This will be the last post for this blog this year. It will be continued sometime next year, possibly under a different website, so keep posted.
Just remember that Christmas is the remembrance of our great Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Please take time to remember and honor Him, for it is because of Him that we are blessed to be on this Earth and move onto Heaven when we pass.
And don't forget to recharge, for the trials that face us all will always be there. It will be easier to take them head on fully rested.
Merry Christmas to all, Happy New Year, and God Bless!
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Gun-Control Advocates
It's amazing how the credentials of a liberal politician are never in doubt. Liberals tend to be experts at everything, appearing to always use logic and reason to work through the most complex issues of the day. Yet, their ideas never work, and their solutions always fail, requiring further thought and laws. This cycle is by design. The "solutions" are just baby steps toward robbing the American public of more freedom. This can been seen in the gun-control movement.
Chuck Schumer has spent the majority of his professional life in politics after a brief time in the legal profession. Yet his opinion on all matters is sought out, and he is one of the most well known senators. Therefore it is no surprise that his clout is used to promote gun-control (CNSNews.com). Recently he remarked that it is OK for some people to own guns (CNSNews.com). If he does believe this, then will he determine who can bare arms? If so, what are his credentials? Has he performed studies on gun ownership or worked with gun safety officials? What psychological, sociological, or medical training does he have that would support his theories on which citizens can own firearms? What first hand knowledge of proper firearm ownership does he have? Is he a firearm owner and what does he use them for? Does he hunt, target shoot, or skeet shoot? If he does any of those activities, how long and how active is he in the sport? Those are just a list of questions that come immediately to mind.
Diane Fienstein, another gun-control advocate, has spent her entire career in politics. She was responsible for writing the 1994 assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Shortly after the Newtown, CT shootings she began a renewed effort on a second assault weapons ban (CNSNews.com). Again, like Schumer, what unique information does she have that qualifies her to label something as an "assault weapon?" Has she asked the military, gun distributors and manufacturers, or firearm designers what they may consider an "assault weapon?" Does she have experience using, producing, or inventing new types of "assault weapons?" Has she studied how guns work, the physics behind them, or uses in combat and non-combat situations?
Those who have studied these issues paint a different picture of gun violence in the United States. The statics show that mass killings are in decline (TheBlaze.com). John Lott, a leading authority on gun violence, has written several books showing that firearm mass murders occurs more often in gun-free zones (NewsMax) and points to Israel's armed citizenry as being the most effective in stopping all types of crime (The Mark Levin Show, December 14, 2012). Has he been consulted by either Schumer or Fienstein?
A politician is a human being, not some genius who possesses answers to all issues and questions. Elevating them to expert status on all matters only emboldens them. It provides the opportunity to make wild assumptions and pass laws that limit freedom, not bring about solutions. So, when debating these officials, or those who support them, their knowledge and background should be the first thing challenged.
Unfortunately the vast majority of people confronted have no knowledge or experience with anything they are talking about. They reiterate talking points and fake "facts." Do not be afraid to confront such idiocy and remember that it is easily defeated and countered.
Chuck Schumer has spent the majority of his professional life in politics after a brief time in the legal profession. Yet his opinion on all matters is sought out, and he is one of the most well known senators. Therefore it is no surprise that his clout is used to promote gun-control (CNSNews.com). Recently he remarked that it is OK for some people to own guns (CNSNews.com). If he does believe this, then will he determine who can bare arms? If so, what are his credentials? Has he performed studies on gun ownership or worked with gun safety officials? What psychological, sociological, or medical training does he have that would support his theories on which citizens can own firearms? What first hand knowledge of proper firearm ownership does he have? Is he a firearm owner and what does he use them for? Does he hunt, target shoot, or skeet shoot? If he does any of those activities, how long and how active is he in the sport? Those are just a list of questions that come immediately to mind.
Diane Fienstein, another gun-control advocate, has spent her entire career in politics. She was responsible for writing the 1994 assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Shortly after the Newtown, CT shootings she began a renewed effort on a second assault weapons ban (CNSNews.com). Again, like Schumer, what unique information does she have that qualifies her to label something as an "assault weapon?" Has she asked the military, gun distributors and manufacturers, or firearm designers what they may consider an "assault weapon?" Does she have experience using, producing, or inventing new types of "assault weapons?" Has she studied how guns work, the physics behind them, or uses in combat and non-combat situations?
Those who have studied these issues paint a different picture of gun violence in the United States. The statics show that mass killings are in decline (TheBlaze.com). John Lott, a leading authority on gun violence, has written several books showing that firearm mass murders occurs more often in gun-free zones (NewsMax) and points to Israel's armed citizenry as being the most effective in stopping all types of crime (The Mark Levin Show, December 14, 2012). Has he been consulted by either Schumer or Fienstein?
A politician is a human being, not some genius who possesses answers to all issues and questions. Elevating them to expert status on all matters only emboldens them. It provides the opportunity to make wild assumptions and pass laws that limit freedom, not bring about solutions. So, when debating these officials, or those who support them, their knowledge and background should be the first thing challenged.
Unfortunately the vast majority of people confronted have no knowledge or experience with anything they are talking about. They reiterate talking points and fake "facts." Do not be afraid to confront such idiocy and remember that it is easily defeated and countered.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Newtown, CT
My heart goes out to all those who have suffered from the horrific events that occurred on Friday, December 15, 2012 in Newtown, CT. The only solace I can provide is that the Lord, Our God, is watching over the families of the slain. Those taken in this tragedy are with God where no pain, death, or harm exists. May the Lord bless Newtown, CT as it rebuilds from this devastation. I ask that everyone send out prayers, as I and my family will do, for the next several nights. May God bless them all.
What saddens me the most, besides the tragedy itself, is the political stance many are taking. Before the bodies of the dead are returned to their families, and in many cases not yet identified, the Left has already begun a full fledged attack on firearms to further their political agenda (how shameful!) (HollywoodReporter.com & NYDailyNews). They are advancing their disgusting policies before a proper period of mourning. Their childishness forces others to react in order to defend the many decent law abiding Americans who understand that not everything is about politics. It is with that in mind that I continue this post bearing a heavy heart.
No one is talking about the real issues facing this nation. For example, why aren't we discussing the lack, the rejection, the removal of concepts like good and evil from the culture? Moral relativism and secularism took the place of accepted morality and God. We don't talk about the policies that eliminate humanity. Where was the Left when it was reported that sixty percent of black children are aborted in New York State (NYTimes)? Where is the outrage when the media invents stories like the "trench coat mafia" after the Columbine shootings (I'll never forget when someone who grew up in Columbine told me that was all lies) and gives press time to a few lunatics? Why isn't there any discussion about all the movies, music, and video games that promote horrid violence and lust, or the breaking up of the family unit that wreaks havoc on kids?
Furthermore, where are the real men? Why is it we only hear of the heroic acts of the great females that did all they could to protect the children, like the principal and school psychologist (YahooNews) and the brave, phenomenal women who acted, and in some cases gave their lives, to save their students (NYDailyNews & ABCNews (Sadly, in this last article, the political correctness that is killing our society is clearly seen as one teacher told students to pray if the believe in it and think happy thoughts if they do not. Why make that distinction when life and death are on the line?)). Was there not one man to step forward and try to stop this creep, even while he was reloading? Has the feminization of men made them all cowards? What happened to defending woman and children? Is it because the media is constantly telling us to be afraid of death from accidents, killer viruses, and meteorological, planet-killing events?
Plus, how does focusing on guns help to stop these awful events? In China, where there are no rights and tight controls on literately everything, there is an increase in violent crime (Boston.com), including people slashing children with knives (ABCNews). In addition, Mark Levin often points out that in the 9/11 attacks not one gun was used, and recently murderers set victims on fire using gasoline (TheDenverChannel.com). Also, the vast majority of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones, where firearms are not permitted (FoxNews). Imagine if just one other person in that school carried a concealed firearm who could have stopped or slowed down this freak. And lets not forget Timothy McVeigh, the Lefts favorite "right-wing" mass murdered, who used manure to blow up a building, or the 1920's murder of forty young students using dynamite (Wikipedia). The list of non-gun mass killings is innumerable.
And say guns are totally banned from society, including military, police, and illegal. Does anyone honestly believe that there would be no more horrific violence? As pointed out in the last paragraph, the gun is not the only tool used to hurt others. However, some would further the argument by saying if there were no guns, it would be harder to commit a large number of murders at once, making some think twice about acting like or slowing down the progress of sociopaths. That is also a false premise. A determined mind will find a way to carry out its missions. Suicide bombers do not use guns, and they injure and create chaos often.
So, what is wrong with this nation? As Rush Limbaugh has said, the soul of the country is gone. Nearly one hundred years of progressive ideology has removed decency in American culture and replaced it with immorality. When will we have the national debate that recognizes the real problem in this country, that life is no longer sacred. Until that is addressed these sad and heartbreaking happenings will continue.
What saddens me the most, besides the tragedy itself, is the political stance many are taking. Before the bodies of the dead are returned to their families, and in many cases not yet identified, the Left has already begun a full fledged attack on firearms to further their political agenda (how shameful!) (HollywoodReporter.com & NYDailyNews). They are advancing their disgusting policies before a proper period of mourning. Their childishness forces others to react in order to defend the many decent law abiding Americans who understand that not everything is about politics. It is with that in mind that I continue this post bearing a heavy heart.
No one is talking about the real issues facing this nation. For example, why aren't we discussing the lack, the rejection, the removal of concepts like good and evil from the culture? Moral relativism and secularism took the place of accepted morality and God. We don't talk about the policies that eliminate humanity. Where was the Left when it was reported that sixty percent of black children are aborted in New York State (NYTimes)? Where is the outrage when the media invents stories like the "trench coat mafia" after the Columbine shootings (I'll never forget when someone who grew up in Columbine told me that was all lies) and gives press time to a few lunatics? Why isn't there any discussion about all the movies, music, and video games that promote horrid violence and lust, or the breaking up of the family unit that wreaks havoc on kids?
Furthermore, where are the real men? Why is it we only hear of the heroic acts of the great females that did all they could to protect the children, like the principal and school psychologist (YahooNews) and the brave, phenomenal women who acted, and in some cases gave their lives, to save their students (NYDailyNews & ABCNews (Sadly, in this last article, the political correctness that is killing our society is clearly seen as one teacher told students to pray if the believe in it and think happy thoughts if they do not. Why make that distinction when life and death are on the line?)). Was there not one man to step forward and try to stop this creep, even while he was reloading? Has the feminization of men made them all cowards? What happened to defending woman and children? Is it because the media is constantly telling us to be afraid of death from accidents, killer viruses, and meteorological, planet-killing events?
Plus, how does focusing on guns help to stop these awful events? In China, where there are no rights and tight controls on literately everything, there is an increase in violent crime (Boston.com), including people slashing children with knives (ABCNews). In addition, Mark Levin often points out that in the 9/11 attacks not one gun was used, and recently murderers set victims on fire using gasoline (TheDenverChannel.com). Also, the vast majority of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones, where firearms are not permitted (FoxNews). Imagine if just one other person in that school carried a concealed firearm who could have stopped or slowed down this freak. And lets not forget Timothy McVeigh, the Lefts favorite "right-wing" mass murdered, who used manure to blow up a building, or the 1920's murder of forty young students using dynamite (Wikipedia). The list of non-gun mass killings is innumerable.
And say guns are totally banned from society, including military, police, and illegal. Does anyone honestly believe that there would be no more horrific violence? As pointed out in the last paragraph, the gun is not the only tool used to hurt others. However, some would further the argument by saying if there were no guns, it would be harder to commit a large number of murders at once, making some think twice about acting like or slowing down the progress of sociopaths. That is also a false premise. A determined mind will find a way to carry out its missions. Suicide bombers do not use guns, and they injure and create chaos often.
So, what is wrong with this nation? As Rush Limbaugh has said, the soul of the country is gone. Nearly one hundred years of progressive ideology has removed decency in American culture and replaced it with immorality. When will we have the national debate that recognizes the real problem in this country, that life is no longer sacred. Until that is addressed these sad and heartbreaking happenings will continue.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Libertarianism (pt. 2)
John Stossel, a noted libertarian that appears on and hosts a show on Fox News, explained in an interview how he could not believe in "God" (TheBlaze.com). He described that he would need proof and "...reason and explanation." This further proves the divide between conservative and libertarianism.
As shown before, libertarians have much more in common with liberalism than conservatism. Many may say they are open to the idea or possibility of God, but do not support it, as Stossel claims. But this leaves a couple a series disturbing questions.
If there is no faith in the existence of God, then where do our basic rights come from? The Declaration of Independence speaks of a "Creator" that provides us with certain "unalienable rights." If the libertarian does not agree with the concept of a Creator, do they agree with concept of unalienable rights? I sure they do, but then how does one obtain them? The answer may be through man. Penn Jillete, in the interview with Glenn Beck, was asked how he, an atheist, reconciles the reference to God in the Declaration. His response was that there is also the mention to certain "truths being self-evident." This was very telling, as infers that man creates the belief in God, and therefore the belief in unalienable rights (which actually makes them inalienable). So the conclusion is that man provides inalienable rights. And if man can give something, then man can take them away. Would that be called a conservative or progressive idea?
Also Stossel points to the lack of evidence of a God, something that progressives and militant atheists shout. This is a secular and science directed idea that ignores any personal experience. It is void of emotion and individual faith. So again, is this more progressive thought, or is it closer conservatism?
Libertarians are not evil people. They are just amoral. That is something that conservatives cannot become. If conservative leaders decide to work with libertarians, they must retain their value and moral driven base rather than adopt the libertarian idea of amorality. For without morals, a civil society cannot exist.
As shown before, libertarians have much more in common with liberalism than conservatism. Many may say they are open to the idea or possibility of God, but do not support it, as Stossel claims. But this leaves a couple a series disturbing questions.
If there is no faith in the existence of God, then where do our basic rights come from? The Declaration of Independence speaks of a "Creator" that provides us with certain "unalienable rights." If the libertarian does not agree with the concept of a Creator, do they agree with concept of unalienable rights? I sure they do, but then how does one obtain them? The answer may be through man. Penn Jillete, in the interview with Glenn Beck, was asked how he, an atheist, reconciles the reference to God in the Declaration. His response was that there is also the mention to certain "truths being self-evident." This was very telling, as infers that man creates the belief in God, and therefore the belief in unalienable rights (which actually makes them inalienable). So the conclusion is that man provides inalienable rights. And if man can give something, then man can take them away. Would that be called a conservative or progressive idea?
Also Stossel points to the lack of evidence of a God, something that progressives and militant atheists shout. This is a secular and science directed idea that ignores any personal experience. It is void of emotion and individual faith. So again, is this more progressive thought, or is it closer conservatism?
Libertarians are not evil people. They are just amoral. That is something that conservatives cannot become. If conservative leaders decide to work with libertarians, they must retain their value and moral driven base rather than adopt the libertarian idea of amorality. For without morals, a civil society cannot exist.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Joe Lieberman
One of the largest problems that exists in politics is dishonesty. Our Founding Fathers were some of the most honest and virtuous men on that ever lived. Just think of the initial creation of the Constitution. Many states refused to ratify it, feeling the federal government was given too much power. So it was agreed that amendments would be passed immediately after ratification that further limited the federal government. Those amendments are now known as the Bill of Rights.
An agreement like that would be impossible today. The Democrats have reneged on so many promises, like securing our borders(OnTheIssues.org) and cutting spending (ATR.org), that it is impossible to trust a word they say. There is no honor in this leftist government anymore.
Which leads to Joe Lieberman. He calls himself an Independent, a title not earned. On every vote and issue he sides with the Democrats after pretending to disagree. Even the media counts him as a Democrat vote on every piece of legislation. He claims to be an Independent to win elections, which is highly dishonorable and dishonest.
So when he discusses the security on the United States border, it should be no surprise that he does so out of both corners of his mouth. He believes that the border is very secure, yet there is still so much more to do (CNSNews). With this statement, he appeases everyone. Those that argue the border is not open can agree with the first part, and the others that feel it is not can agree with the second part. Well, Senator, which one is it?
His obvious pandering is bad, but his true intentions are revealed at the end of his statement. Lieberman believes that securing the border is important, but that doing so should not hurt the liberty of Americans. This is something the Senator will have to explain. How can ensuring our safety on the border and preventing illegal immigrants, drugs, and terrorists from slipping through be a detriment to our freedom? The entire premise of this statement is completely flawed and contradictory. What this last statement really means is he doesn't want to do anything about the borders, because doing so hurts his Democrat allies. The bit about liberty gives him a reason to oppose a tighter border.
Much of Washington is wildly corrupt, yet I do think there are a handful of good people. It's politicians like Joe Lieberman that will ensure the right people never make the spot light in a positive way, and that's infuriating to conservatives. It's our job to expose liars like Lieberman and show the blatant double-speak of the left.
An agreement like that would be impossible today. The Democrats have reneged on so many promises, like securing our borders(OnTheIssues.org) and cutting spending (ATR.org), that it is impossible to trust a word they say. There is no honor in this leftist government anymore.
Which leads to Joe Lieberman. He calls himself an Independent, a title not earned. On every vote and issue he sides with the Democrats after pretending to disagree. Even the media counts him as a Democrat vote on every piece of legislation. He claims to be an Independent to win elections, which is highly dishonorable and dishonest.
So when he discusses the security on the United States border, it should be no surprise that he does so out of both corners of his mouth. He believes that the border is very secure, yet there is still so much more to do (CNSNews). With this statement, he appeases everyone. Those that argue the border is not open can agree with the first part, and the others that feel it is not can agree with the second part. Well, Senator, which one is it?
His obvious pandering is bad, but his true intentions are revealed at the end of his statement. Lieberman believes that securing the border is important, but that doing so should not hurt the liberty of Americans. This is something the Senator will have to explain. How can ensuring our safety on the border and preventing illegal immigrants, drugs, and terrorists from slipping through be a detriment to our freedom? The entire premise of this statement is completely flawed and contradictory. What this last statement really means is he doesn't want to do anything about the borders, because doing so hurts his Democrat allies. The bit about liberty gives him a reason to oppose a tighter border.
Much of Washington is wildly corrupt, yet I do think there are a handful of good people. It's politicians like Joe Lieberman that will ensure the right people never make the spot light in a positive way, and that's infuriating to conservatives. It's our job to expose liars like Lieberman and show the blatant double-speak of the left.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Sex-texting
There is a story out of United Kingdom that warns of the epidemic of sex-texting by children fourteen years old and younger. The Daily Mail (article here) describes how some organizations in Great Britain are trying to make it more difficult for children to obtain sexually explicit material. The ease of finding pornography on the internet was said to be one of the major reasons for the dangerous trend. My response, why is everyone so surprised? Isn't this what they voted for? I thought the sexual revolution was the most important thing that ever happened?
Just as was asked in a previous post, when will be people stop being fooled? This is what socialism/communism/fascism/totalitarianism is all about. The value of human life has to be lessened, and destroying morality, virtue, honor, and values is a perfect way of doing that. The real issue here is how children are constantly used by the Left to scare the public into taking action on many liberal issues, like global warming, education, and pollution. Yet, the left, and many people who are crying foul now, support abortion, i.e. a woman's "right" to choose. So what did these leftist supporters expect? Did they truly believe kids were off limits? The Left needs to start indoctrination at a young age, and a great way to do it is through reproduction. This is a perfect segue toward abortion, immediate gratification, and marriageless sex. That in turn devalues humanity, responsibility, and self-control, which are goals for the Left.
It also shows how little the general population knows about politics. Liberals have done very well in convincing a majority of voters, both in Europe and here, that all of the evil aspects of society come from the right, and the greatness comes from the left. That's why people are so shocked at reports like the one from the Daily Mail. Those voting for leftists think they made the correct decision. They believe power was given to good, decent politicians who care about them. Even in this last election, a huge majority of voters thought Obama cared for them more than Romney (NBCNews).
Sadly, people will most likely not figure out that the left tricks them on every issue till the inevitable destruction of society. Then everyone will run back to conservatism.
Just as was asked in a previous post, when will be people stop being fooled? This is what socialism/communism/fascism/totalitarianism is all about. The value of human life has to be lessened, and destroying morality, virtue, honor, and values is a perfect way of doing that. The real issue here is how children are constantly used by the Left to scare the public into taking action on many liberal issues, like global warming, education, and pollution. Yet, the left, and many people who are crying foul now, support abortion, i.e. a woman's "right" to choose. So what did these leftist supporters expect? Did they truly believe kids were off limits? The Left needs to start indoctrination at a young age, and a great way to do it is through reproduction. This is a perfect segue toward abortion, immediate gratification, and marriageless sex. That in turn devalues humanity, responsibility, and self-control, which are goals for the Left.
It also shows how little the general population knows about politics. Liberals have done very well in convincing a majority of voters, both in Europe and here, that all of the evil aspects of society come from the right, and the greatness comes from the left. That's why people are so shocked at reports like the one from the Daily Mail. Those voting for leftists think they made the correct decision. They believe power was given to good, decent politicians who care about them. Even in this last election, a huge majority of voters thought Obama cared for them more than Romney (NBCNews).
Sadly, people will most likely not figure out that the left tricks them on every issue till the inevitable destruction of society. Then everyone will run back to conservatism.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Cupcakes (pt. 2)
Last year, about this time, I mentioned how my nephew was forbidden by school authorities to bring cupcakes to school, due to the apparent cupcake "unhealthiness." It saddens me to report that the situation has not improved, as new dietary requirements are in place, and school lunches have become smaller and more expensive at my nephew's school. Unfortunately it is not limited to just my local educational system. This is a national problem.
I ran across an article from the Journal Sentinel Online (article here) that explains how students are rebelling against school lunches. The report interviews a football playing student who uses food brought from home to obtain the extra calories that the school is not allowed to provide because of federal guidelines. The student is forced to bring in his own lunch, as the school lunch provides only about a third of his daily requirements. What was most interesting about the story was the second to last paragraph that said, "Teens need a push to make healthy eating choices..." And that is the real purpose.
A "nutritionist" spoke to my nephew's class about good eating habits. Now, every time he has something "unhealthy" he complains to his mother about it. This not just indoctrination, it's control.
The Left enjoys this "one-size-fits-all" attitude toward everything (except taxes, where they want to punish the successful). They want to control what people do, how they live, and what they eat. This is what nationalized healthcare is all about. The Left defines what is proper, and then forces it upon everyone. The students can rebel all they want and bring food from home (which is what they should be doing in the first place), but until the majority of Americans wise up and realize what is occurring, the communists will continue to oppress us.
I ran across an article from the Journal Sentinel Online (article here) that explains how students are rebelling against school lunches. The report interviews a football playing student who uses food brought from home to obtain the extra calories that the school is not allowed to provide because of federal guidelines. The student is forced to bring in his own lunch, as the school lunch provides only about a third of his daily requirements. What was most interesting about the story was the second to last paragraph that said, "Teens need a push to make healthy eating choices..." And that is the real purpose.
A "nutritionist" spoke to my nephew's class about good eating habits. Now, every time he has something "unhealthy" he complains to his mother about it. This not just indoctrination, it's control.
The Left enjoys this "one-size-fits-all" attitude toward everything (except taxes, where they want to punish the successful). They want to control what people do, how they live, and what they eat. This is what nationalized healthcare is all about. The Left defines what is proper, and then forces it upon everyone. The students can rebel all they want and bring food from home (which is what they should be doing in the first place), but until the majority of Americans wise up and realize what is occurring, the communists will continue to oppress us.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Libertarianism
The following is a letter I sent to Glenn Beck. I feel that libertarianism is very attractive to many conservatives, but conservatives have to be careful. Here is what I wrote:
December 8, 2012
Dear Glenn Beck,
On December 7, 2012 the Glenn
Beck Program featured an interview with Penn Jillete. The overall theme of the interview seemed to
be how conservatives and libertarians can find common ground and team up to
form a coalition against the left. This collaboration
may appear beneficial, however there are some red flags that pop up. It is all too reminiscent of past forces that
on the outside may have common interests, but more deeply are vastly different.
Libertarianism espouses a very small, limited government,
almost to a point of non-existence. Many
of the most prominent libertarians find more agreement with the Articles of
Confederation than with the Constitution.
This seems quite attractive to many conservatives, who feel the federal
government needs reduction. This
agreement though is where the shared belief ends, and where libertarianism’s
much stronger connection to progressivism begins.
Conservatism at its core is human nature. People wish to be free and live as they
choose. Yet human begins are not
apathetic or naturally oppressive. Each
person on some level cares for their fellow man and wants to see them strive,
not just survive. Conservatives have a
strong set of values that guide humanity and promote its advancement. Libertarianism, on the other hand, preaches
complete apathy, which is contradictory to freedom and just as dangerous as
oppression.
The basic argument behind libertarianism is if someone is
not directly hurting others, they should be left alone to do as they
please. This is a totally amoral
statement. Although conservatives may
often say similar things, it is within a moral context. Conservatives, as an additional requirement
to the above argument, do not wish others to hurt themselves as well. It shows a caring for their fellow man, not
just an acceptance that we are all free individuals. This can clearly be seen in the legalization
of drugs.
Libertarians, as well as and progressives, believe in the
decriminalization of drugs. After all, whatever
action one chooses to take upon his or her person is their business if no one
else is harmed. This is a truly flawed
premise. Should humanity ignore a
person’s desire for suicide or the removal of a limb because no one else is
harmed in the process? Is it ok to allow
people to overdose on drugs or live constantly under the influence if there is
the assurance of safety for the rest of the population? Even more disturbing is how drugs are placed
on par with unhealthy foods. If someone
wants to eat chips and burgers all day, why can’t they just smoke pot as
well? The libertarian does not see the
immorality in drug use, whereas the conservative sees a clear distinction between
food and the societal and personal harm of narcotics, both legal and illegal.
The libertarian amorality extends further than just the
legalization of drugs. It stretches to
exclusion. Penn Jillete made two
contradicting statements. On the one
hand he claimed that no one has the right to not be offended. On the other hand he said that even if one
person disagrees, everyone must meet his or her demands. Well, if there is no right to not be
offended, then why is it so important to make sure no one is offended? The response may be that the latter should
only pertain to public places and things, while the former to private
matters. But that is missing the whole
point. The public place is the only area
that matters. The libertarian ideal of a
society free from personal held beliefs would only promote an amoral society
and eventually destroy the civil society on which America is based. Civil societies need a strong moral core to
be created and survive. Penn Jillete
admitted this when he agreed that American was founded on Christian beliefs. Also, an amoral society helps creates moral
relativism, which leads to immorality, a key component of progressivism. The desire of exclusion on the part of
libertarians once more displays their amorality. If the celebration of what makes us different
is ignored, rather than embraced, everyone becomes nothing more than a unit,
and the true individual is lost.
The conservative response is much more sensical and value
driven: allow everyone to share their beliefs so all feel included and
important. Why would it be wrong to
display a Christmas Tree, Menorah, and a picture of Charles Darwin in the town
square? This shows diversity, tolerance,
and respect far more than an empty court lawn.
The preceding example again shows the closer ties that bind
libertarianism to progressivism. How is
Mister Jillete’s stance in the preceding paragraph any different from that of
the progressive, who also seeks to eliminate any sign of individuality or
statement of beliefs from the public square?
Even Mister Jillete’s examples pointed to Christianity, something the
left loves to attack. The similarities do
not end there.
Libertarians and progressives agree on a weaker national
defense and both often do not support Lincoln or the Civil War. In addition many Occupy Wall Street members
were libertarians who were distrustful of the banks and big government. Plus, many libertarians are young college
students. Why would the college system,
controlled by the progressives, allow this foreign ideology into their ranks if
it were not beneficial or in agreement?
The purpose of this letter is not to say that all
libertarians are evil and must be stopped.
The fear is that, much like the Establishment Republicans, conservatives
may be seeking common ground with unlikely allies. Instead, conservatives should be looking to
the demoralized within their own ranks first, for it was that which caused our
loss about one month ago. What continues
to come to mind is the Catholic Church and socialists. On the surface they seemed to have much in
common. Both cared for the poor, wanted
the best for everyone, and sought justice for all. Unfortunately, upon deeper examination, it
proved very damaging for the Church and Christianity in general due to
Christian and socialist antithetical teachings.
Conservatives must not lose that which makes them conservative: the deep
moral core that built this very nation.
If a hand is stretched out to libertarians, the worry is that same fate
awaits them as the Catholic Church.
Thank you very much for your time and all that you do.
Sincerely,
Vincent
Panetta
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Electoral College
Over the years I have heard a great amount of criticism for the Electoral College. More recently there has been an even bigger outcry against it, as there usually is after an election. People claim it's outdated. It may have been needed when information was difficult to attain and people knew far less about politics (although the recent election proves the uneducated are alive and well; so many Obama supporters disagree with his policies (RushLimbaugh.com)). Unfortunately the brilliance of the Founders is lost in modern America. Too many people feel they are smarter than the Founding Fathers, especially since they view them as nothing but slave-owning, rich, white men who hated everyone (that is a discussion for another day). They want to change an awesome, albeit imperfect, system that was meant to protect our rights.
So what makes this system great?
To start with, it prevents a simple majority from imposing its will on everyone. As Mark Levin often points out, the Founding Fathers feared that a temporary majority could make horrid, permanent changes that would insure their power even when their majority is lost. Today this premise is mostly gone as the Democrats have put a massive bureaucracy in place that does their will (which makes the Founders' point). That's also why some Constitutional events, like amendments, require around sixty percent to enact. The Founders wished to create a stable government in place that did not change rapidly.
Another fact to remember, that has also been destroyed by the Left, is that the states were to remain more powerful than the federal government. That was the agreement made between the states, hence the "United States" part in the "United States of America." All states agreed to work together and were considered to have equal say what occurs in the country. If the presidency was decided by popular vote, then a candidate would only have to concentrate on a few large states, like New York and California, and ignore the rest. Instead, the electoral college ensures that all states would be counted, for no president can win with support from only a few large urban areas. In theory, the electoral votes of each state should also be divided between state regions, and some states have adopted this stance. Again, it enables the entire population of a state to be heard.
A third aspect is the idea of locality. The Founders understood that a large country would have many different peoples and regions. They hoped that people would be familiar with their local governments. There used to be elections for Electoral College candidates. The thinking was that if you have no clue who is running for the presidency, you at least know who your local representative is and can trust he will follow your interests. In fact, the delegates for the Electoral College don't have to follow the vote of their states. There is no constitutional requirement to do so (see the above paragraph).
The history of this country is sadly dying. I remember American history in school, where a week was spent on the Founding, and the remainder on slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the presidencies of FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and JFK. There is no discussion of the limits placed on the federal government. We must not forget the true background of this great country, when men who held the power of kings in the palm of their hands decided on freedom.
So what makes this system great?
To start with, it prevents a simple majority from imposing its will on everyone. As Mark Levin often points out, the Founding Fathers feared that a temporary majority could make horrid, permanent changes that would insure their power even when their majority is lost. Today this premise is mostly gone as the Democrats have put a massive bureaucracy in place that does their will (which makes the Founders' point). That's also why some Constitutional events, like amendments, require around sixty percent to enact. The Founders wished to create a stable government in place that did not change rapidly.
Another fact to remember, that has also been destroyed by the Left, is that the states were to remain more powerful than the federal government. That was the agreement made between the states, hence the "United States" part in the "United States of America." All states agreed to work together and were considered to have equal say what occurs in the country. If the presidency was decided by popular vote, then a candidate would only have to concentrate on a few large states, like New York and California, and ignore the rest. Instead, the electoral college ensures that all states would be counted, for no president can win with support from only a few large urban areas. In theory, the electoral votes of each state should also be divided between state regions, and some states have adopted this stance. Again, it enables the entire population of a state to be heard.
A third aspect is the idea of locality. The Founders understood that a large country would have many different peoples and regions. They hoped that people would be familiar with their local governments. There used to be elections for Electoral College candidates. The thinking was that if you have no clue who is running for the presidency, you at least know who your local representative is and can trust he will follow your interests. In fact, the delegates for the Electoral College don't have to follow the vote of their states. There is no constitutional requirement to do so (see the above paragraph).
The history of this country is sadly dying. I remember American history in school, where a week was spent on the Founding, and the remainder on slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the presidencies of FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and JFK. There is no discussion of the limits placed on the federal government. We must not forget the true background of this great country, when men who held the power of kings in the palm of their hands decided on freedom.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Fiscal Cliff
On 1010 WINS radio this morning I heard a report tying the Fiscal Cliff to job losses. Apparently companies are so scared over the uncertainty caused by this Fiscal Cliff nonsense they are laying people off like crazy and downsizing. The report was designed to protect Obama and set up the Republicans.
Funny how there are no stories of what companies really fear. Companies big and small are terrified of ObamaCare, which will make the cost of running a business sky rocket through mandatory providing of employee health care and increases in taxes (Newsmax.com). In addition virtually nothing is said about the EPA regulations, which now average hundreds to thousands a month, that will make it harder for profit to be made. Plus, the very re-election of Obama has made many give up and close shop over worries of the expense of running a business and the refusal to have one's earnings transferred to others who don't want to work (TheBlaze).
But let's say you do want to blame this all on the Fiscal Cliff. What in the Fiscal Cliff talks has everyone so scared? Is it some social program being cut? Some infrastructure program ending? Well, the 1010 WINS story doesn't specify this for a reason: it doesn't help Obama, and it hurts Republicans.
What scares employers, producers, and business owners the most is the taxes Obama wants to raise and the never ending spending he proposes. It's not just the mere mention of the Fiscal Cliff and uncertainty. Producers know what is coming, and they are not in a good position to survive. Yet Obama takes no heat. If you do a Yahoo search, one of the first articles highlights how Republicans will be held responsible for the Fiscal Cliff (WashingtonPost).
When the economy worsens and quality of life decreases, the Democrats, and a corrupt media that enables them, want to ensure that progressive policies are not attached to it. It serves them better to have Republicans, who are painted as wanting to stalemate the president, the country, and economic progress, charged with allowing the country to go over the Fiscal Cliff. for the worse Republicans look the better Obama does. It is a sad example of just how corrupt our media has become and how uninformed the average citizen is.
Funny how there are no stories of what companies really fear. Companies big and small are terrified of ObamaCare, which will make the cost of running a business sky rocket through mandatory providing of employee health care and increases in taxes (Newsmax.com). In addition virtually nothing is said about the EPA regulations, which now average hundreds to thousands a month, that will make it harder for profit to be made. Plus, the very re-election of Obama has made many give up and close shop over worries of the expense of running a business and the refusal to have one's earnings transferred to others who don't want to work (TheBlaze).
But let's say you do want to blame this all on the Fiscal Cliff. What in the Fiscal Cliff talks has everyone so scared? Is it some social program being cut? Some infrastructure program ending? Well, the 1010 WINS story doesn't specify this for a reason: it doesn't help Obama, and it hurts Republicans.
What scares employers, producers, and business owners the most is the taxes Obama wants to raise and the never ending spending he proposes. It's not just the mere mention of the Fiscal Cliff and uncertainty. Producers know what is coming, and they are not in a good position to survive. Yet Obama takes no heat. If you do a Yahoo search, one of the first articles highlights how Republicans will be held responsible for the Fiscal Cliff (WashingtonPost).
When the economy worsens and quality of life decreases, the Democrats, and a corrupt media that enables them, want to ensure that progressive policies are not attached to it. It serves them better to have Republicans, who are painted as wanting to stalemate the president, the country, and economic progress, charged with allowing the country to go over the Fiscal Cliff. for the worse Republicans look the better Obama does. It is a sad example of just how corrupt our media has become and how uninformed the average citizen is.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Texas
Recently I have seen a large number of stories regarding Texas, especially related to Houston. The first one that caught my eye was on Univision (I think), and it was regarding a professor that claimed his race prevented him from becoming hired at a local university. He professed his over qualifications for the position and argued that the only logical conclusion was racial motive. That was only the first of five stories I saw based in Houston that week.
Another story explained how tax payer money was going to fund studies that teach at risk teenage girls fourteen and up to convince their sexual partners to use condoms (WashingtonExaminer).
An additional report told of a store clerk fired for defending himself with a gun against an attacker (KHOU). More showed how pro-Obama NAACP advocates took over polling locations (TownHall.com) and described efforts by local citizens to stop the UN backed Agenda 21 implementation (KENS5.com).
So why so many news stories from Texas, especially Houston? Because it is last stronghold of Republicans, and liberals want it.
Due to illegal immigration and an influx of liberals from progressive states (who are fleeing socialist areas that have high taxes, costs of living, etc., for conservative ones with better economies, but still vote progressive because they are incapable of learning) Texas is slowly turning blue, and that is a shame. The constant news stories draw attention to it and embolden liberals in the area. Houston has become a hotbed of progressive activity, and I have heard many from New York are flocking there. So it is a great place to start. That is how the liberals operate. They choose an area, over populate it, and then spread out like a cancer. It's what happened to places up and down the east coast, like Virginia and North and South Carolina, that were once solid red and are now deep purple.
Texas has a great independent spirit and a large population. The left knows if they can defeat Texas the Republicans will have a very difficult, if not impossible, time of winning the presidency. Plus it will give them the opportunity to turn a once proud and strong state into another weak and feeble progressive region.
It will be a very sad day when Texas turns permanently blue. That will mark the end of American independence and spirit.
Another story explained how tax payer money was going to fund studies that teach at risk teenage girls fourteen and up to convince their sexual partners to use condoms (WashingtonExaminer).
An additional report told of a store clerk fired for defending himself with a gun against an attacker (KHOU). More showed how pro-Obama NAACP advocates took over polling locations (TownHall.com) and described efforts by local citizens to stop the UN backed Agenda 21 implementation (KENS5.com).
So why so many news stories from Texas, especially Houston? Because it is last stronghold of Republicans, and liberals want it.
Due to illegal immigration and an influx of liberals from progressive states (who are fleeing socialist areas that have high taxes, costs of living, etc., for conservative ones with better economies, but still vote progressive because they are incapable of learning) Texas is slowly turning blue, and that is a shame. The constant news stories draw attention to it and embolden liberals in the area. Houston has become a hotbed of progressive activity, and I have heard many from New York are flocking there. So it is a great place to start. That is how the liberals operate. They choose an area, over populate it, and then spread out like a cancer. It's what happened to places up and down the east coast, like Virginia and North and South Carolina, that were once solid red and are now deep purple.
Texas has a great independent spirit and a large population. The left knows if they can defeat Texas the Republicans will have a very difficult, if not impossible, time of winning the presidency. Plus it will give them the opportunity to turn a once proud and strong state into another weak and feeble progressive region.
It will be a very sad day when Texas turns permanently blue. That will mark the end of American independence and spirit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)