Societal Failure – Government Protectionism

In today's world we too often hear buzz words such as multiculturalism and diversity. For some they get a warm and fuzzy feeling from embracing such beliefs. The same people will in turn shout hateful rhetoric at those who might have different beliefs. History will likely show us that segments of the population embrace sub groups they perceive to be slighted, while having anger at those they believe to be slighting.

Everyone seems to be talking about this or that group needing protection, or believing they are victims of society. The reason for this is because most of us have, at times, found ourselves at the bottom, or an outsider in a group. In high school we would search for people who might also be outcasts or similar in personality to form our own group. There are some like myself who could float easily among all groups, but finding a true home with none – not because of others, but because of myself. I truly enjoyed diversity and often filled my life with some of the oddest and insane characters you will ever meet. That has at least made life interesting.

Throughout history we have found groups of people who were bound into slavery. Today, slavery is as prevalent as ever, yet few fight to free these people. We have a media that seems to talk daily about a new victim class, but rarely about today's slaves. With that said, we can never end victim-hood. As long as humans survive they will hold prejudices against their bothers and sisters for a variety of reasons. No law can protect us from prejudice. For the most part, laws have been written to promote discrimination. Demand freedom from government so that you can live your life as you see fit.

Disaster – Government Control of Drugs

As election time nears, discussions of Marijuana legalization or decriminalization heats up. We see leading prospective 2016 president wannabes such as Govs. Christie and Perry expressing their views on Marijuana. Their views are likely to represent the GOP pack, and likely some of the Democratic candidates

“Gov. Chris Christie says he will 'never' permit legalized marijuana use while he’s the governor of New Jersey “

He and others cite a study that casual marijuana use could be detrimental to the human brain. This study could be correct, but the effects of drugs on the human biology plays no part in this writing. There are many things legal that do great harm to our bodies, such as smoking tobacco and alcohol use topping the list. Efforts to ban either of those go nowhere. In fact, crime became so prevalent because of alcohol prohibition that an Amendment was passed to once again allow sale.

Christie also said: “I am not going to be the governor who’s going to tell our children and our young adults that marijuana use is okay. Because it’s not.”

While politicians are debating an innocuous drug like marijuana we stand idly by as children are turned into addicts. The greatest number of addicts aren't buying their drugs from scurrilous dealers on the corner, but from those dressed in white with the magical prescription pads. Our greatest number of addicts aren't a result of illegal drugs, but those tightly controlled by the federal government. Parents fear sending their children to the seedy side of town where you find drug dealers, but they will gladly push them into the waiting arms of the drug pusher wearing white – the drug dealer who was given power by the state.

A Nation Divided by Angry Rhetoric

I just read the townhall.com article, By 2024, The Democrats Will Be An Atheist Party. I simply don't understand how this kind of rhetoric can win voters and minds away from the progressive agenda. This kind of 2^nd grade name calling does nothing to win elections – all it does is alienate those who might be on the line. After reading that piece I have to wonder if they might be intentionally trying to throw the election. Do they hate the GOP so much they would throw the election?

To change the economic course of this country we can't sit around worry about what faith someone follows, or even those who chooses none of the above. We want people to accept our economic system no matter if they are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist. If conservatives like Townhall demand we have a Christian only nation then we are not on the same side.

From Townhall.com: “Democrats are waging war on the faithful and are even comfortable booing God on national TV. Give it three more presidential election cycles and the Democrat Party’s platform will be expressly antireligious.

Do you really want politics to turn into some religious war? Religious wars have a nasty history. When discussing politics we want a government that treats all people equally, no matter their religious beliefs. It is very unlikely that the Democratic Party will become anti-Christian. If it should ever take that extreme position then it will be because of such articles as the one on Townhall.com.

The Approaching Death of Free Speech

Bundy Ranch, Nevada

We have all been watching the battle between the IRS and Tea Party groups. There is growing, and maybe clear evidence that the IRS has been holding up certain groups for political reasons. There is also evidence that some staffers campaigned for candidate Obama while at work. But there is much more at stake with this – and that is the 1^st Amendment. By giving one political group more power than another they can effectively control speech – and possibly elections.

I have been watching the battle between LGTB and Conservative groups over gay marriage. For the most part the battle is only over marriage. So far the process is working, if not at a snails pace. But this piece isn't about gay marriage, but the right to voice your opinion is being placed in danger. A recent headline grabbed my attention, Hate group leader Peter LaBarbera detained at Canadian airport. Until that moment I have never heard of the anti-gay group, Americans for Truth about Homosexuality.

After looking over the website I agree with LGBT groups that this is in part a hate group – not so much because of their stand on marriage, but for a stand against homosexuality in general. With that said, I will defend their right to exist as long as they don't physically harm people. Simply because a group or person might spout hate, that doesn't mean people should listen and act on that speech. Those who act on that speech already had those beliefs.

It scares me that in Canada a person can be arrested for simply speaking out about their beliefs. If they wish to deny entry to people, that's up to the Canadian people. There are those in this country who would love for government to allow only their speech – those people come from both the left and right political spectrums.

Marriage – Until Death Do Us Part

The argument over gay/same-sex marriage rages on to the point people are losing their jobs – as in the case of Mozilla CEO, Brendan Eich who was forced to resign for his contributions to Prop 8 in California(essentially banning gay marriage). In every war there are civilian casualties – in this one the greatest casualty might be that of speech and those who love one another. This battle has put family members at odds with one another.

Let's talk a little about marriage, itself. For the first half of this country's history, people simply went to their priest or priestess, depending on the religion, for their marriage or hand-fasting. In some cases couples simply cohabited. These unions were often recorded in the family bible, along with the names of future children. When government began keeping records, this is where they went for information.

After the slaves were freed, and sometimes before in free areas, government began to notice that black and white couples were getting married. There were those who thought this joining might tarnish white purity. For that reason they began passing laws to forbid these unions. It was for this reason government decided to take over marriages from religious organizations. There were instances where government forbade those of different faiths to marry.

Today, a marriage performed by a government bureaucrat, or one by a priest or priestess, are equally legal. The government decides who can or can't take part in these government sanctioned marriages. They decide who can take part in the privileges set aside for those married couples. A Chief Justice noted 1500 regulations and laws that pertain only to married people.

A marriage was intended to be something much more personal than a set of government privileges. A marriage is suppose to be about the combining of two lives. It is about two people falling in love and joining for the rest of their lives. Marriage is not about the potential for children, but two people who wish to show a commitment to one another. A marriage is the promise of life together. Many children are produced outside of marriage.

Progressive – not gay agenda

Occasionally, something comes along that I find completely astounding and outrageous. I will begin this to say that I am a happy Mozilla user, not because of their politics or any other reason – I simply find their products fulfill my needs.

Mozilla's chief executive officer Brendan Eich, was let go this week because in 2008 he donated $1000 to Proposition 8 that sought to make traditional marriage the standard in California. The proposition gained popular vote and passed, that is, until struck down by the courts. Right or wrong, the system went through the process.

The problem comes when an American donated to a particular cause in which he believed and then 6 years later forced from his job for that donation. I personally don't agree with his political choice on this matter, but I will defend his right to disagree with my opinion. In my perfect world, government would not have any say on whom someone married or didn't marry. We know from past experience with interracial couples that government has had poor judgment in this area.