Conservative Warrior

2010-03-04T09:02:00.000-06:00

Had to post this--in a way it's funny, but in a way it's not really very funny.

War, Foreign Policy, and Terrorism...

2010-01-12T15:55:00.002-06:00

Interesting video clip from Larry King show...Ron Paul contends that our foreign policy should be one of strict isolationism. When he suggests terrorists might hate us because we are invading their countries, and bombing them in the name of "justice" and "democracy" and all that, Ben Stein can't take it anymore...listen to them duke it out...

Outside of all the emotions that were involved, perhaps we should consider Ron Paul's point. Think about his question, "Wouldn't we hate it if other countries were over here, establishing military bases, and forcing their government on us?" One thing I know Paul is going to get accused of is not supporting the troops--I think his point is well made that maybe the best way to support them is by not putting them in danger unnecessarily, which we are doing by establishing a military presence all across the globe.

What about Sarah Palin?

2009-10-19T19:06:00.002-05:00

A lot of controversy has surrounded Sarah Palin, everything from her daughter to her candidacy to her resignation to her new book to her high dollar speeches. Liberals hate her, but conservatives for the most part see her as the new face of the Republican party, the new "uniter" of the party. So what about Sarah Palin. Read on--

"Much of the discussion about Mrs. Palin’s candidacy centers around her opportunity to “break through the class ceiling” and be a “role model for young women.” The same was said of Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy in the Democratic primary. But what does this mean?

"Are we really saying that we want to completely erase the distinctions between men and women. Do we really believe that it is good for our country to promote the view that women are merely men who happen to be biologically capable of having children (when it does not interfere with career advancement, of course)? I don’t think so. What do we do with the Bible’s admonition in Titus chapter two? Are Christian conservatives saying that Paul’s instructions concerning women’s duty to be “keepers of their homes” has somehow been overturned in light of recent discoveries? Or are we saying that pro-family means one thing when we’re in church, but something else when we’re trying to beat the Democrats?

"Let me be clear. I am not arguing that it is always wrong for a woman to be engaged in affairs outside the home. I agree with Albert Barnes who wrote:

"This does not mean, of course, that they are never to go abroad, but they are not to neglect their domestic affairs; they are not to be better known abroad than at home; they are not to omit their own duties, and become “busy-bodies” in the concerns of others. (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)

"My point is simple. The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul’s admonition should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking.

"My heart breaks for her. She has been blessed beyond measure with five incredible children, but she is running hard after what the world says is ‘something more.’ I fear she will regret this some day. In fact, I believe she already does. I can’t imagine her going to sleep at night without a nagging doubt in the back of her mind as she thinks about the time with her children that she will never get back.

"My heart breaks for her children. Their mother, by all reports, is an incredible, intelligent, energetic woman with a great deal to offer. Unfortunately, right now she is offering it to the people of Alaska, and the people of the United States of America when her first priority is to offer it to them. God designed them to flourish under the nurturing care of their mother, not some surrogate.

"My heart breaks for her husband. Mrs. Palin is not even supposed to be the head of her own household (Eph. 5:22ff; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-7), let alone the State of Alaska, or the United States Senate (The VP oversees the Senate). He should be shepherding her, but instead she is ruling over him (Rom 13:1-7; 1Pet 2:13-17). How difficult it must be for him to walk the fine line of bowing to the culture that is stealing his bride while still trying to love his wife and lead his family.

My heart breaks for the so-called Christian right. All the usual subjects have been falling all over themselves to praise Mr. McCain and justify their blind allegiance to the Republican Party in an effort to secure more “pro-family” judges. They want to protect marriage from redefinition by the homosexual movement, and they are willing to redefine marriage (and motherhood) to do it.

"Ironically, the Neocons are merely using Mrs. Palin as a political pawn. She is beloved because she gives them the coveted “moral high ground” in the upcoming debates. Read recent articles and the goals become clear. We must win on abortion. She makes it hard to argue for it. We must win on the race/gender issue. She gives us a woman to their ethnic minority. We must win on being young and hip. Obama is 47; Palin is 44. We must win the “change” argument. Obama is new to Washington; Palin has never served there. Checkmate!

"Unfortunately, this political pawn represents a fatal flaw worldview flaw. In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, “It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion.” How pro-family is that?"

--excerpt from an article by Voddie Baucham

Column of the Week

2009-09-16T20:54:00.000-05:00

Speaking about taxes Thomas Paine commented, “What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue.” Many Americans feel the same way, and are starting to be vocal about it. Last Saturday, thousands of frustrated, angry, and insulted Americans marched on Washington, D.C., protesting a now ridiculously excessive taxation.

On the same day, Freeport had a “tea party” of its own, organized by the local Libertarian club. From their own lips, they were there to exercise their right to peaceably assemble, to say to the government they are sick of the way things are being done. The waste and corruption in government has gone far enough and it’s high time someone mustered up the guts to say so.

For those who are out of the loop, this kind of tea party is not a social event where you drink tea and chat with your friends. “TEA” is an acronym that stands for, “taxed enough already,” a statement I think very few people disagree with. However, “tea parties” usually cover a broader scope than just taxes. Incidentally, it is a movement mostly among conservative, and many of the tea party protestors represent the conservative system in more ways than just taxation. For example, among the Freeport tea partiers, of course there were those who were mainly protesting heavy taxation, but many were there protesting abortion, healthcare, and so on.

Those who said taxes were their main grievance talked about high state and local taxes, but also brought it local citing the recent tax raises in Freeport, i.e., a ¾% sales tax increase and a new tax on candy. However, on the flip side, all who claimed taxes were ridiculously high admitted that they were not opposed to reasonable taxation. They made it clear they were not opposing taxation, as long as the money was used for responsible things; but also making it equally clear that at this point, we are taxed to death and the money goes to what? Bailing out banks and other large corporations, building big government mansions, paying for a failing school system, and funding abortion. Hardly a responsible use of taxpayer dollars. On the whole, they were simply echoing what Calvin Coolidge said years earlier, “Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.” And why should we put up with it?

So, what’s the point of a tea party? What does it accomplish, if anything? Sure, in practicality, it doesn’t really do anything in the sense that it doesn’t change anything. After Saturday, the same laws are still intact and taxes are just as high. The point of a tea party is not to change that. The point of a tea party is to raise awareness both in the citizenry and in the government.

A tea party says to the citizenry that it is perfectly legal and responsible to disagree with and protest the actions of the government. It gives those with less courage the extra encouragement they need to stand up as well, to say as well that they are fed up with big government domination.

However, a tea party is mostly a message to the government, which reads, “This is a government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’, and we as the people don’t like how you are running the government. For the last few years we have put up with it, but now, enough is enough. It is now time to do what should have been done long ago. You as government officials answer to us. And we are saying it’s time for a change, a real change, and not the kind of change a big government can provide.”

No, Mr. President: John Piper's Response to President Obama on Abortion

2009-09-09T18:56:00.001-05:00

2009-09-09T18:46:00.001-05:00

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." - James Madison

"Talk is cheap - except when Congress does it." - Cullen Hightower

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

"The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem." - Milton Friedman

Column of the Week

2009-09-09T18:36:00.001-05:00

So the healthcare debate, after several months, is still raging, and by the looks of things will continue to rage for quite awhile. It is the result of a fast worsening situation in healthcare. Everyone currently agrees that our situation is broken, but everyone disagrees on how to fix it. Obama among others has pushed his solution to the healthcare problem as hard as he possibly can. As he has done so, he has gotten a huge amount of kickback. Why? Why is healthcare reform such a big controversy?
Although on the surface, there is a lot of politics involved in the debate, at its very heart it is a conflict between two systems of thought.

The one is capitalism, the idea that a market free of government intervention will work to effectively lower prices through a system of competition. This system is based on the understanding that people are selfish and in business will seek their own good and prosperity. Since cheating, lying and stealing as a general rule is not good for business, capitalists will say that out of self interest, businesses will refrain from cheating, lying and stealing because they want more money. Well known economist Milton Friedman said, “The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm, capitalism is that kind of a system.” However, while in theory the system should work perfectly, although in practicality it unfortunately doesn’t work flawlessly.

The other system is of course the idea that through a system of regulation and manipulation the government can do a better job of ensuring both lower prices and maximum quality. This is a more “humanitarian” philosophy because at its heart it doesn’t want people to be “economically hurt” in the first place. The only way you can do that is to make it impossible for a business to hurt its workers by overbearing government regulation. One example would be minimum wage. This system also sounds very good in theory, but again, in practicality it doesn’t work quite as well because often the regulations while helping one area of the market, are detrimental to another area.

Because a capitalist believes in a free market, he looks at our healthcare crisis with skyrocketing prices of medical care and insurance and says we need the government to back off and let market competition bring down prices. He would say, an insurance company that rips off its customers, or a healthcare clinic that charges ridiculous prices for basic health checkups, and outlandish prices for medicine, would be put out of business by market competition. So his solution is, let the market run itself.

Those in favor of government intervention see the problem and propose a solution that naturally includes government regulation of healthcare prices and a new government program to take care of the uninsured. He would say that big insurance companies that rip off their customers just need to be punished by the government, or more strictly regulated as to what they can charge. Better yet, insurance companies should just be eliminated and the government should take care of the people’s health needs.

As you can see, both ideas are inherently contradictory. Therefore, while the healthcare debate is a political discussion, down deep it is a conflict between ideas and therefore it results in a conflict between those who passionately hold to either of those ideas. So, the next question would obviously be, “Which system is better?”, and that, my friend, is what the healthcare debate is all about. Which system is better. Think about it, and you decide.

Column of the Week

2009-09-02T14:27:00.002-05:00

So...I decided to stay on the topic of Kennedy and write my column for the week about it...enjoy...

As the United States, and the world for that matter, mourns the passing of Ted Kennedy, I’m left with mixed feelings. On one hand I'm sad to see death in any case, but on the other hand, quite frankly, I'm glad his political persuasion is gone. Let me explain.

Any honest person must acknowledge both the genius and influence of Senator Ted Kennedy, “The Lion of the Senate”. Therefore out of respect we must salute his passing. Whether or not you agree with all his political views, you have to admit he was a staunch, though perhaps misguided defender of all he believed. He was a fighter, and will be remembered as such.

Furthermore, no matter what you do or say, you will not be able to shake the influence of Kennedy on the political views of our government and this nation. For the last few decades, Kennedy has been one of the biggest communicators of liberalism at its best. Needless to say, when it came to policy making either on the state or federal level, the voice and vote of Kenned had a lot of weight. Wikipedia states, “Kennedy played a major role in passing many laws, including laws addressing immigration, cancer research, health insurance, apartheid, disability discrimination, AIDS care, civil rights, mental health benefits, children's health insurance, education and volunteering.”

However, much as I respect the Senator, I'm glad he is gone, in terms of his political sway. During his lifetime he promoted flawed economic, domestic, and international policy, and he was a proponent of large government. But more importantly he stood as a staunch defender of skewed moral policy. In him the pro abortion movement could find a fierce ally, he stood for many things the Word of God decries as shameful and wicked. So while the Senate lost a man with a leader's character, but they also lost a man who was an influence for the worse.

Looking back over his life and his accomplishments, while I have to say I oppose many of his policies, at the same time, I wish we conservatives had someone like him. The ranks of the conservatives are filled with weak-kneed cowards who either won’t stand for anything in the first place or as soon as opposition hits will turn to jelly.

They are ready to compromise, and yet ironically can never agree on anything and seem to find much pleasure in arguing with each other while countries and cities self destruct.

Not Ted Kennedy. In endorsing Obama, he stood on a limb and stated, “Let us reject the counsels of doubt and calculation.” He wasn’t afraid to take action on his own, nor was he afraid to stand most adamantly for what he believed. When he saw a problem he proposed a solution and worked tirelessly to get it passed. Kennedy declared his own motivation when he said, “The commitment I seek is not to outworn views but to old values that will never wear out. Programs may sometimes become obsolete, but the ideal of fairness always endures. Circumstances may change, but the work of compassion must continue.” It’s a pity the solutions he proposed although well meaning were misguided. Regardless, it’s probably more of a pity that we don’t have more men like him, the key word there being “men”. Kennedy stood as one of the few “men” among our leaders in Washington, most of whom could be better labeled as either crooks or cowards.

Thus the reason I look back over the legacy of Ted Kennedy with mixed feelings—on the one hand I stand in stark opposition to him, but on the other hand I am forced to acknowledge and in some ways admire his courage and eloquence.

The passing of a legend

2009-08-27T18:06:00.002-05:00

The passing of Ted Kennedy leaves me with mixed feelings. On one hand I'm sad to see death, but on the other had, quite frankly, I'm glad his influence is gone. Let me explain.

First and foremost we must acknowledge both the genius and influence of Senator Ted Kennedy. Whether or not you like his political views, you have to admit he was a staunch, though perhaps misguided defender of all he believed. He was a fighter, and it is fitting that we remember his legacy as such. Also, no matter what you do, you will not be able to honestly shake the influence of Kennedy on the political views of our government and this nation.

However, much as I respect the Senator, I'm glad he is gone, in terms of his political sway. During his lifetime he promoted flawed economic, domestic, and international policy, but more importantly he stood as a staunch defender of skewed moral policy. In him the pro abortion movement could find a fierce ally, he stood for many things the Word of God decries as shameful and wicked. Did he expect to be blessed with a long healthy life?

Sure, the Senate lost a man with a leader's character, but they also lost a man who was an influence for the worse.

Dirty Secrets of Obamacare Series by...guess who

2009-08-25T21:31:00.002-05:00

Chuck Norris...back from the dead...read his Obamacare series...

Dirty Secret No. 1
Dirty Secret No. 2
Dirty Secret No. 3

Column of the Week

2009-08-19T07:49:00.001-05:00

The latest thing in environmental circles is a recent study done by Oregon University scientists Paul A. Murtaugh and Michael G. Schlax. Titled, “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals” it makes one of the first really solid links between population control and environmental impact. As its title suggests, this study seeks to trace and define a person’s environmental impact in terms of their direct physical descendants. Starting on the premise that the originators of new human beings, i.e., fathers and mothers, are responsible for the carbon footprint their offspring leave on the earth, Murtaugh and Schlax conclude that by regulating reproduction, humans can more easily and more directly control their impact on the environment. Their argument runs as follows.

We can save the environment, reduce our pollution rate, and live “greener” lives by building smaller, more energy efficient houses, installing solar panels, using alternative energy, buying electric cars or ones with better fuel mileage, recycling plastic, glass, and paper, etc. etc., the list could go on and on.

However, Murtaugh and Schlax respond that although doing all those things is good and necessary, the effect of having two or even one child by far offsets them. In other words, live the most “green” life possible, and sure, you will reduce your carbon emissions by a somewhat significant amount. However, the environmental effect of having just one child is far larger than what you could ever save. Thus, in order to save our planet you as reproductive partners, i.e. fathers and mothers, should consider planning your families to reduce your carbon legacy as much as possible. In short that means have less kids, maybe even none, that way we can keep the population low and save the earth. Quoting from Murtaugh and Schlax’s study, “Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle.”

All sounds well and good, right? Sure, except for one very vital flaw. At its heart, its very base, this study and any resulting theories are dead wrong. Murtaugh and Schlax began their report with a defective foundation. It is this—the idea that children can be measure solely in terms of their “carbon footprint”, their environmental impact—that children are nothing more than evolved monkeys which can be had or not had as the environment might need.

In a responding article, Dr. Albert Mohler counters, “Human beings cannot be reduced to a ‘carbon legacy’ and the gift of children must never be seen as an assault upon the earth.” Lecture director Alyssa Cordova also comments, “To conservatives, people are a blessing and a resource, but to liberals in the environmental movement they are nothing more than parasites on the Earth.”

While Cordova’s statement may be a little harsh and pretty general, the point she is getting at is valid and in this case holds true, not that Murtaugh and Schlax are liberals, but that they view children solely as a “thing” to be used or discarded in order to save the environment.

Cordova goes on to say, “To say that American women should be discouraged from having children because of a ‘larger carbon footprint’ is absurd.” I agree. Why? Because the Bible makes it abundantly clear that children, and many of them are a blessing. Thus to view them as mere carbon mongers is wrong. The Bible most certainly mandates environmental consciousness. However, we are stewards of our planets, not worshippers of it, and therefore do not necessarily regulate human reproduction based on what might or might not affect the planet.

Following Murtaugh and Schlax’s logic, the optimal thing would be to have no children. However, they would not directly say that because of course if no one has any children because they do not want to have a “carbon legacy” eventually the human race dies out—a much worse thing than global warming. What’s the use of saving the planet if no one’s around to live on it? Exactly the reason our reproductive choices should not and cannot be based on a consideration of mere environmental impact or “carbon legacy.”

Column of the Week

2009-08-12T08:39:00.001-05:00

In virtually any political discussion, especially at a time when our country is at a crossroads and in a sort of crisis, inevitably comes conflict; and in an attempt to convince voters of the superiority of their respective positions, political opponents will often throw around harsh and many times misguided characterizations of the other. And, sadly this is not limited to either political party.

We saw many examples of this last year during the Presidential campaign. Over and over again Senator McCain would throw out comments to insinuate negative things about Senator Obama, and vice versa; Biden and Palin had their own little “cat fight” as did the local sate reps and senators. At times third parties also took the opportunity to throw in their two cents worth.
Now currently debates are raging about economics and morality, more specifically healthcare, abortion, euthanasia, racism, and the like. And, like usual, each “side” is more inclined to make fun of the other side than offer a factual defense for their own position. For some reason that’s always much easier. Democrats will say that Republicans are just wealth seeking, rich, upstarts who care nothing for middle class poor workers. Republicans, on the other hand, fire back and misrepresent Democrats as stupid, ignorant, power mongers who really don’t care for the poor either. Whether or not either of those characterizations is true is totally off topic and has no bearing in a logical discussion/debate.

As another example, just recently a poster was found depicting Obama as the joker, with the word “socialism” printed underneath the portrait. What’s the point? Rather than offering a intelligent defense of free market capitalism and laying out the dangers and marks of socialism, whoever put the poster up offered an ad hominem argument against the President by simply representing him as a dangerous, unpredictable man who exalts in committing deeds of violence and wickedness.

Besides being absolutely inappropriate and uncalled for, rather than addressing the true issues, all it did was pull a veil over them. The reason why we should oppose the President was not because of faulty policies, but because supposedly lurking underneath the smiling exterior is this hidden joker-like character. In such a case, the “winner” of the argument now becomes not the one who stands solidly on facts and can offer a reasonable defense, but the one who can yell loudest and call the other person the worst names.

At a time like this, when our country stands at a crossroads, on the brink of success or destruction, faulty arguments and childish name calling must be put aside, and true issues taken up. At this rate, our country is going to fall to pieces around us while we stand and call names and argue back and forth about how stupid Obama is because he has such a big wart on his nose or why Ron Paul has no credibility because he is an ignorant backwoods farmer or some other ridiculous thing like that. It is crucial that we stand on something real not some silly accusation.

Liberals I challenge you to, instead of just representing the conservative position as stupid and destructive, stand and offer a logical defense of your position, at the same time demonstrating the fallacies of our ideas—how and why they are impractical and/or inferior to your own.

Conservatives I challenge you to, instead of simply calling liberals socialists and communists, stand and tell why you believe what you believe and how history has uncovered the problems and faults of liberal policies and shown over and over again the success of democratic republicanism.

If we must disagree, we must. However, in disagreement, there is absolutely no reason respect cannot be shown; rather than defaming reputation and character, we must oppose policies.

An "Analysis of Cash for Clunkers"

2009-08-04T17:03:00.001-05:00

Column of the Week - Let's Talk About Minimum Wage

2009-08-04T15:44:00.002-05:00

In this time of recession and economic hardship, the popularity of flawed economic policy is again on the rise. Nowhere is this incompetency and illiteracy more manifest than on Capitol Hill, and more specifically in our beloved Springfield. Many of the brilliant ideas our legislators come up with are decried by many economists, but it just so happens that they are popular with voters, so getting elected usually takes the place of common sense. Out of this “political dance” some very interesting concepts have emerged, and aside from universal health care, one of the worst notions lawmakers have contrived is raising the minimum wage.

Almost without fail, as soon as prices start to rise and the stock market begins to fall, some politician is there to say, “Why don’t we raise the minimum wage?” Apparently once again in this recession someone popped the question because this month the federal minimum wage went up as did the Illinois minimum wage rate. Most people are happy when this happens (usually the majority of voters); however, those who have actually thought through the implications of a minimum wage have discovered that the effects of implementing a minimum wage are not exactly what you might call positive.

The whole point of a minimum wage is to give entry level workers, young workers, or poor or inexperienced workers (low wage workers) a chance to actually earn some cash instead of working their tails off for a ridiculously small amount of money. It is a sort of restriction on businesses, preventing them from taking advantage of their workers. That of course is a plus, and if that’s all the deeper you look, minimum wages are extremely helpful and thoughtful.

However, when you view the effects from a business side, they don’t appear quite so appealing. The implementation of a minimum wage forces a business to pay its employees either what it deems they are not worth, or more than it can afford. Under these circumstances a business has several options.

Of course the business could always just continue on its merry way until the extra pay demanded by the minimum wage cuts further and further into profits and eventually drives it into bankruptcy. Naturally, this option is not very desirable, and as might be expected, this path is not usually taken by business owners; thus, in order to offset the effect of raised cost, other measures must be taken.

The first and less drastic thing a business can do is raise prices and increase income thus balancing out the increased cost. In many cases this is not really an choice as increasing prices sometimes means less product sold, so a second and more drastic option is to start firing/permanently laying off workers. In other words, decrease the workforce thereby decreasing the cost. As soon as your employees start costing you more than they benefit you, they are now worth nothing to you, and your only option is to begin handing out pink slips.

What does all that mean? In essence by enforcing a minimum wage, you compel a business to raise prices, fire workers, and/or take some similar measure to offset the added cost. So while a mandatory minimum wage obviously benefits the workers receiving the pay, on the other hand, it makes it difficult for a business to survive.

When a business owner is forced to pay employees more than he is willing, the job pool is dried up, especially for those young and inexperienced workers. Therefore a minimum wage, although claiming to benefit “low wage” workers by providing them with profitable jobs, in reality undermines the very jobs it is claiming to provide. The solution to the problem of low wages is not to force employers to raise their pay, but rather to make workers more valuable to their employers.

Obama's Ten Commandments

2009-07-31T09:01:00.003-05:00

The Ten Commandments According to Obama
By Patriot Update
© 2009 The Patriot Update. Read original here.

After observing Obama on the campaign trail and during his first six months in office, we have concluded that our President lives and governs according to his own set of “Ten Commandments.” They’re certainly NOT the Ten Commandments you learned in Sunday School. In fact, many are the direct opposite! To prove that our conclusions are correct, you will find a link to source documentation for each commandment on the Patriot Update web site.

I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE

III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE

IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE

V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE

VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE

VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE

IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian.SOURCE

X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE

The Effects of a Minimum Wage

2009-07-29T08:39:00.002-05:00

I have been saying for a long time that a minimum wage destroys an economy and instead of increasing employment actually does the opposite. It's nice to hear someone else concurr...here is a good article titled A Minimum Wage Equals Minimum Jobs-- take a couple minutes to read it.

Column of the Week

2009-07-28T21:23:00.001-05:00

For the last week and a half, President Obama has been under scrutiny and under fire as he strives to push through his new medical care reform package. He has made the all too true observation that nothing gets done in Washington without deadlines and therefore has set the goal of getting it passed by the time Congress leaves for their August break. As usual Congress is dragging its feet, and it does not look like the President will meet his goal; however, he must be commended for his zeal in moving past merely talking about a problem to actually doing something about it.

We all know very well that in the past few years medical care costs have grown by leaps and bounds yet somehow the quality of care never seemed to grow proportionally. At the same time insurance premiums have skyrocketed and out of pocket expenses increased. We can all pretty much unanimously agree this is a problem. What to do about it is a different story.

Mr. President has suggested a solution which is in effect a government takeover of the medical care industry, a step down the road of socialized medicine. Although Obama claims his bill will lower costs of medical care as well as federal spending on medical care programs, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of implementing this new bill could be around $1 trillion in just the first ten years. Top that with the fact that Congress has a track record of spending a good deal more on their programs than their “estimate”, especially on federal medical care programs like Medicare and Medicaid. At a time when our national deficit is somewhere around $10 trillion, can we really afford that kind of a price tag? The Congressional Budget Office director told the Senate this bill did not contain any significant changes which would achieve the desired result of reducing federal spending; rather he said these new provisions would increase it. However, in the face of all this, the President has made the case that regardless of its price tag, we cannot afford not to pass this bill.

Furthermore, there are indications that the President’s plan is unnecessarily broad; it includes provisions to subsidize a government issued so called insurance exchange for an estimated 46 million across the U.S. who do not possess any kind of health insurance. However, the Census Bureau has said that almost 40% of that 46 million had an income of over $50,000, indicating the reason they did not buy insurance was not they couldn’t afford it, but they for whatever reason did not want to spend their money on it.

The inefficiency of such a government run system is also something that many people don’t realize. In a free market there is some sort of incentive to treat your patients well and not overcharge the living daylights out of them. If you want to succeed, you run your business on good morals and quality treatment because if you don’t impress patients, they find another doctor and you’re out. On the contrary, in a government run system there are no such incentives. When you’re the only option, people have to come to you no matter what. You can charge whatever you want and treat patients as pitifully as you want, because they must come back to you anytime they need medical treatment—they have no choice.

So, it’s agreed, we have a problem on our hands, which at this point is crushing the government with billions of dollars of debt—it has to get fixed, and the President has seen this and taken initiative. However, a somewhat cursory examination of his proposed solution shows that rather than benefitting Americans, Obama’s plan would actually lay a higher tax burden on them and increase the inefficiency and wastefulness of an already deteriorating medical care system. Maybe it’s time to quit frantically plugging the holes in a sinking ship, and instead seek out a better system than the one we have currently.

btw...I am open to comments...all comments, even the insulting ones...just leave out any improper language you might feel like voicing...

Abortion and parental consent

2009-07-28T08:52:00.002-05:00

Something that has been floating out there on the media waves lately has been both the issue of abortion as well as the issue of parental consent. Should girls be required to let their parents know of a desire to get an abortion? Absolutely. However, I think the issue is much deeper than that. My question is, "Why would a girl want to get an abortion and not tell her parents?" I can tell you why--because in the past her parents never showed a love and genuine concern for her--they weren't there with her when she got in trouble and they weren't there to care about what she did--they weren't there to help her correct missteps--they weren't there to love her--so why should they care about her now? In light of that, it's no wonder a girl wouldn't think twice about getting an abortion without her parents knowledge or consent. She could care less about what they say and think now because they never showed that they cared in the past. So the solution to the problem is not necessarily for the government to regulate it--the parents must turn their hearts to their children.

Myths About Socialized Healthcare

2009-07-21T08:52:00.003-05:00

Even now as Obama pushes for healthcare reform by suggesting government run, socialized medicine, people need to be aware of what that really means. Does it mean less cost, more efficiency, and better quality as Mr. President would have us believe? Here are some myths about socialized medicine:

Myths About Socialized Medicine
Evan Sumortin

As the debate on healthcare reform heats up in Congress, many pundits from both sides are barraging the American people with seemingly contradictory statistics and evidence. One side claims that American healthcare is inferior to other government-run systems, while others are declaring our medical care the World's best. These widely disparate views make it difficult for the average American to distinguish truth from propaganda. In his recent book, Applied Economics (2009 edition), Thomas Sowell separates facts from fallacies. He convincingly dispels several myths surrounding socialized medicine that are perpetuated by its proponents:

Myth #1: A Government-run medical care system will bring down the cost.

According to Sowell, "A confusion between prices and costs has allowed politicians in various countries to be able to claim to be able to bring down the cost of health care, when in fact they only bring down the individual patient's out-of-pocket costs... The costs themselves are not reduced in the slightest when additional money to pay for these costs is collected in taxes or insurance premiums and routed through either government or private bureaucracies... add[ing] to the cost of medical treatment."

In reality, in order to appear to "bring down" actual costs the government must impose price controls. The consequences of price controls on medical care are both quantitative and qualitative. "Artificially lower prices, created by government order rather than supply and demand, encourage more use of goods or services, while discouraging the production of those same goods and services. Increased consumptions and reduced production mean a shortage...and that alone is enough to cause the total cost of medical care to rise, not fall."

For example, after the Canadian government-run medical care system was implemented in the 1970s the number of telephone consultations decreased, offices visits increased, and time per patient decreased. "In other words, medical conditions which neither the doctor nor the patient previously thought serious enough to require an office visit, before price controls, now took up more time by both the patient (in travel time) and the doctor (in the office), thereby reducing the time available to people who had more serious conditions...In general, where the doctor is paid per visit, then a series of treatments that might have taken five visits to doctor's office can now take ten shorter visits-or more. Therefore political leaders can proclaim that price controls have succeeded because cost per visit is now lower than it was in a free market, even though the total costs of treating an illness have not declined and-typically-have risen," asserts Sowell.

Myth#2: A government-run healthcare system will increase quality and expand accessibility.

"Quality declines because the incentives to maintaining quality are lessened by price control. Sellers in general maintain the quality of their products or services for fear of losing customers otherwise. But, when price controls create a situation where the amount demanded is greater than the amount supplied-a shortage-fear of losing customers is no longer a strong incentive," argues Sowell.

The qualitative consequences of a shortage include less time spent with the doctor, decreased investment in medicine, reduced cleanliness among hospitals, fewer future doctors, increased bureaucracy, and increased waiting time for treatments. These are the hidden costs of socialized medicine that often don't make it into statistics. The most significant hidden cost is the increased waiting times for treatment-"notably pain, debilitation, and death while waiting...People can die from conditions that were initially not very serious, but which grow progressively worse while they are on waiting lists to receive medical care."

Sowell cites a study done by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that found that 38 percent of patients having elective surgery in 2001 in Britain waited more than 4 months for that surgery. So did 27 percent of patients in Canada, 26 percent of patients in New Zealand, and 23 percent of patients in Australia. Comparatively, the United States had only 5 percent of patients wait that long. Elective surgery includes important procedures such as cataract surgery, hip replacement, and coronary artery bypass surgery.

Myth#3: There are 45.7 million people uninsured.

The most common statistic that is cited by proponents of a government-run system is the 45.7 million people that the U.S. Census Bureau found lack health insurance in 2007. The media tends to treat this number as one large chronically-uninsured group. It is important to note, however, that this number is a snapshot in time and does not tell us the number of people that are chronically-uninsured for the entire year. Many people are in between jobs and are only temporarily uninsured. Other people have incomes "sufficient to purchase health insurance [but] simply choose to use their money for other things, especially when they are young and feel less at risk of medical problems," argues Sowell. "60 percent [of uninsured Americans] are under the age of 35. Fewer that 10% of people over 55 are uninsured, despite the widespread political use of an image of old people who have to choose between food and medicine."

Additionally, the Census Bureau shows that 20% of the uninsured families have incomes greater than $75,000 per year, 21% of the uninsured are immigrants (including illegal immigrants who would mostly likely not be included in any government plan), and 26% are eligible for some form of public coverage but don't make use of it.

Myth #4: The high mortality rates in the United States, relative to other countries with government-run medical care, suggests that the quality of medical care in the United States is not as good.

The implicit assumption that mortality statistics reflect care is inherently misleading. According to Sowell, "Much has been made of mortality statistics which suggest that Americans' health system is not as good as in some countries with government-run medical systems, as if medical care determines the state of people's health. But medical care has little effect on homicide rate, on obesity or on deaths from drug overdoses that occur before any doctor sees the patient. Yet the identification of health care, as indicated by morality rates, with medical care has become so automatic that a study which showed higher infant mortality rates among black Americans than among white Americans was instantly taken as showing less prenatal care among pregnant black women as the reason. But American women of Filipino ancestry, Mexican ancestry, and of Central American and South American ancestries all had less prenatal care than white women-and lower infant mortality rates than white women. Indeed, Mexican Americans had less prenatal care than blacks and lower infant morality rates than either blacks or whites."

A much more relevant comparison, argues Sowell, would be mortality rates between different countries on health problems in which medical care substantially effects. "This would still not be a perfect comparison, since even here other differences between the populations in the countries being compared are factors as well," he asserts. When the American College of Physicians calculated the death rate for "mortality amenable to healthcare" the United States was in the top three countries with low death rates...out of 19 countries studied.

The reality of socialized medicine is much grimmer than proponents of it would have you believe. Admittedly, our current system is far from perfect, but more government control is a step in the wrong direction.

--Article taken from the Accuracy in Media website--you can read original here.

Weekly column

2009-07-20T17:58:00.001-05:00

Taking off from the article in my previous post, I decided to write my weekly column on this issue. Read below:

The other day I was reading a political opinion piece online, and a couple of the things the author said made me stop and think. But one thing especially caught my interest, and that was, he made the case that public schools are unconstitutional, something I have never thought of before.

Now, I have never supported public schools, and I never will. I have argued against them many times, in many ways, and for many reasons, but it never occurred to me that the very system itself might actually be inconsistent with the Constitution.

The first amendment phrase, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, also known as the establishment clause, is the basis of this argument. In short the reasoning runs thus: 1) the establishment clause prevents the government from controlling the religion of its subjects or restricting their right to freely practice what they believe; 2) public schools are “establishments of religion”, as, no matter what they teach, they will always be promoting some “religion” be it Christianity or atheism; 3) public schools are government run, thus the government is making laws respecting an establishment of religion and is in violation of the constitution. It’s an interesting argument, and regardless of the fact that there are minor debatable points, it’s something worth considering. Not that anyone anymore really cares what the Constitution says, but it’s just another piece of evidence on the side of those who oppose pouring millions of tax dollars into a broken system which we now see may not even be constitutional.

However, it may (or may not) surprise you to know that this is not my main reason for opposing public schools. Neither is my main reason the fact that public schools are full of perversion, immorality, swearing, drugs, violence, etc. Nor is it the statistically proven truth that although we pour millions upon millions of dollars every year into public schools across the country, we seem to get very little in return, and those results we do get are not exactly stunningly positive—speaking strictly academically, most public school grads can barely read or spell, and very few are above even a fifth grade level in math—I’m not intentionally insulting public school grads, just making the point that public schools do not bring out the academic potential in kids. On the moral side, for 5 or 6 hours every day our children are taught that they are only animals, and nothing in life really matters; they are told that homosexuality and unrestricted sex is and should be the norm. Is it any wonder teenage pregnancy rates have soared, STDs are rampant, and suicide rates are high?

Yet aside from all this, my big ticket question is, “Where are the parents?” The solution for the mess public schools are in is not pouring more money into them, nor is it necessarily bringing about school reform, although that would be nice. There has never been and never will be an adequate or effective substitute for parental involvement in the lives of their children.

Therefore my biggest objection to public schools is not necessarily that they are pagan and teach our children to be pagan (which they are and do); I do care about that very much, but the root problem that causes all the rest is they remove parents and specifically fathers from the lives of their children, and in doing so rip apart the very family that child needs most. On top of all that, the government—perhaps unconstitutionally—stands behind the schools and mandates attendance, thereby ensuring that kids are taken from their parents and satisfactorily indoctrinated.

So what should parents do? Worst case scenario, they should at least take time to develop close personal relationships with their children. Best case scenario, remove your kids from the public school and homeschool them. You’ve heard it before, but I am going to say it again, the statistics all say that children who have close relationships with their parents, particularly their fathers, are less likely to commit violent crimes, get divorced, commit suicide, have premarital sex, etc., you name it, the list goes on and on. So peel your face away from the TV, shut off the video games, turn down the music and just spend time together. I promise you it will be hard; it will be a challenge, but it will be the best thing you could ever do for yourself and your kids.

Are public schools unconstitutional?

2009-07-16T10:06:00.003-05:00

Found a pretty good article on the Champion News website--not sure I agree with all of it, nevertheless the author makes a lot of good points. It's about public schools--you can read it yourself by clicking here. Tell me what you think...

I'm Back

2009-07-10T20:15:00.001-05:00

Hey everyone (if anyone) who reads this blog. I've been down in Wake Forest, NC for the last five months doing volunteer work, but now I'm back, and back in business. Look for new posts soon.

AndrewG

What will happen?

2009-01-24T12:11:00.003-06:00

Well, the inauguration is over. I have to admit, although Obama was/is not my man, the whole proceeding was pretty spectacular and very smooth. Now that he's president, I guess every problem we ever had will be fixed--at least that's how he talked when he was campaigning. Let's see how well he can perform. Seriously, I wish him the best.

Wow! This is Great!

2009-01-08T10:51:00.004-06:00

I know this is comical, but it is so true. You gotta love it!!

A Must Listen To

2008-12-22T09:47:00.002-06:00

I was catching up on listening to my Wallbuilders Live podcast the other day and came across this--it's a short explanation of the bailout. Everyone should hear this

Freedom Requires a Conservative Economic Paradigm

The President is Betraying Us!!??

2008-12-19T09:03:00.002-06:00

Well, after Congress has denied a loan to the Big three and as polls show that over half the people in this country think we should just let the big3 go bankrupt, the President is putting together a big "loan" plan. I don't think he understands basic economics, or maybe he is too much of a socialist to believe in the value of free market economics. So much for being a Republican. Then again, most Republicans are starting to look like Democrats nowdays. Just great, all we need is for every company that makes bad decisions to come begging to the government for money. Sorry for the pessimism, but sometimes the truth must be told.

Why Republicans Support Limited Government

2008-12-17T07:56:00.006-06:00

Obviously as a conservative I support limited government and I know why--all the problems that come from government regulation, but I can't articulate it as well as this article by John Biver, editor of Champion News--

Why Republicans support limiting government

By John Biver

Why do conservatives support limiting government? Continuing with our excerpting of Congressman Jim Saxton's Joint Economic Committee research report (see part one here), what follows below is the meat of Saxton's argument.

I am not calling for boring economic speeches to be given every day by every Republican member of Congress. What I am calling for is that every Republican member of Congress reach out to serious communications professionals so what is explained below and in part one can be heard - and learned by - more Americans.

For years I have been saying that it's time for private sector marketing, public relations, media and advertising professionals to be brought in to help Republicans disseminate good information. Right now what we have is a vacuum. It's being filled by silly "hope and change" rhetoric.

What Saxton provided in this report is an example of the fact that at least some of our leaders know what to say - they just don't know how to say it succinctly or connect with a larger audience. It's time they learn.

Don't tell me it's not possible. This is the information age - and people are bombarded with a ton of news and data on a daily basis. What they don't get enough of is good information.

Oh, and by the way, the same applies regarding state policy and economics. Again, this is why Champion Newshas issued the call for new people to enter the political arena. Without an infusion of new blood, we don't expect to see much in the way of improved behavior from our Illinois GOP leaders.

Here is the Saxton argument. It's a tad long but a decent summary nonetheless. It's worth reading if only to experience an example of intelligent and informative writing from a Republican politician.

"Information problems. The knowledge necessary to allocate capital efficiently is widely diffused throughout the global economy and costly to obtain. It is impossible for any one person or organization to acquire and to update constantly all of the information necessary to allocate capital efficiently in a complex economy.

Prices reflect the collective judgment of global markets on all available information. Under the market allocation of capital, price signals from changes in interest rates and share prices allow households and firms to coordinate their investing and lending activities and rapidly adjust their behavior to reflect changing conditions or prospects.

Under the political allocation of capital, however, policymakers or government bureaucrats substitute their judgment for the collective judgment of global financial markets expressed through prices. Because of the high cost and extreme difficulty in obtaining and constantly updating information, this substitution necessarily ignores some of the information incorporated in market prices. With less than complete information, politically determined credit and investment decisions are less efficient than market determined credit and investment decisions.

Unresponsiveness. A constitutional republic such as the United States places many restraints both legal and practical upon policymakers and bureaucrats. These restraints necessarily slow the response of policymakers or bureaucrats to changing conditions or prospects.

It takes time for policymakers to perceive funding needs. Congress must enact enabling legislation to allow a political allocation of capital. Normally, federal agencies must then devise implementing regulations before decisions can be made. While laws and regulations can be amended, change is often slow. In contrast, market participants have no such time constraints.

Bias against entrepreneurship and innovation. Extending credit and making investments involves risk. Loans may not be repaid, and the value of equity investments may dwindle. To reward lenders for assuming risk, riskier loans bear higher interest rates. Likewise, riskier equity investments require higher expected rates of return.

Entrepreneurs experience a high rate of failure. While only a small number of new firms grow into large prosperous multinational corporations, the rewards for investors in these few are enormous. Under the market allocation of capital, venture capital firms can provide funds to promising new firms with innovative products or breakthrough technologies because the vast returns from investing in the next Microsoft or Starbucks can offset many failed investments.

Under the political allocation of capital, neither policymakers nor bureaucrats receive large returns from successful investments in new firms. Instead, policymakers and bureaucrats that extend credit to or make investments in new firms that ultimately prove unsuccessful may suffer from press derision and public ridicule. As a result, policymakers and bureaucrats may lose their positions.

The differences in the balance between risk and returns in private firms and in government bias the political allocation of capital against funding entrepreneurship in emerging industries producing new goods and services using innovative technologies, and toward funding existing firms in established industries producing known goods and services using conventional technologies. Thus, the political allocation of capital discourages entrepreneurship, slows product and process innovation, and retards the development of new technologies.

Bias for constituents. Under the separation of powers system with legislatures whose members are elected by separate constituencies, the public expects individual lawmakers to respond to special needs of their constituents, while the public expects the chief executive to defend general interests.

Under the political allocation of capital, the natural tendency of legislative policymakers to serve the special interests of their constituents may cause such policymakers to direct or at least to influence the flow of credit and investment to their constituencies.

Struggling firms that have trouble raising funds in capital markets often seek funding from government. Because of constituency bias, many policymakers may support extending credit or investing funds to struggling firms that employ the constituents of policymakers to avoid layoffs or facility closures.

Layoffs and facility closures are never popular, but such restructuring is often necessary for struggling firms to recover. To secure governmental funding, however, firms may make popular commitments that are often not in the long term interests of the firm or its shareholders. For example, firms may commit to maintain their current level of employment, to keep inefficient facilities open, or continue to produce unprofitable products.

Resource diversion. The political allocation of capital encourages firms to devote management time and firm resources to lobbying activities to secure funding from policymakers or bureaucrats.

At a minimum, this distracts entrepreneurs and firm managers from their business. Firms may redirect resources from product innovation and process improvement toward lobbying activities. As dependence on government funding increases, the diversion of attention and resources may become severe. Such diversions retard product innovations and process improvements. Over time, diminishing productivity gains slow real income growth and reduce real GDP below its potential.

Corruption and crony capitalism. Finally, the political allocation of capital may foster corruption. When policymakers and bureaucrats make credit and investment decisions, entrepreneurs and firm managers may be tempted to bribe policymakers and bureaucrats to secure funding for their firms or to prevent their rivals from securing funding. Both policymakers and bureaucrats may seek to exploit the considerable economic power that they are exercising when they allocate capital.
Thus, policymakers and bureaucrats may seek bribes from entrepreneurs and firm managers.

In a number of countries, the political allocation of capital has led to crony capitalism, in which politically connected firms receive favors from the central government in exchange for various types of bribes to policymakers and bureaucrats. Under crony capitalism, politically favored firms are largely immune from competition with less well connected firms. This discourages both domestic entrepreneurship and foreign direct investment. By diminishing the incentive to innovate, productivity gains lag, reducing real GDP growth over time.

Conclusion. While the severity of the financial crisis may justify some of the recent federal interventions, these interventions, if not reversed once the crisis has dissipated, may retard the efficient allocation of capital in the United States and thus diminish its long-term growth prospects.

Private firms and households make their credit and investment decisions based on economic criteria. While federal policymakers may incorporate economic criteria, federal policymakers must necessarily incorporate political criteria into their decision-making. This fundamental difference between decision-making in private financial institutions and markets and decision-making in government inevitably fosters certain biases in the political allocation of capital and creates the opportunity for corruption that reduces long-term economic growth."

Ron Paul on Gun Control

2008-12-12T14:15:00.001-06:00

I don't remember if I have ever posted anything on gun control, but it's one of my favorite subjects, so here is Ron Paul on gun control.

Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots
by Ron Paul

Tragically, over the Thanksgiving holiday, the world was reminded how evil and cruel people can be. According to emerging accounts of the events in India, about a dozen well-armed and devastatingly well-trained terrorists laid siege on the city of Mumbai, killing almost two hundred people, and terrorizing thousands.

Regardless of the reasons, the indiscriminate shooting on masses of unarmed and defenseless people is chilling and reprehensible. How were these terrorists able to continue so long, relatively unchallenged, killing so many?

India’s gun laws are her business, of course. However, once the shock of these events and the initial reaction of fear passes, Americans should take away a valuable lesson about real homeland security and gun control from this tragedy.

Gun control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. If that were the case why do the worst shootings happen in gun free zones, like schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, or military bases. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society.

The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.

History shows us that another tragedy of gun laws is genocide. Hitler, for example, knew well that in order to enact his “final solution,” disarmament was a necessary precursor. While it is not always the case that an unarmed populace WILL be killed by their government, if a government is going to kill its own people, it MUST disarm them first so they cannot fight back. Disarmament must happen at a time when overall trust in government is high, and under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children. Knowing that any government, no matter how idealistically started, can become despotic, the Founding Fathers enabled the future freedom of Americans by enacting the second amendment.

In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any attempts to disarm the people, especially in this economic downturn. I expect violent crime to rise sharply in the coming days, and as states and municipalities are even more financially strained, the police will be even less able or willing to respond to crime. In many areas, local police could become more and more absorbed with revenue generating activities, like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities of non-violent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people should be highly suspect.

Lighten up

2008-12-08T11:45:00.003-06:00

Most of my posts are serious and deal with serious subjects, but as I was browsing through my old documents, I found something I had saved, so I share it with you. Hope you get some laughs out of it.

Only in America

1. Only in America......can a pizza get to your house faster than an ambulance.

2. Only in America......are there handicap parking places in front of a skating rink.

3. Only in America......do drugstores make the sick walk all the way to the back of the store to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy cigarettes at the front.

4. Only in America......do people order double cheese burgers, large fries, and a diet coke.

5. Only in America......do banks leave both doors open and then chain the pens to the counters.

6. Only in America......do we leave cars worth thousands of dollars in the driveway and put our
useless junk in the garage.

7. Only in America......do we use answering machines to screen calls and then have call waiting so we won't miss a call from someone we didn't want to talk to in the first place.

8. Only in America......do we buy hot dogs in packages of ten and buns in packages of eight.

9. Only in America.....do we use the word 'politics' to describe the process so well: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'.

10. Only in America......do they have drive-up ATM machines with Braille lettering.

11. Only in America......can a homeless combat veteran live in a cardboard box and a draft dodger live in the White House. (This was popular when Clinton was in office)

No offense, but this is good:

Difference Between Republicans and Democrats

A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and gave the homeless person fifty dollars.
Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats

And finally...
How Much Is A Billion?

The next time you hear a politician use the word "billion" casually think about whether you do, or don't, want that politician spending your tax money!!

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but an advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure in perspective in one of its releases:

A billion seconds ago, it was 1959.

A billion minutes ago, Jesus was alive.

A billion hours ago, our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

And....
A billion dollars ago, was only 8 hours and 20 minutes at the rate Washington spends

Public Schools

2008-12-08T08:22:00.003-06:00

Found this on champion news and thought it very interesting. I happen to be homeshcooled and I was fascinated by John Biver's article:

It's dumb to delegate the education of children to the public schools

By John Biver

Parents who have chosen to pull their kids out of the mess that is the public schools already understand that the education of their children is no one else's responsibility but their own.

For the rest of the parents who for whatever reason continue to avail themselves of publicly funded K-12 childcare, we hope the majority of them realize the limitations of the public school system.

Two opinion columns highlighted nicely some of what goes on and doesn't go on inside the schools. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby quoted from an endorsed statement from the
Democratic Party Convention in 1892:
"FREEDOM of education, being an essential of civil and religious liberty . . . must not be interfered with under any pretext whatever," the party's national platform declared. "We are opposed to state interference with parental rights and rights of conscience in the education of children as an infringement of the fundamental . . . doctrine that the largest individual liberty consistent with the rights of others insures the highest type of American citizenship and the best government."

Jacoby writes:
"That ringing endorsement of parental supremacy in education was adopted by the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1892, which just goes to show what was possible before the Democratic Party was taken hostage by the teachers unions."

Both parties, according to Jacoby, have -
- "been transformed from a champion of ‘parental rights and rights of conscience in the education of children' to a party whose leaders believe that parents ‘don't get to impose' their views and values on what their kids are taught in school. Do American parents see anything wrong with that?

Apparently not: The majority of them dutifully enroll their children in government-operated schools, where the only views and values permitted are the ones prescribed by the state."

Jacoby lists the many things Americans disagree upon: same-sex marriage, evolution, the importance of sports, the value of phonics, and the right to bear arms; some parents are secularists, others are religious. Jacoby writes:
"With parents so often in loud disagreement, why should children be locked into a one-size-fits-all, government-knows-best model of education?

Nobody would want the government to run 90 percent of the nation's entertainment industry.

Nobody thinks that 90 percent of all housing should be owned by the state. Yet the government's control of 90 percent of the nation's schools leaves most Americans strangely unconcerned."

He closes his column with this:
"What 19th-century Democrats understood, 21st-century Americans need to relearn: Education is too important to be left to the government."

The other column relevant to this topic is one by Cal Thomas, in which he notes:
"For the third straight year, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute [ISI] has found that a large number of Americans cannot pass a basic 33-question civic literacy test on their country's history and institutions. The multiple-choice questions ask about the inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), the name of Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1933 series of government programs (The New Deal) and the three branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial). No, I didn't peek at the answers. I received a good education."

For those parents ever-ready to explain how their local schools aren't the problem, Thomas notes that civic illiteracy in the United States "crosses all educational lines, including Harvard, where seniors scored 69.56 on the test, or a D-plus."

In keeping with Champion News' emphasis on finding high quality political leaders, we're not surprised to read this paragraph:
"Other findings: ‘Elected officials score lower than the general public,' which tells us all we need to know about Washington. ‘Television - including TV news - Dumbs America Down,' says ISI."

In his column, Cal Thomas included a quote from Thomas Jefferson that ISI had in its report:
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be."

I'll use Thomas' close for my own:
"Read the report at isi.org and weep. And then demand of yourself and others that something be done to fix the intellectual deficit."

Read Jeff Jacoby's column here.

Read Cal Thomas' column here.

John Biver is the Editor of Champion News.

Why Labor Unions Ruin an Economy

2008-12-01T11:49:00.001-06:00

Before I get into details, let me just point out an example—the trouble the Big3 Auto Makers are in. They are paying their workers an average of $30 more per hour than foreign competitors like Honda and Toyota. Guess what, the Big3 are going down the tube, but you don’t see Honda execs before Congress begging for a bailout, do you? Why? Because they aren’t plagued by unending union and government regulation.

On the outset, labor unions appear to be beneficial. After all, they guarantee better wages and more benefits for union workers. What pro-unioners fail to see or consider is the effect, maybe unintended, on others. Let’s consider several scenarios.

Union X is formed. All available workers for Company Y to hire are now in union x. Union x is now in a position to force acceptable terms on company y because union x consists of all the workers company y can hire. Naturally union x will negotiate for higher wages, more benefits, etc. Several things could happen.

1) Company y, having no choice, and wanting to stay in business, chooses to accept the terms. Since the costs of wages are now significantly higher, the price company y must charge for its products infallibly goes up. After all, if it costs more to make a product, in order to make a profit, a company must charge more for the product. The net result is that the wages for a few people (union x workers) went up, but the price for the product went up for everyone. Since not everyone is making more money, they don’t buy as much of company y’s product. Company y can’t make a profit at the outrageous wages they have to pay and go out of business. This is what is happening to the Big3—unions have forced them to pay ridiculous wages—therefore they must charge more for their cars, but people aren’t stupid. They can get the same quality car from Toyota and other foreign competitors for less. Thus the Big3 are losing business and are going down the drain. The net result is unemployment is increased since now union x, because of their greed don’t have jobs. If you didn’t figure it out, in this scenario, social good was not increased by the union. Actually, it was decreased.

2) Company y refuses the terms, union x imposes a strike, company y goes out of business. Again, unemployment is increased and social good is decreased.

3) Company y considers it options. It has the resources to stay in the U.S. and be forced to pay high wages, or they can move overseas and produce the same product for much less because of cheaper labor. Company y moves overseas and union x workers lose their jobs. This is also happening today. Greedy American workers demand high wages and lots of benefits, but companies have the option to move to other countries where they can get much cheaper labor. Naturally they take this route. That’s why everything is made in China nowdays.

In the end, then, labor unions are really destructive. The net result is always higher prices and/or a loss of jobs. The only people who like unions are those who work in one and benefit from the high wages. It’s no secret. Economists and politicians know they are harmful, but they are afraid to work against them because of the power of the unions. Politicians just go right along because they want to be elected for a next term and they need the union money and power to do it. In conclusion, step number one to fixing our economy and curbing political corruption is destroying labor unions.

We Not Rich… Yet

2008-11-21T16:04:00.002-06:00

Here's something funny you have to check out--it's a link to a page with a sound clip on it. Supposedly the clip is real, no joking--some lady calling the bank about repossessing their car. Her one line is very scary, "we not rich like you...but we will be..because we got Barack Obama. Here it is, We Not Rich… Yet from Freedom Factory. Enjoy

The Civic Literary Deficit

2008-11-20T11:01:00.002-06:00

This kind of relates to my earlier post on voter ignorance--I think this is a root of that problem. Public schools provide such a high level of "education" that half the people that graduate high school can't even read. Civic literacy is a basic knowledge of American history. I know it sounds silly but various polls and studies show that in the last hundred years or so general civic literacy has dropped dramatically, ironically when mandatory government schooling has implemented new "progressive" education techniques. Many people can't even name America's first president, or cite a line from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Here's an article by Cal Thomas on this very interesting and disturbing topic. The last quote from Thomas Jefferson says it all, and we are today seeing the results of an ignorant populace.

The Other Deficit

While Congress spends -- and plans to spend -- like the proverbial drunken sailor to "bailout" various industries for practices that are largely their fault and the fault of those in Congress who were supposed to provide oversight, another deficit looms which is at least as troubling as the economic one.

For the third straight year, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) has found that a large number of Americans cannot pass a basic 33-question civic literacy test on their country's history and institutions. The multiple-choice questions ask about the inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), the name of Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1933 series of government programs (The New Deal) and the three branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial). No, I didn't peek at the answers. I received a good education.

The random sample of 2,508 American adults, ranging from those without high school diplomas, to people with advanced degrees, revealed a minimal difference in civic literacy between the uneducated and the highly educated. Fifty-six percent of those surveyed could identify Paula Abdul as one of the judges on "American Idol," but only 21 percent were able to recognize a phrase from Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. I had to memorize that speech in high school. What are they memorizing now?

Not much of any use, it appears. Ignorance of America's history and heritage is a setup for politicians and others who want to manipulate us into a way of thinking that allows them to make decisions that are unconstitutional and unwise. More than repeating phrases and figures, knowledge of the past prepares us for a future based on unchanging principles. That's why knowledge matters and ignorance endangers our government and threatens our way of life even more than terrorism.

Civic illiteracy in the United States crosses all educational lines, including the vaunted Harvard where, according to the ISI survey, seniors scored 69.56 on the test, or a D-plus. And they were the best. The survey found that up to three-fourths of Americans believe teaching America's heritage is fundamental to a good education and to producing good citizens. So why is it not being done?

Part of it, I think, has to do with the continued embarrassment by the liberal education establishment over America and what it means to be an American. From their guilt about prosperity and our freedoms, to their opposition to "dead white males," college professors, especially since the '60s, have favored the trendy and quaint over the established and proven.
Remarkably, a college degree does not increase civic knowledge. According to the report, "The average score among those who ended their formal education with a bachelor's degree is 57 percent, or an 'F'. That is only 13 percentage points higher than the average score among those who ended their formal education with a high school diploma. Only 24 percent know that the First Amendment prohibits establishing an official religion for the United States." That's pretty basic information, isn't it? One might expect the Bill of Rights to be part of any class on government, even as early as elementary school.

Other findings: "Elected officials score lower than the general public," which tells us all we need to know about Washington. "Television -- including TV news -- Dumbs America Down," says ISI. In the midst of important hearings in Washington on the economy and a possible bailout for the big three automakers, one cable channel carried a story about a 44-year-old stripper who is suing for age discrimination.

ISI calls on everyone involved in education, including parents, to re-evaluate curricula and standards of accountability and to emphasize to students the fundamentals about our country. It notes Thomas Jefferson's admonition: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be."

Why Regulation Makes Things Worse

2008-11-11T09:19:00.006-06:00

You always hear that the reason our economy is a mess is unregulated free market capitalism--what we really need is more government regulation and President-elect Obama has promised it. Here is a great post by Ron Paul detailing why government regulations just makes matters worse plus a couple books I recommend on the subject

Capitalism and Freedom
Free to Choose: A Personal Statement both by Milton Friedman

The Moral Hazard of Regulation by Ron Paul

Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear “experts” wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation. In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.

It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient. It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating. They are making their best guesses when formulating rules. It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow. Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void. For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.

The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates. Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats. They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe. How many scams have “It’s perfectly legal” as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible?

Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested. It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement. Many feel that just because their children are getting good
grades at a government school, they are getting a good education. After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test. But, this does not guarantee educational excellence. Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life.

Is your drinking water safe, just because the government says it is? Is the internet going to magically become safer for your children if the government approves regulations on it? I would caution any parent against believing this would be the case. Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence.

These principles explain why the free market works so much better than a centrally planned economy. With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes “what can I get away with,” and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes. The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged.

Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it.

Election Thoughts

2008-11-05T08:16:00.000-06:00

Well…it’s finally over. To be honest, not caring who won, I was ready for this election to be over. All the politics and promises and attacks just make you sick after awhile. To President-elect Obama, I say, congratulations. It was a historic achievement. To everyone else I say, you finally got it. You have a huge majority in the Senate and you have the most left-wing president ever. Now when our economy continues to plunge and Obama’s socialist policies make a wreck out of this country, you will have no one else to blame but yourselves. When you see the crumby government of Illinois on a national scale, I will not say I told you so, only, you got what you asked for.

Frankly in a way I’m relieved that McCain lost. He is just about as liberal as Obama and his election would only have driven conservatives farther into their comfort zone. A President Obama hopefully will wake some people up to the fact that government involvement is important. Maybe it will disillusion people, show them that liberal ideas of socialism and globalism just plain don’t work. Maybe they will get up and fight. On the whole, I’m concerned and cautious; realistic, but very optimistic.

Vote for Obama?

2008-10-24T08:34:00.003-05:00

Found this in our local paper--read through it and I will comment at the end.

OK, Freeport and Stephenson County citizens, I’ve been quiet long enough, and I can’t hold it in anymore. As we all know, election day is coming, and we as citizens of our county and state must make a tough decision — who we will choose as the next president of the United States. All of us who live in this great city of Freeport should be registered to vote, and if not, I beg of you, go get registered right now, before Oct. 21, 2008, and then vote Nov. 4, 2008. In my opinion, there should be no hard decisions: Senator Barack Obama should be, and hopefully will be, our next president.

These past eight years, this great country of ours has gone in the wrong direction under the Bush administration. We have a trillion dollar deficit, the economy is stinking, unemployment is high, and most importantly, over 4,000 troops have lost their lives. So, why would anyone support John McCain and his same ol’ George W. Bush policies. It’s time for change. It’s time for the war to end; it’s time to save the economy, to raise taxes if you make $250,000 a year, for universal healthcare, to lower unemployment, and so much more. These are the policies of Senator Barack Obama. It makes sense. With Senator John McCain, you get more of the same, so vote for Senator Barack Obama, I beg the citizens of Freeport, for the sake of the country.

Also, in the Journal-Standard Friday, Oct. 10, 2008 there was an article written by Kathryn Lopez entitled, “Senator Biden Can’t Abide by the Truth.” Ms. Lopez, you must have Senator Biden and the Bush administration confused. They haven’t told the truth in eight years, but that’s OK, right?
Scott J. Stodden

Just as a note, I cut out some of the local stuff. Here's my answer to Mr. Stodden:

Before I start in on your ignorant assumptions, you said "it's time to raise taxes if you make over $250,000 a year". Well, I can say one thing about you. You don't make $250,000 a year. If you did, you might think a little differently. If it was your hard earned money they were stealing, I bet you wouldn't be supporting it. But because it's someone else's hard earned money that they are being forced to give to you and your fellow communists, it's ok, right?

Here we go--You make at least two stupid assumptions: (1), you assume that just because Obama and the news media say it, its true, that is, he says hes a reform candidate and the news media portrays him as that because they are in cohots with him. Ever occur to you they might be lying? Look at his eight years in the Illinois senate. You will not find a change senator--you will find someone who went right along with the dirty machine of Chicago politics, who went with the flow, said what needed to be said to get elected, who never stuck his neck out on anything except to say he favored killing live babies. Ever notice he never talks about his years in Springfield? Did it ever occur to you that he might be trying to hide something? Like he is not a change candidate no matter how he portrays himself. Do you further know his mentor was a communist? And you want him for President? That fact that people are voting for Senator Obama just shows how ignorant and deceived a lot of the people in this country are.

Your second stupid assumption is that just because Senator McCain is a Republican, he is just like President Bush. I'm not saying I support McCain, just that you cant judge him because hes from the same party as the President whose approval rating happens to be low right now. So yeah, if you want to live in a model of the Soviet Union, elect Senator Obama--don't say you weren't warned.

All I have to say about how well national healthcare works is, ask the Canadians. What you don't realize is Obama's economic policies will not save this country--they will kill it. Government intervention destroys the free market--we learned that lesson once with FDR's New Deal, lets not repeat it. The biggest minds in economics have condemned Obama's policies--oh, did the news media never tell you that? Well, it's true so maybe you ought to do something other than fill your mind with that worthless, disgusting, ignorant political rhetoric Obama spews out.

Is it surprising that the polls favor Obama?

2008-10-22T08:22:00.002-05:00

Considering that the people who take polls, at least the major polls, are for the most part liberal Obama supporters, to me it is not particularly surprising that the polls favor Obama. I mean, what do you expect? Ever heard the saying, “figures don’t lie, but liars figure”? I’m not saying pollsters are lying and Obama is not ahead, just don’t get downhearted or lose hope because Obama is ahead in liberal polls. Here’s a great article to read─Eighty Four Percent Say They'd Never Lie to a Pollster by Ann Coulter. It details the history of presidential polls--Coulter notes that surprise of surprises, the polls have rarely favored conservatives. Take some time to read it--it has some interesting stuff on why Obama may be so far ahead in the polls. Something called the Bradley Effect.

Are Wind Turbines a Good Idea?

2008-10-21T09:06:00.002-05:00

Alternative energy has been a huge topic the last year considering the $4 gas prices. Within the last few months, if you watch TV you have probably seen the commercial with T. Boon Pickens giving a little spiel for alternative energy, especially wind turbines--and since Pickens is a big oil man, naturally everyone pricks up their ears when he says he supports alternative energy. With that in mind, as I was browsing through some of the web pages I visit regularly, I came across this article. Now, I'm not taking sides because I haven't really studied this enough to argue about it competently. But I encourage you to read this article, see what you think.

Pickin' on Boone Pickens Boondoggle - Why Wind Power Won't Work
by Bill Zettler

Voter Ignorance

2008-10-20T08:41:00.003-05:00

"If you ever had a doubt about the ignorance of many voters, just listen to the link below. I am not a Howard Stern fan, but this is priceless! This is what happens when you reduce politics to personality (funny how the tallest, most attractive, most articulate candidate almost always wins in the post TV era) and identity politics (“I’m with him because he’s black” vs. “I’m with her because she’s a woman,” or a Christian, etc.). Couple that with a population mis-educated in government indoctrination centers (A.K.A. public schools) and voila! You won’t know whether to laugh or cry." Voddie Baucham

Me speaking--I knew voter ignorance was a huge problem but this even surprised me. It sounds so silly, but its real! I can think of many words to describe it--just plain sad, ridiculous, embarrassing, disturbing, you get the idea. The second guy that was interviewed--he disagreed with McCain's policies, or so he said, but when asked about opposing stem cell research, I don't think the guy even knew what it was and didn't even realize that he supported McCain's policy. Think of it--our next president whoever he is, will be elected not because he takes certain stands on certain issues, but because he looks better, or speaks better, or has more money, or can identify better with voters, or is from a certain party. I can only think of one word to describe that thought--just plain frightening! That means the majority of citizens would vote for an Islamic terrorist candidate if he was good looking--plus he could get all the conservatives on his side by picking a conservative VP!!?? Oh, in case you didn't know, VP stands for Vice President.

Joe the Plumber

2008-10-17T08:35:00.001-05:00

Well, if you haven’t heard, Joe the Plumber stole the last Presidential Debate, has been stealing a lot of TV air time and is the center of many of the exchanges between Senators Obama and McCain. He even got his own Wikipedia page! Why? Well he dared to stand up to Obama and got what anyone would get if they did the same─a lot of nonsense. Now, reportedly, Joe the Plumber’s company does not make $250,000, but his point was well made. When he asked Obama why he wanted to punish people who worked hard to make a little more money, Obama replied, “It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. And I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.” That is straight up socialism and I have a response for Obama. His ideas must include the view that men are naturally hard working and all that stands between poor people and “success” is a bunch or rich people. Whatever! Sorry to tell you Senator Obama that most of people you want to help don’t need any monetary help─all the help they need is to be taken off government support not to mention a good solid kick in the backside. Now I’m not saying some people aren’t genuinely poor, but most so called poor people are just a bunch of lazy slugs who don’t want to work but still get paid, and your tax plan just encourages that. You are punishing the people who have worked to make money by taxing them more and spreading the wealth that way the “poor” people can live more comfortably on government handouts while they sit in front of their TV all day. Did you ever think that economic inequality is not a bad thing? The principle goes, or used to go, if you worked to get it, it’s yours and it’s between you and God what you do with it─you’re not compelled by the government to give it to a bunch of lazy thieves. That was Joe the Plumber’s point and he made it very well. Kudos to you Joe! You understand more about men and government and money than a man who is running for President─what is even more unbelievable is people support him!

Review of Past Debates

2008-10-10T09:51:00.003-05:00

Before I get to the debates, I have to note the effects of the bailout plan--AIG executives take a $400,000 dollar vacation. Guess whose money got used--maybe the millions we taxpayers paid to bail them out. Frankly, its disgusting.

Anyway to the debates, both presidential ones and the VP one. All have gone well. I don't think any of them were of will be game changers. All candidates performed well as usual so I don't think the debates will really affect anything. Obama and McCain sparred back and forth as usual making the same old promises and telling why they are the better candidate. So, go ahead and watch them--you will see an hour and a half of political rhetoric, nothing spectacular. Besides, with the market falling, who wants to watch candidates talk about what they will do--everyone wants to see what they have done and are doing.

The Bailout Passed??!!

2008-10-06T10:00:00.002-05:00

Should we be happy or sad? I'm not sure. I guess if you're the rich banker going bankrupt and now getting millions from the government you should be happy. On the other hand if you're the taxpayer who has to pay the money and had nothing to do with bad choices made by Wallstreet investors I'm not sure happyness is quite the word to describe your feelings. In any case it's done now and we the taxpayers and our children for generations to come are now saddled with even more debt. But lets be optimistic, at least the guys on Wallstreet who live in multi-million dollar houses and drive cars that cost more than your house, at least they're out of the financial "hot water". Great, great. So, anyway going back to the root problem, who or what is responsible for this "crisis"? I found a great video that lays it all out. It's very fast paced and you might have to pause it once or twice, but it's worth watching. Before that, however, let me say that I believe this "crisis" was a largely exaggerated one. It is more of a trust crisis than a real money crisis. But anyway...enjoy

School -- 1957 vs. 2008

2008-10-01T08:31:00.002-05:00

Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack. 1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack. 2008 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school. 1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.2008 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.1957 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again. 2008 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt. 1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.2008 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.

Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school. 1957- Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.2008 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario: Pedro fails high school English. 1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.2008 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.

Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed. 1957 - Ants die. 2008- BATF, Home land Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing. 2008 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

Granted this is a kind of hyperbole, but if you really think about it, it really is true and because of that it is sad.

The Government Bailout Plan

2008-09-26T08:34:00.001-05:00

Well, Wallstreet is in a financial crisis and guess who gets to help them out. You, the taxpayer. Major companies that made stupid economic moves are going bankrupt, and people who took out huge loans to buy their dream house are loosing their houses and you get to pay the $700 billion dollar bill to help them out. As I write, the President and virtually all major government leaders are pushing to get this plan that will bail out big banks and mortgage companies that are going down the drain passed. This comes right after AIG was bailed out at $85 billion. It’s racking up pretty fast as if our present debt wasn’t enough already. Or how about the Federal Reserve just prints more bills that way your money is worth even less. As Brannon Howse says, “Hello, socialism.” Jim Bunning of Kentucky (check this article Jim Bunning blasts financial socialism) has repeatedly stood up against these government bailouts and this is no different but very few are standing with him because any who oppose this plan will get labeled as stupid and uncompassionate not to mention all the blame that would fall on them when the difficult economic times come.

The billion dollar question is will this plan work? I guess that’s a valid question, but a better one is what happens if this plan doesn’t pass? What happens if the government doesn’t bail out every company that’s going bankrupt? Well, I guess they fail, and sure there will be hard times, probably something like another great depression, but if the government would stay out, we would bounce right back. A capitalist system “fixes its own problems” if you give it time. A great book to read about this is FDR’s Folly: How FDR and his New Deal prolonged the Great Depression by Jim Powell. He addresses some of the very thins we are going through now and shows how government intervention just made things worse. If the free market had been allowed to straighten out its own problems, we wouldn’t call the Great Depression the Great Depression because it wouldn’t have lasted very long. As it look like we are heading into another great depression we need to realize that hard facts say if the government keeps its nose out, there is no depression, just a financial crisis that will pass─sure some companies will go bankrupt, but when you take risks like they did, you are asking for trouble.

National Health Care?

2008-09-24T08:07:00.002-05:00

This is a huge issue and I can't cover it all here, but you can check out Balanced Politics for more details.

The basic argument for it runs thus:

The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million.

Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals.

We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc.

We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors.

Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc.

Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs.

The basic argument against it runs thus:

There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?

"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.

Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.

Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.

Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.

Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.

Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.

Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.

A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.

Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.

Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.

Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.

Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

My take on all of it is this:
Sure it would be great to have free health care, but national health care will not be free. The money has to come from somewhere. Our debt is now well over 10 trillion dollars, do you really want to ad to it, or should the federal reserve just print up a few more bucks that way your money becomes worthless? If you have any questions about national health care, just ask the Canadians. They will tell you to be prepared to stand in line with your broken arm, internal bleeding or stroke. It's no exaggeration--national health care brings out the greed in doctors. Far from allowing them to focus on the patients needs, it allows them to treat all patients just the same--like animals.

Obama's Chicago Report Card

2008-09-19T08:53:00.002-05:00

Obama's Chicago- report card

Body count. In the last six months 292 murdered (mostly Americans) in
Chicago, 221 killed (largely not Americans) in Iraq.

Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Gov. Rod
Blagojevich, House leader Mike Madigan, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, Mayor
Richard Daley.....our leadership in Illinois.....all Democrats.

Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago. Of course they're all blaming each
other. Can't blame Republicans, they're aren't any!

State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country.

Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.25% highest in country.

Chicago school system one of the worst in country. (Look'em up if you want). Funny that Obama is so big on quality education when as a Senator in Springfield he did nothing for a quality education in the schools of his district.

This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois.

He's gonna 'fix' Washington politics?

Remembering 9-11

2008-09-11T13:45:00.006-05:00

Yesterday I wanted to address an issue that’s starting to rear its head in some of the ultra-conservative circles, but I was waiting to gather more info, so I’ll address that tomorrow--make that next Friday. For today, I just want to take a moment to remember September 11, seven years ago when the tragic plane crashes occurred. I know I can remember exactly what I was doing and how stunned I was when I heard the news, and I’m sure you can relate. Even today as I think about it, I’m moved to tears. So just remember the families who lost loved ones, remember the heroic firefighters and policemen, and remember those who have paid the ultimate price to give you the freedom you have.

As I watched the news seven years ago, I was no less outraged and angry than anyone else, but I must say while so many people were in despair, for me as a Christian, though as an American I was horrified, I could rest completely in the knowledge that God is in control. In light of that, I offer this last video by Steven Camp

The Media Plan to Destroy Sarah Palin

2008-09-08T13:10:00.002-05:00

I literally just found this-- The Media Plan to Destroy Sarah Palin--it's a must read, especially the comments at the end. When I read this particular comment, I almost broke out laughing--especially the last part. It's such an accurate assessment of the facts.

"I suggest she [Palin] stay away from the left wing media not because I think she can not stand up to them, after all this is a woman who kills bears and moose for sport and meat. BUT when you have a left that is just looking to create a controversy and beat on her - why waste her time and everybody else’s time. What’s the point? Why hurt her chances to be VP because the leftists are looking for a way to make her stumble. Since the MSM [Main Stream Media] can not play like adults, and instead are whining little kids, ignore them, or better yet, give them a time out and have them stand in the corner. Frankly a parent's firm hand on their butts would be better but that is called child abuse now so the new PC term is a time out." Jack H. Hansen

Jack, you hit it on the head. I don't know how many times I've said this, but I'll say it again, if you want accurate info, especially about politics, don't get it from the American Media--all you can expect from them is liberal garbage. The fact that the media has jumped all over Palin is a big sign to me that they're afraid of her.

Republican National Convention

2008-09-08T13:04:00.000-05:00

Well, the Republican National Convention went off without a hitch from the beginning to Senator McCain’s acceptance speech. Governor Palin’s speech was exhilarating and fascinating. Even if you don’t agree with her, you must a agree that her speech was very well done. Senator McCain’s acceptance speech was typical—nothing dramatic, that’s not McCain’s style, but plenty of meat.

Now that all the hype and celebration involved with party conventions is over, the battle really begins. Will Senator Obama with his high political rhetoric but very little experience combined with Biden’s years of experience (although not executive experience) be able to carry the elections and make history, or will Senator McCain, the self proclaimed maverick and his feisty VP, Palin, with many years of executive experience be able to take the presidency for the Republicans once again as they too make history?
What do you think? I know which pair I want in Washington.

McMcain's VP

2008-09-01T15:27:00.003-05:00

Well, finally, Mr. McCain has revealed his pick for VP, Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin. From a political position, she was a wonderful pick. Not only will she draw in the more conservative Repubs who were hesitant about the more liberal McCain, but she is also an experienced politician and family woman. She is very conservative and is known for getting the job done when fighting political corruption. Count on it, McCain will make the most of her. However, I'm not so sure picking a conservative VP makes on conservative and it kind of surprises me that conservatives are now so willing to back McCain.

Since I'm on the subject of VPs, lets talk about Obama's pick, Senator Joe Biden. I do understand he brings a great deal of experience to the ticket, but his very strong support of abortion coupled with Obama's undisguised pro-life position are driving away any Evangelicals who might otherwise have been drawn to an Obama presidency. All major polls are showing a decrease in Obama support since his pick of Biden for VP while a guaranteed increase in McCain support will follow his pick of Palin for VP. Fortunately, the hopes of a uptopian Obama presidency are beginning to fade as people dig more into his past and realize he is not the candidate the media portrays him to be.

Democratic National Convention

2008-08-29T10:02:00.002-05:00

Well the DNC is over and it went pretty well. From Senator Obama and his wife with their usual high political rhetoric to Hillary and her husband to the Democratic Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy. On the whole, a very moving, historic convention, but from my point of view very disappointing.

For one, I don’t think Senator Clinton really helps Obama by constantly bringing up how many people voted for her and how they made history. She just keeps opening fresh wounds from a vicious primary season. And her faithful husband, the upright Bill Clinton all but straight up said Obama was majorly inexperienced.

The party platform was drafted and was also disappointing. One of the few favorable things I found in it was they recognized the problem of fatherhood in today’s America. However, they provided an ambiguous stance on right to bear arms, saying it’s a fundamental right subject to reasonable regulation (oh, btw, “reasonable” will be decided by the government). Their stance on life was also (typically) disconcerting, although I guess if you have a candidate who thinks such decisions are above his pay-grade, what do you expect. But what most upset me was the section on faith. Dr. Albert Mohler is the one who put this in my head. All the platform mentions is faith, not any specific faith, not faith in anything, just faith. Once again, very indecisive. Just strengthens all the more my resolution to actively oppose Senator Obama. Hopefully we will get something more than fancy speech from the RNC

The Iraq War

2008-08-27T09:01:00.001-05:00

The Iraq war, another hot button topic in this year’s elections. As a rule, usually the Republicans stand for finishing the war and the Democrats stand for ending the war, and there is a profound difference. I’ll illustrate it using the two presidential hopefuls.

Obama wants to pull the troops out as soon as possible—six months, nine months, nobody can really put a finger on it because it keeps changing, but the point is, he wants them out, nothing said about winning, just get the troops out.

McCain, on the other hand, also wants the troops out, but only after the work we have started there is finished. That’s all there is to it.

McCain’s position is by far the one spoken from logic and experience. Whether or not the war should have been started is irrelevant. All that matters now is it did start and it has to be finished. We can’t just draw out and leave the job half done which is what Obama wants to do. We’ve got to complete what we’ve started.

Obama a Communist

2008-08-20T08:59:00.002-05:00

Rumors about Barack Obama have floated, do float and probably will continue to float around until the election, but this rumor has been confirmed as fact, and strangely, it's something the news media never addresses. It is the connection between Obama and the Communist Party USA, something Obama and the news media are going to immense pains to hide. Nevertheless, all intelligent Americans should be concerned, and all who are willing to vote for Obama had better think twice. Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's mentor. Obama has said so himself, it's a fact. It's also a fact that Frank Marshall Davis was a member of the CPUSA. Hmmmmm...let's put two and two together. Obama's mentor was a communist. Don't you think he probably passed some of that on to Obama? Obama is going to great lengths to keep this a secret which is why we all need to shout it out as loud as we can and spread the word that we don't need a communist President. Accuracy in Media has a great article everyone needs to read-- Obama Confirms Relationship with CPUSA Member.

Why I'm Voting Democrat

2008-08-19T11:14:00.002-05:00

My neighbor sent this to me. I know it's not really very nice, but it's funny and more importantly, it's true. All you democrats gotta laugh at this one and maybe take a serious look at what you stand for. So here it is, Why I'm Voting Democrat!

I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a much better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe three or four pointy headed elitist liberals need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that when the terrorists don't have to hide from us over there, they’ll come over here, and I don't want to have any guns in the house to shoot them with.
I'm voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

Makes ya wonder why anyone would EVER vote Republican, now doesn't it?

Obama Abortion Sequel

2008-08-18T10:38:00.003-05:00

Guess I really did not know how bad Obama really is on abortion. I knew he supported partial birth abortion. Didn't know he also supports infanticide--and people still want to support him?Check out this article:

Obama's Infanticide Disgrace
Guy Benson
Sunday, August 17, 2008

It’s a piece of political conventional wisdom that’s been repeated many times: The cover-up is usually worse than the crime. A series of votes by Barack Obama in the Illinois Senate, however, turns that famous statement on its head. As a state legislator, Obama spoke out against, and voted down, a bill that would have explicitly extended legal protections to born-alive premature infants. In other words, he cast a vote against banning infanticide. Making matters worse — if such a thing is possible — the explanation Obama has peddled over the years to justify his vote has recently been exposed as untrue.
Average Americans, many of whom hold complicated views on the issue of abortion, may wonder why such a bill would even be necessary in the first place. Once a child is born, she becomes an independent human being who's entitled to the same rights and legal protections afforded to all citizens, right? Wrong, said State Senator Obama. Earlier this decade, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was introduced in the Illinois state legislature after a Chicago area nurse named Jill Stanek blew the whistle on a practice she personally witnessed at her hospital. Babies who managed to survive late term abortions were being abandoned in soiled linen closets and left to die.
Republicans in Springfield crafted a bill to end the inhumane practice, bringing SB 1095 up for a vote in March 2001. Barack Obama was the lone legislator who rose to speak against the bill, arguing it contained two flaws. First, he said the act’s language could be construed by some to be an "anti-abortion statute." Evidently, the prospect of voting in favor of a bill that might possibly be perceived in some quarters as anti-abortion was unsettling for him. In advancing this point, he ignored the fact that the bill's wording was tight, specific, and unambiguous: The law only applied to fully born persons, rendering the abortion angle moot. Second, the University of Chicago law lecturer dipped into his vast reservoir of legal knowledge and concluded that the law—intended to protect human beings who survived abortions—could not, in fact, survive “constitutional scrutiny." Obama’s analysis proved to be incorrect. A few months after he voted against the state bill, Congress passed a virtually identical bill at the federal level without a single dissenting vote, and the law remains on the books today.
This brings us to the cover-up. A few years after casting that infamous vote, Obama found himself running for US Senate against a dead-end Republican candidate. Despite the near-certainty of his electoral success, Obama deemed it necessary to respond to a charge leveled against him by his hapless opponent, Alan Keyes. The Keyes campaign tried to highlight Obama's infanticide vote to demonstrate how out-of-step he was even with the deep blue values of Illinois. Barack Obama, version 2004, fired back, assuring voters that he of course opposed infanticide, and would surely have voted for the federal law had he been serving in the US Senate at the time it was passed. What made the federal bill so much better, he explained, was its inclusion of an additional clause that expressly (and redundantly) stated the law would have zero effect whatsoever on abortion policy or the legal status of the unborn. This language convinced the Senate's most reliable pro-abortion members to support the measure unanimously. Even NARAL gave it the green light, and Obama claimed he would have, too.
Setting aside the meaninglessness of Obama’s distinction between the state and federal bills, he seemed to believe this explanation would satisfy voters' concerns about the issue. The media swallowed his story without skepticism, thus discarding Obama's potential political problem in the proverbial linen closet. But truth has resilient streak, and years later, Obama's tale is unraveling.
The National Right to Life Committee last week uncovered documents proving that Obama's "I-totally-would've-supported-the-Senate-bill-because-I'm-a-moderate!" clarification is an outright falsehood. According to NRLC spokesman Douglas Johnson, the records "prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion — even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion."
The special Roe-neutral language that he claimed made the federal statute acceptable was, in fact, included — word for word — in a 2003 state bill he personally killed in committee.
So a politician distorted one of his past votes. What’s the big deal? In addition to further eroding Obama’s self-proclaimed status as a new kind of politician, this episode sheds more light on the radical underbelly of Obama’s agenda. National Review’s David Freddoso has written an excellent new book, The Case Against Barack Obama, in which he calls his subject a “stealth liberal,” and says Obama’s role as a bipartisan reformer amounts to little more than audacious rhetoric. The infanticide vote could be Exhibit A in building both cases.
Americans must ask themselves why Barack Obama really opposed this legislation. It’s already been established that his standard explanation isn’t the truth, so what’s the genuine reason? One possible answer is that Obama’s commitment to legalized abortion runs so deep that he believes the Constitution guarantees that “right,” even if the initial abortion procedure fails. Put crudely, once a woman chooses to abort, she’s entitled to a dead baby. That position is so far out of the mainstream, it’s no wonder Obama may have decided to use misdirection and deception to explain away his vote.
Another possibility is that Obama’s a hyper-partisan ideologue. The driving forces behind the Born Alive Infant Protection Act were pro-life groups that generally support Republicans. Perhaps Obama’s fierce partisanship and leftist ideology were simply too strong for him to stomach handing any conservative group a political victory. If this is the case, his vote was petty and appallingly callous. It also would entirely undermine the overarching message of his famous 2004 DNC speech in which he decried blue vs. red state polarization and embraced America in with a big, royal purple hug of bipartisanship and inclusion. The great Emperor of Unity would have no clothes.
Whether it was Obama’s radical policy preferences, blind partisanship, or some combination of the two that motivated his vote is unclear. Although it’s offensive that Obama spun false excuses to try to justify his vote, what ultimately matters most is that he voted ‘no’ on a bill that simply stated killing a living, breathing baby is not acceptable. That vote, in and of itself, is far worse than any political cover-up could ever be.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Brannon Howse of Christian Worldview Network has a great program on this, check it out at:

August 15

Champion News Promo

2008-08-14T09:24:00.003-05:00

Looking for a good, unbiased news scource. Try Champion News. You will get undisguised facts. They also do a Sunday morning radio show called Champion News Talk Radio. It is an hour long, but I would encourage you, especially Illinoisians, to listen to it. You don't have to catch it on the radio, go the website and podcast it and listen to it later as you are working on something. Two of their recent shows that everyone needs to hear.

August 10th The Case Against Barack Obama

August 3rd National Politics

Listen to them online, or right click on the link and download them and listen to them later. I do warn you, they will take probably five minutes to download on a highspeed internet connection, but it is worth it! Enjoy!

"Barack Obama's Lost Years"

2008-08-14T09:00:00.003-05:00

Found this article today as I was browsing through more conservative news sources. Count on it, you will never find this on national television. Anyway, it's an article called "Barack Obama's Lost Years". There is a lot of stuff in here that I never knew and you would never know from watching the news media. Trust me, it's worth the time to read the article. However, for those who would rather have a summary:

Ever notice that the news media never covers Barack's time in Springfield? In fact, he himself never mentions it, and seems to go to great lengths to cover it. Makes you wonder what he is trying to hide. Maybe he is not the "post-racial, post-ideological, bipartisan, culture-war-shunning politician familiar from current media coverage and purveyed by the Obama campaign". In fact, if you look at his voting record from his days as state senator, you will find a politician who is "profoundly race-conscious, exceedingly liberal, free-spending even in the face of looming state budget deficits, and partisan", a very stark contrast to the Obama portrayed by his campaign and the liberal news media. All the more reason to get the word out!

22 requirements to be a good democrat

2008-08-13T16:01:00.004-05:00

A friend sent this to me. You gotta read it! It's great!

22 REQUIREMENTS TO BE A GOOD DEMOCRAT
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create depressions and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than Nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iranians and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex--in the face of all the cases of teacher sex abuse of children in the news.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature,but loony activists who have never been outside of New York,Boston, San Francisco, or Portland do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn esteem.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinemare more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson,Thomas Edison, and Alexander G. Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge and not enough money was spent on its programs.

17. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the WhiteHouse.

18. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and in a normal marriage.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying transvestites in drag should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast,right-wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it's OK to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day but it's not OK to say "Merry Christmas.

Ready to vote?

I sure am ready to vote, just not Democrat. What makes this so humorous is it is for the most part true. You gotta love it!

Great Letter!

2008-08-12T08:06:00.001-05:00

Found this as I was browsing through the local paper. It’s a great letter to the editor. I’m glad to know that there are at least a few people who are not deceived by Obama.

Please indulge a “seasoned curmudgeon” a few observations: The last time I looked, Barack H. Obama has not been elected president. Nonetheless, he is gallivanting all over the Middle East, meeting with heads of state and conferring with U.S. Army generals.
No doubt his vast experience in international affairs and his previous military training qualifies him to do this. This must fit the job description of his sworn duty as a U.S. senator from the State of Illinois.
I wonder who is footing the bill for this junket. All this seems to depict the unfathomable arrogance of the man. (The word “uppity” comes to mind) Perhaps, just perhaps, the fawning media will grow weary of all this and look at the upcoming campaign with a bit more objectivity.The plodding, old, white-haired, war hero John McCain is looking better and better.
Stephen A. Switzer

Wow! What insight! In my opinion, John McCain looked better from the get-go, but anyway… One thing, I doubt the media will grow tired of Obama, so it’s up to those of us who can see through the media deception to spread the word to all our friends and neighbors.

Democratic Leadership

2008-08-11T09:04:00.002-05:00

All you ever hear in the news is, “we don’t need another Bush”, or “it’s time for a change in leadership”. Democratic leadership is way overestimated. For all you Illinoisans, you know what democratic leadership is like, namely lots of talk, lots of spending and getting absolutely nothing done. We know how democrats can (or can’t) lead. Trust me, you don’t want democratic leadership on the national scale. You can already see the affects. We have a Congress who doesn’t do anything but oppose energy policies which might help Americans and a Supreme Court that wants to rule away our rights. And yet, according to the news media, everyone wants more of that. I don’t get it, I just don’t get it. It amazes me what people will do to get government handouts. They will sign (vote) away their freedoms for the sake of a few dollars.

“Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.” Adolph Hitler

That propaganda is exactly what the American media is and now you know why I don’t watch it. Need further evidence of the biased approach of U.S. media. See Accuracy in Media’s new article by Cliff Kincaid.

What Does He Stand For?

2008-08-07T09:03:00.001-05:00

Obama “revises” or more frankly, flip-flops again. He has now changed from vehemently anti-drilling to limited drilling. What happened? I guess maybe he just realized the stupidity of restricting drilling. Anyway, as I watch this guy, this question is infallibly in my mind─What does Obama stand for? Seriously, every time you turn around he changes positions on you. When I listen to his speeches, I hear “lofty political rhetoric” but there is no content. He’s all about hope and change without really taking a stand on anything. Undoubtedly he is an excellent speaker but in his speeches there is never any good solid substance to grab. He’s always ready to change his views at the drop of a hat. Anything to get elected.

On the other hand, while as the media has said, “the podium is not his friend”, at least John McCain actually takes a stand on some things. He’s not constantly revising his position on energy, the Iraq war, immigration, you name it. I say, if for no other reason vote for McCain because at least you will know where he stands. Obama just goes along to get elected.

Obama's Middle East Trip

2008-08-06T09:14:00.003-05:00

O.k., get this, my neighbor sent this the other day. It' s a letter from a U.S. soldier commenting on Obama's trip to the Middle East.

Hello everyone,
As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to "The War Zone". I wanted to share with you what happened.
He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.As the Soldiers were lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service.So really he was just here to make a showing for the Americans back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here, you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you.We got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheer leaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States. I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-in-Chief. It was almost as if he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.
In service,CPT Jeffrey S. Porter
Battle CaptainTF Wasatch
American Soldier

That email created a huge ruckus and was claimed to be fake. Supposedly no such person exists. True or not, I think the principle made in the email is valid. Check out what the Jerusalem Post says about Obama's trip.

Obama's Mideast tour: Prepare to see it backfire
Jul. 27, 2008Abraham Katsman , THE JERUSALEM POST
A JPost.com exclusive blog
And, as quickly as he came, off he went. The photo-ops looked pretty good, and Barack Obama even hit a three-pointer shooting a basketball in front of soldiers on live TV. Obama's in-and-out, every-day-another-country Middle East leg of his trip abroad was designed to make him look presidential in foreign hot spots and war zones and paper over his weak resume and failure to have ever visited Afghanistan or post-surge Iraq. Yet, for all its choreography and press accolades, the trip is likely to backfire by highlighting Obama's hubris, his foreign policy inexperience and his obstinacy regarding Iraq.
Initially, Obama's worshippers in the press played along. NBC led off its news coverage referring to Obama's brief visit to Afghanistan as his "Tour of Duty." As insulting as that was to the millions of Americans who have sacrificed years and lives to the US military, it only underscored the obvious difference between Obama's made-for-TV "tour of duty" and the truly heroic years of Naval service by John McCain. Using terms connoting military service for Obama's 48 hours of red-carpet, VIP treatment creates quite the contrast to McCain's half-decade tortured as a Vietnam POW.
But there may be cracks forming in the media's protective phalanx surrounding Obama. NBC's Andrea Mitchell had enough of Obama's choreographed "fake" news from Iraq and Afghanistan: "Let me say something about the message management. He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference", said Mitchell on the air. She complained that Obama manufactured "what some would call 'fake interviews,' because they are not interviews from a journalist." Think every candidate is this manipulative? Mitchell doesn't: "We've not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before."
And Katie Couric, to her credit, asked Obama whether now, in retrospect, he thought the Iraq surge was a good idea. Obama, irritated by the question, grumbled some non-sequitor about Afghanistan and long-term interests. But he wouldn't concede the obvious point.
And how could he? Here he is, a mere ten months ago, as the military troop surge - pushed for years by John McCain more than anyone - was getting up to speed:
Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.
By contrast, as early as November 2003, McCain was saying both that "victory can be our only exit strategy" and that troop levels were inadequate, stating that we needed at least another 15,000 soldiers on the ground, a sharp dissent from the Bush Administration's position at the time.
President Bush eventually came around to McCain's position, and great results have come fast: in a matter of months, Iraq has achieved 15 of 18 benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress. Obama, however, still claims (without providing any basis) insufficient progress, and still advocates withdrawal over a 16-month period-a plan not endorsed by any commander on the ground. Earlier this month, he promised that on his first day in office, he'd order the Joint Chiefs of Staff to end the war immediately.
Although Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki initially seemed to give some surprising support to Obama, suggesting that a shorter pull-out time horizon for American troops was "more realistic", follow-up statements were in line with McCain's approach. Both Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General David Petraeus, head of the US Iraqi effort insisted that conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, would determine withdrawal schedules. Unfortunately for Obama, the more that military commanders were asked by the press about the Maliki comments, the more wrongheaded Obama's plan to bail out regardless of progress on the ground appeared to be.
It's good that Obama's team finally got him to Afghanistan and post-surge Iraq: at least now he can say he's been there. It's good that he's seen, even briefly, the incredible success of the McCain-advocated surge which he can't find the words to praise. But as the disconnect grows between Obama's slick slogans and the realities on the ground that all can see, so grows the public's understanding that this whirlwind campaign photo-op visit is no match for McCain's 25 years in Congress, experience as the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, multiple real visits to the war zones, and 22 years of military experience. And, of course, getting the surge exactly right.
As for the campaign-financed (not official) Israel leg of Obama's trip, the visuals were fine, at first. But Jews the world over gagged on their breakfasts this morning seeing the newspaper and Drudge Report photos of multiple Obama campaign banners and posters tactlessly defiling the area of Jerusalem's Western Wall. This shameless usurpation of Judaism's holiest site for use as a cheap political prop is embarrassing, and not going to go over well. If God already endorsed Obama - which Obama may believe - I must have missed it. One can only imagine how such a stunt would have gone over at the Vatican. Or in Mecca.
Obama's Israel sound-bites were solid. When he stuck to his scripted remarks, he sounded decent. But McCain has been visiting Israel for 30 years; he knows the area and the issues without consulting his briefing book.
Obama's trip is merely a calculated campaign photo-op designed to make him appear experienced. His image-enhancement was devoid of any real substance-actually, not a bad metaphor for his entire campaign for amorphous "change." Even his visit with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, which his campaign preposterously claims "one-ups" McCain, was just a campaign-financed meeting, not an official visit.
Still, it is the Iraq portion of the trip that is likely to damage Obama most. Even after his visit, Obama refuses to acknowledge the obvious success of the surge. The most he'll say is that violence is now lower than it was, not even crediting the US military with the major role in reducing it. His position sounds stubborn and grudging, and either dishonest or detached from reality. He spouted gibberish to reporters explaining why even in hindsight he would not have supported the surge, although they flinched from pinning him down: with few exceptions, the same press that once howled for President Bush to acknowledge mistakes regarding Iraq is not anxious to hear Obama admit the obvious: he was wrong; the surge worked. Defending the surge even though his then-unpopular position would jeopardize his candidacy, McCain once stated, "I'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war." What about Obama?
Obama has inadvertently highlighted his biggest weaknesses. That he is calling for the identical Iraq withdrawal timetable now, with victory in sight, as he did back when he was ignorantly chanting the meaningless mantra that "there is no military solution in Iraq" makes one thing increasingly evident to the public: John McCain understood Iraq better five years ago than Obama does even today.

Wow! Why didn't the American media report this? I can tell you. Because they are a bunch of liberal Obama lovers. Don't expect unbiased news from them. In fact, if you want accurate news about the United States, I suggest reading/listening to foreign media. Anyway, Obama's trip is a big fake, he "refined" his Iraq policy, and he still has it wrong. And we want this guy as President???!!!

Obama on Immigration

2008-08-05T09:21:00.003-05:00

See his full version of his views at his website. In summary, he promises to secure borders and get rid of the enticements (he thinks these are firms who are willing to hire illegals, but it seems to me that free government money is more of an enticement) for illegal immigrants. Sounds great, but also hypocritical. It is his party that has handed out social security and welfare to illegals. It is his party who has wanted to for all practical purposes remove any border fence. Why his sudden opposition to illegals? Sounds to me like someone just making promises in order to get elected. His party has a long history of supporting just what he says he doesn’t support. Makes a lot of sense doesn’t it?

On the other hand, the Republican Party has a history of trying to secure the borders, of opposition to government handouts for illegals, and support of deportation of those who manage to sneak across the border. Hence when we say we want crackdown on illegal immigrants, it’s not just a gimmick to get elected─we have a record of supporting our position. If you want secure borders and a job in the future, better think twice and vote Republican this fall.

Obama on Homosexuality

2008-08-04T13:09:00.001-05:00

In short, Obama has made it clear that he does support the legalization of gay and lesbian marriages. He believes the Bible tolerates gay marriage. There’s not much else to say except Obama ought to get a better Bible or try reading all of it. The Bible clearly forbids homosexuality, mentioning it several times in lists of sins God HATES (Leviticus 20:13, I Corinthians 6:9-11). What Jesus means by love each other is not that you should never tell anyone what they are doing is wrong. Hence I don’t see how you can call yourself a Christian and vote for someone who opposes what a Christian by definition believes to be true.

So all you “Christians” who support Obama, I say emphatically you must deny your faith in order to do so. He supports at least two practices which the Bible very clearly speaks against. If for no other reason you who claim to be evangelical should strive against Obama because of his position on both abortion and homosexuality.

Obama on Abortion

2008-08-04T13:06:00.001-05:00

I was listening to a couple talk shows and reading a few articles and I came across some info which horrified (although I can’t say surprised) me. A startling number of evangelicals and several well known pastors have come out and openly stated they will vote for Obama in November’s election. I must ask you, do you really understand Obama? I’ll let you off the hook for supporting his socialist policies, but how can you call yourself a Christian and vote for someone who supports abortion and homosexuality. I want to devote this post to Obama’s position on abortion and I will explain his position on homosexuality in the next post.

Naturally in this race Obama is not going to come right out and bluntly state his position on abortion because he is trying to hug up to evangelicals. However, his voting record shows a strong pro-choice candidate who plainly supports women’s “rights”. Moreover, he has said he will support an effort to repeal a partial birth abortion ban. Do you know what partial birth abortion is. For a description see National Right to Life. It is absolutely horrendous to say the least and just breaks your heart. Yet we hear that some so called “Christians” support Obama? I don’t get it.

Obama and McCain on Energy

2008-08-01T09:35:00.000-05:00

Obama and McCain have been sparring on energy policy now for the last while and it will probably continue into the fall elections because this is an issue that directly affects American consumers, especially in the area of gas prices. However, I do not understand Obama’s position. He wants to turn to renewable energy which as far as I can see, I really don’t have a problem with but he opposes offshore drilling. That I just don’t understand. He claims it will take ten years for us to see an effect in gas prices. Well, let’s get started now. Offshore drilling will not hurt our dear mother nature and it will not affect those living on the coast. What’s the big deal? For that matter why can’t we drill in Alaska? See, the media tells you drilling there will hurt the wildlife. Let me tell you, absolutely nothing live where they want to drill. All evidences show that we have plenty of oil here in American soil to support ourselves. Why does Obama want to continue dependence on foreign oil? McCain’s policy of renewable energy and offshore drilling makes more sense and is for more long term fixes.

Fall Election is Critical

2008-07-30T08:10:00.001-05:00

Just by talking and listening to people, I am convinced that most people are not aware of how critical this fall election will be. We as Americans are at a crossroad. We can move back to freedom, or we can run further to socialism. Yes, socialism. As Jim Bunning says, “socialism is alive and well” here in the U.S. That is something else I don’t think people realize. You always hear, “well, we are still the most free nation on earth”. Perhaps, but our government has grown so large it would horrify even the most nationalistic founder. Here in the United States we are running toward socialism and Marxism. And the sad thing is, most people are happy to go along with it as long as they get the government handouts (stolen money). So I repeat, this fall election will be critical. I fear greatly a President Obama.

Prayer at Naval Academy

2008-07-29T16:19:00.001-05:00

As I was listening to Jay Sekulow Live I came across something you might find interesting and which I did not know about. The ACLU was threatening to file a lawsuit against the Naval Academy because some three of four cadets had complained about a mealtime prayer. Funny thing is, this prayer is short, non-denominational, and definitely not evangelical Christian. Cadets are not forced to pray, or even bow their heads, but simply stand at attention. Although this prayer is as old as the Academy itself, if the Navy does not remove this prayer, the ACLU promises they will take them to court. Thankfully as soon as they heard of it, the ACLJ sent off a letter to the Navy promising to stand by them and urging them not to give in to the ACLU. Furthermore, they are also gathering names for a solidarity petition to the Navy to stand firm. I would urge you to go to visit the ACLJ website for more info and to sign the petition. If the ACLU wins this, Christians in any branch of the armed services will be in deep water. So support the navy and make your voice heard.

How To Get Involved

2008-07-29T16:17:00.000-05:00

I mentioned yesterday the way to procure favorable change is to get involved in politics. There are a number of ways you can do this. First off, the easiest and most fundamental way to be involved is to vote and vote competently according to your values. A corollary is to talk to your family, friends, neighbors, and anyone else you know and get them to vote as well. Another easy but slightly more involved thing to do would be get in contact with a local (or national) campaign and volunteer to phone bank or precinct walk. This is the essence of grassroots politics and is well worthy of your time. I have done both─phone banking is a piece of cake and does not take a lot of time─precinct walking is more time consuming but is not really any harder. The procedure is just to pass out literature for the candidate you are supporting. If I can do it anyone can. Then of course you could run for public office. Not everyone is built to be an elected official, but everyone CAN and has the responsibility as Christians to support (financially or with time) those who hold to a Biblical worldview. Good candidates aren’t out there for two reasons. Either because good candidates erroneously think “separation of church and state” or there is absolutely no support among conservatives. So get involved!

Global Warming?

2008-07-29T08:32:00.004-05:00

Global warming is a huge issue in today’s society, but I believe it is largely a media created problem, that is, there is no real problem. Of course all the broadcast networks paint global warming as a scientifically proven fact. All scientists agree this is a problem, right? Wrong! The way they talk you wouldn’t believe it, but the (scientific) opponents of man caused global warming way outnumber the scientists who believe in it. One of the latest polls shows 2,500 scientists on the side of global warming─17,000 scientists against it. David Barton has a great program on this called “Science, the Bible, and Global Warming” which you can get at www.wallbuilders.com or you can browse through the archives @ wallbuilders live and download the program there.

So if global warming is not really a problem (that scientists agree on), why does the media make such a big deal about it? Brannon Howse of Christian Worldview Network pinned the tail on the donkey when he noted radical environmentalism is just a cover up for more government control (for full article click here). If they can convince you that you are destroying the planet, you will be open to more government regulation in the area of pollutants, etc. and once they have control of you there, they can easily take over every area of you private life. So let’s be wise enough to see through this whole hoax. Don’t get me wrong, as Christians we are to take care of our planet, yet we don’t worship it. Watch out for the Fed as it tries to push its socialist agenda through something so innocent as global warming.

Clearing Misconceptions

2008-07-28T16:29:00.004-05:00

One of the biggest and most erroneous ideas Christians have bought into is they should regulate their religion to the private sphere of their home life or church and should keep it out of their workplace of in this instance, government. True Christianity is a way of life and (should) affects every area of a Christian's life. That includes government. Not everyone is called to run for office, etc., but every person has the responsibility to vote according to their convictions.

People who don't want Christians involved (or are afraid of them) in politics cite "separation of church and state". That phrase has been wrongly used so many times Christians have started to accept it. When Jefferson talked about separation of church and state he most certainly did not mean religion should be kept out of government but that government should be kept out of religion. There is a profound difference and Christians must understand it. Almost every founder was a self professed born again Christian and their religious views affected how they ran government but they also realized it was not the job of the federal government to form and regulate a state church.

I think pretty much everyone, even Christians, are woefully aware of the problems in our country, so Christians, step #1 to changing it is to get involved!

Blog Beginning

2008-07-28T11:53:00.005-05:00

I am beginning this blog because I just can't sit still and be silent anymore. Our country is hurtling towards destruction. My goal with this political action blog is to awaken people, specifically evangelical Christians to what is happening in our country. The basic format will be--I will post a comment on some article I have read recently or maybe just give a little exposition of a certain issue. This blog will certainly be controversial, but it will not be hate speech. I invite, in fact, I challenge anyone and everyone to read what I put up, agree or disagree, and leave a comment and I will do my best to respond. So here we go!

Conservative Warrior

War, Foreign Policy, and Terrorism...

What about Sarah Palin?

Column of the Week

No, Mr. President: John Piper's Response to President Obama on Abortion

Column of the Week

Column of the Week

The passing of a legend

Dirty Secrets of Obamacare Series by...guess who

Column of the Week

Column of the Week

An "Analysis of Cash for Clunkers"

Column of the Week - Let's Talk About Minimum Wage

Obama's Ten Commandments

The Effects of a Minimum Wage

Column of the Week

Abortion and parental consent

Myths About Socialized Healthcare

Weekly column

Are public schools unconstitutional?

I'm Back

What will happen?

Wow! This is Great!

A Must Listen To

The President is Betraying Us!!??

Why Republicans Support Limited Government

Ron Paul on Gun Control

Lighten up

Public Schools

Why Labor Unions Ruin an Economy

We Not Rich… Yet

The Civic Literary Deficit

Why Regulation Makes Things Worse

Election Thoughts

Vote for Obama?

Is it surprising that the polls favor Obama?

Are Wind Turbines a Good Idea?

Voter Ignorance

Joe the Plumber

Review of Past Debates

The Bailout Passed??!!

School -- 1957 vs. 2008

The Government Bailout Plan

National Health Care?

Obama's Chicago Report Card

Remembering 9-11

The Media Plan to Destroy Sarah Palin

Republican National Convention

McMcain's VP

Democratic National Convention

The Iraq War

Recommended Reading

Obama a Communist

Why I'm Voting Democrat

Obama Abortion Sequel

Champion News Promo

"Barack Obama's Lost Years"

22 requirements to be a good democrat

Great Letter!

Democratic Leadership

What Does He Stand For?

Obama's Middle East Trip

Obama on Immigration

Obama on Homosexuality

Obama on Abortion

Obama and McCain on Energy

Fall Election is Critical

Prayer at Naval Academy

How To Get Involved

Global Warming?

Clearing Misconceptions

Blog Beginning