Thursday, October 8, 2009

WHICH AMERICA IS IT?

There are at least two opposing views of the United States of America: America is good and America has failed.

French political thinker and historian, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote in 1835: "I sought for the key to the greatness of America in her harbors; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America ceases to be great."

Contrary to the thinking of old Alexis, to the liberal mind, at least as manifested in the philosophy and policies of President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks), America has failed for over 230 years.

According to that mindset, America's domestic policies have failed, her foreign policies have failed, economic policies have failed, her spiritual policies have failed and her moral policies have failed.

America, according to "them," was conceived in error (with a flawed document: The Constitution), grew according to the wrong economic precepts (capitalism) and raised her children with the wrong goals (liberty and rugged individualism).

The other way of thinking of America, that she is good, finds its roots in the thinking of those we call "the founders."

The most accurate way of determining the historical veracity of something, whether it be an event, a writing or whatever, is to get as close to its happening or source as possible.

The theory is that the people closest to the event have the best recollection of what happened and that the further from the event one is, the more likely it is that accounts of the event have been distorted and/or altered.

It's like that old parlor game "gossip." By the time the whispered "secret" gets to the end of the line it is likely much different than what was said to the first person in line.

So, to determine what the founders' attitudes were toward this new country they were putting together, we do well to go back to as many of their original writings, records of their speeches and their own testimonies as to their expectations as we can.

Mondays on this blog are devoted to some of those original writings, speeches and testimonies. It will take me several years to cover the ones I have.

An honest reading of those posts will bring one to the conclusion that the United States of America was founded on certain moral, just and religious principles that occupied the minds and hearts of the founders.

Almost all of the founders believed in God and sought His guidance for the establishment of the rules and morals of the government they were forming, basing their system of laws on those laid out in the Old and New Testaments of the book they nearly all revered, the Bible...hence the concept of our Judeo/Christian heritage.

To be sure, they were practical men, who applied those principles to the government in ways that would be suitable for all of society, which they divided into believers and non-believers (referring to the latter as "pagans" or sometimes "infidels").

Did they have philosophical struggles? You betcha!

They struggled with slavery. They struggled with capital punishment. They struggled with changing technology. They struggled with attitudes toward those who were different from them, such as Native Americans.

Their greatest struggle, though, was against the powers of tyranny imposed upon them by the country that wished to rule them, Great Britain and her monarchy.

Funny thing: we struggle with the very same issues today.

We have come to equate this volatile word, "racism," with slavery. Capital punishment has become "state murder," abortion and euthanasia. Changing technology has outpaced the government's ability to keep up with it.

"Tolerance" has become the by-word of the leftists, although they are the least tolerant of all people.

They think letting people do what they want, when they want, where they want, how they want and to whom they want, regardless of the mores of the majority is tolerance. They think everybody should be tolerant of everybody else, regardless of their moral fiber unless, of course, they happen to subscribe to the values of traditional Christianity. Then they justify their own intolerance under the guise of "not wanting to offend."

But it is OK to offend Christians. In fact, it is encouraged.

Don't offend Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, witches or celebrities (some of whom fall into one of the preceding categories), but go out of your way to offend the very people who gave you this Land of the Free and Home of the Brave...the Christians.

Never mind that Christian hospitals serve more people around the world than all others combined. Never mind that the first responders to natural and man-made disasters around the world are Christians, and in greater numbers than all of the governments and secular organizations combined (check out this truth about Katrina: Southern Baptists provided 500,000 to victims every day! Many, many other Christian organizations were involved as well, while the government dragged its feet with unbridled bureaucracy).

Never mind any of that stuff, because the liberal mindset is to refuse to believe what is actually true, only what they want to be true.

The collective mindset of the founders was that of the Judeo/Christian ethic, which they saw as essential to the success of this great experiment.

The Judeo/Christian mindset was regarded as good.

America began moving away from her goodness when she began moving away from and rejecting the Judeo/Christian values of her founders.

And when America "...ceases to be good, America ceases to be great."

Which America will it be for you?

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

WHO REJECTS THE MOST FOR HEALTH CARE?

I have commenters on this blog who periodically tout the wonders and advantages of Medicare, using it to illustrate why we should favor government run health care. They love to point out that I use Medicare, and say that I am a hypocrit for opposing government run health care.

A chart showing the major carriers and how Medicare compared to them in the study follows (info source: HERE.):




Again from Tom Blumer at NewsBusters HERE:

"Well, well.

"The Medicare denial rate found in the study was, on a weighted average basis, roughly 1.7 times that of all of the private carriers combined (99,025 divided by 2,447,216 is 4.05%; 6.85% divided by 4.05% =1.69).

"You would think Medicare's sheer size might enable it to have smoother procedures with its providers that would enable it to turn down a lower percentage of claims. But no, this is the government we're talking about.

"So who's the most "heartless" now? And why should Americans accept the idea of gradually being forced into a government-run system when, based on documented government experience, they will be more likely to see their claims denied? "

Add to that the fact that Medicare is going broke, is over 100 times more expensive than was promised at its inception and excludes many procedures before they are even considered, and you have an illustration of a government program run amok.

Now, will one of you liberals please explain to me in plain, simple terms why the current health care reform proposals are a good thing?

I'm waiting.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

OLYMPIC FOOLS GOLD

I want to weigh in on President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) and the International Olympic Committee.

You know all of this, but I will include it for posterity's sake.

President BO, FLOTUS, Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey tried to convince the IOC that the Olympics should be held in Chicago.

Their method was for President BO to tell the IOC how wonderful he is and for FLOTUS Michelle Obama to do the same.

To make certain the IOC knew who this was really all about, they used the personal pronoun "I" more than a hundred times between them in their speeches.

The IOC effectively threw them off of the international stage.

Obama said "it's always a worthwhile endeavor to promote and boost the United States of America and invite the world to come see what we're all about."

This from the guy who has managed all by himself to diminish the shine of America around the world.

While it is gratifying to see that the world does not hold nearly the exalted image of President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) as he does of himself, be careful about making more of this striking failure than there is to make.

Around the blogosphere this phenomenally stupid loss to Rio de Janeiro is being heralded as a possible sign that the president's power is weakening, and that he may be in trouble on the domestic front.

It seems more likely that his Chicago thugism will rear its ugly head and that President BO's pressure on congress to pass health care legislation, cap-and-trade legislation and a host of other laws that will move us ever closer to socialism will increase geometrically.

He has lost face on the international stage.

He cannot afford to lose face on the domestic stage.

After all, the messiah, the gift of the gods to America, the poster boy for egocentricity, the personification of megalomania MUST be satiated with success.

More than ever, President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) will be determined to project and protect his own grandeur.

Conservatives must remain ever steadfast lest we end up with a country that is nothing more than Olympic fools gold.

Monday, October 5, 2009

MONDAY MUSINGS ON THE MEGALOMANIAC IN CHIEF

For the next ten Mondays I am going to try to demonstrate a strong tendancy of President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) to stretch the truth about himself and his policies. I'll be doing about three examples per Monday, if I can.

Did Barack Obama, or did he not, when addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Alabama try to connect his birth to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother?

Answer: He did. Check it out HERE.

Did the Kennedy family give $100,00.00 to the so-called "Kenyan Airlift" which is supposed to have led to bringing BO into existance?

Answer: Yes...but not until late September of 1960...a little late for the introductions of a Kenyan to a Kansan who gave birth to the president-to-be in 1961.

Why stretch that Truth (read: why lie about it)?

What...to make himself seem more "authentic?"

Did Obama, or did he not, claim at that speech in Selma, "Selma Got Me Born?"

Answer: He did.

But Obama was born in 1961...Selma "happened" in 1965.

Do the math.

Why would he make such a false claim?

Would it be because he wanted to "connect" with the people of Selma at any price...even at the expense of the truth.

When speaking at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, did, or did not, Barack Obama bring forth a claim he would later use repeatedly to drum up public support. “My father… grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack?”

Answer: He did.

But Obama’s sob story about being the son of a goat-herder is complete fabrication.

Obama’s father was actually born into a privileged life, not one of “tin-shack” poverty. His father, Obama's grandfather, was a prominent and wealthy farmer who emigrated from Kenya.

Why would Barack Obama make up the previous story?

Could it be that he wanted to make others think that he is one of them; that his rise to influence from the dregs of society would make him more impressive?

Now I can hear you saying, "So what?"

So what I am going to try to do on Mondays is to demonstrate a propensity for Barack Obama to make up stories and to misstate facts about himself and his history in order to convince people that he is not what he says he is, and that he is what he says he is not.

A pattern of this kind of continual deceit has a name: pathological liar.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

SUNDAY SAYINGS FROM THE FOUNDERS Samuel Adams




"I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world . . . that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace."


Samuel Adams

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; "FATHER OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION"; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS

Saturday, October 3, 2009

TURTLE TALK

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old rancher, whose hand was caught in the gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to President Obama.

The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, Obama is a 'post turtle.'" Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.

The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle.'"

The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain. "You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, and he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just wonder what kind of idiot put him up there to begin with."


I have no idea where this originated, but do want to thank Liz for forwarding it to Poison Pero, over at Right Is Right, from whom I stole it.

Friday, October 2, 2009

I'LL REPORT...YOU DECIDE



Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy


WHAT DO YOU THINK?