Download a Permanent Printable PDF Version of This Article.
Vic Biorseth, Friday, November 27, 2009
Opposing Libertarianism does not mean opposing such things as individual Liberty, or Conservatism, by any means. My only real problem with the Libertarian position involves its complete lack of a fixed moral standard. The Libertarian approach says that the citizen is free to do anything at all so long as he dose not infringe on any other citizen’s rights or hurt any other citizen. And that is an idea that sounds fine, on its face. But we need to think about it a little bit.
This position is another move into moral relativism. It operates to oppose any commonly held fixed sense of right and wrong for a people and a nation. We call a commonly held cultural sense of right versus wrong an ethos; in America, the Judeo-Christian Ethos provides this fixed set of clearly recognizable moral standards. It forms the very foundation for our civil law and our Constitution. It was the guiding ethos of the founders, and it is the guiding ethos of the overwhelming majority in the current population of America.
We pointed to the need for a fixed, consistent, familiar national moral standard in the Definition of Pro-American Webpage, and again in the Definition of Anti-American Webpage. More than anything else, it is a distinct cultural ethos that defines a unique people, and it is a unique people who make a nation. Ethos is all wrapped up in morality. Morality is all wrapped up in religion. Whether anyone likes or not, whether anyone admits it or not, America is, overwhelmingly, a Christian nation. Our common sense of right versus wrong comes out of our Judeo-Christian religion.
The Libertarian defines many immoral activities as victimless crimes and therefore does not condemn them, and would legalize and un-restrain them. Many of these immoral activities are of a sexual nature, and many involve illegal drug usage.
It is my contention that totally de-criminalized and unrestrained immoral actions are bad, and not good, for the overall culture. We can examine some possible results, affecting you, via the exercise of thought experiments. Let us assume that the Libertarian position becomes the fixed law, and is now perfectly in place in America.
A teacher in a school, whether private or public, would feel perfectly free to smuggle your kid out of class, into an abortion clinic, and back into class, without your consent or even knowledge of the event. Your adult neighbor might feel perfectly free to help your kid shoot up with heroin for the first time. A disease-ridden hooker in the neighborhood might decide to give your kid a freebie.
You might be sharing the highways not only with the occasional drunk, but with someone who just dropped acid. Doped no-hopers might be staggering about or sleeping it off in the middle of the street, as they do in Holland, where it’s legal. Hookers may be jiggling and strutting their stuff in store windows, giving a whole new meaning to the term “window shopping,” as they do in Holland, where it’s legal.
The real question becomes, what kind of a people are we, and what kind of a nation is this? Are we pagans, are we atheists, or are we Christians and Jews?
State’s Rights are important, in accordance with the Rule Of Subsidiarity, and we see in America that the moral norm shifts geographically. States are and should be perfectly free to outlaw or legalize anything that suits the voters.
Las Vegas is a city that was virtually invented by organized crime families, and Nevada is as near as you can get to an anything-goes state. Prostitution is legalized, and the citizens seem to have no problem with that. ‘Vegas advertises itself to be Sin City.
On the other side of that coin, abortion as practiced today was illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, by legislated, representative law, before it was legalized by unconstitutional judicial fiat. The Court, and both other branches of Federal government, had no business whatsoever undoing representative State law all across the land. See the Abortion In America Webpage for the disgusting, un-Constitutional details of how this came about, in the face of the “represented” people.
I am so tired of hearing someone say how they personally despise homosexuality but that they see nothing wrong with it being someone else’s choice. If something is right, then it right for everyone. If it is wrong, then it is wrong for everyone. You are not and cannot be an island; a common sense of right and wrong, or the lack of one, will most certainly affect you, unless you move into a cave or something weird.
”When the fit hits the shan, I’m not going to ask the guy in the foxhole next to me if he’s gay or not” Is the statement most frequently presented by someone who never served. Or if he did, he didn’t serve in the ranks. What about all the rest of the time? Might you ask that question before taking a shower with him? How about when using the buddy system in the field, where you pour cans of water over each other in order to bathe? How about before you crawl into your two-man pup tent with him? No; that question may only be presented by the Libertarian in the absolutely most inappropriate time for the subject matter. It is on the battlefield, and only the battlefield, where the issue has any importance whatsoever.
Have you ever noticed how commentators and editorialists and journalists always interview the homosexuals and never the heterosexuals in the service regarding issues of homosexuality? The heterosexual viewpoint is censored.
Morality, properly understood, is not a morality for me, but not for thee. Nor can it be a morality for thee, but not for me. We either have a fixed moral norm, or we do not. Liberty is not really possible for long in the absence of any fixed moral norm, any common sense of right and wrong that defines us as a people.
What kind of a people are we? What kind of a nation is this?
Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" the mouse over a link, without clicking, to just to see the related Acronym appear.)
Return to Latest News page
Return to HOME PAGE
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Date: Sun Nov 29 23:13:39 2009
This is just a lot of divisive homophobic propaganda. Your type is always trying to force everyone into the same box, to behave in your approved way and to appear as you would have them appear. There are a lot more gays in the military than you know, and they are causing no problems at all, and they are living in fear of being outed, thanks to people like you. Why can’t you just leave people alone? Why must you bother them when they are not bothering you?
Date: Mon Nov 30 06:32:16 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
How heterophobic of you to point these things out.
Religion, morality and moral norms, ethos, politics and chosen ways of life are, precisely, divisive, and not inclusive. See the Definition of Pro-American page and/or the Definition of Anti-American page for a lesson in divisiveness vs. inclusiveness.
The shoe is on the other foot, my friend. I force no one to do anything. On the other hand, your position seeks to force others into close company they do not wish to keep, and into public acceptance of the unacceptable. By law, or executive order, or edict. Against our will. We are to have nothing to say about it.
And so I must return your question to you: why must you bother us when we are not bothering you?
Take your chosen behaviors back to the gutter where they belong and leave the rest of us alone.
Date: Sun Jul 4 12:32:51 2010
Location: North Platte Nebraska
I would like to make two points.
First point: While I agree with most of what you say, I’m not sure I want my grand daughter to grow up confined by rigidly fixed rules of some denomination of what you call Judeo-Christianity. You say Catholicism is the best, but someone else says that’s not so, and provides good reasons. I’ve looked at your site and it looks like you know that. There’s a lot to choose from. The Libertarian position seems to be the best all around way to go, making your own way so long as you don’t infringe on anyone else’s rights.
Second point: What do you think of the Constitution Party, or of changing the nature and the name of the Republican Party to the Constitution Party and acting accordingly?
Date: Sun Jun 05 11:05:28 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Re your first point: The Libertarian position seeks to legalize all “victimless crime.” For the sake of argument, let’s say the they have been successful and there is no more victimless crime in America. You should be just as willing to allow your grand daughter to experiment with various drugs, sexual practices and so forth as you would grant to your unknown neighbor in some other state, some other locality or right next door.
So, you should buy your grand daughter her first crack pipe; better you than some stranger. You should learn what you need to know to help her correctly shoot up with heroin the first time so she doesn’t hurt herself. You should be there for her first acid trip. You should help her build a meth lab so she doesn’t poison herself or blow herself up.
Get her all the latest safe-sex and contraceptive paraphernalia, and introduce her to some fornicators and lesbians so she can experiment with her sexuality and see what she prefers. Introduce her to her friendly neighborhood abortionist for whenever the contraception might fail. Take her to a whore house to let her learn about a possible career choice. Maybe she could do an apprenticeship there.
Re your second point: The Constitution Party.
Recently a young man named Eric Deaton spoke to us at the Huber Heights Patriots meeting. He is running for United States Senate from Ohio on the Constitution Party Ticket. I liked everything about him; I liked every thing he said, every thing he stood for, and everything about his Party as he described it. His talk was a knock-out; everyone agreed he would make an excellent Senator and be not just a representative, not just a Senator, but an actual champion for us all and for our cause.
However, I had to tell him that, as much as I liked him and what he stood for, I could not vote for him. My only reason regards the fact that there is one and only one way that the Obamunists could possibly win anywhere in the upcoming November elections, and that is if they manage to split our vote. A third Party will do that very thing.
The time for new political Party building is not during an election cycle when so much is at stake. Our very national survival depends very much on this one election. I agree with every single thing I heard Eric Deaton say; he is the best candidate I have heard or read about; I am as pissed off as anyone at some of our Republican politicos; but I cannot vote for any national candidate in this election who is not Republican. Local, maybe; state level, possibly; national level – absolutely not. This election is just too important. I wish Eric Deaton had run as a Republican. What we need is a Republican Party with more candidates like Eric Deaton.
Date: Mon Jul 12 21:15:16 2010
It is cruel to say such things about someone’s grandchild. You know nothing about how the child is raised. And there is no difference between the two major political parties so the Republicans do not deserve to be in power. They have earned nothing but contempt.
Date: Tue Jul 13 06:18:19 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
If the grandparent embraces Libertarian “morality” then the grandparent needs to pass that “morality” on to his grandchildren. That means acceptance of “safe” fornication, “discrete” adultery and “open” homosexuality. And it means legalized dope. So long as the none of the grandchild’s actions infringe on anyone else’s life, rights or property, anything goes, so, if it feels good, do it.
The only possible chance that the solidly united and indivisible minority of American Marxists have of winning any national political office is to divide our vote against them. If you want a Marxist senator or a Marxist representative then vote for a candidate other than a Republican, and watch it happen.
As for me, I still align my moral standards with those of the founding fathers. Dishonoring your father or mother is immoral. The unwarranted taking of any innocent human life is immoral. Adultery is immoral. Stealing is immoral. Lying is immoral. Coveting another’s wife is immoral. Coveting another’s property is immoral. Fornication is immoral. Sodomy is immoral. Fraud, cheating, etc., is immoral. Being inhospitable or uncharitable is immoral. There is nothing tough about this. These things are immoral for ALL of us, not just some of us.
This is the basis – the very foundation – for our supposedly representative civil law. Go take a good look at the Ten Commandments all over the outside and the inside of our US Supreme Court building at the Church and State in Art page, and then come back here and tell me about the supposed superiority of Libertarian “morality.”
Date: Fri Jun 29 14:55:06 2012
Location: Buffalo, NY
Sorry for the late comment, may be a couple years late, but I hope you respond. I think you are misrepresenting libertarianism somewhat. There are victimless crimes, and there are crimes that may not have a victim, but still put others in danger. You mention driving on the road with someone who has dropped acid. Under most modern views of libertarianism, this would still be a crime. They are putting others in danger by doing so, and should be punished. Just as we do not ban alcohol for all just because some people abuse it, we should not ban narcotics for all because some abuse it. (I am not completely sure if you are against the banning of alcohol.) As long as someone does something that does not put others in harm, they should have the right to. And I have to disagree with you about your belief that one can believe something is wrong, but also believe that someone else should have the right to do it. I think you can believe this. I do not use illegal drugs, but if someone wants to smoke weed in their house, that is their business. I am not gay, but if somebody wants to have sex with someone of the same sex, that is not the government's business. I think it's wrong, but I do not want the government enforcing it. You mention Holland a few times, in a somewhat deprecating tone. They have achieved a more libertarian state. But let me give you a couple more examples, Portugal about a decade ago decriminalized drugs. They did not arrest anyone for using, but would arrest for selling as they had been. People made the argument that more people would use drugs in Portugal than ever before. But you know what? With drugs decriminalized, crime went down, and drug abuse went down. The government decriminalzed it, but they did not say it was ok to do. Rather, they spent more money on allowing for voluntary rehab centers, and things like needle exchange programs for heroin users, and the country is much better off for it. I can think something is immoral, but I think forbidding it for all of society is even more immoral.
Date: Sat Jun 30 06:00:14 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Terminology such as “most modern views of Libertarianism” is too vague to apply to a whole nation. A thing is either wrong or it is right. Most if not all of the victimless crimes Libertarians speak of are already covered, or not covered, under local law and/or state law. The legislative powers of the federal government are limited and enumerated; the federal government has no constitutional business legislating on these topics.
Case law appealed to the Supreme Court should be simply adjudicated based upon the existing law in the jurisdiction in which the event occurred, and not make new national law through precedent. The Court has no constitutional business making new law through judicial decisions that may affect the whole of the United States. Laws, or “constitutional principles” affecting the whole nation that have been established in such a manner should be reversed, set aside or otherwise voided by legislative action, because new law is the exclusive constitutional domain of the Congress.
If a Libertarian doesn’t like the local law or the state law where he lives, he can either work to change it, or he can move.
Regarding what’s right or wrong for you versus what’s right or wrong for me, I’m sure you will agree that we both should operate under some common sense of predictable behavior as neighbors. The test for me is this: If it is deemed to be acceptable for someone to regularly get stoned in some manner on some substance in his own house, then it should be deemed acceptable for me to teach my children that it is acceptable for them to do that behavior too. The same test should apply to prostitution, to various sexual perversions, to abortion, etc., etc., etc.
The problem is that right and wrong is a simple black and white issue that is most frequently overly complicated by people looking for excuses to justify some abuse of it. History has shown and we have seen where Western culture goes after God is divorced from the conversation, in Nazi Germany, in the Soviet Union, in Red China and eleswhere. Liberals are seldom satisfied with a behavior being made legal for them; they eventually want that behavior forced on the rest of us too. We must be made, by law, to approve of it and not oppose it, and not even speak ill of it.
That I reject entirely.
Date: Mon Jul 02 13:59:43 2012
Thank you for your response. You state that: "The test for me is this: If it is deemed to be acceptable for someone to regularly get stoned in some manner on some substance in his own house, then it should be deemed acceptable for me to teach my children that it is acceptable for them to do that behavior too." I think you are blurring the line between acceptable and legal. Currently, it is legal for a person to get belligerently intoxicated within one's own home. I do not think that this would be viewed as acceptable, but it is certainly legal. You may teach your children that it is wrong to do so, and I will to, but it is still legal. Now I do not smoke weed or use drugs, besides the occasional indulgence in alcohol or tobacco, but I think people should still have the right to use them. Do I consider drug use wrong? Yes, but I think that the government intervention in what someone puts into their body does more harm than good. Obviously there are laws that currently govern these things such as drug use, prostitution, etc... But I as a whole the laws as wrong. Legalized prostitution and legalized drug use has made other countries safer. Legalized and regulated prostitution allows for STD checks, which makes all parties safer, and allows for police dollars to be spent not on the prostitutes who willingly are working out there, but allows the police to help those prostitutes being abused by pimps or allows prostitutes that are forced to do it to be helped by police. I do not think the government's role to be should to legislate what is goes into my body, your body, or anybody else’s body. I do not think it should legislate morality (I am Catholic btw, and do have a sense of morality). As long as something does not hurt another party, or put them in danger, I do not think that the government should legislate it. Thanks for the response, and have a good one. -Jim
Date: Mon Jul 02 19:38:34 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
I am not blurring any lines; I am talking about straight up morality, and representative civil law in a land of moral people. I’m sure you will agree that representative law should be based on a commonly held community sense of right and wrong. Otherwise it would be dictated law, and we would not be a free country. The basic, fundamental question is, always, what kind of a people are we?
As I’ve said a blue million times, in a blue million places on this site, in a blue million ways, the Constitutional power, authority and governing ability of our federal government is limited and enumerated, by the Constitution. If it isn’t in the Constitution, the federal government should not even be addressing it. Our system of federalism insists that the governing power that affects the citizen the most must reside at the most local levels of government, and that those government representatives who wield that power should reside in the area affected.
If an American loves prostitution, for instance, he can move to Nevada. If he loves the idea of open, in-your-face public faggotry, he can move to San Francisco. If he likes to smoke dope, there are many local jurisdictions where he can do that. I don’t know where you got your statistics, but I tend to doubt that San Francisco or Nevada or any of the dope-smoking jurisdictions are any safer than any place else in America. I would almost bet the opposite, for the simple reason that immoral people are less predictable than moral people.
For my take on legislating morality, see the On Legislating Morality page. What else should we legislate?
Regarding STD prevention, there is one and only one cause of STDs, that being illicit sex. There is no other cause. The way to eliminate STDs is to practice chastity. Very simple; nothing to it.
The real problem here in America is that the shoe is on the other foot. It is always – always – the Liberals, not the conservatives, who are trying to force their chosen behaviors on the larger community, and always involving the highest levels of government. Most areas and most people in America won’t put up with that, and the Constitution is supposed to protect us from it.
We have had over a hundred years of Leftist nibbling away at that Constitutional principle, and here we are, looking at the Obamacare Court decision.
God help us.
Date: Tue Jul 03 09:32:43 2012
"It is always – always – the Liberals, not the conservatives, who are trying to force their chosen behaviors on the larger community, and always involving the highest levels of government." That is not true. The prohibition of alcohol, and prostitution, is a large result of the neo-cons, not Goldwater conservatives, taking a view and forcing it down people's throat. Prostitution is the only crime where the motive is the only reason that something is illegal. Sex in and of itself is legal(though I respect your decision to life a chaste lifestyle), so why should sex for money between two consensual adults be illegal? I understand that you make think of it as wrong, and I kind of think that too, but I do not think we should spend government resources fighting consensual prostitution. And Mr. Biorseth, I disagree with you when you say "I’m sure you will agree that representative law should be based on a commonly held community sense of right and wrong. " I think the government's role, especially the federal government, should be to allow for the most freedom possible, as long as your freedom does not physically or economically harm someone else. If you do something that harms someone else, arrest them, but if you are not doing anything to hurt anyone, and are only hurting yourself, the government should not be forced to stop it. I will probably let you go after this comment, so I just want to say that though we disagree, I have enjoyed this brief sharing of ideas, and though I do not agree with a lot of what is on your website, I do enjoy listening to your arguments, which are very well laid out.
Date: Tue 03 20 18:29:SS 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
You’ve got your history wrong. Prohibition sentiment was stirred up by the vandalism and near terrorism of one Carrie Nation, who, if she had been a man, probably would have been shot by someone. But she was a woman, and she was able to inject an anti-liquor sentiment into the public argument to such a degree that Congress was moved to submit the 18th Amendment prohibiting alcohol in America, in a bi-partisan but Democrat-dominated House. Wilson – a drinker – vetoed it; Congress over-rode his veto. Maybe you call that movement conservative; I don’t.
As I said before, the most important principle of our Constitution is that it protects the American citizen from the government. The 18th Amendment, like all Liberalizing laws, did the opposite – it put the government more in charge of the citizen and his private activity, with negative results to show for it. It was done “for the good of the people” and it grew the government, migrated power from the people to the government, and limited liberty. That is not conservative.
The only federal level laws against prostitution on the books involve human trafficking, importation of aliens for immoral purposes, coercion and enticement for immoral purposes, interstate and foreign travel in aid of racketeering enterprises, and prostitution near military and naval bases. Any other anti-prostitution laws are state or local laws or ordinances, as they should be.
In America, the Conservative motive is to adhere to original intent in the simple English wording of the Constitution. And, in America, the Liberal motive is to impose something deemed “good” on all the citizens, regardless of any existing Constitutional limitations or restrictions. Sometimes with the best of intentions followed by negative unintended consequences, sometimes with evil intent followed by a purposeful and intended migration of power from the people to the government.
Liberals, for instance, would like to legalize prostitution and drugs everywhere, and to hell with what the citizenry thinks about it. Conservatives would never do that.
Libertarians only think they are conservative. They are Liberal. They seek to impose their favorite vices on all the rest of us at the federal level. It is never enough for them to just satisfy their own desires; they need to involve all the rest of us. They want everyone else to, at the very least, approve of their chosen behavior and not speak ill of it, under force of law.
Liberalism thus opposes individual liberty while claiming to champion it.
Date: Tue Jul 03 22:50:51 2012
You say "The 18th Amendment, like all Liberalizing laws, did the opposite – it put the government more in charge of the citizen and his private activity." Laws against prostitution, drugs, and gambling, puts government more involved in a citizen's private activity.
Date: Wed Jul 04 07:20:29 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Happy Independence Day.
Your statement is quite correct; that is why such laws properly belong at local and state levels of government. The Constitutional problem is that people like you want to impose legalization of those activities, and more, over every square inch of American territory, involving the highest level of government, and you don’t particularly give a damn what the rest of us think about it or what our Constitution says about it.
You don’t even seek to use any legitimate, legal, representative method to do it. You corrupt the legislative process for your purposes, as was done in Obamacare I, or, you go around the legislative process and use the courts, as was done in Obamacare II and in the legalization of Abortion in America.
And then you accuse us of restricting your liberty? And you oppose even our bringing these topics up as political issues? You seek to legally redefine marriage all across America, and you think we are somehow the immoral ones for resisting your efforts?
You may label that position Libertarian, but I call it anti-Constitution, and therefore flat out anti-American.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Converted Page to SBI! Release 3.0 BB 2.0.
Date: Thu Nov 20 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.
Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .
Language and Tone Statement
Please note the language and tone of this monitored Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar
one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or
introduce any position or argument, submissions must meet our
standards of logical rigor and civil discourse. We will not
participate in merely trading insults, nor will we tolerate participants merely
trading insults. Participants should not be
thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to
defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a
coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t
embarrass yourself. Nonsensical, immoral or merely insulting submissions will
not be published here. If you have something serious to contribute to
the conversation, back it up, keep it clean and keep it civil. We humbly
apologize to all religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say
these things, but the New Liberals are what they are, and the internet is what it is.
If you fear intolerant Leftist repercussions, do not use your real name and do not include email or any identifying information. Elite Culturally Marxist Authoritarians will never tolerate your freedom of speech or any opposition to their own pro-Marxist/anti-Christian/anti-American/Globalist/anti-Nation/immoral/anti-white/racist and bigoted point of view.
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Catholic American Thinker
Free E-zine Subscription
Your email is perfectly secure here. We use it only to send you the
Catholic American Thinker
Arguments Pro and Con Pages
We love a good argument. Here are some of our favorites.
Argument: The Good, The Bad and The Pointless. On the Reasoned Argument. (In the absence of reason, there is no valid argument.)
The Arguments pro and con under girding the Catholic American Thinker. Foundational arguments pro and con under girding Western culture and the Judeo-Christian ethos.
Artificial Contraception: Tool of Materialism with which to destroy Monotheism.
Acceptance of Artificial Contraception marked the single most destructive turning point in the history of Western Culture, marking the end of moral norms, foretelling tolerance of anything at all.
Refuting the Origin Of Species pseudo-scientific theory of Charles Darwin.
If Darwin’s Origin Of Species is a true Scientific Theory then there must be a preponderance of evidences supporting it. Show us any of it.
Refuting the Repressed Memory Syndrome scientistic theory of Freudianism.
If Freudianism’s Repressed Memory Syndrome is a true Scientific Theory then there must be a preponderance of evidences supporting it. Show us any of it.
Refuting Marxism and sub-theories of Socialism and Communism, as Scientism.
If Marxism represents any sort of true Scientific Theory then there must be a preponderance of evidences supporting it. Show us any of it.
Refuting Separation of Church and State as a Constitutional Principle.
If Seperation of Church and State cannot be found in our Constitution, what makes it a Constituional Principle? Nothing. It is NOT a Constitutional Principle.
Argument opposing Sharia law as brutal, oppressive and murderous.
Opposing Sharia Law means opposing brutal domination, wife beating, child abuse and even bloody murder.
Our argument supporting the Rule of Subsidiarity, practicality and common sense.
The moral and organizational Rule of Subsidiarity is crucial to the rights of man and essential for freedom.
The Sexual Revolution: Sexual Freedom, or enslavement and degradation?
The Sexual Revolution was supposed to free us, rather than enslave us, and uplift us, rather than degrade us. It was a lie from the beginning; it degraded whole cultures and attacked human dignity.
Our argument against Earmarks: the infamous Line Items of Pork Barrel Politics.
Legislative Earmarks feed corruption through skimming, lobbyist paybacks, hidden political agendas and more, by providing a huge political Pork Barrel feeding frenzy.
You cannot legislate morality is the false claim of the immoral.
We MUST legislate morality, as long as the legislature is representative of the people. Otherwise, what is legislated reflects the whim of the dictator(s) of the moment.
The religion as a private matter argument that cannot stand the light of day.
Claiming one’s religion as a private matter is a neutral thing, unless the one with the claim is in authority over us, as an official or a “representative” politician.
Our arguments against un-Constitutional Gun Control laws, rules and regulations.
The British feared that, absent "gun control", the militias in the colonies could become as "regulated" and fearsome as the British "Regulars" themselves.
Renouncing the great Communist Lie in its older, current and newer forms.
The whole “Communist Dream” is a lie; the history of “Communist Revolution” is a lie; virtually everything about Communism is just one big elaborate flagrant categorical lie.
Our argument supporting the Fair Tax as a sensible and practical Tax Revolution.
Fair Tax presents the possibility of a real, popular, voter-supported, tax payer supported, grass-roots supported Revolution in America, and a radical change for the better.
Argument against Public Education, which is, in fact, Government Indoctrination.
Public Education equals State Indoctrination, pure and simple. Education is beyond the scope of government and not what our government is constituted to do.
Argument against National Health Care, which is, in fact, Socialized Medicine.
National Heath Care equals Socialized Medicine, pure and simple. Medical Practice is beyond the scope of government and not what our government is constituted to do.
Values Versus Ethos: If we are not a Christian people then what the hell are we?
Obama set up the values versus ethos argument. He declared that we are not a Christian nation, but a nation of citizens with “values”. What are these values and where did they come from?
Being pro choice or pro woman's right to choose equals being pro abortion.
Saying you are pro choice, or pro right to choose, is saying you are pro abortion. Period. Pro choice equals pro abortion.
Warning all bourgeoisie: Obama will destroy the middle class.
Take fair warning all bourgeoisie, i.e., members of our vast middle class: the Marxists despise you and intend to conquer you once and for all.
The English national language of the United States of America.
There is no good argument against an English national language for America. What other language should we all speak here?
We argue against income minimums and caps, and for a free and private market.
Income minimums and caps are Marxism’s “moral” bait to gain popular support for Socialism on the path to typical Marxist absolute dictatorship.
Our argument against unions and for a more open and free marketplace.
Arguing against unions and other free market interventions is seeking greater excellence in market goods, services, employees and employers, through free and open competition.
The Thinking Catholic responses to questions re perpetual virginity of Mary.
From the "brothers of the Lord" to "The Davinci Code" to the word "until" in Matt. 1:24-25, the ancient Hebrew cultural notion of Professed Perpetual Virginity is doomed to be repeatedly challenged.
The contentious issue of Infallibility of Papal and Church teaching.
On matters of faith and morals, and matters relating to Divine Revelation, our central Catholic trust is in the Infallibility of the Holy Ghost, Peter, and The Church, acting together.
Our argument against fads, fashions, popular trends and herd instinct.
If speaking against fads makes me square, un-cool or un-hip, then so be it. All fads are, in microcosm, expressions of rebellion against tradition.
What does normalized, mainstreamed, open homosexuality say about us as a people?
Our argument against open homosexuality is an argument for the continuance of Western Civilization, and the Western Culture Ethos and the normative family.
The Marxism of Obama: Marching America into another Socialist dictatorship.
Vic Biorseth describes the self-documented Marxism of Obama which is still not widely recognized among the American citizenry. Obama “change” is Socialism, pure and simple.
Catholic Marriage Annulment: Is it merely the Catholic version of Easy Divorce?
Ecclesial law regarding the Catholic marriage annulment process has not changed, yet the numbers of annulments granted in America have rocketed. Why?
Opposeing affirmative action / equal opportunity programs as racist. Affirmative action (racial preference) requires racial exclusion, which is, definitively, racism.
Against diversity for the sake of diversity. Why do Marxists always seek more?
Our argument against diversity for the sake of diversity, which weakens and ultimately replaces ideology and ethos.
Against political moderation: America was not founded by indecisive moral wimps.
Political Moderation provides neither leadership nor opposition, but merely a moral drag that historically prolongs moral debates and ends up hurting morality.
The Death Penalty: Is our justice system too corrupt to be trusted with it?
The death penalty is too strong a sentence when serious questions exist re the truthfulness of police, prosecutors, defense attorneys and even forensic scientists.
Constitutional America: The argument for a return to basic rule of law. The arguments for a return to the Constitutional America intended by the Fathers and expected by the People through their Representative Government.
The Population Problem: A Real Problem, or a typical Scientistic Myth?
If England has a higher population density than China, and Hong Kong's is higher than Bangladesh, then maybe the real problems are not related to any over - population problem.
Definition of Marxism: Total control of means of production, including workers.
The definition of Marxism describes the social, economic and governmental philosophy of Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto.
Anti-American Politics, pure and simple, describe Democrat Party strategy.
Anti-American Politics are practiced by all Leftists. Marxism, at any level, is antithetical to the very idea of America. To be Marxist is to be an anti-American.
The Godless Left leads the young and naive to their utopian Hell.
For an honest comparison of the effects on youth, we need to look to the history of the Godless Left versus the Religious Right.
My anti anti-American arguments are attacks on falsehoods, in support of truth.
American Communists hide their true identity and disguise themselves as anti anti-Communists. Using their playbook, I hereby identify myself as an anti anti-American.
Deliverance From Evil goes to the heart of the hot political debate in America.
Americans increasingly pray and work for deliverance from evil, as they slowly wake up to a threat that is not merely political in nature.
Background history of the recent Catholic reformation (revolution?) in liturgy.
Reform of the Liturgy began with good intentions toward minor changes, yet almost permanently trashed Latin, and Chant, and, etc., etc., etc.
Our definition of pro American goes considerably deeper than the dictionary. Anyone, anywhere, may be a patriot. Definition of pro American: one who loves and adheres to the American Constitution.
Our definition of anti American goes considerably deeper than the dictionary.
Anyone, anywhere, may oppose nationalism or national pride. Definition of anti American: one who ignores or opposes the American Constitution.
Islam is the enemy; the non-Islamic world just dosen't know it yet.
I keep saying that Islam is the enemy here, and you keep not wanting to hear it. But it's true.
A submission of the “The Church is rotten to the core” argument and its basis.
If indeed the church is rotten to the core then all is lost; unless, of course, the statement is untrue.
Our argument opposing Libertarianism as an amoral conservative vote-splitter.
Opposing Libertarianism may seem counter-intuitive until you realize that it’s just another form of moral relativism.
Why is this American Christian nation not called a Christian nation?
This American Christian nation is oddly referred to as something other than a Christian nation. Why?
Argument Against the Anti-American UN: Why do we support such an antagonist?
The staunchly anti-American UN has a major goal involving world governance, and America is in the way of that effort.
Either limit the scope of government or limit citizen liberty.
Scope of government has broadened so much that there is now little of the living of life that is not subject to regulation.
A fatal false premise is a deadly logical trap for the mal-educated person.
A Fatal false premise with broad general consensus will always trump reason, evidence and critical thinking.
Faith versus Atheism: Is atheism really just a silly superstition?
The Faith versus Atheism argument is at the root of every other important argument.
“Are you saved” might be the conversation starter with a devout Protestant.
First, are you saved; then, are you saved by having been “born again” (but not by Baptism) are the two popular questions of Protestantism.
Is the Bible the sole authority for teaching Christianity?
If Holy Scripture is the sole authority for Christian teaching, then, where does it say that in Holy Scripture?
Marxism Socialism Communism – what’s the difference between them all?
Marxism Socialism Communism are all mistakenly held to be different things, but they are one and the same.
Can we outlaw Marxism in the USA and still be a free thinking society?
I say we can and should outlaw any ideology that seeks the elimination of Constitutional America.
Can we outlaw Islam in the USA and still be a free thinking society?
I say we can and should outlaw any ideology that seeks the elimination of Constitutional America.
Is faith alone the sole requirement of salvation?
Luther’s dictum says that man is justified by faith alone. Is it true?
Argument for Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
The Federal Reserve Act did not prevent the Great Depression, so why does it still exist?
Argument to Repeal Amendment XVI, the Income Tax Amendment.
Repeal Amendment XVI and the very idea of progressively taxing income.
Argument to Repeal Amendment XVII and the Politicizing of the Senate.
We need to repeal Amendment XVII and restore our Senate to its original status.
Toward a return to argumentation; the lost art of reasoned verbal combat. A return to argumentation requires a return to critical thinking. Is it too late for Western man?
Secularism is clearly "the enemy" in the culture war; so, what, exactly, is it? Secularism is an aggressive and very pro-active form of atheism, in that it not only disbelieves, but it actively attacks belief itself, on all fronts.
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the