About Me

Name: Bob Wood aka...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

A Bible study on poverty

Let me start by saying that I am not a Biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination.  In my day job, I am an engineer and salesman.  I am also a Christian, and I do believe what I know from Biblical teachings to be the Truth.
 
Several months ago, I flagged this article and commented on it at a bulletin board forum of which I am a member.  Joseph Farah, the Editor of World Net Daily, published this column "A Bible Study on Poverty" on March 8, 2008.  In that column, he dissects the liberal theology of Tony Campolo, the noted evangelist, theologian, and spiritual guru to Bill Clinton, and author of the book "Red Letter Christians," which Farah takes apart in a previous column (and I recommend this column to you as well, although it is beyond the scope of the following comments.)  Joseph Farah is absolutely right, in his March 8 essay.
Quote:
Jesus did not suggest those listening to Him lobby Herod to take care of the poor. Notice Jesus did not suggest this was Caesar's responsibility. Notice Jesus did not suggest people, listening to His words then or reading them 2,000 years later, should mug the rich and distribute their wealth to the poor.

Jesus didn't suggest anything remotely like that to help the poor and truly needy. Instead, he speaks to each of us individually. He lets us know about this because it is the best prescription for both the poor and for us who make the sacrifice to help.

The poor are not government's responsibility. Both the Bible and The U. S. Constitution agree...
 
Let me be a little more specific. I believe this is what Farah was saying. 

We are required to do what we are equipped to do to help our fellow man when he needs help. By dealing with the poor on a face-to-face basis - feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, assisting those who are sick - it should be our objective to show God's love through our actions, not our own love. We do that through our sacrifice (giving) of our time, our possessions, and our caring for their situation.

When government inserts itself, it robs us as individuals of the ability to willingly sacrifice a portion of what we are or have earned for the betterment of someone who needs that support. Government, through confiscatory taxation takes away so much of what we could give, keeps a large portion of it for administration costs, then puts government's name on what remains, and takes credit for helping in a way that no one else can - which is a lie.  As Farah says:

Quote:

There's nothing compassionate about taking from those who have and redistributing it. In fact, it would deny the Zacchaeuses of the world (Luke 19) from the gifts of repentance, forgiveness and salvation.

Would that be biblical?


Many doctors, clinicians, hospitals, and other health-care providers give a substantial amount to the poor in terms of truly free healthcare. In our litigious society, it has become very difficult for these folks to give away their talents and training without running afoul of the law or insurance regulations.

When you or I give our outgrown or slightly worn clothes to agencies like the Salvation Army or Goodwill Industries, we are a step closer to the individual who needs our help. When we give our time to help provide manpower, we are truly face-to-face with those we are trying to help.

Many years ago, as a single young adult, our Sunday School Class had a project we called "The Grocery Bus." Every other Saturday (we alternated with another class), about ten of us would take our church bus into a lower-rent duplex neighborhood and take several older ladies to the grocery store. A few of the ladies were not physically able to get on the bus and go with us, so they gave us their grocery list and their money to buy their groceries for them.

For the ladies that went with us, we helped them find the things they wanted, get through the checkout, and back onto the bus. We did the actual shopping for the ladies who could not go.

When we took them home, we carried their groceries in and helped put them away (if they wanted us to.) We delivered the groceries to the others, and helped put them away if necessary. And although each of the ladies lived a far more meager lifestyle than any of us, we never saw them count their change in our presence.

I was never quite sure who was more blessed on those Saturdays - the ladies or us. They were always so grateful that we had come to help them. We were grateful for the opportunity, and the fact that God blessed us with the ability to help them do something which would have been very difficult - if not impossible - for them to do for themselves.

If the government had required this action from us, or if we had been forced to pay someone else (a bureaucrat) to do this job for us, the blessing of God would have been lost to both us and the ladies. I am sure the same must be true of the health-care providers I mentioned above.

By the way, I should point out one additional fact which we never thought about during these years. All of these ladies were black; we were all white. It did not matter to any of us
.
 
I don't necessarily believe that the United States is a "Christian" nation, but it was founded by Christians of various sects. The overall reason for leaving everything they owned and the familiarity of their surroundings, they risked everything - including their lives - to try to build a better life in an unknown land? They were seeking freedom - freedom to determine their destiny without the heavy hand of the king.
Unfortunately, the king has been replaced with a Congress and a bloated bureaucracy the ignores the Constitution that each member swears to "preserve, protect, and defend." And with the swearing of that oath, its members forget all about the words of the Founders.

And THAT is what drives me wild with anger. As we all know, words mean things. Specific things! And the Founders chose their words carefully to preserve the right of each American "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We were not guaranteed happiness - only the right to pursue it.

Anything that gets in my (or your) way of the pursuit of happiness is in direct contradiction of the Founders' intent. Freedom was their major interest in the design of our government.  With every additional tax or regulation, we lose a bit of that freedom.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. ---Winston Churchill
Churchill was exactly right. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, including in the early colonial settlements of our country with the Mayflower Compact. And socialism - not capitalism - will eventually be the downfall of our country if we let it gain more of a foothold.  Socialism is where we are headed with the philosophy of "spread the wealth around" and any other law that comes down the pike in contradiction of the United States Constitution.
 
As always, I welcome your comments...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another New Seal? And a New Web Site?

On Tuesday night, November 4, 2008, Mr. Obama said "It's not about me, it's all about you (meaning the people assembled.)"
 
 
Looks to me like it's all about Obama on just the third day after the election.
 
And he rolled out a new website at Change.gov - The Office of The President-elect - with a daily countdown timer to Inauguration Day.  (We will dissect that later.)
 
Mr. Obama, you were just elected to the most powerful office in the world.  We know it.  We get it.  You won.
 
Show some humility already.  You ain't the President yet!  We only have one at a time!
 
(And they called George W. Bush arrogant.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

He's back!

We strayed from our message. But it won't happen again if we act now...

Food for thought for conservatives. Liberals probably won't like it. (Besides, we don't want you to know what our future stategies are.)



This is well worth watching to the end. Yeah, I know it's nine minutes, so watch him with a cup of coffee.

We conservatives have the message. We need to pick the right delivery system.

{His name is Zo - Alfonzo.  Am I the only person who thinks this guy could have a political future?}
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They've come a long way...

I could not resist this from The Onion:
 
 
Admit it… you laughed because you know someone just like this.
 
Special thanks to The Texas Rainmaker!
 
Your comments and suggestions are welcome...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Historical Amnesia

Wynton Hall is a Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and author of "The Right Words: Great Republican Speeches That Shaped History".  In his excellent article "Karl Marx is Not the Father of Capitalism", he says that Sen. McCain could not make the "socialism" charge stick to Obama is that the term has little or no meaning to the voters.  In our public schools, we teach multiculturalism, but seldom if ever do we teach the basics of free market economic principles.  Hall says:
Joe the Plumber understands free markets because he’s operated a business. But without proper economic education or real world experience, young people are left in economic darkness...
 
Unlike Ronald Reagan (who majored in economics at Eureka College), Sen. McCain missed critical opportunities to play the role of “Educator in Chief.”

Take, for example, Sen. Obama’s “soak the rich” tax proposals. Sen. McCain missed huge opportunities to teach the American voter a lesson that Ronald Reagan pounded home often: businesses don’t pay taxes!  (emphasis mine) Oh sure, on paper they pay taxes, but in reality they merely pass taxes along to consumers or cut jobs to make up the difference.

Here’s how Ronald Reagan taught this principle during an interview with Reason magazine:

Who pays the business tax anyway? We do! You can’t tax business. Business doesn’t pay taxes. It collects taxes. And if they can’t be passed on to the customer in the price of the product as a cost of operation, business goes out of business. Now what they’re going to do is make it easier for demagogic politicians–and you’ve got plenty of them in the state legislature–to say to the people, look, we need money for this worthwhile project but we’re not going to tax you, we’re going to tax business, now that we can do it by a one vote margin. So they’ll tax business and the price of the product will go up and the people will blame the storekeeper for the rise in the price of the product, not recognizing that all he’s doing is passing on to them a hidden sales tax.

If people need any more concrete explanation of this, start with the staff of life, a loaf of bread. The simplest thing; the poorest man must have it. Well, there are 151 taxes now in the price of a loaf of bread–it accounts for more than half the of a loaf of bread. It begins with the first tax, on the farmer that raised the wheat. Any simpleton can understand that if that farmer cannot get enough money for his wheat, to pay the property tax on his farm, he can’t be a farmer. He loses his farm. And so it is with the fellow who pays a driver’s license and a gasoline tax to drive the truckload of wheat to the mill, the miller who has to pay everything from social security tax, business license, everything else. He has to make his living over and above those costs. So they all wind up in that loaf of bread. Now an egg isn’t far behind and nobody had to make that. There’s a hundred taxes in an egg by the time it gets to market and you know the chicken didn’t put them there!

They didn’t call Ronald Reagan the Great Communicator for nothing...

Reagan understood that you have to teach voters why Leftist policies are wrongheaded. He also understood that you have to pound home a message before it will stick.

Rebuilding the conservative message will demand that the next generation of conservative leaders do the same.

In her article "Peggy the Moocher," Michelle Malkin writes:

Sorry to break the bad news to Joe the Plumber. But the winner of Campaign 2008 is Peggy the Moocher. ...

Who is Peggy the Moocher? (video link mine)
 
 
She's Peggy Joseph, a voter in Sarasota, Fla., who exulted earlier this week at a Barack Obama rally that this was "the most memorable time of my life." Why? As she told a Florida reporter on a YouTube video that has been viewed by hundreds of thousands: "Because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help [Obama], he's gonna help me."
The conservative message and the concept of the free enterprise system is totally lost on our electorate.  Someone needs to teach them, or the conservative movement will be dead forever.  While the financial markets were melting down in mid-October, the Republican message was that we needed to clean up Wall Street and protect Main Street.  The real message that government was the true cause of the problem was lost, and government needed to be cleaned out.  We should have been quoting George Bernard Shaw (often attributed to John F. Kennedy) "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."  Or more simply, as my California friend Fred says, "We need a lot less people voting with their hand out waiting for government to fill it."
 
Both of the presidential candidates voted for the $850 billion bailout-and-pork bill.  And on top of that the $85-plus billion to AIG; the $25 billion to automakers; and the $200 billion in capital and credit lines to Fannie and Freddie.  Who's next?  New York, California, Massachusetts, and all of the other Peggy the Moochers lining up with their hands out.
 
Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews.  In "Wanted: Small Government," Jeffrey outlines the history of government spending but makes this observation:
Up until the 1930s, the United States maintained a small federal government that mostly focused on the limited number of things the Constitution authorized it to do.

Americans were responsible for their own food, clothing and shelter, and if they could not take care of themselves, they looked to their extended family, their neighbors, their churches and local governments to give them a helping hand.

Charity in America in those days did not mean the federal government compelling you to hand over some of your property to the state so the state could hand it over to someone else.

Americans did not believe in spreading the wealth -- they believed in earning it. The term compassionate conservative had not been coined.

That is precisely what the conservative movement is all about - Americans taking responsibility for their lot in life.  Then along came Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal in the 1940's.  Mr. Jeffrey details the intervention of government making it very difficult for the average Joe (the Plumber, or otherwise) to provide for himself and his family.
That year, according to historical data published by the White House Office of Management and Budget, the entire federal government spent only 3.4 percent of gross domestic product. Because federal tax receipts equaled to 4.2 percent of GDP in 1930, there was a federal budget surplus equal to 0.8 percent of GDP...
 
Federal spending in 1940 was 9.8 percent of GDP. Federal tax receipts were 6.8 percent. The Treasury borrowed 3 percent of GDP to make up the difference.
 
In fiscal year 2009, according to OMB's estimates, the federal government will spend 20.7 percent of GDP while taking in 18 percent of GDP in taxes. The Treasury will borrow 2.7 percent of GDP, much of it from foreign creditors, to make up the difference.
And that does not include the bailout!
 
More of our lives are controlled by the federal government, and we are more dependent on the federal government.  With that dependence we have given up much of our freedom.  The Government Accountability Office informed the Senate in January that it estimated there was a $53 trillion gap between the entitlement benefits the federal government has promised to pay over the next 75 years to people now living in the United States and the tax revenue that can be expected to pay for those benefits.
 
Then-Comptroller General David Walker said that for the government to cover this gap, every American household would need to put up about $455,000. Our economy - both government and personally - can not handle this.  This trip toward national bankruptcy can not be sustained.
 
We conservatives need to find a way to reign in the interference of government in every aspect of our daily lives.  The goal must be to force government to live within the powers enumerated by our Constitution by closing down programs and agencies.  Our government worked very well until the New Deal.  As we scale back government and its relentless spending, we need to keep it from making future promises that it can not afford to keep while protecting those promises that have already been made.
 
Your comments are welcome...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Economic Wheels Are Coming Off?

Beldar posts this at HughHewitt.com:

Quote:
Dow-Jones at 9633.01 as I write this
Posted by: Bill Dyer at 11:53 AM

(Guest Post by Bill Dyer a/k/a Beldar)

Barack Obama wants you to believe that John McCain was simply insane when he insisted that the "fundamentals of the American economy are strong." Yet the Dow-Jones average is back within striking distance of 10,000 again — which ought to be a huge relief to those who've been fretting over their 401k and other retirement accounts.

That's not to say that all is rosy on the economic front. But we're not in another Great Depression — and the greatest threat on the horizon is that a tax increase could turn a short and relatively mild recession into something worse in 2009.

— Beldar

The DJIA closed at 9625.28 - up 305.45 or 3.28%
The S&P closed at 1005.75 - up 39.45 or 4.08%
The NASDAQ closed at 1780.12 - up 53.79 or 3.12%
 
In November 2000, the DJIA was at 10300, on its way to a low of 7400 in October 2002. Then the Bush tax cuts kicked in and the market began a steady climb to a high of 14198 in October 2007. That was steady growth through five straight years! Bush economics was not such a bad thing after all, it seems.

And, by the way, the lowest point for the DJIA occured on October 10, 2008, at 8451. In a bit over three weeks, the market has gained 14%, or 8.27% of the value from October 2007.
 
Why have ALL of the politicians - especially those on our side - kept so quiet about this news?

Seems John McCain was right all along. And Obama and the rest of the Democrats were wrong...
 
Your comments are welcome...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Am My Brother's Keeper

Does Barack Obama keep "the promise of America" when it comes to his own family?
 
 
Oh, yeah, it's another thing when you talk about Obama spreading his own money around instead of your's and mine.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Has No Class

Well, actually, he has a lot of class.
 
It just happens to be LOW class.
 
Watch as he flips off John McCain, just as he did Hillary Clinton during the primaries.
 
 
UPDATE:
Here is the video of the Hillary flip-off:
 
 
This "man" is ahead in all of the polls, he has more money in his campaign war chest than any candidate in history has ever amassed, and he has the LameStream Media in his hip pocket.  And yet he feels that he must be demeaning to his opponent - even in a most subtle way.
 
Does Barack Hussein Obama deserve your vote?
 
I think not!
 
If you think he could be a gracious loser, think again!  He can't even win graciously.  The word gentleman can not possibly be applied to this man.  And the word "president" should never be used in the same sentence with his name.
 
As usual, your comments are welcome and appreciated...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Final Argument...

The Final Argument Against Barack Obama
 
 
 
 
I always welcome your comments...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Comments about Bankrupting Coal Industry (UPDATED)

Obama Called Out for Comments about Bankrupting Coal Industry

Quote:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (WSAZ) -- With only hours before election day, coal has become a major topic of Decision 2008.

Sunday an audiotape surfaced from an interview Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did with the San Francisco Chronicle in January.

In the interview, Obama talks about the importance of coal. He went on to talk about his cap and trade proposal to help curb global warming.

"If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," Barack Obama said to the San Francisco Chronicle in January.
 


 
This would be bad news for Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. And although he made those statements in January, they are just being reported now - two days before the election?

Where is the MSM? 

{Oh, yeah! In the tank!}

Quote:
The Obama campaign says the quote is being taken out of context and that Obama is actually from a coal state and is a strong supporter of the industry.

The campaign sent a statement today saying "the point Obama is making is that we need a transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies."

Talk about trying to have it both ways! It's a wonder this campaign doesn't have a permanent case of whiplash!

But is he being quoted out of context? ABC's Jake Tapper has the answer:

Quote:
Here’s the entirety of Obama’s remarks:

“I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I’m a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.

“But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives.

“But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal -- I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.

“The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.”

Yes. Obama plans to "fine" the "polluters" (power companies) heavily which will do two things:
    • Make electricity more expensive to everyone.
    • Increase the likelihood of "rolling brownouts."
Just remember, when you tax something, you get less of it. If you like the fact that the light comes on when you flip the switch, Obama is definitely not for you!  And he wants us all to be driving electric cars.  Just how does he think we are going to charge the batteries.

And he won't let us build nuclear power plants, and that is the safest, cleanest form of energy production available. The United States Navy has safely deployed nuclear-powered aircraft carriers - the biggest ships in the fleet - around the world for fifty years.  And now, the Navy is planning to build and deploy nuclear-powered destroyers and battleships because...  It does not make sense that the central ship in a battle group only needs refueling every 30 years, and the support ships are running on convential fuels that must be replenished much more often.  (But that is probably part of Barney Frank's 25% cut in the military budget.)

And there are people planning to vote for Obama? How much evidence of the harm he can do is necessary?
 
UPDATE:
Here's the video of the entire Obama statement:
 
 
I can only marvel at the smoothness with which this man can say nothing that makes any sense.
As always, I welcome your comments...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Will Only Raise Taxes On Those Making ...

Obama Will Only Raise Taxes On Those Making
$250k, $200k, $150k, $120k, $70k, $60k, $50k, $40k
Ah, What the Hell? On Everyone!
 
Watch this before you vote!
 
 
 
 
It's about time the RNC went on the attack!
 
As usual, I welcome your comments and debate...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Sensible Campaign Platform

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." Cicero - 55 BC
Balance the budget.  That should be easy.  Figure out what your income is, then prioritize your expenditures, subtract the expenditures from the income until you get to zero, and eliminate EVERYTHING that falls below zero.  We all learned how to do this in high school.  And if we didn't learn it there, we certainly learned it soon after setting up housekeeping on our own.  This is Dave Ramsey 101.
 
Public debt should be reduced.  That should be one of the priorities in balancing the budget.  I don't know about you, but my parents taught me that if you don't have the cash to pay for it, you don't need it!  That is true for governments as well.  We can not in good conscience continue to pile debt onto the backs of our children.
 
The Treasury should be refilled.  You and I have savings accounts, CD's, and long-term investments.  We call it "Saving for a rainy day."  Well, recent history shows that the federal government has rainy days too.  And when it has a rainy day, it's a doozy!  In fact, almost everything into which governemnt inserts itself results in the unintended consequence of a rainy day!
 
The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled.  Our public officials have forgotten that they are elected by us - ordinary citizens - to serve us.  In their first official act, taking the oath of office, they pledge to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of The United States of America."  But judging from the legislation and court decisions they thrust upon us, it becomes painfully obvious that most of these folks have never read, much less understood, The Constitution.  Instead, they look forward to the next election as if they are entitled to hold the office instead of using the office to serve the people who put them there.
 
The assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome (the United States) become bankrupt.  We spend billions of dollars in foreign aid every year, sending it to countries that don't even like us very much.  In many cases, those American dollars never reach the people of those lands for their benefit, and instead those funds end up being embezzled by the corrupt leaders of those lands.  Our government has no mechanism for correcting this misspent "charity."  And now we have a presidential candidate who wants us to "give" 1% of our Gross Domestic Product to third-world countries and have it administered by the United Nations!  That is dumber than dumb!  Charity begins at home, and that means your home and my home, not the government.
 
People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.  Every year at Thanksgiving, Rush Limbaugh tells the story of The Mayflower Compact.  Most of us have forgotten that socialism was tried in this country before it WAS a country, and it failed miserably.  The people who lived under that Compact dumped it for a better way.  The New Deal and The Great Society have thrown hundreds of billions of dollars into government programs that have done nothing more than create another generation of the "dependent class" - those who would rather sit on their butts doing nothing until the government hands them a check (and I am not referring to those who paid Social Security and Medicare premiums for years.)  See this article "Cory the Well Driller’s Letter to Obama the Socialist" at The Texas Rainmaker.  We need more "Cory, The Well-Drillers," "Joe, The Plumbers," and anyone else who dares to start and operate the small businesses that provide the vast majority of the jobs in this country.  And we need the workers who will show up and work a full day for a day's pay.  And government needs to get out of the way and watch as the miracle of the Free Enterprise System that made this country great does its magic.
 
Cicero was right more than 2000 years ago.
 
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Army Specialist Explains The Election

I'll let Army Spc. Joe Cook explain things for you.
(This is currently the #1 video on YouTube!!)
{Special thanks to Jackpine Savage at FunDMental Politics!  He has some interesting and fun things to say about this election...}



As always comments are welcome and debate is encouraged.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How Can Obama Take the Oath of Office?

Occasionally I encounter a writer I have never read before, and I find that he or she has something really worthwhile to say.  Such a writer is Laura Hirschfeld Hollis in her TownHall article, A President Who Won't Uphold the Constitution? Never.  I must have been traveling in the wrong circles or leading a very sheltered life.  I commend her entire article to your reading.
 
Most of us have heard the fractured logic that Senator Barack Obama used to explain why he would not be wearing the American Flag on his lapel.  We saw the pictures of the Democrat candidates on an outdoor stage, hands over their hearts during the performance of the National Anthem.  That is, all were saluting except Senator Obama.  During Obama's Excellent European Adventure and Middle East Tour, he had plenty of time for everything except visiting wounded American soldiers when he discovered that he could not use them for a photo-op.  But he made time to play basketball.  From these events, we have a superficial picture of his beliefs about his and our country.  More on that below.
 
We have learned that he has had lengthy relationships with shady characters after explaining those relationships as "choosing my friends very carefully" in his autobiography (which was apparently ghost-written by William Ayers.)  In the final weeks of his campaign, he tells us these people are not "advisors, or associated with his campaign in any way, and will not be a part of my administration."  And we heard him try to explain away his association with ACORN as inconsequential, when just months before he promised ACORN that they would meet with him during the transition months between his election and inauguration.  And he said that ACORN would have a significant role in shaping his policies.  From these associations we gain a pretty good indication of his character by the friends he chooses.
 
This is all well-documented in the smaller area of the media reserved for conservatives, talk radio, and the blogosphere.
 
A man is known by the company he keeps.  In his 1995 'memoir' "Dreams From My Father," Obama wrote:
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. [pages 99-100]
Obama chose William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, unrepentant terrorist bombers.  Ayers hired him to chair the Chicago Annenburg Challenge when he was fresh out of law school, and they served together as Directors of the Woods Fund.  He chose Tony Rezko, now a convicted felon, who provided campaign cash and worked a cushy real estate deal to get the Obama's a $1.6 million home, plus additional adjacent real estate.  He chose Rashid Khalidi, a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization, whose views are not in the best interests of Israel, the most reliable ally we have in the Middle East.  He chose Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose bigoted, racist rants Obama never heard in twenty years of attending church "maybe twice a month."  Wright was (is?) his spiritual mentor and advisor.  And he chose Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, who drove Fannie Mae into the ground and walked away with tens of millions of dollars in bonuses for doing so, and now they are key advisors to his campaign.  And ACORN...  Well, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal was all over television Wednesday proclaiming that he is working a BIG negative story with a whistleblower (with documents) that will confirm that the FBI investigations currently under way are no witch hunt.  There is a long history of Obama-ACORN connections.
 
This should be enough to call Obama's judgment into question, but the LSM (LameStream Media) has not seen fit to even publicize these relationships.  And his policies would be just as questionable, and there will be more on that in a later article.
 
 Laura Hollis hits a bulls-eye on Obama's view of the Constitution.  She writes:

The Drudge Report and other legitimate investigative sources like the National Review, have exposed the most damning evidence yet of Barack Obama’s utter disregard for the core principles of the United States government.  In a radio interview given in 2001, Obama reveals yet again about what he means by ‘equality,’ when he says, “…the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”

 Our Constitution gives the Supreme Court no authority over redistribution of wealth, or political and economic justice.  But Obama laments the fact that the Supremes under Earl Warren “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”  Can you guess what kind of judges and justices he will appoint to the various courts?  Of course, he will be seeking jurists who are not afraid to ignore the "Supreme Law of the Land" in favor of his dream of what the United States should be.
 
Hollis continues:

At this point, any belief in Obama’s respect for constitutional limits is delusional.  If he is so cavalier about the Constitution’s limits upon the power of the judiciary, why on earth would he respect the limits on the power of the Presidency?  Or on Congress?  ...These views are why Obama’s acquaintances, associates and allies matter.  Why his Alinskyite “by any means necessary” philosophy matters.  Why we should care that he funds and takes money from people who say they hate or wish to undermine America.  Why we should be concerned when he took spiritual sustenance from a man who spends much of his time condemning white people.  This is what drives Barack Obama.  And this is why he wants the Presidency.

The rest of Obama’s observations during this interview are just as asinine, and just as threatening.  He says, “generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

"A charter of negative liberties?"  What bull!  The Constitution very deliberately defines the structure and powers of the federal government, and then it reserves all other rights to the states and the people.  The Founding Fathers wrote it for (apparently) a much more self-sufficient people than the senator believes we are today.  Obama seems to believe that we can not provide for our own lives, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Although the United States Constitution represents the longest surviving government on the planet today, it just does not conform to Obama's vision.  And we know very little if anything from his campaign speeches about what The Chosen One thinks that government MUST do for us once you get past "universal healthcare."  Hollis says that it boils down to what Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in Ohio earlier this week, who said that Americans “needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.”  The Founders would roll over in their graves to see what we have become.
 
Since Obama has so much disdain for The Constitution and that - in his mind - it fails to do what it should, how can he possibly swear to preserve, protect and defend it?  I suppose that oath of office will be to Obama as he has said, "Words!  Just words!"
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It Doesn't Have To Happen!

Here is your daily reminder.
 
 
 
 
As always, I welcome your comments and debate...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »