Musings of a Vast Right-Winger: Pelosi Blames DemocRat loss on Bush: "The video below is from CNN. Pelosi is delusional."
How right he is. This narrative will never die.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Reading is Funadmental, Unless You're a Democrat in Congress, Apparently
Yesterday morning (Jan. 6th, as of this writing), something
unprecidented happened in the hallowed halls of the House of
Representatives. The elected representatives, all of them, a piece at
a time, read from beginning to end the Constitution of the United
States of America. We all know, of course, that this is a symbolic
gesture pushed by the new GOP majority in order to tell the people who
voted them in that they intended to do things right and actually
listen to and stand by the document our Founders gave us 223 years
ago. I, and I'm sure many others, however, will be watching these new
congressmen and women like hawks in order to make sure they hold their
own against the coming onslaught of ridicule and slander that the
liberal left will send their way (in some cases, they already have).
My astonishment isn't only with the idea that this congress might
actually keep its word after the last two failed miserably to do so,
but at the level of vitriol and ridicule being received just for the
idea of reading one of our founding documents. Such things in general
are to be expected from the other side, of course. Joy Behar calling
Sharon Angle a "bitch" for one, and even John Boehner's nickname given
to him by the media, the "Weeper of the House." That type of talk was
more than a little expected by me, and by many others. What I
personally did NOT expect to hear from these liberal talking heads,
however, was open contempt and hatred for the very document that the
representatives we elect are sworn to protect and defend.
Joy Behar, to bring us back to the redheaded dragon lady, actually
asked this loony question: "Don't you think this Constitution loving
is getting out of hand?" What? Does she even realize that that very
document is what reafffirms her freedom to slander it and those who
praise it incessantly? I doubt it.
One representative, Jerold Nadler, mocked the reading as nothing more
than "propaganda" and complained that the GOP was "reading it (the
Constitution) like it's a sacred text." Well in a way, isn't it? It is
the document that garauntees our freedom of speech, right to bear
arms, and protection against illegal searches and seizures. Shouldn't
we hold some reverence and respect for this document, as well as the
people who wrote it? Not according to him, apparently.
Ezra Klein, a man four years my junior and a few hundred brain cells
short of normal intelligence, said the Constitution was "confusing"
because it was "over a hundred years old" and thus "had no binding
power on anything." That statement basically calls into question the
very existence of the United States itself, given that without the
Constitution and Declaration of Independence (in my opinion the latter
moreso than the former) then there wouldn't BE a United States of
America at all, and the mouthpiece known as Ezra Klein would have no
forum to speak his mind if the wrong chucklehead was in power at the
time. He also, in the same breath as the above comments, called the
reading itself a "gimmick".
Now, I honestly don't know if the reading will have stuck a few months
into the new Congress. No one knows what they're going to do in the
future. We can only speculate. I am hopeful, however, as this reading
and the upcoming vote to repeal Obama's Deathcare bill next week are
signs that the new GOP is listening, something that the former
Democratic Supermajority never did. Call me an idealist, but as Ronald
Reagan said in his first inaugural address, I believe that "it is
morning again in America," and the future, should this trend continue,
is very bright indeed.
unprecidented happened in the hallowed halls of the House of
Representatives. The elected representatives, all of them, a piece at
a time, read from beginning to end the Constitution of the United
States of America. We all know, of course, that this is a symbolic
gesture pushed by the new GOP majority in order to tell the people who
voted them in that they intended to do things right and actually
listen to and stand by the document our Founders gave us 223 years
ago. I, and I'm sure many others, however, will be watching these new
congressmen and women like hawks in order to make sure they hold their
own against the coming onslaught of ridicule and slander that the
liberal left will send their way (in some cases, they already have).
My astonishment isn't only with the idea that this congress might
actually keep its word after the last two failed miserably to do so,
but at the level of vitriol and ridicule being received just for the
idea of reading one of our founding documents. Such things in general
are to be expected from the other side, of course. Joy Behar calling
Sharon Angle a "bitch" for one, and even John Boehner's nickname given
to him by the media, the "Weeper of the House." That type of talk was
more than a little expected by me, and by many others. What I
personally did NOT expect to hear from these liberal talking heads,
however, was open contempt and hatred for the very document that the
representatives we elect are sworn to protect and defend.
Joy Behar, to bring us back to the redheaded dragon lady, actually
asked this loony question: "Don't you think this Constitution loving
is getting out of hand?" What? Does she even realize that that very
document is what reafffirms her freedom to slander it and those who
praise it incessantly? I doubt it.
One representative, Jerold Nadler, mocked the reading as nothing more
than "propaganda" and complained that the GOP was "reading it (the
Constitution) like it's a sacred text." Well in a way, isn't it? It is
the document that garauntees our freedom of speech, right to bear
arms, and protection against illegal searches and seizures. Shouldn't
we hold some reverence and respect for this document, as well as the
people who wrote it? Not according to him, apparently.
Ezra Klein, a man four years my junior and a few hundred brain cells
short of normal intelligence, said the Constitution was "confusing"
because it was "over a hundred years old" and thus "had no binding
power on anything." That statement basically calls into question the
very existence of the United States itself, given that without the
Constitution and Declaration of Independence (in my opinion the latter
moreso than the former) then there wouldn't BE a United States of
America at all, and the mouthpiece known as Ezra Klein would have no
forum to speak his mind if the wrong chucklehead was in power at the
time. He also, in the same breath as the above comments, called the
reading itself a "gimmick".
Now, I honestly don't know if the reading will have stuck a few months
into the new Congress. No one knows what they're going to do in the
future. We can only speculate. I am hopeful, however, as this reading
and the upcoming vote to repeal Obama's Deathcare bill next week are
signs that the new GOP is listening, something that the former
Democratic Supermajority never did. Call me an idealist, but as Ronald
Reagan said in his first inaugural address, I believe that "it is
morning again in America," and the future, should this trend continue,
is very bright indeed.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Motivation Monday
Looking through the other laptop today for a second Motivation Monday pic lead me to this, the reason why many male teens and young adults went to see the awfulness that is Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Some Solutions to Some of our Most Difficult Problems
A friend of mine recently complained about my blog not offering up solutions to the problems I bring to light here every few days. So, per his advice, I've started posting some. Here's a solution to the gun control and airline security problems we face, courtesy of Archie Bunker of All in the Family:
As for the economy, here is a solution, brought to light by the Great Communicator, President Ronald Wilson Reagan:
And as an added bonus, here's the SAME SOLUTION brought about by a left of center president, Mr. John Fitzgerald Kennedy:
the website www.parentalrights.org offers a solution in the form of a constitutional amendment called the Parental Rights Amendment.
So there you have it, fellow tin-foil-hat wearers. Solutions to some of the most important problems of our day.
Feedback always welcome
As for the economy, here is a solution, brought to light by the Great Communicator, President Ronald Wilson Reagan:
And as an added bonus, here's the SAME SOLUTION brought about by a left of center president, Mr. John Fitzgerald Kennedy:
the website www.parentalrights.org offers a solution in the form of a constitutional amendment called the Parental Rights Amendment.
So there you have it, fellow tin-foil-hat wearers. Solutions to some of the most important problems of our day.
Feedback always welcome
Where Have all the Heroes Gone?
I just recently read Biill O'Reilly's review of the movie "True Grit", a remake of the John Wayne classic of the same name. I haven't seen the movie yet, but if O'Reilly's assessment is at all accurate, then we in America are suffering from a distinct shortage of heroic icons to look up to. Apparently the main lead, played by Wayne in the original and by Jeff Bridges in the remake, is a hard drinking U.S. Marshal who, despite his shortcomings, is able to uphold some semblance of law and order in the Wild West, and help a young girl avenge the death of her father at the hands of some gang of desperadoes. John Wayne was and still is a hero in the eyes of many people belonging to my parents' and grandparents' generations. He is even a hero in the eyes of some of my own generation. Those who appreciate the past, mostly, and can see beyond the idea that that person is "passe" because he starred in "old movies".
Yet where are our heroes today? The world today is far different than it was fifty years ago, as many belonging to previous generations can no doubt attest. Looking around, you could probably see the difference if you only looked hard enough. In fact, you need look no further than Hollywood to see how much the world (or at least the country) has changed since our parents were kids.
When they were young, they had a clear representation of who their heroes were. Whether it be their parents, another relative, a sports figure, or even a superhero like Superman or Green Hornet. Back in those days, Hollywood produced all manner of genuine heroes for kids to look up to, from the Lone Ranger to Bob Kane's Batman (adapted from the comics of the time), or the aforementioned Green Hornet, who did the right thing in spite of being labeled a criminal (unjustly) by the local law enforcement. As O'Reilly says in his article regarding the remake of True Grit, we as Americans had a clearer set of boundaries back then. It was easy to find heroes, because we just looked for people who tried to emphasize the good in life over the shortcomings. Not to mention, in those days, when the family wasn't under constant assault by those who would see it destroyed, children could simply look to their father or mother to find someone worthy of admiration.
Those people are harder to find today. Not impossible, but certainly harder to find. Today children have no real sense of who their heroes are, in my view, because so may of our traditional boundaries have been crossed, and the "outrageous" bar continues to rise higher and higher while other bars, such as the education and accomplishment bars, continue to be lowered. Comic books, for example, continue to become more "gritty" and "realistic" in order to appeal to an audience who wants things to be "believable". There is still, and always will be, an element of the fantastic to them, as there was in the Golden and Silver Ages of comics, but for the most part the gleaming "shining city on a hill" that heroes were in the past has given way to "heroes are no different than you or I."
This is not to say that one needs some sort of elaborate, physics defying superpower or a Domino mask to be a hero. As we saw in the aftermath of September 11th, the National Guard, as well as the New York Fire and Police departments, proved that heroes do still exist today, and risk their lives daily in service to others. My lament, however, comes from the idea that such examples are few and far between in today's world. Back to my earlier assessment involving Hollywood, it seems that what once defined a hero fifty years ago no longer does so in the eyes of the entertainment industry. We hear all day long about the shortcomings of so many of our Hollywood icons, like Lindsay Lohan, Charlie Sheen, and others, that we forget that it wasn't always this way. Once upon a time, I seem to remember Charlton Heston in a film telling the epic story of the Ten Commandments. What happened, I wonder, to that Hollywood, that has been replaced by a Hollywood that seems to focus now on making films that try to break as many Commandments as possible as quickly as possible, as many times as possible?
That being said, most of you probably think by now that I don't believe their ARE any real heroes in today's world, but that simply isn't true. I believe that heroes still exist, though like true heroes they don't seek recognition for what they do. The U.S. military, by and large, is full of people like that, as are the aforementioned police and fire departments. And let's not forget historical figures. Martin Luther King is a hero to may. Not just blacks, either, but people of all walks of life, because of his message of a color blind society, which I believe we have largely achieved since his death.
Ordinarily I'd go on and on about how the Founders were heroes as well. People who risked everything, their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to live their own lives according to their own destiny, but to those who read this blog, that very likely goes without saying.
I suppose that the point I'm trying to make by rambling on like this is simply that heroes are not born. They're made. Heroes are people who have the strength to stand by their principals without regard for what others might think. In that context, there are heroes made every day. The American people attempting to stop the race toward socialism in this country is one such example of that kind of heroism, as future generations will likely come to believe.
So after all this, what is the answer to the question that makes up the title of this post? Quite simply, heroes haven't gone anywhere. It's simply the type of people who exhibit heroics that have changed. No more do we need to look toward someone in spandex tights and a cape to see true heroism, because it's all around us, if only we have the eyes to recognize it for what it is.
Yet where are our heroes today? The world today is far different than it was fifty years ago, as many belonging to previous generations can no doubt attest. Looking around, you could probably see the difference if you only looked hard enough. In fact, you need look no further than Hollywood to see how much the world (or at least the country) has changed since our parents were kids.
When they were young, they had a clear representation of who their heroes were. Whether it be their parents, another relative, a sports figure, or even a superhero like Superman or Green Hornet. Back in those days, Hollywood produced all manner of genuine heroes for kids to look up to, from the Lone Ranger to Bob Kane's Batman (adapted from the comics of the time), or the aforementioned Green Hornet, who did the right thing in spite of being labeled a criminal (unjustly) by the local law enforcement. As O'Reilly says in his article regarding the remake of True Grit, we as Americans had a clearer set of boundaries back then. It was easy to find heroes, because we just looked for people who tried to emphasize the good in life over the shortcomings. Not to mention, in those days, when the family wasn't under constant assault by those who would see it destroyed, children could simply look to their father or mother to find someone worthy of admiration.
Those people are harder to find today. Not impossible, but certainly harder to find. Today children have no real sense of who their heroes are, in my view, because so may of our traditional boundaries have been crossed, and the "outrageous" bar continues to rise higher and higher while other bars, such as the education and accomplishment bars, continue to be lowered. Comic books, for example, continue to become more "gritty" and "realistic" in order to appeal to an audience who wants things to be "believable". There is still, and always will be, an element of the fantastic to them, as there was in the Golden and Silver Ages of comics, but for the most part the gleaming "shining city on a hill" that heroes were in the past has given way to "heroes are no different than you or I."
This is not to say that one needs some sort of elaborate, physics defying superpower or a Domino mask to be a hero. As we saw in the aftermath of September 11th, the National Guard, as well as the New York Fire and Police departments, proved that heroes do still exist today, and risk their lives daily in service to others. My lament, however, comes from the idea that such examples are few and far between in today's world. Back to my earlier assessment involving Hollywood, it seems that what once defined a hero fifty years ago no longer does so in the eyes of the entertainment industry. We hear all day long about the shortcomings of so many of our Hollywood icons, like Lindsay Lohan, Charlie Sheen, and others, that we forget that it wasn't always this way. Once upon a time, I seem to remember Charlton Heston in a film telling the epic story of the Ten Commandments. What happened, I wonder, to that Hollywood, that has been replaced by a Hollywood that seems to focus now on making films that try to break as many Commandments as possible as quickly as possible, as many times as possible?
That being said, most of you probably think by now that I don't believe their ARE any real heroes in today's world, but that simply isn't true. I believe that heroes still exist, though like true heroes they don't seek recognition for what they do. The U.S. military, by and large, is full of people like that, as are the aforementioned police and fire departments. And let's not forget historical figures. Martin Luther King is a hero to may. Not just blacks, either, but people of all walks of life, because of his message of a color blind society, which I believe we have largely achieved since his death.
Ordinarily I'd go on and on about how the Founders were heroes as well. People who risked everything, their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to live their own lives according to their own destiny, but to those who read this blog, that very likely goes without saying.
I suppose that the point I'm trying to make by rambling on like this is simply that heroes are not born. They're made. Heroes are people who have the strength to stand by their principals without regard for what others might think. In that context, there are heroes made every day. The American people attempting to stop the race toward socialism in this country is one such example of that kind of heroism, as future generations will likely come to believe.
So after all this, what is the answer to the question that makes up the title of this post? Quite simply, heroes haven't gone anywhere. It's simply the type of people who exhibit heroics that have changed. No more do we need to look toward someone in spandex tights and a cape to see true heroism, because it's all around us, if only we have the eyes to recognize it for what it is.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Planned Parenthood Exposes Their True Colors...Again
Many who read this should know by now that I absolutely despise the organization known as Planned Parenthood. I'm not even sure why they're taken seriously by anyone anymore, really, after all the exposure their agenda has been getting in the new media by bloggers such as myself. Well, fellow tin-foil-hat-wearers, they're at it again, once again usurping parental authority under the guise of providing education and advice. An article headlined Planned Parenthood Launches 'Social Change Initiative' to Teach Parents how to Educate Children About Sex, Including Masturbation and Homosexuality goes into some detail about the procedure, which, when you get right down to it, is basically PP (hehe) telling parents that they're too stupid to teach their own kids about the birds, the bees, and the coconut trees, so they're going to do it for them. Well, what did you expect from an organization that was founded by a Hitler-idolizing baby killer who thought Eugenics was a good idea? Not much, I hope.
But enough about Sanger, and back to the important thing, the article: Here's a few highlights:
Specifically, Planned Parenthood’s Web site announced the group is preparing to launch a nationwide “social change initiative” to end the “stigma and shame about sex” in American culture. The project aims to teach parents and caregivers how to educate children about sex — from birth. And it recommends telling teenagers about masturbation, oral sex and “where to go for help to prepare to be sexually active.”
Yes, you read that right. FROM BIRTH! The article goes on to state Planned Parenthood's position that babies are interested in sex from pretty much the moment they pop out of mommy's womb. Well, I don't know about you folks, but I was more interested in getting a bottle and a nap than I was at learning "what goes where". That didn't come up until I was about eight or nine, and that was because THEY brought it up, not me.
Note also that they desire to teach children "Where to go to prepare for becoming sexually active." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't there only be one place a child should go to prepare for that sort of thing? I think so. They're called...parents or something, right? Yeah, that's it.
Another highlight from the article that proves they're trying to usurp parental authority yet again:
The initiative is geared to parents and caregivers of children aged 8 to 18. In the four pilot states, parents were invited to attend workshops where they received Planned Parenthood’s guide to “Sex Ed for Parents, Real Life. Real Talk.” The events were held at different community venues, including schools, churches, social services facilities and libraries.
So it's not just parents, but all types of legal guardians that they want to subvert. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, foster parents, you name it. The language used here is more than a little scary, as it completely undermines the family structure, which as we all know is something Planned Parenthood has been after the destruction of since their founding in 1913.
Spread the word, patriots. Things like this can't go unanswered! let's fight back and push Planned Parenthood into the dustbin of history! Full article here.
Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.
But enough about Sanger, and back to the important thing, the article: Here's a few highlights:
Specifically, Planned Parenthood’s Web site announced the group is preparing to launch a nationwide “social change initiative” to end the “stigma and shame about sex” in American culture. The project aims to teach parents and caregivers how to educate children about sex — from birth. And it recommends telling teenagers about masturbation, oral sex and “where to go for help to prepare to be sexually active.”
Yes, you read that right. FROM BIRTH! The article goes on to state Planned Parenthood's position that babies are interested in sex from pretty much the moment they pop out of mommy's womb. Well, I don't know about you folks, but I was more interested in getting a bottle and a nap than I was at learning "what goes where". That didn't come up until I was about eight or nine, and that was because THEY brought it up, not me.
Note also that they desire to teach children "Where to go to prepare for becoming sexually active." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't there only be one place a child should go to prepare for that sort of thing? I think so. They're called...parents or something, right? Yeah, that's it.
Another highlight from the article that proves they're trying to usurp parental authority yet again:
The initiative is geared to parents and caregivers of children aged 8 to 18. In the four pilot states, parents were invited to attend workshops where they received Planned Parenthood’s guide to “Sex Ed for Parents, Real Life. Real Talk.” The events were held at different community venues, including schools, churches, social services facilities and libraries.
So it's not just parents, but all types of legal guardians that they want to subvert. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, foster parents, you name it. The language used here is more than a little scary, as it completely undermines the family structure, which as we all know is something Planned Parenthood has been after the destruction of since their founding in 1913.
Spread the word, patriots. Things like this can't go unanswered! let's fight back and push Planned Parenthood into the dustbin of history! Full article here.
Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.
Friday, December 31, 2010
May the Lord Bless Them and Keep Them...
This video goes out to all our fighting men and women, retired or not active or reservist, serving in every one of the four branches.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
A Keepable New Year's Resolution!
Yes, you read that right. I believe I've found one. Little Miss Attila brought it to my attention, via Hillbuzz. LMA suggests, with help from Hillbuzz, that you, myself, and other fellow bloggers pick one "issue of our times" and become experts on it by reading and researching stories. After becoming experts on such stories, we report and blog about them throughout the year. Sounds like a great idea to me. I believe I might have found my issue, in the form of the new end-of-life provision that has been written back into Obamacare by way of the "secretary shall determine" language.
Since I can't find the link for the article, here it is in print, as I copied and pasted it to read later:
Since I can't find the link for the article, here it is in print, as I copied and pasted it to read later:
Remember the "death panel" scare in last year's health care debate? Sarah Palin and others served up ominous warnings that a House health care overhaul bill would give federal bureaucrats life-and-death power over medical treatment for people approaching the end of their lives.
Those fears were overblown. But the political furor forced Democrats to scrap a provision that would have paid doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling once every five years.
Now comes word of new Medicare rules that some critics say resurrect the "death panels."
Relax. These new rules are more Marcus Welby than Jack Kevorkian.
Right now, Medicare will pay a doctor for one end-of-life planning session with a Medicare patient. That may include help on how to prepare an "advance directive," a patient's instructions to his doctors about what to do if the patient becomes too sick to make his own medical decisions.
Chicago Shopping Overwhelming Offers: Always 50% off or more from your favorite brands >>
Starting Jan. 1, Medicare will pay for an annual session, if needed, as part of a broader "wellness" visit.
That's it. The counseling sessions are voluntary. The government won't tell doctors what to discuss with their patients. It won't pressure physicians to push patients into living wills or advance directives.
It's a smart move.
Research shows that end-of-life planning is valuable: A recent British Medical Journal study concluded it "improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives."
The study also noted that "patients welcome advance care planning and expect health professionals to initiate discussions."
That doesn't always happen, of course. Many patients don't have these conversations with their doctors, says Dr. Robert Berenson of the Urban Institute.
Reason One: Some doctors avoid starting end-of-life talks because it makes them uncomfortable.
Reason Two: Doctors are paid to deliver more aggressive treatment, even if it's futile. Berenson tells us that many patients are not fully informed about treatment options and the prognosis for success. Even if they choose a less aggressive treatment plan, some doctors ignore or overrule those preferences. "In other words, doctors are often more heroic than patients are," he says.
In a 2009 Urban Institute study, Berenson and his co-authors suggested a raft of ways to pay for health care reform. They estimated that the government could save $90 billion over 10 years, not by denying care but by better managing end-of-life care. That means helping terminally ill patients avoid futile treatment and manage their pain once they choose to stop treatment. It also means focusing on comfort and emotional support, not on exhausting every option technology offers.
Families, patients and doctors reach excruciating decisions every day about whether to extend treatment in the face of steep odds or to choose a less aggressive course. What families and patients decide is often guided not just by financial concerns, but by religious principles and deeply held moral beliefs.
The new rule changes none of that. But it does encourage doctors to open those tough conversations about death. To let patients know that they can largely control what is and is not done in the final days of their lives. That their families won't be forced to make agonizing decisions. That's a tremendous relief for many patients, and the families they leave behind.
Let me know what you think!
New York Unions: EPIC FAIL
As if there were more evidence needed that public sector unions were a bad idea, there comes this story out of Mayor-for-Life Michael Bloomberg's fiefdom of New York City. Read the story here if you can stomach it. I was surprised that I could, come to think of it.
Apparently the reason for the slowdown of the plowing was to protest the idea that New York's union gravy train was having to come to a stop due to lack of funds. Mayor Bloomberg, to his credit, was trying to make budget cuts that would save the city from insolvency. How horrible, I know.
a highlight passage from the article is this:
Apparently the reason for the slowdown of the plowing was to protest the idea that New York's union gravy train was having to come to a stop due to lack of funds. Mayor Bloomberg, to his credit, was trying to make budget cuts that would save the city from insolvency. How horrible, I know.
a highlight passage from the article is this:
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
She of the Fuzzy Slippers
Fuzzy Slippers has been a follower of mine for almost a year now, but I haven't until recently decided to follow her in return. Apologies to her for this egregious oversight. After perusing her site, I came across a few interesting posts of hers. Most recently the open letter to the world stating the American people's desire to do the very opposite of what our wannabe president is doing. Read the whole thing here.
May all her predictions come true quickly.
Continuing to fight the good fight.
May all her predictions come true quickly.
Continuing to fight the good fight.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Jesus Did not Speak English...Well DUH!!!
Even in faith based documents I find left wing lunacy, it seems. My fiancé just gave me a book with an article inside it entitled Jesus did not Speak English. My Loony senses went off almost immediately, and I delved inside, giving the article a read. From a purely faith based perspective, the article makes a good deal of sense. Until it actually starts talking about it’s intended subject matter, that is. What is that subject matter, exactly? Well, it’s illegal immigration. Yep. That’s right. Illegal immigration. Somehow, some way, the person that wrote this article equates the teachings of Jesus Christ with an open borders philosophy. How, you ask? Well, like most misguided souls who try to use scripture to make their point, he cherry picks the scripture he needs while completely ignoring common sense, as well as other, equally valid scriptural arguments.
Item one: he puts the caption “Jesus did not speak English” on a marquee outside the church she goes to. Several comments that graced his mail after that included remarks about how obvious it was that the Savior of course didn’t speak English, given that English was not yet a language. Apparently he didn’t realize at the time that people might misconstrue his message’s intent, which was that Jesus didn’t speak English, and therefore he wouldn’t have persecuted illegal immigrants because of their own inability to speak it. What?
Item 2: The people who complained apparently did so because they wanted to perpetuate some myth about Jesus speaking English and agreeing with their way the world worked. That in and of itself is somewhat ludicrous, since the world didn’t work the same way in the first century that it now works in the 21st. Sure, the basics are the same, but all the complexities are different. Anyway, on with my point. He bases this assessment on absolutely nothing, implying, in my view, that people who believe in Jesus automatically believe that he was whatever ethnicity the individual complainer was, spoke English, and believed everything that that individual believed and nothing else. And of course, no evidence to support this crackpot theory, either. Oy.
Item 3: The cherry picked Scripture quotes. You knew they were coming. Second column of the first page of the article brings up the idea of persecuting the stranger, which is what appears to be the crux of the article. She makes reference to the Israelites, specifically:
Exodus 23:9: You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
Leviticus 19:34: the alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 24:17: You shall not deprive a resident alien of justice.
Icing on the cake is Matthew 25:43: I was a stranger, and you did not welcome me.
For those who are unaware, Exodus and Leviticus both deal specifically with the Jews and their time in the desert after Moses led them out of Egypt. God is warning the Israelites in that verse that they were once strangers, and so had better not treat other strangers the way Pharaoh treated them. Good advice, but last time I checked it isn’t the same thing as dissolving a nation’s borders and allowing any Tomas, Ricardo and Enrique to come in without learning their motives.
The article goes on to state the obvious, telling readers that already believe in God that he is the God of Creation, and therefore everyone on the planet is a brother or sister in Christ. Of course they all are! In his assessment, though, the pastor neglects to mention yet another piece of Scripture, dealing specifically with the division of responsibilities and reverence concerning God and man. Namely, “Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s. Render unto God that which is God’s.” Last time I checked, nations had a responsibility to police their borders and keep an eye on who comes in here. At least, every other country in the world seems to be able to police their borders without getting flak for being racist. Having an official language does not mean you have an inherent dislike towards outsiders. Having an official language, in fact, would make things easier to communicate because EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY WOULD SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE!!! Why is that so difficult for “open borders” types to understand?
The pastor even acknowledges in the article that “government runs more efficiently if our law, rules, and regulations are effectively communicated.” Great. I agree. Unfortunately he ruins it by saying in the same breath: “Why would we hamstring our elected leaders by requiring that they act as if a language barrier did not exist?” What? When did wanting an official language for the country equate to ignoring the fact that a language barrier existed? If we were doing that, why would we have implemented the Ellis Island program a hundred years ago? If we were truly ignoring a language barrier, we wouldn’t bother even letting these people in the country in the first place! We’d just seal off the borders and force people to cross illegally (which they already do anyway, btw).
Another question I have is this: Why, as the article implies in its attitude, is enforcing immigration law automatically lumped in with a lack of hospitality? People who are here illegally have shown us what they think of our country’s laws by BREAKING THEM! Why are we not allowed to be more like Joe Arpaio in Arizona and enforce our immigration laws? Mexico has downright draconian laws. Laws so fiercely enforced that the flow of South American illegals is significantly less than that of Mexico itself, largely because the SAs are afraid of being caught by the Federales!
Basing an argument entirely on faith is doomed to failure, as this one was. Not that I have anything against the priest, mind you, but come on! We can’t enforce our border laws because to do so would be un-Christian? What if a terrorist with a dirty bomb slipped in and blew up a school full of Catholic kids? Would that make the guy change his mind? I certainly hope so!
Motivation Monday
Well, this marks the first ever official Motivation Monday. And having the honor of gracing the first ever post for this is Gina Corano, in a photo from her Maxim spread from a while back. Enjoy.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Euthanasia by Any Other Name...
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Well, that appears to be exactly what some in the Obama administration are doing concerning the much crowed about "end of life" provision that was stripped from the original monster we call a "bill" named Obamacare. Well, boys and girls, it looks like they're going to try to slip it in. Via memeorandum:
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.
Sounds great, doesn't it? Sounds like we're getting more choices with out healthcare, doesn't it? Well, keep on reading, true believers:
While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.
Regulation process, huh? Isn't that the same as legislation by fiat? Also, interesting little factoid for those who don't know: It's not just Republicans who are opposed to this bill, and this end of life provision. The whole bill had bipartisan opponents from all walks of life. Not to mention, the Republicans of the 111th Congress were about as able to stop Obama as a wall of paper was to stop bullets from a rail gun.
Things will change, hopefully, with the initiation of the 112th Congress, which they say will begin with a reading of a little document we like to call the Constitution of the United States of America. Hopefully they can kill this damned end of life provision while they're at it, since that was one of their principal election platforms in the midterms. If they don't, I'm sure there'll be hell to pay. From me at least if from no one else.
Oh, sure. The article starts out innocently enough, seemingly telling each of the readers that it will only incentivize doctors to council patients about what kind of treatment they want. Really? I don't buy it. Reason being because the article states that the government will specifically subsidize those doctors who recommend end of life care for their patients. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this provision already in the original bill and taken out because of a major hooplah that was caused by the bill's opponents? Mark Billing, who was subbing for Rush today on his show, confirms that yes, indeed, that was the case. Not only that, but according to him the language is even stronger now than it was in its original form. And its original form was specifically labeled "indefensible". Well, if this provision was indefensible then, what makes them think its defensible now?
The answer, dear readers, is that it is not. Obama has, using the rule making authority given to him by the passage of this 2000 page paperweight to recraft Obamacare into exactly what he wanted it to be before the town hall meetings of 2009 forced him to make promises that he had no intention of keeping.
God help us all in these trying times, and may the new Congress keep their heads and listen to those who gave them their consent just one short month ago.
Update: Left Coast Rebel beat me to posting this first, so here's some of his take on the issue:
Some Basics:
Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.
Sounds great, doesn't it? Sounds like we're getting more choices with out healthcare, doesn't it? Well, keep on reading, true believers:
While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.
Regulation process, huh? Isn't that the same as legislation by fiat? Also, interesting little factoid for those who don't know: It's not just Republicans who are opposed to this bill, and this end of life provision. The whole bill had bipartisan opponents from all walks of life. Not to mention, the Republicans of the 111th Congress were about as able to stop Obama as a wall of paper was to stop bullets from a rail gun.
Things will change, hopefully, with the initiation of the 112th Congress, which they say will begin with a reading of a little document we like to call the Constitution of the United States of America. Hopefully they can kill this damned end of life provision while they're at it, since that was one of their principal election platforms in the midterms. If they don't, I'm sure there'll be hell to pay. From me at least if from no one else.
Oh, sure. The article starts out innocently enough, seemingly telling each of the readers that it will only incentivize doctors to council patients about what kind of treatment they want. Really? I don't buy it. Reason being because the article states that the government will specifically subsidize those doctors who recommend end of life care for their patients. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this provision already in the original bill and taken out because of a major hooplah that was caused by the bill's opponents? Mark Billing, who was subbing for Rush today on his show, confirms that yes, indeed, that was the case. Not only that, but according to him the language is even stronger now than it was in its original form. And its original form was specifically labeled "indefensible". Well, if this provision was indefensible then, what makes them think its defensible now?
The answer, dear readers, is that it is not. Obama has, using the rule making authority given to him by the passage of this 2000 page paperweight to recraft Obamacare into exactly what he wanted it to be before the town hall meetings of 2009 forced him to make promises that he had no intention of keeping.
God help us all in these trying times, and may the new Congress keep their heads and listen to those who gave them their consent just one short month ago.
Update: Left Coast Rebel beat me to posting this first, so here's some of his take on the issue:
Some Basics:
- Think of end-of-life counseling from the Obama White House as carrots dangled in front of doctors, financial "incentives" for doctors to discuss “options” for end-of-life care. As stated in the NYT, that may "include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment," or a continuance of Obama's "take this pill and go home" solution to medical costs.
- Under this new regulatory regime, doctors could ostensibly be the pawns of cost-curve-bending bureaucrats. To put this into perspective, ponder a Greece-like meltdown of our financial system/government in the future and the way then that these rules would be implemented. Better yet, think of this amount of power held in the wrong hands. How would the elderly be "counseled" during a time of national crisis? Moral hazard? Who determines that doctors have pure motives, instead of purely financial motives as they counsel in end-of-life situations?
- Team Obama (has again) done a complete 180 degree turn on the American people, going behind the back of both the American public and the Democrat-controlled Congress that took the death panel language out the legislation due to public outcry.
- Obama has been able to insert the death panel regulations due to the ambiguous "the Secretary shall determine" language that appears five times in the final 2000 page Senate version of Obamacare giving the "Secretary" (in this case, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius) the ability to implement (at their discretion) such a rule. The end-of-life regulation was finalized in November, brought to light the day after Christmas, and takes effect January 1, 2011. How's that for transparency, hope and change?
- The regulation is yet another example that Obamacare is simply the skeleton template of socialized, government-run health care. As Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection states, "Obamacare simply is the infrastructure. The details and the demons will be worked out in regulations." The end-of-life regulation is such a detail and demon.
Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
One Last Christmas Treat
Well, the gift giving season is almost over. 364 more days until next time, but I suppose there's nothing I can do about that. I'll be easing back into the political rants over the next few days. Meantime, as a farewell to the season, here's a little Animaniacs, courtesy of Little Miss Attila and Youtube:
And the Angel Gabriel Said Unto Them "Fear not, for I Bring you Tidings of Great Joy"
And so do I, your humble Crusader for constitutional justice. Another Christmas has arrived and, as I sit and wait for the better half and her mother to wake so we can ope gifts before heading up to my parents' house, I have yet another video to share. Imagine, if you will. what things would have been like if the wisemen, Mary, Joseph, and others had access to such things as Google Maps, Twitter, and Facebook to spread their message of hope:
Friday, December 24, 2010
Everything Matters, Except that Nothing Really Does
My mother continually tried to drill that into my head over recent months, wherein I was dealing with more than a little depression over the fact that I'm pushing thirty and still haven't decided what I want to do with the life God gave me. As the sentence is an obvious paradox (how can everything matter if nothing does?) it took more than just mental prowess to puzzle it out. Of course, that didn't stop me from trying to analyze the statement from every intellectual angle I could before causing my brain to overheat and myself to give up in anger over not being able to solve the riddle.
Enter two friends of mine who attend the United Methodist Church here in Roseville, California. They invited my fiance and me to their Christmas Eve service, which we've just returned from, and I'm still aglow with the injection of faith I received by being around others who believed as I did, that Jesus Christ was born to save the world from its own sins, and that those who accepted Christ into their hearts would join him and his Father in Paradise.
Obviously, this proved to be just the prescription I needed to shed a good deal of the poison I'd been ingesting in the form of "all politics all the time." unfortunately this meat also hearing about the constant attacks on people of faith by those who don't believe, and even some who do. Needless to say, a steady stream of negative stories concerning your core beliefs can wear away at your resolve.
And yet, like the cavalry arriving at the last reel of an old "cowboys and Indians" flick, I was rescued not by soldiers on horses, but by songs of praise for the Son of God. Hearing "Angels we have Heard on High", "Oh Come all Ye Faithful", and other spiritual tunes filled me with the holiday cheer that, despite my efforts to spread it here in various other posts, I wasn't feeling very much of. Fortunately, that's changed, just in time for Jesus's birthday. As far as I'm concerned, that's the best Christmas gift of all: learning and relearning the real reason we celebrate this day and being able to fully appreciate it as a result.
That said, I will once again be delving into the poisonous realm of politics once the holiday season is over, as the bad doesn't go away just because you've been exposed to the good. However, I think I'll be able to go through it now with a more open perspective. I've always been a big picture guy, but I think for a while now I've been missing the REAL big picture: This life only matters for as long as it lasts. Eternity is forever.
Enter two friends of mine who attend the United Methodist Church here in Roseville, California. They invited my fiance and me to their Christmas Eve service, which we've just returned from, and I'm still aglow with the injection of faith I received by being around others who believed as I did, that Jesus Christ was born to save the world from its own sins, and that those who accepted Christ into their hearts would join him and his Father in Paradise.
Obviously, this proved to be just the prescription I needed to shed a good deal of the poison I'd been ingesting in the form of "all politics all the time." unfortunately this meat also hearing about the constant attacks on people of faith by those who don't believe, and even some who do. Needless to say, a steady stream of negative stories concerning your core beliefs can wear away at your resolve.
And yet, like the cavalry arriving at the last reel of an old "cowboys and Indians" flick, I was rescued not by soldiers on horses, but by songs of praise for the Son of God. Hearing "Angels we have Heard on High", "Oh Come all Ye Faithful", and other spiritual tunes filled me with the holiday cheer that, despite my efforts to spread it here in various other posts, I wasn't feeling very much of. Fortunately, that's changed, just in time for Jesus's birthday. As far as I'm concerned, that's the best Christmas gift of all: learning and relearning the real reason we celebrate this day and being able to fully appreciate it as a result.
That said, I will once again be delving into the poisonous realm of politics once the holiday season is over, as the bad doesn't go away just because you've been exposed to the good. However, I think I'll be able to go through it now with a more open perspective. I've always been a big picture guy, but I think for a while now I've been missing the REAL big picture: This life only matters for as long as it lasts. Eternity is forever.
Sorry guys, no boobs today
I came to a realization recently that I've probably been overdoing the Rule Five posts due to lack of material. To that end, my fiance has found a video for me to post that will, if you have any type of sense of humor at all, will make you laugh uproariously. Since it is making fun of political correctness towards Christmas, it does skirt the edge of my self imposed "no politics rule", but meh. It's funny. here it is:
Thursday, December 23, 2010
A Special Thanks...
I was going to do this about two dozen posts ago, but given my propensity for outrage and short attention span, that didn't happen. Instead of thanking those who read the drivel I post on average of two or three times a week, I went on and on posting about one or another stupid thing Washington was doing to force us into becoming mindless sheeple. Not that that isn't important, but without acknowledging those who listen, it would seem there is little point in continuing to speak. After all, what is a leader without followers?
So here's a special thinks to the following:
Left Coast Rebel
The Other McCain
Little Miss Atilla (traffic just started coming in from her site)
And all those on my tin-foil-hat-wearer list.
Merry Christmas to all of you, and may you all be safe this Christmas season!
As a bonus, here's some Ashlie Hartman Cheesecake, pursuant of McCain's Rule Number Five:
So here's a special thinks to the following:
Left Coast Rebel
The Other McCain
Little Miss Atilla (traffic just started coming in from her site)
And all those on my tin-foil-hat-wearer list.
Merry Christmas to all of you, and may you all be safe this Christmas season!
As a bonus, here's some Ashlie Hartman Cheesecake, pursuant of McCain's Rule Number Five:
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
History Once Again Repeats itself.
So there I was, driving along to my weekly game of Pathfinder (I'm a tabletop role-player better known to normal folk as a "geek", and have been since high school) and I suddenly notice that the gauge on the dashboard that monitors radiator heat decided to tilt a little further to the right than I'm comfortable with. After a few minutes of praying that it would go back down, I realized soon that such a thing was not going to happen and had to pull over several times to let the stupid thing cool down. Having been through four other vehicles that had this problem, I realized that there was a big problem coming down the pike. So, after that little bit of drama, I decide to turn around and go home before something bad happens. Too little, too late it would seem.
I stalled on the road at the corner of Stanford Ranch and Sunset in Rocklin, fortunately right near a 7-11 where I could get to a phone right away. I called the better half and told her what happened, then the tow truck and at least managed to get home safely.
The major problem now is that I don't have a car that can reliably transport me to where I need to go. However, there are a few bright sides to this whole dust up.
1. I now am limited in how I can spend my money, thus allowing me to focus on paying down necessary credit card bills, since I no longer have to buy gas, oil, radiator coolant, or any such thing until such time as the car either gets fixed or is replaced. The latter option of those two is more likely, I think.
2. Work isn't a problem, since my co-workers have my back and are willing to transport me to and from.
3. Still don't have to miss the Pathfinder game, since those friends of mine are also willing to pick me up.
4. I made it home safe and sound and am fully capable of getting through this, as it's nothing I haven't been through before.
But just because I'm looking on the bright side doesn't mean I'm not going to need cheering up, so in an effort to cheer myself up, I'm posting this pic of Lucy Pinder.
Apparently though, fate conspires against me even as I attempt to make the most of a bad situation. Now I'm forced to use my fiance's laptop rather than my own, because now my ADAPTER has given up the ghost. Or rather, the connector attachment has. If I had a replacemet there would be no problem, but I don't. Alas.
This promises to be an excellent Holiday season...
Right....
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
A Reason to Take the Laptop to Work
Well, I just got hit with a nice surprise. My page views have doubled since I started posting pics of such babe-i-licious figures as Autumn Reeser, Gemma Atkinson, and the extremely blessed Lucy Pinder. Since several dozen more of you seem to be interested, here's another screen shot of Autumn, Gemma, and Lucy. More babes to come in future, loyal readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)