Supreme Court Strikes down 35 foot buffer around Abortion Clinics, so how does the left like that Judicial Activism now?


Many times have I been accused of racism, religious fundamentalism, or homophobia by the authoritarian left because I believe that states, not an activist judiciary, have the authority to handle all matters not specified in the US Constitution, consistent with the 10th Amendment.  It strikes me deep, because I despise racism, I’m Episcopalian/Greek Orthodox and therefore incapable of fundamentalism, and I have no problem with gay people.  I just believe in the rule of law, and don’t think a panel of 9 judges are the solution to every problem we face.  I have cautioned the left many times that if they continue supporting the concentration of power to support their short term goals, that power can just as easily be used against them…and so it has!

I am just tickled to death that the US Supreme Court has recently struck down a Massachusetts law which forbade pro-life activists from protesting within 35 feet of an abortion clinic.  The court, in their infinite wisdom, decided that this violates “free speech”, even though pro-lifers are perfectly free to voice their opinions anywhere else, just not right on the spot where people are seeking abortions.  Now, if I were a judge, I would have upheld the law, even though I’m pro-life.  Why?  Because it does not violate free speech, it simply forbids protesting that can easily be intimidating in a particular spot where it would be, indeed, the most intimidating.  You see, I don’t believe that the Supreme Court is the place to push my social agenda, and as much as I despise abortion and the whole pro-choice movement, I fail to see how Massachusetts was in violation of the “free speech” clause of the 1st amendment.  Yet, though I disagree with the ruling, I can’t help but have a good laugh at the authoritarian left as they get a taste of their own medicine.  So how do you like that judicial activism now?  Maybe the states’ rights position isn’t sounding so bad anymore is it?  I’d love to hear one of them actually start arguing the states’ rights position now.


The above link is simply the article I last read before writing this, I’m not criticizing “The Nation” magazine or this article

Despite everything, I don’t regret Obama


I’m beyond sick of Obama.  He’s been a terrible disappointment to those of us who initially supported him due to his stances on civil liberties and ending the pointless war in Iraq.  Obama is actually considering getting back into Iraq now, and as for civil liberties, he’s turned out to be worse than Bush.  Despite all this, when I tell someone that I did indeed vote Obama, and they ask “Do you regret it now?”, I can honestly say “no regrets”.  (I discuss this in greater detail here)

I’m not going to apologize for voting for Obama, when McCain was the alternative.  At least Obama didn’t get us into Syria.  If it were up to McCain, we’d have attacked Syria, probably Iran, and we’d still be in Iraq!  Thanks to Obama, the Republicans are being forced to look at themselves in the mirror.  More and more Republicans every day are realizing that they can’t be the party of limited government at home, and simultaneously be the party of unlimited government abroad.  It doesn’t make a lick of sense!  If, to quote Reagan out of context as many Republicans do, if “government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem” – how then can our government be the solution to the rest of the world’s problems.

I’m glad Obama won, and I’m glad he won again.  Romney was a compromise from the neocons.  He wasn’t half as hawkish as McCain, but he too was deluded into thinking we can continue to fund this bloated military industrial complex and somehow balance our budget at the same time.  It won’t work!  The last 3 times we balanced out budget, under Eisenhower, Nixon, and Clinton respectively, we reduced military spending.  That should teach us something.

I sincerely hope that the Republicans finally get it.  I sincerely hope that in 2016 they will give us a Presidential candidate worth voting for.  Romney wasn’t terrible, but we can do a lot better.  As those who follow me know, I’m going for Rand Paul at this point.  The Republicans need a candidate who respects our Constitution in its entirety, doesn’t engage in Muslim-bashing, and knows full well that coupling tax cuts with more costly wars will just add more to our national debt…and more debt is just a promise of more taxes later on.  If the Republicans are serious about limiting the size of government and reducing the tax burden, than they need to be serious about limiting the size and scope of our military, as well as the rest of government.  Rand Paul is probably their best bet.  But if they don’t pick Rand, they need to pick someone similar.  If so, and if we get a President who will restore the balance of the 3 branches of government, and get our budget under control, then 8 years of Obama will have been all worth it.

“Anybody but Obama” is not a winning ticket.  Instead, the Republicans need “We have somebody much better than Obama”, and “We’re not the party of Bush anymore”.  They won’t all get it, but I hope enough of them will.  For those of us who don’t care if a black man with an Islamic name is in the White House, give us something to vote FOR.  Hate won’t bring us to the polls for you.

Bring it on, Dick!



Dick Cheney, one of the most hated politicians in America today, is rallying against Rand Paul – and I couldn’t be happier to hear his point of view.  Cheney warns that Paul is an “isolationist” who wants to bring our troops home and let the enemy stew in their own juices, etc.  This is inaccurate, but still helpful.  Rand is more cautious than his non-interventionist father, Ron Paul, and supports maintaining support for our allies.  But Rand is likewise more cautious than Ron Paul’s polar opposite – Dick Cheney.  See neocons?  This is realism!  Fearing those brown people because they “hate our freedom” is not realism.  It’s a type of idealism.  Realists look at the actual balance of power, and who could potentially pose a threat to us.  “They hate us” is no reason to go to war, if “they” have much to lose and little to gain by attacking us.

With that said, you don’t win elections by giving an academic lecture on realism in foreign policy.  The American people are often emotionally volatile, and currently, are war weary.  Therefore, Dick Cheney’s straw man of Rand Paul as an “isolationist” will likely work to his advantage for these two reasons: 1. Americans hate Cheney, and 2. Isolationism actually doesn’t sound too bad to many Americans right now.  My only concern is that if Rand Paul does become President, I hope people won’t feel betrayed when they learn that Rand is willing to use force sometimes, and is actually very concerned about the power balance with Russia, China…you know, countries that we actually should be worried about?

Well, for now, I hope that bull dog Cheney keeps on barking.



Cheney’s straw man:

Rand Paul’s healthy balance of principles and pragmatism are expressed here:


Final notes – if you would like to learn more about realism in international relations, I recommend the works of Stephen Walt, Robert Jervis, and Fareed Zakaria. For the more hawkish approach to realism, you could read “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” by Mearsheimer.  I’m sure you’ll agree that none of them have much in common with the wreckless neocon foreign policy of Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, etc.

Eric Cantor loses to a liberty-Republican – Professor Brat


As a young college professor myself, sickened by the old “liberal” establishment that still dominates academia, I was delighted to see a liberty minded Republican professor (Dave Brat) win a GOP primary against the establishmentarian Eric Cantor.  I’m mainly posting this to link you to Jack Hunter’s article, which explains this very effectively.  I’m just going to add a few notes, then ask that you follow the link below.  My previous post lamented Lindsey Graham’s victory, and I’m not surprised that the mainstream media is jumping on the opportunity to discredit the Tea Party movement.  However, Graham won not because of his own popularity, but because the Tea Party fumbled that one.  Their best alternative was Lee Bright.  A principled candidate?  Yes.  But he was a terrible candidate.  He accused Graham of being sympathetic to the “Muslim Brotherhood”!  What?!  If the Tea Party is going to run candidates like that, they are going to lose.  Fortunately, the Tea Party picked in winner in Virginia.  They picked a dignified, principled professor (WOW!  Talk about outside the box!) who took Cantor to task for the kind of big government hypocrisy we expect from establishment Republicans.  Professor Brat, soon to be Congressman Brat, proved that the Tea Party is not just some right wing lunatic fringe of the GOP.  Do right winged lunatics find a home in the Tea Party? Yes, unfortunately.  But that’s not what the Tea Party is all about.  An educated, principled candidate who cares about the people can win, and did this time.  Now, please read Hunter’s article for a better perspective on this:

My previous post, lamenting Graham’s victory:

The Nation’s John Nichols has an interesting take on this also:


Lindsey Graham is no moderate! Nor are any of his neocon colleagues


The same old neoconned baby boomers who dominate the GOP just don’t get it.  As evidence of just how far out of touch they are with the rest of the country, they’ve nominated Lindsey Graham, possibly the biggest neocon in the whole Senate (maybe second to John McCain) for yet another term.  Because it’s South Carolina, that means Graham should have no trouble beating the Democratic challenger.  As a genuine centrist, and a foreign policy realist, I am offended that lately, they are trying to convince us that their bigoted, soft-fascist agenda is somehow “moderate” and “realist”.  They are nothing of the sort, as I’m about to show.

I just want to set the record straight regarding Graham.  He is no fiscal conservative, he’s no moderate, and he’s certainly no tea partier.  Left leaning media sources such as the Huffington Post are playing into the hands of Graham and his ilk, but presenting him as a good moderate who works across party lines.  There is nothing moderate, however, about Graham’s foreign policy, fiscal policy, or stance on civil liberties.  Graham has supported every military invasion and every potential military invasion he’s ever been asked to vote on.  (If you know of any exceptions, please let me know).  In so doing, that certainly rules him out as a fiscal conservative, because the kind of foreign policy he supports is so ridiculously expensive we can’t possibly hope to balance the budget at the same time, at least not without drastic tax increases, and you know Graham won’t go for that since he thinks he’s a conservative.  Hence, I’ve shown now that Graham is no moderate when it comes to government spending, or warfare.

I also want to show that his stance on civil liberties is very extreme.  That’s not difficult at all.  Graham fully supported every provision of the USA Patriot Act, which gave the executive branch the power to spy on Americans without a warrant or probable cause.  This was eventually struck down by the US Supreme Court, as it clearly violates the 4th Amendment, protection from “unreasonable search and seizure”.  Much worse, he was one of the most passionate supporters of the NDAA of 2012, which authorized the executive branch, through the Department of Justice, to arrest and indefinitely detain whoever they decide is a “terrorist” or in any way associated with terrorists, without ever having to take them to trial.

Graham’s complete disregard for the Bill of Rights, and support for an extremely costly and unsustainable foreign policy of endless wars shows that Graham is by far not the “moderate Republican” of the liberals’ dreams.  Some more genuine liberals I’ve known yearn for a return to Eisenhower style Republicans.  To say “I like Ike” is an understatement.  I love Ike!  But neocons like Graham couldn’t be any further of Ike, unless they became Nazis!  Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex that these neocons serve…heck, he coined that very phrase!  Furthermore, Ike very consistently supported the proper balance of powers between the 3 historical branches of our Federal Government, and tempered his support for civil rights advancements with a proper respect for the Bill of Rights, causing him to have a rather mixed reputation among civil rights advocates, but a spotless record for constitutional conservatives.

So to my liberal friends who think that people like Graham, McCain, Cantor, etc. are now the “moderates”, unlike those “crazy tea baggers”, let me just remind you that when Bush was in office, you probably had more in common with those “crazy tea baggers” like Rand Paul, than you did with these neocons you now tacitly support.  I know many of you are deeply upset at the obstructionist tactics used by Senate Republicans during Obama’s first year in office to block anything and everything, just for the sake of obstruction.  It made me sick too.  But the Tea Party movement wasn’t the problem – none of them were even in office yet!  It was neocon slime like Lindsey Graham leading the charge.  So get your heads out of your partisan rears and get your butts in gear.


Interesting links:


The American Conservative predicted that the neocons would go this route of playing “moderate”:


Graham and McCain defending the NDAA of 2012:

If you want to know what a “neocon” is, my video here explains it:



Being Green – Regardless of “Global Warming”


I honestly do not know if global warming is caused by pollution, or is part of a natural climate cycle that will eventually shift to global cooling.  I keep hearing this statistic “97% of climate scientists” believe pollution causes global warming.  That sounds scary.  However, I’ve spent enough time in academia to know that a “consensus” can develop, corner an entire field of study, and turn out to be wrong.  It’s certainly possible that “climate science” is dominated by global warming dogmatists who quickly dismiss skepticism of what they think should be a scientific law.  I am learning, however, that a growing number of respectable scientists in related fields, not specifically “climate scientists” are growing skeptical.  I’m not even going to attempt to answer the question in this blog post, but rather I will give virtually irrefutable arguments for why we should care about the environment with or without man-made global warming.

Let’s go with a top 5 list:

5.         Green technology can be more cost-effective…in time.  As oil, coal, etc. become increasingly scarce, and prices increase, our economy will need alternative sources of energy to avoid an economic depression.  Imagine if gas prices quadrupled, and electricity costs doubled?  Companies would have to raise prices on goods just to cover their overhead, and this would drastically decrease sales, and…well you see where that is going.  With more research, sources such as wind turbines, solar, and hydro are becoming less expensive.  We’re even looking into harnessing those heat traps called parking lots to turn that heat into energy!  We should encourage research and innovation for our economic future, as well as the next reasons as follows.

4.         Landfills take up space, and are hard to clean.  Plastic can take hundreds of years to biodegrade, meaning that all those plastic bottles and bags in our landfills aren’t going away for a long time.  As our population grows, we are running out of space for landfills, not to mention wasting the resources used to make plastic and other such materials.  This is why we should recycle, at least plastic and metal.  This will result in less space in landfills, and more efficient use of limited resources.

3.         We all drink water, and most of us eat fish.  Anytime a company or individual pollutes the ocean, lakes, rivers, etc. it affects us all.  I never understand my libertarian friends who criticize government efforts to reduce pollution such as this.  What gives you the right to pollute the water I drink?  Or the seafood I consume?

2.         We all breath air.  What gives anyone the right to pollute the air that we all breath?  At least with water, you could filter it, distill it, etc. and you don’t necessarily need seafood to survive.  But air?  We would suffocate without it!  The more we pollute the air, the more we hurt our overall health.  Why should I get lung cancer just because you think you have a right to spew filthy carbon into the air we all breath, just because the source is your own private property?

1.         We can’t make more oil, and we can’t make more coal.  These are “fossil fuels” taken from the earth that cannot be replaced.  In theory, once we use up all the oil…it’s gone.  It won’t be quite that bad because oil prices will likely spike so high before that happens that we’d have to switch to other sources by then.  With that said, do we want energy prices to suddenly spike, or would we rather start making the transition now while we can still do so comfortably?  Oil in particular has other uses, such as in making plastic, polyester, and much more.  Why burn it up on gas guzzlers now when we already have more fuel efficient vehicles?  I don’t care what you say…if you drive some big gas guzzler just for image, and have no practical use for it, you are selfish.  If you need a truck because you mow lawns and have lots of equipment, fine.  But don’t go driving a huge truck that gets 10 miles on the gallon just because it makes you feel like a “real man”!  Grow a pair and get a car!

In conclusion, it frustrates me to no end when environmentalists harp “global warming theory”, while opponents scoff at it.  When there are much more sensible arguments right under your nose, why go with the one that’s questionable?  To my green friends, get a grip!  Raise your game!

“Feminist” and Gun Control Opportunism will Inevitably Fail


Every time some lunatic takes a gun, legal or illegal, and goes on a killing spree, the gun control advocates pounce on the opportunity to demand more gun control.  Each time – they fail.  There are far too many critical thinking Americans to denounce their emotionally charged absurdity with counterpoints such as, “Just because guns are made illegal, doesn’t mean they can’t get them on the black market”, or “They could also kill lots of people with a pipe bomb.  How can you regulate that?”  The gun control argument is absurd, because it rests on the underlying assumption that criminals and lunatics will obey the law, or lack imagination and resourcefulness.

However, the recent tragedy is Santa Barbara, CA, has given the authoritarian left a new line of argument.  It’s those darned misogynists!  So a very shy young man with Asperger’s, who felt socially isolated and desperate for the love of a woman, ended up hating women due to his lack of success and went on a killing spree.  Is it accurate to call this man a misogynist?  Well certainly many of his statements in that last video fit the definition.  However, when men like myself (who are often called “misogynists”) get defensive and say, “Hey!  I’ve never killed or raped a woman” the response from the “feminist” left is a snarky, “So should we give you an award?  You want a cookie?”  Of course not!  I just don’t want them telling me that I have to embrace their bastardized version of feminism, and throwing this tragedy in my face to try to coerce me.  I’m sorry for what happened, I really am.  But I am in no way responsible for it, I’d love to take steps to try to stop this from happening in the future, and I don’t deserve to be clumped into a category called “misogynist” and effectively blamed for supporting the kind of culture that caused the tragedy, just because I have a different point of view from the dogmatic left.

I’m sure that in time, as with the gun control debate, truth will prevail.  Women are often much smarter than “feminists” give them credit for, and are not so easily moved beyond reason by emotionally charged accusations of “hate crimes” and “misogyny”.  Unfortunately for the “feminist” left, the facts really aren’t on their side here.  For one thing, 4 of the 6 slain were men.  Also, those 4 men were stabbed to death.  (Read the facts here).  Aside from that, this young man’s videos show that in his own mind, he was a “perfect gentleman” and actually disdained “cavemen”, you know, the kind of men these “feminists” are supposed to hate so much?  Those chauvinists?

Before truth prevails, however, much social damage will be done.  MRA groups will be compared to Nazis, fascists, and whoever else the “feminists” want to blame. (Maybe the Tea Party?)  The feminist label will enjoy a small increase in popularity before the absurdity of this is fully exposed.  But in the long run, the temporary disdain for the MRAs will die back down, while the “feminist” label will come off looking even more ridiculous than it already does.  The long-term victims of this will be respectable feminists such as Christina Sommers, who will have a far more difficult task in trying to save feminism.  Ironically, the greatest injustice by these so called “feminists”, is against actual feminists.


CNN is getting to the root of the problem here, and you can see how much hate they’re getting in the youtube comments: