Today's Recommended Reading

John Stossel writes for Human Events on economic freedom and fairness.

An Ego that Transcends Time

President Obama is such a great President, that should you want to read up on the biographies of prior Presidents on whitehouse.gov, you'll still read about President Obama.  In fact, every U.S. President since Calvin Coolidge (excepting Gerald Ford) has had items added about President Obama in their biographies.  I guess it makes sense.  I often get the sense from him that he thinks he is the culmination of the last century of United States, if not world, history.  I don't know if I believe the rumor that he actually doesn't have ears, that's spare ego flowing out of his head that inflates them, but I'm willing to listen.

Today's Recommended Reading

Mark Steyn writing for the National Review brilliantly exposes the Islamic war on free speech and any of those critical of them in examining the case of Dutch politician Geert Wilders.  It is truly frightening to thin that the United Kingdom, once the bastion of free speech, denied Wilders entry into the country not because he posed a threat, but because Islam posed a threat to him.

A Tyrant's Tactics

If you have the unmitigated gall as a private citizen to donate to the Mitt Romney campaign, beware, the Obama campaign will attack you.  The Wall Street Journal reports that Obama campaign websites have accused Romney campaign donors of being "less than reputable" and specifically of accusing businessman Frank VanderSloot of being "litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement".  This is about as disturbing as a campaign tactic can be in a free society.  This is a tactic to suppress dissent, to quiet the opposition through fear.  Mr. VanderSloot has suffered a loss of business.  Private investigators are reportedly investigating his divorce.  At least Russian President Vladimir Putin has the courage to arrest and kill those who dissent against his reign.  The Obama campaign has an enemies list and will seek to discredit large donors who oppose President Obama's run for another term.

This is one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard of from a campaign.  The idea that private citizens who are not public figures should face contempt like this discouraging them from participating in the political process is the same as having the New Black Panther Party standing outside of a Philadelphia polling place with weapons threatening potential voters without reprisal.  Oh, wait.  There is a difference between a donor like Bill Maher, Karl Rove, or George Soros, who routinely inject themselves into the public forum and are fair game for criticism.  This is a man who did not seek attention.  All he did was give a donation.  It was a large one mind you, but what difference should that make?  If you send $45.00 to a political campaign, are you fair game?  Worse yet, we've all made mistakes in our lives and some of them are public record.  Would you think twice about donating to a political campaign if you knew someone might bring up your decades old DWI, an offhand remark you made on a paper when you were in high school, the allegations of an ex-girlfriend from years ago that is still bitter over how things ended?

The only purpose of this tact is to keep people from donating to those opposing President Obama through fear of being smeared.  That is about as disgusting an act as I've ever seen.  In truth, it's only a step short of rounding up the dissidents the way a dictator would.  This is not a tolerable act in a free society, and I encourage the reader to share this so that people know.  We should all be watching out for this kind of censorship, no matter the source.

Bravely Sitting on His Hands

As pundits, journalists, foreign officials and celebrities began to fall over themselves heaping praise on President Barack Obama's decision to come out in favor of gay marriage (and in the process bravely admitting to the American people that he has been lying to them about the issue for three years), they uniformly fail to note that he also said that states should be allowed to ban gay marriage, meaning he effectively made an announcement akin to endorsing strawberry ice cream (note how he said personal opinion, not policy).  Meanwhile, on a substantive issue that pretty much everyone can agree with (though I can't imagine it would have all that much true impact), the president continues to refuse to sign an executive order which would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identification.  But hey, he's heroic.  He'd pat himself on the back but his hands are firmly placed beneath him.

Look at the Shiny Keys! They Make Jingly Noises!

Democrats have launched a masterful strategy for the 2012 election season that Republicans are falling flat on their face over.  Every week there seems to be a new announcement from Democrats which starts a discussion about social issues.  And every time Republicans pounce on the issue and suddenly we have idiotic journalists asking questions at debates about contraception.  Meanwhile, the economy, which is the question we should be addressing, get shoved on the back burner.  Democrats paint Republicans as fascist religious nuts who want to yank the condom of your penis mid-coitus and hang gay people in the streets.  Democrats use the issues to frighten everyone because they can't run on their record or their actual ideas.

In truth, this is what Democrats have been doing for years and they do it well.  If you argue with them that a policy is bad they won't defend the policy, they will tell you a Republican did the same thing, as if two wrongs makes a right.  I'm surprised they haven't simply started bringing grenades to debates so that when someone challenges them they can just throw one in the crowd to distract the audience.  I'd probably do the same if my positions defied logic and reason.

Obama Endorses Multiple Spouse Marriages

As I noted in a previous post, today, President Obama stated that he is in favor of full marriage for gays while firmly stating that he plans on doing nothing about it as states routinely vote against extending marriage to same-sex couples.  As I state regularly, I am a conservative libertarian.  But I am against states legalizing gay marriage.  Let me explain the case against liberty.

President Obama explained that he is a strong supporter of GLBT rights (and who doesn't love a good GLBT, hold the mayo, slightly toasted, no crust, brown mustard, really brings out the Gouda). So what happens as the logical extension of marriage to same sex couples?  If we allow gay marriage, do we then have to allow bisexuals, whose defining quality as a group is an inability to decide who they want to screw (unless of course it's both simultaneously) to marry one of each gender?  How about polygamy, which in many societies was both a form of slavery of women and institutionalized incest and child abuse?

This is not a slippery slope argument.  This is the experience of countries that have had to deal with the arguments which stem from the state sponsored approval of gay marriage.  Canada has faced challenges on its ban on polygamy with arguments based on its approval of gay marriage.  If being married is a right, what happens when you can't force your pastor to marry you?  Can you sue him?  A biracial couple has already done so in Louisiana.  There are roughly 20 states that do not ban bestiality.  Some people claim their religion includes pairing up with animals as spouses.  Are they being discriminated against?

The easy answer for people is that we have to recognize gays' rights to marry.  The hard answer is that the truth is there is no right to marry.  The examples I've noted above may seem of the slippery slope genre, but how about something a little more grounded in normalcy.  In Louisiana you cannot marry your adopted child, ever.  Woody Allen anyone?  States disagree as to which degree of cousin a person can marry.  States regulate marriage, it is not a right and never has been.  The church can deny you be married under their sanction and force you to go to another church.  You cannot force a church to marry you.  The only right involved in marriage is the right to assembly.  You may freely cohabitate as you wish, but do not expect the state to place the color of authority on your union unless it chooses to do so (i.e. Texas recognizes common law marriage, Louisiana does not).  Marriage is a matter of public policy to be determined at the local level.  The Defense of Marriage Act was an ill conceived move by social conservatives and I believe it was unconstitutional.  Similarly, any federal legislation granting a right of marriage is inappropriate.  I'm not a big fan of the states stepping in on regulation of marriage, outside of some general safety concerns, and I think it should be a matter for the churches.  I also think that legislation shouldn't prevent gay couples from having access in hospitals or otherwise.  But there are consequences to all state actions, especially those that presume to create rights.

Rights are those things inherent within us, within our very being.  They do not require others to exercise and government doesn't need to pretend to create new ones (which are invariably rights to products), it needs to protect us from infringement upon those that exist.  Modern society cries to government for redress and "rights" that are thinly disguised privileges granted by government that take from one person and give to another.

Please address all complaints to the comments below.  I'm told that's hard to do.