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.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, October 28, 2013
Saturday, May 1, 2010
National Conventions and Campaigns
(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.
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.
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
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
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Socialized Medicine HB 3200 - No Biblical Support
Originally posted on Chattyb Thoughts on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - see link at above of post
Dear Children and all others who read here, I cannot express enough the importance of reading this article. I received the link from the Allens in Texarkana. The author, Joe Crews, is a friend of theirs.Without a doubt it is one of the clearest critiques of the nationalized health care reform from a Christian's viewpoint. The link will take you to the ChronWatch website where the article is posted. It will take about five minutes to read, but it is well worth the time. This articles directs the reader to the fundamentals behind the move to socialize the health care system and why it MUST be defeated. It does not go into the specifics of the bill but the basic philosophy of those pushing this reform on us and what their ultimate goal is--it isn't health care.
If you are not engaged in the battle to preserve our nation for our children and grandchildren, then perhaps this article will give you the incentive to get involved at some level. If you haven't contacted your legislators by phone, email, or snail mail, attended a town hall meeting or a tea party, or talked to people you know about the importance of resisting the passage of health care reform as designed by the liberal left, then it is probably time. (just my opinion; don't mean to be pushy)
There are areas in the health care system that need reforming starting with tort reform. These can be accomplished without completely demolishing the best health care system in the world.
Please get involved. After reading this article you will better understand what is at stake, IF you don't already. I know that many of you do. Thank the Lord!
Link: (copy and paste) I am sorry to say that tonight (11/11/11 at 11:00 p.m.) I tried to copy and paste the address noted below and was unable to find it. Chronwatch-America wasn't listed any longer. I have emailed Joe Crews to see where I might find his speech online. Hopefully he will supply a site. If not I will remove this post.
http://www.chronwatch-america.com/articles/5424/1/Socialized-Medicine--A-Prescription-for-Tyranny-of-Biblical-Proportions/Page1.html
Friday, April 3, 2009
Reflections: Engineered Entitlements, written 2007
We are hearing the terms entitlement, entitled to, rights, and right to so often these days. I cringe everytime I hear them wondering what new entitlement or right has been discovered at taxpayers' expense. Should any entitlement/right be at the expense of another person. Should funding for an "e/r" demand the resources, money (taxes), talents, skills, services, etc. of other individuals? What do I really believe about rights?
Like other claims, these terms are used so often with the assumption that if the right or entitlement can be repeated often enough and loud enough and if it can be attached to a particular group, it can leapfrog right over the logic log into the Lake of Loosely Managed Legal Opportunism and onto a slippery, slimey lily pad of nebulous civic contracts. Gee, that was fun! Oh, come on now. Does it really have to make sense. Loosen up!
Have you considered what your basic rights are as a mere human on planet earth? The Bill of Rights enumerates a few for us as Americans.
#1 - freedom of religion (much diminished), speech (scratch this one, it's gone), press, assembly, & redress of grievances (overused-so many are grieved to the point of suing for $'s to soothe their little psychies);
#2 - freedom to keep and bear arms (under attack);
#3 - in peacetime military cannot take your home for housing without your permission (guess this one was a problem at sometime in our history);
#4 - protects against unreasonable search and seizure;
#5 - due process;
#6 - right to a speedy trial (really) and counsel (those speedy counsels are called ambulance chasers);
#7 - common law guidelines (don't really understand this one);
#8 - no excessive bail or fines nor cruel and unusual punishment (no problem there);
#9 - Constitutional rights do not deny or disparage other rights retained by the people (states); and
#10 - powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (states rights - this one's in jeopardy).
Several years ago I heard a Republican couple claim on national t.v. that they had a "right" to good childcare. Oh, my gosh. I almost slid out of my chair. Republicans, no less. I always knew that Dems felt that if "they could name it, they could claim it" as a right. But a Republican. We are in dire straits, indeed. But then, I guess if it works for the dems....Nah. Can't go there.
So now in America we have a growing list of rights when my own personal list is soooo short. Here's my list: I have the right to:
#1 - live up to my potential limited only by my own initiative and choices, etc.;
#2 - work as hard as I want in order to obtain the kind of lifestyle I desire;
#3 - fellowship with God any time or place either aloud (some restrictions) or quietly;
#4 - commune with nature and enjoy the world around me any time or place;
#5 - love and appreciate my family and friends all the time;
#6 - * breathe natural air unpoluted by cigarette smoke and the obnoxious/dangerous fumes generated by corporations or the public who lack sensibilities or responsibility toward their fellow citizens (stop and take a deep breath-we're almost there) as long as it does not infringe on their ability to produce a product/service necessary for the continuation of the human race (necessary is the key word and sorry for the long sentence-are you okay?);
#7 - have as many children as I can afford;
#8 - starve to death if I decide not to work;
#9 - drop dead from an unhealthy lifestyle and too much Blue Bell;
#10 - control my own destiny and the destiny of my underage (17 yrs. & younger) children short of denying them food or shelter or imposing torture to their bodies (some is okay) or minds.
Well, I guess it is not so short. I may add to this list from time to time. These may not even be rights as much as they are personal responsibilities and consequences.
But, did you notice something about my list? None of my rights required your taxes to go up. None required you to help me out financially. And this is what makes my list totally out of the reach of the government and any intervention they might impose. There's nothing here that should require legislation for public funding.
The truth is that some of the rights I hold dear have actually been addressed in the halls of congress and some of those rights are being enjoyed now only until they are challenged in court. The one that comes to mind immediately is the right I claim to paddle my child (in theory only as my children are grown). Some state agencies want to eliminate paddling altogether. By virtue of the perceived threat of the state's intervention in this family matter, most parents feel compelled to relinquish this form of punishment rather than risk having their children taken from then while having to do battle in a courtroom to regain custody. The liberals have sold most state and federal agencies on the notion that paddling is a form of child abuse. This is, of course, contrary to Bible teaching, to good common sense, and the test of time. Generations of children were disciplined in this manner, suffered neither permanent damage to their posteriors or their personalities, and were safer in their environments than children of today. There is something to be said for a little healthy fear of pain.
The state has also sabotaged my parental authority in determining whether or not my child has the right to an abortion or the services of the local Planned Parenthood Clinic. I guess this is one of the most odious examples of the liberals move to take control of our families. We know that Planned Parenthood Clinics operate either on high school campuses across the country or very near the campuses in order to service their customers--our precious daughters and sons. All of this is done behind the backs of parents who would most likely refuse their services. School districts do not seem to protest this invasion of the home. The rationale for allowing this is the liberal argument that some girls would not seek their services because they would have to face an angry parent. Oh really! Being afraid of an angry parent has served for eons as a deterent to bad behavior.
Many of the rights proclaimed by groups and individuals are attached to a law or legislation that will require money from the national treasury for funding. For example, the right to: daycare and after-school care for children of working moms, summer school assistance plus daycare, health insurance for children of indigent parents, health insurance for all, etc. The list goes on.
I acknowledge that these "rights" highlight problem areas for folks in our communities who lack sufficient funds. My problem is that they are labelled "rights." They are not. One person, no matter what his/her plight, does not have a claim on another person's income or resources. We may, as a community or government, decide to assist people with problems, but not because they have a right to the assistance. They should get it out of our moral commitment to help those who need help.
It would seem that many today focus on what they can get from this country and not what they can give. Sounds like something President Kennedy once said, "Ask not ...." And, it is in the "getting" that the rights list grows longer and longer because folks have looked through the window of opportunism and not through the window of opportunity. Opportunism is the art, policy, or practice of taking advantage of opportunities or circumstances often with little regard for principles or consequences [Websters]. Opportunity exists when a person recognizes a good chance for advancement or progress when a favorable juncture of circumstances exists.
In America a favorable juncture of circumstances exists and has existed for several hundred years for most folks. Our culture has tried to right the wrongs of our history when various groups were denied access to those favorable circumstances. No culture is perfect; no governmental system is without flaws. To the credit of our founding fathers, a system to redress these injustices was written into our form of government, and the Bill of Rights took its rightful place beside the other important documents. Thus, with few exceptions, no person in America can say that they have been denied the right to follow his/her dreams and just maybe achieve them. Achieving them is not a right, only the attempt.
Bottom line: If a right requires that someone else pay, it isn't a right. Am I wrong? Whatever your feelings are on welfare or charity, the focus here is on the use of the term "rights." Check the Bill of Rights list. None require federal or state funding.
I welcome your comments. Would enjoy seeing your list of rights. There is so much more that can be said on this topic, but enough for now.
* On the national scale, types of air polution may require some legislation, but surely I should be able to suck oxygen in most places without someone's smoke drifting into my nose space. The exception-in your house or your space. I can leave.
Like other claims, these terms are used so often with the assumption that if the right or entitlement can be repeated often enough and loud enough and if it can be attached to a particular group, it can leapfrog right over the logic log into the Lake of Loosely Managed Legal Opportunism and onto a slippery, slimey lily pad of nebulous civic contracts. Gee, that was fun! Oh, come on now. Does it really have to make sense. Loosen up!
Have you considered what your basic rights are as a mere human on planet earth? The Bill of Rights enumerates a few for us as Americans.
#1 - freedom of religion (much diminished), speech (scratch this one, it's gone), press, assembly, & redress of grievances (overused-so many are grieved to the point of suing for $'s to soothe their little psychies);
#2 - freedom to keep and bear arms (under attack);
#3 - in peacetime military cannot take your home for housing without your permission (guess this one was a problem at sometime in our history);
#4 - protects against unreasonable search and seizure;
#5 - due process;
#6 - right to a speedy trial (really) and counsel (those speedy counsels are called ambulance chasers);
#7 - common law guidelines (don't really understand this one);
#8 - no excessive bail or fines nor cruel and unusual punishment (no problem there);
#9 - Constitutional rights do not deny or disparage other rights retained by the people (states); and
#10 - powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (states rights - this one's in jeopardy).
Several years ago I heard a Republican couple claim on national t.v. that they had a "right" to good childcare. Oh, my gosh. I almost slid out of my chair. Republicans, no less. I always knew that Dems felt that if "they could name it, they could claim it" as a right. But a Republican. We are in dire straits, indeed. But then, I guess if it works for the dems....Nah. Can't go there.
So now in America we have a growing list of rights when my own personal list is soooo short. Here's my list: I have the right to:
#1 - live up to my potential limited only by my own initiative and choices, etc.;
#2 - work as hard as I want in order to obtain the kind of lifestyle I desire;
#3 - fellowship with God any time or place either aloud (some restrictions) or quietly;
#4 - commune with nature and enjoy the world around me any time or place;
#5 - love and appreciate my family and friends all the time;
#6 - * breathe natural air unpoluted by cigarette smoke and the obnoxious/dangerous fumes generated by corporations or the public who lack sensibilities or responsibility toward their fellow citizens (stop and take a deep breath-we're almost there) as long as it does not infringe on their ability to produce a product/service necessary for the continuation of the human race (necessary is the key word and sorry for the long sentence-are you okay?);
#7 - have as many children as I can afford;
#8 - starve to death if I decide not to work;
#9 - drop dead from an unhealthy lifestyle and too much Blue Bell;
#10 - control my own destiny and the destiny of my underage (17 yrs. & younger) children short of denying them food or shelter or imposing torture to their bodies (some is okay) or minds.
Well, I guess it is not so short. I may add to this list from time to time. These may not even be rights as much as they are personal responsibilities and consequences.
But, did you notice something about my list? None of my rights required your taxes to go up. None required you to help me out financially. And this is what makes my list totally out of the reach of the government and any intervention they might impose. There's nothing here that should require legislation for public funding.
The truth is that some of the rights I hold dear have actually been addressed in the halls of congress and some of those rights are being enjoyed now only until they are challenged in court. The one that comes to mind immediately is the right I claim to paddle my child (in theory only as my children are grown). Some state agencies want to eliminate paddling altogether. By virtue of the perceived threat of the state's intervention in this family matter, most parents feel compelled to relinquish this form of punishment rather than risk having their children taken from then while having to do battle in a courtroom to regain custody. The liberals have sold most state and federal agencies on the notion that paddling is a form of child abuse. This is, of course, contrary to Bible teaching, to good common sense, and the test of time. Generations of children were disciplined in this manner, suffered neither permanent damage to their posteriors or their personalities, and were safer in their environments than children of today. There is something to be said for a little healthy fear of pain.
The state has also sabotaged my parental authority in determining whether or not my child has the right to an abortion or the services of the local Planned Parenthood Clinic. I guess this is one of the most odious examples of the liberals move to take control of our families. We know that Planned Parenthood Clinics operate either on high school campuses across the country or very near the campuses in order to service their customers--our precious daughters and sons. All of this is done behind the backs of parents who would most likely refuse their services. School districts do not seem to protest this invasion of the home. The rationale for allowing this is the liberal argument that some girls would not seek their services because they would have to face an angry parent. Oh really! Being afraid of an angry parent has served for eons as a deterent to bad behavior.
Many of the rights proclaimed by groups and individuals are attached to a law or legislation that will require money from the national treasury for funding. For example, the right to: daycare and after-school care for children of working moms, summer school assistance plus daycare, health insurance for children of indigent parents, health insurance for all, etc. The list goes on.
I acknowledge that these "rights" highlight problem areas for folks in our communities who lack sufficient funds. My problem is that they are labelled "rights." They are not. One person, no matter what his/her plight, does not have a claim on another person's income or resources. We may, as a community or government, decide to assist people with problems, but not because they have a right to the assistance. They should get it out of our moral commitment to help those who need help.
It would seem that many today focus on what they can get from this country and not what they can give. Sounds like something President Kennedy once said, "Ask not ...." And, it is in the "getting" that the rights list grows longer and longer because folks have looked through the window of opportunism and not through the window of opportunity. Opportunism is the art, policy, or practice of taking advantage of opportunities or circumstances often with little regard for principles or consequences [Websters]. Opportunity exists when a person recognizes a good chance for advancement or progress when a favorable juncture of circumstances exists.
In America a favorable juncture of circumstances exists and has existed for several hundred years for most folks. Our culture has tried to right the wrongs of our history when various groups were denied access to those favorable circumstances. No culture is perfect; no governmental system is without flaws. To the credit of our founding fathers, a system to redress these injustices was written into our form of government, and the Bill of Rights took its rightful place beside the other important documents. Thus, with few exceptions, no person in America can say that they have been denied the right to follow his/her dreams and just maybe achieve them. Achieving them is not a right, only the attempt.
Bottom line: If a right requires that someone else pay, it isn't a right. Am I wrong? Whatever your feelings are on welfare or charity, the focus here is on the use of the term "rights." Check the Bill of Rights list. None require federal or state funding.
I welcome your comments. Would enjoy seeing your list of rights. There is so much more that can be said on this topic, but enough for now.
* On the national scale, types of air polution may require some legislation, but surely I should be able to suck oxygen in most places without someone's smoke drifting into my nose space. The exception-in your house or your space. I can leave.
Reflections: Hang In There! written prior to last election
Are you a Republican who is ready to throw in the towel, quit working in your local committee, and won't commit to give to any candidate? Well, cheer up and don't give up the fight--it is too important!
No party is perfect. No politician is without flaws. No campaign is without attacks on its opponents. If we have learned anything, it is that politicians are a reflection of the general population of fallible humans. It is our fault when we put people on pedestals--they are apt to fall off. We have to continue to look for the best among us to represent us.
Consider why you voted Republican in the first place. Surely it wasn’t because you thought they were perfect. You probably thought that their party platform most closely reflected your values on the economy and, more importantly, the culture. It was probably because you thought that they offered the most hope for pulling America back from the brink of socialism. You supported a Republican candidate because he/she professed values with which you agreed. Some actually hold to those values later as elected officials; others do not, and they disappoint us.
Without offering excuses for any mess-ups, either real or imagined, there is one overriding issue that should keep you working and involved: Supreme Court and lower court appointments. There may be several liberal Supremes who are waiting for a D president before they will retire. President Bush has appointed two very capable and, hopefully, conservative judges. The balance in the court still leans to the left too often to be considered conservative. If two more judges are appointed by the D’s, the balance will be decidedly liberal. This observation does not mean that the supremes always rule along party lines. They do not. Justice O’Connor has been a disappointment to some conservatives and was appointed by a R. But, the Warren court that ruled for decades took this country so far into the liberal zone, it will take decades more to find our way back to a "non activist court" and to a court that considers "original intent." Liberal judges down the line have so messed with the laws of our nation that they no longer make much sense. The concept of "original intent" offered an anchor to reason and consistency.
Thankfully, members of both parties worked to correct the glaring Consitutional inequities that allowed slavery/racial discrimination and denied women the vote, inequities that were a reflection of the cultural norm at the conception of our nation. These were destined to be corrected by a people who held the wisdom of the Bible in high regard and, occasionally, listened to their consciences.
Continue to be involved. You do it for your children and their children.
No party is perfect. No politician is without flaws. No campaign is without attacks on its opponents. If we have learned anything, it is that politicians are a reflection of the general population of fallible humans. It is our fault when we put people on pedestals--they are apt to fall off. We have to continue to look for the best among us to represent us.
Consider why you voted Republican in the first place. Surely it wasn’t because you thought they were perfect. You probably thought that their party platform most closely reflected your values on the economy and, more importantly, the culture. It was probably because you thought that they offered the most hope for pulling America back from the brink of socialism. You supported a Republican candidate because he/she professed values with which you agreed. Some actually hold to those values later as elected officials; others do not, and they disappoint us.
Without offering excuses for any mess-ups, either real or imagined, there is one overriding issue that should keep you working and involved: Supreme Court and lower court appointments. There may be several liberal Supremes who are waiting for a D president before they will retire. President Bush has appointed two very capable and, hopefully, conservative judges. The balance in the court still leans to the left too often to be considered conservative. If two more judges are appointed by the D’s, the balance will be decidedly liberal. This observation does not mean that the supremes always rule along party lines. They do not. Justice O’Connor has been a disappointment to some conservatives and was appointed by a R. But, the Warren court that ruled for decades took this country so far into the liberal zone, it will take decades more to find our way back to a "non activist court" and to a court that considers "original intent." Liberal judges down the line have so messed with the laws of our nation that they no longer make much sense. The concept of "original intent" offered an anchor to reason and consistency.
Thankfully, members of both parties worked to correct the glaring Consitutional inequities that allowed slavery/racial discrimination and denied women the vote, inequities that were a reflection of the cultural norm at the conception of our nation. These were destined to be corrected by a people who held the wisdom of the Bible in high regard and, occasionally, listened to their consciences.
Continue to be involved. You do it for your children and their children.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Comments by Daniel Hannan on YouTube
If you haven't seen this video of Daniel Hannan's speech directed at Gordon Brown, the acting Prime Minister of England, you must. Then follow the links to some of his other speeches. He says what needs to be shouted from every rooftop in America.
YouTube - News & Politics
YouTube - News & Politics
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Reflections: Capitalism Is Not A Dirty Word written June 13, 2008
The terms capitalism and socialism were commonly used and understood concepts when I was a youngster. Besides being taught their meanings at home in conversations with my folks, they were probably taught in the junior or highschool classroom. I always understood that America chose the former for its economic system over socialism, a system common to totalitarian governments where freedoms are denied. I understood why capitalism with all its "warts" offered individuals, communities, states, or countries the most freedoms, the freedom to achieve or fail. Note definitions at the end of this blog.
I am now wondering if younger generations possess that understanding. Probably, if you are reading my blog and I raised you, you do have this understanding. I made sure of that. I worry about the generations who have not been taught why it is so important to fight to preserve capitalism and the free enterprise system. I do not hear near enough political discourse/debate that clearly and boldly defines and defends these systems. Mostly I hear attacks.
The political rhetoric is so convulated in its explanations of issues and choices that it is hard to determine where capitalistic solutions can be found. Facts given as rationale for governmental action or programs or legislation have been replaced with feelings and twisted logic. If your intent is to stay committed to capitalism, you can become totally frustrated.
There are so many things worth fighting for these days: The Bill of Rights (and the correct interpretation of it), the Constitution (and holding to original intent), and America's sovereignty (and teaching recent generations what that means and what it will mean if we lose it) are but a few. I have recently heard a talk radio show host declare that our democracy has sold us out. I don't know if he meant that literally or was acknowledging the truth in the quote of one of our founding-fathers. I don't have time to find the quote, but it suggested that the founding-fathers had given us a wonderful form of government and unless we elected sincere Christians to office, we would not be able to hold onto it. I would add to that the need to elect not only sincere Christians but people who are committed to a sovereign America with a capitalistic/free enterprise economic system, and a representative democracy with an informed and active electorate.
Capitalism is not a dirty word!
Capitalism: An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Socialism: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. A system of society or group living in which there is no private property. A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
Ever hear the term "redistribution of wealth/property?" Our country today is in the process of socialization. We talk about socialized medicine; we have multiplying welfare programs; private ownership of land is falling under unjust application of "eminent domain" laws; the states are in a continual battle to maintain their states' rights. And, our national sovereignty is in jeopardy. It seems that every institution is under attack.
I am now wondering if younger generations possess that understanding. Probably, if you are reading my blog and I raised you, you do have this understanding. I made sure of that. I worry about the generations who have not been taught why it is so important to fight to preserve capitalism and the free enterprise system. I do not hear near enough political discourse/debate that clearly and boldly defines and defends these systems. Mostly I hear attacks.
The political rhetoric is so convulated in its explanations of issues and choices that it is hard to determine where capitalistic solutions can be found. Facts given as rationale for governmental action or programs or legislation have been replaced with feelings and twisted logic. If your intent is to stay committed to capitalism, you can become totally frustrated.
There are so many things worth fighting for these days: The Bill of Rights (and the correct interpretation of it), the Constitution (and holding to original intent), and America's sovereignty (and teaching recent generations what that means and what it will mean if we lose it) are but a few. I have recently heard a talk radio show host declare that our democracy has sold us out. I don't know if he meant that literally or was acknowledging the truth in the quote of one of our founding-fathers. I don't have time to find the quote, but it suggested that the founding-fathers had given us a wonderful form of government and unless we elected sincere Christians to office, we would not be able to hold onto it. I would add to that the need to elect not only sincere Christians but people who are committed to a sovereign America with a capitalistic/free enterprise economic system, and a representative democracy with an informed and active electorate.
Capitalism is not a dirty word!
Capitalism: An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Socialism: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. A system of society or group living in which there is no private property. A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
Ever hear the term "redistribution of wealth/property?" Our country today is in the process of socialization. We talk about socialized medicine; we have multiplying welfare programs; private ownership of land is falling under unjust application of "eminent domain" laws; the states are in a continual battle to maintain their states' rights. And, our national sovereignty is in jeopardy. It seems that every institution is under attack.
Reflections: On Immigration written on Sept. 11, 2007
While listening to debate regarding the immigration issue, I realized that I was not hearing an important rationale for preserving our long-standing immigration policy. I have no statistics to add weight to what I will suggest but will have to depend on my instincts and understanding based on 45 to 50 years of "paying attention" to political and civic chatter (I'm 67 yrs. old now).
I believe that what we are seeing in America today is a willingness to apply great leniency toward groups of folks who have shown a disregard for the laws of our land by entering illegally and who now want to stay. They and some American politicians and support agencies are promoting the notion that because they have worked here for a lengthy period of time, illegally, and have even borne children while here, their "desire to stay" legally should somehow trump our immigration laws. They will pay no real penalty, and they express their desires to stay in terms of "rights" due them. They even want us to refer to them not as illegals, but as undocumented workers or undocumented immigrants. I wonder how many Americans realize how politicians play games with words and how subtle word changes can support or undermine a plan.
There are many good common sense reasons why we should not travel the amnesty road. Amnesty is insulting to the great number of people who have plugged into the immigration process and have had to wait their turn. These folks have paid the full price for admission--time and money.
I won't bore you with the obvious reasons for rejecting the new immigration bill recently debated in America. But, have you considered this?
Let me start by asking what makes the U. S. unique and attractive? Why do so many people from every part of the world want to make America their home? What adjectives or phrases come to mind in describing America? Freedom, opportunity, open society, integrated society welcoming all newcomers, beautiful, productive, open to all faiths, tolerant, etc. The list could go on. Those are not things that are necessarily unique to America. You can put your finger on a world map and find places, countries, where some or all of the above attributes exist to some extent.
No, the thing that makes America desireable is her form of government. It is our representative democracy that makes all of her other attributes available to all of her people all of the time.
There is a real risk in allowing unchecked and illegal immigration. Illegals who want to bypass the naturalization process do not understand how our Republic came into being. What is even more discouraging is that more and more generations of Americans do not either. If they do not understand the sacrifice of our forefathers, the genius of the framers, the unrelenting desire for freedom of the early settlers and populace, then they cannot be expected to help us continue in our fight to preserve our form of government. If their desire to come here is simply to be able to take advantage of the opportunities, then at some point in our history we will no longer be able to sustain our form of government.
New immigrants who do not immerse themselves in "our" history, who openly defy any suggestion at assimilating and learning English and who fly the flag(s) of their former country will eventually dilute our culture. As new immigrants are steered into voting blocks, they will, because of their sheer numbers, be able to make the necessary adjustments to our Constitution that will make them more comfortable in their new homeland. At some point they will create a duplicate of the condition from which they left.
When the number of new immigrants is high, the process of assimilation is set back. Instead of looking for support in the existing communities of the major culture, they instead can find support among people who are experiencing the same challenges. This tends to set up sub-cultures and delays or restricts assimilation. Thus, the advantages they seek become illusive, and they become wards of the state and burdens to the taxpayers.
Mexico and the U. S. have a history of border disputes dating back to the land acquisitions from Mexico that became Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. The dispute for most Americans was settled long ago. Evidently, for some Mexicans, the dispute is ongoing. They feel they are taking back what is rightfully theirs. Mexican President Felipe Calderone has been quoted as saying that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.
To sum up, our immigration policy should be mindful of the need for immigrants to be legal and limited to a quantity that can be assimilated into the major culture. It should also insist that new immigrants be well versed in the early history of America and how our form of government was developed. They should be required to learn English. They should be encouraged to appreciate and help preserve our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I believe that what we are seeing in America today is a willingness to apply great leniency toward groups of folks who have shown a disregard for the laws of our land by entering illegally and who now want to stay. They and some American politicians and support agencies are promoting the notion that because they have worked here for a lengthy period of time, illegally, and have even borne children while here, their "desire to stay" legally should somehow trump our immigration laws. They will pay no real penalty, and they express their desires to stay in terms of "rights" due them. They even want us to refer to them not as illegals, but as undocumented workers or undocumented immigrants. I wonder how many Americans realize how politicians play games with words and how subtle word changes can support or undermine a plan.
There are many good common sense reasons why we should not travel the amnesty road. Amnesty is insulting to the great number of people who have plugged into the immigration process and have had to wait their turn. These folks have paid the full price for admission--time and money.
I won't bore you with the obvious reasons for rejecting the new immigration bill recently debated in America. But, have you considered this?
Let me start by asking what makes the U. S. unique and attractive? Why do so many people from every part of the world want to make America their home? What adjectives or phrases come to mind in describing America? Freedom, opportunity, open society, integrated society welcoming all newcomers, beautiful, productive, open to all faiths, tolerant, etc. The list could go on. Those are not things that are necessarily unique to America. You can put your finger on a world map and find places, countries, where some or all of the above attributes exist to some extent.
No, the thing that makes America desireable is her form of government. It is our representative democracy that makes all of her other attributes available to all of her people all of the time.
There is a real risk in allowing unchecked and illegal immigration. Illegals who want to bypass the naturalization process do not understand how our Republic came into being. What is even more discouraging is that more and more generations of Americans do not either. If they do not understand the sacrifice of our forefathers, the genius of the framers, the unrelenting desire for freedom of the early settlers and populace, then they cannot be expected to help us continue in our fight to preserve our form of government. If their desire to come here is simply to be able to take advantage of the opportunities, then at some point in our history we will no longer be able to sustain our form of government.
New immigrants who do not immerse themselves in "our" history, who openly defy any suggestion at assimilating and learning English and who fly the flag(s) of their former country will eventually dilute our culture. As new immigrants are steered into voting blocks, they will, because of their sheer numbers, be able to make the necessary adjustments to our Constitution that will make them more comfortable in their new homeland. At some point they will create a duplicate of the condition from which they left.
When the number of new immigrants is high, the process of assimilation is set back. Instead of looking for support in the existing communities of the major culture, they instead can find support among people who are experiencing the same challenges. This tends to set up sub-cultures and delays or restricts assimilation. Thus, the advantages they seek become illusive, and they become wards of the state and burdens to the taxpayers.
Mexico and the U. S. have a history of border disputes dating back to the land acquisitions from Mexico that became Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. The dispute for most Americans was settled long ago. Evidently, for some Mexicans, the dispute is ongoing. They feel they are taking back what is rightfully theirs. Mexican President Felipe Calderone has been quoted as saying that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.
To sum up, our immigration policy should be mindful of the need for immigrants to be legal and limited to a quantity that can be assimilated into the major culture. It should also insist that new immigrants be well versed in the early history of America and how our form of government was developed. They should be required to learn English. They should be encouraged to appreciate and help preserve our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Reflections: We Need To Apply Shock Paddles to the Republican Carcass written Oct. 20, 2008 prior to Election
We had life once, you know–after 40 years in the wilderness and with the leadership of some dedicated congressmen and women and the help of bold radio talk show hosts who verbally prodded and poked at a drowsy and preoccupied nation, Republicans were propelled into a "majority" position by an awakened and fired-up electorate–a position that seemed to take Republicans in Washington DC by surprise. They were unable to shake off that minority mantle under which they dutifully accepted all short straws from the Dems in control of everything.
You have to give it to the Dems; after decades of giving the Reps the leftovers from their legislative banquet table, they knew instinctively how not to act as a minority party. They rejected the Republican model of playing nice and rolling over at chairmanship appointment slights; they screamed "foul" and ran to the liberal rags to broadcast their indignation and outrage, and no one pointed out that Dems wrote the play book on that legislative strategy and many others.
Reps, on the other hand, just couldn’t step up to the platter and demand what was rightfully theirs–respect, position, and conservative appointments and legislation. Too bad; we had a chance to make a lasting impact. We could have turned the country away from its march toward a total "nanny state," that’s socialism for the uninformed. We could have pressed for a continued national debate on the virtues of individual responsibility in areas of our lives where the government seems all too willing to insert its bureaucratic tentacles.
Grassroots party faithful looked on in disbelief as the Rep majority party in Washington DC squandered a great opportunity–an opportunity made possible by the hard work and financial sacrifice of the "little" people, the people who helped make the dream a reality. As evidenced by diminished financial support since the 2006 election, the grassroots sent a message to their political machine–"you have disappointed/disgusted us to the point that if we do not see a turn around, you will have to dig deeper into your own pockets to fund another campaign."
Well, venting feels good and accomplishes little. Sitting smugly in the corner during this election year is not an option. There is far too much at stake to invest all our energies in criticism and pity parties. Remember why we got involved in the first place–OUR CHILDREN, OUR GRANDCHILDREN, AND ALL WHO COME AFTER US. That is why we work to lift up the Republican and/or conservative philosophy. We fight to turn our nation back to the values of faith, family, and opportunity that our forefathers envisioned and fought for. We fight to save our way of life from extinction, and we fight for all our citizens no matter their race, gender, or social status.
If WE don’t fight to preserve our nation, then who will? There is an opposing army of liberals busy within our borders whose aim is to tear America apart so that they can put it back together as part of the global community. Remember the old conspiracy term–"one world government." You may have rejected that concept years ago as part of the hysterical right’s lexicon of nutty phrases, but it may be time to reconsider it as a real goal for some.
What will we say to our children when they ask, "Where were you and what were you doing when our Constitution became so twisted and misinterpreted by liberal judges that it became useless as a governing document, when the American flag became dishonored by its own citizens, when opportunities to achieve financial security and success were undermined by heavy taxes and burdensome regulations, when the cry of her people became, ‘But I’m entitled to that’ instead of ‘I’ll work hard for it and maybe get it someday,’ when leaders around the world lost confidence in America's resolve to support freedom at home and abroad and maintain a position of strength militarily and economically in order to insure its sovereignty, when becoming a citizen meant leaving behind old ways and loyalties, learning a new language, and assimilating totally into a new culture, and when its people were admired and emulated?"
Telling them that you got mad and just left it to the lefties won’t help them appreciate your indifference and the mess they inherited. Telling them that there wasn’t enough time in the day to get involved, support a party or candidate, to voice your ideas at a meeting, to carry a sign, to sign a petition, or to write a representative or place a timely call to his/her office won’t help either. But then, by that time, history may have been rewritten enough that our children won’t realize that there was a time when America was a free and independent nation full of people with imagination, initiative, self-reliance, courage, faith, loyalty, patriotism, etc. Maybe when that knowledge is no longer available to them, they won’t even be asking those questions.
But some of us will remember an America that we were proud of, and we will hurt for the generations who will follow and not know what they missed.
You have to give it to the Dems; after decades of giving the Reps the leftovers from their legislative banquet table, they knew instinctively how not to act as a minority party. They rejected the Republican model of playing nice and rolling over at chairmanship appointment slights; they screamed "foul" and ran to the liberal rags to broadcast their indignation and outrage, and no one pointed out that Dems wrote the play book on that legislative strategy and many others.
Reps, on the other hand, just couldn’t step up to the platter and demand what was rightfully theirs–respect, position, and conservative appointments and legislation. Too bad; we had a chance to make a lasting impact. We could have turned the country away from its march toward a total "nanny state," that’s socialism for the uninformed. We could have pressed for a continued national debate on the virtues of individual responsibility in areas of our lives where the government seems all too willing to insert its bureaucratic tentacles.
Grassroots party faithful looked on in disbelief as the Rep majority party in Washington DC squandered a great opportunity–an opportunity made possible by the hard work and financial sacrifice of the "little" people, the people who helped make the dream a reality. As evidenced by diminished financial support since the 2006 election, the grassroots sent a message to their political machine–"you have disappointed/disgusted us to the point that if we do not see a turn around, you will have to dig deeper into your own pockets to fund another campaign."
Well, venting feels good and accomplishes little. Sitting smugly in the corner during this election year is not an option. There is far too much at stake to invest all our energies in criticism and pity parties. Remember why we got involved in the first place–OUR CHILDREN, OUR GRANDCHILDREN, AND ALL WHO COME AFTER US. That is why we work to lift up the Republican and/or conservative philosophy. We fight to turn our nation back to the values of faith, family, and opportunity that our forefathers envisioned and fought for. We fight to save our way of life from extinction, and we fight for all our citizens no matter their race, gender, or social status.
If WE don’t fight to preserve our nation, then who will? There is an opposing army of liberals busy within our borders whose aim is to tear America apart so that they can put it back together as part of the global community. Remember the old conspiracy term–"one world government." You may have rejected that concept years ago as part of the hysterical right’s lexicon of nutty phrases, but it may be time to reconsider it as a real goal for some.
What will we say to our children when they ask, "Where were you and what were you doing when our Constitution became so twisted and misinterpreted by liberal judges that it became useless as a governing document, when the American flag became dishonored by its own citizens, when opportunities to achieve financial security and success were undermined by heavy taxes and burdensome regulations, when the cry of her people became, ‘But I’m entitled to that’ instead of ‘I’ll work hard for it and maybe get it someday,’ when leaders around the world lost confidence in America's resolve to support freedom at home and abroad and maintain a position of strength militarily and economically in order to insure its sovereignty, when becoming a citizen meant leaving behind old ways and loyalties, learning a new language, and assimilating totally into a new culture, and when its people were admired and emulated?"
Telling them that you got mad and just left it to the lefties won’t help them appreciate your indifference and the mess they inherited. Telling them that there wasn’t enough time in the day to get involved, support a party or candidate, to voice your ideas at a meeting, to carry a sign, to sign a petition, or to write a representative or place a timely call to his/her office won’t help either. But then, by that time, history may have been rewritten enough that our children won’t realize that there was a time when America was a free and independent nation full of people with imagination, initiative, self-reliance, courage, faith, loyalty, patriotism, etc. Maybe when that knowledge is no longer available to them, they won’t even be asking those questions.
But some of us will remember an America that we were proud of, and we will hurt for the generations who will follow and not know what they missed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)