Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Les Govment

Post is pinned.
NOTICE TO TWITTER USERS: If you don't have a Google+ account and would like to comment on any of my posts on this profile, feel free to tweet your comments to @LGovment or use this link:



I started this profile to have a place where I can post articles I author without them being edited, and so I don't have to work with a 600-word standard. Also, I wanted to be able to take on controversial issues more thoroughly, even to the extent of getting edgy sometimes. Anyway, I decided to create a fictitious name for myself: Les Govment.


If you want to post comments below my posts, you will need to have a Google Account and/or a Google+ Profile. (On the left side of the screen is a place to click to join Google+.)

Please keep a civil tone when commenting. I reserve the right to delete any post at will. Slander, name-calling, and trolling are all subject to deletion. I will eventually block repeat offenders.


I was born and raised in the U.S.A. I'm a libertarian-moralist, with no political party affiliation. I favor a non-interventionist foreign policy. I'm not a church-goer. I'm a male (XY chromosomes).

And that's all I'm giving up about me.

Add a comment...


As of 12-16-2018, Google is blocking these two articles:

Reviving the family is essential to society's future

Is the word 'transgender' actually a misnomer?
Add a comment...



Every child deserves a good mom and dad

The Left's Authoritarian Slippery-Slope
Most viable threat to freedom comes from the Left

Moral Libertarianism Defined
Libertarianism depends on basic morality

Is the word "transgender" a misnomer?

Defining Marriage
Beyond the birds and the bees


National Debt About To Hit $22 Trillion

Bill Cosby

$#@% The US Tax Code

We Dodged At Least One Bullet

Trump Pledges To Ban Bump Stocks


My Posted Comments Online

Recommended Viewing

Constitutional Limits

Don't Tread On Me

Good And Bad: Feminists

Cultural Appreciation

Never Oprah 2020

Shared publicly
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Federal Government is spending over $4 trillion annually

posted October 6, 2018

by Les Govment

When looking at the US Debt Clock, it becomes plain to see that if the Federal Government is ever going to balance its yearly budget and start paying off its massive debt, there will have to be a reduction in federal spending. And in order to achieve those goals, there will have to be reductions in federal spending across the board-- including Medicare and Social Security. (Disclosure: I am between 55 and 62 years of age.)

According to, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security combined total nearly half of all federal spending, and they're currently consuming over 60% of all federal tax revenues.

That level of spending is unsustainable.

I realize that people pay into Medicare and Social Security. But, concerning Social Security, many recipients collect considerably more in benefits than they actually paid into the system. So reducing benefits would certainly be justified.

It's also right to point out that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. The money one generation pays into the system gets doled out to another generation. Clearly, the Social Security system was immoral in its conception. And that serves as another justification for reducing benefits.

Failure to reform Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will guarantee that the Federal Government will continue to have a yearly deficit and a growing federal debt. (By the way, interest on the debt currently costs us $350 billion a year. That's $350 billion that is essentially being flushed down the toilet.)

To those who oppose reducing Social Security benefits, I ask: Don't you care about the economic hardships your children and grandchildren are going to suffer when the national debt breaks the economy?

I do. //
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

posted Sept. 21, 2018

The authoritarian Nazis presided over a system of National Socialism. Times have changed. The real authoritarians today are not nationalists; they're progressive-globalists.

Far-reaching, centralized governance is inherently authoritarian.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

And don't tread on anyone else, either.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

(The following article is adapted from "FAMILY MATTERS")

Rediscovering its Meaning

posted July 21, 2018 / modified Sept. 14, 2018

by Les Govment

I must admit that I was fairly surprised to see same-sex marriage gain the acceptance of a majority of Americans, and within such a short time span at that. Polls show that over half of all Americans approve of same-sex marriage. One reason for that is the Millennial generation’s broad support for same-sex marriage. But that’s only a partial explanation. I believe the larger explanation is that many Americans have fallen for the sexual revolution’s faulty premises about sex, and have simultaneously lost sight of what marriage is supposed to be.

The proper definition of marriage isn't determined by state legislatures; nor is it determined by what you or I tell pollsters. It's determined by human nature.

Opposite-sex marriage has been around in some form or another for millenniums, and the reason for that is unmistakable: heterosexual mating is firmly ingrained in human nature. In contrast, the concept of same-sex marriage has been foreign to humans for practically the entire history of the human race.

One-man/one-woman mating has a biological basis and is undoubtedly the result of intelligent design. The companionship of a member of the opposite sex can be quite beneficial to a person psychologically and emotionally-- which has a lot to do with why most people seek a mate, fall in love, and eventually marry at some point in their lives. In establishing a spousal relationship, a man and a woman bring together much more than just their physical characteristics; they also bring to each other the psychological and emotional traits typical of the biological sex each was born as. Their complementary traits have a direct influence on the differing roles they fill as they go about their daily lives. Human sexuality isn’t only about reproduction; it’s also about fostering marital closeness. Sexual intimacy isn’t just highly pleasurable; it also works to bond partners. That bond-- in the context of a mutual love-- is a feature of a good marriage.

Same-sex relationships don’t fulfill that formula.

In human nature, there isn’t any provision for same-sex mating. So-called "marriage equality" is a faulty political mantra that has been parroted by people who have overlooked the fact that the personal relationship concept of same-sex marriage doesn’t have any basis in human biology-- thus they are in conflict with science in this matter. Whether or not same-sex attraction is biologically-acquired is irrelevant to this discussion because, regardless of how same-sex attraction is acquired, homosexual relationships lack the psychological and physical complementarities that together form the basis of a heterosexual marital relationship (attempts by some gays to mimic opposite-sex complementarity notwithstanding). Same-sex partners can’t “complete” each other (in the opposite-sex sense) in the psychological realm, and they can’t become “as one” physically through genital coupling and in a face-to-face manner like a male and female. To be more specific about becoming “as one” physically, there isn’t any such thing as same-sex sexual intercourse. Gay females don’t have any natural way to join together in intercourse. As for gay males, anal sex doesn't equate to sexual intercourse because the rectum is part of the digestive system-- it isn't a sex organ.

Clearly, human nature doesn’t support the concept of same-sex mating/marriage.

Since marital relationships are rooted in human nature, marriage-- like choosing friends-- is a natural right. No one needs governmental permission to marry.

Some people have argued that same-sex marriage is needed, in part, so that gays don’t get discriminated against concerning various matters. I agree that gays have had some legitimate concerns, such as visitation rights at hospitals. Also, gays are sometimes targeted victims of crime (and wrongly so). But gays currently are not widely targeted victims of illegitimate discrimination. (Note: It’s perfectly legitimate for an entrepreneur to choose to not provide goods or services for a project or an event; that’s not the same as refusing to sell groceries to a person. A wedding is an event, not a person. Without any moral justification, some gays have initiated legal actions against business owners who, for religious reasons, chose to not provide goods or services for the plaintiffs’ weddings/receptions. The Thirteenth Amendment makes it perfectly clear that all Americans-- and that includes people who own businesses-- have a right to refrain from providing their services at their own discretion. No one has a constitutional obligation to service gay weddings-- any court rulings or laws to the contrary are unconstitutional and are inherently unjust.)

Government has failed to maintain the integrity of marriage. Just as divorce has already weakened marriage, the establishment of civil same-sex marriage will ultimately further weaken the institution. I’m not making the baseless claim that a gay couple’s “marriage” hurts the marriages of heterosexuals. That’s not an issue. The real problem should be self-evident: widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will further weaken marriage as an institution, by critically distorting its meaning and diminishing its value in the minds of many, particularly in the minds of kids, teens and young adults.

I don’t plan to campaign to get state governments out of marriage, but I will point out that since government didn’t invent the spousal relationship, it lacks the moral authority to redefine marriage-- dictatorial rulings by federal courts and the constitutional illiteracy of five Supreme Court Justices notwithstanding.

I do believe that government should stay out of the bedrooms of consenting adult gays-- what they do in private is their own business. But homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships. A marital relationship necessarily involves both sexes. A gay relationship excludes one sex, and thus is not marital in nature.

The human race consists of two sexes, each sex having its own set of nature-based, gendered traits. Adhering to the natural method, it takes one male and one female to conceive a child. Love, commitment and the sexual bond-- combined with good morals-- are basic ingredients of a good marriage. In turn, a good marriage is the core element that’s needed to build and maintain a good, close-knit family. // [995 words, 13 paragraphs]

Notice: Sharing this link to access this article is encouraged. Posting this article on social media is permitted, provided the article is posted in its entirety, including this notice and the copyright below. Alterations prohibited. Printing this article on a home printer (with no limit to the number of copies) is permitted, provided the article is printed in its entirety, including this notice and the copyright below. Alterations prohibited. Publishing this article in a book, newspaper, magazine, etc. is prohibited without permission.

© 2018 A Libertarian Moralist

Add a comment...



Topic: Sex Education

Topic: Antifa

Topic: School Shootings

Topic: Middle East

Topic: Gender Dysphoria

Topic: Chemical Attack in Syria

Topic: Emotion-Based Politics

Topic: Globalism

Topic: Ranking Presidents

Topic: Transgenderism

Topic: War vs. Constitutional Rights

Topic: Wars Of Aggression

Topic: Globalists Favor Big Government

Topic: The Gender Confusion Agenda

Topic: USPS and Amazon

Topic: Gay Adoption

Topic: Government-run Schools

Topic: Political Correctness Run Amuck

Topic: Marion Le Pen's Speech at CPAC
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded