Sunday, November 8, 2009

Obama's Watershed Moment(s)

Obama was almost right about one thing:
“…it was also a watershed moment in how change is made.”
America has officially seen the day where the voice of America was ignored in favor of propaganda. We have officially seen the day when Americans spoke out and big government ignored us in its own interest. We have officially seen the day when freedom took a back seat to entitlement. We have officially seen the day when our own government, with the help of a complicit state advocate media, undermined the very constitution that this country was founded on.

Obama missed the boat ever so slightly. We’ve seen change made exactly like this in numerous dictatorships and pseudo-democracies all over the world, but this is truly “a watershed moment in how change is made”…in the united States of America.

Of course, since we saw this with the stimulus bill, too, maybe the watershed moment isn't that it occurred, but that this method of stuffing "change" down Americans' throats is becoming the rule, rather than the exception. Now that is indeed change, but if we continue on this path, Americans will soon discover there is no hope in this kind of change.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Because I Say

In case you doubt that many politicians live in their own little world according to their own rules and reality, check this out.



According to Senator Harry Reid (D), paying taxes is "voluntary." I'd like to say that he was referencing an earlier time, except I don't recall any time or place in the history of any culture when taxes were voluntary. The very notion of tax implies force or strain, so I’m not sure where Reid is coming from.

Perhaps he’s referencing the notion that our elected representatives were allegedly doing our bidding (according to their job descriptions) when they proposed and passed laws mandating alleged free citizens to surrender their income so it might be doled out according to the political expediency, whim, and fancy of the elite...er...I mean, enlightened...class.

If all it takes for taxes to be considered “donations” is Harry Reid’s creative phraseology, it is no wonder the current administration is able to follow the current path and call it constitutional; because they say so.

When the definitions of freedom, prosperity, and justice are wholly bound by the subjective constraint of authority, that is the true mark of tyranny.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

The Government...with a capital "G"

The Government is officially justifying itself; of the Government, for the Government, by the Government.


The public outcry against the Government exerting control within private industry is repeatedly justified by pointing out that “they (private industry) took TARP (bailout) money, so now the Government has the right.”

So, the Government proposed the use of taxpayer funds to rescue (bailout) private industry. Taxpayers overwhelmingly responded to their elected officials indicating our majority disapproval of the concept. The Government proceeded over public outcries and objections. Later, the Government starts exercising unconstitutional influence over private industry. The taxpayers object, but are told that because the private industry took bailout money, the Government now has a justifiable stake granting it otherwise unconstitutional authority.

So, if the Government had heeded our voice and not forced the bailout on us, then the Government would have heeded our voice and not forced private industry to bend to its will?

Now I understand.

Initially, the Government, by its own authority, usurped our freedom unconstitutionally because the Government deemed its will superior to the will of the people. Then later when the Government overtly extended its unconstitutional reach into private industry, the justification was the Government’s original usurpation of the people’s will and constitutional rights.


How is the Government doing this? They have a conman at the helm, the media in their pocket, and they have bought off the uneducated masses with empty populist promises of redistributed wealth.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Representing the Majority Could Prove Fatal for Republicans

Press reporting alleges that according to Steve Schmidt, a former advisor to John McCain, the GOP risks becoming the “religious party” with its opposition to same-sex marriage.

There are a couple of very large problems with this argument.

It’s What the People Want

The most important point is that time and time again Americans have demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of voters, while not opposed to the lifestyles of professed homosexuals, are indeed opposed to laws declaring the union between two people of the same sex to be equal in nature and value to the union between a man and a woman. Even a large portion of Democrats oppose such measures dictating what people should believe with respect to homosexuality.

It seems to me the argument is actually saying Republicans should follow the Democrats and start representing the will and opinions of the special interest minority over the voting majority if Republicans hope to remain a political power. Considering main stream media marginalization of non-Liberal/non-Democratic opinions, the argument does carry some merit. The media is the playing field and often deemed the referee, so conservative political ideas that run contrary to media bias will not do very well as they are filtered to the public.


It’s a Religious Argument

Another important point stems from the idea of the “religious party.” That should actually read “the religious party;” as if only one side of the argument contains religion. Science, history, and logic fall squarely on the side of the heterosexual majority, yet people have been convinced the beliefs on the homosexual side of the argument outweigh the facts on the heterosexual side, and the beliefs on the heterosexual side are null and void because of faith in God. Liberal media strikes again.

Of course, Steve also made the point we should not invoke religion as the rationale for a political position. The problem with that is everyone on both sides of the argument is religious; for some reason it is only deemed detrimental for Christians. Religion/faith in anything but God seems to be a substantial argument to support almost any position. Ironically, if you have faith in God, even your non-religious arguments somehow lose all merit. Gay marriage, abortion, and pornography are all condemned in many different forms by science, statistics, history, experience, logic, reality, and public conscience. Yet amazingly, the only arguments the media ever seems to focus on are the religious arguments.


Manipulative Media Prophesy

The most dangerous aspect of the media is its ability to shape the future with misinformation. The media told us we lost in Iraq, and even as victory reigns and our troops settle in to ensure victory lasts under the new President, people continue to denounce “the lost war.” The media advocated Barrack Obama, and even as duped voters are already asking themselves “what have I done,” people continue to demonize Bush and praise an ideal in Obama that he himself has already cast aside.

Consider the latest media announcements of the decline of Christianity; and now the dead end course of the Republicans who represent Christians. The Democrats and their media cohort have asserted “Christian values” and “right-wing fundamentalists” as the reason George Bush was elected…twice. The quick rise of mega-churches was all the media (out)rage just a year or two ago. The main thrust of Obama’s affront, his full deception and misrepresentation, was aimed at Christians.


Persevere

The fact is this nation is still a Christian nation; lost, but Christian. If you believe your faith no longer matters, it doesn’t; and those who hate your faith know it. So, beware those who attempt to convince you your faith no longer matters. If you forsake your faith, so will your representatives, so will your nation, and so will your children. Pray and hold fast to your faith.

Friday, April 10, 2009

Definitely A Bow

He’s up to the old Jedi mind tricks again.

I’m sure every President has tripped over his own shoe laces at least once in the first 100 days. While I’m less concerned with faux pas than I am with policy, that is a luxury I have; I am not the President of the United States.

Personally, I wouldn’t care if he curtsied and then skipped merrily down the red carpet singing “I’m a little tea pot” at the top of his lungs. Frankly, his foreign policy (and I use the term loosely) isn’t much less of a spectacle.

The thing that chaps my hide is the inability of the administration or its supporters to call a spade a spade. It’s almost as if honesty just isn’t on the menu.

WE HAVE THE VIDEO YOU IDGITS!



I feel like I’m in a bad Monty Python skit. Then Robert Gibbs wants to try to take the high road:
“I can only imagine it is of great cause and concern for many people struggling with the economy.”



Gibbs, you’re absolutely right. Of course…well…you see…if the President can’t be honest with something we can all plainly see for ourselves…if his party and supporters can’t admit the truth about something that is in plain sight…if you can’t answer a cut and dry question on something as evident as a videotaped bow…

WHY SHOULD WE TRUST ANYTHING THAT OBAMA, LIBERALS, (DEMOCRATS AND MEDIA), AND YOU SAY ABOUT THE ECONOMY OR ANYTHING ELSE?!?!?!?

The bow definitely confirms what Obama’s record and experience plainly indicated before he was elected, what 48% of Americans knew and proclaimed in the voting boothes during the election, and what he himself has demonstarted countless times since assuming office; his inexperience in office and leadership, and his na├»ve, uniformed assumptions on economics and international politics make him a detriment to U.S. interests both home and abroad.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Pregnancy: An Interpretive Oppression

According to the Obama administration, or more accurately and hopefully just one of his crack(pot) appointees, any law which presumes to recognize the human life cycle prior to a consensual labor/birthing event and extend any form of human rights to the human being/life prior to the birthing event, and thereby hold others accountable for the well being and/or protection of that human life, is tantamount to slavery.

Dawn Johnsen, Barack Obama’s appointment to head the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, filed a brief with the Supreme Court that stated:

Statutes that curtail [a woman's] abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest.


…and…

[The woman] is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not wholly her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends. Thus, abortion restrictions "reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers.


The good news is the brief was filed 20 years ago. The bad news is 20 years later the person who filed the brief is in an official position to influence the fabric of our entire culture. I think the intellectual expression that would summarize the collective feeling of most humane, conscientious voters is “yikes.”

Realistically, if Johnsen’s argument were given any credence, the same logic would quickly do away with taxes. Additionally, since pregnancy is a process, unless the entire process is forced, coitus and conception included, it is an intellectual and constitutional contortion - or perversion - to call the tangibly obvious developmental stages of pregnancy servitude. Furthermore, a happy, willing, or just plain ignorant slave is still a slave, so if the Supreme Court holds to Johnsen’s logic, they would have to outlaw pregnancy in general.

Hopefully there’s not much to worry about, but be vigilant and, most importantly, prayerful.

In Johnsen’s defense, the argument was probably a superficial aftershock of the 60s' enlightened and overly dramatic sensitivity to oppression mixed with the propensity for liberals to site such flagrant philosophical folly while eloquently plucking the bleeding heart strings of America. The only thing the argument lacked was interpretive dance. Then again, I wasn’t there; indeed Johnsen may have delivered the brief neck deep in leotards and leg warmers, panting under the strain of rhythmic legal expression.

I know what you’re thinking, “Where was You Tube when we needed it most?”