Do You Lock Your Doors At Night?

WireFenceby Leigh Bravo7/18/16
Do you lock your doors at night? If you answered yes to this question, then tell me why? Do you lock them in order to keep out those you don’t know or those who might intend you harm? Do you lock them so strangers cannot enter your house at anytime of day or night? Do locked doors give you a feeling of security? Do you feel locking your doors will keep you and your family safe?

Donald Trump promised to build a wall to protect the borders of the United States. Why has this caused such controversy? Will a wall make a difference in the number of undocumented aliens entering the country? Will it stop terrorists, drug cartels and criminals from creating havoc or will it stop the transfer of children over the border to be sold into sex slavery? Will it be better for the citizens of the United States? Is it really necessary?

If you do, in fact, lock your doors at night, then you are already a proponent of the wall and border control. What makes the sovereignty of your home any different from the sovereignty of the United States? Locking your doors at night is the same as building a wall, but on a smaller scale.  Should a stranger be able to walk into your home, pick your child’s bedroom as his own,  partake in your meals, force you pay for their doctor’s visits and buy them school supplies? Isn’t this exactly the same thing as leaving our borders open and having undocumented immigrants enter our country illegally yet, receive shelter, education and healthcare, paid for by hard-working American citizens.

What about money? The United States is currently almost $20 trillion dollars in debt. We have been told that social security will soon be insolvent. Money that we were forced to pay to government with the promise it would be there in our retirements, now no longer. We have been told that there is no money for a cost of living wage increase. We have been told that budgets must be cut and services must be stopped for hard-working Americans. Our schools are overcrowded, our teachers are not getting raises and budgets are stressed. Many of our veterans are homeless, awaiting medical care for days, months and sometimes years. Many of those veterans have died waiting for medical services. We currently have approximately a third of Americans who have dropped out of the labor force giving up on ever finding jobs. The growth of the economy in the United States has remained below 2% for over 7 years, grocery prices are at an all time high,  food stamps are currently being used by one in every five Americans and more than 46 million have been on food stamps for over 45 months. Based on these figures alone, can the U.S. economy afford to be caring for an additional 30-40 million undocumented immigrants? In the year 2015, the Office of Refugee Resettlement spend $1.56 billion dollars, the majority allocated to funding unaccompanied minors crossing the border from Mexico. The remainder of the funds went to resettlement, medical services, cash and job and language training to approximately 1800 refugees. However, President Obama has plans to let in 10,000 Syrian refugees by September and increasing that number to a total of 100,000 before he leaves office, which will require a much larger chunk of change. The current amount requested to settle new refugees has topped over $55 billion and the government intends on offering  free housing, welfare and food stamps.

 If we look at the additional unauthorized persons who have overstayed their visas and disappeared into the shadows, we can add another 500,000 unauthorized individuals from around the world. As reported in the Washington Times in an article by Stephen Dinan,

“Among these thousands [visa overstays] are from countries connected with terrorism: 219 illegals from Afghanistan, 681 from Iraq, 564 from Iran, 56 from Libya, 1,435 from Pakistan, 440 from Syria and 219 from Yemen in fiscal year 2015 alone.”

What about college? Currently, twenty states offer in-state tuition to undocumented students, five states offer state financial assistance to undocumented students.  Janet Napolitano, former Secretary of Homeland Security under Obama, now University of California system president, recently announced that she will earmark $25.2 million to fund loan programs for illegal students as well as an additional $2.5 million to go to graduate and undergraduate fellowships and funds for textbooks for the same illegal students. The next obvious question would be whether these funds would be going to hard-working American students, whose parents have funded the public education system through their taxes, if they were not promised to illegal students.

The United States is the most generous Nation in the world and our country is comprised of immigrants from all over the world. However, should we all be forced to unlock our doors and sit back while immigrants who have chosen to break our laws, come into our homes and take our hospitality to the detriment of our own citizens and families?

Do we really need that wall and do you still plan on locking your doors tonight?


Leigh Bravo blogs at The Trumpet. • (1323 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Do You Lock Your Doors At Night?

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Like most people living in big cities, we do keep our doors locked. We also believe in some sort of effective border febce. Unfortunately, the trannationalist Beltway Bandits of both parties are more loyal to their potential multicultural clients than they are to America and Americans. (And besides, as Gollum realized when he grasped that if he took the Ring, he could help himself and keep his word, they do support Americans who came here illegally from abroad.)

  2. Steve Lancaster says:

    Yes, I lock my door, lock my car and in general keep temptation to a minimum. This is to protect the congenitally stupid from getting shot. Anyone who bypasses those locks and controls has demonstrated intent and is a justifiable target, two to the body mass and one between the eyes. No regrets, no tears, but plenty of justification.

  3. Rosalys says:

    Growing up, we never locked our doors, unless we were going to be away over night. That’s how it was in the America I grew up in. I’m sure there were some rough neighborhoods where it was prudent to lock doors, and probably in cites also. But in middle and rural America? Not much.

    As an adult, I almost never locked the doors. Probably a habit from my youth, but largely a result of the neighborhoods we lived in – and they have never been wealthy, or gated. My husband has been locking doors for about seven years now, at least when nobody is home. When we are home, even at night, we don’t lock the doors. We have never been broken into. But there is always a first time. I’ve been thinking lately, I really should get into the habit of locking doors. I don’t like the way the civilization is deteriorating.

    Speaking of our national doors – yeah, it’s well past time to lock them.

    • Lucia says:

      We live in the boonies too and have always locked our doors at night and when we leave the house. Tweekers live out here because of cheaper rent and commit most of the thefts. Meth use is epidemic in rural areas and pot farms have sprung up everywhere in our little valley. We’ve got good neighbors and we all watch the neighborhood, but we still take nothing for granted.

    • Al Hoove says:

      We had a liberal Democrat acquaintance here in our town who used to fulminate about racism and racists who “live in their lily white neighborhoods and send their children to their lily white schools and attend to their lily white churches!” Meanwhile, she herself lived in an exclusive entirely white neighborhood, sent her children to an exclusive all-white expensive private school and attended… you guessed it… an Episcopal church, famously not a denomination brimming with black folks. She was fervently for open immigration, but when she moved to Harlingen, TX, she insisted on living in…. an exclusive GATED community with armed private patrols. To make the whole thing even more amusing, she was a ginger: as lily white as a white person can possibly be.

      You can’t make this stuff up. As Ann Coulter and others have often stated, Liberalism is a kind of mental disease.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I do a lot of parking along the road in my hiking and biking ventures. One person told me that he had his car broken into so many times (smashing a window is easy) that he simply leaves the doors open. A house is not a car, of course. It’s easy enough to take valuables out of a car. But it was an interesting thing to hear. I still keep my car locked though.

    Certainly in rural or small-town America, as Rosalys said, there is (was) little need to lock the doors. Cities tend to make animals of people (like over-crowded rats).

    But because of liberal policies that have engendered grievance in people and has not instilled in them the idea of integrity, I think I would lock my doors these days no matter where I lived. One of the ominous aspects of “Back Lives Matter,” for instance, is that your life doesn’t matter as much. Your rights are considered less because you’re assumed to be a victimizer if you’re not black. Your door ought to be smashed down…this coming from the same people who can’t and won’t defend America’s front door (or southern door). How many thieves are propelled by the idea that “the rich” have it coming?

    I now consider all of you out there to be enemies until convinced otherwise. Oh, I realize there are a lot of “nice” people out there who will do me no primary or immediate harm. But they are still useful idiots. They are the kind who would sit and watch me be butchered by some Islamic animal rather than chance being called a “racist” for interfering.

    America has turned bad even while the wheels of industry crank on…about the only thing that still does work well. In a predominantly materialist society (where even many Christians are functional atheists with this “social justice” emphasis straight from materialist Marxism), that is the only measure: We must keep cranking out material goods. Perhaps this is the real meaning of “Make America Great Again.” What are people expecting? A moral vision from Trump? That’s an absurd idea. They are expecting financial gain…or are just in it because they have sucked up the pervasive Leftist poison of discontent and alienation and for them Trump is little more than a stink bomb, a monkey wrench to throw in the works..

    Speaking of which. The White House front doors ought to be locked to both major party candidates this election cycle. There are thieves on both sides.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      A lot of us here might watch you get butchered, but if we don’t intervene, it would be a failure of physical courage (and increasingly a lack of physical ability in my case; Elizabeth and I are looking at moving to senior housing because this house is increasingly too much for us to manage). Look at Twain’s account of a lynching attempt in Huckleberry Finn for an analysis of the relative scarcity of courage in standing up to criminal force.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        One of the largest divisions between conservatives and progressives is between both right-and-wrong and personal-responsibilty-vs.-collectivism.

        Conservative groups generally keep the grounds spotless at their events because they have been taught not to despoil other people’s property. You leave things like you left them…or better.

        For progressive types, the assumption seems to be that it is someone else’s responsibility to clean it up. A progressive has little or no concept of right or wrong. He is but a cog in a system. And that system provides workers who pick up the trash.

        Or else they’re just bums. There is that distinct possibility. Trashy people could be expected to leave trash all around them.

        It’s never easy to go against the crowd. It is even more difficult when it is your ideological position that there is no moral grounding other than what the crowd believes or wants to do. This is, for me, why it is so disturbing to see otherwise sensible (one would suppose) people support Trump. We on the right are not supposed to be a mob who gives in to groupthink. Groupthink will never save an innocent man from a lynching.

  5. Leigh Bravo says:

    Ok Brad….you called me out. I do support Trump. He was not MY candidate, but of course, my candidate did not win the nomination. I am now supporting Trump. I like the fact that he is bringing in the middle class and blue collar voters who have never seemed to be too involved in politics. I am glad he is calling out the fraud and lies of the liberal political elites and media, I am glad to see the Republican party move more to the right fiscally but a little to the left socially. We were doing just fine until government stepped in. I think Trump will finally do what he has promised to do unlike our politicians who continue to promise but never deliver. The Republicans were overwhelmingly given the majority of the house and senate, yet sat back and did nothing to stop the lawlessness of Obama. I am happy to see a priority list go up of things that MUST happen for the US to get back on their feet. Lower Taxes, de-regulations, reform the tax system, the wall, immigration reform, law and order and let’s kill some terrorists. Please tell me what is wrong about that or why that makes me “not sensible?” Let’s not forget that if Trump does not win, then we end up with Hillary. Should she be elected we can kiss our collectives asses goodbye. She will open our borders, give blanket amnesty to illegals and flood our country with refugees all while demanding the citizens pick up the tab while pulling the food out of their own kids mouths. She will also give all these illegals the vote, ensuring that Republicans and/or conservatives will never see the WH again. I don’t think I even need to mention the Supreme Court appointments, which IS THE MOST important issue. What are my true choices other than Trump? The 2 Libertarian candidates? They can’t possibly get enough votes to win and those votes are taken out of the right’s inventory, leaving Hillary the WH.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Leigh,

      I think there is an important difference between voting for Trump (in opposition to Hillary) and supporting Trump. Voting in opposition to Hillary is like slicing a snakebite victim’s skin in able to suck out the poison and spit it out. It’s distasteful, even a little dangerous, but necessary. But it is a far different thing to actually drink down the poison.

      …he is bringing in the middle class and blue collar voters who have never seemed to be too involved in politics.

      That is basically a valueless perspective. Hitler brought in the middle class. And it tends to be the Left that has a mystical belief in the masses, that somehow “democracy” is at its greatest when every damn person is “involved.”

      No. Ideas matter. Whether the turnout is high or low, from the poor or the rich, it’s the ideas that matter. To say that Trump is bringing out the middle class is to say very little. Bring them out for what?

      I am glad he is calling out the fraud and lies of the liberal political elites and media,

      Again, that’s absolutely meaningless. Okay, who doesn’t get a kick watching someone like Newt Gingrich (the true master…Trump is simply vulgar and insulting) dress down the press? It’s especially gratifying because too many Republicans are wimps when it comes to the press.

      But there is nothing about Trump that suggests he is dressing-down the press’s liberal leanings. He’s just bashing them with a demagogues fervor and people such as yourself are reading things into it that are just not there.

      What you should take note of is how he most gleefully bashes conservatives…in particular, Ted Cruz. We should have learned our lesson from watching RINO after RINO play footsie under the table with Democrats but finding powerful words of disgust for their real enemy: conservatives.

      I am glad to see the Republican party move more to the right fiscally but a little to the left socially.

      I can’t see where any of Trump’s ideas (such as they are) point to anything but a bigger, more activist government. When he does talk about balancing the budget he does so in such obviously impossible terms (we’ll do it in a year) that he’s obviously not serious. Trump is a demagogue. He’s telling folks like you what you want to hear. What amazes me is that he’s getting away with it. Our radars should have been tuned and refined after year after year of being lied to by RINOS. Instead, we seemed to have junked our ability to discriminate entirely.

      I am happy to see a priority list go up of things that MUST happen for the US to get back on their feet. Lower Taxes, de-regulations, reform the tax system, the wall, immigration reform, law and order and let’s kill some terrorists.

      I think people like you are treating Trump much like Obama voters treated Obama. They are treating him like a blank slate and reading what they will into them. There is nothing about Trump’s rhetoric or past to suggest he will lower taxes or deregulate. What he has said is that he will enact protective tariffs (which are generally hugely destructive) and force (somehow) companies to keep their jobs here. Oh…and start a trade war with China.

      And you’ll never see a wall. A man who can’t build even a rhetorical wall between male and female is not going to build a wall to keep out illegal aliens. Again, you are being fooled by a demagogue. There is no other way to say it.

      As for killing terrorists, Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements have bordered on the lunatic. Some of his prescriptions are little better than this “leading from behind” nonsense we see now from the Democrats. And he has sidled up to Putin, said that some NATO countries might not fall under our protective umbrella, and made reckless statements about our security arrangements with South Korea and Japan. This man is an off-the-cuff idiot. There is no reason to believe he can handle terrorists. There is every reason to believe, however, that the issues of illegal immigration and Muslim immigration are mere talking points from a demagogue who has no interest in pursuing them once elected.

      The reason I’m sure of this is because to pursue those things would be politically painful. In order to overcome short-term political pain and pressure, one must be deeply rooted in something other than media time, ego, and popularity. This is the idiot that even William F. Buckley called a demagogue and narcissist.

      Let’s not forget that if Trump does not win, then we end up with Hillary.

      I’ve always said that it is a rational choice to vote against Hillary. But there is every reason to believe the Trump could be just as bad, if not worse. The danger in being a Trump “supporter” (instead of sucking the poison out and spitting it to the floor) is being corrupted by the man. Haven’t we seen good conservative after good conservative go to Washington and be corrupted by the entire process and people? This is clearly what can happen as people who identify as conservative begin apologizing for a man who is, at best, a demagogue and a narcissist.

      Should she be elected we can kiss our collectives asses goodbye. She will open our borders, give blanket amnesty to illegals and flood our country with refugees all while demanding the citizens pick up the tab while pulling the food out of their own kids mouths.

      Paranoia and fear is not the same thing as making a pro-Trump argument. And with or without Trump, the Left gives every indication of continuing to be on the rise. Given Trump’s “New York Values” background, his inability to criticize this gender nonsense, his inability to criticize Planned Parenthood, and his clear embracing of homosexuality and identity politics (which was highly visible at the convention), show me exactly how Trump is the anti-Hillary?

      She will also give all these illegals the vote, ensuring that Republicans and/or conservatives will never see the WH again.

      Trump — win or lose — is a case for conservatives not seeing the White House again. Many conservatives have thrown in with a charlatan. And that will likely have a lasting effect. And where has The Donald come out and said that illegals won’t vote? Do you really believe he has the moxie to stand up to the political pressure he would get if he instituted voter ID on a nationwide basis? Is there anything about his character or past history that suggests he is grounded in anything but glib, short-term propositions?

      I don’t think I even need to mention the Supreme Court appointments, which IS THE MOST important issue.

      Again, is there any reason to believe he would appoint conservative judges? Even those with actual conservative backgrounds (Reagan, for instance) sometimes appointed duds. Given Trump’s inability to be truthful about important things, and given his natural “New York Values” progressive-left orientation, what reason is there to believe he won’t do what is his natural inclination? He said he thought is own abortion-loving sister would make a good Supreme Court Justice. Given the nepotism at the convention, do you really suppose he would hold to any claims he is making now?

      By all means, Leigh, hold your nose and vote for Trump and hope for the best. But be very very careful of ingesting any of that poison.

  6. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I am glad to see the Republican party move more to the right fiscally but a little to the left socially.

    This is the meme that RINO’s and others always throw at conservatives. The problem is that moving “left socially” inevitably means moving left fiscally as well as restricting the rights of others.

    Let’s take a look at some socially leftward movements and their results

    Sexual revolution-enormous increase in unwed mothers, increase in social welfare costs, abused children, abortion.

    Divorce on demand-increase in broken families, increase in welfare costs, children with unstable homes, higher incidence of criminal behavior and self-destructive behavior in children from broken homes. Of course this holds true for out-of-wedlock children.

    Homosexual marriage- infringement on religious rights of others such as bakers.

    Fluid gender identity- insanity. Disruption of all sorts of social norms. Costs to businesses, schools, in fact all institutions. Chasing normal people out of public sites.

    Why any thinking person would believe that moving to the left socially is a good way to go, is beyond me. I find it especially humorous that so many libertarian leaning Republicans seem to think that moving left socially is not going to have its social and economic costs.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Let’s take a look at some socially leftward movements and their results

      Ditto to all that you’ve said, Mr. Kung. And the largest cost of moving Leftward may be instilling the entitlement/socialist mindset. And once this “New York Values” big-government progressive-style Trump redefines Republicanism even further Left, then it’s really all over. The very idea of opposing Big Government is removed because the opposition party has been turned into something else. Conservatism is already severely marginalized. And this is the lesson you can draw from the Trump/Cruz or Trump/Establishment Republican battle. Yes, the rubes may believe the propaganda that Ted just can’t work with anyone, that he’s dishonest, arrogant, etc. But the truth is that Cruz, much like Jesus, has to be sacrificed and marginalized because his very presence shines a light on the deep corruption of the status quo.

      For all those who say “It’s all over” if Hillary is elected, they need to consider that only by running against the Left (as Dennis Prager urges) can you ever move back from the precipice. Who is Trump running against ideologically? You have to run against Leftism and keep running against Leftism. You have to make it the center of the discussion and explain to people what is so harmful about it. Bashing journalists isn’t the same as refuting the Left. And Trump hasn’t done it. He almost always embraces the Left’s values.

      If you want to save the country from the precipice, what you don’t do is make a New York liberal head of your party and then pretend that he’s some kind of savior. Nowhere has Trump opposed the core ideas of the Left. And where he has (illegal immigration) there is no reason to believe his rhetoric any more than, say, the rhetoric of far more honest men such as Ted Cruz. If Ted Cruz was elected, he wouldn’t do much about illegal immigration either. For a politician, it’s just not worth the trouble. The rhetoric might be useful to fool the rubes, but once in office there is just so many other demands on a president’s attention. And for a lightweight such as Donald Trump, who is a narcissist and liar to begin with, it would be very easy for him to make some excuse for not doing anything.

    • Leigh Bravo says:

      Okay…I understand your point as we need to put God back into our country and instill morals and ethics into our society and our children. However, what do you propose we do with all the homosexuals? Ban them from the US? There have to be common sense solutions…everyone is entitled to live and let live. We were doing okay with most society’s issues until government got involved. I think we could solve the whole “gay marriage” issue over night. Government requires marriage licenses basically to keep track of people and their state of attachment. The problem is that “marriage” is a religious ceremony. You cannot force churches to go against their religious doctrines by forcing them to marry or be fined or have non profit status taken away. So the simple solution is to stop requiring marriage licenses. Here is a 2 paragraphs from an article I wrote called: Marriage: A Ceremony Complicated By Government Interference.”

      “The word marriage should be replaced with “unions,” in the eyes of the government. Unions between two people who want to spend their lives together. Ceremonies then are chosen based on personal or religious beliefs and/or preferences. No ones belief system trampled or punished.

      Today, some “relationships,” may have nothing to do with a life long commitment, love, or even children, but a necessity of life. In order for the government to keep track of unions for beneficiary information, why not apply for a “benefit distribution license.” All Americans would then have the right to determine who can and will receive the benefits they have worked for and earned, without complicated regulation by the government. Whether it be a husband, wife, sister, brother, cousin or friend. As we have all seen, the more government becomes involved the more complicated it becomes and the more regulations it requires. Therein lies the problem…government interference.”

      With this idea, once you obtain your license, you then go forth, if you chose to marry, and have a ceremony based on your faith or non faith, regardless what you believe. No one is stepping on religion and everyone is allowed to live the life they chose. It is not my place to judge anyone. But we are all humans and deserve to pursue happiness. It just so happens that government should have noting to do with our personal lives.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        However, what do you propose we do with all the homosexuals? Ban them from the US? There have to be common sense solutions…everyone is entitled to live and let live. We were doing okay with most society’s issues until government got involved. I think we could solve the whole “gay marriage” issue over night.

        What are you talking about? You are even beginning to argue like a Leftist, by setting up a straw-man.

        “Doing something with all the homosexuals” is not what this is about. It is about destroying the basic institution upon which humanity has been built, i.e. MARRIAGE and the FAMILY.

        Your idea that changing the name for an institution will solve things is the worst type of sophism. Saying “union” instead of “marriage” will change nothing.

        And just to be clear, some deluded people tried to offer civil unions to the queer lobby, but this was not enough.

        I wrote exactly what this is all about some time back. In case you didn’t read my articles or have forgotten them I include links below.

        http://www.stubbornthings.org/dont-need-stinkin-marriage-part-ii/

        http://www.stubbornthings.org/dont-need-stinkin-marriage/

        If “Christians”, much less conservatives, can’t figure out what is happening and stand up for sanity, then the West truly is lost.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Not only did militant homosexuals refuse to accept civil unions (a compromise that was much better for them than for social conservatives), but the courts used its existence as a basis for claiming discrimination. According to their logic, an outright ban was not discriminatory, but an inferior form of marriage (civil unions) was.

          • faba calculo says:

            “the courts used its existence as a basis for claiming discrimination”

            Hell, I support gay marriage, and even I did the double gulp on that one. Still, it’s worth noting that that was, near as I can tell, an innovation that owed its existence to Judge Vaughn, who decided the post-Prop 8 case. Thankfully, before and since, I’ve never heard it again.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Jesus Criminy, Mr. Kung. How can I nuke the site if you’re going to use it constructively like that…as a resource? Knock it off, please. Don’t make me second-guess myself.

          • Gibblet says:

            “How can I nuke the site …”

            Please, no! Your site is a lighthouse in these tumultuous political seas for poor floundering vessels such as I. Consider the countless ships for whom you and others have sounded the horn of reason, even today. Take note! Your light shines deep into the uncharted night of wayward thinking and convoluted logic. Not to mention the great recipes. Seriously though, where else can one get such depth of reason, crock-pot stew, and a good laugh all in the same thread?
            And Happy Birthday!

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Gibblet, I just heard briefly from this site’s Koch Brother, Pat Tarzwell (fresh back from the national GOP convention), and it sounds as if he thinks the Republican Party has committed suicide.

              One of the points of this site was to have a little fun and to see if we could function as a sort of homespun, common-sense rallying point against the Left but do so in a way that wasn’t over-intellectualized.

              But if the GOP has in fact committed suicide and now we’re simply witnessing a realignment (which is part of the function of apologizing for Trump as opposed to holding one’s nose and voting anti-Hillary), then there is no point, at least regarding the political aspect of this site.

              What I won’t do is play pretend. As I mentioned in another post today, remember that warning label that was sown onto a kid’s Superman costume that said “Cape does not enable wearer to fly”? I don’t want to be like that, pretending that we can do something that we cannot. We might function as a Middle Ages monastery, the repository of information to be preserved and discovered by future generations. That’s certainly a legitimate function.

              But when I see the right being fractured the way it is, losing the ability to reason and defend its core principles, then one choice is to step back from the whirlwind, preserve one’s sanity, and let Thelma and Louise drive off the cliff. It might be humorous to comment on, but that gets old. But like I said, I will consult with this site’s Koch Brother (the largest contributor) and see. I had hoped this place would function more like a direct democracy with oodles of small contributions so that everyone had a sense of ownership. But it hasn’t worked out like that (but thank you to those who have contributed).

              Pat has borne the brunt of the financial gifts (apart from my own pocket). So I think it only fair to consult with him first. He has substantial sums invested in this site. And he’s a good man quite unlike most of us. Instead of just bitching and complaining and turning conservatism into some kind of useless emotional therapy, he is actually out there trying to change the world for the better.

              I will also keep your kind words in mind, Gibblet.

        • Leigh Bravo says:

          Wow….queers? I guess calling yourself a conservative allows you to set yourself above others? What a disappointment to find out that people are not who you thought they were. Just because we all want morals and ethics and God back in our country does to give you the right to demean others…Not allowing “marriage” for gays is one thing, but calling names is just wrong. You call me a liberal…look at yourself and think again. Wow….just wow!

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Actually, they use the term “queers” themselves, and the long abbreviate for the perversion lobby sometimes has a Q included/

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              I have heard them call each other queers, queens and even sometimes faggots, the last having more of an edge.

              • Leigh Bravo says:

                You also hear blacks use the N word, but I can promise you that I would never use it because I find it offensive and I believe they do themselves no favors by doing it either.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Do you need some smelling salts, Leigh? Goodness gracious. Free speech and religious freedom are under attack by the Pink (queer) Mafia and get all in a huff because someone used a words that the homosexuals themselves use.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            “but calling names is just wrong”

            Shocking, simply shocking!

            You call me a liberal…look at yourself and think again. Wow….just wow!

            Your style of argument is certainly leftist. You use the age-old leftist ploy of trying to shame me and invalidate my comments without responding to them in a reasoned way. That dog don’t hunt here.

            It is telling that the word “queer” regarding a nasty group of leftists, offends you more than the organized group of wreckers which has been trying to force the whole country to bow it’s knee to their demands; than a dishonest group of people who have rejected compromises offered to them as they don’t want compromise, they want supremacy; than a group that wants to destroy the family and Western civilization; than a group of people who work with other dishonest groups in the attempt to confuse people about gender and the like, and come up with ever expanding nonsensical acronyms like LGBTQ to confuse people; than a group of people who co-opt the language and try to keep people hopping on the hot stones of political correctness in order to further their despicable agenda.

            The actions of these people who are actively at work to ruin America do not disturb you so much, but the use of the word “queer” is blasphemy. Sadly, your reaction is very common today. It is the product of a confused age where words are more offensive than crime. In fact, an age where uttering certain words has become a crime. With such confusion reining, is there any wonder the country is in its present sorry state?

            The closest you come to answering any of the points, I made (which is still miles away from a reasoned response) is when you write,

            “Just because we all want morals and ethics and God back in our country does to give you the right to demean others…Not allowing “marriage” for gays is one thing, but calling names is just wrong.”

            Have you ever stood up against homosexual marriage? Have you ever have called out homosexuality as “sinful”? Do you even discuss it? Have you pointed out that Leftists libertines and homosexuals have been eating away at the foundations of our civilization for over a century, or are you one of those “nice” people as described by Dennis Prager who are just too polite to call out evil?

            The present state of things is so dire that if demeaning certain people can be used to defeat them, then I will demean them. It is so dire that I will happily shock those sensitive souls who need to be shaken out of their leftist induced PC stupor.

            In closing, I want to register my shock and disgust at the homosexual use of “gay.” It offends me.

            • Leigh Bravo says:

              You keep calling my views leftist….I am no leftist. You say:
              “Your style of argument is certainly leftist. You use the age-old leftist ploy of trying to shame me and invalidate my comments without responding to them in a reasoned way. That dog don’t hunt here.”
              It seems to me that you are doing exactly what you just accused me of….

              I am a constitutional, bill of rights individual. I do not follow all that the right wingers believe because based especially on your comments, you all seem to believe that it is okay to tear down others who are not like you. All of us are children of God, created by Him. I do not believe that gays should be able to marry as I believe in traditional marriage. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate to call them queers, and ignorantly think they are the only ones trying to tear down this country. I believe that would be the liberal Democrats,who have encouraged lawless behavior and control of all our rights. I believe that they have the same rights we do to pursue happiness in their lives. It is so disappointing to find out that those on your side are actually against you and will jump to throw you under the bus because your beliefs differ slightly from theirs. We are all on the same side, however attacks like these against your own side is why so called Republicans and Conservatives could lose the White House and hand it over to Hillary. Right now the gay community is supporting Trump because they have finally discovered that Democrats could care less about them then they do about the black community. This is an opportunity to bring this country together. I just cannot believe that you and Brad…most surprisingly Brad would attack me like this because we differ on small areas of the same side. This has truly been eye opening to me. What will you attack next? Jews? I leave you with this quote: “I’m not even gonna get mad anymore. I’m just going to learn to expect the lowest out of the people I thought the highest of.”

            • Timothy Lane says:

              I generally avoid using “gay” for homosexual. Of course, I also generally avoid “queer”, and for that matter, “straight”.

        • faba calculo says:

          “And just to be clear, some deluded people tried to offer civil unions to the queer lobby, but this was not enough.”

          As I recall it, it was the right that resisted civil unions / domestic partnerships, etc. And it was the right that was the driving force behind efforts to weaken civil unions even where they existed.
          It wasn’t until the pro-gay marriage side started clearly having more support behind it than the traditional view that this myth of the proffered civil unions that gays (and their supporters) rejected got going (even more so for the large still myth that it was the right that made the offer).

          • Timothy Lane says:

            California had civil unions, but rejected homosexual marriage in a 2008 referendum. The Lavender Thought Police fought back on 2 fronts: they sought to punish those who supported the referendum (Brendan Eich was hardly their first victim), and they sued to overturn the referendum. The 9th Circus agreed with them, and used the “discriminatory” nature of civil unions vs. marriage as the justification for the decision.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        There have to be common sense solutions…

        Clearly, what was considered “common sense” as recently as five of ten years ago, is no longer considered to be such.

        One may be able to use common sense on a budget discussion, but tell how “common sense” can be used in discussion moral truths or even biological truths?

        So what does your statement mean? Frankly, it sounds like something one would say when one doesn’t want to extend too much effort in addressing a problem. Which is exactly why the “right” has continually lost ground to the left. The left will cast “common sense” to the winds and fight for their unreasonable and sometimes insane demands. At least they believe enough in something to forget “common sense” and go to the barricades.

        Yes, being reasonable and using common sense has gotten the right just were it is today.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        In my previous post, I gave the materialist rational for not supporting homosexual marriage.

        Now I will repeat an article I wrote which gives the Christian rational for not supporting homosexual marriage. Take your pick, but there is no good reason for supporting deviant marriage.

        http://www.stubbornthings.org/can-a-christian-support-homosexual-marriage/

        And let me, for the record, state that I grew around the fashion business and almost became a professional singer. In both businesses, homosexuals are very common.

        I have even had homosexuals accost me. Still I had friends and acquaintances who were of this particular persuasion. Many were enjoyable to be around. The only trouble I had with some was when they couldn’t make up their minds as to what they were, queer or not. My advice to them was to stop whining and man up.

        My problems with the homosexual lobby started when it became clear that the far left was behind the push for “homosexual rights.” They were by in large motivated by leftist ideas and were not interested in tolerance, rather they were interested in pushing their agenda on the rest of society.

        They were not so much interested in marriage, most queers I have known were pretty promiscuous. Rather they were interested in expanding their base, revenge and tearing down society.

        That is when I decided to come out of the closet and call a queer a queer.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        However, what do you propose we do with all the homosexuals? Ban them from the US? There have to be common sense solutions…everyone is entitled to live and let live. We were doing okay with most society’s issues until government got involved.

        Homosexuality used to be illegal in the UK. That may not have been a bad idea considering where we are heading now, the actual outlawing of families (which is the final goal of the Left).

        Those who can hear beyond the veneer of words such as “queer,” and thus the rampant and orchestrated victimhood, understand there is an organized assault on our culture by the Communists. One of their prime goals to is marginalize and eventually destroy the family. One of the ways to do that is to elevate the homosexual.

        And we see this being done. You’re basically, as Mr. Kung said, arguing this from the Left, accepting the victimhood status of homosexuals.

        It’s “diversity for me but not for thee” regarding the queer agenda. Ask those cake-bakers in Oregon. Ask those in California where queerness is being thrust upon the religious community. Homosexuals do not want equality. They want to be “special.” They want to predominate. They dismiss straight people as mere “breeders.”

        The homosexual movement is an attempt to make deviancy normal. The best way to approach this is similar to the way a pastor friend of mine does. He has a lesbian in his church. And as a Christian, he loves her and accepts her humanity. But he tells her that she must not engage in lesbian behavior in order to follow Christ. He makes no beans about telling her that.

        Homosexuality is bad for people. Yeah, it might suck if some people are possibly born with that orientation. But the truth is that the queer mafia believes wholly in “gender fluidity.” If this is true, this is all the more reason to guide people toward normal, heterosexual lives. And you can’t do that if you consider homos mere “victims.” I consider them at least sick and in need of help.

        Can anyone honestly say that our society is getting better with the predominance of the bully-gay platform? I certainly don’t. We need to hate the sin and love the sinner. But that’s as far as we should go. We shouldn’t normalize a destructive lifestyle.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          However, what do you propose we do with all the homosexuals?

          This has a similar ring to,

          “what do you propose to do with all the illegal aliens?”

          It is not really a question, but the justification of a policy.

          • Leigh Bravo says:

            NO …gays are American citizens and have the same rights as everyone else….illegals have broken our laws and should not be here.

            • faba calculo says:

              Also there appears to be a simpler answer to the issue of illegal immigrants: deny them employment and then watch them self-deport.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Homosexuals want to force everyone to approve their deviant lifestyle (thereby normalizing it). Your point that banning it may be better than what we have now is very important. If given the choice between the contemporary Saudi and American approaches to sexual deviancy, I might well prefer the former. The problem is that old devil, the Overton window, combined with the refusal of militant homosexuals (and therefore the rest of the Unholy Trinity of liberalism) to accept any long-term compromise.

          • Leigh Bravo says:

            Once again, misquoted. I NEVER said ban homosexuals. inferred that banning them seemed to be what you were wanting. Gay, lesbians, women, men Blacks, Latinos, Asians, who are American citizens or who have come her legally are protected by our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. They have the right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The bathroom issue and the polarization has occurred because of Obama. You cannot grant freedoms to some that stomp on the rights of others. There has to be common sense. But you can’t discount them. They have as much of a right to be here as you.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              I wasn’t misquoting you there, since my posting was a response to Brad’s. I don’t even disagree with your comments here very much. But I have a strong hostility toward homosexual militance.

          • faba calculo says:

            “If given the choice between the contemporary Saudi and American approaches to sexual deviancy, I might well prefer the former. ”

            I just cannot imagine ANY scenario that is REMOTELY likely to justify the mass murder of gays.

  7. Leigh Bravo says:

    Brad, I appreciate your comments, however I do disagree on several levels. However, I am so tired of debating the “Trump or no Trump” issue, that I will pass on delivering a long bloviated speech about the nitty gritty details. I will however comment on the budget.

    “When he does talk about balancing the budget he does so in such obviously impossible terms (we’ll do it in a year) that he’s obviously not serious.”

    You should know as a business person, that you can sit down and go through a budget and immediately cut the things that are wasteful, you can prioritize the things that really need to be addressed. You can recognize fraud and corruption and do what is necessary to stop it, you can see duplicity and cut it out. In the end, you have a budget that should balance by the end of the year. It may not happen, due to emergencies or outside influences that may increase or decrease your profit. However, you can come up with a budget that should balance. This administration and others have been unable to even write a budget that appears to balance. They have refused to stop the duplicity in agencies or cut out the fraud or even prioritize their own goals. I do believe that Trump will be able to do what he says as he is a very successful businessman. I also think that having a business person in government may finally bring about some common sense judgement. for example, who in business would refuse free help in establishing a website, but spend $684 million by hiring the same company that defrauded them years before? Only government. These are the kind of things I think will change and will make a big difference. the Iran deal, NAFTA and the TPP all need serious work. We have all seen the results of these. However, RINOS push for them and even when they have proven disastrous for our workers, they do nothing to rectify them. Once a mistake is made in government, it is NEVER addressed or changed or simply thrown out. I do think Trump is crass and opens his mouth when he should keep it shut. But at least he says what he is thinking…honesty at it purest. So much better than politicians who lie constantly while they are thinking the exact opposite. I would rather have the crass truth than a lie any day. I am so tired of hearing the blow by blow criticism of Trump when we should be out there trying to promote his positives. This is an important election…we all know why…Supreme Court appointees being the most important. However, the more our own side complains and criticizes the more others question whether voting for him is a good idea or not. Please stop and find something positive to say or don’t say anything. There is plenty of time to criticize and call him out if and when he gets into office. We have to keep Hillary out and Trump is our candidate so jump on board and let’s get him elected.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      You should know as a business person, that you can sit down and go through a budget and immediately cut the things that are wasteful, you can prioritize the things that really need to be addressed. You can recognize fraud and corruption and do what is necessary to stop it, you can see duplicity and cut it out. In the end, you have a budget that should balance by the end of the year.

      Leigh, about two-thirds of the Federal budget is entitlements. And Trump has taken all entitlement reform off the table. It’s just not a reality-based position to say that we can balance the budget by getting rid of waste and fraud.

      Trump is not a reality-based candidate. That’s the problem. He spouts little but nonsense. Some hear what they want to hear in it. The appeal may be for the proverbial “strong man.” Many think he taps into pent-up anger that many have (against the Establishment and others).

      But at least he says what he is thinking…honesty at it purest.

      Leigh, your political radar is way off. Trump is among the least honest candidates in this year’s election, perhaps eclipsed by Hillary (but perhaps not). Being rude and vulgar is not being “honest.” To my mind, “honest” would be to note that you have no chance of balancing the Federal budget without paring back entitlements.

      Granted, few others are being honest about this. What disturbs me is seeing you and others corrupted by this man’s lies.

      These are the kind of things I think will change and will make a big difference. the Iran deal, NAFTA and the TPP all need serious work. We have all seen the results of these. However, RINOS push for them and even when they have proven disastrous for our workers

      Here’s a news flash: Trump is a RINO. His convention just moved the party further Left than it has ever been. Kevin Williamson, in Gold-Plated Chavism, makes the point that Trumpism is a regression of free trade and a decided moved toward central planning.

      Listen, I’m sorry that you and others have kept voting in these RINO Republicans and getting disappointed with the results — to the point that you are now so fed up, you’ll believe anything. But you’re doing it again. Fix your radars.

  8. Leigh Bravo says:

    I have to say..there is nothing wrong with my radar..but thanks for the speech from the pedestal…

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      In a rare moment of wisdom at American Thinker, Christopher Chantrill notes:

      I’d say that the fatal flaw was that the conservative movement couldn’t transform itself from a debating club into a militant movement to take the fight to the liberals.

      Henceforth, StubbornThings will exist, but it will be paring itself down a bit, emphasizing actual accounts of real life and of instances of conservative activism (perhaps our librarian, Timothy, can suggest a less tainted word than “activism”) rather than forever parsing how many Jeffersonian angels can dance on the head of a Constitutional pin.

      Whether your radar is off or misaligned is perhaps beside the point, Leigh. I’m not here to assert myself over you and score debating points, although I find it odd for a supposed supporter of the politically incorrect Trump to go all politically correct and criticize Mr. Kung for using the word, “queer.”

      But meaningless is the new meaning, so I won’t split that hair. Maybe the fait of conservatism is to become a marginalized debating club. Certainly activism (whatever we call it) is dangerous and costly. Where shall we go from here with the new normal?

  9. Gibblet says:

    ” he (Pat) is actually out there trying to change the world for the better.”

    Brad, I would be curious to hear about Pat’s adventures. How does “a good man” go about changing the world for the better, beyond his immediate circle of influence? Can the common man affect change without being in office?

    “I had hoped this place would function more like a direct democracy with oodles of small contributions so that everyone had a sense of ownership.”

    What? You can’t run a website on cupcakes and encouragement?

    “I will also keep your kind words in mind, Gibblet.”

    I appreciate your kindness toward me, as well. I have missed our visits. Keep up the good work, Brad, whatever you decide that might be. P.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I just posted the first rough report from Pat. I’m guessing he’ll feed us more details from Pee Wee’s Big Adventure at the RNC with Bozo the Clown and his henchmen. Long story short, for those who think Trump is an outsider who is a threat to the Establishment Republicans, you’ve been had big-time.

      Thanks for the kind thoughts, Gibblet.

  10. faba calculo says:

    One hate’s to nitpick, but this being the field in which I work, hopefully I can get a little lee way.

    1) “The growth of the economy in the United States has remained below 2% for over 7 years.”

    I think that you want to make this point with regards to 3%, not 2%. The economy has had years of growth above 2% in 8 of the last 10. Even if you’re after real (i.e., inflation adjusted) GDP, it’s still grown faster than 2% in 6 of the last 10 years. I see this one a lot on the internet, and, as long as you use 3% rather than 2%. Oh, AND say “real GDP”, since nominal GDP (i.e., GDP not corrected for inflation) has actually grown at over 4% a couples of times in the last few years, most recently in 2014.

    2) “We currently have approximately a third of Americans who have dropped out of the labor force giving up on ever finding jobs.”

    Unfortunately (or, perhaps, very fortunately) unlike the last point, this one is an internet meme that just needs to go away. Sure enough, there are (in thousands) 92,916 people who are out of the labor force (see: BLS Table A-38 at http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.htm ). Furthermore, there are 253,620 people who are in the (16 years and older, civilian, non-institutional) population (see: BLS Table A-1 at http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm ). Thus 92,916 / 253,620 = 36.64% of the (above defined) population that are out of the labor force.

    Problem: If you read table A-38 exactly ONE LINE further down, what you find out is that, of the 92,916 people who are outside the labor force, only 6,244 of them even WANT a job. The rest of retired, students, house wives, kept men, government workers, etc. Thus, while it’s true that 36.64% of the population aren’t in the labor force, only about 6,244 / 253,620 = 2.5% are outside the labor market involuntarily. Of course, those are hardly the only people suffering through this recession. One must add those who are still in the labor force but can’t find a job and those who are working part time but wish to be full time to get to U-6, the broadest definition of unemployment BLS keeps. Nevertheless, while meme #1 here is true (if you chance 2% to 3% REAL GDP), there’s no saving meme #2. It essentially exists purely to misinform people.

    Again, sorry to go on about two of your intro points and say so little (i.e., nothing) about the main body of your argument. But especially that second meme REALLY bugs me, and I see it repeatedly. I mean, if someone is going to use our (note: I work for BLS) data, then they shouldn’t pick and chose.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      As far as the second point goes, it appears that (according to your data) about a third of the potential workforce is not seeking work and has no intention of doing so. How many do so because they’re willing to mooch off others, and how many have given up and have no plans to look again is impossible to say.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *