If we read my characterizations, I said nothing about inequality. But, sure, ok, i’ll bite.
Nice Robot

Let’s take the points you raise, with my observations of your misconceptions about those points intact.

(And to “handicap” myself, I’ll not use any religiously motivated arguments, which I might use otherwise.)

Let’s begin with the premise that simple-sounding problems often aren’t as simple as they appear, and oftentimes require great explanation in not only their solutions, but in the stating of the underlying issues as well.

What is the difference between the fetus, and the 1-day-old newborn child:
Size, Location, Development, and Viability. For these reasons many Pro-“Choice” proponents believe that the quality of humanity/personhood (and the legal protections therein provided) are not to be applied to the fetus, yet are to be applied to the newborn. (Let’s leave aside the fact that “fetus” is Latin for “child”. Let’s also leave aside those, like Mark Sanger — son of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood — who believe parents have the “right” to kill their child as old as 5 years of age.)

Is Dr. Ruth Westheimer less of a human/person and you or I simply on account of her size? No? (If you don’t know who Dr. Ruth is, lets go with Snookie…) Is Shaquille O’Neil more of a human/person than you or I simply on account of his size? No? Then we can safely eliminate Size as a precondition of humanity/personhood and the legal protections therein provided.

Are you or I more or less of a human/person when we’re at home compared to when we’re at work? What about when we’re on vacation? No? Then we can safely eliminate Location as a precondition of humanity/personhood and the legal protections therein provided.

Is a 5-year-old child less of a human/person than you or I? I mean, their neurological development isn’t complete, and their reproductive systems aren’t either. Do you look at the 5-year-old and say “It’s not human”? Do you hear of the horrific abuses that befall some 5-year-olds and say “It’s a non-issue because it’s not a human.” No? Then we can safely eliminate Development as a precondition of humanity/personhood and the legal protections therein provided.

Is someone awaiting a heart, kidney, or liver transplant less of a human/person than you or I whose heart, kidneys, or liver are functioning? No? Then we can safely eliminate Viability as a precondition of humanity/personhood and the legal protections therein provided.

The pro-life position was rabidly defended by Christopher Hitchens as defending the most vulnerable people among us. He spoke of the barbarity in a culture that would allow anyone to willfully kill their own offspring for such a flaccid reason as “I’m not ready to be a parent.”

Now… If you happen to be one of those people to unflinchingly categorize the unborn child as a “parasite” (which I’ve heard some Pro-“Choice” proponents actually do), then you are far too easy with dehumanizing anyone who stands in the way of your personal or political goals. Anyone who can blindly dehumanize “The Other” as easily as that is someone society should watch carefully, because those are the “enlightened people” that lead societies down the path of self-destruction. (Some secularists and Atheists say America is already on this path.)

Now… SSM.

I agree that SSM doesn’t directly affect any individual heterosexual marriage. HOWEVER, the concept of SSM injects a philosophical notion into culture/society at large that has tremendous ramifications: Men and Women are functionally interchangeable in every aspect and position within society. This is a notion I fundamentally disagree with.

I’m not saying that SSM parents can’t parent effectively. But it’s still not the optimum of 1M1W. Men, and only men, can teach their sons what it is to be a man. Women can teach their sons the values they believe men ought to hold, but mothers can NEVER teach their sons what it is TO BE a man from the perspective of a man.

Likewise, women, and only women can teach their daughters what it is to be a woman. Men can teach their daughters the values they believe women ought to hold (and will be ROUNDLY criticized for doing so! — /s that “male privilege” we do so enjoy /s), but fathers can NEVER teach their daughters what it is TO BE a woman from the perspective of a man.

Transgenderism is an expected sociological furtherance of the same underlying principals of SSM: the elimination of the distinction of genders — intrinsic masculinity and intrinsic femininity don’t exist, but men and women (whichever you “feel” you are) are functionally interchangeable in every aspect and position within society. Again, this is a notion I fundamentally disagree with.

Biological differences between male and female are hard-wired at at multiple levels: neurological; biochemical; genetic; hormonal; sociological; etc… It’s why there is such a thing as “traditional male roles” and “traditional female roles” in multiple societies — throughout multiple cultures, across multiple continents, and thousands of years of human history. Those roles may differ slightly from culture to culture, but there is enough commonality across cultures that reinforce the notion of inherent and innate “maleness” and inherent and innate “femaleness”. I would say the outliers represented by the LGBTQ2IA community are “exceptions that prove the rule”.

Watching the following TED talk has certainly given me much to think about in the past few days.

A queer vision of love and marriage

However, mentioning any sociological/cultural concerns about the mainstreaming of SSM and Transgenderism (concerns the outworking of won’t appear in society/culture for more than a generation) will get one instantly smeared with the epithet: “Hater”, “Bigot”, “Homophobe”, “Transphobe”, etc… The epithets are not designed to listen to the concerns of those who disagree, but to silence all dissent against “the prevailing dogma”. (Remember when Senator Nancy Pelosi said “Dissent is the sincerest form of patriotism.”? Apparently dissent isn’t patriotic when dissenting against Leftist goals… But we already knew that, didn’t we?)

Religious beliefs and the War on Christmas.

The holiday that is actually celebrated, and is arriving near the end of this very month is named “Christmas”. Yes, I’m well aware of the historical celebration of Saturnalia at the Winter Solstice, and how it was co-opted for political reasons by the Roman Catholic Church at a time when The Church was drastically overstepping it’s doctrinal boundaries in seizing political influence it was never meant to wield. Now… If YOU want to go back to celebrating Saturnalia, with animal sacrifice, and decorating the outdoor trees with ornaments representing fertility (which might raise eyebrows depending on the nature of those depictions), getting drunk at the bacchanal lasting for 7 days… That’s your call. I’ll not celebrate with you, but I’ll also NOT refer to it as Christmas, because you’re not celebrating Christmas.

If you’re in the group of people who believe “Happy Holidays” is an inclusive term that respects: Christmas; Kwanzaa (invented in the 70’s by a white dude to celebrate African-Marxist nationalism — go fig…); Festivus; Saturnalia: et al… Then You should have absolutely NO issue supporting “#AllLivesMatter” instead of “#BlackLivesMatter”. “Happy Holidays” is Inclusive and therefore “better” than “Christmas” which is exclusive, and therefore “bad”. ALM is “inclusive” and therefore “better” than BLM, which is exclusive, and therefore “bad”. That’s YOUR logic applied uniformly to both ideals.

And you’re ABSOLUTELY WRONG about the Law not allowed to “respect” any religion. The Law is not allowed to promote one religion over another, but neither is American Law mean to expunge all indications of religion from the public sphere. You seem to be making the mistake of using the modern definition of “respect” and injecting it into the archaic wording of our Founding Documents. One must uncover what the original definitions were before one can interpret what the Founders were saying. Case in point? The world is *not* in-alien-able (indigenous to a place or condition), but in-a-lien-able (an inherent condition incapable of being on loan from another, or loaning out to another).

But let’s hang on this notion for a moment… If, by your account, there is to be no public acknowledgment of religion in the public sphere, nor reinforcement of religious values in any official governmental capacity, then Dec 25 ceases to be a federal holiday. Saturnalia is religious, so that won’t be a federal holiday either. So is Kwanzaa (after a sense), so that won’t be a federal holiday. If you’re weird enough to do Festivus: with the decorated pole, and the “airing of grievances”, that’s on you… But if you actually believe that something invented for comedic relief in a fictitious TV sitcom should be the “officially celebrated federal holiday” for an entire nation, then you have more issues than I can address here.

(Thanksgiving will cease to be a federal holiday as well. You may want to read the historical books and diaries of the “Pilgrims”, the originals still exist, and you’ll see how modern ideologies have utterly corrupted the historical founding of this country.)

What underlies the War on Christmas is sociological and ideological in nature. They who control words, control thought. If People Group A, ideologically acting against People Group B — who largely follow a “You do your thing and I’ll do mine, and that’s fine”… And if People Group A hold positions of influence within: Government; News broadcasting; Entertainment; Academia (both K-12 and Higher-Ed)… And if People Group A espouse certain political/socio/cultural norms… They can use their influence against People Group B largely without obstruction and even without notice. (That’s the Marxist 100-year-plan.) And the American political Left have been following it for just about 100 years.

Here’s Yuri Bezmenov’s take on the that very issue. (Soviet KGB defector)

Stop and Frisk… You do realize that after Rudy Guiliani enacted S&F, that crime rates in NYC plummeted? For a group of people that celebrate “The ends justifies the means”, Leftists certainly get in a tizzy when it conservatives use Leftist tactics to lower crime rates. (If you’re opposed to lowering crime rates in black neighborhoods, then why do you hate black people?) If you refer to the “racist” component of S&F, then YOU are the racist for insisting that crime statistics reflect the demographic makeup of the nation in microcosm. Being poor, or being black, does not FORCE one to break the law. And if suspecting a group of (black) people for the actions of the few within the group who actually break the law is wrong, then holding all white people to account for “racial guilt” because of the actions of the few genuine racists (unfortunately) in our midst is also wrong. But if you KNOW that small numbers within a specific people group are committing crimes, and even other members of that same people group want the crime to stop, then starting the investigation with that people group is a logical and reasonable place to begin. Don’t you think? I though so too.

Muslim Registry… Please don’t equate my political Conservitarianism as “Republicanism”. Trump was tossing red meat to his base in the campaign. Please allow me to unpack it for you.

San Bernardino, Charleston, Dallas, Boston, Orlando, Garland, Chattanooga, Fort Hood, Little Rock, OSU…


The “mainstream” media has bent over backwards to LIE to the general public and say Islam is NOT a factor in these, and thousands of other attacks. Especially when the terrorists involved are explicitly stating that Islam is THE reason they are committing these attacks. Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated “Islam is at war with The West, and especially America.” Now… I’m intelligent enough to know not all Muslims are terrorists. But the cliche about “All Terrorists are Muslim” sure seems to be axiomatic at this point. And what infuriates people like myself is THE MEDIA WON’T SPEAK ILL OF ISLAM EVEN WHEN THE FACTS ARE ACCURATE, they only false deny any and all Islamic factors to these crimes. (This is actually the Western Media ceding their objective journalism to the ideological bias of Islam. “Blasphemy” in Islam is not “speaking falsehoods against Islam”, but is “speaking that which should not be dissemenated [even if true]” about Islam. Which is why Muslims go bonkers when Muhammed marrying Aisha at 6 and consummating the marriage at 9 is brought up.) Even having the discussion about how to “separate the wheat from the chaff” is verboten. We are experiencing ideological white-washing of epic proportions. The Obama Administration (in ’09 or ’10) forbad phrases related to Islam and Jihad from appearing in any government and military reports. Why? I can understand not wanting to make any group of people the “national scape goat”. I honestly don’t want “Islamic internment camps” reminiscent of the “Japanese internment camps”. HOWEVER, do you remember the reaction to Muslims immediately after 9–11–01? There was, after the knee jerk reaction of “What did YOU do?!”, there was an outpouring of compassion and sympathy because the discussion was happening about the tremendous power struggle within the Muslim community regarding the “proper” interpretation of their texts. This conversation has been forbidden in the past 8 years, lest one be branded with the epithet “Islamophobe” and/or “Xenophobe” and/or “Bigot”. This discussion is happening with the Muslim community, aren’t we non-Muslims allowed to participate? We’re standing on the outside of the Muslim version of the Catholic/Protestant wars in Ireland of the ’70’s and ’80’s, and we’re being attacked, and we’re not allowed to mention what’s actually going on?!?! Are we THAT afraid of “causing offense”? Well, pardon my French, but “F$CK YOUR OFFENDEDNESS! We simply NEED to have this discussion!”

The “You do your thing and I’ll do my thing, and that’s fine” People Group B have had enough of People Group A telling them People Group B’s: intentions; motives; concerns; and fears; are not only unwarranted, but harmful to “a cohesive society”. People Group B spoke in the 2016 election, because there was a candidate that understood this enormous group of people — living in what leftists dismiss as “flyover country” — was being demonized by People Group A in: Government; Entertainment; News Media; and Academia.

Now… In no way to I believe there should be an “Islamic Registration List”. Doing so would be a betrayal of the values this country was founded upon. But we need to look at those values… America is unique in the history of the world (at least at the time of our creation) in that our founding was not based on ethnicity, but on ideology. “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” The ancient nations of the world were based on membership within a particular ethnic tribe. Contemporary France still holds some of this ethnic-based ethos… The Immigrant — even naturalized — is never a “true Frenchman”. America doesn’t do this. Any and all citizens are held to the same notions of equality under the law.

Based on your final paragraph, you are railing against “the system” (that you live in and benefit from), “whiteness” (which is just as racist as being against “brownness” or anti-semitism), Heterosexuality (which is “heterophobic”), and “male power” (which is misandrist). But these are just my observations.

Leftists have continually shouted and screamed in the ear of Conservatives for so long, demanding that we “Get on the ‘Right Side of History’ (TM)!” that the typical Leftist accusations have now lost their effect. Conservatives are no longer playing defense, and Leftists are project their own motives as ours: that we will do to them, what they have long done to us. But Leftists fail to realize that doing so is not really in our playbook.

For the past 8 years Leftists have had someone within the Oval Office they were willing to cede near-unlimited power to, failing to realize when the office holder changed, the power you supported would go to someone you vehemently disagreed with. When we Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans objected to the power Leftists sought to blindly hand over to one office holder, we spoke against it because the precedent it would set would inevitably lead to someone else wielding even more executive power. Our concerns were shouted down as “You only object to President Obama because he’s black! You racist!” Leftists failed to see that Conservatives (primarily), Libertarians (to a degree) and Republicans (a bit) were standing on foundational principals that ought not to change for anyone — even “our guy”. But Leftists only saw what they wanted to see. To be fair, some Conservatives only see what they want to see.

I have spent nearly the last 20 years attempting to determine foundational ideologies that motivate actions. I try to comment on those ideologies, and their associated actions. I don’t always succeed. At times I see the depths of where people are standing when they don’t even see it themselves. Is this one of those times? Perhaps. I could be wrong, and wisdom begins with knowing that one can be wrong. To deny that one can be wrong only makes one a fool, and fails to make anyone else wrong in the process.

Like what you read? Give Craig Gorsuch a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.