http://www.townhall.com/columnists/SteveForbes/2007/03/30/rudys_the_one
Steve Forbes, former Presidential candidate, offers his take on why Rudy Guiliani should be the GOP's nomination in 2008.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
85% of Iraq "safe for normal living"...don't tell the Democrats
Iraq as safe as Detroit and areas of Chicago...I think that's good?
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Iran Refuses to shut down Nuclear Program....Again
Say what you will about the madmen in Iran, but at least they are consistent in their insanity. How many times will the United Nations (and Bush) let these guys spit in our collective faces by refusing to stop enriching Uranium?
Think I'm over-reacting? Read on and see for yourself.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Religious Litmus Test:
Good or Bad?
The first Congressman in our nation’s history to admit to being an atheist was “outed” recently. Pete Stark (D-CA) represents a predominantly liberal district near San Francisco, and responded in a survey given by the Secular Coalition of America that he was a Unitarian (believes in no higher power or set moral standard). This made Representative Stark the highest-ranking government official to ever publicly identify himself as someone who denies the existence of a “higher power”.
Much has been written since this story broke (including a tremendous commentary by Dr. Albert Mohler linked below) by the religious and secular “sides” in America’s continual Culture War. As could be expected, major newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times have come out in support of the “bravery” Mr. Stark exhibited by taking a stance that, according to editorialists in each of those papers, many more elected officials (in the Democratic brood) would take if they weren’t afraid of the political “blow-back” (i.e. not being elected again).
Bravery is now equated with denying God’s existence? How so? Belittling religious faith in America takes as much courage as does bashing Anna Nicole Smith. Men like Galileo were brave; he faced exile or death from religious bigots for suggesting that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe. People who refused to renounce their religious beliefs during the Spanish Inquisition were brave. Pete Stark took about as big a risk as I do when I get steak instead of chicken in my Chipotle burrito. I was going to be fine either way.
Let’s deal with reality for a moment here. Every single legitimate poll taken on the religious inclinations and percentages of American who believe in God show that well over 80% in this country consider themselves “religious”; 90% believe in God. This includes Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and even whatever religion Madonna happens to be claiming allegiance too at the moment. This is a crushing majority of Americans who acknowledge, in some shape or form, a higher power.
Our government is, and must remain, secular. No Litmus Test for religious belief is ever to be administered as a prerequisite for public service. Separation of Church and State was established because our Founding Fathers came from countries, like England, where “Caesar” ran the government, and was also head of the church. This was a gross abuse of power that the Framers knew must be avoided at all costs. The Bible teaches Man is to give to “Caesar what is Caesar’s, and God what is God’s’”. Jesus established the doctrine of separation of Church and State two thousand years before Jefferson ever penned the now famous (and frequently misapplied) concept to a friend in a personal letter.
Now, as a Christian myself, who happens to be a voting American, my decision for whom I shall vote for is my own business. Voluntary participation in the political system we’ve been gifted with is just that: voluntary. No one forces men and women to run for public office. No one forces me to vote for him or her. Someone decides to run, and I decide whether I will lend control of my country to him or her for 2, 4, or 6 years. One of my biggest pet peeves with the secular-progressive Left here in America is that they insist on depicting the vast majority of Americans as so dumb and incapable of making a thoughtful decision when it comes election time that the only reason we vote for a candidate is because of flashy commercials and appearances on Letterman.
In an open, voluntary, free society, you will always have those who impose “litmus tests” on potential candidates based on silly things like aesthetically unappealing physical characteristics they find annoying or the amount of airtime he or she gets on Oprah. The responsibility to be an informed voter cannot be any different then the demand to participate in the voting process at all; it must remain voluntary. I feel sorry for people who care so little about who will govern them that they know nothing more about a candidate than the color of their hair or how bright his or her smile may be.
I happen to believe that most voting Americans do care about what candidates actually stand for. With that in mind, and taking into account the fact that 80-90% of Americans believe in a higher power, where do liberal newspaper editors and journalists get off insinuating that if someone were to refrain from voting for a candidate who publicly decries the most basic, personal, important belief (in God) humans can hold, they are in any way bigoted and/or close-minded? Are you kidding me? That is like asking someone to vote for a “Class” President who goes to a different school and thinks the very foundational tenants of your institution are rubbish. It ain’t happening.
Thomas Jefferson, among countless other Founding Fathers, said that the only way our specific brand of democracy would work is if the American people collectively looked to God, not government, as the standard of morality. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” means that Man should be able to recognize on their own the eternal truth that God grants Mankind with life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness. No Litmus Test would be required to serve as a public official, but this obviously was meant to prevent one group of religious people from dominating control over the others. It was assumed, in the document that became the capstone for our nation, that all Men believed in God. What they did with that truth from there was up to them.
In no way would I ever advocate the advent of a theocratic government where atheists and agnostics were banned from public service. That is what anti-religious newspaper editorialists and columnists want us to think about ourselves. They feel guilt or shame for denying any and all existence of a higher power that, deep down, they must know exists. They are afraid of confronting what realities an admission that there is a God would bring with it, so they project their own inadequacies and judgmental ideas about religious people on to the rest of us.
What could be more important than finding out what the core, determining force in someone’s life is? What other single factor contributes to the make-up of a person more than their acknowledgement and acceptance that the Declaration of Independence’s opening lines are correct? Religious people cannot separate their personal convictions from a decision on whom to vote for any more than a journalist who is a secular-humanist can avoid having his or her bias protrude from their condescending commentary in the Weekend Edition of the Los Angeles Times or San Francisco Chronicle.
If they don’t have to forfeit their God-less, gloomy view of man’s existence when “reporting” current news, I will happily continue to have my life guided by the common sense, good grace, and discerning, tolerant heart and mind the Good Lord saw fit to grant me with.
Can you now see more clearly why I would align myself with the Conservative Party? Not all Conservatives are Christian and not all Liberals are God-less, but the driving intellectual and ideological forces of the Liberal-Democratic Party are found in the writings and public comments of self-described Leftists in universities, newspapers, networks, and Congress such as those I’ve discussed today. A palpable disdain for religious Americans dominates the critique the Left has for the Right.
I won’t demand newspapers and networks fire all atheists, Liberals, and Democrats, if they won’t insist that 90% of Americans suspend their God-given reason and judgment when they step behind the voting curtain each November. All are welcome to enjoy the freedom this Judeo-Christian offers to refrain from participating in the religious life so many of us enjoy.
Just don’t cry “foul” when the only place you can elected is in the Socialist district of “Mini-Europe” (San Francisco).
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php “An Army of One”
The first Congressman in our nation’s history to admit to being an atheist was “outed” recently. Pete Stark (D-CA) represents a predominantly liberal district near San Francisco, and responded in a survey given by the Secular Coalition of America that he was a Unitarian (believes in no higher power or set moral standard). This made Representative Stark the highest-ranking government official to ever publicly identify himself as someone who denies the existence of a “higher power”.
Much has been written since this story broke (including a tremendous commentary by Dr. Albert Mohler linked below) by the religious and secular “sides” in America’s continual Culture War. As could be expected, major newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times have come out in support of the “bravery” Mr. Stark exhibited by taking a stance that, according to editorialists in each of those papers, many more elected officials (in the Democratic brood) would take if they weren’t afraid of the political “blow-back” (i.e. not being elected again).
Bravery is now equated with denying God’s existence? How so? Belittling religious faith in America takes as much courage as does bashing Anna Nicole Smith. Men like Galileo were brave; he faced exile or death from religious bigots for suggesting that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe. People who refused to renounce their religious beliefs during the Spanish Inquisition were brave. Pete Stark took about as big a risk as I do when I get steak instead of chicken in my Chipotle burrito. I was going to be fine either way.
Let’s deal with reality for a moment here. Every single legitimate poll taken on the religious inclinations and percentages of American who believe in God show that well over 80% in this country consider themselves “religious”; 90% believe in God. This includes Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and even whatever religion Madonna happens to be claiming allegiance too at the moment. This is a crushing majority of Americans who acknowledge, in some shape or form, a higher power.
Our government is, and must remain, secular. No Litmus Test for religious belief is ever to be administered as a prerequisite for public service. Separation of Church and State was established because our Founding Fathers came from countries, like England, where “Caesar” ran the government, and was also head of the church. This was a gross abuse of power that the Framers knew must be avoided at all costs. The Bible teaches Man is to give to “Caesar what is Caesar’s, and God what is God’s’”. Jesus established the doctrine of separation of Church and State two thousand years before Jefferson ever penned the now famous (and frequently misapplied) concept to a friend in a personal letter.
Now, as a Christian myself, who happens to be a voting American, my decision for whom I shall vote for is my own business. Voluntary participation in the political system we’ve been gifted with is just that: voluntary. No one forces men and women to run for public office. No one forces me to vote for him or her. Someone decides to run, and I decide whether I will lend control of my country to him or her for 2, 4, or 6 years. One of my biggest pet peeves with the secular-progressive Left here in America is that they insist on depicting the vast majority of Americans as so dumb and incapable of making a thoughtful decision when it comes election time that the only reason we vote for a candidate is because of flashy commercials and appearances on Letterman.
In an open, voluntary, free society, you will always have those who impose “litmus tests” on potential candidates based on silly things like aesthetically unappealing physical characteristics they find annoying or the amount of airtime he or she gets on Oprah. The responsibility to be an informed voter cannot be any different then the demand to participate in the voting process at all; it must remain voluntary. I feel sorry for people who care so little about who will govern them that they know nothing more about a candidate than the color of their hair or how bright his or her smile may be.
I happen to believe that most voting Americans do care about what candidates actually stand for. With that in mind, and taking into account the fact that 80-90% of Americans believe in a higher power, where do liberal newspaper editors and journalists get off insinuating that if someone were to refrain from voting for a candidate who publicly decries the most basic, personal, important belief (in God) humans can hold, they are in any way bigoted and/or close-minded? Are you kidding me? That is like asking someone to vote for a “Class” President who goes to a different school and thinks the very foundational tenants of your institution are rubbish. It ain’t happening.
Thomas Jefferson, among countless other Founding Fathers, said that the only way our specific brand of democracy would work is if the American people collectively looked to God, not government, as the standard of morality. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” means that Man should be able to recognize on their own the eternal truth that God grants Mankind with life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness. No Litmus Test would be required to serve as a public official, but this obviously was meant to prevent one group of religious people from dominating control over the others. It was assumed, in the document that became the capstone for our nation, that all Men believed in God. What they did with that truth from there was up to them.
In no way would I ever advocate the advent of a theocratic government where atheists and agnostics were banned from public service. That is what anti-religious newspaper editorialists and columnists want us to think about ourselves. They feel guilt or shame for denying any and all existence of a higher power that, deep down, they must know exists. They are afraid of confronting what realities an admission that there is a God would bring with it, so they project their own inadequacies and judgmental ideas about religious people on to the rest of us.
What could be more important than finding out what the core, determining force in someone’s life is? What other single factor contributes to the make-up of a person more than their acknowledgement and acceptance that the Declaration of Independence’s opening lines are correct? Religious people cannot separate their personal convictions from a decision on whom to vote for any more than a journalist who is a secular-humanist can avoid having his or her bias protrude from their condescending commentary in the Weekend Edition of the Los Angeles Times or San Francisco Chronicle.
If they don’t have to forfeit their God-less, gloomy view of man’s existence when “reporting” current news, I will happily continue to have my life guided by the common sense, good grace, and discerning, tolerant heart and mind the Good Lord saw fit to grant me with.
Can you now see more clearly why I would align myself with the Conservative Party? Not all Conservatives are Christian and not all Liberals are God-less, but the driving intellectual and ideological forces of the Liberal-Democratic Party are found in the writings and public comments of self-described Leftists in universities, newspapers, networks, and Congress such as those I’ve discussed today. A palpable disdain for religious Americans dominates the critique the Left has for the Right.
I won’t demand newspapers and networks fire all atheists, Liberals, and Democrats, if they won’t insist that 90% of Americans suspend their God-given reason and judgment when they step behind the voting curtain each November. All are welcome to enjoy the freedom this Judeo-Christian offers to refrain from participating in the religious life so many of us enjoy.
Just don’t cry “foul” when the only place you can elected is in the Socialist district of “Mini-Europe” (San Francisco).
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php “An Army of One”
I Feel Like a Stranger in a Strange Land Sometimes
First they started giving out "Participation" awards on Field Day in grade school. Then they had to ban dodge-ball because it singled out the weaker students. But today....well today they've gone too far. Scoreboards are now being erased when one team gets too far ahead of another in Little League baseball games!!!
The madness MUST stop! Is it any wonder that we've created a generation of kids and students that show no respect to their teachers and elders, are more interested in video games (where someone actually wins) than athletics (which actually teach you how to deal with winning and losing as an individual and team), and think physical activity is the strain their fingers feel from "texting" too much?
Read Mr. Prager's wonderful asessment of the problem.
Excerpts from a Legend
Below are excerpts from the open letter Ronald Reagan wrote to the American people on November 5th, 1994, to announce that he in fact had Alzheimer's. It was a sad day for his family, friends, and the adoring, grateful, American public. The courageous leader who was known as the "Great Communicator", and for his uncanny ability to memorize lines (as an actor) and statistics (as Governor of California and President of the United States), would soon be reduced to a confused, frustrated "shell" of a man. He had even spoke on several occasions while in office on the horrors of the tragic disease. Now, it was his time to face one of the most difficult challenges life can offer.
Hear in his words the sound of optimism, the voice of confident faith in the hereafter, and the promise of a better day he was sure awaited us all.
My fellow Americans,
I have recently been told that I am one of the millions of Americans who will be afflicted with Alzheimer's disease...At the moment, I feel just fine. I intend to live the remainder of the years God gives me on this earth doing the things I have always done. I will continue to share life's journey with my beloved Nancy and my family. I plan to enjoy the great outdoors and stay in touch with my friends and supporters.
Unfortunately, as Alzheimer's disease progresses, the family often bears a heavy burden. I only wish there was some way I could spare Nancy from this painful experience. When the time comes, I am confident that with your help she will face it with faith and courage.
In closing, let me thank you, the American people, for giving me the great honor of allowing me to serve as your president. When the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be, I will leave the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future.
I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead. Thank you, my friends.
Sincerely,
Friday, March 16, 2007
Freedom of Speech...Unless You're a General
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ChuckColson/2007/03/16/the_crime_of_conviction_general_pace_and_morality
General Pace recently commented to the Chicago Tribune on some of his personal moral convictions regarding marriage, homosexuality, and conduct the military should condone. As is the case with any public figure who voices his or her conservative, traditional view on anything, he was attacked on all fronts from the Liberal press. I guess "all animals are equal; some are more equal than others" (Animal Farm).
Mr. Colson puts a little perspective on it for us.
General Pace recently commented to the Chicago Tribune on some of his personal moral convictions regarding marriage, homosexuality, and conduct the military should condone. As is the case with any public figure who voices his or her conservative, traditional view on anything, he was attacked on all fronts from the Liberal press. I guess "all animals are equal; some are more equal than others" (Animal Farm).
Mr. Colson puts a little perspective on it for us.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Conservatism 101
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_core_of_conservatism_distinctions_and_consequences&ns=MichaelMedved&dt=03/14/2007&page=1
If you ever wondered how one could best explain Conservatism...well, here you go!
If you ever wondered how one could best explain Conservatism...well, here you go!
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The Palestinian "Kid" Problem
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/world/middleeast/12intifada.html?pagewanted=1&n=Top%2fNews%2fWorld%2fCountries%20and%20Territories%2fIsrael&_r=2
A sad account of the Palestinian youths who've known nothing but war and death their entire life. If only their leaders could look past their intense hatred for Israel and work for a legitimate two-state solution...
A sad account of the Palestinian youths who've known nothing but war and death their entire life. If only their leaders could look past their intense hatred for Israel and work for a legitimate two-state solution...
Monday, March 12, 2007
How Much Can One Heart Bleed?
Milton Friedman (the “Einstein of Economics”) believed that the story of America is a miraculous one, built by the dual freedoms found in both our economic and political ideals. Combining the core doctrines found in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Thomas Jefferson’s “Declaration of Independence” America has distinguished itself as the most free, most successful, and most powerful nation in history.
The common thread between Smith and Jefferson was the realization that control in the hands of the few leads to the subjugation of many. This was true in both politics and economics. Voluntary participation is the pre-requisite for both, and leads to success. Our country was founded to provide a small federal government, which protects and regulates the individual states collective interests. In truth, neither party has done a stellar job in this regard as of late, but one party actively seeks expansion at every turn, and the other does not.
When Americans keep more of their money (concentration of capital) in the form of lower taxes, they are able to start/grow businesses (new jobs), invest in new ideas (American ingenuity that got us ahead in the first place), and help those in need (America has the most generous private sector as exhibited during the Tsunami Relief efforts.)
The Left’s ideal plan for economic prosperity is to require that we (taxpayers) give more to the government (run by Democrats) and in return, they will grace us with their infinite wisdom by divvying up John’s money to give it to Bill and Steve. History proves that this eventually leads to the government deciding who works where, and for what price (Communism). You can’t control one aspect of the free market without disrupting the entire thing.
The Democrats know this, and bank on the fact that you don’t. They are posing the issue as if it were possible to only “redistribute” the profits of a free market system without removing the proverbial rug from under the entire process that created the wealth in the first place. The reason we enjoy our financial successes as a nation is rooted firmly in the idea that “competition”, “incentive”, and “willing participation” require the most minimal of control from any governing body.
China is the classic example of what is possible when government relinquishes control over the market. The Communists have ruled every facet of life in that nation for decades. Their recent economic boom is in direct proportion to the amount of freedom they’ve given businesses. While communism does breed corruption, which makes the problem worse, the real source of the problem is lack of productivity.
The American worker is statistically the most productive worker in the world (not to be confused with hardest working). Removing, or even dulling, the reward of hard work and achievement (i.e. higher taxes), removes the incentive to work harder and achieve more. Multiply that times a nation of 300 M (or 1.1 B in the case of China), and you effectively curb economic growth.
Ronald Reagan drastically lowered taxes in the first year of his Presidency (1980) and by the time he left, had doubled the size of our economy and restored Americans faith in the blessed nation they had feared was lost to failed Liberal policies of a supposed “Great Society”. When Reagan (and more recently, Bush) initially offered relief to the tax-paying public, Democrats howled and promised Americans that the “dream was dead” because Republican Presidents had given tax breaks to their “rich business buddies”. In reality (something Liberals hate to discuss) revenues collected by the government actually increased (more for them to waste in D.C.). So why do the Democrats hate tax-cuts so much? The answer is not pretty in either of its two forms.
On one hand, if they are truly interested in helping the needy and “leveling the playing field”, wouldn’t they want the higher tax revenues from conservative fiscal policy which would allow them (in theory) to give more out? The alternative is that they really do not care about economic growth as a whole (and subsequently, the “little guy” who prospers when he gets a job in a booming economy such as our current one) and are solely interested in power for the sake of power. Either way they are off the mark and thus should not be trusted with our money. This is why it is absolutely necessary to vote for candidates that promise to shrink, not bulk-up, the size and scope of governmental controls.
When the Democrats propose we raise taxes to “fix” our problems it is comparable to a prominent skinny person telling other skinny people they should not be able to exercise as much because they are making fat people jealous and bitter. Instead of encouraging the fat people, Liberals want to coddle them and make any excuse possible to get their vote. So, we end up with even more fat people because now the skinny ones are guilt-ed into thinking it is immoral for them to enjoy the fruits of their labor and/or the physical gifts God has bestowed on them. Wouldn’t it be more prudent to simply encourage the skinny ones to come along side the fat ones and teach them how to shed those pounds?
I am young, but it is ridiculous for anyone to assume that life is, or should be, fair. God gives us our place in life and we make due with what we have. Some of the richest people are the most unhappy (believe me, I’ve met them) while some of the poorest are the happiest. Much of what we are, and become, is due to what we were given. The rest is the result of our efforts and determination. Our government is in charge of maintaining the ability of Americans to pursue happiness; not guaranteeing that all will achieve it. That is between them, their family, and their God.
The principles that drove the Western expansion, the Industrial Revolution, and Jared Fogle (the Subway guy) are the same ones Democrats want to throw under the bus. It’s as if they are saying, “Even though we are wealthy and successful ourselves (thanks to the free market), we’d rather get elected, and our best plan is to not have a plan, other than guilt-ing Americans (because of our collective success) into giving us more control.”
Our livelihood and way of life is centered on the freedom to choose. But, that option of “choice” is not foolproof. Liberals are asking Americans to forfeit their potential claims to success in return for a promise (which Dem’s cannot keep) that the risk of failure will be eliminated (ask those who lived in the former Soviet Union about the “common good”). Instead, they will offer human intervention at every turn.
The question I beg you to consider is this: do you trust the government more than your trust yourself? There is a fine, yet distinct, line between Capitalism and Socialism and one party is consistently on the wrong side of it.
The common thread between Smith and Jefferson was the realization that control in the hands of the few leads to the subjugation of many. This was true in both politics and economics. Voluntary participation is the pre-requisite for both, and leads to success. Our country was founded to provide a small federal government, which protects and regulates the individual states collective interests. In truth, neither party has done a stellar job in this regard as of late, but one party actively seeks expansion at every turn, and the other does not.
When Americans keep more of their money (concentration of capital) in the form of lower taxes, they are able to start/grow businesses (new jobs), invest in new ideas (American ingenuity that got us ahead in the first place), and help those in need (America has the most generous private sector as exhibited during the Tsunami Relief efforts.)
The Left’s ideal plan for economic prosperity is to require that we (taxpayers) give more to the government (run by Democrats) and in return, they will grace us with their infinite wisdom by divvying up John’s money to give it to Bill and Steve. History proves that this eventually leads to the government deciding who works where, and for what price (Communism). You can’t control one aspect of the free market without disrupting the entire thing.
The Democrats know this, and bank on the fact that you don’t. They are posing the issue as if it were possible to only “redistribute” the profits of a free market system without removing the proverbial rug from under the entire process that created the wealth in the first place. The reason we enjoy our financial successes as a nation is rooted firmly in the idea that “competition”, “incentive”, and “willing participation” require the most minimal of control from any governing body.
China is the classic example of what is possible when government relinquishes control over the market. The Communists have ruled every facet of life in that nation for decades. Their recent economic boom is in direct proportion to the amount of freedom they’ve given businesses. While communism does breed corruption, which makes the problem worse, the real source of the problem is lack of productivity.
The American worker is statistically the most productive worker in the world (not to be confused with hardest working). Removing, or even dulling, the reward of hard work and achievement (i.e. higher taxes), removes the incentive to work harder and achieve more. Multiply that times a nation of 300 M (or 1.1 B in the case of China), and you effectively curb economic growth.
Ronald Reagan drastically lowered taxes in the first year of his Presidency (1980) and by the time he left, had doubled the size of our economy and restored Americans faith in the blessed nation they had feared was lost to failed Liberal policies of a supposed “Great Society”. When Reagan (and more recently, Bush) initially offered relief to the tax-paying public, Democrats howled and promised Americans that the “dream was dead” because Republican Presidents had given tax breaks to their “rich business buddies”. In reality (something Liberals hate to discuss) revenues collected by the government actually increased (more for them to waste in D.C.). So why do the Democrats hate tax-cuts so much? The answer is not pretty in either of its two forms.
On one hand, if they are truly interested in helping the needy and “leveling the playing field”, wouldn’t they want the higher tax revenues from conservative fiscal policy which would allow them (in theory) to give more out? The alternative is that they really do not care about economic growth as a whole (and subsequently, the “little guy” who prospers when he gets a job in a booming economy such as our current one) and are solely interested in power for the sake of power. Either way they are off the mark and thus should not be trusted with our money. This is why it is absolutely necessary to vote for candidates that promise to shrink, not bulk-up, the size and scope of governmental controls.
When the Democrats propose we raise taxes to “fix” our problems it is comparable to a prominent skinny person telling other skinny people they should not be able to exercise as much because they are making fat people jealous and bitter. Instead of encouraging the fat people, Liberals want to coddle them and make any excuse possible to get their vote. So, we end up with even more fat people because now the skinny ones are guilt-ed into thinking it is immoral for them to enjoy the fruits of their labor and/or the physical gifts God has bestowed on them. Wouldn’t it be more prudent to simply encourage the skinny ones to come along side the fat ones and teach them how to shed those pounds?
I am young, but it is ridiculous for anyone to assume that life is, or should be, fair. God gives us our place in life and we make due with what we have. Some of the richest people are the most unhappy (believe me, I’ve met them) while some of the poorest are the happiest. Much of what we are, and become, is due to what we were given. The rest is the result of our efforts and determination. Our government is in charge of maintaining the ability of Americans to pursue happiness; not guaranteeing that all will achieve it. That is between them, their family, and their God.
The principles that drove the Western expansion, the Industrial Revolution, and Jared Fogle (the Subway guy) are the same ones Democrats want to throw under the bus. It’s as if they are saying, “Even though we are wealthy and successful ourselves (thanks to the free market), we’d rather get elected, and our best plan is to not have a plan, other than guilt-ing Americans (because of our collective success) into giving us more control.”
Our livelihood and way of life is centered on the freedom to choose. But, that option of “choice” is not foolproof. Liberals are asking Americans to forfeit their potential claims to success in return for a promise (which Dem’s cannot keep) that the risk of failure will be eliminated (ask those who lived in the former Soviet Union about the “common good”). Instead, they will offer human intervention at every turn.
The question I beg you to consider is this: do you trust the government more than your trust yourself? There is a fine, yet distinct, line between Capitalism and Socialism and one party is consistently on the wrong side of it.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Mark Steyn doesn't know how to write bad columns
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/291111,CST-EDT-steyn11.article
Commentary on the ridiculousness of Political scandals and scandal-makers.
Commentary on the ridiculousness of Political scandals and scandal-makers.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
"Family Values" are now a no-no
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54587
Promoting strong, nuclear families apparently is discriminatory to those who don't have them. What's next...Skinny people discriminate against fat ones by working out in public?
Promoting strong, nuclear families apparently is discriminatory to those who don't have them. What's next...Skinny people discriminate against fat ones by working out in public?
Hillary exposed...yet again
http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2007/03/10/hillarys_experience_--ask_bill_he_doesnt_remember_itDick Morris was the Clinton's top political analyst for nearly thirty years, and few know Madame Hillary better.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Hard-pressed to find a better article on the War on Iraq
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=from_george_w_bush_to_william_tecumseh_sherman&ns=MarvinOlasky&dt=03/08/2007&page=full&comments=true#4d4291a6-0b38-4e95-b32d-9c3c71c3310c
Please read Dr. Olasky's new column on the difficult choice Commander-in-Cheif's must make when war comes to their country.
Please read Dr. Olasky's new column on the difficult choice Commander-in-Cheif's must make when war comes to their country.
5 Books You Should be Reading
For my New Year's Resolution column I encouraged myself (and you) to read more. Here are some recommendations (in no particular order) from the Big Guy (me)...
1. Free to Choose (Milton Friedman)
2. The Bible (Yahweh)
3. Culture Warrior (Bill O'Reilly)
4. The Truth About Muhammad (Robert Spencer)
5. Perfect Soldiers (Tery McDermitt)
1. Free to Choose (Milton Friedman)
2. The Bible (Yahweh)
3. Culture Warrior (Bill O'Reilly)
4. The Truth About Muhammad (Robert Spencer)
5. Perfect Soldiers (Tery McDermitt)
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
80% of the time...it works everytime
Who is setting the parameters for debate in America?
What can you say about a nation where over 80% of its journalists and academia (professors and teachers) voted for a Presidential candidate of one political party, while its military and middle class “heartland” voted in nearly the exact same numbers for the opposing one? The people charged with educating our youth and informing our public are overwhelmingly opposed to a conservative, traditionalist view of America. The question really comes down to this: what kind of country do we want to live in ten, twenty, and even fifty years from now?
Unless you are a Democrat and it is mid-term election time, no one would disagree that the fighting men and women of the Navy, Army, Marines, and Air Force are the heart and soul of this fair and decent nation. Let us not fool ourselves; they are the ones who provide our freedom, not Rudy Guiliani or Hillary Clinton. However, the views and opinions of potential Presidential candidates such as the two from New York do indeed matter for the future safety and security of us all.
The media, in unbelievably biased numbers, voted for John Kerry in 2004. Fox News is criticized for leaning to the Right, but what does that say about every single solitary other television news network? If Fox is the one place Conservatives can get a fair shake, doesn’t that mean (what everyone already knew) the rest (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CNN:Headlines, MSNBC, CNBC, etc.) are liberally biased?
Some call the battles over social/public policy a war of culture; I call it a war for the soul of America. Where are we headed? Where have we been? How much of a part should each of those play in the decision-making that goes on in Washington? We all want a free society that continues to progress in technological, philosophical, and intellectual ways, but we do not want to abandon the very principles and willingness to defend ourselves that made all we have even possible.
I believe that although Conservatism is unable to truly save our soul, Liberalism has done its best to destroy it. Then again, if you are humanistic and/or atheistic, the idea of a soul means little to you.
Darwinists (extreme position on the evolution-creation spectrum) teach us that God is unnecessary for the explanation of our existence. With enough time and suspension of reality, Darwin-followers feel qualified to answer even the deepest longings of Man’s soul and conscience as some sort of biological response or socio-psychological conditioning that can be altered with enough Ritalin or episodes of Oprah. Forget the fact that every civilization since the dawn of time has looked at the incredible majesty of the universe and its complexities (like the human mind that is capable of contemplating its own existence) and seen the fingerprints of some sort of higher power.
We’re being protected by people that support Conservative, Judeo-Christian values, yet are being taught and informed by people who are actively opposed to Traditional America’s way of life. George Bush does not want war any more than George Clooney; the difference is that one is willing to fight when the situation demands it and the other is content to foolishly undermine and criticize the very group of people willing to defend his right to do so.
Just try and wrap your mind around the firestorm that would ensue if Bush ever locked up even one of the radical professors at a school like University of Wisconsin or Columbia University who teach their malleable students that the President is: lying about terrorism, we deserve what we get from Islamic radicals for our imperialistic policies, and, in fact, it was Bush that brought down the Twin Towers in New York City that fateful day.
Our evolution as a just and tolerant society has brought about unique and unprecedented freedom and opportunity for all. It has also removed the inhibitions of selfish cowards who use the very free speech provided to them by military conquests as a battering ram to promote their own Liberal, Godless, and isolationist agenda.
Do not think me naïve. War is a vile, disgusting thing. No American wants it. But, to pretend that fighting back when attacked is morally equivalent to the actions of the attackers is imprudent and naive. What do the soldiers have to gain by enlisting (then re-enlisting) for a war that they alone must fight in? Why would they vote so overwhelmingly for the man who sent them there in the first place?
All sides in America have their own agenda; it is simply a matter of deciding which better represents your own values and views and would promote those interests.
With such a small percentage of Americans (especially sons and daughters of those in Congress) willing to fight, neither Right nor Left has the ability to claim the upper ground in the literal defense of our nation. The difference (and it is a key one) lies in the parties’ distinctly dissimilar policies and attitudes regarding the military. Only a simpleton would disingenuously say that fighting is completely worthwhile on September 12th, 2001, and by March 6th, 2007 see the War on Terror as totally unnecessary and morally wrong; especially in light of the fact that there is still so much to be done to secure our future safety.
This debate comes back to my earlier question: what kind of country do you want to live in? What kind of America will my kids live in? Actors, Professors, and Journalists are not the ones fighting, nor are willing to fight, but we’ve let them set the agenda for us all. It’s the 80% verses 20% rule.
What can you say about a nation where over 80% of its journalists and academia (professors and teachers) voted for a Presidential candidate of one political party, while its military and middle class “heartland” voted in nearly the exact same numbers for the opposing one? The people charged with educating our youth and informing our public are overwhelmingly opposed to a conservative, traditionalist view of America. The question really comes down to this: what kind of country do we want to live in ten, twenty, and even fifty years from now?
Unless you are a Democrat and it is mid-term election time, no one would disagree that the fighting men and women of the Navy, Army, Marines, and Air Force are the heart and soul of this fair and decent nation. Let us not fool ourselves; they are the ones who provide our freedom, not Rudy Guiliani or Hillary Clinton. However, the views and opinions of potential Presidential candidates such as the two from New York do indeed matter for the future safety and security of us all.
The media, in unbelievably biased numbers, voted for John Kerry in 2004. Fox News is criticized for leaning to the Right, but what does that say about every single solitary other television news network? If Fox is the one place Conservatives can get a fair shake, doesn’t that mean (what everyone already knew) the rest (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CNN:Headlines, MSNBC, CNBC, etc.) are liberally biased?
Some call the battles over social/public policy a war of culture; I call it a war for the soul of America. Where are we headed? Where have we been? How much of a part should each of those play in the decision-making that goes on in Washington? We all want a free society that continues to progress in technological, philosophical, and intellectual ways, but we do not want to abandon the very principles and willingness to defend ourselves that made all we have even possible.
I believe that although Conservatism is unable to truly save our soul, Liberalism has done its best to destroy it. Then again, if you are humanistic and/or atheistic, the idea of a soul means little to you.
Darwinists (extreme position on the evolution-creation spectrum) teach us that God is unnecessary for the explanation of our existence. With enough time and suspension of reality, Darwin-followers feel qualified to answer even the deepest longings of Man’s soul and conscience as some sort of biological response or socio-psychological conditioning that can be altered with enough Ritalin or episodes of Oprah. Forget the fact that every civilization since the dawn of time has looked at the incredible majesty of the universe and its complexities (like the human mind that is capable of contemplating its own existence) and seen the fingerprints of some sort of higher power.
We’re being protected by people that support Conservative, Judeo-Christian values, yet are being taught and informed by people who are actively opposed to Traditional America’s way of life. George Bush does not want war any more than George Clooney; the difference is that one is willing to fight when the situation demands it and the other is content to foolishly undermine and criticize the very group of people willing to defend his right to do so.
Just try and wrap your mind around the firestorm that would ensue if Bush ever locked up even one of the radical professors at a school like University of Wisconsin or Columbia University who teach their malleable students that the President is: lying about terrorism, we deserve what we get from Islamic radicals for our imperialistic policies, and, in fact, it was Bush that brought down the Twin Towers in New York City that fateful day.
Our evolution as a just and tolerant society has brought about unique and unprecedented freedom and opportunity for all. It has also removed the inhibitions of selfish cowards who use the very free speech provided to them by military conquests as a battering ram to promote their own Liberal, Godless, and isolationist agenda.
Do not think me naïve. War is a vile, disgusting thing. No American wants it. But, to pretend that fighting back when attacked is morally equivalent to the actions of the attackers is imprudent and naive. What do the soldiers have to gain by enlisting (then re-enlisting) for a war that they alone must fight in? Why would they vote so overwhelmingly for the man who sent them there in the first place?
All sides in America have their own agenda; it is simply a matter of deciding which better represents your own values and views and would promote those interests.
With such a small percentage of Americans (especially sons and daughters of those in Congress) willing to fight, neither Right nor Left has the ability to claim the upper ground in the literal defense of our nation. The difference (and it is a key one) lies in the parties’ distinctly dissimilar policies and attitudes regarding the military. Only a simpleton would disingenuously say that fighting is completely worthwhile on September 12th, 2001, and by March 6th, 2007 see the War on Terror as totally unnecessary and morally wrong; especially in light of the fact that there is still so much to be done to secure our future safety.
This debate comes back to my earlier question: what kind of country do you want to live in? What kind of America will my kids live in? Actors, Professors, and Journalists are not the ones fighting, nor are willing to fight, but we’ve let them set the agenda for us all. It’s the 80% verses 20% rule.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Sex, Drugs, Rock-n-Roll, and...Church?
I thought you might like to read this article titled "Religion's Generation Gap?" from Dr. AlbertMohler's blog.
To see the article, please click on the URL listed belowhttp://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=892
To see the article, please click on the URL listed belowhttp://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=892
Al Gore's Stupidity
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/281949,CST-EDT-STEYN04.article
Al Gore is the self-proclaimed prophet of the Global-Warming hysteria...but is he really the pious practitioner of the eco-friendly, "Green" (not Steve), lifestyle he preaches?
Al Gore is the self-proclaimed prophet of the Global-Warming hysteria...but is he really the pious practitioner of the eco-friendly, "Green" (not Steve), lifestyle he preaches?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
