I have taken a few days off for Christmas (Gasp! He said the "C" word) and more recently because I've been a little under the weather. I'm using this particular sleepless night to start back posting, and I would like to start to delve into the history of the Socialist movement and illustrate some facets of the early 20th century Socialists that you may have never seen before.
Socialism is very slowly but methodically becoming "in style" once again. From Whoopi Goldberg proclaiming that Socialism "looks good on paper" to the increasingly popular Che Guevara t-shirt, little pockets are showing up. I'd like to do my increasingly small part to perhaps shed some light on some famous Socialists and give you some information about them that you may be hearing for the first time.
George Bernard Shaw. Probably the most famous Irish playwright of all time and a self-admitted Fabian Socialist, Shaw was actually a huge supporter of Adolph Hitler. Now, I know it's confusing. We've been taught that the Communists and the Fascists were on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Not true. In fact, the far left was well aware of Hitler's desire for mass extermination. Instead of being opposed to it, they embraced it. But don't take my word for it. Let Mr. Shaw explain his thoughts about people who could not contribute to "the greater good"...
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Pull the Plug on Foreign Aid to Saudi Arabia
Textbooks that were published by the Saudi Arabian government and distributed to students in that country contain anti-Jew, anti-gay, and anti-women text according to a recent report. See Fox News' discussion about it here:
Why are we supplying this country with aid in the first place? They are sitting on top of the largest crude oil reserves in the world at a time when crude is very highly priced. Why do we continue to support a country that indoctrinates it young children like this?
We need energy independence now and we can attain it relatively quickly and easily.
Step 1: Approve the Keystone pipeline, allow oil drilling off of our east and west coast and ANWR.
Step 2: Cut off all funding to Saudi Arabia, forcing them to make up the difference by flooding the market with oil, thus drastically reducing the cost of crude.
Can someone in this country step up and have the guts to call these people out? The problem is that we are so worried that they'll cut off our oil supply that we'll let them get away with this crap just so we can keep importing their oil.
This is nothing short of hate speech.
Why are we supplying this country with aid in the first place? They are sitting on top of the largest crude oil reserves in the world at a time when crude is very highly priced. Why do we continue to support a country that indoctrinates it young children like this?
We need energy independence now and we can attain it relatively quickly and easily.
Step 1: Approve the Keystone pipeline, allow oil drilling off of our east and west coast and ANWR.
Step 2: Cut off all funding to Saudi Arabia, forcing them to make up the difference by flooding the market with oil, thus drastically reducing the cost of crude.
Can someone in this country step up and have the guts to call these people out? The problem is that we are so worried that they'll cut off our oil supply that we'll let them get away with this crap just so we can keep importing their oil.
This is nothing short of hate speech.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
The Myth of the Electric Car
GM has missed it's annual sales goal for the Chevy Volt by 4,000 cars. That may not seem like a lot, but when you consider that the sales goal was only 10,000 and that several of cars that were sold were "fleet" sales (Municipalities, corporations, etc.) the numbers don't look good for the Volt. See the report below.
I understand the desire to go electric. I don't like paying $3.00 a gallon for gas any more than the next person. The problem is that the auto industry just cannot build an affordable electric car that the normal person will want to buy. There was a fad in marketing a couple of years ago about "going green". It was believed that if you marketed something as "green" that you could charge a little more and people would still want to buy it because the majority of Americans wanted to "save the planet" and they would buy the "green" item versus the "non-green" item to look good in front of their friends.
The problem with that, though, is that the American consumer is a lot smarter that the average marketing strategist will give them credit for. In the case of the Chevy Volt, GM honestly thought that there was such an environmental panic among the American people that they would hit a home run by producing a $41,000 electric car that would keep the planet from dying.
$41,000 is way too much to pay for a car for the average American. The only people that are going to buy this thing are wealthy people, government agencies, and corporations. The few individuals that are buying this car are doing in for vanity purposes. They want to look good in front of their friends. "Hey, is that a Chevy Volt you're driving?" "Yeah, I'm just doing my part to save the environment".
This way of thinking is so misguided. Where do you think the electricity comes from? Guess what -- 70% of the electricity created in the United States comes from fossil fuels. Another 20% comes from nuclear power, a source generally regarded as environmentally "unfriendly", thanks to The Simpsons.
So, when you buy your all-electric car and you're plugging into the grid to charge that puppy to travel a whole 50 miles, and you're thinking to yourself how much good you're doing for the planet, just think about that coal-fired plant giving Mother Earth lung cancer or that nuclear plant causing three-eyed fish or those windmills that kill thousands of defenseless birds each year. Is it really better for the planet if you plug you car in to go 50 miles or to buy a couple gallons of gas?
I understand the desire to go electric. I don't like paying $3.00 a gallon for gas any more than the next person. The problem is that the auto industry just cannot build an affordable electric car that the normal person will want to buy. There was a fad in marketing a couple of years ago about "going green". It was believed that if you marketed something as "green" that you could charge a little more and people would still want to buy it because the majority of Americans wanted to "save the planet" and they would buy the "green" item versus the "non-green" item to look good in front of their friends.
The problem with that, though, is that the American consumer is a lot smarter that the average marketing strategist will give them credit for. In the case of the Chevy Volt, GM honestly thought that there was such an environmental panic among the American people that they would hit a home run by producing a $41,000 electric car that would keep the planet from dying.
$41,000 is way too much to pay for a car for the average American. The only people that are going to buy this thing are wealthy people, government agencies, and corporations. The few individuals that are buying this car are doing in for vanity purposes. They want to look good in front of their friends. "Hey, is that a Chevy Volt you're driving?" "Yeah, I'm just doing my part to save the environment".
This way of thinking is so misguided. Where do you think the electricity comes from? Guess what -- 70% of the electricity created in the United States comes from fossil fuels. Another 20% comes from nuclear power, a source generally regarded as environmentally "unfriendly", thanks to The Simpsons.
So, when you buy your all-electric car and you're plugging into the grid to charge that puppy to travel a whole 50 miles, and you're thinking to yourself how much good you're doing for the planet, just think about that coal-fired plant giving Mother Earth lung cancer or that nuclear plant causing three-eyed fish or those windmills that kill thousands of defenseless birds each year. Is it really better for the planet if you plug you car in to go 50 miles or to buy a couple gallons of gas?
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
What Happens When You Set Up a Nativity Scene in the Middle of an OWS Camp?
I think this is a GREAT video. It's eye-opening, enlightening, and encouraging all at the same time. It is a video of a couple of people setting up a Nativity scene in the middle of the Occupy D.C. encampment. What follows is a broad array of reactions. A lot of people might expect vitriol and hatred. Granted, the ones who were most vehemently against it were disrespectful, but not to the point of violent. However, many of the protesters accepted the scene with open arms and I have to give them credit for that.
Two hypocritical portions of this video, however, are hilarious.
The first is the guy who says, "Christ is not my Lord, the Law is my Lord" all while wearing a hat that says, "F*** the Police". This same guy talks about it being "in bad taste", all while wearing the hat. Other great comments from this guy are "I find it very offensive" and "It's just another way to divide us", all while wearing the hat. Hilarious!
The second portion is when a girl is asked why she is offended by the scene. Here is a transcript:
GIRL PROTESTER: If you're going to represent one religion, you have to represent them all
REPORTER: If 76% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, as a populist movement, wouldn't the occupy movement be FOR a nativity scene?
OTHER MALE PROTESTER: 76 percent? What about the other 10% and their beliefs?
Forget the obvious mathematical error, which is funny by itself, but it raises the question of which minority is worth fighting for. If it's 76% vs. 10% (never mind the other 14%), then we need to speak for the 10%. If it's 99% vs. 1%, then the majority rules. I'm curious what the magical ratio is where you cross over from being an advocate to an agitator.
Anyway, despite the detractors, I feel that the scene was embraced and accepted by the protestors. There was no violence, a lot of disrespect... but nothing beyond hilariously entertaining exhibition.
Two hypocritical portions of this video, however, are hilarious.
The first is the guy who says, "Christ is not my Lord, the Law is my Lord" all while wearing a hat that says, "F*** the Police". This same guy talks about it being "in bad taste", all while wearing the hat. Other great comments from this guy are "I find it very offensive" and "It's just another way to divide us", all while wearing the hat. Hilarious!
The second portion is when a girl is asked why she is offended by the scene. Here is a transcript:
GIRL PROTESTER: If you're going to represent one religion, you have to represent them all
REPORTER: If 76% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, as a populist movement, wouldn't the occupy movement be FOR a nativity scene?
OTHER MALE PROTESTER: 76 percent? What about the other 10% and their beliefs?
Forget the obvious mathematical error, which is funny by itself, but it raises the question of which minority is worth fighting for. If it's 76% vs. 10% (never mind the other 14%), then we need to speak for the 10%. If it's 99% vs. 1%, then the majority rules. I'm curious what the magical ratio is where you cross over from being an advocate to an agitator.
Anyway, despite the detractors, I feel that the scene was embraced and accepted by the protestors. There was no violence, a lot of disrespect... but nothing beyond hilariously entertaining exhibition.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
It's the Little Things That Matter -- 12/17/11
It's been a long and tiresome day. Saturdays usually are, so I'd like to start what I hope will be a weekly posting every Saturday that just profiles someone doing something small that has a huge positive impact. As the title of this weekly post implies, just a small random act of kindness can go a long way to bringing hope and joy to someone's life.
I've been inundated recently with negative comments toward members of our law enforcement community, whether it's on the airwaves, on Facebook or just a casual conversation with someone who didn't like the way a police officer acted when he was pulled over. Just like any profession, there are going to be bad apples that can spoil the bunch. I won't deny that. I've walked away from encounters with police officers on more than one occasion where I've found myself saying "he just needs to get over himself". However, the profession is a noble one. the officer in the video below represents the good that exists in the police community. Everyone can learn and grow from this video.
I've been inundated recently with negative comments toward members of our law enforcement community, whether it's on the airwaves, on Facebook or just a casual conversation with someone who didn't like the way a police officer acted when he was pulled over. Just like any profession, there are going to be bad apples that can spoil the bunch. I won't deny that. I've walked away from encounters with police officers on more than one occasion where I've found myself saying "he just needs to get over himself". However, the profession is a noble one. the officer in the video below represents the good that exists in the police community. Everyone can learn and grow from this video.
Friday, December 16, 2011
The Hatred of Tim Tebow
This is worth a mention because I don't think all that many people listen to Bill Press. You may not have even heard of him; his ratings are so low that I can't even find them. So, for that reason, I must post this audio so that it can be archived for the future to hear.
Tim Tebow is really getting under the skin of the anti-Christian crowd in this country. I don't think his faith and his outward expression of it would be an issue if Tebow wasn't winning football games. But, since he is, a lot of people just seem to have a problem with him expressing how much of a role his Christianity plays in his life.
Some people, like Bill Press, are so uncomfortable with it that they want Tebow to "S-T-F-U", or for those of you who are acronymically challenged (yes, that is a made up word), it means, "Shut The F*** Up". It's amazing how many people want him to fail. Don't get me wrong, if the Broncos play the Steelers in the playoffs, I'd like to see him on the receiving end of another James Harrison hit, but that's football.
There's a level of intolerance building for people who are open about their Christianity. Let's turn the tables and look at this a different way. If Tebow were gay, would it be acceptable for me to say over the airwaves, "Just STFU about being gay already". If he were Muslim, would it be ok for me to say, "Just STFU about Allah!"? I have a right to say it, but to do so would be suicide for my career.
Mr. Press, you preach tolerance and acceptance, but you don't seem to practice it too much when it comes to Christians and conservatives. Perhaps that's why your ratings are as low as they are. Someone needs to ask Bill Press, "Who would you rather have over to dinner -- super-Christian quarterback Tim Tebow or convicted dog killer, Michael Vick?" Tebow hasn't raped anyone, shot anyone, shot himself, or killed any dogs. He's simply thanked Jesus Christ for being his Lord and Savior and for that he's being called a DISGRACE and an EMBARRASSMENT on the radio.
Here's my prediction. When he finally loses a big game, you'll here the calls from the haters:
"Where's your Jesus now?"
To that, the answer should be, "Still in my heart. He never went anywhere"
Tim Tebow is really getting under the skin of the anti-Christian crowd in this country. I don't think his faith and his outward expression of it would be an issue if Tebow wasn't winning football games. But, since he is, a lot of people just seem to have a problem with him expressing how much of a role his Christianity plays in his life.
Some people, like Bill Press, are so uncomfortable with it that they want Tebow to "S-T-F-U", or for those of you who are acronymically challenged (yes, that is a made up word), it means, "Shut The F*** Up". It's amazing how many people want him to fail. Don't get me wrong, if the Broncos play the Steelers in the playoffs, I'd like to see him on the receiving end of another James Harrison hit, but that's football.
There's a level of intolerance building for people who are open about their Christianity. Let's turn the tables and look at this a different way. If Tebow were gay, would it be acceptable for me to say over the airwaves, "Just STFU about being gay already". If he were Muslim, would it be ok for me to say, "Just STFU about Allah!"? I have a right to say it, but to do so would be suicide for my career.
Mr. Press, you preach tolerance and acceptance, but you don't seem to practice it too much when it comes to Christians and conservatives. Perhaps that's why your ratings are as low as they are. Someone needs to ask Bill Press, "Who would you rather have over to dinner -- super-Christian quarterback Tim Tebow or convicted dog killer, Michael Vick?" Tebow hasn't raped anyone, shot anyone, shot himself, or killed any dogs. He's simply thanked Jesus Christ for being his Lord and Savior and for that he's being called a DISGRACE and an EMBARRASSMENT on the radio.
Here's my prediction. When he finally loses a big game, you'll here the calls from the haters:
"Where's your Jesus now?"
To that, the answer should be, "Still in my heart. He never went anywhere"
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Link of the Day 12/15/11
I really don't have to say anything about this. The video speaks for itself.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Was the James Harrison Suspension Fair?
So the Pittsburgh Steelers' James Harrison was issued a 1-game suspension for his hit on Colt McCoy. So, was it a fair penalty?
I'm struggling with this one. Starting with Harrison, yes, the hit was vicious and could have caused some major injuries, but I'm just not convinced that Harrison should be blamed on this one. Here's a video I found (NFL.com doesn't like you to embed their video). Watch the play and then hear me out on this.
Just to set the record straight, the NFL has it right on their helmet-to-helmet rule. You should not be able to use your helmet as a weapon on a defenseless player. The NFL actually defines what a "defenseless" player is. It's too lengthy to go over here, but in short, it's a player with his mind focused elsewhere (A QB in the pocket, a WR cutting across the middle focused on the ball, a kick returner trying to field a fair catch, etc.). An example of a player not being classified as "defenseless" is a running back with the ball tucked away. Helmet-to-helmet contact is actually allowed in this instance (it happens several times on a goal-line stand).
So, with all that said, was Colt McCoy a "defenseless" player? The answer is, yes and no. At the point he released the ball, he was defenseless. The problem is that McCoy up until about a half a second before he threw actually had the ball tucked and he was in essence a running back. He made the decision to pull up and throw it at the last second (you can even hear the announcer say that he threw it at the "last second"). This was a stupid move by McCoy, especially with Harrison bearing down on him. He paid for it with a head-snapping hit. If anyone is to blame for this, it is McCoy. If you're going to tuck the ball and run, you better be prepared to be treated like a running back in a "non-defenseless" position. You rarely see this bad of a hit on running backs because their eyes are usually on the defenders and not a receiver and they can adjust/brace for the impact.
Even if Harrison wouldn't have led with his head, he still was going to hit McCoy HARD. There just wasn't any time to pull up. He probably would have driven him into the ground and the result would have been the same, mostly because of his history of bad hits against QBs (which I will not defend here).
But there's nothing we can do about it now. The NFL is offense-centered. QBs, WRs, and RBs are the money makers. Players are bigger and stronger and the game has become more dangerous to play. The rules are there for a reason and all the intentions are good. I just think that this was a case of one player making a foolish decision and another player getting penalized for it. I know I'm pretty much alone in this, but it's what I honestly feel.
I'm struggling with this one. Starting with Harrison, yes, the hit was vicious and could have caused some major injuries, but I'm just not convinced that Harrison should be blamed on this one. Here's a video I found (NFL.com doesn't like you to embed their video). Watch the play and then hear me out on this.
Just to set the record straight, the NFL has it right on their helmet-to-helmet rule. You should not be able to use your helmet as a weapon on a defenseless player. The NFL actually defines what a "defenseless" player is. It's too lengthy to go over here, but in short, it's a player with his mind focused elsewhere (A QB in the pocket, a WR cutting across the middle focused on the ball, a kick returner trying to field a fair catch, etc.). An example of a player not being classified as "defenseless" is a running back with the ball tucked away. Helmet-to-helmet contact is actually allowed in this instance (it happens several times on a goal-line stand).
So, with all that said, was Colt McCoy a "defenseless" player? The answer is, yes and no. At the point he released the ball, he was defenseless. The problem is that McCoy up until about a half a second before he threw actually had the ball tucked and he was in essence a running back. He made the decision to pull up and throw it at the last second (you can even hear the announcer say that he threw it at the "last second"). This was a stupid move by McCoy, especially with Harrison bearing down on him. He paid for it with a head-snapping hit. If anyone is to blame for this, it is McCoy. If you're going to tuck the ball and run, you better be prepared to be treated like a running back in a "non-defenseless" position. You rarely see this bad of a hit on running backs because their eyes are usually on the defenders and not a receiver and they can adjust/brace for the impact.
Even if Harrison wouldn't have led with his head, he still was going to hit McCoy HARD. There just wasn't any time to pull up. He probably would have driven him into the ground and the result would have been the same, mostly because of his history of bad hits against QBs (which I will not defend here).
But there's nothing we can do about it now. The NFL is offense-centered. QBs, WRs, and RBs are the money makers. Players are bigger and stronger and the game has become more dangerous to play. The rules are there for a reason and all the intentions are good. I just think that this was a case of one player making a foolish decision and another player getting penalized for it. I know I'm pretty much alone in this, but it's what I honestly feel.
Time's "Person" of the Year
Well, Time Magazine came out with their annual "Person of the Year" issue today and my eyes nearly rolled out of my head. Time's Person of the Year is "The Protester".
First of all, I find the whole idea of personifying an idea nauseating. I think it really got out of control when in 1988 they named "The Endangered Earth" as person of the year. Then, in 2006, the ultimate cop-out. The "Person of the Year" was "You". If you remember, the issue has a nice little mirror-like reflector on the cover. That was our "participation trophy". Everyone wins! Congrats on showing up!
Of course, traditionally, the Person of the Year hasn't always been a positive figure. Adolf Hitler was the 1938 Person of the Year and Josef Stalin was the selection in 1939 and 1942. So, is "The Protester" considered as a positive or negative influence by the editor of Time? The impression that I got from the interview below is that "The Protester", particularly those in the Middle East involved in the infamous "Arab Spring" contributed positively to the world. That is really quite unbelievable, but I don't expect much more from a publication that will lump together the Arab Spring with the Occupy Wall Street movement and proclaim this vast collection of people as "Person of the Year" while COMPLETELY and purposefully ignoring the Tea Party movement and not even including a mention of them in the 2010 Year in Review issue.
With all the bemoaning of Fox News and how they are a supposed "puppet" of the Republican Party and the Tea Party, where is the similar outrage for this obviously left-leaning magazine that poses as an objective publication?
First of all, I find the whole idea of personifying an idea nauseating. I think it really got out of control when in 1988 they named "The Endangered Earth" as person of the year. Then, in 2006, the ultimate cop-out. The "Person of the Year" was "You". If you remember, the issue has a nice little mirror-like reflector on the cover. That was our "participation trophy". Everyone wins! Congrats on showing up!
Of course, traditionally, the Person of the Year hasn't always been a positive figure. Adolf Hitler was the 1938 Person of the Year and Josef Stalin was the selection in 1939 and 1942. So, is "The Protester" considered as a positive or negative influence by the editor of Time? The impression that I got from the interview below is that "The Protester", particularly those in the Middle East involved in the infamous "Arab Spring" contributed positively to the world. That is really quite unbelievable, but I don't expect much more from a publication that will lump together the Arab Spring with the Occupy Wall Street movement and proclaim this vast collection of people as "Person of the Year" while COMPLETELY and purposefully ignoring the Tea Party movement and not even including a mention of them in the 2010 Year in Review issue.
With all the bemoaning of Fox News and how they are a supposed "puppet" of the Republican Party and the Tea Party, where is the similar outrage for this obviously left-leaning magazine that poses as an objective publication?
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
The hypocrisy of the religious (and the non-religious)
The term, "hypocrisy" is often misused. Webster's defines it as follows:
"a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"
Being the parent of teenage children, I am often told that I am a hypocrite because I don't want my kids to drink or do drugs, because I did both when I was a teenager and a young adult. That is a classic misuse of the term. If I told them not to partake in those things and then turned around and smoked a big fat one, THAT would be hypocritical.
This term is often used by the non-religious, atheists, agnostics, whatever you want to call them, when describing organized religion and the people who follow it. They will site the atrocities committed by people centuries ago who were acting in the name of Christianity (the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.) and then proclaim Christians as a bunch of hypocrites because these past occurrences go against what Christians believe today as the true Word of Christ (Love thy neighbor, thy brother, etc.). This does not make present-day Christians hypocrites because it involves past actions measured against current beliefs. Now, if these same things were going on today (I can hear the atheists screaming right now, "they are!") that would make them hypocrites. I will point out one recent instance where this is actually the case.
Apparently, because of pressure from a Christian group, Lowe's Home Improvement Stores have pulled sponsorship from the TLC show, American Muslim. This is an example of people, trying to act in the name of Christianity, displaying hypocrisy. I've seen the show and I believe that it does a good job of portraying the average American Muslim family. It isn't anti-Christian and it isn't really pro-Muslim. It just shows how people with a different religious belief live, pray and work in America. It exposes not only the ignorance of those who want to cancel the show and not be educated on a different part of our culture, but also some very strong beliefs that the Muslim community holds that we as Christians may not agree with.
Boycotting and closing your mind to this show is not "Christian" behavior and is in fact, hypocritical. This show is not trying to convert us into Muslims. This show is not glorifying the Islamic faith. It's just a show!
Now, just so I don't leave anyone NOT mad at me, let's talk about the atheists.
The main point of view that I hear from the atheists like those from "Freedom From Religion" is that the Nativity Scene is an insult to man and that we don't need to believe in God in order to treat our fellow man with love and respect. I agree with the second point, not the first of course. But this message is just riddled with hypocrisy. How can you "preach" Godless love and respect toward your fellow man and completely offend him and disrespect him with a statement against his faith?
The point is that both sides of this argument need to open their minds. Those of us who are Christian need to accept that there are people with other faiths who will not be swayed in their opinion, no matter what. If they are law-abiding citizens who are courteous and respectful towards us, they deserve the same in return. Atheists, you in turn need to realize that despite your obviously superior intellect that has given you the ability to somehow rationalize the nonexistence of God, there are people just as smart as you who can rationalize it. Hatred and disrespect toward your fellow man because they believe in God goes against the "love and respect" mantra that I hear from your side.
So, in summary...
Christians, just let the non-believers be and stand firm in your faith. Do not be swayed by the naysayers and treat your fellow man with respect, regardless of their faith or lack thereof.
Atheists, just let the believers be. I will pray for your soul every night even though you believe it is futile to do so. In return, all I ask is that while you may disagree with my faith, treat me and my beliefs with respect.
Hopefully I didn't succeed in driving away the dozen or so faithful readers of this blog.
"a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"
Being the parent of teenage children, I am often told that I am a hypocrite because I don't want my kids to drink or do drugs, because I did both when I was a teenager and a young adult. That is a classic misuse of the term. If I told them not to partake in those things and then turned around and smoked a big fat one, THAT would be hypocritical.
This term is often used by the non-religious, atheists, agnostics, whatever you want to call them, when describing organized religion and the people who follow it. They will site the atrocities committed by people centuries ago who were acting in the name of Christianity (the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.) and then proclaim Christians as a bunch of hypocrites because these past occurrences go against what Christians believe today as the true Word of Christ (Love thy neighbor, thy brother, etc.). This does not make present-day Christians hypocrites because it involves past actions measured against current beliefs. Now, if these same things were going on today (I can hear the atheists screaming right now, "they are!") that would make them hypocrites. I will point out one recent instance where this is actually the case.
Apparently, because of pressure from a Christian group, Lowe's Home Improvement Stores have pulled sponsorship from the TLC show, American Muslim. This is an example of people, trying to act in the name of Christianity, displaying hypocrisy. I've seen the show and I believe that it does a good job of portraying the average American Muslim family. It isn't anti-Christian and it isn't really pro-Muslim. It just shows how people with a different religious belief live, pray and work in America. It exposes not only the ignorance of those who want to cancel the show and not be educated on a different part of our culture, but also some very strong beliefs that the Muslim community holds that we as Christians may not agree with.
Boycotting and closing your mind to this show is not "Christian" behavior and is in fact, hypocritical. This show is not trying to convert us into Muslims. This show is not glorifying the Islamic faith. It's just a show!
Now, just so I don't leave anyone NOT mad at me, let's talk about the atheists.
The main point of view that I hear from the atheists like those from "Freedom From Religion" is that the Nativity Scene is an insult to man and that we don't need to believe in God in order to treat our fellow man with love and respect. I agree with the second point, not the first of course. But this message is just riddled with hypocrisy. How can you "preach" Godless love and respect toward your fellow man and completely offend him and disrespect him with a statement against his faith?
The point is that both sides of this argument need to open their minds. Those of us who are Christian need to accept that there are people with other faiths who will not be swayed in their opinion, no matter what. If they are law-abiding citizens who are courteous and respectful towards us, they deserve the same in return. Atheists, you in turn need to realize that despite your obviously superior intellect that has given you the ability to somehow rationalize the nonexistence of God, there are people just as smart as you who can rationalize it. Hatred and disrespect toward your fellow man because they believe in God goes against the "love and respect" mantra that I hear from your side.
So, in summary...
Christians, just let the non-believers be and stand firm in your faith. Do not be swayed by the naysayers and treat your fellow man with respect, regardless of their faith or lack thereof.
Atheists, just let the believers be. I will pray for your soul every night even though you believe it is futile to do so. In return, all I ask is that while you may disagree with my faith, treat me and my beliefs with respect.
Hopefully I didn't succeed in driving away the dozen or so faithful readers of this blog.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Link of the Day 12/12/11
Every now and then, you see someone doing the right thing. How many times have we seen the videos of a group of thugs beating up a kid or some drunk person hopping the counter at a McDonald's without anyone stepping in and putting a stop to it? It happens all too often. We'll just turn a blind eye and say, "It's just best not to get involved", or, "It's not my problem".
The problem is that the thugs are realizing that no one is going to step in and interfere, that that just emboldens them even more. Of course, there is the old adage, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". You've heard it several times. The problem is that we preach this over and over but when we are faced with a situation such as the one in the video below, most of us will probably just sit back and do nothing.
The problem is that the thugs are realizing that no one is going to step in and interfere, that that just emboldens them even more. Of course, there is the old adage, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". You've heard it several times. The problem is that we preach this over and over but when we are faced with a situation such as the one in the video below, most of us will probably just sit back and do nothing.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Why Osawatomie?
Why did the president last week decide to give his big Anti-Capitalism speech in Osawatomie, Kansas? It's just a little small town of less than 5,000 kind of out in the middle of nowhere. It's within 50 miles of Kansas City, but barely (44 miles). Perhaps President Obama wanted to appear to be talking to "Middle America". Maybe he wanted that "small town " feel.
Well, whatever his reason was, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that the name of the town is exactly the same as the name of the publication created by the Weather Underground, an ultra left-wing, strongly anti-capitalist organization that conducted several terrorist bombings throughout the 70's and whose main goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the violent overthrow of the US government. I'm also sure that it's just pure coincidence that one of the founding members of the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers, held a fundraiser at his house for a young politician just getting his start back in the 80's by the name of Barack Obama.
Yup. Must be a coincidence. I mean after all, Osawatomie is such a common name for both towns and political propaganda publications. I'm sure it's nothing. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!
Well, whatever his reason was, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that the name of the town is exactly the same as the name of the publication created by the Weather Underground, an ultra left-wing, strongly anti-capitalist organization that conducted several terrorist bombings throughout the 70's and whose main goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the violent overthrow of the US government. I'm also sure that it's just pure coincidence that one of the founding members of the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers, held a fundraiser at his house for a young politician just getting his start back in the 80's by the name of Barack Obama.
Yup. Must be a coincidence. I mean after all, Osawatomie is such a common name for both towns and political propaganda publications. I'm sure it's nothing. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!
Friday, December 9, 2011
Separation of Church and State
The title of this post is a phrase that is often used by secularists and atheists to justify the removal of any Christian symbols from public property. Nativity scenes are popular targets for these people during this time of year. Here is a story from Texas:
Don't you love how it's always some small town in the south that gets targeted? Well, Vern, we're just simple folk who don't know nuffin about nuffin but God and guns. Them big cities are just too scary for me. I mean hell, how am I supposed to drive my tractor through Times Square with all them people millin 'bout? Shoot, Vern. When's the NASCAR race commin' on? I gotta go get my limited edition Dale Earnhardt (God rest his soul) dual beer can helmet and my Skoal Bandits.
What concern is it of a Wisconsin non-profit group that a Texas town has a Nativity scene on their courthouse lawn? This isn't about protecting the rights of non-Christians. This is an assault on Christianity itself. The term, "Separation of Church and State" is not found in our Constitution. Its believed origin is from an 1802 Thomas Jefferson letter in which he describes a "wall of separation" between church and state.
Atheist groups often refer to the "Establishment Clause" of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution to justify removal of Christian symbols from public grounds. The Establishment Clause reads,
What they fail to do is include what is known as the Free Exercise Clause which immediately follows the Establishment Clause. It reads,
Don't you love how it's always some small town in the south that gets targeted? Well, Vern, we're just simple folk who don't know nuffin about nuffin but God and guns. Them big cities are just too scary for me. I mean hell, how am I supposed to drive my tractor through Times Square with all them people millin 'bout? Shoot, Vern. When's the NASCAR race commin' on? I gotta go get my limited edition Dale Earnhardt (God rest his soul) dual beer can helmet and my Skoal Bandits.
What concern is it of a Wisconsin non-profit group that a Texas town has a Nativity scene on their courthouse lawn? This isn't about protecting the rights of non-Christians. This is an assault on Christianity itself. The term, "Separation of Church and State" is not found in our Constitution. Its believed origin is from an 1802 Thomas Jefferson letter in which he describes a "wall of separation" between church and state.
Atheist groups often refer to the "Establishment Clause" of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution to justify removal of Christian symbols from public grounds. The Establishment Clause reads,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
What they fail to do is include what is known as the Free Exercise Clause which immediately follows the Establishment Clause. It reads,
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
How can you advocate the removal of ANY religious display without conflicting with the Free Exercise Clause? Let's be honest. These groups are primarily anti-Christian and this is their favorite time of year. Sure, they'll throw in a lawsuit against someone displaying a menorah or a Muslim crescent every now and then, but the vast majority of their complains are against Christianity.
Before you are so quick to quote Thomas Jefferson, let me share a couple of his other quotes with you. The first relates to religious expression:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
And this one regarding the government's relationship with the church:
"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise as it had happened in a fair or market."
Separation of church and state is a myth. The religious clauses of the First Amendment were written specifically to prohibit an establishment of an official state religion and to allow people to express their religious beliefs without fear of state persecution. You can site all the Supreme Court rulings and writings you want, but the religious clauses of the First Amendment will not change, despite the notion put forth by some that the Constitution is a "living and breathing document", but that's another issue.
The display of a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn does not qualify as an "establishment" of a religion and therefore is not subject to examination under the Establishment Clause. If this scene somehow kept people from other religions from exercising their religious freedom, then yes, there would be grounds for a suit under the Free Exercise Clause.
This is a very organized effort against Christianity. Like I've said before, just say what you're goal is. If you are anti-Christian, just stand up and say it. If you are a Christian, just stand up and say it. Don't hide behind fancy catch phrases. If you don't agree with something in your town, stand up and say it! But if it's on the other side of the country and it doesn't affect you in any way, just butt out.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Line in the Sand part 2
As the line in the sand that I discussed yesterday becomes wider and deeper, many of you will be presented with an option. Stand with Socialism or stand with Capitalism. I've made it clear where I stand and will continue to stand until the day I die. I think it is important, however, to show what the other side is saying to lure people to their way of thinking. I present the following video not as a means of persuasion, but as a means of chronicling this point in history; a point which could very well be looked at by future generations as a "turning point" for this country. This video is being promoted by moveon.org, a very left-leaning organization. Watch the video and then read on for my comments.
So, you have two sides of the argument. The Capitalist side's idea of fair taxation is often aligned with either a flat tax where every dollar is taxed the same at an income level or a sales tax where every dollar is taxed the same at a consumption level (this debate will be reserved for a future post). Conversely, the Socialist side desires a heavily progressive income tax that would ultimately result in redistribution of wealth deemed to be "excessive" from the rich to the poor.
These are the two sides. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND! There is going to come a time when you will have to choose. I'm not saying this to scare you, but the time is coming quickly. Both sides are laying their cards down. One side (my side) is telling it to your face, "Capitalism is the way to go". The other side has historically been much more subtle, but they see the writing on the wall and they have to start implementing their plan now (OWS, for example). You will have to decide where you want to be when the chips fall.
I cannot convince those who are standing on the other side of the great gorge in the sand to come to my side. They have made up their mind and it is futile to argue with them. But if you are caught in the middle of this and find yourself at the bottom of the trench trying to decide which way to go, I will offer you a rope and help you climb out. You may stop and look at the other side and say, "Hey, there's a nice set a steps that I can climb up to that side. Why don't I go there?" Yes, that would be the easy way out. All I can tell you is that freedom and prosperity have never been easy to come by. Liberty, freedom, and opportunity wait for you on my side. The other side offers security. That's it.
So, you have two sides of the argument. The Capitalist side's idea of fair taxation is often aligned with either a flat tax where every dollar is taxed the same at an income level or a sales tax where every dollar is taxed the same at a consumption level (this debate will be reserved for a future post). Conversely, the Socialist side desires a heavily progressive income tax that would ultimately result in redistribution of wealth deemed to be "excessive" from the rich to the poor.
These are the two sides. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND! There is going to come a time when you will have to choose. I'm not saying this to scare you, but the time is coming quickly. Both sides are laying their cards down. One side (my side) is telling it to your face, "Capitalism is the way to go". The other side has historically been much more subtle, but they see the writing on the wall and they have to start implementing their plan now (OWS, for example). You will have to decide where you want to be when the chips fall.
I cannot convince those who are standing on the other side of the great gorge in the sand to come to my side. They have made up their mind and it is futile to argue with them. But if you are caught in the middle of this and find yourself at the bottom of the trench trying to decide which way to go, I will offer you a rope and help you climb out. You may stop and look at the other side and say, "Hey, there's a nice set a steps that I can climb up to that side. Why don't I go there?" Yes, that would be the easy way out. All I can tell you is that freedom and prosperity have never been easy to come by. Liberty, freedom, and opportunity wait for you on my side. The other side offers security. That's it.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The Pesident's Line in the Sand
The lines are starting to be drawn in the sand. This fact was made even more clear by the President's speech yesterday. I don't know if you saw it or not, but you REALLY need to look it up and listen to it if you haven't already, not because I agree with his message, but because I believe that this man is getting more bold in his anti-capitalist message. He is gaining courage in letting his Socialist guard down. He is establishing a message that he is against the free market. He is quoting Teddy Roosevelt, one of the founders of the modern Progressive Socialist movement. He is quoted in his speech as saying that the free market "has never worked"!
The president has drawn his line in the sand and he will continue to take his stick and make that line more clearly defined by forcefully digging it into the sand. When his stick breaks or becomes too dull, he will get a stronger stick and widen and deepen that line until it becomes a trench. It will become so deep and so wide as the sticks become bigger and stronger that it will become a wide chasm that divides his side from my side.
Mr. President, allow me to help you. I will take my stick and match you, scrape for scrape. I will NOT apologize for believing in the traditional American values of Faith, Hope and Charity. I will NOT cease from striving to be an independent entrepreneur. I will NOT back down from my belief that what made this country great are the free market and Judea-Christian values.
Mr. President, I will die defending these values. If you outlaw the free market, I will be an outlaw. If you outlaw the expression of my beliefs, I will be an outlaw. If you outlaw free expression of my faith, I will be an outlaw. If starting a business and prospering off of the free market and making millions of dollars and giving back to the unfortunate among us BY MY OWN CHOOSING is considered treasonous and punishable by death, then I will strive to be a traitor.
"Oh... there goes Norm again with his crazy conspiratorial talk"
Listen to the speech and tell me if you get anything else out of this. This should not be a surprise to anyone who has taken the time to look into what this man REALLY believes. The man hung out with the Communists in college! Several of his closest advisers are admitted Socialists or Communists! If you find his message acceptable, then STAND UP and say so! Don't give me this "I'm a moderate" or "both sides are bad" garbage. I'm not talking about Democrat vs. Republican. I'm talking about Socialism and Communism vs. Capitalism and the Free Market. There is no "middle ground". If you want to stand in the middle, then you'll find yourself falling in the chasm as the line gets wider and deeper.
The president has drawn his line in the sand and he will continue to take his stick and make that line more clearly defined by forcefully digging it into the sand. When his stick breaks or becomes too dull, he will get a stronger stick and widen and deepen that line until it becomes a trench. It will become so deep and so wide as the sticks become bigger and stronger that it will become a wide chasm that divides his side from my side.
Mr. President, allow me to help you. I will take my stick and match you, scrape for scrape. I will NOT apologize for believing in the traditional American values of Faith, Hope and Charity. I will NOT cease from striving to be an independent entrepreneur. I will NOT back down from my belief that what made this country great are the free market and Judea-Christian values.
Mr. President, I will die defending these values. If you outlaw the free market, I will be an outlaw. If you outlaw the expression of my beliefs, I will be an outlaw. If you outlaw free expression of my faith, I will be an outlaw. If starting a business and prospering off of the free market and making millions of dollars and giving back to the unfortunate among us BY MY OWN CHOOSING is considered treasonous and punishable by death, then I will strive to be a traitor.
"Oh... there goes Norm again with his crazy conspiratorial talk"
Listen to the speech and tell me if you get anything else out of this. This should not be a surprise to anyone who has taken the time to look into what this man REALLY believes. The man hung out with the Communists in college! Several of his closest advisers are admitted Socialists or Communists! If you find his message acceptable, then STAND UP and say so! Don't give me this "I'm a moderate" or "both sides are bad" garbage. I'm not talking about Democrat vs. Republican. I'm talking about Socialism and Communism vs. Capitalism and the Free Market. There is no "middle ground". If you want to stand in the middle, then you'll find yourself falling in the chasm as the line gets wider and deeper.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
NCAA Division IA football is a joke
Living down here in the heart of SEC country, I have run into my share of die-hard college football fans. This time of year, my Facebook news feed is filled with the usual sentiments like, "Roll Tide!", "Geaux Tigers!", and "Hotty Toddy!" (although not that last one so much this year). I understand the enthusiasm. College sports instills a sense of pride in people that many pro teams can't (Pittsburgh Steelers not withstanding). It may be their Alma Mater, It may be a regional devotion, or it just may be that you like the coach or the tradation of the school. Whatever your reason is for following and rooting for a team, I'm sure it's legitimate. Therefore, what I am about to say will no doubt upset you.
NCAA Division 1A football, also known as the FCS, has never had a legitimate national champion. All the claims by various teams (including my own Alma Mater, Pitt) that they are 4-time or 7-time or 2-time national champs, are bogus. This is why I refuse to engage in any conversation about the national championship... because it's all bogus.
The reason it's bogus is because there has never been a system in place that produces a legitimate national champion without a heavy emphasis on computers, mathematical formulas or the opinions of sports writers and coaches. The only system that can produce a true national champion is one that has a playoff system with at least 16 teams.
It can be done. It is already done in other college football divisions, not to mention ALL of the other major college sports in all divisions. So why is football different? Money. The schools' football programs have too much at stake to give up a possible payday by playing in some meaningless game as a reward for losing half of their games. Pitt will be playing in Birmingham, AL this year against SMU and I really couldn't care less.
How many times have we filled out a 64-team bracket in the month of march and then had our hopes and dreams crushed as the number 1 seed that we picked to win it all was defeated? If the writers and computers picked the top 2 college basketball teams to play for the championship each year, we wouldn't see teams like Butler or Valpariso or Gonzaga make a name for themselves.
If 2 losses knocked you out of contention for the Super Bowl, then the New York Giants would have never had the chance to beat the Patriots and ruin their perfect season. The notion that the BCS championship game is the deciding game to determine a national champion is just plain ridiculous. Even a "Plus 1" scenario where you have essentially a three-team playoff is stupid.
A 16-team playoff will still utilize a computer system, perhaps even the existing BCS ranking system to pick the top 16 teams in the country and then the rest will be decided over a course of 4 weeks on the field. Please don't talk to me about the kids losing study time and how the lesser bowl games would suffer. The other football divisions do a playoff, so that destroys your argument about study time. As far as the other bowl games go, they can still pick whatever 6-6 teams they want to play against each other and have their little meaningless games. They can give the schools their million-dollar payday and everyone will be happy.
So, for now and for as long as it takes to bring a playoff system into the fold, I will put an asterisk next to all national champions in the record books. Even the 9-time* national champion Pittsburgh Panthers.
*Pitt has claimed 9 national championships. But there were actually 17 seasons in which Pitt could lay claim to the national championship or a share of the national chapionship depending on what of the several disputed systems were used. Kinda shows how messed up the system was and still is.
NCAA Division 1A football, also known as the FCS, has never had a legitimate national champion. All the claims by various teams (including my own Alma Mater, Pitt) that they are 4-time or 7-time or 2-time national champs, are bogus. This is why I refuse to engage in any conversation about the national championship... because it's all bogus.
The reason it's bogus is because there has never been a system in place that produces a legitimate national champion without a heavy emphasis on computers, mathematical formulas or the opinions of sports writers and coaches. The only system that can produce a true national champion is one that has a playoff system with at least 16 teams.
It can be done. It is already done in other college football divisions, not to mention ALL of the other major college sports in all divisions. So why is football different? Money. The schools' football programs have too much at stake to give up a possible payday by playing in some meaningless game as a reward for losing half of their games. Pitt will be playing in Birmingham, AL this year against SMU and I really couldn't care less.
How many times have we filled out a 64-team bracket in the month of march and then had our hopes and dreams crushed as the number 1 seed that we picked to win it all was defeated? If the writers and computers picked the top 2 college basketball teams to play for the championship each year, we wouldn't see teams like Butler or Valpariso or Gonzaga make a name for themselves.
If 2 losses knocked you out of contention for the Super Bowl, then the New York Giants would have never had the chance to beat the Patriots and ruin their perfect season. The notion that the BCS championship game is the deciding game to determine a national champion is just plain ridiculous. Even a "Plus 1" scenario where you have essentially a three-team playoff is stupid.
A 16-team playoff will still utilize a computer system, perhaps even the existing BCS ranking system to pick the top 16 teams in the country and then the rest will be decided over a course of 4 weeks on the field. Please don't talk to me about the kids losing study time and how the lesser bowl games would suffer. The other football divisions do a playoff, so that destroys your argument about study time. As far as the other bowl games go, they can still pick whatever 6-6 teams they want to play against each other and have their little meaningless games. They can give the schools their million-dollar payday and everyone will be happy.
So, for now and for as long as it takes to bring a playoff system into the fold, I will put an asterisk next to all national champions in the record books. Even the 9-time* national champion Pittsburgh Panthers.
*Pitt has claimed 9 national championships. But there were actually 17 seasons in which Pitt could lay claim to the national championship or a share of the national chapionship depending on what of the several disputed systems were used. Kinda shows how messed up the system was and still is.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Sunday Night Editorial -- Communism, Part 2 of 10
It's day late, but here's part 2 of the 10 part series about our journey towards Socialism/Communism.
Karl Marx outlined 10 demands that must be met for a society to be considered Socialist. Today we'll cover number 2:
"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
Every time you are told that the rich are not paying "their fair share", that is an argument for the progressive income tax. Another key word is "redistribute".
A lot of people don't know that the federal government was not even allowed to collect taxes on income before 1913. When the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, the top marginal tax rate (the rate on the wealthiest tax bracket) was 7%. In 1944, the top marginal rate was at its highest at 94%.
These numbers can be very deceiving and confusing. Almost anyone can get out of them what they want. One truth holds firm, however, and that is the fact that our income tax system has always been "progressive". The closest we have ever been to a non-progressive (flat) tax system was in 1988 when we only had two income tax brackets. The lower tax bracket paid 15% and the higher tax bracket paid 28%.
A progressive income tax was important enough to Marx and Engels to warrant its own mention in the list of demands and it makes sense to have it in there. Obviously you can't have complete "economic equality" (or whatever the trendy phrase is today to denote "Socialism") without a heavy progressive income tax. The disturbing fact of the matter is that this is the one mantra of the Socialist movement that seems completely acceptable to a very large number of people and everyone just seems fine with it.
So let's start keeping score. Each of the "demands" will be scored on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being total Capitalist and 10 being total Communist.
Week 1: Abolition of private property rights -- 5.5 out of 10
Week 2: Heavy progressive income tax -- 7 out of 10
So, how do the progressives in Washington feel about wealth "redistribution"? See for yourself:
Karl Marx outlined 10 demands that must be met for a society to be considered Socialist. Today we'll cover number 2:
"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
Every time you are told that the rich are not paying "their fair share", that is an argument for the progressive income tax. Another key word is "redistribute".
A lot of people don't know that the federal government was not even allowed to collect taxes on income before 1913. When the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, the top marginal tax rate (the rate on the wealthiest tax bracket) was 7%. In 1944, the top marginal rate was at its highest at 94%.
These numbers can be very deceiving and confusing. Almost anyone can get out of them what they want. One truth holds firm, however, and that is the fact that our income tax system has always been "progressive". The closest we have ever been to a non-progressive (flat) tax system was in 1988 when we only had two income tax brackets. The lower tax bracket paid 15% and the higher tax bracket paid 28%.
A progressive income tax was important enough to Marx and Engels to warrant its own mention in the list of demands and it makes sense to have it in there. Obviously you can't have complete "economic equality" (or whatever the trendy phrase is today to denote "Socialism") without a heavy progressive income tax. The disturbing fact of the matter is that this is the one mantra of the Socialist movement that seems completely acceptable to a very large number of people and everyone just seems fine with it.
So let's start keeping score. Each of the "demands" will be scored on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being total Capitalist and 10 being total Communist.
Week 1: Abolition of private property rights -- 5.5 out of 10
Week 2: Heavy progressive income tax -- 7 out of 10
So, how do the progressives in Washington feel about wealth "redistribution"? See for yourself:
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Link of the Day 12/3/11
Human Debris. Plain and simple. Human Debris.
Beatings Inside Detroit Middle School Bathroom, So Called 30-Second Game: MyFoxDETROIT.com
Friday, December 2, 2011
Link of the Day 12/2/11
This is a news report out of Tampa that profiles a women and her 15 children. Yes, FIFTEEN children. Most of this report explains the woman's situation and how she has come to find herself living along with her kids in a single motel room.
This really makes me angry. Don't get me wrong... every life is precious and is a gift from God. I understand that. One of these kids may grow up and find a cure for cancer or something. I sincerely hope so. But... what this mother is doing is abusive. Yes, I know that the dad (or at least one of them) is in jail. Yes, she has been kicked out of her house and has to live in a cramped room, but her attitude SICKENS me.
She wants to go out and reproduce over and over again and then DEMANDS that someone be accountable for supporting her children. The only ones who should be accountable are herself and the sperm donors. My heart WEEPS for these kids.
This is a symptom of a diseased society. Is throwing more money at her and others like her with the same attitude going to solve this problem? I think that the racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic founding father known as Ben Franklin said it best:
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it"
We as a society should be responsible for helping people out of poverty. But, we should not let the government make decisions on our behalf on who to help. If we were given the choice of who we wanted to help, people like this woman would find herself a whole lot worse off and perhaps, maybe, she would close her legs, stop reproducing, and actually start becoming grateful for the help she is receiving. I hate that these kids have to suffer because of the mother, but the only real solution to poverty lies in the people who are impoverished. I am willing to help in any way I can, but you have to also show some desire to climb out of the hole.
The ungratefulness starts at 2:10, but I recommend watching from the beginning.
This really makes me angry. Don't get me wrong... every life is precious and is a gift from God. I understand that. One of these kids may grow up and find a cure for cancer or something. I sincerely hope so. But... what this mother is doing is abusive. Yes, I know that the dad (or at least one of them) is in jail. Yes, she has been kicked out of her house and has to live in a cramped room, but her attitude SICKENS me.
She wants to go out and reproduce over and over again and then DEMANDS that someone be accountable for supporting her children. The only ones who should be accountable are herself and the sperm donors. My heart WEEPS for these kids.
This is a symptom of a diseased society. Is throwing more money at her and others like her with the same attitude going to solve this problem? I think that the racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic founding father known as Ben Franklin said it best:
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it"
We as a society should be responsible for helping people out of poverty. But, we should not let the government make decisions on our behalf on who to help. If we were given the choice of who we wanted to help, people like this woman would find herself a whole lot worse off and perhaps, maybe, she would close her legs, stop reproducing, and actually start becoming grateful for the help she is receiving. I hate that these kids have to suffer because of the mother, but the only real solution to poverty lies in the people who are impoverished. I am willing to help in any way I can, but you have to also show some desire to climb out of the hole.
The ungratefulness starts at 2:10, but I recommend watching from the beginning.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Link of the Day 12/1/11
Right on the heals on Ann Coulter's "douchebag/dickweed" comment comes today's link. Adam Carolla talks about Occupy Wall Street.
THIS LINK CONTAINS VERY STRONG LANGUAGE!!! Do not click on it if you are offended by obscenities!
I actually love this rant. Even though he uses very harsh language, he succeeds in getting a point across that so many of us out here want to express. So, how can I like this so soon after blasting Coulter for her language? It's actually quite simple. Coulter is a "commentator". She is supposed to express her views intelligently. Carolla is a "comedian". He's not going to be on the news channels debating someone from the other side. He's just a regular guy that has had enough and he's finally hit his boiling point.
THIS LINK CONTAINS VERY STRONG LANGUAGE!!! Do not click on it if you are offended by obscenities!
I actually love this rant. Even though he uses very harsh language, he succeeds in getting a point across that so many of us out here want to express. So, how can I like this so soon after blasting Coulter for her language? It's actually quite simple. Coulter is a "commentator". She is supposed to express her views intelligently. Carolla is a "comedian". He's not going to be on the news channels debating someone from the other side. He's just a regular guy that has had enough and he's finally hit his boiling point.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Link of the Day 11/30/11
Ann Coulter was on MSNBC this morning (I don't know what show, I really don't care) and she was censored for several seconds. Apparently she used the term, "douchebag" when referring to John McCain. She later came back and said that did not use the word "douchebag", she used the word "dickweed"
Ann, Ann, Ann. Are you really defending yourself by saying that "dickweed" is a better word than "douchebag"?
I don't understand why Ms. Coulter feels she needs to use this kind of sophomoric language to express her point -- perhaps it because she's on MSNBC and she is trying to play to that audience, I don't know. This is not the first time she's used crude language in getting a point across. Maybe it's because she going for the "shock factor" and she wants the headlines.
Ann Coulter is obviously a very intelligent person and can hold her own in a debate. I've read her book, "Treason" and it was a very well written and informative read, but it really irritates me that she has to stoop to this level, especially when she supposedly represents "my side".
I'm just trying to be consistent here people. I'm going to call it as I see it. She can say whatever she wants... I don't care. However, she is one person. You can say you are against conservatism because you don't believe in conservative values, and I'm fine with that. But to say that you are against conservative values because Ann Coulter is an idiot is, well, idiotic itself. It would be like me saying, "I don't like liberals because I hate Joe Biden."
So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that Ann Coulter is not one of my favorite people right now, but that hasn't for a second made me reevaluate my conservative stance.
Here's her "explanation":
Ann, Ann, Ann. Are you really defending yourself by saying that "dickweed" is a better word than "douchebag"?
I don't understand why Ms. Coulter feels she needs to use this kind of sophomoric language to express her point -- perhaps it because she's on MSNBC and she is trying to play to that audience, I don't know. This is not the first time she's used crude language in getting a point across. Maybe it's because she going for the "shock factor" and she wants the headlines.
Ann Coulter is obviously a very intelligent person and can hold her own in a debate. I've read her book, "Treason" and it was a very well written and informative read, but it really irritates me that she has to stoop to this level, especially when she supposedly represents "my side".
I'm just trying to be consistent here people. I'm going to call it as I see it. She can say whatever she wants... I don't care. However, she is one person. You can say you are against conservatism because you don't believe in conservative values, and I'm fine with that. But to say that you are against conservative values because Ann Coulter is an idiot is, well, idiotic itself. It would be like me saying, "I don't like liberals because I hate Joe Biden."
So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that Ann Coulter is not one of my favorite people right now, but that hasn't for a second made me reevaluate my conservative stance.
Here's her "explanation":
Monday, November 28, 2011
Thanksgiving and Pie
Pie is awesome. Even though I spent what seemed like and eternity in the car driving across the state of Tennessee yesterday (East-west... the REALLY long way), I found that two things helped to pass the time. The first was listening to the Steelers and Chiefs game. The second was the knowledge that I had a whole untouched pumpkin pie waiting in my refrigerator.
Pumpkin Pie with whipped cream. Mmmmmmm!
So, I arrived at my home after a grueling 9 hour drive (traffic was horrible and it rained the entire way). I made a bee-line for the pie. No whipped cream or whipped topping though. Oh well... no big deal. I grabbed THE WHOLE PIE and started eating it. I then started thinking to myself, "What if someone else wants a piece of my pie?" Well, maybe it wasn't ALL my pie. Maybe I should share some of it. I did make the pie, though. It IS my pie and I should be able to eat it all if I want. I found myself going back and forth between eating the pie and sharing it with others. So I offered up some of my pie to those who did not have pie. I made sure that they got some pie but that I still had some left. It WAS my pie after all. What I found was that I did not have as much pie left as I wanted. What to do? I wanted more pie, but I didn't have any, and this was the only pie in the house. How could I possibly get more pie? Obviously I had to go back to the people that I gave the pie to and steal back the pie. I didn't want to do it, but there was NO MORE PIE!!!
Then an amazing, outrageous, totally off-the-wall thought came to me. What if I... MADE MORE PIE?! What if I went out and bought the ingredients and made more pie? But wait a minute... I can't do that. There is only so much pie in this world and if I go and make more pie, I must be taking pie away from someone else. But I'm not stealing the pie... I'm MAKING the pie. If I made TWO pies, I could give one to the rest of the family and keep one for myself. Maybe I could make enough pies that I could exchange the pies for more ingredients to make even MORE pies!!! I could get people to help me make the pies and give them some pie in return! I could even increase the size of the pies! That way, a "piece" of the pie would have more pie in it!
But a lot of people are telling me that when I eat a piece of the pie, it is because I am greedy and don't want to give any pie to anyone else and that there must be a governing body that takes my excess pie and gives it to people who don't know how to make their own pie. But how can I make enough pie to give to people to teach them how to make pies if I have to give most of my pie to those people BEFORE they know how to make pies? It almost seems like I would just get more pie if I stopped making the pies and instead got pie from other people instead. I mean, why work for the pie when the pie is just going to be given to me?
Whew! I'm just glad our country doesn't work that way!
Here's how some people spent their Thanksgiving. Classic!
Pumpkin Pie with whipped cream. Mmmmmmm!
So, I arrived at my home after a grueling 9 hour drive (traffic was horrible and it rained the entire way). I made a bee-line for the pie. No whipped cream or whipped topping though. Oh well... no big deal. I grabbed THE WHOLE PIE and started eating it. I then started thinking to myself, "What if someone else wants a piece of my pie?" Well, maybe it wasn't ALL my pie. Maybe I should share some of it. I did make the pie, though. It IS my pie and I should be able to eat it all if I want. I found myself going back and forth between eating the pie and sharing it with others. So I offered up some of my pie to those who did not have pie. I made sure that they got some pie but that I still had some left. It WAS my pie after all. What I found was that I did not have as much pie left as I wanted. What to do? I wanted more pie, but I didn't have any, and this was the only pie in the house. How could I possibly get more pie? Obviously I had to go back to the people that I gave the pie to and steal back the pie. I didn't want to do it, but there was NO MORE PIE!!!
Then an amazing, outrageous, totally off-the-wall thought came to me. What if I... MADE MORE PIE?! What if I went out and bought the ingredients and made more pie? But wait a minute... I can't do that. There is only so much pie in this world and if I go and make more pie, I must be taking pie away from someone else. But I'm not stealing the pie... I'm MAKING the pie. If I made TWO pies, I could give one to the rest of the family and keep one for myself. Maybe I could make enough pies that I could exchange the pies for more ingredients to make even MORE pies!!! I could get people to help me make the pies and give them some pie in return! I could even increase the size of the pies! That way, a "piece" of the pie would have more pie in it!
But a lot of people are telling me that when I eat a piece of the pie, it is because I am greedy and don't want to give any pie to anyone else and that there must be a governing body that takes my excess pie and gives it to people who don't know how to make their own pie. But how can I make enough pie to give to people to teach them how to make pies if I have to give most of my pie to those people BEFORE they know how to make pies? It almost seems like I would just get more pie if I stopped making the pies and instead got pie from other people instead. I mean, why work for the pie when the pie is just going to be given to me?
Whew! I'm just glad our country doesn't work that way!
Here's how some people spent their Thanksgiving. Classic!
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Thanksgiving and Capitalism
Ahhhh, Thanksgiving is finally here! The centerpiece of our feast this year, as it is every year, is a nice 22 pound turkey. This fine creature assumed room temperature no doubt a few weeks ago when its life was taken by a turkey farmer. It was then frozen solid for transport and sale at my local grocery store where fate brought us together. I slowly brought it back to about 35 degrees over the span of a few days in my refrigerator. It is now sitting in a salty/sugary/icy brine in a cooler on my kitchen floor. At some point tomorrow, it will reach approximately 165 degrees. My family and I will then act on our carnivorous instincts and devour the bird, not putting any of it to waste (except for the head and feet and other entrails it didn't come with but are no doubt being enjoyed in the form of a "turkey frank" somewhere). Football, sleeping and packing for a weekend trip to Gattlinburg, TN will follow.
Now that I've given you a nice visual on how my family will celebrate the holiday, let's take a look at everyone who will benefit in some way, no matter how miniscule, by our family's feast:
Turkey:
Turkey Farmer
Employees of Turkey Farmer
Turkey Farmer's vendors (feed suppliers, fuel suppliers, machinery suppliers, etc.)
Brine Ingredients:
Makers of Morton Salt, their employees and vendors
Makers of Domino Sugar, their employees and venors
City of Southaven, MS, their employees and vendors (water)
Producers of the sweet potatoes, their employees and vendors
Producers of the green beans, their employees and vendors
Makers of the french fried onions, their employees and vendors
Makers of Campbell's Cream of Mushroom Soup, their employees and vendors
Makers of Ore Ida Hash Browns, their employees and vendors
Makers of Daisy Sour Cream, their employees and vendors
Makers of the generic corn flakes we bought, their employees and vendors
Producers of my stalk of celery, their employees and vendors
Producers of the cranberries for cranberry sauce, their employees and vendors
Makers of the Brown and Serve rolls, their employees and vendors
Makers of the onions that went in various dishes, their employees and vendors
Producers of the corn meal and eggs that go into the cornbread dressing, their employees and vendors
All employees and vendors of the grocery stores where I bought these items
All employees of the gas station where I bought gas to power my vehicle in which I rode to the stores.
... and many, many more people (antacid manufacturers, for example).
All of this thanks to what is left of the FREE MARKET! Enjoy it while it lasts!
Now that I've given you a nice visual on how my family will celebrate the holiday, let's take a look at everyone who will benefit in some way, no matter how miniscule, by our family's feast:
Turkey:
Turkey Farmer
Employees of Turkey Farmer
Turkey Farmer's vendors (feed suppliers, fuel suppliers, machinery suppliers, etc.)
Brine Ingredients:
Makers of Morton Salt, their employees and vendors
Makers of Domino Sugar, their employees and venors
City of Southaven, MS, their employees and vendors (water)
Producers of the sweet potatoes, their employees and vendors
Producers of the green beans, their employees and vendors
Makers of the french fried onions, their employees and vendors
Makers of Campbell's Cream of Mushroom Soup, their employees and vendors
Makers of Ore Ida Hash Browns, their employees and vendors
Makers of Daisy Sour Cream, their employees and vendors
Makers of the generic corn flakes we bought, their employees and vendors
Producers of my stalk of celery, their employees and vendors
Producers of the cranberries for cranberry sauce, their employees and vendors
Makers of the Brown and Serve rolls, their employees and vendors
Makers of the onions that went in various dishes, their employees and vendors
Producers of the corn meal and eggs that go into the cornbread dressing, their employees and vendors
All employees and vendors of the grocery stores where I bought these items
All employees of the gas station where I bought gas to power my vehicle in which I rode to the stores.
... and many, many more people (antacid manufacturers, for example).
All of this thanks to what is left of the FREE MARKET! Enjoy it while it lasts!
Dirtbags of the day 11/23/11
Other people running this story are calling this a "flash mob". I'm calling it a pack of thieves. I really don't know how we combat this, but we must. I hope the police go through the video tape and throw the book at each and every one of these thugs.
I'm not a gun person -- not because I'm anti-gun or anti-2nd amendment, but because I just never have been really heavily into guns. That being said, I am now seriously considering a gun purchase along with a permit to carry it concealed. Our personal property and personal safety is being threatened and we have the right to protect ourselves.
Enjoy the madness:
I'm not a gun person -- not because I'm anti-gun or anti-2nd amendment, but because I just never have been really heavily into guns. That being said, I am now seriously considering a gun purchase along with a permit to carry it concealed. Our personal property and personal safety is being threatened and we have the right to protect ourselves.
Enjoy the madness:
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Link of the Day 11/22/11
A small tribute to my favorite politician who called himself a "Democrat" and whose time on this earth was cut short 48 years ago today. Watch the attached videos and then ask yourself how this Democrat compares to the Democrat that currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Link of the Day 11/21/11
I had a hard time choosing the featured story since there are so many out there, so I figured I'd share something that many of you may not have seen. I sympathize with this family, despite the fact they are Cowboys fans:
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Sunday Night Editorial -- Communism, Part 1 of 10
I going to try to reserve Sunday nights for a little Op/Ed. As always, comments and dissenting opinions are always welcome.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote the "Communist Manifesto" in 1848. This is viewed as one of the most important political writings of all time. In this manuscript, Marx and Engels outline a plan to rid the world of capitalism and replace it with an economic classless system known as "Communism". This is not to be confused with "Socialism" which is a working class led society.
Most of us were witnesses to the fall of the Soviet empire. The images of people celebrating in the streets and dancing on top of the Berlin Wall as it was being demolished by throngs of East Germans finally freed from their Communist shackles is a very strong memory for me. It was an indictment of the Communist way of life -- that it had failed in its endeavor of world domination and in its ability to produce a prosperous economy.
There are those who say, "On paper, Communism is the perfect society -- from each according to their means to each according to their needs. It just hasn't been done right yet". To that, I say that human nature does not allow us to live in a Socialist or Communist environment and that a non-totalitarian Communist society without massive human rights atrocities being committed is unattainable.
The push towards Socialism continues on, however. Don't believe me? Think that I'm a few fries short of a Happy Meal? That I'm saying that the sky is falling? That's fine, I envy you. Ignorance is bliss. Marx and Engels outlined 10 demands near the end of their publication. These 10 things must be attained in order to push a society over the Communist cliff... to the point of no return. Each Sunday I will outline one of these demands and discuss where we are on the road to reaching it. If you like Socialism or Communism, this will be a very optimistic series of posts for you. If you like the Free Market society... well... grab the Prozac.
Demand #1: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
The next time you get your mortgage statement (if you still have one), look and see who you are sending your money to. It will say something like, "First Bank of Anywhere, LLC" or something harmless sounding like that. What you don't see is who actually backs about 90 percent of the mortgages in this country -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are two companies who are backed by our federal government. They were created as part of FDR's New Deal to act as private companies that would help insure and supplement private mortgages. They have grown into full government-run entities. Until recently, they traded as publicly held corporation on the New York Stock Exchange. Now they don't. Due to the recent mortgage crisis, they acquired security in enough mortgages that they now hold 90 percent of the secondary mortgages in this country. So, chances are that your mortgage is one that is held by one of these two entities. Here is a very informative link that tells you how to determine if your loan is Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac:
http://www.ehow.com/how_5972159_do-fannie-mae-freddy-mac_.html
"So what", you say. "Big deal". Well, government, in general has historically not given back anything it has taken. Remember all those promises like "We will repeal the extra .5% sales tax once the bridges and roads are completed"? 30 years later, you're probably still paying it. So, don't expect that your home loan will be any different. So how does this relate to demand number 1? Your house and the land on which it sits, if you had a mortgage loan on it, are now property of the federal government. When the big banks failed and TARP came in to the rescue, all the property held by those private banks became government property.
Don't expect these these to happen overnight. We will be "nudged" into the right way of thinking by our government a la Obama regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein,
So, yes. We still retain a lot of our private property rights, but little by little, the government will find kinks in the armor and seize what they can. These seizures are usually during moments of "crisis", claiming that a company that is about to fail is "Too big to fail" (remember GM?). Former White House Cheif of Staff put it best:
Eventually, it will be too late, and the concept of private property will be a thing of the past, and thus demand number 1 will be met.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote the "Communist Manifesto" in 1848. This is viewed as one of the most important political writings of all time. In this manuscript, Marx and Engels outline a plan to rid the world of capitalism and replace it with an economic classless system known as "Communism". This is not to be confused with "Socialism" which is a working class led society.
Most of us were witnesses to the fall of the Soviet empire. The images of people celebrating in the streets and dancing on top of the Berlin Wall as it was being demolished by throngs of East Germans finally freed from their Communist shackles is a very strong memory for me. It was an indictment of the Communist way of life -- that it had failed in its endeavor of world domination and in its ability to produce a prosperous economy.
There are those who say, "On paper, Communism is the perfect society -- from each according to their means to each according to their needs. It just hasn't been done right yet". To that, I say that human nature does not allow us to live in a Socialist or Communist environment and that a non-totalitarian Communist society without massive human rights atrocities being committed is unattainable.
The push towards Socialism continues on, however. Don't believe me? Think that I'm a few fries short of a Happy Meal? That I'm saying that the sky is falling? That's fine, I envy you. Ignorance is bliss. Marx and Engels outlined 10 demands near the end of their publication. These 10 things must be attained in order to push a society over the Communist cliff... to the point of no return. Each Sunday I will outline one of these demands and discuss where we are on the road to reaching it. If you like Socialism or Communism, this will be a very optimistic series of posts for you. If you like the Free Market society... well... grab the Prozac.
Demand #1: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
The next time you get your mortgage statement (if you still have one), look and see who you are sending your money to. It will say something like, "First Bank of Anywhere, LLC" or something harmless sounding like that. What you don't see is who actually backs about 90 percent of the mortgages in this country -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are two companies who are backed by our federal government. They were created as part of FDR's New Deal to act as private companies that would help insure and supplement private mortgages. They have grown into full government-run entities. Until recently, they traded as publicly held corporation on the New York Stock Exchange. Now they don't. Due to the recent mortgage crisis, they acquired security in enough mortgages that they now hold 90 percent of the secondary mortgages in this country. So, chances are that your mortgage is one that is held by one of these two entities. Here is a very informative link that tells you how to determine if your loan is Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac:
http://www.ehow.com/how_5972159_do-fannie-mae-freddy-mac_.html
"So what", you say. "Big deal". Well, government, in general has historically not given back anything it has taken. Remember all those promises like "We will repeal the extra .5% sales tax once the bridges and roads are completed"? 30 years later, you're probably still paying it. So, don't expect that your home loan will be any different. So how does this relate to demand number 1? Your house and the land on which it sits, if you had a mortgage loan on it, are now property of the federal government. When the big banks failed and TARP came in to the rescue, all the property held by those private banks became government property.
Don't expect these these to happen overnight. We will be "nudged" into the right way of thinking by our government a la Obama regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein,
So, yes. We still retain a lot of our private property rights, but little by little, the government will find kinks in the armor and seize what they can. These seizures are usually during moments of "crisis", claiming that a company that is about to fail is "Too big to fail" (remember GM?). Former White House Cheif of Staff put it best:
Eventually, it will be too late, and the concept of private property will be a thing of the past, and thus demand number 1 will be met.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
Link of the Day 11/18/11
Today's video shows children being harassed and followed on their way to school in Lower Manhattan. Chilling stuff:
It looks like some people are starting to get fed up with the human debris littering the streets of New York and other cities. I'm fine with peaceful assembly and protest. I don't care if you get a permit to occupy a park and throw your little temper tantrum claiming you "represent" the 99%. Whatever. However, when you start terrorizing children, following them into the school, you've crossed another of the several lines you've already crossed.
There is some hope... finally some resistance to these people:
It looks like some people are starting to get fed up with the human debris littering the streets of New York and other cities. I'm fine with peaceful assembly and protest. I don't care if you get a permit to occupy a park and throw your little temper tantrum claiming you "represent" the 99%. Whatever. However, when you start terrorizing children, following them into the school, you've crossed another of the several lines you've already crossed.
There is some hope... finally some resistance to these people:
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Link of the Day 11/17/11
One of the things I hope to do with this blog is provide information that the network news, Jon Stewart or Saturday Night Live won't cover (Yes, some people actually view SNL as a legitimate news source). I'll give you my thoughts but will gladly listen to other opinions.
The first story I'm featuring, in my opinion. exposes a sector of our society that is unfortunately growing in numbers and enthusiasm. No matter what religion you are, even if you have none, this should appall you:
What I find encouraging about this story is the resolve and determination of these people. There is pure evil at work here, but good will always prevail. My heart and prayers go out to the people in these communities. Stay strong. Maintain your faith.
People, you need to dive deeper into this story and gather whatever information you can that is NOT being reported. Notice the writing on the walls? Someone took their time with this. It wasn't just a quick ransacking. They took the time to use two colors and make it very legible for a purpose. Phrases like, "Prepare for the Worst" and "No one is coming back 4 you (sic)" suggest a more sinister source than your typical teenagers up to no good.
Please, PLEASE don't shrug this off. We need to shed more light on these instances.
This post, like all of my others plus the video files will be downloaded and stored at a secure location.
The first story I'm featuring, in my opinion. exposes a sector of our society that is unfortunately growing in numbers and enthusiasm. No matter what religion you are, even if you have none, this should appall you:
What I find encouraging about this story is the resolve and determination of these people. There is pure evil at work here, but good will always prevail. My heart and prayers go out to the people in these communities. Stay strong. Maintain your faith.
People, you need to dive deeper into this story and gather whatever information you can that is NOT being reported. Notice the writing on the walls? Someone took their time with this. It wasn't just a quick ransacking. They took the time to use two colors and make it very legible for a purpose. Phrases like, "Prepare for the Worst" and "No one is coming back 4 you (sic)" suggest a more sinister source than your typical teenagers up to no good.
Please, PLEASE don't shrug this off. We need to shed more light on these instances.
This post, like all of my others plus the video files will be downloaded and stored at a secure location.
An awakening
I've always been a conservative. Well, since college at least. You can say that I had an awakening at that point in time in my life. I was spoon-fed the liberal news on a daily basis until then and I gobbled it all up and wiped my mouth with an eco-friendly napkin. I truly thought that hairspray was going to destroy the earth, the oil wells would run dry by the year 2000 and that Ronald Regan was a bumbling idiot.
Then something happened. I decided to open my mind to alternative sources of information. At that point in time it meant Rush Limbaugh and the National Review, because that was really the only source of conservative viewpoints. Initially I found myself just sitting there with my mouth hanging open, wondering, "How can this guy get away with saying this stuff?" Eventually, thankfully, I came to accept the truths of the conservative point of view.
Then came the Bush administration. I would be lying to you if I told you that I wasn't an enthusiastic supporter of President Bush. I was caught up in the whole "Republican vs. Democrat" thing. I chose to turn a blind eye towards the fact that he was a "moderate" conservative at best. I voted for him twice. During Bush's second term, I had an awakening of sorts. I came to realize that his policies were not much different than those of the Democrats on the other side of the isle. I saw the line of ideology between Republican and Democrat blurred. It was at that point in time that the term "moderate" because very stylish. My party decided that it would be in their best interest to choose the most "moderate" candidate possible (an extreme oxymoron). I had to vote for McCain that year just because I didn't want to have an advocate for Socialism as my president. That didn't work out too well.
This brings us to present day. I would call myself a proud Tea Party member. I am a conservative... still. I am uninterested in party based politics, so if you want to discuss the merits of the Republican Party vs. the Democratic Party, I'm not your man. Both parties have been equally corrupted by political power.
I have found myself listening to Glenn Beck over the past few years. I'm not going to prop Glenn up as a savior to this country or say that he is the next George Washington, but I will say that he has been very instrumental in helping me to solidify my resolve. As each of his predictions come true, I find myself shaking my head and saying, "I hope he's wrong... I PRAY that he is wrong." He says the same thing. Glenn is also uninterested in party affiliation. He is no fan of Bush, McCain, or any of the Republican establishment.
I've come to embrace Mr. Beck's "E4" initiative: Enlightenment, Education, Empowerment and Entrepreneurship. I've been searching for a way to inject these four principles into my life, and that has led me to the purpose of this blog. I feel that this blog will Empower me to Enlighten others while I am Educated along with my readers. More than that, I also feel that this is a way of preserving history since I fear that our ability to gather accurate information is going to be severely compromised in the very near future. I will use the resources that Glenn has created in helping with the preservation, but I plan to incorporate a lot of my own research and opinion as well. Call it a time capsule if you will. I do this for the future of my country, for my family, and for my God.
Read if you choose, ignore it if you want. If you want to discuss civilly, I'm all ears. All I ask is that you keep an open mind and allow yourself to break free from the shackles of party politics.
Then something happened. I decided to open my mind to alternative sources of information. At that point in time it meant Rush Limbaugh and the National Review, because that was really the only source of conservative viewpoints. Initially I found myself just sitting there with my mouth hanging open, wondering, "How can this guy get away with saying this stuff?" Eventually, thankfully, I came to accept the truths of the conservative point of view.
Then came the Bush administration. I would be lying to you if I told you that I wasn't an enthusiastic supporter of President Bush. I was caught up in the whole "Republican vs. Democrat" thing. I chose to turn a blind eye towards the fact that he was a "moderate" conservative at best. I voted for him twice. During Bush's second term, I had an awakening of sorts. I came to realize that his policies were not much different than those of the Democrats on the other side of the isle. I saw the line of ideology between Republican and Democrat blurred. It was at that point in time that the term "moderate" because very stylish. My party decided that it would be in their best interest to choose the most "moderate" candidate possible (an extreme oxymoron). I had to vote for McCain that year just because I didn't want to have an advocate for Socialism as my president. That didn't work out too well.
This brings us to present day. I would call myself a proud Tea Party member. I am a conservative... still. I am uninterested in party based politics, so if you want to discuss the merits of the Republican Party vs. the Democratic Party, I'm not your man. Both parties have been equally corrupted by political power.
I have found myself listening to Glenn Beck over the past few years. I'm not going to prop Glenn up as a savior to this country or say that he is the next George Washington, but I will say that he has been very instrumental in helping me to solidify my resolve. As each of his predictions come true, I find myself shaking my head and saying, "I hope he's wrong... I PRAY that he is wrong." He says the same thing. Glenn is also uninterested in party affiliation. He is no fan of Bush, McCain, or any of the Republican establishment.
I've come to embrace Mr. Beck's "E4" initiative: Enlightenment, Education, Empowerment and Entrepreneurship. I've been searching for a way to inject these four principles into my life, and that has led me to the purpose of this blog. I feel that this blog will Empower me to Enlighten others while I am Educated along with my readers. More than that, I also feel that this is a way of preserving history since I fear that our ability to gather accurate information is going to be severely compromised in the very near future. I will use the resources that Glenn has created in helping with the preservation, but I plan to incorporate a lot of my own research and opinion as well. Call it a time capsule if you will. I do this for the future of my country, for my family, and for my God.
Read if you choose, ignore it if you want. If you want to discuss civilly, I'm all ears. All I ask is that you keep an open mind and allow yourself to break free from the shackles of party politics.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)