Friday, November 15, 2013


I've been seeing this floating around the web lately and now on

According to a Catholic bishop in Springfield, Illinois, Satan was behind his state's recent legalization of same-sex marriage. 
So, next Wednesday, at about the same time Gov. Pat Quinn signs the gay marriage bill into law, Bishop Thomas Paprocki will hold an exorcism ceremony "in reparation for the sin of same-sex marriage." 
Paprocki, who's something of an expert on exorcism, says he's just following the Pope's marching orders. 
When Pope Francis, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, was an archbishop in Argentina, he called that country's legalization of same-sex marriage "a 'move' of the father of lies who wishes to confuse and deceive the children of God." 
In a statement released on Thursday, Paprocki said: "The pope's reference to the 'father of lies' comes from the Gospel of John, where Jesus refers to the devil as 'a liar and the father of lies.' So Pope Francis is saying that same-sex 'marriage' comes from the devil and should be condemned as such."
Avoiding the obvious flaw of claiming he was taking the Pope's "marching orders" by taking action on a comment a guy made who wasn't even pope yet. Is a mostly rural Midwestern US state's separate civil government organization really a priority of the Vatican these days? The concept of separating religious and civil administration isn't new in the United States. Apparently exorcisms on the Vatican's palaces of materialism, organized global protection of heinous child abuse, and centuries of lies on everything from Christmas to scientific discovery, wars, AIDs, and even the Holocaust are still pending.

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Veteran's Day Weekend, Alamo

Parades, double nationalism. Crazy great road trip idea.

Veteran's Day Weekend 2013.


People cheered for the giant flag, but didn't bother to take off their hats for the color guard? Even though the Alamo bars hat wearing, cell-phones, anything not uber-deferential to their shrine of Texan nationalism that failed miserably.

It's like a deep fried stick of butter. The big flag made them feel better, but they couldn't be bothered with the real point, details, or even a basic grasp of respect for the colors. More than a little irritating on a Veteran's Day weekend celebration. What part are they not getting? Just the important parts, like, y'know, the core ideas. 

Thursday, November 07, 2013

Tomorrow's Post, Today!

If you ever felt so cynical that you felt like pretty much all politicians were diabolical and evil with no real moral center, like psychopaths with law degrees... this heart wrenching news will surely reinvigorate your hope in humanity, politicians included:
It's a sad time for the family of State Representative Naomi Jakobsson and her husband Eric, who is an Urbana alderman. 
Their son, 46 year-old Garret Jakobsson, has passed away. He died Tuesday night in Mattoon in hospice care... 
Representative Jakobsson left her son's side Tuesday to drive to Springfield to vote on gay marriage legislation. After the vote, she told the WDWS news department that the House was trying to wait for her to arrive before voting on the measure. But Jakobsson said she felt that there was enough support for the bill even if she was unable to make it to Springfield on time.
Jakobsson was the only local lawmaker from the House to vote yes on the gay marriage bill.
There are no words to express the gratitude for her support of Illinois families who desperately needed equality. Stunned, heart broken, inspired... but mostly heart broken. Thank you, Naomi.

Bonus Post

The plight of stickmen is profound...

I'm still looking for an image warning of a stickman being torn apart by a combine similar to the above warning sign, but with limbs separated and flying off. It was the most spectacularly horrific-awesome stickman warning sign I ever saw. I wish I had a cell phone cam at the time.

Belated Post

Yeah, sure, okay, I said I'd try to post at least once a day, and I already screwed that up. But I have a good excuse. Yesterday, due to marriage equality passing the Illinois General Assembly and making it a certainty in the near future, I could finally justify (morally, ethically, and common decency-ly) get engaged to a full blown real marriage. Until recently the only options for same sex couples, whether they be average joes or janes or even decorated combat veterans was a civil union in Illinois. It was a disturbing rehash of "separate but equal" compared to the arguments suggesting it was the same benefits but not the name.

Civil unions complicated taxes. It still didn't ensure spousal benefits could be obtained from private or even governmental agencies. It confused the hell out of doctors (not to mention other people) on what rights, if any, that a civil union actually bestowed. After the Supreme Court tossed DOMA restrictions on benefits, it wasn't enough to be considered a real marriage for federal benefits. Which was loads of fun explaining to staff at the VA who had to put down unmarried on forms after much confusion and explanation that by "wife" I mean a civil union partner, and by that I mean it's an absurd substitute for actual marriage. "So are you married or not?" "Exactly!"

Anyhoo... the wait is almost over. Next year gays and lesbians in Illinois will finally have access to what most of us take for granted. In the mean time, the fight continues in states that refuse to allow even basic spousal rights and benefits. Some argue that it's just about the unchanging definition of marriage, which would be far more persuasive if we haven't regularly changed the definition to include previously socially unacceptable couplings (from race to religion and in their own holy book on polygamy, etc) throughout history. Sadly this is an issue where many people "just don't like it." It's not a compelling argument against liberty.

Kem and I are getting married, for real this time. All things being equal, our civil union wasn't. Our friends, our family, our loved ones and even our soldiers who have consensual and committed life long bonds deserve the rights and benefits of a real marriage. As with the old line about disagreeing with what someone says, but fighting to the death for their right to say it... you don't have to approve of their relationships, but you should be defending equal protection and their liberty to have them.

Do you really want to be the guy telling a spouse of a gay soldier who died in combat that death benefits or even being listed as a "family" contact to find out that they died is somehow infringing on your rights because the government may not let you arbitrarily fire them for being gay?

Stand up and fight for what's right, whether you agree with it or not. Have the courage to say something true to your family, friends and colleagues. Just to say that it's the right thing to do. It's not asking much in comparison to the courage it has taken many of those who were shunned, ostracized and hated to come out and tell their family, friends and colleagues who they are.

Tuesday, November 05, 2013

Broken Promises on Equal Opportunity

Many strict constructionists have a valid point about the shaky ground, if any ground, anti-discrimination laws stand on against actions by private businesses (as opposed to by the government). The reliance on the commerce clause has been stretched far beyond the original intent to ensure unrestricted commerce and avoid trade disputes or conflicts among the states. It's used to justify regulating items and actions that are neither interstate in nature, nor even commerce (e.g. growing marijuana for your own personal consumption). The necessary and proper clause refers directly to the enumerated powers, not some general power to do whatever the government deems necessary and proper (it would hardly be the limiting document the framers claimed otherwise).

But with the current non-discrimination bill floating in Congress right now involving LGBTQ persons, some have gone as far as saying that even the Civil Rights Act is an infringement of private citizens' liberty. If they want to refuse service due to racist views, religious bigotry, homophobia, etc, that's their right, no matter how deplorable it may be. A strict interpretation of the Constitution and its goal to secure the blessing of liberty taken to its logical end may very well support such a view, legally and ideologically, for them.

Of course the problems that have and continue to emerge have less to do with the opinions or conscience of a business owner, who like all human beings can have customers they adamantly disagree with, just as they can have co-workers they adamantly disagree with and Thanksgiving Day dinner with family members they adamantly disagree with. Liberty protects matters of conscience for everyone. It does not however entitle protection from ever dealing with people who use their liberty to think and act in ways you simply disagree with. That alone does not and should not trump the use of their own property or their private decisions on how to run their business (private in the sense of a decision that belongs to the individual as opposed to the public via the government, not private as in secret).

The real problem comes with denying people food, shelter, and other goods and services or access for their livelihood or even basic survival. Not because they're convicted felons who just got out of prison for murder, but because one simply disagrees with how they use their legally protected liberty. A problem that history has shown goes beyond mere annoyance or picking another vendor (if available), but that has quite often become rampant in localities or entire regions so as to essentially relegate people to second class citizens. Their access to the engine of our national commerce is then restricted by varying degrees of severity.

In this sense anti-discrimination laws are anything but "special treatment" or "special privileges" or lack of equal protection, but rather a method to ensure slighted groups can get equal treatment and opportunity to engage in commerce within the United States.

An unwavering strict constructionist, even if he agrees, would prefer to see an amendment rather than flout the restrictions of the Constitution, relegating it to a mere list of suggestions to follow when convenient. A commerce clause argument could be made with a more broad view of the provisions intent while weighing the conflicting needs of those the laws protect versus what actual harm, if any, it actually causes to those it annoys other than annoyance.  And of course a loose constructionist can just pull any excuse out of their butt and do whatever. They're weird like that.

The Constitution isn't perfect, and the real world application can make something like the Civil Rights Act or the current LGBTQ anti-discrimination law a matter of doing the least harm when weighing the ideals of equal opportunity, freedom of conscience, and free commerce among the states.

Disagreeing with a neighbor, customer, or co-worker is everyone's right. But is keeping it legal to go to extreme measures to avoid those you disagree with worth the harm?

Limiting their access and opportunities for shelter?
Limiting their access to food and other goods and services?
Limiting their access to gainful employment?

These aren't hypothetical. This is history.

Monday, November 04, 2013

Eppur si muove

When it is time to seriously reevaluate your political ideology:

Your views depend on a belief in a coordinated global conspiracy to destroy America, steal your money, indoctrinate your children into godless socialists, and create an oppressive dystopian one-world government. You refer to this as "the scientific community."

You believe that the white washed history during the height of communist scares during the cold war is both far more accurate and under attack by "revisionists" who want to destroy America, steal your money, indoctrinate your children into godless socialists, and create an oppressive dystopian one-world government. You desperately fight to retain the objectivity of cold war propaganda in text books.

Higher education is seen as a tool towards these same diabolical ends as it propagates this "revisionist" history and promotes science instead of fringe or pseudoscientific "evidence" that fits your views. You are totally unfazed by the monumental disparity of evidence behind the theories that have gained greater acceptance.

Archaic social norms are absolutely necessary for American security and prosperity to keep a deity on its side and prevent an otherwise inevitable structural collapse of our society. You are unfazed that the only countries that share the desire to enforce the same ideas are backwards third world countries and/or notoriously oppressive regimes you also tend to rail against.

When scientific discovery, an objective inspection of history, education, and liberty for those you disagree with are deemed the enemy to "right-thinking," it's time to realize you may not be thinking right.

Sunday, November 03, 2013

Food Stamps for the Irresponsible/Lazy


In addition to the 900,000 veterans, the cut in SNAP benefits would impact about 5,000 military families that currently receive food stamps, mostly from the junior enlisted ranks, according to the Defense Department.
A Department of Agriculture report last year showed that more than 5,000 of the total of 48 million Americans receiving SNAP benefits listed their employment status as "active duty military," Pentagon officials said.
The SNAP program currently costs about $80 billion per year and provides food aid to 14 percent of all U.S. households, or about 48 million people.
Thousands of veterans from every state would be affected by the food stamp cuts, ranging from the 109,500 in Florida and 105,700 in Texas in the SNAP program, to the 2,200 in North Dakota, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
Of the active duty troops, "military members who receive SNAP tend to be made up of members in junior pay grades with larger than average household sizes," Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman, said in August in commenting on the potential for benefit cuts

Remember when people pointed out that the 47% figure Romney used to describe the lazy and irresponsible included his conservative base who were on government benefits (from elderly to disabled to veterans, etc). And the 54% and other higher figures that included even more (yet always neglecting corporate welfare via tax breaks and whatnot).  All those "lazy and irresponsible" people who use food stamps include people who work for a living and are struggling through a recession they blame Obama for (and holy crap, don't you dare blame Bush for). The guys still struggling with the VA health care system (which is totally Obama's fault, don't you dare suggest that this is a problem he inherited and just continues to suck at). Those low paying jobs by billion dollar industries that shouldn't be forced to pay higher minimum wages who have made it part of their business model to assume that working families with pretty much no other options than to take such crap jobs have to rely on government benefits to make ends meet (but they totally swear it's only jobs for entry level teenagers who still live with their parents, but don't include our previous comments about Obama ruining the economy to make us have to think hard about the contradiction).

Anyhoo... fuck those lazy and irresponsible veterans and active duty military who rely on these food programs for basic food needs for their families. They're just irresponsible. It's not like they earned it.


The New War on Poverty

The War on Poverty, used to refer to policies and programs instituted to help reduce poverty and assist those struggling with it to meet basic needs or perhaps even escape poverty. Given the last few decades of wage stagnation, more and more people who work but still can barely scrape by, huge employers whose massive profits are buffered by low wages and leaving employees needing to rely on tax payer supported assistance programs to get by instead of their own wages or benefits (if any). The first war on poverty has been a resounding failure.

The New War on Poverty has been escalating in those same decades to the point we see today. Its target is the impoverished themselves. To vilify them, curse them, mock them, spread lies and disinformation to paint them all as criminals and thieves, and ultimately to cut them off and leave them to die based on an archaic form of long debunked "social darwinism."

A strange rant on actually summed up the phenomenon fairly well, in spite of some humorous suggestions for testicular trauma:

Hey, people on welfare, conservatives would like you to know the rules. So here they are:
  1. If / when you lose your job, be sure to sell all your nice electronics and luxury goods immediately and make sure you are always dressed well in public (but not too well, because then you are clearly not in need of any financial assistance and will be judged for not immediately selling all your nice clothing, too).
  1. Cover up your tattoos, or people will snark that you are spending your welfare money on body art, even if you have had those tattoos for years, or you have a friend who is a tattoo artist who did them for free.
  1. Are your shoes nice? Better not wear them in public, especially while at the grocery store paying for food with food stamps, because you MUST have somehow magically converted those food stamps into enough expendable income to buy those shoes. Never mind that they were a gift, or you bought them years ago, or that they actually have huge holes in the soles and tattered insoles because you can’t afford to replace them.
  1. As a bonus, be sure not to have a job with flexible hours or work from home or work as a stay-at-home parent, because judgmental people will be on your ass and assume you are on welfare based on limited or non-existent evidence (even if you are not) and whine bitterly about having to contribute to social safety nets for the needy. That is right: You don’t even have to be on welfare at all, you can simply be out in public with your kid(s) during normal business hours and have total strangers assume you are on government assistance if you don’t look prosperous. Isn’t that cute?

Interesting alternatives I've seen or witnessed include the ability to type sometimes is proof you could do it as a full time job. The fact that years of back pay can accumulate to the point of buying a decent car is proof that all that time you spent starving actually meant you were always well off enough to not need benefits in the first place. That the taxes I paid in are somehow not the same as the taxes they paid in for the programs they're on. Their taxes "count," taxes "those other people" paid, don't. One of my favorites is when some drunk at the bar collecting benefits he totally deserves whines that people might smoke pot that actually has some medical benefits to them while taking "his" tax money.

The New War on Poverty isn't even an "us versus them" problem. Most of the time it's an issue of some beneficiaries being more equal than others. It's grown from hateful stereotypes of the Reagan era into a call for full blown revolt based on statistics that include most of those who are the most pissed off. They've been led to believe in a pervasive bilking by the poor to take all their money, when in fact that's the smallest part of the government's benefits system. The benefits they're on and support, from individuals to massive corporations whose welfare they support through votes (though some honestly oppose it, y'know... in theory)... make the "rampant fraud" (the rare examples they can find that are usually known because they're being investigated/prosecuted) look practically non-existent. At least when compared to the price tag of some military program we totally have to have even though the military doesn't even want it.

But irrational hatred doesn't need solid backing. Some anecdotes here or there, especially by this guy my friend knows who drives a nice car, is totally stealing "real American's" money. Details making that not true will not put out their torches. Next thing you know he might buy a five dollar steak one day this month. That right there is real conspicuous consumption!

Friday, November 01, 2013


National Blog Posting Month... or in my case, an excuse to get back in the habit of blogging instead of (damn you!) FaceBook sharing and commentary or just random pictures or videos, like this one:

And you know, this sort of thing certainly is fun to share with friends and such, but it lacks what made blogging fun to begin with. Being able to write out a structured opinion on a subject, with supporting links, and relevant excerpts, and a more thought than clicking a share button after you come across something you like. And then clicking "like."

So I'm going to try to revive the blog, and get back into the habit of discussing things with more than a button click or two.

Beware, November...

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Moral Obscenity

From CNN today:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday called the use of chemical weapons a "moral obscenity" that could not go unanswered
What, sir, are we to make of the moral obscenity of our own inaction? Kerry, openly and directly, chastised the impotence of the UN to act on humanitarian atrocities and genocide for years, until he didn't. The time to act on Syria has long ago come and gone. Our "moral high ground" on the issue of genocide is a depressing joke. His tenure has seen enough of it that his vapid whining just sounds staged. Obama appointed an Ambassador to the UN that has long been an advocate of standing firm on moral foreign policy. She cut her teeth in a horror show we half-assed our moral high ground dreams on.

If we truly want the moral high ground, and not have it assumed by nationalists who think we do no wrong, we have to earn it. Earning it means taking responsibility that our belated gestures are meaningless. It means that next time we don't allow our enemies to become the allies against an evil while we hem and haw about procedures and protocols while people die en masse. It means actually taking the moral high ground when it isn't in our best interests and often enough that brutal regimes take note. But that's hard and unpopular.

Evil prevails...

And Kerry has the audacity to claim any moral standing? He is a participating member of the sham that is the moral obscenity in a world order that declared, "Never again!" All the while perpetuating the do-nothing stalemate of anachronistic cold war mentalities that put national interest above those who die waiting for truly moral people to act. In their desperation, nearly 3 years in, they allied with those who hate us... because their very survival depended on it. How can we, as a nation, claim moral indignation when we couldn't even be bothered by their plight for all these years? Russia might get mad at our interference even though they've been actively arming one side of the conflict? Even by Kerry's own previous arguments, Russia's obstruction and behavior is hardly something we should be concerning ourselves with for our own foreign policy.

As many will note, we get blamed either way. Why weren't we on the right side to begin with? On issues of this magnitude, not taking a side is still taking a side. It was the wrong side. Good luck trying to make it right now.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

One Tuff Hero

A summary of the scene from

Atlanta (CNN) -- A man slips behind someone else into a packed elementary school with AK-47 type weapon. He goes into the office and shoots at the ground, then darts between there and outside to fire at approaching police.

So what do you do?

If you're Antoinette Tuff, who works in the front office at Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy just outside Atlanta, you don't run. You talk. You divulge your personal struggles to the gunman, you tell him you love him, you even proactively offer to walk outside with him to surrender so police won't shoot.
This woman saved lives and showed a resolve through terror that she refused to show until the gunman was in custody when she finally broke down and admitted she had never been so scared in her life. Listening to the 911 call in which she was acting as an intermediary between the gunman and the police, she impressed even the professional hostage negotiators that popped up on cable news to comment. Everyone, myself included, seems to want her to receive an award to recognize her efforts in a horrible situation she was caught up in, but handled with bravery and professionalism. But beyond that she deserves something far more... keeping horrible situations like that from happening to others.

The next day in the same state, police doing traffic duties near another school that was in the busy morning drop-off part of the day, noticed some suspicious fellow who bolted upon being noticed... armed with multiple knives and what appeared to be a real handgun, but turned out to be a bb-gun mock up of a semi-auto pistol. Not sure what that was about yet. But sooner, rather than later, another school will be faced with another armed lunatic and our hearts will be broken yet again as the body count rises, once again. We need to address this violence and gun violence in general in a real and pragmatic fashion, regardless of how we feel about guns and rights to ownership... there is room to compromise even between the two die hard camps for or against guns.

On mental health:

As with most nations, we have a fairly inhumane track record when it comes to mental health. From overbearing involvement that stripped people of liberty without due process (and often violently abused them to boot), to a near apathy towards them that left them to fester in our streets instead. Culturally we try to avoid eye contact with the homeless we walk by even though we're aghast by the statistics on homeless veterans. Meanwhile mental illness is often right in our homes and under our noses, and disregarded as laziness or defective upbringing.

Time and time again we discuss the costs and the endless debate about whether these mental health issues are even real. In the good old days we just called someone useless, not bipolar! But it's a real, scientifically verifiable condition, that can be treated! Sure, in the good old days we just called them useless, and they struggled just like many do today... but we were ignorant then. The problem isn't new, it's just better understood. That's just one example, and there are so many others, but the shame of mental illness is just too much for some to bear. That really needs to stop.

Beyond the cultural issues that prevent people from seeking help, there's also the access issue. Politically this is a nightmare issue as ObamaCare is phasing into effect. It's convenient to dismiss the need for health care access as some sort of hand out to the lazy and unmotivated out of our paychecks. But beyond fraud, which should be prosecuted, the need of a healthy and productive population for our national success and progress is more important than lumping even disabled veterans into the class of the non tax paying irresponsible 47% figure to make it sound like half the people are just mooching. This is more important than making people angry in a political speech with manipulated and inaccurate statistics. This hurts and kills people and hurts our nation on the whole.

Stronger intervention is also an issue here. If it's too heavy handed, the government will certainly abuse it as they have in the past, but the current apathy until someone has gone off their rocker and either admits or actually harms someone isn't working either. Access to health care is needed to ensure that we can limit intervention to those who actually need it and prevent the abusive interventions of the past. But until that access exists, it's tough to say how best to improve intervention in the resulting system.

As far as demeaning everyone with a mental illness as a dangerous person, pro-gun advocates should be wary. Even our vice-president stated in a national debate that the desire to own a semi-auto rifle was indicative of mental illness. We have to tread cautiously here as any power the gov't has, can and will be abused until the People stop them.

As with most parts of this debate, funding is of course a pragmatic concern... given the absurd waste of resources in our war on drugs and becoming the nation with the highest incarceration rate well above China, you can probably guess where I'm going with this. We could actually devote resources to actually enforcing background checks. But that's a post for later.

To be continued...

Is it safe?

My little blog has crawled to a near halt over the last few years due to some serious problems on a multitude of fronts. I haven't stopped opining about politics, social issues, or crazy ideas that pop into my head, but I've generally had to do them more randomly throughout cyberspace as opposed to here due to a certain nightmare that may finally be getting resolved. I can be brash, out-devil the devil's own advocate, and sometimes just rant with abandon. But for a few years now it seems like the "publish" button was an invitation to more harassment, threats, and a renewal of more threats towards people I care about. Sometimes I thought I was just being paranoid, other times a bit indignant, and then posted anyways. All too often with more threats and violent intimidation. Comments remain moderated for the time being, with legitimate ones being published, ad spammers blocked, and criminal ones being blocked and logged for the appropriate authorities.

I have often cited Benjamin Franklin's "Dogood Letters" as an excellent and timeless example of conveying ideas and making arguments to be judged on the merits, and not merely who is speaking or their credentials, flaws, etc. The internet has made the incredible exchange of ideas that has benefited our species to build civilizations is now global in scope, with ideas coming from almost any finger tip to almost anyone else's mind in the world. Those ideas can be almost immediately challenged by those who use their mind to various degrees (if at all), which can encourage reflection in defense of those ideas to refine or alter perspectives. It can also lead angry off-balance people a way to vent directly into your living room... or worse, to your front door.

I'm hoping I can get back to the free market of ideas through my little blog, and the scrutiny that makes the exchange of ideas work. The obnoxious trolls play their part, even if it can be annoying at times, and that's just fine. Violent threats and intimidation, however, still remain antithetical to liberty on the internet as much as it is in real life. Securing the blessings of liberty is the ultimate cause for the People, and any government deriving its power thereof. My government is assisting me in my liberty on this little blog now, and I am grateful.

So I now return my rantings and ravings about the government and everything else, already in progress, back to my blog. Disagreements welcome!

Thursday, July 04, 2013

Dumbest Post Ever, Apparently

It's no secret that I frequent many avenues of political debate. As someone who has prided himself an independent with a great appreciation for many classical liberal philosophical concepts in an environment where partisanship and ideologues rule the day, I tend to foray amongst those who would just as easily laud as despise my point of view on certain topics, depending on how it fit into their priorities.

Today I was given the prize of "dumbest comment ever" by someone who is infamous in his commentary, highlighted by the world as egregious by even the standards of his own ilk. On this 4th of July he argued that the founders of this nation were conservatives. As if revisionist history won his side any points in spite of any objective facts. You can read his post here or in the link above. As someone who has consistently pushed towards government force behind his ecclesiastical views, and also as someone who actively would deny liberty to some based on matters of conscience, I felt inclined to retort.
This and the documents that followed were classical liberalism. The idea that rights were not bestowed by kings, but were for the people to demand and defend. The conservatism of the time was defended by the Tories and their, now ridiculous, views of divine right of kings. The Articles and then later the Constitution enshrined these enlightenment era ideas that so threatened the true contemporary conservatives at the time. Even the label of left or right wing comes from the French parliament being divided among republicans and monarchists... a label that makes Americans scratch our heads as to why Europeans would consider centralized gov'ts like fascists to be right wing, given the modern nomenclature.

Instead you have illustrated the hypocrisy of revisionist history, to the chagrin of modern liberals who salivate at your historical missteps as you accuse them of the same. While Madison, the father of the Constitution pushed for freedom of conscience on both the federal and State level, you demean his legacy by suggesting that the federalist papers somehow suggested some sort of ecclesiastical dominance over liberty in spite of the preamble and the foremost amendment that was broadened to not just bar a national religion, but any law concerning (with respect to) an establishment of religion.

In the end you are encouraging the very threat to liberty Madison warned about, and use anachronistic labels, applied even more absurdly, to justify those labels as if the conservatives won the day in the American revolution. The fact is that the Tories lost. The enlightenment won. Modern conservatives who appreciate and hope to shine a light on these classical liberal victories are the ones who have sway over those who appreciate the lessons of the founders who fought and bled for them. Pretending that it was some sort of conservative movement is a disservice to history and just plain sad marketing of a movement that threw its lot in with those who'd be all for Shari'a law, if they heard it from the similar Biblical excerpts.

From New England patriots to Virginia enlightenment radicals, to call the founders some group of an act of conservatism is just historically indefensible from scholars across the modern political spectrum on the subject. As a longtime member of the Federalist Society, this is just beyond the pale. I've heard and read some whacky stuff, but wow. Just wow.
And now I am also no longer able to post my views on his website. This seems unfortunate for having an opinion of our founders beyond black and white modern political tribalism. I'm unable to reply to counterpoints that have some merit, acknowledge the differing points of view that are relevant, or even just note my appreciation for the blunt retorts that are based more in passion. During my attempts to acknowledge the points raised and thank those who commented for weighing in (no matter how blunt), I've noticed the voting system on comments has my ban-worthy comment in a dead heat with a reasonable attempt at a counter-argument, and one that just insulted. I'll let you guess which category this reply fell under:

Some of the more pertinent replies were about my lousy grammar. Admittedly not my strong suit (or even much of a concern) for on-line discussion. Plenty of reasonable disagreement with others or passionate distaste by detractors that come with the cyber-turf. But to have a guy who has choked on more shoe leather than a foot fetish hooker proclaiming the dumbest comment ever? I'm not sure if I should frame it or look up the perks to being king of foot in mouth disease.

I'll miss being able to contribute there, but is it wrong to feel like you "won" at the internet when something this absurd happens? Just curious.