A couple of years ago, I posted a blog regarding Ken Culver, one of my best friends. It has now been 10 years since a tragic accident took his life. It is truly hard to believe that 10 years have gone by since this accident occurred.
I will remember Ken for his zeal for life, his friendship, his newsletter, his joy of Univ. of Kansas basketball, and his odd attraction for Taco Bell restaurants. Unfortunately, I never had a chance to eat at my local Taco Bell with him. I pass that Taco Bell almost daily. Many times that I pass that establishment, I am reminded of Ken and his friendship.
I still have trouble understanding why Ken was taken from us at such a young age. I don't have an answer for that. I may never have an answer for that. However, I continually remind myself that God knows what He is doing, and He obviously had a purpose for taking Ken. What I do know is that someday in the future, I will be able to see Ken again in heaven, because I know that he is there.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
The upcoming elections and you - Some things to think about
The 2010 mid-term elections are less than two weeks away. To me, it is not “just another election.” It is much more than that. We have federal government spending that is out of control, and has been for some time now. We are having morals foisted upon us that we do not like. In Pennsylvania, we are getting rid of a governor that has no clue of anything that is going on in the state outside of Philadelphia. We have seen several state officials brought up on charges of corruption. It is time for change both on a national and a state level.
As Abraham Lincoln noted, our government is “...of the people, by the people, and for the people…” Apparently, our officials in government have forgotten this little nugget of information. Over the past year or so, we have seen two elder Democrats in the Senate pass away. And in both instances, the response was the same – “Who is going to take over Senator Kennedy’s seat?” or “Who will take over Sen. Byrd’s seat?” Apparently, the media and party officials forgot that these seats were only filled by these men. The seats actually belong to the people of Massachusetts and West Virginia. Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) lost in the Republican primary in Alaska, but apparently she feels that this was an unjust loss, so she is running as a write-in candidate. She believes that the people in her party were wrong for voting her out of office, and she is trying to force herself on the people.
So what do we do with this type of arrogance? What do we do with officials that think we, as the electorate, the people who put them into office, are too stupid to know better? What do we do with officials that are constantly trying to pull the wool over our eyes? How do we make them understand that they do not dictate to us, but that since they work for us, we dictate to them?
The answer is that we vote them out of office. By our votes, we tell them that we need a change in direction. We need to get back to the fundamentals of good government – spend within your means, abide by the Constitution, allow religion to exist and be practiced freely. By our votes, we tell them that we do not agree with the direction that this country is going, that we do not want socialism in our government, that we believe the President is leading us in a direction that we believe is not good for this country.
Unfortunately, there are those who will vote to have the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel back into Congress (and since they are in relatively safe districts, they will inevitably win). There are those who are happy with the status quo. They are happy with what the government is doing for them, as individuals. They fail, however, to see the big picture and where this path of destruction is taking us.
So, to that end, I have come up with a list of several different things that we, as voters, need to do on November 2.
1. VOTE. Don’t sit at home and think that your vote does not count or that the outcome is already decided, so your vote is not needed. I believe this is the reason that Steven reed is no longer the Mayor of Harrisburg – his voters became complacent, thinking that his re-election was inevitable. Your vote matters. Voting is a tremendous privilege, and unfortunately too many people do not care. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan face violence when they head to the polls, yet they go out and vote, because they understand its importance. Here in the U.S., they make it very easy for us to vote, yet so many people do not take advantage of the privilege afforded to us to vote for the people who are going to represent us. If you would take the thousands and thousands of people that use this excuse every year, and take them to the polls so that they can cast their vote, the outcomes of the elections might be quite different. I am reminded of a quote - "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote." - William E. Simon. This says it all.
2. If you do not vote, then do not complain about the outcome of the election. If you did not think it was important enough to vote for the people that are going to represent you and make decisions that will affect you, then why did you decide it was important to care about the outcome of the election? Until you participate in the process, you had better not complain about the results of the process.
3. Don’t pay attention to polls. A couple of weeks ago, many pundits had the Republicans overtaking both the House and the Senate. Now, the pundits are showing polls that the Democrats are closing in on the Republicans. Keep in mind that polls are not news – they are a picture of public opinion at a certain point in time. Also, polls are misleading. They rarely reveal the questions that were asked. The pollsters know that if you ask a particular question in a certain way, then you can get a conditioned response. What they are doing is trying to manipulate the news and the election by suggesting to us what they think the public opinion is. Don’t pay attention to them.
4. Don’t pay attention to the media. Most of the media has 1 goal in mind – make sure the Democrats keep both majorities (the House and the Senate) to that the President can do whatever he wants. They have no real interest in minority or women candidates, unless they are running against Republicans. Their goal is to drive a wedge between as many groups as possible; after all, that is what makes good news programming. The media has a bias, and it shows. They will try to discourage you from voting for conservatives, and they will want to embarrass you into voting for a liberal Democrat. Ignore them.
5. Encourage others to participate. Our vote alone cannot get people elected. It takes a concerted effort by large group of people to get someone elected. Encourage others to vote. Go with them to the polls and give them moral support. Explain to them why their vote matters. Explain to them the importance of the elections and how it will affect them.
6. Do your homework. Don’t pay attention to political ads. They all contain some element of truth, but that element is probably taken out of context. This is done by all candidates, regardless of party. The internet is a wonderful thing. Look up the facts for yourself. Don’t take the ads at face value. Political voting guides are a good tool, but they can also be skewed, depending on what group distributes them and what that group’s goal happens to be. Don’t go to the voting booth, and tell yourself that you will make up your mind when you get there. Prepare in advance and know who you are going to vote for.
7. Pray for wisdom. This would apply to only those of you who would pray for guidance and wisdom. Elections are not a matter to take lightly. If you are struggling with who you think is the right candidate, pray about it.
8. Pray for our leaders, regardless of who wins. We need to pray for our leaders, that they make good, wise decisions. We are to do this whether or not ‘our candidate’ wins the election. Just because we are not happy with the results does not mean that we should forsake this duty that we have been given. After all, everyone needs wisdom, but many people are not praying for it. They are relying on themselves or people close to them for the necessary wisdom.
It is important that we vote, not just in this election, but in all elections. It is our responsibility to be a part of the political process. Just because I am a Christian does not mean that I cannot, or should not, take part in the political process. The elites may not like Christians to participate in the process, but we have just as much right to do so as they do. Let your voice be heard. Go out and vote!
As Abraham Lincoln noted, our government is “...of the people, by the people, and for the people…” Apparently, our officials in government have forgotten this little nugget of information. Over the past year or so, we have seen two elder Democrats in the Senate pass away. And in both instances, the response was the same – “Who is going to take over Senator Kennedy’s seat?” or “Who will take over Sen. Byrd’s seat?” Apparently, the media and party officials forgot that these seats were only filled by these men. The seats actually belong to the people of Massachusetts and West Virginia. Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) lost in the Republican primary in Alaska, but apparently she feels that this was an unjust loss, so she is running as a write-in candidate. She believes that the people in her party were wrong for voting her out of office, and she is trying to force herself on the people.
So what do we do with this type of arrogance? What do we do with officials that think we, as the electorate, the people who put them into office, are too stupid to know better? What do we do with officials that are constantly trying to pull the wool over our eyes? How do we make them understand that they do not dictate to us, but that since they work for us, we dictate to them?
The answer is that we vote them out of office. By our votes, we tell them that we need a change in direction. We need to get back to the fundamentals of good government – spend within your means, abide by the Constitution, allow religion to exist and be practiced freely. By our votes, we tell them that we do not agree with the direction that this country is going, that we do not want socialism in our government, that we believe the President is leading us in a direction that we believe is not good for this country.
Unfortunately, there are those who will vote to have the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel back into Congress (and since they are in relatively safe districts, they will inevitably win). There are those who are happy with the status quo. They are happy with what the government is doing for them, as individuals. They fail, however, to see the big picture and where this path of destruction is taking us.
So, to that end, I have come up with a list of several different things that we, as voters, need to do on November 2.
1. VOTE. Don’t sit at home and think that your vote does not count or that the outcome is already decided, so your vote is not needed. I believe this is the reason that Steven reed is no longer the Mayor of Harrisburg – his voters became complacent, thinking that his re-election was inevitable. Your vote matters. Voting is a tremendous privilege, and unfortunately too many people do not care. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan face violence when they head to the polls, yet they go out and vote, because they understand its importance. Here in the U.S., they make it very easy for us to vote, yet so many people do not take advantage of the privilege afforded to us to vote for the people who are going to represent us. If you would take the thousands and thousands of people that use this excuse every year, and take them to the polls so that they can cast their vote, the outcomes of the elections might be quite different. I am reminded of a quote - "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote." - William E. Simon. This says it all.
2. If you do not vote, then do not complain about the outcome of the election. If you did not think it was important enough to vote for the people that are going to represent you and make decisions that will affect you, then why did you decide it was important to care about the outcome of the election? Until you participate in the process, you had better not complain about the results of the process.
3. Don’t pay attention to polls. A couple of weeks ago, many pundits had the Republicans overtaking both the House and the Senate. Now, the pundits are showing polls that the Democrats are closing in on the Republicans. Keep in mind that polls are not news – they are a picture of public opinion at a certain point in time. Also, polls are misleading. They rarely reveal the questions that were asked. The pollsters know that if you ask a particular question in a certain way, then you can get a conditioned response. What they are doing is trying to manipulate the news and the election by suggesting to us what they think the public opinion is. Don’t pay attention to them.
4. Don’t pay attention to the media. Most of the media has 1 goal in mind – make sure the Democrats keep both majorities (the House and the Senate) to that the President can do whatever he wants. They have no real interest in minority or women candidates, unless they are running against Republicans. Their goal is to drive a wedge between as many groups as possible; after all, that is what makes good news programming. The media has a bias, and it shows. They will try to discourage you from voting for conservatives, and they will want to embarrass you into voting for a liberal Democrat. Ignore them.
5. Encourage others to participate. Our vote alone cannot get people elected. It takes a concerted effort by large group of people to get someone elected. Encourage others to vote. Go with them to the polls and give them moral support. Explain to them why their vote matters. Explain to them the importance of the elections and how it will affect them.
6. Do your homework. Don’t pay attention to political ads. They all contain some element of truth, but that element is probably taken out of context. This is done by all candidates, regardless of party. The internet is a wonderful thing. Look up the facts for yourself. Don’t take the ads at face value. Political voting guides are a good tool, but they can also be skewed, depending on what group distributes them and what that group’s goal happens to be. Don’t go to the voting booth, and tell yourself that you will make up your mind when you get there. Prepare in advance and know who you are going to vote for.
7. Pray for wisdom. This would apply to only those of you who would pray for guidance and wisdom. Elections are not a matter to take lightly. If you are struggling with who you think is the right candidate, pray about it.
8. Pray for our leaders, regardless of who wins. We need to pray for our leaders, that they make good, wise decisions. We are to do this whether or not ‘our candidate’ wins the election. Just because we are not happy with the results does not mean that we should forsake this duty that we have been given. After all, everyone needs wisdom, but many people are not praying for it. They are relying on themselves or people close to them for the necessary wisdom.
It is important that we vote, not just in this election, but in all elections. It is our responsibility to be a part of the political process. Just because I am a Christian does not mean that I cannot, or should not, take part in the political process. The elites may not like Christians to participate in the process, but we have just as much right to do so as they do. Let your voice be heard. Go out and vote!
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Is this really freedom of religion?
In case you have not been paying attention to the news for the last several weeks, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf plans to build an Islamic cultural center (i.e. Mosque) two blocks away from Ground Zero. As this news has gradually quieted, Rev. Terry Jones announced that he was going to have a Quran burning at his church in Florida. Now, the question I have through all of this is: Why are people bending over backwards to stand up for the rights of the mosque but not for the rights of the Pastor?
Please do not get me wrong. I do not believe that it is right to have a Quran-burning celebration. As Christians, we are not to provoke others to wrath. We are told to go out and be a witness to those who do not follow after Christ. By participating in such divisive acts, there is no possibility for testimony to the unsaved, Muslim or otherwise.
However, I am left struggling with the thought that we are told that we are Islamophobic if we do not support a mosque being built so close to the place where Islamic radicals took the lives of 3000 people. Why are we told to respect a religion that encourages its followers to either convert or kill those who disagree with them? Many say that Islam is a peaceful religion. This is just not true. Michelle Malkin has done a tremendous job outlining the radical nature of Islam and its followers. There are Muslims who are peaceful people. I do not deny that. But the teachings of Islam lead to the violence that we see outwardly manifested in the actions of radicals.
The liberals in the media and in Washington tell us that Muslims have the right to build this mosque, and according to our Constitution, that would be a true statement. However, I find it utterly contemptible that the same people who do not want any form of Christianity in the public square are now so willing and ready to stand up for the First Amendment when it applies to Islam. These people have no shame.
The Imam that wants to build this mosque has just returned from a fund-raising trip to the Middle East that was paid for by our tax dollars. This fact is completely repulsive. But what is even more repulsive is that he went to the Middle East to solicit funds from Islamic groups and nations that celebrated the fact that the US was attacked back on 9/11. I still vividly remember scenes from these countries where people were out in the streets cheering and celebrating the fact that we were attacked that fateful day.
This same Imam has also stated in the last couple of days that he will not find another location for the mosque. This is humorous, if not for the fact that he has said that he is seeking to build bridges to the non-Muslim world through this cultural center. Yeah, he sounds like a real bridge-builder to me. He has also said that if they move the mosque to another location, then this will provoke the Muslim world to violence. The last time I checked, they really needed no provocation to attack their enemies.
Now, we have self-righteous American politicians and media people telling us that we are no better than the terrorists if we do not let them build this mosque. Are you kidding me? When did these guys suddenly become religious people? If this were a Catholic church, or a synagogue, or a Baptist church, would they be this zealous in defending people's rights to build the church? I think not. Then why are these people defending a religion that seeks the destruction of those who are not in agreement with their religion?
The people who adhere to this peaceful religion attacked us on 9/11 because they hated us. There was no war in Iraq or Afghanistan when we were attacked. There was no Guantanamo Bay. We had done nothing to provoke them, but they still attacked. What this tells me is that they do not need a reason to attack us. They do not care who is in power. They attacked us under President Clinton and President Bush. They laugh at President Obama.
But the defenders of the mosque continue to pull out the freedom of religion card in this debate. This issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It has everything to do with a certain religion making inroads into a people's way of life. They seek to assimilate and get people on their side. Then they seek to dominate, and eventually annihilate. You may call this is Islamophobia. I call it the facts. This is what they do. Their goal is complete domination. Just read the Quran. This is what it teaches.
Now, compare the treatment that Islam is getting to the treatment that Rev. Jones is getting. Again, I do not condone what he wanted to do. However, does he not have first amendment rights also? Is he not free to express his religion in any way he sees fit, provided he does no harm to others in the process? His church has no more than fifty people in it. What harm can this small congregation do?
(As a side note, this is not the same as Hitler or Stalin burning books. Hitler and Stalin were the government. They were burning books to get rid of them, and as the government, that amounts to censorship. This guy is the Pastor of a small church. He is not censoring anything. There is no comparison, other than the fact it involved fire and books.)
To show what a peaceful religion Islam is, the adherents to this religion have been having global protests in anticipation of teh Quran-burning. To show their peaceful nature, they have been burning American flags and threatening violence should this Quran-burning take place. Yep, these are really peaceful people. They handle adversity and religious differences well.
And let us not call the Quran a 'holy' book. The only Holy book that we have today is the Bible. Holiness means purity, without sin, without blemish. The Quran does not fit this profile at all. Just because it is a religious book does not make it a holy book.
Does anyone besides me see hypocrisy in these two scenarios? The people who are in favor of freedom of religion when it comes to building a mosque are showing moral outrage at a man who wants to burn Qurans. If you are for freedom of religion in one case, then you should be for freedom of religion in the other one also. In contrast, those who oppose the mosque are also voicing their opposition to the Quran-burning. They understand that both are legal, but they also believe that both are inappropriate.
There is also the issue of violence. Those opposed to the mosque are demonstrating in a peaceful fashion. They are fighting the mosque plans they way that they should be - by letting their voices be heard and fighting the mosque in a legal way. Those opposed to the Quran-burning are displaying a more violent side - they are burning American flags and threatening violence. They do not know what civil discourse is, nor do they want to know.
So, why are people like Mayor Bloomberg standing up for the mosque? Are they afraid of the violence that may occur should the mosque not be built? Perhaps. Are they afraid to be labelled as an Islamophobe? Possibly. Are they attempting to buy votes? Definitely. Is it their goal to slowly remove God from the public debate and replace Him (not completely do away with a supreme being) with a religion that does not believe in this same God? Probably. Are we in danger if we do not return to God and follow Him? Most definitely.
Please do not get me wrong. I do not believe that it is right to have a Quran-burning celebration. As Christians, we are not to provoke others to wrath. We are told to go out and be a witness to those who do not follow after Christ. By participating in such divisive acts, there is no possibility for testimony to the unsaved, Muslim or otherwise.
However, I am left struggling with the thought that we are told that we are Islamophobic if we do not support a mosque being built so close to the place where Islamic radicals took the lives of 3000 people. Why are we told to respect a religion that encourages its followers to either convert or kill those who disagree with them? Many say that Islam is a peaceful religion. This is just not true. Michelle Malkin has done a tremendous job outlining the radical nature of Islam and its followers. There are Muslims who are peaceful people. I do not deny that. But the teachings of Islam lead to the violence that we see outwardly manifested in the actions of radicals.
The liberals in the media and in Washington tell us that Muslims have the right to build this mosque, and according to our Constitution, that would be a true statement. However, I find it utterly contemptible that the same people who do not want any form of Christianity in the public square are now so willing and ready to stand up for the First Amendment when it applies to Islam. These people have no shame.
The Imam that wants to build this mosque has just returned from a fund-raising trip to the Middle East that was paid for by our tax dollars. This fact is completely repulsive. But what is even more repulsive is that he went to the Middle East to solicit funds from Islamic groups and nations that celebrated the fact that the US was attacked back on 9/11. I still vividly remember scenes from these countries where people were out in the streets cheering and celebrating the fact that we were attacked that fateful day.
This same Imam has also stated in the last couple of days that he will not find another location for the mosque. This is humorous, if not for the fact that he has said that he is seeking to build bridges to the non-Muslim world through this cultural center. Yeah, he sounds like a real bridge-builder to me. He has also said that if they move the mosque to another location, then this will provoke the Muslim world to violence. The last time I checked, they really needed no provocation to attack their enemies.
Now, we have self-righteous American politicians and media people telling us that we are no better than the terrorists if we do not let them build this mosque. Are you kidding me? When did these guys suddenly become religious people? If this were a Catholic church, or a synagogue, or a Baptist church, would they be this zealous in defending people's rights to build the church? I think not. Then why are these people defending a religion that seeks the destruction of those who are not in agreement with their religion?
The people who adhere to this peaceful religion attacked us on 9/11 because they hated us. There was no war in Iraq or Afghanistan when we were attacked. There was no Guantanamo Bay. We had done nothing to provoke them, but they still attacked. What this tells me is that they do not need a reason to attack us. They do not care who is in power. They attacked us under President Clinton and President Bush. They laugh at President Obama.
But the defenders of the mosque continue to pull out the freedom of religion card in this debate. This issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It has everything to do with a certain religion making inroads into a people's way of life. They seek to assimilate and get people on their side. Then they seek to dominate, and eventually annihilate. You may call this is Islamophobia. I call it the facts. This is what they do. Their goal is complete domination. Just read the Quran. This is what it teaches.
Now, compare the treatment that Islam is getting to the treatment that Rev. Jones is getting. Again, I do not condone what he wanted to do. However, does he not have first amendment rights also? Is he not free to express his religion in any way he sees fit, provided he does no harm to others in the process? His church has no more than fifty people in it. What harm can this small congregation do?
(As a side note, this is not the same as Hitler or Stalin burning books. Hitler and Stalin were the government. They were burning books to get rid of them, and as the government, that amounts to censorship. This guy is the Pastor of a small church. He is not censoring anything. There is no comparison, other than the fact it involved fire and books.)
To show what a peaceful religion Islam is, the adherents to this religion have been having global protests in anticipation of teh Quran-burning. To show their peaceful nature, they have been burning American flags and threatening violence should this Quran-burning take place. Yep, these are really peaceful people. They handle adversity and religious differences well.
And let us not call the Quran a 'holy' book. The only Holy book that we have today is the Bible. Holiness means purity, without sin, without blemish. The Quran does not fit this profile at all. Just because it is a religious book does not make it a holy book.
Does anyone besides me see hypocrisy in these two scenarios? The people who are in favor of freedom of religion when it comes to building a mosque are showing moral outrage at a man who wants to burn Qurans. If you are for freedom of religion in one case, then you should be for freedom of religion in the other one also. In contrast, those who oppose the mosque are also voicing their opposition to the Quran-burning. They understand that both are legal, but they also believe that both are inappropriate.
There is also the issue of violence. Those opposed to the mosque are demonstrating in a peaceful fashion. They are fighting the mosque plans they way that they should be - by letting their voices be heard and fighting the mosque in a legal way. Those opposed to the Quran-burning are displaying a more violent side - they are burning American flags and threatening violence. They do not know what civil discourse is, nor do they want to know.
So, why are people like Mayor Bloomberg standing up for the mosque? Are they afraid of the violence that may occur should the mosque not be built? Perhaps. Are they afraid to be labelled as an Islamophobe? Possibly. Are they attempting to buy votes? Definitely. Is it their goal to slowly remove God from the public debate and replace Him (not completely do away with a supreme being) with a religion that does not believe in this same God? Probably. Are we in danger if we do not return to God and follow Him? Most definitely.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
A Proud Global Climate Change Denier
I must admit, I am not much of a scientist. I was a decent science student in high school, but I did not choose to pursue anything in the field of science as my lifetime occupation. However, I have tried to follow the ongoing debate over climate change, because there are many people out there who are sounding the alarm over the demise of the earth.
Many of the so-called facts that the climate change proponents throw at us daily are not "the whole truth." They take information out of context and twist it to what they want it to say. This disturbs me greatly, but unfortunately we live in a society that does not see a problem with this. Nowhere is this more evident than in 2 separate editorials that I read in the 7/28/10 edition of the Harrisburg Patriot News. One of these articles is by the Patriot News Editorial Board, and the other was in an opinion piece by Paul Krugman.
The column by the Patriot News Editorial Board basically is telling the reader that "Climategate" is not a scandal. That even though e-mails were sent by scientists (to each other) talking about manipulating the data, that this does not disprove climate science as we have been told. We are told that no one tried to mislead the public. We are told that no one tried to delete information that could hurt the climate change cause. They then quote a British panel that said "E-mails are rarely definitive evidence of what actually occurred." So, if I understand this correctly, they were lying in their e-mails so as to create a diversion. I'm sorry, but this is not a viable explanation.
The column then goes on to say that "there is rigorous and healthy debate about how fast the planet is changing, and indeed a minority of scientists conclude the climate is not warming at all." They do not say that this is a growing minority who holds to this belief. But why would they? That would shoot down their argument. Also, there is not rigorous and healthy debate. Anytime that someone challenges them, they call names and take their ball and go home. They do not debate.
It all boils down to this - The Patriot News says that the answer is transparency. In other words, let people see what you are doing and all will be OK. I disagree with this conclusion. The answer is not in transparency - it is in the facts. You can only make up information for a certain length of time before people start to understand that you are not telling the truth.
The article by Paul Krugman only sent my blood pressure even higher. He is a socialist that thinks the President has not done enough to ruin our country. Our taxes are not high enough, we need more government stimulus, etc. He says that climate science points to an accelerated rise in global temperatures. He also states that the "Climategate" scandal is not a scandal at all. It was a plot by conservatives and big business to undermine climate legislation. While this is not the case, the legislation will definitely hurt our economy even more than we are hurting now.
According to Krugman, it was greed and cowardice that killed climate change legislation. According to Krugman, "Look at scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you'll find that they're on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil or Koch Industries." Apparently, we are not to look at who is funding the climate change people, only those who are fighting against them.
He end his article with this tidbit - "Greed, aided by cowardice, has triumphed. And the whole world will pay the price." Apparently, Krugman does not understand that people are no longer buying into this pseudo-science. He believes that government should force us to have something we do not want, something that will destroy the economy of this country.
So, after reading these 2 articles yesterday, I started to think about how to respond to this 'science.' Why is this issue so important to these people? Why are they pushing the government to mandate such draconian measures? What is the end-game? And how can we stop it?
The government is going to try to use this issue to tax us more and regulate business more. We cannot let this happen. It is up to us to go out and vote and elect people who are interested in the truth on this matter, not on the junk science.
Many of the so-called facts that the climate change proponents throw at us daily are not "the whole truth." They take information out of context and twist it to what they want it to say. This disturbs me greatly, but unfortunately we live in a society that does not see a problem with this. Nowhere is this more evident than in 2 separate editorials that I read in the 7/28/10 edition of the Harrisburg Patriot News. One of these articles is by the Patriot News Editorial Board, and the other was in an opinion piece by Paul Krugman.
The column by the Patriot News Editorial Board basically is telling the reader that "Climategate" is not a scandal. That even though e-mails were sent by scientists (to each other) talking about manipulating the data, that this does not disprove climate science as we have been told. We are told that no one tried to mislead the public. We are told that no one tried to delete information that could hurt the climate change cause. They then quote a British panel that said "E-mails are rarely definitive evidence of what actually occurred." So, if I understand this correctly, they were lying in their e-mails so as to create a diversion. I'm sorry, but this is not a viable explanation.
The column then goes on to say that "there is rigorous and healthy debate about how fast the planet is changing, and indeed a minority of scientists conclude the climate is not warming at all." They do not say that this is a growing minority who holds to this belief. But why would they? That would shoot down their argument. Also, there is not rigorous and healthy debate. Anytime that someone challenges them, they call names and take their ball and go home. They do not debate.
It all boils down to this - The Patriot News says that the answer is transparency. In other words, let people see what you are doing and all will be OK. I disagree with this conclusion. The answer is not in transparency - it is in the facts. You can only make up information for a certain length of time before people start to understand that you are not telling the truth.
The article by Paul Krugman only sent my blood pressure even higher. He is a socialist that thinks the President has not done enough to ruin our country. Our taxes are not high enough, we need more government stimulus, etc. He says that climate science points to an accelerated rise in global temperatures. He also states that the "Climategate" scandal is not a scandal at all. It was a plot by conservatives and big business to undermine climate legislation. While this is not the case, the legislation will definitely hurt our economy even more than we are hurting now.
According to Krugman, it was greed and cowardice that killed climate change legislation. According to Krugman, "Look at scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you'll find that they're on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil or Koch Industries." Apparently, we are not to look at who is funding the climate change people, only those who are fighting against them.
He end his article with this tidbit - "Greed, aided by cowardice, has triumphed. And the whole world will pay the price." Apparently, Krugman does not understand that people are no longer buying into this pseudo-science. He believes that government should force us to have something we do not want, something that will destroy the economy of this country.
So, after reading these 2 articles yesterday, I started to think about how to respond to this 'science.' Why is this issue so important to these people? Why are they pushing the government to mandate such draconian measures? What is the end-game? And how can we stop it?
- First and foremost, God is in control. He has created an earth that is extremely durable. For centuries, even millenia, the earth has withstood natural disasters, such as hurricanes and volcano eruptions (which emit more hazardous substances than man can create) and we are still here. God created an earth that is capable of sustaining life and 'healing itself.' To think that mere, mortal man has the ability to wipe out the earth is ludicrous. We know that the earth will survive, until God destroys it in the tribulation period. Until then, there is nothing we can do to destroy it.
- We should take care of our environment. That does not mean we should mistreat our environment. After all, we are stewards of the environment. God gave man dominion over nature. He did not tell us to surrender to it.
- Weather is cyclical. We have hot spells. We have cold spells. This was a particularly cold winter in PA. Now, the summer is warmer than the past several summers. Why is it so difficult to understand that weather cycles just like everything else? If you remember, this issue to be about global cooling. Then they changed their tune to global warming. Now, it is all about global climate change. This way, when any change in temperature happens, these buffoons can say that it is a result of climate change. This fits their template much better. If you call it global warming, then a cold spell does not fit the template. So they needed a broader title for their cause.
- Are we so arrogant to believe that we know what the correct temperature ought to be at all times? We have only kept records for the last hundred years or so. What about the centuries before that. Who kept the records then? It could very well have been hotter then, and we cooled off for a long time. Now we are getting back to those levels. We just don't know. The climate change people are trying to play God in decreeing that they know what the temperatures ought to be at all times and in all places.
The government is going to try to use this issue to tax us more and regulate business more. We cannot let this happen. It is up to us to go out and vote and elect people who are interested in the truth on this matter, not on the junk science.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
LeBron James, ESPN, and Pop Culture
I consider myself to be a sports fan, not just for one particular type of sport, but for many. I enjoy baseball and football, hockey and golf, NASCAR and soccer. You name the sport, I will probably watch it.
However, I have a growing disdain for professional basketball. I enjoy college basketball, because those guys, for the most part, know the fundamentals of the game. But professional basketball, in my opinion, has gone completely downhill in the last 10-15 years.
Growing up, I was a fan of the L.A. Lakers. With Magic Johnson leading the Showtime offense, they were just enjoyable to watch. They had great showdowns will Larry Bird and the Celtics, later with Isaiah Thomas and the Pistons. It was good basketball, played by people who were good at what they do.
My disdain of pro basketball began when the Charlotte Hornets drafted Kobe Bryant, who then refused to play for them. Coming out of high school, he thought he was entitled to play for one of the best teams in the history of the sport. It was at that point I stopped being a Lakers fan. I jumped on the Spurs bandwagon, because they had David Robinson, a fine player on the court, and fine person off of the court. But, as the years went on, my overall desire for pro basketball faded away.
I did not care for the players coming out of college and demanding the excessive contracts, even though they had never played a minute in the NBA. I did not like the style of basketball that was being played. The NBA turned into glorified street ball. It was no longer enjoyable to sit down and watch. And when you add to the fact that Bill Walton was an announcer, it became unwatchable.
The NBA became a 2nd tier sport in the late 90's and early 2000's. Television ratings diminished. There were not any marketable players to carry the NBA after the retirement of Michael Jordan.
Then along came LeBron James. He was going to save the NBA. And he came out of high school with a bang. He is tremendously blessed with size and skill that cannot be matched in today's game. He is an extraordinary player. The networks love him. Commentators will never have anything bad to say about him. Yet, I could care less. He has done nothing to bring me back to the NBA, even as a casual fan.
Now, Mr. James thinks he is so important and that everyone cares so much about where he is going to play that he has basically demanded that ESPN give him an hour of prime time television on Thursday night to announce to the world which city he will bless with his presence for the next several years. And ESPN did as he asked. They will dedicate an hour of prime time TV to LeBron and his announcement. This is an announcement that he could make in 2-3 minutes, but he is such an egomaniac that he thinks he deserves an entire hour.
Now, I am not convinced that he wants to sign with a team to win a championship, or multiple championships. It was not that long ago that players wanted to play for winners, teams that had a chance to win a championship. Some players would even take pay cuts in order to do that. There were also some players who chose to remain loyal to their teams for an entire career, but free agency has ended that. LeBron is motivated by money. He wants to go where he will get a big, fat paycheck and get endorsement deals. If he wins a championship, that can be a bonus, but I do not believe that the championship is his motivation.
I am not going to watch the spectacle on Thursday. There are other things that I could be doing at that time, and I am sure I will be able to find something to occupy my time. The sad thing, there will be many people who will fall into this trap that is LeBron James. ESPN will probably get good ratings for this 1-hour special. LeBron will get all the publicity that he desires. But the world will go on.
This is one of the main problems with our society today. People care so much about things that just do not matter. If you polled people on the street or in the mall or anywhere you go, you will find that many do not know the answers to basic questions about our government, about economics, about our nation's history, or about current events. Why is this? Because, as a society, we just don't care.
LeBron James will get more coverage in the news over the next several days than issues that are much more important. Our lives will not be affected by what team LeBron will play for next year, yet issues in the news that will affect us are cast aside for the LeBron circus. Issues such as nationalized health care, immigration, the oil spill, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are but a few of the issues that are much more important than the NBA, yet they will remain on the back burner.
While I was in college, I had a roommate who tried out for an intramural basketball team, but he did not make the team. After a day or so of pondering what happened, he came to the conclusion that "In the light of eternity, it just doesn't matter" that he did not make the team. This is a truth that we all need to come to terms with. Looking at the years to come, does it matter where LeBron plays basketball? Will it bring peace to the Middle East? Will it bring harmony between Democrats and Republicans? Will it end the oil spill in the Gulf? Of course, the answers to these questions is no, this decision will have no impact on these other things. Then why are we choosing to make such a big deal about it?
However, I have a growing disdain for professional basketball. I enjoy college basketball, because those guys, for the most part, know the fundamentals of the game. But professional basketball, in my opinion, has gone completely downhill in the last 10-15 years.
Growing up, I was a fan of the L.A. Lakers. With Magic Johnson leading the Showtime offense, they were just enjoyable to watch. They had great showdowns will Larry Bird and the Celtics, later with Isaiah Thomas and the Pistons. It was good basketball, played by people who were good at what they do.
My disdain of pro basketball began when the Charlotte Hornets drafted Kobe Bryant, who then refused to play for them. Coming out of high school, he thought he was entitled to play for one of the best teams in the history of the sport. It was at that point I stopped being a Lakers fan. I jumped on the Spurs bandwagon, because they had David Robinson, a fine player on the court, and fine person off of the court. But, as the years went on, my overall desire for pro basketball faded away.
I did not care for the players coming out of college and demanding the excessive contracts, even though they had never played a minute in the NBA. I did not like the style of basketball that was being played. The NBA turned into glorified street ball. It was no longer enjoyable to sit down and watch. And when you add to the fact that Bill Walton was an announcer, it became unwatchable.
The NBA became a 2nd tier sport in the late 90's and early 2000's. Television ratings diminished. There were not any marketable players to carry the NBA after the retirement of Michael Jordan.
Then along came LeBron James. He was going to save the NBA. And he came out of high school with a bang. He is tremendously blessed with size and skill that cannot be matched in today's game. He is an extraordinary player. The networks love him. Commentators will never have anything bad to say about him. Yet, I could care less. He has done nothing to bring me back to the NBA, even as a casual fan.
Now, Mr. James thinks he is so important and that everyone cares so much about where he is going to play that he has basically demanded that ESPN give him an hour of prime time television on Thursday night to announce to the world which city he will bless with his presence for the next several years. And ESPN did as he asked. They will dedicate an hour of prime time TV to LeBron and his announcement. This is an announcement that he could make in 2-3 minutes, but he is such an egomaniac that he thinks he deserves an entire hour.
Now, I am not convinced that he wants to sign with a team to win a championship, or multiple championships. It was not that long ago that players wanted to play for winners, teams that had a chance to win a championship. Some players would even take pay cuts in order to do that. There were also some players who chose to remain loyal to their teams for an entire career, but free agency has ended that. LeBron is motivated by money. He wants to go where he will get a big, fat paycheck and get endorsement deals. If he wins a championship, that can be a bonus, but I do not believe that the championship is his motivation.
I am not going to watch the spectacle on Thursday. There are other things that I could be doing at that time, and I am sure I will be able to find something to occupy my time. The sad thing, there will be many people who will fall into this trap that is LeBron James. ESPN will probably get good ratings for this 1-hour special. LeBron will get all the publicity that he desires. But the world will go on.
This is one of the main problems with our society today. People care so much about things that just do not matter. If you polled people on the street or in the mall or anywhere you go, you will find that many do not know the answers to basic questions about our government, about economics, about our nation's history, or about current events. Why is this? Because, as a society, we just don't care.
LeBron James will get more coverage in the news over the next several days than issues that are much more important. Our lives will not be affected by what team LeBron will play for next year, yet issues in the news that will affect us are cast aside for the LeBron circus. Issues such as nationalized health care, immigration, the oil spill, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are but a few of the issues that are much more important than the NBA, yet they will remain on the back burner.
While I was in college, I had a roommate who tried out for an intramural basketball team, but he did not make the team. After a day or so of pondering what happened, he came to the conclusion that "In the light of eternity, it just doesn't matter" that he did not make the team. This is a truth that we all need to come to terms with. Looking at the years to come, does it matter where LeBron plays basketball? Will it bring peace to the Middle East? Will it bring harmony between Democrats and Republicans? Will it end the oil spill in the Gulf? Of course, the answers to these questions is no, this decision will have no impact on these other things. Then why are we choosing to make such a big deal about it?
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Vacation Bible School 2010
It's that time of year again - time for Vacation Bible School. Many churches have an annual VBS. However, I am partial to the VBS that is being held at Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon. All children who are going into grades 1-6 are able and welcome to attend. VBS will be the week of July 12 - July 16, and it will be help from 9:00 am - Noon. We look forward to seeing you there.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
What do the PA primary results tell us?
I always find it quite humorous to watch the political pundits try to explain election results. They fall over each other trying to explain why things happened the way they did. They attempt to give the Washington view of the results instead of the Main Street view of the results. These pundits have no clue as to what those of us on Main Street are thinking, and it shows. They dismiss Tea Party protesters as a fringe, right-wing minority, full of bigots and homophobes. They do not understand why we, as citizens, would vote out long-time Washington insiders and replace them with fresh faces who care more about the people they represent instead of the office that they serve in.
This can be seen in the results of the primary elections from this past Tuesday, May 18. As I have watched pundits try to explain what happened, I decided that I would try to set the record straight and explain the results in a much more accurate way than the pundits ever could.
1. Conservatism still matters. In a race to determine who will get to fill out the term of long-time corrupt Congressman Jack Murtha, Mark Critz (D) defeated Tim Burns (R). And Critz should have won the race, given the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans in that district by close to a 2:1 ratio. However, the race was much closer than that. In fact, it was so close that Critz did not want the President anywhere near the race. He even identified himself as pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-health care bill. In fact, he made himself sound conservative. Why? He needed to do this in order to win (once in the House, he will not continue to hold these views – he will not be allowed to). He knew he could not be liberal (like Murtha) and win the race. In a day and age where the pundits tell Republicans that they have to move to the middle in order to win elections, we see that the opposite is indeed true. Conservatives should stay where they are to win. Democrats need to move toward the conservatives in order to keep seats. Conservatism wins elections. We just need to stick to conservative values.
2. Some people still do not get it. Why do I say this? Because 2 Pennsylvania officials won their primary elections while under indictment for using their offices for political gain. The law states that you are not allowed to use your state offices or state resources for re-election purposes. PA has several officials under indictment now for this very thing. Yet the people in the districts of Bill DeWeese and John Perzel voted for them and passed them through to run in the general election. Why? Because these guys bring home the bacon. They bring money back into the district. Basically, they buy the votes of their constituents. And as long as that happens, the people in their district could care less if the law is being broken, as long as they are bringing money back to the voters of the district.
3. We want our elected officials to believe in something. Sen. Arlen Specter lost in the primary to Joe Sestak. Several months ago, Specter changed parties in order to win his way back to the Senate for another term. He knew he had irritated too many Republicans to even stand a chance of winning the nomination. He changed his views on some key issues so as to agree with the Democrats and increase his chances of re-election. What is boiled down to was the Democrats did not trust him enough to vote for him. If he was willing to change parties so that he could be re-elected, what else would he do in order to save his political career? People want politicians that have the courage of their convictions, not politicians who go wherever the political headwinds blow them. The Democrats did not trust Specter and the Republicans knew better.
4. The myth of the Presidential coattails. It is said that a popular President should have coattails, that due to his election, many people running for lesser offices in that same party should be able to ride his coattails into office. And while that did happen in 2008, it does not look like it will happen in 2010. The President was highly popular when running for office in 2008, and still remains quite popular as a person now. However, trying to make that translate into electoral victories for the party is not that easy (and this has happened to many Presidents over the years, not just the current President). He has campaigned so far for 4 highly touted elections, and all of the candidates that he has supported have lost. Is that a reflection on the President? Or a reflection on a less-than-stellar candidate? Or is it backlash for policies that are not very popular? Or is it anti-incumbent sentiment? I would say it is a mix of all 4 of these factors. I am not a fan of political endorsements for primary elections. Let the people decide and the parties and elected officials need to stay out of the way. We are smart enough to make our own decisions. We do not need the President (or any other elected official) to tell us how to vote.
5. Presidential popularity does not necessarily benefit the entire party come election time. The President is still a fairly popular person in public opinion polls. Many do not like his policies, but like Clinton, he is viewed as a likeable person. However, this does not help his party’s candidates win. We can look back over history and see that many Presidents were popular but that they lost seats in Congress in the mid-term elections. The race for Murtha’s seat is an example of this. Critz did not want Obama campaigning for him because he knew it would hurt his chances. Usually, someone running for office would love the chance to have the President campaign for him. But given the President’s declining approval ratings and some unpopular legislation that he recently signed into law, there are some in his party who do not want to be associated with him (or the Democratic leadership in Congress) while they are running for office.
6. Stop putting so much stock in political pundits. The punditry exists because people allow them to exist. We put stock in what they say. We want to have that ‘spin’ put on events. We want them to think for us. However, pundits only see what they want to see. They only tell you the things that conform to their worldview. They never see themselves as being wrong on anything. I urge you to do your own research. I urge you to study things as they are, not how you would like them to be. You need to form your own opinions and stop repeating someone else’s opinion as though it were fact. We need to know more than what we believe. We need to know why we believe the way we do. No one can do that for you. If we all had a firmer grasp of what we believe, then we would not need to rely on other people to tell us what we should think and how to interpret the news of the day.
This can be seen in the results of the primary elections from this past Tuesday, May 18. As I have watched pundits try to explain what happened, I decided that I would try to set the record straight and explain the results in a much more accurate way than the pundits ever could.
1. Conservatism still matters. In a race to determine who will get to fill out the term of long-time corrupt Congressman Jack Murtha, Mark Critz (D) defeated Tim Burns (R). And Critz should have won the race, given the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans in that district by close to a 2:1 ratio. However, the race was much closer than that. In fact, it was so close that Critz did not want the President anywhere near the race. He even identified himself as pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-health care bill. In fact, he made himself sound conservative. Why? He needed to do this in order to win (once in the House, he will not continue to hold these views – he will not be allowed to). He knew he could not be liberal (like Murtha) and win the race. In a day and age where the pundits tell Republicans that they have to move to the middle in order to win elections, we see that the opposite is indeed true. Conservatives should stay where they are to win. Democrats need to move toward the conservatives in order to keep seats. Conservatism wins elections. We just need to stick to conservative values.
2. Some people still do not get it. Why do I say this? Because 2 Pennsylvania officials won their primary elections while under indictment for using their offices for political gain. The law states that you are not allowed to use your state offices or state resources for re-election purposes. PA has several officials under indictment now for this very thing. Yet the people in the districts of Bill DeWeese and John Perzel voted for them and passed them through to run in the general election. Why? Because these guys bring home the bacon. They bring money back into the district. Basically, they buy the votes of their constituents. And as long as that happens, the people in their district could care less if the law is being broken, as long as they are bringing money back to the voters of the district.
3. We want our elected officials to believe in something. Sen. Arlen Specter lost in the primary to Joe Sestak. Several months ago, Specter changed parties in order to win his way back to the Senate for another term. He knew he had irritated too many Republicans to even stand a chance of winning the nomination. He changed his views on some key issues so as to agree with the Democrats and increase his chances of re-election. What is boiled down to was the Democrats did not trust him enough to vote for him. If he was willing to change parties so that he could be re-elected, what else would he do in order to save his political career? People want politicians that have the courage of their convictions, not politicians who go wherever the political headwinds blow them. The Democrats did not trust Specter and the Republicans knew better.
4. The myth of the Presidential coattails. It is said that a popular President should have coattails, that due to his election, many people running for lesser offices in that same party should be able to ride his coattails into office. And while that did happen in 2008, it does not look like it will happen in 2010. The President was highly popular when running for office in 2008, and still remains quite popular as a person now. However, trying to make that translate into electoral victories for the party is not that easy (and this has happened to many Presidents over the years, not just the current President). He has campaigned so far for 4 highly touted elections, and all of the candidates that he has supported have lost. Is that a reflection on the President? Or a reflection on a less-than-stellar candidate? Or is it backlash for policies that are not very popular? Or is it anti-incumbent sentiment? I would say it is a mix of all 4 of these factors. I am not a fan of political endorsements for primary elections. Let the people decide and the parties and elected officials need to stay out of the way. We are smart enough to make our own decisions. We do not need the President (or any other elected official) to tell us how to vote.
5. Presidential popularity does not necessarily benefit the entire party come election time. The President is still a fairly popular person in public opinion polls. Many do not like his policies, but like Clinton, he is viewed as a likeable person. However, this does not help his party’s candidates win. We can look back over history and see that many Presidents were popular but that they lost seats in Congress in the mid-term elections. The race for Murtha’s seat is an example of this. Critz did not want Obama campaigning for him because he knew it would hurt his chances. Usually, someone running for office would love the chance to have the President campaign for him. But given the President’s declining approval ratings and some unpopular legislation that he recently signed into law, there are some in his party who do not want to be associated with him (or the Democratic leadership in Congress) while they are running for office.
6. Stop putting so much stock in political pundits. The punditry exists because people allow them to exist. We put stock in what they say. We want to have that ‘spin’ put on events. We want them to think for us. However, pundits only see what they want to see. They only tell you the things that conform to their worldview. They never see themselves as being wrong on anything. I urge you to do your own research. I urge you to study things as they are, not how you would like them to be. You need to form your own opinions and stop repeating someone else’s opinion as though it were fact. We need to know more than what we believe. We need to know why we believe the way we do. No one can do that for you. If we all had a firmer grasp of what we believe, then we would not need to rely on other people to tell us what we should think and how to interpret the news of the day.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Am I missing something in the debate on illegal immigration?
As I have pondered the illegal immigration debate over the last couple of weeks, I cannot help but be confused about the stance that many pro-amnesty Americans are taking.
On the one hand, they are mad at American companies for moving their manufacturing to places like Mexico and Asia because the cost to manufacture in the U.S. is too high (thanks, in most part, to the unions). Their arguments are aimed at these American companies, accusing them of supposedly putting the almighty dollar ahead of everything, including the people that they are putting out of jobs. (I am not going to take a stance on this issue, but I just intend to point out some inconsistencies in other people's thinking.)
However, many of these union groups and civil rights groups and all these other groups that protest the moving of jobs overseas are now complaining about Arizona trying to enforce immigration laws. In their line of thinking, these illegal immigrants are people, too, and we should accept them with open arms. We need them here, in order to keep the economy going.
Now, if we are mad at companies for moving jobs overseas and taking these jobs away from able-bodied Americans, why are we not as outraged about people coming from other countries and taking our jobs on our own soil? Am I missing something in all of this?
On the one hand, they are mad at American companies for moving their manufacturing to places like Mexico and Asia because the cost to manufacture in the U.S. is too high (thanks, in most part, to the unions). Their arguments are aimed at these American companies, accusing them of supposedly putting the almighty dollar ahead of everything, including the people that they are putting out of jobs. (I am not going to take a stance on this issue, but I just intend to point out some inconsistencies in other people's thinking.)
However, many of these union groups and civil rights groups and all these other groups that protest the moving of jobs overseas are now complaining about Arizona trying to enforce immigration laws. In their line of thinking, these illegal immigrants are people, too, and we should accept them with open arms. We need them here, in order to keep the economy going.
Now, if we are mad at companies for moving jobs overseas and taking these jobs away from able-bodied Americans, why are we not as outraged about people coming from other countries and taking our jobs on our own soil? Am I missing something in all of this?
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Illegal Immigration - The Next Political Battlefield
In the ever-changing American political landscape, our politicians keep changing the 'Hot Button' issue. It is frustrating, in that they never stay on a topic long enough to actually have a legitimate dialogue and public debate about that particular issue. Instead, they would rather call people names, demagogue the issue, pass a resolution in Congress, and move on to the next thing - all in the hopes of finding a popular issue that will carry them to their re-election.
Over the past several years, we have seen many 'Hot Button' topics come and go, including: the 2000 Presidential election, Afghanistan, Iraq, WMD, National Security, 1st amendment rights (and the non-constitutional right to privacy), global warming, global climate change, bailouts, the economy, taxes, hope & change, and the list goes on and on. The latest and greatest issue is that of illegal immigration and how we should deal with it.
Supporters of the pro-amnesty cause do not like to use the term "illegal" when referring to this particular group of people. They will refer to these folks as immigrants (without the illegal moniker) or as undocumented workers. They refer to those who want tighter immigration measures as racists or xenophobes. They try to play to people's sympathies, because in a debate about the legalities, they have no leg to stand on.
Here is one of my problems with the whole amnesty thing. We are a nation of laws. If a nation chooses not to enforce some laws, then what moral authority do they have to enforce others? Laws are to be enforced equally, on all people, at all times. No man is to be above the law in this country. In essence, these people are putting themselves above the law, trying to make the case that the laws do not apply to them. However, this amnesty movement has become so brazen that not only do illegals gather in large groups to protest our laws, we have civil rights groups and the ACLU standing with them, protesting the nation's laws.
And these protests are not really that peaceful. While they may not be full-fledged riots, these are people who obviously have no problem with lawlessness (since they are already breaking the law in being here illegally). So they have no problem in tying up traffic and disrupting local businesses in order to try to get us to have sympathy for them. (Compare these illegal immigrant protests to Tea Party protests and see which ones are more civil). Yet the establishment applauds these lawless gatherings, while demeaning peaceful Tea Party rallies.
We ought to understand that it is called illegal immigration for a reason. We have immigration laws in this country. These people are not following the laws in place. Therefore, they are here illegally. It is not very difficult to understand. They say that this is a nation of immigrants and we should not be closing the door to immigration after all these years. True, we are a nation of immigrants. What they are not telling you is that we are a nation of legal immigrants who put emphasis on the rule of law. There are millions of immigrants here legally who followed the rules and did things the right way. If the government chooses to reward those who did not follow the rules, then we have slapped the face of those who are here legally.
Many illegal immigrants are here from Mexico. The Mexican government is mad at us for attempting to enforce immigration laws. Apparently, we are inhumane for trying to enforce laws. But one thing we do not hear about are Mexico's immigration laws. They put people in jail, fine them, deport them. They will have nothing to do with people who are in their country illegally. Yet, it is wrong for us to try to enforce our own laws by simply sending people back to their own country?
Also, this is a tremendous national security issue. If people can easily cross over our southern border, then the door is open for terrorists to get into our country the same way. The primary goal of the government is to protect the citizens who live under that government. How can this government protect its citizens when they selectively enforce the laws of the land, not caring who has come across our borders? Actually, by refusing to enforce immigration laws, they are endangering the citizens, not protecting them.
So, how do we deal with this? It has been estimated that we have between 10-15 million people in this country illegally? Can we send them all back to their home country and tell them to start over? That would be great, but it will be hard to do. How do we find them all? How do we keep up with it, since others will inevitably come and take their place? Does the federal government even care?
Arizona stepped up to the plate and decided that they would start to enforce the federal laws. Immigration laws are only supposed to be enforced by federal agencies. Arizona saw that the federal government was shirking their duties of upholding the law. They want the laws enforced, and if the federal government is not going to do it, then they saw that their only option is to take care of it on their own.
Now, we have the typical liberals out there decrying this move by the state of Arizona. Many are labelling them as racists. The President calls them misguided. Many liberals groups and politicians are lying about the bill, talking of the institutionalization of discrimination and profiling.
The federal government does not really want to do anything about this problem, because they are looking for any way possible to get re-elected. If we keep them in this country, then surely we can find a way to get them to vote. And if they find a way to vote, they are going to vote for the people who are letting them stay here.
The answer is simple. We need to vote for people in the upcoming elections that want to enforce our immigration laws. We need to hold our current leaders accountable for neglecting to enforce the existing laws. We need to hold businesses accountable that knowingly hire illegal workers. We need to tell our leaders that we expect them to do their Constitutional duty and protect this country. And if they do not do this, then we ought to show them the door.
Over the past several years, we have seen many 'Hot Button' topics come and go, including: the 2000 Presidential election, Afghanistan, Iraq, WMD, National Security, 1st amendment rights (and the non-constitutional right to privacy), global warming, global climate change, bailouts, the economy, taxes, hope & change, and the list goes on and on. The latest and greatest issue is that of illegal immigration and how we should deal with it.
Supporters of the pro-amnesty cause do not like to use the term "illegal" when referring to this particular group of people. They will refer to these folks as immigrants (without the illegal moniker) or as undocumented workers. They refer to those who want tighter immigration measures as racists or xenophobes. They try to play to people's sympathies, because in a debate about the legalities, they have no leg to stand on.
Here is one of my problems with the whole amnesty thing. We are a nation of laws. If a nation chooses not to enforce some laws, then what moral authority do they have to enforce others? Laws are to be enforced equally, on all people, at all times. No man is to be above the law in this country. In essence, these people are putting themselves above the law, trying to make the case that the laws do not apply to them. However, this amnesty movement has become so brazen that not only do illegals gather in large groups to protest our laws, we have civil rights groups and the ACLU standing with them, protesting the nation's laws.
And these protests are not really that peaceful. While they may not be full-fledged riots, these are people who obviously have no problem with lawlessness (since they are already breaking the law in being here illegally). So they have no problem in tying up traffic and disrupting local businesses in order to try to get us to have sympathy for them. (Compare these illegal immigrant protests to Tea Party protests and see which ones are more civil). Yet the establishment applauds these lawless gatherings, while demeaning peaceful Tea Party rallies.
We ought to understand that it is called illegal immigration for a reason. We have immigration laws in this country. These people are not following the laws in place. Therefore, they are here illegally. It is not very difficult to understand. They say that this is a nation of immigrants and we should not be closing the door to immigration after all these years. True, we are a nation of immigrants. What they are not telling you is that we are a nation of legal immigrants who put emphasis on the rule of law. There are millions of immigrants here legally who followed the rules and did things the right way. If the government chooses to reward those who did not follow the rules, then we have slapped the face of those who are here legally.
Many illegal immigrants are here from Mexico. The Mexican government is mad at us for attempting to enforce immigration laws. Apparently, we are inhumane for trying to enforce laws. But one thing we do not hear about are Mexico's immigration laws. They put people in jail, fine them, deport them. They will have nothing to do with people who are in their country illegally. Yet, it is wrong for us to try to enforce our own laws by simply sending people back to their own country?
Also, this is a tremendous national security issue. If people can easily cross over our southern border, then the door is open for terrorists to get into our country the same way. The primary goal of the government is to protect the citizens who live under that government. How can this government protect its citizens when they selectively enforce the laws of the land, not caring who has come across our borders? Actually, by refusing to enforce immigration laws, they are endangering the citizens, not protecting them.
So, how do we deal with this? It has been estimated that we have between 10-15 million people in this country illegally? Can we send them all back to their home country and tell them to start over? That would be great, but it will be hard to do. How do we find them all? How do we keep up with it, since others will inevitably come and take their place? Does the federal government even care?
Arizona stepped up to the plate and decided that they would start to enforce the federal laws. Immigration laws are only supposed to be enforced by federal agencies. Arizona saw that the federal government was shirking their duties of upholding the law. They want the laws enforced, and if the federal government is not going to do it, then they saw that their only option is to take care of it on their own.
Now, we have the typical liberals out there decrying this move by the state of Arizona. Many are labelling them as racists. The President calls them misguided. Many liberals groups and politicians are lying about the bill, talking of the institutionalization of discrimination and profiling.
The federal government does not really want to do anything about this problem, because they are looking for any way possible to get re-elected. If we keep them in this country, then surely we can find a way to get them to vote. And if they find a way to vote, they are going to vote for the people who are letting them stay here.
The answer is simple. We need to vote for people in the upcoming elections that want to enforce our immigration laws. We need to hold our current leaders accountable for neglecting to enforce the existing laws. We need to hold businesses accountable that knowingly hire illegal workers. We need to tell our leaders that we expect them to do their Constitutional duty and protect this country. And if they do not do this, then we ought to show them the door.
Friday, April 2, 2010
That Great Day (an Easter Drama)
You are invited to attend "That Great Day," an Easter drama, on Easter Sunday, April 4, at Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA. This drama centers on the events surrounding the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Though many are familiar with these events, to see them re-enacted helps us to understand what Jesus Christ went through for us, and what these events mean for us in light of eternity.
Make this Easter special. Join us Sunday at 8:30 AM, 10:30 AM, or 6:30 PM. We will provide a nursery for children ages three years old and younger. All of our guests are welcome to enjoy light refreshments and a small "Thank You" gift following the drama.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Will the Westboro Baptist Church please go away!!
The Westboro Baptist Church from somewhere in Kansas continues to keep its name in the news headlines, even though everyone would like for them to just go away. This so-called church is led by the Rev. Fred Phelps. This church has made a name for itself by protesting everything you can possibly think of, blaming the ills of society on the fact that God does not like homosexuality. I am not sure how many people are in this church, but my personal feeling is that it is the Phelps family, and that is about it. These people even tote their kids around and have them protest also. To me, they are no better than the KKK, using a church as their cover.
Anyway, before I go further, I must say that I believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and this condemnation can be found in both the Old and New Testaments. However, people are able to be saved out of this lifestyle. This Easter season reminds us that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was for all the sins of all mankind, homosexuality included. If you are a Christian, I do not believe that you can be homosexual. God is not the author of confusion. So if homosexuality is a sin, then He could not have made you into that lifestyle - it is a choice that one makes.
But I also believe that we are to reach out to those who do not know Christ. By holding up signs that say "God Hates Fags" or "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", this church is not trying to help anyone know Christ. Nor are they showing the same love that Jesus Christ showed to sinners. Jesus died for all of the sins of all mankind - not just for certain sins and certain sinners. If Jesus Christ showed this kind of love for sinners when He definitely did not need to do so, then why won't these people show that same sort of love for the lost? Mankind rejected Jesus Christ, yet He still gave His life for us. In showing them love, we do not accept their sinful behavior. Rather, we show a genuine interest in their lost soul and the fact that they need to accept Christ as their Savior.
Getting back to the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), they have made the news here in Central PA. They were sued by a man by the name of Albert Snyder, who lost a son in the war in Iraq. The church decided that they would protest the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder. Mr. Snyder sued the church over this, and won. However, an Appeals Court ruled that Mr. Snyder must pay the legal bills for the WBC, which amount to a little over $16,000, money he does not have. Many people, including Bill O'Reilly, are helping him with this bill. The case is now going to the Supreme Court. (I am not sure where the WBC gets their money to travel and protest, as they seem to only have 1 family in their church - the Phelps family.)
Here are some of my questions:
While I was in college, one of the major things that Dr. Bob Jones III tried to drill into us is that "The most sobering reality in the world today is that people are dying and going to hell today." The fact that people are dying in their sin is not something we should find joy in. It is something that should burden us. It should cause us to want to reach out to them even more than what we may already be doing.
The WBC is shameful and appalling. Because they show no concerns for the souls of others, I must ask myself if they are truly saved. Do they truly know Christ? I doubt it, because if they did, they would not be acting this way.
Anyway, before I go further, I must say that I believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and this condemnation can be found in both the Old and New Testaments. However, people are able to be saved out of this lifestyle. This Easter season reminds us that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was for all the sins of all mankind, homosexuality included. If you are a Christian, I do not believe that you can be homosexual. God is not the author of confusion. So if homosexuality is a sin, then He could not have made you into that lifestyle - it is a choice that one makes.
But I also believe that we are to reach out to those who do not know Christ. By holding up signs that say "God Hates Fags" or "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", this church is not trying to help anyone know Christ. Nor are they showing the same love that Jesus Christ showed to sinners. Jesus died for all of the sins of all mankind - not just for certain sins and certain sinners. If Jesus Christ showed this kind of love for sinners when He definitely did not need to do so, then why won't these people show that same sort of love for the lost? Mankind rejected Jesus Christ, yet He still gave His life for us. In showing them love, we do not accept their sinful behavior. Rather, we show a genuine interest in their lost soul and the fact that they need to accept Christ as their Savior.
Getting back to the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), they have made the news here in Central PA. They were sued by a man by the name of Albert Snyder, who lost a son in the war in Iraq. The church decided that they would protest the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder. Mr. Snyder sued the church over this, and won. However, an Appeals Court ruled that Mr. Snyder must pay the legal bills for the WBC, which amount to a little over $16,000, money he does not have. Many people, including Bill O'Reilly, are helping him with this bill. The case is now going to the Supreme Court. (I am not sure where the WBC gets their money to travel and protest, as they seem to only have 1 family in their church - the Phelps family.)
Here are some of my questions:
- What does the WBC plan to accomplish?
- Why do these people think that they are too good to share the Gospel with those who need it?
- Do think that they are now God, deciding who should hear the Gospel and who should not?
- Does God abhor homosexuality? Yes.
- However, does God wish for all sinners to come to a saving knowledge of Him and spend an eternity in heaven? Yes, He does.
- How did this church's vision for the lost become so distorted and perverted?
- How can they be so full of hatred that they fail to see that what Jesus did for them, he also did for those that this church vehemently opposes and wishes death upon?
- How can these people teach their children this kind of hatred?
- Where do they get their funding?
While I was in college, one of the major things that Dr. Bob Jones III tried to drill into us is that "The most sobering reality in the world today is that people are dying and going to hell today." The fact that people are dying in their sin is not something we should find joy in. It is something that should burden us. It should cause us to want to reach out to them even more than what we may already be doing.
The WBC is shameful and appalling. Because they show no concerns for the souls of others, I must ask myself if they are truly saved. Do they truly know Christ? I doubt it, because if they did, they would not be acting this way.
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Death of Democracy?
On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on a 2000+ page bill (that no one in that body could have read, much less understand) and have bestowed upon the American public 'Health Care Reform.' This bill had nothing to do with granting health care to millions of uninsured Americans. This bill had nothing to do with reform. This bill had everything to do with the Democrats trying to buy their way into the hearts and minds of the American public. This bill had everything to do with the government trying to get a little more control over the every day lives of Americans. This bill had everything to do with a President in search of a legacy. This passing of this bill shines a bright light on Congress and why the American public has contempt for them.
Congress showed just how dirty they really are. There was a lot of vote buying that was going on, some of which we know about, much of which we will find out at a later time. If I would try to influence votes in this way, it would be bribery. If the Speaker of the House or the President does the same thing, then we call it politics. It seems that there were several Congressman that initially took a stand against the bill, but when push came to shove, and a nice offer was dangling in front of them, they forsook any shred of principle that they had and they sold their vote. We find others that may have voted against the bill, not because they believed in the cause, but rather because their political career depended on it. We may not know for sure, but at least they took a stand.
The President and the Speaker of the House are touting this as a win for democracy. I do not understand how they can say this. Democracy is based on majority rules. The majority of the American public was (and still is) against this bill. Democratic principles would say that this bill should not have passed. However, the Democrats (kind of an ironic name for them at this time) passed it anyway, even though Americans did not want it. Their philosophy was that once the Americans find out what is in the bill, they will then be for it. I am glad that they know what I want more than I know what I want. Also, they passed this bill at this time because they think that the American public is stupid, that we will forget that this happened and that their re-election in November would not be harmed by this bill. However, I have a feeling that the American people will not forget this anytime soon. In fact, it was Pelosi that said they should vote for it, even though they may lose their office come November. Arrogance? You bet it is.
I do not have the time to write down all of the things that I find wrong with this bill. However, I will share with you some of the major points that really disturb me. Actually, if this kind of action continues, it should scare us that we let Congress get away with this kind of chicanery.
Congress showed just how dirty they really are. There was a lot of vote buying that was going on, some of which we know about, much of which we will find out at a later time. If I would try to influence votes in this way, it would be bribery. If the Speaker of the House or the President does the same thing, then we call it politics. It seems that there were several Congressman that initially took a stand against the bill, but when push came to shove, and a nice offer was dangling in front of them, they forsook any shred of principle that they had and they sold their vote. We find others that may have voted against the bill, not because they believed in the cause, but rather because their political career depended on it. We may not know for sure, but at least they took a stand.
The President and the Speaker of the House are touting this as a win for democracy. I do not understand how they can say this. Democracy is based on majority rules. The majority of the American public was (and still is) against this bill. Democratic principles would say that this bill should not have passed. However, the Democrats (kind of an ironic name for them at this time) passed it anyway, even though Americans did not want it. Their philosophy was that once the Americans find out what is in the bill, they will then be for it. I am glad that they know what I want more than I know what I want. Also, they passed this bill at this time because they think that the American public is stupid, that we will forget that this happened and that their re-election in November would not be harmed by this bill. However, I have a feeling that the American people will not forget this anytime soon. In fact, it was Pelosi that said they should vote for it, even though they may lose their office come November. Arrogance? You bet it is.
I do not have the time to write down all of the things that I find wrong with this bill. However, I will share with you some of the major points that really disturb me. Actually, if this kind of action continues, it should scare us that we let Congress get away with this kind of chicanery.
- Nancy Pelosi says that health care is now a right - it is no longer a privilege. I have read the U.S. Constitution, and I could not find where health care was granted to us as a right. I have read many of our Founding Fathers' writings and they never listed health care as a right. In fact, James Madison wrote that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government." Government's duty is not to provide health care, but rather to remove the barriers that exist in getting good quality health care. This is not an emotional issue, which the Democrats want it to be. It has everything to do with our Constitution and how some in our government want nothing to do with it.
- The Democrats continued the talking point that the Republicans had nothing to offer on the health care front. This is nothing more than a lie, and they know it. The Republicans wanted the government to remove barriers to health care, such as tort reform and portability of insurance. They did not seek control. They wanted to fix the problem, not make it exponentially worse.
- The Democrats also accused their opponents of using talking points and not engaging in substantive debate. The strange thing is that I have never heard the Democrats engaging in any kind of substantive debate on health care. The only thing they ever did was use talking points and fabricated letters from non-existing constituents concerning supposed lack of health care. This was debated in the media for months, but the debate on the House floor lasted for but a few hours. And this short of a debate on a bill that would change 1/6th of the American economy? On a bill that was over 2000 pages? Deliberative democracy? I don't think so.
- Abortion is not health care. I am not sure why it was even part of the bill. Anyway, the alleged 'pro-life' Democrats voted for a bill that contains abortion as one of its provisions. The President says that he will sign an executive order removing this provision, but an executive order can be revoked by the President at any time. So what good is this? And if health care is now a right, what about life? Life is a right granted to us by the Constitution. Unlike health care, it is actually in the Constitution. So the Democrats want to take away the Constitutional right of an unborn child to live and replace it with something else? That ground that is shaking is not an earthquake - it is the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.
- The Democrats and liberal media can complain all day that this was not a bi-partisan bill. The only bi-partisanship on this whole issue was the opposition.
- The process is broken. In the days leading up to this vote, we did not know if the Democrats were going to try to use a maneuver called 'deem and pass.' In essence, they would vote on the reconciliation bill, and by doing so, it would be assumed that the underlying Senate health care bill would pass. Many people on both sides found this too egregious, so they voted this down. Still, the bill was over 2000 pages, and no one had a chance to read or understand the whole thing. It was not posted on the internet long enough for people to read and understand it. And they promised transparency and ethics? I'd like to know what happened.
- The insurance companies are not the enemy. Could they do more when it comes to helping with pre-existing conditions and cost containment? Yes, they could. But let us keep in mind that insurance companies must remain profitable in order to remain in business and offer insurance. Instead of beating up the insurance companies, perhaps the federal government should benchmark the insurance companies to find out how to manage costs and be profitable.
- In the past, children were covered until they were done with their education. Now, they will be covered until they are 26 yrs. old. This is a huge problem. These young adults need to go out and get jobs and get their own insurance, not stay at home and mooch from their parents. This is yet another attempt by liberals to make people more dependent on government and remove the motivation to go out and be productive.
- People will now be mandated to carry health insurance. There are some who are out of work and cannot afford insurance. I feel bad for them, but this is not the job of the government to provide this service. There are some who choose not to carry health insurance - not because they cannot afford it, but because they view it as a bad investment of their money. We should be worried when the government tells us we have to do something. This is only a foot in the door. The liberals definitely believe that this bill does not go far enough. Pay attention, because there will be more on the way.
- This health care provides the IRS with the money to hire an additional 16000+ workers. Now, why would the IRS need to have this many additional workers? The IRS will be in charge of enforcing mandatory insurance coverage. Scary? You bet it is.
- Why do people think that the government can manage health care? Social Security is going broke. Welfare is out of control. Health care for veterans is not in a good state. The federal government is constantly failing at managing not only health care related programs, but they fail continually at managing all programs. The answer is not government control. The real answer is for the government to get out of the way, not to put up more roadblocks.
- If we add more than 30 million people to a government-sponsored insurance plan, and we do nothing to increase the number of doctors, what is that going to do to the system? It will be that much more difficult to get in to see the doctor (especially if some stop practicing medicine like they said they would do). It will then lead to limited doctor's office visits, which will then lead to rationing, which is already a major problem in countries that have socialized medicine. It is nothing more than the law of supply-and-demand at work. If the supply of something remains constant, and the demand increases, then the cost will increase, and we will end up having a shortage of the service that people desire. This will be one of the unintended consequence of this reform.
- This kind of congressional action now paves the way for more 'social reforms' that the liberals cherish, especially immigration reform. If the Democrats have no problem bending and breaking rules for health care, they will do the same, and possibly more, for immigration reform. After all, they may need the illegal immigrant community to vote for them in order to remain in office in November.
- Elections have consequences. In 2008, people voted for change. The Republicans were spending more than the country had, and conservatives were unhappy with them. The liberals already didn't like the Republicans And the people who voted for the change are now seeing what change really means. In 2010, we will see change again. But that change is only as good as the people that we elect and the character and tenacity that they carry with them into office.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Missions Conference 2010
I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to attend the Annual Missions Conference at Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA. This will be a tremendous opportunity to here from missionaries who are working in countries around the world. They will have exciting things to tell us about their ministry and how God is providing for them and working through them.
If you would like a list of speakers and events for the Missions Conference (as well as directions), please click here.
I look forward to seeing you there.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Does disagreement with the President constitute racism?
This seems like an odd question to ask. After all, can't we disagree on issues without being labeled as some sort of societal misfit? If I disagree with my wife (which does happen on occasion), does that make me some sort of male chauvinist or wife-beater? No. It just means we disagree on something. So why can't I disagree with someone who is a different race than what I happen to be? After all, I am an adult, able to form my own opinions, and I am not so shallow as to base my thoughts, feelings, and opinions on race.
However, as I read yesterday's Harrisburg Patriot News, my attention was drawn to an editorial written by a registered nurse by the name of Elizabeth A.K. Williams. Basically, what she is saying is that people are opposed to President Obama simply because he is a minority. In her words, "Halting anything and everything proposed by President Obama, is in major part, based on race and borders on being a crime against all American citizens." Excuse me, but under President Bush, it was our right to disagree with our leaders. Now, we are not allowed to? I thought the ability to disagree with our elected leaders was the hallmark of our democracy? I guess that only applies when Republicans are in charge.
As if this statement was not outrageous enough, she goes on to say: "Oppression of President Obama, along with other minorities, continues as an accepted practice in our society. It’s called institutionalized racism." If I disagree with the President, how am I oppressing him? It is the government that oppresses the citizens, not the citizens who oppress the government.
She then goes on to say: "With that said, I will now be accused of playing the race card. I do not accept that accusation, but rather pass it on to a large segment of our society whose hatred for minorities is being provoked by right-wing radio and TV show hosts." So let me get this straight - she accuses those who disagree with the President of doing so because they are racist, without ever providing any facts that might even come close to proving her point, yet she says she is not playing the race card. I would love to know, then, what it means to play the race card. And then, as all liberals do, they blame talk radio and network news (most likely, she is referring to Fox News).
She then goes on to insult the local talk radio station because they put talk show hosts on the air that foment racism towards minorities (her words, not mine). Without naming any talk show in particular, she is talking about Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Most likely, she has never listened to any of these men (and in the interest of full disclosure, the only one I listen to with any regularity is Limbaugh - the other 2 get on my nerves). However, I have never heard any of them say anything racist about Obama (or anyone, for that matter). Their disagreements with the President are all based on policy, not on Obama as a person. Sure, words are taken out of context and insults are hurled at them, but they have no validity. Let's remember that Democrats insulted George Bush for 8 years on a personal level. They were extremely cruel in some of their personal attacks. Yet conservatives keep the debate on a policy level and they are somehow extremely mean and racist. Go figure.
So, if I am a racist for disagreeing with the President, was Gov. Ed Rendell a racist for running against Lynn Swann for Governor of PA? Were the white people of PA racist for voting against Swann? Where was Ms. Williams when the pasty, white Senators in New England, as well as our current Vice President, were opposing Justice Clarence Thomas? Where was Ms. Williams in defending Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell for serving in President Bush's Cabinet? Why didn't she speak out when Jesse Jackson said that President Obama was not black enough? And, which of the national parties actually has a minority leading the party? That would be the Republican Party. The Democrats had the opportunity, but selected a rather pasty white guy from Vermont, instead. Apparently, it only suits her to bring out the race card at certain points in time. And of course, she only needs to make the accusation, because that is all that matters. She does not need to actually give any evidence.
I do not doubt that there are a few people in this country who do not like the President because of his skin color. I would be naive to think otherwise. However, the vast majority of those who disagree with the President are very concerned citizens who do not like the direction that this country is headed. We want fiscal restraint. We want to get rid of the government entitlements. We want to get rid of the socialism that is creeping into our lives. We are tired of being called names or being labeled because we disagree. We are not the ones who are dwelling on the President's skin color. It is his supporters who are constantly talking of his race. Those who are against him draw attention to his policies. And that is the difference between the two groups. The supporters are concerned about symbolism, while those who are standing up against him are concerned about substance.
However, as I read yesterday's Harrisburg Patriot News, my attention was drawn to an editorial written by a registered nurse by the name of Elizabeth A.K. Williams. Basically, what she is saying is that people are opposed to President Obama simply because he is a minority. In her words, "Halting anything and everything proposed by President Obama, is in major part, based on race and borders on being a crime against all American citizens." Excuse me, but under President Bush, it was our right to disagree with our leaders. Now, we are not allowed to? I thought the ability to disagree with our elected leaders was the hallmark of our democracy? I guess that only applies when Republicans are in charge.
As if this statement was not outrageous enough, she goes on to say: "Oppression of President Obama, along with other minorities, continues as an accepted practice in our society. It’s called institutionalized racism." If I disagree with the President, how am I oppressing him? It is the government that oppresses the citizens, not the citizens who oppress the government.
She then goes on to say: "With that said, I will now be accused of playing the race card. I do not accept that accusation, but rather pass it on to a large segment of our society whose hatred for minorities is being provoked by right-wing radio and TV show hosts." So let me get this straight - she accuses those who disagree with the President of doing so because they are racist, without ever providing any facts that might even come close to proving her point, yet she says she is not playing the race card. I would love to know, then, what it means to play the race card. And then, as all liberals do, they blame talk radio and network news (most likely, she is referring to Fox News).
She then goes on to insult the local talk radio station because they put talk show hosts on the air that foment racism towards minorities (her words, not mine). Without naming any talk show in particular, she is talking about Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Most likely, she has never listened to any of these men (and in the interest of full disclosure, the only one I listen to with any regularity is Limbaugh - the other 2 get on my nerves). However, I have never heard any of them say anything racist about Obama (or anyone, for that matter). Their disagreements with the President are all based on policy, not on Obama as a person. Sure, words are taken out of context and insults are hurled at them, but they have no validity. Let's remember that Democrats insulted George Bush for 8 years on a personal level. They were extremely cruel in some of their personal attacks. Yet conservatives keep the debate on a policy level and they are somehow extremely mean and racist. Go figure.
So, if I am a racist for disagreeing with the President, was Gov. Ed Rendell a racist for running against Lynn Swann for Governor of PA? Were the white people of PA racist for voting against Swann? Where was Ms. Williams when the pasty, white Senators in New England, as well as our current Vice President, were opposing Justice Clarence Thomas? Where was Ms. Williams in defending Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell for serving in President Bush's Cabinet? Why didn't she speak out when Jesse Jackson said that President Obama was not black enough? And, which of the national parties actually has a minority leading the party? That would be the Republican Party. The Democrats had the opportunity, but selected a rather pasty white guy from Vermont, instead. Apparently, it only suits her to bring out the race card at certain points in time. And of course, she only needs to make the accusation, because that is all that matters. She does not need to actually give any evidence.
I do not doubt that there are a few people in this country who do not like the President because of his skin color. I would be naive to think otherwise. However, the vast majority of those who disagree with the President are very concerned citizens who do not like the direction that this country is headed. We want fiscal restraint. We want to get rid of the government entitlements. We want to get rid of the socialism that is creeping into our lives. We are tired of being called names or being labeled because we disagree. We are not the ones who are dwelling on the President's skin color. It is his supporters who are constantly talking of his race. Those who are against him draw attention to his policies. And that is the difference between the two groups. The supporters are concerned about symbolism, while those who are standing up against him are concerned about substance.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The Health Care Summit - Does it really matter?
I am sure we all have our own separate views on the necessity of health care reform - how we go about it, what needs to be reformed, should the government be involved, should it be the priority, etc. So, in order to show the American people that he truly wishes for a bipartisan bill, the President has called a summit of Republicans and Democrats, Senators and Representatives, to try to devise a bill that everyone can agree with.
First, almost everyone can see through this charade. The President is trying to regain political capital, which he has lost over the past several months. The President, widely seen as a failing leader, needs to garner any momentum that he can muster in order to help his party have any chance of staying in power come the mid-term elections in November. Besides, the administration has already developed a bill. They are just trying to get everyone to agree with them now.
Second, the Democrats will not accept any Republican changes. They want nothing to do with tort reform (after all, the lawyer community is one of their biggest supporters). They want nothing to do with insurance portability and increased competition (that process is too democratic for the Democrats, which is slightly amusing and ironic at the same time). They only want Republicans to sign on to this bill so that the Republicans can share in the blame when this passes and the American people reject it. After all, the Democrats could have passed this already without any Republicans. They could not get members of their own party to support some of the measures in the bill.
Third, why do we need a bipartisan bill? What is so magical about bipartisanship? Our elected officials should be more interested in doing what is right for America, not what is best for them and their cronies. They should focus on bills that pass the muster of Constitutionality, not on bills that effectively attempt to re-write the Constitution. When you get right down to the basics, constituents on both sides do not want bipartisanship. We vote on people, not based on how well they compromise, but rather based on the issues that they stand for. I do not want someone I voted for who is currently serving in office to go back on a campaign promise and do something he said he would not do, just so he could be bipartisan. There is no character in that. Character is standing up for what you believe in, regardless of the political climate. Bipartisanship is a sign of weakness, a coward's way out of a tough decision.
Fourth, the Senate is proposing the use of reconciliation to pass health care. This is a controversial maneuver, where only 51 votes are needed to end debate and to bring a bill up for a vote. The only time, according to Senate rules, that this is used is in the budget process, since money needs to be appropriated in order to keep the government running. Normally, 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture, which basically means to end debate and to send the bill for a final vote. When the final vote is cast, they only need 51 votes for passage (but the media does not clarify this - they allow the American people to think that the bill will pass only if 60 Senators vote for it).
If I can hearken back only a few years, the Republicans threatened to use this maneuver in approving judges that were nominated to the federal bench. However, McCain and his band of merry men (14 of them, in fact) did not want this to happen, because the reconciliation rule in the Senate was much more revered than even the Constitution.
Anyway, the Republicans should have used reconciliation at that point, as their role in approving judges was on an advise and consent basis. In other words, it is the President's job to nominate the judges, and the Senate's job to say yea or nay. The Democrats at that time were adamantly against it, from Sen. Obama to Sen. Clinton to Sen. Biden to Sen. Kerry, and most every Democrat Senator. They said that the Senate needs to remain the deliberative body and that rules should not be eased in order to ram things through for approval. They said that the Senate is not there to 'rubber stamp' what the President wants. A few years ago, debate was important. It needed to happen.
Now, the shoe is on the other foot. They want to pass this bill so bad that they can taste it. They seem to conveniently forget the stand on reconciliation that they took only 2 or 3 years ago. Now it is OK to use this maneuver. Alexis de Tocqueville termed this the 'Tyranny of the Majority.' In other words, if a majority party is in power, they can pass anything they want, breaking any rules they want, and force their will on anyone and everyone.
This is the problem with our elected officials today. They do what they want, when they want to, without a care for those they represent. We are finally starting to see a backlash. A recent poll shows that Congress has a 10% approval rating, and we know why. They do not listen to the people that they represent. Many entrenched Democrats (including Harry Reid), and some Republicans, will be losing their offices in November because the American voting public has had enough. And if they keep up these shenanigans, even more will be out office come election time. And that is not necessarily a bad thing.
First, almost everyone can see through this charade. The President is trying to regain political capital, which he has lost over the past several months. The President, widely seen as a failing leader, needs to garner any momentum that he can muster in order to help his party have any chance of staying in power come the mid-term elections in November. Besides, the administration has already developed a bill. They are just trying to get everyone to agree with them now.
Second, the Democrats will not accept any Republican changes. They want nothing to do with tort reform (after all, the lawyer community is one of their biggest supporters). They want nothing to do with insurance portability and increased competition (that process is too democratic for the Democrats, which is slightly amusing and ironic at the same time). They only want Republicans to sign on to this bill so that the Republicans can share in the blame when this passes and the American people reject it. After all, the Democrats could have passed this already without any Republicans. They could not get members of their own party to support some of the measures in the bill.
Third, why do we need a bipartisan bill? What is so magical about bipartisanship? Our elected officials should be more interested in doing what is right for America, not what is best for them and their cronies. They should focus on bills that pass the muster of Constitutionality, not on bills that effectively attempt to re-write the Constitution. When you get right down to the basics, constituents on both sides do not want bipartisanship. We vote on people, not based on how well they compromise, but rather based on the issues that they stand for. I do not want someone I voted for who is currently serving in office to go back on a campaign promise and do something he said he would not do, just so he could be bipartisan. There is no character in that. Character is standing up for what you believe in, regardless of the political climate. Bipartisanship is a sign of weakness, a coward's way out of a tough decision.
Fourth, the Senate is proposing the use of reconciliation to pass health care. This is a controversial maneuver, where only 51 votes are needed to end debate and to bring a bill up for a vote. The only time, according to Senate rules, that this is used is in the budget process, since money needs to be appropriated in order to keep the government running. Normally, 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture, which basically means to end debate and to send the bill for a final vote. When the final vote is cast, they only need 51 votes for passage (but the media does not clarify this - they allow the American people to think that the bill will pass only if 60 Senators vote for it).
If I can hearken back only a few years, the Republicans threatened to use this maneuver in approving judges that were nominated to the federal bench. However, McCain and his band of merry men (14 of them, in fact) did not want this to happen, because the reconciliation rule in the Senate was much more revered than even the Constitution.
Anyway, the Republicans should have used reconciliation at that point, as their role in approving judges was on an advise and consent basis. In other words, it is the President's job to nominate the judges, and the Senate's job to say yea or nay. The Democrats at that time were adamantly against it, from Sen. Obama to Sen. Clinton to Sen. Biden to Sen. Kerry, and most every Democrat Senator. They said that the Senate needs to remain the deliberative body and that rules should not be eased in order to ram things through for approval. They said that the Senate is not there to 'rubber stamp' what the President wants. A few years ago, debate was important. It needed to happen.
Now, the shoe is on the other foot. They want to pass this bill so bad that they can taste it. They seem to conveniently forget the stand on reconciliation that they took only 2 or 3 years ago. Now it is OK to use this maneuver. Alexis de Tocqueville termed this the 'Tyranny of the Majority.' In other words, if a majority party is in power, they can pass anything they want, breaking any rules they want, and force their will on anyone and everyone.
This is the problem with our elected officials today. They do what they want, when they want to, without a care for those they represent. We are finally starting to see a backlash. A recent poll shows that Congress has a 10% approval rating, and we know why. They do not listen to the people that they represent. Many entrenched Democrats (including Harry Reid), and some Republicans, will be losing their offices in November because the American voting public has had enough. And if they keep up these shenanigans, even more will be out office come election time. And that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Why are the liberals and media elites scared of Sarah Palin?
I have been trying to figure out for some time why there is such hatred for Sarah Palin. This hatred comes from liberals, media elites, political know-nothings, and even from some inside the Republican party. The ironic thing here is that the same people that hate Sarah Palin are the same people who are telling us that partisanship is killing the country and that we should seek to find compromise.
Anyway, as I have tried to figure out this disdain and hatred, I kept coming up with the same answer - they are afraid of her. I know this does not seem to make sense at first, but after much deliberation in my own mind, this is the only conclusion that I could come to.
First, she is an attractive and successful woman, who is happily married with 5 children. She has not had an abortion, nor does she speak out for women's liberation groups. These are not characteristics that liberals admire in women. Also, I think liberals are jealous about her attractive nature. After all, who do they have on their side - Hillary Clinton and Barbara Streisand?
Second, she holds views that are popular amongst many Americans. The reason she connected with many Republicans and conservatives is that we share her views on many issues. She is sincere in her beliefs, and she does not change her views based on the political climate of the day. She holds the opinion that the government is not the answer to all of our problems, and this is something that resonates with many Americans of all different political persuasions.
Third, she says that she is a Christian. Granted, I can only go by what she says, because I do not know for sure. But she claims to be a Christian, and I will take her at her word. According to liberals, Christians need to discard their beliefs at the door and that their beliefs should have no impact on the decisions that are made legislatively. Sarah Palin is not going to do that, and this irritates the haters.
Fourth, she is popular, while the popularity of liberals is waning. This annoys the haters beyond measure. She is popular because her views resonate with the American people, while the liberals' views do not connect with the people. We are headed in the wrong direction, people know it, and Sarah Palin is not afraid to point that out. She is also not afraid to speak out against Republicans when they do something stupid (which is why some RINO's do not like her).
Fifth, she is not a Washington insider. Many liberals and media elite are upset that an outsider can come into the political scene and have this much of an impact. To them, there is no room for outsiders.
The haters continue to attack her, no matter what she does. They attacked her for making a speech with 4 or 5 different items written on the palm of her hand. Essentially, she had those topics written on her hand because those are the issues she wanted to speak about. And what do the haters do - they mock her. The President's press secretary mocked it. Liberal media elites mocked it. Yet, all she needed to make a speech was to make a list of the items she wanted to speak about and the passion with which to speak. She did not need a teleprompter (a la President Obama). She did not need a written speech. All she needed was a list of topics, and she was able to give an extemporaneous speech, and she did it passionately and eloquently. Should she have used an index card instead of her hand? Possibly. But if this is all that the haters can come up with, then they ought to be ashamed and embarrassed.
Liberals also insist that she is dumb, that she has no idea of how to be 'Presidential' (this from the same people that applaud our current President for being a big bully who lacks decorum). They underestimate her. 'We the people' are tired of these liberals and elites telling us what to think about people. We have enough information at our fingertips and are more than capable of making intelligent decisions on our own. Moreover, those of us who have an admiration for Palin are labeled is idiots or morons. This is another mark against the liberals. Rather than respect the opinions of a divergent viewpoint or have a debate on the merits, they resort to name-calling.
Because of all of this, I believe that it is a fear of Sarah Palin that causes these people to hate her. They are afraid that she will become popular and possibly win an election, and then their power over people will continue to diminish. If they did not fear her, then they would not ridicule her or mock her or continue to publish stories that try to bring her down. They would leave her alone, and she would just go away.
As for me, I do not know if she will run for President in 2012, and if she does, I do not know if I will vote for her. But I will give her consideration before I place my vote. Perhaps, many of these haters should stop hating and give her a chance to be heard.
Anyway, as I have tried to figure out this disdain and hatred, I kept coming up with the same answer - they are afraid of her. I know this does not seem to make sense at first, but after much deliberation in my own mind, this is the only conclusion that I could come to.
First, she is an attractive and successful woman, who is happily married with 5 children. She has not had an abortion, nor does she speak out for women's liberation groups. These are not characteristics that liberals admire in women. Also, I think liberals are jealous about her attractive nature. After all, who do they have on their side - Hillary Clinton and Barbara Streisand?
Second, she holds views that are popular amongst many Americans. The reason she connected with many Republicans and conservatives is that we share her views on many issues. She is sincere in her beliefs, and she does not change her views based on the political climate of the day. She holds the opinion that the government is not the answer to all of our problems, and this is something that resonates with many Americans of all different political persuasions.
Third, she says that she is a Christian. Granted, I can only go by what she says, because I do not know for sure. But she claims to be a Christian, and I will take her at her word. According to liberals, Christians need to discard their beliefs at the door and that their beliefs should have no impact on the decisions that are made legislatively. Sarah Palin is not going to do that, and this irritates the haters.
Fourth, she is popular, while the popularity of liberals is waning. This annoys the haters beyond measure. She is popular because her views resonate with the American people, while the liberals' views do not connect with the people. We are headed in the wrong direction, people know it, and Sarah Palin is not afraid to point that out. She is also not afraid to speak out against Republicans when they do something stupid (which is why some RINO's do not like her).
Fifth, she is not a Washington insider. Many liberals and media elite are upset that an outsider can come into the political scene and have this much of an impact. To them, there is no room for outsiders.
The haters continue to attack her, no matter what she does. They attacked her for making a speech with 4 or 5 different items written on the palm of her hand. Essentially, she had those topics written on her hand because those are the issues she wanted to speak about. And what do the haters do - they mock her. The President's press secretary mocked it. Liberal media elites mocked it. Yet, all she needed to make a speech was to make a list of the items she wanted to speak about and the passion with which to speak. She did not need a teleprompter (a la President Obama). She did not need a written speech. All she needed was a list of topics, and she was able to give an extemporaneous speech, and she did it passionately and eloquently. Should she have used an index card instead of her hand? Possibly. But if this is all that the haters can come up with, then they ought to be ashamed and embarrassed.
Liberals also insist that she is dumb, that she has no idea of how to be 'Presidential' (this from the same people that applaud our current President for being a big bully who lacks decorum). They underestimate her. 'We the people' are tired of these liberals and elites telling us what to think about people. We have enough information at our fingertips and are more than capable of making intelligent decisions on our own. Moreover, those of us who have an admiration for Palin are labeled is idiots or morons. This is another mark against the liberals. Rather than respect the opinions of a divergent viewpoint or have a debate on the merits, they resort to name-calling.
Because of all of this, I believe that it is a fear of Sarah Palin that causes these people to hate her. They are afraid that she will become popular and possibly win an election, and then their power over people will continue to diminish. If they did not fear her, then they would not ridicule her or mock her or continue to publish stories that try to bring her down. They would leave her alone, and she would just go away.
As for me, I do not know if she will run for President in 2012, and if she does, I do not know if I will vote for her. But I will give her consideration before I place my vote. Perhaps, many of these haters should stop hating and give her a chance to be heard.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
President Obama vs. The Supreme Court
I did not watch the State of the Union speech last night. I had several other priorities. First, I was at church, where I am taking a Theology class (it is a 9-week course on the Trinity). Then, once we got home, we had to get the kids ready and sent to bed. After that, I watched the 2nd half of NCIS: Los Angeles, as I had fallen asleep Tuesday evening before the end of the show. Then, the season premiere of Psych was on. So I did have many other important priorities to attend to.
As I watched the news this morning to find out some of the more interesting things that the President said, I found out that he is not happy with the Supreme Court decision from last week that allows businesses and unions to spend as much money on political advertising as they deem appropriate, provided they do not give it to a candidate. I think I can understand why he does not like this decision - it does nothing to help him.
Yes, this is all about him and his chances of being re-elected in 2012. It also has some relationship to the mid-term elections later this year, but ultimately, to the President, it is all about him. If he does not have a Democrat Congress to help him out, then he will definitely have trouble enacting his agenda.
Since most businesses tend to lean Republican, the thought is that most of the benefit will be directed toward Republican candidates. While this is probably true, we cannot be certain that it will indeed happen this way. However, Democrats will benefit from this decision, as unions will now enjoy the same privileges that corporations will have when it comes to political advertising. And the unions are probably at least 90% Democrat in their endorsements (if not closer to 100%).
The President sees this decision as a threat to him because he had the advantage when it came to the media coverage (as the media is very pro-Obama and pro-progressive), as well as 501(c)3 contributions and endorsements. No longer, now, will he be able to have this advantage. The way I see it, this decision by the Supreme Court levels the playing field, it does not give the Republicans an advantage.
Also, this decision can act as an economic stimulus. How could that possibly be? Well, corporations will advertise and endorse candidates who they think will benefit them. They will go out to marketing firms and spend money on these advertisements, meaning greater income for the ad firms. Then, companies will need to purchase ad time on television, which benefits the cable companies and the networks (ad time is not free). The free flow of money for goods and services will benefit tremendously under this, but the President definitely does not want that to happen.
President Obama states that companies will now be buying elections (it is funny how he only mentions the corporations in his speeches - this Supreme Court decision benefits the unions in the same way). I am not sure about you, but I have never decided to vote for a candidate because of an advertisement. I am not that shallow. In fact, I do not know anyone who has made up his/her mind about a candidate based on an advertisement. I could care less which companies spend money on ads - I will continue to choose the candidate who I believe holds to the same values and principles that I have.
The cameras caught Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true" when President Obama started insulting and attacking the Supreme Court. The President obviously has no idea about constitutional law and why the Supreme Court made the decision it did. Now, the media is going to rail on Justice Alito, instead of taking Obama to task about attacking the Supreme Court.
Liberals attacked conservatives for years about simply questioning activist decisions by the Supreme Court, and the judicial system as a whole. Now, the President attacks the Supreme Court like no one has since FDR. Since Obama now knows that the people do not want his agenda and that our elected representatives want to be re-elected, then he must have the courts on his side to enact laws, because legislation is not going to be enacted.
We have separation of powers in this country, for a reason. The founders knew that one branch could not become more powerful than the others. Now, the President wants to intimidate one of the other branches of government to govern as he wants them to. This man is small, weak, partisan, and mean. I understand that he is the President. I may not like that, but I must accept that. But he needs to start acting like a President. Instead, he is acting like a playground bully.
As I watched the news this morning to find out some of the more interesting things that the President said, I found out that he is not happy with the Supreme Court decision from last week that allows businesses and unions to spend as much money on political advertising as they deem appropriate, provided they do not give it to a candidate. I think I can understand why he does not like this decision - it does nothing to help him.
Yes, this is all about him and his chances of being re-elected in 2012. It also has some relationship to the mid-term elections later this year, but ultimately, to the President, it is all about him. If he does not have a Democrat Congress to help him out, then he will definitely have trouble enacting his agenda.
Since most businesses tend to lean Republican, the thought is that most of the benefit will be directed toward Republican candidates. While this is probably true, we cannot be certain that it will indeed happen this way. However, Democrats will benefit from this decision, as unions will now enjoy the same privileges that corporations will have when it comes to political advertising. And the unions are probably at least 90% Democrat in their endorsements (if not closer to 100%).
The President sees this decision as a threat to him because he had the advantage when it came to the media coverage (as the media is very pro-Obama and pro-progressive), as well as 501(c)3 contributions and endorsements. No longer, now, will he be able to have this advantage. The way I see it, this decision by the Supreme Court levels the playing field, it does not give the Republicans an advantage.
Also, this decision can act as an economic stimulus. How could that possibly be? Well, corporations will advertise and endorse candidates who they think will benefit them. They will go out to marketing firms and spend money on these advertisements, meaning greater income for the ad firms. Then, companies will need to purchase ad time on television, which benefits the cable companies and the networks (ad time is not free). The free flow of money for goods and services will benefit tremendously under this, but the President definitely does not want that to happen.
President Obama states that companies will now be buying elections (it is funny how he only mentions the corporations in his speeches - this Supreme Court decision benefits the unions in the same way). I am not sure about you, but I have never decided to vote for a candidate because of an advertisement. I am not that shallow. In fact, I do not know anyone who has made up his/her mind about a candidate based on an advertisement. I could care less which companies spend money on ads - I will continue to choose the candidate who I believe holds to the same values and principles that I have.
The cameras caught Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true" when President Obama started insulting and attacking the Supreme Court. The President obviously has no idea about constitutional law and why the Supreme Court made the decision it did. Now, the media is going to rail on Justice Alito, instead of taking Obama to task about attacking the Supreme Court.
Liberals attacked conservatives for years about simply questioning activist decisions by the Supreme Court, and the judicial system as a whole. Now, the President attacks the Supreme Court like no one has since FDR. Since Obama now knows that the people do not want his agenda and that our elected representatives want to be re-elected, then he must have the courts on his side to enact laws, because legislation is not going to be enacted.
We have separation of powers in this country, for a reason. The founders knew that one branch could not become more powerful than the others. Now, the President wants to intimidate one of the other branches of government to govern as he wants them to. This man is small, weak, partisan, and mean. I understand that he is the President. I may not like that, but I must accept that. But he needs to start acting like a President. Instead, he is acting like a playground bully.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
A re-birth of conservatism?
The people of Massachusetts have finally awakened from their lengthy slumber. On Tuesday, Scott Brown was elected by the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to finish the Senatorial term of the now-deceased Ted Kennedy. This is quite a remarkable occurrence.
Ted Kennedy held this seat for 46 years. He was first elected in 1962, and the people of Massachusetts continued to send him back to the Senate every 6 years. He was a liberal stalwart in the Senate. Yet the people of Massachusetts chose to send a Republican to the Senate to take his place. In fact, his home town of Hyannis Port voted for Brown.
Kennedy was a spokesperson for many liberal ideas, including health care. Scott Brown spoke out against national health care in his campaign. It is almost a slap in the face to Ted Kennedy that the person taking his place campaigned against the main piece of legislation that he fought for over the last few years of his life. Also, it is worth noting that the people of Massachusetts, who have health care from the state, voted Brown into office. Are they now saying that they do not like (or want) government run insurance?
Anyway, there are a multitude of reasons that the Democrats lost this seat. 1) They took it for granted. Who would ever expect a Republican (much less one who is sort of conservative) to win in Massachusetts? 2) The Democrats chose a candidate that was not that remarkable and did not run a good campaign. She almost seemed not to care, as though she was going to win by default (see #1). 3) Democrats like to govern by polls, but still have no idea what the public sentiment actually is. They continued to push health care even though the majority of Americans do not want it. 4) Because of this, Democrats think that people do not really know what they want. The party insists on telling us that they know what we want.
But more than this, Democrats do not realize that when liberalism is up against conservatism in an election, conservatism will win. Whether it was Reagan, or Gingrich (The Contract With America), or George W. Bush (in 2000), conservatism wins when it faces liberalism. McCain's campaign was doing nothing against the Obama machine in 2008 until Sarah Palin got on board. Unfortunately, there were Republicans in the establishment that did not want Palin, because she was too conservative, so they tried to undercut her. They wanted the Republican party to be more moderate, to be more like Democrats and gain independent voters.
So, look what happened to the Republican Party: they became the minority party. People are not going to vote for Democrat-lite. Why bother voting to change parties in power when no real change will happen? It makes no sense. Conservatives did not show up to vote or they voted 3rd party because of the moderates that were nominated to represent the Republican party. Many of the Democrats in the house won because they were riding Obama's coattails, not necessarily because they were remarkable candidates. All people wanted was change - they did not care what it looked like.
Now, after a year in office, people are starting to see that Obama is not what he was built up to be. He made promises that he could not keep. In many cases, he lied. Unemployment is up. People are being taxed. The deficit is growing. Government is taking over businesses. And people are tired of all of this. They got their change, but it is not the type of change they wanted. And they are now suffering from buyer's remorse.
So, is the pendulum now swinging to the conservative side? In my opinion, it is too early to know for sure. But this election, along with the governor's race in New Jersey, are a good indicator that voter's sentiments seem to be in the middle of a paradigm shift right now.
We do know that when true conservatism is on the ballot, that it can, and usually does, win. People still do believe in conservative principles. However, I do caution conservative leaders to take nothing for granted. That is how the Democrats lost the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. Conservatives cannot put the message on cruise control. They need to keep the foot on the accelerator and push their conservative agenda to the American people.
Ted Kennedy held this seat for 46 years. He was first elected in 1962, and the people of Massachusetts continued to send him back to the Senate every 6 years. He was a liberal stalwart in the Senate. Yet the people of Massachusetts chose to send a Republican to the Senate to take his place. In fact, his home town of Hyannis Port voted for Brown.
Kennedy was a spokesperson for many liberal ideas, including health care. Scott Brown spoke out against national health care in his campaign. It is almost a slap in the face to Ted Kennedy that the person taking his place campaigned against the main piece of legislation that he fought for over the last few years of his life. Also, it is worth noting that the people of Massachusetts, who have health care from the state, voted Brown into office. Are they now saying that they do not like (or want) government run insurance?
Anyway, there are a multitude of reasons that the Democrats lost this seat. 1) They took it for granted. Who would ever expect a Republican (much less one who is sort of conservative) to win in Massachusetts? 2) The Democrats chose a candidate that was not that remarkable and did not run a good campaign. She almost seemed not to care, as though she was going to win by default (see #1). 3) Democrats like to govern by polls, but still have no idea what the public sentiment actually is. They continued to push health care even though the majority of Americans do not want it. 4) Because of this, Democrats think that people do not really know what they want. The party insists on telling us that they know what we want.
But more than this, Democrats do not realize that when liberalism is up against conservatism in an election, conservatism will win. Whether it was Reagan, or Gingrich (The Contract With America), or George W. Bush (in 2000), conservatism wins when it faces liberalism. McCain's campaign was doing nothing against the Obama machine in 2008 until Sarah Palin got on board. Unfortunately, there were Republicans in the establishment that did not want Palin, because she was too conservative, so they tried to undercut her. They wanted the Republican party to be more moderate, to be more like Democrats and gain independent voters.
So, look what happened to the Republican Party: they became the minority party. People are not going to vote for Democrat-lite. Why bother voting to change parties in power when no real change will happen? It makes no sense. Conservatives did not show up to vote or they voted 3rd party because of the moderates that were nominated to represent the Republican party. Many of the Democrats in the house won because they were riding Obama's coattails, not necessarily because they were remarkable candidates. All people wanted was change - they did not care what it looked like.
Now, after a year in office, people are starting to see that Obama is not what he was built up to be. He made promises that he could not keep. In many cases, he lied. Unemployment is up. People are being taxed. The deficit is growing. Government is taking over businesses. And people are tired of all of this. They got their change, but it is not the type of change they wanted. And they are now suffering from buyer's remorse.
So, is the pendulum now swinging to the conservative side? In my opinion, it is too early to know for sure. But this election, along with the governor's race in New Jersey, are a good indicator that voter's sentiments seem to be in the middle of a paradigm shift right now.
We do know that when true conservatism is on the ballot, that it can, and usually does, win. People still do believe in conservative principles. However, I do caution conservative leaders to take nothing for granted. That is how the Democrats lost the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. Conservatives cannot put the message on cruise control. They need to keep the foot on the accelerator and push their conservative agenda to the American people.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Top Conservatives in America
For those who know me, I am a Republican. But I am not just a Republican, I am a conservative Republican. Conservative is the key word. There are many Republicans in this country, but only a portion of them are conservative. Anyway, I came across a list last week of the 100 most influential conservative voices in America today. I found it fascinating that this list is from the UK Telegraph. I am not sure why the Brits feel the need to make this list, but I do find this list amusing, given some of the names that they put on the list.
Here is this list (along with some of my thoughts):
Here is this list (along with some of my thoughts):
- Dick Cheney
- Rush Limbaugh
- Matt Drudge - Internet gossip guy - Don't know about this one, but he should not be ranked this high
- Sarah Palin
- Robert Gates - Defense Secretary - I have no idea how he made this list
- Glenn Beck
- Roger Ailes
- David Petraeus
- Paul Ryan - Wisconsin Congressman
- Tim Pawlenty - Minnesota Governor
- Mitt Romey
- George W. Bush
- John Roberts - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
- Haley Barbour - Mississippi Governor and former head of the Republican Party
- Eric Cantor - Virginia Congressman
- John McCain - I cannot believe he is on this list, much less this high on the list. Where are his conservative credentials (in areas not associated with national defense)?
- Mike Pence - Indiana Congressman
- Bob McDonnell - Governor-elect of Virginia
- Newt Gingrich - I don't think he should be this high on the list. He has strayed from true conservatism over the past couple of years.
- Mike Huckabee - The Gomer Pyle of modern politics
- Andrew Breitbart - Another internet news guy - He should be ranked above Drudge.
- Bobby Jindal - Governor of Louisiana
- Sean Hannity
- Charles Krauthammer - Columnist and political commentator - He should be on the list, but this is too high of a ranking for him
- David Brooks - NY Times columnist - He is the token Republican on the NY Times editorial staff. He is a Republican, not a conservative. He has no business being on this list.
- Mark Levin - He should be rated much higher, especially after reading 2 of his books (Men in Black and Liberty and Tyranny) this past year.
- Mitch McConnell - Senate Majority Leader
- Laura Ingraham
- Joe Lieberman - Conservative? Really? This is one reason the Brits are not a player on the world stage.
- Antonin Scalia
- John Boehner
- Karl Rove
- David Frum - Writer
- Michael Steele
- Edwin Feulner - President, Heritage Foundation
- John Bolton - He should probably be higher up on this list
- Tom Coburn - Oklahoma Senator
- Rich Lowry - Editor, National Review Online
- Mitch Daniels - Indiana Governor
- John Thune - South Dakota Senator (and the guy who beat Tom Daschle)
- Ron Paul - Texas Congressman - I do not believe he belongs on this list.
- Michelle Malkin
- George Will
- Clarence Thomas
- Grover Norquist - President, Americans for Tax Reform
- Dick Morris - Strategist - I do not believe that Morris is a conservative. He is an excellent strategist with incredible insight and instincts, but not a conservative.
- Michael Savage - This guy is an idiot.
- Mary Matalin (the wife of James Carville, one of the most liberal idiots in the U.S.)
- Richard Lugar - Indiana Senator - He is too friendly with liberals, including the current administration.
- Carly Fiorina - Former head of HP and current contender for Barbara Boxer's senate seat - It is too early to tell on this one.
- Rick Perry - Texas Governor
- David Keene
- Kevin McCarthy - California Congressman
- Morton Blackwell
- Arnold Schwarzenegger - Conservative? He threw out any and all conservatism a long time ago.
- Alex Castellanos
- Steve Schmidt
- William Kristol
- Rudy Giuliani - Conservative on national defense and fiscal areas, liberal on social issues.
- Jon Voight - Actor
- Jeff Flake - Arizona Congressman
- Frank Luntz
- Jim DeMint - South Carolina Senator
- Chris Ruddy - Newsmax Founder and CEO
- Erick Erickson
- Victor Davis Hanson
- Joe Scarborough - This guy is an insult to conservatives and Republicans. He has thrown us under the bus after joining MSNBC, and he tries to redefine conservatism in his book.
- Paul Gigot
- Olympia Snowe - This one is laughable. She is the most liberal Republican in the Senate. She is practically a Democrat vote.
- Michael Barone - He has tremendous political insight. I do not think of him as a conservative, but rather a political wonk.
- Dick Armey
- Tucker Carlson
- Judd Gregg - New Hampshire Senator
- Ann Coulter
- James Dobson
- Jeb Bush
- Joe Wilson - South Carolina Congressman, famous for the "You Lie!" comment (which, by the way, was right on target)
- Meg Whitman - California gubernatorial candidate
- Lou Dobbs - More of a populist than a conservative
- Michelle Bachmann - Minnesota Congresswoman - She should probably be ranked higher, as she is one of the few Republicans who will actually stand up to the Democrat establishment.
- Marco Rubio - Florida Senatorial candidate
- Jack Keane
- Lindsey Graham - South Carolina Senator - He has become very moderate, and he backs amnesty for illegal aliens. He should not be on this list.
- Thomas Sowell
- Bill O'Reilly - Like Lou Dobbs, he is a populist, not a conservative.
- John Kasich - Ohio Gubernatorial candidate and former congressman
- Eric Odom
- Patriuck Ruffini
- Fred Thompson
- Tony Perkins
- Peggy Noonan - She should not be on this list. Just because she was a speech writer for Reagan does not give her the credentials to be on this list.
- Clifford May
- Charlie Crist - Florida Governor - He is becoming too moderate in order to win Florida Governor race.
- Jon Huntsman Jr.
- Liz Cheney
- R. Emmett Tyrrell
- Mark Thiessen
- Mike Murphy
- Tom DeLay
- Mark Sanford - South Carolina Governor - Really?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)