The Alternate Reality of the Political Right

In a previous post, I talk about the alternate reality of the Political Left. Now, to be fair and balanced, I am going to talk about the alternate reality of the Political Right.

In that alternate reality . . .

#1 The USA is a Christian theocracy. Thus, a prayer in the name of Jesus must be spoken during every public meeting that involves government officials.

Uh … no. The USA isn’t any kind of theocracy. The U.S. Constitution forbids it, just as the U.S. Constitution forbids requiring public servants to pass a religious litmus test.

#2 Abortion and other things must be outlawed because of the way that Christians interpret the Bible.

Uh … no to this, too. The U.S. Constitution forbids laws that are based exclusively on a set of religious beliefs.

#3 The Ten Commandments are the basis of America’s laws. Thus, they must be displayed on government property.

Actually, the Ten Commandments aren’t the basis of America’s laws. Yet, members of the Political Right keep falling for this hoax.

#4 The Confederate flag doesn’t represent racism.

In the real world, the Confederate flag indeed represents racism. That flag was originally put away after the U.S. Civil War. It was brought out again during the Civil Rights Era and used as a symbol of resistance to civil-rights legislation.

Defenders of that flag claim that it represents southern pride, as if the South’s history of racism were something to be proud of.

Is the Confederate flag historical? Yes, it is, just as the Swastika is historical. Both belong in museums, not on flag poles standing on government property.

If individuals want to display the Confederate flag on their private property and in their Internet avatars, then they are free to do so. However, they are fooling themselves if they believe that the flag doesn’t symbolize racism.

Granted, some naive people display that flag because they don’t know any better.

#5 Fossil fuels will last forever. So, the USA needs to produce and sell as much of it as possible.

Mother Nature disagrees, because she isn’t making the stuff faster than Mankind is using it.

The Political Right wants cheap energy and wants it now. So what if future generations of Americans will pay a big price later on? The current Political Right doesn’t expect to be alive when the eventual bill comes due.


As I say in my previous post, I don’t want to write a tome. So, I’ll end my list here.

Sure, members of the Political Right will complain about this post just as members of the Political Left complain about my previous post. Oh well, so be it. I’ll survive the complaints.

What matters to me is that I treat the Political Left and the Political Right equally. I haven’t always done so, much to my regret.

Yes, someone is bound to accuse me of living in my own alternate reality.

Well, of course I do. In my alternate reality, I am rich and famous instead of just good-looking.

Unfortunately, my bank account exists in this reality.

We Live In Interesting Times Indeed
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners February 24, 2017
  • Vagabond661

    If you are fair and balanced, your next post would be the alt reality of Davi….I mean Independents.

  • Scalia

    The Alternate Reality of David Robertson:

    Praying at public events constitutes a theocracy.

    • Clearly he would hold that the Constitutional Convention itself was in violation since every session began with an invokation.

  • Scalia

    David writes,

    Uh … no to this, too. The U.S. Constitution forbids laws that are based exclusively on a set of religious beliefs.

    In all sincerity, David, just where does the Constitution do that? You’ve made that claim several times, but you never tell us just where that proscription is.

    • pennywit

      This hurts my brain. A state may not, for example, mandate that all individuals are required to attend Scientology audit classes. But a state would be entirely within its rights to outlaw the sale and consumption of alcohol, even if the state’s governor and a majority of its legislators believe that religion forbids alcohol consumption. The phrase “based exclusive on” is a very imprecise wording.

      • Retired military

        It hurts David’s brain from all the untwisting he has to do to try to comprehend the truth.
        Plus note that he wont answer a simple yes or no question asked above.

        • Vagabond661

          He is above all that.

    • Retired military

      The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
      It is right there in black and white. Cant you see it? Yeah neither can I.
      But it does say that in David’s alternate reality. You know the same way Trump never had a chance of winning.

      Maybe David should read a little bit about religion and the constitution

      http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html#original

      Actually the only thing the CONSTITUTION itself forbids in regards to religion is
      ________

      Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause:

      [N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
      ________

      The bill of rights has the 1st admendent but that doesn’t say anything close to what David had implied either. Like with his other assertions he is making shit up out of thin air.

      • CaptainNed

        And, prior to the post-Civil War incorporation of the 1st Amendment against the states (rather than just the Federal gov’t), US states could (and did) choose an officially-sanctioned State religion. Here in VT, it was the Congregational Church.

        • pennywit

          I’m glad states don’t do that anymore. Massachusetts’ constitution at one point mandated local taxes to pay for ministers.

          • Retired military

            Federal tax money are used to pay for clergy today.

  • Scalia

    One of the distinctions between this piece and the former one is that Roberson provided links in the former post to substantiate some of his claims. In this piece, the reader will note that David doesn’t provide one link to establish what he thinks is the Right’s alternate reality.

  • Retired military

    Number 1 . Your assertion that this is in fact happening is asinine. Also all the constitution states is that Congress will not establish a religion. Meaning no state religions like what England had at the time.

    Number 2. I have never heard anyone say this other than you. Am I against abortion? Yes. Why? Because I consider it to be killing an unborn child. No where do I or anyone else I know of proclaim abortion is to be outlawed because it is against my Christian beliefs. Instead we do believe that it should be outlawed because it is barbaric.

    Number 3. I have heard the first half of that statement many times. Opinions vary on its veracity. I have never heard the 2nd half of that statement until you alleged it today.

    number 4. The confederate flag is a battle flag. Many take it as a sign of racism but it is nothing more than a symbol of defiance or being rebellious. There are a small group of idiots though that use it as a symbol of their racism. Sorta like the black power hands in the air is used by small group of idiots to symbolize hatred against whites. Ever listen to the song “Song of the south” there is a line in it that says “Mr Roosevelt gonna save us all”. I contend that the vast majority of people who use the confederate flag as a sign of their racism are in fact democrats.

    Number 5. Nothing lasts forever. Noone (other than you) has proclaimed fossil fuels will last forever. Conservatives want nuclear plants which are far cleaner yet the nutty enviromentalists are totally against them.

    “Yes, someone is bound to accuse me of living in my own alternate reality.


    By you making the assertion that the somewhere the vast majority of the right believe any one of these five you are clearly living in your own reality.
    Your assertions are incorrect, stupid, and only a moron would believe them to true for 99% of conservatives.

    David please point to ANY ONE who believes in 3 out of these 5 assertions that you say people on the right believe in.
    2 out of 5?
    I daresay that you would find any number greater that 1% of the entire country that would assert any 1 out of 5 are true.

    • Vagabond661

      Number 4 has been co-opted to be racist. Like the Looney Left co-opted marriage. And gender dsyphoria.

  • pennywit

    I suppose that it’s “fair,” sort of, to condemn extreme left strawmen, then turn around and condemn extreme right strawmen. It’s not particularly useful, but I suppose it’s fair.

    • Brett Buck

      David has the good manners to bestow his boundless ignorance on all God’s children.

  • pennywit

    Here’s something a bit more meaty.

    • Scalia

      Funny enough, I just read that. I recommend reading the comments to this piece. It seems that pastor isn’t as benign as he presents himself.

      • pennywit

        I read the pastor’s account a few days ago, and came across the RedState account today. Reminds me why I’ve attended so few political rallies. It’s really, really scary to be in a room with political True Believers (TM).

        • Scalia

          I’ve been to political rallies and have had a great time. Liberals are the rioters, not conservatives.

          • pennywit

            I haven’t had the displeasure of attending a Trump rally, but I’ve been to rallies for both sides. I also encountered a couple of “Rally for Reason” atheists a few years back. In all cases, I was put off by the single-minded fervor people had for their causes.

  • Retired military

    Simple question David
    Can government funds be legally spent on religious items like altars, statues, paintings, etc

    • WHO’S THE BUSTER

      I always find these comments surprising.

      David takes the time and puts forth the effort to write a post, but is often admonished for not defending his position. Of course this is most prevalent when he writes a post that may not be consistent with the views of many of the frequent commenters.

      I find it odd because I would assume that his post accurately describes his feelings, position or stance on a particular subject. Why do most feel it is incumbent on him to defend his post? What does he think? It is in the post.

      • We believe you.

      • Scalia

        What surprises you? Does it surprise you that conservatives disagree with caricatures of their beliefs? Does it surprise you that we ask what the justification is for a person’s assertion? For example, when David insists that prayer before events indicates our support for a theocracy, why would it surprise you when we ask for logical connection between prayer and a theocracy? When David asserts that our opposition to abortion rests on our interpretation of the Bible, why does it surprise you when we ask him what his justification for that is? When he says that WE SAY fossil fuel will last forever, is it over the top to ask him just who he’s heard say that?

        David isn’t merely stating what he believes; he is stating what WE believe. Don’t you think it’s dishonest to misstate what somebody else believes? If a person is going to criticize a belief, he should at least get it right, no? You’ve asked us for links to substantiate our claims, so you really shouldn’t be surprised when we ask for them too.

        Now, do you think David’s post accurately describes conservatism?

        • WHO’S THE BUSTER

          David states his opinion and perception of conservatism. You and others disagree. If he chooses to engage in a point by point discussion that is his prerogative, but he should not be demeaned for merely stating what he believes and letting it stand.

          He takes the time to post (although oddly, some feel that he should not be allowed to do such a thing on Wizbang) and as far as I know this is not a paying gig. Rather than any kind of gratitude for his efforts, he is routinely demeaned because he rarely engages in the debate which inevitably follows.

          Do you want to know his opinion? Read the post. If you disagree, make a comment.

          Whether it is an article on an online blog or E-magazine or some other such platform, the majority of authors do not engage in the comment section.

          • Scalia

            Rather than any kind of gratitude for his efforts, he is routinely demeaned because he rarely engages in the debate which inevitably follows.

            I’m thinking that Rodney is right when it comes to you. It’s probably best that we simply ignore you, because you don’t have a sweet clue what’s going on. Perhaps you live in your own alternate reality.

            I’ve have consistently praised David when he composes good arguments or states things that I agree with. You even criticized me for that (like I’m supposed to hate him all the time or love him like a puppy).

            We’ve got every right to challenge anybody who misstates what we believe, and if a person’s “perception” is skewed, then that person, if s/he is honest, would welcome a correction of that perception.

            Take some advice, you’re off topic. If you have a comment about the topic of this thread, you’re welcome to do so. Yapping about our reaction to David’s post is off-topic. You might not like what we’re saying, but we’re completely within this thread’s topic. If you don’t care to comment on the topic—STOP POSTING. And, yes, that’s a warning.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            You have every right to comment and disagree with the content of his post. I am merely surprised that the fact that he prefers to not comment is often met with derision and has been for some time.

            OK, I have gotten the “liberal is off topic warning” so I will leave this thread and let you guys get back to demeaning David Robertson. Carry on.

      • Retired military

        a. I asked a simple yes or no question that is related to his post. He has failed to answer that question.
        b. You are entitled to your own opinion not your own facts. That is clearly shown in the drivel that David has written above.
        c. If you are man (or woman) enough to write something then you should in fact be willing to defend it especially on a small blog like this.

      • Retired military

        Going by your statement that David posts what he believes lets look at the 10 commandments.

        David has posted (please correct me if I am wrong David since I have nothing but the above to go on) that he doesn’t believe that they should be posted (written) in Courthouses.
        Well lets look at a few of the commandments
        You know the ones like
        Thou shall not kill
        Thou shall not bear false witness
        Thou shall not steal
        Thou shall not commit adultery
        So since David doesn’t want to see these in the courthouse than the laws which say basically the same thing need to be stricken from the law books (per David’s thinking).
        I know that adultery isn’t illegal in a lot of states anymore but it is still used as a basis for divorce. But not under David’s way of thinking.
        So per David and others who don’t think that the 10 commandments shouldn’t be posted in courthouses they obviously have no problem with murder (of course David’s statement on abortion confirms this), theft, perjury or someone screwing his wife.

        See what not clarifying your statements can lead to.

        • WHO’S THE BUSTER

          Why would something of this nature, which is inherently religious in nature, be posted at a courthouse, or for that matter, any government building?

          I do not want anything that is religious by nature to be anywhere near a government building.

          This is also a reason why I find Betsy DeVos so problematic. Her and her family are the major financial backers of the Foundation for Traditional Values, which makes every effort to promote Christianity in all facets of American life.

          Take a look at the link below as it describes how charter schools that are receiving public funds are inserting religion into the curriculum along with links to how Texas has been including Creationism in textbooks; not as a component of social sciences, but as part of real science as an explanation on an equal footing with Darwin. Teaching Creationism (code word: intelligent design) in public schools is illegal, but these charter schools are using various forms of subterfuge to circumvent the law.

          Would it surprise anyone one if public funds find their way to parochial schools (as is already happening as described in the link below)?

          There is a place where Christianity is taught every Sunday and sometimes Saturday; it is called church services and Sunday school. I would think that would suffice.

          https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/betsy-devos-isnt-going-to-stop-charter-schools-from-promoting-religion/ar-AAnxCtj

          • Retired military

            So you find things of a religious nature should not be in govt buildings or paid for by govt funds.

            So lets look at the reality that Who’s the Buster is calling for.

            No chapels in any hospitals owned by the govt.
            No books which mention God or religion in any form in public libraries.
            No items of religious history to include things like the Gutenberg bible in museums.
            No art works depicting God, angels, or any religious symbols can be displayed in govt museums or buildings.
            All historical buildings which have any religious symbols and are owned by the govt need to be have their religious symbols covered up.
            All cemetaries owned by govt to include the VA cemetaries and historical cemetaries have to have religious symbols, mention of God, the afterlife, or heaven must be removed.
            Any symbols such as Lady Justice (based on a Greek God) which can be construed as a religious symbol must be removed from govt buildings.
            There can be no chapels on military bases, No chaplains, bibles, or anything else religious paid for with govt funds.
            No chaplains can visit prisoners in federal facilities since it incurs a cost to the taxpayer for the chaplains to visit prisoners.
            No mention of gods can be mentioned in any classes in schools.
            No mention of religion figures of any type can be mentioned and must be blotted out in the National archives.
            None of the property which govt currently owns must either be altered to remove the symbol or word or else destroyed. If sold it would constitute the US govt furthering a religion.
            Donations to religious charities are not tax deductible.
            All churches or religious groups must pay taxes.
            The US cannot expend any funds on countries which identify mainly as a religious country (IE Israel and Iran). it could be construed as supporting their religions.
            The US cannot expend funds to meet with leaders of the above countries, nor expend govt funds for disaster relief, defense, or spend any taxpayer funds to help their refugees.
            There you go Who’s the Buster. Happy now? I am sure that David wouldn’t have a problem with the above either.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            I think you know what I meant, but to clarify, I am referring to things such as the Ten Commandments that were displayed at the Oklahoma courthouse and things of that nature.

            Removing Bibles from the library? Good one, I got a laugh out of that one.

            Things that are already up can be grandfathered in, but I agree with this ruling. I am guessing you disagree, so be it.

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/01/oklahoma-court-ten-commandments-monument-must-come-down/29565319/

          • Retired military

            LOL
            So now you are the ultimate arbitor of what is intrisicly religous. Says who?

            things that are up can be grandfathered?
            Oh really. I suppose you havent heard about the removing of crosses on govt lands that have been there for 50+ years.

            You just set yourself up as the grand decision maker on what the govt can and cannot spend tax dollars on. Liberals love to spout off their quaint little lines and pat themselves on the back about how smart they are and how they know what’s good for everyone.

            Btw you didnt answer the other simple question.

            Should the govt be able to tell women or more generally anyone what to do with their bodies?

          • Because besides being the inspired word of God the Bible is also the handbook of Western Civilization.

            HETL

  • Odd that David did not participate in the prolonged discussion held here on Wizbang on the subject of seperation of church and state back in 2012.

  • Retired military

    The reality the right has to live with when dealing with liberals.
    1. Liberals expect Catholics to pay taxes to fund abortions but their taxes collected for schools cant go towards their kids getting a catholic education.
    2. Liberals dont believe in having an ID to vote except when voting for the DNC chair.
    3. If you disagree with a Democrat African American president you are a racist even though you held the same beliefs long before there was a Democrat African American President.
    4. It is okay to African Americans who are republicans things like Oreo cookie and house N*ggers.
    5. If Obama banned people from 7 countries from coming into the US it is fine. If Trump does the same thing then it is being an Islomophobe and anticonstitutional
    6. You are accused of not being against abortion because you feel it is murder but because you want to control women’s lives and keep them barefoot and pregnant for some myth who lives in the clouds.
    7. Confederate flags are obviously racist no matter what but black power flags and Black lives matter protests are not.
    8. It is fine for Enviromental kooks can leave behind mounds of trash that takes weeks to clean up because they are protesting against a few hundred miles of oil pipeline when are thare currenlty over a million miles of oil pipelines in the US.
    9 You cant display the 10 commandments in a govt building, however, it is fine for the US Govt to pay thousands of dollars to display such works of art as a painting of the Mother Mary made from cow dung and piss Christ.

  • yetanotherjohn

    Have you actually met a conservative?

  • Red Five

    Methinks the “alternate reality” exists solely in David’s mind. Good thing he hasn’t written that “tome”; it’d just be filled with more falsehoods, strawmen, and enough comedy to fill an entire SNL show.

    • You do realize there has been precious little comedy in SNL for decades?

    • Retired military

      I think it exists in Whos the Buster’s mind as well since he has named himself as the official David interpreter.

  • Paul Hooson

    The United States would not exist as we know it if not for the efforts of Jewish businessman Haym Solomon who secured loans from the European Jewish families such as the Rothschilds https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e1c643f4d617884fd8d9669337749227a594403bb9f81d6bc36720d4a4744389.jpg and other Jewish families to buy George Washington’s army boots, uniforms, guns and other military supplies in exchange for a nation where Jews from Europe could emigrate from to escape prejudice and oppression. We need to be always mindful that Jews played a very important role in the founding of this nation, financing it and funding the revolutionary army. There needs to be a common respect for these Jewish-Christian roots of this nation, because even the Christian community was divided among support for independence or support for the King of England, while the Jews were far more respectful for an independent nation to practice their faith and culture without prejudice as they had experienced in Europe. Likewise, the U.S. was quick to acknowledge the 1948 founding of the state of Israel in common support and respect for these two best of allied states.

    • Olsoljer

      For once, I don’t take issue with your missive. I don’t even know if I know any Jews and wouldn’t know unless they told me, or wore an article of clothing that might lead me to think they are. If anyone were to ask me what I thought about Jewish people all I could say is I know they worship different than I do (so what?) fight like hell for their country, and have been persecuted for thousands of years (and particularly by muslims). From a retired soldiers point of view, I would be proud to stand with them and serve with their military.

      That being said, I do have one question. Why does it appear that the majority of the the Jews in the United States belong to and support the democratic party? A party that continually wants Israel to give up part of their country to pacify radical terrorists and is hell bent on inundating the USA with sharia driven animals?

      • Paul Hooson

        Jews prior to the 20th century did tend Republican in their voting habits as do many Orthodox Jews today. A later emigration of Jews from Communist lands such as Russia brought in Jews with more liberal values, opposed to the Communism they escaped, but approving of many more progressive views on social issues. The Reformed Jewish movement brought in more requirements for good works towards others, giving to charity, and volunteer efforts.

  • Hank_M

    This isn’t an alternative reality. It’s a parody of the right and more than likely completely believed by those on the left.

  • Wild_Willie

    I toyed with the idea of responding but after the numerous fallacies and no facts, I deemed it not worth my time to educate this man. It is BS of the first order. So out of sink with what is happening and has happened. YAWN! ws

  • b l

    “That flag was originally put away after the U.S. Civil War. It was brought out again during the Civil Rights Era and used as a symbol of resistance to civil-rights legislation.”

    Several decent (and not at all “south aligned”) history sites say otherwise:

    ” Within a decade of the end of the war (even before the end of Reconstruction in 1877), white Southerners began using the Confederate flag as a memorial symbol for fallen heroes.

    http://www.historynet.com/embattled-banner-the-convoluted-history-of-the-confederate-flag.htm

    “In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, the battle flag was used mostly at veterans’ events and to commemorate fallen Confederate soldiers.”

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/8-things-didnt-know-confederate-flag/

  • Ken in Camarillo

    Reading this made me think of Reagan’s quip that seems to apply to David:

    “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”