Monday, March 30, 2009
President BO has fired Rick Wagoner, CEO of General Motors Corporation.
This is beyond a doubt the most vile, vicious, un-American thing any POTUS has ever done.
If the majority of you can't see that, there is no hope for The United States of America to remain a free representative republic or a democracy.
What President BO has done is evil and dictatorial.
The fact that he "did it for the good of the country," does not mitigate it.
Rick Wagoner needed to go, no question about it.
He is an incompetent leader and has done a great deal to hurt General Motors, though I doubt that he'll understand that.
But to have the government, the president in particular, fire an employee of a private corporation is unthinkable.
The fact that many of you are cheering President BO for his "bold, decisive action" is a testament to the fact that you do not understand the basic concept of freedom, and do not get that you have allowed this nation abandon that most basic tenet of its foundation.
If Wagoner needed to be fired, and I believe he did, it was for the stock-holders and the Board of Directors to do so, not the government...period.
A few blogs back I said that President BO's motives were more than socialism, he sees himself as the one who knows more about what needs to be done than anybody else on earth, and is setting himself up to become "President for Life."
The fact that a large number of you believe that is OK is more frightening than the threat of all of the terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and the rest of the world put together.
I am hereby changing my view that President BO is waging war on achievement, I now believe that he is successfully waging war on the fabric of America.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Thanks to Lone Ranger, over at Important Stuff--Or Not for pointing out a Washington Post article that reveals how the President BO online town hall meeting was suspect, at best. You can read for yourself at: fixed.
Do you know the names: Sergio Salmeron; Tom Sawner; Carlos Del Toro; Linda Bock or Bonnee L. Breese?
They were the five fully identified questioners called on "randomly" by the president in the East Room
Turns out these "randomly" called on persons all had direct connections to President BO, either as campaign workers, campaign contributors or Democrat "friends of the president, such as the one appointed by the American Federation of Teachers who sits on the executive board of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, Local 3.
You can read the full text of the online town hall meeting at: Text.
Now, there is nothing wrong with having "friends" ask questions.
What's wrong is to present something as objective that obviously was not.
Almost all of the questions "selected" as representative of those emailed to the meeting were "on message" questions that allowed President BO to spew the same answers, with the same responses on the same topics he always talks about in LIVE town hall meetings.
To have been honest, President BO, or some off-screen announcer should have said something like: "The following questions were carefully selected from those sent in to help President BO continue to deal with only those issues on his agenda."
If you are a true liberal, you see nothing dire about this kind of deception, and consider it as an appropriate way to get a message across to the "people."
I am not implying that this kind of lying is restricted to Democrats, for Republicans have been known to do the same kind of thing.
What I am suggesting is that, while I think the basic idea of online town hall meetings is a great one, and inevitable in this age of technology, those involved should make extra efforts to insure that the question represent ALL of the issues close to the hearts of all of the questioners, not close to the heart of the host (President BO).
Otherwise, people might be suspicious that the meeting was contrived.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
It's not that I can't think of anything...it's that there is too much about which to write!
Should I write about the very silly online town hall meeting held by President BO?
It was the most contrived, transparent event I have ever seen.
The questions chosen were, for the most part, ones that would let President BO answer with the same lines he has used many times before.
But I'm so frustrated by it that I can't get my thoughts to get in line...and I HATE circular arguments.
Maybe I should write about how the Democrats are beginning to break up the "lock-step" in which they have been walking, reminding me of the picture of Germany in World War II.
Until now, there have been no deserters from the Party Line...though I seem to detect a glimmer of grumbling among them.
I could write about how Republicans have nobody who can speak with eloquence and authority, like Daniel Hannan, MEP.
Now there is a leader who is not afraid to stand up and say what the problem is with the opposition.
Our brave Republican leadership stand up and says, "I'm concerned about so-and-so..."
What in the world does "concerned" mean?
NOTHING...NOTHING AT ALL!
I should be writing to Republicans telling them to START MAKING SOME NOISE, for Pete's sake. What is WRONG with you guys?
Members of both Parties seem to have lost all respect for The Constitution, maybe I could write some more about that!
I have a GREAT post in the works about lemmings...the little rodents that periodically follow each other over cliffs, thus decreasing their excess population.
But I can't decide whether to use it to illustrate liberal or conservative behavior.
So, I have made an executive decision, on this 65th day of President BO's War on Achievement, to not write about anything at all.
Here it is, therefore. My unwritten post.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
He promised to faithfully execute the office of President and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
He took an oath, a vow, his word of honor.
During a panel discussion that aired on Chicago’s WBEZ-FM on Sept. 6, 2001, the moderator of the program Gretchen Helfrich, turned to candidate Obama.
“Barack Obama, what are your thoughts on the Declaration and Constitution?”
“I-I-I think it’s a remarkable document –“ he began haltingly (he was not in front of a Teleprompter).
“Which one?” Helfrich interjected.
“The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments,” he replied. “But I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.
I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
Mr. Obama was seemingly not aware of what Helfrich meant by "...Declaration...," as he totally ignored that part of the question, apparently thinking the Declaration and the Constitution are the same document.
How can he promise to preserve, protect and defend that which he finds flawed?
In October of 2008, candidate Barack Obama told the man who has become known as, Joe the Plumber, "...I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,..."
"Spreading the wealth around" is a phrase very like the phrases used by socialist thinker, Karl Marx, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
I suspect that when most people hear President BO called a socialist, they don't know what it means...but whatever it is, if he is for it, it must be good.
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.
The National Socialist German Workers' Party, (From the German: Nationalsozialistische Deutshe Arbeiterpartei), commonly known in English as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany between 1919 and 1945.
Nazi ideology stressed the failure of democracy and the failure of laissez-faire capitalism.
Recently, with the advent of the "current economic mess," the failure of laissez-faire capitalism" has been talked about a lot. (Laissez-faire is Italian for "Keep-a yu hands off-a" [actually it is from the French for "leave it alone" - referencing governmental interference in business, etc.])
President BO has decided NOT to leave business alone, but to implore Congress to "bail-out" businesses that are in trouble financially.
He has also indicated his reluctance to place his trust in the wisdom of the American public to conduct its affairs absent ample governmental influence.
President BO has repeatedly denied being a socialist, whilst continuing to expound upon and executing a powerful agenda with striking socialist overtones.
Basically it means that if you work really, really hard and build a successful business and make lots of money, you have to give a large portion of that money to the government to then be given to those who have worked less hard, have not started businesses and have not been as successful as you.
Personally, I would prefer a man in the Oval Office who had a deep understanding of, respect for and application of The Constitution and its principles.
Furthermore, I would prefer a man in office who believed that if I work hard, build a successful business, employ people and make lots of money I would get to keep what I had earned.
We are stuck, however, with President BO, for at least four years.
If we don't want the basic tenets of our country to change from the freedom oriented "free-market" system to government oriented socialism, we must find a way to communicate to President BO that he must cease and desist from moving us in that direction.
If it's not too late, that is, on this 64th Day of President BO's War on Achievement.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
This one is inspired by the same one.
WARNING! My position on this subject is controversial, I know. The opinions are mine, have been mine for over 40 years, and will be mine for the next forty. Take it or leave it. I am closed minded on this issue (as I am on getting hit by lightning).
My subject is homosexuality (Ooooooo! A P.C. untouchable...well watch me touch it!)
First of all, let me define the word "normal" for you.
Normal: conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm;
not abnormal; "serve wine at normal room temperature";
"normal ...in accordance with scientific laws being approximately average or within certain limits in e.g. intelligence and development; "a perfectly normal child"; "of normal intelligence"; "the most normal person I've ever met"
convention: something regarded as a normative example; "the convention of not naming the main character"; "violence is the rule not the exception".
Using this definition, homosexuality cannot be considered "normal" behavior.
That's OK, though, for neither is genius...or idiot-savant, or any of a myriad of behaviors.
Homosexuality is not a choice.
Yeah, I know. It has long been preached that homosexuality is a choice, but who in his/her right mind would choose a lifestyle rife with so much grief? I don't believe it for a minute, and you will never convince me otherwise...so never mind.
Is it hereditary or biological in nature?
For some years "scientists" tried to prove that is is, but their research was shown to have been severely flawed and, in fact, no evidence exists to indicate that it is.
My BS is in Psychology (great initials for a pseudo-science, don't you think?)
Here's what I think, and it is important, if you want to engage in an honest discussion of the subject, to understand my carefully chosen words here: Homosexuality is a learned behavior pattern that results from a series of external and internal stimuli from a person's experience.
It is not alone.
Kleptomania is a similarly developed behavior pattern.
The Christian community is fond of just calling it "sin," and jumping up and down screaming about it, saying things like, "Love the sinner...hate the sin," which all too often they do not mean.
As a student of God's Word for over 45 years, I believe that homosexuality misses the perfect mark of perfection required by God to be in His presence, and is therefore "sin" in the same sense that "hatred" is sin, "pride" is sin, "arrogance" is sin, "gluttony" is sin, and so is every other form of behavior that is not in the center of God's will for one's life.
It is also covered by the blood of Christ the same way other sin is covered: by repentance and by accepting the free gift of salvation from God through the finished work of Christ at the cross of Calvary and His resurrection.
But in this post I am not addressing the question of sinfulness, I am addressing the behavior, itself.
I have worked side-by-side with uncloseted homosexuals in harmony and without any of their homosexuality "rubbing off" on me.
Homosexuals deserve equal treatment under the law. There is absolutely no question in my mind about that.
Homosexuals do NOT deserve special treatment or privilege under the law. There is absolutely no question in my mind about that.
The question has come up in our country about "gay marriage"
In my humble, but correct, opinion, there cannot be any such thing as gay marriage, unless there is a re-definition of the word, "marriage," at which time we will have to come up with a new name for that which has been defined as "marriage" for umpteen thousand years.
The union of a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation, cohabitation and cooperation has been called marriage since it was ordained by God some time after the creation of all that is from nothingness.
I'm not sure who is in charge of "definitions," or "new words," but they aren't doing their jobs very well.
Because it is represented in a small portion of the population (from 2% - 7%, depending upon who's counting), it may properly be considered abnormal behavior.
Since it is behavior outside of that which serves a "useful evolutionary" function (which, BTW I don't believe in), and is non-procreative in nature, it may be properly considered inappropriate behavior.
(Background for this next statement: I have two male, neutered dogs who regularly engage in what my wife and I call "perverted" behavior. But they are not "gay" dogs, for if given access to a female dog they will eat each other alive trying to get to her...even though they can't accomplish their procreative intent when they do. It is really quite funny to watch).
Although many animals engage in what appears to be homosexual behavior, having been frustrated in their attempt to mate with a female of their species, when given the choice, every male animal will choose a female "partner" over the male...every time.
"Natural" means: that which occurs in nature.
Since there is no such thing as a truly homosexual dog, or goat or ape (which we are supposed to be most like), one can conclude that homosexuality is "un-natural."
Having said all of that, let me hasten to say that the mistreatment of another human being, whether for reasons of "sexual orientation," or skin color, or height or breadth always has been, is now and forever will be wrong.
I can't "fix" homosexuality (if fixing is what is needed), just as I can't "fix" liars, cheats, the proud, the aggressive or any other issue a person might have.
If asked, I will help where I can.
Otherwise, I will leave the homosexual to my God, who is all loving, while demanding perfect righteousness (which righteousness is found only in Christ).
I know this set of opinions will not be popular, to which I give the common, but definitive reply,
Monday, March 23, 2009
The writer seems to be a very nice person with a good sense of humor and good writing skills.
In fact, there is little to evidence "liberalism" in the traditional sense of the word, except unexplained references to abortion and homosexuals.
My own position on abortion has been made clear on this blog in the past, but I will synopsize it for this discussion.
The Declaration of Independence proclaims that God (their Creator) has given (endowed) us "...certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The right to life was one of the fundamental reasons Thomas Jefferson felt we should no longer be subject to government rule.
To be sure, TJ was referencing the taking of life without due process, a practice of Great Britain at the time.
His idea was that government should be subjected to the people, not the people to the government.
Life, being an unalienable right, needs definition.
Science comes to our rescue by defining life as that which (among other things) multiplies and/or grows, takes on nourishment, gives off waste, reacts to stimuli, etc.
The first thing that happens when human sperm enters a human egg is that it forms a life-form called scientifically, a zygote.
(I have never heard a doctor tell a woman that she is "with zygote," rather, "with child" (in the archaic, that is.)
The zygote exhibits all of the characteristics of life mentioned above.
Via its DNA, it is also distinguishable from every other life-form: chimpanzees; snakes; plants; viruses, etc. .
About 3 days after conception, the zygote consists of 16 cells and is called "a 16 cell morula" (a.k.a. pre-embryo).
Five days or so after conception, a cavity appears in the center of the morula. The grouping of cells are now called a blastocyst. It has an inner group of cells which will become the fetus and later the newborn; it has an outer shell of cells which will "become the membranes that nourish and protect the inner group of cells."
By 12 days or so after conception, the blastocyst has started to produce hormones which can be detected in the woman's urine. She can now confirm pregnancy via a medically appropriate pregnancy test.
Thirteen or fourteen days after conception a "primitive streak" appears. It will later develop into the fetus' central nervous system. The morula is now an embryo.
The woman can now confirm pregnancy with a home pregnancy test.
The embryo's heart begins to beat about 18 to 21 days after conception.
Enough biology...for now.
From this point on, the woman and her "significant other" (hopefully her husband) will NEVER refer to "our embryo," but to "our baby."
The baby is a person with personality.
Some are active, others more placid.
Most react to loud noises, some to music (differently, by the way, to different types of music), to heat, cold and other stimuli.
Soon, a sonogram will reveal the baby's features...and with full-color, 3-D sonograms, his or her skin-tone, unique markings, and much more.
The baby floats like an astronaut in a fluid inside of a very special environment.
He/she is tethered to the mother by an umbilical cord, which allows certain things, like nourishment to get to the baby.
The same cord allows other substances to be carried away from the baby...waste, toxins, etc.
By biological miracle, the two types of substances never mix! It's like magic...only magic has nothing to do with it.
In my humble, but correct, opinion, that baby has a right to life. Period.
There is no room in my open mindedness for discussion about that.
It is an unalienable right to life conferred upon it by its Creator, not by courts, governments, doctors or other individuals, including the mother.
When I was in the eighth grade, my mother was pregnant with my third sister when it became evident that things had gone terribly wrong. The baby's bio-chemical processes became imbalanced and the resulting toxins threatened to take her life, as well as the life of my mother.
With much sadness, the baby was aborted. My mother had three other children to care for, and the choice, though incredibly difficult, had to be made in their favor.
My mother died a few years ago at age 89. But before she died I had a conversation with her about our family, reminding her of how much she was loved by her three children. "Four," she quickly corrected.
That hit me right between the eyes.
As a family we had rarely spoken of our lost sister, but after all of those years, the fourth child, her daughter, was still a part of my mother's psyche.
Listen to me, people...the decision to abort a child is NEVER an isolated historical event, but perseveres in one form or another for eternity.
As a conservative, the right to life, from conception to biological death is a sacred tenet to me.
Having read all of the "liberals'" arguments about a woman's so-called "choice to do with her own body as she wishes," I have found them every one to be shallow and self-centered...something no self-respecting liberal (or human being) should ever be.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
It's about the powers of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
It says: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
A "Bill of Attainder" is a legislative act declaring that a person is guilty of a crime and setting punishment without the benefit of a formal trial. The Constitution forbids the federal government from passing bills of attainder.
"Ex Post Facto" is from the Latin: after the fact. Legislation is called ex post facto if the law attempts to extend backwards in time and punish acts committed before the date of the law's approval. Such laws are constitutionally prohibited in most modern democracies. For example, the USA Constitution prohibits "any ex post facto law".
Can you say, "Let's go back and tax the bonuses to AIG executives at 90%"
Saturday, March 21, 2009
I make an effort to read the most current posts on each of the blogs on my blogroll.
It is not every day that I am successful, and some of you are so prolific that it is hard to keep up, but I do what I can.
Here is what some of you are writing about.
Over at A Radical Perspective , TAO has a suggestion about what should have been done with the bonuses at AIG...I think it's a cool idea, but one that will go nowhere.
An American Dinosaur hasn't been blogging much of late, but that's because life circumstances have become rather hectic.
Mark introduces a "new" blog and comments on another gaff from President BO at Casting Pearls Before Swine , plus he has one of my favorite quotes of all time: "You have all the characteristics of a popular politician: a horrible voice, bad breeding, and a vulgar manner." ~ Aristophanes
As usual, congress is on the warpath and Conservative Convictions duly notes it.
CB address the universal health care debate at Economic Swim .
Gateway Pundit reveals that Hamas offers cash for marrying widows of martyrs. BTW: How on earth does he get all those commenters? 91+ yesterday and on the 19th, 241!!!
At GeeeeeZ , Z reviews my second favorite movie of all time (Disney's "Alice in Wonderland" is my first...in case you wondered).
If you've never watched "Uncle Jay Explains the News," check out Important Stuff--Or Not , for some reason one of my favorite blogs...just for the interesting perspectives, I guess.
DD2 AKA Debonair Dude seems pretty angry. Our World As We See It expresses his rant.
Jennifer has two blogs that I read, one for fun: Palace for a Princess , where you can discover what happens when Hallmark writers have a bad day; and Thinking Out Loud, where she asks whether there is a compromise regarding gay marriage.
The well disguised (?) Pasadena Closet Conservative shares some thoughts about Nancy Pelosi's thoughts about Poor Paco.
If you are looking for freebees, you'll find one at Snaggletoothie , along with a couple of really important videos.
Social Sense always has some well thought out posts. His most recent is dedicated to his good friend, L. A. Sunset.
One of my favorite commenters, Tapline , is getting a little behind in his work, like the butcher who backed into the meat grinder. Go over there and give him some encouragement to write some more.
"Obama Adds Culture Czar" is explored by Kevin at The Black Sphere , a very significant blog...really well written and widely read.
If you are looking for intellectual honesty and top-notch social and political thought, along with occasional forays into other areas, you just have to read The Doctor Is In , currently discussing Gnostic Fascism .
A fellow with the unusual blog-name: The Educated Shoprat , has a George Carlin video up that will make you think...and laugh, maybe.
I absolutely LOVED the video at The Oklahoma Patriot , as Ari Fleicher takes on Chris Mathews. Check it out!
You can actually SEE the work of the The Unseen Blogger , currently comparing reactions to two different presidents via video.
Great pictures are to be seen at the weekly picture feature "The Week In Pictures" at The Right Is Right .
Tom has a place appropriately called, Tom's Place which has a great synopsis of the economic mess in which we find ourselves.
So...there you have it...my most frequently visited blogs.
Check them out. I think you'll be glad you did.
(Oh...I added a new one today. See if you can figure it out: The Audacity of Barry O .)
Friday, March 20, 2009
Jonathan has properly and succinctly identified the basic principles of conservatism: respect for the Constitution; respect for life; less government and personal responsibility.
Let's take a look at these principles.
RESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION
The Constitution of the United States of America is a unique document in history.
Never before in the annals of nations had a governing document been created that purposed to restrict the role of government in citizens' lives.
It was not written on the spur of the moment, but after much discussion and even argument over each of its tenets.
President BO has stated that it is a document that falls short because it tells a lot about what government cannot do but does not tell us what government must do.
That is absolute proof, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that President BO neither understands what the Constitution is nor why it is written the way it is. He totally misses its point, and therefore is incapable of keeping his oath of office to defend and protect it.
The United States has a constitutional government, which means that it is a limited government system.
The Constitution was deliberately, specifically and properly designed as a document to restrict the involvement of the the federal government in people's lives.
That's what it is for.
It defines how each branch of the government is established, and is the government's list of things it cannot, indeed, must not do.
It is laid out as follows:
The Preamble, which tells us why we have a government and a constitution.
Article I, which establishes the Legislative Branch of government, including where legislative power is vested, what it's comprised of, how members are elected or appointed, the rules of the house and senate, compensation and privileges of legislative members, how bills are passed, the scope of the legislature's power, limits on that power, and limits on states.
Article II, which defines the presidency, how the president is elected, installed and/or removed, what his/her powers are, how he is to periodically report on the state of the union, receive ambassadors, execute laws, commission officers and how he can be impeached.
Article III, which defines the judiciary, where its power is vested, its scope of power and how it relates to treasonous activity.
Article IV, which defines the states, establishes their full faith and credit, enumerates their privileges, immunities, extradition rules, how to handle fugitive slaves (see amendments - below), and what is guaranteed to the states.
Article V, which describes the amendment process (which makes the breathing of the document exasperatingly slow...on purpose).
Article VI, which establishes the legal status of the Constitution as absolute.
Article VII, which describes the ratification process.
Finally, the Constitution provides a list of its signers...in their own handwriting.
The states have ratified some twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution, the first ten of which are called The Bill of Rights.
Most liberals have never read, let alone studied, The constitution.
Sadly, most conservatives haven't either.
It should be required reading before the end of the sixth grade.
Respect for the Constitution is the first basic qualification to be considered a conservative.
RESPECT FOR LIFE
In the Declaration of Independence, in which our founders declared that we would no longer serve under a government that made all of the rules for daily living, Thomas Jefferson wrote that life is one of our fundamental rights, conferred on us not by government, but by our Creator.
Respect for life is a basic principle of conservatism.
That respect stretches from the moment of conception to the moment of death, the period that defines life socially.
At conception, the cell unit formed contains all of the DNA information that identifies it as a human being and no other life-form, and which exhibits all of the processes that scientifically define life: cell division and reproduction, ingestion of nourishment, giving off waste, etc.
The developing baby is not a part of its mother's body, but is a separate, unique person, with traits of the father, the mother and all of his/her ancestors.
From this we extrapolate that no person may take the life of another without due legal cause.
We also covenant to care for our elders as long as they have breath, thus negating the possibility of euthanasia.
Conservatives' value of life is one of their basic principles.
There are four basic forms of government: 1) Oligarchy - in which there is a small, elite segment of society which rules to one degree or another over the affairs of the citizens; 2) Anarchy - in which the people rule without any government at all (one form of which is pure democracy); 3) Republic - in which the citizens elect people to government who will reflect their views and carry out their wishes; 4) Totalitarian - which includes kings and dictators.
The United States of America is a republic.
It is reported that Benjamin Franklin was asked, "Well, Mr. Franklin, what kind of government did you people come up with?" To which he responded, "A republic, if we can keep it."
By its nature, a republic is a limited form of government, being responsive to and responsible for the protection of the people, and acting at the direction of the people.
We are not a democracy, which is a form of anarchy, but a representative republic.
The Constitution reserves to the various states those powers not specifically given to the federal government.
Conservatives believe that the restrictive form of government is the best form of government.
According to the concept of personal responsibility, each person bears the burden of making of him/herself the very best he/she can be through self-eduction, perseverance, and hard work.
Each person also has a duty to society to treat others as he/she would like them to treat him/her.
At Waco (which some of you may be old enough to remember), Attorney General, Janet Reno proclaimed that she took complete responsibility for the sordid events that took place there.
Actually, she did not.
Let me explain.
Imagine that I am driving on the Interstate with you as my passenger.
As we go, it becomes evident that we may be late to our destination, so you begin urging me to drive faster.
After some miles of listening to you prattle on, I give in and speed up well beyond the posted speed limit.
Soon there are flashing lights behind us and we are pulled over by a state trooper, who proceeds to write me a ticket.
I object, explaining that you were the one who urged me to speed and you wouldn't let up so I finally just had to speed.
To whom do you think he will write the ticket?
To me, of course, because I was responsible for the speed of the vehicle.
There is always a cost connected to responsibility...a cost of time, effort or money.
As a nation, we are prone to seek to blame someone else for what goes wrong.
Currently, Congress is trying to blame CEOs and corporate executives for our present economic mess (as are many of you), ignoring the fact that they, themselves perpetrated it.
Conservatives accept that personal responsibility for one's life and behavior is one of their basic tenets.
So there you have it.
By these standards, are you really a conservative, or are you just anti-liberal, anti-government or anti-whateverturnsyouontobeantiabout?
I suggest that there are far too many in our Republican Party who are not conservatives, who wish that none of us were conservatives and who think that conservatism is dead.
To them I yell, "Get out of my Party, you dumb oafs! Go join a Party that does not believe in those four principles and let us get on with the business of building our Party back into what it should be!"
On this 59th day of President BO's War on Achievement, I sincerely hope that in about twenty-one years we will be inaugurating one Jonathan Krohn to be the President of The Untied States of America.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
There are specific Constitutional prohibitions against just this very thing.
Democrats have ignored those prohibitions, proving that they have no respect for, nor do they intend to protect and defend, the Constitution of the United States of America.
Congress can now RETROACTIVELY tax things that were previously nontaxable.
Some of you think that's alright, as illustrated by your belief the The Constitution is a "living, breathing" document, and can be changed at the whim of whoever is in charge at any given moment.
Well, the Constitution ALWAYS HAS BEEN a living, breathing document, but it breathes very slowly, by means of the amendment process, not by judicial decree or congressional action.
Now Congress has proven that it can be completely ignored, if they want to ignore it.
If you are a liberal, you have absolutely no idea why that is a bad thing.
Too bad, for even you will eventually suffer the results of this diabolical thinking...and you will not like it, and you will object, and cry, and moan and whimper...BUT IT WILL BE TOO LATE.
The deed is done.
For all intents and purposes, The Constitution, as a document that provides the basic rules by which the government may act, is dead.
"Come on, Joe! You're hyperventilating! It's not that bad!"
It is exactly that bad.
The only way it could be worse than it is would be for the Military to be called up to enforce the actions of the Congress.
Don't act surprised.
All of my monetary resources have come as the fruits of my labor...a reward, as it were, given in exchange for my faithful, untiring labor.
Now I find myself needing a personal bail-out, so...why not?
Here's the plan:
I will tax myself, give myself that which I gain from my taxes and then repay myself that self-same amount, thus enriching myself and providing for my family.
You say that sounds like some kind of Voodoo Economic plan?
Think: President BO; the Democrat House; the Democrat Senate and the word "Bailout."
After all, in this the 58th day of President BO's War on Achievement, that's the way they think.
How about you?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior U.S. senator on Tuesday warned American International Group Inc. employees to return bonuses they are receiving or face being slapped with a major tax on those payments.
"They should voluntarily return them (the bonuses). If they don't we plan to tax virtually all of it," Senator Charles Schumer, a member of the Democratic leadership, said in a speech on the Senate floor.
You yeasty, weather-bitten wagtails in New York elected this guy to office, and some of you are proud of it.
For the first time ever, the United States government is poised to enact a RETROACTIVE tax on a large corporation (AIG), now owned by the American people.
We're not talking BACK taxes here...we are talking about writing a law to collect taxes on an activity that was LEGAL AND NOT TAXABLE...did you get that?...it WAS LEGAL AND NOT TAXABLE! at the time the corporation contracted for the afore mentioned bonuses.
You left-wing, spongy, rump-fed puttocks don't even understand what is fundamentally WRONG with that idea.
In the first place, the bonuses in question were CONTRACTED for LONG BEFORE the Spendulous Package was passed.
Secondly, the corporate stockholders, not the federal government, are the ones who make those decisions. They're the only ones who have any right to. Surely you leftists are smart enough to understand that...aren't you?
In the third place, passing a tax law that is RETROACTIVELY applicable opens the government door to every conceivable abuse (never mind that the law itself is a present abuse).
Well, what can you expect? It is, after all, the 57th day of President BO's War on Achievement.
Look, I hate that some corporate executives are grossly overpaid. Were I a stockholder in AIG I would voice my objections loudly and clearly.
Then the stockholders would vote and whatever they decided I would be stuck with.
The trouble is, there is not one leftist, not one Democrat, not one liberal and not very many Republicans who had the brains to foresee that a large "donation" of government (read: tax payer) money might be put in a pot from which those previously contracted bonuses would be taken.
And now they're all surprised that AIG would have such gal.
That's why I can say without fear of contradiction that you are all a bunch of roguish, pottle-deep moldwarps, who don't know your middle finger from your earmarks.
Are you smart enough to know what it means if the government passes such legislation?
That means that they can then decide that something legal you did years...even decades...ago can now have a tax law enacted against it and the government can collect the taxes you didn't pay on something that was nontaxable at the time you did it.
You think that's OK?
What is wrong with you?
Are you some kind of pribbling, ill-nurtured maggot-pie?
Have you lost every vestige of reason you ever had?
Can you not see that such a lame-brained idea would mean the eventual loss of EVERY freedom you ever had, or imagined you should have?
Someone said (and no, I don't remember who...), "The ability to tax, is the ability to destroy."
What is about to be destroyed is The United States of America.
And you will sit quietly by and let it be so.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
I got this email from them and wanted to pass it on to you.
We're happy to announce that on April 15th, American Solutions will be sponsoring Tax Day Tea Parties all across the country. We've partnered with the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition, and over 150 cities have already been confirmed.
You can find a Tea Party in your area by going to www.AmericanSolutions.com/TeaParty.
This is our opportunity to do two things.
First--to communicate our anger and opposition to the irresponsible, big spending policies of Washington politicians who have failed to solve problems.
Second--to clearly define a bold, new agenda and tell our elected officials that they can either work for us, or we will vote them out of office.
To help do this, we've created an American Solutions Toolkit for Tea Parties. It includes our 12 American Solutions for Jobs & Prosperity, a few handouts about our solutions relating to spending and taxes, and a checklist so we can begin to find out where our elected officials stand.
To download your Toolkit for Tea Parties go to www.AmericanSolutions.com/TeaParty.
Propping up and bailing out failure with our tax dollars is not a solution for our economy. It is irresponsible, and we must not tolerate it any longer.
We hope you'll join us on April 15th to make this clear to Washington.
President & CEO
At least check it out...OK?
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Stockholders have the opportunity to have a say in how a company operates, especially if they are major stockholders.
Stockholders also have an opportunity to "earn" dividends, and, if the company in well managed, make money over time.
I've never owned stock before.
Now I do.
I own stock in General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, and other large corporations, thanks to the action of President BO, our representatives in The House of Congress and The Senate.
Well, to be perfectly honest with you (you DO want me to be honest, don't you?), I don't actually have a stock certificate in any of those companies. The Senate and Congress just want me to trust them that they will take good care of the part of these companies that is mine, via my hard-earned tax "contributions."
Actually, if I had had a choice, I would have chosen to "invest" my money in companies that actually were being run well and had a chance of bringing me some sort of income, perhaps at retirement.
One of those companies would not have been General Motors.
In the beginning, General Motors (well...In the beginning, God...but that's another story) actually did pretty well.
In fact, there was a saying: "As goes General Motors, so goes the country."
Today, that's a scary thought.
I'm old enough to remember two major "gas-at-the-pump" crises: gas rationing circa WWII, and long lines at the pump in the 1970s.
During the latter, two pipsqueaks in the car industry, Toyota and Honda, both Japanese imports at the time, burst on the scene with inexpensive, high miles-per-gallon cars that Americans were primed to buy.
American auto makers, who had previously enjoyed a wild, free ride selling cars in The United States, now faced real competition from these "foreigners."
The brilliant CEOs of GM, with their MBAs, thought that the Japanese imports were being helped by several factors: the low value of the Yen; unfair labor practices; high import quotas and automation.
They concluded that Toyota and Honda would be forever stuck in a small niche of "economy" cars, and that as Americans became acclimated to somewhat higher gas prices, the SMALL CAR BOOM would end.
As it turned out, American car manufacturers got caught up in the "we can make what we want, when we want, where we want, how we want" mentality and were following an almost non-existent business model.
Added to that was the greed of the UAW, who believed that every worker should make the same income as management, never minding that they wanted excessively high pay for (on average) less education, less risk, and less productivity.
In the mean time, those pesky Japanese were building the same number of cars that the "Big 3" were building, building them better and at much lower labor costs.
Say what you want about unions, the mathematical and business facts are that a company must make more on a product unit than it costs to manufacture it or they lose money. No amount of wishing, pouting, or denial can change that. If any union member were put in charge of the company, he/she would face the same hard, cold truth.
Not only do UAW laborers demand more wages, they demand a myriad of benefits, such as magnificent health-care, continued even after worker productivity has ended, extraordinary pensions, and something called "Job Banks," that virtually guaranteed that a worker could not be fired, productive or not.
So Rick Wagoner, GM CEO, told Congress that if they would just come up with $103 billion in bail-out money, they could get farther ahead in technology, new equipment and, to use his defining word, "whatever."
President BO, now in his 53rd day of his War on Achievement, urged Congress to go along with the request, which it did.
And now I am part owner of General Motors.
What do you want to bet I get very little say in how the company is run?
And as for retiring on my stock dividends and value increase...my side is hurting from the laughter.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
It references a "get-together" many conservative Americans are having Friday, March 13, 2009 at 5:00 PM Eastern Time, to watch a special edition of the Glenn Beck Program on Fox News.
Thousands will be joining in restaurants, hotels, meeting places, churches and other venues, to demonstrate to each other that we are not alone, and to demonstrate to non-conservatives that we are not just a flash-in-the-pan, but are many in number.
It's called (From the website):
We Surround Them FRIDAY!
Do you watch the direction that America is being taken in and feel powerless to stop it?
Do you believe that your voice isn’t loud enough to be heard above the noise anymore?
Do you read the headlines everyday and feel an empty pit in your stomach…as if you’re completely alone?
If so, then you’ve fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull the curtain away you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don’t surround us at all.
We surround them.
So, how do we show America what’s really behind the curtain? Below are nine simple principles. If you believe in at least seven of them, then we have something in common. I urge you to read the instructions at the end for how to help make your voice heard.
The Nine Principles
1. America is good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
You Are Not Alone
If you agree with at least seven of those principles, then you are not alone.
Please send a digital version of your picture to: firstname.lastname@example.org and then stay tuned to the radio and television shows over the coming weeks to see how we intend to pull back the curtain.
Now I am not polyannish enough to think this is a cure-all for conservatives, but it is a starting place and is a good thing.
If you go to the web site, you can find where groups are meeting in your area and join them, or you can watch the program on Fox News at 5:00 PM, Friday.
Together, we can pull out of this mess!
Day 51 of President BO's War on Achievement.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
In my humble, but correct, opinion, he is better on TV than he is on radio.
Sometimes I can't follow his train of thought...assuming he has one at the time I am listening.
I wholeheartedly agree with his assessment of where we are as a nation, however, and with where we ought to be, but can't seem to get.
Nevertheless, I do listen to a portion of his show daily, and today he read a very significant letter "written" by a citizen named Ed Barnett to the IRS.
Here is the text of the letter:
I'm sorry to inform you that I'm not going to be able to pay the taxes owed on April 15th, but all is not lost.
I paid these taxes:
accounts receivable tax,
building permit tax,
corporate income tax,
dog license tax,
federal income tax,
hunting license tax,
fishing license tax,
waterfowl stamp tax,
school and county property tax up to 33% the last four years.
Real estate tax,
Social Security tax,
road use tax,
toll road tax,
state and city sales tax,
recreational vehicle tax,
sales franchise tax,
state unemployment tax,
federal excise tax,
telephone federal state and local surcharge tax,
telephone minimum usage surcharge tax,
telephone state and local tax,
capital gains tax,
lease severance tax,
oil and gas assessment tax,
Colorado property tax,
Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Mexico sales tax
and many more I can't recall and I've run out of space and money.
When you do not receive my check April 15th, just know that it was an honest mistake.
Please treat me the same as the way you've treated Congressmen Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, ex-congressman Tom Daschle and, of course, your boss, Timothy Geithner.
No penalties, no interest.
PS, I'll make at least a partial payment as soon as I get my stimulus check.
Ed Barnett, Wichita Falls.
When you visit Ed in jail, please tell him how much I appreciate the stand he took and the courage he showed by naming those reprobate politicians in his letter.
There are those of you out there who voted for those bums (and/or the ones who appointed them), and you are not one whit better than they are.
Being an equal opportunity basher, let me hasten to say that the list of politicians is not limited to those mentioned in Ed's letter.
I am so angry at politicians in general, Democrat and Republican, that I could spit...only there's a fine for that in my town.
Democrats take an entirely wrong approach to what The United States of America is about, while the Republicans are so mealy-mouthed as to have let themselves be virtually silenced, just because they are the minority party.
When's the last time you experienced a silenced Democrat politician when they were in the minority? It never happened.
I, for one, support the various "tea parties" that have been going on around the country.
Glenn Beck's plan of gathering people together in they towns to "surround" the Democrats and other liberals with a strong conservative voice is worthy of consideration, too.
What do you suppose would happen if we staged a "Tax Rebellion Day?" We could choose April 15th and all agree not to pay a penny of Income Tax at least until June 3rd.
It's not that we would not pay, we would just delay payment to get the government's attention, letting them know how frustrated we are at the way they've been doing business since at least 1977.
There's grave danger here.
If we were too small in number, the government would simply enjoy the process of fining and/or jailing the offenders.
But if enough people did it, jailing us would be impractical.
Give it some thought and let me know what you think.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Here is an interchange between him and Milton Friedman, noted economist, statistician and public intellectual, and a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.
Somebody honestly tell me the fallacy of his response to Donohue's arrogantly asked question.
Personally, I think he cleaned Donohue's philosophical clock.
Day 48 of President BO's War on Achievement.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
However, he had a virtue that almost nobody in today's Republican Party has: the power to persuade people.
Ronald Reagan was known as the great communicator. When he spoke, he spoke with confidence and authority, not parroting anybody else.
Today's Republican Party leadership in made up of several types: milk toasts - seeming not to really believe what they are saying; copycats - regurgitating what someone else is saying; Antis - just being against everything; duhs - not seeming to even get what's going on; cooperates - willing to fall for anything the Democrats have to say; the fearful - afraid to take up the fight for fear of being seen as contentious; and the brazenly/proudly stupid.
In general, the American people are even worse, believing everything any Democrat says, even if it is an evident, blatant lie.
Where, oh where in the republican Party can we find someone who has the gift of persuasion?
He/she does not have to persuade everybody, just enough of his/her own Party and a gaggle of honest Democrats who can see that this country is moving, throttle wide open, down the wrong track...the track to ruin and destruction.
Are there no orators in our Party?
On this 47th day of President BO's War on Achievement, are there no Constitutionalists in the Democrat Party?
Are the no politicians left who understand what freedom is and how much it takes to preserve it?
Do they not understand the Declaration of Independence, which announced our intention to break away from government rule?
Our government was not created to rule the citizens, telling them what they can and cannot do, or say or where they can go.
It was created to unite us, to make sure we are treated justly by the government, to lead us to peacefulness, to protect us, to encourage us, to make sure that we and our progeny enjoy the blessings of liberty.
Is there one Republican leader who understands the part about "liberty?"
Or any Democrats, for that matter?
Where do we find the one who can inspire us...lift us to new heights of personal responsibility...get the government off our backs...free us up to be all we can be?
Are we a free people?
Not on your life.
We used to be.
But with every passing day, and today like a runaway freight train, the government is usurping our freedoms like there is no tomorrow.
Soon there won't be.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The point has been made more than once that while the Bush administration took 8 years to accumulate that trillion dollars of deficit, it took President BO less than 40 days to raise that deficit by 3 trillion dollars, and climbing.
On this, the 46th day of President BOs War on Achievement, isn't it time to cry out, "Enough!!"
I guess not.
His disciples just fall in lock-step with any and every plan he puts forth, no matter what history teaches about the consequences of such action, no matter what negative good it is doing today, and no matter how much it will cost us in the future.
Let's not confuse the budget deficit with the national debt. They are two very different things.
The budget deficit is the amount of money we don't have, to pay for what we want to do.
The national debt is what we owe countries (and some say, people) who have loaned money to the United States. It currently stands at about $10,956,960,271,033.66, or about $35,834.29 per citizen of the U.S.
Because taxes don't bring in enough revenue to pay for everything in the budget, we are now borrowing money from places like China.
The larger the budget deficit, the more we have to borrow, running the national debt even higher.
Try to imagine how much the national debt jumped when we had to borrow enough money to pay for an extra three trillion dollars in budget deficits.
Who will pay that back?
Your and my children will.
Your and my grandchildren will.
Your and my great-grandchildren will.
That is if we don't borrow another penney.
But we will.
This is the "inheritance" President BO has already planned to leave for us.
Talk about an inheritance tax.
Even with the extending of the abolition of the so-called "death-tax," we will be leaving our progeny a terrible legacy.
And 54% of you Americans voted for that.
Thanks a lot.
Friday, March 6, 2009
I do not recommend this video to you to promote insurrection, unless that be necessary, but to help you understand the frustration I, and other conservatives, have with ignoring the Constitution in favor of some personal agenda.
Ignoring the Constitution is like the head referee of an NFL game ignoring the rulebook...or changing it in the middle of a play, only much more serious.
Yet President BO, having sworn to defend and protect it, has already begun to ignore it on this the 45th day of his War on Achievement.
(I do not know what is happening with my comment thingy. Sometimes it shows up, sometimes it doesn't. If you have trouble, click on the "DAY 45" title and you'll be able to comment.)
Thursday, March 5, 2009
(Study on that one a little...you'll get it. It helps to say it out loud.)
Insurance companies make lots of money betting (in the case of life insurance) that you will not die before they can earn enough from your premiums, the premiums of others and the careful investment thereof to cover their pay-out when you do die.
With car insurance, the big insurance companies are betting that of all of their customers, only a few will be involved in accidents that exceed the value of the premiums paid in.
Then there is housing insurance.
The big insurance companies, the really big ones, like AIG, insure the loans made by banks, for a price that they calculate will exceed the number of loan defaults.
(And here you thought that was only done by the FDIC...)
Always ready to help, the federal government stepped in.
We don't know what they stepped in, but it made a real mess of things.
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 sought to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from different areas or neighborhoods,and mandated that all banking institutions that receive insurance from FDIC be evaluated by the relevant banking regulatory agencies to determine if the institution has met the credit needs of its entire community in a manner consistent with safe and sound operations.
The Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) was enacted by the 101st to increase public oversight of the process of issuing CRA ratings to banks. It required the agencies to issue CRA ratings publicly and written performance evaluations using facts and data to support the agencies' conclusions. It also required a four-tiered CRA examination rating system with performance levels of 'Outstanding', 'Satisfactory', 'Needs to Improve', or 'Substantial Noncompliance'.
The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to devote a percentage of their lending to support "affordable" housing.
In July 1993, President Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.
During March 1995 congressional hearings William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized the proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit and micromanagement by regulators, and that there was no assurance that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss. He predicted they would be very costly to the economy and banking system, and that the primary long term effect would be to contract the banking system. He recommended Congress repeal the Act.
In 1999, on signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".
In early 2005, the OTS implemented new rules that allowed thrifts with over $1 billion in assets to meet their CRA obligations without regard to services for, or investments in, their communities. In April 2005, a contingent of Democratic Congressmen issued a letter protesting these changes, saying they undercut the ability of the CRA to "meet the needs of low and moderate-income persons and communities". The changes were also opposed by community groups concerned that it would weaken the CRA.
On April 15, 2008 an FDIC official told the United States House Committee on Financial Services that the FDIC was exploring offering incentives for banks to offer low-cost alternatives to payday loans. Doing so would allow them favorable consideration under their Community Reinvestment Act responsibilities.
In other words, since 1977 the federal government has required that banks make a percentage of their loans to people living in "low income housing" complexes, and other low income areas, many of whom had no way to pay them back.
Now imagine what happens when billions of dollars in mortgages go unpaid because the borrowers cannot pay their monthly house payments, either because they have no job, or because they make to little money at the jobs they do have.
The banks don't care, at first, because they are covered by FDIC and AIG and other innocuous letters of the alphabet.
Low income people began to default on their loans by the hundreds of thousands, just because they did not earn enough to make the payments and pay other bills associated with home ownership.
AIG and other insurance companies were hit with pay-outs to banks that exceeded the income generated by premiums and investments.
With life insurance, companies are required to have in reserve enough to pay out all of their potential benefits, even if every policy holder dies prematurely.
No such requirement existed (or exists) for insuring bank loans, because they would be backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FDIC and other government and quasi-government institutions.
Enter the mis-management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AIG and Lehman Brothers (owners of BNC Mortgage, a sub-prime mortgage lender).
Now there is chaos in the world of loan insurance pay-outs.
With a sudden, and all-the-time expanding, influx of foreclosed houses on the market, inventories of available housing began climbing...at first a hey-day for realtors.
Existing homes began decreasing in value, due to the ever increasing supply and the so-called "housing bubble" burst.
Interest rates had to fall, thus decreasing the amount banks made on the remainder of their loan inventories.
The trickle-down effect of the glut in the housing market, the drop in home values and the tightening of credit, caused a drop in business for related industries: plumbing, contracting, electric wiring, block-laying and hundreds of industries supported by them.
Retailers lost sales because people lost jobs because lenders lost money, because insurance companies lost premiums because the feds made them do what they were never designed to do.
The moral of the story is: What the Government Touches, The Government Ruins.
And you have elected a man, now in his 44th day of his War on Achievement who thinks this is all Bush's fault, evil-greedy CEO's fault or any body else's fault but the federal government.
His solution: Let the Government Touch It Some More.
Will you ever learn?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
On his 43rd day of his War on Achievement, President BO has found the answer.
First you find a big struggling company that sells insurance, builds monumental buidings for itself, squanders its resources...hmmm...Oh I know...AIG...perfect!
Next you help them get on their feet by lending them billions of dollars.
Then you watch as they squander that money and find themselves right back where they were...out of money.
Finally, you discover that they cannot even pay the interest on the first money you lent them, let alone any of the principle.
Now that all is in order, you give them another 30 billion dollars so they can pay the interest on the loan. Only they squander that, too.
What to do?
Well, as everybody knows, the SMART thing to do would be to give them even more money.
Where will you find that money?
No problemo, amigo.
Just take it from the fine citizens of the USA.
It's called "Raise Their Taxes!"
(What? You thought President BO promised that if you make less than $250,000.00 per year you would not see your taxes go up one red cent? You weren't watching his lips. They were moving, ergo: he was lying!)
Actually, you will NOT see your taxes go up one red cent.
You will see them go up many, many red cents...not all of them direct taxes, but rest assured, they will go up.
Is there no one up there who gets it?
Can none of you think your way out of a wet paper sack?
Who has you so tightly in their grip that you are AFRAID to stand for what makes economic sense?
Are you ALL a bunch of lilly-livered, yellow-bellied sap suckers?
All of you?
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
I found this definition of "Open Mindedness" on the Internet somewhere (I don't remember where...probably because my mind was so open that the URL came in one side and fell out the other).
Using it as my model, I have to admit to not being open minded, for I do not accept all perspectives as possibilities.
One of the tenants of the statement is: "One can choose her own beliefs while still maintaining an 'open mind,' as long a she is willing to accept that others' beliefs are equally as legitimate."
I cannot accept that premise.
That just means, "I think I'm right, but I might not be right, and there is about as much likelihood that I am wrong as that I am right and you might be righter than I am and I really don't know, even though I think I might know, knowing full well that I don't."
In other words, it is nothing more than psychobablistic gobbledygook.
Well why don't you make me a list of the opinions you hold that you believe are wrong?
If you think they are wrong, why do you hold them?
If you think they are right, why would you equivocate them?
Are you open minded?
Do you think that those who hold that abortion is the killing of an un-born child might be right?
No? Then you are not open minded.
Do you think it is possible that truth might be absolute and that relativism might be wrong?
No? Then you are not open minded.
Do you think that the right wing of American politics might be correct and that the left wing might be wrong?
No? Then you are not open minded.
Do you think that it is possible that "the right to bear arms" in the Constitution might mean that the general citizenship should be allowed to own pistols, rifles shotguns and other forms of weaponry if they want to?
No? Then you are not open minded.
Do you think there is the possibility that President Barack Obama is now in his 42nd day of openly waging War on Achievement in this country?
No? Then you are not open minded.
In fact, if you are really open minded, you will have to admit that always being open minded is not all its cracked up to be.
For instance: I am totally closed minded about being hit by lightning.
I've never been hit by lightning and I never want to be hit by lightning.
Never mind that it is one of those things I've never tried and therefore should not knock.
Don't try to talk me out of it.
I am, and will forever remain, closed minded about being struck by lightning.
Even if you share with me a brand new idea, one that contradicts what I've thought all these years, I will not entertain it as a possibility.
Do you know why?
Because whatever idea you present, I give you a money-back guarantee that it is not new.
You may be so smug, elitist and stupid as to think it is a new idea, but it isn't.
The Bible says, "...be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;..." (That's Ephesians 4:14).
And I John 4:1 says, "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits..."
Those are not true because they're in the Bible. They are in the Bible because they are true.
By the way, are you open minded enough to accept the possibility that those teachings might very well be true?
See, I suspect that you leftists do not so much want me to be open minded, as to agree with you.
The evidence of that is that each time I disagree with you, you call me narrow minded.
How open minded is that?