Repeal and don’t replace


Much ink has been used to write about the question of what Republicans should replace ObamaCare with, if they keep their often repeated promises to repeal it and replace it.

The simplest and most direct thing would be – nothing.  Do not replace ObamaCare with anything.  Let us get the government out of health care and allow the people and insurance providers to negotiate among themselves about what options the American people themselves prefer.

The only role for government in health care should be to enforce contracts.  If an insurance provider fails to satisfy a contractual obligation, that’s when the government should step in through the justice system to provide accountability.

The fundamental problem with centralized government, as we have under ObamaCare, is that nobody is smart enough to know what all 330 million Americans want at any given time about anything.  The only people who know what they want at any given time are the American people themselves.

If the insurance free market is cleared of the government-created, government-mandated rubble that has clogged up American health care since the creation of ObamaCare, we just might have a fresh opportunity to craft health-care options according to our needs and preferences rather than being forced to accept decisions made for us by politicians who care more about votes than people.

This process is elegant in its simplicity. If the government is no longer mandating health care options, who will?  The American people, that’s who, insurance providers will be forced to ask the American people what they want, rather than being told what the American people want by government bureaucrats in cubicles located in the depths of buildings in Washington, D.C.

Health insurance providers want customers. They want people to buy their product.  With government out of the way, the only way they can stay in business is to provide a product that the American people are willing to buy.  With no bureaucrats telling them what services they must cover, providers will have to consult with the American people and ask US (you and me) what kinds of services WE want in our insurance packages.

Almost immediately, an entire range of insurance options will spring up.  Options would be available for every price range and every preference.  The American consumer, and the American employer looking to provide health care for his employers, would be free to focus their attention on what kind of health care coverage they want, what they can afford, and where’s the best place to get it.

We would overnight have the prospect of watching insurance providers competing with each other across state lines for our health care dollars.  How would they win that competition?  Through ingenuity, creativity, and listening to the customer in Big Spring, Texas rather than a low-level bureaucrat in Washington.

Personally, I think the vast majority of the American people would choose a low-premium, high-deductible catastrophic plan coupled with a health savings account (HSA). Such a policy would protect them in case of a major health event; much like auto insurance covers collisions but does not cover oil changes.

What they – or their employer – would save on premiums could be plowed into an HSA which they would control and which would continue to grow.  It would create an added incentive to make healthier lifestyle choices because anything they don’t spend, they keep for future medical expenses. The HSA could be used for routine medical expenses, and would quickly grow to the point where it would be sufficient to meet the deductible in case of a major event.  What that creates is peace of mind and a sense of security.

A veritable plethora of options would flood the marketplace, with a plan for every budget.  People who want all the bells and whistles, and can afford them, would be perfectly free to pay higher premiums for lower deductibles and more coverage. Budget conscious Americans – like most of us are – could comparison-shop for the best deal.  No more would men pay for birth control and women pay for prostrate exams.  People who can afford an Escalade could go get one; people who can afford Hyundais could drive one of those.


For the poor, philanthropists could make a name for themselves and do good at the same time by funding community health care clinics- instead of political PAC’s.  Hospitals could create funds to which citizens and philanthropists could donate to provide healthcare treatments for those who cannot afford them.  Churches could step in and help parishioners with unexpected expenses.

Employers could shop with a wide range of options.  They could spend more for plans that are more extensive in order to attract higher quality workers.  Alternatively, they could spend less and offer employers more money in their pockets and more money in their HSAs.

In other words, if we get government out of the way, the free market will allow the American people themselves to decide what the health insurance landscape will look like.  The result will be lower premiums and more choices, because that’s what the American consumer will demand.


Weaker in Review 6-26-2016

Random Oddservations™  We are officially a third world country.  I turned on the TV and thought that I was watching Telemundo or Univision broadcasting a riot in a Latin or South American Congress.  Instead it was the Democrats doing a 1960’s “sit-in” shutting down the orderly progress of the House of Representatives.  I predict that before the next President is inaugurated on  January 20th, 2017, some Democrat will punch a Republican on the House floor.

In this image from video provided by House Television, House Speaker Paul Ryan stands at the podium as he brings the House into session Wednesday night, June 22, 2016, in Washington. Rebellious Democrats staged an extraordinary all-day sit-in on the House floor to demand votes on gun-control bills, shouting down Ryan when he attempted to restore order as their protest stretched into the night. The sit-in was well into its 10th hour, with Democrats camped out on the floor stopping legislative business in the House, when Ryan stepped to the podium to gavel the House into session and hold votes on routine business. Angry Democrats chanted “No bill, no break!” and waved pieces of paper with the names of gun victims, continuing their protest in the well of the House even as the House voted on a previously scheduled and unrelated measure to overturn an Obama veto. (House Television via AP)

Weaker in Review

  • Peter Roskam today criticized Boeing for “putting their financial interest first and foremost before American security” after the company announced the sale of $25 billion worth of commercial aircraft to Iran. The Illinois Republican’s remarks in an interview with The Daily Signal followed news that the aerospace giant employed and didn’t disclose its relationship with a respected former U.S. diplomat who supported the nuclear deal with Iran that paved the way for the sale. The agreement between Boeing and Iran Air drew scorn from Roskam, one of the most vocal critics of the Iran nuclear deal. He questioned the judgment of Thomas Pickering, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and the United Nations who has been on Boeing’s payroll for years.
  • The Export-Import Bank is a taxpayer-backed agency that finances U.S. exports, primarily though loan guarantees. In fact, President Obama’s export subsidy agency funneled 82.7 percent of its taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to just one exporter: Boeing. Out of $14.7 billion in long-term loan guarantees in fiscal year 2012, $12.2 billion subsidized Boeing sales. Welcome to the “New Economic Patriotism,” where the big get bigger and taxpayers bear the risk. Also, Obama holds the record for the most money ever raised from Boeing. In 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama raised $200,000 from Boeing employees and executives, which was more than double the previous record and more than five times John McCain’s Boeing haul.

Describing ilLiberals by the D’sDescribing ilLiberals by the D’s:  We have discussed DECEIVE, DECEIT, DISTORT DESTROY, DIVERSION, DELUSION, DESPICABLE, DEVIANT and  DEVOID.  Now let us look at: Demolish v. To do away with: to strip of any pretense of merit or credence.


Remember, “You didn’t build that”?  It was Obama telling people who started out with a dream/ vision and spending 1000’s of hours working at that dream, that they did not “build” it.  Whether you understand that roads were needed, schools built, etc. by all individuals of the society, the leader of a free country should not make such a stupid statement.  He can “think” it.  Then Elizabeth Warren repeats the same thing.  Who does the Left think built GM?  Apple?  Or, any small business that needs to make money to stay open and employ people.  When Hillary Clinton says she is not responsible for every “undercapitalized” business in America, what does she mean by “undercapitalized”?  Socialism destroys the human spirit, the human soul, the human mind.  What Obama, Warren, and Clinton were saying was demolishing what hard working individuals were/ are trying to do.  Liberals believe in the collective effort. Moreover, who is the umpire during this effort?  The government, of course.

Rock-It™  Blue Cheer.  Arguably, the loudest of the heavy metal bands in the late 60’s and early 70’s.

The Correct Side of the Story

I do a lot of research on genomic biology, microbiology, evolutionary physiology and biomechanics.   I try to understand both the evolutionist and creationist points of view on specified questions.  I have become more concerned because of my brother’s disclosures on Monsanto, Big Pharma and the politicians in their pockets.  During my research I came across a quarterly journal called BioCoder. It can be found in the Kindle e-book section for free.  Ten issues so far.  I do not know who to be more afraid of, the establishment or these folks.  They are the modern day radicals, but they hold a lot more at stake than any of the problems that I encountered by being radicalized in the late 60’s and early 70’s. This is an article from the first issue by Ryan Bethencourt.

Bio-Hackers vs Monsanto

I have, until recently been living a double life with one foot in the corporate biotech world and another deeply in the world of biohacking/ radical science (working on DIY biolabs and equipment, longevity research, and ALS therapeutic development). I believe in the principles of citizen science and shared (or at least leaky) IP as a means of accelerating scientific progress, but I felt I needed to play my part in the “real” biotech industry.  That changed three months ago when I realized that to create the innovation we want in biotech, we may have to burn the bridges that got us here and re-create it ourselves, with or without the dinosaur the current biotech industry has become.

Since 1978 — arguably the birth of the biotech industry when Genentech created the first GMO producing insulin — Biotech has become profitable and also heavily regulated. Biotech venture capitalists, the original sources of risk capital, have become risk-fearing middlemen/ women who have been cowed into seeking safe returns for their masters (limited partners) and obsessed with spinning the right story to their customers (big pharma/ biotech companies). Much of the shift away from risk has been rightfully laid on the FDA’s door for an increase in regulatory burden and uncertainty that has spread as best practice globally and mired the pace of innovation. Regardless, large corporations and academia can no longer be entrusted to move radical science forward — their world has become a world of committees, budget allocation negotiations, and quarterly/ yearly cycles, lacking in vision and with fear of failure. So where does it leave us? The refugees of the Biotech Valley of Death?

The power they’ve taken from the people will return to the people, whether these vested interests want it or not. Biotech and medicine have advanced at a glacial pace, but a massive disruption is coming that will destroy the antiquated business models in the biotech, monopolistic healthcare, and pharmaceutical industries. As technology’s pace continues to quicken, the biotech industry is beginning to benefit from a digitization of biology, the maker movement, quantified self, grinders/ transhumanists, crowdsourcing, and a resurgence in local production technologies like 3D printers. A small group of hobbyists (several thousand globally) has emerged over the last couple of years and has begun building biotech equipment for 1/ 10th to 1/ 1000th the cost, creating novel open source diagnostic/ medical devices, and therapeutically experimenting on themselves, as well bootstrapping and forging new paths in bioscience, like creating commercially available, genetically modified, glowing plants.

The business models for these emerging biotech industries are still evolving, but a true hunger is emerging from consumers and patients for new products offered through crowdsourcing sites, such as microbiome analysis; cheap and effective hormone analysis; novel industrial enzymes; algae-powered lights; true disease modifying therapeutics for established diseases and therapeutic life extension; cheap DIY biolab equipment; and technologies that amplify human senses, like the electromagnetic implants pioneered by grinders (i.e., those willing to biohack their own bodies). PWC has estimated that the biotech industry will be worth about $ 1.2 trillion globally by 2020, but this is based on a very conservative view of the industry, and with radical disruption and the creation of new products like synthetic meats, regenerative medicine, unconventional materials, and industrial enzymes, as well as the potential for homegrown biofermentation of many other products, the market for the “new” biotech industry will be vast and shifting.

In healthcare, I look forward to seeing the oligopolies that have stifled innovation and kept patients’ healthcare prices high and access lower to come crashing down as our fellow biohackers create innovative ways to allow people to ferment their own products; even getting FDA approval for a novel drug will no longer be a practical issue if you personally have control over the means of production. As biohackers, we aren’t interested in preserving the status quo but in overthrowing it for the betterment of humanity. The homebrew computer club was the past — the future belongs to those who homebrew biotech!

CNN Transgender poll wrong

Original article is at:

Between North Carolina’s bathroom law and President Barack Obama’s recent school bathroom mandate, bathroom use has suddenly burst on the scene of public opinion. Now pollsters and politicians alike are scrambling to figure out what Americans really think about bathrooms and privacy.

CNN quickly released a poll with the headline proclaiming that “6-in-10 Oppose Bills Like the North Carolina Transgender Bathroom Law,” a bill intended to maintain gender-specific restrooms until a transgender person takes steps to change his or her sex on his or her birth certificate.

But other polls found very different results on the same topic. Both Gallup and New York Times/CBS News polls found that the majority of people thought transgender individuals should use the bathroom corresponding to their birth gender.

So what happened? Did America change its mind in just a week? Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport theorized that the difference in wording and question structure might be the cause of the noticeable swing in the polling results.

Newport believes the following could have swayed CNN’s results:

  • Giving respondents just one stance to react to, instead of two opposing options
  • Using the term “facility” instead of something clearer like “bathroom” or “restroom”
  • Using the term “laws,” which sounds “sterner”

Here’s what the CNN poll said:

Overall, would you say you favor or oppose laws that require transgender individuals to use facilities that correspond to their gender at birth rather than their gender identity? Do you [favor/oppose] that strongly or somewhat?

The Gallup and New York Times/CBS polls looked more alike. Gallup’s read:

In terms of policies governing public restrooms, do you think these policies should require transgender individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with their birth gender or should these policies allow transgender individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity?

And the New York Times/CBS poll read:

Do you think people who are transgender—that is, someone who identifies themselves as the sex or gender different from the one they were born as—should be allowed to use the public bathrooms of the gender they identify with or should they have to use the public bathrooms of the gender they were born as?

What would happen if you adjusted some of these factors that Newport pointed out? Would the results come out the same?

The American Perceptions Initiative, a market research initiative of The Heritage Foundation, decided to find out. We didn’t use the split-sample design Gallup mentions, which means factors like time elapsed between the polls could be partly to blame for any differences.

But we did use the same platform CNN used—ORC International, which runs regular surveys for clients like CNN using nationally representative samples—and maintained the original format of the question, to keep everything as constant as possible.

We changed the wording to make clear to respondents what facilities could be impacted, as well as who would be given access, since the understanding of terms like “transgender” can differ and some of the controversy behind these laws was caused by the sheer breadth of people encompassed.

Within a few short weeks, debate had moved away from what North Carolina had done—essentially maintaining the status quo—toward Obama’s recent educational mandate, which required access for transgender students to opposite sex facilities in schools. We adjusted the language to reflect the changes that had occurred in the policy sphere:

Overall would you say you favor or oppose laws that give people who are biologically male, but self-identify as female, full access to bathrooms, lockers, and showers set aside for women or girls?

We found pretty big differences. The results show that 62 percent oppose laws that would give biological men, who self-identify as female, access to female facilities, while just 38 percent support it. That’s almost opposite of what CNN originally found.

In the CNN version, just 38 percent supported the “born as” bathroom option, while a majority, 57 percent, supported the “identify as” bathroom option. In our revised version, 62 percent, an even larger majority, now supported the “born as” bathroom option.

Differences could of course be affected by intervening events such as Obama’s mandate, which could be seen by some as premature and officious, or other factors.

However, it’s clear that some prominent polling headlines on this topic—such as The Washington Post’s “First Major Poll on ‘Bathroom Bills’ Is Good News for Transgender Advocates”—didn’t paint the full picture.

* The Gallup and New York Times response options were rotated, meaning the order of the two options was randomly switched across respondents to prevent order bias.

Weaker in Review 2-6-16

Random Oddservations™ Well after the Iowa caucuses we can say it is politics as usual. Somewhat discouraging. And Obama continues to try to subvert the constitution before he leaves office by creating an entirely new bureaucracy the “Federal Earthquake Bureau” which is to make sure that all Federal buildings are earthquake proof to a 7.0 tremor. To you realize how many buildings would have to be shut down or BILLIONS of dollars spent to do that- even if the buildings are not in an earthquake zone!

Weaker in Review


Describing ilLiberals by the D’s:

I remembered an old CD and hunted for it and located this song and found it on YouTube: It is by Phil Och’s and titled “Love me, Love me, Love me I’m a Liberal”.

We have covered Deceived and Divide in previous postings, this time it is: DECEIT noun Dishonest behavior: behavior that is meant to fool or trick someone.


America sees this all the time under the Obama regime. The gay marriage debate is one example. Conservatives say “religious freedom”. Liberals cry “tolerance”. One would think with all the attention on the gay marriage debate 50% of the country was gay. The figure is closer to 3%. (Newport, Frank. Americans Greatly Overestimate Percent Gay, Lesbian in U.S. 5/ 21/ 15.) So much attention to this from liberals. The White House was lit up in multiple colors hours after the Supreme Court 5-4 decision legalizing gay marriage.

Another clear example of deceit is that of the abortion debate. A “women’s right” to choose. What about the aborted babies which are female? Where are their rights as women? 96% of abortions in America are for convenience only. (Deluz, Craig. Abortion Supporters agree that Abortion is Mostly About Convenience. 7/ 19/ 05). Just 4% are for rape, incest, and threat to the mother’s life. (Deluz, Craig. Abortion Supporters agree that Abortion is Mostly About Convenience. 7/ 19/ 05).

Can’t wait to see what next week’s “D: will be.

Rock-It™ I have (I don’t know why) been listening to a variety of anti-Vietnam war songs. Well yes I do, I’ve several videos posted of various ethnic individuals tearing up locations with impunity from the authorities- that would not and did not happen in my younger days. We were tear gassed and beaten with billy-clubs if we so much as stepped out of the area ‘the man’ told us we had permission to march in- but at least we had a reason for our protests.  Most people might know Arlo Guthrie’s ‘Alice’s Restaurant’ and Country Joe and the Fish ‘Fell like fixing to die Rag’ (if you don’t you are really young). Here is a very haunting one: and to hear it : Sorry but it has a stupid commercial before you play it. Back then, when I was an atheist, a portion of the lyrics I loved, now as a Christian I am discouraged by it. Here also was a wild anti-war song: and and very few people have heard this one: WARNING: Some raunchy language. and this one meant a lot to me: and the lyrics are in the video.

The Correct Side of the Story

Liberal lies


Liberalism says that….

1) …it’s all about choice — unless you want to choose which gun or lightbulb to use, which school your child will attend, or you’d prefer more freedom and smaller government.

2) …it cares about the environment, when in practice, not only do liberals like Al Gore live some of the most resource-wasting and ostentatious lifestyles on the planet, but they hurt the environment by blocking environmentally friendly energy production here in favor of energy sources from nations that care little about pollution.

3) …you can have lots of free government services and somebody else will pay for them. The trillion dollar deficit we’re running every year that will have to be paid back says otherwise.

4) …as long as you use birth control that someone else is forced to pay for, there are no consequences whatsoever to having lots and lots of sex. Meanwhile, more than 50 million children have been killed by their own mothers via abortion and 1 out of every 4 adults in New York City has herpes.

5) …. “government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn.” Do you know anyone with crabgrass on his lawn? DO YOU?

6) …it’s all about compassion and taking care of the less fortunate, unless liberals have their own money on the line, in which case they give less to charity than those stingy, greedy, heartless conservatives.

7) …you shouldn’t take your Christian faith seriously, that political correctness matters more than the Bible, and that mocking God has no consequences. Ever heard someone say, “Don’t pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel?” Well, if liberals were smarter, they wouldn’t be picking a fight with an omnipotent God who buys lightning bolts by the barrel and has a well earned reputation for getting fed up every once in awhile and dishing out “Old Testament style wrath” on His enemies.

8) …how much our country spends can be dictated by our wants, as opposed to what we can afford. Of course, if the world really works this way, Greece would be fine, nobody would have ever heard of the word “bankruptcy,” and the banks wouldn’t even bother to write down your name when you borrow money from them.

9) …liberals want unity and bipartisanship, which they apparently believe they can accomplish by spewing pure hatred and smearing, demonizing, threatening, and lying about anyone who disagrees with them.

10) …it’s going to deliver equality of outcomes for everyone, which is true, if by “delivering equality of outcomes” you mean “make everyone poorer.”

11) …it cares about women — unless they’re conservative women, in which case liberals will insult them in the vilest of terms, attack their children, call them whores and laugh and hoot at the most grotesque sexist attacks against them. Every last insult ever hurled at someone like Sandra Fluke probably wouldn’t amount to what women like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter put up with on any given week with the full support of the same liberals who run off at the mouth about a “war on women.”

12) ….it’ll help the poor — and it does. Liberalism helps poor Americans live in ghettos with just enough food and money to survive so they can stay dependent on liberals. It’s the same sort of help a farmer gives a chicken while he harvests its eggs and waits for the right time to wring its neck and toss it in the frying pan.

13) …liberals are the only people who care about black Americans and want to help, which doesn’t seem to square with the fact that just about anywhere and everywhere liberals have been in charge for decades, like Detroit or New Orleans, most black Americans are in dire straits.

14) …small business owners were able to build their businesses because they were lucky. But of course, if that’s true, why do we have such a high unemployment rate? Why doesn’t everyone who loses his job just set up his business and grab that easy money? Since bankers don’t deserve the big salaries they make, why doesn’t the Occupy movement set up its own bank and show the “banksters” how it’s done?

15) …you can fix crime by taking away guns, but by definition, the people who will voluntarily give up guns are law abiding citizens who have no intention of committing a crime in the first place. Besides, if that can work, why doesn’t Barack Obama set the example by asking his Secret Service agents to disarm?

Gay ‘Marriage’ and the Destruction of America

I have spoken out against gay ‘marriage’ from a number of different viewpoints but there is one aspect that I feel reflects the real danger that gay ‘marriage’ poses, and that, in the United States, is the death of the Republic itself. In full disclosure, I have to admit that I have had several (for want of a better all-inclusive word) ‘encounters’ with individuals who profess a sexual preference other than what is generally considered ‘normal.’ ( )

There are of course many other arguments against it, but pro-gay ‘marriage’ advocates like to excuse them as being ‘religious’ in nature, and demand that you only bring ‘secular’ arguments to the table to discuss. However, their argument actually is secular.  Their arguments are the ones religious in nature, as ironic as that sounds.   Gay ‘marriage’ is only the latest manifestation of a series of problems that has been eating away at American society for decades.  In my opinion, we are witnessing the near collapse of the rule of law and the effective disenfranchisement of a huge majority of the American people, all brought about by relentless manipulation and propaganda coming from our schools, our media, and the government itself.

We need to consider how it is that I feel we are on the verge of having gay ‘marriage’ codified as the law of the land right now, considering that over the last ten years or so, state after state, referendum after referendum, constitutional amendment after constitutional amendment, has gone against gay ‘marriage.’ Not only that, the voters have explicitly affirmed a ‘traditional’ understanding of the term as denoting a lifelong relationship between one man and one woman.  To achieve their agenda, gay ‘marriage’ proponents have essentially burned down the country to get what they want.  Perhaps they have decided that this is worth it to them.  I am totally sincere in this warning, with no malevolence implied or intended, but this kind of precedent can come back to haunt them in some very serious ways.  Some may see poetic justice to such a thing happening but, there is such a thing as cutting off your nose to spite your face!

Let us spell it out it another way. If only the gay ‘marriage’ proponents had worked patiently and persistently within the system, respecting the wishes and the will of their fellow citizens, I would still have been thoroughly against their position. In our system of government, if you can play by the rules and garner up the necessary legislative support for you position, I have to say more power to you- this is America and you won fair and square.  This is the courtesy that has been denied to those in my position, with the added insult that I and my fellow citizens had played by the rules and we did get the necessary legislative support for our position!  How have they managed to do this?

By the whimsical judgment of a handful of men and women–probably not more than 30 people, out of a population of 300,000,000 plus–who have seen fit to override the will, as expressed explicitly at ballot box after ballot box for fifteen years, that’s how. Sorry but his cannot end well.

Most individuals do not understand the full scope of what has happened and just how quickly it has developed- or they refuse to acknowledge the chain of events.  So here are the facts or documentation.

We (traditional marriage individuals) clearly knew where things were going for awhile.  In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), was passed by Congress.  Consider these stats:

In the House, the ‘yeas’ were 342 and the ‘nays’ 67.  In the Senate, the ‘yeas’ were 85, and the ‘nays’ 14.  It was signed by Bill (can’t keep it in my pants) Clinton, a Democrat.

While 224 of the ‘yeas’ on the House were Republicans, 118 Democrats voted against their parties wishes to support the bill (118-65).

In 2013, SCOTUS struck down DOMA as unconstitutional;  so much for SCOTUS not wanting to intervene in matters best decided by the people through their elected representatives- which is how the Constitution was originally set up to operate.

Why are we talking about a piece of legislation that is what 150  years old?  How can this possible be relevant today?  People’s attitudes can change after 150 years.  We are talking about a bill that was passed years and years and years ago, right. Wait a minute what is 2015 minus 1996 again?  25 years ago, an entire generation ago.

The writing was clearly on the wall, and of course everyone knows you can’t very well trust the Feds, so now the states get involved.  Wikipedia has very helpfully helped organize the sequence of what came next. ( )

These are all amendments to state constitutions rejecting gay ‘marriage.’ Do you know how hard it is to get constitutions amended?

  1. In 1998, Alaska ratified its ban on same-sex marriage with 68% of the vote.
  2. In 2000 AND in 2002, Nevada did the same, with 69.6% and 67.1% of the vote, respectively.
  3. In 2000, Nebraska did, with 70% of the vote.
  4. In 2004, Mississippi passed its with 86% of the vote.
  5. In 2004, Missouri did, with 72%.
  6. In 2004, Montana did with 67%.
  7. In 2004, Georgia did, with 76%.
  8. In 2004, Kentucky did, with 75%.
  9. In 2004, Louisiana did, with 78%.
  10. In 2004, North Dakota followed suit, with 73%.
  11. In 2004, Ohio concurred with 62% support.
  12. In 2004, Oregon did, with 57%.
  13. In 2004, Utah did with 66%.
  14. In 2004, Oklahoma did with 76%.
  15. In 2004, Michigan did, with 59%.
  16. In 2004, Arkansas did, with 75%.
  17. In 2005, Kansas passed theirs with 70% of the vote.
  18. In 2005, Texas did with 76%.
  19. In 2006, Colorado did, with 56%
  20. In 2006, Tennessee did with 81%.
  21. In 2006, Alabama did, with 81%.
  22. In 2006, South Carolina did with 78%.
  23. In 2006, South Dakota ratified theirs with 52% of the vote.
  24. In 2006, Wisconsin did with 59%.
  25. In 2006, Virginia did, with 57%.
  26. In 2006, Idaho did, with 63%.
  27. In 2008, Arizona did, with 56%.
  28. In 2008, Florida did with 62%.
  29. In 2008, California did with 52%.
  30. In 2012 — A REAL LONG TIME AGO! — North Carolina did theirs with 61%.

Only in one state did an amendment to ‘clarify’ what the human race has heretofore considered ‘marriage’ fail, and that was in Minnesota, in 2012.

Let us count the results, 30 to 1 in favor of ‘marriage’ being between one man and one woman.

Notice, first of all how in the vast majority of the cases, the ‘traditional’ definition won out by margins that would be considered a landslide in any other context. Obama won both elections by only 57% and that was considered remarkable.

Second, these were just the constitutional amendments.   If we add state statutes (or laws), the numbers run even higher, although in order to make a point, let us point out just one of them, California.

California has been voting overwhelmingly liberal and Democrat for quite a long time.   Despite being a citadel of the left, there was still a widespread desire to ensure that when native English speakers use the word ‘marriage’ they mean what native English speakers have always meant.  Being a bastion of the left, the citizens could not get their representatives to follow through, so they went straight to the people; Proposition 22, defining marriage as between one man and one woman, was passed by referendum in 2000 with 61.4% of the vote (4,618,673 people.)

That cannot be right, had to be a fluke, right?  They could not possibly believe that would happen out there on the Left Coast, you know in loony-tunevile, Hollyweird? A handful of judges decided it couldn’t be so, and tossed it out.  This forced Californians to really get serious if they wanted their will represented, so they went for the whole enchilada, by way of a constitutional amendment.  Even after nearly ten years of some of the best propaganda against it, Proposition 8 still passed, IN CALIFORNIA.  This time it was ‘only’ 52.24% of the vote, but look at the raw numbers!  In that election the ‘yeas’ numbered 7,001,084 votes.

That is more than the population of many states. Do you know how many people voted for Obama in California in 2012? 7,800,000. So basically, about the same number in California that did NOT want gay marriage DID want Obama.  I did say it was a liberal state. And even in a liberal state, when the people were allowed to speak, they were quite clear on what they had to say.

There is no question, that there has been strong support in some areas for gay ‘marriage.’  Still, we are told that there is massive support for it, but the above details show a different tale altogether.  Within the last two, three, five, and ten years, going back to DOMA itself, there has been huge opposition to gay ‘marriage’ that has dwarfed the public support that the gay ‘marriage’ proponents could muster.

So what to do…judicial activism!  The go-to mechanism for liberals for the past several decades.  What could possibly go wrong?

In 2013, California and Utah’s CONSTITUTIONAL amendments were overthrown and in 2014 Oregon,  Okalahoma, Virginia, Texas, Michigan, Arkansas and Idaho had theirs reversed too.

Were they reversed via that time honored tradition of repealing it, like Prohibition was repealed!  All fell victim to a tiny sliver of men and women in black robes.  Millions and millions and millions of people, working hard to follow the rules and govern themselves, thwarted by a tiny handful of people.

What could possibly go wrong?

In the meantime, of course, public sentiment seems to be bending towards gay ‘marriage.’  If similar votes were held today, many of these amendments probably would not have passed, or they would not have passed with the high margins that they did.  This raises a couple of issues, but the first has to do with the categorical difference between THIRTY constitutional amendments and polling with sample sizes of a couple of thousand or so.  It’s as if the whole world has gone clean out of their mind–it is hard work to get a constitution amended, and you can’t do it without a huge amount of public support.

This means, all those people wasted their time, because as various courts have made plain at this point, it doesn’t matter what they believe. The fact that the traditional marriage group played by the rules while the gay ‘marriage’ proponents violated the law left and right and pursued in the courts what they couldn’t dream of accomplishing in the ballot box.  I would have liked to have seen some of the gay ‘marriage’ proponents try their hands at a constitutional amendment.  But my contempt for their cause would be far less then it is at present, because they would have at least made a good faith effort to engage their fellow citizens in the marketplace of ideas where it all comes (theoretically) to a head, the ballot box.

The second issue, though, is probably far more serious, and a cause for deep concern.  Let us imagine for a moment that in the course of a single presidential cycle, the entire country has moved from one side of the equation where they exerted themselves strenuously, even going so far as to pass amendments in state after state, but now has genuinely come to a point where a shade over 50% will collectively shrug their shoulders over the prospect of a scant 5% of the population redefining ‘marriage.’

To what do we owe this huge swing in a matter of four or five years, tops?

The illiberals say it is the ‘big money’ that has caused the change. Unfortunately they still can’t tell black from white (racial pun not intended). If there is ‘big money’ propaganda involved here, it has got to be from the side of the homosexual activists?  Or do we really want to believe that hundreds of millions of Americans, between the time it takes their eyes to blink, actually changed their mind without any kind of coercion or manipulation?

In my opinion, the opposition to gay ‘marriage’ is still quite strong, so what we are going to continue to see is judicial activism and oppression of the voters will in order to make it ‘stick.’

I will concede that there has been a real shift of attitudes to some extent. However, I do not believe these gains by the homosexual lobby have been gained honestly.  All I can point to is the illiberal progressives and their lapdog media friends, the manipulators of public opinion, the protégés of Bernays[i] and Alinsky,[ii] and what not.  I cannot name you individually, but I can point to your results because millions of people simply don’t change their minds on such a fundamental issue unless someone like you is at work.

Moreover, just remember, two can play that game.  Do not whine when circumstances are reversed, because the pendulum always swings back and forth. This burning down the American Republic in order to get your way, cannot end well, not for you, and not for me.  You just do not understand what it is the end result is of the individuals you idolize.  Surely, you are not so stupid as to think you could destroy democracy without it having some kind of negative effect, did you. I know, you think it’s cute that I still think we have anything left that passes as a democracy.

[i] Edward Bernays was a pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda. He felt that manipulation of the masses was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the “herd instinct.”

[ii] Saul Alinsky was an American community organizer, and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book Rules for Radicals.