Miss California USA, the Gay Mob, and My Outrage

Carrie Prejean answered a question on same sex marriage the way that about 80% of Americans would - that she believes we should live under a set of rules that limit legal marriage between one man and one woman. Instant outcry from the Gay Panelist Judge, Perez Hilton, created an instant internet buzz and eventual media blitz. The media reported the question and answer as "Controversial"... and I have promised to stay away from junk news, until now... where there is an actual story.

There are three issues within this story -

1. When is an issue considered "controversial"?
2. The defamation of character as a tactic of the left.
3. The insane anger of the gay-lobby.

From the beginning of this "story" the media reported that Miss USA California was asked a "controversial" question, or that she gave a controversial answer. The question was: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or Why Not?" Her answer: "I think it is great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage. In my family, I was raised, I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to any body out there, but that is how I was raised and that is how I think it should be, between a man and a woman." The answer she gave is the same answer that Obama gave during an election cycle interview:


The controversy of this statement made by Miss USA California is not in what she said - but that she dared to say it directly to a Gay judge. What began the story is not her answer, but the angry tirade that followed by Perez Hilton - where he called her an explicative "B" word, which he openly reinforced by following it up on MSNBC by calling her an explicative "C" word. The controversy is that an individual dared to challenge the gay-lobby, and openly admitted to her belief in traditional marriage.

In response to Carrie Prejean's answer, the enraged gay-lobby began an investigation into Carrie's background - looking for anything that may be used to discredit and destroy the high-profile advocate for Same Sex Marriage. What they found where images of her modeling for lingerie - and further semi-topless art photos that are completely tasteful and artistic (photo courtesy of TMZ.com). They have set out on a crusade to destroy this woman's life, attempt to destroy her career, and to attempt to defame her character - all because they see her as a threat - one who is not afraid to take the state and suggest that she supports the same position as a super majority of Americans when it comes to traditional marriage. As I previously mentioned, this is a common tactic of those on the left - hold conservatives to the higher standard to which they subscribe, while living in a set of morals that are of a lower standard and thus suggest that they can "get away" with their actions. This double standard tactic is often used by the left - and is nothing but a straw man. It is a distraction with pure malicious intent.

I believe that Miss USA California should take the podium, acknowledge that the photos are of her and that she took them willingly, reveal the photos in larger than life B/W prints behind her from beneath a curtain, and deliver a speech on the history of artwork involving the human body - dating back to the earliest days of human civilization... reference the Venus De Milo, with both breasts exposed (oh, the horror!) She should end her speech with a resounding "SHAME ON YOU" to Perez Hilton and his ilk for attempting to vilify a woman because of her traditional beliefs, and for her artistic free expression of her body.

Finally, what needs to be addressed is the insane anger of the gay-lobby. This includes grassroots gay-activists, as well as "celebrity gossip columnists" like Perez Hilton. After Prop. 8 recognized marriage in California's Constitution as a legal union between one man and one woman, the gay-lobby was so enraged that they attacked Mormon temples, assaulted members of churches, burned copies of the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Again, we see another case of outrage and anger - to the point where their specific intent is to DESTROY the opposition. I argue that their anger is misplaced, as is the the focus of their fight... from a military standpoint, the worst combat decision for a minority force is frontal assault - blunt force will not work when you are outnumbered. Even when you attempt to snipe advocates of traditional marriage, your tactic is still blunt force... it is wrong, and grossly misplaced.

I am outraged that such attacks against NON-GAYS are not classified as "hate crimes" - a protection that a gay-rights advocate can claim if ever attacked, physically or otherwise... There is unequal footing, and it does nothing but add to the frustration and outrage on both sides.

The solution is simple - Leave government out of marriage. Stop making laws regulating religious rights - it is in violation of the Constitution. Stop providing tax benefits for marriages, stop issuing marriage licenses, stop treating marriage as a legal right, and return it to faith.

State's Sovereignty Bills Explode Across America

Special thanks to RP at Way Up North, and the Tenth Amendment Center, for bringing this information to my attention. States across the nation have, en masse, passed legislation or bills of some manner declaring their continued sovereignty from the Federal Government. As of today, 35 states have proposed or passed such bills - sending an overwhelming message (even from blue states) that the Federal Government is subject to checks and balances within the bounds of the Constitution.

Colorado State killed the bill in Committee - as did six other states... The remaining states have the bill in committee, passed in one or both houses, and in the case of Alaska, on the way to the Governors Desk... Do you think Gov. Palin will sign a sovereignty bill?

The text of the bill, similar across the multitude of states, speaks a resounding "Heck No" to subjugation of the states to federal authority outside of their Constitutional bounds. This example is pulled from the Alaskan version -

SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27 (2d RES)

Relating to the Sovereign Powers of the State

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF
ALASKA:

WHEREAS the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States reads, “The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people”; and

WHEREAS
the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that
specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS some federal actions weaken states’ rights
protected by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people
of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States,
now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS art. IV, sec. 4, Constitution of the United
States, reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government,” and the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people”; and

WHEREAS the United States Supreme Court
has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (1992), that the
United States Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory
processes of the states; and

WHEREAS all states,
including Alaska, find themselves regularly facing proposals from the United
States Congress that weaken states’ rights protected by the Tenth Amendment;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature hereby
claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the
federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution serves as Notice
and Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately,
mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

COPIES of this resolution shall be sent to the
Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States; the Honorable Joseph R.
Biden, Jr., Vice-President of the United States and President of the U.S.
Senate; the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of
Representatives; the Honorable Lisa Murkowski and the Honorable Mark Begich,
U.S. Senators, and the Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative, members of the
Alaska delegation in Congress; all other members of the 111th United States
Congress; the presiding officers of the legislatures of each of the other 49
states; and the governors of each of the other 49 states.

These remaining 28 bills - and even the 7 which have been killed - represent a strong stand against the federal authoritarian expansion of powers in violation of the Constitution of the United States. These state legislatures are making the stand necessary to ensure that These United States remain a collection of free and independent states, not a single nation state under Federal Rule.

I strongly urge every reader to write/call their local state legislator and explain to them the importance of declaring sovereignty at the state level - and ensure that the Federal Government gets the message that the People of the United States will not be ruled.

My previous post raised the question about the future of the Republican Party. If we use strong-arm Grassroots tactics such as this, and not rely on them merely as parlor tricks, then we become leaders within the Libertarian movement needed to return the GOP to the right - and ultimately to electoral victory. Though this is not a partisan issue, rather a state's rights issue, it MUST BE the GOP who drives the movement to regain standing.

As new potential candidates come forward - ask them how they would vote on a state sovereignty bill... and then continue to press the issue of state's rights and limited government... Let's vet the 2010 candidates fully and ensure that the next generation of GOP candidates breathes the necessary life into the party.

To Regain Power, or Regain Right? The Republican Predicament

Predicament indeed. There has been much talk over the last 100+ days of the Obama administration and the filibuster-proof Senate and the radically Left House... and the stampede towards 2010 by the GOP. Along the way, the GOP has been leaderless in effectively stopping the Left from Nationalizing Industry and further bankrupting the nation... two policies fully supported by GOP leadership under George W. Bush.

The question becomes this: Does the GOP aim to regain power, or regain the right?

The way this simple question is answered will determine the future of the party - both for attracting next generation members and retaining those members with a current stock in the party.

If the aim of the GOP is to regain power for power's sake, then we are no better than when we were governmentally whorish under Bush. The last eight years saw the largest expanse of the US government, the power of the government over the people, and the largest buildup of debt ever. This has become the brand of the Republicans. We may claim that we were simply unable to stop the Democrats from spending - but facts show that earmark after earmark came from the right just as much as from the left... The holes in the sinking ship were drilled by both parties, with their respective special interest.

If the national party aims merely to regain control without first obtaining the clarity needed to lead, we may succeed as a party for the short term, but lose as a nation in the long term.

Our focus must be on regaining the right. I have commented in the past on guidelines needed as we clean house in the GOP - but perhaps it is simpler than that... simpler than "radicalizing", as I called it... it is simply returning to the basic Libertarian ideals that drove this party forward (though in the minority) under Goldwater. We regain our big tent status not on the back of the Christian Right, but on the principles of Liberty...

That is to say, success as a party needs to begin with identifying State's Rights, Small Government, Fiscal Conservatives who are Socially Libertarian - believing that a TRUE small government does not dictate social values - especially at the federal level. Those candidates who truly believe that the Federal Government was intended to be a limited body, yielding all powers NOT granted in the Constitution back to the People and the States, respectively... words directly pulled from our Bill of Rights.

Our party has lost its way, falling for the liberal idea that government is the answer... In fact, succumbing to this mindset and using government to force social agenda has backed the GOP into a corner of constant "moral crisis" when any member of the party falters in their personal life - garnering more media attention than, say, criminal violation of federal tax laws by top level Democrats in Obama's administration (violations that would make Al Capone blush).

Government is NOT the answer - and never should be. That should be the Republican Mantra. We should promise to cut the size of the government by X% each year at the federal, state, and local level until they return to the roles of delivering the basic services for which their services are required. We should embrace a flat tax, a balanced budget Constitutional Amendment, and the elimination of unnecessary government agencies - such as the IRS, DHS, Dept of Educ., etc...

We need to communicate to the American people the importance of a Small Government Party... and we need to live up to those commitments - not create departments such as DHS.

We need to right this ship by doing what is right... not using the democratic tactic to push our social agenda against the left's. When Republicans act like Democrats, they lose every time. When Democrats act like Republicans, they win... We can take this back by being Fiscally Conservative Socially Libertarian Republicans... The way Goldwater intended us to be.

Deficit Spending on Social Programs Compounding Social Fall-out

$11 Trillion in US debt, the Federal Government has taken the cue that there is no need to have liquid assets when you control the printing press. In doing so, over the last decades, the perception of wealth has been superior to actual wealth... and as such, inflation of the US dollar has soared, making net wealth actually much less than mere decades prior. Standards of living are vastly improved, however, again, I submit that this is merely perception of wealth.

What is more troubling is the increased role the US government is taking in providing social programs by way of social bureaucracies. With the numbers of individuals dependent on these programs swelling, there is a simple question begin begged: What happens when the money runs out?

The old parable "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will always be fed" comes to mind.

When the money runs out, when the system begins to shut down, you will get New Orleans circa Hurricane Katrina - where services were less than a mile away, with little "water walking", yet tens of thousands of people sat idly by yelling into the cameras and shouting into the air "WE WANT HELP"... sadly, some died as the mob idly stood by, unable and unwilling to save themselves - complete dependence on government assistance right up until the end.

When "we want help" fails to work for millions, as it failed during Katrina, there is going to be a catastrophe never before seen here in the United States. When the numbers are such that entire communities and ways of life have been established on government dependence, two things can happen when the well runs dry: One - entire communities begin to starve to death, disease overtakes the communities and they wither and die; two - they revolt and attack those who they perceive as 'hoarding' their entitled necessities.

I suppose option three is that the government gains total control of commodities as well as money, forcing government mandated crops for the "US Food Program" and government mandated occupation in support of the betterment of the nation. The full implementation of "to those based on their need from those based on their ability" - also known as the Marxist Dictum.

Regarding option one: private help, charitable foundations, and the like will step in, as they do now, to quell the hunger and aid those trained only to receive... however, the ability to sustain this level of charity will become impossible. You will surely begin to see limitless masses pining for their 'fair share' of the charity - unwilling to give back or to step aside for the next hungry mouth. Entire communities will be displaced or deceased... and it will be blamed on the inability of private charity to provide.

Regarding option two: I believe that conspiracy theorists refer to this scenario as the "race wars". Communities of inner city mobs will begin raids on the suburban area for wealth, then basics like food and water. The ethnic make-up of the cultural boundaries is clear to all, which is why the term 'race wars' is used. This civil unrest will be the final chapter in the story of the United States, as it existed as a free society.

The underlying problem continues to point toward government involvement. The establishment of sub-cultures, be they "migrant workers" or unskilled inner city welfare communities, is the horrible side effect of government social welfare programs. When the intent is to provide all for everyone, the system fails itself and the nation.

When the systems were 'sold' to the citizens of the US it was during a crisis - and remember the Obama administration taught us that no good crisis should go unused. Past crises were used to sell a "support net" intended to help folks get back on their feet... they became abused and resulted in the mess we see today - complete dependence.

In short - the money will run out... the money has run out. The continued wealth we see is perception only - the US is bankrupt and is digging faster into debt than ever before in the history of its existence. Once the money is gone, we are going to have a flood of government dependents screaming "We Want Help" - but in the end there will be ne'er an ear to listen.