I have let myself get carrried away
Current mood: stressed

When I started my personal page I intended to keep my blogs restricted to music and spiritual things. But I have never in my life been as upset with a candidate for the presidency as I am with Obama. Writing these blogs has emotionally exhausted me. As Charlie Brown used to say, "My head hurts."

I just want to say that I respect the opinions of others and I realize that the pent-up frustration of liberals and Democrats having to wait eight years after what happened in 2000 is to a large degree driving the current madness. I realize that Bush has let us all down in many ways. I do not subscribe to the Bush is Hitler theory, though, and I also have seen his adversaries in Congress, the State Department, and especially the press attempt to undermine him at every turn. It's a miracle he has done as well as he has.

Nevertheless I have spoken from both my heart and my mind, analyzing the political events as logically as I can, and aching at the decline of my country and its body politic. My fervent hope is, that if Obama wins this election, I will be proven wrong about him. Time will tell. I remain convinced that the entire Congress needs to be fired. To that end I will be voting against Bobby Scott. Were I still in Eric Cantor's district I would be voting against him.

I have confidence that this is God's country and as He has protected it in the past in spite of our continual turning away from Him, He will protect us in the future for the sake of those Americans who love Him.

To the Obama voters

To The Obama Voters
Current mood: argumentative

My dear liberal Democrat friends, you say "it's over" for McCain and the Republicans, and for the conservatives who thought that party would represent them. It's more than that. It is over for the nation. You do not realize what you are helping set loose in the world, you don't see the chain of events that led us here. Everything has a lifespan, including the United States. Why should we speed up the date of death with an Obama presidency??

How can this man even take the oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and be believed, when it has been uncovered that in a 2001 interview on NPR in Chicago he essentially called the Constitution a pain in the ass that needs to be changed? He lamented that the Supreme Court had never "broken free of the constraints placed on government by the Founding Fathers." So the Federal Government needs more power according to this guy. He said the Constitution has negative rights, what the Government can't do to you, but doesn't say what it must do on your behalf. He just left out that it has to tax you to be able to do anything. So to do more, it has to tax you more! And tax you more is what Obama and the Democrats are planning to do. We will get change, all right ... change from the Christianity based democratic republic of free people based on the natural law of capitalism, into a God-free zone, a socialist democracy of govermental serfs based on the imposed law of socialism. Our enemies are salivating. How is it that you do not see this!!!? It has been happening incrementally. Elect Obama and the express train will be leaving the station.

Obama is not being called Marxist and socialist for nothing. And maybe you are right and it doesn't work anymore. Perhaps we conservatives ARE naive for thinking that a majority of voters OUGHT to care about the belief system of our president. Nevertheless Obama is a socialist Marxist who has surrounded himself with his fellow travellers and we are about to put the word "freedom" on the obsolete list. Maybe "nobody" sees it now, and "nobody cares" about it. They will care when their freedom starts to disappear. And it won't be with an NSA domestic spying program that has helped keep the US from being attacked at home again. It will be with programs foisted upon us "for the common good." It will be too late then. Obama's Democrat Socialists will start with the freedoms of the wealthy. "Nobody" will not care then. But then they will work their way down. When they get to "Nobody" he will care. A lot. You prefer THAT belief system to McCain's?

Every nation that has chosen socialism has found itself worse off for it. Have you forgotten so soon, or are you too young to remember, the Soviet Union? East Germany? Look at how Communist China has had to get "capitaliized" to get its people out of abject poverty and subjugation to the state so they don't revolt. Venezuela has succumbed. So has Boliva, which seized the foreign oil companies' wells after those companies helped make that country. Nicaragua has re-fallen. Cuba is still under the yoke. Callers to talk radio newly arrived from Cuba after risking their lives to cross the Gulf of Mexico to Florida are incredulous that we are considering this Obama guy because they say they recognize his rhetoric as the same stuff that the Castro government says.

Nationalization of the financial system was a colossal mistake by Bush but he was bullied into it by the Godfather of the Fed (who is a Democrat, another Bush failing) and I don't think the financial crisis was even on his radar screen. They used his preoccupation with the war to pull this off. The 1960s-radical Democrats (Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the Congressional Black Caucus) in Congress who have bullied the banks into a suicidal course of lending to those who cannot pay back, in the name of "fairness" and "affordable housing", and who then took control of the "fix", are all going to be in charge in Congress and Obama will sign whatever they send him because although younger than they are, he is one of them. The terrorist, self-admitted anti-American friends of his who helped him start his career through the Democrat political machine of Chicago will all still be there with White House access. The man who crookedly made $90 million while steering Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac into the side of a mountain, Frankin Raines, is a top financial campaign advisor and is likely to become his Treasury secretary. (Meanwhile, Ken Lay, who did similar to Enron, is in jail. How is it that the black Democrat financial crook is rewarded while the white Republican one goes to jail?!) His friend and fellow revolutionary Bill Ayers is now a professor of education at the University of Chicago, and is a likely candidate for Secretary of Education. Which wouldn't be a problem if his principal educational accomplishment was not to create a system of teaching kids that communism and socialism are superior to capitalism, as early as first grade, and if his resume didn't include the bombing of American government buildings.

We have just half-nationalized the banking system at unimaginable cost, but the Big O wants to add another two trillion to that with his programs. Socialism is what it is. We will not be free. Our freedom will disappear as our taxes and obligations to government increase. Our freedom of ideology will be suppressed with the Fairness Doctrine which will have the effect of silencing the left's most effective opposition, talk radio. Our freedom of movement and energy independence with environmental restrictions. Our financial freedom with taxes that will go up, up, up on everyone, not just the wealthy, merely by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

Let me tell you about the Bush tax cuts. Before they went into effect I was having $30 more per week taken out for federal withholding than after. So over the first year of the cuts I took home over $1500 more of my own money, and the revenues to the treasury increased because of the increase in financial activity in the country when you multiply that by 150 million taxpayers. Maybe you want to give back your increased take home pay. I DON'T!

There are SO many reasons to keep Obama out of the White House. For me race is NOT one of them, as I would vote for Michael Steele, J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes, or even Bo Snerdley! The clincher for me is, what do the enemies of the U.S. see in him that they are endorsing him?! It's not rational to think they will not be our enemies just because he is elected. What makes him so exciting to the U.N.? Could it be the bill he has sponsored which would obligate the US to commit a percentage of its GDP in aid to all third world nations? What makes him so delectable to the Communist Party of the U.S. that they have endorsed him? "Spreading the wealth around?" What makes Ahmadinijab so enthusiastic about supporting Obama? Wait, that's a racist question. No, it's not! Quaddafy just endorsed Obama. Putin endorses Obama. Chavez endorses Obama. It does seem you are right that "nobody cares." And we will get the consequences of that attitude, yourselves included.

Now all that said I expect an Obama victory. People who don't have a lot have been eyeing ways to steal what others have for generations, and Socialism/Marxism gave false moral justification for taking it by force of law. Like others who have some money I am getting informed to move it out of the country. I worked too hard for it. Nobody else has a claim on it. I didn't steal it from the poor and downtrodden. But Michelle Obama (Mrs. Socialist) says that those who have a larger piece of the pie will HAVE TO GIVE IT UP so others can have more. Or did you guys miss that? Forget that they earned that larger piece. If they come for the pensions of CEOs first (Biden's latest mouthful) they will come for yours too. Already two Democrats in the House are talking about removing the tax deductibility of your 401k and IRA contributions, seizing your existing 401k and IRA, forcing you to give 5% of your income through payroll deductions to a new 401k (that you would not own) that would be administered by the government through the Social Security program, which they have bankrupted by spending it on general fund outlays. This is unlike Bush's "privatization" which would have been optional, and they killed it. Liberals have by incremental steps been moving our beloved country toward a system that is straight out of the Kremlin. And you want to push it over the cliff with Obama.

I don't care if you think this is the politics of fear. If you are standing on a railroad track and the train is coming at you, you don't stand there and think nothing is happening. You get the heck off the tracks.

The presidential record of W is not suffiencient reason to vote against McCain. "The last 8 years?" That is laughable. McCain is not Bush. He poked Bush in the eye over and over the last eight years. Furthermore, every time Bush caved and gave the Democrats what they wanted (Medicare prescription drugs, the Kennedy education bill, McCain's abominable campaign finance reform with uber-leftist Russ Feingold) McCain was right there to cross the aisle and stick it to the conservatives. Did you forget already? He was the left's favorite Republican until he got the nomination when Democrats crossed over in the primaries to vote for him. The New York Times endorsed him for the Republican nomination with generous praise, now endorses Obama for President with sarcastic vitriol for McCain. You guys foisted him on us. How come you don't like him now? Is Marxism, or Obama's race (those are basically the only reasons to vote for him) so attractive to you that the distinguished record of service McCain has compiled does not matter? Or is the fact that there is a war going on that McCain supports and which must be won to ensure the survival of your country (don't give me this "illegal immoral war" balderdash) so repulsive to you that you'd rather have a world where the Islamic revolution overwhelms the whole Middle East and exports itself into Europe? (Fact: Europe's population is now 20% Muslim thanks to their lax standards for immigration and the Musilim population is already demanding these Western countries change their laws to accomodate Sharia. What will happen when Islam is the majority religion in 20 years?) If you think the economic situation is bad now, wait till Obama gets in and has to deal with that PLUS Islamofascist expansion working in co-operation with Russian oil money thrown its way.

Obama is wrong on every issue. The war, don't win it. Global warming, cap and trade carbon taxes. Taxation, let the Bush tax cuts expire and then soak the rich. Housing, let the defaulters keep the property. The mortgage crisis, blame the banks. Ending the secret ballot in union certifications, allowing unions to return to their 19th century thug tactics. Universal health care, destroy the economics of the medical profession. Joe the Plumber smoked him out by asking a simple question. He has played the race card over and over to divide us, unlike Republicans, who are afraid to call the night dark. He is a typical, cynical, power-obsessed Chicago political hack. Only his race makes him anything special. And yet in Richmond this week I saw 20,000 show up to worship him. I saw their ecstasy. I heard the chants. It is a cult of personality, pure and simple for some, it is racial getting-even for others. "It's our turn." Oh my God. Everything about it is bad. No Republican (or Democrat for that matter) has ever inspired such religious devotion. It was Third Reich-ish. I was horrified. He is no savior, no messiah (as Farrakhan calls him!), he is another corrupt Chicago politician who can deliver a great speech but heads up a cult of personality, a manufactured icon of benevolence aiming to "remake" America. How exactly will American be "remade," Mr. O? Can't tell us that, can you! We might vote R.

Let me put this in another perspective. It is a good thing for America to dominate the world. That's because the "American Empire," in spite of all its faults, brings with it increased prosperity and does not take over countries for the sake of power but rather, if it must, to ensure the survival of personal, political and individual freedom elsewhere so that the same freedoms can thrive in America without being threatened by foreign powers or terrorist movements. Yes, that's right, it's out of national self-interest, the natural state of human beings, and NOT to be the world's policeman out of a sense of superiority. (Is Obama capable of doing that? Or does he think his election will remove the threat all by itself?) And then we give the country back when the enemies of freedom are defeated.

There is nobody else in the world to stand up for freedom. Our socialist-leaning allies in Europe have no defenses to speak of because they know America will defend them. (Will Obama?) And you know what? It's all right for capitalists to make money in the process, because their financial strength props up the entire global financial system. Except, that is, when a poison is fed into the global financial system by congressional Democrats in the name of "fairness" by passing and enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. What's that? You hate greedy capitalists? Wait till you try to have modern life without them. (Who is John Galt? Read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.)

If the "American Empire" falls, there will be another to replace it. It will be headquartered in Baghdad, as Ahmadinajab has said. He has also said they will not be finished until they stand in the White House. The economic crisis has obscured our vision. It may prevent us from defending ourselves. America needs to be restored, not thrown under the bus. Obama is now the driver of that bus. His friends are its fuel. He must be stopped. The only way to do that is to put McCain in. McCain is far from an ideal candidate, but it is Obama who is the far greater of two evils.

What's the phone number of that bank in the Cayman Islands again?

Obama/Joe The Plumber

It’s Obama, NOT Joe the Plumber, who is the issue
Current mood: aggravated

Dear XYZ,
I received your e-mail about the (Spanish) Inqisition into the background of Joe the Plumber.
I trust this will be the last political e-mail I receive from you. I would not write this letter but after awhile I get the picture that you want me to join your cause. Not gonna happen.

Joe asked the Big O a simple question and got a very direct and straightforward answer. Perhaps he was a Republican plant which led to the exchange being captured and shown by Fox News. The issue isn't Joe's background. The issue is twofold: (1) The direct answer Barack stated, which I am sure was a spur of the moment revealing of what he truly believes without the opportunity by the Democrat handlers to filter it; and (2) the resulting media and left wing blogosphere firestorm aimed at a guy who just asked a question rather than an analysis of the candidate's answer.

Let's say all of this is true and Joe is just a Republican plant. He still got Obama to admit that he is a die hard socialist and like it or not, we live in a center-right country, not a center-left one. This remark of Obama's will not play well with people who believe that America does not need to go down the socialist road. It runs counter to human nature and counter to the idea that what someone earns belongs to him. Liberal ideology says not so, some of that belongs to others. And so liberals must set themselves up as the arbiters of what is fair because regular people are just too selfish. This is called socialism, where the state begins directing all of human endeavor at the price of freedom. You cannot have a free society without capitalism because capitalism is what happens naturally when people are free. Socialism must be imposed by people who think they know better because it will not happen in the natural course of people interacting with one another. This must be done by creating a new system and telling people to accept it or else. (See Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, Cambodia, Albania, etc. ad nauseam.) And do not think that a socialist system will not have its own little hierarchy of those who have everything and deprive others of everything including their freedom. Human nature is what it is.

Just a side note. Capitalism is not a system. A system has grown up around capitalism, especially since the creation of the Federal Reserve, and that system has become corrupted, but capitalism itself is just what happens when free people reach mutually satisfactory agreements.

Just as after 1994 conservatives thought they had won the argument and were shocked and dismayed to see that Republicans they sent to D.C. let Washington change them into what the Dems had been prior to that date (corrupt), so today liberals think they have won the argument and the Democrats have returned to those thrilling days of yesteryear prior to 1994 and are more corrupt than Republicans can dream of. The difference is, conservatives are willing to admit the error of their way when they stray from the straight and narrow, mostly because the media is in the tank for the left and never lets the Republicans breathe easy, while liberals, with the media's help, are able to redefine the straight and narrow to be what they want it to be at the moment so they can sleep at night.

I happen to agree with Mr. Jefferson's analysis of the banking business' intrusion into public affairs. The credit money system is the worst thing ever perpetrated on us, but it has been 95 years since the Fed was created and nobody remembers how to use real money. The situation with both parties and the inability of other parties to gain traction is directly traceable to the income tax and the power that it gives incumbents, and that was made possible by the credit money system.

But never fear, my friend. The bottom of the house of cards has been kicked out, thanks to the Community Reinvestment Act and its stringent enforcement by the Clinton administration, which set the banking establishment on a suicide course to try to stave off the government. And thanks to President Bush who got on board with the idea that if minorities don't have homes because they can't pay for them, the banks should lend them the money anyhow and take all the risk.

Well, bankers are people too, and human nature set in. They correctly saw that they would go broke and started issuing all kinds of instruments to try to palm off the risk elsewhere, creating a chain of bad paper that poisoned the entire international credit money system. They even started luring low income people into crazy deals so they could show the powers that be that they weren't discriminating any more judging by the sheer number of loans they made. This turned into a self-consuming profit chase because the lower side of human nature took over.

But imagine if the CRA had not been passed. Imagine if Janet Reno and Andrew Cuomo had just kept quiet already about enforcing it. The banks would have continued the orderly processing of credit based on borrowers' ability to repay, and the bubble and ensuing meltdown would not have happened. We will be years recovering from it. And oh yes, it was Barney Frank who said in the 2004 Fanny/Freddie hearings, "There's no problem," and it was Maxine Waters who said "we must focus on the regulator" who must needs be a racist and against "affordable housing" while Republicans were demanding more regulation of Franklin ($90 million) Raines' Freddy Mac and being called racists by the Congressional Black Caucus for doing so.

And while I am at it: Obama and ACORN have their fingerprints all over this thing as Obama and ACORN are bosom buddies and ACORN led the racism charge fueled by taxpayer dollars thanks to provisions stuck into Democrat sponsored bills forcing the taxpayers to fund the community organizers, whose organizing mainly consists of making people dependent on government and reminding them which party to vote for out of thanks to them for destroying their ability to rise above their circumstances.

That said it is still a fact that it is lower taxes that redound to greater prosperity, not "spreading the wealth around." Americans still reject the idea that someone less fortunate has a claim on one's wealth, no matter how small or great it may be, although many like to vote for people who they think will take it away from somebody else.

So there, I have said it. It's hard knowing that the Democratic Party has no conscience and the Republican Party has no spine. It doesn't bode well for a future free of socialism.

Mike V.

McCain get my vote

McCain (oh well) gets my vote

I know you haven't asked me but here it is anyway. You do not have to agree with me. I don't wish to argue with you. But in case you have been thinking about your vote I wish to tell you why I have decided I must vote McCain.

It has been tough for me to deal with the McCain candidacy as a conservative. There have been numerous times when he has done things galling to conservatives, such as McCain-Feingold ("campaign finance reform" which did not reform anything and goes against the First Amendment no matter what the Supreme Court said), the Gang of 14 (which prevented the Senate from enacting a prohibition on judicial nomination filibusters) and McCain-Kennedy (the abominable education bill), and giving in on the global warming argument. Yet I have to hand it to him for his stance on the war, a very unpopular stand that recognized that the war, once started, must be won no matter the duration or cost. But I would have preferred a Romney or even a socially liberal Giuliani to the nomination that was foisted upon me by the crossover of Democrats and Independents in the early Republican primaries, using Republicans' winner-take-all-the-delegates sytem to pick our nominee for us because they felt McCain was the most beatable.

Yet, looking across the ideological gulf at Obama, I cannot but vote for McCain because Obama must be kept out of the White House no matter whom we have to put in there to do so, and the only way to do that is to put McCain in. Barack Obama is the FARTHEST left Senator in Washington. His philosophy of government can be summed up as this:
Government will make everything all better for everyone at the expense of the wealthy. Furthermore it will fix everything that the leftists say is wrong with America, and will soak the rich to do so. The wealthy are just not generous enough to the middle class and poor, so government will make them be more generous.
It is an impossibility and a lie.
Government CANNOT fix everything. If you look at all the areas it has expanded into (in violation of the Consitution in almost every case) the Federal Government has created far more problems by trying to fix them. And overtaxing successful people may be appealing to the less successful and the poor, but that is because people do not know how economics works and do not see how taxation changes the behavior of people with money. The reason manufacturing has relocated to China and information technology to India is because those governments allow businesses to keep far more of their profits than does ours. When capital is overtaxed, that capital will flee because its owners are free people too! They don't have to stand for it. When their capital leaves America, so do the jobs that their capital creates. Obama is apparently ignorant of this because he has spent too much time in the company of Marxists like Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and read too much Saul Alinsky and perhaps Noam Chomsky.

Barack Obama is a die-hard socialist. His philosophy of governing is straight out of the Kremlin. It will take America down the path of the late unlamented Soviet Union. To think that government can cure the energy problem by refusing to permit more exploration, drilling and refining, and instead levy "windfall profits taxes" against the industry that makes modern life possible, while giving tax breaks to General Electric to make wind turbines and solar panels, is insanity. This will only drive prices higher as those taxes are passed on to their customers. To think that universal health care coverage will fix the limited access of the poor to doctors is to ignore the bureaucratic nightmare and disastrous costs that would impose on the best (if flawed) health care system in the world. This will only drive prices higher because higher overhead must be passed on to customers (patients and insurance companies). And when these programs implode, as every socialist effort will given enough time, the left will blame it on "failed Bush/McCain policies." Although come to think of it, they will have a point if the endless succession of corporate bailouts continues.

Furthermore to think that negotiations with an enemy that has as its starting negotiating point that the West must die, will bring about peace, is disastrously foolish. If America shows itself to be weak, this enemy will strike because it does not care how long the downfall of America takes nor how many of its own people, not to mention innocent bystanders, must die to accomplish it. Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force. That is its nature. Can Barack Apollo Obama face down Putin of Russia? Can the "savior" unite a country when he cannot even unite his own party? And what is this "unity" anyway? It is the political right giving in to the left. Never do we see Democrats "crossing the aisle" to help Republicans accomplish something. Obama utterly fails to understand the nature of the enemies of America in this day and time. Worse, his policy initatives will help them.

McCain is far from an ideal candidate. And his running mate, Sarah Palin, while offering hope for the future (UNLIKE Obama, who is the real "more of the same" only from the left), is four or eight years away from her own run. He wants to go easy on illegal aliens, but at least wants to secure the border as per the will of the people. He is willing to once again try to reform Social Security. He correctly understands the mortgage banking crisis to be the creation of liberals in Congress and at the helms of the major banking institutions, with a big assist from the "compassionate conservative" in the White House. He will appoint strict constructionist judges, although whether Congress will confirm them is another story. And thank God, he is no socialist.

Republicans have been hypocritical and some have been corrupt. They were elected in 1994 to change Washington and Washington instead changed them. They became what the Democrats were before 1994 (and what they are fast becoming since 2006) that got them thrown out. But since 2006 we have seen the same old socialist Democrats at work in the majority. They ran "blue dog" socially conservative people to oust the struggling Republicans in safe red districts. But that gave control of Congress to the 1960s radicals who see America as a villain and bully. It is with them in control that gasoline went to $4 a gallon because the tipping point between supply and demand was crossed while they watched. Obama has said he has no problem with $4-a-gallon gas but wishes the price had risen more slowly. Oh yes, what a man of the people! Both parties need major overhauls. It would be great to throw out every congressman and senator up for re-election regardless of party. But that said, a McCain presidency gives us a fighting chance to return to constitutional government. An Obama presidency gives us a big push towards Soviet-style socialism. McCain gets my vote.

gay marriage: not so much

gay marriage: not so much

Editor, Times-Dispatch:
I thought I had heard it all concerning the arguments in favor of gay marriage, but Karen Satchell's letter of July 12 absolutely takes the cake. Now gay marriage is "for the children!!!" Well, everything else in the liberal lexicon is for the children, why not gay marriage??

I personally do not favor a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but one should not have to be considered! For the entire recorded history of mankind, in every civilization, in every religion, even under godless Communist governments, marriage has been the one constant that defined the procreative relationship between the sexes. This did not happen haphazardly. It happened because, no matter what the spiritual aspects, societies have universally understood that we have two sexes for a purpose higher than just pleasure, to continue our species on this long, twisting road called life. Surely nobody rational desires any longer to persecute people for their sexual orientation. Neither do they wish to say that marriage as it has always been isn't good enough.

If the Massachusetts Supreme Court had not handed down its decision that marriage may now be defined as anything we wish it to be, there would be no movement for such an amendment. This Court continued the frontal assault by leftist ideologues towards the imposition of group rights at the expense of societal institutions that have helped mankind survive and prosper. All leftist ideas tend toward ultimate equality, which is socialism. All men (and women) may be
created equal, but the sense in which that is so is in their standing before God, not government.

The truth is, gay people already have the same marital rights as straight people. A gay man can marry any woman he wants to marry, just as a straight man can. A lesbian can marry any man she wants to marry, just as a straight woman can. The fact that they do not wish to marry people of the opposite sex does not justify redefining marriage just for them. The Massachusetts court did not make things more fair; it tipped the balance towards homosexuality. It did not restore rights that are being denied gay people through discrimination; it created new rights for them.

I have heard the argument that the "pursuit of happiness", a right cited in the Declaration of Independence, encompasses a right to gay marriage. This cannot be true if rights descend from God and are part of the Natural Law as the Founders asserted. Activists are asking the state to create a new one. Furthermore, a right is an entitlement that exists completely within a person because he or she is alive, and does not place an obligation on others to provide it. Gay marriage cannot be a right because if it is, it places an obligation on others to recognize something they do not wish to, and in the case of benefits, obligates employers to provide that they do not wish to.

And to see Ms. Satchell say this is a matter of the childrens' rights is stretching the matter far beyond credulity. To say that children have a right to be brought up by same-sex parents is astoundingly far-fetched. Some will be; but that doesn't justify giving state sanction to the relationship for the purpose of accessing benefits!

Finally of course, there is the matter of what the framers of the law of the land intended. I realize this is not fashionable to consider nowadays. After all, they were just a bunch of exclusionary, bigoted, wealthy white men. What could they possibly do right? But the Founders were men of an entirely Christian worldview whose concept of freedom was that it existed within the boundaries of the Judaeo-Christian moral code handed down from antiquity. The spiritual aspect of this is very relevant because the laws were designed with this moral code in mind. It was assumed by the Founders that people would govern themselves according to it in order to make self government possible, by preventing freedom from spilling over into license.

To think that Ms. Satchell is a teacher in our schools troubles me because ideas like this will, in time, if taught to our children, transform the republic into something the Founders would be appalled at. Gay people should absolutely not be discriminated against. Neither should they receive special priviliges.