shocker Of A Claim From A Top Democratic Senator

Oct. 23, 2013, 2:55 PM
““A claim from the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), drew denials from House Republican leadership and the White House on Wednesday.

Durbin claimed in a weekend Facebook post that a House GOP leader told President Barack Obama that the leader "cannot even stand to look at" him during a recent negotiation over the government shutdown and raising the nation's debt ceiling.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, flatly, that the exchange "did not happen."

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner was baffled by Durbin's allegation.

"The Speaker certainly didn’t say that, and doesn’t recall anyone else doing so," Michael Steel, Boehner's spokesman, said in an email Wednesday morning.””
     — Brett LoGiurato

Tags: clipping ∙ Brett LoGiurato ∙ Tammy Bruce ∙ Dick Durbin ∙ Senate ∙ White House ∙ Jay Carney ∙ Barack Obama ∙ John Boehner ∙ Michael Steel

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: rent control ∙ Stanford ∙ San Francisco ∙ Joe Arpaio ∙ Senate ∙ Arizona ∙ asset forfeiture ∙ Oklahoma ∙ Alan Dershowitz ∙ climate alarmist ∙ solar power ∙ censorship ∙ Rhode Island ∙ Jeff Flake ∙ surveillance

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: restitution ∙ compensation ∙ John McCain ∙ Arizona ∙ Senate ∙ zoning law ∙ housing ∙ farmers’ market ∙ racism ∙ DoJ ∙ sexual harassment ∙ Great Pinecone ∙ Vanity Fair ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Scott Adams ∙ censorship ∙ GMOs ∙ Rose Marie ∙ Newt Gingrich ∙ election

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Export-Import Bank ∙ taxes ∙ Obamacare ∙ data breech ∙ Chappaquiddick ∙ Ted Kennedy ∙ Senate ∙ crony capitalism ∙ GMOs ∙ United Nations ∙ Jerusalem ∙ Sweden ∙ gang rapes ∙ tax bill ∙ income tax ∙ public schools ∙ fake history ∙ Facebook

Thoughts before election day

Tags: Nazis ∙ Nikki Haley ∙ Michelle Cretella ∙ Fox ∙ Disney ∙ transgender ∙ Bill O'Reilly ∙ sexual harassment ∙ rumor ∙ arrested ∙ 11 year old ∙ Carterfone ∙ Carterfone ∙ net neutrality ∙ Senate ∙ Republican ∙ Roger Stone ∙ state and local taxes ∙ sex trafficing ∙ sex workers ∙ Maggie McNeil ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Republicans ∙ culture wars ∙ bad cops

“Senator Jon Tester Showing How He Received the Republican "Tax Reform" Bill Just Hours before the Late Night Vote was Scheduled and how it was marked up in a way that made it impossible to read/understand. Is this even legal?”

Tags: Congress ∙ Senate ∙ tax bill ∙ Jon Tester ∙ video ∙ guest content

Tags: racism ∙ segregation ∙ leftist establishments ∙ Border Patrol ∙ civil forfeiture ∙ Senate ∙ internet ∙ for the children ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Left ∙ violence ∙ wiretap ∙ Barack Obama ∙ blue state ∙ red state ∙ goverment ∙ James Comey ∙ CIA ∙ Lee Harvey Oswald ∙ Venezuela ∙ sociaism ∙ United Nations ∙ Hurricane Irma ∙ Miami-Dade County ∙ FOIA

❝❝If there is one thing I wish I could literally pound into Christian heads, it's this: Christianity is not the source of all that is good and righteous in our society. Other cultures and other faiths have contributed heavily. It's amazing that I even have to mention this where one house of the national legislature is called the Senate and the other has a ceremonial fasces. Even The Magnificent Seven was a remake.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Christian ∙ Christianity ∙ culture ∙ good ∙ righteous ∙ faiths ∙ Senate ∙ ceremonial ∙ fasces ∙ The Magnificent Seven ∙ remake

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: net neutrality ∙ Jeff Sessions ∙ asset forfeiture ∙ states ∙ Federal government ∙ Senate ∙ healthcare ∙ Mitch McConnell ∙ repeal then replace ∙ South Carolina ∙ 2016 election

❝❝Simple questions.

Why should any religion be enshrined in law? Raised above all others as THE Moral Standard?

Perhaps more importantly, would you accept it if it were not your religion?

Or at least something calling itself your religion.

---

Pardon, but that isn't the question.

Why should any religion be enshrined in law?

Shouldn't faith be between you and the Divine?

Shouldn't religion be your choice and not imposed on you by some government functionary?

Coke may be less disagreeable than Pepsi, but I don't want armed special agents making sure I drink it.

---

Only if you think government must be predicated on or derived from religion.

Which, thankfully, the Founders did not.

---

But it's not about if religions are "equal" or not.

It's about if a single religion should be enshrined in law. And what happens if you are not a member of the religion that is made part of law.

Should you be bound by a religion you are not a part of?

---

Yep, I did. And for very good reason.

I also said this:

Perhaps more importantly, would you accept it if it were not your religion?

---

I've really tried to be polite on this board, but believe when I say I've seen more than enough Christian intolerance to last me several lifetimes. It's not every Christian, but it is there. Nor are Christians alone in their intolerance.

What I am trying to say is that by making religion a part of government you're setting the grounds for much more intolerance.

Even if you stuck to Christians, you'd be asking for trouble. Should Catholics have precedence over Baptists? What about the Mormons and the Methodists?

---

Yep, that happens too.

But when someone defines intolerance as everyone else not putting that someone's religion over every thing else, well, the someone crossed the line and they are fair game.

---

No, that isn't what I said.

Look at what Moore said in the article. He's talking about defending Christianity in the law. And creating more law that incorporates "Christian principles."

"Do not murder." That's a good idea. It also predates Christianity by quite a bit and is shared by many cultures and faiths.

"Do not murder because of the Ten Commandments and what Jesus said." That's not the same thing and it adds baggage to something that should be simple.

---

Pardon, but that is an opinion.

My gods prefer that people work it out for themselves.

That's an opinion too.

---

You mean other than Roy Moore up there in the original post?

You’re talking about overturning God’s natural order ….

That's certainly a religious point of view.

---

Nondenominational? Ah, I see.

It's only the Christians that need apply? You don't need the Jews.

I live next to the Navajo reservation. Will you exclude the Sky People?

One of my neighbors three doors down is a Buddhist. Doesn't she get a say?

One of my companions is an atheist. She's also one of the wisest women I know. Should she get a say?

Why or why not?

---

And I've answered it several times, twice directly.

When you assume that government is based on a religion you are imposing and enshrining that religion.

When it comes to religion becoming the law of the land, the devout don't need it, the non-believers don't want it, and the politicos will corrupt it.

---

Then why is Roy Moore making so much noise?

---

I'm not demanding that you give up your faith.

I'm asking why religion should be enshrined in law.

Faith is between you and the Divine, no other person can change that. It's up to you and your choices.

I'm asking for no sacrifice unless you believe that your religion should govern the faith and religion of others.

And if that's the case, I'm asking why.

---

No, actually we weren't.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't mention the Christian God except in the date.

It's wholly remarkable in that it may well be the first document in history that didn't claim government power derived from the Divine.

Men of faith and men of reason deliberately chose not to make a public declaration of religion even as they acknowledged it's role in individual action.

They knew that faith must be chosen, not compelled.

---

Talk about timing…

I always find it amazing when I have to point out the U.S. was not founded as a "Christian nation" when one house of the national legislature is called the Senate.

I've written about this many times before. But please don't take my word for it.

http://www.usconstitution.net

That's a site created to explore and explain the Constitution. Look for yourself. Try to find any mention of the Bible or the Divine.

---

Considering the custom of the times, omitting "those words" was even more revolutionary than the Declaration of Independence and the battles that followed.

Again, that doesn't mean that the Founders weren't devout. It does mean that they knew about the English Civil War and the problems caused by some colonies and their religious restrictions.

I'd like to think that each of the Founders decided that if his church wasn't going to be "top dog," no one else's would be either.

And that is why Roy Moore is wrong.

---

Can you show where I'm wrong?

---

The question you should be asking yourself is not if the Founders were religious or if the U.S. was founded as a "Christian nation."

No, the question is why the Founders, among the best educated men of their time, chose not to make the Constitution dependent on any faith.

I'll give you a hint. Too many people are in religion for the politics.

---

I am, and it relates to the question in the title of the post.

If anyone thinks their religion needs the force of law to back it up, then they are doing it wrong.

The law should neither help nor hinder religion. But no religion should rely on force either.

---

If it's a straw man, then why did Roy Moore say what he did?

There's a difference between personal faith and public policy.

---

Pardon, but I think that's wrong.

It's not that the American people hate the Divine. And I don't think they may object because it is a Christian policy.

I think they object because it is a religious rule made policy.❞❞

Tags: religion ∙ enshrined ∙ English Civil War ∙ Senate ∙ government power ∙ faith ∙ religious restrictions ∙ Bible ∙ Divine ∙ Christians ∙ Christianity ∙ Christian ∙ religious rule ∙ policy ∙ force of law ∙ Founders ∙ Constitution ∙ Christian nation ∙ Roy Moore

❝❝There's a very real question why there should be any government grants, but I will leave that for another time.

Assume for a moment that you ran a bookstore. Should you be required by law to carry the Bible even though you were not Christian and did not believe Christianity was a valid faith? What if someone complained because you didn't have it?

Should a vegan restaurant be required to sell pulled pork BBQ?

Should a health food store be required to sell pipe tobacco?

---

Except we know that government does mandate that some products and services be sold or provided.

Let's take another example or two, shall we?

Imagine you are a lawyer or accountant. You know a specific businessman is crooked and can't be trusted. Should you be required to provided services?

Imagine you are an employer. Should you be required to verify the immigration status of each of your employees?

Most importantly, why should prior marginalization get a higher priority when it comes to the rule of law? Doesn't that lead to abuse of it's own when the formerly victimized class games the system?

---

Ah, so you are going to stick to "class of people." That's the problem. People aren't their labels. Or at least they shouldn't be.

Someone doesn't have higher moral authority because their group has been marginalized in the past.

And just in case you hadn't noticed, "American identity politics" is all about oppressing everyone else. All of which is predicated on the guilt of the former oppressor.

---

Black Lives Matter. All too ready to go after "white" cops, but doesn't want to address the problem of "black on black" crime. Nor does it want to address the major underlying problem, single parent families. Something that was encouraged by government, effectively relegating inner city families to poverty. Nor do they accept any criticism of their movement.

Much of third and fourth wave feminism. Apparently feminism is no longer about equality, it's about forcing men to sit down and shut up. And if a man complains, he's accused of rape.

The recent kerfuffle over the "redesigned" rainbow flag that put black and brown stripes at the top so that "people of color" had "representation." Literally "my victimhood is more important than your victimhood."

Identity politics is built on a carefully maintained hierarchy of victimhood. You're not allowed to speak unless you rank high enough with your victimhood or have demonstrated sufficient "compassion," usually by drawing attention to the "problem." But never actually solving anything.

And you are not allowed to question the victimhood.

---

Stop.

Step back. You are excusing their behavior.

Look at what has been done, not at the justifications.

Look at what is allowed within the groups.

Your enabling is just one example of what has locked people into their victimhood.

---

What you've given is excuses why people can't be held accountable.

Black Lives Matter is pushing a narrative that all police interactions with minorities but especially with "blacks" are racist. That's not true. And as I said, they overlook "black" on "black" crime that does not fit with the narrative.

It's victimhood I don't like, especially when perpetuated by bad government policy and "community outreach" that exploits the victims by keeping them victims.

---

And the courts were wrong.

Not because interracial marriages were wrong (they aren't). But because government can't be trusted to make individual moral decisions for you.

If you didn't choose your morality and if you do not commit to your morality, is it really yours?

Or did it just get sacrificed for the greater good?

---

Remember, most of the complaints against the current President are because he is doing the wrong moral things. Or at least, according to some people. Such as pulling out of the Paris accord.

Frankly there are people I want to discriminate against. There are evangelical Christians I want nothing to do with. There are radical feminists that I also don't want anything to do with. My list also includes some of the climate alarmists, the man-boy love crowd, anyone associated with a child beauty pageant, the extra-devout followers of Silver Ravenwolf, pretty much any organized political party, and a few dozen others.

Should government protect those people from my discrimination?

---

Actually we don't know that pulling out of the Paris accord is dangerous for the planet.

Here's what we do know. The "debate" about climate change has been heavily weighed on one side. A recent study has some of the most prominent climate alarmists admitting that the predictions didn't match the reality. President Obama committed the US, but the G20 and Obama didn't call it a treaty so it wouldn't have to go to the US Senate for approval. These aren't exactly moral actions.

Commerce is based on voluntary economic transactions between consenting adults. There's no “public service” about it. A company improves it's product or service (and lowers the price) because it wants to keep business from the competition. The "moral good" is based on pure greed. Nothing government demands from a business won't impose greater costs on the customer. Government relies on force. When government acts against people, it distorts the economy and morality.

It's not about public service, and commerce shouldn't answer to corrupt politicos.

---

The data was fudged. The people who fudged it knew it. The people who sought to make it a political issue beyond the control of any single government knew it.

If it's not about "saving the planet," then you have to ask what it is about. Especially when there is an everchanging deadline and No One Is Allowed To Question the failed predictions.

The entire movement is built on computer models, not science. I can't emphasize that enough. Models, not science. If the models have bad assumptions and/or if the data has been changed, the models aren't accurate.

But, "the science is settled." So you aren't allowed to dissent. You wouldn't accept that from a Creationist, why accept it from people who benefit financially and politically from forcing their agenda?

---

That wasn't what I said.

The models haven't been accurate in more than a dozen years. Even before that, the models had to be "goosed" to show a link between the past and the present.

I've said before that I can create a spreadsheet that makes me a millionaire in a week. That doesn't mean that the spreadsheet is accurate. And it sure doesn't mean I should wave cash around.

If the model isn't accurate, if we know it's not accurate, and if the people pushing the model hardest know that it's not accurate, don't you think it's time to ask why we should use the model?

---

No, that is what you have been told that the model is.

I strongly urge you to take a closer look. And I would remind you that there is no science in history that has ever been considered holy writ and beyond criticism.

For example, if I wanted to know the average global temperature right now this very minute, I'd have to accept that most land based measuring stations are in developed areas, many in highly urban areas that influence the readings. Satillite measurements are better, but don't go back further than about sixty years. And most of the ocean is a mystery below a mile deep.

So what exactly is the global average temperature?

---

I'm not shy about it. I don't approve of their life choices. I especially don't approve when *insert group name here* demands that it is not enough for to acknowledge their words and actions, it must be celebrated as the only accepted truth.

I don't want them on the ballot. I don't want to do business with them. I don't want them in my town.

And I think they are corrupting society.

Again, should government protect them from my discrimination?

---

I may not be a pure libertarian when it comes to the Zero Aggression Principle, but I don't usually initiate force. It's sloppy and takes too much energy.

“How many NAMBLA neighbors do you have, anyway?”

One.

Once.

---

I've been a corporate VP and I've run my own business.

Can you point to the spot in the Constitution where it defines the powers of the Federal government to control who I can and can't do business with? How about the spot where it defines that I must do business with everyone who wants to do business with me? Because under the Tenth Amendment, there isn't one.

If government isn't defending my ability to choose as long as I accept the consequences, then government has failed.

Even if my neighbors don't approve of my choice.

Especially if my neighbors don't approve of my choice.

If I am not free to discriminate as I choose, then government is discriminating against me. And that is what we see now. Some choices are more equal than others.

---

Not really.

That clause is the most abused in the Constitution, largely because it does not place significant restrictions on the Federal government. By some interpretations, the government can do what it wants when it wants and despite what people want. When you consider that everything from FDA approval to requiring transgender bathrooms is shoved through that loophole, it's a wonder that there is anything left of the rest of the Constitution.

Even in your flawed interpretation, public accommodation only applies in certain cases. Some are more victimized than others, remember?

---

Volumes have also been written against it. For generations in fact, right back to to the Anti-Federalist Papers

And then there is always the practical common sense approach. Here's the clause straight from Article 1 Section 8.

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

I can tell you know many Diné, Hopi, Havasupai, and White Mountain Apache who think that "Great White Father speaks with forked tongue." Just look at what the Interior Department did when it came to mineral rights.

You've tried to tell me what the consensus says, but you haven't disputed my conclusions. The commerce clause has been used to expand Federal power far beyond the scope of the rest of the Constitution. The only other comparable Federal power grab in American history has been the USA PATRIOT Act and the open-ended declaration of hostilities that happened after 9-11.

---

Or we could just stop handing out government grants and do something radically different like lower taxes, reduce government spending, and let people decide what to do with their own money.

---

Church playgrounds aren't national religious issues unless government is funding them.

The First Amendment is very clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Neither help nor hinder. It's the only way to win this particular battle. Otherwise you have things like a Faith Based Initiative (for certain faiths approved by law) and school prayer.

---

I think we do. And it's right there in the First Amendment.

Don't.

If there is one thing worse than a politico wrapping themselves in the flag, it's a politico standing on religion wrapping themselves in a flag.❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ government ∙ grants ∙ religion ∙ business ∙ bookstore ∙ Bible ∙ vegan ∙ pulled pork BBQ ∙ health food store ∙ pipe tobacco ∙ government mandate ∙ immigration ∙ marginalization ∙ rule of law ∙ moral authority ∙ Black Lives Matter ∙ third wave feminism ∙ fourth wave feminism ∙ equality ∙ rape ∙ rainbow flag ∙ victimhood ∙ victim hierarchy ∙ identity politics ∙ compassion ∙ interracial marriages ∙ moral decisions ∙ greater good ∙ Paris accord ∙ Christians ∙ RadFem ∙ climate alarmist ∙ man-boy love ∙ beauty pageant ∙ Silver Ravenwolf ∙ discrimination ∙ G20 ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Senate ∙ commerce ∙ commerce clause ∙ improves ∙ competition ∙ voluntary economic transactions between consenting adults ∙ computer models ∙ global temperature ∙ climate change ∙ Zero Agression Principle ∙ NAMBLA ∙ neighbors

‟Ignore the Mob—Long Live the Electoral College”

Tags: skimmed ∙ David Harsanyi ∙ electoral college ∙ President ∙ Vice President ∙ politicos ∙ scaremonger ∙ Senate ∙ Congress ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Donald Trump ∙ clipping

We’re at the point where the American republic may fall.

At this point, I’m honestly not sure it can be saved.

I’m not sure it should be saved.

There are some ideas I have been playing with the last few years or so. I’ve tried to talk these out with people I trust. And now I am putting them here. All are Constitutional amendments.

Remember that the Constitution was designed to restrain the actions of government, not citizens. Remember too that many of the checks and balances have been removed over the years. And finally, the Federal government was never intended to run smoothly and efficiently. The checks and balances were designed to protect freedom.

Liberty is the goal, not democracy.

• Repeal the 16th Amendment

The income tax is one of the biggest threats to freedom ever enacted. With it, the Federal government assumes you are guilty unless you can prove that you are not. This is a complete reversal of the rule of law prior to the amendment.

With the 16th, the Federal government is not restrained by the need for a warrant. Your employer, your bank, any financial company that you do business with, all are required by law to report transactions over a specific amount or any “suspicious activity.” There are “rewards” if other citizens turn you in. Effectively, everyone around you is required to spy on you and penalized if they do not.

Tax cases are heard in an administrative court run by the Internal Revenue Service with it’s own rules of evidence. Your money and property can be seized and the only way you can get it back (less interest) is to prove that the IRS is wrong by it’s own regulations. Regulations that are so complex that it is literally beyond the ability of any one person to understand.

The “progressive” tax system is designed to foster envy and “class” disruption. The income tax is one of the most despised Federal laws in American history. The only thing that keeps Americans from hanging IRS agents is that citizens think the “system” hits someone else worse. It fosters scapegoats so it seems “fair.”

An income tax system inevitably leads to political corruption. Unpopular groups find themselves under extra scrutiny. Politicos use it to keep their enemies and rivals in line.

There are technicalities that I could spend pages and pages examining. For example, if there is a “standard deduction,” then by definition taxes are too high.

The income tax took away your freedom. You have to acknowledge this every year by signing a Federal form. Under penalty of law.

• Repeal the 17th Amendment

Brought to you by the same merry madcaps who gave us the 16th, the 17th Amendment reduces freedom in the name of popular democracy. The 17th has made Senators political bosses in their own states, with control of the Federal money spigot and a guaranteed spot high up in the political parties.

The popular election of Senators took away some of the oversight the state legislatures were supposed to have on Congress. But since Senators no longer answer to their state legislature, they have become tools of their party.

This does not serve freedom.

This part of popular democracy destroys freedom. It’s an illusion designed to expand the major political parties while fooling the voter into thinking that they have influence.

There’s a place for popular democracy, but not unrestrained popular democracy. The Bill of Rights is the best example.

• None of the Above and Alternative Voting

Every election should have a None of the Above choice. If NOTA won, then those candidates on the ballot would be barred from serving in that office for that term.

One choice that people should always have is the choice to walk away.

We should never assume that the default is to elect someone. Especially if the voters aren’t picking who gets to run.

Alternative voting just means ranking the candidates in order of your favorites. The biggest advantage is that the minority candidates have a better chance of being elected and major parties are forced to pay closer attention to all the voters. Instead of voting against a bad candidate, voters could choose someone closer to their beliefs and priorities.

• Laws and Regulations

As things stand now, there will always be more laws and regulations unless Congress takes direct action. Think about that carefully.

The default state of the American Federal government is more government.

That is not freedom.

I suggest a three pronged attack.

First, ALL government regulations would sunset within three years unless made law by Congress and the President.

Second, state legislatures would approve Federal regulation before it applies in that state. This approval could be withdrawn at any time. Congress has the power and authority to pass laws for the nation, but it can’t delegate that power. Every single Federal regulation that governs individuals and states is unconstitutional.

This would reduce Federal regulation to it’s proper scope and shift coercive power away from millions of unelected technocrats.

I know this seems excessive, but it is actually well within Constitutional principles. There’s nothing in the Constitution that provides for regulatory agencies except the much abused and overused commerce clause. Certainly there is nothing that provides for administrative court systems outside the Federal courts.

Third, each state legislature could choose one Federal law annually for referendum at the next Congressional election. Each Congressional election, there could be up to 100 Federal laws on the ballot. And if a law does not get a national majority voting to retain it, it would be gone.

Practically, this would effectively be automatic repeal. Unless it was a very good idea, I can’t see a majority voting to keep a law. But the possibility is there. The automatic repeal means that Congress would have to convince voters of the worth of each and every law. And if the state legislatures are canny, one carefully chosen law could defang dozens of others.

In other words, this proposal gives the states direct oversight of Congress.

There are other things that I would love to see done. But these four would do wonders. I welcome your comments and ideas.

Tags: American republic ∙ repeal ∙ amendment ∙ technocrats ∙ Constitution ∙ President ∙ amendment proposal ∙ referendum ∙ 16th Amendment ∙ income tax ∙ IRS ∙ 17th Amendment ∙ Senate ∙ none of the above ∙ alternative voting ∙ Congress ∙ more government ∙ Federal regulation ∙ default state ∙ sunset clause ∙ exempt ∙ automatic repeal ∙ commerce clause ∙ Republic ∙ classic ∙ favorites

This is a page from the original version of Pagan Vigil. There are some formatting differences. Originally published at www.paganvigil.com/C149884619/E656387568

Did you hear what you thought you heard?

““Again and again in recent years, the filibuster has been the shame of the Senate and the last resort of special interest groups. Too often, it has enabled a small minority of the Senate to prevent a strong majority from working its will and serving the public interest.””
     — Senator Edward Kennedy, 1975

Just remember what he said then and what he says now. Then ask yourself what the difference is.

Posted: Fri - May 27, 2005 at 08:33 AM

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ Ted Kennedy ∙ filibuster ∙ Senate ∙ short ∙ skimmed