News & Updates
I’m so Confused
If you listen to the news at all, you’ve probably heard the story of Rachel Dolezal this week. She’s a Montana native who until recently led the Spokane, Washington chapter of the NAACP. She’s a graduate of Howard University, and a leading advocate for civil rights for African Americans. There’s just one problem. She’s white.
With, apparently, an artificial tan and a hairstyle that many people consider more common among African Americans, she has been passing herself off as Black for years now. In fact, she has said that she considers herself Black. Her parents came forward last week and said that she’s really white, but Dolezal identifies as Black and insists it’s that it’s not a lie.
At first blush, the story is just a sad example of how confused our society has become on the issue of race. But upon deeper examination, Rachel Dolezal’s story poses a whole host of questions that cut to the heart of the progressive, secular culture. If Bruce Jenner can identify as a woman, and have the media elite leap on the chance to celebrate and treat him as one, why can’t a white woman identify as black?
In both cases, a genetically determined aspect of the human body yields one set of facts, and a person’s feelings and “sense” of who they “really are” yields another set of facts. We can’t say “your feelings establish reality” in one case, but not in another. All of this, of course, just seems silly to you and me. If you’re Caucasian you’re Caucasian, if you’re a man you’re a man. Biology is what it is, and DNA doesn’t lie. It’s simple.
But to folks who lean toward the left, this is anything but simple. They have been falling over themselves this week to explain why we have to take Bruce Jenner’s feelings at face value, and call him Caitlyn from now on, but Rachel Dolezal is still crazy for calling herself black.
The latest explanation is that skin color and sex are indeed biological, but that race and gender are completely different. In the eyes of the left, those are social constructs, not biological facts. What exactly “social construct” means can be a little hard to determine, but a good summary goes something like this. Yes, your sex may be determined by having an X and a Y chromosome. But your gender is determined by how other people treat you. And the same is true of skin color and race.
Of course, if gender is a social construct, and social construct is how other people treat you, then why does it make a difference what Bruce Jenner “identifies as?” It’s not him who determines his gender, its other people.
So, social construct is a pretty fuzzy concept, whether you’re using it for a white woman pretending she’s black, or a man pretending he’s a woman. But there’s one thing the left is sure of: race is a different kind of social construct from gender. Yes, you can identify as a different gender than biology would indicate, and people have to treat you that way. But since race is a different kind of social construct, you can’t do the same thing if you’re Rachel Dolezal.
All of which makes me wonder, if race and gender are so different, how come we keep getting told that opposing same-sex marriage is exactly the same as opposing interracial marriage? I don’t pretend to be able to work all this out in a way that makes sense. I’m happy to stick with the easy choice I’ve been making all my life: A man is a man, a woman is a woman, white is white, black is black and God loves every one of them equally – just the way he made them.
Click Here for the 2015 Scorecard
A Long Overdue Thank You
There are some words that conservative legislators don’t hear often enough: Thank you.
Public service is easy for liberals. The culture, the elites, and especially the mainstream media are universally in agreement that what liberals do in the legislature is good and right. Regulate more. Spend more. If we don’t have enough money to spend more, tax more. That’s the governing philosophy of liberal legislators, and it is also the governing philosophy of reporters, anchors, and especially editors.
So liberals who serve in politics spend every day of the session hearing from the establishment and the powers that be about how brave they are, and what heroes they are.
The newspaper is on their side. The TV news anchors are on their side. The liberals get all the moral support they could ever want.
But the mainstream media never considers the possibility that there’s another point of view. They never consider the possibility that “spending more” means “spending more of someone else’s money, not their own.” It means borrowing money from foreign countries that our great grandchildren yet to be born will have to pay off.
Public servants who are liberal, and their allies in the media, don’t consider the possibility that “if you need more, tax more” means someone has to pay the bill. Someone has a harder time making ends meet. Someone gets hurt. A small business somewhere can’t afford another employee because the taxes are too high. A father has to say “No” to his son about getting his first car, because paying the taxes on it takes more than they have.
They never consider the possibility that “regulate more” means one of your neighbors is less free, and has less ability to chase his dream. A single mother who wants to put her kids through college by opening a food cart can’t, because the paperwork hoops are just too complicated.
Because they never consider these things, they never understand why politicians on the right stand up for them.
So conservative legislators spend the entire session being told by the media and the culture how wrong they are, how immoral they are, and how they just don’t care.
For most of the session, legislators who are conservative have to live with the TV and the newspaper telling them that they are bad people.
They’re not.
So today I want to say what the newspapers never will.
Thank you, Legislators who oppose more regulation. Thank you for standing up for that single mom who wants to be in business for herself.
Thank you, Legislators who oppose higher taxes. Thank you for standing up for mothers and fathers who want to provide more for their kids, but won’t be able to if the government takes too much of their money.
Thank you, Legislators who oppose higher spending. Thank you for working to keep my grandchildren out of debt. Thank you for trying to reduce the bill that my great grandchildren will be stuck with, so we can live well today. Thank you for protecting future generations from permanent financial servitude.
Legislators from the left and the right have reasons for what they do. They have beliefs that they stand up for every day. Sometimes we agree with those beliefs, often we don’t. But it’s important to recognize that one side of the Legislature gets all the cultural accolades these days, and that isn’t right.
Legislators who lean to the right are hardworking public-spirited Americans who are doing their best to do what’s right for the country. If the media won’t say it, Montana families are happy to.
Thank you.
Who Watches the Watchman?
Who watches the watchmen? That was the question before the Montana Legislature yesterday as the Senate State Administration Committee held confirmation hearings for the Commissioner of Political Practices, Jonathan Motl.
Motl was appointed to this position by Governor Steve Bullock, and he’s been a highly controversial figure since day one. His hearing at the Legislature was one of the most highly contentious of the session.
All of this matters to the Montana Family Foundation because of the passage of the so-called “Dark Money” bill earlier in the session. Regular readers may recall that the “dark money” bill claims to prevent anonymous contributions to politicians. In fact, it places churches at risk of being defined as political committees, or possibly even having to publicly report every donation. At worst, every church member’s tithes might be posted on the internet for everyone to see. That so-called “dark money” bill would be enforced by none other than the Commissioner of Political Practices.
As our current Commissioner, Mr. Motl refused to offer any guarantees in law that churches would not be forced to report their tithes. Far from it, he allowed much of the bill to be defined not in law, but in rules that he himself sets. The mainstream media are wholeheartedly behind Motl, but after you get outside the media, the agreement ends. Individual citizens, candidates, and political party operatives rose up from both sides of the aisle to speak either in favor or against him. Proponents claimed he was good at his job. Opponents pointed out several previous complaints against Motl where his behavior had been called into question.
Whichever side people take, the more important point is that political contributions and freedom of speech are too important to let just one man control them.
The First Amendment guarantees every American the right to participate in politics. We have a right to speak out, write letters to the editor, or donate to candidates. The desire to make our political process cleaner and more transparent is laudable. But we must not sacrifice our constitutional rights on the altar of campaign finance reform.
Trusting our entire political process to a single man does exactly that. The Commissioner’s rule-making authority is vast and deep. Under the so-called “Dark money” bill, he makes rules about who is an incidental committee, when they have to report, and more.
That single man is appointed by a partisan political official. Is it any wonder that the commissioner is not trusted by candidates from the opposite party? How much better if those rules and decisions were being made in a bipartisan fashion? How much better if the protection of our constitutional rights did not come down to a matter of gamesmanship?
With the passage of the “dark money” bill, we are watching closely to see what happens. Will churches be forced to post every tithe on the internet? It might sound crazy, but something similar has already happened once before. Back in 2005 Helena’s Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church was accused of being a political committee because they opposed same sex marriage. Fortunately the timely intervention of the courts prevented that tragedy but here is the bottom line.
Who pursued the complaint against the Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church? It was the Commissioner of Political Practices.
That’s why we’re watching these confirmation hearings so closely and it’s why you should too.
Montana Family Foundation Praises Passage of HB322
Today the Montana Family Foundation released a statement praising the Montana House and Senate for their passage of House Bill 322, Education Savings Accounts for Children With Special Needs.
Jeff Laszloffy, President of the Montana Family Foundation, said, “Montana’s public schools do great for most students. But for those who aren’t succeeding, House Bill 322 offers hope. This bill gives students with special needs, and students whose parent was killed in action during military service, the extra help they need to succeed.”
The bill was sponsored by Representative Don Jones, and carried by Senator Kris Hansen. It’s designed to help students with special needs and students whose parent was killed in action during military service. For qualified students, the bill allows an “Education Savings Account” to be created with about half of the money, roughly $6000, which would otherwise have been spent educating them in public schools. The family can spend that money on educational alternatives that they see as a better fit for their child.
Laszloffy said, “This is about helping Montana’s kids. For the 1500 kids who drop out of public high schools each year, we have to do more than we are. This bill will take kids with some of the biggest hurdles to overcome and give them a leg up.”
He continued, “Our state house and state Senate came together in an impressive way to get this bill through the process. They did good work. Now, we hope Governor Bullock signs it. Montana is one of only seven remaining states with no school choice, it’s time we catch up with the rest of the nation.”