This post is a paraphrase of an article by Robert George entitled “Obama’s Abortion Extremism” that was published at www.thepublicdiscourse.com earlier this year. Check it out.
Pro-Choice = Pro-Abortion
According to all the “pro-choice” people in the world, no one is pro-abortion. No one wants innocent children to be murdered while in the uterus. In fact most pro-abortion proponents say they think it is wrong and would never have one themselves, but do not believe it should be made illegal. Women do not get pregnant simply to have an abortion after all. Sometimes women find themselves pregnant because of rape or incest (less than 1% of abortions are due to this), or because of poor choices they have made, and they should not be saddled with the “burden” of caring for a child.
Stick with me here; this will make sense in a minute. Many of the founding fathers of our country did not believe in slavery. In fact many of them did not own slaves at all, and some of them freed the slaves they inherited, or purchased. However, they believed that slavery was so woven into the everyday life of America, that it would not be feasible to outlaw it. The economic consequences would have been great for businesses and industries that had been built on slave labor. Therefore slavery was not outlawed by the United States Constitution. Those who opposed it, but did not outlaw it, were not monsters. Rather they were sincere and honest about their concerns. This does not make them any the less wrong in their belief. Looking back at those people, do we refer to them as pro-choice because they thought the choice to have slaves should be left to the individual? No, they are referred to as pro-slavery. It does not matter to us what their personal beliefs were; only what their actions were. Their actions allowed the slave trade to continue in the United States for nearly 100 years before a bloody civil war settled the issue permanently. Thus they were pro-slavery.
I do not see what the difference between the two is. In both instance the people are “morally opposed” to the act that is in question, yet in regards to slavery we have not problem saying they are “pro-slavery”. However if you call someone who supports Roe v. Wade pro-abortion, you best watch out.
Obama is Pro-Abortion no matter how you look at it.
Obama is on the record as saying that he will support legislation that will repeal the Hyde Amendment. This amendment protects me, and other pro-life people, from having money taken from us by the government (i.e. taxes), used to fund abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and is not the result of rape or incest. The “pro-choice” group NARAL (I looked on the website and don’t know what the name stands for) has said, “(the Hyde Amendment) forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.” First thing to notice about that statement is that it means there are a lot of living, breathing people here on earth, that would not have been here had it not been for the Hyde Amendment. Second, let’s break down that statement. They are upset because women who made choices, and then suffered the possible consequences of those choices, were not allowed to have those consequences lifted by a medical procedure available, due to the Hyde Amendment. How unfair! Well hopefully once Obama gets his way and the Hyde Amendment is repealed I’ll be able to get that liposuction procedure that I have wanted. I never really thought I would get fat eating all those cheeseburgers. Now I am discriminated against because my shirts cost more because they are plus sizes, and I can not fit through tight spaces anymore. People, I have to live with this spare tire everyday, as a constant reminder of my poor choices.
President elect Obama has also promised that the “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA). This act creates a federally guaranteed “fundamental right” to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. This includes a “right” to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks of pregnancy for undefined “health” reasons. Pro-abortion groups have stated that FOCA will “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies” such as the partial birth abortion ban (which he actually opposed and even condemned the Supreme Courts ruling on this issue), and parental consent. At least kids will still need a parent’s permission to get a drivers license.
Not only does he wish to promote abortion, but he plans on removing federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers. Heaven forbid a young woman goes to one of these centers and receive an ultrasound where the technician allows her to see the human life growing in her. It would be unfortunate for her to see that the baby is not a blob of tissue as she has been told, but rather a miniature human. True they can still go to planned parenthood and receive free ultrasounds, but the policy there is to not show the actual pictures to the mother since they know once the mother sees her baby, the chance of her having an abortion is much less. Obama has stated that unwanted pregnancies are a “punishment” for young mothers, and they should not need to be endured. They need to have access to abortion on demand, apparently even if that means not giving them an opportunity to do otherwise, or even be fully informed about what they are considering.
He opposed including unborn children in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), a measure that even Ted Kennedy supported. That should not be a surprise since while he was in the Illinois senate he opposed legislation that was presented to protect children who were born alive during an abortion. This legislation did not ban any abortions (something Obama’s campaign lied about until the facts were over whelming). In fact one year it was the very same legislation that passed unanimously in the US Senate with the support of pro-abortionists like John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. I believe that was the year that Obama was chair of the committee that did not allow the legislation to get to the floor of the senate.
President Bush has restricted the use of federal research money for use on embryonic stem cell lines that were already in use when he became president. He has prohibited the proliferation of this practice into the use of cryopreserved embryos that were created by in vitero fertilization for use in reproduction because it results in the destruction of the embryo. Obama is in favor of lifting these restrictions. But he wants to take it a step further. He is co-sponsor of a bill that will authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos specifically for this purpose. It effectively requires the killing of human embryos that were produced by cloning, and makes it a federal crime for a woman to have one of those embryos implanted into her uterus in an attempt to save it. It is my understanding the cloning of human beings is still in the somewhat distant future, however there are people working on it and once a bill becomes law, it is harder to reverse.
Maybe you buy into the misinformation out there that embryonic stem cells will allow us to cure Michael J. Fox of Parkinson’s disease (a disease that runs in my family and one I frankly would like a cure for), or could have made Christopher Reed walk again. Stem cells do hold this promise, yet the only stem cells that have shown any true evidence of working are adult stem cells (i.e. stem cells from people already born that can be found in bone marrow and other places). When a bill was presented to the United States Senate that would have allocated a modest amount of federal research money toward this research, then Senator Obama was one of five senators to oppose it. So he is in favor of federal funding for stem cell research if it leads to the destruction of a human life, but opposed to it if it actually holds promise for saving lives.
Freedom of Speech
This is not from the article I referenced at the top of the post; rather it is simply my opinion.
I first remember hearing about the reinstatement of the “fairness doctrine” several years ago when my own Senator, Tom Harkin (sorry Christopher Reed I voted for you) was wanting to reinstate it. At the time there was a Republican president and control of both houses. Now there will be a Democratic president and a control of both houses, making the possibility of reinstatement relatively good.
The fairness doctrine will require local radio stations to provide access to anyone who calls them and complains about what is being said on the radio. For instance if I were to read this post on WHO out of Des Moines, WHO will be required to provide air time to any pro-abortion group who calls to present their rebuttal to my thoughts. That seems fair, except that radio is a business. If my talk sells they should be able to play it, and not have to worry about providing free access to others. They may be boring while I am entertaining, and the ratings drop. Not to mention the sheer headache it would cause station managers. They will simple drop everything controversial, and go with a very PC and boring program format. This to me is a stifling of freedom of speech. As it is right now anyone can get on radio and say what they want, if they have an audience. It is equal opportunity.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
An email between a friend and me
Infrastructure is an easy solve. First the federal government will provide for national security, as it should based on the US Constitution. Schools should be paid for by the community as they used to be. Actually there is a fair amount of information out there that shows that private schools provide a better education, at a lower cost to student ratio, than government schools do. I really do not think we understand the bureaucracy that exists in schools and the costs associated with that. I believe teachers in general are over paid, I am a big fan of paying teachers well if they deserve it, but if they are crap we should get rid of them. The teachers union has screwed that up totally.
Don't jump all over my last comment about teachers being paid to much. I know of some teachers in our community that are making more money than I do and I have a 4 year degree as well as a professional degree. I work from 7:30 to 5 for 52 weeks a year, and if I have a late night call I do not get to come in late the next morning like the poor teachers do after they stay late for conferences. I do not get snow days, and I pay for my own professional growth. I understand they have work to do when they are not at school, but so do I. It's called reading journals to stay up on things. So I am sick of hearing about the poor teachers, and how they do not get paid enough. When I complain about them making more than me, people shoot back, "you choose your profession." Yes I did and so did they so they should not bitch about making what they would make in a free market.
The infrastructure of roads. I would be okay with the State paying for the highways, but I really think that toll roads are the way to go. That way you pay to use the road. You also have to remember that if the government is not doing all of these things our taxes will be lower, and I don't just mean our income taxes. Sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, the whole works will be lower or gone.
As to your point about flooding/natural disasters. The property value of that land will be less/should be less than it currently is. The reason people will put houses in areas that they know may flood, is because they know the government will bail them out. The same is true for farmers planting fields that flood all the time. Either they have not done a risk assessment, or they have decided that the risk of them loosing everything is lower than the possibility of gain. If it isn't they should not be planting the field. People will have to take the increased risk into account when they purchase things such as land and houses. Land that floods will be lower in price etc. I also believe that people will be amazed at the out flowing of support neighbors give. We are already a very generous nation on our own, and that is after we have given at work "taxes". If we have more disposable income then it will be easier for us to help our neighbors. I also believe that the church needs to step this aspect of outreach up. Because the government has taken over doing much of this people have backed off because, on a certain level, why should they help when the government is going to help out?
Remember the overall cost of everything is higher, because companies know people will pay it, because there is some assurance that if trouble happens someone, or something, will step in to pay for it. Much like the cost of healthcare has increased because of third party payers. Since they have deep pockets, companies can charge more, plus companies must charge more to make the same amount when more of what they make is being taken in taxes.
First off I am not a fan of McCain. I do think that Palin would make a good president, because I do not think that she thinks she could do it on her own. She would surround herself with people to help her, and she has the general principles that I think are more important. She has the most EXECUTIVE experience of everyone on the ticket, and it is always different when the buck stops with you than when it stops with a group that you belong to. That is why I think Senators make bad choices for presidential candidates.
Obama is not just going to cause problems for small business, he is going to cause problems for everyone. He is weak on foreign policy. Some of his economic advisors are the same people who voted to prevent regulations on FannyMae and Freddie Mac. He has even consulted the person who ran FannyMae, and found guilty of falsifying financial statements in the organization so he could get bonuses. He had to pay fines and/or give back the bonuses, but the guys at Enron did the same thing and they are in jail. He wants to write a "Second Bill of Rights" that tells us what the government owes us. For instance we all have a right to a job, and a house. That sounds like a little thing they tried in Russia called communism. What makes America great is that we have opportunity to advance ourselves. Everyone does. Why is it that every ethnic group that legally migrates to the US is able to make a good living within a generation or two yet African American's are not? I think the main reason for that is because the government has been paying them to do nothing, and telling them that they can't make it because "the man" is keeping them down. Bull! I am sure that it would be very difficult to make something out of your self if you come from an inner city. The reason being that the education system there sucks, and several people tell you that you can't make it. Clarence Thomas over came a great deal to get where he is but he is vilified by the media instead of celebrated.
An interview Obama had in 2001 when he was in the IL senate has surfaced, and in it he says that the fundamental problem with America is the Constitution because it does not say what the government can do for us. The best thing the government can do for us is to get out of the way and let us succeed.
Don't jump all over my last comment about teachers being paid to much. I know of some teachers in our community that are making more money than I do and I have a 4 year degree as well as a professional degree. I work from 7:30 to 5 for 52 weeks a year, and if I have a late night call I do not get to come in late the next morning like the poor teachers do after they stay late for conferences. I do not get snow days, and I pay for my own professional growth. I understand they have work to do when they are not at school, but so do I. It's called reading journals to stay up on things. So I am sick of hearing about the poor teachers, and how they do not get paid enough. When I complain about them making more than me, people shoot back, "you choose your profession." Yes I did and so did they so they should not bitch about making what they would make in a free market.
The infrastructure of roads. I would be okay with the State paying for the highways, but I really think that toll roads are the way to go. That way you pay to use the road. You also have to remember that if the government is not doing all of these things our taxes will be lower, and I don't just mean our income taxes. Sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, the whole works will be lower or gone.
As to your point about flooding/natural disasters. The property value of that land will be less/should be less than it currently is. The reason people will put houses in areas that they know may flood, is because they know the government will bail them out. The same is true for farmers planting fields that flood all the time. Either they have not done a risk assessment, or they have decided that the risk of them loosing everything is lower than the possibility of gain. If it isn't they should not be planting the field. People will have to take the increased risk into account when they purchase things such as land and houses. Land that floods will be lower in price etc. I also believe that people will be amazed at the out flowing of support neighbors give. We are already a very generous nation on our own, and that is after we have given at work "taxes". If we have more disposable income then it will be easier for us to help our neighbors. I also believe that the church needs to step this aspect of outreach up. Because the government has taken over doing much of this people have backed off because, on a certain level, why should they help when the government is going to help out?
Remember the overall cost of everything is higher, because companies know people will pay it, because there is some assurance that if trouble happens someone, or something, will step in to pay for it. Much like the cost of healthcare has increased because of third party payers. Since they have deep pockets, companies can charge more, plus companies must charge more to make the same amount when more of what they make is being taken in taxes.
First off I am not a fan of McCain. I do think that Palin would make a good president, because I do not think that she thinks she could do it on her own. She would surround herself with people to help her, and she has the general principles that I think are more important. She has the most EXECUTIVE experience of everyone on the ticket, and it is always different when the buck stops with you than when it stops with a group that you belong to. That is why I think Senators make bad choices for presidential candidates.
Obama is not just going to cause problems for small business, he is going to cause problems for everyone. He is weak on foreign policy. Some of his economic advisors are the same people who voted to prevent regulations on FannyMae and Freddie Mac. He has even consulted the person who ran FannyMae, and found guilty of falsifying financial statements in the organization so he could get bonuses. He had to pay fines and/or give back the bonuses, but the guys at Enron did the same thing and they are in jail. He wants to write a "Second Bill of Rights" that tells us what the government owes us. For instance we all have a right to a job, and a house. That sounds like a little thing they tried in Russia called communism. What makes America great is that we have opportunity to advance ourselves. Everyone does. Why is it that every ethnic group that legally migrates to the US is able to make a good living within a generation or two yet African American's are not? I think the main reason for that is because the government has been paying them to do nothing, and telling them that they can't make it because "the man" is keeping them down. Bull! I am sure that it would be very difficult to make something out of your self if you come from an inner city. The reason being that the education system there sucks, and several people tell you that you can't make it. Clarence Thomas over came a great deal to get where he is but he is vilified by the media instead of celebrated.
An interview Obama had in 2001 when he was in the IL senate has surfaced, and in it he says that the fundamental problem with America is the Constitution because it does not say what the government can do for us. The best thing the government can do for us is to get out of the way and let us succeed.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The movie 300
Just saw this movie this weekend and I was delightfully surprised. There was some totaly unnecessary nudity, and the gore was a little over the top, but the main story was good. The story was based on a true story, at least as much as any hollywood story may be. What I found interesting was the driving force behind the Spartans. It was their freedom! Here were people who were willing to fight, and die, for their freedom, and most of us are to lazy to vote, or contact our officials. I thought this movie could be shown in a civics class to demonstrate how we should view the priveldge that we enjoy of freedom.
Army Navy Surpulus
I work outside during the winter, here in the upper midwest, and at times it can get kind of cold. Since my profession requires a coat that has a zipper in each arm, and there is only one company that makes them to my knowledge, the variety of styles is limited. I like to have a hood, so that the back of my neck stays warm. I have seen those pull on hoods that kind of work like a ski mask, but the neck part is never long enough and my neck always gets exposed to the elements. I got to thinking that if anyone had solved this problem, it was probably the military. That led me to a website that had army and navy surplus on it. Low and behold I found just what I was looking for. I don't think I can describe it adequately so follow this link to see what I am talking about: Military Balaclava
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Various thoughts
Tom Brokaw
So yesterday I am watching some of Mr. Brokaw's "The Greatest Generation" on Hulu and I was just amazed at how his world view came across. The first story was about some DDay vets who fought in this small French town, which was eventually destroyed by the Germans when they fought to take it back. Tom repeatedly expressed disbelief at the fact that the townspeople risked their lifes to help the soldiers, and that they did not hold the US responsible for the destruction of their town. It did not even occur to Tom that it was not our fault the town was destroyed. We were there doing good, as usual, and not the source of the evil that was going on. The Nazis were the source of the evil. Believe it or not Tom, the French appreciated that we were there to liberate them and they were willing to suffer with us. He kept acting like the population of the town only suffered because we had military there. No! They suffered because the flippin Nazis had invaded their country and did not want to give it back.
In the next episode I watched Tom talked about the patriotism that the Greatest Generation had. Of course they were patriotic Tom, they did not have a bunch of liberal journalists telling them all the time how nasty our nation was. Because of their patriotism they believed in a bigger cause and thousands of them willingly gave their lives because they believed they owed their country something, not the other way around. One of the interviewed GIs talkd about the letters he had received as CO from the families of his fallen comrades. All the letters were positive and none of them blamed him for the death of their loved ones. Tom could not believe this either. It really saddens me to think that our country has fallen so quickly from that kind of thinking, into the current mind set that the government owes us.
The Bailout
Waste of monney! Do away with capital gains taxes, and drop the tax rate on buisness and watch the markets sore. After a couple of years you can reinstate the capital gains tax if necessary.
Movies
Saw the movie "Fireproof" and it was as good as I hoped. I strongly encourage all of you to see it. I can not wait for "An American Carrol" to come out on DVD so I can see it. No theater within 40 miles of here will show it. It looks very funny. If you have not seen the movie "Obsession" about radical Islam, you need to see it. I bought it a couple of years ago when it first came out but a friend just received a free copy in the mail two days ago, so look for it and watch it. It will spook you.
So yesterday I am watching some of Mr. Brokaw's "The Greatest Generation" on Hulu and I was just amazed at how his world view came across. The first story was about some DDay vets who fought in this small French town, which was eventually destroyed by the Germans when they fought to take it back. Tom repeatedly expressed disbelief at the fact that the townspeople risked their lifes to help the soldiers, and that they did not hold the US responsible for the destruction of their town. It did not even occur to Tom that it was not our fault the town was destroyed. We were there doing good, as usual, and not the source of the evil that was going on. The Nazis were the source of the evil. Believe it or not Tom, the French appreciated that we were there to liberate them and they were willing to suffer with us. He kept acting like the population of the town only suffered because we had military there. No! They suffered because the flippin Nazis had invaded their country and did not want to give it back.
In the next episode I watched Tom talked about the patriotism that the Greatest Generation had. Of course they were patriotic Tom, they did not have a bunch of liberal journalists telling them all the time how nasty our nation was. Because of their patriotism they believed in a bigger cause and thousands of them willingly gave their lives because they believed they owed their country something, not the other way around. One of the interviewed GIs talkd about the letters he had received as CO from the families of his fallen comrades. All the letters were positive and none of them blamed him for the death of their loved ones. Tom could not believe this either. It really saddens me to think that our country has fallen so quickly from that kind of thinking, into the current mind set that the government owes us.
The Bailout
Waste of monney! Do away with capital gains taxes, and drop the tax rate on buisness and watch the markets sore. After a couple of years you can reinstate the capital gains tax if necessary.
Movies
Saw the movie "Fireproof" and it was as good as I hoped. I strongly encourage all of you to see it. I can not wait for "An American Carrol" to come out on DVD so I can see it. No theater within 40 miles of here will show it. It looks very funny. If you have not seen the movie "Obsession" about radical Islam, you need to see it. I bought it a couple of years ago when it first came out but a friend just received a free copy in the mail two days ago, so look for it and watch it. It will spook you.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Editorial for local paper
I wrote this for a local paper. My wife thought it was good so I'm posting it here.
Country First: It’s How He Lives
I will be the first to admit that Senator John McCain, because of his “immigration reform” and involvement in the “gang of 13” was not my first choice for a presidential candidate. Heck, he was not even my second or third, but my guys did not make the cut, and I was left with Senator McCain. I was really sweating over who to vote for in this November’s election. I knew I did not want Senator Obama, mainly because I think I spend my money better than the government, but I also knew that I did not agree with Senator McCain on some very prominent issues.
In May I read a piece by Karl Rove that spoke of Senator McCain’s personal character. It told stories of his bravery in the Hanoi Hilton, where he was called on to splint a fellow captive’s broken arm with bandages he took from his own injured leg, and his sermons passed via Morse code. It spoke of how he and Cindy adopted a baby from Mother Theresa’s orphanage in Calcutta because it had special physical needs, and then paid for a low level McCain aid to adopt another. Okay, so I had to admit the man had character, but it takes more than a man of character to be President.
It was with great trepidation that I waited for the announcement of his Vice Presidential candidate, especially with names like Lieberman, and Pawlenty being thrown around. When he announced Sarah Palin as his running mate, I have to admit I got excited. I now had someone I knew I could vote for, even if she was on the bottom of the ticket. Now that I had some hope of actually being able to support Senator McCain, I did a more thorough examination of his positions.
I already knew that he was strong on national defense, and national security. After all he was just about the only one whom never waivered in support of our troops and the surge in Iraq. Even Senator Obama has admitted that it has worked, though he still says he would not vote in favor of it even with his current knowledge. I knew Senator McCain had a very solid pro-life voting record, and that he has committed to nominating strict constructionist judges to the courts.
Lately he has been telling us that he is in favor of lifting the moratorium on off shore drilling, and wants us to get our own natural resources out of the ground, to help lower the price of fuel in America. He proved this to me by announcing Governor Palin as his running mate. She has pushed for more drilling in Alaska since she became governor. He also is pro-nuclear. Nuclear is a safe cheap way of producing electricity that is also environmentally friendly. Several other countries rely heavily on nuclear energy to meet their power needs, and they have had no problems. I agree with the Senator that it is time to reinvest in this underutilized asset.
While he has not been a supporter of the Bush tax cuts in the past he now says that he sees their value and will work to make them permanent. He also is in favor of cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% (the second highest rate in the world) down to 25%. I hear you all griping about why do the wealthy need a tax cut. Well, generally speaking the wealthy employ most of the rest of us. They are going to make their money, the question becomes if they are going to make it in the US, employing Americans, or somewhere else. With the lower tax rate, the US at least looks more attractive.
Senator McCain is also stating that he wants to reduce the estate tax to 15% with a $10 million exemption. That should be very well received by farmers who are looking to pass on their operation to a family member when they pass. What I think will be the most effective measure against wasteful spending in government is if Senator McCain is able to get a line item veto like he wants. A line item veto allows the executive office holder to veto only certain things in a bill. Several states have these for their governors and it allows them to veto spending that is attached to other bills without having to veto the entire bill they way the President currently has to.
When it comes to health care Senator McCain does not favor socialized health care like Senator Obama does. Socialized health care does not work. Ask anyone from a country that has it and they will tell you. Senator McCain proposes that each family receive a $5,000 tax credit, with which they can purchase their own health insurance. This will cause competition in the health insurance market, and competition drives prices down. It will also allow us to purchase health insurance that is more tailored to our needs. Senator McCain is also in favor of tort reform. This will allow people to still seek compensation for sub par care, but it will not allow them to get rich by suing doctors. After all folks it is called practicing medicine for a reason. As much as we wish they were perfect, doctors are people and they make mistakes. By limiting the amount they can get sued, the price of malpractice insurance will decrease, and that will allow hospitals to decrease their overhead, and pass that savings on to you.
I was delightfully surprised when I read Senator McCain’s education proposal. He proposes that parents should have the opportunity to move their children to a school of their choosing to ensure the children get the education they need. Not only will parents be allowed to move their children, but the tax money that they pay into the school district will follow the child. That way parents are not forced to pay for their kids to go to school, and pay for a school that their children do not attend. Senator McCain is also in favor of fighting the teachers union and making it easier for bad teachers to be dismissed, regardless of tenure, and easier for good teachers to be recruited with incentives.
We already knew Sarah Palin was pro-gun, in fact she may be the first person since Teddy Roosevelt to live in the White House and know how to field dress a moose, but I was delighted to find that Senator McCain voted in favor of gun right many time. He has voted against liability for gun manufacturers whose guns are used to commit crimes, opposed waiting periods on gun purchases, and against bans on ammunition. I feel strongly the Senator McCain will defend my second amendment rights.
Finally, and possibly the most important item, Senator McCain has stated that he will appoint strong constructionist judges to the federal courts and the supreme court. With his history in the gang of thirteen, and his ample willingness to cross the aisle for progress, I have to admit that I am skeptical of this claim. All I can do is go by what the man states in his beliefs, and hope that he holds to his integrity.
Some say that Sarah Palin is not an asset of Senator McCain’s campaign. I disagree. She has more executive experience than any of the other candidates on either of the tickets. She is only a heartbeat a way from the Presidency, and I find that comforting. She has strong convictions, and she has fought corruption in both parties. I have no doubt that she would make a good president. Besides think about the fact that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is only two heartbeats away and all she has done is lead the Congress to its lowest approval rating, ever!
Country First: It’s How He Lives
I will be the first to admit that Senator John McCain, because of his “immigration reform” and involvement in the “gang of 13” was not my first choice for a presidential candidate. Heck, he was not even my second or third, but my guys did not make the cut, and I was left with Senator McCain. I was really sweating over who to vote for in this November’s election. I knew I did not want Senator Obama, mainly because I think I spend my money better than the government, but I also knew that I did not agree with Senator McCain on some very prominent issues.
In May I read a piece by Karl Rove that spoke of Senator McCain’s personal character. It told stories of his bravery in the Hanoi Hilton, where he was called on to splint a fellow captive’s broken arm with bandages he took from his own injured leg, and his sermons passed via Morse code. It spoke of how he and Cindy adopted a baby from Mother Theresa’s orphanage in Calcutta because it had special physical needs, and then paid for a low level McCain aid to adopt another. Okay, so I had to admit the man had character, but it takes more than a man of character to be President.
It was with great trepidation that I waited for the announcement of his Vice Presidential candidate, especially with names like Lieberman, and Pawlenty being thrown around. When he announced Sarah Palin as his running mate, I have to admit I got excited. I now had someone I knew I could vote for, even if she was on the bottom of the ticket. Now that I had some hope of actually being able to support Senator McCain, I did a more thorough examination of his positions.
I already knew that he was strong on national defense, and national security. After all he was just about the only one whom never waivered in support of our troops and the surge in Iraq. Even Senator Obama has admitted that it has worked, though he still says he would not vote in favor of it even with his current knowledge. I knew Senator McCain had a very solid pro-life voting record, and that he has committed to nominating strict constructionist judges to the courts.
Lately he has been telling us that he is in favor of lifting the moratorium on off shore drilling, and wants us to get our own natural resources out of the ground, to help lower the price of fuel in America. He proved this to me by announcing Governor Palin as his running mate. She has pushed for more drilling in Alaska since she became governor. He also is pro-nuclear. Nuclear is a safe cheap way of producing electricity that is also environmentally friendly. Several other countries rely heavily on nuclear energy to meet their power needs, and they have had no problems. I agree with the Senator that it is time to reinvest in this underutilized asset.
While he has not been a supporter of the Bush tax cuts in the past he now says that he sees their value and will work to make them permanent. He also is in favor of cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% (the second highest rate in the world) down to 25%. I hear you all griping about why do the wealthy need a tax cut. Well, generally speaking the wealthy employ most of the rest of us. They are going to make their money, the question becomes if they are going to make it in the US, employing Americans, or somewhere else. With the lower tax rate, the US at least looks more attractive.
Senator McCain is also stating that he wants to reduce the estate tax to 15% with a $10 million exemption. That should be very well received by farmers who are looking to pass on their operation to a family member when they pass. What I think will be the most effective measure against wasteful spending in government is if Senator McCain is able to get a line item veto like he wants. A line item veto allows the executive office holder to veto only certain things in a bill. Several states have these for their governors and it allows them to veto spending that is attached to other bills without having to veto the entire bill they way the President currently has to.
When it comes to health care Senator McCain does not favor socialized health care like Senator Obama does. Socialized health care does not work. Ask anyone from a country that has it and they will tell you. Senator McCain proposes that each family receive a $5,000 tax credit, with which they can purchase their own health insurance. This will cause competition in the health insurance market, and competition drives prices down. It will also allow us to purchase health insurance that is more tailored to our needs. Senator McCain is also in favor of tort reform. This will allow people to still seek compensation for sub par care, but it will not allow them to get rich by suing doctors. After all folks it is called practicing medicine for a reason. As much as we wish they were perfect, doctors are people and they make mistakes. By limiting the amount they can get sued, the price of malpractice insurance will decrease, and that will allow hospitals to decrease their overhead, and pass that savings on to you.
I was delightfully surprised when I read Senator McCain’s education proposal. He proposes that parents should have the opportunity to move their children to a school of their choosing to ensure the children get the education they need. Not only will parents be allowed to move their children, but the tax money that they pay into the school district will follow the child. That way parents are not forced to pay for their kids to go to school, and pay for a school that their children do not attend. Senator McCain is also in favor of fighting the teachers union and making it easier for bad teachers to be dismissed, regardless of tenure, and easier for good teachers to be recruited with incentives.
We already knew Sarah Palin was pro-gun, in fact she may be the first person since Teddy Roosevelt to live in the White House and know how to field dress a moose, but I was delighted to find that Senator McCain voted in favor of gun right many time. He has voted against liability for gun manufacturers whose guns are used to commit crimes, opposed waiting periods on gun purchases, and against bans on ammunition. I feel strongly the Senator McCain will defend my second amendment rights.
Finally, and possibly the most important item, Senator McCain has stated that he will appoint strong constructionist judges to the federal courts and the supreme court. With his history in the gang of thirteen, and his ample willingness to cross the aisle for progress, I have to admit that I am skeptical of this claim. All I can do is go by what the man states in his beliefs, and hope that he holds to his integrity.
Some say that Sarah Palin is not an asset of Senator McCain’s campaign. I disagree. She has more executive experience than any of the other candidates on either of the tickets. She is only a heartbeat a way from the Presidency, and I find that comforting. She has strong convictions, and she has fought corruption in both parties. I have no doubt that she would make a good president. Besides think about the fact that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is only two heartbeats away and all she has done is lead the Congress to its lowest approval rating, ever!
Monday, July 28, 2008
FCC Fine Oveturned
Many of you remember the infamous wardrobe malfunction at the 2004 Super Bowel halftime show. You may also remember that the FCC levied a fine against CBS for them broadcasting it. Well the federal appeals court, in all of it's wisdom, has overturned the fine. Specifically it was the third circuit that made the ruling. I think this is unbelievable. Either the FCC has the power to levy fines or they don't. The government can't under cut the authority of the FCC by overturning a fine that they finally had the guts to implement.
There is currently a bill called Senate Bill 1780 that would toughen the standards on tv during prime time. I encourage you to investigate it and then call the congress switch board (202) 224-3121 and encourage Sen. Reede to put it up for a vote, and encourage your senators to support it.
There is currently a bill called Senate Bill 1780 that would toughen the standards on tv during prime time. I encourage you to investigate it and then call the congress switch board (202) 224-3121 and encourage Sen. Reede to put it up for a vote, and encourage your senators to support it.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
California Minimum Wage
There really is not I like about the Governator in CA. First off he ran as a conservative (I remember when he was Regan's physical fitness guy) and rules as a liberal. I will have to give him cudos on his latest move. He issued an executive order that cut the wages of several state employees to the National minimum wage of $6.55/hr. Since CA has a minimum wage of $8.00 this would put state employees below the state wage. I understand he is doing this to force the state legislature to pass a budget, or something like that. However if, for some reason the state leg. digs in it' feet, and this has to actually be implemented, I think that all small buisness owners in the state should immediately drop their minimum wage to $6.55/hr since if the government can pay it as the minimum wage, it must be the new minimum wage in CA. I know nothing will come of this, but the chaos would be fun to watch.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Stupid Government
So Iowa in all of it's brilliance passes the smoking ban that took effect July first of this year. Not only is this an infringement on my personal freedom as an individual but also as a business owner. If I don't care if someone smokes in my business why should the government. I believe there are studies out there that show there is no link between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Unless I am mistaken those studies were either done by the WHO or the UN NOT big tobacco. Unfortunately I do not have a link to those studies, I have only heard about them from a reliable news source.
But I digress, Iowa passes the ban and then forces my business to purchase stickers to be placed on the doors of my business. These stickers cost $1.50 each! What's the big deal it was only $3, right? Its the principle! If it really is that important to the government let them pay for the flippin' stickers, or at least give them to us at cost. I have a very hard time believing that it cost a buck and a half to have those stickers made. Maybe I'll just call the number on the sticker that is there for complaints.
By the way, I am a horrific speller, and even though I spell check, I usually still have some slip through. Sorry.
But I digress, Iowa passes the ban and then forces my business to purchase stickers to be placed on the doors of my business. These stickers cost $1.50 each! What's the big deal it was only $3, right? Its the principle! If it really is that important to the government let them pay for the flippin' stickers, or at least give them to us at cost. I have a very hard time believing that it cost a buck and a half to have those stickers made. Maybe I'll just call the number on the sticker that is there for complaints.
By the way, I am a horrific speller, and even though I spell check, I usually still have some slip through. Sorry.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Senator Obama vs. Dr Dobson
Okay, so my loyal reader has asked me to address the Senator Obama/Dobson fiasco. Yes, I call it a fiasco. From my limited exposure to the entire ordeal I think that it is something the press has just run with. I listened to the entire Senator Obama speech that sparked this whole ordeal and I have to say that I think Dr. Dobson overreacted to what was said about him personally. That is my take. Now I believe that the press, since they dislike Dr. Dobson, have taken his comments and blown them up to try to cause as much trouble for Dr. Dobson as they can, and to also paint all Christians in as poor a light as they possibly can.
That said I do have a critique of what Senator Obama said in his speech and some of what I have to say is similar to what Dr. Dobson said, hopefully it is said in less offensive manner.
It should be noted that Senator Obama gave the speech to the Covenant for a New America in June of 2006. He opened his speech by saying that 90% of people say they believe in God, 70% believe in an organized religion, and 38% consider themselves Christian. He went on to speculate that the 38% who said they were Christian, most likely considered themselves that because of the “slick marketing” of the larger churches, or they simply needed assurance that someone cared about them. This I did find offensive because I do not believe that I have fallen victim to slick marketing. I have looked at the evidence, and based on the evidence I can come to no other logical conclusion than Jesus Christ lived on earth, was crucified on a roman cross, and that three days later rose from the dead. If you would like more information on where I get my facts please check out More than a Carpenter, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, The Case for Christ, and The Case for the Ressurection. Frankly if I were to believe a religion simply because I wanted someone to care about me, I would not be choosing Christianity. There are to many rules. There is a lot of stuff that I want to do, but try not to do because I believe that the creator of the world told me not to, and he is pretty much someone I try to listen to.
Senator Obama went on to say that he went forward in his church in Chicago, and “submitted myself to His (God) will and dedicated myself to discovering His (God) Truth.” Yet I it strikes me that he has either not been looking hard enough for God’s Truth, or he has been looking in the wrong place. He quoted verses from the Mosaic law, found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and implied that if we are to take the Bible literally would have to do the things mentioned in those verses, such as stoning homosexuals and disobedient children. Here I am going to go on a little aside.
Taking the Bible Literally
(From Stand To Reason June 2008)
Let’s start with a definition. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, the word “literal” means, “Taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion.”
Now here’s our question: When Moses wrote the Law, did he expect the Jewish people to take those regulations literally?
Let me ask the same question another way. When an ordinance is passed in your local state (California, in my case), do you think the legislators intend you to understand the words of the regulation “in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion?”
Of course they do. Legal codes are not written in figurative language allowing each citizen to get creative with the meaning. Moses meant it the way he wrote it.
But now, it seems, we’re stuck on the other horn of our dilemma. To be consistent, shouldn’t we currently campaign for the death penalty for homosexuals? Aren’t we obliged to promote execution for disobedient children and Sabbath-breakers, for that matter, both capital crimes under the Law?
The simple answer is “No.” Just because God intends a biblical command to be taken literally, does not mean He intends it to be applied universally.
Consider this. Jesus told Peter to cast his net in deep water (Luke 5:4). That’s exactly what Peter did because he took Jesus’ command literally, at face value. However, because Jesus’ command to Peter was literal does not mean the same command applies to us. We’re not commanded to cast nets into deep water.
Here’s another way of looking at it. No matter what state you live in, the California legal codes are to be taken literally. But they don’t apply to you unless you live in California. In the same way, the words of the Mosaic Law, like those of all laws, are to be taken at face value by anyone who reads it. Yet only those under its jurisdiction are obliged to obey it.
The Jews in the theocracy were expected to obey the legal code God gave them. It is not the legal code God gave to gentiles, however. Therefore, even if the words are to be taken literally, this does not necessarily mean we must obey them now.
The real question we face is not whether or not to take the Mosaic Law literally, but whether we are now under the same legal code. We are not. Americans are not the nation of Israel living under the legal code the Mosaic Covenant. We are a mixture of peoples governed by a representative republic.
Though we may glean wisdom from the Law of Moses for our own legal codes, we are not obliged by Sinai since it was meant to organize the Jewish government. To suggest we are is a mistake. If anyone things otherwise he is duty-bound to buy a net and throw it into deep water.
I think that answers Senator Obama’s concerns nicely. He continued at 22 minutes into the speech to say, “Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave our beliefs at the door before entering the public discourse.” I happen to agree with Senator Obama on this statement. I am concerned about his record on this. I do not know but my assumption is that Senator Obama supports the court decisions to remove the Ten Commandments from public displays, and public displays of the nativity at Christmas.
Next in the speech he began talking about the “separation of church and state.” Senator Obama is quoted as saying that the authors of the Constitution “did not want state sponsored religion hindering the way, they (the people of the United States) practiced their faith as they understood it.” Sounds like a good interpretation to me, but then how are the radical right wing evangelicals hindering the way others practice their religion by asking that abortion be banned. That is unless Ann Coulter is correct and abortion is the sacrament of liberalism. Yet I imagine Senator Obama has no problem with schools telling kids they can’t have prayer meetings on campus, or wear “Christian” symbols on their jewelry.
At about 30 minutes into the speech he started to get into the difference between subjective and objective truths. Okay he did not say it like that but he did believe there was need for compromise on issues like abortion and that religiously minded people do not listen to arguments and stand only on our beliefs. Allow me to address the issue of abortion. Abortion is like insulin, either it is okay or it isn’t (insulin either treats diabetes or it doesn’t) it does not. How do you compromise on this, “it’s okay to kill a baby before the third trimester, but as soon as it enters that, it’s human?” If you think it is right then you should think it is okay right up to the moment before the baby is born. If Mrs. Smith is in labor and has the baby half way out when she has second thoughts, why not let her have the doctor kill it right there on the spot? Or even after it is born. After all Senator Obama voted against allowing doctors to treat babies born alive during abortions. Causing them to slowly die of natural causes. If Mrs. Smith waits until after baby Smith actually is born and then decides she doesn’t want him/her, why can’t she tell the doctor to withhold care of the baby because it’s birth was just the result of a botched abortion?
As for us not listening to arguments. I will admit there are those out there who probably do not. However, I know there are those on the pro abortion side who do not listen. Read the following argument that I originally posted back in January.
There are only four differences between a fetus, and a newborn, yet it is legal to kill a fetus and illegal to kill and new born. Lets examine those differences. All you have to do is remember to s.l.e.d.
S- Size. Obviously a newborn is larger than a fetus, especially one that is not very old yet. So if we follow this line of thought out, a persons size effects their person hood. Obviously a larger body is a person and the smaller fetus is not. So does that mean that since I'm six foot and over 275 that I am more of a person than my wife who is five foot something and a buck and quarter? Or am I more of a person than most people since I am larger than most? Does that mean I can rule over them and do with them as I wish since I am more of a person than they are? Of course not! Yet when it comes to babies this is a criteria.
L- Level of Development. Newborns are more developed than in utero babies. If they weren't they would not be able to survive outside of the womb. I can argue that since I scored higher on my ACTs than most people I have a more developed brain than they do. I didn't say it was a good argument but it can be made. Does that mean that I can rule over those who didn't do as well as me? Also does this mean that we become more of a person as we age and develop (ie a 7 year old is more of a person than a 5 year old) until we reach our prime and then we begin to become less of a person as we begin to become more dependent on others.
E- Environment. In utero babies are by definition in the uterus and newborns have survived the birth process and now live in the big bad world. Really just a difference in inches when you think about it. So when I am at work am I a different person than when I am at home, or across the room? No. So does moving through the birth canal turn you into a person?
D- Dependency. The in utero babies are dependent for everything while newborns can at least breath on their own. So is a diabetic that is dependent on insulin less of a human than me? Or is someone who depends on glasses less of a human? That doesn't make sense either.
Well if the four differences between in utero babies and newborn aren't valid when applied to the general population, why are they valid when applied to the question of abortion?
I think that is a very persuasive argument. Senator Obama went on to say that the Bible will not compromise. I disagree with that statement. It is true that it will not compromise on the big issues, but it will on the smaller ones. Take Paul in 1 Corinthians talking about eating meat sacrificed to idols. He encourages those who don’t have a problem with eating it, to go ahead and eat it, but he also tells them that if it is a problem for someone they are with, then they should abstain. I call that compromise.
Well that covers most of the things I wanted to discuss and I have to admit I am tired of typing. Hope all is well with everyone and that you all enjoyed the post.
That said I do have a critique of what Senator Obama said in his speech and some of what I have to say is similar to what Dr. Dobson said, hopefully it is said in less offensive manner.
It should be noted that Senator Obama gave the speech to the Covenant for a New America in June of 2006. He opened his speech by saying that 90% of people say they believe in God, 70% believe in an organized religion, and 38% consider themselves Christian. He went on to speculate that the 38% who said they were Christian, most likely considered themselves that because of the “slick marketing” of the larger churches, or they simply needed assurance that someone cared about them. This I did find offensive because I do not believe that I have fallen victim to slick marketing. I have looked at the evidence, and based on the evidence I can come to no other logical conclusion than Jesus Christ lived on earth, was crucified on a roman cross, and that three days later rose from the dead. If you would like more information on where I get my facts please check out More than a Carpenter, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, The Case for Christ, and The Case for the Ressurection. Frankly if I were to believe a religion simply because I wanted someone to care about me, I would not be choosing Christianity. There are to many rules. There is a lot of stuff that I want to do, but try not to do because I believe that the creator of the world told me not to, and he is pretty much someone I try to listen to.
Senator Obama went on to say that he went forward in his church in Chicago, and “submitted myself to His (God) will and dedicated myself to discovering His (God) Truth.” Yet I it strikes me that he has either not been looking hard enough for God’s Truth, or he has been looking in the wrong place. He quoted verses from the Mosaic law, found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and implied that if we are to take the Bible literally would have to do the things mentioned in those verses, such as stoning homosexuals and disobedient children. Here I am going to go on a little aside.
Taking the Bible Literally
(From Stand To Reason June 2008)
Let’s start with a definition. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, the word “literal” means, “Taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion.”
Now here’s our question: When Moses wrote the Law, did he expect the Jewish people to take those regulations literally?
Let me ask the same question another way. When an ordinance is passed in your local state (California, in my case), do you think the legislators intend you to understand the words of the regulation “in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion?”
Of course they do. Legal codes are not written in figurative language allowing each citizen to get creative with the meaning. Moses meant it the way he wrote it.
But now, it seems, we’re stuck on the other horn of our dilemma. To be consistent, shouldn’t we currently campaign for the death penalty for homosexuals? Aren’t we obliged to promote execution for disobedient children and Sabbath-breakers, for that matter, both capital crimes under the Law?
The simple answer is “No.” Just because God intends a biblical command to be taken literally, does not mean He intends it to be applied universally.
Consider this. Jesus told Peter to cast his net in deep water (Luke 5:4). That’s exactly what Peter did because he took Jesus’ command literally, at face value. However, because Jesus’ command to Peter was literal does not mean the same command applies to us. We’re not commanded to cast nets into deep water.
Here’s another way of looking at it. No matter what state you live in, the California legal codes are to be taken literally. But they don’t apply to you unless you live in California. In the same way, the words of the Mosaic Law, like those of all laws, are to be taken at face value by anyone who reads it. Yet only those under its jurisdiction are obliged to obey it.
The Jews in the theocracy were expected to obey the legal code God gave them. It is not the legal code God gave to gentiles, however. Therefore, even if the words are to be taken literally, this does not necessarily mean we must obey them now.
The real question we face is not whether or not to take the Mosaic Law literally, but whether we are now under the same legal code. We are not. Americans are not the nation of Israel living under the legal code the Mosaic Covenant. We are a mixture of peoples governed by a representative republic.
Though we may glean wisdom from the Law of Moses for our own legal codes, we are not obliged by Sinai since it was meant to organize the Jewish government. To suggest we are is a mistake. If anyone things otherwise he is duty-bound to buy a net and throw it into deep water.
I think that answers Senator Obama’s concerns nicely. He continued at 22 minutes into the speech to say, “Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave our beliefs at the door before entering the public discourse.” I happen to agree with Senator Obama on this statement. I am concerned about his record on this. I do not know but my assumption is that Senator Obama supports the court decisions to remove the Ten Commandments from public displays, and public displays of the nativity at Christmas.
Next in the speech he began talking about the “separation of church and state.” Senator Obama is quoted as saying that the authors of the Constitution “did not want state sponsored religion hindering the way, they (the people of the United States) practiced their faith as they understood it.” Sounds like a good interpretation to me, but then how are the radical right wing evangelicals hindering the way others practice their religion by asking that abortion be banned. That is unless Ann Coulter is correct and abortion is the sacrament of liberalism. Yet I imagine Senator Obama has no problem with schools telling kids they can’t have prayer meetings on campus, or wear “Christian” symbols on their jewelry.
At about 30 minutes into the speech he started to get into the difference between subjective and objective truths. Okay he did not say it like that but he did believe there was need for compromise on issues like abortion and that religiously minded people do not listen to arguments and stand only on our beliefs. Allow me to address the issue of abortion. Abortion is like insulin, either it is okay or it isn’t (insulin either treats diabetes or it doesn’t) it does not. How do you compromise on this, “it’s okay to kill a baby before the third trimester, but as soon as it enters that, it’s human?” If you think it is right then you should think it is okay right up to the moment before the baby is born. If Mrs. Smith is in labor and has the baby half way out when she has second thoughts, why not let her have the doctor kill it right there on the spot? Or even after it is born. After all Senator Obama voted against allowing doctors to treat babies born alive during abortions. Causing them to slowly die of natural causes. If Mrs. Smith waits until after baby Smith actually is born and then decides she doesn’t want him/her, why can’t she tell the doctor to withhold care of the baby because it’s birth was just the result of a botched abortion?
As for us not listening to arguments. I will admit there are those out there who probably do not. However, I know there are those on the pro abortion side who do not listen. Read the following argument that I originally posted back in January.
There are only four differences between a fetus, and a newborn, yet it is legal to kill a fetus and illegal to kill and new born. Lets examine those differences. All you have to do is remember to s.l.e.d.
S- Size. Obviously a newborn is larger than a fetus, especially one that is not very old yet. So if we follow this line of thought out, a persons size effects their person hood. Obviously a larger body is a person and the smaller fetus is not. So does that mean that since I'm six foot and over 275 that I am more of a person than my wife who is five foot something and a buck and quarter? Or am I more of a person than most people since I am larger than most? Does that mean I can rule over them and do with them as I wish since I am more of a person than they are? Of course not! Yet when it comes to babies this is a criteria.
L- Level of Development. Newborns are more developed than in utero babies. If they weren't they would not be able to survive outside of the womb. I can argue that since I scored higher on my ACTs than most people I have a more developed brain than they do. I didn't say it was a good argument but it can be made. Does that mean that I can rule over those who didn't do as well as me? Also does this mean that we become more of a person as we age and develop (ie a 7 year old is more of a person than a 5 year old) until we reach our prime and then we begin to become less of a person as we begin to become more dependent on others.
E- Environment. In utero babies are by definition in the uterus and newborns have survived the birth process and now live in the big bad world. Really just a difference in inches when you think about it. So when I am at work am I a different person than when I am at home, or across the room? No. So does moving through the birth canal turn you into a person?
D- Dependency. The in utero babies are dependent for everything while newborns can at least breath on their own. So is a diabetic that is dependent on insulin less of a human than me? Or is someone who depends on glasses less of a human? That doesn't make sense either.
Well if the four differences between in utero babies and newborn aren't valid when applied to the general population, why are they valid when applied to the question of abortion?
I think that is a very persuasive argument. Senator Obama went on to say that the Bible will not compromise. I disagree with that statement. It is true that it will not compromise on the big issues, but it will on the smaller ones. Take Paul in 1 Corinthians talking about eating meat sacrificed to idols. He encourages those who don’t have a problem with eating it, to go ahead and eat it, but he also tells them that if it is a problem for someone they are with, then they should abstain. I call that compromise.
Well that covers most of the things I wanted to discuss and I have to admit I am tired of typing. Hope all is well with everyone and that you all enjoyed the post.
Friday, May 30, 2008
I cried when I read this
Pocket Taser Stun Gun, a great gift for the wife.
A guy who purchased his lovely wife a pocket Taser for their
anniversary submitted this:
Last weekend I saw something at Larry's Pistol & Pawn Shop
that sparked my interest. The occasion was our
15th anniversary
and I was looking for a little something extra for my wife
Julie.
What I came across was a 100,000-volt, pocket/purse-sized
taser. The effects of the taser were supposed to be short
lived, with no long-term adverse affect on your assailant,
allowing her adequate time to retreat to safety....??
WAY TOO COOL! Long story short, I bought the device and
Brought it home.
I loaded two AAA batteries in the darn thing and pushed the
button. Nothing! I was disappointed. I learned, however,
that if I pushed the button AND pressed it against a metal
surface
at the same time; I'd get the blue arc of electricity darting
back and forth between the prongs. AWESOME!!!
Unfortunately, I have yet to explain to Julie what that burn
spot is on the face of her microwave.
Okay, so I was home alone with this new toy, thinking to
myself that it couldn't be all that bad with only two triple-A
batteries, right?
There I sat in my recliner, my cat Gracie looking on intently
(trusting little soul) while I was reading the directions and
thinking that I really needed to try this thing out on a flesh
& blood moving target.
I must admit I thought about zapping Gracie (for a fraction of
a second) and thought better of it. She is such a sweet cat.
But, if I was going to give this thing to my wife to protect
herself against a mugger, I did want some assurance that it
would work as advertised. Am I wrong?
So, there I sat in a pair of shorts and a tank top with my
reading glasses perched delicately on the bridge of my nose,
directions in one hand, and taser in another.
The directions said that a one-second burst would shock and
disorient your assailant; a two-second burst was supposed to
cause muscle spasms and a major loss of bodily control; a
three-second burst would purportedly make your assailant flop
on the ground like a fish out of water. Any burst longer than
three seconds would be wasting the batteries. All the while
I'm looking at this little device measuring about 5' long, less
than 3/4 inch in circumference; pretty cute really and (loaded
with
two itsy, bitsy triple-A batteries) thinking to myself, 'no
possible way!'
What happened next is almost beyond description, but I'll do
my best...? I'm sitting there alone, Gracie looking on with
her
head cocked to one side as to say, ' don't do it dipshit,'
reasoning that a one second burst from such a tiny little ole
thing couldn't hurt all that bad. I decided to give myself a
one second burst just for heck of it. I touched the prongs to
my naked thigh, pushed the button, and .. . . HOLY MOTHER OF
GOD . . . WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION . . . WHAT THE HELL!!!
I'm pretty sure Jessie Ventura ran in through the side door,
picked me up in the recliner, then body slammed us both on the
carpet, over and over and over again. I vaguely recall waking
up on my side in the fetal position, with tears in my eyes,
body soaking wet, both nipples on fire, testicles nowhere to be
found, with my left arm tucked under my body in the oddest
position, and tingling in my legs?
The cat was making meowing sounds I had never heard before,
clinging to a picture frame hanging above the fireplace,
obviously in an attempt to avoid getting slammed by my body
flopping all over the living room..
Note: If you ever feel compelled to 'mug' yourself with a
taser, one note of caution: there is no such thing as a one
second
burst when you zap yourself! You will not let go of that
thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent
thrashing
about on the floor. A three second burst would be considered
conservative?
SON-OF-A-BITCH, THAT HURT LIKE HELL!!!
A minute or so later (I can't be sure, as time was a relative
thing at that point), I collected my wits (what little I had
left), sat up and surveyed the landscape. My bent reading
glasses were on the mantel of the fireplace. The recliner was
upside down and about 8 feet or so from where it originally
was. My triceps, right thigh and both nipples were still
twitching. My face felt like it had been shot up with
Novocain, and my bottom lip weighed 88 lbs. I had no control
over the
drooling. Apparently I shit myself, but was too numb to know
for sure and my sense of smell was gone.; I saw a faint smoke
cloud above my head which I believe came from my hair. I'm
still looking for my nuts and I'm offering a significant
reward for their safe return!!
P. S. My wife loved the gift, and now regularly threatens me
with it!
'If you think Education is difficult, try being stupid!
A guy who purchased his lovely wife a pocket Taser for their
anniversary submitted this:
Last weekend I saw something at Larry's Pistol & Pawn Shop
that sparked my interest. The occasion was our
15th anniversary
and I was looking for a little something extra for my wife
Julie.
What I came across was a 100,000-volt, pocket/purse-sized
taser. The effects of the taser were supposed to be short
lived, with no long-term adverse affect on your assailant,
allowing her adequate time to retreat to safety....??
WAY TOO COOL! Long story short, I bought the device and
Brought it home.
I loaded two AAA batteries in the darn thing and pushed the
button. Nothing! I was disappointed. I learned, however,
that if I pushed the button AND pressed it against a metal
surface
at the same time; I'd get the blue arc of electricity darting
back and forth between the prongs. AWESOME!!!
Unfortunately, I have yet to explain to Julie what that burn
spot is on the face of her microwave.
Okay, so I was home alone with this new toy, thinking to
myself that it couldn't be all that bad with only two triple-A
batteries, right?
There I sat in my recliner, my cat Gracie looking on intently
(trusting little soul) while I was reading the directions and
thinking that I really needed to try this thing out on a flesh
& blood moving target.
I must admit I thought about zapping Gracie (for a fraction of
a second) and thought better of it. She is such a sweet cat.
But, if I was going to give this thing to my wife to protect
herself against a mugger, I did want some assurance that it
would work as advertised. Am I wrong?
So, there I sat in a pair of shorts and a tank top with my
reading glasses perched delicately on the bridge of my nose,
directions in one hand, and taser in another.
The directions said that a one-second burst would shock and
disorient your assailant; a two-second burst was supposed to
cause muscle spasms and a major loss of bodily control; a
three-second burst would purportedly make your assailant flop
on the ground like a fish out of water. Any burst longer than
three seconds would be wasting the batteries. All the while
I'm looking at this little device measuring about 5' long, less
than 3/4 inch in circumference; pretty cute really and (loaded
with
two itsy, bitsy triple-A batteries) thinking to myself, 'no
possible way!'
What happened next is almost beyond description, but I'll do
my best...? I'm sitting there alone, Gracie looking on with
her
head cocked to one side as to say, ' don't do it dipshit,'
reasoning that a one second burst from such a tiny little ole
thing couldn't hurt all that bad. I decided to give myself a
one second burst just for heck of it. I touched the prongs to
my naked thigh, pushed the button, and .. . . HOLY MOTHER OF
GOD . . . WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION . . . WHAT THE HELL!!!
I'm pretty sure Jessie Ventura ran in through the side door,
picked me up in the recliner, then body slammed us both on the
carpet, over and over and over again. I vaguely recall waking
up on my side in the fetal position, with tears in my eyes,
body soaking wet, both nipples on fire, testicles nowhere to be
found, with my left arm tucked under my body in the oddest
position, and tingling in my legs?
The cat was making meowing sounds I had never heard before,
clinging to a picture frame hanging above the fireplace,
obviously in an attempt to avoid getting slammed by my body
flopping all over the living room..
Note: If you ever feel compelled to 'mug' yourself with a
taser, one note of caution: there is no such thing as a one
second
burst when you zap yourself! You will not let go of that
thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent
thrashing
about on the floor. A three second burst would be considered
conservative?
SON-OF-A-BITCH, THAT HURT LIKE HELL!!!
A minute or so later (I can't be sure, as time was a relative
thing at that point), I collected my wits (what little I had
left), sat up and surveyed the landscape. My bent reading
glasses were on the mantel of the fireplace. The recliner was
upside down and about 8 feet or so from where it originally
was. My triceps, right thigh and both nipples were still
twitching. My face felt like it had been shot up with
Novocain, and my bottom lip weighed 88 lbs. I had no control
over the
drooling. Apparently I shit myself, but was too numb to know
for sure and my sense of smell was gone.; I saw a faint smoke
cloud above my head which I believe came from my hair. I'm
still looking for my nuts and I'm offering a significant
reward for their safe return!!
P. S. My wife loved the gift, and now regularly threatens me
with it!
'If you think Education is difficult, try being stupid!
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Postville
Most of you have heard about the raid in Postville last week were over 300 people were arrested for being in our country illegally. Frankly I think it is about time that something like that was done. I am sick and tired of hearing about how horrible the government is for going in and breaking up these families by taking one of the spouses and making the others go into hiding. They are breaking the law!! Are we suppose to turn our head and look the other way when someone breaks the law by stealing, as long as they put in a good days work first? No! So why is this any different? It isn't. I also watched one of the news brodcasts that pointed out that Agriprocessors doanated X number of dollars to republicans at the last election. Making it look like republicans were all infavor of people being here illegally. Actually maybe it was because Agri is a Jewish owned company and Republicans have a good record of being pro Isreal. I don't know but I'm sick in tired of people making my government look bad when it is obviously the best one in the world, otherwise people would not be trying to get in.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Senator McCain
It's been along time since I last posted and I apologize. If any of you are still reading thanks. I know I have been very critical of Senator McCain, and I still am not sure that I want him as president. I may vote for him but I still think others would have been better options. That said, this article from the Wall Street Journel by Karl Rove, does give me some hope that McCain will not be as bad as I fear.
Getting to Know John McCain
By KARL ROVE
April 30, 2008; Page A17
It came to me while I was having dinner with Doris Day. No, not that Doris Day. The Doris Day who is married to Col. Bud Day, Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, fighter pilot, Vietnam POW and roommate of John McCain at the Hanoi Hilton.
As we ate near the Days' home in Florida recently, I heard things about Sen. McCain that were deeply moving and politically troubling. Moving because they told me things about him the American people need to know. And troubling because it is clear that Mr. McCain is one of the most private individuals to run for president in history.
When it comes to choosing a president, the American people want to know more about a candidate than policy positions. They want to know about character, the values ingrained in his heart. For Mr. McCain, that means they will want to know more about him personally than he has been willing to reveal.
Mr. Day relayed to me one of the stories Americans should hear. It involves what happened to him after escaping from a North Vietnamese prison during the war. When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, "I told you I would make you a cripple."
The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again.
But it didn't heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place. Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the bamboo, he put Mr. Day's splint in place.
Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complemented the treatment he'd gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again.
Another story I heard over dinner with the Days involved Mr. McCain serving as one of the three chaplains for his fellow prisoners. At one point, after being shuttled among different prisons, Mr. Day had found himself as the most senior officer at the Hanoi Hilton. So he tapped Mr. McCain to help administer religious services to the other prisoners.
Today, Mr. Day, a very active 83, still vividly recalls Mr. McCain's sermons. "He remembered the Episcopal liturgy," Mr. Day says, "and sounded like a bona fide preacher." One of Mr. McCain's first sermons took as its text Luke 20:25 and Matthew 22:21, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." Mr. McCain said he and his fellow prisoners shouldn't ask God to free them, but to help them become the best people they could be while serving as POWs. It was Caesar who put them in prison and Caesar who would get them out. Their task was to act with honor.
Another McCain story, somewhat better known, is about the Vietnamese practice of torturing him by tying his head between his ankles with his arms behind him, and then leaving him for hours. The torture so badly busted up his shoulders that to this day Mr. McCain can't raise his arms over his head.
One night, a Vietnamese guard loosened his bonds, returning at the end of his watch to tighten them again so no one would notice. Shortly after, on Christmas Day, the same guard stood beside Mr. McCain in the prison yard and drew a cross in the sand before erasing it. Mr. McCain later said that when he returned to Vietnam for the first time after the war, the only person he really wanted to meet was that guard.
Mr. Day recalls with pride Mr. McCain stubbornly refusing to accept special treatment or curry favor to be released early, even when gravely ill. Mr. McCain knew the Vietnamese wanted the propaganda victory of the son and grandson of Navy admirals accepting special treatment. "He wasn't corruptible then," Mr. Day says, "and he's not corruptible today."
The stories told to me by the Days involve more than wartime valor.
For example, in 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about.
Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. "I hope she can stay with us," she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget.
I was aware of this story. What I did not know, and what I learned from Doris, is that there was a second infant Mrs. McCain brought back. She ended up being adopted by a young McCain aide and his wife.
"We were called at midnight by Cindy," Wes Gullett remembers, and "five days later we met our new daughter Nicki at the L.A. airport wearing the only clothing Cindy could find on the trip back, a 7-Up T-shirt she bought in the Bangkok airport." Today, Nicki is a high school sophomore. Mr. Gullett told me, "I never saw a hospital bill" for her care.
A few, but not many, of the stories told to me by the Days have been written about, such as in Robert Timberg's 1996 book "A Nightingale's Song." But Mr. McCain rarely refers to them on the campaign trail. There is something admirable in his reticence, but he needs to overcome it.
Private people like Mr. McCain are rare in politics for a reason. Candidates who are uncomfortable sharing their interior lives limit their appeal. But if Mr. McCain is to win the election this fall, he has to open up.
Americans need to know about his vision for the nation's future, especially his policy positions and domestic reforms. They also need to learn about the moments in his life that shaped him. Mr. McCain cannot make this a biography-only campaign â¤" but he can't afford to make it a biography-free campaign either. Unless he opens up more, many voters will never know the experiences of his life that show his character, integrity and essential decency.
These qualities mattered in America's first president and will matter as Americans decide on their 44th president.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
Getting to Know John McCain
By KARL ROVE
April 30, 2008; Page A17
It came to me while I was having dinner with Doris Day. No, not that Doris Day. The Doris Day who is married to Col. Bud Day, Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, fighter pilot, Vietnam POW and roommate of John McCain at the Hanoi Hilton.
As we ate near the Days' home in Florida recently, I heard things about Sen. McCain that were deeply moving and politically troubling. Moving because they told me things about him the American people need to know. And troubling because it is clear that Mr. McCain is one of the most private individuals to run for president in history.
When it comes to choosing a president, the American people want to know more about a candidate than policy positions. They want to know about character, the values ingrained in his heart. For Mr. McCain, that means they will want to know more about him personally than he has been willing to reveal.
Mr. Day relayed to me one of the stories Americans should hear. It involves what happened to him after escaping from a North Vietnamese prison during the war. When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, "I told you I would make you a cripple."
The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again.
But it didn't heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place. Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the bamboo, he put Mr. Day's splint in place.
Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complemented the treatment he'd gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again.
Another story I heard over dinner with the Days involved Mr. McCain serving as one of the three chaplains for his fellow prisoners. At one point, after being shuttled among different prisons, Mr. Day had found himself as the most senior officer at the Hanoi Hilton. So he tapped Mr. McCain to help administer religious services to the other prisoners.
Today, Mr. Day, a very active 83, still vividly recalls Mr. McCain's sermons. "He remembered the Episcopal liturgy," Mr. Day says, "and sounded like a bona fide preacher." One of Mr. McCain's first sermons took as its text Luke 20:25 and Matthew 22:21, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." Mr. McCain said he and his fellow prisoners shouldn't ask God to free them, but to help them become the best people they could be while serving as POWs. It was Caesar who put them in prison and Caesar who would get them out. Their task was to act with honor.
Another McCain story, somewhat better known, is about the Vietnamese practice of torturing him by tying his head between his ankles with his arms behind him, and then leaving him for hours. The torture so badly busted up his shoulders that to this day Mr. McCain can't raise his arms over his head.
One night, a Vietnamese guard loosened his bonds, returning at the end of his watch to tighten them again so no one would notice. Shortly after, on Christmas Day, the same guard stood beside Mr. McCain in the prison yard and drew a cross in the sand before erasing it. Mr. McCain later said that when he returned to Vietnam for the first time after the war, the only person he really wanted to meet was that guard.
Mr. Day recalls with pride Mr. McCain stubbornly refusing to accept special treatment or curry favor to be released early, even when gravely ill. Mr. McCain knew the Vietnamese wanted the propaganda victory of the son and grandson of Navy admirals accepting special treatment. "He wasn't corruptible then," Mr. Day says, "and he's not corruptible today."
The stories told to me by the Days involve more than wartime valor.
For example, in 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about.
Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. "I hope she can stay with us," she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget.
I was aware of this story. What I did not know, and what I learned from Doris, is that there was a second infant Mrs. McCain brought back. She ended up being adopted by a young McCain aide and his wife.
"We were called at midnight by Cindy," Wes Gullett remembers, and "five days later we met our new daughter Nicki at the L.A. airport wearing the only clothing Cindy could find on the trip back, a 7-Up T-shirt she bought in the Bangkok airport." Today, Nicki is a high school sophomore. Mr. Gullett told me, "I never saw a hospital bill" for her care.
A few, but not many, of the stories told to me by the Days have been written about, such as in Robert Timberg's 1996 book "A Nightingale's Song." But Mr. McCain rarely refers to them on the campaign trail. There is something admirable in his reticence, but he needs to overcome it.
Private people like Mr. McCain are rare in politics for a reason. Candidates who are uncomfortable sharing their interior lives limit their appeal. But if Mr. McCain is to win the election this fall, he has to open up.
Americans need to know about his vision for the nation's future, especially his policy positions and domestic reforms. They also need to learn about the moments in his life that shaped him. Mr. McCain cannot make this a biography-only campaign â¤" but he can't afford to make it a biography-free campaign either. Unless he opens up more, many voters will never know the experiences of his life that show his character, integrity and essential decency.
These qualities mattered in America's first president and will matter as Americans decide on their 44th president.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Your Vote Matters!
In 1645 Oliver Cromwell gained control of England by one vote.
Four years later one vote cost King Charles his life.
In 1845 Texas became a state by one vote.
In 1868 President Andrew Johnson came within one vote of being impeached.
Adolf Hitler gained control of the Nazi party in 1923 by one vote.
In 1941 a week before Pearl Harbor one vote saved the Selective Service Agency.
One vote matters! So get educated and vote!
Four years later one vote cost King Charles his life.
In 1845 Texas became a state by one vote.
In 1868 President Andrew Johnson came within one vote of being impeached.
Adolf Hitler gained control of the Nazi party in 1923 by one vote.
In 1941 a week before Pearl Harbor one vote saved the Selective Service Agency.
One vote matters! So get educated and vote!
Monday, April 14, 2008
Learning from the Nepalise
Last night we had a cultural night t the church and a group of students, from a local university, that are from Nepal, gave a presentation about their country. What oozed out of them was a national pride. Many people sitting in the audience picked up on it and thought it was great. All I could do was sit there and think about my country and the sad state most people think it is in.
We live in the greatest country in the history of the world. We are spreading freedom around the world, the only country to ever do that, and yet the average American thinks that we are the cause of the worlds problems. Why is this? All I can think of is that we are the top of the heap and therefore people feel guilty that we are so prosperous. In an attempt to seem humble we instead make ourselves out as the bad people. Well I must actually get back to work. You know, the thing that drives this economy. So just remember to focus on the positive, and there is a lot of it in this country, and lets build some American spirit.
We live in the greatest country in the history of the world. We are spreading freedom around the world, the only country to ever do that, and yet the average American thinks that we are the cause of the worlds problems. Why is this? All I can think of is that we are the top of the heap and therefore people feel guilty that we are so prosperous. In an attempt to seem humble we instead make ourselves out as the bad people. Well I must actually get back to work. You know, the thing that drives this economy. So just remember to focus on the positive, and there is a lot of it in this country, and lets build some American spirit.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Obama: The lying, pro-abortion, liberal
I first heard about Senator Obama's stance on abortion several months ago through the Novak report, but I had misplaced that report and could not write an educated post on Senator Obama's stance without it. Recently I was reading "Citizen" (http://www.citizenlink.org/citizenmag/) and the author Jill Stanek wrote an article about it as well. This post will borrow heavily from that article and I encourage you to read it for more information.
The Liar
Miss Stanek refers to an incidence where she and a friend ran into Senator Obama at the Illinois state capital building, shortly after he had been elected to the US Senate, while he was back visiting his former colleagues and staff. Miss Stanek and her friend were at the capital to lobby for the passage of the Illinois state Born Alive Infant Protection Act, "legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. Obama spoke against the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and single handedly defeated it in committee in 2003" Miss Stanek's friend stood in Obama's path and informed him that the Born Alive Act would be passed in Illinois that year. Senator Obama agreed with him and went on to say that he to would have voted for the Act if it had been worded the same as the federal bill was worded. That is an interesting statement considering it was Sen. Obama who stopped his committee from adding the federal wording in 2003.
The pro-abortion leader
In 2001 Illinois' first Born Alive Infant Protection Act was introduced after Miss Stanek revealed that viable babies who were delivered by abortionists, intent on the babies demise, and survived were placed in a utility room to die. That version of the bill defined "born alive" as "the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion." This was the same wording that was developed by the World Health Organization in 1950, adopted by the UN in 1955, and identical to that of federal legislation introduced in 2000.
After Miss Stanek's testimony before the Judiciary committee in 2001 Sen. Obama speculated that this legislation would require doctors to resuscitate nonviable aborted babies (the ACLU agreed with him). He continued on to oppose the bill in committee but when it came before the state Senate floor he voted "present" (not a no, but not a yes). Didn't Hillary talk about how often Sen. Obama did this?
The Liberal
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Right, that among those are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." US Constitution
". . . (T)he essential idea behind the Declaration - that we are born into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that can't be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will - is one that every American understands" The Audacity of Hope B. Obama.
According to the US Constitution we are created with our rights that are unalienable (defined by dictionary.com as "Not to be separated, given away, or taken away") but Sen. Obama believes we are BORN with our rights and they can be taken away with just cause. Abortion is one of those just causes according to Sen. Obama. During the 2001 debate he said the legislation is not going to survive constitutional scrutiny because, "Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus (my aside here but what does he mean by pre-viable? It is doing just fine in the uterus where it belongs, and the legislation was about babies that were born alive. That usually means viable, at least for a little while.) as a person who is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons who are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - child, a 9-month-old - child that was delivered to term. (bingo) That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court would forbid abortions to take place. (Did he just say that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional since the Constitution says we are created with rights?)
Well that is a little bit about it. Be sure to check out the website or Miss Stanek's blog at www.jillstanek.com for more information.
The Liar
Miss Stanek refers to an incidence where she and a friend ran into Senator Obama at the Illinois state capital building, shortly after he had been elected to the US Senate, while he was back visiting his former colleagues and staff. Miss Stanek and her friend were at the capital to lobby for the passage of the Illinois state Born Alive Infant Protection Act, "legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. Obama spoke against the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and single handedly defeated it in committee in 2003" Miss Stanek's friend stood in Obama's path and informed him that the Born Alive Act would be passed in Illinois that year. Senator Obama agreed with him and went on to say that he to would have voted for the Act if it had been worded the same as the federal bill was worded. That is an interesting statement considering it was Sen. Obama who stopped his committee from adding the federal wording in 2003.
The pro-abortion leader
In 2001 Illinois' first Born Alive Infant Protection Act was introduced after Miss Stanek revealed that viable babies who were delivered by abortionists, intent on the babies demise, and survived were placed in a utility room to die. That version of the bill defined "born alive" as "the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion." This was the same wording that was developed by the World Health Organization in 1950, adopted by the UN in 1955, and identical to that of federal legislation introduced in 2000.
After Miss Stanek's testimony before the Judiciary committee in 2001 Sen. Obama speculated that this legislation would require doctors to resuscitate nonviable aborted babies (the ACLU agreed with him). He continued on to oppose the bill in committee but when it came before the state Senate floor he voted "present" (not a no, but not a yes). Didn't Hillary talk about how often Sen. Obama did this?
The Liberal
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Right, that among those are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." US Constitution
". . . (T)he essential idea behind the Declaration - that we are born into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that can't be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will - is one that every American understands" The Audacity of Hope B. Obama.
According to the US Constitution we are created with our rights that are unalienable (defined by dictionary.com as "Not to be separated, given away, or taken away") but Sen. Obama believes we are BORN with our rights and they can be taken away with just cause. Abortion is one of those just causes according to Sen. Obama. During the 2001 debate he said the legislation is not going to survive constitutional scrutiny because, "Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus (my aside here but what does he mean by pre-viable? It is doing just fine in the uterus where it belongs, and the legislation was about babies that were born alive. That usually means viable, at least for a little while.) as a person who is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons who are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - child, a 9-month-old - child that was delivered to term. (bingo) That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court would forbid abortions to take place. (Did he just say that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional since the Constitution says we are created with rights?)
Well that is a little bit about it. Be sure to check out the website or Miss Stanek's blog at www.jillstanek.com for more information.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Fireproof
I don't know how many of you saw the movie "Facing the Giants" that came out a couple of years ago. It is a Christian movie and it was pretty good. Was it as good as a regular Hollywood movie, no, but it was pretty good and the story was very good. Well the creators of that movie are filming their next movie and I heard a little bit about it on a podcast that Family Life Today was doing. The new movie is called "Fireproof" and you can check it out at http://www.fireproofthemovie.com/ if you are interested in it. Check it out and see what you think. Another good movie/documentary that is coming out next week (I think) is "Expelled" and it is by Ben Stein. It is about how Intelligent design proponents are blacklisted by the scientific community. Think about what has been happening at ISU lately and you will see what I mean. Check it out as well.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Animal Rights
So I've been reading the latest vet literature and it infuriates me! I am a mixed animal veterinarian and I am sick and tired of a bunch of people who have never seen a live cow in their lives, telling me how to practice. It seems to me that my profession is being over run by a bunch of holier than thou people who believe we all work on animals that are owned by people with unlimited financial means. According to the letters to the editor in the recent magazines, I should be giving pain medicines to every animal that I operate on, or I think is in chronic pain. What the heck!!!! They keep quoting the veterinarian oath about alleviating pain and suffering when they make this point. These are the same people who will amputate the leg of an animal with bone cancer (a fatal cancer that is extremely painful), and put it through chemo therapy (ask anyone who has done this and they will tell you it is not fun), just so they can extend it's life another few months! Hypocrites! Do you not think that the surgery and the treatments will not be painful and cause suffering in the dog? If you really have the best interest of the dog at heart (and not the owner who will be paying you thousands of dollars for the treatments and pain meds) put the animal to sleep and totally alleviate it's pain and suffering.
Should I offer a pain option for all my surgeries? Yes, and I do? If a client refuses to pay for it should I do it anyway? No! Am I performing malpractice? According to them I am. If a client does not want to pay for the meds why should I, and why should I hold it against them. Soon it will be as bad as in human medicine where people are forced to be pay for prescriptions of meds that they do not use all of.
And stop telling me that large animal producers only care about the bottom line. Heck, I wish more of them did so I could get them to make some decisions based on science, and records, to get them to improve their herds. Large animals do not walk around in waste up to their belly buttons (it may happen but not very often and is remedies as quickly as possible), and they are not pumped full of antibiotics and steroids. Science (and I don't mean the bullshit science that says we are causing global warming) has shown that the current practices allow the animals to perform to their fullest potential. The one that gets thrown out their the most is gestation crates in sows. What people forget is that sows were put into gestation crates because when they are in pens they fight, tail bite, and push each other away from the grain.
I'm just tired of my profession getting away from science and leaning toward emotions. Makes me wonder how long I'll be doing this before I decide enough is enough, or get sued because I sent a dog home that was hit by a car and had a broken hip but the owner did not want to pay for surgery so we are just letting it heal naturally.
Should I offer a pain option for all my surgeries? Yes, and I do? If a client refuses to pay for it should I do it anyway? No! Am I performing malpractice? According to them I am. If a client does not want to pay for the meds why should I, and why should I hold it against them. Soon it will be as bad as in human medicine where people are forced to be pay for prescriptions of meds that they do not use all of.
And stop telling me that large animal producers only care about the bottom line. Heck, I wish more of them did so I could get them to make some decisions based on science, and records, to get them to improve their herds. Large animals do not walk around in waste up to their belly buttons (it may happen but not very often and is remedies as quickly as possible), and they are not pumped full of antibiotics and steroids. Science (and I don't mean the bullshit science that says we are causing global warming) has shown that the current practices allow the animals to perform to their fullest potential. The one that gets thrown out their the most is gestation crates in sows. What people forget is that sows were put into gestation crates because when they are in pens they fight, tail bite, and push each other away from the grain.
I'm just tired of my profession getting away from science and leaning toward emotions. Makes me wonder how long I'll be doing this before I decide enough is enough, or get sued because I sent a dog home that was hit by a car and had a broken hip but the owner did not want to pay for surgery so we are just letting it heal naturally.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Why sleeping with a prostitute is a big deal.
So yesterday New York Governor Elliot Spitzer gets busted for using prostitutes. Where I come from this is considered a bad thing to do. Yet if you listen to the news they are saying "what's the big deal?" The man is married! If he can't be trusted to keep his promises to a women whom he claims to love, how can we think he will do anything he says while in office. Not to mention the man is a scum bag who has used his position in the past to beat down his opposition.
I know having an affair is a resume' enhancer for most Democrats, but this man did not have an affair, he paid a women (a lot of money in this case) to have sex with him. That breaks a law! Yet Carvel is out there saying it is no big deal and if this were Europe it wouldn't even have made the paper. I don't care! This isn't Europe and if they want to be a bunch of moral degenerates, let them. I would prefer to think higher of the people in the US. I guess the news media people are just more interested in getting the contact information from him so they can get a good hooker. After all what's the big deal? I think I'm going to be sick!
I know having an affair is a resume' enhancer for most Democrats, but this man did not have an affair, he paid a women (a lot of money in this case) to have sex with him. That breaks a law! Yet Carvel is out there saying it is no big deal and if this were Europe it wouldn't even have made the paper. I don't care! This isn't Europe and if they want to be a bunch of moral degenerates, let them. I would prefer to think higher of the people in the US. I guess the news media people are just more interested in getting the contact information from him so they can get a good hooker. After all what's the big deal? I think I'm going to be sick!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Grow some flippin' Cahones
Energy is the key. Would there be as big of a "Sub Prime" crisis if families weren't paying over $3.00 for a gallon of gas, and having their heating cost go up? (On an aside, if people wouldn't keep their house so warm in the winter that they can run around in shorts and bare feet their heating costs wouldn't be so stinking high either.) One of the reasons they had to increase minimum wage was because of the increase in gas costs and heating bills. See my earlier post on how that has caused the rest of us to take pay cuts. Every summer we have to go on peak alerts during the hottest part of the day because of the energy draw on our overworked coal powered electric plants.
If some Republicans would grow themselves a pair and stand up to the stinking environmental extremists we could have cheap fuel and electricity. Everybody else is drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and then selling it to us, but we can't drill there. (Think about it, no tankers to spill just pipelines to the main land). We can't drill in Alaska because of the environment, which is a bunch of BS. Lets put up some nuclear power plants to produce some electricity. They are clean, and they produce cheap energy. Not to mention the people that would be employed by these new employment opportunities. We don't need to abuse the environment but we can definitely use it to help us out. If there is cheap gas then food costs will not go, (hello transportation costs, planting, harvesting, biofuel BS not needed). STAND UP AND EDUCATE THE PEOPLE! Time to go or I'll lose my temper.
If some Republicans would grow themselves a pair and stand up to the stinking environmental extremists we could have cheap fuel and electricity. Everybody else is drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and then selling it to us, but we can't drill there. (Think about it, no tankers to spill just pipelines to the main land). We can't drill in Alaska because of the environment, which is a bunch of BS. Lets put up some nuclear power plants to produce some electricity. They are clean, and they produce cheap energy. Not to mention the people that would be employed by these new employment opportunities. We don't need to abuse the environment but we can definitely use it to help us out. If there is cheap gas then food costs will not go, (hello transportation costs, planting, harvesting, biofuel BS not needed). STAND UP AND EDUCATE THE PEOPLE! Time to go or I'll lose my temper.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
George Orwell, profit?
I admit I have never read 1984; I started it but only got about 15 pages in and put it down never to pick it up again. I do know the general principal and I have to admit that I am becoming more and more nervous of big brother here in America.
For instance, did you know that when he was president, Bill Clinton signed a treaty called "the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child", and now we are simply waiting for Congress to ratify this treaty? Once a treaty is ratified by Congress it becomes the supreme law of the land? Look it up in Article VI Section 2, "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution of laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." This was upheld by the US Supreme Court in Missouri v. Holland.
So you are probably thinking what the big deal is, after all shouldn't children have rights? Yes, children should have SOME rights, and from what I understand some of this treaty is good, BUT under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, children will have the "right" to disregard Parental Authority.
Article 13 "freedom of expression"
Section 1 declares a child's right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." So if little Timmy wants to watch hard core porn on the internet, you as his parent must let him. If he wants to read Mein Kampf I can't stop him. I guess I can't even stop little Tina from posting that hate speech on her myspace blog, or keep her from posting those nude photos she took of herself.
Article 14 "freedom of thought, conscience and religion"
If Timmy and Tina don't want to go confirmation, or even church, they don't have to. In fact if they want to get involved in the occult I am suppose to all them to. I guess I may get to step in if they start sacrificing animals since it would infringe on the animals right to life, but I'm not certain on that. This is something that is already closer to reality than you may realize. About 15 years ago in Washington state, under a similar law, a 13 year old boy complained to his school social worker about having to go to church on Sunday morning and night, and Wednesday night. The court removed custody of the boy from his parents until they agreed to only take him to church once a week.
Article 15 "freedom of association"
Parents could be stopped from prohibiting their child to associate with people they deem inappropriate. Timmy wants to join the Klan? Who am I to tell him he can't, after all he does look good in white. Tina wants to meet the nice boy she met online who is actually a 40 year old pedophile? Well, I guess she will make a better choice next time.
Article 16 "right to privacy"
First off I don't even have this right under the US Constitution. I have protection from illegal search and seizure, but I don't have a right to privacy. Yes the law has been interpreted to say that I do, but I don't. Maybe this is better off anyway. Do I really want to know that Tina had three abortions her senior year in school? Who am I to tell Timmy that he can't hang Hustler centerfolds up in his room, besides the drugs he is selling out his bedroom window to his friends has scared off that annoying neighbor who used to live next door.
Article 19 "oversight"
Mandates the creation of an intensive bureaucracy, (that’s good we can never have enough bureaucracy) for the "identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment, and follow-up" of parents that violate their child’s rights, or treat their kids with negligence.
Article 7 "registration"
All children must be registered at birth. Excuse me; may I get the mark on my left hand instead of my forehead?
Articles 3, 19, and 37 "spare the rod or go to jail"
All ratifying countries must protect children from "degrading punishment" (I guess Mr. Johnson my old government teacher won't get to finish his hand written copy of the dictionary), and "physical violence". "Honest officer, I was just patting his butt for a job well done."
Article 29 "indoctrination"
Public and private schools will be forced to adopt "federally prescribed curriculum content" intended to make our children responsible citizens by having "the spirit of understanding, peace, toleration, equity of sexes, and friendship [for] all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups of indigenous origin." In other words they must be taught the principles of the treaty. Doesn't this come in direct opposition with Article 14's freedom of thought? That's right it is just my influence that I need to limit on my child, the government can tell them anything they want. If my religion encourages corporal punishment when necessary, don't Articles 3, 19, and 37 contradict the above phrase?
Boy I can't wait for this treaty to be ratified so my kids can become spoiled little brats! Yet another reason we should cut off US funding for the UN. Wait; there wouldn't be a UN if there wasn't money from the US. I guess that makes it a win win. More money for us to spend on national defense, or (wait till you get a hold of this idea) give back to people who pay taxes, and the UN going away. If only we would have had the sense to stay out of the UN like we did the League of Nations.
A lot of the information in this post comes from http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000021.asp .
I tried not to plagerise to much, but I am sure I did more than I thought.
For instance, did you know that when he was president, Bill Clinton signed a treaty called "the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child", and now we are simply waiting for Congress to ratify this treaty? Once a treaty is ratified by Congress it becomes the supreme law of the land? Look it up in Article VI Section 2, "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution of laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." This was upheld by the US Supreme Court in Missouri v. Holland.
So you are probably thinking what the big deal is, after all shouldn't children have rights? Yes, children should have SOME rights, and from what I understand some of this treaty is good, BUT under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, children will have the "right" to disregard Parental Authority.
Article 13 "freedom of expression"
Section 1 declares a child's right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." So if little Timmy wants to watch hard core porn on the internet, you as his parent must let him. If he wants to read Mein Kampf I can't stop him. I guess I can't even stop little Tina from posting that hate speech on her myspace blog, or keep her from posting those nude photos she took of herself.
Article 14 "freedom of thought, conscience and religion"
If Timmy and Tina don't want to go confirmation, or even church, they don't have to. In fact if they want to get involved in the occult I am suppose to all them to. I guess I may get to step in if they start sacrificing animals since it would infringe on the animals right to life, but I'm not certain on that. This is something that is already closer to reality than you may realize. About 15 years ago in Washington state, under a similar law, a 13 year old boy complained to his school social worker about having to go to church on Sunday morning and night, and Wednesday night. The court removed custody of the boy from his parents until they agreed to only take him to church once a week.
Article 15 "freedom of association"
Parents could be stopped from prohibiting their child to associate with people they deem inappropriate. Timmy wants to join the Klan? Who am I to tell him he can't, after all he does look good in white. Tina wants to meet the nice boy she met online who is actually a 40 year old pedophile? Well, I guess she will make a better choice next time.
Article 16 "right to privacy"
First off I don't even have this right under the US Constitution. I have protection from illegal search and seizure, but I don't have a right to privacy. Yes the law has been interpreted to say that I do, but I don't. Maybe this is better off anyway. Do I really want to know that Tina had three abortions her senior year in school? Who am I to tell Timmy that he can't hang Hustler centerfolds up in his room, besides the drugs he is selling out his bedroom window to his friends has scared off that annoying neighbor who used to live next door.
Article 19 "oversight"
Mandates the creation of an intensive bureaucracy, (that’s good we can never have enough bureaucracy) for the "identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment, and follow-up" of parents that violate their child’s rights, or treat their kids with negligence.
Article 7 "registration"
All children must be registered at birth. Excuse me; may I get the mark on my left hand instead of my forehead?
Articles 3, 19, and 37 "spare the rod or go to jail"
All ratifying countries must protect children from "degrading punishment" (I guess Mr. Johnson my old government teacher won't get to finish his hand written copy of the dictionary), and "physical violence". "Honest officer, I was just patting his butt for a job well done."
Article 29 "indoctrination"
Public and private schools will be forced to adopt "federally prescribed curriculum content" intended to make our children responsible citizens by having "the spirit of understanding, peace, toleration, equity of sexes, and friendship [for] all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups of indigenous origin." In other words they must be taught the principles of the treaty. Doesn't this come in direct opposition with Article 14's freedom of thought? That's right it is just my influence that I need to limit on my child, the government can tell them anything they want. If my religion encourages corporal punishment when necessary, don't Articles 3, 19, and 37 contradict the above phrase?
Boy I can't wait for this treaty to be ratified so my kids can become spoiled little brats! Yet another reason we should cut off US funding for the UN. Wait; there wouldn't be a UN if there wasn't money from the US. I guess that makes it a win win. More money for us to spend on national defense, or (wait till you get a hold of this idea) give back to people who pay taxes, and the UN going away. If only we would have had the sense to stay out of the UN like we did the League of Nations.
A lot of the information in this post comes from http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000021.asp .
I tried not to plagerise to much, but I am sure I did more than I thought.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Global Poverty Act
Oh I love it when liberals are liberal. Now if only the press would cover these obvious steps toward socialism. As many of you don't know, Democrate front runner Barack Obama sponsors Senate Bill 2433 that is called "The Global Poverty Act". This sounds nice until you look a little deeper into what it does. This legislation commits us to spend 0.7% of our GNP (the total dollar value of all final goods and services produced for consumption in society during a particular time period)! That means that last year we would have had to hand out $90.79 BILLION in foreign aid. Only 49 countries in the world have a GNP that is higher than the amount we will be giving away in aid (http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/PNB2.html). Other estimates are that we will increase spending on foreign aid by a total of $845 Billion over the next 13 years.
On top of that S.2433 forces the Presidtent "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by 1/2 the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 a day." The "Millennium Development Goals" are the goals then UN General Assembly set forth in Resolution 55/2 (2000). Beside stamping out poverty that declaration commits nations to banning small and light weapons (2nd Amendment anyone?), and signing the Kyoto Protocol (global warming farce), and says that the UN is "the indispensable common house of the entire human family"(I think I'm going to throw up). The only way to raise the money needed for the increase in foreign aid is through tax increases. If Jeffrey Sachs (runs the U.N. Millennium Project), has his way it will be through a GLOBAL tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. I'm pretty sure that would infring on US Constitution to have the U.N. levy taxes on us. But what do I know! I hear this bill is being pushed through comittee so Obama can say he has accomplished something.
On top of that S.2433 forces the Presidtent "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by 1/2 the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 a day." The "Millennium Development Goals" are the goals then UN General Assembly set forth in Resolution 55/2 (2000). Beside stamping out poverty that declaration commits nations to banning small and light weapons (2nd Amendment anyone?), and signing the Kyoto Protocol (global warming farce), and says that the UN is "the indispensable common house of the entire human family"(I think I'm going to throw up). The only way to raise the money needed for the increase in foreign aid is through tax increases. If Jeffrey Sachs (runs the U.N. Millennium Project), has his way it will be through a GLOBAL tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. I'm pretty sure that would infring on US Constitution to have the U.N. levy taxes on us. But what do I know! I hear this bill is being pushed through comittee so Obama can say he has accomplished something.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
One possible take on the election
McCain is what, 72 right? So depending on who is VP is maybe I could vote for him. The President is under a lot of stress and as a 70+ year old man, he may not remain healthy. Not that I am wishing anything bad happen to him, but if there is a good conservative VP that can run the country if necessary, that along with his hopeful appiontment of conservative judges, may be enough to swing me. After all there are no good choices and a third party canidate only seems to hurt Republicans. Unless we could be so fortunate to get Obama to run third party (I am convinced the Clintons will get the nomination through super delegates), and maybe Thompson or Mitt could run on another ticket. That would be interesting! I have better chance of winning the lottery (which means I'd have to find the winning ticket on the floor somewhere) than this occuring, but I have to have Hope, right Mr. Obama?
Friday, February 8, 2008
What America needs
Well it is now official. My horse is out of the race leaving me with the difficult decision of choosing the lesser of two evils. I remember very vividly the day when Senator McCain formed his band of 14 and screwed up the filibuster restructure called the nuclear option. His wonderful fianance reform that brought the money into politics, and his attempt to destroy my national identity through amnisty. After all if you have no boarder how can you be a nation, and therefore how can you have a national identity.
This leaves me with a heavy heart and some questions about what America needs. To identify them we must first identify the challenge currently facing the United States.
Islamic radicals.
Believe it or not we are winning this battle for now. The problem we face is how do you defeat someone who is readily willing to die for their cause? The only way I know is to kill them. But we are a nation that does not want, nor should we want, to simply go around killing people we are suspcious of. This leaves us with the choice of either waiting for an attack and then responding to it, or taking the fight to the friends of our enemies. This is the choice we have made and I think it was a wise one. If nothing else the terror attacks have not occured on our soil to our civilians, but rather have occured to our soldiers who at least are trained and somewhat protected.
Immigration.
Seriously, I am tired of being told that illegal immigrants do the jobs that American's won't do. Make those people on welfare get off their butts and do them. If the jobs suck, all the better. As my Uncle used to say, "If summer jobs didn't suck, you wouldn't go back to school, would you." If their jobs suck it will motivate them to get an education, or some training, or whatever they need to do to improve their life. When I visited China several years ago I was amazed to see people with brooms out sweeping off highways. I asked what was up and was told that under communism everyone needs to have a job to get the money they get. Welfare practically is communism so we may as well get some work out of the people. I am not against immigration! I am against illegal immigration just like I am against everything else that is illegal. My great grandparents immigrated to this wonderful country, and made a life for themselves. They did it legally and they tried their best to adopt our language, culture, and laws. I do not see illegals doing that. I have known severl and they are very hard workers, however most of them have no wish to stay in our country, just to get money and send it back to their families. That is fine but did you know that the number 2 income generator in Mexico is money sent back to families from the US? It topped the money brought in from the vacations industry and is second only to money from oil export. That is money that is leaving our economy, not to mention the cost we have to educate their children and take care of their medical needs.
I keep hearing that we can't get all the millions of illegals out of the US. Bull! There is nothing that Americans can't do if we set our minds to it and work at it over time. We send people out of our atmosphere into an environment that is the most hostle known, and bring them back. If we can overcome all of those obsticles there is no reason why we can't put our minds to it and work at it, and get all the illegals out of here. Let them apply for reentry, but don't just forgive them and welcome them into the family. If I stole something I would get punished. They are breadking the LAW!! They must be punished!
Healthcare
It costs a lot. There is no doubt about it. As far as I am concerned the only people who deserve to get government healthcare are veterns. They served our country and they deserve some help. Do you want to know why healthcare costs so much? First we want the best and brightest to come into the field. They tend to go where the money is. Second, tort lawyers sueing the crap out of people for honest mistakes. They are humans and they will make a mistake from time to time. Third, the government makes it so stinking expensive for drug companies to get drugs developed, tested, and approved that the cost of drugs skyrockets to try to make up the difference. Plus for every new drug that hits the market there are multiple drugs that don't pan out and have to be scrapped.
If you want affordable insurance, turn it over to the open market. Get rid of huge company insurance programs that are all inclusive. Give the money that the company spends on that to the workers, and let them shop for the insurance that they want. If they want a $2,000 deductable, let them get it. If there is no history of mental disease in their family, don't force them to get coverage for it. Once people shop for their own insurance everyone will benefit as companies lower their costs to attract buisness.
Big Government.
Government did not make our country great. Individuals did. If the government would get out of our way we would continue to advance and be the superpower that we are. Despite the government telling us what we can and can't do we have still managed to become the greatest nation in the history of the world. Instead of the government getting out of my way they continue to get in my way. I have friends who own rental properties, that have people in them who refuse to pay their rent, and they can't evict them because it is winter. So instead of supporting his wife and two kids he is now forced to support them and the dead beats who are living in his rentals because the government says he has to let them stay there.
The Church.
A lot of the social concerns that the government has been taking care of lately are things that the church was in charge of before. The church has dropped the ball on this and just have not been doing a good job at all. If they are to demonstrate the love of Christ then they need to get off their butts and do it. Gathering once a week in a church means nothing. Go out there and show people that you love them by helping them. Don't just give them a fish but teach them how to fish so they can help themselves, get back on their own feet, and then help others.
I'll step off my incoherient soapbox now.
This leaves me with a heavy heart and some questions about what America needs. To identify them we must first identify the challenge currently facing the United States.
Islamic radicals.
Believe it or not we are winning this battle for now. The problem we face is how do you defeat someone who is readily willing to die for their cause? The only way I know is to kill them. But we are a nation that does not want, nor should we want, to simply go around killing people we are suspcious of. This leaves us with the choice of either waiting for an attack and then responding to it, or taking the fight to the friends of our enemies. This is the choice we have made and I think it was a wise one. If nothing else the terror attacks have not occured on our soil to our civilians, but rather have occured to our soldiers who at least are trained and somewhat protected.
Immigration.
Seriously, I am tired of being told that illegal immigrants do the jobs that American's won't do. Make those people on welfare get off their butts and do them. If the jobs suck, all the better. As my Uncle used to say, "If summer jobs didn't suck, you wouldn't go back to school, would you." If their jobs suck it will motivate them to get an education, or some training, or whatever they need to do to improve their life. When I visited China several years ago I was amazed to see people with brooms out sweeping off highways. I asked what was up and was told that under communism everyone needs to have a job to get the money they get. Welfare practically is communism so we may as well get some work out of the people. I am not against immigration! I am against illegal immigration just like I am against everything else that is illegal. My great grandparents immigrated to this wonderful country, and made a life for themselves. They did it legally and they tried their best to adopt our language, culture, and laws. I do not see illegals doing that. I have known severl and they are very hard workers, however most of them have no wish to stay in our country, just to get money and send it back to their families. That is fine but did you know that the number 2 income generator in Mexico is money sent back to families from the US? It topped the money brought in from the vacations industry and is second only to money from oil export. That is money that is leaving our economy, not to mention the cost we have to educate their children and take care of their medical needs.
I keep hearing that we can't get all the millions of illegals out of the US. Bull! There is nothing that Americans can't do if we set our minds to it and work at it over time. We send people out of our atmosphere into an environment that is the most hostle known, and bring them back. If we can overcome all of those obsticles there is no reason why we can't put our minds to it and work at it, and get all the illegals out of here. Let them apply for reentry, but don't just forgive them and welcome them into the family. If I stole something I would get punished. They are breadking the LAW!! They must be punished!
Healthcare
It costs a lot. There is no doubt about it. As far as I am concerned the only people who deserve to get government healthcare are veterns. They served our country and they deserve some help. Do you want to know why healthcare costs so much? First we want the best and brightest to come into the field. They tend to go where the money is. Second, tort lawyers sueing the crap out of people for honest mistakes. They are humans and they will make a mistake from time to time. Third, the government makes it so stinking expensive for drug companies to get drugs developed, tested, and approved that the cost of drugs skyrockets to try to make up the difference. Plus for every new drug that hits the market there are multiple drugs that don't pan out and have to be scrapped.
If you want affordable insurance, turn it over to the open market. Get rid of huge company insurance programs that are all inclusive. Give the money that the company spends on that to the workers, and let them shop for the insurance that they want. If they want a $2,000 deductable, let them get it. If there is no history of mental disease in their family, don't force them to get coverage for it. Once people shop for their own insurance everyone will benefit as companies lower their costs to attract buisness.
Big Government.
Government did not make our country great. Individuals did. If the government would get out of our way we would continue to advance and be the superpower that we are. Despite the government telling us what we can and can't do we have still managed to become the greatest nation in the history of the world. Instead of the government getting out of my way they continue to get in my way. I have friends who own rental properties, that have people in them who refuse to pay their rent, and they can't evict them because it is winter. So instead of supporting his wife and two kids he is now forced to support them and the dead beats who are living in his rentals because the government says he has to let them stay there.
The Church.
A lot of the social concerns that the government has been taking care of lately are things that the church was in charge of before. The church has dropped the ball on this and just have not been doing a good job at all. If they are to demonstrate the love of Christ then they need to get off their butts and do it. Gathering once a week in a church means nothing. Go out there and show people that you love them by helping them. Don't just give them a fish but teach them how to fish so they can help themselves, get back on their own feet, and then help others.
I'll step off my incoherient soapbox now.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
And I don't even smoke!
What the heck! Here I am watching TV last night (not something I do often) trying to catch some of the returns from Super Tuesday, when the top story comes across that Iowa is one step closer to passing a state wide smoking ban. Seriously I thought the anchors were going to get up and do a happy dance right there at the "news" desk. Most of you are thinking, "great I hate having someone light up near me when I am outside."
As I mentioned I don't smoke, okay the occasional cigar does cross my lips, but doesn't anyone else see this proposed ban as an infringment on my rights? Yes it is smoking now, but smokers through their taxes on cigarettes do fund a lot of programs, but what is next? In New York it was trans fats. So how long before I get taxed extra for being overweight, or forced to loose weight or not be covered by the new socialized medicine that seems to be inevitible.
I have nothing against individual restruants, or bars, banning smoking. I don't even mind banning smoking in public buildings or stadiums. But forcing everyone to ban smoking is wrong. If the smoking market is where one bar or restraunt wants to target their buisness, let them! I don't have to go in there if I don't want to. I realize that this is kind of covered in the legislation since they want to ban smoking everywhere but casinos. Instead I think that lawmakers are more concerned with the profits that will be lost if they ban smoking in casinos.
As I mentioned I don't smoke, okay the occasional cigar does cross my lips, but doesn't anyone else see this proposed ban as an infringment on my rights? Yes it is smoking now, but smokers through their taxes on cigarettes do fund a lot of programs, but what is next? In New York it was trans fats. So how long before I get taxed extra for being overweight, or forced to loose weight or not be covered by the new socialized medicine that seems to be inevitible.
I have nothing against individual restruants, or bars, banning smoking. I don't even mind banning smoking in public buildings or stadiums. But forcing everyone to ban smoking is wrong. If the smoking market is where one bar or restraunt wants to target their buisness, let them! I don't have to go in there if I don't want to. I realize that this is kind of covered in the legislation since they want to ban smoking everywhere but casinos. Instead I think that lawmakers are more concerned with the profits that will be lost if they ban smoking in casinos.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The President of the United States
Frankly the upcoming presidential election scares the crap out of me. As I mentioned earlier I have some RINO friends who say they will vote for Obama if he is nominated (fortunately that does not seem to be a probable outcome), but not for Hilary (they are the same on the issues). As if that isn't bad enough it seems that the Republicans are dead set on nominating another liberal for President. If McCain gets the nomination I seriously don't know who I will vote for. On the one hand the democrates can do a lot of damage in 4 years, but without a Jimmy Carter do you get a Ronald Regan? Also I would rather the Dems take the country down instead of the occasionally conservative GOP. Plus it would free Republicans in the house and Senate to open oppose the President where as if the president were a Republican they kind of have to toe the line. Trust in God. That is all I have to hope in.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Four differences.
I was listening to a podcast the other night that was talking about abortion, and why it is morally wrong. It was very interesting! No mention of religion was used either so I can't be told I'm forcing my religion on someone when I use this argument in a discussion.
There are only four differences between a fetus, and a newborn, yet it is legal to kill a fetus and illegal to kill and new born. Lets examine those differences. All you have to do is remember to s.l.e.d.
S- Size. Obviously a newborn is larger than a fetus, especially one that is not very old yet. So if we follow this line of thought out, a persons size effects their person hood. Obviously a larger body is a person and the smaller fetus is not. So does that mean that since I'm six foot and over 275 that I am more of a person than my wife who is five foot something and a buck and quarter? Or am I more of a person than most people since I am larger than most? Does that mean I can rule over them and do with them as I wish since I am more of a person than they are? Of course not! Yet when it comes to babies this is a criteria.
L- Level of Development. Newborns are more developed than in utero babies. If they weren't they would not be able to survive outside of the womb. I can argue that since I scored higher on my ACTs than most people I have a more developed brain than they do. I didn't say it was a good argument but it can be made. Does that mean that I can rule over those who didn't do as well as me? Also does this mean that we become more of a person as we age and develop (ie a 7 year old is more of a person than a 5 year old) until we reach our prime and then we begin to become less of a person as we begin to become more dependent on others.
E- Environment. In utero babies are by definition in the uterus and newborns have survived the birth process and now live in the big bad world. Really just a difference in inches when you think about it. So when I am at work am I a different person than when I am at home, or across the room? No. So does moving through the birth canal turn you into a person?
D- Dependency. The in utero babies are dependent for everything while newborns can at least breath on their own. So is a diabetic that is dependent on insulin less of a human than me? Or is someone who depends on glasses less of a human? That doesn't make sense either.
Well if the four differences between in utero babies and newborn aren't valid when applied to the general population, why are they valid when applied to the question of abortion? Just some food for thought.
There are only four differences between a fetus, and a newborn, yet it is legal to kill a fetus and illegal to kill and new born. Lets examine those differences. All you have to do is remember to s.l.e.d.
S- Size. Obviously a newborn is larger than a fetus, especially one that is not very old yet. So if we follow this line of thought out, a persons size effects their person hood. Obviously a larger body is a person and the smaller fetus is not. So does that mean that since I'm six foot and over 275 that I am more of a person than my wife who is five foot something and a buck and quarter? Or am I more of a person than most people since I am larger than most? Does that mean I can rule over them and do with them as I wish since I am more of a person than they are? Of course not! Yet when it comes to babies this is a criteria.
L- Level of Development. Newborns are more developed than in utero babies. If they weren't they would not be able to survive outside of the womb. I can argue that since I scored higher on my ACTs than most people I have a more developed brain than they do. I didn't say it was a good argument but it can be made. Does that mean that I can rule over those who didn't do as well as me? Also does this mean that we become more of a person as we age and develop (ie a 7 year old is more of a person than a 5 year old) until we reach our prime and then we begin to become less of a person as we begin to become more dependent on others.
E- Environment. In utero babies are by definition in the uterus and newborns have survived the birth process and now live in the big bad world. Really just a difference in inches when you think about it. So when I am at work am I a different person than when I am at home, or across the room? No. So does moving through the birth canal turn you into a person?
D- Dependency. The in utero babies are dependent for everything while newborns can at least breath on their own. So is a diabetic that is dependent on insulin less of a human than me? Or is someone who depends on glasses less of a human? That doesn't make sense either.
Well if the four differences between in utero babies and newborn aren't valid when applied to the general population, why are they valid when applied to the question of abortion? Just some food for thought.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Why I usually like my job
Today is a beautiful day. A light snow is falling. The fields are covered in snow. There is no mud, and there are no bugs. That is why I love the winter. Sure it's a pain when your water freezes or your hands get cold, or the stupid IV tube freezes up. But the plus side is that my boots are easier to clean, and there is no mud. Do you get the feeling I hate mud? I do, that and flies are two of my most hated things about my job.
Okay the guy that considers two gates and a rope a squeeze chute is pretty close as well, but normally only they get hurt in those situations because I hang back until the unrestrained animal, finishes running itself nearly to death trying to harm the producer. I wish the producer no harm, but if it is his animal and his lack of facility that are the cause. . . . I see no better motivator for improvement.
Okay the guy that considers two gates and a rope a squeeze chute is pretty close as well, but normally only they get hurt in those situations because I hang back until the unrestrained animal, finishes running itself nearly to death trying to harm the producer. I wish the producer no harm, but if it is his animal and his lack of facility that are the cause. . . . I see no better motivator for improvement.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Real Concern for the nation
Last week I was talking with some "conservative" friends of mine and they were telling me that they were planning on voting for Obama or Edwards if they were to get the Democratic nomination because they do not like any of the Republican candidates. I have to admit that none of the Republicans are true conservatives, but really, vote for a Dem!! They said their chief issue was health care for everyone.
You've got to be kidding me!!! Name one thing that the government does that has not turned out worse than it was before they got involved, besides national defense? Look at other countries that have socialized medicine! Canada now has a term called medical destinations. These are places that people go on their "vacations" so they can have medical procedures done. For instance flying to India to have hip replacement surgery since the waiting list in Canada is so long. Or what about in England where women are being encouraged to stay at home until absolutely necessary when they are giving birth because there isn't enough money for them to stay in the hospital any longer than possible. Or how about the people who have been pulling there own teeth because they can't get into the dentist?
They told me that they thought doctors make to much money. Okay, I won't say they don't make good money, but the best and the brightest tend to gravitate to areas where they can make good money. I want the best and the brightest being my doctor. IF the government takes over and caps how much doctors can make and they can make more in other places, I guarantee some of tomorrows doctors will be going into those professions.
How do you lower costs? Cap malpractice suits! Get rid of insurance by companies and offer tax breaks to people who purchase their own insurance. That way I can purchase insurance for what I want. If I don't want optical I won't get it. If I want a deductible for $5,000, then that is what I will get. Then the free market will get involved and when that occurs prices tend to get lower. That is the way to lower costs.
You've got to be kidding me!!! Name one thing that the government does that has not turned out worse than it was before they got involved, besides national defense? Look at other countries that have socialized medicine! Canada now has a term called medical destinations. These are places that people go on their "vacations" so they can have medical procedures done. For instance flying to India to have hip replacement surgery since the waiting list in Canada is so long. Or what about in England where women are being encouraged to stay at home until absolutely necessary when they are giving birth because there isn't enough money for them to stay in the hospital any longer than possible. Or how about the people who have been pulling there own teeth because they can't get into the dentist?
They told me that they thought doctors make to much money. Okay, I won't say they don't make good money, but the best and the brightest tend to gravitate to areas where they can make good money. I want the best and the brightest being my doctor. IF the government takes over and caps how much doctors can make and they can make more in other places, I guarantee some of tomorrows doctors will be going into those professions.
How do you lower costs? Cap malpractice suits! Get rid of insurance by companies and offer tax breaks to people who purchase their own insurance. That way I can purchase insurance for what I want. If I don't want optical I won't get it. If I want a deductible for $5,000, then that is what I will get. Then the free market will get involved and when that occurs prices tend to get lower. That is the way to lower costs.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Going through Hardees
Just the other day I was taking a break from work, that's right I work for a living which is a novel idea for some out there, and going through the drive through at the local Hardees. When I got my total I was shocked at the total price. Granted Hardees is the most expensive fast food one can get but in my neck of the woods it is the only fast food one can get. Only later did it come to me that the increase was due to the wonderful democrats we have controlling our Senate and House.
Last year they increased the minimum wage and thus increased my tax burden as far as I am concerned. Being a salaried employee in a small company, the increase in minimum wage means that the 75,000 I take home (not my actual salary just an example) does not go as far as it used to. What the dems fail to realize is that by increasing the minimum wage they increase the input cost on almost everything produced in this country. I say that because if the minimum wage goes up I am sure the greedy unions will want to make sure that their employees make X amount more than minimum wage and therefore their hourly wage will increase as well.
We all know that the company is not going to take the loss, and they shouldn't, so they pass the increase on to everyone else. That means that $5.00 doesn't buy as much as it used to as far as quantity. In fact in my state the minimum wage went from $5.15 to $6.20/hr at 20.4% increase. Assuming that is passed on to the rest of us, which it will be at least in part, a meal at Hardees that used to cost $5.00 will need to be increased to $6.02 if the full percentage is passed on. In our example the sales tax will also increase 7 cents on the meal. So not only does it cost me more but now I am paying even more money into the state, county, city, and school district coffers. Plus the minimum wage earners income increased 20.4% so their income tax will also increase. That is assuming they pay into the government. I think the government just found a sneaky way to increase our taxes and make us salaried people that much poorer.
By the way the minimum wage increases another 16.9% January 1, 2009 to $7.25 and hour. That is an overall increase of 40.8%!!! I need to make $105,600 in 2009 just to maintain my standard of living, not including the new amount of taxes I will be paying. Well that's what happens we you elect Democrats and RINO republicans.
Last year they increased the minimum wage and thus increased my tax burden as far as I am concerned. Being a salaried employee in a small company, the increase in minimum wage means that the 75,000 I take home (not my actual salary just an example) does not go as far as it used to. What the dems fail to realize is that by increasing the minimum wage they increase the input cost on almost everything produced in this country. I say that because if the minimum wage goes up I am sure the greedy unions will want to make sure that their employees make X amount more than minimum wage and therefore their hourly wage will increase as well.
We all know that the company is not going to take the loss, and they shouldn't, so they pass the increase on to everyone else. That means that $5.00 doesn't buy as much as it used to as far as quantity. In fact in my state the minimum wage went from $5.15 to $6.20/hr at 20.4% increase. Assuming that is passed on to the rest of us, which it will be at least in part, a meal at Hardees that used to cost $5.00 will need to be increased to $6.02 if the full percentage is passed on. In our example the sales tax will also increase 7 cents on the meal. So not only does it cost me more but now I am paying even more money into the state, county, city, and school district coffers. Plus the minimum wage earners income increased 20.4% so their income tax will also increase. That is assuming they pay into the government. I think the government just found a sneaky way to increase our taxes and make us salaried people that much poorer.
By the way the minimum wage increases another 16.9% January 1, 2009 to $7.25 and hour. That is an overall increase of 40.8%!!! I need to make $105,600 in 2009 just to maintain my standard of living, not including the new amount of taxes I will be paying. Well that's what happens we you elect Democrats and RINO republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
