The Value of "Stuff"

Education...In a nutshell, education is the future prosperity or destruction of this country. Yet our education system is failing. People on the left claim we don't "invest" enough of our tax dollars in education and if we simply tripled the education budget, all problems would be solved. People on the "right" claim that the real problem is the material we are using to teach with. That is a symptom, but not the root cause of the problem. The real problem with education is that we have made it a so called "right". Education is free for all and everyone gets an opportunity to attend school. Now, there are countries in Asia and Africa where families would kill to get their children just the opportunity to learn to read, meanwhile, in many inner cities the dropout rate is well over 50%. Why is that?

The answer is simple, and BHO's financial policies have demonstrated that answer perfectly. By flooding the world market with US dollars, they have become so easy to come by that they are losing their value. Money is a commodity and therefore people want it. We must make education a commodity as well and that means putting an end to the free ride education system. A child's education must be something of value in society. It must be of value to the parents as well as the children.

Question: How much value does something have in society where not only is it given away for free, but it becomes mandatory for people to take it, whether they want it or not?

The answer is none.

The solution is to make education something to fight for. Make education something to earn. Privatize the schools and allow them to compete. Give large tax incentives to low income parents of children who excel in school. Force parents to actually take the time to actually bring their children to and from the school they attend rather than sticking their children on free public bussing, after all, parenting is a responsibility, not a right. Set up different types of schools for children with different abilities. Above all, parents must have final say so in subject matter taught when it comes to moral, social and religious issues. One reason parents no longer take interest in their children's educations is that they are given no say whatsoever in what or how their children are taught. The problem with the Bush "no child left behind act" is that it should have been labelled the "no child gets ahead act" because that is how it, and the education system in general is set up. Rather than making an education system that is nothing more than a one size fits all production line, we must tailor the education system to the individual needs of individual students or the society based on individualism that we have come to love will be lost to the circular file of history.

One last thing, the same thing will happen to our healthcare system that is happening with our education system if those who want to destroy our country succeed in implementing obamahealthcaredestruction. Nobody in this country will even care about going to a doctor because it will be as tedious as the dmv and as useless as our education system.

Weimar Republic 2.0: The Obama Version. The Rentenmark, Glenn Beck, and The Future.

  This is a repost of a post I wrote almost exactly a year ago.  Glenn brought this up again a day or so ago, and I agree that this is all very likely.   Here is what he said on his radio show:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/46725/ 

“PAT: And they seem to be setting up exactly what happened in the Weimar Republic to finally turn that situation around.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: And that's after the hyperinflation, what saved Germany? They valued land. They went to a land standard and that's what -- they burned the rest of the money and they based it all on land and what is the Federal Government doing here now? But taking over all our property.

GLENN: They're taking the property. They're --

PAT: 98% of all new mortgages.

GLENN: They've got all -- 98% of all new mortgages are underwritten by the Federal Government. You will become a renter to the Federal Government. If there's any way you can pay off your house, you should pay off your house. And I know people will say that's nuts, but I'm telling you, you've got to own things, because that is what they did in Weimar. They just took it. I don't know if you're going to be able to keep it. We've never been in this situation before. Very few countries have and none of them have come out the other side. That's how dire this situation is.”

 Who Owns The Land in the United States, what is the Rentenmark?

The United States Government owns 30% of all land in the United States right off of the top (see map).  But more than that, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own half of all outstanding mortgage debt or about $6 Trillion worth.  Harder to get a handle one is how much of the still remaining mortgage debt is owned by banks that by virtue of receiving TARP money are run by the Government.  If the bank that you owe your mortgage payment to is run by the government then your mortgage is basically government owned.   The States also own land, one of the guvernator’s ideas in Caulifornya was to sell State parks to the Fed.  As State budgets get worse there may be more who start to think that is a good idea. I think it would be safe to say that very near 50% of land in this nation is owned by the Feral Government. So? In 1914 Germany abandoned Gold as the backing for their currency (we did it in steps finally abandoning it completely in the seventies) and began printing money based on “Trust” in the Federal Government (like the dollar) this was called the Papeiermark.    After WWI Germany was forced to pay reparations to the rest of Europe.  To pay their debt they printed money…well like we are.  This caused inflation to be so horribly bad… well here was the joke: “Grandma put her money in her grocery basket to go to the store, a mugger stole the basket and left the money.”   Soon this currency was totally worthless (this is what happens when you put your trust in the government). Along came Hjalmar Schacht.  He was basically the Hank Paulson/Tim Geithner  of Germany.  What the Germans did to get their currency under control was to create a new currency, the Rentenmark.  The new Rentenmark currency was based on Real Estate.  Horace Schacht mortgaged all the land owned by Germany and created money with the mortgaged land. He sold the German land.  He mortgaged the house.  He sold the farm.  My personal opinion of Schacht was that he did what he felt he had to do given the situation he was placed in.  It did work, but at what price? So…Germany owned a lot of foreign countries a lot of money…and they printed money as fast as they could…to pay their debt…causing their money to be worthless…so then…because they already owned a lot of the land in the country…they mortgaged all the land they owned…and made new money. Hey wait a minute… we are printing money fast enough to make ink worth more than oil…and we owe foreign countries a lot of money…and our country owns nearly half of land and homes in the country… hmmm Beck mentioned this whole scenario on his show one day a month or so ago and I have read up on it since then. My previous theory was that he would run our debt up so much we would go into a world bankruptcy court and and as a condition of accepting a world currency and losing stature in the world our debt would be written off. Obama would sell a Global Currency and Global Government to the American people by saying that we are so screwed we HAVE to accept the global currency, .  But this is even more plausible. Using this idea it also begins to make sense why we have laws preventing oil drilling even though there is a lot of oil left in our country we are just sitting on.  Ditto for coal mining, and many other resources.  IT MAKES THE LAND WORTH MORE. It has to be something similar to this, because no group of even marginally sane individuals could spend the kind of money they are spending without any thought to what will happen. Not that our politicians are sane. So what is the worst that could happen.  Zimbabwe could happen that is what.  All of the information is readily available so here is what happened in a nutshell. In the 80’s and 90’s despite droughts Zimbabwe had a decent economy.  It was largely agricultural but the country also had large mineral deposits which were lucrative.  They had adequate electricity and transportation was good.  Then the new ruler of the country decided to “spread the wealth around” and take all the land from the producers and give it to local “oppressed” people and the agricultural output fell over 50%. To help the problem the Government created they began to regulate, well, everything. As a result “Atlas Shrugged”  Now they have to buy electricity because they cannot fix their equipment.  Foreign investment is gone.  Interest rates are well north of 200% (fantastic but true) and unemployment is around 80%.  It is the Obama model.  It is the change I believe they believe in.

-Kook

Puerto Rico, Estado Numero Cincuenta Uno, Segunda Parte

  Like that title? I am just practicing, trying to remember my Espanol.

So, Following up on Yesterday’s Post,  Puerto Rico – A New State full of Potential Progressive Voters, the House voted In Favor, including 50 of our closest allies  (Distance is relative, remember, Mars is the next closest planet to earth but still a long long… long way from us) the Republicans, to ‘reaffirm’ Puerto Rico’s right to self determination.  A right they have had for six decades now. Let me be clear® I am not against Puerto Rico becoming a State, not if that is really what the People IN –IN-Puerto Rico want.  Heck, it looks like it would be just an abs-o-lutely fantastic place to visit: The article below is actually from a LeftStreamMedia Source and it almost tells the whole story, of course without any outrage over the bills most ridiculous affront to common sense and ethics to come out of Washington, well in at least the last 24 hours:

Bitter debate ensues as House approves bill that could move Puerto Rico to statehood

  The House on Thursday approved a bill that could move Puerto Rico to statehood - exposing a rare and bitter rift between New York members from the island territory.

Bronx Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano ( THIS GUY is one of the worst, he is the one that always pushes the bill to remove presidential term limits) backed the measure, calling it a vital step to ending colonial rule, even as his usual ally, Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-Brooklyn) blasted it as a "disgrace," "shameful" and "appalling." (thank you for that, Nydia)

The measure offers Puerto Rico - a U.S. territory for 112 years - a two-step vote.

The first would ask whether Puerto Ricans -

including those living in the States - like the current territorial commonwealth status or if they want change.

If the vote is for change, a second vote would ask what change they want.

"For the first time in 112 years, the Congress of the United States will ask the 4 million American citizens (A huge Liberal Voting Bloc) in Puerto Rico what they wish their relationship to the United States to be," said Serrano.

Velazquez and Harlem Rep. Charlie Rangel, whose father was Puerto Rican, said the measure was a backdoor move to a statehood vote on the island that has failed three times in the past. –OH MY GOD, Charlie Rangel said something bordering on common sensical…  I expect to see unicorns any moment now…

"It is baffling that the statehood option, which lost in 1967, in 1993 and again in 1998, is now allowed to scheme its way to victory," Velazquez said.

Before the debate, the bill had offered three options for change: statehood, independence or an independent "free association" like three other former U.S. territories.

Velazquez argued that if keeping the current status was no longer on the ballot, statehood - always the second choice in the past - would win by default.

She favors a Puerto Rican constitutional convention.

Velazquez managed to win an amendment to add keeping the status quo to the choices.

"We restored some fairness to a badly flawed process," she said.

Still, Serrano was so pleased he wielded the final gavel, hammering it down with a wide smile.

mmcauliff@nydailynews.com

 

Arriba La Raza! Viva La Reconquesta!

-KOOK

Puerto Rico – A New State full of Potential Progressive Voters

Ok, here is the quick and dirty History of Puerto Rico.  Puerto Rico lies nestled right between Haiti/Dominican Republic and the British Virgin Islands.  It is in the same island chain as Cuba.  To get it in your mind right, Cuba is closest, then then Haiti/Dominican and then Puerto Rico.

 

Christopher Columbus landed on the island, which was inhabited by Amerindian Natives, in 1493 on his second voyage and claimed it for Spain.  Spain had it as a colony until the Spanish American war, in 1898 the United States invaded.  The US got Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba, the Philippines in the Treaty of Paris.  They began their relationship with the US as a territory governed my Martial Law, two years later moved to mostly self governed using systems virtually identical to a State’s, In 1917 all the inhabitants became citizens of the US, they began having popular elections of representatives and gained a US style Judicial system, Under Truman they got a regularly elected governor and other trappings of statehood including non voting representatives in DC, this had the effect of changing its’ status from Territory to Commonwealth or “Free Associated State”.  All of this was paving the way for a vote for statehood, currently three different plebiscites or votes have been taken by the people and all three have failed to win enough votes to make Puerto Rico our 51st state.

Why?

Well it probably has a lot to do with getting something for nothing.  To put it another way, why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?  They have all of the benefits of statehood, with fewer taxes. 

Enter The Zero Regime…

There is a bill up for vote today to support Puerto Rico’s right to self determination.  This is on the face of it, nonsense.  Puerto Rico already has that right and has expressed itself three times to remain as it is.  BUT, just like Yesterday’s post on Amnesty and Illegal Immigration, granting Puerto Rico Statehood would win many many Liberal Progressive voters.

You doubt it?

The UN is heavily involved in the push for a change in Puerto Rico’s status.     From 1952 to 2007, Puerto Rico had three political parties which stood for three distinct future political scenarios. The Popular Democratic Party (PPD) seeks to maintain the island's "association" status as a commonwealth, and has won in referendums on the island's status held over six decades since coming under U.S. control.  The New Progressive Party (PNP) (catchy isn’t it?) seeks statehood. The Puerto Rican Independence Party seeks independence.

The real clincher on this one is this:  apparently in the bills that will follow this “nonbinding” vote today is a provision to allow people born in Puerto Rico but currently living in the continental US to vote on Puerto Rico’s status.  Read it again, a US citizen, born in Puerto Rico but currently living in, say, Illinois, will be able to vote in the self determination vote for Puerto Rico.

According to the latest estimates 70%  of Puerto Ricans cannot speak English passably, and many many of the recent immigrants TO Puerto Rico have been from Central America including Venezuela and Colombia and also from Cuba. 

Now ask yourself, in a Liberal House and Senate do you think, for an instant that if Nasty Pelotox and Dingy Harry and Chairman Zero thought that the people of Puerto Rico would:

a) Vote for statehood on their own without stacking the deck and;

b) vote in any way Conservative Republican or Libertarian after gaining statehood

They would a) stack the deck and b) want there to be a vote?

So here is what I think they are up to regarding Puerto Rico, it all seems to make some sense, They have this vote to affirm Puerto Rico’s right to Self Determination.  Puerto Rico already has a constitution, a popularly elected government, follows all federal regulations, and its’ populace are all citizens.

The Current Speaker of the House, President of the Senate,  and Governor are all members of this “New Progressive Party” (although actually claim to align themselves with Republicans, lending more credence to the crazy notion that Parties really do not matter), once this sham vote takes place in congress, they will call another referendum, although this time allow anyone born in Puerto Rico no matter where they reside (or actually probably no matter if they were born in Puerto Rico or not) to vote.  Then, because there are already delegates in Congress, they will immediately ask to be seated and BLAMMO we have a 51st state.  Then these so called republicans will decide they will caucus with the Liberals and Bingo, we are back to a filibuster proof super majority. 

Heck- they might just do it without resorting to a vote.  Congress votes in a nonbinding agreement that Puerto Rico has the right to self determination, and bang the delegates are seated as senators and representatives.  Sew another star on the flag boys and girls…

So take Amnesty for Illegals, throw in Puerto Rico, and what do you have…the re-election of the most rapidly unpopular president in history to a second term.

Puerto Rico: One Step Closer to 57.  next up, Guam, American Samoa, and the  US Virgin Islands …no really…click the link.

There is a bill pending Senate approval in the United States Congress that would authorize the United States Secretary of the Interior to extend technical assistance grants and other assistance to facilitate a political status public education program in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa

ISNT THAT NICE?

Viva La Reconquesta! Arriba La Raza!

-KOOK

Deconstructing our Progress to Communism Pt. II – Commerce Clause

   We the People are engaged in a battle over our future.  Are we going to remain a Constitutional Republic, or are we going to devolve in a communistic tyranny ruled by a politburo of non -representatives elected through sham elections like Iran, Cuba, Russia, or Venezuela?   Yesterday the focus was on the faulty premise that the “General Welfare” clause allows congress to legislate anything and everything under the sun.  Today’s focus is on another clause that our current would-be Kings and Queens in Washington think gives them the power usurp all authority reserved to the states or the people.  The “Commerce Clause”, Article I section 8.3 which reads:

[the congress shall have power…] “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”

The part of that statement which so much debate has been centered upon is “To regulate commerce…among the several states." Luckily we do not have to be confused as to what the framers meant, as they clearly laid out their intent in their writings.  reading their correspondence, there should be no debate at all what the proper understanding of those words should be. But as was pointed out yesterday, the small minority of our non-representatives who would hazard a guess as to where their unlimited power is derived from, will likely quote this clause.
Indeed Speaker Pelosi issued a press release on her website in September 2009 where she expressly said just that: Health Insurance Reform Daily Mythbuster: 'Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform'

“…  But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce.  Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.”

So according to this widely held interpretation these 16 words nullify the tenth amendment.  IF congress can regulate the commerce that goes on within a state because the prices and availability of a product or service in one state impacts the prices and availability in another, then there is literally no end to what they can control.  How convenient  for them.  This is clearly not what the founders meant. The original intent of the framers is clear.  Madison said to Cabell :

“For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it.

Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.”
Allow me to translate into more easily understood language. 
I did not refer to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States."  [in my response].  I purposefully left that part out because I always thought that in the future people would misunderstand the meaning unless it was  put into context.  If not, it would be too easy to extend this power to the same level as the power reserved to the federal government to regulate relationships with other nations.  It is very clear that this language grew out of an abuse of power by states that had ports and harbors against states that did not. The language was intended as a protection to keep one state from harming another by restricting its trade, not as an additional power given to the Federal government over the states; however, the Federal government is the only agency we could give this authority to, and so we did.

   Remember, until the mid 20th century any goods received from a foreign nation were received by ship.  This put States without ports and harbors at a serious disadvantage to states who did.  Imagine Kansas or Oklahoma's vulnerable situation if they had to pay taxes  on every product imported to every state that was crossed en route to the final destination.  imagine a ship from China delivering products to the port in Long Beach, CA en route to Kansas.  California could then charge tariffs to Kansas, and every state subsequently after that could charge both CA, and KS, as the product moved across their borders.  What a nightmare that would be.  This is the reasoning behind the Commerce Clause.  The purpose of the Commerce Clause was to keep this internal turmoil out of trade, to allow all the states to access shipping and receiving points.  This is further explained in Federalist #42, and Madison mentions that one of the reasons for this language’s inclusion into the constitution was because it was a noted weakness of the articles of Confederation as well as several Nations in Europe at the time.
It was meant as a restriction on states from harming other states, not to create an  all encompassing evil overlord Fedzilla government. 
Unfortunately over the years the courts have wavered back and forth on this issue and the most recent passing of the buck by the court has been this:
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985),

Of course, we continue to recognize that the States occupy a special and specific position in our constitutional system and that the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause must reflect that position. But the principal and basic limit on the federal commerce power is that inherent in all congressional action—the built-in restraints that our system provides through state participation in federal governmental action. The political process ensures that laws that unduly burden the States will not be promulgated.

The recent Firearms Freedom laws are set to test this theory, but it is unlikely from the above decision they will. Folks, if we don’t like Pelosi et. al. view of things, we have to vote them out, because the courts are likely going to take a pass on this.  This may be one of the most important litmus tests on a prospective candidate, “what is your opinion regarding the proper role of the Fed with respect to the Commerce Clause”
-KOOK

D.C. Hell on Earth. DemonPass in; Constitution out.

Nuff' said.


-Kook
via iPhone

The Arrogance of the Ignorant

It is a phenomenon I have been seeing more and more of lately.  People who demonstrably do not know “come here” from “sic em” , or to put it even more plainly “people who don’t know Sh*t about Sh*t”, are absolutely, positively, arrogant to the point of condescension about what they “believe.” 

I am not sure of its’ root cause although I can make reasonable speculation.  A similar or possibly same phenomenon is called the Dunning-Kruger effect.   I guess it is not a new phenomenon. I am lucky enough to live with a family member who is several years my junior, many people her age are stunning examples of this mindset in action, but they are by no means the only people I see displaying it.

I am not passing judgment on people because of their ignorance, I am ignorant of many things.  I am not a great connoisseur of wine, Art, or Sculpture, do not watch Japanese Anime, do not watch foreign language films, and have no idea what is happening on “The Hills.”  As a result of my utter lack of knowledge in these topics this blog is not titled “My Thoughts on Wine, Foreign Language Films, and “The Hills”.  I do not make haughty assertions as to the state of this years’ grape crop, or the pros and cons of Subtitles vs. English language dubs.  If I did people would call me a fool. 

A substantial portion of the population however, seems to have no problem stating their strongly held convictions regarding history, the constitution, or any manner of topics.  What is more they take the moral high ground while waxing eloquent about the ills of capitalism and the virtues of Che Guevara.  They vociferously and viciously expound upon the ills and evils of Christianity and the Separation of Church and State.  They pound the table and look down their noses regarding Energy, Wildlife Conservation, Food Production, and any number of other topics they have heard one of the glitterati express some harebrained opinion on.

Imagine if a Cattle Rancher from Montana attempted to educate Pam Anderson on the best way to do…well what does Pam Anderson do anyway?  But Ol’ Pam has no problem dictating to the Rancher the best way to raise cattle or deal with predators.  What if a SEAL Team Commander tried to tell Matt Damon the best way to position himself for the camera or say his lines?  But Matt has no problem sallying forth with his esteemed opinion regarding the best way to get our enemies to give up the intel…

 

 

 

 

This just trickles down to the everyday Joe and Jill level.  I admit I spew opinion all day long on this blog. I am not suggesting that people do not have a right to their opinion.  But, I try very diligently to have facts or at a bare minimum well reasoned arguments to back up my opinion.  What I am commenting on here is when a person has not taken the time to read or think about the issue in any meaningful way, and after failing to reason out a logical argument why do they get to be condescending and arrogant in their ignorance?  Why is being pro-animal rights a morally superior argument than being Pro-Life on abortion?  Why is it  accepted and even cool to hate Christianity, but have no opinion on other religions?

Case Study #1: driving through a small city with a person around Christmas time, the self proclaimed favorite time of the year of the person I am riding with.  They also profess to be atheist. Those two assertions by themselves seem to run counter to logic to me, whatever.  There is a nativity scene in a private person’s front yard and the person I am with becomes very irate and states that Nativity scenes are offensive and those people should not be allowed to have them.  When asked if it would have been offensive to have had a big golden Buddha in their yard, the person says that would have been ok.  So, I made the  statement that it is not that they were ‘atheist’ they were ‘anti-Christian’  dumb looks and a general ‘whatever’ were the reply as if I was simply too unintelligent to ‘get it’.

Case Study #2, a friend’s friend makes the assertion that they are vegetarian because it is cruel to eat meat, and that they really do not understand people who hunt and kill things.  It was pointed out that this person eats fish, so they modify their statement that they are pescatarian but most people do not know what that means so they usually just say vegetarian.  Then they become near apoplectic regarding deer hunting, why would anyone want to kill a deer, why can’t they just go to the store like everyone else for meat if they have to eat it? 

The counter point is made that 1) eating store bought meat is hired killing, and 2) deer have an arguably better life in the woods than the cows do in the feed lot.  So the counter to the counter was that those were good points, and that is why people should not eat meat.

The  pescatarian issue was raised again, asking if the only difference between their concern for the cows and deer, vs the concern for the fish is because a fish cannot be cuddled.  Outrage and Anger at my ignorance ensued and the subject was immediately changed.

   I thought that in each of these instances there was a very reasonable line of debate started and yet the logical counter-argument was painted as the fool.  Haughtily and Condescendingly I was considered a troglodyte and a square who just doesn’t get it.   The only way that I can think to combat this type of mind set it to attempt to turn the tables on them.  This seems to be the only real way to bring reason into the hearts of Liberals.  We have to frame the argument so that the conservative position is seen taking the high moral ground, we have to (simply, in an extremely elementary way) demonstrate that the Liberal position is the uncaring unfeeling hateful position.

As to why a person’s own uneducated feelings and beliefs are held in higher esteem than that of a generally accepted reality based on facts and history…well blame new age thinking in general. 

-KOOK

Gay Marriage, Straight Marriage, Let’s get Government out of Marriage.

I probably will not win any fans from my more religiously conservative readers with this post, but if you will persevere and hear me out you may be able to formulate a new opinion on this issue.  The more I read, and study, and think about these issues the more Libertarian I become.

Let me start at the beginning.  When a couple gets married there are usually two  things that actually happen, but frequently we only recognize that one thing happened.   Harry meets Sally, Harry and Sally fall in love, Harry spends a ridiculous amount of money on Sally a ring, they set a date, find someone to officiate (usually some flavor of preacher), go to the courthouse and get a marriage license…wait, do you see what just happened?

When you get “Married” what most of us think about are white dresses and churches.  We are joining together in Holy Matrimony, professing our love in front of God and our families.   Why does the Government need involved in that? Because of the second thing that happens after the “I do’s”.  Someone pulls out a marriage license and the happy couple and their witnesses and official sign it.  Now it is “legal”.  I even have a cute little funny picture somewhere of my (ex) wife holding the marriage license while we hug and she winks for the camera behind my back.  Sort of a , ‘I got him now’, picture.  (I didn't realize it was a catch and release program, but that is another topic)

Our government gives tax breaks and all sorts of goodies to people when they get married.  After thinking about it the reason is obvious: It is part of the social contract with the citizenry for procreating and contributing to the future of society.  We give you tax breaks, and ‘married-only’ deals on government loans and all kinds of things because you are assumed to be on the road to making babies.  So what happens if Harry and Sally decide never to have kids?  I think they should be in breach of contract.

Meanwhile, what does the Deity care if you have a legal document?  I believe Jesus  said ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's’.  I have not yet heard of anyone’s faith not recognizing the marriage vows based on whether it was duly recognized by the State.  What does God care?  God’s laws are not man’s laws.

Buddha certainly doesn’t care, I asked him at the Chinese restaurant the other day, paid my check rubbed his little tummy and asked, and he said it was cool with him. 

So two things happen… Church, and State.  Well I thought that the Liberals among  us were dead set against Church and State collaborating on anything…

Now really, and this is key, I am for Individual and States rights, and if I say that is what I am for I should be willing to put up or shut up.  If Tom and Jerry want to get married it does not hurt me in the least.  Really it doesn’t; I don’t have to like it, or agree, or anything, it simply doesn’t harm me at all.

 

  If Ellen and Portia want to tie the knot, how does that hurt me or my kids?  Remember I am for Individual and State’s rights, and so if I had my way, my kids would not be receiving a state education.

I am not currently married, and I am certainly not gay.  But what if I didn’t have any family, would I not want to be able to designate a caregiver, a beneficiary, an executor, etc as whoever I wanted it to be?  Isn’t it ridiculous to give tax breaks (even though I am against having an IRS anyway) to people just because they cohabitate no matter what their sexual practices?  If you have kids, you and whoever else is raising them should be able after proof of dependency to get whatever tax credit you are eligible for.  I half raise a kid that isn’t mine, I spend tons of cash on her and provide her a place to live at least 50% of the time, what makes me less of a parent than if I had married her Mother (yuck) or her (*gag*) Dad (gross double yuck) but I love the little stinker and her Dad needs help raising her so I do. Think Uncle Joey from Full House and you get the picture.

Over half of all marriages end in divorce anyway.  Look at all the step parents and single or unwed parents.  Think how much simpler it would be if it worked another way. Maybe this way:

You can marry whoever your preacher and congregation will allow, and let God be the judge if it works for Him or not. Neither forcing a congregation or preacher to marry any two people.  And really, who would want to force a preacher and congregation to marry them if they were not wanted in the church?  Church is not a place you can frequent very easily if you are completely at odds with everyone who attends.

Then, you go to the courthouse and sign a declaration listing emergency contacts,  executors, transfer on deaths, caregivers, who gets all your stuff when the relationship splits,  whatever.  That takes care of all our emergency and end of life needs, no matter what your status with a Church is. 

Then if you end up raising kids: yours, theirs, or someone else’s, you get tax breaks and whatever else you have coming.  If no kids are involved, why have a special status? 

It really is, and should be, Separate.

One last item, no sane person on the “Gay Rights” side is going to argue with the definition of  as being between “two people of legal age”.  If they do then we just have to write them off as ridiculous.  That prevents Triads (which are already legal or ignored many places), bestiality (I think every sane person agrees this is gross), Underage Marriage (which happens already with guardian consent at ages I am not comfortable with), and all other ridiculous notions.  If this solution was offered and not acceptable, then that would tell me that the issue was not one of being treated equally, but one of trying to change someone’s religious views and force acceptance of the way you live your life on someone else, which is Statism at its’ absolute worst.

There simply is no other way to give both sides what they want, and what they deserve.  Unless we remove emotions and look  at things rationally, i.e. Civil Rights  vs. Religious Freedom, we will never solve this issue.  I am for both Civil Rights, and Religious Freedom.  We cannot take away one group’s (or everyone’s) Religious Freedom, in order to guarantee some other group’s civil rights, and we do not have to.  The problem with Civil Unions as they have been discussed in the past is that they did not go far enough.  Remember there are two things that happen when you have a “wedding”. Let’s keep them separate and make it equal for everyone.

-KOOK

p.s. I cannot finish this post without stating that I am in no way agreeing that the Prop8 Protestors are correct.  A constitutionally mandated process was done as per the fervent wish of those seeking to redefine someone else’s religious beliefs, and they lost.  That is democracy, isn’t that what the left always wants?

 

 

-KOOK