Diversity is Nonsense

Diversity... is nonsense.

Great leaders do NOT demand 'diversity', They demand excellence. They don't give a damn what color, nationality, gender, or religion is claimed by their workers and staff. They simply want excellence, and are willing to provide their people with the tools and resources necessary to achieve that end.

Great leaders understand that how something LOOKS to some leftist who purports to care about that garbage is NOT as important as producing results. Period. Humanity has managed to produce great leaders throughout its history who NEVER gave a moment's thought to idiotic concepts like "diversity" -- and we remember them and their achievements anyway.

Can one of you fathom General George Patton, at the Battle of the Bulge, checking to make sure he had a proper mix of Protestants, Jews, and Episcopalians in his attack brigade?? We can scroll down the list of such great leaders, and we will find that NONE of them cared about this nonsense. Golda Meir, Nelson Mandela, Teddy Roosevelt, even MOSES -- the list is endless. Did Moses check and make sure he had the requisite number of Egyptians before leaving Egypt?

"Diversity" is a politically-correct buzzword to make leftist white people who feel guilty about their skin tone FEEL better about themselves, while accomplishing absolutely nothing. It FEELS good to pontificate from on high that YOU know better than someone else how many Chinese immigrants ought to be on their team -- and how they should be deployed; or how many women, or how many blacks, or how many one-legged atheists with psoriasis, and so on... It's a neat scam, because it never ends! A great leader knows this, and doesn't care. All they care about is excellence, and whomever will help them achieve excellence will always have a place on their team.

If the best person for the job is a woman, hire her.
If the best person for the job has dark skin, hire them.
If the best person for the job is in a wheelchair, hire them.
If the best person for the job is homosexual, hire them.

You can never go wrong by hiring the best-qualified person for the job, without thought or weight given to all of the myriad 'outside' factors that the left insists are important.

We have known this since humans first roamed the Earth, and in the name of political correctness, we have insisted on forgetting it.

Religion and Morality in Government

It seems to me that prayer (and religion) within the fabric of American society produced the most powerful nation on Earth. Only in the last few decades has this come into question -- and I defy anyone to tell me that this nation's moral fiber is stronger for it.

For nearly two centuries people would recoil in utter shock if a woman uttered profanity; now we see it on prime-time television (along with most of her anatomy).

For nearly two centuries, it was understood that this country was founded upon those tenets introduced by religion, while never endorsing any religion above any other (though slight deference was always -- and still is -- paid to Christian denominations; hence our federal holiday of Christmas, for example).

By and large, it was believed for centuries that children who were taught religion in some form would grow up to be moral adults. We ALL know of the exceptions to this rule, but up until the 1960s this country was predicated on that very idea, and successfully so.

Read quotes from almost any of the Founding Fathers, from almost any president, up until that time (and a very few after, like Reagan); read the school texts, the newspaper articles. It was a simpler time, a happier time, and a far more moral time. While we can discuss some of the relative advantages or disadvantages of the influence of religion throughout American history, I believe wholeheartedly that the positives far outweigh the negatives.

Our coins reflect a belief in the Almighty; our government bodies always began sessions with a prayer; the Ten Commandments used to be taught to every schoolchild, and posted in every courtroom.

Now, all of that said: Religion has no place in government. But religion does provide the moral basis for determining one's actions. If you hear someone is a Christian, for example, you can be reasonably sure (whether you admit it or not) that the person is honest and trustworthy, even if you don't share their beliefs. You may be wrong about them, of course, but generally-speaking it's a safe belief to have.

In my view, that's why so many voters want someone with a long tradition of being religious, particularly when considering a President: Their level of religious conviction provides a roadmap for determining their future actions. Not 100% -- not completely -- but when a person has been raised without religion, you sense they are also without conviction... without morals, principles, or ethics.

Naturally, being raised within a religion in no way guarantees the outcome of the individual. We can each cite a litany of people whom we know personally, or whom we have elected, who were less-than-perfect (or who acted in ways contrary to the principles and beliefs of their religion). As I said: It's not a perfect indicator of character, but a general one; if you told me that ten candidates for office were Christian, I would wager a great sum that at least nine of them were decent, moral people.

Eminent Domain and Property Rights

This is going to be a rather lengthy article, so strap in or move on. I consider the topic to be of utmost concern and a worthy discussion both for business owners and for private citizens.

Bret Baier's interview with Donald Trump touched on the topic of Eminent Domain, and as I heard portions of it replayed on the radio, I had flashbacks to the Kelo v New London case.

Americans today have very few -- if any -- property rights left to them.

Whether the property under discussion is a business, a home, a vehicle, or even your own person, our rights to what we want to do with our property have eroded to the point where we cannot even identify what we're "allowed" to do to them, or with them, without a law degree. The Constitution's Fifth Amendment is most often associated with courtrooms, where Americans are permitted to avoid self-incrimination by invoking their right to remain silent ("plead the Fifth") during all interactions with police and courts. I'm simplifying this concept for brevity's sake, because there is another part to that Amendment which is important for this discussion (in bold below):

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

There are two principles in play here: Government taking your property, and government dictating what you're allowed to do with your property. The founding idea was that government would take your property only if it needed to do so in order to serve a public use, like building a road or a fort. You, as the property owner, would receive 'just compensation' -- commonly understood as 'market value' -- for that property (paid by tax dollars). That definition of public use has morphed into something called public good, which can be defined as politicians see fit to define it. Maybe a public good is served by demolishing the homes of poor people in order to build a shopping mall, on the theory that the tax revenue such a mall would generate for the community would far exceed the tax revenue paid by the poor homeowner. That was the basis for the Kelo decision, and Trump seems to think it's great.

It's not. It's an abomination.

The idea that a person can OWN something is built into the fabric of America, and provides the basis for a great deal of both law and custom. Your home is your sanctuary, your 'castle', and your ownership thereof is supposed to be considered sacrosanct -- police are allowed to enter your home only under specific, proscribed circumstances for that very reason. But now government gets to decide whether you are allowed to keep your home, or whether a more-favored member of a particular constituency should be allowed to have it instead. Can you imagine how this power could be used in the future, if it is permitted to continue unchecked...?

A particular section of Philadelphia is affectionately called the Gayborhood. This is NOT a pejorative, this is a name given by the residents of the area. There are maps, lists of restaurants and stores, and even an app to help you navigate the Gayborhood should you decide to visit. What if some enterprising anti-gay people got together and decided that the land could be put to some 'better' use; got a few politicians together to approve the plan; and, with the power of the courts, moved all of the gay people out? Would that be an acceptable use of Eminent Domain?

That's the danger of allowing government too much power over our property: One day, they may decide that they know how it should be used better than you do, and you won't be able to fight it.

Government ought not be able to take your property except in extraordinary circumstances, and then only for government use (i.e., to build a road or a fort). Government overreach doesn't stop with the taking of your property, as it has quite a lot to say about your own use of that property, too. At its heart, government believes that it has the right to dictate to you what you are and are not allowed to do with your property, or on your property, because government does not believe that you are the owner. Regardless of what the title or deed might say about the subject.

If you think you have the right to dig for oil on property that you 'own' - try that sometime, without permits and licenses and permission. I think the local Sheriff will take you aside for a chat. That means that you are not sovereign over your land; you do not, in actuality, 'own' it - and hence you do not have the right to act as you wish upon it, because it is not your property. The government believes that it owns the property, proven thus by the requirement to apply for permits and licenses for the privilege of drilling for oil. And because these permits and licenses are written forms of permission for you to act in a certain manner, they may be denied or revoked - and their provisions enforced, as the Sheriff will no doubt explain, with the threat of force and/or imprisonment.

You can easily find myriad examples of this sort of governmental tyranny against citizens for daring to act upon 'their' property.

* The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fined one landowner $300,000 for "destroying" wetlands, because he cleared a backed-up drainage ditch on his property.
* The Fish & Wildlife Service told one landowner he couldn't use 1,000 acres of his property, so the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker could have a place to dwell.
* Another owner was prevented from clearing dry brush near his home to make a firebreak, because it would disturb the Stephens kangaroo rat.
* Building a deck on his house brought one owner a $30,000 fine for casting a shadow on wetlands. A shadow.

Smoking bans are another violation of private property rights. If a person owns a restaurant, it is (supposed to be) his right to decide whether or not he will permit smoking within its walls. If a restaurant owner wishes to permit smoking, he might put up a "Smoking Permitted" sign and let customers decide for themselves whether they wish to enter and patronize the business. Similarly, if an owner declined to permit smoking, he might put up a "No Smoking" sign and let customers decide for themselves on that basis.

A restaurant owner who did not permit smoking would see it as a violation of his property rights if a coalition used the political arena to create legislation forcing him to permit smoking, right? It is no less a violation of property rights the other way around.

Wake up, America. People like Trump are all around you, and you need to understand what they want, and why they want it. Read, research, learn for yourself what property rights ARE, and why you don't have as many as you think you do. Not over your home, your land, your car, or even your body.