Who's the Bigger Spender, Bush or Obama?

Liberals are still trying to tell everyone that Bush is a bigger spender than Obama.  What I look at are the total debt figures published by the US Treasury. Using Treasury figures, the total federal debt now stands at $18.15 trillion. On 9/30/2009 at the start of the first full fiscal year of the Obama administration, the debt was $11.91 trillion. Doing the math gives an increase of $6.24 trillion so far for Obama. On 9/30/2001, the start of the first full fiscal year after Bush took office, the debt was at $5.81 trillion. Subtracting that from the 11.91 trillion in 2009, we get $6.1 trillion for Bush's full 8 years. Using just simple math and US government figures, Obama is already ahead with more than 2 years to go. The figures liberals are using are contrived to hide what's actually going on. The net debt figures are never messed with. These are readily available figures, but they are never mentioned on MSNBC, because liberals believe that welfare comes from an always full pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and never has to be worked for or paid for.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/...
https://www.treasurydirect.gov...

Liberals Force Me to Play Identity Politics

I'm tired of liberals assuming I'm intolerant racist due to their ignorant prejudices. So let's play identity politics. My sister in law is black and she's the best thing that ever happened to my little brother. I go to a Protestant church once a year for Easter. My wife is not a Christian. Three of my grandparents were from three different varieties of Christianity. One of my grandfathers was Jewish. My family was always in favor of civil rights since the 1850's, when they freed all of their slaves in Virginia, bought them passage to Liberia and gave them money to buy land once they got there. It wasn't safe for freed slaves to remain in 1850's Virginia.

In Montana we were unpopular because we paid "white" wages to Indians working on our ranch. My Jewish grandfather was not able to buy real estate or rent apartments in certain areas in and around Chicago. My grandmother, a Methodist, had the deed or the lease in her name so they could live wherever they wanted. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed the restrictive covenants on deeds and leases that kept Jews from buying land in restricted areas.

Historically it's true that Republicans were more in favor of civil rights than Democrats. I think that's still true.  Today there are two black Senators, Democrat Cory Booker from New Jersey and Republican Tim Scott from South Carolina. If Republicans are all as racist as liberals assume, then they must all need new glasses down there in South Carolina. I think Mr. Scott was elected for being a Tea Party Republican. I don't think his race mattered at all. I also think his existence gives the lie to the Democrats' narrative that America has not improved since the Jim Crow Era, especially in Dixie. In 1963, Mr. Scott would not have been able to register to vote in South Carolina. Today, he's Senator Scott, the first black US Senator ever elected from South Carolina, the Cradle of the Confederacy with an electorate that's over 60% white. It's curious that the mainstream media did not think Mr. Scott's election was newsworthy. I wonder why that is?

Why Liberals See Racism Everywhere

In the past year, the loud dominating liberal drum beat of racism charges has been a constant presence in domestic news coverage.  Any evidence to the contrary is ignored.  In 2014, South Carolina elected a Tea Party Republican to finish out the Senate term of Jim DeMint.  This doesn't sound too exciting until you look at Tim Scott's picture.  Mr. Scott is the first black Senator ever elected by South Carolina, the Cradle of the Confederacy.  The liberal press didn't think Mr. Scott's election was newsworthy, so they didn't cover it.  Liberals try to hold on to black votes by giving the impression that Jim Crow racism is alive and almost unchanged throughout the country.  Further, all of the racism they see is brought to you by lily white Republicans.  When an event, like Mr. Scott's election, does not fit this narrative, it's ignored.  

If black voters actually examined the record of what Democrats have done for them, or more accurately to them, black voters would not give 90% of their votes to Democrats.  The worst pockets of inner city minority poverty have almost without exception been under one party governments for generations.  The record of failure is quite clear.  Fear is needed to motivate minority voters stuck in these hell holes to keep voting for the failed policies that leave them with no hope.

This isn't to say that racism has been totally eliminated.  But saying that racism today is just as bad as it was in 1963 is ridiculous.  In 1963, Tim Scott couldn't even have registered to vote in South Carolina.  Now, he's US Senator Scott. 

Supreme Court Reignites Culture Wars

According to the main stream media, aka the Pravda Press, the culture wars have been rekindled.  I agree, but I think the Supreme Court lit the match.  The Supreme Court has made it a habit of removing social issues from legislative debate by issuing edicts under the color of legal opinions. It's the edicts, not the social issues themselves, which cause big emotional arguments. The Supreme Court is abusing its power by rewriting laws and inventing Constitutional provisions.  I think that Roe v Wade should have taught us that the problem is not the issue of abortion itself.  The problem is the Supreme Court finding things in the Constitution that are not really there.

In 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted, homosexual acts were illegal in every state. The legislators who ratified it thought it was about race. The Supreme Court had to make it up to use the 14th Amendment to proclaim same sex marriage as a Constitutional right. If the Supremes had ruled that under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, a marriage legally performed in one state must be recognized on all states, there would have been right wing grumbling but not the explosion you're seeing now. The way the decision was reasoned basically says that 5 Supreme Court Justices can do whatever they want. There are no Constitutional limits which they will respect.

In the bakery case, it's rule of law, free speech and freedom of religion versus political correctness. The basic idea of the rule of law is that everyone should be able to know what the law is in advance so they can obey it. In this case, nobody could know that the fines imposed for refusing to create a wedding cake for gay marriage were going to be more than the annual profits of the entire bakery. People would generally feel that you sell standard goods to everyone, but you have the right as an artist to refuse to put images and messages on custom cakes that go against your convictions or religious beliefs. For example, you should not be forced to make a Hitler themed birthday cake, especially if you're Jewish. The administrative law "judge" made it up. There was no precedent for the finding. There was no precedent for the size of the fine or damages, whatever you want to call the $135,000 assessment against the Oregon bakers. It was a lawless act. 

It's typically minorities that need a strong rule of law to protect themselves from angry mobs. At the moment, gay marriage has an angry mob on its side. Liberals must be very foolish not to see the possibility that mobs might form with irresponsible opposing viewpoints. If there's no law, whoever has the biggest mob wins.

At this point most liberals tune out because they assume I’m a Christian fundamentalist racist bigot.  So now I have to play identity politics.  I believe that married gay couples need to own guns to protect their homes, children and marijuana plants. I go to a Protestant church once a year for Easter. My wife is not a Christian. My sister in law is black and she's the best thing that ever happened to my brother. I'm 64. I grew up in Montana. My family was a little unpopular because we paid "white" wages to Indians working on our ranch. I plan to attend a gay wedding in August where two of my friends are getting married.  This is not about the state of civil rights in 1964. This is about now.

I haven’t been able to find a link to anything about the Oregon law, either statute or administrative law. If any reader has information concerning the letter of the law in Oregon, please leave me a link in a comment. I would like a link to any published article that spells out what the law was the day before the offense. Please include any reference you find to specific penalties. To me, this looks more like $100 first offense than $100,000. Unless the law spelled out over $100,000 penalties or damages, it's abuse of power.

Liberals say the bakers had it coming because they publicly declared they would not make cakes for gay weddings.  This bothefree exercise of religion, freedom of religionrs me. I thought we had a right to free speech. Wedding cakes are an artistic product. How far does Oregon law go? If the cake is ugly, are the bakers in violation? If the bakers intended to make it ugly as a form of civil disobedience, does that come into whether they are in violation? Do devout Muslim or Orthodox Jewish bakers have to make birthday cakes with bacon on them if an administrative law judge in Oregon says they do? (Hint: Pork products, like bacon, are not kosher for devout Muslims and Orthodox Jews.)

Liberal comments give away what's actually happening. The bakers are being punished for having the effrontery to actually have Christian religious beliefs that they want to live by. My 4 grandparents had 4 different religious traditions. Three were different varieties of Christianity. One of my grandfathers was Jewish. We all got along fine because nobody insisted on conformity. You have to have some tolerance for other folks' beliefs. In the vernacular, you have to cut people some slack.  Punishing Christians for their beliefs is not a good way to gain acceptance and gradually wear down resistance to this major change. It's religious bigotry, which encourages extreme reactions. Liberals believe everyone should conform to your views of the truth and anyone who doesn't should be severely punished. Liberals think it's justified, but it's every bit as extreme as the religious intolerance of ISIS or Al Qaeda. The difference is that Liberals just want to impose severe fines. Liberals don't want to kill the dissenters, yet.

So what can we do about it?  The first step is to raise a fuss. If everybody objects loudly, we can gather sufficient number to change this. It's also vital to make clear that the problem is the law is being changed in an unlawful, dangerous way. Most people today evaluate any judicial proceeding, including a Supreme Court decision, by whether they like who "won" rather than by the reasoning used to get the outcome. It's not gay marriage itself that is threatening, at least to me. If gay marriage was adopted by state legislatures or state referendums then the people would have decided on a matter that was clearly left to the states by the Constitution. It's that the government no longer respects written law. It is doing whatever it wants. Not enough folks seem to recognize that if the law is fickle, no outcome is secure. Nobody's life, liberty or property is secure from government seizure.

So gay people celebrate the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage with no thought that the decision makes no sense. When the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, homosexual acts were illegal in every state. If the Supreme Court had used the full faith and credit act to say that a marriage legally performed in one state must be recognized in all states, it would have been a small but understandable stretch. Using the 14th Amendment as the reason gay marriage is legal tells people that 5 Supreme Court Justices can do whatever they want with the flimsiest of excuses. When the Supreme Court finds that when the law says an "exchange set up by the state" really includes exchanges set up by the federal government as well, they're making it up. The law has no meaning anymore.

Republican candidates should make clear that process is much more of a problem than the outcome.  We want legislatures to deal with these thorny problems where the Constitution has nothing much to say.  We do not want the Supreme Court finding rights to privacy and dignity that aren’t there.  Because once they start finding things that aren’t there, everyone instinctively knows there’s no end to it.

Our original revolution was started by people writing letters to each other. Committees of Correspondence are a lot easier to set up with the internet and its social media. Raise a fuss. That's what I'm doing.