Follow Me On Twitter!

Monday, August 31, 2009

I Am Reading Atlas Shrugged

I am not quite half way through it. I consumed over 100 pages of it this past weekend. Wow is all I can say. The directives, and laws, and move to socialism the book details is prophetic of what we are currently going through. Of course the government did all of this in the book for the "public good". WHOA

When compared to Obama's bank takeover, take over of auto companies, appointment of czars, and emergency powers, this book is chilling.

I have an excerpt of the book I want to put up here. A diatribe from a character that shows the hypocrisy of liberal fiscal thinking. I am a little leery of copyright infringement, so I might have to refer to it without reprinting it here. I'll look into it.

With the reading of this book fresh in my mind, this story is scary:

Click here: Gore thundered that the country has “a moral duty to pass health care reform. This year.”

Or this:

Click here: Capitalism the villian as Moore movie hits Venice

Truly frightening, in context of Atlas Shrugged, to hear this kind of language. "Moral duty"? "Capitalism is the villian"? Wow.

I fear it will take armed conflict to prevent the socialization of this the greatest nation on God's green earth.

The "Right" To Health Care

You hear a lot of liberals these days talking about there being a "right to health care". It as if the 11th amendment in the bill of rights specifically says: "The people have a right to free and/or inexpensive health care". Before you go looking that up, it doesn't say that. In fact, the bill of rights contained only 10 amendments.

The truth is that there is no inherent right to health care. While God gave us certain unalienable rights, like the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, no where are we guaranteed free and unfettered access to health care.

Think about the first 100 years or so of our country's history. Health care was little more than a voodoo science. True health care was nearly non-existent. Did people have a right to health care that dictated a treatment of opening a blood vessel and bleeding out as a cure for almost every ailment? Rumors persist today that this is exactly how George Washington died. He got a cold and was bled to death in an effort to cure it.

Fast-forward to civil war times. Medicine knew little about infection. And even if they knew about it penicillin had not been discovered yet. Many doctors felt that the only way to cure something, like a deep cut, was to amputate the limb that was injured. Is this the health care that people had a right to as free and accessible?

It is ludicrous to suggest that health care is a right. The emotional response to people that have to go into debt in order to get treatment is to say "that isn't right!". But when you look at the lifestyles of Americans you realize where the problem lies. We all love 4,000 square foot houses, $40,000 luxury cars, 50" big screen TVs, and every modern convenience of life.

We allow our lifestyles to cause us to live on the edge of financial ruin, so that if a health care expense comes along suddenly the balance is tipped and we go into that financial ruin. The health care emergency was not the root cause of the ruin, it was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. Yet those on the left would have us believe that health care being too expensive is what caused the problem.

If people lived within their means, then these types of events would be minimized. People need to read and listen to Dave Ramsey. If you don't know who he is look him up here: Dave Ramsey. Dave is an advocate against going into debt, for living within your means. Building wealth through debt-free living. What a concept!

The final point I'd like to make is that even if health care were a right that doesn't mean that there isn't a cost associated with it. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Yet no one is advocating that the government provide free firearms to its citizens. You have the right to bear arms, but you bear the expense of purchasing those arms. If health care were a right, which it isn't, that wouldn't mean that it should be cost free.

In the final analysis this is nothing more than the left playing for power. They think making health care "free" will win them more votes. As the town hall meetings suggest, as the polls suggest, they are wrong on that point. Pushing Obamacare through would be the worst thing that they could do politically. 2010 will not be good for the Democrats if they thwart the will of the people and make health care a social program.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Ted Kennedy, RIP

I remember when Richard Nixon died. I had just started at a new job, and a far-left liberal I went to lunch with during my first week there paid her respects by uttering: "Richard Nixon was an -censored-hole". I was only 25 years old and it was my first introduction to how liberals treat the deaths of their political enemies.

Conservatives are better.

I am not happy Ted Kennedy is dead. I take no joy in his passing. Did I like the man? No. Did I like his politics? Absolutely not. Still, he was a human-being. He has an eternal soul. I worry about his eternal existence.

Praying for "enemies" is something that religious conservatives do. Christianity demands it. But even without that, shouldn't compassion for our fellow members of mankind move us to care for them despite our differences?

The only complaint that I will vocalize about Ted Kennedy here is that he seemed to think he was outside of the rules. Maybe 47 years in the Senate germinates that kind of thinking since congress so often exempts themselves from the taxes and laws that we the common people are subject to.

Still, Ted Kennedy never thought the rules applied to him. Chappaquiddick is the most well known example. Drunk, he drives his car into a pond, and swims away. His passenger dies and he doesn't report the incident until after her body is recovered. An ordinary citizen would have been in major trouble for those actions.

At the end of his life, Kennedy also wanted the rules changed. Currently Massachusetts' law says an election has to be held to replace Kennedy. He wanted the law changed to allow Governor Deval Patrick, a Democrat, to appoint a replacement. His concern was for the Democrats' precarious filibuster proof majority, and preserving that in the interim. I don't think Kennedy would have requested that had Massachusetts currently had a Republican governor.

Despite his flaws, despite the fact that I sometimes questioned his love of country, he did dedicate his life to public service. He will be missed by both those that liked and those that disliked him. I think his perspective now in the afterlife is completely opposite of what it was while he was alive on this earth. Unfortunately, it is too late.

Brain cancer is a terrible way to die, and no one deserves that. I hope his final days were as comfortable and pain-free as possible.

Rest in peace, Ted.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

My First Blog Entry Of 2009

I was cutting the lawn this evening when I remembered my first blog entry of 2009. Here is a link to it:

First Day Of 2009

Sometimes I amaze myself. How prophetic! Seriously though, with tea parties and huge anti-socialized health care crowds at town hall meetings, it as if my wishes are coming true. It makes me proud to be an American to see so many taking up the cause of America and fighting against those that are opposed to that cause.

So fight on! Let's bury cap and trade. Let's bury socialized medicine. Let's continue to thwart Obama on every socialist movement he is trying to pass, and then in 2010 take back the house and senate. Let's do it for our children. Let's do it for their children. Let's do it for America.

Town Hall Meetings, Fed Up Americans, And Democrats' Dismissals

The town hall meeting phenomenon continues. Every day reports come in about overwhelming numbers of citizens showing up at these things. The majority of Americans have one message for their representative in office: leave my health care alone!

People politely protested when we witnessed the socialization of our financial institutions. People a little less politely protested when we witnessed the socialization of our auto industry. When it comes to socialization of our health care industry people have had enough. And that is exactly what they are telling Obama: ENOUGH!

The Democrats are quick to characterize the town hall meeting crowds as being far right-wing radicals, and that they are being staged. They have tried to belittle the efforts of Americans by accusing them of being unruly. They have even tried to use the word "violent". The left has even gone so far as to send plants into some of these crowds in an effort to besmirch the town hall meeting attendees.

None of their efforts have been successful. The Democrats have stopped just short of referring to this grass-roots effort as a "vast right-wing conspiracy", which would evoke the vernacular of Hillary Clinton from last decade. While that exact term hasn't been used, the implication has been there all along.

Democrats have referred to the movement as "AstroTurf", a reference to the idea that the protests are staged. Pelosi, Reid, Dean, and Obama need to realize that denial is a river in Egypt. They can deny the validity of these protests all they want, the fact is that the American tax-paying public is sick of it, and they aren't going to take it any more.

Town hall meeting crowds, and tea party crowds, are turning out in masses to tell Washington one simple thing: spending and taxes are too high, stop it. Stop it or we will stop it. They are also telling Washington that we are not like Europe and we do not want to be like Europe. So get your hands out of every one of our cookie jars.

Thomas Jefferson would be proud of these protests. In fact, I believe Jefferson would be one of the leading voices of these movements if he were alive today. So the question is simple? Do you want to be more like Jefferson, or more like Obama?

Friday, August 21, 2009

We have A 4th Grader For President


Okay I admit I have never expected much out of Obama. "He is a great speaker!" Really? I call that great reading from a teleprompter. "He is intelligent." Really? Platitudes and regurgitated Marxist thought are not the same as intelligence. "He is a statesman." I've seen more presence under a Christmas tree.

But today takes the cake. First you have to see the story for yourself:

Click here: Obama Fires Back At Political Critics

Did you catch that? If something didn't jump out at you stop and go read it again.

Okay, twice through if you still haven't figured it out let me point it out for you:

"There is something about August going into September where everybody in Washington gets all wee weed up!"

Are you serious? Our supposedly well-spoken, intelligent, statesman of a president busts out the "wee weed up" comment? How is that any of the three things liberals claim he is?

Next he'll tell us his health care reform "falled down and got a boo-boo". Or that every one making a fuss over socialized health care is "hurting his wittle feelings". Are we supposed to take this guy seriously? "Wee weed up"?

That is just sad. As he sinks into further irrelevance, and his presidency's legacy devolves into trying to force change on us we don't want, now his immaturity is beginning to show.

He needs to stick to throwing like a girl in mom jeans.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Shout Out To Left Coast Rebel

Stumbled across this blog recently. (Actually he stumbled on mine and started following it, I am glad he did because he has some good stuff over at his blog).

Check it out by clicking here: Left Coast Rebel

Notice the nice observation he made with the Barney Frank town hall stuff: Plant In Crowd At Frank Town Hall?

That is what sets us conservatives apart from liberals: brains. Don't bring that weak stuff here, we'll swat it away like Tim Duncan in the paint. These town hall meetings are being disrupted by liberals posing as conservatives. Just like the "racist" attendees at Obama campaign stops last year. Liberals have no conscience. They'll stoop to any tactic to smear conservatives.

Take their behavior over the last 8 years. While George W. Bush was in office liberals were gleeful about anything they viewed as bad for America. Stock market crashes, the death of our fighting men and women, even losses in the Olympics were all cheered by liberals.

The result is that they expect the same from us. When the market was down 200 points the other day a liberal said to me: "you're probably happy about that, aren't you?" I was flabbergasted. I replied that I was in no way happy about that. I am heavily invested in the market, why would I applaud 200 point down swings? Just because it might be bad for Obama? Come on, Obama isn't worth all that to me.

Bad news is bad news. Period. I want the market to rebound. If that helps Obama then I will deal with that. Why would I cheer against my own financial situation? It is ludicrous. But that is how liberals think because that is how they would behave themselves.

So this is a pat on the back to the Left Coast Rebel. Great detective work on the obvious plant. Liberals know they can't win a straight up fight on the issues so they have to tear down and stoop to ridiculous tactics like this.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

International Treaties Threaten Our Sovereignty

Excellent article linked below by Jeremy Rabkin of George Mason University.

Click here for the article: The Constitution and American Sovereignty

This is why the United Nations, Kyoto Protocol, and other international treaties need to be scrutinized against our constitution. When a treaty, a ruling by the UN, or anything else internationally is opposed to the constitution we need to give it a big thumbs down. To enter into a treaty that threatens our right to self rule is unconstitutional.

Obama seems to be ignorant to that fact. Of course, we know he feels the constitution is counter to what he is trying to do. He is on record as saying as much. How we elected someone that doesn't even believe in the sanctity of our most important document is beyond me. Thanks a lot to all you Obama voters.

Personally I agree with Abraham Lincoln who said: "Would we be far wrong if we defined (sovereignty) as a political community without a political superior?" I say: no Abe, we would not be wrong. Once we have given up our sovereignty we have given up our nation.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Where Has All The War Coverage Gone?

During 2003-2008, almost daily the nation's news outlets reminded us that we were engaged in two wars: Afghanistan and Iraq. If there were causalities then the same news outlets made sure that those were on the front page of their newspapers and websites, or the lead story in their broadcasts.

Even as the surge of a couple of years ago began to sway the tide of the conflict in Iraq, the mainstream media then began to beat the drum that the real war was in Afghanistan. The Democrats even began to use the talking point: "Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan". Obama even crisscrossed the nation during the election campaign promising to renew our efforts in Afghanistan, to invade Pakistan, and to find Bin Laden.

As the escalation in Afghanistan by Obama has caused causalities there, as the post surge Iraq continues to move ahead wonderfully, and as Bin Laden continues to be at-large some where in the Middle East, an amazing thing has occurred. The media has stopped talking about both Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 150 U.S. service men have been killed in 2009 in Afghanistan and yet we hear little to nothing about those casualties. Even my liberal coworkers, that used to bring up the war(s) at a minimum every week, have become mum on the issue.

Now I am not naive enough to believe that suddenly the MSM and other liberals have suddenly found patriotism. I am not dumb enough to believe that they have suddenly started caring that constantly hammering on the wars has a detrimental affect on the American people's attitude towards the wars, and on the morale of the men and women deployed in those war arenas. I am not stupid enough to think that liberals want a U.S. victory in either war.

No, there is only one reason for the stop to the anti-war drumbeat: they are afraid it will hurt Obama. With some of the things he is trying to shove through congress while he has a majority in both houses, liberals know that he is going to get hammered in the polls. His popularity is sinking faster than the Titanic, and they know that showing things going poorly in Afghanistan will only further exacerbate that sinking.

All I am asking for is equal time. If Bush's handling of the wars got so much press, shouldn't Obama's as well? Didn't Obama promise a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq and victory in Afghanistan? Where are the news stories showing that neither of those are taking place, and in fact, the opposite of those are taking place?

I guess it is too much to expect the media to hold Obama's feet to the fire after they almost burned Bush's clean off. Fairness from liberals? Yeah right.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Book Review: C.S. Lewis' The Pilgrim's Regress

I must preface this review by stating up front that I have never read John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress, the book in which Lewis based The Pilgrim's Regress. One day I may go back and read that but right now my reading list is quite full.

Still, The Pilgrim's Regress stands up on its own merits. It was a great read that I enjoyed immensely. What Lewis was up to in this novel was pretty apparent from the beginning. A one sentence synopsis of the book would go something like this: One's journey through temptation and sin, the influences of the world, to ultimate acceptance of the truth about Christ and salvation.

This was Lewis' first novel after rediscovering his Christian faith. Some have claimed this novel is autobiographical in nature, and all agree that it is a book of Christian allegory. Lewis develops a rich world in the novel that is very similar in make-up to our own world, though more of a caricature.

The book has so much imagery and figurative language that it would be utterly impossible to delve into it all in a short review such as this. However, there are some obvious allusions that Lewis was drawing. The Landlord of course is God. The Island is the symbol of ultimate joy and pleasure (heaven). Most of the characters that the antagonist, John, meets along the way are symbolic of the different humanistic ways of thinking that have pervaded our world, especially over the last few centuries.

John, of course, is drawn into action by the Island. His journey's goal is to reach the Island. Some he meets along the way don't believe in the Island, and some even belittle him for believing in it himself. Others believe in the Island, but have their own ideas about reaching it.

John's idea for reaching the Island is very common among people today; he thinks he can reach it on his own. He thinks through his own travel and efforts he can ultimately attain the Island of his dreams. It isn't until he learns the truth, that he needs the Landlord and the Landlord's son to reach the Island, that he becomes aware that it is unattainable if he tries to attain it on his own.

After John's baptism, he journeys back, or regresses, to Puritania. Though the world looks different to him, the temptations continue and become even more intense. What Lewis is doing near the end of the novel is showing that our journey isn't over when we discover salvation, it has just begun.

While, as with all of Lewis' writings, there are some things in The Pilgrim's Regress that are more specific to his particular denomination, the overall theme of the novel is excellent. The writing and execution of the story are very well done. Some of the stones he throws in the direction of groups and people that are/were contrary to Christianity are well timed and spot on.

The novel is just a little over 200 pages long, so it is a very quick read. It is a book I will return to again in the future.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Atheism's Greatest Hits Part II: If God Created Everything, Then God Created Evil

If you debate an atheist long enough, he will eventually resort to the following line of arguing:
  1. God created everything.
  2. Therefore God created evil.
  3. Therefore God is capable of evil.
They really think they have you with this one. After all, how can you deny the fact that God created everything? Since evil exists, then to say God didn't create evil is to admit that God didn't create everything.

In reality it is a ruse. It is a trick. And in a formal debate the idea is to get the pro-God debater to fall into the trap of proving that God didn't create evil, though he created everything.

The truth is that God did create everything. However, that doesn't include evil. On the surface that sounds like a contradiction. But it isn't a contradiction at all because evil is merely the absence of good. If that confuses you let me give you an analogy.
Genesis 1:1,2 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
If we look at the beginning, we see that God created the heaven and the earth. But notice what was upon the face of the deep: darkness. God did not create darkness. Darkness is the absence of light. God had not created light yet, he did that in verse 3. Evil is analogous to darkness. God didn't create evil, it is the absence of good. Good is God. Therefore evil is the absence of God.

Let's look at another passage:
I John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
We can substitute the words good for light, and evil for darkness. Therefore:
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is good, and in him is no evil at all.
You cannot create something that is the absence of something else. However, you can cause it by removing the something else. For example, you can remove heat to make something cold. You can remove light to make something dark. Therefore, if you remove God you make something evil.

Just like heat and light are energy, and cold and dark are the absence of that energy, it works the same with good and evil. Good is the presence of God. Evil is the absence of God. God didn't create evil, evil is what exists when God is absent.

For example, a person is a good person when they are doing the will of God. Doing the will of God is to do what God would have you to do. IE, to do the will of God is to not sin, either by transgressing his law or by not doing things we know we should do. God is present in a person's life when they are doing his will. That person becomes evil only when they do something contrary to God's will, and therefore God is no longer present in their life.

I John explains this better than I ever could:

I John 1:6,7 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Going back to our earlier substitution we get:
If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in evil, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the good, as he is in the good, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
So next time an atheist busts out this argument, you can explain that evil is not created just like darkness and cold are not created. Evil is the absence of what is created by God: goodness.

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

I've Had It Up To Here

Everyday it is more of the same. Socialized health care. Cap and trade. Removing defense items from the budget. This morning was the last straw: Obama wants a federal ban on texting and driving.

Now I will admit that we have a big problem with people using cell phones while driving. I am not even concerned with those that talk on the phone since that is more innocuous than many other behaviors while driving: drinking, eating, disciplining kids, putting on make-up, smoking, etc. So something needs to be done.

But let's let local municipalities handle this. There is no reason for the federal government to become involved in telling us we shouldn't be texting while driving. Every one knows that you shouldn't text while driving. Most localities have a "distracted driving" law on the books. Why do we need Deh Fuhrer to get involved and make it a national ban?

This is just part and parcel of this administration. They aren't concerned with governing, they are concerned with control. They want control our money, our energy usage, our behavior, our health care, and just about anything else they can control. And they will come up with just about any and all excuses to do it.

I don't know about the rest of my fellow American, but I am fed up. I am sick of it. I am ready to do whatever is necessary to take this nation back for the people. Am I talking about armed conflict? If need be. I'd hate for it to come to that but between these draconian socialist bills, ridiculous fascist bills, and appointees like Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court we are starting to run out of options.

The left has the White House. They have both houses of congress. If they capture the SCOTUS as well then it will be time to resort to other means. I don't look at that option lightly, but when government fails to govern, and starts to become tyrannical, the forefathers themselves would tell us to take matters into our own hands.

Why do you think Obama wants to ban gun ownership? (Note: He has never denied that, all he has said was that they don't have the votes to do it right now.) He knows that the last obstacle standing in his way to his goal of a dictatorship is a well-regulated militia.

It might be time to call those militias to service.

Saturday, August 01, 2009

And Another Thing Related To NPR

In all of their biased news reports yesterday morning, never once did they ever mention the biggest news story of the morning: the complete and miserable administrative failure of the "Cash For Clunker" program.

Almost as if they wished it never occurred. Speaking of that, I love this quote by one dealer:

'If they can't administer programs like this, I'd be concerned about health insurance'...

Awesome. If Americans allow congress to pass that idiotic socialistic health care proposal then we all deserve the crappy health care that will result.

I am even thinking we should be willing to take Honduras' cue if we have to.............