Click here for an excellent article by VDH about some of the big changes that occurred in 2008.
As we move forward in time with a new president, new problems, new solutions, and new outlooks on life, let us remember once again that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and perhaps now more than ever, our country is encountering a fork in the road and a choice as to which future its citizens will have.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Merry Christmas
Here's some good stuff related to Christmas, Christian history, and Christianity's origins if you're interested:
Rumor mill - I've heard that this is the first time on history that Christians have been able to publicly celebrate Christmas in the city of Baghdad, Iraq. That's an interesting tidbit considering this was in the vicinity of the birthplace of the first known human civilizations.
Article - "Be Not Afraid", by Joseph Morrison Skelly
Also of particular note if you are not a Christian and/or are seeking to find out more about what Christianity is, there is an excellent book called Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. I wasn't interested in Lewis' writing at first because all I knew about him was that he wrote the Narnia books. The more I learned about him and his faith, the more intrigued I became. I learned he was at one time an atheist which I think gives credibility to his faith and ideas because he struggled with them and worked them out logically. I prefer the audio version of this book because reading it would probably be too time consuming because it's very deep in thought. Plus, I think it was originally aired as a radio program which makes the audio make more sense than the written version. But it is available through just about any bookstore or online at Amazon.com. The audio version is also available online by going here.
Rumor mill - I've heard that this is the first time on history that Christians have been able to publicly celebrate Christmas in the city of Baghdad, Iraq. That's an interesting tidbit considering this was in the vicinity of the birthplace of the first known human civilizations.
Article - "Be Not Afraid", by Joseph Morrison Skelly
Also of particular note if you are not a Christian and/or are seeking to find out more about what Christianity is, there is an excellent book called Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. I wasn't interested in Lewis' writing at first because all I knew about him was that he wrote the Narnia books. The more I learned about him and his faith, the more intrigued I became. I learned he was at one time an atheist which I think gives credibility to his faith and ideas because he struggled with them and worked them out logically. I prefer the audio version of this book because reading it would probably be too time consuming because it's very deep in thought. Plus, I think it was originally aired as a radio program which makes the audio make more sense than the written version. But it is available through just about any bookstore or online at Amazon.com. The audio version is also available online by going here.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Reality Bite
In this article professor Thomas Sowell discusses posponing reality and the related auto industry bailout.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Hoenig Rules
Hoenig: "We've witnessed nothing short of an economic coup in this country. Paulson and Bush have turned what could have been a short six-month slowdown into one of the worst economic periods in modern times. You can't fix capitalism with socialism.
Worse off, the free market is mistakenly getting the blame for the economic chaos that's been caused by government intervention. Freddie, Fannie, the Community Reinvestment Act and the easy money policy from the Federal Reserve were all government-led intrusions into a free market. That's what has prompted the collapse...not speculators or nefarious operators on Wall Street."
and a little later...
"I'm inspired by my 104 year old grandmother, who to this day still reminds me of the importance of frugality and thrift. 'Make a dollar, save a quarter' she says. This is simple advice but would have kept countless Americans from financial ruin in recent years."
Worse off, the free market is mistakenly getting the blame for the economic chaos that's been caused by government intervention. Freddie, Fannie, the Community Reinvestment Act and the easy money policy from the Federal Reserve were all government-led intrusions into a free market. That's what has prompted the collapse...not speculators or nefarious operators on Wall Street."
and a little later...
"I'm inspired by my 104 year old grandmother, who to this day still reminds me of the importance of frugality and thrift. 'Make a dollar, save a quarter' she says. This is simple advice but would have kept countless Americans from financial ruin in recent years."
Happy Happy Hypo
What was it that Doc Holiday says in "Tombstone"? "...my hypocrisy goes only so far." What's happening to people these days? You've got men like Danny Glover, an actor who I actually really like, at least when he's acting and not making a giant tool of himself by talking politics.
What I really love is how in this article Danny talks about the Freedom to Choose Act and how gay marriage is related to civil rights and then hides behind the line, "Because of my lack of familiarity with the bill itself and the detail of the bill, I can only comment on the basis of the bill...I’m not a lawmaker or an expert, but I certainly – on the basis of the bill, however it’s framed, in some sense, however it is, it should not restrict a women’s right to choose." Is that even a sentence? I thought you were an expert, Danny. You "act" like one. Reading Glover-speech (ie libspeech) is kind of like reading hieroglyphics on a dirty cave wall with a lantern that's dripping candle wax on your hands. It's hazy and painful.
It appears that actors have been on the political scene at least since the Judy Garland days...I guess since tv has been going. But what weight do they have? Do they sway popular opinion? Do they even believe what they say, or are they simply continuing to act? Now some actors are really smart and actually appear to know some history. They've got a head on their shoulders that isn't filled with pudding and marijuana. Take Gary Senise who selflessly outperforms popular culture any day of the week. And yet we've got these other doe-eyed beauties and anvil headed schmucks in Hollywood that spout stupidity out of their mouths like a rainbow of crap leading to a pot. Not a pot of gold...just a pot. You can read more about Senise here.
Let's talk for a second about civil rights. Last I checked, gays have the same rights that I do. Now before you think we're about to start gay-bashing, let me assure you that I find it uncharitable and unhealthy to engage in serious persecution against another human being. Pointing out how you disagree with certain ideas or choices is one thing. Projecting hatred on a person, even if they are wrong, is quite another. It's important to be careful when dealing with judgement because none of us are above it. That does not mean you cannot vehemently disagree with someone else's opinion. I know there will be some that disagree strongly with mine.
Now, back to our civil rights: gays as well as straights both have the right to stick our hoohas up another man's yoohoo, not that I'm gonna. Let's face it...gay men bring a kind of light and fun feeling into the picture. They're often very talented and enjoyable people. I still believe their gayness is ultimately a psychological/spiritual condition. Whether it's a gay person's "fault" for being gay, I could not say. But it's a good thing liberal men can't get pregnant, otherwise, there would be a lot of aborted would-be decorators. You'd have an episode of Will and Grace with a post-partum depressed Jack. Of course, in true Jack fashion, he'd be happy again just as soon as a male nurse bends over to pick up his kleenex. It would be one of those "serious" episodes where abortion is discussed like a dumbed down after school special for mentally retarded adults. It's fine to oversimplify things for those who are mentally challenged, but most people are not, at least not genetically. Some are by choice. Many of us have simply been swayed by small changes taking place over a long course of time causing us to become increasingly obtuse.
As for gay rights and straight rights...We both have the right to make choices which spread disease and live a lifestyle that probably originated from having a bad father. We both have the right to get married and have all the same tax benefits and whatnot with anyone we want, or do we? Is the question whether or not I have a right to be married to a anyone that makes me happy, whoever that person might be? Should I be able to marry my sister, my brother, my nephew? What if that's the companion I desire? Why can't I marry my horse? I know, I know...you will say those are not comparable arguments. Okay fine, let's keep it in human non-incestuous terms. Suppose I want to marry two women, or nine. Maybe I want to marry your wife or your life-partner. Does the fact that reproductive organs are specifically designed signal nothing?
I guess if you're a liberal, the logic is like this: I should be able to marry whoever I want because it makes me happy, and it's my civil right to be happy. Pursuit of happiness is one thing. Pursuit of changing natural law and asking the rest of free society to change its law to match your own is quite another. Anyone can come up with their own morality and harass society to match it by demonizing their supposed bigotry. It takes a man, whether gay or straight, to obey the natural law, to protect babies rather than slaughter them, to help old people rather than rely on their taxes to do it for them.
What I really love is how in this article Danny talks about the Freedom to Choose Act and how gay marriage is related to civil rights and then hides behind the line, "Because of my lack of familiarity with the bill itself and the detail of the bill, I can only comment on the basis of the bill...I’m not a lawmaker or an expert, but I certainly – on the basis of the bill, however it’s framed, in some sense, however it is, it should not restrict a women’s right to choose." Is that even a sentence? I thought you were an expert, Danny. You "act" like one. Reading Glover-speech (ie libspeech) is kind of like reading hieroglyphics on a dirty cave wall with a lantern that's dripping candle wax on your hands. It's hazy and painful.
It appears that actors have been on the political scene at least since the Judy Garland days...I guess since tv has been going. But what weight do they have? Do they sway popular opinion? Do they even believe what they say, or are they simply continuing to act? Now some actors are really smart and actually appear to know some history. They've got a head on their shoulders that isn't filled with pudding and marijuana. Take Gary Senise who selflessly outperforms popular culture any day of the week. And yet we've got these other doe-eyed beauties and anvil headed schmucks in Hollywood that spout stupidity out of their mouths like a rainbow of crap leading to a pot. Not a pot of gold...just a pot. You can read more about Senise here.
Let's talk for a second about civil rights. Last I checked, gays have the same rights that I do. Now before you think we're about to start gay-bashing, let me assure you that I find it uncharitable and unhealthy to engage in serious persecution against another human being. Pointing out how you disagree with certain ideas or choices is one thing. Projecting hatred on a person, even if they are wrong, is quite another. It's important to be careful when dealing with judgement because none of us are above it. That does not mean you cannot vehemently disagree with someone else's opinion. I know there will be some that disagree strongly with mine.
Now, back to our civil rights: gays as well as straights both have the right to stick our hoohas up another man's yoohoo, not that I'm gonna. Let's face it...gay men bring a kind of light and fun feeling into the picture. They're often very talented and enjoyable people. I still believe their gayness is ultimately a psychological/spiritual condition. Whether it's a gay person's "fault" for being gay, I could not say. But it's a good thing liberal men can't get pregnant, otherwise, there would be a lot of aborted would-be decorators. You'd have an episode of Will and Grace with a post-partum depressed Jack. Of course, in true Jack fashion, he'd be happy again just as soon as a male nurse bends over to pick up his kleenex. It would be one of those "serious" episodes where abortion is discussed like a dumbed down after school special for mentally retarded adults. It's fine to oversimplify things for those who are mentally challenged, but most people are not, at least not genetically. Some are by choice. Many of us have simply been swayed by small changes taking place over a long course of time causing us to become increasingly obtuse.
As for gay rights and straight rights...We both have the right to make choices which spread disease and live a lifestyle that probably originated from having a bad father. We both have the right to get married and have all the same tax benefits and whatnot with anyone we want, or do we? Is the question whether or not I have a right to be married to a anyone that makes me happy, whoever that person might be? Should I be able to marry my sister, my brother, my nephew? What if that's the companion I desire? Why can't I marry my horse? I know, I know...you will say those are not comparable arguments. Okay fine, let's keep it in human non-incestuous terms. Suppose I want to marry two women, or nine. Maybe I want to marry your wife or your life-partner. Does the fact that reproductive organs are specifically designed signal nothing?
I guess if you're a liberal, the logic is like this: I should be able to marry whoever I want because it makes me happy, and it's my civil right to be happy. Pursuit of happiness is one thing. Pursuit of changing natural law and asking the rest of free society to change its law to match your own is quite another. Anyone can come up with their own morality and harass society to match it by demonizing their supposed bigotry. It takes a man, whether gay or straight, to obey the natural law, to protect babies rather than slaughter them, to help old people rather than rely on their taxes to do it for them.
Three cheers for the auto bailout?
When I look at the stock market news today, it says "Stocks up on auto bailout announcement." Last week when Congress decided it just might listen to the vast majority of Americans who said they oppose the bailout, the financial news said "Stocks down on Congressional opposition to auto bailout". So here's a question I honestly don't know the answer to:
Why would the market be for an auto bailout when voters are overwhelmingly against it?
I can think of a few possible answers.
1) It's not, but the financial press always has to come up with a simple one-line reason why stocks go up or down on any given day.
2) Market traders really believe the auto bailout will be a good thing overall for the stock market/the economy/America's National Security.
I'll posit that #1 is maybe 55% likely. Tim or someone else with more financial knowledge than me could set me straight. If #2 is correct, why is it? Theoretically, "the market" equals "most voters", given the ubiquity of stock ownership nowadays. Although, since the vast bulk of trading is done by pension funds, hedge funds, mutual funds, etc that "ubiquity" is probably more in the realm of ownership (as in, "I own mutual funds in my 401k") rather than trading power (as in, "Sell $150M of GM and F and buy APPL. I don't like this bailout news").
I'm willing to be convinced that traders really do believe the malarkey about the auto industry's importance to the economy, but this farce about it being responsible for 10% of the country's workforce is crap.
Why would the market be for an auto bailout when voters are overwhelmingly against it?
I can think of a few possible answers.
1) It's not, but the financial press always has to come up with a simple one-line reason why stocks go up or down on any given day.
2) Market traders really believe the auto bailout will be a good thing overall for the stock market/the economy/America's National Security.
I'll posit that #1 is maybe 55% likely. Tim or someone else with more financial knowledge than me could set me straight. If #2 is correct, why is it? Theoretically, "the market" equals "most voters", given the ubiquity of stock ownership nowadays. Although, since the vast bulk of trading is done by pension funds, hedge funds, mutual funds, etc that "ubiquity" is probably more in the realm of ownership (as in, "I own mutual funds in my 401k") rather than trading power (as in, "Sell $150M of GM and F and buy APPL. I don't like this bailout news").
I'm willing to be convinced that traders really do believe the malarkey about the auto industry's importance to the economy, but this farce about it being responsible for 10% of the country's workforce is crap.
You should all feel very safe now
The newest list of Safest Cities in America is now out. Here is the top 10 safest (and most dangerous) large cities. "Safest" is defined here as having the lowest violent/aggravated crimes per capita compared to the national average.
I note that, with the exception of New York City(!), the top ten safest are comprised of southern/southwestern cities while half of the top ten most dangerous are northern/northestern cities. Could weather conditions have an impact on crime rates, as full moons are anecdotaly said to do?
I'm not researching this in depth, but my hunch would be other factors that would influence these rankings would be size of police force, relative pay of police officers, quality of schools, cultural opportunities available, unemployment rate, and state gun law restrictions. Weight those factors as you will.
I wonder how these rankings would change if other (non-intentional) safety data were included, such as fatal automobile accidents.
I note that, with the exception of New York City(!), the top ten safest are comprised of southern/southwestern cities while half of the top ten most dangerous are northern/northestern cities. Could weather conditions have an impact on crime rates, as full moons are anecdotaly said to do?
I'm not researching this in depth, but my hunch would be other factors that would influence these rankings would be size of police force, relative pay of police officers, quality of schools, cultural opportunities available, unemployment rate, and state gun law restrictions. Weight those factors as you will.
I wonder how these rankings would change if other (non-intentional) safety data were included, such as fatal automobile accidents.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Watch your Freedom Die & The Great Freakout of 2008
This article in the WSJ talks about Bush finalizing the touches on a law giving professionals the "right of conscience" which would allow them to legally refuse performing agregious acts in healthcare if they think that's what they should do. In other words, a doctor might not have to perform an abortion if he doesn't think it's right and not have to worry about getting sued over it. Sounds a lot like freedom doesn't it?
Well, guess what your president elect appears to want to do. Reverse it. That's right, reverse the right of conscience. Does that tell you anything yet!!! My only hope is that Obama played the role of Pied Piper for liberals to get elected and will make good choices once in office...or at least not make freakishly bad choices.
Oh, and in related news, the Fed dropped rates and mentioned in its statement yesterday that it would purchase mortgage back securities which seems to have caused a drop in mortgage rates...at least this morning. I assume they'll continue to jump around due to uncertainty in the markets.
And now for a little help from our friends Jonah and Victor.
Well, guess what your president elect appears to want to do. Reverse it. That's right, reverse the right of conscience. Does that tell you anything yet!!! My only hope is that Obama played the role of Pied Piper for liberals to get elected and will make good choices once in office...or at least not make freakishly bad choices.
Oh, and in related news, the Fed dropped rates and mentioned in its statement yesterday that it would purchase mortgage back securities which seems to have caused a drop in mortgage rates...at least this morning. I assume they'll continue to jump around due to uncertainty in the markets.
And now for a little help from our friends Jonah and Victor.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Earth: it slices, it dices; it stirs and fries
I thought this was a keen link for showing how the earth rotates around the sun and when different parts of the earth receive the most sunlight. Click here to take a look.
Also, here is some stuff about how the man-made global warming junkies are going to get their clocks cleaned by science. Maybe not popular science, but the kind that is measured in actual numbers instead of hopie-changie units. Who would seriously think that the giant magnetically furious ball of nuclear fire that is relatively close to our planet would have the slightest thing to do with global temperature? That's just crazy talk!
I think it's all those Jose Ole burritos they have at the grocery store that's doing it. After you have a couple of those blissful bean and cheese babies, you can feel the evidence of global warming right there in your pants.
Also, here is some stuff about how the man-made global warming junkies are going to get their clocks cleaned by science. Maybe not popular science, but the kind that is measured in actual numbers instead of hopie-changie units. Who would seriously think that the giant magnetically furious ball of nuclear fire that is relatively close to our planet would have the slightest thing to do with global temperature? That's just crazy talk!
I think it's all those Jose Ole burritos they have at the grocery store that's doing it. After you have a couple of those blissful bean and cheese babies, you can feel the evidence of global warming right there in your pants.
Say Hello to My Lil' Friends
Wright
Pfleger
Rezko
Ayers
Dorhn
Blagojevich
Richardson
There is never just one cockroach. There will be more to come. Change is coming.
Pfleger
Rezko
Ayers
Dorhn
Blagojevich
Richardson
There is never just one cockroach. There will be more to come. Change is coming.
Why the American auto companies are failing, a three part tutorial
Exhibit (a): Big Brother tells you what cars you can build.
Exhibit (b): your workers make it impossible to build those cars at a profit.
Exhibit (c): the public does not accede to Big Brother by buying the preferred American-made vehicles. (Note that the first American vehicle to hit 30+ on the MPG scale is at #10 on the list.)
Exhibit (b): your workers make it impossible to build those cars at a profit.
Exhibit (c): the public does not accede to Big Brother by buying the preferred American-made vehicles. (Note that the first American vehicle to hit 30+ on the MPG scale is at #10 on the list.)
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Free to Choose
When a bunch of screwy ideas are floating around the news, and the media is shouting "crisis" everyday...sometimes you've gotta latch on to something that makes a little bit of sense. Sometimes that means a trip back to the 80's. If highlighting your big mullet doesn't do it for you, and you've already listened to "Pour Some Sugar on Me" while watching C-SPAN and noticing that Nancy Pelosi really is a Twisted Sister, aaaaaaaand you've already had 3 bowls of Wheaties and played a round of Asteroids...well, then it might be time to hang with Milton Friedman for a little while.
You'll notice while watching this video, especially the dialogue towards the end, the amazing degree to which some things don't change over a 20-30 year period of time. More evidence that history repeats itself which is why it's so important to know a little.
Click here to watch an excellent video series by Nobel Prize winning common sense economist, Milton Friedman. If you ever want to return to watch it again or watch more later cuz it's kinda long, you can go straight to it by clicking the link to the right that says "Friedman..." under "Links to Reality".
You'll notice while watching this video, especially the dialogue towards the end, the amazing degree to which some things don't change over a 20-30 year period of time. More evidence that history repeats itself which is why it's so important to know a little.
Click here to watch an excellent video series by Nobel Prize winning common sense economist, Milton Friedman. If you ever want to return to watch it again or watch more later cuz it's kinda long, you can go straight to it by clicking the link to the right that says "Friedman..." under "Links to Reality".
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
Holy Hezbollah, Batman (or Milky Vision)
Looks to me like sitting on the fence sometimes doesn't do much more than get splinters in your crack. What do you think, Jimmy? Careful not to support Israel too much. You might offend an innocent terrorist. If only Hezbollah would agree to meet us without preconditions. Oh wait, they don't have Sphincter Pelosi to tell them what "fairness" is. Doh! Click here for related article.
And now for something completely different (maybe these children are weeping over their vastly superior infrastructure's inability to provide safe milk to their little brothers and sisters):
And now for something completely different (maybe these children are weeping over their vastly superior infrastructure's inability to provide safe milk to their little brothers and sisters):
Drill Baby Drill
Investor's Business Daily has pencil to paper and come up with a shocking shocker:
Let's see...we've got
86B barrels of oil in the OCS.
36B barrels of oil in ANWR.
30B barrels of untapped oil in the lower 48.
That's 152B. At current market prices, that's around $6.84 Trillion dollars. That's 20+ years of American oil at our current usage rate.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the oil in shale deposits. That just another 1-2 Trillion barrels of oil.
Drill Baby Drill, Pros: self-sustainability. Cease American funding of oil dictators. Reduce the unemployment rate. Reduce the national deficit.
Drill Baby Drill, Cons: Environmental damage? (Not that much, with new drilling technology)
So tell me again why anyone is seriously against this idea?
It seems funny to talk about a $1 trillion taxpayer- and debt-funded "stimulus" plan when there's something we could do right away to boost the economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, shrink our trade gap and secure our energy independence: Drill for oil here, and drill for it now.
Let's see...we've got
86B barrels of oil in the OCS.
36B barrels of oil in ANWR.
30B barrels of untapped oil in the lower 48.
That's 152B. At current market prices, that's around $6.84 Trillion dollars. That's 20+ years of American oil at our current usage rate.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the oil in shale deposits. That just another 1-2 Trillion barrels of oil.
Drill Baby Drill, Pros: self-sustainability. Cease American funding of oil dictators. Reduce the unemployment rate. Reduce the national deficit.
Drill Baby Drill, Cons: Environmental damage? (Not that much, with new drilling technology)
So tell me again why anyone is seriously against this idea?
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Wait, wasn't he that guy...
What's so interesting about this gov. of Illinois business? Not too sure what it all means just yet. But I will tell you what interested me the most. See page 10 of this FBI legal filing I gleaned off of Wall Street Journal: click here.
Antoin Rezko? Where have I heard that name? Wasn't he in the news at some point in relation to our president elect? Could that be Tony Rezko? What's the connection?
Antoin Rezko? Where have I heard that name? Wasn't he in the news at some point in relation to our president elect? Could that be Tony Rezko? What's the connection?
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Bring out your Dead!
Click here to find out a little bit about what's up with our nation's financial bail out.
I'm sorry. Does this article (second paragraph) here talk about the bailout of Chrysler in 1979-1980? Isn't Chrysler one of today's Big 3? And we're asking if they might come back for future bailouts? Turns out there was a Chrysler Corporation Loan Guaranty Act in 1979 signed into law by Jimmy Carter.They never teach you in the MBA programs that government assistance = competitive advantage. Not to worry, the left is gonna change our textbooks to help us out.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Monday, December 01, 2008
The Grand Imposition
I started to call this entire blog The Grand Imposition, but decided it left little room for fun. So instead, I've decided to write a post describing why liberal thinkers are confused, controlling, and incorrect; and why it's dangerous. Now, why would I start out like that by drawing a line in the sand? First of all, this commentary is not a line designed to divide two people, but rather two types of thinking. I'm doing this because I disagree, and because I disagree, my nature is to write it out and think it through. What good is a philosophy that goes unquestioned and untested?
So why are liberals confused, you might ask? First, liberals are confused because they think they care about others. They'd like you to pay more taxes if it would help those less fortunate. Simply put, you should be obligated to give because you have more than someone else. However, the real question has never been whether tis right to give. It is not the obligation to give that is in question but rather the power to take that is questionable; to take from some to give to others. Giving is good; there is joy in it. Not many people appreciate it, however, when you take something from them, no matter how generous they might be. Taxes don't upset you all the time because you don't really notice them when they are automatically deducted. You're just happy to get some back around tax time. However, I doubt you see many liberals donating their return back to Uncle Sam on tax day no matter how caring they are. Maybe they'd rather give it to a cause they believe strongly in, or pay their own bills, or even put some away if they're really selfish.
To tie in with that last point, liberal thinkers are myopic in the sense that they support their own programs and "helpfulness" to such an extent that they are willing to impose upon everyone else because it's the "right thing to do". They'd like you to support all those who oppose your point of view; to be so tolerant as to be tolerant of the intolerant, to paraphrase a smart man. They are willing to put their trust in a political body in order to spread the wealth around as it sees fit. Surely, there is a flaw in this line of thinking, for it leaves less room for each individual to pursue his/her own cause or spread the wealth where it would do the most good or be more efficiently used. Sure people can still give more and more, but there is less incentive to do so now that we believe our taxes are doing it for us. It creates what is called a diffusion of responsibility. Everyone is responsible for everyone, therefore, no one is responsible for anyone in particular. The liberal might even think Marxism more Biblical in a way than capitalism or conservatism, and yet I find it interesting that their mindset fosters a false sense of security that rests on government (i.e. on man) rather than on God.
Liberals might argue that government must control poverty by taking wealth from some and giving to others because individuals by themselves are not generous enough. Would it not logically follow then, that a political body made up of representatives of these same individuals be just as selfish, possibly more so? And might their constituencies not influence them to spread the wealth differently than what it was originally intended? Might the funds that are so generously being stripped away from each according to his ability and distributed to each according to his need be wasted in the overhead created by a massive internal revenue system and employees required to oversee its workings?
Liberals might also argue that tolerance is bliss while imposing their views upon you intolerantly. You will support gay marriage, abortion, and a slew of other ideals in the name of fairness. Don't like the idea of killing babies? Well, that's not fair. Don't like the idea that you have to fight for your freedom? Not fair! Profiling at airports? That's a big no no, even if there is no racism behind it. Condi's a war criminal, right? No, probably not.
A liberal will accuse you of being contradictory because you support our troops but not abortion. Aren't you supporting the act of killing either way? Never mind that there aren't a lot of babies running around with AK-47's in Sudan or bringing down the World Trade Centers on 9/11 that we brush off as a one time event. Never mind that it wasn't little children throwing human bodies in the ovens of Dachau. If only we'd had more peaceful talks with Hitler without preconditions. But I digress.
So in summary, why are liberals incorrect? Because they impose their intolerant and illogical views on others while claiming that truth is really just an individual's set of emotions open to interpretation. Then they suffer from narcissism enough to file their ideas under F for "Fairness". At least the hard left is consistent in treating babies and the wealthy as if they had no rights. Not surprisingly, they retain their own rights to act like both; only when acting like they have wealth, it is because they are able to pick the unlimited wealth out of the pockets of the American people. It's reminiscent of Veruca Salt throwing a fit in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory: "I want an Oompa Loompa nowwwww!" I don't think that liberal people necessarily intend to scam you or be dangerous, but so much of the time, whether intended or not, their policies simply turn into a grand imposition.
Click here to read another excellent and brief article by Thomas Sowell.
So why are liberals confused, you might ask? First, liberals are confused because they think they care about others. They'd like you to pay more taxes if it would help those less fortunate. Simply put, you should be obligated to give because you have more than someone else. However, the real question has never been whether tis right to give. It is not the obligation to give that is in question but rather the power to take that is questionable; to take from some to give to others. Giving is good; there is joy in it. Not many people appreciate it, however, when you take something from them, no matter how generous they might be. Taxes don't upset you all the time because you don't really notice them when they are automatically deducted. You're just happy to get some back around tax time. However, I doubt you see many liberals donating their return back to Uncle Sam on tax day no matter how caring they are. Maybe they'd rather give it to a cause they believe strongly in, or pay their own bills, or even put some away if they're really selfish.
To tie in with that last point, liberal thinkers are myopic in the sense that they support their own programs and "helpfulness" to such an extent that they are willing to impose upon everyone else because it's the "right thing to do". They'd like you to support all those who oppose your point of view; to be so tolerant as to be tolerant of the intolerant, to paraphrase a smart man. They are willing to put their trust in a political body in order to spread the wealth around as it sees fit. Surely, there is a flaw in this line of thinking, for it leaves less room for each individual to pursue his/her own cause or spread the wealth where it would do the most good or be more efficiently used. Sure people can still give more and more, but there is less incentive to do so now that we believe our taxes are doing it for us. It creates what is called a diffusion of responsibility. Everyone is responsible for everyone, therefore, no one is responsible for anyone in particular. The liberal might even think Marxism more Biblical in a way than capitalism or conservatism, and yet I find it interesting that their mindset fosters a false sense of security that rests on government (i.e. on man) rather than on God.
Liberals might argue that government must control poverty by taking wealth from some and giving to others because individuals by themselves are not generous enough. Would it not logically follow then, that a political body made up of representatives of these same individuals be just as selfish, possibly more so? And might their constituencies not influence them to spread the wealth differently than what it was originally intended? Might the funds that are so generously being stripped away from each according to his ability and distributed to each according to his need be wasted in the overhead created by a massive internal revenue system and employees required to oversee its workings?
Liberals might also argue that tolerance is bliss while imposing their views upon you intolerantly. You will support gay marriage, abortion, and a slew of other ideals in the name of fairness. Don't like the idea of killing babies? Well, that's not fair. Don't like the idea that you have to fight for your freedom? Not fair! Profiling at airports? That's a big no no, even if there is no racism behind it. Condi's a war criminal, right? No, probably not.
A liberal will accuse you of being contradictory because you support our troops but not abortion. Aren't you supporting the act of killing either way? Never mind that there aren't a lot of babies running around with AK-47's in Sudan or bringing down the World Trade Centers on 9/11 that we brush off as a one time event. Never mind that it wasn't little children throwing human bodies in the ovens of Dachau. If only we'd had more peaceful talks with Hitler without preconditions. But I digress.
So in summary, why are liberals incorrect? Because they impose their intolerant and illogical views on others while claiming that truth is really just an individual's set of emotions open to interpretation. Then they suffer from narcissism enough to file their ideas under F for "Fairness". At least the hard left is consistent in treating babies and the wealthy as if they had no rights. Not surprisingly, they retain their own rights to act like both; only when acting like they have wealth, it is because they are able to pick the unlimited wealth out of the pockets of the American people. It's reminiscent of Veruca Salt throwing a fit in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory: "I want an Oompa Loompa nowwwww!" I don't think that liberal people necessarily intend to scam you or be dangerous, but so much of the time, whether intended or not, their policies simply turn into a grand imposition.
Click here to read another excellent and brief article by Thomas Sowell.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Some fun stuff:
Watch Paul Potts deliver:
Little Connie belts it out:
Finally, a tribute to John Williams (a four part a capella by one guy) - Thanks Chris:
Little Connie belts it out:
Finally, a tribute to John Williams (a four part a capella by one guy) - Thanks Chris:
Monday, November 24, 2008
Time to Look Ahead
Time to Look Ahead
by Fred Thompson
I’m sure after this two-year campaign everyone would like to take a deep breath and put aside politics for a while. The holiday season approaches. It is time for all of us to give thanks for the many blessings we have been given.
But our gratitude for life and liberty should also serve as a reminder that what we were working so hard to achieve these past few years still very much hangs in the balance. And it is up to each of us to continue that fight. Our participation as citizens of the United States does not end once we’ve pulled the lever in the voting booth. That ballot is just the beginning.
We are now living in a nation controlled by a Democratic Party committed to cutting the budget for our national defense, raising taxes and nibbling around the edges of our personal freedoms in the hopes none of us notices. Democrats will do it through regulation in the executive branch, legislation in Congress and rulings from the judiciary.
This activity will be taking place during a time when we know that somewhere in the world our worst enemies either have, or are trying to get their hands on, the most dangerous weapons known to man. Small rogue nations are developing nuclear weapons to threaten us and our allies. Some large nations are engaged in massive military buildups, while others seek to take advantage of our weakened financial condition to wage a kind of economic warfare that is only now possible because of our global economy. And all the while the greatest economic threat of our lifetime and our children’s lifetime—the bankrupting of our entitlements systems—will be ignored.
It’s not a pretty picture, is it?
But if the time I spent traveling around America the past 18 months has given me anything, it is hope. And it if has confirmed anything for me, it is this: America remains the greatest country in the history of the world, and our citizens who care about our nation’s founding values—freedom, free markets, respect for life and the rule of law—will not stop defending these values as much as some of our fellow citizens and leaders might wish they would.
The Democrats and their P.R. machine known as the “mainstream media” liked to talk about 2008 as an election about “change.” Well, let me tell you, by their nature, every election is about “change.” In fact, responsible change is the essence of conservatism. We must change in order to preserve what is best about our country. We have always been able to accommodate constructive change without turning our back on our first principles.
But now, we should admit that we didn’t do a good enough job of holding our elected officials accountable over the past few years when spending got out of control, and we seemed to lose sight of the policies grounded in our first principles. It’s going to be a high price we pay, but we must not lose sight of what we must be doing now: fighting for conservative change we want today—and tomorrow.
We are going to have to use every tool we have—grassroots organizations, think tanks, magazines, talk radio, the Internet—while building new institutions to blunt the efforts of a left-wing establishment that appears willing to use uncertainty to impose an agenda that would never see the light of day in normal times.
The challenge will be to fight the Democratic instinct to let government meet every need and solve every problem and to divide our nation by class and race, while also laying the groundwork for the kind of historic mid-term election we achieved in 1994.
We gained those victories with a focus on innovative, free-market, pro-freedom, policy solutions to issues like welfare reform, promising to cut spending and balance the budget, and recruiting a host of talented, young (and perhaps not-so-young) men and women willing to step into the arena and run for office.
We have the formula—a conservative formula—that has worked before and will surely work again. It is grounded in our first principles. It’s time we moved past the recriminations and seven stages of grief. It’s time to look ahead, to stay united and to defend the values that we know must endure if our nation is to do the same.
Visit to www.fredpac.com for more info or to get on the mailing list.
by Fred Thompson
I’m sure after this two-year campaign everyone would like to take a deep breath and put aside politics for a while. The holiday season approaches. It is time for all of us to give thanks for the many blessings we have been given.
But our gratitude for life and liberty should also serve as a reminder that what we were working so hard to achieve these past few years still very much hangs in the balance. And it is up to each of us to continue that fight. Our participation as citizens of the United States does not end once we’ve pulled the lever in the voting booth. That ballot is just the beginning.
We are now living in a nation controlled by a Democratic Party committed to cutting the budget for our national defense, raising taxes and nibbling around the edges of our personal freedoms in the hopes none of us notices. Democrats will do it through regulation in the executive branch, legislation in Congress and rulings from the judiciary.
This activity will be taking place during a time when we know that somewhere in the world our worst enemies either have, or are trying to get their hands on, the most dangerous weapons known to man. Small rogue nations are developing nuclear weapons to threaten us and our allies. Some large nations are engaged in massive military buildups, while others seek to take advantage of our weakened financial condition to wage a kind of economic warfare that is only now possible because of our global economy. And all the while the greatest economic threat of our lifetime and our children’s lifetime—the bankrupting of our entitlements systems—will be ignored.
It’s not a pretty picture, is it?
But if the time I spent traveling around America the past 18 months has given me anything, it is hope. And it if has confirmed anything for me, it is this: America remains the greatest country in the history of the world, and our citizens who care about our nation’s founding values—freedom, free markets, respect for life and the rule of law—will not stop defending these values as much as some of our fellow citizens and leaders might wish they would.
The Democrats and their P.R. machine known as the “mainstream media” liked to talk about 2008 as an election about “change.” Well, let me tell you, by their nature, every election is about “change.” In fact, responsible change is the essence of conservatism. We must change in order to preserve what is best about our country. We have always been able to accommodate constructive change without turning our back on our first principles.
But now, we should admit that we didn’t do a good enough job of holding our elected officials accountable over the past few years when spending got out of control, and we seemed to lose sight of the policies grounded in our first principles. It’s going to be a high price we pay, but we must not lose sight of what we must be doing now: fighting for conservative change we want today—and tomorrow.
We are going to have to use every tool we have—grassroots organizations, think tanks, magazines, talk radio, the Internet—while building new institutions to blunt the efforts of a left-wing establishment that appears willing to use uncertainty to impose an agenda that would never see the light of day in normal times.
The challenge will be to fight the Democratic instinct to let government meet every need and solve every problem and to divide our nation by class and race, while also laying the groundwork for the kind of historic mid-term election we achieved in 1994.
We gained those victories with a focus on innovative, free-market, pro-freedom, policy solutions to issues like welfare reform, promising to cut spending and balance the budget, and recruiting a host of talented, young (and perhaps not-so-young) men and women willing to step into the arena and run for office.
We have the formula—a conservative formula—that has worked before and will surely work again. It is grounded in our first principles. It’s time we moved past the recriminations and seven stages of grief. It’s time to look ahead, to stay united and to defend the values that we know must endure if our nation is to do the same.
Visit to www.fredpac.com for more info or to get on the mailing list.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
What do you know?
Click here for a very interesting video. Could you be one of these? What's the media's motivation? Money? Whose? Power? At whose expense? Prestige? While this is going on, who is reporting the news, the honest to goodness news...that which is actually occuring.
For an interesting study of what Americans don't know, go here. You can find out more about this study here at the source or here in an article from CNS News.
For an interesting study of what Americans don't know, go here. You can find out more about this study here at the source or here in an article from CNS News.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Male Bonding or Simple Tyranny?
Click here: Progressing right along...
Just wondering...who gets to be the man this time? Reid or Pelosi?
Just wondering...who gets to be the man this time? Reid or Pelosi?
Friday, November 21, 2008
Letter to "my" government
Dear President, Cabinet members to be, and Representatives in Congress:
Lately, you have portrayed that you are for the little guy and said that you will still be the president of and represent those who did not cast their votes for you. Before you judge what I have to say, think it through. Mr. Obama, I am glad that the bigotry of the past has seen evidence of defeat by your electoral win, but I am also uneasy, for our freedom is still at stake. And while it's nice that black children can see a political leader as a role model instead of the usual athlete or rapper, it's sad that their parents didn't do their job to teach them already that they can be anything they want to be and leave color out of it. All black children should be growing up knowing they can achieve instead of being taught "the man is keeping them down." But today, a new bigotry arises, every bit as crucial as skin color, in fact, much more so, for it effects us all and is partial to no man!
First, I believe in helping those less fortunate just as you claim to. Liberal leaders, however, do not have faith in the American people as they claim. Even so, Americans, though highly and unfairly taxed, are some of the most generous people there are. Mr. Obama, the American people have been very generous to you in particular, not just in terms of money, but also in terms of forgiveness. They have overlooked your past, your statements of socialist values, and even overlooked your saying there are 57 states. And though Americans are generous and forgiving, not to mention ingenious and creative, liberal leaders still seem to feel they must control all aspects of American life for the people's own good.
You speak of spreading the wealth around. And it does sound nice, especially if you're on the receiving end. If you really care about wealth and the betterment of the American people, I think you will explore the possibility that liberal handouts and a welfare society does more long term damage than it does good. The choices we face today are whether or not to throw money away to support failing strategies which provide solutions that cannot be maintained. Perhaps you are expecting prodigal sons from the financial and auto industries. But if you go back to your Bible, you'll notice that not even the prodigal son's father threw more money into his wasteful lifestyle. He let him fail, learn his lesson, and return.
From auto workers' unions to teachers unions, we know that unionization hinders competition and stagnates creativity. Soon, in schools, it will be the students who are going to need unions once liberals start replacing math, science, history, and useful learning with liberal lesson plans. Do you think that Japanese universities have a lot of programs in "Asian Studies" where they sit and discuss the atrocities of America against them in WWII? I doubt it. They study math, and they're better at it because they don't waste their time wallowing in their past or teaching their 5 year olds about safe sex.
Government talks of tax reform as if it thought it up in the morning and will implement it by mid-afternoon. How will you pay for all the "free" health care, education, and other types of financial assistance in the midst of a recession other than take it from someone you "feel" doesn't deserve it? How can you steal from one American and give it to another or even give it to a non-citizen and believe that to be a valid morality? I am not one of these wealthy top 5% you speak of, but even I realize that overtaxing and progressive taxation is theft? What is so difficult about having a fair or flat tax program or even a sales tax only program? IRS overhead alone is monstrous and wasteful. Even your process of taxation wastes the money from the taxes you collect; an outstanding business model. And you don't have to fix it because you have no manager to fire you for losing money like they do in the real world. Well, I, American Citizen, am firing the incompetent stewards of our dollars.
Solutions like the ones government proposes might be fine if government were an adult doling out allowances to its children, but people earn salaries and create things; not for you, but for their families, their charities, and their own causes. Their livelihood doesn't come from you, nor must it be confiscated by you. Again: our livelihood doesn't come from you. It's quite the other way around, though many of today's citizens, voters, and especially politicians have forgotten that important truth.
Mr. Obama, I know you are more of a socialist than a free-market guy, but even you must realize on a very basic level that when you tax those who successfully produce goods and services in high demand, there is less incentive for them to keep raising the bar and doing it better and cheaper. And you incentivize poverty. If you pay for welfare, you will get more welfare, and it will only continue to grow. Look at Detroit. Look at what it used to be versus what it is today. It's a strange irony, but you will make the country poorer for all even though you want to spread wealth. You'll spread poverty like putrid moldy butter over a hard stale biscuit. But I think you are smart enough to know that already, which begs the question: "why?" What is your motivation to impose ideas that history has shown to fail? You and I both know that the government is not the best steward of money. The government causes mis-allocation of goods and services by getting involved where it does not belong which causes more problems (such as shortages or surpluses) than it solves. For instance, even in 2008, farmers still get paid a subsidy not to produce certain crops. Only with the backwards-thinking philosophy of a bureaucracy such as this can you create so many situations where one can expect to be paid not to do something.
OUR PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM
What I am most afraid of, however, in terms of politics, is the philosophical differences I have with my government. You believe in a diffusion of responsibility and seem to support a slow erosion of what has made America strong. You want everyone to be responsible for everyone else. What logically results is a society where no one is responsible for anything. Your idea sounds good in theory; it even almost sounds Christian. But the truth is that Christ put enormous responsibility on the individual for his choices in life. And He expects much from each of us. Where we will differ is that you think government is somehow the policeman of God. Though you may act the part, that is something you will never be. In some sense, it is as if our country is already under a Sharia law. This must continue no further and must, in fact, be subdued now.
Mr. Obama, you described what I am talking about best when you said that if one of your daughters were to make a mistake, you didn't want her punished with a baby. I believe it is your daughter's responsibility not to have sex if she doesn't want a baby rather than the baby's responsibility to die for your daughter's mistake and fear of responsibility. And I believe it is your responsibility to teach her that as a parent. Now, your nature is likely going to be to justify your ideas based on extremes. I am afraid of you trying to police morality because your logic is flawed, and I can see leaders of your ilk slowly eroding the foundation we stand upon by introducing the poison of relativistic morality presented as an absolute. For a Harvard law graduate to have such flaws in his logic as you do is disturbing. Either your education was flawed, you must have changed since law school, or deep down you know better than to truly believe some of the things you say. None of those are terrifically comforting possibilities.
Only this week, famous dating site, E-Harmony is forced against its will to represent a homosexual value that it does not share. It was forced to pay the attorney general of New Jersey and the gay man that brought charges against it and also set up a gay-specific matching website. In your mighty wisdom, government, you have stripped freedom from one individual to give to another under the auspices of fairness and equal rights. I know I'll never see a gay website forced to represent heterosexuality, however. You come from a world where double standards are the ultimate fairness. We now see ourselves in a country where any individual or private enterprise can now be punished under our law for not sharing the same values as someone else. No longer are church and state separate entities. The state is quickly becoming the new church. In effect, you are setting precedent so that you can demand by law that I share your immorality.
Mrs. Obama recently said in a speech that America needs to fix its broken soul and that you were the man to help us do it. You tell people "yes, we can", but you simultaneously show that you don't believe in the people you say it to. In your eyes, they cannot succeed without government. I only hope they can succeed in spite of it. You know as well as I that people who believe so readily in the unproven hope that you offer are easily controlled. I wonder if you are happy to keep the poor and those who have suffered injustice right where they are, embittered, because they are easy votes for one who promises the world but can get by offering a few handfuls of crumbled earth. Like a circus sideshow, the welfare state offers a sight of the never-before-seen two headed, fire-breathing dragon, which turns out to be a couple of midgets in a shoddy costume made from flannel pajamas and some dry ice on a dirt floor. You don't offer the real thing, nor should you or any government be expected to. But you do still have a job to do. I offer to you that smart people will be watching, the wise are paying attention, and great men of character do exist and will stand for what is right and defend those less fortunate and those in need of representation.
As president, you represent me, you do not control me, nor do you cleanse my soul. The Lord our God will judge us both. I fear the erosion of freedom of each individual in America. Liberal leaders cast blame on America's problems on men like Bush because he's an easy target. And then they lie about their own education, their past, their contacts, their motives, and their abilities. Perhaps you should prepare yourself for a day when history shows that Bush was key in keeping a large middle-Eastern missile out of the proverbial butt of America. I'm tired of watching you put wealthy men on trial for what seems to be just-for-show on tv, seeing you pacify governments that have long histories of violence and a hatred for America, and listening to you whine about failed free market strategies knowing all the while that those are the reasons you are not standing in line for 9 hours for bread on the street corner. What has done more to improve the standard of living in America for the poor: Wal-Mart or welfare?
Finally, not a day goes by anymore that I can turn on the tv and not hear that government is up to something to try to make the world more "fair". What could be more fair than forcibly imposing an idea like The Fairness Doctrine which should be renamed The Liberals are Not Entertaining Enough to Make it on Radio Doctrine? It seems to me that, more often than not, that "something" that government is up to has nothing to do with representing me, making me safer, or protecting my freedoms or rights. When you tinker with a complicated system, it often doesn't fit right when putting it back together. And yet, the government continues to tinker continuously. My request is simply this; in fact it is a demand:
Represent me. Represent freedom. Represent the law that was created to protect the people rather than make them servants to it. Ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. If you are going to use my taxes to buy stock in banks or automobile manufacturers and keep the capital flowing, then I want to see the stock in my brokerage account. I don't want an empty promise of hope or change. I want representation, and I want the proof. You don't always have to do something. Know when not to act.
You, government, are the only entity in this world except a bully or a thief to whom I must pay for services I neither want nor require. It's not just me saying that, it's the American people. And I know you've heard it from them for a long time. If you don't listen to us, we won't make the same mistake of voting you in office forever. You may think there is no need to listen or heed our demands. I'm sure that's what King George III thought as well. Will we have to declare our independence all over again? The days of King George are over, but as Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Happy Veteran's Day
And thank you.
To quote an unknown source: "A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'"
More pictures available at The National Archives.
To quote an unknown source: "A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'"
More pictures available at The National Archives.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
You BET: the children of slavery; the mothers and fathers of slaves
As I was flipping through some tv channels earlier today, I came across a program on BET (which stands for Black Entertainment Television) talking about Obama's win in the election. I'm glad to see people excited about the leadership of our country. The show was called "The Truth". And a panel of young black men and women sat in a semi-circle discussing the win. A young journalist woman proudly said that when Obama gave his victory speech, that in that moment she was "no longer a journalist" but a "black woman". She spoke of how her grandmother was able to vote where a sign used to hang that prohibited black entry and where the Klan used to roam. It must have been something to cast a vote as a spit in the eye of some of those old bigoted ideas of the past. The Ku Klux Klan was an awful invention of evil men. They were murderers and limp-membered wimps that were afraid of true equality because they themselves didn't seem to measure up and were probably beaten by their fathers and had low self-esteem. Joining a "club" like the KKK probably helped them feel powerful. And there is no question that black men and women have been mistreated in this country in the past. For that matter, blacks, Asians, Irish, Italians, Jews, Mexicans, American Indians, and whites have all been mistreated by someone even if it's by their own kind. Is that to say it doesn't matter? No. It does matter. And it can shape a generation. But to make future decisions based on a hurtful past is not always useful though it may feel comfortable and satisfying. Like the woman who chooses to be with a hateful man because he doesn't beat her like the last one did, we as human beings, sometimes settle for second worst instead of striving for a long term best.
And so, I'm a little saddened and annoyed with so much of the talk right now turned towards black identity because I think it's still the wrong identity to be concerned with. In fact the premise of the show on BET is a little strange, and for that matter, the network itself. BET? Is there a WET? These are strange times. And white folks can't really say anything about some of the double standards that exist today for fear of being labelled as racist. This time, the issues surrounding our country's well being were not really the keys to driving this election. Why didn't that young lady say she was proud to be an "American woman!" instead of a "black woman?" Why hasn't the great race divide been bridged? And will a black or half black president really bridge the gap? Maybe he will. Is that enough to make the liberal and socialist laws that may soon be passed worth it? Is black identity more important than the freedom of all Americans? If I had been a black man on that panel of guests on the show, I would have been offended at my own people for having such low expectations of ourselves that we were euphoric when one of us finally became president. I would fault them for looking no further than skin deep. And I would be ashamed that our eyes were more attuned to black and white than they are to red, white, and blue. To quote historian, Victor Hanson, "A person from Mars who watched this post-election celebration, might study the popular reaction to the Obama victory and become puzzled: 'Aren’t people now saying pretty much what Michelle Obama said twice, and to great criticism, during the campaign: that the emergence of Barack Obama was occasion for many to have pride in their country for the first time?'" (see full article here)
Barrack Obama is a black man. At least black enough to be seen as the first African American president. So what? He's also incredibly liberal. I would love for a black man to be president, but a black conservative man who stands for the right things instead of standing for everything or anything depending on who's listening. What could be more ambiguous than Obama's great mantra of "Change"? It worries me that people actually fall for stuff like that. Change to what? The great thing about a slogan like "Change" is that it means different things to different people. So effectively it means whatever they want it to mean. But then you have something called reality. When leaders try to raise the people as their children or as their subjects like Obama acts like he wants to do, then your freedom gently disappears into the fog of a forgotten greatness that was once America.
The children of slavery are today's black men and women that still remember the stories of their ancestors. They don't want to return to the days of slavery, and you can't blame them. In their hearts is the same desire to remain free that runs through the veins of every thinking American. Nothing is free. Not even free money comes without a catch. Will people be so willing to do anything for a man or group of men who offers them anything that they too become the mothers and fathers of a new generation of slaves? It's simply not good enough to settle for Affirmative Action or Equal Opportunity laws. Those are patches that probably introduce as many problems as they solve. It's up to you, the individual, to decide that race or skin color is not as important as being an American.
Though we will always have leaders and governments, the real power for change has and always will be with the people. Though you may hear that spoken from the mouths of certain leaders, you'll see in their actions, they don't believe it. And their "change" will soon be your obligation.
And so, I'm a little saddened and annoyed with so much of the talk right now turned towards black identity because I think it's still the wrong identity to be concerned with. In fact the premise of the show on BET is a little strange, and for that matter, the network itself. BET? Is there a WET? These are strange times. And white folks can't really say anything about some of the double standards that exist today for fear of being labelled as racist. This time, the issues surrounding our country's well being were not really the keys to driving this election. Why didn't that young lady say she was proud to be an "American woman!" instead of a "black woman?" Why hasn't the great race divide been bridged? And will a black or half black president really bridge the gap? Maybe he will. Is that enough to make the liberal and socialist laws that may soon be passed worth it? Is black identity more important than the freedom of all Americans? If I had been a black man on that panel of guests on the show, I would have been offended at my own people for having such low expectations of ourselves that we were euphoric when one of us finally became president. I would fault them for looking no further than skin deep. And I would be ashamed that our eyes were more attuned to black and white than they are to red, white, and blue. To quote historian, Victor Hanson, "A person from Mars who watched this post-election celebration, might study the popular reaction to the Obama victory and become puzzled: 'Aren’t people now saying pretty much what Michelle Obama said twice, and to great criticism, during the campaign: that the emergence of Barack Obama was occasion for many to have pride in their country for the first time?'" (see full article here)
Barrack Obama is a black man. At least black enough to be seen as the first African American president. So what? He's also incredibly liberal. I would love for a black man to be president, but a black conservative man who stands for the right things instead of standing for everything or anything depending on who's listening. What could be more ambiguous than Obama's great mantra of "Change"? It worries me that people actually fall for stuff like that. Change to what? The great thing about a slogan like "Change" is that it means different things to different people. So effectively it means whatever they want it to mean. But then you have something called reality. When leaders try to raise the people as their children or as their subjects like Obama acts like he wants to do, then your freedom gently disappears into the fog of a forgotten greatness that was once America.
The children of slavery are today's black men and women that still remember the stories of their ancestors. They don't want to return to the days of slavery, and you can't blame them. In their hearts is the same desire to remain free that runs through the veins of every thinking American. Nothing is free. Not even free money comes without a catch. Will people be so willing to do anything for a man or group of men who offers them anything that they too become the mothers and fathers of a new generation of slaves? It's simply not good enough to settle for Affirmative Action or Equal Opportunity laws. Those are patches that probably introduce as many problems as they solve. It's up to you, the individual, to decide that race or skin color is not as important as being an American.
Though we will always have leaders and governments, the real power for change has and always will be with the people. Though you may hear that spoken from the mouths of certain leaders, you'll see in their actions, they don't believe it. And their "change" will soon be your obligation.
Friday, November 07, 2008
State of the Union
Insightful interview with military historian and classicist, Victor Hanson, about the state of affairs in our country.
Click to listen.
Click to listen.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
A Time for Choosing
It would seem that many people do not yet understand what the difference is between conservatism and liberalism or why it even matters. Listening to this speech is a great place to start.
Ronald Reagan - October 27, 1964 (the same speech could be given today with a few of the numbers updated for inflation):
Click here to listen to The Speech
It's been pretty hard getting people to give you a coherent reason why a vote for Obama was a good choice. In fact, it kind of feels like it would be perceived as racist if you were to even ask. I think "reason" has, in fact, been taken out of the choice, and the emotional euphoria put in its place. From what I've been able to glean from folks so far, I'm hearing two main reasons for their choice in support of Obama:
1) race
2) money
I'm not sure what that says about us overall. As for race, I'm encouraged that the country has provided evidence of being past the awful racial prejudices it once had. I don't think that's a good reason to elect a Marxist liberal, but at least there is a bright side. It bothers me, however, that 95% of black voters support Obama. That, to me, seems racist. Many white folks understandably feel that they have inherited an unfair characterization since they have had nothing to do with the racism or slavery of the past. After a while, it starts being perceived as whining. I think that it's just plain weird that black people do not overwhelmingly support the views of men like Lincoln; views that ended slavery; views that conservatives hold dear. Also, Mona Charen, makes a good point in
this article
that it's probably not necessary for whites to carry around guilt for the sins of other whites in history. But today, the shame on white people for the slavery and prejudice in history still seems to hang around like an old stray cat.
As for wealth redistribution: it is legalized theft whether you are on the receiving or the giving end. As Reagan understood, programs that redistribute wealth end up squandering that wealth and entrenching welfare. It's a plan that hypocritically offers help to the poor while making them increasingly helpless and simultaneously removes the rights of individuals and depresses their incentives. Why don't liberals simply write an extra check to the government each year at tax time if they trust them so much to use their money the best way possible?
Conservatives are not against helping the less fortunate. And conservatives themselves are not all wealthy. Wealth redistribution is simply inefficient as you will learn about in the speech, and I think conservatives realize there are better ways of caring for others. Midrange earners, poor people, and the wealthy all do better when taxes are low and laws are fair, which means the law is used to protect the people not single them out for political agenda.
So what happened to conservatism? Listen here to Victor Davis Hanson on the Hugh Hewitt show for some insight.
click to listen: VDH on Hugh Hewitt show
Ronald Reagan - October 27, 1964 (the same speech could be given today with a few of the numbers updated for inflation):
Click here to listen to The Speech
It's been pretty hard getting people to give you a coherent reason why a vote for Obama was a good choice. In fact, it kind of feels like it would be perceived as racist if you were to even ask. I think "reason" has, in fact, been taken out of the choice, and the emotional euphoria put in its place. From what I've been able to glean from folks so far, I'm hearing two main reasons for their choice in support of Obama:
1) race
2) money
I'm not sure what that says about us overall. As for race, I'm encouraged that the country has provided evidence of being past the awful racial prejudices it once had. I don't think that's a good reason to elect a Marxist liberal, but at least there is a bright side. It bothers me, however, that 95% of black voters support Obama. That, to me, seems racist. Many white folks understandably feel that they have inherited an unfair characterization since they have had nothing to do with the racism or slavery of the past. After a while, it starts being perceived as whining. I think that it's just plain weird that black people do not overwhelmingly support the views of men like Lincoln; views that ended slavery; views that conservatives hold dear. Also, Mona Charen, makes a good point in
this article
that it's probably not necessary for whites to carry around guilt for the sins of other whites in history. But today, the shame on white people for the slavery and prejudice in history still seems to hang around like an old stray cat.
As for wealth redistribution: it is legalized theft whether you are on the receiving or the giving end. As Reagan understood, programs that redistribute wealth end up squandering that wealth and entrenching welfare. It's a plan that hypocritically offers help to the poor while making them increasingly helpless and simultaneously removes the rights of individuals and depresses their incentives. Why don't liberals simply write an extra check to the government each year at tax time if they trust them so much to use their money the best way possible?
Conservatives are not against helping the less fortunate. And conservatives themselves are not all wealthy. Wealth redistribution is simply inefficient as you will learn about in the speech, and I think conservatives realize there are better ways of caring for others. Midrange earners, poor people, and the wealthy all do better when taxes are low and laws are fair, which means the law is used to protect the people not single them out for political agenda.
So what happened to conservatism? Listen here to Victor Davis Hanson on the Hugh Hewitt show for some insight.
click to listen: VDH on Hugh Hewitt show
Oh Well
Congratulations Obama:
And here's to McCain for taking the loss like a man:
And here is a nugget regarding taxes: A Fair Share for All
And here's to McCain for taking the loss like a man:
And here is a nugget regarding taxes: A Fair Share for All
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
The US in Potus
At the time that I write this, I'm seeing on television that Barrack Obama has been statistically chosen as president elect of the United States of America. I offer congratulations to those who see Obama as a positive change and will admit that a part of me feels glad to see hard evidence that we, as a country, have moved past the horrible racial prejudices of yesteryear. That being said, there is hardly more to congratulate you on. When you look past the hype, the image, and the marketing, there stands a man: naked in experience, socialist in philosophy, and yet very talented and self-assured. My fear is that minorities may have voted for someone who looks more like them and will help illegals get drivers licenses with less regard to the philosophy that has made this country great. In short, perhaps they settled too early for a familiar face and forgot to look deeper.
My hope is that he is more capable of making good decisions than his records suggest and that he is far less socialist and sketchy than his words and his associations have indicated. I pray that he has guidance from wise and strong willed leaders and that he makes decisions that are better for America than they are for his career. At present, there is more evidence to the contrary, from the church he attended to the way this campaign was financed and the methods he used to enter the Senate in the first place. I suggest to you now that these days are days to pay attention. As Thomas Sowell said, "The Roman Empire did decline and fall..." No one believes America can fall, and that is where our failure is likely to be born. Symbolically and functionally, this is a tremendously important day in history. The Obama campaign chanted "Change" until they were blue in the face (and the polls). Make sure that change is a positive one and not a step down the slippery slope of a culture that is increasingly less responsible for its actions and increasingly socialistic.
Remember what Thomas Jefferson said: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
A few thoughts to leave you with whether you are a big Obama fan or not so much:
1. It took a Jimmy Carter before we got a Ronald Reagan. [ht Chris]
secondly, and more importantly...
2. Regardless of what happens here, we are members of a much higher kingdom anyway.
finally,
3. an article I found interesting Article: A Blank Slate, by historian, Victor Davis Hanson.
My hope is that he is more capable of making good decisions than his records suggest and that he is far less socialist and sketchy than his words and his associations have indicated. I pray that he has guidance from wise and strong willed leaders and that he makes decisions that are better for America than they are for his career. At present, there is more evidence to the contrary, from the church he attended to the way this campaign was financed and the methods he used to enter the Senate in the first place. I suggest to you now that these days are days to pay attention. As Thomas Sowell said, "The Roman Empire did decline and fall..." No one believes America can fall, and that is where our failure is likely to be born. Symbolically and functionally, this is a tremendously important day in history. The Obama campaign chanted "Change" until they were blue in the face (and the polls). Make sure that change is a positive one and not a step down the slippery slope of a culture that is increasingly less responsible for its actions and increasingly socialistic.
Remember what Thomas Jefferson said: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
A few thoughts to leave you with whether you are a big Obama fan or not so much:
1. It took a Jimmy Carter before we got a Ronald Reagan. [ht Chris]
secondly, and more importantly...
2. Regardless of what happens here, we are members of a much higher kingdom anyway.
finally,
3. an article I found interesting Article: A Blank Slate, by historian, Victor Davis Hanson.
Monday, November 03, 2008
The Elephant Baby!
You go Trig! I dig the elephant costume your wore for Halloween. You can tell all the so called "progressives" (like those at the Wonkette blog) to just keep dressing themselves up like asses. They seem to embrace a culture where the vast majority would have had you killed.The Elephant in the Room
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Slow Boil
Interesting video which appears to be from the early 80's whose content, however, seems eerily contemporary.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Liberal: Helpful or Helpless?
A society dependent on its government for sustenance is weaker than one that is more self-reliant. As Fred Thompson once said, "A government that is big enough to do everything for us is powerful enough to do anything to us." As someone else wiser than I once said (in Proverbs 27:7): "He who is full loathes honey, but to the hungry, even what is bitter tastes sweet." I think people of the more liberal persuasion are willing to "help" the poor by giving them the bitter scraps, and the suffering love them for it. There is no question that we should help those less fortunate. But does a welfare state really help like we are led to believe, or does it simply string society along?
Good article by my main man, Thomas Sowell called Perfect Storm. I appreciate the part where he says: "Higher taxes to 'spread the wealth around,' as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives."
You actually have to do stuff other than take from wealthy people and dole it out to failing institutions and programs. Supporting failing systems and protecting unions that are failing to compete doesn't raise the standard of living. Helping people is what actually helps people.
When you tax the product of a person's labor too much, you remove incentive for them to produce for others, hire new workers, and even pay more taxes via a higher income. I think people who really care about others are easily suckered into thinking that the government should go Robin Hood. But I would argue that when we cast our votes for the government to take all the people's problems away, we are merely attempting to diffuse responsibility away from ourselves and onto our neighbor. Obama would like to diffuse responsibility such that everyone is responsible for everyone else which will translate into no one being responsible for anything. Many Obama (ie liberal mindset) supporters think they won't have to pay their contractual obligations anymore and won't have to be responsible for their decisions like making babies, getting loans, failing in school. The diffusion of responsibility will carry them and catch them when they fall thus removing risk of failure and incentive to improve.
See this speech by Huey Long from 1934. It's a good summary of the mindset I'm talking about, and it almost makes logical sense except for one assumption he makes which crumbles the argument. He assumes the world is zero-sum. In other words, that it can only grow to a predetermined size and that the piece of the pie that you get decreases the availability of pie for everyone else. He says that in order for you to have something, someone else must not have it. This is simply a childish, over simplistic, and unrealistic view of the economy and of free markets. We can go on about that in more detail later if you wish.
You know...this is a bit of an aside, but people speak now as if the government is some untouchable entity that runs the world for us, and there's nothing you can do about it. That too, is imply untrue. The government is YOU. It represents YOU. It works for and exists for YOU. And it does what YOU tell it to. That's why we are not still in Great Britain taking orders from a new King George (although we may soon have a new King George known as King Husein). So remember to tell that government what you want and what you expect from it with your vote and your voice. And don't make the mistake of thinking your representative government is your mother or father or your boss. I believe that we do have a responsibility to obey the law, but it is important to remember the purpose of law. That purpose is to protect you, not impose limitations on you or infringe upon your rights with the preferred rights of someone else that the government suddenly prefers to "protect".
Good article by my main man, Thomas Sowell called Perfect Storm. I appreciate the part where he says: "Higher taxes to 'spread the wealth around,' as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives."
You actually have to do stuff other than take from wealthy people and dole it out to failing institutions and programs. Supporting failing systems and protecting unions that are failing to compete doesn't raise the standard of living. Helping people is what actually helps people.
When you tax the product of a person's labor too much, you remove incentive for them to produce for others, hire new workers, and even pay more taxes via a higher income. I think people who really care about others are easily suckered into thinking that the government should go Robin Hood. But I would argue that when we cast our votes for the government to take all the people's problems away, we are merely attempting to diffuse responsibility away from ourselves and onto our neighbor. Obama would like to diffuse responsibility such that everyone is responsible for everyone else which will translate into no one being responsible for anything. Many Obama (ie liberal mindset) supporters think they won't have to pay their contractual obligations anymore and won't have to be responsible for their decisions like making babies, getting loans, failing in school. The diffusion of responsibility will carry them and catch them when they fall thus removing risk of failure and incentive to improve.
See this speech by Huey Long from 1934. It's a good summary of the mindset I'm talking about, and it almost makes logical sense except for one assumption he makes which crumbles the argument. He assumes the world is zero-sum. In other words, that it can only grow to a predetermined size and that the piece of the pie that you get decreases the availability of pie for everyone else. He says that in order for you to have something, someone else must not have it. This is simply a childish, over simplistic, and unrealistic view of the economy and of free markets. We can go on about that in more detail later if you wish.
You know...this is a bit of an aside, but people speak now as if the government is some untouchable entity that runs the world for us, and there's nothing you can do about it. That too, is imply untrue. The government is YOU. It represents YOU. It works for and exists for YOU. And it does what YOU tell it to. That's why we are not still in Great Britain taking orders from a new King George (although we may soon have a new King George known as King Husein). So remember to tell that government what you want and what you expect from it with your vote and your voice. And don't make the mistake of thinking your representative government is your mother or father or your boss. I believe that we do have a responsibility to obey the law, but it is important to remember the purpose of law. That purpose is to protect you, not impose limitations on you or infringe upon your rights with the preferred rights of someone else that the government suddenly prefers to "protect".
Friday, October 24, 2008
War! What is it Good For?
We would probably all agree that war is not a fun concept. Preventing it should be a priority. Despite that, we are still bombarded by messages that America is a war mongering imperialist country that should feel guilty for its sins. There may be something to that sometimes, but I pray this isn't the case, and that we are more or less misunderstood by those who would destroy our way of life. But there are even those among us that would seem to be on the side of our enemies.
Who doesn't love a good comedian? Here's one. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the preacher at Obama's church, (you know the guy who thinks "go$d@mn America' is in the Bible). His biggest joke was on Obama. He was somehow able to go off on his racist, anti-American performances for years without Obama noticing. You'd think after 20 years in the church, having Wright baptize his kids and marry he and his wife, that Barrack Obama would have noticed something, but maybe all the whooping and hollering from the audience was too distracting. Wright once said, "Fighting for freedom is like raping for virginity!" Stop and think about that. It almost makes sense. It's a witty quip that kind of seems to follow a logical pattern of analogy. But that's the problem with liberal thought. It usually almost makes sense. I stress the word, "almost". When you keep thinking, you'll hopefully realize that fighting is not like rape. Fighting often involves defense or even rescue; it is sometimes a necessity of survival, even in the animal kingdom. Rape is never virtuous under any circumstance. It is never required. You can watch the reverend speaking about that here (along with some other "funny" things):
Also, you may remember Yoko Ono being given an opportunity to speak at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Italy. You can watch that here (it's about 5 1/2 minutes into the video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDxlEVG_huw
I wish you could simply visualize peace and that the message would simply spread through the minds of every human being. And there's probably something to that to some degree for what starts in the mind is often carried out in action. I remember when I saw her on tv, I couldn't help but think, "You know Yoko... You seem real sweet and all that. But what about the guys we've got over in Iraq? If they think 'peace' does it keep them from getting their heads cut off by violent extremists?" "We shouldn't be there," she might say, "it has only stirred up more hate."
A problem that remains unseen and therefore out of mind is a problem still. With time, termites, though unseen and unheard, will devour the house around you. Those guys are out there, and they mean business. We have a couple of large blank slots in the sky in New York to prove it. Whether or not everything regarding the current war is perfect or not, I thank the Lord there are men and women willing to do something about it when our nation is attacked.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, everyone loves peace, and everyone wants to do more than just imagine peace. They want to live it. But sometimes it comes at a very high cost. And what is really disconcerting is to see a group of code-pink people, acting like hoodlums, going on about how Condi Rice is a murderer when it's the military that has probably sustained that person's existence longer than he/she even knows. You know what's great about our country though? Those people have every right to go out and display what they think, and I support their right to do it.
To summarize: war bad, freedom good. But can you always choose just one?
Who doesn't love a good comedian? Here's one. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the preacher at Obama's church, (you know the guy who thinks "go$d@mn America' is in the Bible). His biggest joke was on Obama. He was somehow able to go off on his racist, anti-American performances for years without Obama noticing. You'd think after 20 years in the church, having Wright baptize his kids and marry he and his wife, that Barrack Obama would have noticed something, but maybe all the whooping and hollering from the audience was too distracting. Wright once said, "Fighting for freedom is like raping for virginity!" Stop and think about that. It almost makes sense. It's a witty quip that kind of seems to follow a logical pattern of analogy. But that's the problem with liberal thought. It usually almost makes sense. I stress the word, "almost". When you keep thinking, you'll hopefully realize that fighting is not like rape. Fighting often involves defense or even rescue; it is sometimes a necessity of survival, even in the animal kingdom. Rape is never virtuous under any circumstance. It is never required. You can watch the reverend speaking about that here (along with some other "funny" things):
Link: 
Also, you may remember Yoko Ono being given an opportunity to speak at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Italy. You can watch that here (it's about 5 1/2 minutes into the video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDxlEVG_huw
I wish you could simply visualize peace and that the message would simply spread through the minds of every human being. And there's probably something to that to some degree for what starts in the mind is often carried out in action. I remember when I saw her on tv, I couldn't help but think, "You know Yoko... You seem real sweet and all that. But what about the guys we've got over in Iraq? If they think 'peace' does it keep them from getting their heads cut off by violent extremists?" "We shouldn't be there," she might say, "it has only stirred up more hate."
A problem that remains unseen and therefore out of mind is a problem still. With time, termites, though unseen and unheard, will devour the house around you. Those guys are out there, and they mean business. We have a couple of large blank slots in the sky in New York to prove it. Whether or not everything regarding the current war is perfect or not, I thank the Lord there are men and women willing to do something about it when our nation is attacked.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, everyone loves peace, and everyone wants to do more than just imagine peace. They want to live it. But sometimes it comes at a very high cost. And what is really disconcerting is to see a group of code-pink people, acting like hoodlums, going on about how Condi Rice is a murderer when it's the military that has probably sustained that person's existence longer than he/she even knows. You know what's great about our country though? Those people have every right to go out and display what they think, and I support their right to do it.
To summarize: war bad, freedom good. But can you always choose just one?
The Mindset of a Thoroughly Modern America
A politician said it best when he recently told a crowd that he would teach his two daughters morals, but if they made a mistake, he didn't want them to be "punished with a baby". That politician was the same one that voted several times against a bill (known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act) in his state which protect babies who survived abortions, stating that it would put undue stress on the mother and negate her original decision to abort the child. No statement so eloquently sums up the liberal mindset that there is no such thing as personal responsibility; consequences are simply unfair. It would seem that the only people who deserve consequences are those that make too much money (whatever that means). In the real world, when people make mistakes; when we take drugs, have sex with strangers, neglect our finances, lose money, gain money, steal, fight when we shouldn't, neglect to fight when we should, neglect to ask questions, etc., there are consequences.
One last thing on abortion, and then I'm done with that topic for now. I believe in forgiveness and grace for those that have undergone abortion. I think that if you have, you were fooled into thinking that it was okay because you were afraid. The modern woman and man is easily suckered into believing her/his immediate desires are more important than her/his responsibilities. There is the belief that a decision to "hide" or "abort" something really does make it go away. But either decision results in consequence whether you choose to believe it or not. Someone who has undergone abortion has gone through a tragic experience and probably will at some point, begin to experience a sense of loss and guilt. If a friend of mine were to have done this, I would still care for her as I always had. My friends know that they can trust me with their secrets, and they know that if they want to know what I think, they have but to ask. All I can do is try to be objective and loving, yet remain honest. I will not deny that I think abortion is an extreme act of selfishness and is wrong (admittedly no one is without selfishness or sin). But this particular thing is swept under the ambiguous rug of "privacy" and "choice".
The whole idea gets wrapped up in a cocoon of fairness and becomes taboo. It gets translated in this way: "Surely in not supporting abortion, you are a far right winged conservative crazy person that wants to take away the rights of women." Supporters of abortion always throw out extremes to support their cause. They have to because they also know in their hearts and minds that it's wrong. But it conflicts with their desire to remove the responsibility factor. So they have to come up with a solution which will fill in the logic gap. An uncommon example is just the thing. What about the 12 year old that gets pregnant from rape? What about the woman that will die if she has the baby? Out of all the abortions that happen annually (and here's a link to Census Bureau data that counts them: Census), how many of those extreme situations do you think really apply to those millions upon millions? Keep in mind that the census bureau data is given in 1,000's. Do you know how many people died in WWII including the Holocaust? Compare those figures with abortions since 1980 real quick. It's unimaginable. Have you ever read Roe v. Wade? Here it is if you want to.
Roe v. Wade
Do you know what its purpose was? No one was in danger of death or rape except the child. It is a gruesome process that has been attempted to be validated by extreme situations yet actually performed under normal ones.
Now back to my main point. Most people, by an early age, recognize the concept of cause and effect. It seems that the liberal mindset aims to ignore the cause or simply provide a patch to cure or prevent the effect. What seems to happen, especially when big government gets involved, is a new regulation is imposed that is supposedly going to protect people from any negative consequences. The reality is, however, that this typically introduces new complications and loopholes and fails to protect in the way in which it was intended. It simply adds complexity to the law while failing to meet its goal. Think Sarbanes-Oxley Act; a reactive response to Enron and others. Did it prevent the failure of future big companies or create more transparency in the financial world? Considering today's economic "crisis" It would appear that it did not. Yet it did add additional burdens and costs to businesses which must offset those costs by increasing prices or cutting back costs somehow.
What I see people falling for lately is the trap of being promised a false freedom: freedom of choice, freedom from poverty, freedom from their mortgages, freedom from consequences, and freedom from responsibility. And they seem to love it. Count the divorces, suicides, and overdoses in Hollywood. They seem far more frequent and repetitive than average. You have but to wait a few years for a young star or starlet (probably once on Disney) to grow up a little and get on the news for DUI or an overdose. For all of their great "causes" and foundations, the Hollywood culture appears to be one of the most backward, self-centered, and delusional that there is. They sermonize from films and the podiums of social events about how America is the cause of so much atrocity while, ironically, their own lives are a mess. Is it any wonder that Hollywood and the country's media overwhelmingly supports a candidate that doesn't seem to believe in individual responsibility yet preaches it so well?
One last thing on abortion, and then I'm done with that topic for now. I believe in forgiveness and grace for those that have undergone abortion. I think that if you have, you were fooled into thinking that it was okay because you were afraid. The modern woman and man is easily suckered into believing her/his immediate desires are more important than her/his responsibilities. There is the belief that a decision to "hide" or "abort" something really does make it go away. But either decision results in consequence whether you choose to believe it or not. Someone who has undergone abortion has gone through a tragic experience and probably will at some point, begin to experience a sense of loss and guilt. If a friend of mine were to have done this, I would still care for her as I always had. My friends know that they can trust me with their secrets, and they know that if they want to know what I think, they have but to ask. All I can do is try to be objective and loving, yet remain honest. I will not deny that I think abortion is an extreme act of selfishness and is wrong (admittedly no one is without selfishness or sin). But this particular thing is swept under the ambiguous rug of "privacy" and "choice".
The whole idea gets wrapped up in a cocoon of fairness and becomes taboo. It gets translated in this way: "Surely in not supporting abortion, you are a far right winged conservative crazy person that wants to take away the rights of women." Supporters of abortion always throw out extremes to support their cause. They have to because they also know in their hearts and minds that it's wrong. But it conflicts with their desire to remove the responsibility factor. So they have to come up with a solution which will fill in the logic gap. An uncommon example is just the thing. What about the 12 year old that gets pregnant from rape? What about the woman that will die if she has the baby? Out of all the abortions that happen annually (and here's a link to Census Bureau data that counts them: Census), how many of those extreme situations do you think really apply to those millions upon millions? Keep in mind that the census bureau data is given in 1,000's. Do you know how many people died in WWII including the Holocaust? Compare those figures with abortions since 1980 real quick. It's unimaginable. Have you ever read Roe v. Wade? Here it is if you want to.
Roe v. Wade
Do you know what its purpose was? No one was in danger of death or rape except the child. It is a gruesome process that has been attempted to be validated by extreme situations yet actually performed under normal ones.
Now back to my main point. Most people, by an early age, recognize the concept of cause and effect. It seems that the liberal mindset aims to ignore the cause or simply provide a patch to cure or prevent the effect. What seems to happen, especially when big government gets involved, is a new regulation is imposed that is supposedly going to protect people from any negative consequences. The reality is, however, that this typically introduces new complications and loopholes and fails to protect in the way in which it was intended. It simply adds complexity to the law while failing to meet its goal. Think Sarbanes-Oxley Act; a reactive response to Enron and others. Did it prevent the failure of future big companies or create more transparency in the financial world? Considering today's economic "crisis" It would appear that it did not. Yet it did add additional burdens and costs to businesses which must offset those costs by increasing prices or cutting back costs somehow.
What I see people falling for lately is the trap of being promised a false freedom: freedom of choice, freedom from poverty, freedom from their mortgages, freedom from consequences, and freedom from responsibility. And they seem to love it. Count the divorces, suicides, and overdoses in Hollywood. They seem far more frequent and repetitive than average. You have but to wait a few years for a young star or starlet (probably once on Disney) to grow up a little and get on the news for DUI or an overdose. For all of their great "causes" and foundations, the Hollywood culture appears to be one of the most backward, self-centered, and delusional that there is. They sermonize from films and the podiums of social events about how America is the cause of so much atrocity while, ironically, their own lives are a mess. Is it any wonder that Hollywood and the country's media overwhelmingly supports a candidate that doesn't seem to believe in individual responsibility yet preaches it so well?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)