Why is America the greatest country in the world, with the longest lasting form of government (Our Constitution)in history? A fair question that of course can be debated by different schools of thought. I am a conservative, and the liberal mind may consider me radical, but there is absolutely nothing radical about believing the way that the founders of this great nation believed, and how they intended our system of government to work.

  We are a free people, and one of the main reasons that we have survived for so long with our precious freedoms is because of our free enterprise system. Our founding fathers planned for very limited government. Our individual state governments were supposed to deal with its people, while the federal government was small, and played a very limited role in our lives. These were great Christian men who believed in God, the Bible, and in the worth of each  individual person to conduct thier lives as THEY saw fit with very little, if any, interference from government.

  Fast forward to the year 2009. We have a federal government that has become a "bloated pig." Taxes are a part of our democratic system, but when people are taxed excessively to pay for every whim of man, the spirit of the individual is severely oppressed. In my opinion, one of the greatest presidents ever, Ronald Reagan, knew the dangers of big government and high taxes. He proved that  the government could actually cut taxes, and revenue would be increased? Yes! But how could this be? When people are left alone,  allowed to run thier own lives, and handle thier money(What a great concept?)they will spend, invest, build, and create! As a result, more revenue will flow into the coffers. This is how America was meant to operate. The market must be left alone to work itself.  read more »

My previous blog entry covered many labels that fit me, when understood in the proper context (in other words, when not twisted by the left for their own purposes): liberal, pro-choice, etc. I'd like to add to that list with a few labels that do not fit me, but that the left will insist on applying to me-- and if you oppose them, they'll insist they apply to you too. 

First, I am not Racist. I think it's great that we finally have a black President even though I did not vote for him. I don't agree with most of what he does and I don't trust his motives, but that's not because he's black. I wouldn't agree with the policies he's advancing no matter what color he was. Frankly, the idea that white people cannot oppose a black President's policies without being racist is one of the most racist things I've heard in the past year.

Second, I am not Fascist. I have much less in common with Nazi ideology than socialists do. The word Nazi is an anglicized abbreviation of the German word Nationalsozialismus, meaning National Socialism. The Nazi Party's official name was the National Socialist German Worker's Party. Their actual policies involved increased government control over every aspect of the German citizen's life. They opposed capitalism on principle and they "approved" of individual property rights only when those rights were used to further the Nazi agenda. I could go on and on, but this issue has been widely covered in other blogs lately.

Third, I am not Sexist. I am a man who believes that abortion is morally and socially wrong, at least as wrong as killing any other human being. I'm all for equal rights for both sexes, but that means equal rights for both, not better rights for women. Violence by men against women is horrible, but is violence by women against men somehow more acceptible? Why do feminists work so hard to cover up statistics about violence by women against men? Considering that criminological studies estimate 40%-50% of rape accusations are false, why is it wrong to suggest that those accused of rape should be considered innocent until proven guilty? Why is it wrong to hold false accusers accountable for the lives, careers and relationships they ruin? I've been called a rape sympathizer and told I'm as bad as an actual rapist, just for asking this. Many other men have been called sexist and worse for asking questions like these. Rather than address potent issues that could benefit us all, men and women, the left would rather have you believe that anyone who questions their dogma is simply sexist and bigoted.  read more »

Dingell berries have threatened a protestor daring to speak at a congressional townhall. According to Mike Sola, supporters of Rep. Dingell showed up at his house in the middle of the night in reference to the exchange this father had about his son with the Congressman. The nocturnal altercation was reported to police and Sola vows to defend life and property by any means necessary if the situation calls for it.

Tolerancemongers and Afrosupremacists are plotting to remove Glenn Beck from the airwaves. A coalition of Black bloggers has convinced Geico to withdraw advertising from this particular afternoon Fox News program.

Beck dared to speculate that Barack Obama might harbor racial antipathy towards Whites in light of the hasty conclusions the President drew regarding the Gate's altercation. Perhaps conservatives should respond by pressuring advertisers into dropping notoriously anti-Caucasian Tom Joyner.

Freedom throughout the Western world hangs dangerously in the balance.

The military is recruiting for concentration camp guards. A classified on the GoArmy.com and National Guard websites is seeking "Internment and Relocation Specialists".

Naive supporters of the government will claim this is only referring to detention centers set up for America's terrorist enemies. I ask you, dear citizen, just exactly who is a terrorist now? Obama supporters and allies have dropped the term in relation to Islamic militants and instead apply it to citizens confronting legislators and bureaucrats over the inadequacies of the proposed healthcare reforms.

Things don't look much better off among America's closest foreign allies either as plans are being drawn up to extinguish liberty in one of the lands that once guarded this precious flame. British officials are considering mandatory vegetarianism throughout the United Kingdom.  read more »

This list has been a long time in the making. So many times when I debate someone from the left, I find their arguments boil down to little more than code words and accusations. "You must just be homophobic... How can you be against equality and choice?..." and so on. Yet the left's intended meanings of most of these code words are far removed from their common usage. I've even seen fellow conservatives fall into the word traps laid by those on the left; and when they do, they inevitably lose. So I present this list in the hopes that any conservatives reading this will take heart, and speak up the next time the left tries to frame the argument in their twisted words. 

The first mis-used liberal code word is Liberal itself. The truth is, I am a liberal. The word "liberal" comes from the Greek eleutheros through the Latin liberalis, from which we also get words like liberty. Eleutheros means "free", while liberalis literally means "pertaining to a free man" and later took on the meaning "noble, generous". We could go with either one of those definitions. Ask yourself this: Which political philosophy is freer, the one that encourages individuals to be masters of their own actions and consequences, or the one that is willing to take away the individual's life and property for the good of "society"? Which is more generous, the philosophy that encourages the poor to become dependent on cradle-to-grave government care, or the one that ensures opportunity and class mobility for all, rich and poor alike? And which is more noble, the philosophy resting on coercion and "spreading the wealth around" or the one that emphasizes the rights and dignity of the individual? Moreover, even today Europeans use liberal the same way I'm using it here, the same way they always have, meaning support for individual freedoms. It seems only in Canada, the US and a few other select countries has liberal become twisted to mean the opposite of what it actually means. And if you need more evidence that it was truly twisted, consider this: By the end of the 19th century, usage of the word had so deviated from its original meaning that true liberals were forced to adopt a new, entirely nonpolitical word to describe themselves: libertarian.  read more »

Senator Barbara Boxer recently declared that, before the current round of town hall meetings on health care reform, the last time she had seen such suspiciously well-dressed protestors was during the 2000 Florida election recount.  Well, yes—until Obama’s presidency, that’s the last time Republicans showed up en masse to get really angry about something; screaming and chanting are political tactics more naturally suited to the left.

As for the couture angle—here’s a newsflash for Boxer: Republicans have higher standards than Democrats.  A typical left-wing protest involves twenty-somethings in ratty T-shirts and shredded jeans breaking windows at a local Starbucks during the midmorning rush.

The typical right-wing protest—invariably held in the evening, since attendees have jobs in the daytime—involves adults who dress as though they would like to elevate community standards, not degrade them.  Participants address their concerns directly to those in power, such as legislators, rather than assailing defenseless third parties, such as coffee franchise employees.  The fact that most conservative protestors come directly from work may explain why they wear suits and skirts.  But apparently Senate Democrats believe opinions are valid only if expressed by people sporting “Kill Bush” buttons and Birkenstocks.

When Boxer and other Congressional Democrats realized that Americans don’t see “well-dressed” as an epithet, they moved in the opposite direction: they claimed that the protestors were scruffy rabble-rousers after all.  House Leader Nancy Pelosi insisted that demonstrators have been “carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”  Translation: One protestor had a swastika with a slash through it, and others were displaying American flags and ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ banners—you know, symbols like swastikas.  read more »

If the Middle Ages are to stand in history books as the Age of Faith, it could be equally asserted that the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries will no doubt be remembered as the Era of Unbelief. Whereas unbelievers in the Middle Ages were careful in how they expressed their theological doubts for fear of befalling persecution, theists (be they Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox Jew) have today learned selectivity in how they go about expressing challenges to the prevailing lack of belief impacting fundamental cultural institutions such as government, academia, and the scientific establishment. And like the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, the atheistic establishment of today seeks to foster a worldview influencing all aspects of society and binds all individuals whether they wish to be or not. Such an assertion will become more obvious in the following analysis which identifies significant atheistic thinkers, clarifies why some chose to adhere to this particular belief system, and critiques this worldview and contrasts it with Christian monotheism.

As an intellectual tradition, atheism has captured the minds of some of history’s most formidable thinkers. Creation science apologist Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis has astutely pointed out that social issues and public policies rest upon a foundation of thought and belief. Keeping with this analogy, atheism proceeds from a theoretical base up through a practical program designed to influence various spheres of culture such as politics and education with prominent luminaries within the movement solidifying this mental edifice along the way.  read more »

This is a bit a humorous story.

Via Wall Street Journal:

White House officials and lawmakers were studying late Thursday how to keep alive the government’s cash-for-clunkers incentive program because of concerns the program’s $1 billion budget may have been exhausted after just one week.

Obama administration officials warned congressional leaders Thursday it planned to suspend the program at midnight. But the White House released a statement late Thursday saying that completed deals would be honored and the program is still under review.

 

A White House official said, “We are working tonight to assess the situation facing what is obviously an incredibly popular program. Auto dealers and consumers should have confidence that all valid [cash-for-clunker] transactions that have taken place to-date will be honored.”

Lawmakers are discussing with White House officials where to find funding — including possibly tapping the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, a congressional aide said.

The clunkers program, which offers rebates of up to $4,500 to consumers who trade in old vehicles and buy new, more fuel-efficient models, began July 24 and sparked a surge in car sales.

President Obama has invited Sergeant James Crowley and Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. to the White House for a beer to clear up hard feelings over Crowley’s arrest of Gates for disorderly conduct two weeks ago.

Notice how, now that the facts have come out, no one is taking Gates’ side anymore; those who initially sided with Gates are arguing that both men are at fault and that we should all “learn from this incident” and move on.

If anyone still cares, the fact is that both sides are simply not at fault.

Here are a few myths and misunderstandings about Crowley’s arrest of Gates:

Crowley overreacted in arresting Gates.

Not according to the Cambridge Police Department; the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association; the Massachusetts Municipal Police Coalition; the Cambridge Multicultural Police Association; mixed-race police unions across the country; Sgt. Leon Lashley, the black cop who accompanied Crowley; or black public figures such as Bill Cosby and Juan Williams.  Other than that, the experts are unanimous—he overreacted!

Gates’ behavior was not an arrestable offense; Crowley should have walked away after establishing his identity.

According to police protocol in such an incident, you leave the scene only once all actors are quiet and issues have been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.  You do not slip away while one party is still unhinged, screaming like a lunatic, insulting a police officer’s mother, badgering officers, and frightening neighbors who have gathered out of concern.  If the object of investigation shows no signs of calming down, it is not police procedure to leave such a raving maniac poised to cause additional mayhem.  The police have seen plenty of cases in which angry residents have gone on to cause further trouble; it’s foolish for anyone to second-guess the cops and pronounce that they should have known what Gates would do next.  Gates had dozens of opportunities to cooperate with Crowley’s attempts to defuse the situation and back away, and every time he chose not to.  That is why he was arrested.  read more »

The eagle-eyed sleuths at Investor’s Business Daily recently dug up a nefarious provision in the House’s 1,018-page health care bill that prohibits you from keeping your current private insurance if any changes are made to it.

On p. 16.

This, in a bill whose table of contents and “general definitions” run to p. 14.  So the House has written a bill whose key, most egregious proviso is hidden so poorly that the authors apparently assumed the public couldn’t be bothered to click two pages to get to it.

Evidently this was too much work for President Obama, whose response during a news conference on Monday at Children’s Hospital to a concerned caller from Maine asking if he was interpreting the stipulation correctly was, “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.”  What part of the bill is Obama familiar with—the cover?

But don’t worry—Obama says, “If you like your health plan, you can keep it.”  He sure doesn’t know any differently!

In Section 102—that is, the second part of the first section, two pages into the bill—ironically titled, “Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage,” the bill puts the following limitation on those who wish to eschew government-approved options and keep their own coverage: “[T]he individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage [must] not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.”  read more »