Sunday, August 30, 2009

Seeking to Understand 'Progressives': Service

From this point on I'll call what were formerly known as 'liberals,' 'progressives,' since it seems to be the currently preferred term. Over the past few years the word 'liberal' has taken on a decidedly negative slant, but in terms of political beliefs, it seems plain that 'progressive' is interchangeable with 'liberal.'

So what do Progressives seem to believe about service?

We can certainly stand on some common ground here. Service is doing and giving to help someone else, particularly someone in need. Right?

We can, I hope, also agree that service is good, though progressives might say that conservatives are heartless, despite the fact that recent studies show conservatives are far more charitable than progressives. Like 30% more, despite bringing home 6% less income.

The difference between conservatives and progressives lie mainly in beliefs on the role of government in service.

Progressives believe that government should step in and tax the populace to provide goods and services for the less fortunate.

Conservatives believe that doing so is not within the bounds for the federal government established by the Constitution, and that service is far better given on an individual, family, and community level. This is what I believe.

If you hadn't guessed my position on the issue by now, it might be a good idea for you to look through some of my recent blogs. But in case you're coming into my string of essays late, I'm a conservative. Probably more conservative than most.

But I'd like to state my reasons why I believe this way about service (You may freely interchange the word 'give' with 'serve' throughout this essay):
1. More than a conservative, I am a constitutionalist. I believe that among the many aspects of life in which there are absolutes (take mathematics, for example, and that normal healthy babies will cry when they're hungry, and that the sun will rise in the east), the Constitution carefully recognizes that the human family possesses certain absolute rights, and was carefully designed to protect those rights. In my essays on "Liberty and the Constitution," and "Equality," I talk about these rights. Read those essays if you need to. I'm not going to repeat all that here. Suffice it to say that I do not believe the Constitution at all qualifies the federal government to provide what are collectively called entitlements. The states on the other hand--that's arguable. And there are reasons for that, the most important one being that the state governments are far closer and more beholden to the people, with whom the ultimate power over government should lie.
2. By its very definition, service is a) voluntary and b) unpaid. Which leads to:
3. Service by compulsion is NOT service, and paid service is otherwise known as 'employment.' While both might be used to accomplish much good, neither can, by any definition of common sense, be called 'service.'
4. When we compel someone to serve, we rob that person of the privilege of service, whether they are willing or not.
5. When we compel someone who is UNWILLING to serve, we very egregiously rob that person of personal liberties, of the right to choose for himself how he will live his life, who and how (or even IF) he will choose to serve. Should we not be free to choose for ourselves whether we will be good men or, well, not so good?
6. Exchanging service for college credit or extra credit or makeup for missed classes is not service. Such actions constitute payment--and in some cases in which high schoolers must log service hours to avoid failing a class, compulsion.
7. It should be the right and privilege of every human being to render service anonymously, and by his or her own choosing.
8. The founders designed the Constitution with the intent that the ladder of service would work this way:
The first rung of service would be service to self--in other words, self-reliance, solve your own problems if at all possible.
The second rung of service is family--seek help from immediate and extended family if the problem cannot be solved on your own.
The third rung of service is church--if you and your family are unable to solve the problem appeal to your church for help, but only after you have exhausted the resources of the first two rungs.
The fourth rung of service is the community, town, city.
The fifth rung of service is the state.
There IS not higher rung of service. The federal government should NEVER become involved in the service ladder.


I've hinted at it before. Because the federal government is SO far up the ladder from the individual in need at the bottom of the ladder, a two-fold dilemma is created.

First, the individual at the bottom of the ladder appeals to an overly impersonal source for help, without properly realizing that the help really doesn't come from the federal government but from his neighbors who pay taxes. We see this over and over. We can see the damaging results of this sort of thing in the nation's slums. The only real good being done in our slums is being done by local efforts--local ministers and churches who minister in homeless shelters, school principles who go against the grain and implement policies that create a healthy and encouraging learning environment for needy children instead of simply housing them until they drop out, parents who strictly enforce curfews and behavior standards in their children, neighbors who mentor the children of single mothers. That's where the real successes are coming from. Think about it. If you had to go to your pastor for help, every time you sat in the congregation, every time the collection plate passed over your hands, you would be reminded exactly who was providing you with service. You would be sitting next to them, in front of them, behind them. You would necessarily have to look some of them in they eye. You would be unable to help feeling a sense of responsibility to those from whom your help cometh--to be Biblical.

Second, the government bureaucracies at the top of the ladder are so far removed from the individual at the bottom of the ladder, they have lost any capability of acting with a) compassion and b) enforcement of responsibility for those who are receiving the aid. In stark contrast, church provided service is almost sticky with compassion. It's personal. It's face to face. It changes lives for the better and encourages gratitude. With very few exceptions, you don't see that sort of thing at the government office welfare lines. What you see is demand, a feeling of entitlement, at best a feeling of resignment as even the most desperate and hopeful lose their naivete in the impersonal paperwork, and loss of respect and service they face at the doctor's office and the grocery store.

The top of the ladder is also FAR too distant from the people who must necessarily FUND these programs, causing resentment every time the tax bill comes, every time a paycheck shows a huge federal bite taken out of it for no apparent good reason. It doesn't matter if you're one of those people who are glad to hand over your money to the federal government. If you have even ONE neighbor who is not happy to do so, you are perpetuating his loss of liberty, his loss of self-determination. It's simple common sense. When I can take my money in my hand, feed those numbers into a budget, pass that money on to the grocer or the gas company, there is a feeling of empowerment and self-reliance. When I can see my money feeding my family, helping a neighbor in need, putting clothes on my children's backs, I feel considerably more secure and helpful than if I were to drop my money into a dark, bottomless well with the hope it will do some good. Because that's what the federal government is--a dark, bottomless well that takes all control, security, self-reliance, and confidence (not to mention the personal touch) away from the person who actually earns and, more importantly, gives the money. As it should, this dark well breeds resentment BECAUSE it results in insecurity.

As it should.

Because that's another area in which conservatives and progressives differ.

Conservatives believe (at least I believe) that it is the duty of every citizen to distrust our leaders enough that we will keep a sharp eye on their actions and remove them from office if they betray our trust.

My resources are taken by compulsion to give to 'charities' that I would not otherwise choose to support.

My trust is gone.

I'm watching.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

On Equality

The more I read and research, the more I begin to understand the Liberal mind.

Understand, mind you. Not empathize with.

I am beginning to understand how Liberals view the term 'equality.' In a twist of hypocrisy, equality seems to mean 'sameness' from a political philosophy that spouts 'diversity' from its lips like a fountain of poison.

I've also come to understand that there is no principle or tool sacred enough or good enough that it cannot and will not be twisted beyond recognition into something it was never intended to be, into something that delivers as much evil as it does good.

Television is a prime example. Philo T. Farnsworth's intent for TV was for it to be a tool for education. It is that. But as a source of entertainment it has brought untold societally destructive, mentally barren, emotionally disturbing content into our homes. Internet is another. As an amazing resource of information, the internet has allowed people to be informed in a way never dreamed of by Thomas Jefferson and co. What has become its single most popular use? Pornography.

The same warping of good THINGS can be done with good WORDS.

When the founders were drafting the Constitution and the Declaration, they chose their words carefully, often debating for hours or day on end over the wording of this phrase or that. They wanted these documents to be so clearly and concretely understood (concrete, not shifting sand the way liberals would like to convince themselves it is) that no one could possibly misinterpret what they intended. But language is language, and humans are humans. Language can be used to twist meanings, it can be abused and misinterpreted in any number of ways, especially as our language grows and expands well beyond the vocabulary of 222 years ago. And humans will always use language to twist those meanings to serve their own purposes or philosphies.

But the Constitution is not a document written on sand. It cannot be. Because there is one thing that never changes, that is as hard and lasting as diamond. That is Human Nature. And the Constitution must stand as a barrier to the nature of man to seek power and authority and tyranny.

Human nature, over and over, for thousands upon thousands of years, and still, and always, will lead men in power to abuse that power. And the larger and more powerful we make our government, by giving it more and more control over the daily administration of our lives, the more likely it is that our leaders will abuse that power, that tyranny will prevail, that freedoms will be lost. Is it happening?

Can you really deny that it is not? Can you name one aspect of your life in which the government, in one form or another is NOT involved?

The majority of our members of congress are so far removed from the lives and loves and needs and wants of the people they serve, they cannot possibly govern us effectively. Ted Kennedy never held a private sector job. He never served in the military. He lived his life either in public office or sequestered on Kennedy family properties. He is an example of the loss of actual equality in this country.

Equality. What is it? ARE all men created EQUAL?

In one aspect it's a ridiculous statement. All you have to do is look around you, at your neighbors and friends, your church congregation, at the grocery store. Obviously we're not equal. We plainly have differences in natural skills and physical attributes, development, emotional stability, strength, intelligence, self-motivation. For the most part these attributes are innate, but can be manipulated and developed through hard work.

But in these, people CANNOT be equal. We can't force citizen A, who lacks the genetics for large muscle development, to go to the gym more so he'll be as strong as citizen B wo has the right genes. We can't force a guy with the mental capacity of a 6-year-old to learn calculus. But we could, it seems, force things in the other direction. We COULD force the muscular guy into a sedentary lifestyle so he becomes as weak as the other. We could fail to educate or even surgically remove the ability of the mathematician to use calculus.

And in a way isn't that what we're doing? Isn't that what the President wants? He calls it 'spreading the wealth.' He is taking the achievement of the productive and giving it to the non productive to create his version (the liberal version) of equality.

But this is not the equality to which the Declaration and the Constitution refer. This is NOT and should not be the goal of society. Such a definition of equality gives 'rights' to some at the expense of the Rights of others to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The equality guaranteed by the Constitution and by God is this:

Equal in the sight of God (and the meaning and implementation of that is God's alone);
Equal in the sight of the law;
Equal in the protection of their rights (Don't lose sight of what they are--Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.)

Equal Justice before the law, NOT equal advantages throughout life. Equal opportunity, NOT equal results.

To remain a free society, we must be equal, ALL of us:
'at the bar of justice'
'at the ballot box' (unless you're a member of a union that refuses the right of secret ballot)
'in educational opportunity' (NOT educational provision)
'in the oppportunity for employment' (again, NOT provision of employment)
'in practicing religion'
'in expressing our views'
'in the press'
'at public and government meetings'
'in the opportunity to purchase goods and services'
'in the opportunity to prosper as a result of our own labors'
'in taxation'
'to protect and defend our lives and property'

(Let's take a moment here to distinguish between 'opportunity' and 'provision,' which are two words liberals often lump together. 'Opportunity' means that the option is there IF you are willing to work hard enough for it. Every person in this country has the opportunity to become fabulously wealthy if they are willing to do what it takes to get themselves there--which means a LOT of personal study, hard work, sacrifice, and risk. Not everyone is willing, therefore not everyone is entitled. 'Provision' means to provide for. We do NOT have a responsibility to provide education or health care or welfare to anyone. We do have the responsibility to provide everyone with equal access to the opportunity, through personal study, hard work, sacrifice, and risk, to provide these things for themselves.)

The Bill of Rights were specifically written to make it quite clear which rights were viewed as protected by the equality statement, because there were members of the delegation who were anxious--and rightly so--that these basic rights might not be interpreted as such in the wording of the Constitution if not explicitly stated so.

So how are we doing? Are we all equal before the law?

As an example, Teddy Kennedy murdered a girl in 1969 but was charged only with 'leaving the scene of an accident.' If the exact same thing had happened to Joe Q. Public, he would have been charged with crimes ranging from drunken driving, to vehicular homicide.

Another example, President Obama has repeatedly chosen people to fill his cabinet who have been found to be tax cheats. After claiming 'errors' in their tax preparation methods, they went on with life (some being appointed anyway) without even a slap on the wrist from the IRS. Would that happen to us?

Liberals like to claim that we have a right to health care. How equal are we in that arena? Congress enjoys premium health care and retirement benefits that they have no intention of extending to the American people. (Never mind that they are Constitutionally forbidden from even attempting to do so.)

How equal are we in what Congress does and what they expect of us?

Al Gore is a fine example of the hypocrisy of our elected leaders. While not currently in office, he exemplifies so very many who are. He wants to see massive legislation enacted that would severely limit our freedom as consumers and homeowners in the name of the environment, but does he live by these restrictions himself as an example to all of what we can do? No. His estate in Tennessee is one of the largest single users of both water and electricity in that state. He drives huge gas-guzzling SUVs and pruchases 'carbon credits' to 'offset' his groteque wastefulness.

Oh, yes, my friends. THAT's equality. Pfsh!

I don't want to leave you with the impression that I hate the rich. I don't. I actually love the rich. Because of the rich my husband has a job, I have a home, my children have clothes on their backs and the refrigerator is full. Because of the rich I have hope that someday, if I work hard enough, I can be rich, too. Because of the rich, this country has progressed from a backwoods agrarian economy to the most vibrant and innovative nation in history.

No. I don't hate the rich.

I hate hypocrisy.

In speaking of equality, my liberal friends will be quick to point out the lack of equality provided for in the Constitution for women and slaves.

My answer is this:

Equality for ALL was in the constitution well before votes for women or freedom for slaves were specifically enacted. In an unfortunate irony, a level of freedom never before seen on earth occurred at the expense of the perpetuation of slavery. It was a sacrifice for which we honor those slaves who suffered for an additional 80 years in order that freedom might ring for others and create a nation that would provide their descedants with an unprecedented level of freedom, unknown by their African relatives throughout the world even today. Without the slavery compromise, the Constitution, even the United States, would never have come to be.

On voting, the original voting law--in a society in which the smallest unit of society was the family, rather than the individual as it is today--called for one vote per household, with the husband or some adult male of the house being the one who would cast the vote.

On the surface it sounds sexist, and in a way I suppose it was for those few women who were actual heads of household.

But consider this: If your vote depended on a discussion of the issues with the members of your household before that vote was cast, how much more informed would we necessarily HAVE to be as a voting public?

I would also argue that the era of family, as opposed to our current era of the individual, most women enjoyed a greater familial relationship with their husbands, and would never have considered that their rights were being compromised or that their husbands were abusing their husbandly power in casting the household vote. I would argue that women enjoyed considerably more respect from their husbands in those times than now, that families who must, by necessity, work for a common cause are more strongly united in every way, and that the right of a woman to vote individually would have been an almost completely irrelevant point. I would argue that we have far digressed as a society when we have the need for individual votes for women. I would treasure the necessity of sitting down with my husband and family and discussing the issues, studying the facts and politicians, before deciding upon and casting our family vote.

Friday, August 28, 2009

On Liberty and the Constitution

It seems these days that Liberty isn't spoken of much.

No wonder so many are willing to give it up for the shadowy sense of security they believe government control over health care, industry, and welfare offers. They don't even know what Liberty is, let alone what it means to their ways of life, their pasts, their futures.

So let's talk about Liberty. Capital L Liberty.

The founders, in their wisdom and from their vast stores of knowledge (to tell you the truth, folks, they'd put today's college graduates to shame with the level of learning they had achieved by age 16 or so) declared that humankind, merely by existing, possesses three rights--Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--and that these rights are granted not by man, but by God, or by the cosmos, or by existence itself if you're an atheist.

Life is easily explained. We have the right to physical existence, and anyone who takes a life NOT in defense of his OWN life violates the right of another. Since God grants us life AND the power to create new life, I believe that this right extends to the unborn as well, and that abortion is acceptable when the mother's right to life is in danger or when her Liberty has been violated through rape or incest.

The Pursuit of Happiness is probably the least easily explained of the three. According to the founders, as INTENDED by the founders, we define the Pursuit of Happiness as the Liberty to live in the style to which we can achieve through the free exercise of living, working, buying, selling, loving, worshipping, etc. A simple but effective explanation is "the freedom to buy, the freedom to sell, the freedom to try, the freedom to fail." It does NOT mean that happiness is guaranteed. It does NOT mean that happiness is dependent upon anyone (or anyone's efforts) but ourselves. The Pursuit of Happiness is, by the founders, tied heavily with the attainment and manipulation of property--including not only realty, but anything we create or purchase or develop. We could, theoretically, include skills and education. Anything that we earn or produce through our own efforts is our property.

Now on to Liberty. What is liberty? Another term for it might be Agency. It is the right to self-determination. The right to make our own choices. It is ALSO the right to either benefit from or be punished by the consequences for those choices. Consequences are consequences. They can be good or bad.

Choice à Consequence.

Consequence is more understandable in light of Newton's Third Law: To every action there is an equal and opposite REaction. Every choice we make has a consequence. Sometimes it may SEEM that the consequence is disproportionate to the choice (for example, a paper cut hurts WAY worse than it really ought to and sometimes people don't get paid as much as they're worth, and often child molesters get off WAY too easy), but for the most part it all evens out in the end. You must admit, however, that if you make a BIG mistake, you pay BIG consequences. Murder gets you a lifetime in jail or potentially execution. This is called justice, and justice dictates that Newton's Third Law will be fulfilled completely. Is it always? Not always in this life or sphere of existence, and not always in ways that are apparent to us. But Newton's Law is always fulfilled.

It is upon this principle that our justice system is founded, and it is upon this principle that our justice system should operate. Does it always? No. Because people are imperfect. Should we completely overhaul the justice system to make up for the shortfall. No. The SYSTEM is as humanly perfect as it can be. It's not the system that fails. It's the people IN the system. We can't take out the people. We have to work with them and make the best of things.

It is also upon the principle of Liberty that our Constitution was written.

Don't be stupid enough to make the mistake of believing that the Constitution was written primarily to establish government. Government was a given. The founders KNEW they needed government. Government is a necessary evil that has existed in some form or another since the very dawn of man (and I'm talking WAY before the Mesopotamians) for the very purpose of protecting Life (Og the Caveman led his people in protecting themselves from Grog the Caveman and HIS clan), Liberty (Og the Caveman knew that his people needed to NOT be Grog the Caveman's slaves), and the Pursuit of Happiness (Og the Caveman knew that his people needed to prosper as much as possible to survive, so he set up a system by which his people knew when and where to hunt and fish--all while staying away from Grog the Caveman's hunting and fishing grounds).

But government, because it is administered by imperfect men (meaning humans), is a dangerous thing. Men (meaning humans) are greedy and ambitious and idealistic. They often neglect to think with the parts of their brains that enlist restraint. They DO use those parts of their brains that help them justify their decisions.

As a writer I've learned that the best bad guys in stories are the ones who believe with their whole hearts that their cause is just, that they rape, steal, murder, and oppress for the good of someone or other--not just themselves. They are convinced that raping, stealing, murdering, and oppressing are crucial to the survival of their nation/way of life/philosophy, therefore they are justified--and they're usually REALLY good at convincing others of their rightness. Hitler was fervent in his zeal that what he was doing was not only right but ordained by God. There are STILL people living in Germany who love their Fuhrer. Saddam Hussein, too. Even crazy Nero. No man acts purely out of evil. They act out of conviction. It's just that sometimes that conviction runs counter to what is good and right and just--to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

With that in mind, let's turn back to the Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States was written to put restraints on government, to prevent government from interfering with the Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness of the people. Talk about conviction. These crazy bunch of guys actually believed this document was a model and example for the whole world! Imagine! Liberty for everyone!! What a concept.

At any rate, after 222 years, what have we done with their efforts?

We have become the most prosperous and safe and free society this world has ever seen. Ever. Bar none.

However, we have digressed a long way from the original intent of the document. Far enough that the Constitution itself is in imminent danger of splintering into a pile of useless fragments that mean nothing to an ill-informed and government-dependent people.

The federal government has SO far overstepped the bounds established for it by the Constitution and the founders that it is in real danger of morphing into a tyranny--if it has not done so already.

So the question is posed--are we a Constitutional nation or are we not? Do we believe that the Constitution is the greatest document produced by man or do we not? Do we believe that our nation is the greatest in the world or do we not? Do we believe in the principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness or do we not?

If the answer to these questions is NOT, then it is time to simply scrap the Constitution and replace it with whatever we might think is better. I personally don't think our present system is significantly better than what was drafted in 1787. (Many will say that the amendments that provided freedom to the slaves and voting rights for all are an improvement, but, in reality, they weren't needed. They were already in there, just not lived by the people the way they should have been.) In fact, I think the way our government operates today is SO far from what the founders intended as to make the Constitution almost unrecognizable. So why NOT scrap it?

Because it's good, and it's right, and living closely to its precepts will make us safer, free-er and more prosperous than anything else on earth.


The question to ask yourself is this:

Do I enjoy more or less personal liberty than my grandparents did? Think this over carefully before you decide. The answer does not depend on whether your life is easier than your grandparents'. Ease of life is not a measure of liberty. Think about the regulations you must operate under at every turn. The fees and taxes you pay for services you would not buy for yourself if it were left to you. Think of the things you can and cannot do on or with your own property.

Are you free-er?

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

A Writer's Joke

Loved this one. Found it at a fellow writer's blog:

How many screenwriters does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer: Ten.
1st draft. Hero changes light bulb.
2nd draft. Villain changes light bulb.
3rd draft. Hero stops villain from changing light bulb. Villain falls to death.
4th draft. Lose the light bulb.
5th draft. Light bulb back in. Fluorescent instead of tungsten.
6th draft. Villain breaks bulb, uses it to kill hero’s mentor.
7th draft. Fluorescent not working.Back to tungsten.
8th draft. Hero forces villain to eat light bulb.
9th draft. Hero laments loss of light bulb. Doesn’t change it.
10th draft. Hero changes light bulb.

Hypocrisy and Lies Today: President Gremlin

Remember when candidate Obama promised he would air negotiations with drug companies on C-SPAN? Remember when he demonized the drug companies and their executives?

Well this week he climbed into bed with one of the most 'evil' of them all [according to him] in a secret, behind-doors deal.

And the best part? It's not just the 'ultra-right-wing-sick-twisted-freak-paranoid-weirdos' who are reporting it.

Greg Powell reported on the deal on Air America--an undeniably liberal news organization.

A couple of choice quotes from Powell:

"It took an investigative reporter from the LA Times to discover that there were secret meetings, secret negotiations, by Barack Obama's people, with the big drug companies, and they had a deal that there would be an 80 billion dollar chop in the prices by the drug company [Me: a whopping 2.2% price cut, by the way], and it was a deal in secret. Billy Tauzin, the guy who Barack Obama, during the campaign, said 'this guy's a creep, we won't deal with him,' that was they guy they shook hands with, and when I say 'shook hands' that ain't metaphorical. It was a backroom deal..."

"First of all, it makes me puke that we've just been 'Cheneyed' by a guy named Barack Obama, who said we would never do this. It would be on C-SPAN [March 2008, Ohio]. And it wasn't on C-SPAN. And rather than fess up and say, "I did the wrong thing; I had secret negotiations," even with the guy he said he would never talk to, Billy Tauzin, it was like...[no relevant text omitted, just stumbling over words at this point]...every line was crossed."

"I'm going to say something that should light up your lines. What if the people out there screaming and breaking up discussion at town meetings are correct? What if you have a situation in which you have secret meetings being held by the President, it's the absolute fascist nightmare, because fascism is defined as government combining with corporate powers to impose their profit-making regime on us?"

The interviewer sums up the deal this way: "The drug industry's agreeing to give us a future savings of 80 billion dollars as long as Obama promises that we won't negotiate to lower drug prices, which was what we were asking for in health care reform, which was to lower drug prices. He's cut this deal saying, 'Hey, if you give us a little bit of savings, we'll keep the drug prices high.' That doesn't sound right."

Hmm. Some of us who voted against Obama kind of had niggling thoughts that maybe this guy wasn't what he seemed. Some of us even warned the rest of you that he was REALLY not what he seemed, that America would suffer for putting him in office [and don't even get me STARTED on the deficit]. The interviewer on this particular interview with Powell at one point said: "He's such a...a charming liar, though. [giggling]"

Yes he is that. Charming. AND a liar. A likeable villain. As a writer, he's exactly the kind of bad guy you hope to create. But guess what. He's still a bad guy. He'll still try to take over the world, or kill off the hero. He's the perfect Gremlin, and he's asking you to feed him after midnight. Fortunately, we can hurt him by exposing him to light. Light is truth and knowledge. Unfortunately there are those who will deny he's been fed, will deny what he really is, and will still see the cute little furball they hoped for and will keep watering him and his comrades so they continue to multiply unchecked by anything close to common sense. Maybe now instead of talking about being 'Cheneyed' we can talk about being 'Obama-ed.'

[For those of you too young to get the reference, follow this link: ]

If you're interested in viewing the montage video [complete with video of Obama telling his lies] put together by Naked Emporor News--yes, a conservative outlet--go here:

Funny, in the background on this video you'll see a message from one of Obama's campaign commercials. The message, shown over Obama's voice, says, "Barack Obama is the only candidate who refuses Washington lobbyist money and passed the strongest law yet to curb lobbyist power," all while talking about Billy Tauzin and the evil money grubbing drug companies. Hmm.

Could it be he takes lobbyist money? HE just does it under the table?

A relevant quote from Bugs Bunny: "Mmmmmmmmmm. Could be!"

Wake up, America, and do something.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Hypocrisy Today: Are you a Patriot or UnAmerican?

In 2003, during the Bush administration, Liberal Democart Senator Hillary Clinton said that is our Patriotic right and duty to protest a government whose policies we disagree with.

This week, during the Obama administration, Liberal Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that those who protest and/or disgree with the government drive toward socialized medicine are UnAmerican.

The press likes to interview Americans who speak out against this government, or who *gasp* even demand detailed answers as to what they're up to on Capitol Hill, making it almost a sport to make those brave enough to disagree look as stupid as possible, taking great care to dig into the pasts and presents of regular, Main-street Americans to discredit them. You certainly didn't see this sort of thing during the Bush administration--unless of course they agreed with the President.

Late-night comedians who used to rib at the Republican president a year ago, have no comparable ribbing to bestow upon their favored son, Democrat Barack Obama.

The Constitution guarantees us the right to free speech.

"That's OK," say the powers on high. "Let them speak. We'll make their speech irrelevant by mocking it and demeaning it until they quit speaking altogether. We'll laud and honor and encourage those who do so. We'll reap the fruits of political correctness to push forward our agenda without so much as a whimper."

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Hyposcrisy Today: Congress Buys Itself 2 New Jets

I had to dig pretty deep to find a source for this story that would satisfy the more left-leaning folk who may come across this post.

It's reported high and low among conservative columnists and bloggers.

But ABC News did manage to get it out, hiding it on the fifth or sixth Google page I perused.

Here's the link:

Be sure to read the whole thing. You have to slide down beyond a bar of ads to get to the rest of the story.

Now, let's compare. This is from November when the Big 3 auto execs were verbally slapped for arriving in Washington on private jets to ask for taxpayer money:

It says in the latter article the auto companies have policies in place requiring their top execs to travel by private jet for 'safety' reasons. I can see that. I really can. They're the leaders of some of the biggest corporations in America, who directly employ thousands upon thousands of people and whose industry indirectly employs millions more. They are at the head of a juggernaut that helps, to a large degree, keep America going. It doesn't bother me that they fly in corporate jets.

Apparently it bothered congress. It bothered congress that these auto execs used private company money to purchase these jets and to pay for the flight to Washington. It bothered ME that they flew to Washington at all, but that's another matter.

But it DOESN'T bother congress to use PUBLIC money, your money and my money, to buy themselves a couple of their own private jets. Heck, it's just a couple hundred million dollars tagged onto an already approved expenditure. Right? It's not their money anyway. Right? What difference does it make when we're talking about TRILLIONS. Right? Heck, if we're buying one for the Pentagon, why not throw in a couple for us! Right? If auto execs aren't important enough to fly commercial, Congressmen certainly aren't.

Congress, my friends, is corrupt, on both sides of the aisle, in the vast majority of individuals, and it's high time we the people opened our eyes to that fact. It's high time we use our power to fix this rather egregious error.

Our duty as citizens of this nation is to MISTRUST those who seek and hold political office, to MISTRUST the looming shadow of government, and by this mistrust, keep the government checked and balanced. Because despite the great cares taken by the founders to provide the government with its own checks and balances, they knew it wouldn't hold without the people to make the executive and legislative branches of government honest.

With but a very few exceptions, they're as honest and thieves and Pharisees.

Monday, August 3, 2009

The Beer Summit--My View

The photo-op:

The impression: (Officer Crowley is not in this actual photo. He's the squirrel in the tree. Kudos to him for rightfully sticking to his guns and not caving to the pressure.)