(I started this blog the day after the DNC 2008. Finally finished it April 2010. You have to give me something for perseverance. And here it is 2016 and this still fits.)
My son called last night to see if I was watching the DNC extravaganza. I told him that his dad wouldn't let me. We were back on the history channel bombing the Japanese and Germans. I can see why Don would prefer to watch our country winning a world war than losing a culture war and our country at the hands of the liberals and progressives.
I told him I'd be up til two watching the speeches on C-Span, which I did. Which brings me to this point--both conventions are a total waste of money and should cease to exist. They are Hollywood specials. I'm surprised that they are not part of the Oscars--you know: awards for make-up, weird hair styles, costuming, technical or special effects, best-written-speech-for-a-candidate or supporter. You get the idea.
I am amazed when I think of the percentage of folks who actually tune in and make a decision on whom to vote based on this Hollywood production. What sane person does not see through all of the contrivances, the staged-for-dumb-voters events, the fake, the phony, the glitz, the glamour, the waste of zillions of dollars. Are the "undecideds" totally uninformed; have they never paid attention to government until the last three months before an election? Or, are they willingly being duped?
Do they not possess core values or any fundamental knowledge on which to base their choices? Do they not know the difference between a welfare state/socialism and individual charity/free market, capitalism? Do they not realize that we are a republic, not a democracy? Do they not understand that every human suffering or hardship is not a rationale or justification for moving toward the welfare state. Yes, sad conditions exist for some people economically and physically, but as we seek solutions we need to keep our eyes focused on our Constitution and protecting our representative form of government.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Tactical Maneuvers to Discredit Glenn Beck
I've been watching Glenn Beck for over a year now, and I cannot find anything extreme or alarming about his presentation style. What is alarming are the facts he presents and that no other journalists are joining him in the search for truth on the issues he addresses. The left and liberal media have painted him as a right-wing dangerous lunatic. If you have repeated these slurs and have not watched his program on FOX News channel then you are as guilty of character assassination as they are.
Beck does his homework and presents the results of his research so that viewers can make their own evaluations. He repeatedly encourages viewers to do their own homework, not to take his word for anything, and to question everything he presents. How radical is that? How extreme?
Beck connects the dots for us. He lets the people he is critical of speak for themselves either by reading quotes or playing videos of their speeches. He exposes their political positions and philosophies of governing by looking at their associations and affiliations. He tracks the progress of people who are leading our country as they move from organization to organization, from positions of leadership in radical groups to positions in other radical groups and finds the common denominator that links them to each other and, more importantly, to the White House.
He regularly invites people in high positions in our government to call the program to expose any error in his presentations. The phone never rings. He admits to receiving one complaint last year, and he corrected that mistake. He preaches against violence, he reminds viewers of Constitutional concepts, and he pleads with the electorate to solve our problems by exercising their right to vote. Extreme? Seditious? Radical?
I would bet that the people he is critical of are watching or listening. But, the administration's tactic is to ignore Beck publicly and rely on the likes of Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Dave Letterman, and Chris Matthews, to name a few, to discredit Beck by labeling him as some sort of nut. Maddow and Olbermann are just about the two most rabid attack dogs I've ever listened to. I expect either one to start frothing at the mouth while letting loose with their slimy, sneering insults. And, yes, unlike some of Beck's detractors, I listen to the opposition, i.e., MSNBC, CNN, and other liberal media. What is glaringly obvious is that the attacks are rarely about specific pieces of information that Beck has revealed and are exclusively attacks on his person. That's a classic tactic--distract from the real issues by discrediting the person.
Beck may be the Paul Revere of our day, and he's not crying "wolf." He's pleading with Americans to wake up before it's too late. You may decide after doing your research that his "alerts" are unfounded, but you have a duty to yourself and to your family and country to examine the information he presents with an unbiased eye. When reading world history you wonder sometimes, "where were the German people/citizens when Hitler was setting up a system for Jewish annihilation, coercing children to spy on their parents, etc.; didn't they see what was happening?" Maybe they were just too busy; maybe we are, too.
Beck does his homework and presents the results of his research so that viewers can make their own evaluations. He repeatedly encourages viewers to do their own homework, not to take his word for anything, and to question everything he presents. How radical is that? How extreme?
Beck connects the dots for us. He lets the people he is critical of speak for themselves either by reading quotes or playing videos of their speeches. He exposes their political positions and philosophies of governing by looking at their associations and affiliations. He tracks the progress of people who are leading our country as they move from organization to organization, from positions of leadership in radical groups to positions in other radical groups and finds the common denominator that links them to each other and, more importantly, to the White House.
He regularly invites people in high positions in our government to call the program to expose any error in his presentations. The phone never rings. He admits to receiving one complaint last year, and he corrected that mistake. He preaches against violence, he reminds viewers of Constitutional concepts, and he pleads with the electorate to solve our problems by exercising their right to vote. Extreme? Seditious? Radical?
I would bet that the people he is critical of are watching or listening. But, the administration's tactic is to ignore Beck publicly and rely on the likes of Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Dave Letterman, and Chris Matthews, to name a few, to discredit Beck by labeling him as some sort of nut. Maddow and Olbermann are just about the two most rabid attack dogs I've ever listened to. I expect either one to start frothing at the mouth while letting loose with their slimy, sneering insults. And, yes, unlike some of Beck's detractors, I listen to the opposition, i.e., MSNBC, CNN, and other liberal media. What is glaringly obvious is that the attacks are rarely about specific pieces of information that Beck has revealed and are exclusively attacks on his person. That's a classic tactic--distract from the real issues by discrediting the person.
Beck may be the Paul Revere of our day, and he's not crying "wolf." He's pleading with Americans to wake up before it's too late. You may decide after doing your research that his "alerts" are unfounded, but you have a duty to yourself and to your family and country to examine the information he presents with an unbiased eye. When reading world history you wonder sometimes, "where were the German people/citizens when Hitler was setting up a system for Jewish annihilation, coercing children to spy on their parents, etc.; didn't they see what was happening?" Maybe they were just too busy; maybe we are, too.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
"The Anchors Hold"
Do The Anchors Still Hold?
Our music minister, Scott Glass, sang one of my favorites last Sunday morning, "The Anchor Holds." I have often thought about the concept of anchors and how they affect our lives.
Among others, two important anchors are our faith in a living God and our allegiance to upholding the precepts of governing as outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We have willingly tethered our culture to these anchors. Anchors are "a reliable or principal support, a mainstay, or something that serves to hold an object firmly" (Webster’s) in place.
Anchors protect families. Without a faith anchor, families are tossed about in a sea of competing ideologies and godless philosophies. For several centuries most Americans held the Bible and its wisdom as a high standard for behavior, and, thus, it served as a cultural anchor. Not all citizens were dedicated church-goers or strict in their observance of Biblical guidelines, but most recognized that the wisdom of the Bible was an anchor in people’s lives; it offered absolutes and values that were necessary for a growing nation to survive. It defined personal integrity, and it inspired our forefathers.
Today, faith in Jesus Christ is still an anchor for many people. The anchor of faith in God and His Word keeps us tethered to truth and helps us ride out the storms of life and throw a life-preserver to others who have no anchor. In addition to our faith, the Constitution and Bill of Rights serve as anchors and a protection against unrelenting winds that pressure us to change the course of our nation. Without the anchor of a national commitment to a strict interpretation of our founding documents, our country is at risk of being washed onto the "rocks of internationalism and globalism"–producing a diluted form of government guided only by the whims of the elite and powerful of any nation.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights documents tether us to a solid foundation of government. Our form of government, though not perfect, is definitely superior to the vast collection of systems around the world. This anchor is being gradually pulled in. There are those among us who no longer see the need for a sovereign America with its own exemplary system. They are willing to pull anchor and allow America to drift into a churning whirlpool of systems, no longer distinct in culture, faith, or vision. We talk of the need for assimilating new immigrants into our culture; they think in terms of assimilating America into the global community where conformity is the ultimate goal. God forbid!
Pray that our anchors hold.
I started this post in Sept. of 2007. I'm still working on it. Please excuse my clumsy attempt at using an analogy.
Our music minister, Scott Glass, sang one of my favorites last Sunday morning, "The Anchor Holds." I have often thought about the concept of anchors and how they affect our lives.
Among others, two important anchors are our faith in a living God and our allegiance to upholding the precepts of governing as outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We have willingly tethered our culture to these anchors. Anchors are "a reliable or principal support, a mainstay, or something that serves to hold an object firmly" (Webster’s) in place.
Anchors protect families. Without a faith anchor, families are tossed about in a sea of competing ideologies and godless philosophies. For several centuries most Americans held the Bible and its wisdom as a high standard for behavior, and, thus, it served as a cultural anchor. Not all citizens were dedicated church-goers or strict in their observance of Biblical guidelines, but most recognized that the wisdom of the Bible was an anchor in people’s lives; it offered absolutes and values that were necessary for a growing nation to survive. It defined personal integrity, and it inspired our forefathers.
Today, faith in Jesus Christ is still an anchor for many people. The anchor of faith in God and His Word keeps us tethered to truth and helps us ride out the storms of life and throw a life-preserver to others who have no anchor. In addition to our faith, the Constitution and Bill of Rights serve as anchors and a protection against unrelenting winds that pressure us to change the course of our nation. Without the anchor of a national commitment to a strict interpretation of our founding documents, our country is at risk of being washed onto the "rocks of internationalism and globalism"–producing a diluted form of government guided only by the whims of the elite and powerful of any nation.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights documents tether us to a solid foundation of government. Our form of government, though not perfect, is definitely superior to the vast collection of systems around the world. This anchor is being gradually pulled in. There are those among us who no longer see the need for a sovereign America with its own exemplary system. They are willing to pull anchor and allow America to drift into a churning whirlpool of systems, no longer distinct in culture, faith, or vision. We talk of the need for assimilating new immigrants into our culture; they think in terms of assimilating America into the global community where conformity is the ultimate goal. God forbid!
Pray that our anchors hold.
I started this post in Sept. of 2007. I'm still working on it. Please excuse my clumsy attempt at using an analogy.
George Will - Stand-up Comedian at CPAC
The following link is to one of the best and funniest speeches I've heard in a long while. George Will is a longtime Washington insider and journalist. His stoic expressions while delivering hilarious political punch is entertaining and informative.
This video should be shown on the late night talk shows as an example of great stand-up comedy. It won't because the message is too clear and vital to the health of our country. Will's command of innuendo and satire cuts to the heart of the current problems in America's governing class. He presents the differences between conservative and liberal philosophies and goals in a manner you can understand and laugh at. ENJOY!
cut & paste link:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4830692
This video should be shown on the late night talk shows as an example of great stand-up comedy. It won't because the message is too clear and vital to the health of our country. Will's command of innuendo and satire cuts to the heart of the current problems in America's governing class. He presents the differences between conservative and liberal philosophies and goals in a manner you can understand and laugh at. ENJOY!
cut & paste link:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4830692
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Obamacare Smells
The Obama administration's urgency to get healthcare reform done ASAP smells of deceit and shenanigans. There is an underlying agenda at stake—grow the federal government.
Drop the current legislation on healthcare reform. It is too lengthy, has too many points that are being challenged by people with no other motive than love of country. And, it addresses issues of personal healthcare that are not the business of the government. In reality who ever gave the federal government the permission to address my/our healthcare; I agree with those who say that healthcare legislation is unconstitutional.
There are several things that should have been done much prior to this late date: tort/liability reforms that will reduce the necessity of providers carrying expensive liability insurance the cost of which is passed on to patients, hospitals, and other related providers and competition across state lines for less expensive insurance. Some suggest that this administration is beholden or indebted to trial lawyers' groups; that could account for the absence of tort reform in Obama's bill.
Some of the reforms in the Obama plan are punitive against insurance companies and will eventually put them out of business. Obama's insistence of mandating that insurance companies insure everyone, even those with pre-existing catastrophic illnesses, ignores the reality of the actuarial tables designed as a formula to assign premiums based on projected payouts. What a formula for destroying the insurance industry. But then, isn't that his intent. That would certainly move us right into a single payer system. We all agree that the issue of pre-existing conditions and those who cannot afford insurance needs to be addressed. Surely we can do that without destroying the best healthcare system in the world.
The bottom-line is that in addressing the plight of the under or uninsured, Obama has created a panic among the greater population of folks who have taken care of their business and made sure that they have adequate insurance. His plan thrusts the government's fingers deeply into the private affairs of many responsible people. Medicare has effectively desensitized Americans to the movement toward a total welfare state; it set us up to move toward dependency on the government.
The massive amount of language in the bill leaves massive holes of opportunity for undisclosed or unwanted legislation to be attached without the general public's awareness or understanding of long-term consequences.
This attempt at a “comprehensive” bill is really an attempt to slide every left-leaning, socialistic, fatter government piece of legislation past a “dull of understanding” public's eye. I include myself in this category. I looked through the bill and didn't have a clue as to what most of it meant or of its implications. The language is legal and most of us don't know how to sift through anything this massive and decide how it is going to affect the rest of our lives and the lives of our off-springs. When legislation is being debated that will change the nature of how we will experience healthcare and that will affect a huge portion of the economic health of our country, we should be able to understand it. For that reason, and many others, instead of trying to rush this through as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have been trying to do since the first day of his presidency, the current bill should be scrapped. Much smaller pieces of legislation should be crafted that both sides can debate in front of the public. Timetables to move bills of this import through Congress should not exist.
I repeat: The Obama administration's urgency to get healthcare reform done ASAP smells of deceit and shenanigans.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Caution before Jumping
We've got enough liberal Republicans in Congress that I'm not confident actually got the right message from the Mass. victory. I'm afraid that they will continue to play "nice" with the Dems and get sucked into dragging out the healthcare legislation for "tweaking." It doesn't need to be tweaked; it needs to be trashed. From what I've read from those who have read the entire bill, there would be too many "hooks" hidden to have any confidence in the final version. Until they get serious about tort reform/liability limits, they need to forget moving forward with any other legislation. And, quit talking about 30 to 40 million of uninsured or under-insured. It's been pointed out that the number is considerably less when you remove the illegals, those who choose not to purchase insurance, and those who can afford healthcare without insurance.
Remember, Scott Brown said he voted for healthcare legislation that insures everyone in Mass. He has said that he is for insuring all. What does that mean legislatively? Conservatives need to be careful before jumping on just anyone's bandwagon. Brown may be for real. We don't know yet. Proceed with caution!
Remember, Scott Brown said he voted for healthcare legislation that insures everyone in Mass. He has said that he is for insuring all. What does that mean legislatively? Conservatives need to be careful before jumping on just anyone's bandwagon. Brown may be for real. We don't know yet. Proceed with caution!
Monday, January 11, 2010
Give Glen a Chance
If you haven't been watching the Glen Beck show on Fox News at 4 p.m. every week day, then perhaps you don't have as clear an understanding of what is at stake in America today as you could--freedom and personal liberty. Glen is not the irrational, conspiracy theorist that the current supporters of President Obama's administration would have you believe. He, like other talk show hosts or news anchor personalities, has a slightly bizarre and energetic style; this style has been an attention-getter and an effective device for attracting viewers and critics. The urgency and importance of the information he brings to his audiences justifies this style; the more people who watch, whether admirers or those drawn by the lure of a side-show, the more people who will be exposed to another point of view on current events and, perhaps, truth that cannot be found on other networks.
If you have written him off as a little too radical, do yourself a favor and view with an open mind a video of his show from Friday, Jan. 8, 10. It is about 10 to 15 mins.; allow yourself some uninterrupted time to absorb what he is saying. Then make the judgment for yourself. Consider viewing several other of his videos from his evening show, especially the ones where he profiles the president's czars and the people he has surrounded himself with. To say it is scary is an understatement.
I tried to add a link to the site but was only able to copy and paste the web page:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3963934/the-one-thing-18?playlist_id=87249
If you have written him off as a little too radical, do yourself a favor and view with an open mind a video of his show from Friday, Jan. 8, 10. It is about 10 to 15 mins.; allow yourself some uninterrupted time to absorb what he is saying. Then make the judgment for yourself. Consider viewing several other of his videos from his evening show, especially the ones where he profiles the president's czars and the people he has surrounded himself with. To say it is scary is an understatement.
I tried to add a link to the site but was only able to copy and paste the web page:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3963934/the-one-thing-18?playlist_id=87249
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)