Saving Common Sense

The Forthcoming Elimination of Americans' First Amendment Rights

2012-02-02T12:35:00.000-07:00

A forthcoming denial of our foremost basic and precious God-given right, as specifically articulated in the first amendment of the United States Constitution, is soon to be eradicated by the same federal government that is sworn to uphold and protect that Constitutional right for all Americans. President Obama’s administration has called, via the continuing implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), for all health plans to mandatorily cover contraceptives (including two abortifacients) and sterilizations as part of an upcoming expansion of “women’s services”. The problem is that many people of faith find these “services” to be morally wrong and contrary to the dictates of their faith.

This is particularly the case with the Catholic faith. In fact, this last Sunday a letter was read at Mass for nearly all of the parishes throughout the United States to explain the Church’s opposition to this law and how it directly contradicts the Church’s moral convictions regarding contraception and the sanctity of life. Further, the Church called for Catholics to oppose the regulation and to fight to have it rescinded completely.

Within the first amendment to our Constitution lies the phrase, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. I’ll begrudgingly grant that the federal government has reasonably protected the first part of that right, but they now have absolutely missed any semblance of protecting that right as regards the second part. If an institution of faith, such as the Catholic Church, is forced to offer a health plan that MUST offer “services” which it finds diametrically opposed to the dictates of its faith, how is the government protecting the free exercise of their religion? In fact, government becomes the very instrument that would cause the violation of that God-given right. And indeed, as our founders knew and stated, all of our rights are endowed by our Creator, not by decree of the government.

Now it is true that our federal government has stated that these new regulations include an exemption for all “religious” employers; however, that employer must primarily employ people of its own faith, primarily serve only people of its own faith, and be primarily involved in the inculcation of the tenets of that faith; consequently, such a standard would not exempt Catholic hospitals, charities, and schools from this onerous and evil law. Indeed, the exemption is so narrow that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated that even our Lord Jesus Christ would not qualify for it, as he tended and cared to those outside of the faith also throughout his life and ministry.

President Obama clearly stated during the drafting of the Obamacare legislation that there would be an adequately encompassing exemption within it that would allow people whose conscience or moral convictions were violated by the law to abstain from its requirements. It would seem that President Obama was less than truthful here. Indeed, President Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced on January 20^th that the administration was proceeding with this new regulation which will take effect on August 1^st of this year. She did grant a one year extension to “religiously affiliated non-profit groups” in order for them to figure out how to “adapt” to the regulation, as she put it.

When asked about this issue yesterday at a White House press briefing, spokesman Jay Carney stated, “I don’t believe there are any constitutional rights issues here.” He continued, “The administration believes that this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventative services.”

The fact is that a health care provider not providing free access to artificial contraception does not condemn a woman to pregnancy any more than not providing free diet-pills would condemn her to obesity. Further, the idea that pregnancy is an illness or disease that must be prevented or eradicated further shows the degradation of our culture in its valuing and cherishing of human life, particularly in a nascent form. But that, again, is not the primary issue involved here.

Now there are many folks, sadly even within the Catholic Church, that disagree with the church’s teachings on contraceptives and even abortion, and thus think this law is good accordingly. Well no one has asked that people outside of the Catholic faith to believe in this teaching, even though millions of others still do. It is enough that we Catholics believe this as part of our faith. What should concern every last single American is NOT whether contraception, sterilizations, and abortions are necessary or good, but rather that the Constitutional right of a group of people to believe contrary to that and wishing to live their faith accordingly are not being permitted to do so by force of law. A constitutional right is being rescinded for the largest Christian group in America. That is the issue at hand and one that should frighten every American. If the government is allowed to curtail the free exercise of religion, what other constitutional right can it some day down the road renege its support and protection thereof that might affect you?

Many folks, myself included, are dumbfounded as to how such an egregious abuse of government power that usurps our most basic freedom is being allowed to happen at all, with nary a peep from the press or the public at large. Frankly, I suspect the implementation of this pernicious regulation by the Obama administration is done absolutely by design and with full knowledge and intent of the ramifications of it. President Obama knows, and the Catholic Church has now pretty much confirmed it, that the Church will NOT violate God’s law and their own moral convictions to satisfy man’s law. The result will be, assuming that the government does not back down, that Catholic hospitals, charities, and schools will no longer offer health insurance to it employees and their families. That means millions of uninsured people will be directed towards the coming exchanges and government healthcare roles. THAT has been the design behind this regulation from the beginning. It is, as Obama stated years ago, the necessary incremental implementation of a state-run and mandated health care system for all, for the common good, of course.

So what is an American of good conscience to do about the necessity of protecting our first amendment right to the free exercise of religion? Well, the first thing would be to call your congressman, senators, and the White House. Demand that congress passes HR 1179/S.1467 “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act”. Further, you can sign a citizen-created petition on the White House web site (lower right hand corner of site at this link) telling President Obama that you do not approve. Again, this is NOT an issue about contraceptives or abortion; it is about the exercise of one’s religious beliefs as articulated in the Constitution and given by God.

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson said it best in 1809 when he stated, “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.” He was right. Hopefully millions of good folk, Catholic or not, will also be right and stand up against this pernicious constitutional violation against ALL Americans accordingly.

The 9/11 Healing Fields

2011-09-10T00:23:00.003-06:00

As we commemorate the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America that occurred on September 11, 2001, it is interesting to note how various places across our greatest of nations choose to mark the occasion. Some places are holding solemn prayer vigils. Others, as per President Obama’s urging, are volunteering in any number of ways to help their communities. In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg is hosting a ceremony to commemorate the event where clergy and prayer are sadly not welcome.

I, however, am lucky to live in a rather refreshingly peculiar state. It is quite different from anywhere else I have ever lived. The people here are generally rather conservative and tend to be quite patriotic, which suits my temperament quite well. They typically honor that patriotism with respect and service towards others and our nation. I live in the suburbs of Salt Lake City, Utah.

In the next town over, Sandy, Utah, they have commemorated the attacks of 9/11 in a rather unique fashion. The city has erected what they call a Healing Field each year since 2003. The beautiful verdant grassy field outside of the Sandy City Hall is lined with nearly 3000 American flags to commemorate the deaths of the 2,977 innocent victims that perished that horrible day, with the majestic Wasatch Mountain Range framing the background. Each flag has a tag attached to it with a name and some biographical information for one of the victims lost that day. See here for more information on this incredible Healing Field.

The field is nearly overwhelming when first seen. This is even more so when you realize that the seemingly endless field of flags represents a fallen American for each single flag.

This year they will further be unveiling a new statue of the firemen that raised Old Glory in the midst of the rubble of the World Trade Center as a permanent memorial. The statue will be entitled Hope Rising.

I happened by the place as I drove home from work today and spent a moment walking through the field while taking a few pictures. It is amazing how an ordinary field can be transformed into such a solemn place. I said a prayer to God that He will continue to show His love and mercy towards the loved ones that lost someone on that horrible day and further pray that we Americans will not forget that day and hopefully never have to suffer such an evil attack on our citizens ever again.

The Pseudo-Virtue of Tolerance

2011-09-08T12:49:00.000-06:00

In this new progressive age in which we are living we are constantly lectured to by our leftist brothers and sisters about the absolute need for showing tolerance within our American society today. Indeed, the necessity of practicing tolerance is preached from all levels of government, schools, social organizations, charities, and even some churches. If one were to watch television for any prolonged sitting, it is a good bet that one would see a public service announcement stressing the need that we all act with tolerance towards one another. Indeed, “tolerance” has been elevated to a virtuous level, or so it would seem.

Now I understand the often altruistic intentions of many of those good folks that are decrying the need for tolerance in our society today, but unfortunately rather than improving society through our more tolerant actions, we seem to be debasing it often times and excusing actions and behaviors that used to be considered harmful, wrong, or sinful as just being part of the norm of everyday life now. This sort of tolerance has defined deviancy down to the lowest common denominator often times.

Archbishop Charles Chaput formerly of the Denver Catholic Archdiocese and now of the Philadelphia Archdiocese is a brilliantly moral Christian man. He also has a few critics because he is not one to bend Christian Catholic orthodoxy or doctrine, even if he were canonically allowed to do so, simply in appeasement to our new age demands to show greater “tolerance”. Indeed Archbishop Chaput recently made a comment regarding this “tolerance trend” and put the non-virtue of tolerance into its proper perspective. He stated,

“We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty -- these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it's never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil.”

What makes something a virtue? Well, a virtue is something that when exercised is always for the truth and the doing of good. Tolerance will sometimes fail to live up to that definition of virtuous behavior, if the very nature of something that is being tolerated is immoral or evil.

Indeed, as a nation America has tolerated some great evils in its past regarding slavery and many of the actions towards our native American brothers and sisters, as some examples. One can make the claim that many German citizens tolerated the initial abuses, for whatever myriads of reasons, in the rise of the Nazi Party and their systematic killing of the Jews. Tolerance is not a virtue when the behavior one is tolerating is abhorrent, sinful, or evil.

The unfortunate irony of this call to tolerance is that often times those sometimes well-meaning folks espousing this pseudo-virtue are often the same ones showing a decided lack of tolerance towards those that disagree with their ideals or political agenda. Indeed, one need only read the newspaper or turn on the nightly news to see myriads of examples of this intolerance coming from those that preach tolerance.

Often times our progressive friends will show contempt or disdain (certainly not tolerance) towards us conservatives and libertarians if we dare offer a contrary viewpoint on the veracity of anthropogenic global warming, gays in the military (or any LGBT issue), abortion, Christianity, radical Islam, evolution, just war, or government-compulsory wealth redistribution. When it comes to many of these issues, to the typical progressive, their viewpoint is the “righteous” or humanistically moral one in their eyes, and thus they have no tolerance for those that would have the temerity to offer a differing opinion on the given subject at hand. They are the moral, enlightened, and tolerant ones, you see.

So what then is the point of progressives espousing the need for all to be tolerant, even though they do not always practice what they are preaching? Is it possible that there is something more behind this call for tolerance than simply a misguided altruistic attempt to get everyone to simply get along? I am certain that many very good people have no other agenda than simply that aforementioned goal. Unfortunately, I am also fairly certain that a not insignificant percentage of those tolerance-espousers are also trying to promulgate a more “tolerant society” that is in lock step with their political or world views. In other words, they have an agenda.

This societal peer-pressured type of tolerance is seemingly being used more often as a form of control and censorship by the left in order to normalize what used to be unacceptable behaviors or ideals that were antithetical to American life. The battle cry of “tolerance” thus becomes just another Saul Alinsky type of tool used to cow the timid conservative or the introverted libertarian into accepting what our western culture used to define as wrong, immoral, and in some cases just plain evil.

It is my belief that we should all indeed strive to get along and love one another as we love ourselves, because every last one of us is indeed a sinner. That said, when tolerance becomes a code word for cowing those from speaking out against what they know to be wrong simply to get along, our society will only continue to further slouch towards Gomorrah.

Contrast

2011-09-08T07:57:00.000-06:00

Where Too Much of Our Taxpayer Dollars Go

2011-08-26T11:30:00.000-06:00

I have two thoughts after seeing this video. First, I strongly suspect that the gentleman being questioned by Judge Judy is not an atypical abberation of those receiving tax payer dollars, or "stipends" as he calls it, but rather makes up a significant proportion of those that we tax payers are supporting.

Second, I think Judge Judy should be on a short list for consideration for filling the next Supreme Court vacancy.

...Says the Big Huge Hypocritical Pot to the Kettle

2011-08-24T19:46:00.000-06:00

Does Barack Obama have absolutely no sense of shame whatsoever? Wait! No need to answer that question! Just watch the video below that left me flabbergasted.

Once again, Obama was right with some of his critical rhetoric when he was campaigning as Senator Obama. Evidently when we elected him to be president, he forgot those principles upon which he ran and actually decided to try to trump all of the egregious governmental spending of his predecessor of whom he correctly chastised for having done so.

I am sure glad that he was going to change Washington D.C. I think we all just assumed that he meant in the opposite direction, instead of deeper into irresponsibility and fiscal insanity. Indeed if by President Obama's accounting, George W. Bush was unpatriotic for his borrowing and spending, then does that make Obama's even greater spending in half of the time "treasonous"?

Breaking News

2011-08-24T19:11:00.000-06:00

President Obama has just confirmed that the DC earthquake occurred on a rare and obscure fault-line apparently known as "Bush's Fault".

The President also announced that Maxine Waters along with the Secret Service are conducting an investigation of the quake's suspicious ties to the Tea Party.

Conservatives have responded suggesting it was caused by the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.

Farrakhan Says American Soldiers Are Terrorists, Not Fort Hood Shooter

2011-08-17T12:14:00.002-06:00

The vile, despicable, and frankly just flat-out evil Louis Farrakhan has really outdone himself this time. While never being a bulwark of sanity or tolerance, this anti-Semitic, anti-military, anti-American has reached new depths.

In his latest diatribe he claims how, according to an old NPR report, female American soldiers are often the targets of rape and sexual harassment in astonishing percentages by their male counterparts. Never mind the suspect numbers from the reliably progressive tax-payer-funded National Politburo Radio don't even come close to being on par with Department of Defense statistics, the execrable Farrakhan continues on to postulate that if male American soldiers are willing to rape female American soldiers, then they must just be having a field day in their capacity as an occupying army with the Muslim women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He further goes on to say that the soldiers that returned home to Fort Hood Texas had pangs of guilt for their actions and thus confessed these crimes to Muslim army major and psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan. It was the constant and continuous confessions from these American soldiers of their wanton rape and abuse of Muslim women that caused Major Hasan to lash out in righteous rage against these terrorists and go on his murderous shooting rampage that killed 14 people and wounded 29 others in November of 2009, so says "Minister" Farrakhan.

Now, I imagine that there are indeed American soldiers that are guilty of such horrendous crimes, but they are extremely rare and punishment of such crimes when discovered is exceptionally severe under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If anything is true it is that our brave American troops typically put themselves in great danger of losing life or limb in adhering to very restrictive rules of engagement specifically in order to protect civilian life. Our military is comprised of professional soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen. They are not the hordes of Genghis Khan that Senator John Kerry accused them of being in Vietnam. Having served in the first gulf war, I was very proud of the conduct and professionalism of the men I served with there. The duty of the American military is to kill the enemy and destroy their ability to make war. It is not to rape and plunder, nor has it ever been in our history.

Atrocities occur, and when they do, they should be and are harshly dealt with accordingly. Louis Farrakhan's implication that murder and rape are the standard operating procedure of the United States armed forces is disgusting and unsupportable by any evidence whatsoever. Woe to him who calls good, evil and evil, good, "Minister" Farrakhan.

Now I am all for free speech, even of such falsehoods and outrageous and despicable fabrications as what Louis Farrakhan has just spewed forth here. That said, how does this fool have any credibility with anybody other than those that want to believe these lies based on their faith in such things and an abject hatred of all things American?

.

Ranking the G.O.P. Nominees

2011-08-12T07:58:00.002-06:00

Last evening, eight G.O.P. presidential hopefuls took part in the Republican primary debate in Ames Iowa, just ahead of the crucial-for-some Iowa poll. This debate was a decided contrast to the previous one in that the questions asked by the moderators were tough and the candidate tried to better differentiate themselves from their opponents, sometimes by verbally attacking each other. That said, following is my own interpretation and opinions on who I thought were the winners, who were the losers, and how I currently would rank them in my own order of preference for president.

#1 Michele Bachmann – Bachmann struck me once again that she is a fighter. She isn’t timid or worried about political correctness, while still coming across as a gentle lady. She was the one that struck me as perhaps being the most principled on all topics, especially regarding our economy. She has always been at the forefront of every fight on major issues in congress, and on the right side of those fights. She is smart, savvy, and doesn’t come across as a “politician” in the usual connotation of the word. Because of her fighting spirit and her uncompromising principled stand on the issues, she is currently my first choice for president.

#2 Rick Santorum – Santorum impressed me last night. I have always admired him, particularly his strong pro-life stance, but last night he came across as more energetic and charismatic than the typical vanilla personality he has displayed in the past. Santorum is right on all of the issues, particularly regarding his strong view of supporting states rights while still acknowledging that there are definitely core principles that should be enforced on a federal level for all states. Rick doesn’t have a chance at winning the nomination, as even he admitted that he typically gets scant media coverage, however his performance last night rooted in principle makes him sky-rocket to 2^nd place on my list. He would make a good V.P. nomination, especially coming from the crucial swing-state of Pennsylvania.

#3 Herman Cain – Mr. Cain brings something to the debate that has been sorely lacking in the past. He is a non-politician. He is a no-nonsense businessman with a record of success. He rightly points out, especially with economic matters, that we cannot fix the problem until we have identified and are working on the right danged problem. I also am impressed with the fact that he is not afraid to rely on experts that know more than he does on subjects, particularly the generals when it comes to fighting in the Middle East. Instead of BS’ing his way through some answer to make one believe he is a subject matter expert, he tells the truth. That is refreshing and typically very un-politician like. I think we could do far worse in fixing our economic ills than to elect this savvy straight talking businessman to the White House.

#4 Newt Gingrich – When it comes to issues, over-all knowledge, and proper historical context, nobody surpasses Gingrich. His answers impressed me most and proved that he has the specific ideas and fire in the belly to be an excellent president. He stated in the post-debate interview that the House should return to work on Monday and repeal the Dodd-Frank Bill that day, repeal Sarbanes-Oxley on Tuesday, and remove restrictions on energy exploration on Wednesday and then ask the Senate if they are going to remain on vacation until November or come back to work and fix the economy now. Newt would be my first choice for president and would do an excellent job except for one major thing. His personal life and political baggage are a mess and make him unelectable. His poor choices and seeming lack of integrity in his personal life make him a non-starter. Too bad, because things would get done and for the better, if only Gingrich would live by the values he espoused. Nevertheless, Gingrich was the winner of the debate last night.

#5 Mitt Romney – I know it is conventional wisdom that the nomination for president is Mitt’s to lose. I am not a fan of conventional wisdom in this case. I thought Romney did a good job in the debate, looked, sounded, and acted very presidential and for the most part had good answers. Unfortunately, I do not trust him. Romney would even embarrass John Kerry in the flip flopping department, and on core principles (abortion and government health care for instance). This makes Romney look like a slick used-car salesman that will say anything to get the sale. A lot of conservatives aren’t buying his line. Unfortunately, a lot of the establishment is and that is likely why he will end up being our nominee. If Romney holds fast to his latest version of his truth, then things will likely work out fine for our country. If he goes searching for approval in the polls and doing what is politically expedient, then we are hosed with a Romney presidency.

#6 Tim Pawlenty – I was never very fond of Pawlenty right from the start. He strikes me as the consummate smarmy politician. His attacks on Michele Bachmann in the debate last night only solidified my opinion. He criticized Bachmann for not getting results despite her being at the forefront of every major political fight. While Pawlenty is right about her lack of results, his implied solution is that she needs to learn to compromise. Now compromise can be okay if it advances one’s important agenda without sacrificing one’s core values; however, political compromise simply to get “results” of some legislation passed in which to show that you have done “something” is exactly how we end up with horrible legislation like the recent debt-ceiling bill. Pawlenty is more about having something tangible to point towards, rather than standing on certain core principles. Pawlenty didn’t help his cause last night and is hopefully done accordingly.

#7 Jon Huntsman – Huntsman is the former governor of my current home state of Utah. While he did some good things economically for Utah and did create jobs here, he is a big-government Republican of the worst type. His support for TARP and for cap & trade are examples of this. I don’t have a problem with his having served in the Obama administration as ambassador to China. I do have a problem with the fact that he seems to think like Obama in that the answer to all of our problems can usually be taken care of with a government program. Huntsman also did little to help his cause in the debate last night and hopefully can return to relative national obscurity soon. Besides, he sounded as if he was going to cry last night as he repeatedly said how he was “proud to stand on his record”.

#8 Ron Paul – First, I was surprised at the vocal support that Paul received from the crowd last night, and indeed he is doing well in the Iowa polls. Paul is a walking contradiction to me though. He understands the economy and the systemic changes needed to fix it probably better than anybody else. The problem is that his foreign policy is horrible and dangerous. He “understands” why Iran wants nuclear weapons and evidently doesn’t think it is a big deal, despite the fact that their President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. I understand and can appreciate not wanting to get involved in foreign entanglements, but Paul’s call to neo-isolationism in this world of jihadists today is foolish and dangerous to America, not to mention an existential threat to the very existence of our only stable democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel.

Well, there you have it. T. Paine’s analysis of where the candidates stand for the Republican nomination in my own personal opinion. I doubt seriously that this will fall in line with the media’s rankings or thoughts on who won the debate last night, and frankly I could care less. I did come away last night feeling better about some of the top candidates in the field though. I think any of my top four would do a good job as president.

I am irritated that Rick Perry, who is going to run now, decided he didn’t need to jump in the race in time to partake in last night’s debate. Perhaps that is a smart move politically, but it cost him points in my book. It will be interesting to see who is left standing after the group gets whittled down in the next month or two. Hopefully this isn’t merely an exercise of going through the motions because Romney has already been pre-determined to be the nominee. We do not need another moderate politician. We tried that with Dole, Bush, and McCain. None of them were successful overall. The left managed to nominate and get elected the most liberal senator in the nation to the White House. After his incompetence and aloofness towards the handling of vital issues, I think a true conservative candidate is what is needed to repair the mess created by the man-child-in-chief accordingly.

Thought of the Day

2011-08-09T07:42:00.002-06:00

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured...but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.

Obama Caught in the Dragnet

2011-08-09T07:33:00.000-06:00

Progressives Redefining Civility

2011-08-03T12:57:00.000-06:00

It was only a mere seven months back, and yet it seems like a lifetime ago, that on January 8th of this year a mentally deranged young man named Jared Loughner killed six people and injured several others in Tucson Arizona. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was seemingly his primary target, but thankfully she survived. A federal judge and a nine year old girl were among the victims that did not survive.

Many of the pundits, politicians, and various talking heads from the left immediately received the DNC talking points memo on what their take should be on the event. Okay, not really, but the solidarity from the left immediately in the aftermath of the murderous rampage was definitely impressive. This heinous act was attributed to the right’s incivility in its political discourse. We need to stop with the hate speech, especially from the right side of the political spectrum, we were all subsequently lectured. We need to disagree in an agreeable manner. We all need to be civil. Are you hateful Republicans (I realize that 'hateful' and 'Republican' is redundant to the left) and various conservatives listening? They were talking to YOU!

Fast forward a little over half a year and evidently those appeals to civility in the political process can all be completely abandoned, at least for our brothers and sisters on the left.

President Obama made a beautiful speech right after that horrific event in Tucson last January. He eloquently stated, “At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do, it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

One can only assume the Obama’s Vice President must not have been listening, or at least did not take to heart the soaring rhetoric towards civility as championed by President Obama that day. Indeed during the fractious debate over the recent debt ceiling situation, Vice President Joe Biden agreed with the vitriolic words spewed from Congressman Mike Doyle’s mouth at a two-hour closed door Democratic caucus meeting the other day when he proclaimed that the Tea Party was nothing more than “terrorists”. So much for civility towards those that think differently than we do.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in the room. Earlier in the day, Biden told Senate Democrats that Republican leaders have “guns to their heads” in trying to negotiate deals. So evidently in Representative Doyle’s (D) honorable opinion, a terrorist is someone that won’t let him spend any of the tax-payers' money! Amazing.

One can only imagine the outrage from the statist media and all good folks on the left had Vice President Cheney ever said such things about his political adversaries, and understandably and deservedly so. Indeed they likely would be calling for his resignation, again rightly so. Biden’s latest “gaffe” hardly attracts notice for even a day in contrast. Once again the double standards between the two parties is rather stark in comparison.

Aside from this disgraceful lack of civility, evidently the left has also changed the definition of one of the words in the English language yet again too. Now, according to our Vice President, various other elected Democratic officials, and many in the statist media, a terrorist also has the alternate definition of someone that believes in governing by the dictates of the Constitution, the curtailing of spending money we do not have, and the stopping of the creation of money out of thin air. Indeed, I think we should create a Progressive dictionary to which we could add this entry:

terrorist (noun): 1) a person who supports responsible government, especially regarding budget and debt issues. 2) someone who supports a balanced budget. 3) a Tea Party member. 4) a Republican that is not willing to negotiate their principles. 5) someone who is conservative. 6) anyone who does not support the Obama / Reid / Pelosi liberal agenda.

It is ironic that Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford’s return and first vote since being shot back in January occurred in the midst of this swirling storm of hateful and uncivil speech from some of her own Democratic colleagues. I guess civility is only a word denoting a tactic intended to silence opposition and dissent from the right and not actually something of which the left actually agrees with in practice. I guess that is another re-defined term that we can add to the Progressive dictionary too.

A Picture Instead of a Thousand Words

2011-08-03T07:43:00.000-06:00

H/T: Carrie

Debt, Deficit, and the Un-Seriouness of Washington in the Debt Ceiling Debate

2011-07-31T12:28:00.003-06:00

As someone that cares deeply about the future of our greatest nation on earth, and as a political junky, I have watched a lot of the debt ceiling debate on C-Span over the course of the last week. Of course from my “objective” perspective, the big government types of both parties are the ones at fault in this conundrum. While the Tea Party members of the house seem to be the only ones typically standing on principle, it looks like the latest deal now in the works will not contain many of the critical aspects with which they insisted must be included. With the loss of their support on this Reid/McConnell/Boehner Frankenstein compromise, one can only assume that the party leaders on both sides are looking at how to get this bill passed despite the Tea Party opposition. In other words they are trying to appeal to the Democrats and “moderate” big-government Republicans in the House of Representative. Therefore, business continues as usual in Washington D.C. and that compromise is NOT what our country so desperately needs right now.

Various reporting agencies have threatened downgrades in America’s triple A bond rating if our debt situation is not addressed. Indeed, Standard and Poors chairman of the company’s sovereign rating committee, John Chambers, has recently said that a minimum of "$4 trillion would be a good down payment… A grand bargain of that nature would signal the seriousness of policy makers to address the fiscal situation in the U.S.".

So what do our elected officials do in their “compromise”? Well the current bill that both houses of congress now seem hopeful about, and the White House has indicated would be acceptable to it, is estimated to be a $2.8 trillion dollar deal. Early reports say that $1 trillion in cuts in spending will be decided by lawmakers, while the remaining $1.8 trillion will be decided by a joint commission. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before! In attempts to appeal to the Republicans, there will be no tax hikes in the bill, while the White House will get its way and not have to address the issue again until after the 2012 elections. No indication of a balanced budget amendment were noted in the report, which will surely be a deal killer to many in the Tea Party caucus.

I suppose I should be happy in the fact that the debate has at least shifted to the proper perspective, thanks to the principled stand of the Tea Party Republicans. Indeed, President Obama had requested a clean bill authorizing the extending of the debt ceiling without any other provisions attached. Obviously, this did not happen; however, had those stalwart few not been there to declare “No!”, one suspects that this whole debate regarding the critical necessity of our cutting our debt would never have occurred in the first place. The Senate would have passed, and the House would have grumbled but reluctantly passed this debt ceiling extension otherwise, I suspect.

The ironic thing is that this bill still does NOT cut our debt one single cent. It simply cuts our deficit spending. In other words, there is no reduction in the $14.5 trillion in national debt that America owes. We simply are cutting how fast we are deficit spending and thus adding to that debt. No wonder that credit rating agencies are threatening to downgrade our bond rating.

The pernicious Democrats lead by Reid, Schumer, and Durbin in the Senate have been particularly disingenuous in demagoguing the issue in their strict adherence to partisan politics. They decry that they are not the ones preventing a deal being made and that they are serious about reducing our spending. This is unadulterated horse apples! The Senate Democrats, under Senator Reid’s majority leadership, have failed to even abide by their primary obligation in producing a federal budget for over 800 days. In other words, we are into the third year of funding our government through continuing resolutions because of the failure of responsible leadership in putting together ANY budget in the Senate, let alone one that actually would have us live within our means.

The House of Representatives, under Speaker John Boehner, produced and passed a budget that was guided by the well-thought-out and serious Ryan Plan. Further, they passed a serious bill that they sent to the Senate called Cut, Cap, and Balance that would begin the process of putting our financial house in order. The Democrats in the Senate and the White House have balked at these and tabled them accordingly, and yet have produced no plan of their own in response. They then have the audacity to state that it is the Republicans in the House that are stalling the process and playing politics. Sharon Angle may very well have been a bird of a different feather, but one can’t help but think that had she won her race against the politically intransigent Harry Reid , that we would indeed have had one less quack in the Senate.

Anyway, the deal is seemingly promising in its likely passage. The seriousness of the issues have been scuttled. The cutting of the debt in this deal will be non-existent, and the business in congress will continue as is typical. We will very likely be downgraded in our bond rating accordingly, despite this “wonderful” compromise deal, and frankly we deserve to be downgraded. When that happens, the Democrats and the President will claim that the stalling by the Tea Party in the House caused this to happen, and the sycophantic statist media will parrot that propaganda.

Unless the facts get out and people pay attention to the dire seriousness of the problem that we MUST cut our debt and not just our deficit, by definition the amount our government owes will only continue to increase. Indeed, if left on this current trajectory, our spending will equal our yearly GDP within a decade. No nation can long survive such profligate spending, and simply agreeing on a politically expedient compromise bill that does not address any of the root causes of the problem simply assures that the impending doom awaiting us will be here before we all know it.

Senator Rubio Summarizes Obama's Failure of Leadership

2011-07-29T12:32:00.000-06:00

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida summarizes succinctly President Obama's failure of leadership in the current debt ceiling crisis. Ironically it is a failure of leadership that President Obama accurately pointed out as being a characteristic of his predecessor when then-Senator Obama refused to vote to raise the debt ceiling under President Bush's administration.

The Wizard of Obama

2011-07-26T12:42:00.000-06:00

Giving In To Progressives

2011-07-25T07:28:00.005-06:00

Over the course of all of the years that I have spent arguing with progressives, I have finally determined that I should no longer attempt to fight an inexorable force. That said, I am now in agreement with some of their most ardent wishes as follows:

A. Back off and let those men who want to marry men, marry men.

B. Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.

C. Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.

D. In three generations, there will be no progressives left in America.

I love it when a plan comes together!

The Parable of the Three Trees

2011-07-23T09:00:00.001-06:00

Once there were three trees on a hill in the woods. They were discussing their hopes and dreams when the first tree said, “Someday I hope to be a treasure chest. I could be filled with gold, silver and precious gems. I could be decorated with intricate carvings and everyone would see the beauty.”

Then the second tree said, “Someday I will be a mighty ship. I will take kings and queens across the waters and sail to the corners of the world. Everyone will feel safe in me because of the strength of my hull.”

Finally, the third tree said, “I want to grow to be the tallest and straightest tree in the forest. People will see me on top of the hill and look up to my branches and think of the heavens and God and how close to them I am reaching. I will be the greatest tree of all time and people will always remember me.”

After a few years of praying that their dreams would come true, a group of woodsmen came upon the trees. When one came to the first tree he said, “This looks like a strong tree, I think I should be able to sell the wood to a carpenter,” and he began cutting it down. The tree was happy, because he knew that the carpenter would make him into a treasure chest.

At the second tree the woodsman said, “This looks like a strong tree. I should be able to sell it to the shipyard.” The second tree was happy because he knew he was on his way to becoming a mighty ship.

When the woodsmen came upon the third tree, the tree was frightened because he knew that if they cut him down his dreams would not come true. One of the woodsmen said, “I don't need anything special from my tree. I'll take this one,” and he cut it down.

When the first tree arrived at the carpenters, he was made into a feed box for animals. He was then placed in a barn and filled with hay. This was not at all for which he had prayed.

The second tree was cut and made into a small fishing boat. His dreams of being a mighty ship and carrying kings had come to an end.

The third tree was cut into large pieces and left alone in the dark.

The years went by and the trees forgot about their dreams.

Then one day, a man and woman came to the barn. She gave birth and they placed the baby in the hay in the feed box that was made from the first tree. The man wished that he could have made a crib for the baby, but this manger would have to do. The tree could feel the importance of this event and knew that it had held the greatest treasure of all time.

Years later, a group of men got in the fishing boat made from the second tree. One of them was tired and went to sleep. While they were out on the water, a great storm arose and the tree did not think it was strong enough to keep the men safe. The men woke the sleeping man, and He stood and said “Peace” and the storm stopped. At this time, the tree knew that it had carried the King of Kings in its boat.

Finally, someone came and got the third tree. It was carried through the streets as the people mocked the man who was carrying it. When they came to a stop, the man was nailed to the tree and raised in the air to die at the top of a hill. When Sunday came, the tree came to realize that it was strong enough to stand at the top of the hill and be as close to God as was possible, because Jesus had been crucified on it.

The moral of this story is that when things don't seem to be going your way, always know that God has a plan for you. Indeed, if you place your trust in Him, God will give you great gifts.

Each of the trees got what they had wished and prayed for, just not in the way they had imagined.

We don't always know what God's plans are for us. We just know that His Ways are not our ways, but with His unfailing sight and love, His ways for us are always best.

H/T Flamminio

Jim Meskimen Recites Shakespeare in Celebrity Impressions

2011-07-22T07:33:00.000-06:00

This gentleman is truly remarkable with his celebrity impressions as he recites a Shakespearen monologue! Enjoy!

H/T Carrie

Utah 'Pre-Ratifies' U.S. Balanced Budget Amendment

2011-07-21T07:52:00.001-06:00

Yesterday the Utah state congress passed a resolution to “pre-ratify” a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution should the United States Congress approve such a desperately needed measure. Utah is the first and currently only state to say that they will support such an amendment to the United States Constitution which will require our federal government to maintain a balanced budget and no longer run our nation via deficit spending.

Currently, 49 out of 50 states require either by state constitutional stipulations or other statutory means to maintain a balanced budget for their respective states. The push for a federal amendment to the Constitution has long been a pipe dream of many fiscally conscientious folks. Now that the U.S. debt is rapidly approaching $15 trillion and negotiations in congress to raise our debt ceiling yet again before the August 2nd deadline occurs, a critical part of Republican legislation offered in exchange for such spending increase authority is the passage of a federal balanced budget amendment. This is part of the G.O.P.’s plan to cut, cap, and balance the budget accordingly via legislation of that same name. Of course any amendment to the United States Constitution must be passed with at least a 2/3rds majority in both houses of congress and then be approved by at least ¾ of all state legislatures in the union. With the fiscal irresponsibility shown by our federal “leaders”, the time has seemingly now arrived when passage of such a bill is indeed finally a distinct likelihood.

The Utah House of Representatives passed their non-binding pre-ratification resolution yesterday for the U.S. Constitutional amendment by a 51 to 12 vote, while the Utah Senate approved it with only one dissenting vote, which was cast by Democratic State Senator Luz Robles of the Salt Lake District.

Coincidentally, it was the United States Senator from Utah, Mike Lee, that introduced the “cut, cap, and balance” act in the U.S. Senate after being approved in the U.S. House of Representatives by a 234 to 190 vote. Senator Lee authored, “The Freedom Agenda: Why a Balanced Budget Amendment is Necessary to Restore Constitutional Government,” and said that there are some members of Congress that are quite reluctant to support his amendment even though polls show wide public support for a balanced budget amendment.

When asked why, Lee said, “Because a balanced budget amendment would make politicians less powerful. It would make Congress as an institution less powerful.” Lee continued, “We need the balanced budget amendment to save the American people from this power. Every time we expand the power of the federal government we run the risk of interfering with the individual liberty of Americans.”

Mike Lee was the Tea Party candidate that upset former Utah U.S. Senator Bob Bennett in the G.O.P. primary last year. Bennett had drawn the ire of many fiscal conservatives within the state for his big government voting record and thus was challenged and summarily defeated for his seat in 2010. Lee has thus far proven to be a reliable conservative that has done what he had promised to do accordingly, including working with the other U.S. Senator from Utah, Orin Hatch, in trying to rally support for the United States Constitutional amendment for a balanced budget in the U.S. senate.

Utah’s state legislature’s pre-ratifying of this federal amendment will hopefully provide the impetus to the eventual passage by the U.S. congress and at least 38 other state legislatures accordingly. It would seem that only through constitutional means will the people of the United States be able to reign in the overspending by our elected officials otherwise.

The Two Different Americas as Seen in California vs. Texas

2011-07-18T19:10:00.002-06:00

It would seem that the nation has become so polarized these days that often times conservatives and liberals don't even share a common language anymore. While the following example is meant to be somewhat funny and tongue-in-cheek, there is definitely more than a grain of truth to it all. That said, our polarized nation is neatly characterized by the typical Californian's vocabulary as compared to that of the typical Texan's. (Austin notwithstanding.) Cheers y'all!

The Parable of the Pencil

2011-07-15T12:47:00.001-06:00

Every once in awhile something unique happens by and catches my attention which causes me to slow down for a moment and take notice of it. The following artistry is just such a thing. An old navy buddy of mine sent me an email the other day that contained some pictures of the remarkable work done by this particular artist named Dalton Ghetti. His patience and steady hands must truly be remarkable.

Further, using Mr. Ghetti’s beautiful work as inspiration, there is indeed a parable here from which we can all learn.

A wise pencil maker told a brand new shiny pencil before he placed it in the box alongside other shiny new pencils that there were five very important lessons that it should consider and follow in order to have a fulfilling life.

The first lesson was that everything you do in life will always leave a mark.

The second lesson was that you can go back and correct the mistakes you make.

The next lesson was that what is truly important is what is inside of you.

Continuing on, the fourth lesson was that in life you will undergo many painful sharpenings, which will only serve to make you better.

The final and perhaps the most important lesson was this: To be the best pencil, you must allow yourself to be held and guided by the hand that holds you.

May the sharpenings in your life only make you better for having endured them. May you be aware and grateful of the wonderful innate things that make you special, and may you be open to always being guided by the hand of God as He uses you in your life to create a masterpiece.

H/T: Rex

Obama's Trading of Wisdom for Power

2011-07-11T07:58:00.000-06:00

In a meeting lasting over an hour last Sunday evening, President Obama insisted once again that more than $1 trillion in tax increases must be a part of any deficit reduction package in the negotiations with Republicans on whether to raise the debt ceiling. In that session, President Obama vehemently rejected a G.O.P. proposal to cut $2.5 trillion in spending cuts and various other reforms and instead continued with his insistence on raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy as a significant component of any plan.

In light of the continuing horrendous jobs report regarding our nation’s unemployment rate and the severely anemic economic growth, this tact seems particularly imprudent. President Obama appeared to have understood the danger of such tax increases during a recession once upon a time. Indeed, in August of 2009, during a trip to Indiana to shore up support for his stimulus plan, President Obama told NBC’s Chuck Todd in an interview that exact message. An Elkhart, Indiana resident by the name of Scott Ferguson asked a question of the President via Mr. Todd. His question was, “Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy.”

President Obama agreed with Mr. Ferguson’s premise in his response. “First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”

One wonders what has changed between then and now as far as President Obama’s understanding goes? Indeed, if anything, unemployment and the economic crisis are in an even more dire situation that would suffer more greatly from the effects of such tax increases now.

Of course the whole debate on raising the debt ceiling so that the federal government can continue its unabated spending seems preposterous in the extreme too. Once again, this is a fact that Senator Obama seemed to once understand. While sitting as Illinois’ Senator during the Bush administration, Obama said, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here’. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

Senator Obama was absolutely right- back then. Why the change of thinking on this now that he is president? Indeed President Obama’s economic advisor Austin Goolsbee argued at that same meeting Sunday night that a congressional refusal to increase the government’s debt ceiling, which currently sits at $14.3 TRILLION, would be “catastrophic” and a sign of “insanity”. Oh, how the times have changed now that Senator Obama is President Obama.

Of course, that was another topic on which Barack Obama’s wisdom on the subject seemed to devolve also. Indeed, back in 2004 after just having won his U.S. Senate seat, he was asked if he would consider running on a national ticket. His wise response back then was, “I am a believer in knowing what you are doing when you apply for a job, and I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the senate. Now there’s some people that might be comfortable doing that, but I am not one of those people.”

Despite Obama’s record as one of the most liberal members of the senate in his very brief career there, he did at least show some signs of wisdom back then in his words, if not always with his deeds. One wonders why the huge difference now and the diametrically opposed shifts in his points of view on these major issues since then? Is the imbibing of the elixir of power so intoxicating that what once seemed like wisdom in defense and representation of the people of the United States can now be abandoned in order to satisfy certain constituencies and powerful special interest groups to thereby hold on to that political capital and power that has been obtained? For President Obama trading that wisdom for power seems to be acceptable.

John Adams on the Proper Celebration of America's Independence

2011-07-05T07:45:00.006-06:00

Founding father and then-future second President of the United States, John Adams, thought that America should have properly celebrated the birth of our nation on July 2 since that was the actual date that congress voted for our independence from Britain. This was not to be though, and instead America’s birthday has been celebrated on the day that congress actually approved of the future third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson’s, inspired document of the Declaration of Independence.

Regardless, John Adams noted in a letter to his beloved wife Abigail how he thought the celebration of America’s independence should be conducted for all future generations.

"I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.”

Sentiments to which I heartily say, I absolutely concur Mr. President! Here is hoping that everyone had a wonderful Independence Day celebration yesterday!

Happy Independence Day!

2011-07-04T00:15:00.001-06:00

Reagan: The Republican Campaigning in Democratic Territory

2011-06-28T07:10:00.001-06:00

Dang, I sure do miss Uncle Ronnie!

A Sign of the Times

2011-06-27T07:30:00.000-06:00

Americans' Disgraceful Lack of Civics and Historical Knowledge

2011-06-24T07:43:00.001-06:00

A few days back a friend of mine forwarded this civics/history test that was conducted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The original test was administered to 2,508 Americans in 2008. The results were dismal. The overall average test score was a pathetic 49% correct. College Educators (professors & teachers and NOT just those with college degrees) only scored marginally better at 55%; still a failing grade. Indeed, over 70% of participants failed. Only 3.4% of participants received an “A” or “B” grade on the exam. I guess our education system really does need to grade on a curve to keep too many folks from appearing to be ignorant.

What really irked me, but actually did not surprise me greatly, was the fact that amongst those taking the exam were a statistically relevant portion of the population that had held or were holding elected office. Their average score was significantly worse than that of even the average American.

Those of you faithful readers of this blog will likely recall that in the past I have repeatedly decried the current abysmal state of our civics general knowledge, let alone that of our nation’s history.
It is because of this general lack of knowledge regarding how our representative republic was set up and is supposed to work, as well as the historical context and brilliance of our founding fathers in doing so, that leads folks today to vote for candidates that cannot even seemingly spell “Constitution” let alone have an idea as to the contents therein. The ultimate result of all of this disgraceful lack of knowledge regarding how our government is supposed to function is that we end up with a President who was supposedly a constitutional scholar and yet champions unconstitutional legislation and fails to abide by the dictates of that inspired document.

It is my opinion that every person running for elected office should have to pass an in-depth test of this sort prior to being seated. The only way to hold our elected officials accountable though is for us citizens to also know how the system is supposed to work and the history of our nation, as well as having a reasonable knowledge of current events. Those that do not know their history are doomed to repeat it, or so the saying goes.

This test is comprised of 33 questions and does not require too much time to take it. My own score was 100%. Granted, I am a civics/history/current events geek, but one would hope that a majority of our fellow Americans would at least be familiar enough with the government and the country's history under which they live that they could at least PASS this test.

Take the test yourself and see if you fair better than that of your typical fellow American!

H/T: Carrie. Thanks!

A Tribute to My Dad

2011-06-19T14:47:00.001-06:00

Today is Father’s Day. For some reason I woke up today in a contemplative mood with just a slight touch of the melancholy. You see, my father turned 83 twelve days ago, or at least he would have if he were he still alive. As it is, he passed away when I was twelve due to a long and very arduous battle with cancer. He was a young fifty years old when he died, despite the age that the horrible disease had visited upon his body in the waning years of his short life.

I occasionally stop and wonder what my life would have been like; indeed, what kind of man would I have become had my father lived and been there to guide me as I entered those teenage years and onward to today.

My father had been married before meeting and marrying my mother. He had a beautiful daughter, my half-sister, with his first wife. Due to silly and needless family issues, I had not seen my wonderful sister since Dad’s funeral in 1978, that is until a few years ago when I decided to find her and have her be a part of my life once again. While she has filled so many holes missing in my heart and soul, she has also recounted stories of which I was not aware about my Dad from when she was growing up. My sister is obviously a few years older than I am and was grown and married when Dad passed.

I had grown up thinking that Dad was a strong and honorable man. It seems that he was not always of such sterling character when my sister was growing up with her Mom and our Dad. I found this exceptionally hard to take initially, and was sorry and heartbroken for my sister and her less-than-ideal childhood, especially when compared to mine. I wondered how could this man whom I loved and revered, who always had such a strong sense of right and wrong and demanded that my brother and I grow and act accordingly as young boys, could have lived such a very different life such as my sister described in her life.

It occurred to me that Dad had changed, for reasons I may never really know, into the father he became for me. I do not know what moment or epiphany came to him, or if it was a gradual process over the course of years, but Dad was indeed the best father I could ever hope for as a boy. He was strict, but also kind and loving. He had tough standards and expected much out of everyone. He was absolutely a man’s man, as was common for men of his generation. He instilled in me a sense of honor and indeed was the one who insisted we go to church and learn of God, our heavenly Father, and what He would have us be.

Over the past years, I sorely wished that Dad was there so we could go on fishing trips, like he often took with my uncles and granddad. I wish he could have taught me to golf. (Dad was a scratch golfer and had two holes-in-one in his life; I assure you the talent is NOT hereditary.) I wish I could have talked to Dad when I had questions about women, and my first girlfriend. I wish Dad was around to be that strong hand that was needed as my little brother began to stray. I wish he could have been there when I got married and when we had our baby girl. I wish so many things, but then again, I look back and I am so grateful to God for the time I did have with my father.

You see, in spite of the man he may once have been, in my life he was exactly the man I needed him to be. He was that role model that every boy absolutely needs. He laid the foundation for my own sense of right and wrong, of fairness, of hard work. He showed me how a real man should act and love. He loved me, and I miss him so.

The Never-ending Hypocrisy of Nancy Pelosi

2011-06-16T08:00:00.006-06:00

The consummate politician (and I mean that in the worst possible context of the phrase), former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sat down with Bob Schieffer on CBS’s Sunday talk show, Face the Nation, a week and a half ago and once again proved that she and her Democratic colleagues should be held to a different standard than those that the "evil" Republicans are. See the video for the particular moment that illustrates this "fact" so precisely. Following is part of the transcript of that discussion:

Bob Schieffer: You were talking in kind of a different way when unemployment went to 5% under George Bush. What you said then, ‘Americans are struggling with skyrocketing energy prices’ (gas was only $3/gallon then) and you said this morning… this is January 4^th 2008, ‘This morning’s jobs report confirms what most Americans already knew- President Bush’s economic policies have failed our country’s middle class.’

Aren’t Republicans entitled to say you know, if you got gas was 3 dollars and unemployment was 5% and the president has failed the American people, don’t they have a right to say that this president has failed the American people?

Nancy Pelosi: Well if you want to go into the past, we can talk about the past all you want. The public wants to know about the future. What are you going to do to create jobs- good paying jobs-

Bob Schieffer: Well what are you going to do?

Nancy Pelosi: Well as I said, what the president has done has improved the situation from where it may have been.

Bob Schieffer: But the fact is that the congress has been in session since January and has done basically nothing.

Nancy Pelosi: Well you can talk to Mr. Boehner about that.

Bob Schieffer: So it’s all the their fault? It’s not your fault?

So let me get this straight, Ms. Pelosi- 5% unemployment and $3/gallon gas under Bush equals a failed economic policy; however, 9.1% unemployment and $4/gallon gas under Obama equals "he kept it from being even worse" and "nobody cares about the past"? In that amazingly audacious exchange in a long career of such hypocritical moments of yours, that one really is near the top of the heap.

One wonders what happened to the “fact” spouted by President Obama that his egregious and asinine spending was critically necessary in order to hold down unemployment below 8%. I think America would today breathe a sigh of relief if the actual REAL unemployment rate were only 8%. As for keeping energy prices low, Obama’s executive order to halt offshore drilling in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill has only served to further increase our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Ms. Pelosi is quick to claim that they inherited a huge deficit from Bush, and indeed they did; however, Obama and Pelosi’s Democratically-controlled 111^th congress have since added another $1.6 TRILLION to that deficit, while doing absolutely nothing to cut spending or create sustainable jobs anywhere in the country. Indeed the signature piece of legislation passed by Pelosi and Reid along strictly partisan lines and then signed into unconstitutional law by President Obama has been estimated by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to actually kill 800,000 jobs in the course of the coming years. The fact that the law further doesn’t reduce health care costs, despite all of the Democratic rhetoric and promises that it would to the contrary, only further exacerbates the problem.

Once again, it would seem that being a Democratic elected official means that one can expect to be held to a different standard than that of their colleagues across the political aisle. It means that only the vile and dastardly Republicans should be held to account for their statements and their actions. Sorry Ms. Pelosi, but you are selling make-believe, and we don't buy that here.

Note: the section of the video for the transcript above is at 2:42 into it. The entire video is good though in showing the dissembling, deception, and hypocrisy of the former Speaker of the House.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Sides with Governor Walker and the Taxpayers

2011-06-15T12:58:00.002-06:00

Yesterday the Wisconsin Supreme Court handed down a 4 to 3 decision in favor of Governor Scott Walker’s law restricting public union rights and upheld that the law was indeed legal under Wisconsin state law and therefore could go into effect. The ruling overturned Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi’s decision and stated that she had overstepped her authority when she said that Republican lawmakers had violated the state’s open meeting statutes in the process of passing the law, and she had consequently declared the controversial law void.

The polarizing law effectively eliminates most of the public employee unions’ collective bargaining rights and requires them to contribute slightly more for their health care and pensions instead of having nearly all of it paid through tax payer dollars.

When Governor Walker introduced the bill last February, huge public protests ensued and the Democratic legislators in the Wisconsin Senate left the state in order to avoid having a quorum for the vote on which their side did not have enough numbers to prevent passage thereof. I still find it absolutely amazing to think that the democratic process could be hijacked and that partisans could pick up their bat and ball and run home because they saw a bill they didn’t like coming down the pike and knew they didn’t have the votes in congress to thwart its passage. Evidently, the union supporters in Wisconsin were fine with this tactic and indeed cheered these “brave” Democrat Senators as heroes. One wonders if these folks would have been upset at this illegal tactic had the Republicans in the U.S. congress acted similarly to prevent a quorum for the vote in March of 2010 for the pernicious and un-Constitutional Obamacare Act. I suspect they would have cried “fascism” and other such epithets in that situation. Regardless, the protests from public union supporters in Wisconsin numbered in the tens of thousands and went on for weeks.

The passage of the law was necessary according to Governor Walker and the majority in the Wisconsin congress because of a $3.6 billion budget shortfall. The Democrats in Wisconsin saw this as a specific attack on public employee unions and thus acted as they did in order to protect and curry favor with the vital pro-union voting block that makes up a significant percentage of their power base. The Democrats’ childish attempts to prevent a vote on the law were thwarted though when Republicans cleverly retaliated by forming a special committee that removed certain fiscal elements from the bill that consequently allowed a vote on the measure despite having fewer senators present. Governor Walker then signed the bill into law two days later in order to save the taxpayers in the state of Wisconsin millions of dollars accordingly.

The consequent fury and outrage from many on the left has been truly astounding in it ferocity accordingly. Their claims that governor Walker was intentionally trying to bust public employee unions were common, despite the governor’s statement to the contrary. Frankly, I am of the opinion that private sector unions have a valid place and particularly in many decades past were vital to improving workers rights in our country; however, the need for public unions is not necessary. By definition, public union employees are paid their salaries from the coffers filled by the tax-payers. You and me, in other words. With that being the case, public unions should indeed be busted and made illegal, in my opinion.

It used to be that most federal and state public employee jobs were sought after because of the security of those jobs and the typically good benefits. The salary offered, however, was typically not anywhere near as good as it was for their counterparts in the private sector. This made sense and was a good arrangement as the burden of the benefits and salaries only added to the operational expenses of the local or state jurisdiction and thus increased the taxes that had to be paid by the citizens therein accordingly. With all of the worker’s rights and worker’s safety protections codified in law, the need for public employee unions really has passed their time of need. Further, even this new law in Wisconsin still gives public unions the right to collective bargain for their salaries going forward. These unions simply cannot add to their other costly benefits now, by law.

I am certain that the left will howl in outrage and disgust and that the protests will return with all of their false and hateful rhetoric once again towards Governor Walker, the Wisconsin Senate Republicans, and now the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. Evidently the need for civility and toning down of the hate speech “from the right” that we were all lectured to ad nauseum after the despicable and evil Jared Loughner shootings in Tucson last January is something of which the left need not abide. Never mind the fact that there was nothing to tie Loughner to conservatism or “right wing hate speech”.

Too bad that same standard is not applied to these past and forthcoming leftist protestors. "We will hunt you down ...slit your throats ...drink your blood. I will have your decapitated head on a pike in the Madison town square." Those are the words of a union militant aimed directly at a Wisconsin state legislator for daring to vote to restrict Big Labor's forced dues control over Wisconsin state workers. There were literally dozens of similar recorded death threats along with acts of vandalism leveled against Wisconsin state legislators and Governor Walker for not towing the union boss line. Perhaps even more ominous, the Wisconsin State Journal reported police found "dozens of rounds of live ammunition outside the Capitol" during the height of the Wisconsin protests.

Yep, hate speech, intimidation, thwarting of the democratic process are all viable Saul Alinsky tactics that the left feels justified in using when the desired end result warrants such means. Too bad the double standard continues, and too bad that we are almost certainly going to see more of this now that this Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in favor of Governor Walker, the majority Republican Senate, and the taxpayers of the great state of Wisconsin has been upheld.

The Team That Got bin Laden

2011-06-12T09:58:00.000-06:00

According to Obama, this is the team that got bin Laden!

The Amazing Christopher and "Friends" Dance to YMCA

2011-06-09T07:50:00.002-06:00

This guy is an absolute riot! He goes by the name of The Amazing Christopher. There is only one guy (the one in the middle) while the rest are all dummies. What an ingenious idea! Enjoy!

Andrew Klavan's One State Solution: Give the Middle East to the Jews

2011-06-09T07:36:00.001-06:00

While Andrew Klavan is pointing out the absurdity of the current Middle East peace process by being absurd, he really does make an excellent case for his "one state Israel solution".

Obama and Admiral Mullen to Find Cuts in Spending Via Military Pay

2011-06-03T19:35:00.001-06:00

I read an article at Military.com today that has absolutely infuriated me. It seems that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officer in the military, Admiral Mike Mullen was quoted as saying yesterday that members of the armed forces will very likely see cuts in pay and benefits over the next twelve years as the military tries to come up with $400 billion in cuts to meet President Obama’s proposed budget spending cuts that are expected to largely come from the Department of Defense.

Admiral Mullen told reporters yesterday that expenses must be trimmed and that, “"Two of the big places the money is, is in pay and benefits, and so when I say all things are on the table, all things are on the table.”

Despite the fact that our Commander in Chief seemingly has at best an apathetic attitude towards our military, and at worst an outright disdain for them, I would hope that he would see the necessity of providing for and taking care of those heroic folks that have sacrificed so much in their lives by volunteering to serve and protect our nation in the military. It is not like such men and women are getting rich from their government paychecks they receive for military service. Further, these folks are sometimes put in harm’s way or support those good folks that are. They damned well earn every cent they receive and every few benefit they are afforded. They have truly earned these already pitifully inadequate paychecks and benefits.

Our President wouldn’t dream of making cuts to the welfare rolls and social safety net, despite the fraud and abuse that is rampant throughout the system there. No, these folks are all reliable Democratic constituents by a large margin. Never mind that there are many folks not working that could be doing so that receive any variety of tax payer funded benefits. Cutting out the waste and fraud in this venue is taboo and strictly off the table to President Obama and the Democrats evidently.

On the other hand, since the military has traditionally been far more conservative in its voting predilections, cuts made there won’t come back to haunt President Obama and the Democrats as badly in the long run. Never mind that we have THREE wars going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya that is severely straining our military as it is. Far be it to fund one of the few items that the federal government is actually CONSTITUTIONALLY mandated to fund.

Indeed, I am certain there is some waste and unnecessary things that can be cut in the Department of Defense, but it strikes me as a slap in the face to those very folks protecting us to now tell them that their meager pay and benefits will be cut. Why don’t we start with cutting all civilian government employees’ pay first? Why don’t we cut pay and benefits for each and every one in the Executive Branch, including the president, and everyone in the legislative branch? If one wants to further save money from cuts to the DoD, why don’t we start by stopping the asinine social engineering the left has championed and the millions upon millions of dollars that will have to be spent to accommodate folks in our new gay-friendly military?

The military is there to protect and defend America and its freedoms and to ensure that its interests that make those freedoms possible in the world are never put in jeopardy. It is an insult of the highest caliber to deny those sacrificing to do so with even less than what they already are given in exchange for a honorable life of service. President Obama and Admiral Mullen should be ashamed of themselves accordingly!

Defund the Palestinian Authority Until Hamas is No Longer a Partner

2011-06-03T18:10:00.000-06:00

The Palestinian Authority’s ruling Fatah party signed a “unity” agreement with Hamas on May 4^th of this year in Cairo in order to share governing power of the Palestinian territories with this terrorist group. And make no mistake, Hamas is an unapologetic terrorist organization as recognized by the United States and the European Union. The very charter of the Hamas organization calls for the complete destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews wherever they might be found.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton summed up longstanding United States policy when she stated in 2009 that, "We will not deal with nor in any way fund a Palestinian government that includes Hamas unless and until Hamas has renounced violence, recognized Israel and agreed to follow previous obligations of the Palestinian authority."

Despite this unambiguous and principled stand, the United States is continuing its funding of the Palestinian Authority and its terrorist-partner-in-governing Hamas. To make matters even worse, President Obama has encouraged Israel to continue to negotiate peace with the Palestinians, beginning with the supposition of a return to the 1967 borders for Israel as a starting point for all negotiations. This is an egregious abrogation of support of our ally Israel, and places them in an untenable position. Why would we endanger the very existence of our ally Israel and further abandon our own policy regarding Hamas, as stated by our Secretary of State?

When this unity agreement was originally signed, President Obama should have immediately come out that day and stated that ALL funding of the Palestinian Authority would cease immediately and indefinitely until such a time that Hamas was no longer a governing partner nor had any operational influence in the governing of the Palestinian people. By not doing so, and in continuing to fund the Palestinian Authority, we are further undermining our ally Israel and loudly making the pernicious statement to Hamas that terrorism does indeed work.

Now is NOT the time for politics, Mr. President. Slick talk and ambiguous statements and excuses are not what is needed right now. To continue to ignore this terroristic partnership is to further erode the chance for a real and true Middle East peace and to further encourage and empower the terrorists who have never wanted peace with Israel.

The excellent organization named Christians United for Israel has created a petition asking President Obama to support our ally Israel and remove U.S. funding from the Palestinian Authority until Hamas is no longer a partner with them. I would encourage you to please click here now to demand that President Obama immediately isolate Hamas by adding your name to this petition. Violence and terrorism cannot ever be rewarded.

Rush on Free Medical School for Primary Care Doctors

2011-06-03T07:45:00.002-06:00

Well once again, Mr. Limbaugh makes an excellent observation. It seems that even the Obama administration acknowledges that there will likely be around a 40,000 shortfall of needed primary care doctors by the year 2020. One of the main reasons for this shortfall, they claim, is due to the exorbitant $150K in costs that it takes to complete medical school. Their solution to this is to provide $2.5 Billion dollars a YEAR to provide free medical school tuition to those aspiring doctors that want to become primary care doctors. If a doctor wants to specialize in a field, and thus make more money, then of course his tuition fees will not be waived and paid for by the tax-payers.

I find all of this particularly interesting in light of the fact that we were told that Obamacare would fix these problems. Further, we were told that the conservatives were "lying" about all of the disincentives that were being created in the legislation that would cause many current doctors to thus leave their practices and discourage future potential doctors from ever entering the medical profession. Evidently, the "lie" was actually the truth all along.

We won't even get into the fact that this shortage of primary care doctors when taken in conjunction with the 30 million more people now being covered by health insurance will create much longer waiting lines, higher costs, and rationing just by looking at the simple supply and demand economics equation of it all. One adds more patients and has less doctors to treat those patients, then the inevitable results are poorer access and rationing of available doctors and services to all. Wonderful job there, President Obama! Thanks!

So now the solution to this shortfall of doctors, that the progressives' own un-Constitutional legislation has created, is to spend even more tax payer dollars in order to solve the problem. I guess there is no issue that cannot be solved by big government and YOUR money, at least to the liberal mind's way of thinking, and may reality be damned!

President Obama's New "Peace" Policy and Israel's Very Existence

2011-05-30T10:16:00.000-06:00

I was deeply distressed to hear President Obama’s recent remarks calling for Israel to return to its 1967 borders as a “starting place for peace negotiations” with the Palestinians. It has been the policy of the United States of America to defend Israel’s right to exist and to allow it to maintain a country which it is able to defend by NOT returning to the 1967 borders. Indeed, as recently as 2005 President Bush promised Israel once again that, in exchange for other concessions, the United States would continue to NOT ever press Israel to return to those indefensible borders. President Obama broke that pledge and dramatically changed U.S. policy in the process with his foolish and ill-considered announcement a week and half ago for Israel to return those captured lands which it won while defending its very existence against multiple Arab armies, yet again, during the 6-Day War in 1967.

The irony of all of this, and what many that disparage the “evil Jew Zionists” will repeatedly fail to acknowledge, is the fact that directly after the Six Day War the Israeli government did indeed offer to return the Golan Heights to Syria, despite the canon emplacements that Israel’s enemies placed there which look down on the Galilee and Tiberius. Israel also offered to return the strategic Sinai peninsula to Egypt (Something that did come into being when President Carter finally brokered peace between Egypt and Israel in 1979). Finally, Israel also offered to return the West Bank to Jordan.

What did Israel want in exchange for the return of these captured lands? All they asked for was an acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist and to have peace. At that time, all of the surrounding Arab nations responded to Israel’s offer by declaring that there was to be no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with them, and certainly no peace. Israel kept these territories accordingly. To return these lands to the surrounding hostile nations would return Israel to a nation where its international airport is only three miles away from the pre-1967 borders and the nation itself would be only eight miles wide at it narrowest point.

For Israel, a nation that most of its neighbors does not even acknowledge as a rightful nation to this very day, and a country which leaders such as Iran’s President Ahmadinejad have vowed to “wipe off the face of the map” and “drive the Jews into the sea”, one can perhaps begin to understand the Jew’s hesitancy in wanting to sign their death warrants by returning these buffer lands that allow them the tenuous ability to defend their nation, and indeed their very existence.

The Palestinians have spent the last 64 years portraying themselves as the victims of the Jews. These “refugees” have not been cared for by their Arab brothers. The other Arab nations will not allow the Palestinian people to immigrate to their nations. Indeed, the Arabs would rather have their Palestinian brothers live in poverty and squalor so that they can use them as a political club with which to beat the Israelis over the head with in world opinion. The Palestinian leadership has been corrupt and incompetent. Indeed, today the Palestinian government has aligned itself with Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization whose only purpose is the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the Jewish people.

The United States financial support for the Palestinian people continues despite this, as we prop up a Palestinian people who wish us, “the Great Satan”, no good will either. Indeed, many Palestinians were seen to be cheering in the streets during the horrific attacks on America on 9/11. Further, billions of dollars that the U.S. has given in aid for the Palestinian people over the decades has been diverted to private bank accounts, particularly that of the now departed and Nobel-Peace-Prize winning terrorist Yasser Arafat’s reign.

The Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular, point to how Israel treats them, and yet as Benjamin Netanyahu pointed out recently, over one million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying the same rights and freedoms that all Israeli people have enjoyed for decades. The only difference is that the Arab-Israeli citizens are not required to serve a term in the Israeli armed forces, unlike their Jewish fellow-citizens. They enjoy all of the other same freedoms otherwise.

Indeed, in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech before congress a week ago, after President Obama’s deplorable announcement, Netanyahu put things in to proper perspective when he said, “Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel's Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of one-percent are truly free, and they're all citizens of Israel!”

There are a few other passages in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech that bear repeating. He drew a very clear picture of Israel’s dire situation when he stated, “Now the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. Less than seven decades after six million Jews were murdered, Iran's leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state.

Leaders who spew such venom, should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet. But there is something that makes the outrage even greater: The lack of outrage. In much of the international community, the calls for our destruction are met with utter silence. It is even worse because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran's terror proxies.”

Netanyahu continued, “So peace must be anchored in security. In recent years, Israel withdrew from South Lebanon and Gaza. But we didn't get peace. Instead, we got 12,000 thousand rockets fired from those areas on our cities, on our children, by Hezbollah and Hamas. The UN peacekeepers in Lebanon failed to prevent the smuggling of this weaponry. The European observers in Gaza evaporated overnight. So if Israel simply walked out of the territories, the flow of weapons into a future Palestinian state would be unchecked. Missiles fired from it could reach virtually every home in Israel in less than a minute.”

He summarized his remarks before our congress by stating, “You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about.

The Prime Minister is right. Further, with the current and seeming perpetual mindset of the Palestinians and most Arab peoples towards Israel and the Jews, a true and lasting peace will NEVER be established. See the link for our good friend Free’s blog, John Galt for President, for the video of how this mindset is inculcated into the children of the Arabs and Palestinians. How is peace ever to be brought forth when the Palestinian children are taught that Jews are swine and dogs, basically subhuman?

I strongly suspect that the only peace that Israel will EVER find, the only peace that the Palestinian and Arab people will ultimately respect and honor, will come when America fully supports Israel’s right to protect itself by retaliating in a war in which they unequivocally and unconditionally destroy the surrounding Arab armies; when they do not negotiate with those they have unquestionably vanquished in war; when Israel dictates from that position of strength and power what the terms of surrender for the Arab and Palestinian people will be.

Attempts at negotiation and Israel returning land for peace have not worked and indeed have only encouraged more terrorist attacks upon itself. Such actions are not seen as tokens of mercy or goodwill by the typical Middle Eastern Arab. Indeed these acts are seen as signs of weakness; a weakness that can be pressed and exploited. Only through the horrible conclusion of an overwhelming war can Israel achieve a final lasting peace. To continue on the path of the status quo is entirely fruitless and ultimately puts Israel’s very existence in jeopardy.

The former Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Meir, said it well, "There will be no peace until they love their children more than they hate us." She was right.

HT to Carrie for providing much of the research material for this article.

A Memorial Day Tribute

2011-05-28T08:00:00.001-06:00

A friend sent me this story and I thought it to be very appropriate for Memorial Day Weekend. (Thanks Carrie!)

My friend Kevin and I are volunteers at a national cemetery in Oklahoma and put in a few days a month in a "slightly larger" uniform.

Today had been a long, long day and I just wanted to get the day over with and go down to Smokey's and have a cold one. Sneaking a look at my watch, I saw the time, 16:55. Five minutes to go before the cemetery gates are closed for the day. Full dress was hot in the August sun. Oklahoma summertime was as bad as ever--the heat and humidity at the same level--both too high.

I saw the car pull into the drive, '69 or '70 model Cadillac Deville, looked factory-new. It pulled into the parking lot at a snail's pace. An old woman got out so slowly I thought she was paralyzed; she had a cane and a sheaf of flowers--about four or five bunches as best I could tell.

I couldn't help myself. The thought came unwanted, and left a slightly bitter taste: "She's going to spend an hour, and for this old Marine, my hip hurts like hell and I'm ready to get out of here right now!" But for this day, my duty was to assist anyone coming in.

Kevin would lock the 'In' gate and if I could hurry the old biddy along, we might make it to Smokey's in time.

I broke post attention. My hip made gritty noises when I took the first step and the pain went up a notch. I must have made a real military sight: middle-aged man with a small pot gut and half a limp, in Marine full-dress uniform, which had lost its razor crease about thirty minutes after I began the watch at the cemetery.

I stopped in front of her, halfway up the walk. She looked up at me with an old woman's squint.

"Ma'am, may I assist you in any way?"

She took long enough to answer.

"Yes, son. Can you carry these flowers? I seem to be moving a tad slow these days."

"My pleasure, ma'am." (Well, it wasn't too much of a lie.)

She looked again. "Marine, where were you stationed?:

"Vietnam, ma'am.. Ground-pounder. '69 to '71."

She looked at me closer. "Wounded in action, I see. Well done, Marine. I'll be as quick as I can."

I lied a little bigger: "No hurry, ma'am.:

She smiled and winked at me. "Son, I'm 85-years-old and I can tell a lie from a long way off. Let's get this done. Might be the last time I can do this. My name's Joanne Wieserman, and I've a few Marines I'd like to see one more time."

"Yes, ma 'am. At your service."

She headed for the World War I section, stopping at a stone. She picked one of the flower bunches out of my arm and laid it on top of the stone. She murmured something I couldn't quite make out. The name on the marble was Donald S. Davidson, USMC: France 1918.

She turned away and made a straight line for the World War II section, stopping at one stone. I saw a tear slowly tracking its way down her cheek. She put a bunch on a stone; the name was Stephen X.Davidson,
USMC, 1943.

She went up the row a ways and laid another bunch on a stone, Stanley J. Wieserman, USMC, 1944.

She paused for a second and more tears flowed. "Two more, son, and we'll be done."

I almost didn't say anything, but, "Yes, ma'am. Take your time."

She looked confused, "Where's the Vietnam section, son? I seem to have lost my way."

I pointed with my chin. "That way, ma'am."

"Oh!" she chuckled quietly. "Son, me and old age ain't too friendly."

She headed down the walk I'd pointed at. She stopped at a couple of stones before she found the ones she wanted. She placed a bunch on Larry Wieserman, USMC, 1968, and the last on Darrel Wieserman, USMC, 1970 . She stood there and murmured a few words I still couldn't make out and more tears flowed.

"OK, son, I'm finished. Get me back to my car and you can go home."

"Yes, ma'am. If I may ask, were those your kinfolk?"

She paused. "Yes, Donald Davidson was my father, Stephen was my uncle, Stanley was my husband, Larry and Darrel were our sons. All killed in action... all Marines."

She stopped! Whether she had finished, or couldn't finish, I don't know. She made her way to her car, slowly and painfully. I waited for a polite distance to come between us and then double-timed it over to Kevin, waiting by the car.

"Get to the 'Out' gate quick. I have something I've got to do."

Kevin started to say something, but saw the look I gave him. He broke the rules to get us there down the service road fast. We beat her. She hadn't made it around the rotunda yet.

"Kevin, stand at attention next to the gatepost. Follow my lead." I humped it across the drive to the other post.

When the Cadillac came puttering around from the hedges and began the short straight traverse to the gate, I called in my best gunny's voice, "TehenHut! Present Haaaarms!"

I have to hand it to Kevin; he never blinked an eye--full dress attention and a salute that would make his DI proud. She drove through that gate with two old worn-out Marines giving her a send-off she deserved, for service rendered to her country, and for knowing duty, honor and sacrifice far beyond the realm of most.

I am not sure, but I think I saw a salute returned from that Cadillac.

Instead of 'The End,' just think of 'Taps.'

Happy Memorial Day to all of those who have had a loved one or friend pay the ultimate price for America... for freedom... for us. And although it sounds so woefully inadequate, my sincere and heartfelt thanks to you and especially to your loved one!

One Congressional District Receives 20% of Latest Health Care Law Waivers

2011-05-26T18:10:00.001-06:00

Last month, April 2011, the federal government issued 204 additional new waivers to President Obama’s signature piece of legislation that was misnamed the Affordable Care Act; more commonly known as Obamacare. That makes over 1700 waivers that have been granted thus far to various labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms, and local governments to excuse them from having to comply with this new law, like the rest of the nation will have to do.

What is particularly unusual is that in this last batch of 204 waivers, nearly forty of them all went to one congressional district. In other words, one congressional district out of 435 received nearly 20 percent of the waivers issued in this last round. Who is the congresswoman for this district, you ask? Well, it is none other than the former Speaker of the House and current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Ms. Pelosi maintains that this is simply a coincidence and that she had nothing to do with this seemingly disproportionate awarding of waivers to businesses and friends within her own congressional district. What is further striking is that many of these waivers went to expensive top-notch restaurants, nightclubs, and hotels in Pelosi’s district.

This is quite a departure from the typical businesses that were awarded waivers in the past. Indeed, restaurants such as McDonald's now have something in common with such upscale places as Boboquivari’s in San Francisco, which advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons, and $35 crab dinners. Both businesses now are exempt from having to abide by the dictates of the Affordable Care Act. Now aside from the fact that this supposedly well-intentioned and yet un-constitutional health care law was designed to fix all of our health care issues and provide coverage for all of those yet un-insured folks, whether they really wanted coverage or not, one has to ask why is it even necessary to grant waivers, let alone so danged many of them, if this is such a fantastic law?

The fact that local governments and some unions are the biggest beneficiaries of these waivers, and thus will not be lawfully obligated to abide by the very law that so many of their members fought and argued for, strikes me as inconsistent at best and perniciously hypocritical at worst. I guess we can add the friends of Nancy to this list of now-waivered hypocrites. After all, laws are only meant for those of us without political clout and connections which would allow us to otherwise skirt these nuisance laws. It’s just one more bit of hope and change to believe in, I suppose.

Contrasting the Speeches of Bush on Saddam vs. Obama on bin Laden

2011-05-19T07:55:00.004-06:00

Excerpt from George W. Bush’s speech after the capture of Saddam Hussein:

The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate 'em.

Excerpt from Barack Obama’s speech after the killing of Osama bin Laden:

...And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan.

And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

I really don't think the stark differences between the two speeches requires any additional commentary from me.

Ben Stein on the "Arab Spring in the Middle East"

2011-05-18T07:23:00.001-06:00

The always brilliant Ben Stein lays out his concerns and fears that the "Arab Spring" uprisings that are occurring throughout the Middle East is not a movement that is favorable to democracy, freedom, and the United States.

He echoes what I have also feared, that Iran is a large and ever more influential player in this vital region of the world. Their increased power and hegemony throughout the Middle East will only serve to further endanger our ally Israel and indeed our own world interests in the very near future if such "democratic uprisings" continue unabated when al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood are often found at the root of such events.

Our apparent ignorance regarding the significance of these events is to our own great peril. As Mr. Stein says, our help of these uprisings will amount to the equivalent of when the Shah of Iran was overthrown by the Ayatollah Khomeini, because that worked out well for the United States, not to mention the good people of Iran.

Cutting the Federal Government Down to Size

2011-04-26T07:15:00.001-06:00

Our federal government has continuously expanded since its inception under the governance of each and every political party. It has now gotten to be so bloated as to contain fifteen separate departments, only twelve of which are actually needed to carry out its constitutionally delineated duties, in my estimation.

Within those twelve departments are nestled 282 subordinate agencies. Of those 282 agencies, over 100 of those could be cut resulting in a far greater positive rather than negative net impact to our country and its governance.

Just the cost savings alone by slashing the amount of federal employees being paid through our federal tax dollars would be a significant step in the right direction, not to mention the huge savings our country and the economy would see by severely pruning the bureaucracy, red tape, redundantly functioned agencies, and inefficiencies that we could correct or alleviate by doing so.

Indeed, three departments, all created within the last 50 years, could be administered, where required, far more efficiently on the state level.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, which was elevated to cabinet level in 1965, is the first department that can be eliminated. This department’s elevation was a result of the Johnson administration’s attempt to fight the war on poverty and to stem the racial discrimination that was often present in obtaining housing. Well, we have seemingly long since lost that war on poverty despite all of those well-meaning intentions. The need for this behemoth and its thirteen subordinate agencies have not only NOT helped solve the problem of the poor in regards to their housing needs but have actually exacerbated it in many ways. Where the various needs still exists for the functions of this department’s administration, they can be far more efficiently and effectively carried out on the state level by those states that deem it necessary.

The Department of Energy, which was created in 1977 under the Carter administration, had the intended purpose of helping curtail our national dependency on foreign sources of energy; oil, in other words. Thirty-four years later we can all plainly see the results of this Department’s abject failure in weaning us off of these international sources of oil, while the only curtailment seems to have occurred in the development and exploitation of our own domestic sources of energy.

Where needed, the functions of this department can also be rolled back to the state level. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission can be reinstituted under the command of the United States Navy, where it was originally developed and run with an excellent safety record under Admiral Rickover.

Next, The Department of Education has also proven to be less than stellar in improving the educational results of our nation’s children. One-size-fits-all programs, like the No Child Left Behind Act, have shown to be ineffectual in improving the reading, math, and science skills of our nation’s students. Again, these functions are all much better served on the state level where they can far better administer to the needs of individual school districts in a much more efficient and timely manner than can the huge and slowly responding federal bureaucracy of the Department of Education.

Many of the sub-agencies that fall under these fifteen federal departments can also be consolidated into fewer agencies or eliminated as un-necessary, redundant, or not fulfilling constitutional mandates accordingly. Over a third of the 282 agencies meet this criteria, again in my estimation.

I realize that the hypothetical cutting of federal departments and agencies is not politically viable and will never happen, particularly with the big government Republicans and the progressive Democrats still wielding far too much power in congress, but when the federal government is the nation’s largest employer, even when not counting the military, then we have grown far too big in the number of people necessary to administer the constitutional functions of our federal government.

Something needs to be done, in addition to some austerity cuts in spending, if we are to pull our nation back from the very brink of insolvency. These cuts and the passing of a constitutional balanced budget amendment would go a long way towards rescuing us from that increasingly certain demise that we will otherwise encounter very shortly.

The Five Things I Love About Christ: An Easter Meme

2011-04-22T08:03:00.005-06:00

Matt over at the excellent site, St. Blogustine, has tagged me with a challenge that I will gladly accept. He was similarly tagged with this “Lenten meme” which will hopefully now become an Easter meme for those that choose to participate. The rules for this tagging are as follows: Those tagged will share five reasons why they love Jesus or five things they love about Him. Those tagged will then tag five other bloggers. Further, those tagged will provide a link in the comments section here with their name so that others can read them.

Here are my list of five reasons of why I love Christ:

1.) Throughout history most religions’ gods required sacrifice on behalf of the worshiper before a quid pro quo was seemingly returned by the deity. With Christ, He already made the glorious and terrible sacrifice for me. I only need to acknowledge and accept His sacrifice for my sins to be forgiven in His Divine Mercy. Christ is a God that has chosen to love a sinner like me, before I ever even knew Him.

2.) Since my coming to Christ, my awe and sense of wonder with God’s creation and my fellow man, who are all children of God whether they acknowledge him or not, has been magnified from the tiniest of embers to a steady burning conflagration. Indeed, through my studies of Christ and science, I continue to see myriads of places where the two are inextricably intertwined, which serves to astound me in reverence for Him and the glory of His ways all the more.

3.) Though I often fall far short of doing my Lord’s will, being the indefatigable sinner that I seem to be, He is always there to accept me back into His grace with His forgiveness and love.

4.) My desire to attempt to live as my Lord wills me to do has made me far less selfish and far more understanding and compassionate towards my fellow brothers and sisters. When I follow Christ’s commandment to love my God with all of my heart and soul and love my neighbor as myself, I feel far more of a sense of purpose and profound meaning in my life and am so often rewarded with His love and grace accordingly.

5.) I love Christ because he is not a remote and removed God but rather He is a loving God who cares and is the best part of my daily life. My love and worship of him brings me joy and contentment. Not unlike the woman at the well having drunk of the living water, my thirst has been forever quenched. Not unlike the man born blind, my faith in Christ has opened my eyes with new sight. And not unlike Lazarus, my Lord has restored my life. While years ago I was dead and living an empty and meaningless existence for only myself, I now have His life within me, particularly as I partake of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and I have been greatly blessed daily by God because of this.

The difficult part of this meme for me was to list five bloggers that acknowledge Christ as God, let alone actually love him. This is not meant as a slight against any of my fellow blog friends that occasionally frequent my site, but rather only an observation. That being said, I will tag four wonderful folks that would likely continue this meme, and the one remaining individual will have to be done via private email.

My tagged five are:

Annie @ The Middle of Where?

Burr @ Fair and unbalanced

Brit @ Cynical Words

anonymous

May God bless you all with a joyous Easter!

Good Friday: He Makes All Things New Again

2011-04-22T00:01:00.001-06:00

As we enter into Good Friday and the most solemn day of the year for most Christians, I wanted to share this beautiful and haunting music video. It is sung by two of my favorite artists, Brad Paisley and Sara Evans, and they do a masterful job. The video itself contains excerpts mainly from the Passion of the Christ film. Please be warned that the film and the clip can be difficult to watch in parts for many folks due to the realistic and graphic portrayal of the crucifixion of our Lord and Savior.

Nevertheless, as Pope John Paul II was reported as having said upon seeing a private screening of the film upon its release, "It is as it was."

Blessed be God forever! Amen!

My Reflections on Holy Thursday

2011-04-21T00:01:00.001-06:00

As we enter into the Triduum of Holy Week today and celebrate the Holy Thursday Mass where Christ instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist during his last supper with his disciples, I am overwhelmed with sorrow and joy. The Paschal Mystery remains ever so to me. The more I study and the more I learn about my Lord , the more unfathomable it becomes to me that my God suffered, died, and was buried so that my sins might be forgiven, despite my dreadful unworthiness. This is why I choose to love the God who would love someone like me.

The Council of Nicaea and the Formation of the Nicene Creed

2011-04-11T07:56:00.003-06:00

In June of the year 325 A.D. a council was called in the city of Nicaea for the delegates of the relatively new Christian religion to codify in writing the core dogmatic tenets of the Christian faith. The need for this was due to an arising controversy created by Arius, a Libyan preacher, who had declared that Christ was indeed divine, but that God had actually created him and as such “there was when he was not”.

This constituted Jesus as being less than the Father and therefore was contradictory to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. As the Arian teaching was becoming more wide-spread, the early church formed the council of Nicaea in order to emphatically state what constituted actual doctrines of the Christian faith as passed down through Holy tradition and teachings that originated from Christ himself and his apostles.

The result of this council that was convened to rebuke these heretical teachings was the Nicene Creed. It is a profession of faith that is used to this very day in the Roman Catholic Church Masses on Sundays and various solemnities. Further, this ancient statement of faith is also recognized as expressing the core doctrine and dogmas of not only the Catholic faith, but also that of the Lutheran, Anglican, and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches.

Note that within the Nicene Creed is the phrase, “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.” Also note that the word “catholic” is not capitalized here. This is because it is not referring to the specific denomination of Catholicism, but rather refers to the meaning of universalism that the word originally denoted, as the catholic church was indeed the true universal Christian Church and remained the only one up until the 16^th Century. It was at that time that Martin Luther began the Protestant reformation which ultimately resulted in the removal of seven of the books from the canon of the Bible, hence the differences between the original catholic Bible and those used by Protestant denominations to this day.

Following is the current translation of the Nicene Creed from the Catholic Missal used in Masses today:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Power of Choosing the Right Words

2011-04-10T11:47:00.000-06:00

H/T: Carrie

America Wins With The Congressional Budget Compromise

2011-04-09T13:02:00.000-06:00

With less than two hours to go before an April 8^th midnight deadline, congress finally was able to reach an agreement on the budget for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. The Senate approved the stopgap measure by 11:20 last night and the House followed suit after midnight. A memo was thus released saying that government operations were to continue normally and that a shut down had indeed been averted.

The money for funding the government for all of 2011 thus far has been accomplished by a series of continuing resolutions passed by congress as the Democratically-controlled House and Senate failed to pass a federal budget for 2011 last year, as per their constitutional obligations. It has been reasonably speculated that a budget was not passed then because of the seeming inability of Democrats to refrain from placing excessive spending riders into the budget, and the corresponding political hay that the Republicans would make of their imprudence during the run-up to the 2010 mid-term elections last year. Evidently, the Democrats might as well have gone for broke with the pork laden budget they wanted, as they lost in near historic levels in the House and also nearly gave up control of the Senate to boot due to angry voter turn-out that was captured with the rise of the Tea Party.

In the compromise reached last night between Speaker John Boehner’s House of Representatives and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s senate, $38 Billion will be cut from the remaining expenditures from the 2011 budget. This is significantly less than the original $61 Billion wanted by the G.O.P. members of congress, but was substantially more than the original $6 Billion offered by Democrats.

In some of the major sticking points with the Democrats, the House Republicans had attached two additional riders to the budget bill calling for the elimination of certain Environmental Protection Agency powers regarding the Clean Air Act. The Republican members also restructured a budget rider that rather than cut all federal funds for Planned Parenthood, would take the money given to it and other family planning organizations and give it to state health departments to spread at their discretion. Presumably, states controlled by Republican legislatures would choose not to give that money to Planned Parenthood, in order to reduce federal tax-payer dollars being spent on abortions. This rider was summarily scrapped in the compromise with Harry Reid and the Democrats.

The Republicans were, however, able to get passed the restriction of Washington D.C. taxpayer monies to no longer be used for abortion services within the district. Further, and more significantly, the Republicans in their compromise were able to secure a promise from Harry Reid to allow and bring up a vote in the senate for the two failed riders to defund Planned Parenthood of federal tax payer dollars altogether, and to repeal funding for the inaccurately named Affordable Health Care Act, commonly called Obamacare. These two items are huge, as Harry Reid had refused to even allow a vote in the senate on these items for fear of possible passage by Republican Senators and some of their fellow nervous Democrat colleagues previously.

The next two big showdowns will come when the debate begins in putting together the federal budget for fiscal year 2012, which begins this October 1^st, and the federal debt limit which the government will reach this summer, if congress fails to act. Representative Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican and Budget Committee chairman, unveiled his party’s 2012 budget that would cut $5.8 trillion over the next decade by reshaping popular programs like Medicare. This is sure to cause a gargantuan fight with congressional Democrats who are loathe to reduce spending this much and are sure to demonize Republicans as wanting to hurt the poor and minorities with such “extreme” cuts, as Senator Chuck Schumer has already instructed Democrats to use such rhetoric.

All in all, this seems to be a net win for the Republicans and most importantly for Americans. No longer is the debate in congress about how much to spend, but rather on how much spending needs to be cut. The terms of the fight have changed and we are moving in the right direction finally. As the brilliant freshman Florida Representative Alan West said in an interview this morning, “it takes five miles to turn an aircraft carrier”. He is right, and while things are moving slower than many of us conservatives and libertarians would like, the ship of state is indeed finally making that turn to head in the right direction!

Eat The Rich!

2011-04-02T11:41:00.000-06:00

So, in order to help the poor, we want to punish the evil rich according to our progressive brothers and sisters, correct? Well, this fascinating video shows just how to go about doing that by paying our national budget for this year on the backs of the evil rich and those diabolical corporations. It also explains the results of what we would have left in doing so after destroying all of our Fortune 500 companies, all those making over $250,000 a year, taking all of their assets and then just barely being able to pay for our federal budget for one year. (Oh yeah, that is after each and every American still has to contribute $40.00 each to the cause.) Then what do we do to pay for the budget the following year after we have already destroyed all of the wealth in this nation from which to tax?

The Unconstitutionality of Obama's Kinetic Action in Libya

2011-03-28T07:45:00.001-06:00

A co-worker and friend of mine wrote the following article, and I thought it more than worthy to post here. His name is Randy Jones and while he does not have his own blog, he is very well read and has extensive current event and historical knowledge. Further, while he is a lawyer and there are rumors to him once having had a Hillary picture hanging in his office (okay, not really!) he is a good guy and quite often nails it with any given subject. In other words, he often agrees with my perspective!

Enjoy!

This evening, the President is finally getting around to telling us why he thinks we should be fighting in Libya. However, I think there is a deeper problem here that only Jeffersonian Republicans and Liberal Democrats are talking about. I should say some Liberal Democrats as the others are siding with the Big Government Republicans on this one. The deeper problem and most important one is the fact that President Obama did not go to Congress to seek authorization to go to war with Libya. Article I Section 8 Subsection 11 gives the US Congress the power to Declare War. The President is only given the power as Commander-in-Chief under Article II.

Now, does this mean that if the President knew of an imminent threat that he/she could not launch a preemptive strike? Of course not. The Constitution is not a suicide pact as one Supreme Court Justice once put it. Could a President defend the nation while under attack without going to Congress? Of course, he/she could do that. That is what FDR did in the Pacific after the attack on Pearl Harbor. However, that is not the case with Libya. The case with Libya is a President buckling to Hillary Clinton and the Big Government Republicans and involving us in another war. It is that plain and simple. He was not for getting into this war. That is very obvious, but he buckled under the pressure.

The President argues that he got permission from the Arab League, NATO, and the United Nations. That doesn't mean anything without authorization from Congress. He has to go there and if Congress says no we are not going to war then, that is the end of discussion. Is Obama the first President to do this? The answer is a clearly no and Ronald Reagan was probably the last one to egregiously offend the war powers of Congress when he invaded Grenada for no real reason other than just wanting to do it. It was of no threat to America and no one really believes that students were being threatened enough to warrant an invasion.

That is the case here with Libya. However, Obama has taken this to a newer height by saying he got international approval therefore he doesn't need Congressional approval. That is outrageous and should worry everyone. You may remember that even though President George H. W. Bush had permission from the UN to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, he still got authorization from Congress. George W. Bush had permission from the UN to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan, but he still went to Congress for authorization for both wars.

Liberals forget that Congress signed onto both those wars, but those are the facts. Congress could have repealed both authorizations to stop those wars, but chose not to do so in which Obama has power to prosecute those wars. I should state for the record that I supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I do quarry with how Bush prosecuted both those wars. That is a subject for another day as things have changed and so should our strategies. I digress.

Having said that, he has no power from the people of the United States to wage this war in Libya. It doesn't make our imminent threat scenario or our under attack scenario, so he has no excuse for what he is doing. International agencies cannot be a bypass of the Congress's war making powers. If we allow this go on it will be a step towards eventually all of our laws being bypassed by some international institution. Big government does not come all at once and neither does world government. It comes in drips and drabs in which now is the time to stop the leaking of our freedom before someday we will have to get permission to even have an army from the United Nations.

Randy S. Jones, Esq.

Jeffersonian Republican

Dennis Prager on The Speech Every American High School Principal Should Give

2011-03-25T18:20:00.003-06:00

Dennis Prager wrote an excellent "speech" last July and pondered at how much better off our country would be if each and every high school principal in America had the courage and fortitude to deliver this speech and enforce the sentiments expressed within it. It is too bad because too many teachers, let alone parents, would find much to complain about in the words that would hypothetically be spoken, hence the sad and continuously declining state of our current poorly educated populace.

To the students and faculty of our high school:

I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people. I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.

First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships.

The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity -- your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American. This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans.

If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity-, race- and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America, one of its three central values -- e pluribus unum, "from many, one." And this school will be guided by America's values.

This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.

Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism -- an unhealthy preoccupation with the self -- while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interesting in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.

Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America's citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English language skills, I would be remiss in my duty to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market. We will learn other languages here -- it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English -- but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.

Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning's elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.

Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school's property -- whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can't speak without using the f-word, you can't speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as "Nigger," even when used by one black student to address another black, or "bitch," even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.

Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way -- the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago -- by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.

Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue. There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately lucky -- to be alive and to be an American.

Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.

Amen, Mr. Prager! Now do you suppose we citizens that still believe in America and its exceptionalism could convince a few principals across the country to deliver such a speech despite the outrage that would inevitably come from the NEA and those few parents that have taught their children to game the system and act as perpetual victims?

Obama Supports New Oil Drilling... In Brazil

2011-03-23T07:57:00.001-06:00

In a truly remarkable statement this week, President Obama has enthusiastically announced his support for new offshore drilling for oil. Yep, you did indeed read that right. Unfortunately his support is for Brazil to commence this drilling and not the United States. This is particularly ironic because this very action is something that he and his administration have consistently banned and restricted in the United States after last year’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico from British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon rig.

Further, our president intends to back up his support for Brazil with the promise of U.S. taxpayer financing to help fund Brazil’s drilling operations, which consequently will create thousands of new jobs in Brazil. He is quoted as saying,

“We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers. At a time when we’ve been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.”

One wonders why President Obama wants to be one of Brazil's best customers of oil and gas when there are millions of Americans who would be eager to be the best customers of new supplies of oil and gas produced by workers in Louisiana, Alaska, and Virginia? Indeed, the consequences of President Obama’s drilling moratorium last summer and the administration’s subsequent refusal to issue new drilling permits has been partially responsible for the soaring gas prices we are currently experiencing.

Further, these actions alone have cost the United States a loss of at least 20,000 jobs. The long term consequences of that moratorium and lack of new drilling permits has further caused at least seven deep water oil rigs to plan to leave the Gulf of Mexico for work elsewhere on the globe. Those jobs will likely be gone from U.S. shores for many years to come.

So while our gasoline and diesel prices continue to climb drastically, especially with the upheaval in the Middle East, our President continues to prevent the development of domestic sources of energy from going forward. He then applauds this very same development in a foreign nation and promises U.S. taxpayer dollars in support of the venture. One wonders if he realizes that he is supposed to be working to help the economy of the nation for which he presumably is the president thereof and to thus create jobs in the UNITED STATES.

The incompetence, hypocrisy, and lack of foresight in our President has reached capricious levels. One wonders what gas prices and the REAL unemployment rate will look like come 2012 accordingly?

Andrew Klavan: Behold! Your Public Sector Unions

2011-03-21T17:18:00.001-06:00

The Theory of Moral Relativity

2011-03-15T07:56:00.003-06:00

There have always been those in humankind that have done exactly what they wanted to do, regardless of what their society, culture, or creed dictated was moral. Unfortunately, since the 1960’s and the sexual revolution, it seems that this attitude has become ever more prevalent to the point that anything goes in today’s secular society and those that wish to still live by a moral code are typically seen as antiquated, rigid, prude, and intolerant of those whose mantra is “just because you think it is wrong, does not make it wrong for me!”

Before we delve into this further, let’s define a few terms here.

Moral Relativism: There are no absolute truths when it comes to moral judgments. Indeed, the truth of moral judgments are absolutely relative to the context of the individual or group. What one person or group might find to be moral and the truth may very well not be for another person or group. Further, there is no valid intrinsic standard of morality by which to compare them. Without such a standard for a frame of reference, it is a wasted exercise to try and determine the morality, the right or wrong of one’s decisions and actions in a morally relative environment. Morality is changeable, subjective, and individualistic to the moral relativist.

Moral Absolutism: There are very clear and well defined moral judgments that are absolutely true, regardless of one’s culture, society, or value system. There are definitive judgments of right and wrong, good and evil that transcend cultures and societies and are absolutely true for all humankind regardless. Natural law and a strong reliance upon it is typically a key component of it.

Nihilism: This is a belief that comes about when one accepts the premise of moral relativism as being true. Since moral beliefs and judgments are all relative to the individual or group and there is no overarching standard of reference, all moral conversations are meaningless. Morality is a relative thing and therefore the definition of it is abandoned. It is a belief in nothingness.

For those that know me or have read my blog for any length of time at all, it probably won’t surprise you to learn that I fall into the moral absolutism category, as it is my considered opinion that the belief in moral relativism creates the slippery slope that invariably ends with a belief in nihilism and a certain kind of secular totalitarianism.

Peter Kreeft writing in his A Refutation of Moral Relativism states,
“Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day defined a good society as one that makes it easy for you to be good. Correlatively, a free society is one that makes it easy to be free. To be free, and to live freely, is to live spiritually, because only spirit is free—matter is not. To live spiritually is to live morally. The two essential properties of spirit that distinguish it from matter are intellect and will—the capacity for knowledge and moral choice. The ideals of truth and goodness. The most radical threat to living morally today is the loss of moral principles.

Moral practice has always been difficult for fallen humanity, but at least there was always the lighthouse of moral principles, no matter how stormy the sea of moral practice got. But today, with the majority of our mind-molders, in formal education, or informal education—that is, media—the light is gone. Morality is a fog of feelings. That is why to them, as Chesterton said, ‘Morality is always dreadfully complicated to a man who has lost all his principles.’ Principles mean moral absolutes. Unchanging rocks beneath the changing waves of feelings and practices. Moral relativism is a philosophy that denies moral absolutes. That thought to me is the prime suspect—public enemy number one. The philosophy that has extinguished the light in the minds of our teachers, and then their students, and eventually, if not reversed, will extinguish our whole civilization.”

There are various reasons why some individuals choose to live with a seemingly oxymoronic code of moral relativism, and I would encourage you to read more of Mr. Kreeft’s excellent dissertation on the particulars here. Suffice it to say that for reasons ranging from psychological, cultural, social conditioning, to “tolerance” etc., far too many people try to justify their belief in this Nihilism.

Many folks do this from a sense of “enlightened” superiority in the mistaken assumption that our way is not the only right way to live. The moral relativist wants to be happy and therefore being able to live up to the “tougher standards” of moral absolutism is typically found to be exceptionally difficult. Failure to do so brings about guilt and a lack of self esteem at the failure to live by a transcendent moral code, hence the desire to cultivate only one’s happiness through the justification that all people should be tolerant and thus allowed to live as they choose.

While I would not ever be for forcing people to live by a moral absolutism code, that doesn’t mean that I won’t try to the best of my ability to live so personally and thereby hopefully provide an example for others as a contrast in the life they might have chosen. I realize that I always fall short of the moral code that my Christian faith and Western culture as defined by traditional American values prescribes, but far better for me to have goals that often exceed my grasp, than to have no moral goals at all for which I succeed at masterfully.

Indeed, living a life of moral relativism opens the door to everything being permissible. It is in such an environment where one states, “I am personally against abortion, but others can get one if they choose,” or to the extremes of “I personally don’t agree with homicide bombers, but I can understand their reasons for engaging in such desperate acts”. It is this thought process that creates that slippery slope from black and white, right and wrong, to everything being gray and some otherwise pernicious behavior being acceptable and permissible for some folks. Just because a Nazi thinks that genocide is okay, does not make it so. Just because some cultures insist on the mutilation of girl’s genitalia, doesn’t make it right. Just because a person practices a faith other than fundamentalist Wahabi Islam, does not make it right for that person to be executed in some nations, and yet all of these things have and do occur. To the true moral relativist, we should not judge these people/groups and hold them to our own moral standards of what is “right”.

At Mass this past Sunday, our priest pointed out that Satan doesn’t typically try to seduce the corrupt and those not living by any moral compass, as he typically already has those people in his grasp. It is those that are trying to be righteous that he focuses upon the most. In capturing them, he finds victory. Further, it is not through the temptation for the commission of grave or mortal sins by a person trying to live by a moral absolutist life that Satan typically tries to ensnare them, as most folks that try to live a righteous life are not typically able to be easily swayed to commit murder or steal or commit any other such obviously wrong actions.

Rather it is precisely through moral relativism that Satan will be most successful. Indeed, there often is the appearance of truth in some morally relativistic arguments that could persuade an otherwise morally absolutist person into abandoning his or her code to consider such actions as justifiable. Grandma is terminally ill and has lived a long life; she doesn’t want to be in constant pain, so we should do the merciful thing and help end her life compassionately. Of course this justification starts the slide down that slope to the next step of “Grandma doesn’t want to be a burden on the family and live out the rest of her life alone in the nursing home.” Then it becomes only a few generations away to the value of the elderly being deemed as unimportant or even as nuisances in this morally relativistic society. Such is the cost of abandoning a moral absolutist code and proclaiming that everything is permissible as an individual or group so desires. It creates a world where only might will eventually protect oneself as this secular anarchy will come to rule. Such is not a world in which I ever hope to live.

Defund Planned Parenthood

2011-03-13T11:51:00.000-06:00

Our Ludicrous Foreign Aid Expenditures

2011-03-10T07:45:00.001-07:00

Texas congressman Ted Poe brings up a point that I have been griping about for decades. There are currently 192 countries in this world. Do you know how many of them to which the United States provides foreign aid? If you guessed over 75% of them, then you would be correct. The United States provides either monetary or military aid or both to 158 nations on this planet.

I find that interesting since it would seem that there are nowhere near 158 nations that stand up for freedom and have common interests with the United States. In fact, often times many of the nations to which we are providing aid are either strategic competitors or downright hate us altogether. I really don’t understand the purpose of spending tax payer dollars in support of such nations like Russia, Cuba, or even Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. These nations do not have our best interests at heart, and as Representative Poe says in the video, I don’t need to pay people to hate me. They can do that on their own.

The problem lies in the fact that the spending authorization for foreign aid comes in the form of one large consolidated bill. Either every nation on the bill gets their tax-payer funded foreign aid or nobody does. Congressman Poe is proposing that we single each nation out and provide for an up or down vote for aid individually for each nation. Now there are some allies that absolutely are in need and indeed deserving of our aid, such as Israel, but I would be willing to bet we could whittle that number of 158 down to low double digits REAL easily. In light of our current fiscal situation, this is an idea that is long past due.

A New Record in Deficit Spending

2011-03-08T08:02:00.001-07:00

It would seem that the federal government has achieved another history-breaking record. For February 2011 the federal government posted the largest monthly deficit in the entire history of the United States. Indeed, this $223 Billion deficit for the month of February alone dwarfs the $161 Billion deficit that the government posted for the ENTIRE YEAR in 2007. In other words, Barack Obama's government is running up larger deficits in one MONTH than the government posted in an entire YEAR only a few short years ago.

Meanwhile, Democrats in congress are screaming about the Republican's still-anemic attempts to cut the deficit for this current year's budget. According to the Washington times, "a top Senate Democrat said his party can accept no more than $6 billion in domestic cuts." We just posted $223 Billion in deficit spending last month alone, and the Democrats claim that the most they can cut in spending for the remainder of the fiscal year is $6 Billion dollars! They truly are clueless as to the peril our economy and indeed our nation is in with this unsustainable spending.

March 18th will be the next vote over the continuing resolution to try and fund the government for the remainder of the year. Currently the Democrats are threatening to reject the House GOP plan to cut $57 billion in spending for the rest of this fiscal year. They say those cuts are too much. Instead of being serious about the need to cut all but the most vital CONSTITUTIONALLY authorized governmental functions, President Obama put forth a budget that was full of additional spending that we simply do not have the money for right now. As he stated in his State of the Union Speech, he wants to spend our taxpayer dollars to fund such extra unnecessary items like high speed rail despite the fact that a vast majority of Americans don't want it and won't use it.

Further, if union agitators succeed in bullying governors like Scott Walker and John Kasich and do manage to impose their statist agenda at any price so that tax payers will continue to have to fund public union pensions and health care to degrees that exceed those of even private employers, then we are bound to collapse under the weight of our own fiscal malfeasance very soon. Things are quickly coming to a head. The Republicans in congress absolutely must hold the line and insist that their cuts be implemented.

Those cuts alone are pathetically impotent when it comes to the monthly deficits we are now seeing and indeed they need to be even bolder in the GOP's plans to balance our budget. Unfortunately, when you have Democrats that seemingly don't even acknowledge that we are in a dire situation and refuse to even exceed $6 Billion in cuts for the remainder of this year, it will make the battle an exceptionally difficult one. Take note which Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) are not taking this seriously, send them an email or call, and make damned sure to vote them out of office come November 2012, assuming we still have a functioning government and nation by then.

Reason, Passion, and the Soul

2011-03-07T07:06:00.003-07:00

Nearly four hundred years before Christ walked this earth as fully man and fully God, Plato within his dialogue Phaedrus, created a rather interesting allegorical representation for a person’s soul.

Plato described a charioteer being pulled by two winged horses. The charioteer himself was seen to be the reason and intellect of the soul that must guide the stallions to enlightenment. Now one of the steeds is pictured to be of noble breed and character and representative of rationality and moral impulse of a righteous nature, while the other of the two horses was the diametric opposite in bearing and virtue and thus represented the soul's irrational passions, appetites, or decidedly more base natures. The two horses of such disparate natures were exceptionally hard to drive accordingly as they each wished to venture towards their own predilections, while the charioteer struggled mightily to drive them to his wanted destination of that elusive enlightenment.

It is a story of which I first learned back in high school the better part of three decades ago, but was recently reminded of a few weeks back in the homily at Mass one Sunday. In the homily, our deacon spoke of the soul that is the Charioteer driving the winged twin horses of reason and passion.

While perhaps not truly faithful to Plato’s original story, one can see the troubles that the charioteer soul might encounter when one steed tries to pull the chariot in one direction at the expense of the direction that the other steed wishes to travel, and thereby going to a place that the soul neither intended nor wished to venture.

If the horse of passion is allowed full rein to pull the chariot at the expense of the horse of reason, one might very well find one’s soul fulfilled, albeit for a very short lived time, as we do not live in a world where rationality and logic are absent for long, and thereby the consequences of having ignored them will quickly become apparent to the soul with excruciating and even grave consequences.

Indeed, fall in love with someone where the physical chemistry is magnificent initially, but the character or intellect are wanting and one will soon find that passion to falter and extinguish, leaving the soul injured and longing.

At the same time, if one were to marry and commit oneself to a person for practical matters that made unassailable logical sense, as the person was of sterling character, quality, and the perfect complement to one in all things of a pragmatic nature, but yet there was no chemistry or passion and love for that individual, it would be a marriage that too would soon falter as the purpose and meaning of such a marriage would never be fully realized.

The consequences of such disproportionate reason and passion, in favor of either steed, can likely be found applicable to any number of one’s relationships, career, vital interests, or critical elements to that which makes us each lacking in our own humanity. I suspect that in all things, ensuring that there is a balance of reason and passion would ultimately make for a much longer lasting and far more fulfilling life’s journey within the context of the soul driving that chariot.

Indeed, when passion and reason are yoked equally, one will find the chariot soul easy to steer towards that wanted destination and the journey will prove to be far smoother and enjoyable for the traveling.

Obama's Latest Derelection of Presidential Responsibilities Regarding DOMA

2011-02-28T07:58:00.001-07:00

I was horrified and angry beyond belief when I heard President Obama proclaim that his administration and justice department would no longer defend existing law in the case of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I was seething and ready to do a post on this topic this morning, when Free0352 beat me to the punch. His article is excellent and encapsulated exactly my thoughts on that topic. With that being the case, following is his guest post in full:

Washington: Today, President Sarah Palin, declaring that the 1973 Roe Vs Wade Court Decision was "constitutionally indefensible" declared she will no longer authorize the Attorney General's office to oppose court challenges to the law that protects a women's right to an abortion. The Attorney General said today - “I will instruct department attorneys to advise courts in other pending litigation in defense of abortion, of the president’s and my conclusions that the law’s determination that a women has a right to an abortion is indefensible and to not pursue those cases."Imagine folks if that were the headline in major newspapers across the United States today? The liberals of this country would demand the impeachment of the President. Were that to happen, I would agree with them.

However, when something exactly like this happened today, there was barely a peep from the left -

The Obama administration said it will no longer oppose court challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages for purposes of taxes, social security and other programs.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder wrote yesterday to House Speaker John A. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, to announce the executive branch’s new position on the 15-year-old law.

When I saw that today, I had to reread it several times. I just couldn't believe it.

President Obama, you are not a one man Supreme Court, you swore an oath to uphold the laws of this country. You are now derelict in that duty. As to my abortion analogy, you dear readers (and perhaps even you Democrats) can quickly see how this frightening precedent can be used and where it can go. There is no telling the ways an out of control Presidency can damage our country. I don't like Roe Vs Wade any more than liberals likely support DOMA... but it's the law of the land. Presidents have to support that, as we are a nation of laws. This is our President taking the law into his own hands. That cannot be tolerated. I hope our new House leadership votes to impeach this President should he continue this course, and immediately resolve to defund entirely both the office of the President of the United States and the Attorney General's office until he complies with his Oath of Office. This cannot be tolerated.

I don't say that lightly, until now I've never thought Obama should be impeached. This is different, this is totally illegal, and wrong.

You can read Free0352 daily at John Galt For President.

Bearing Our Own Cross

2011-02-24T07:45:00.003-07:00

We complain about the cross we bear but don't realize it is preparing us for the dip in the road that God can see and we cannot.

H/T: Rex