We hear a lot these days about "social justice". Coming from progressive liberals, even some church clergy have taken up the call, believing that "equalizing" the wealth and power, taking from the rich and giving to the poor through legislation and coercion, is the Christian thing to do.
According to the Bible, those people are wrong. In fact, those beliefs are diametrically opposed to the Scriptures.
EXAMPLE: the Book of Leviticus (19:15) declares: "You shall not commit a perversion of justice; you shall not favor the poor and you shall not honor the great; with righteousness shall you judge your fellow." Here the Bible warns us not to "favor the poor" and does so even before we're told "not to honor the great," because partiality for the unfortunate is an even stronger human temptation, and therefore a greater sin. Both great and poor are to be treated equally, with fairness to both and without favoritism. Being treated equally is not the same as making them equal, which is what "social justice" demands.
But the progressive liberals cry, "What about all the biblical demands to show compassion to widows, orphans and the poor?"
A verse in Leviticus draws an important distinction between charity and justice and basically states "Do not say that since the wealthy man is obligated to help the poor one, it is proper for a judge to rule in favor of the poor litigant so that he will be supported in dignity." The Bible insists that justice be rendered honestly; charity may not interfere with it. In other words, while it is an obligation of individuals to help the less fortunate, no authority, whether a judge or a government, shall mandate it, or force it.
The Bible also states, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (19:18). This well-known verse makes clear that the same God who wants us to deal kindly with our fellow human beings also requires that we respect and honor ourselves. You don't harm yourself for the sake of your fellow man; the Bible consistently backs the conservative supposition that we help others best when we help ourselves. For if we harm ourselves, we are no longer in a position to help others. Who is best situated to help the poor - a wealthy man, or a poor one?
There are many, many verses in the Bible that make it exceedingly clear that it is a Christian undertaking for individuals to help provide for the less fortunate, but requires that it be voluntary. Forced "charity" is not charity, and does nothing to bring us closer to God.
Seen another way, the Bible recognizes that the great and poor should not be made equal by manipulation. Such equality would remove any need or desire to strive to be better. And God requires us to strive to be better. "Keeping up with the Joneses", though trite, is also the motivating factor that encourages people to try harder. Whatever wealth a person has is earned because the person wants something better. And the more he earns, the more he can help others. But that help must be voluntary if it is to have value to our soul.
As for the bogus "collective salvation" that President Obama and many liberal clergy speak of, that is a complete 180 degree turn from Christianity. "Collective salvation" does not recognize that Christ died for our sins, and that each of us, individually, will be judged by God according to his Word. That is the most basic Christian tenet. But under "collective salvation", as espoused by Obama, none of us can be saved individually, and we will only find salvation if we do so together, collectively as a whole (which is the goal of "social justice"). And that is anti-Christian at its core.
The next time you hear your clergy advocate social justice through taxation or coercion, or your preacher mentions "collective salvation" you would be well advised to seek out a new place of worship - one that follows the tenets of the Scriptures.
One in five Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. I don't know - it does seem to ring true in some ways. I don't care if he is muslim or not. But what I find more intriguing is that 43% do not believe he is a Christian. And I share that belief - anyone who believes in collective salvation, forcing charity and sees Christ only as "an historical figure" (Obama's statement to the Sun-Times) is not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination.
/
Friday, August 27, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Poor Joe
You gotta feel sorry for poor Joe Biden. As VP, he is obligated to say whatever his boss wants him to say - and in most cases, that means lying through his teeth. You can actually see the pain in his face as he tries valiantly to spin bad news into a web of deceit.
But the first thing you learn in business school, or Economics 101 is - "the markets do not lie".
The market is down for the month. In fact, it is down for the year. Unemployment is still 9.6% - it has been 9.5% for a year. More layoffs each month. Sales of existing homes is down 27.2% - the worst in 15 years. Sales of new homes is also down dramatically. No one is spending. Businesses are not hiring.
And amid all of this, Poor Ol' Joe had to get in front of the press and read the teleprompter that said, "There's no doubt - we're heading in the right direction."
Joe, that statement would be true if you think the "right direction" is bankruptcy and socialism. Frankly, that is not what most Americans view as the right direction.
This is punctuated by the illogic of far-left liberal Mark Levine who said on O'Reilly tonight that both Reagan and Obama were left a terrible economy with high unemployment, and "if Reagan could turn it around in 3 years, so can Obama." What Mark conveniently overlooks is that Reagan went in one direction and Obama is going in the opposite direction. Hence, Obama cannot expect to end up in the same place.
Here is a little economic logic - if you follow a recipe word for word, you will get the same result every time. But if you change the recipe, you will not get the same result. To turn things around, Reagan cut taxes, cut spending and pushed hard for businesses to grow. Obama, on the other hand, is following a recipe of increasing taxes, increasing spending and hobbling business.
To Joe and Mark, and all other liberals incapable of understanding economics I would say, "Follow the recipe that works and stop screwing around with unworkable social experiments." Carter tried the social experiments which led to unemployment rates of over 10% and interest rates of almost 20%. FDR did the same, as did Wilson with the same result (see "recipe" statement). And now Obama is trying it yet again. As they say, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time.
/
But the first thing you learn in business school, or Economics 101 is - "the markets do not lie".
The market is down for the month. In fact, it is down for the year. Unemployment is still 9.6% - it has been 9.5% for a year. More layoffs each month. Sales of existing homes is down 27.2% - the worst in 15 years. Sales of new homes is also down dramatically. No one is spending. Businesses are not hiring.
And amid all of this, Poor Ol' Joe had to get in front of the press and read the teleprompter that said, "There's no doubt - we're heading in the right direction."
Joe, that statement would be true if you think the "right direction" is bankruptcy and socialism. Frankly, that is not what most Americans view as the right direction.
This is punctuated by the illogic of far-left liberal Mark Levine who said on O'Reilly tonight that both Reagan and Obama were left a terrible economy with high unemployment, and "if Reagan could turn it around in 3 years, so can Obama." What Mark conveniently overlooks is that Reagan went in one direction and Obama is going in the opposite direction. Hence, Obama cannot expect to end up in the same place.
Here is a little economic logic - if you follow a recipe word for word, you will get the same result every time. But if you change the recipe, you will not get the same result. To turn things around, Reagan cut taxes, cut spending and pushed hard for businesses to grow. Obama, on the other hand, is following a recipe of increasing taxes, increasing spending and hobbling business.
To Joe and Mark, and all other liberals incapable of understanding economics I would say, "Follow the recipe that works and stop screwing around with unworkable social experiments." Carter tried the social experiments which led to unemployment rates of over 10% and interest rates of almost 20%. FDR did the same, as did Wilson with the same result (see "recipe" statement). And now Obama is trying it yet again. As they say, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time.
/
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
When Is Air Not Air?
An old friend and I were discussing how breathing problems are on the rise over the last 40 years, dramatically. Asthma, once rare, is now very common, as is chronic bronchitis and any number of other lung problems. Not to mention that for many, their energy level is not what it should be.
I explained to him that the air is not just polluted, it isn't even air anymore. Studies indicate that the air of today has less than 50% of the oxygen content it had just 100 years ago. The oxygen, essential to our health and well-being, is dwindling. The cause can be attributed to any number of things, including the decimation of the rain forests, which had been responsible for producing a large portion of the earth's oxygen. Rain forests were the Earth's "lungs".
Whatever the reasons, our air is of very low quality, and not suited to our needs, and is getting worse each year. This would explain why lung problems, such as asthma, have grown from almost nothing in 1950 to a worldwide epidemic in the present.
Unfortunately, there is little we can do about this situation on any large scale, short of re-foresting the planet. However, all is not completely lost...
Grandma had the right idea - have lots of green plants in every room. Plants absorb carbon dioxide and expel oxygen.
On a more "global" scale, if every person in the U.S. were to plant just one tree somewhere, that would be 320 million more producers of oxygen that "eat" the carbon dioxide that environmentalists are so worried about.
I planted 600 trees this year, and will plant 600 each year for 4 more years because I burn 20 trees each year for fuel. So, I add a lot more than I take. I also have a large vegetable garden, and a host of flower gardens. By producing food, beautifying the premises and growing a future fuel supply, I am adding a lot of oxygen, and reducing the carbon dioxide. But it is a mere, insignificant amount compared to what is needed.
But it is a start. And it is my part in the solution. How about adding your own? You do not need to own land in order to plant a tree in the forest, or even to have a window box of flowers, or plants in your home. We can all do a little. And when you add up 320 million "little" things, you have a LOT!
/
I explained to him that the air is not just polluted, it isn't even air anymore. Studies indicate that the air of today has less than 50% of the oxygen content it had just 100 years ago. The oxygen, essential to our health and well-being, is dwindling. The cause can be attributed to any number of things, including the decimation of the rain forests, which had been responsible for producing a large portion of the earth's oxygen. Rain forests were the Earth's "lungs".
Whatever the reasons, our air is of very low quality, and not suited to our needs, and is getting worse each year. This would explain why lung problems, such as asthma, have grown from almost nothing in 1950 to a worldwide epidemic in the present.
Unfortunately, there is little we can do about this situation on any large scale, short of re-foresting the planet. However, all is not completely lost...
Grandma had the right idea - have lots of green plants in every room. Plants absorb carbon dioxide and expel oxygen.
On a more "global" scale, if every person in the U.S. were to plant just one tree somewhere, that would be 320 million more producers of oxygen that "eat" the carbon dioxide that environmentalists are so worried about.
I planted 600 trees this year, and will plant 600 each year for 4 more years because I burn 20 trees each year for fuel. So, I add a lot more than I take. I also have a large vegetable garden, and a host of flower gardens. By producing food, beautifying the premises and growing a future fuel supply, I am adding a lot of oxygen, and reducing the carbon dioxide. But it is a mere, insignificant amount compared to what is needed.
But it is a start. And it is my part in the solution. How about adding your own? You do not need to own land in order to plant a tree in the forest, or even to have a window box of flowers, or plants in your home. We can all do a little. And when you add up 320 million "little" things, you have a LOT!
/
Hate To Say "Told You So"
For the last few years, Republicans and even most of our generals have been warning the Democrats - particularly Mr. Obama - about setting a timetable for leaving Iraq. They said the insurgents would simply wait us out, and once we were gone, they would strike with impunity.
The Democrats - and Obama - refused to listen.
Now we are pretty much out of Iraq. Yesterday 32 people were killed, and today several bombings killed 56 more, mostly Iraqi Security forces. The violence is surging (pardon any pun).
There's an old saying that no one knows how to lose a war, or snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like a liberal, because they prefer to cut and run. They do not like violence, and prefer trying to talk the enemy to death (which has never worked).
It appears that, barring re-entry, we may very well lose everything we gained in Iraq, and all the blood and treasure will be for naught.
And now Mr. Obama has a timetable for Afghanistan...
But then, anyone who so readily throws his Grandma under the bus cannot be expected to do any less to our military.
/
The Democrats - and Obama - refused to listen.
Now we are pretty much out of Iraq. Yesterday 32 people were killed, and today several bombings killed 56 more, mostly Iraqi Security forces. The violence is surging (pardon any pun).
There's an old saying that no one knows how to lose a war, or snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like a liberal, because they prefer to cut and run. They do not like violence, and prefer trying to talk the enemy to death (which has never worked).
It appears that, barring re-entry, we may very well lose everything we gained in Iraq, and all the blood and treasure will be for naught.
And now Mr. Obama has a timetable for Afghanistan...
But then, anyone who so readily throws his Grandma under the bus cannot be expected to do any less to our military.
/
Pindarovia
The people of the kingdom of Pindarovia were strong and independent. So much so that the tryannical king needed to find a way to weaken them enough so he could keep them under his complete control. He knew the best way to do that would be to first weaken them, then make them dependent upon him for their very lives.
The king went to his wizard to find a way to accomplish the task. The wizard gave the king a potion that, when ingested, would weaken even the strongest of men.
The king, being a wiley man, knew his people would not willingly drink of the foul potion. So he had his cooks make a recipe to make the potion appealing. They added sugar, blueberries and served it up with ice cream on the side.
When one wise man stood and tried to warn the people that this would be bad for them, the king merely said, "Why would you want to keep the people from having blueberries? Why would you want to deprive them of ice cream? How can you be so cruel and wrong-headed?"And the people, wanting the ice cream and blueberries, were fooled into taking the potion. And they were weakened, and became dependent upon the king for their survival.
Now, you might think this is only a cute little story. But it is much more than that. This sort of thing goes on all the time. Remember all those people who drank the poison believing it to be Kool-Aid at Jonestown?
And then the "Affordable Care Act". The liberals added a few good things, like covering children and people with pre-existing conditions, and used those 3 or 4 good things to "sweeten" the 2360 pages of poison that is in the bill.
And when a conservative steps up and says this is a bad bill, the liberals say, "Why would you be against covering kids, or people with pre-existing conditions? What kind of monster are you?"
The truth is, conservatives are not against the blueberries or the ice cream. They are against the poison that is being delivered with it.
And when liberals try to accuse conservatives of not caring about the people, they are blatantly lying. They know that is not true, but they use that to con the people into thinking that conservatives are bad.
So here is the difference - liberals give you blueberries and ice cream to get you to eat the poison. Conservatives (I'm not saying Republicans) want you to have the blueberries and ice cream, but without the poison.
And the sooner people stop being fooled by the wiley king and begin listening to the truth, the better off we will all be.
The king went to his wizard to find a way to accomplish the task. The wizard gave the king a potion that, when ingested, would weaken even the strongest of men.
The king, being a wiley man, knew his people would not willingly drink of the foul potion. So he had his cooks make a recipe to make the potion appealing. They added sugar, blueberries and served it up with ice cream on the side.
When one wise man stood and tried to warn the people that this would be bad for them, the king merely said, "Why would you want to keep the people from having blueberries? Why would you want to deprive them of ice cream? How can you be so cruel and wrong-headed?"And the people, wanting the ice cream and blueberries, were fooled into taking the potion. And they were weakened, and became dependent upon the king for their survival.
Now, you might think this is only a cute little story. But it is much more than that. This sort of thing goes on all the time. Remember all those people who drank the poison believing it to be Kool-Aid at Jonestown?
And then the "Affordable Care Act". The liberals added a few good things, like covering children and people with pre-existing conditions, and used those 3 or 4 good things to "sweeten" the 2360 pages of poison that is in the bill.
And when a conservative steps up and says this is a bad bill, the liberals say, "Why would you be against covering kids, or people with pre-existing conditions? What kind of monster are you?"
The truth is, conservatives are not against the blueberries or the ice cream. They are against the poison that is being delivered with it.
And when liberals try to accuse conservatives of not caring about the people, they are blatantly lying. They know that is not true, but they use that to con the people into thinking that conservatives are bad.
So here is the difference - liberals give you blueberries and ice cream to get you to eat the poison. Conservatives (I'm not saying Republicans) want you to have the blueberries and ice cream, but without the poison.
And the sooner people stop being fooled by the wiley king and begin listening to the truth, the better off we will all be.
What It Takes To Be A Liberal
Found this on the internet...
Found this floating around on the Internet...
To Be A Good Liberal...
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. Nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese 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.
9. You have to believe that hunters who support & protect nature don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
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 Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.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.
17. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
18. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, but manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
19. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States .
20. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
21. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas."
22. You have to believe that only liberals have freedom of speech, while all others should be shouted down.
23. You have to believe that it is necessary to subject Americans to embarrassing searches at airports in the name of national security, but it's not a problem for illegal immigrants to sneak across the borders by the millions without any controls whatsoever.
24. You have to believe that people who retire and collect Social Security are unpatriotic because they "suck up tax money", but it's just fine to use that same tax money to support illegal immigrants.
25. You have to believe it is a crime for a republican to commit perjury for a crime that never even occured (Libby), but it is perfectly acceptable for a democrat to be involved in bribery (Jefferson), illicit sex (Clinton), or leaving a girl to drown in your car (Kennedy).
/
Found this floating around on the Internet...
To Be A Good Liberal...
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. Nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese 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.
9. You have to believe that hunters who support & protect nature don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
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 Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.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.
17. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
18. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, but manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
19. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States .
20. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
21. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas."
22. You have to believe that only liberals have freedom of speech, while all others should be shouted down.
23. You have to believe that it is necessary to subject Americans to embarrassing searches at airports in the name of national security, but it's not a problem for illegal immigrants to sneak across the borders by the millions without any controls whatsoever.
24. You have to believe that people who retire and collect Social Security are unpatriotic because they "suck up tax money", but it's just fine to use that same tax money to support illegal immigrants.
25. You have to believe it is a crime for a republican to commit perjury for a crime that never even occured (Libby), but it is perfectly acceptable for a democrat to be involved in bribery (Jefferson), illicit sex (Clinton), or leaving a girl to drown in your car (Kennedy).
/
Monday, August 23, 2010
Ground Zero Mosque
If you live on planet Earth, you are familiar with the controversy over the mosque proposed near Ground Zero. On the one hand, supporters insist the freedom of religion that is guaranteed in the Constitution means they can build it there. But that simply is not the issue. The issue is - SHOULD they build it there?
Opponents say this is a question of respect and sensitivity to the feelings of others, particularly those who lost someone on 9/11. It has nothing to do with whether or not they have a right to build it - everyone agrees they do have that right. But having the right does not make it right.
Imam Rauf and his wife claim they are trying to "build bridges", and the center is to bring "peace and healing." But those claims are absurd on the surface, and anyone but a liberal can see that you do not build bridges by pissing people off. And sticking your thumb in someone's eye will not bring peace and healing. This proposed mosque is doing the opposite of building bridges - it is dividing us further, which is the intent.
So, on the one hand you have the right to freedom of religion, and on the other hand you have those who believe sensitivity and respect are more important than the location. Imagine building a Japanese shrine at Pearl Harbor when the wounds were still fresh.
But here is an idea:
I say let them build it, as long as we can put in a gay bar on one side and a pork rib BBQ palace on the other. And if the muslims going to the mosque think that is insensitive and disrespectful, then they begin to GET THE POINT!
It's not about what people CAN do. It's about what they SHOULD do.
/
Opponents say this is a question of respect and sensitivity to the feelings of others, particularly those who lost someone on 9/11. It has nothing to do with whether or not they have a right to build it - everyone agrees they do have that right. But having the right does not make it right.
Imam Rauf and his wife claim they are trying to "build bridges", and the center is to bring "peace and healing." But those claims are absurd on the surface, and anyone but a liberal can see that you do not build bridges by pissing people off. And sticking your thumb in someone's eye will not bring peace and healing. This proposed mosque is doing the opposite of building bridges - it is dividing us further, which is the intent.
So, on the one hand you have the right to freedom of religion, and on the other hand you have those who believe sensitivity and respect are more important than the location. Imagine building a Japanese shrine at Pearl Harbor when the wounds were still fresh.
But here is an idea:
I say let them build it, as long as we can put in a gay bar on one side and a pork rib BBQ palace on the other. And if the muslims going to the mosque think that is insensitive and disrespectful, then they begin to GET THE POINT!
It's not about what people CAN do. It's about what they SHOULD do.
/
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Too Busy...
A United States Marine was taking some college courses
between assignments. He had completed 20 missions in Iraq
and Afghanistan . One of the courses had a professor who
was an avowed atheist, and a member of the ACLU.
One day the professor shocked the class when he came in.
He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, "GOD, if you are real, then
I want you to knock me off this platform... I'll give you exactly 15 min."
The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes
went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am GOD, I'm still waiting."
It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got
out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him;
knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold.
The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently.
The other students were shocked and stunned, and sat there
looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to,
noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked,
"What in the world is the matter with you? Why did you do that?"
The Marine calmly replied,
"GOD was too busy today protecting America 's
soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid
stuff and act like an idiot. So He sent me."
The classroom erupted in cheers!
/
between assignments. He had completed 20 missions in Iraq
and Afghanistan . One of the courses had a professor who
was an avowed atheist, and a member of the ACLU.
One day the professor shocked the class when he came in.
He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, "GOD, if you are real, then
I want you to knock me off this platform... I'll give you exactly 15 min."
The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes
went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am GOD, I'm still waiting."
It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got
out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him;
knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold.
The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently.
The other students were shocked and stunned, and sat there
looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to,
noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked,
"What in the world is the matter with you? Why did you do that?"
The Marine calmly replied,
"GOD was too busy today protecting America 's
soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid
stuff and act like an idiot. So He sent me."
The classroom erupted in cheers!
/
Monday, August 9, 2010
How To Reduce Violent Crime
Progressives are not going to like this because the facts are contrary to what they want them to be.
The states with the lowest violent crime rates are Arizona, Alaska and Vermont. Substantially lower. And as far as violent crime is concerned, there is only one thing those three states have in common...
In each of those states, any adult that is not an ex-con has the right to carry a concealed weapon without a permit or license.
Compare that with the states with the highest violent crime rates - New York, New Jersey and Illinois. States with the strictest gun laws.
And here is why:
Put yourself in the role of a violent criminal. You want to ply your violent trade. You have a choice - do it in a place where the citizens are armed, or do it in a place where the citizens cannot be armed.
Which would you choose? Unless you are a suicidal violent criminal, you would choose to ply your trade where you know the citizens are unarmed (also known as "prey").
Simple logic. And the facts support it. Unfortunately, politicians and progressive liberals do not care about the facts - or your safety. They do not like guns, and do not want anyone to own them. They live in a world of make-believe ideals that may sound nice, but are impossible. Impossible because, in spite of being "civilized", it is still a world where the first law is "survival of the fittest". Predator or prey. Because there is one truth that cannot be disputed - nothing - I repeat, NOTHING - can live but what something else must die. To live, everything must eat; consume. Even plants consume nutrients from other plants and animals that have decomposed. So the reality, no matter how much we may want it to be different, is that life is a competition. As such, many people will resort to violence. And if you cannot arm yourself, you will be the prey - the rabbit in a land of wolves.
/
The states with the lowest violent crime rates are Arizona, Alaska and Vermont. Substantially lower. And as far as violent crime is concerned, there is only one thing those three states have in common...
In each of those states, any adult that is not an ex-con has the right to carry a concealed weapon without a permit or license.
Compare that with the states with the highest violent crime rates - New York, New Jersey and Illinois. States with the strictest gun laws.
And here is why:
Put yourself in the role of a violent criminal. You want to ply your violent trade. You have a choice - do it in a place where the citizens are armed, or do it in a place where the citizens cannot be armed.
Which would you choose? Unless you are a suicidal violent criminal, you would choose to ply your trade where you know the citizens are unarmed (also known as "prey").
Simple logic. And the facts support it. Unfortunately, politicians and progressive liberals do not care about the facts - or your safety. They do not like guns, and do not want anyone to own them. They live in a world of make-believe ideals that may sound nice, but are impossible. Impossible because, in spite of being "civilized", it is still a world where the first law is "survival of the fittest". Predator or prey. Because there is one truth that cannot be disputed - nothing - I repeat, NOTHING - can live but what something else must die. To live, everything must eat; consume. Even plants consume nutrients from other plants and animals that have decomposed. So the reality, no matter how much we may want it to be different, is that life is a competition. As such, many people will resort to violence. And if you cannot arm yourself, you will be the prey - the rabbit in a land of wolves.
/
Friday, August 6, 2010
Target Becomes A Target
"ST. PAUL, Minn. (Aug. 6) -- The head of Target Corp. apologized Thursday over a political donation to a business group backing a conservative Republican for Minnesota governor, which angered some employees and sparked talk of a customer boycott."
Well folks, if Target was worried about a boycott by liberals, once this news gets out they will really have something to worry about - since only 24% of the public are liberals. The rest are either conservatives or independents that often lean conservative.
Someone should tell the head of target that he needs to brush up on his math...
What has America come to when left-wing nuts can threaten people who do not agree with them and their far-left ideals? Since when did it become wrong to have differing opinions, and to ask others to respect those opinions even if they do not agree with them?
I do not support the far left in anything - but I support their right to believe as they choose. If they were true Americans, they would do the same for others.
/
Well folks, if Target was worried about a boycott by liberals, once this news gets out they will really have something to worry about - since only 24% of the public are liberals. The rest are either conservatives or independents that often lean conservative.
Someone should tell the head of target that he needs to brush up on his math...
What has America come to when left-wing nuts can threaten people who do not agree with them and their far-left ideals? Since when did it become wrong to have differing opinions, and to ask others to respect those opinions even if they do not agree with them?
I do not support the far left in anything - but I support their right to believe as they choose. If they were true Americans, they would do the same for others.
/
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Are You Getting Informed?
Much of our information upon which we base decisions are gathered from the news sources we use. But if you, like millions of others are getting your news from ABC, CBS or NBC (or MSNBC), then you simply are not getting the news. You are not being informed.
On Tuesday, Missouri voted on as referendum on the Health Care law. In spite of the fact that Missouri is split 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats, they voted against accepting the health care law by a margin of 71%. That is a whopping number, considering at least 20% of those had to be from Democrats.
Well, the vote was no sooner over than it was addressed by Fox News. But what is really telling is that NONE of the "Big 3" - ABC, CBS or NBC - even mentioned it. Nothing. They were absolutely silent about it, because it did not reflect favorably on their own liberal agenda.
If you get most or all of your news from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC or the New York Times, then you should not by any stretch of the imagination consider yourself informed.
/
On Tuesday, Missouri voted on as referendum on the Health Care law. In spite of the fact that Missouri is split 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats, they voted against accepting the health care law by a margin of 71%. That is a whopping number, considering at least 20% of those had to be from Democrats.
Well, the vote was no sooner over than it was addressed by Fox News. But what is really telling is that NONE of the "Big 3" - ABC, CBS or NBC - even mentioned it. Nothing. They were absolutely silent about it, because it did not reflect favorably on their own liberal agenda.
If you get most or all of your news from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC or the New York Times, then you should not by any stretch of the imagination consider yourself informed.
/
Job Exports
I was listening to Chris Van Hollen (D) spin about how it was the Republicans who are responsible for jobs being exported overseas. If not so pathetic, it would have been laughable.
No one who is sane can question there is only one reason an American business would leave the country and take the jobs with it - PROFIT. If it were not more profitable, they simply would not move. Period.
Now, there are two things that determine profitability - the demand for their products and services, and the cost of doing business.
And it is the cost of doing business that forces companies to move jobs overseas.
And no one can, with a straight face, say it is the Republicans who have added to the cost of doing business in America. The two major cost factors are TAXES and UNIONS. Both bleed companies dry.
The Democrats, not the Republicans are the ones who empower and strengthen the unions, which in turn strangle the businesses. And it is the Democrats, not the Republicans who keep raising the taxes on businesses, capital gains and "the wealthy" - you know, the people who actually EMPLOY people.
In America, corporate taxes and other regulations imposed by a Democrat controlled Congress are 2-3 times higher than in China, India, Mexico and even Ireland. So do not be surprised, Congress, when businesses move to China, India, Mexico and Ireland. (The only time Republicans controlled Congress in the last 60 years was the period from '94-'06 - just 12 years out of 60)
In America, unions add up to 40% onto the cost of doing business by demanding wages far above the norm, extra-fat pensions and other benefits. China, India and Mexico are not encumbered by unions.
Not that unions are all bad, but they have become much more powerful and costly than necessary for purposes of protecting workers. And it is the Democrats that keep giving them more power. Just watch - in December, the lame duck Democrat Congress will pass "card check", which will take away an employee's right to a secret ballot when voting for or against a union. This will allow unions to know who voted against them - and who to punish. This will intimidate many to vote for a union when they would rather vote against it.
Van Hollen, you are the typical partisan liberal Democrat, spreading your BS and hoping average folks are so uninformed that they will believe everything you say, just because YOU said it.
NOT!
/
No one who is sane can question there is only one reason an American business would leave the country and take the jobs with it - PROFIT. If it were not more profitable, they simply would not move. Period.
Now, there are two things that determine profitability - the demand for their products and services, and the cost of doing business.
And it is the cost of doing business that forces companies to move jobs overseas.
And no one can, with a straight face, say it is the Republicans who have added to the cost of doing business in America. The two major cost factors are TAXES and UNIONS. Both bleed companies dry.
The Democrats, not the Republicans are the ones who empower and strengthen the unions, which in turn strangle the businesses. And it is the Democrats, not the Republicans who keep raising the taxes on businesses, capital gains and "the wealthy" - you know, the people who actually EMPLOY people.
In America, corporate taxes and other regulations imposed by a Democrat controlled Congress are 2-3 times higher than in China, India, Mexico and even Ireland. So do not be surprised, Congress, when businesses move to China, India, Mexico and Ireland. (The only time Republicans controlled Congress in the last 60 years was the period from '94-'06 - just 12 years out of 60)
In America, unions add up to 40% onto the cost of doing business by demanding wages far above the norm, extra-fat pensions and other benefits. China, India and Mexico are not encumbered by unions.
Not that unions are all bad, but they have become much more powerful and costly than necessary for purposes of protecting workers. And it is the Democrats that keep giving them more power. Just watch - in December, the lame duck Democrat Congress will pass "card check", which will take away an employee's right to a secret ballot when voting for or against a union. This will allow unions to know who voted against them - and who to punish. This will intimidate many to vote for a union when they would rather vote against it.
Van Hollen, you are the typical partisan liberal Democrat, spreading your BS and hoping average folks are so uninformed that they will believe everything you say, just because YOU said it.
NOT!
/
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Incompetent Judges
Today, district judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the ban on gay marriage in California was unconstitutional because "it restricts equal rights under the 14th amendment."
Now, I am not blogging for or against gay marriage. This article is about incompetent, nincompoop liberal judges who abuse their position and power in order to push a phony liberal idea.
It is important to note the reason for his absurd ruling - equal RIGHTS. But as a judge, he of all people should know (and he does know, but chooses to ignore it) that marriage is not, and never has been a right. Rights are God-given, and cannot be refused, purchased or licensed. But every state charges for a marriage license. Therefore, every state recognizes that marriage is a priviledge, like driving, and not a right. If it must be licensed, then it cannot be a right.
So the judge has incorrectly stated the issue, and he did so on purpose in order to push the liberal agenda. As a judge, he surely knows marriage is not a right, but frames it as a right, anyway, because his agenda fails if marriage is only a priviledge.
In other words, Judge Walker is either an ignorant, incompetent fool who has no business being on the bench, or he is a crooked judge, intentionally misstating the facts. In either case, he should never be allowed anywhere near a courtroom except as a defendant for being a fraud.
If the liberals want to make gay marriage legal, they should be honest in their approach, and stop lying, cheating, bullying and using crooked courts and phony lawsuits to force others to accept their ideas.
Frankly, since marriage is a religious rite, the states overstepped by interferring in it and requiring licensing in the first place. Had the state not injected itself, each church would make its own decision based on its own tenets. If a church wants to sanction gay marriage for their congregation, they may do so. If not, they do not have to. It should be up to the churches how they will deal with the issue. The state can just as easily walk away from inserting themselves into marriage and instead offer EVERYONE a state sanctioned civil union that bestows the same legal rights on all couples, regardless of gender. And if a couple wishes to also be united in the eyes of God and blessed by the church, that would be up to their church. And that would be marriage. The civil union would be a right (provided the state does not charge for it). Marriage would be an option for those who want to take it further and seek God's blessing.
Everyone would have the same rights. But marriage, as a religious rite would be regulated by the church.
But the point is - marriage is not a right. Rights cannot be licensed or purchased, nor sanctioned by any government. Rights come from God, not the government.
And the Constitution and the Declaration of Indepence makes that point clearly. Judges should read them sometime.
/
Now, I am not blogging for or against gay marriage. This article is about incompetent, nincompoop liberal judges who abuse their position and power in order to push a phony liberal idea.
It is important to note the reason for his absurd ruling - equal RIGHTS. But as a judge, he of all people should know (and he does know, but chooses to ignore it) that marriage is not, and never has been a right. Rights are God-given, and cannot be refused, purchased or licensed. But every state charges for a marriage license. Therefore, every state recognizes that marriage is a priviledge, like driving, and not a right. If it must be licensed, then it cannot be a right.
So the judge has incorrectly stated the issue, and he did so on purpose in order to push the liberal agenda. As a judge, he surely knows marriage is not a right, but frames it as a right, anyway, because his agenda fails if marriage is only a priviledge.
In other words, Judge Walker is either an ignorant, incompetent fool who has no business being on the bench, or he is a crooked judge, intentionally misstating the facts. In either case, he should never be allowed anywhere near a courtroom except as a defendant for being a fraud.
If the liberals want to make gay marriage legal, they should be honest in their approach, and stop lying, cheating, bullying and using crooked courts and phony lawsuits to force others to accept their ideas.
Frankly, since marriage is a religious rite, the states overstepped by interferring in it and requiring licensing in the first place. Had the state not injected itself, each church would make its own decision based on its own tenets. If a church wants to sanction gay marriage for their congregation, they may do so. If not, they do not have to. It should be up to the churches how they will deal with the issue. The state can just as easily walk away from inserting themselves into marriage and instead offer EVERYONE a state sanctioned civil union that bestows the same legal rights on all couples, regardless of gender. And if a couple wishes to also be united in the eyes of God and blessed by the church, that would be up to their church. And that would be marriage. The civil union would be a right (provided the state does not charge for it). Marriage would be an option for those who want to take it further and seek God's blessing.
Everyone would have the same rights. But marriage, as a religious rite would be regulated by the church.
But the point is - marriage is not a right. Rights cannot be licensed or purchased, nor sanctioned by any government. Rights come from God, not the government.
And the Constitution and the Declaration of Indepence makes that point clearly. Judges should read them sometime.
/
Monday, August 2, 2010
Political Prostitution
Recent events remind me of the following story:
A man sees a beautiful, attractive woman. He asks, "Would you go to bed with me for $10,000,000?"
"For 10 million dollars, why not?" she said.
"Well" said the man, "Would you go to bed with me for a dollar?"
"Of course not", said the woman. "What do you think I am, anyway?"
"We already know what you are", said the man. "Now we're just haggling over the price."
The point is that money - especially big money - tends to tempt people into doing things they know are wrong. And in every case, it is what it is - prostitution.
Now we have a city council in CA and another in Colorado that want to commercially grow, package and distrubute marijuana. They say they are doing it only because of the money. Does anyone believe they are doing it for any other, more altruistic reason? They certainly would not do it if there was no money in it. It's prostitution, pure and simple.
In towns and cities around the nation, local governments are trying to bring in casino gambling. Not because it is a good, moral pasttime. And not because it will improve the quality of life. But just for one reason - the money. Again, governments - and the people who allow such things to occur - are prostituting themselves.
Frankly, I am concerned that America is succumbing to those who, for the sake of the Benjamins, would turn us into the modern day version of Sodom and Gomorrah. And I wonder what price we will eventually pay - not only as a nation, but as individuals, when we come face-to-face with You-Know-Who on judgement day.
/
A man sees a beautiful, attractive woman. He asks, "Would you go to bed with me for $10,000,000?"
"For 10 million dollars, why not?" she said.
"Well" said the man, "Would you go to bed with me for a dollar?"
"Of course not", said the woman. "What do you think I am, anyway?"
"We already know what you are", said the man. "Now we're just haggling over the price."
The point is that money - especially big money - tends to tempt people into doing things they know are wrong. And in every case, it is what it is - prostitution.
Now we have a city council in CA and another in Colorado that want to commercially grow, package and distrubute marijuana. They say they are doing it only because of the money. Does anyone believe they are doing it for any other, more altruistic reason? They certainly would not do it if there was no money in it. It's prostitution, pure and simple.
In towns and cities around the nation, local governments are trying to bring in casino gambling. Not because it is a good, moral pasttime. And not because it will improve the quality of life. But just for one reason - the money. Again, governments - and the people who allow such things to occur - are prostituting themselves.
Frankly, I am concerned that America is succumbing to those who, for the sake of the Benjamins, would turn us into the modern day version of Sodom and Gomorrah. And I wonder what price we will eventually pay - not only as a nation, but as individuals, when we come face-to-face with You-Know-Who on judgement day.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)