Yesterday we were witness to yet another senseless killing at a Ohio High School http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-ohio-school-shooting,0,1426226,full.story and unfortunately some pundits on the left have started their rants always follow these tragedies.
The first is, of course the usual call for tougher gun laws. We have seen no details on how or where he got the gun and I'll bet that if it is found that it was obtained illegally off the street (unlike we law abiding gun purchasers who have to fill out mountains of government paperwork), we will never hear about it or it will most certainly be reported around 2:00 AM.
The second rant of course is the fact the "God let this happen". Now we know that they really don't believe in God, or they they do worship a deity it certainly isn't the one found in the Bible (although some people have wondered aloud if they are in fact in league with the devil http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3s.htm).
The intent of their question is simply a backhanded indictment of their incorrect perception of people of faith. What they are asserting is that if God really did exist he wouldn't let tragedies like this happen. To those who actually are religious or who study the religious, this is an absolute specious assertion. The faithful believe that God created Heaven and Earth and as such, everything that is of nature is "of God" including life and death. In fact it is in death, that people of faith are rewarded for leading a Christian life on Earth. The goal and basis for having a true relationship with God, is that he will be there for you in life and in death. People of faith understand that this does not necessarily mean that God will reach down his hand and stop the bullet before it reaches your heart, but that if it does reach your heart, that God will be there to take you into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Now we don't know much about the victims of the Ohio shooting, whether they attended church or prayed, and; of course nothing can be physically proven which is the basis of any faith. But the answer to those on the left who would take advantage of a tragedy to discredit God and those people who believe is - "he is with them".
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Happy President's Day...Obama
Many pundits on the left express outrage over the number of people who simply refer to the President as "Obama" instead of "President Obama". They claim that this shows a clear lack of respect for the man and is shamefully an example of our "lack of civility" (not to be confused by Occupiers throwing rocks and bottles at police..... that's "freedom of expression"!).
I myself refer to the man most often as "Dear Leader", a title that I'm pretty sure he actually would prefer. But on this President's Day, let us reflect on why so many people refer to the President in a way that indicates denial of or at very least regret over the 2008 election result.
First off, who is it we honor on President's Day? Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson perhaps? Who were these people and how did they arrive at their places in history as compared to Obama? Washington and Jefferson were aristocrats who risked losing everything for a cause that they believed in. Both were taught the virtue of hard work. At age 16, Washington worked as a surveyor and became a Major in the Virginia militia at the age of 21. Jefferson grew up wealthy but spent his early days as an architect, inventor (the swivel chair) and argriculturalist before risking death for Treason by not only signing, but mostly authoring the Declaration of Independence.
Lincoln as we all know was born in more humble surroundings, but taught himself to read and by age 22 struck out on this own, making a living in manual labor. He was known for his skill in wielding an ax and early on made a living splitting wood for fire and rail fencing. Young Lincoln eventually migrated to the small community of New Salem, Illinois where over a period of years he worked as a shopkeeper, postmaster, and eventually general store owner before getting elected to public office, teaching himself the law by reading Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, getting admitted to the bar in 1837 and starting his own law practice.
Then we haveour current President, Barrack Obama who's life is told in his rather sketchy autobiography Dreams of my Father. What little we can tell about him is that he gamed the system to get a free education and abhorred the idea of having to work for a living. He stands before us today, constantly railing about millionaires and billionaires who don't pay their fair share while using himself as an example of the "right" way to be wealthy. But where did he get his wealth from?
Most of the people he attacks earned their money by providing goods and services that other people found valuable and desired to have. They did not rob, they did not extort, they produced. And while they produced, they created jobs for people who were willing to offer their labor in exchange for what they considered reasonable compensation. In the early 90's when inventors and entrepreneurs were revolutionizing the way we do business, Obama was standing in front of college class rooms giving lectures on subjects that add no economic value and provide no service for anybody. Obama was just another academic elitist who was jealous of the fact that society wouldn't bestow wealth upon him for his intellectual and moral superiority.
Unlike the millionaires and billionaires he continues to publicly demonize on a daily basis, Obama did not become wealthy by producing goods or services that contributed to our economic growth, he instead got himself elected to public office. He made money by peddling influence, by making shady backroom deals, by becoming a champion for the moochers who stake claim on our incomes not by exchange of value, but by questioning our right to keep what we have worked so hard to earn. He made his money by enabling the looters; corrupt politicians and activist organizations who take our money by force as taxes and fees under the threat of confiscation of all that we have acquired.
He has unleashed upon the American people his team of unelected, unconstitutional Czars; more intellectual elitists who know better than we do how to allocate our resources "for the common good". His speeches and his actions are more an emulation of a Latin dictator than the leader of the free world and as such it is so hard for so many of us to refer to him as President when the word still has special meaning in our hearts.
Happy President's Day Obama, I pray to God that through the electoral process that you so despise, that this will be the last one you celebrate from the White House....
I myself refer to the man most often as "Dear Leader", a title that I'm pretty sure he actually would prefer. But on this President's Day, let us reflect on why so many people refer to the President in a way that indicates denial of or at very least regret over the 2008 election result.
First off, who is it we honor on President's Day? Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson perhaps? Who were these people and how did they arrive at their places in history as compared to Obama? Washington and Jefferson were aristocrats who risked losing everything for a cause that they believed in. Both were taught the virtue of hard work. At age 16, Washington worked as a surveyor and became a Major in the Virginia militia at the age of 21. Jefferson grew up wealthy but spent his early days as an architect, inventor (the swivel chair) and argriculturalist before risking death for Treason by not only signing, but mostly authoring the Declaration of Independence.
Lincoln as we all know was born in more humble surroundings, but taught himself to read and by age 22 struck out on this own, making a living in manual labor. He was known for his skill in wielding an ax and early on made a living splitting wood for fire and rail fencing. Young Lincoln eventually migrated to the small community of New Salem, Illinois where over a period of years he worked as a shopkeeper, postmaster, and eventually general store owner before getting elected to public office, teaching himself the law by reading Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, getting admitted to the bar in 1837 and starting his own law practice.
Then we haveour current President, Barrack Obama who's life is told in his rather sketchy autobiography Dreams of my Father. What little we can tell about him is that he gamed the system to get a free education and abhorred the idea of having to work for a living. He stands before us today, constantly railing about millionaires and billionaires who don't pay their fair share while using himself as an example of the "right" way to be wealthy. But where did he get his wealth from?
Most of the people he attacks earned their money by providing goods and services that other people found valuable and desired to have. They did not rob, they did not extort, they produced. And while they produced, they created jobs for people who were willing to offer their labor in exchange for what they considered reasonable compensation. In the early 90's when inventors and entrepreneurs were revolutionizing the way we do business, Obama was standing in front of college class rooms giving lectures on subjects that add no economic value and provide no service for anybody. Obama was just another academic elitist who was jealous of the fact that society wouldn't bestow wealth upon him for his intellectual and moral superiority.
Unlike the millionaires and billionaires he continues to publicly demonize on a daily basis, Obama did not become wealthy by producing goods or services that contributed to our economic growth, he instead got himself elected to public office. He made money by peddling influence, by making shady backroom deals, by becoming a champion for the moochers who stake claim on our incomes not by exchange of value, but by questioning our right to keep what we have worked so hard to earn. He made his money by enabling the looters; corrupt politicians and activist organizations who take our money by force as taxes and fees under the threat of confiscation of all that we have acquired.
He has unleashed upon the American people his team of unelected, unconstitutional Czars; more intellectual elitists who know better than we do how to allocate our resources "for the common good". His speeches and his actions are more an emulation of a Latin dictator than the leader of the free world and as such it is so hard for so many of us to refer to him as President when the word still has special meaning in our hearts.
Happy President's Day Obama, I pray to God that through the electoral process that you so despise, that this will be the last one you celebrate from the White House....
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Why “Progressives” and not “Liberals”?
In less than 4 years under Obama and 6 years under nearly 100% Democrat rule they have driven the economy into depression, doubled the national debt, doubled the number of people unemployed, doubled the price of gas and put 49% of the country on some form of government dependency; you call this progress?
Only if you consider the total economic collapse of America a success would you agree that they've made progress.....
Why “Progressives” and not “Liberals”?
Only if you consider the total economic collapse of America a success would you agree that they've made progress.....
Why “Progressives” and not “Liberals”?
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
3 Must-See Charts About Obama's Budget - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
So let's get this straight, Obama proposes to increase taxes on Millionaires and Billionaires (accept for the money that his wealthy white supporters make, that won't be taxed) and then he still comes up with a $1.3 Trillion deficit while lecturing US about math......?
He was correct when he admonished us not to label him a "tax and spend" Democrat, he is clearly a "Tax and Debt" Democrat!
If he is doing this during an election year, just imagine what happens to this country if he is elected to a second term and no longer has to worry about appearing to be pro-American.....?
3 Must-See Charts About Obama's Budget - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
He was correct when he admonished us not to label him a "tax and spend" Democrat, he is clearly a "Tax and Debt" Democrat!
If he is doing this during an election year, just imagine what happens to this country if he is elected to a second term and no longer has to worry about appearing to be pro-American.....?
3 Must-See Charts About Obama's Budget - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
Friday, February 10, 2012
The Catholic Mandate - Obama's Real End Game
So now Obama announces a compromise whereby he will exempt religious organizations from his mandate of on-demand birth control while simultaneously mandating that the Insurance Companies those religious organizations use become the providers of on-demand birth control. So what's changed? Nothing but the clarity of his initial purpose.
While so many people were confused as to why the President would make such a controversial move, the President was setting up the next step in a beautiful misdirection.
I have long contended that Obamacare is a ticking time bomb that will exponentially move us down the path to government provided health care. Today's announcement furthers my argument. Since the religious organizations still oppose contraception on-demand, and ALL insurance companies must provide it, the only choice the organizations have is to cease offering health insurance as a benefit and pay a fine instead, forcing their employees into the public health insurance co-ops or to look for a new job where the benefit is offered.
Despite their assertions to the otherwise, the cost benefit of the "penalty" encourages employers to end health care benefits and just pay the fine. At first this will be businesses that are hurting financially, but once the ball gets rolling, it will be a matter of time until only government employees have this benefit. What people entering the public pools will find is that with all the mandates and restrictions required by Obamacare, the cost of health insurance will be prohibitive. This will then be the next crisis which will then resurrect the "need" for the public option as the only viable solution.
Once a public option is in place, it will only be a matter of time before it's the only option....game over.
We had better wake up soon to the battle that is in front of us. This is not a single mosquito buzzing in our ear, this is a swarm and it hits full force if Obama gets his second term.
President announces compromise on birth control issue
While so many people were confused as to why the President would make such a controversial move, the President was setting up the next step in a beautiful misdirection.
I have long contended that Obamacare is a ticking time bomb that will exponentially move us down the path to government provided health care. Today's announcement furthers my argument. Since the religious organizations still oppose contraception on-demand, and ALL insurance companies must provide it, the only choice the organizations have is to cease offering health insurance as a benefit and pay a fine instead, forcing their employees into the public health insurance co-ops or to look for a new job where the benefit is offered.
Despite their assertions to the otherwise, the cost benefit of the "penalty" encourages employers to end health care benefits and just pay the fine. At first this will be businesses that are hurting financially, but once the ball gets rolling, it will be a matter of time until only government employees have this benefit. What people entering the public pools will find is that with all the mandates and restrictions required by Obamacare, the cost of health insurance will be prohibitive. This will then be the next crisis which will then resurrect the "need" for the public option as the only viable solution.
Once a public option is in place, it will only be a matter of time before it's the only option....game over.
We had better wake up soon to the battle that is in front of us. This is not a single mosquito buzzing in our ear, this is a swarm and it hits full force if Obama gets his second term.
President announces compromise on birth control issue
Thursday, February 09, 2012
The Ongoing Recovery from the Folly of Intellectuals
I think the growth of skepticism over the last decade about the role and effectiveness of government is very encouraging and one reason why the left seems to be scrambling to nail the coffin shut. They know the tide is turning, it is time for us to double our efforts and call these people out for what they are?
The Ongoing Recovery from the Folly of Intellectuals
The Ongoing Recovery from the Folly of Intellectuals
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
OWS & the planned “endgame” for the U.S.
This is frightening and very Glen Beck-ish, but think how many things that Beck has predicted are now coming to pass. Don't know how it will end, but I do know that the people I have encountered from the Occupy movement are not speaking of freedom and liberty from an owned tyrannical government. Instead they want the government to "do more to us" something the BHO has complained that is the main flaw of the Constitution.
We need to wake up and be aware of what is going on around us.
OWS & the planned “endgame” for the U.S.
We need to wake up and be aware of what is going on around us.
OWS & the planned “endgame” for the U.S.
Saturday, February 04, 2012
The Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty
I found this piece this morning. It does a very good job of showing the devolution from the American Dream to the Socialist Nightmare that has ensnared us. Yes folks we are already a socialist country, the water is now boiling and all President Foodstamp needs is a relection before he puts the lid on the pot.....
The Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/creed-of-sacrifice-vs-land-of-liberty.asp
The Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/creed-of-sacrifice-vs-land-of-liberty.asp
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Defending Romney's Policies
Based on everything I have seen, heard and read, I do not like Mitt Romney as a Republican Presidential Candidate. People I admire like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, have a core belief system that they are not afraid to show, discuss and promote. The run based on the belief that their policies will be best for the people electing them and win or lose based on their ability to convince people of that premise.
Mitt Romney scans the horizon and says (for example)...."these are liberals, so today I am a liberal". I have no idea what he really believes in or what he would actually push for once elected President. Romneycare is an example of his belief in government solutions, albeit at the state level and it is supposed that he will get hammered on it if he is in fact the Republican candidate.
Having said that, I am confused as to why Ann Coulter, who I enjoy reading, would be endorsing Romney. So today, I am sharing Ann's well-thought defense of Romneycare and how it's quite different from Obamacare....
http://townhall.com/content/1bd69323-b044-43a5-8b9a-740f3ea67b02
Mitt Romney scans the horizon and says (for example)...."these are liberals, so today I am a liberal". I have no idea what he really believes in or what he would actually push for once elected President. Romneycare is an example of his belief in government solutions, albeit at the state level and it is supposed that he will get hammered on it if he is in fact the Republican candidate.
Having said that, I am confused as to why Ann Coulter, who I enjoy reading, would be endorsing Romney. So today, I am sharing Ann's well-thought defense of Romneycare and how it's quite different from Obamacare....
http://townhall.com/content/1bd69323-b044-43a5-8b9a-740f3ea67b02
National Security Versus International Intervention
I have long been a Ron Paul supporter based on his in-depth knowledge of the Constitution and his common sense approach to applying it at all levels of society. While many pundits agree with me when it comes to Dr. Paul's domestic agenda (which too often gets taken out of context and twisted into something it's not), they are constantly dismissing him for his foreign policy which is labeled passivist, isolationist or simply "wrong".
My response which usually drives Republicans nuts is "when did Republicans become the party of War?". Are the Chinese isolationists? Are the Russians isolationists? The answer of course is no, they are both trading all over the world with everybody in the world, they both have foreign companies doing business within their borders, they are both reasonably easy to travel to and leave from. They even both have standing armies, just not fighting undeclared wars all over the world at a cost in the 100's of millions.
The idea that we can go in to another country, take out the "bad guy" and put in a "good guy" to run things is not only improbable, but morally reprehensible. Yes, there are a lot of messed up people in the world, doing messed up things to their citizens, but our history is no cleaner and one would wonder how well we would have worked things out if we were constantly having other companies intervening in our affairs.
In the attached Link, John Stossel makes a case for Ron Paul's REAL foreign policy....
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2012/02/01/creators_oped
My response which usually drives Republicans nuts is "when did Republicans become the party of War?". Are the Chinese isolationists? Are the Russians isolationists? The answer of course is no, they are both trading all over the world with everybody in the world, they both have foreign companies doing business within their borders, they are both reasonably easy to travel to and leave from. They even both have standing armies, just not fighting undeclared wars all over the world at a cost in the 100's of millions.
The idea that we can go in to another country, take out the "bad guy" and put in a "good guy" to run things is not only improbable, but morally reprehensible. Yes, there are a lot of messed up people in the world, doing messed up things to their citizens, but our history is no cleaner and one would wonder how well we would have worked things out if we were constantly having other companies intervening in our affairs.
In the attached Link, John Stossel makes a case for Ron Paul's REAL foreign policy....
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2012/02/01/creators_oped
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
Cheers For Our "Do-Nothing Congress"
Quick, what's the difference between Obama and Hugo Chavez? Answer - Chavez has cancer.
In his latest transformation leading up to November 2012, Obama has decided that it is best to blame the Congress (translation: the Republican-led House of Representatives) for the ills of the US Economy. We have heard quite often about his Czars lamenting the fact that we can't be a more dictatorial society like the Chinese, so they can just get everything they wanted in place.
This is very telling on many different levels. First, the total disregard of Obama for the structure of the Government. We are, nor were we ever intended to be a democracy. While our elected officials are elected using a democratic process, we live in a republic were a majority rule is tempered by the power of the individual states. The House is supposed to represent the people, they tour their districts and come back to Washington with ideas and demands from their constituents. They can then take those demands and bring them up as House Bills to be voted on; a simple majority passes the bill along to the Senate.
The Senate as designed, was to represent the interests of the States. Until the early 1900's (thanks to the Father of the Progressive Movement - Woodrow Wilson) the US Senators were selected by their peers in their state's senate. The purpose for this was that if any of the Senators behaved badly, they could quickly be called back to the state senate and replaced. The process for electing Senators this way ended with the 17th Amendment which some claim was the end of the republic.
Furthermore, again until the early 1900's, any piece of legislation could be stopped by 1 Senator, not 40 as we see today, 1. The purpose for this was simple; in Venezuela Chavez took over with a simple majority and began implementing everything he wanted. In this way, the majority can simply vote to take anything they want from the minority. This is what Obama would like to do, but the brilliance of the Founders and Ben Franklin in particular foresaw people like Obama and put in place checks and balances to prevent the evil of democracy.
In 2010, the Republicans ran on the promise that they would put a stop, or at least slow down Obama's march to socialism, thanks to the foresight of the Founders, they have been able to fulfill most of that promise.
In his latest transformation leading up to November 2012, Obama has decided that it is best to blame the Congress (translation: the Republican-led House of Representatives) for the ills of the US Economy. We have heard quite often about his Czars lamenting the fact that we can't be a more dictatorial society like the Chinese, so they can just get everything they wanted in place.
This is very telling on many different levels. First, the total disregard of Obama for the structure of the Government. We are, nor were we ever intended to be a democracy. While our elected officials are elected using a democratic process, we live in a republic were a majority rule is tempered by the power of the individual states. The House is supposed to represent the people, they tour their districts and come back to Washington with ideas and demands from their constituents. They can then take those demands and bring them up as House Bills to be voted on; a simple majority passes the bill along to the Senate.
The Senate as designed, was to represent the interests of the States. Until the early 1900's (thanks to the Father of the Progressive Movement - Woodrow Wilson) the US Senators were selected by their peers in their state's senate. The purpose for this was that if any of the Senators behaved badly, they could quickly be called back to the state senate and replaced. The process for electing Senators this way ended with the 17th Amendment which some claim was the end of the republic.
Furthermore, again until the early 1900's, any piece of legislation could be stopped by 1 Senator, not 40 as we see today, 1. The purpose for this was simple; in Venezuela Chavez took over with a simple majority and began implementing everything he wanted. In this way, the majority can simply vote to take anything they want from the minority. This is what Obama would like to do, but the brilliance of the Founders and Ben Franklin in particular foresaw people like Obama and put in place checks and balances to prevent the evil of democracy.
In 2010, the Republicans ran on the promise that they would put a stop, or at least slow down Obama's march to socialism, thanks to the foresight of the Founders, they have been able to fulfill most of that promise.
Obama to Catholics - "Kill Babies or Else!"
In perhaps the most blatant attack on religeous freedom, the Obama Administration under the cover of ObamaCare, has told Catholic Hospitals that they must provide abortions on demand or face government penalties. At a time when we are being told we should accept Sharia law in our legal system in certain cases, a religeous organization which at one time was the primary provider of health care to the uninsured, must perform acts that are in direct violation of their religeous belief's.
This is an attempt to once and for all, establish the federal government as the sole arbiter of health care in the US. The government hates competition and eliminating charities that provide an alternative source of assistance for the (ever growing) dependent class, is the way to secure power.
So while you hear the progressives telling us how we are all evil and greedy and not doing enough to pay our fair share, pay attention to how they are trying to destroy the most giving and unselfish among us.
This is an attempt to once and for all, establish the federal government as the sole arbiter of health care in the US. The government hates competition and eliminating charities that provide an alternative source of assistance for the (ever growing) dependent class, is the way to secure power.
So while you hear the progressives telling us how we are all evil and greedy and not doing enough to pay our fair share, pay attention to how they are trying to destroy the most giving and unselfish among us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)