Thursday, December 30, 2010
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
I didn't respond, because I didn't want to get into a heated argument on what had until that point been a very pleasant afternoon and evening.
So, let's say you have an electric bill this month. It's the same size it was last month. I could have gone up, what with climate change snowing everybody in and all, but it didn't. It's the same as last month.
Question: Did you lower your electric bill in the scenario above?
(For those of you educated in government schools, the answer is "No.")
Keeping taxes where they are instead of raising them is not lowering taxes on anybody. They're the SAME...don't you get it? The SAME!
My wife comes home and says she saved $50.00 on a new outfit. I look at my bank account and the balance has gone down!
I ask you...did she save me any money?
Answer: Not one penny. In fact, she cost me money.
I went to work today.
Funny thing...the person I went to work for has and makes a lot more money than I do. If he did not, he would not be able to pay me a salary.
I'm glad he's rich, and I hope he stays that way.
Where did the idea come from that if you make a lot of money through taking risks, shrewd investing, and hard work someone somewhere should take some of it away from you because you'll never miss it?
When you take what you have not earned or do not own, isn't that called theft?
(For those of you educated in government schools, the answer is "Yes.")
So who started the idea that it is OK for the government to take what they do not earn and do not own?
Where does this insane jealousy toward the people who have earned a lot come from?
By the way, how rich is too rich?
Who gets to set that amount? You? Me?
The fact is that you and I have exactly the same opportunity to be just as rich as Bill Gates if we are willing to do what Bill Gates did to get as rich as he is...have a great idea, market it well and hire lots of people to help you develop, promote and sell it.
You can do that.
But be warned...if you do, there will be those who think it is OK for someone, somewhere to take some of it away from you just because you'll never miss it.
Those people are called liberal/progressives, and they are a scourge on our society.
Frankly, they should be ashamed of themselves for promoting theft.
Has anyone ever heard of expanding the tax base by putting more people to work in the private sector...reducing unemployment to say, 4% or 5%?
Can we do that by taking money from the public and then paying the public to work (as in a government job)?
(For those of you educated in a government school, the answer is "No.")
See, the economy is dependent on productivity (ever heard of the gross national product?).
The government produces nothing (except stupid little electric cars that don't do what the government said they would do [surprise there, right?]). The government only costs. And the only way they know to pay those costs is by taking money from people who earned it.
When will we ever learn?
Monday, December 27, 2010
The founder of the The Weather Channel in the US has described the concept of global warming as 'the greatest scam in history' and accused global media of colluding with 'environmental extremists' to alarm the public.
The deceit behind global warming
Climate change is like 'World War Three'
"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM," John Coleman wrote in an article published on ICECAP, the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, which is known for challenging widely published theories on global warming.
The maverick weather forecaster is known for his regular critique of widely accepted global warming theories. The Weather Channel broadcasts weather forecasts and weather-related news in the US 24 hours a day.
His views challenge the consensus of the international science community that it is at least 90 per cent certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8ºC above 1990 levels by 2100.
This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water resources.
A recent joint statement by the scientific academies of 17 countries, including the UK's Royal Society, endorsed the theory of climate change and dismissed doubts raised over the need for action to mitigate possible damage caused by climate change.
"We do not consider such doubts justified," the group said in a joint statement, urging prompt action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
But Mr Colemen slams their views as part of a global conspiracy: "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming."
"Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims.
Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
"Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.
"Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens.
"Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment."
He added: "I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.
"There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril."
Friday, December 24, 2010
Many people think that the word "Christmas" means "Christ's Birth."
While it can mean that by tradition, its real meaning is a little bit different.
The word Christmas originated as a compound meaning "Christ's Mass".
Let's take a look at the two parts of the word.
Eric Snow writes: "...the meaning of the word "Christos" (Greek: Χριστός, Strong's Concordance #G5547) (is) in relation to Jesus being called the Messiah. Both the Greek word Christos as well as the Hebrew word that comes out "Messiah" mean the same thing: "The anointed One."
An allusion to the title of Christos is made when a person is anointed with oil in order to be made king. Samuel did this with David when he was first chosen to be king while the prior king, Saul, was very much still alive (see 1Samuel 16:12-13). Hence, being the Anointed One meant, among other things, that Christ was to be a king (John 18:37; Luke 1:31-33). However, in the Gospel of John (John 18:36), He explained that His kingdom was not of this world, meaning, derived from it. So he wouldn't make Himself king by human means, such as when He withdrew from a crowd that wanted to make Him king by their force (John 16:15). Instead, Jesus will be made king by divine fiat when He returns during the Second Coming as the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords (Revelation 19:14-16).
So being the Messiah or the Christ indicates that Jesus will have royal prerogatives, and be able to rule the earth as king when He returns (Daniel 7:13-14; 2:44.) All human governments, whether kingdoms, democracies, or dictatorships, will be abolished then, and the world will have a true direct theocracy (not merely humans ruling in God's name, such as in Iran's "Islamic Republic.") Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit, it should be noted, not literal oil (see Acts 10:38 and Luke 4:18).
Another allusion to Jesus' title here (Christos) comes from the high priests being anointed in the Old Testament when being ordained (Leviticus 8:2, 10, 12). Jesus was also to be the high priest for Christians after His death and resurrection (Hebrews 5:5-6, 10; 7:20-28). He intercedes for their sins with God the Father. So here there would be a union of church and state, of the king and high priest roles in the divine Person of Jesus under the rule of the kingdom of God.
A Mass service (which is sometimes called Communion or Eucharist) is where Christians remember that Jesus died for us and then came back to life. The 'Christ-Mass' service was the only one that was allowed to take place after sunset (and before sunrise the next day), so people had it at Midnight! So we get the name Christ-Mass, shortened to Christmas.
So, technically, "Christmas" has a deeper, more significant meaning than just the celebration of the birth of Christ.
It is really a celebration of the meaning of the gospel, and the incarnation, which we celbrate at Christmas is only its beginning.
In the end, it is all part and parcel of the essence of being a Christian.
We celbrate His birth, not as the beginning of Jesus, but as the time when God became a man for the very purpose of dying a substitutionary death for man's sin and for the resurrection, which in effect "sealed the deal."
Monday, December 20, 2010
Not to me.
I actually think gridlock would be a good thing.
With some 600 bills waiting in the wings for consideration and more being added all the time, there will come a time when we will have more laws than we can keep up with...a time which may have already come.
The result would be (or is) utter legislative chaos.
With earmarks and all, we get so many new...mostly unnecessary...laws in one bill that it boggles the mind.
So here is my solution:
ONE BILL - ONE SUBJECT. ALL AMENDMENTS MUST RELATE DIRECTLY TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ONE BILL
That means no "bridges to nowhere" added to a bill about mayonnaise.
If a congressperson thinks his state should get some federal funds for some project, fine. Just introduce a bill and let the congress vote on that bill all by itself.
Better yet, let that congressperson run for state office and introduce the bill in his own state, using his own state's tax money and keep the federal government out of it.
So there you have it: ONE BILL - ONE SUBJECT. PERIOD.
Don't hold your breath, though.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Players and coaches must play by the rules or be punished for disobeying them.
There is a rule book in which the rules are written.
There is a way to change the rules if they need changing.
The rules cannot be changed by those whose job it is to enforce the rules or to apply the rules on the field.
We are a nation of rules.
There is a rule book. It is called "The Constitution of the United States of America."
There is a way to change the rules.
It's called "the amendment process."
There's even a way to re-write the entire rule book.
It's called "a constitutional convention."
But just as neither the referees nor the NFL can't change the rules of football while it is being played, judges can't change the rules of our country "while it is being played" (although they certainly seem to have forgotten that part of the rule book).
There is a set of bodies that can make laws, but even they are subject to the master rule book (although they certainly have shown plenty of disdain for it).
These bodies are called the Houses of Congress, and they are made up of the Senate and the House of Congress.
Calling them both "congress" and one of them individually "congress" at the same time can be confusing, but that's the way it is.
Lately, the collective congress has forgotten the principles laid out in the rule book. They have gotten confused about their job and have come to believe that they "rule" the country.
They are not supposed to.
The other night I heard one of the members of the House of Congress (not to be confused with the Houses of Congress) expound on how they were elected to exert "leadership" (that's a word they use for "boss citizens around").
They have gotten the idea that their job is to lead the country in the direction they think best for all of us.
That's how other countries do it, not the United States of America.
In America, the lawmakers' job is to lead the country in the direction its citizens want it to go.
Abraham Lincoln called it "...government of the people, by the people and for the people."
Our Houses of Congress (not to be confused with just the House of Congress) have tried to turn us into a "people of the government, by the government and for the government."
This past November we said "Enough, already!"
Turn it back around!
Many members of the House of Congress and the Senate (you remember, the Houses of Congress), failed to get the message.
Either that or they got the message but preferred to pretend that they did not by twisting the message into a congressional pretzel.
It is my hope and prayer that this January, when the new members of the Houses of Congress, (the Senators and the Congresspersons) take their place in our government they will remember their job: find out what the citizens want and lead us in that direction.
Each side (there are at least three: Democrats, Republicans and Independents) prefaces every speech with, "The American people want...," when they really don't have a clue what the American people want because they don't listen to the American people, they listen to their favorite sub-group (special interest groups) to find out which ones are going to give them the most money for their re-election campaign in two, four, six or eight years.
Time to wake up, Congress persons of both houses.
You've been sent to Washington D.C. (not to be confused with Washington state in the great Pacific northwest) to represent us, not to get us to represent your ideas of how things should be.
Now you Lame Duckers (not to be confused with blog commenter, Ducky) need to develop some character and integrity and stop trying to lead the country where you think it should go in a mad rush before you have to leave Congress.
Try leading us in the direction WE want to go!
What a concept!
I wonder how our framers came up with it?
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Without any fanfare, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday it was dropping the crystalline powder -- widely used in diet soft drinks, chewing gum, juice and toothpaste -- from its list of hazardous substances.
"Saccharin is no longer considered a potential hazard to human health," the EPA says.
You can read the rest of the story HERE.
Are any of you old enough to remember the hoopla over this?
I continued to use saccharin because, in spite of the government's insistence to the contrary, the amounts fed to the rats "proving" its danger was way out of proportion to their weight and the comparison to the amount humans would have to consume to produce a similar result was extraordinary.
I'm not a scientist...I don't even play one on TV.
But I am a clear thinker, and like Judge Judy says, "If something doesn't make sense, it's probably not true."
What the "scientists" were saying did not make sense.
Turns out, it wasn't true.
A lot like "global warming."
Monday, December 13, 2010
No, not the picture...where I live.
I live in Florida.
Not just Florida...SOUTHWEST Florida!
This is where snowbirds come to get away from the cold!
Right now, much of the country is covered in snow so deep people are stranded on roadways, stadium roofs are collapsing and IT'S ALL LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVES' FAULT!!!
It was you guys who worked so hard to convince us that our cars and factories and power generating plants and oil rigs and coal mines were causing a greenhouse effect that was resulting in GLOBAL WARMING!
Those were YOUR words, not ours.
Sure, you changed in mid-stream and began using the new term, climate change, which was really typically liberal/progressive stupidity, since the word "climate" has historically MEANT "weather change."
But you didn't let up on your insistance that our cars and factories and power generating plants, etc. were the problem.
I can hear the echoes of your words now, "We HAVE to stop driving those polluting cars...."
Well now look what you've done!
We all stopped driving, we no longer produce power in oil, coal or other fossil fuel consuming plants and look where it got us!
For the second year in a row, we have record, paralyzing cold with snow in some places up to 25 feet in drifts!
People in Miami, Florida, who have never had to worry about heat in winter, are now actually freezing and have no way to heat their homes!
Here in Southwest Florida we will experience sub-freezing temperatures tonight, possibly wiping our our vegetable crops, resulting in higher prices at the grocery store in this poor economy brought on by, who else, stupid liberal/progressives like Barney there's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mack Frank, and Nancy we have to pass the bill to know what's in it Pelosi.
AND IT ISN'T EVEN WINTER YET!!!!!
I am voraciously angry with you liberal/progressives!
You did this to us and don't try to deny it!
YOU are the ones who told us we were warming up, not Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity or Levin, YOU!
"Listen to us!" you urged! "We are smarter than you'll ever think of being because we're elites and we know what's good for you better than you do!"
Well give it up!
I will never listen to you again.
As for the rest of us, I URGE you to drive your cars more!
If your family has two cars, or more, drive them all as far as you can every day!
IF YOU HAVE A HYBRID OR ALL ELECTRIC VEHICLE, HURRY DOWN TO YOUR DEALER AND TRADE IT IN FOR A HUMMER!
If you run a coal burning plant, fire up the furnace! Get those greenhouse gasses flowing!
It's the only way we're going to stop this pre-winter madness!
WE HAVE TO DO IT NOW! BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE! BEFORE THERE IS ACTUAL LOSS OF LIFE DUE TO THE FREEZING TEMPERATURES!
COME ON, PEOPLE! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?
THE IRON IS NOT HOT, BUT WE MUST STRIKE ANYWAY!
Friday, December 10, 2010
See, if you make it sound intellectual, mysterious and scientific, you can dupe almost anybody on just about anything.
But that would be just the ignorant masses, right?
Smart, wise, all-knowing science types would never fall for this, would they?
These are the very same tactics used by Algore and his "global warming aka climate change" idiot liberal/progressive buddies use to "prove" just about everything they ever "prove."
But we should believe them, because they're so smart.
So very, very smart.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
It is by Yashiko Sagamori, and well worth reading.
If you are so sure that "Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history", I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine:
1. When was it founded and by whom?
2. What were its borders?
3. What was its capital?
4. What were its major cities?
5. What constituted the basis of its economy?
6. What was its form of government?
7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9. What was the language of the country of Palestine?
10 What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
11.What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.
12. Have they left any artifacts behind?
13. Do you know of a library where one could find a work of Palestinian literature produced before 1967?
14. And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
The people you mistakenly call "Palestinians" are nothing more than but generic Arabs collected or thrown out of all parts of the Arab world because they didn't want them either. And they still don't! If they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?
I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day "Palestinians" to the Biblical Philistines, substituting etymology for history that crap just won't work here.
The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it "Palestinian people" and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the "West Bank" and Gaza, respectively?
The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so called "Palestinians" have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel, and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a "nation" -- or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.
In fact, there is only one way to achieve piece in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel's ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.
The "Palestinians'" murderous motives started with the siege of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, an event to which the Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasa Arafat. I pray the United States and Israel lead the world to victory in the days to come. Come to think of it, there is no choice.
Yasser Arafat was a leader of the state of Palestine and 1st President of the Palestinian National Authority. The leader is also known as the Chairman of the Palestine liberation Organization who founded the secular political party Fatah in 1959, stepping in as its leader. Mainly known for his anti-Israeli stance, Arafat pushed the country in to a long war with Israel in the name of self-determination. While he is portrayed as a martyr in his own country Palestine, Arafat is also condemned for his attacks on Israeli civilians.
During the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, “Black September”, a Palestinian militant group, kidnaped and killed eleven Israeli athletes. The incident came to be known as “Munich Massacre”. The Black September, as reported by some noted historians, was a branch of Fatah used for paramilitary operations. In 1973–74, Arafat directed the PLO to withdraw from acts of violence outside Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
To investigate the Munich Massacre, the Israeli government launched the Operation Bayonet. It ordered its intelligence agency, Mossad to hunt down those known to have been involved. In 1979, the Mossad had assassinated at least eight PLO members including Ali Hassan Salameh, a commander of Yasser Arafat's personal security squad.
Yasser Arafat was a power hungry, sub-human, murdering loathsome piece of shit who deserves nothing but disrespect and hatred towards his name. May he not be remembered as anything but the scum that he was, he was responsible for countless deaths of innocent people, This thing called Yasser was nothing to this earth but a waste of space, oxygen and time. Dying of Aids was the only good thing in his life that ever happened.
I would truely like some comments that directly answer the questions above. Don't just attack Israel, give me answers to the actual questions.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
You saw it in the news this weekend!
Another little old American lady dressed in a Nun's habit was caught in an FBI sting trying to bomb the lighting of the Christmas tree in Portland, Oregon.
She was heard to exclaim, as the feds led her away, "Christmas has been the province of Christianity far too long. It is time someone did something about it and I'm just the one to do it!"
You say that didn't happen?
Let me check.
Oh, yeah...here it is:
A nine year old American kid was apprehended by FBI agents as he tried to detonate a bomb at the lighting of the Christmas tree in Portland, Oregon. The arrest came as a result of an FBI sting that caught the kid actually pressing the button on a cell phone that would have set off the bomb.
That didn't happen either?
Tell me, Dear Reader, who DID try to set off a bomb at the Christmas tree lighting in Portland, Oregon?
It was a Somali-born naturalized American MUSLIM?
Who would have guessed such a thing?
Why the Muslims are a peaceful bunch. They would never attempt such a horrendous thing!
If we had only known there was an iota of a desire on the part of Muslims to bring harm to America, we might have been looking for people who had the physical characteristics of someone from a predominately Muslim country.
We might even have considered it a waste of time to be looking for Nuns and little white boys as suspects in terrorist bombings...you know...like they do at airports.
Man! Have we ever got a lot to learn!
Maybe we should talk to Israel about their security methods.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
One tenant of conservatism is that of having the smallest possible government.
That is sometimes misunderstood, especially by liberal/progressives (deliberately, in some cases).
The phrase "the smallest possible government" does not really mean that we should have a "small" government. Rather it means that we should have a limited government.
It means government limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution and established by the consent of those governed.
The authors of The Federalist (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay), who called themselves Publius, asked in Federalist 51 “what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
By this he (they) meant that both citizens and government had to be controlled.
The best way to control government is to limit its powers. The federal government of the Constitution was to be a government of enumerated and limited powers.
Aggregate interests would be served by the federal government. All other interests, local and particular, would be served by "state legislatures (The Federalist 10:77-8).
Plubius enumerated four principal interests of the new constitutional union:
1) "The common defense of its members"
2) “The preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks”
3) “The regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States”; and
4) “The superintendence of [America’s] intercourse,political and commercial, with foreign countries.”(The Federalist 23:149)
Publius affirms that men are both self-interested and ambitious. Their opinions are driven more by passion and self love than they are by reason. This connection between self-love and one’s opinions is what leads so readily to faction, that most “dangerous vice” of popular governments that “a well constructed Union” must “break and control.” (Read more about this HERE.)
According to Plubius, men's personal opinions are of little import when compared to the necessity of firm and specific rules set forth in the Constitution.
The Constitution, as revealed by Plubius, was intended to mitigate two basic forms of
political conflict: conflict that originates in human passion, especially collective passion such as pride, hatred, and vanity, and conflict that originates in interests, specifically those related to property.
The two principal ends that the Constitution was to secure were the public good and private or individual rights.
The Constitution sought to mitigate the effects of faction by, on the one hand, making it difficult for a majority faction to infringe individual rights or to undermine the public good and, on the other hand, channeling faction into the less volatile forms of human conflict anchored in disputes over interests or property.
In Federalists 9–14, Publius shows how commerce, at least as directed and moderated by the new Constitution, can also promote comity, union, and American greatness. In fact, the most distinct elements of the improved “science of politics” that Publius introduces in Federalist 9 are not the four specific improvements to that science that we learn in any basic American government class: separation of powers, legislative checks and balances, an independent judiciary, and representation of the people.
Rather, the most novel and important contribution to political science that the Constitution will make is “the ENLARGEMENT of the ORBIT,” the extended sphere of territory over which the new federal republic will preside. (9:67)
According to Plubius, Constitutionalism rejected two long-standing assumptions of classical and modern political thought: first, that only in direct democracies or small republics could stability and virtue be promoted and, second, that commerce was debasing and that its promotion spurred inequality, avarice, selfishness, vanity, and undue consumption and pursuit of luxury, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, perhaps the most famous critic of 18th century commercial society, had maintained.
Institutionally, constitutional provisions such as the separation of powers, checks and balances, the federal structure of government, and the variety of terms and methods of election for Members of Congress and the President could check factions after they had formed. Such factions, however, needed to be undermined before they could form at the level of society as well.
The enlarged republic created by the Constitution would directly assist this object. As Publius famously put it:
"Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other.” (10:78)
The upshot of all of this is that the purpose of the Constitution is to protect and preserve the union while, at the same time, allowing individuals their specific rights, unencumbered by a powerful centralized government.
There are no restrictions imposed on citizens in the Constitution, rather there are restrictions on the powers of government.
If Plubius were alive today, he (they) would be horrified at the enormous powers that have been ascribed to the federal government at the expense of individual freedoms.
According to Plubius, there should never be a law "for the good of society as a whole" that usurped the rights of the individual.
Friday, November 26, 2010
There is one problem.
I am so full that I could not eat it if I wanted to.
I may never eat again.
If you believe that, I have a bridge...
At any rate, I cannot begin to describe to you how much I over ate yesterday.
We were at my wife's mother and dad's (for those of you educated in government schools, that would be my in-laws) house for the Thanksgiving meal, and all we had was the most tender turkey I've ever eaten, delicious dressing, sweet potatoes, fancy green beans, salad, pickles, olives, assorted cheeses, and a half-dozen other goodies followed by both apple and pumpkin pie and ice cream.
So, never mind.
My mind is so sluggish I can't even begin to think about politics or the way other Americans might be living their lives.
So, if you're off today, have a relaxing day. If you are working, I hope your work helps to relieve the effects of yesterday's feast.
With (or without) your permission, I will wait until Saturday to post again.
I hope you can get by without me...I know I can.
Have a nice day.
See you Saturday.
In the mean time, enjoy this, which I got at Bread Upon the Waters:
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Airplanes are some of my favorite things in the world, and I used to fly a lot.
I have ridden on literally hundreds of types of aircraft, military and civilian, and it was always the joy of my life.
My last flight was from Ft. Myers to Chicago's O'Hare on a 737-800, and I loved every minute of it.
But no more.
Not if I have to be rendered naked by X-Ray or fondled like a common criminal.
Having seen the videos of people being scanned and patted down, including little girls and young boys, I have decided that I am too prudish to undergo that stuff.
Call me homophobic, but I don't want some guy playing with me, and I don't think they'll let a female agent do it...not that I would want that...ever...having a wonderful wife and all.
All of this, of course, has nothing to do with safety or national security.
It has to do with power.
One TSA agent exclaimed to a passenger, "I've got power...I've got power!"
It is also about the incompetence of the Obama administration to carry out the mandate to protect American citizens.
They don't know how. They think this is how, but they are wrong. They don't know how.
I've read comments on other blogs by people who resign themselves to the scan/pat-down thinking that's what we have to do to be safe.
Such people do not understand either safety or liberty.
Freedom carries with it certain risks, and we must live with those risks or give up freedom. There are no other choices.
There are ways to minimize the risks of some Mad Muslim blowing up an airplane without sacrificing the freedom and rights of ordinary Americans. Mad Muslims tend to have a certain observable air about them.
Janet Napolitano needs to study the way Israel handles things at their airports, arguably the safest in the world.
But she won't...for two reasons: 1) she is too proud to learn from anybody, already knowing it all; and 2) we are in "America hates Israel" mode right now and therefore cannot use them as a model.
I was over at GeeeeeZ, reading what she posted on the subject of Muslim exemptions, and in the comments section I found two of the best suggestions for dealing with this I've seen yet.
One came from a blogger called beamish who said...
"I'd say if you're in line at the airport behind a Muslim female, pat her down yourself..."
The other came from a commenter who goes by the name of FrogBurger who said...
"...we should all dress in burqa, men and women, just for the time of going through the scanner. "
Both of these suggestions bring an amazing set of images to mind...too funny!
In the final analysis, though, since I refuse to be scanned to nakedness or fondled by some government (or private) goon, I'll just fly no more.
Monday, November 22, 2010
You knew that.
So many people seem so surprised!
I am not surprised.
I wrote a post referencing Rangel back in February of 2009 and again in August of 2009.
In both of the posts I identified him as a crook...which he was and is.
Now it has come to light officially.
His response is Nixonesque: Just because I behave like a crook is no reason to accuse me of being a crook.
(Maybe that's not fair to Nixon.)
Of course my liberal/progressive friends objected my characterization of Rangel, pointing out that he has been re-elected to represent Harlem for forty (40) years, and that must mean he is a "good person."
So why would the people of Harlem continue to elect a person so obviously devoid of positive character?
There are several possible reasons.
It might be that Harlem is districted in such a way as to guarantee election of a certain ethnic variety of person (read: black), and he was the only one running.
Maybe the people of Harlem would not even consider electing a person of another race. Whether you know it or not, that would make them racists.
Could be that the people of Harlem are just a corrupt as he is, and therefore it just seems natural to elect someone just like them.
If Charlie Rangel was such a good representative of his district, why do its people still suffer such poverty (24.3%)? If Charlie Rangel was such a good representative, why is the child poverty rate in his district so high (30.9%)?
Do the people of his district define his success by how poorly he represents them?
When Charlie faced his peers, he welled up with tears. It was as though he did not understand why they "picked on him." His tears were nothing more than those of a crocodile.
The truth is, as is reported in this Star Parker article, Charlie Rangel's attitude and unethical activities are but a symptom of a much greater syndrome: the corrupting power of power.
In fact, his attitude is the same basic issue as the entitlement mentality: "I want what I want, when I want it, where I want it, for whatever reason I want it, and I want it right now, whether I have earned it or not, and you should provide it for me."
The corrupt politician is no different from the common thief, except that the politician has more power and influence.
He says, "You have it, I want it, I deserve it, therefore I will take it."
Is there ever going to come a time when we demand that our lawmakers be of high ethical quality?
If so, when?
If not, why not?
Saturday, November 20, 2010
John Jay (1745–1829) was a New York lawyer of national stature and the oldest of the authors of The Federalist. For 6 years he served as the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Alexander Hamilton viewed Jay as one of the most astute political and legal minds of his day.
John Jay wrote Federalist 2-5 and Federalist 64.
James Madison (1751–1836) has been heralded as the “father” of the Constitution.
To misunderstand Madison’s conduct and ideas is to misunderstand the Founding itself.
Madison attended the entirety of the Constitutional Convention and was influential in virtually every part of its deliberations.
His extensive education and intimate familiarity with both ancient and modern political thought would serve him well both at the Federal Convention and in his work on The Federalist.
Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804) came from inauspicious beginnings.
Born financially destitute on the British island of Nevis in the Caribbean, after emigrating to America in 1772.
Hamilton, not only excelled academically at King’s College (now Columbia University), but wrote some of the most illuminating revolutionary writings while still in his twenties—writings that anticipated many of the arguments he would make in The Federalist.
The Federalist, you will remember, was written as though its authors were one person, who went by the name, Publius.
Although The Federalist has been cited for over two centuries as the definitive historical authority on the Constitution by politicians, jurists, and constitutional commentators, it is its significance as a work of political and constitutional theory that has been least appreciated.
Next Saturday we will begin looking at how the Federalist relates to constitutional government, human nature and American greatness.
Note: In the side bar on the right there will be links to all of the articles we'll study for The Federalist, so that you can browse back through them at your leisure.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Traditionally at Whitman Hanson, the annual pep rally and Thanksgiving football game has been special, as each class has worn different colors to the events: The seniors wore black; Juniors wore red; Sophomores wore white and Freshmen wore pink.
There have never been any reported issues connected with this practice, and there have been none this year, either.
But a new principal, Jeffrey Szymaniak, says he is not a fan of the color pink because he says leads to teasing.
So far, it hasn’t led to teasing, but it might.
Szymaniak wants students to wear only school colors…red and black.
If you are a student and show up wearing pink, you won’t be allowed in at the pep rally, but will be ushered to a separate room with different activities.
I’m sure that will reduce teasing.
Seven thousand, four hundred and fifty-five years ago, when I was a Freshman in high school (Paris American High, in Paris, France), Freshman initiation was specifically designed for teasing, and we all joined in with great enthusiasm.
Freshmen had to wear their clothes inside out wear different colored socks and a shoe from a different pair on each foot. We had to wear them all day long…to class and between classes.
If we were stopped in the hallway by a Senior, we had to carry his/her books to class and still make it to our class after reciting to the Senior, “I am a pathological, putrid piece of protoplasm, whose prime purpose on this painful path of pedantic progress is to pause and ponder profound platitudes.”
We knew it was teasing…maybe even a little degrading (pardon the pun…think about it…Freshman…9th grade…degrading…get it?), but we knew each Senior had done the same in his/her Freshman year, and we thought of it as our costume party.
In the case of Whitman Hanson Regional High School, Principal Szymaniak hopes to ward off any bullying that might take place because of some perceived dishonor in wearing pink.
Szymaniak is a PC idiot. Watch him in the video here.
If I were a Freshman there, I would wear black and red to the pep rally and football game and pink all the rest of the school year.
But I would be a really old looking Freshman.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
I don't disagree with his political, moral or social stances, I just don't relate to his style...especially on the radio.
But lately, as a conservative spokesman, he has risen in the ranks of liberal/progressives' vilified to their demonized.
They are particularly writhing in fury over his statements about George Soros, that kindly "philanthropist," who has, by his own statements, rejoiced in his ability to bring down economies.
So, let's play a little true/false game.
True or false: George Soros is from Budapest. Good job! That is true!
True or false: George Soros was a courier for the Jewish Council, the Nazi-established and Nazi-run organization that ran the Jewish community. So, how did you do? Turns out, that is true!
True or false: The Jewish Council was ultimately controlled by Adolf Eichmann, the man known as the "architect of the Holocaust." Oh, look! You are doing so well! That one is true, too!
True or false: George Soros' father was Tivadar Soros. Again...true!
True or false: Tivadar Soros wrote, "When systematic persecution of the Jews began," it was carried out not by the Germans, nor by their Hungarian lackeys, but—most astonishingly—by the Jews themselves. One of the first things the Germans did was to form a so-called Jewish Council, consisting of the leaders of the Jewish community. Council members were made personally responsible for the implementation of the various German measures relating to the Jewish population. As a reward, they, their families, and those who worked for them were exempted, at least at the beginning, from these restrictions... The Jewish Council carried out the German wishes far more conscientiously than the Germans could themselves." Well, guess what...this is true!
WOW! How are you doing so far?
True or false: Tivadar also wrote, "As Jews couldn't go to school any more and their teachers couldn't teach, they were ordered to report to council headquarters. The children were enlisted as couriers under the command of their teachers. My younger son, George, also became a courier. On the second day, he returned home at seven in the evening.
"'What did you do all day?' 'Mostly nothing. But this afternoon I was given some notices to deliver to various addresses.' 'Did you read what they said?' 'I even brought one home.' He handed me a small slip of paper, with a typewritten message [a summons]. 'Do you know what this means?' I asked him. 'I can guess,' he replied, with great seriousness. 'They'll be interned.'" Whoo-whoo! That is true!
True or false: In the intro to his father's book, George Soros wrote, "It is a sacrilegious thing to say, but these ten months [of the Nazi occupation] were the happiest times of my life... We led an adventurous life and we had fun together." Another true!
True or false: George Soros also assisted in the collection of Jewish chattels -- clothing, furniture, and the like -- for shipment to Germany. Guess what...true!
True or false: During a 1998 60 Minutes interview, Soros admitted to the entire story without hesitation, He also stated that he felt no guilt about it. True again!
True or false: George Soros claims to be a benefactor to humanity. That's certainly true.
True or false: This is not the way a benefactor of humanity actually behaves. True!
True of false: The liberal/progressive left will present no facts about Soros' involvement with Nazis and/or the Adolf Eichmann camp, but will only scream, "Liars!" and "It never happened!" Yeah...it's true. That's the only thing they know how to do.
True or false: The liberal/progressive left will continue to call Glenn Beck all sorts of names for his expose of Soros' past, his statements about his past and his lack of remorse for his past. True!
True or false: Glenn Beck is not the evil one here.
That's true, folks!
For more about Soros and the Soros/Beck story, you can visit here or here.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
If you are a liberal/progressive and there is something in one or more of these you disagree with, feel free to comment, but YOU MAY NOT SIMPLY CALL PEOPLE NAMES, NOT BILL WHITTLE, NOT OTHER COMMENTERS AND NOT ME. YOU WILL BE DELETED.
Make your case logically and with specific facts, not generalities. Tell us which video you are commenting about and the approximate time on the video where the part you disagree with is.
Don't bother to comment if you did not bother to watch the video(s).
If you are a liberal/progressive and cannot abide by these rules, don't bother commenting. Go some place else to voice your venom.
Monday, November 15, 2010
You liberal/progressives actually believe that being "...liberated to say things without thinking about 'OK, how am I going to practically implement this?'" is not lying?
If you are one who understands and goes along with this, there is something extremely wrong with your moral compass. Very wrong. Very, very wrong!
President BO either does not understand liberty, does not understand lying or he does not believe in liberty in the first place.
And since when does a president "assume power?"
The presidency is not about power (in spite of the liberal MSM constantly referring to President BO as the most powerful leader in the Free World), it is about servanthood to the people.
Oh, and BTW...where are all of you liberal/progressives who commented on this blog prior to the election saying how bad the loss would be for conservatives? Where are those who predicted that conservatives were just dreaming? Huh? Where are you?
XO...SK...Quack-quack...Anonymous...where are you?
Don't you think it's time to come back and comment, saying, "Sorry...I was wrong. Conservatives beat us big time...maybe we were just on the wrong track all along?"
Hmmm. I didn't think so. Liberalism means never having to say you're sorry.
Too bad. I wanted to hear your rationalizations.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Cody Alicea rides his bike to Denair Middle School in Denair, California each school day. He flies the American flag on the back of it.
Veterans week, school officials told Cody to take the flag off of his bike while on school property because they had received "several" complaints and feared RACIAL TENSION!
What in the world is racial about flying the American flag?
What kind of warped thought process thinks there should be any problem with flying the American flag at an American school in an American city in an American state (California is STILL in America, isn't it?)?
If there were any complaints, which I doubt...this was more likely some stupid "educator" who is enamored with his/her own politically correct agenda...the complainers should have been taken aside and explained to that in America we are proud of our country and that flying the flag is a demonstration of that pride.
It should have been further explained that if they don't feel pride for America because they are in this country here for nefarious reasons (read: illegal immigrants), they should go back to their country of origin, where they can be proud...if they are.
It is my experience that whenever an "official" says he/she has received "several" complaints, that there have really been no complaints and that the official is just trying to justify his/her politically correct motivations.
The same thing happens in other organizations. One person decides something needs to be done or undone and says something like, "People are saying..." or "I've heard a lot of scuttlebutt about...," when in fact that is not true.
Funny thing is, Cody was allowed to have the flag on his bike for two months before anyone "complained." Then, in the week of Veteran's Day, of all times, he was told to take it off.
After much negative media coverage, hundreds of phone calls from citizens and maybe the sudden realization of "Duh...," the school has reversed its decision and Cody has been allowed to fly his flag once again. That's good. It should never have been a issue to begin with.
Is there really no end to the depth of stupidity of the liberal/progressive left?
"How do you know this was a liberal, Joe?" I hear you ask.
Easy. No conservative, not a single one, would ever even think of violating the free speech rights of one who wanted to fly the flag.
You know, this has to stop.
I call on you liberal/progressives who claim to love America to rise up and yell, "Enough!" Then you should shout, "We may disagree on certain political matters, but this is not a political matter! This is about freedom and love of country!"
If you can't do that, I invite you to get out of America. Go to Mexico, France or Iran...but get out! Enjoy the freedoms you'll find there. You are not welcome here any more.
That goes for whoever the inane school official was who originated this horrendous idea.
Just because he/she has an education of some sort does not mean that he/she has any brains at all. Education does not equal smart...witness President BO, and several of the liberal/progressives who occasion the comment section of this blog.
This is America...land of the FREE and home of the brave.
Let's keep it that way.
Here's the original video about it:
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Of equal importance, but very little studied, is the collection of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay called The Federalist (often referred to as the Federalist Papers).
The reason The Federalist is so important is that it gave verbiage to the arguments in favor of adopting The Constitution as the founding document of the United States and it revealed the political and philosophical thinking of its framers as it related to the purpose, scope and sequence of The Constitution.
On this and subsequent Saturdays, I will endeavor to help you understand The Federalist and why it is important to us, both in our beginning as a nation and today.
It is precisely because we have not learned the principles laid out in The Federalist that we have such a sharp division in our country today.
To be sure, not everybody agreed with every doctrine set out in The Federalist. That is why there was considerable political division early on in our history. It is also why we have the philosophical descendants of the dissenters still arguing against The Constitution today.
As it turned out, the arguments put forth in The Federalist, and subsequently in The Constitution, won out, and The Constitution became the ultimate "law of the land."
There are 85 essays in The Federalist, and because the writers originally wanted to remain anonymous, the pseudonym, Plubius (short for Publius Valerius Publicola, the eloquent and noble Roman citizen who saved Roman republicanism)is used, instead of their names.
(By the way, that's republicanism with a small "r," indicating that The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic. It does not mean that we were all big "R" Republicans.)
As we go through the writing of Plubius, I will try to make its principles as simple as possible. I will attempt to express them in 4th or 5th grade English, so that even if you are not smarter than a 5th grader you will still be able to understand its meaning.
As the architect of The Federalist, Hamilton planned in September 1787 to produce 20–25 papers in defense of the Constitution that would be published in newspapers in New York. However, by the time The Federalist began publication on October 27, it had become evident that a more ambitious project would be necessary...thus the 85 essays.
Volume I of The Federalist was devoted to union and the necessity for more energetic government.
Volume II was devoted to the Constitution and its conformity “to the true principles of republican government.”
If you wish to get a head start, or to read ahead, this link will take you to the Library of Congress site where you can read the papers.
In the mean time, here is a summary of The Federalist
VOLUME I [NOS. 1–36]
1. The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity [Nos. 1–14].
2. The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union [Nos. 15–22].
3. The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object. [Nos. 23–36].
VOLUME II [NOS. 37–85]
4. The conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of republican government [Nos. 37–84].
Nos. 37–40 General form of the Constitution—its republican and federal/national character
Nos. 41–46 Sum or quantity of power vested in the government.
Nos. 47–51 Separation of powers.
Nos. 52–58 House of Representatives.
Nos. 59–61 Congressional regulation of elections.
Nos. 62–66 Senate.
Nos. 67–77 Executive.
Nos. 78–83 Judiciary.
No. 84 Responses to miscellaneous objections.
5. Its analogy to your own State constitution [No. 85].
6. The additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property [No. 85].
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Earmarks are an indication that representation in congress has become nothing more than a way of getting federal dollars for one's home district.
In fact, representation should not be about how to get federal dollars for one's home district, but about how to best use federal dollars for Constitutionally allowed activities that are national in nature.
The argument over earmarks is being waged by the likes of Jim Demint and Mitch McConnell.
Demint says earmarks are symbolic of congressional waste, while McConnell worries that if they don’t keep the pork coming, voters will hold it against them in 2012.
McConnell was asleep last Tuesday. Or drunk. Or whatever.
Look, my Washington DC "friends," what happened last Tuesday was an order from the boss (read: the electorate) to stop wasteful spending and get back to working within the framework of the Constitution.
Why, Mr. McConnell, can't you see that if you have to include earmarks in legislation in order to be re-elected you are in congress for the wrong reason?
If you want to provide special projects for your state, then run and get elected to your state legislature.
But you ran for federal office, not state office.
So please restrict yourself, and your compadres in congress, to things of a federal nature, sanctioned by the Constitution.
Your constituents, by the way, are leaning very heavily for what I have been advocating for more than half of my 68 year lifetime: one bill; one subject.
That means that once a bill is introduced, the only amendments that can be added to it must be directly related to the subject of the bill to modify the subject or to clarify it.
The use of earmarks to satisfy the greed need of your district is nothing more than political pandering at best; political blackmail at worst, and should be considered a breach of ethics.
Making political gains by the use of earmarks speaks directly to the quality of your character as a congressperson and to your ability to hear and respond to the will of the people.
Republicans hear us! We want you to change the process and do away with the earmark system!
Cutting spending does not mean just cutting the big stuff, like the Department of Education, or NEA or PBS, but cutting EVERYWHERE THAT CAN BE FOUND TO CUT, even if it hurts.
Come on, people! We put you there because you said you would listen. So, listen! Then act on what you hear!
Don't make us take back our support!
Today's Proof of President BO's amateurism: While in India he is asked his take on Jihad.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Governor Bob McDonnel of Virginia said, "I've heard some plans out there that say we're going to take eight years" to balance the federal budget. "I don't think the American people are going to wait eight years to balance the budget."
HE IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!
Republicans, if you don't take a firm, decided stand and fight for those and other issues, such as repealing Obamacare, you will not last!
We sent you to Washington to put people back to work by passing legislation to continue all of the Bush-era tax cuts, further reduce capital gains taxes, and push other specific plans to create jobs.
The American people saw the effects of President BO's agenda and revolted against it.
The president's agenda will destroy America as the land of the free, and will bring it down economically to a third world status.
But Republicans listen up!
If all you're going to do is to slow the demise of America, then we put you there for nothing.
This is not the time to fall back into politics as usual.
This is not the time to re-establish the "good old boy" network.
This is not the time to pretend that the Tea Party was some sort of fluke and that its members will not remember what they stood for during the campaign.
This is not the time to put self interests or home district interests ahead of the interests of the country.
This is the time to deliver on what you promised.
This is the time to do what we sent you to Washington to do.
Unless you just want to go home.
Because if you don't deliver, that's just where we'll send you.
Congressman John Boehner, and friends, you need to get on board with the right agenda, as do the rest of the Republicans.
Senator Lindsey Graham, and your fellow Republican senators, you need to do the same.
America needs you to put aside your penchant for compromising the wrong things and start doing what is right for the American people.
We are awake.
We are watching.
We are ready to act.
The time for action is now!
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
WELL...MAYBE NOT THE NASTIEST EVER.
Unrelated Addendum: Be sure to check out my new feature in the side bar, "BHO-The Consumate Amateur." There are too many instances to devote a post to each, so I'll provide links to examples of the rank amateurism, unpreparedness and inexperience of President BO.
Monday, November 8, 2010
While I do not necessarily recommend the style of the blog, its content is very good.
In the post I read, NG lays out a seven step process for cutting government spending, something which the Tea Party and several lawmakers - new and old - have said they want.
STEP ONE: CUT ALL (JUNK) FIRST - and the list is long. Cut NPR, PBS, Cut NASA funding for Mohammedan “self esteem building – cut the NEA, end embryonic stem cell research – end all federally subsidized research. Cut the United Nations – ensure our contributions match those of France (and encourage the UN to move somewhere else for a change of scenery). Cut welfare – entirely, let the states handle that.
STEP TWO: READ THE 10TH AMENDMENT – then look at the federal budget – cut everything that you can’t make a reasonable 10th amendment argument to keep. Department of Education – GONE! ATF – GONE! (Seriousy – what do they do that shouldn’t be done by the states?). IRS – MOSTLY GONE! (more on this later). The goal here is reduce the Federal Government to a shell of it’s former self. If you’re not FEARFUL at the end that you cut dreadfully too much – then you didn’t cut enough.
STEP THREE: Implement a FLAT TAX - this is a great gift to Americans and will help you get rid of 95% of the IRS. The IRS should be a little office in Washington, DC – staffed by very old military retirees who sit around most of the day telling war stories – it really should be that simple. Also – since we don’t have a complicated Federal Government anymore – we don’t need lifetime lawmakers – implement TERM LIMITS.
STEP FOUR: GO BACK THROUGH THE FIRST THREE STEPS AND LOOK FOR MORE THINGS TO CUT. If the states can do it – get rid of it. By now you have a government that is a shell of it’s former size – and Americans no longer have the “FEDS” breathing down their backs in any way, shape or form.
STEP FIVE: SECURE THE BORDERS AND DEPORT ILLEGALS. Border security comes first – and it must be AIR TIGHT. If you want a “comprehensive” solution to immigration then go for it – but only after the borders are secure.
STEP SIX: LOOK AND SEE HOW MUCH $$ WE NOW HAVE TO PAY THE “BIG” ENTITLEMENTS LIKE SS AND MEDICARE. Sit down – and come up with a fix. It may take raising the retirement age – it may take reducing benefits – it may take a certain amount of privatization – whatever, at this point you know you’re not spending money on stuff so you have a lot more options on what you can do with these entitlements.
STEP SEVEN: GO TO AMERICANS AND SAY – “WE’VE GIVEN YOU YOUR LIBERTY BACK – IN ORDER TO KEEP IT, AND PASS IT ON TO YOUR KIDS – THIS IS WHAT WE’D LIKE YOU TO DO”. Sell them the program based on the fact that you’ve given them their nation back – in wonderful condition and in a state they can be proud to pass on to their children.
I think these steps are worthy of great consideration and should be passed on to our congressment and senators, who don't seem to be able to get very specific about their plans (except for the repeal of Obamacare...a very good idea, by the way).
Saturday, November 6, 2010
I don't often include Scripture in my political blog. I reserve that for my other blog, Joe's Jottings.
Today is different, because I want to make a point.
So here is a conversation between Jesus and a Jewish teacher of the law (a reference to the Law of Moses).
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
I will not take the time to list the quotes of our founders that relate to their belief that faith in God is important if we are to remain a viable nation and are to fulfill the promise of our "Great Experiment." You can read those by going to my older posts and reading my Sunday series on the subjects.
For this post I want to focus on the two principles laid out by Jesus in this discussion:
1) Love of God is paramount.
2) Loving our neighbor is equally as important.
I'm suggesting to you, as we face possible "gridlock" in our government, that we don't need any more laws...not a single one.
If we would just practice those two, there would be no robberies, no murders, no stealing, no corruption, no greedy businessmen, no cheating on taxes, no marrying the wrong person, no divorce, no police brutality, no street mobs, no sloppy workmanship, no fake illnesses to get to stay home from work, and so-on and so-on and so-on.
(The fact that there are all of those things is evidence that Romans 3:23 is right: "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.")
In the beginning of our nation, being a congressperson or a senator was not considered a "vocation," but an honor.
Early on, congress was not in session for the whole year, except for time off for holidays and district campaigning for the next election.
At first, congress knew that they knew that the states would take care of most of the laws needed to run the country and the feds would only deal with those issues restricted to them by the Constitution.
With the realization of the power afforded them by the office they held, congresspersons began to expand their influence and to flex their legislative muscle to gain favor and influence, not only in their districts, but in their particular legislative body and in the country at large.
The result was that laws began being passed that were not just for fulfilling the requirements of the Constitution, but to benefit the politicians' local "needs."
To say that practice has expanded is a gross understatement.
I have long been an advocate of "one bill-one subject." No amendments could be added to a bill that did not directly and significantly relate to the need of that bill.
To implement such a process would cause lawmaking to move at a snails pace!
That's what we need!
As it is now, we have bridges built to nowhere, restrictions on every activity under the sun, special buildings built for minute groups of people, unused parks and playgrounds that sit unused - built in order for the congressperson from that district to be able to say, "See what I have done for you!" and hundreds of thousands of other stupid and dangerous additions to bills that have nothing to do with what the bill is about.
The health care bill is a perfect example.
There are dozens of things in the health care bill that have little or nothing to do with health care.
For instance, did you know that the quasi-military force (civilian military force) President BO spoke of during his campaign is a part of the health care legislation?
Of course not. We had to pass the bill in order to find out what was in it (thank you, Nancy Pelosi).
One of the things our newly elected conservative representatives will have to face is that when they introduce a bill, their frustration will grow as the "good old boys" add unrelated amendment after unrelated amendment to the bill in exchange for their vote for the bill.
That is a stupid, dangerous, self-serving practice that offends the dignity that should accompany the office of a legislator.
But people like Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Trent Lott and even John Boehner don't care. All they care about is securing their position of power by bribing their constituents.
They will stand before you with a straight face, looking very sincere and earnest and tell you that's not true, and the practiced expression on their face will convince you that they are only looking out for your and the country's interests.
That is a blatant lie.
They look out for, and only for, their own interests.
Cynical, isn't it?
Yep...but true, nonetheless.
What we need more than anything else to to put in place those most essential principles: Love God and love your neighbor.
So, where will YOU stand concerning those principles?
Will you tell you representatives where you stand?