Saturday, June 30, 2012

Patriotism Is Propaganda to the Left

The Evening Sun (Hanover, Pennsylvania) reported that a self-described liberal tried to get products bearing the Gadsden flag at a Gettysburg souvenir store banned because he deemed those products propaganda. The Evening Sun quoted the liberal as saying the following:
“It isn’t sold in a historically relevant context,” said Paul Gioni, a battlefield enthusiast from Mahwah, N.J., who contacted the National Park Service and The Evening Sun after visiting the park recently. “This is blatantly political merchandise.”
Yet The Evening Sun article reveals that Gioni’s charge is false on its face.
The nonprofit Gettysburg Foundation operates the bookstore and a spokeswoman said the Gadsden flag merchandise serves a goal of representing the broader context of American history. Furthermore, Cindy Small said, there remain connections between the Gadsden flag and fighting at Gettysburg.

“During the Civil War, the flag was used in some Southern states as a symbol of secession,” she said.

Federal regulations call for all merchandise sold at National Parks to be approved in writing by a park superintendent. At Gettysburg, the Gadsden flag merchandise has received approval from park officials, according to spokeswoman Katie Lawhon.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Which Laws Am I Allowed to Ignore?

Those who despise American sovereignty demand that we find a so-called pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens who broke American law by illegally coming here, and disregarded the already in existence legal pathway to citizenship for anyone who cares to follow the law. And it is through this demand for further concessions that the advocates for illegal aliens reveal their utter contempt for me and other law-abiding citizens since first they demand that we not deport illegal aliens as we should, and then that they punish we law-abiding citizens further by granting the illegal aliens citizenship. In short, they hold the position that illegal aliens have a right to invade and occupy our nation.

Saturday, June 23, 2012

The Armed Forces Must Force Men and Women to Live and Shower Together

The Department of Justice has forced a branch of the University of Arkansas to allow a man to use female restrooms. So be it. Then there should be no more excuses for why the government should not force the Department of Defense to require male and female Servicemen to live and shower together.

The government decided to repeal morality from the Armed Forces in December 2010 when it discontinued the misnamed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Some people noted at the time that the revoking of that policy should also have ended the segregated living and showering conditions for men and women in the Armed Forces. After all, since we now require men to live and shower with other men who are sexually attracted to them, and women to live and shower with other women who are sexually attracted to them, then there is no reason to continue the apparently outdated and backwards practice of segregating living and showering conditions for men and women who might be sexually attracted to one another. Yet this change didn’t occur following the legislation of December 2010.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Would Pro-lifers Be Happy If More Boys Were Aborted?

I’m seeing various articles and columns from conservatives (such as this) on the so-called atrocity of sex-selective abortion. I don’t get this line of thinking. I mean, sure I understand how this fact is useful in throwing in the faces of leftists, who have deemed themselves enlightened and for equality and women’s rights. But beyond that, I don’t see any value in working to enact legislation to ban sex-selective abortion. After all, how is bringing about equity in abortion any better than aborting a girl just because she is a girl? It’s murder either way.

Besides, if I was on the left, I would respond to this particular charge from conservatives simply by promising to abort more boys in the future. And if the left does choose to do this, what then will be the response from conservatives? After all, the left would have logically responded to the apparent grievance that too many girls are being murdered by promising to murder more boys.

Of course, beyond this, one has to ask: Why shouldn’t there be a bias towards aborting girls? After all, if we are looking for equity in murder, then the number of girls being murdered should be higher than the number of boys being murdered since in one hundred percent of the cases the person doing the murdering is a woman. In fact, until we get the percentages of abortions being 100% girls and 0% boys, there always will be a “sexist gender gap” in abortion.

What Happens If Romney Wins?

When the Democrats lost the congressional election in 2010 they wasted no time in taking advantage of their lame-duck congressional session to inflict harm on the nation (such as repealing morality from the Armed Forces). So let’s say that Mitt Romney prevails in the 2012 presidential election. What will the Democrats do?

Have any prominent Republican leaders taken this into consideration and if so, what are their plans for dealing with a lame-duck Democrat Party (not just Congress) following such a scenario? What have they considered the Democrats possibly doing during the time between November 2012 and late January 2013? Sure, the Democrats don’t control the entire Congress. But they control the executive branch. And one could possibly argue that that branch currently is more powerful than both the other branches.

I don’t suggest anyone taking a Romney victory for granted. And who knows, maybe the Democrats won’t even be all that disappointed if he does win. (He is, after all, Democratic candidate B for 2012.) Even still, I wonder if someone in the upper echelons of political power is considering the consequences if he emerges victorious. What courses of action do the Democrats have planned should they lose the election and what contingencies do the Republicans have planned for response?