The flip side of greed is envy. Wish someone would point that out to those who want a percentage of what other folks have earned. Real greed is at work in our culture, but it isn't necessarily evident in all successful companies or in the lives of the wealthy. Real envy is more at work and is a more destructive force. It pits people against each other. Wish someone would explain to me why taxing folks at the top much more than those at the bottom is "FAIR." Fair is taking two apples from the guy with twelve and two from the guy with seven. Whose business is it how many apples a person has? We have lost the meaning of the word fair. Fair means treating people equally no matter what their station in life. Now you may support soaking the rich to support the rest of us, but, please, don't refer to it as "fair." Call it something else--perhaps socialism.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Pelosi Thinks We're Stupid
The most insulting and demeaning statement that a legislator has, in my memory, ever said about the intelligence of their constituency is, (paraphrasing) "We'll just have to pass it so we can know what's in it." Recognize it? That's a N. Pelosi comment in re to the 2400 pg. Obamacare bill. That comment should have resulted in voters demanding a "recall" vote. Every citizen voter she represents should have been enraged at her assumption of their total ignorance and willingness to be deceived. You should be embarrassed. She really does think you are stupid. Are you? Actually, she thinks the rest of us are stupid, too. But...we didn't vote for her; you did.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Welfare vs Charity
Liberal politicians desperately want the electorate to believe that welfare legislation is a moral policy. But, I believe that their true intention is to “buy” votes. If you promise handouts to a group of voters, you are apt to create a “block vote.” Libs fend off any criticism of their proposed legislation by reminding critics of the Christian concept of giving; if the person claims to be a Christian and doesn’t support their views, that person is a hypocrite. This argument is suppose to disarm all attacks from the conservative-right.
The real hypocrisy lies in the fact that liberals insist on strict adherence to the concept of separation of church and state and, yet, will justify welfare by using the Biblical concept of giving to the needy. They have just crossed their own line. They are promoting a state supported program using Christ or the church as the authority.
Christians, on the other hand, actually comply with the Biblical concept by supporting charitable giving outside of governmental programs.
Welfare enslaves; Charity liberates. Welfare is forcibly taken from the giver-the taxpayer-and given to the recipient with few requirements. Charity is willingly offered by the giver and lovingly given to a needy person or family. It is without any governmental restrictions or additional involvement on the part of the giver or the recipient.
Charity cannot come through a government office; it must come directly and voluntarily through a person or private organization. Charity may or may not require behavior modifications or counseling in order to receive assistance. Charity may choose to remain anonymous or it may choose to become involved, something that remains the option of the giver.
The real hypocrisy lies in the fact that liberals insist on strict adherence to the concept of separation of church and state and, yet, will justify welfare by using the Biblical concept of giving to the needy. They have just crossed their own line. They are promoting a state supported program using Christ or the church as the authority.
Christians, on the other hand, actually comply with the Biblical concept by supporting charitable giving outside of governmental programs.
Welfare enslaves; Charity liberates. Welfare is forcibly taken from the giver-the taxpayer-and given to the recipient with few requirements. Charity is willingly offered by the giver and lovingly given to a needy person or family. It is without any governmental restrictions or additional involvement on the part of the giver or the recipient.
Charity cannot come through a government office; it must come directly and voluntarily through a person or private organization. Charity may or may not require behavior modifications or counseling in order to receive assistance. Charity may choose to remain anonymous or it may choose to become involved, something that remains the option of the giver.
Are you assaulting our form of government?
Government is the responsibility of every legal citizen. It is our responsibility to protect it from all assaults, both domestic and foreign. If you remain uninformed, you are assaulting it. There is no excuse for ignorance. To get informed start with the founding fathers and learn how much they sacrificed to give us this republic. Many gave the ultimate sacrifice—their lives and fortunes. What have you given? What are you willing to give?
For starters, give your country the time it takes to become an informed citizen. Gaining knowledge of our country's history and the struggles of the founding fathers to create this more excellent form of government is vital. Until you understand clearly what separates us from the rest of the world and what makes our system superior, you aren't ready to make your contribution to preserve it. You've got to know what you are preserving and why it is so important. Do your homework; then join a group. If you don't you may join the wrong one.
For starters, give your country the time it takes to become an informed citizen. Gaining knowledge of our country's history and the struggles of the founding fathers to create this more excellent form of government is vital. Until you understand clearly what separates us from the rest of the world and what makes our system superior, you aren't ready to make your contribution to preserve it. You've got to know what you are preserving and why it is so important. Do your homework; then join a group. If you don't you may join the wrong one.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)