The Democrat Defector

2010-02-18T18:04:00.006-05:00

Short & Sweet

Here in Pittsburgh we are suffering the crippling effects of a massive snowstorm that hit the area nearly a week and one half ago. And that has been followed by a series of persistent smaller storms.

Predictably, the hue and cry from the poorer neighborhoods is that they always seem to get their streets plowed last. For once (shockingly) I agree with them!

There is a very good reason for this; since municipalities seem to run on a tax base, their priority is to plow the roads in the nicer neighborhoods and the business districts, because they are the major support for their tax base! (i.e., the tax payers!)

For years I have been forced to listen to the regurgitated drivel from the left largely based on a quote that was wrongly (or at least contextually wrongly) applied to Leona Helmsley "Only poor people pay taxes."

I am not going to waste this valuable space debating the wrongness of that sentiment. The fact is, that the poor in America pay very little, if any in taxes. When adjusted for the goods and services they receive under the auspices of 'charitible' government programs and tax-breaks (shudder), unlike the real tax payers, they actually end up getting more from the system than they contribute to the system. Often times much more!

Facts is stubborn things folks! So in spite of the rhetoric (which in liberal quarters seldom bears any resemblance to the truth) If you are poor, in terms of what you take from the system as compared to what you contribute to the system, you have a pretty good deal in America!

So the next time it snows, you can guage what you contribute by in what order and how long it takes the plows to clear your street!

2009-03-01T07:20:00.012-05:00

Pro-Choice

Any Christian who understands the Word of God, and their role in the will of God, understands one thing clearer than anything else; God is pro-choice!

Now before you have a fit, please understand that I am not aligning myself with those who think that pro-choice means that a woman has or should have the unalienable right to terminate a pregnancy, based on her set of values.

What I am referring to when I say pro-choice is free will, the God given gift to mankind whereby we can choose our ultimate destiny; heaven or hell.

We must all back up from the brink, and try to understand that life and choice are gifts from God that go hand in hand in preparation for our ultimate destiny, and that any group, individual or system of government that would take or deny either gift is considered evil because they would usurp an authority that is divinely given to each of us; in short, they are attempting to play God!

Admittedly, those of us who call ourselves 'pro-lifers' cannot say with absolute scientific certainty exactly when life does begin. We believe based upon faith that life does begin at conception.

What the other side fails to admit or consider is that they can no more determine when life begins with absolute scientific certainty than we can.

Now if that is true, doesn't logic dictate that we have a fall-back or default position that says "Since neither side can prove or disprove when life begins, until and if such a time a conclusive determination can be made, conception must be considered the beginning of a human life?"

I find it interesting that the same folk who postulate that the finding of water on a distant planet could have meant that 'life' may have existed there, and get all excited about the possibility that a single celled organism might have once 'lived' there, but would not consider the intricate and complex choreography (intelligent design) that takes place at conception to be worthy of at least that level of esteem!

I am pro-choice then. I believe in the right that the great 'Intelligent Designer' has given to all human beings, and that is the right to exist, and once here, the right to make choices for their life!

Therefore, the ultimate 'pro-choice' position is that every human being, regardless of age, sex, religion, health, color, delivered or undelivered must have the choice to live or die; it must be their choice!

That is how we view things as Christians. That life is about free will, the exercise of that free will, and the consequences of the choices we make in the natural, and in the spiritual.

And anyone who would seek to deny or deprive any human being of that right is no pro-choicer and likely is no Christian, regardless of what they may call themselves.

2009-02-25T06:52:00.006-05:00

Opportunity and Choice

A little over a year ago, I wrote a tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In it, I reminded us of the values he espoused, and encouraged us to remember; values that are uniquely American.

The most prominent of those values was the notion that the only thing we truly owed each other as American brothers and sisters were the belief in and support of Liberty, and Justice. And that if we concerned ourselves with those values, both for ourselves, and all of our American brothers and sisters, this would be the more perfect union the founding fathers envisioned.

I wrote that part of Dr. King's legacy was to help ensure that every American had an equal opportunity through the impartial application of Justice, and the inalienable right to Liberty to partake in the American Dream. But the key was equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

It is a lesson that is re-enforced to me in my faith as a Christian. The notion that God loves all of us, and He sent His son so that we might all have an equal opportunity to make it to heaven. We now have that opportunity through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.

People (generally on the left) are all too quick to point out that outcome-based forced religion ala the Crusades or the Iquisition was a bad idea, and I would agree with them for the most part.

My question is then, how could those same people hold the position that outcome-based forced education and employment (quotas) and wealth re-disribution (great society and entitlement programs) are a good idea? You cannot force people to be successful any more than you can force them to go to heaven!

Sadly, a great many will not make it to heaven, and the only reason they will not is that they have made the choice through the exercise of free will, not to accept the opportunity Christ has provided for them. That is the bottom line- if one does not make it to heaven, it will have been by one's own exercise of free choice. The opportunity is there for everyone!

That is the message that Dr. King was trying to get across to all Americans. Our job should be to break down barriers to success and achievement, to ensure that all Americans have equal opportunity to succeed in life. It is not nor should it be our goal to ensure each other's success.

The left in this country is famous for its advocacy of the so-called 'pro-choice' position when it comes to the issue of abortion. (I must state here that I believe that 'pro-choice' is anything but pro-choice, but I will save that for another blog) I find it ironic (hypocritical) that these same folk would through social engineering force one group to 'succeed' and force another group to underwrite it, and not understand that what they are doing is removing choices from both groups!

For the first group, they decide (arbitrarily) what 'success' should be for them, and then they engineer it for them and force them to accept it. For the latter group, they determine that their 'success' mandates they must underwrite the success plans for the former, and to what degree (arbitrarily) they must underwrite it, and then force them to underwrite it by means of a confiscatory tax scheme.

I would find it laughable, if it were not for the seriousness of the matter, that anyone who would dare to call themselves 'pro-choice' would deny so many of their fellow Americans so many choices in their lives.

For the poor, they are denied the choice to succeed in life through their own merit or drive. For the rich, they are denied the choice to give of their time and/or treasure as they see fit. Having that choice is real charity.

I believe Dr. King understood as a minister and as a citizen, that life and afterlife have consequences, and those consequences are based on the choices we make with the opportunities we have.

There is one more group that the left is denying opportunities to, and that is the unborn children. If the left were really pro-choice, shouldn't the unborn child have an opportunity too?

2008-12-23T18:05:00.016-05:00

Why don't you just ask me?

I returned recently from a trip to Atlanta, where much of our family had gathered to have funeral services for a deceased family member.

I was asked to go to present the eulogy, and it was my honor to do so.

The night before the service, several of the ladies gathered in the kitchen area of my cousin's home, while I reclined in the adjoining den to watch some college football games.

They were for the most part a liberal group, and I knew the subject of the recent presidential election would come up and had no problem with that. I just made up my mind that I would stay out of such discussions and keep my politics to myself.

Well, my cousin from out of town, (not the hostess) an unabashed liberal, couldn't wait to bring up Obama's victory. And as if victory wasn't enough with her, I had to sit there and listen to her lead a parade of hate for anything and anyone conservative.

While the general consensus of the group was anti-conservative if not stauchly pro-liberal, this un-named ring leader, who was very aware of my political leanings, as well as my presence in the other room, brought up the subject of the election as a pretext to take shots at me. She took the opportunity to get in dig after dig, most of which if not all aimed at me (based on our political conversations in the past) in what can only be described as an act of cowardice on her behalf.

Cowardice because she did not want a debate, she wanted to bash!

Cowardice not because of her opinions; for I have always welcomed opinions different from mine. No, the cowardly part was that she knew that I would absolutely refuse to be drawn into a discussion of political issues with liberals, most especially her because I have found that facts and logic do not matter to her. Reason has no quarter within her in a debate. She does not even want to debate in fact. She wants me and others to listen to her point of view, and then as far as she is concerned, the 'discussion' is over. And by the way, she will not hesitate to let me or anyone know how unenlightened she thinks an opinion different from hers is.

Cowardice, because armed with the knowledge that I have told her that I will not discuss politics with her because of the personal invective she has used toward me in the past when discussing politics, and the fact that she was surrounded by a sympathetic left-leaning crowd (I was outnumbered); she felt quite emboldened to launch into her, conservative bashing, fact-lacking tirades, quite smug in her belief that I would not argue with her.

Cowardice because, she was not the least bit interested in a dissenting opinion. If she was, she knew full well that I was within earshot, and could have asked.

No she was perfectly happy in going on hour after hour with an endless critique of all things conservative... and I had to sit there and take it like a man!

I listened to her opinion of conservatives and conservatism. Oh she had us all figured out for the heartless crooks and evil people she believes us to be.

Now my aunts and cousins were not aware of my political leanings. They unlike the coward, are people of integrity for the most part, who would not have let things go on like that at the risk of being offensive to me.

Not that they would not have made their opinions known, but they most certainly would not have gone on like that knowing I was one of the conservatives being lambasted. I'm sure they would have let it go only so far, and then changed the subject. And at the very least they would have inquired as to why I was a conservative; we would have had some back and forth of opinions; they may well have expressed their disagreement and even a little disappointment or disapproval, had they known my beliefs. That is their right, and we would have agreed to disagree.

They did not know my politics,...but the coward did! And the coward was only too happy to encourage the conversation go on and on, while I sat there in miserable silence.

Liberals love to tout how sensitive they are to other's feelings. I wonder if she would have gone on like that if instead of a conservative sitting in the other room, a white person was there; or a handicapped person; or a person of another faith instead?

Intolerance? I have travelled far and wide in this nation and have seen intolerance in many incantations and incarnations. But liberals take the proverbial cake with their brand because it masquerades itself as anything but!

I do not care what side of the political spectrum one is on, you are intolerant if you cannot stand the fact that someone disagrees with you! Or if they have an opinion of their own; or if you consider them unenlightened, un or under educated, brainwashed, or not too bright for having a different opinion!

If the old saying "Can we just agreee to disagree." is just a mindless platitude to you, check your 'control-freakometer' because you may be red-lining (no pun intended)! And you probably are a liberal!

2008-11-02T07:22:00.007-05:00

What if?

A friend of mine recently sent me an e-mail entitled "What if?". It went on to ask basically what if John McCain were black, and Barak Obama were white? On the surface it was asking an innoccuous enough question; Would we hold similar views of each man if their colors were differnt?

What the tenor and tone of the questions amounted to however, was an ad hoc, ad hominem attack, rather than thoughtful consideration of what could have been a useful exercise.

So I responded with some 'what ifs' of my own.

"What if it was McCain who had questionable ties to terrorists & terrorist organizations? What if the LA Times had proof of this, and refused to release and/or report on it?

What if it was McCain who was allegedly born in Hawaii, and the Governor sealed his records until after the election?

What if it was McCain who was editor of the Harvard Review, yet none of his editorials or opinions were now available for scrutiny?

What if it was McCain who preached "spread the wealth" yet had a brother in Kenya living off of less that $1 per month, and an Aunt in Boston living in the projects?

What if the president of Kenya sealed off any records about McCain and his family until after the elections?

What if it was McCain who broke his promise on funding his campaign, out spending His two predecessors combined?

What if it was McCain who was a proponent of the so-called "fairness doctrine", then bought air time on all the major networks for a 1/2 hour infomercial, without inviting his opponent(s) to have equal time; out of fairness, of course?

What if an average "Joe American" (plumber, carpenter, etc.) was vetted more than McCain, simply for asking the candidate a question? (the poor guy had his life ripped open for simply asking how Obama's tax proposals might affect him.) This from a guy who won't even let us verify his birth credentials?

What if it was McCain's pastor, (who married him, and blessed his children, clearly demonstrating an ongoing if not intimate relationship) who preached hate and diviseveness for over twenty years, and McCain said when pressed about their relationship, 'he didn't know the man?' (I wonder if Obama denied Rev. Wright 3X before the rooster crowed?)

What if it was McCain instead of Obama who described the US Constitution as an "imperfect (flawed) document"?

What if it was McCain who is the Socialist?

What if, instead of wrecking planes, McCain just wrecked the economy? This mortgage mess is nothing more than the results of liberals forcing banks to lend money to otherwise unqualified 'borrowers' in an attempt at social engineering. (I know, because I was in the mortgage industry!)

The bottom line is this; I cannot and will not vote for a socialist. I do not mean this as a pejorative; that is simply what the man is.

As a student of history, I cannot find a single incident where socialism has worked to elevate the condition of mankind; in fact, if history teaches us anything, it is that generally the exact opposite is true!

That is why I will not vote for a socialist. That is more important to me than where he/she went to school, who they are or were married to, the color of their skin or any other false measuring stick!

I want to know if they are a person of faith, (one cannot do that job alone), do they believe in the constitution, and do they believe that the federal government ought to be as small and un-intrusive into citizens lives as possible.

I want to know if they have respect for states rights, and individual rights, and have a respect for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and really understand and hold to the view of the Declaration of Independence that such rights are derived from God, not government.

I want them to understand that "Love thy Neighbor" is a call to responsibility on a personal level, that can best be addressed on a local and if need be state level, but not from Washington DC!

I want them to understand that re-dristributing wealth, or 'spreading the wealth' as Obama let slip to "Joe the Plumber" is a bad idea when it is done by force by a third party, whether the third party is Robin Hood, or the Government!

At least Robin Hood was trying to give back what was stolen from the people in the first place! And I want my next President to understand that!

2008-10-15T00:07:00.007-04:00

The Trouble With God....

I seem to recall some resistance by some in liberal quarters to the notion that the Declaration of Independence be considered a true founding document, and that it be afforded at least equanimity in its importance with the Constitution.

I understood that the mention of God in the Declaration troubled them, and that their revulsion was somehow tied to those phrases that made God very central to the Declaration. If one does not understand that, one does not truly understand the brilliance of the Declaration, and cannot understand the Constitution.

One needs to recognize a few things about the relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution, particularly as relates to the 1st Amendment Rights enumerated in the Constitution, and recognize that there is an engine which drives the relationship; that being the existence of God either as a real spiritual entity, or as a legal concept. One or the other or both has to be true in order to make both the Declaration and the Constitution work.

Liberalism would have neither of them work as the logical conclusion of their argument, for liberals want or have to replace God (the Entity or legal concept or both) with government, and that is a very dangerous thing.

Please allow me to back-track to make my Case:

First, I believe that the Declaration of Independence is at least as important as the Constitution, for it lays out the legal argument or foundation for the need for the Constitution.

Second, the acknowledgement of God or nature's god is very central to the Declaration, and by extension the Constitution because it argues that mankind has certain rights granted to him by a higher power, and not by dictators, kings, or any other form of government.

Third, the use of the term inalienable is very powerful, purposeful, and profound in describing these rights. It means that the individual cannot be separated from these basic rights, (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) because no person or group of persons or people gave it to them in the first place. So if they did not and could not have given it to them, then they must not ever be in a position to take them away! (the argument for limited government)

In the last 100 or so years, liberals have attempted to and to a large degree have been successful in redefining that relationship, to where it has gone from being a little confusing (thank Roger Baldwin and the ACLU) to quite clear that they believe that individual rights are granted, and determined by government. And in order to proffer and sustain that argument, they have redefined, mitigated, and to a large degree eliminated the notion and relevance of God from the culture, and by extension the Declaration and the Constitution!

That is why they argue so vehemently, and wrongly I might add, in support of the false notion of the separation of church and state. They have no choice if they are to make their fallacious argument seem consistent.

The results are tragically clear. The removal of God, either the Entity or legal argument, has had devastating results in our culture and nation. Take any test by which we can measure societal values, and since 1962 they have gone off the charts! Chart the steady rise in drug use, suicides, teenage pregnancies, unwed mothers, school drop-outs, murders, STDs, divorces etc., and you will see a steady trend upwards as God has been pushed further and further to the recesses of our society!

The trend of liberalism towards more and more dependence on government from cradle to grave is alarming. The attitude that the government now decides when life begins, when it can end, what quality it should have and even what the very definition of life is, is equally appalling.

It is a sad day in America, for we are losing and to a large degree have already lost something that set us apart from any other nation in history, and I don't know if we can ever get it back. May government, er, I mean may God help us!

2008-10-12T08:03:00.003-04:00

Should/Ought vs. Must
My biggest problem with liberals is that they confuse what people should or ought to do, with what they must be compelled to do! Further, they do not understand that when we get in the business of deciding what people should do, someone has to make that call, or be the arbiter, which then adds the element of capriciousness to the equation.

In other words, by way of example, once it was 'decided' that the people ought to or should pay income taxes, the arbiter, under the auspices of 'government' then assumed the authority and now gets to decide who pays and how much, and then base the rates they pay upon what appears to be capricious decision-making!

I remember watching a version of "The Prince and the Pauper" some years ago in which Charleton Heston played King Henry VIII. He had just ordered the execution of one of his advisers, and when asked what the charges would be, he replied indignantly "I do not like the color of his hat!"

My visceral reaction to that scene was much the same as the feeling I get when I try to get an answer to why the government has assumed the right to demand of me a portion of my income, and dictates how much of it they will forcibly take under the threat of penalty! Their justification sounds to me no different from the attitude of King Henry, "Because we said so!"

As an American of predominantly African descent, I find this attitude on behalf of our government appalling and frightening, for this draconian tax code has led to a new type of slavery in this country, in which the 'taxpayer' is the servant, and the 'government' is the master.

If this sounds like melodrama, consider this question; what do you think; what do you know would happen to you if you stopped paying federal income taxes?

The reason we have come to this place, is 'someone' (insert persons or party here) arbitrarily assumed it was their duty/function/authority to determine what their fellow Americans 'ought' to do, and then went about formulating a plan to force us to do it. And that is something that a government of for and by the people must never engage in.

The result is that the government has now become an entity unto itself, with its own self-interests first and foremost; no longer representing the will of the people. It is a leviathan, whose only purpose now seems to be ever-growing self perpetuation, individual rights be damned!

Freedom and liberty have been re-defined under this behemoth to the point where it bears little if any resemblance to the intent of the Constitutional framers. An intent which supported the notion that the individual must always be bigger and more important than the government, for whenever the obverse is true, liberty does not and cannot exist!

We have become people of for and by the government, largely by way of the tax code. Tragically, it was because 'someone' (insert persons or party here) in total disregard to the Constitution, thought that's how things 'ought' to be.

2008-10-07T06:37:00.008-04:00

If.

If you were to ask a real American if he/she believed in evil, I believe that most real Americans would say that they did; especially after the events of 9/11. And when I say real American, I don't mean citizens of this country necessarily; I'm talking about those who believe in the basic and uniquely American ideals of our only rights being 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness', and that these rights emanate from God.

This definition of American may be simplistic, but I have no problem with that. And so armed with this definition, I believe that America, the ideal is good, and is or should be a force for good in the world.

I believe that most problems no matter how complex have simple solutions. I further believe that the more complex the solutions proffered, the more certain that there is a money/power trail behind them somewhere.

Anyway, back to evil. Those who I consider to be real Americans understand that evil exists. And while it can take many forms, can anyone doubt that the ideals put forward by radical extremist Muslims are anything but evil? No one who is a real American that's for sure! The aforementioned extremists believe in everything that is anathema to what it means to be an American.

It troubles me that there are some, who if you were to ask them for their definition of evil, would not hesitate to call George W. Bush evil, while at the same time be reluctant to call Muslim extremism evil at all!

How did we get here? Well, in my simplistic view, let me offer my take on that.

1) We have forgotten what it means to be an American. As I stated earlier, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness must always be first and foremost in the heart and mind of a real American. And anyone, anything, or any ideal not consistent with that must be called out for what it is; UN-American!

2) We are not perfect as Americans, but we have always espoused "more perfect" as our collective goal and must continue to do so. We must resist being judged solely on our past, but also how closely we adhere to our American ideals as we move forward!

3) We have forgotten our history, which places our future in doubt. (I do not believe this is accidental; American academia has been invaded for more that 40 years by a most UN-American mind-set).

4) We don't understand and acknowlege the truth that there is no constitutional provision for the separation of Church and State. There is certainly no prohibition of State from Church! (I believe this to be one of the most evil schemes in American history!)

5) Ministers, both religious and political (for politicians are supposed to be secular ministers) have forgotten that we serve the people, and not vice versa!

6) Lastly, we fail to realize that God, if not history will judge us by how we treat(ed) the most helpless and vulnerable in our society. No one is more helpless and vulnerable than the unborn child. The sheer number of abortions in this country annually and cumulatively since Roe V. Wade is shameful, and even more than that, it is evil!

2008-08-05T09:09:00.020-04:00

The Wall Of Separation

It is to our everlasting shame that these days when the subject of the so-called "wall of separation" is brought up, it is given a reverence that ought to be reserved for matters actually contained in the U.S. Constitution, and not those that some with a decidedly anti-American agenda would have you to falsely believe is in the Constitution!

This intentional perversion is the result of someone's deliberate misrepresentation of Thomas Jefferson's response to a letter written to him by a group known as the Danbury Baptist Association. (see link). http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/danbury.htm I believe to understand exactly what Jefferson was alluding to with his term "wall of separation" one must read both the original letter from the Danbury Baptists, and Jefferson's response in entirety to get a fuller appreciation of what he meant.

Whatever conclusion you arrive at, one or two things should be clear to you:

Jefferson whether right or wrong was stating his opinion, not law!

His opinion was not an expression of limiting or restricting religion, as it has arguably become; rather it was an expression on the limits of government, as were each of the other four rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment!

Think about it logically; if you look at the other first amendment rights, there can be no question that their inclusion was to place specific limits on government. Does it make sense then that the founders would suddenly stop in that line of logic and inure into one of the five a limitation on the individual?

It is called the 'establishment' clause, telling us what (as the other four do) either government shall not do or what the people have the right to do! It is not the 'wall of separation' clause, as it has come to be known colloquially. None of these clauses ever specify a limitaion on the people! But that is exactly what the proponents of the so-called 'wall of separaton clause' would have you believe!

Try considering the matter this way; if there be a wall of separation in any of the 1st amendment clauses, then there must be a wall of separation in all of the clauses for its intent to be consistent.

I believe that the proponents of such blather don't believe the hype they're selling themselves! They desperately hope that the rest of us or enough of us will believe it so that they can move forward in their quest to replace God in this nation with government!

Now if you happen to be one of those who believe that government is the cradle-to-grave answer to the human condition, while I respect your right to have your own opinion, I will respectfully continue to disagree with it!

I believe that the correctness of opinions or beliefs will be proved or disproved under the inevitable weight of time. Time has and is revealing that America, flawed as it may have been in its founding, was the best and brightest hope for mankind, in terms of government, because it was, despite 'enlightened' protestations to the contrary, founded as a nation with Judeo-Christian values, and for self-governance.

We must remember that Christianity was not founded for the perfect, but that we might through faith, fellowship and love, strive for perfection.

And America was not founded for the just the privileged, but for any and all who want the opportunity to make a better life for themselves, their family, and their posterity!

That means that we have and are going to make mistakes along the way, and be chastened along the way as well. Abraham Lincoln expressed this beautifully in his second inaugural address when he said "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

It is through this chastisement that we get closer to perfection, for we do understand that as a Christian nation, "the Lord chasteneth whom he loveth!" And as long as we have the goal of perfection to strive for, we will keep being better and better along the way!

Also, much like Christianity, America was founded to give one an opportunity; an opportunity to have a better life here in the temporal, as Christianity gives an opportunity to have everlasting life in the spiritual.

We were once known as the land of opportunity! Unfortunately, through the concerted machinations of those who believe in big government and socialism, we now equate opportunity with government programs!

2008-07-16T05:58:00.012-04:00

News Flash: Vampirism Alive and Well!

I have some shocking news for you; I believe in Vampires! Now before you get all lathered up, let me explain!

I'm not talking about the blood-sucking Bela Lugosi type vamipires. I believe them to be as fictional as ever! But have you ever heard of energy vampires? These would be the folk that drain the very energy from your soul everytime you are around them!

They are downers man! You know the ones who are always complaining about their circumstances or other people. After a few minutes in their presence, you just want to go and lay down somewhere!

Then there are the Vampires who are the subject of today's blog...Social Vampires!

Social vampirism is very much alive and well, and is having a devastating effect on our national resources and psyche!

A social vampire is not so easily recognized, but here are some clues:

They believe in wealth re-distribution, high taxation, and near if not total reliance on 'government'. (Marxist/Socialist)
They confuse what people ought to do with what they must do, and have little compunction about forcing them to do so!
They preach victim-ology, and want to make sure that you know that somehow you are one!
They preach rights without responsibility.
They often do not stand up to the standards they would impose on others. (hypocrites)
I suspect that deep down they really hate America. (Since I cannot prove that, we'll just keep that between you and me.) (change?)
They support & promote the so-called 'separation of Church & State' doctrine, even though they cannot find it in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or any founding document.
And they do not understand that being an American has less to do with where you were born, and more to do with your your love of Liberty!

The misunderstanding of these last two items has done more in the past 100 years or so to suck more life out of this country than anything else!

As I said, they are not so easily recognized, unless you know what to look for. They have been known to walk in the daylight and be immune to garlic. However, once exposed to the truths of the Gospel, or the marvelous light of God's Word, they will often shrink back from it! On rare occassions however, God's Word can get through to them, and they can be healed!

How does one arm one's self to do battle with the social vampires? Study and know the Word of God, and Study and know the Constitution! And for the love of God, never vote for one!

2008-05-14T06:39:00.007-04:00

Islam and Liberalism in philosophical lock-step!

It often bothered me when I realized that liberals, while not necesaarily Muslims, do not seem to have as much of a problem with Islam as they do with Christians. A recent 'discussion' with a liberal colleague of mine answered the issue with me in a way that is as frightening as it is true!

I had a discussion recently with a fellow minister about a handicapped woman who sued a major retailer because one of their local outlets for not being handicapped accessible.

It was my position that a business owner has the absolute right to run their business any way they choose, including not catering to the disabled. This fed into my colleague's view of conservatives being cruel and heartless. He was in obvious delight to once again be able to point out this fact! He went on a tirade and never allowed me the opportunity to defend my position.

One of my biggest problems with liberals is that they are so ready and willing to label those who disagree with them as hateful, fascist, bigoted, un-enlightened, elitist, uncaring, and many other of a number of pejoratives designed to cast conservatives in an unkind light. All of this designed to stifle dissent. In short, they attempt to de-humanize conservatives in order to sell their snake oil to an unsuspecting electorate. This makes the blood sport of destroying opponents more palatable to the masses because after all, when your opponent is a monster, the ends certainly justifies the means!

Just so you know, I am a poor, inner city, minority minister. I am not an Uncle Tom, Oreo, or sell-out, as I have been frequently called by my liberal 'friends' for espousing my conservative beliefs. 99.99 percent of the time, they have no ideas of what conservatism means. They have only been spoon-fed the aforementioned pejoratives by an agenda driven liberal media.

It has also become obvious from my history of attempting to debate logically with liberal lo these many years, that at some point in the debate (usually following a soap-box type tirade) they shut down the debate, and generally before allowing anyone in disagreement to defend their position.

It is this type of mentality that ties them into the mentality of the Islamist, and makes both groups so dangerous!

Liberals feel absolutely no compunction with completely destroying you if your beliefs happen to differ from theirs! Islamists have no compunction with destroying those whose faith or lack of faith differs from theirs!

2008-04-14T06:25:00.003-04:00

Out of The Frying Pan...

Change! This is the theme of the Obama campaign! Now call me crazy, but the way my mind works, my first questions are: From what and To what?

As troubling as the dangling proposition is that is the theme of Obama's campaign, perhaps even more troubling is the fact that no one is challenging him on it! Not the press, not his opponents, and certainly not his supporters!

I had and interesting conversation with one of the latter last weekend, and not only did she agree that Mr. Obama has not proffered much in the way of campaign promises or platforms, but he was correct, indeed brilliant not to do so, and because he has not, it is one of the primary reasons she's supporting him!

Now we had been having a pleasant enough conversation up until then, but then I went and used the "c" word to describe Obama. (Obama, not Clinton) Yes I called him a Communist. Well.......you would have thought I called him the "n" word instead! (I'm Black by the way)

Indignant, and obviously injured, she demanded to know why I would dare refer to Obama as a communist! So I explained my rationale as best I could by first defining what I thought communism was. Those whose world view was that government was the best source for the cures of the human condition, and that government should be as large and intrusive as possible to accomplish that, and that taxes should be as high as necessary (arbitrarily) in order to accomplish that, and that taxes should be penal to those who produce the wealth, in order to accomplish that! (in other words from those who have to those who have not according to their "need"! Now to me is by definition communism. And not only to me, but to the guy who wrote those words!

Then she demanded to know how I could apply such a definition to Mr. Obama. "Well," I said, "in the absence of any stance or platform in what you admit is a brilliantly run campaign, I only have to rely on his past stances, including his biography, his history of friends and associates, his legislative record, and oh yes, the recent history of the party he has chosen to affiliate himself with! When I do, I am forced to extrapolate his leanings because, on arguably the biggest platform in the world (US Presidential campaign) HE WON'T TELL ME!"

I apologized to my fellow debater profusely, because I do not wish to do harm to anyone, physically, emotionally, or most importantly spiritually. I simply wanted to make the point that we should be able to defend our beliefs so that others understand where we are coming from, even if they do not agree with us!

Critical thinking in this country is sadly being replaced with group think. Critical, independent thought is critical to liberty! Because if we do not or cannot think for ourselves, we are easy prey for the political pablum any party is more than willing to feed us!

Now I might not be the smartest person in the world, but I pride myself on critical thought, and individualism! And the only conclusion I can make about Mr. Obama, and Ms. Clinton is that based on their past performances, is while they may not be in religious agremment with the radical Islamists, they seem to be in philosophical lock-step wtih them base upon their willingness to 'destroy' those who doe not agree with them, or are percieved to be a callenge or threat to their agendas.

2008-01-21T09:32:00.000-05:00

Has it really been since June that I last published? Shame on me! In my defense, I really have been quite busy since then; what with studying for the ministry; keeping up with my ministerial duties, heading two ministries, and working full time, I have had my hands quite full! I am not complaining mind you; just letting you know what I've been up to!

I am going to keep it short and sweet today. I am inserting a copy of the King Holiday letter that I sent to family and friends. And since I consider my dear readers in that group, I wanted you to read it as well!

Enjoy!

"Happy Holiday to my Family and Friends!

I was just re-reading Dr. King's famous "I have a dream" speech from Aug. 28, 1963, and I could not help but to think of the irony of a Christian leader standing on the steps of a public facility and delivering such a speech barely a year after the historic Supreme Court decision barring prayer from public schools!

This false doctrine of the so-called "wall of separation" would have likely precluded Dr. King from giving such a speech today, if some had it their way!

Also, we should remember in Dr. King's message, he reminded us that his dream was deeply rooted in the American dream! A dream that guaranteed equal opportunity for its citizens, not equal outcome!

As a Christian, and as an American, I am willing to fight to my last breath to ensure that as many people as I can reach have an opportunity to hear the Gospel, and help ensure that all Americans have equal opportunity and justice under the law!

I believe that a good way to honor Dr. King's memory is to resolve to make equal opportunity the focus of our efforts, and leave outcome to the will or choice of the individual! Now that's freedom!"

Blessings to all,
Jonathan

2007-06-26T08:20:00.000-04:00

The New American Heritage Dictionary describes the word 'activism' as: "The theory, doctrine, or practice of assertive, often militant action, such as mass demonstrations or strikes, used as a means of opposing or supporting a controversial issue, entity, or person." It also defines 'fiat' as "An arbitrary order or decree." With these definitions in mind, I would like to talk with you about terms that are offensive to the U.S. Constitution to such a degree as to be anathema to it! The terms are "Judicial Activism" and "Judicial Fiat", and it is time that all Americans should come to understand just what they are and why they are so dangerous!

Let us back-track for a moment for a brief review, so that we may better understand the danger of judicial fiat as it is currently practiced by American activist jurists today. Please forgive me for being elementary, but I believe it is necessary to promote my argument. With that in mind, let us go back to our foundations!

The founding fathers, flawed as they may have been, put together in our constitution a near perfect system of government to help ensure that we might always be self-governed. It was called "checks and balances", and its purpose was to make sure that each branch of government (executive, judicial, and legislative) balanced or were co-equal to each other, and had the ability to check (reign in or authenticate) another branch if need be to help maintain that balance.

Throughout the course of our history as a nation, we have had many instances where each branch has used its 'checking' ability to authenticate or reign in another branch, when the checking branch believed that the checked branch had over-stepped or miss-applied its constitutional authority.

Judicial activism, I believe, is the judiciaries over-stepping and/or miss-application of its authority! This happens when they use judicial activism, by way of a court order or decision to in effect create law! An unfortunate example of this is Roe v. Wade, in which the court (in this case the US Supreme Court) by way of judicial activism, created a right that is unsupportable constitutionally! They in effect gave an extra-constitutional right to a specific class of people (women by way of the so-called right to choose) while at the same time removing the specifically enumerated rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) from another class; the unborn! (Not to mention the individual states rights they undermined!)

Another recent ruling by the Supreme Court in Keogh (sp) v. New London is also an example of judicial activism. Whereas in the past eminent domain was strictly limited to the government taking land from a private owner for the use in public works type projects, the activist courts have now interpreted it to mean that the government can take a citizen's land for any reason, including to sell it to another citizen for revenue purposes! Preposterous!

Listen folks: Any ruling from a court that has as its basis the jurist's personal feeling about how the law should be, instead of whether it is constitutional or not, is arbitrary, and by definition an example of judicial activism! One does not have to look very hard to see that in every case of judicial activism, some American's rights gets trampled as well as the Constitution itself!

Now the other branches have every right, indeed are constitutionally charged under the checks and balance rules, to reign in the judiciary! Keep in mind that the courts were instituted constitutionally to be the interpreters of law, and not the makers of law! And by using the power of judicial fiat the courts, specifically the more liberal courts have been in the business of making law, a power which is vested constitutionally with and only with the legislative branch!

This ought to be an outrage with the people, because it evidences a usurpation of power and process, negating and undermining the power and authority of the legislature which is the direct voice of the people, whom they represent! I cannot emphasize this point enough! It is the legislature that was designed to reflect the voice and will of the people in the laws (bills) they enact by way of executive approval. It is the judiciary's job to interpret whether or not such laws, once challenged, pass constitutional muster!

The big question is, why don't the other branches reign in the judiciary? Well, liberals, who cannot win in the court of public opinion where legislation should emanate, have no compunction about using the courts to force their ideas upon an unsuspecting electorate! You only have to look at the pending so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' for an example of this! If they are unsuccessful in the legislature I guarantee they will seek an activist judge to attempt to force this issue ala Gore v. Harris (State of Florida)!

Those of us who are suspicious and dare to challenge them, well, we'll have to contend with the ACLU!

2007-06-25T06:43:00.000-04:00

I have a news flash for all of you left-wing conspiracy theorists: Slavery Alive And Well In USA! After an initial decline in the practice in the America's, evidence surfaces that strongly suggests supposed 'outlawed' institution is thriving..."

Now before you dismiss this assertion out of hand, I think it is helpful to have a definition of slavery before I continue.

The New American Heritage Dictionary defines slave as follows "Slave 1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household. 2. One who is abjectly subject to a specified person or influence: "I was still the slave of education and prejudice" (Edward Gibbon). 3. One who works extremely hard."

Now if we think about the relationship between the American federal government and the American citizen, more specifically the American tax-payer, in the context of the aforementioned definition of 'slave', it is not hard to make the case that slavery does in fact exist, and is sanctioned, indeed perpetrated by our own government; a governmant that is supposed to be by, for and of the people!

If you do not believe that the tax-payer is bound in servitude to the federal government under definition 2 of slave, consider this: what do you think, nay what do you know would happen to a tax-payer, particularly a high-earning tax-payer if he/she decided to stop paying taxes for a year or two? Answer: His or her master (feds) would exercise its self-anointed prerogative as slave owner and punish the slave (the tax-payer) by persecution, prosecution, fine and/or imprisonment; whatever the master deems appropriate which has always been a master's prerogative in master/slave relationships.

Lest you think that definition 1 of slave does not apply, try thinking of the federal government as a person or household. If that is too much of a stretch for you, let me ask you this; To whom do you think you would be liable and subject, if you decided to stop paying taxes for a period of time? Answer: The person or household (entity if you will) of the Federal Government!

If you do not think of this as a form of slavery, let me explain to you what my notion of forced labor is: 1) Any labor that is required of one party by another by the use, or threatened use of force, fear, and/or intimidation. (Every April 15th is proof of this condition) 2) Any labor and/or the fruits thereof that is forcibly taken from the party that generates it for use of any party that doesn't!

Now if you really want a conspiracy, think about what the U.S. government's founding and very limited mandates WERE as opposed to what it has become; how the government is now intrusive in just about everything you do, publicly and privately, every day of your life! Now ask yourself, "How did it get that powerful without the consent of the governed, unless by some (dare I say it) conspiracy?"

As I have stated previously, the number one mandate of the federal government CONSTITUTIONALLY was to provide for the common defense. That means, it (the federal government) was formed for the primary purpose of the defense of the several states! It was also tasked with "promote" the general welfare. While the definition of promote can be the subject of some debate, one thing it does not mean is provide!

When we got into the business of providing for the general welfare, (and by some perverse extension, not even wanting to promote common defense) slavery, by way of the confiscatory and draconian tax imposition it became, came back to the Americas, and is now alive and well!

And by the way, the very people that the government purports to help by way of this 'Robin Hood' method of wealth re-distribution, have been forced into a form of slavery too! It's called hopelessness! God help us!

2007-06-11T14:34:00.000-04:00

Let me get this straight, Samuel "Sandy" Berger's reasoning for voluntarily surrendering his law license was because "he had not used it a long time and does not anticipate using in the future" (paraphrase)?

Folks, this gives a whole new level of meaning to the word 'ostensible'!

Before I give you the real reasons as to why Mr. Berger might have surrendered his license to practice law, allow me to assist you all to a return to the thrilling days of yester-year when common sense was a little more common!

First, just from my own experience; I have a commercial drivers license or a CDL that I obtained some 12 years ago. I have not driven commercially in several years, and may not ever do so again. But I am maintaining my license for two main reasons. 1) I worked very hard to get this license! and 2) I do not know what the future will hold so I keep it as an option!

Now I am not comparing the hard work and effort required to obtain a CDL to the work and effort needed to obtain a law license. There really is no comparison. I will stipulate that it takes much more time, effort, dedication, financial commitment and more to obtain a law license. So the notion that one would capriciously or voluntarily surrender it is beyond believable!

Most people who chose practising law as a career I have to believe have wanted to do so since they were youngsters! With all the effort put forth to obtain a law degree, then a license to practice, it is not something that one would give up lightly!

No, Mr. Berger knew full well that had he not surrendered his license, he would have faced intense scrutiny and investigation from the District of Columbia Bar Association with regard to his involvement in the documents he pilfered from the National Archives; an investigation which might have gone all the way back to the Clinton administration, and demonstrated very clearly their lack of due diligence in their unwillingness to kill or capture Bin Laden! They (the missing documents) could have likely shown that they had multiple opportunities to do so, and for whatever reasons did not!

His testimony might have revealed that he was ordered or pressured to act the way he did, and commit a crime against the American people by destroying property that belonged to them! Imagine what would happen to you or I if we were to climb Mt. Rushmore and dynamite one of the figures! It is the same thing!

The big question is, was he pressured to act the way he did, or was it his own legacy he was trying to preserve? It may well be a combination of both, but I would wager based upon the Clinton's known modus operandi that it was likely more of the former! A sentiment Vince Foster and Ron Brown would likely share!

It is sad that I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libbey was convicted and is going to jail because of what is likely his faulty recall about an incident, which if it was a crime, was not committed by him, (a fact that the prosecutor knew almost from the outset of his investigation), yet ol' Sandy who committed a real crime, likely committed on another's behalf, got off with a fine! Oh, that's right, I forgot; he also gave up his law license!

2007-06-08T12:06:00.000-04:00

John Edwards; where to begin? Mr. Edwards epitomizes the hypocrisy of the left like no other man in the history of American politics!

Mr. 2 Americas and his ilk in the legal community have done more to make health care inaccessible to poor Americans than the so-called greedy Pharmaceutical companies, the insurance and the health-care industries combined!

Before I continue, let me stipulate that all of these industries are greedy, and I have problems with each. But they are not responsible for the outrageous costs associated with health care to the degree of another entity! After all, they are in business to make money!

The greed of the aforementioned industries notwithstanding, there is a fourth greedy industry that has affected health care costs far more than these, and that is the industry Mr. Edwards belongs to! The Greedy trial lawyers!

Mr. Edwards has amassed and inestimable personal fortune thanks in no small part to the suits he has won on behalf of his 'clients' who were victims of some 'neglegent' health care providers!

Now I firmly believe that if one is injured due to neglect, one should be compensated fairly in a monetary attempt to make one 'whole'. But some of the awards that have been given to plaintiffs far outweigh anything they could have expected to earn in their lifetimes! Toss in pain and suffering and any punitive damages, and you get the kind of ridiculous awards that are un-called for, and tend to benefit the attorney at least as much, if not more than the injured party!

What happens as a result of these outrageous awards? Insurance companies, who ultimately pay the bulk of the damages, raise their premiums with their insured. And not only with them, with the rest of their insured (in other words, rates in general tend to go up)! Some doctors who cannot afford the higher premiums, close their private practices, or got out of business altogether! Hospitals, clinics and physicians who do decide to try to stick it out have no choice but to raise what they charge for their services, in order to cover the ridiculously high premiums they are now being charged!

The insurance companies who provide health care coverage for groups, families and individuals then must charge outrageously high premiums because they are affected by the higher costs! And all too often, these costs preclude many in America who need it most from being able to afford quality health care!

Mr. Edwards and his familly don't have to worry about this! They can afford health care no matter what the cost, while the poor they claim to champion often cannot!

Lawyering is for the most part an honorable profession. But these ambulance chasers are going to slowly bleed all that is good and great in America to death! It is time for tort reform before it is too late!

Until then, yes Mr. Edwards, in terms of affordable health-care, there probably are two Americas! And you and your kind are wielding the cleaver!

2007-06-06T09:21:00.000-04:00

Hi folks, I know it has been a while since I last wrote a blog. So much has happened since then! So here we go boys! Once more into the breech!

The Dems have literally lost their minds and the presumptive front runner Mrs. Clinton is nuttiest among them!

Mrs. Clinton has made recent statements that everyone who loves America and democracy should really pay attention to because they show very clearly that she is not only leftist, but communist as well in her philosophy!

To paraphrase Mrs. Clinton, she believes in a shared society where everyone shares in the benefits! If I had to define stated goals of communism as briefly as possible, I couldn't have stated them any better!

There is a term for those who attempt to share in that which they have not contributed to, and that is SCAVENGER!

Lest I be accused of some type of "ism" (which is the left's favorite ploy and tactic when someone calls them on their beliefs) let me explain my thoughts on Scavengers!

By Scavenger, I do not mean those who are not able to fully participate in contributing to society because a physical or mental impairment precludes them from doing so. I'm talking about the ones who are able bodied and able minded, but who would rather let (or demand) others take responsibility for their care and maintenance through the system of entitlements that we all have bought in to!

The notion that the Federal government, or any system for that matter, has the inherent responsibility to take care of anyone from cradle to grave is preposterous, and unconstitutional! Not to mention detrimental to the human spirit of achievement that this republic was founded to encourage!

Mrs. Clinton and her ilk seem to have forgotten (to put it kindly) the founding federal mandates of the Constitution's Preamble to "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare" in favor of the liberal's new matrix which reverses them to 'promote the common defense and provide for the general welfare"! Their philosophy of forcing wealth re-distribution by means of class envy is not only wrong, it is immoral!

What they have forgotten is that America, much like Christianity is about opportunity! Opportunity is the only thing that we owe each other Constitutionally as Americans! Also, they do not understand that the only thing we owe humanity as Christians, is the opportunity to be exposed to God's word! If there is any Christian who can show me anywhere in the Holy Scriptures where they advocate the 'Robin Hood' method of caring for the poor I would like to see it! And keep in mind that in Bilical times, if you were poor you were pretty much consigned to poverty for the rest of your life! Not necessarily so in America (the Land of Opportunity)!

As a minister of the Gospel of Christ, I have come to understand that there are two main reasons why one chooses to go to Heaven; either they love the Lord, or they are terrified of hell! In our society, there used to be two main reasons why people would work hard in an attempt to be successful; they very much wanted to succeed, or they were terrified of failure!

What we have done to more than two generations of our nation's poor with these so-called entitlement or 'Great Society Programs' is to take the fear of failure as a motivating factor away from them!

With the removal of that fear, and with the help of terror unions like the NEA, we have been successful at removing the desire for achievement from those who need that motivation the most! The poor and less privileged!

The war on terror has been a blessing to the leftists because it has distracted Americans from zeroing in on the hypocrisy of the left, and their dangerous agenda for America! By hammering the Bush administration incessantly (and believe me I have some real issues with the Bush administration about the prosecution of the war, and other matters as well, but not the war itself) they have been fairly successful in deflecting attention away from their disturbing agenda!

By the way, if one were to exercise real intellectual curiosity and integrity, a little due diligence in researching the facts in the buildup to the war in Iraq would lead one to the inescapable conclusion that the actual buildup began on Mrs. Clinton's husband's watch! (Samuel Berger's document pilfering aside)

Heroes Of The Left

2005-11-19T08:09:00.000-05:00

Heroes Of The Left

It is high time some of the so called heroes of the left are unmasked for the blatant hypocrites they are! I'll begin with former Vermont governor, and current head of the DNC Doctor Howard Dean! The Dems pretend to be advocates for the poor, the little guy, minorities, women, etc. What you may not be aware of is Dr. Dean is actively seeking to seal his Gubernatorial correspondence for ten years, which may well have the chilling effect of harming the very groups he purports to champion!

Liberals actually believe that the only god should be government, and as such, should not be answerable to anyone as long as it (government) is working toward a liberal agenda, and by extension, we as subjects however, should be answerable to that god/government! Scary, isn't it?

Back to my issues with Dr. Dean. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton wrote of his group's frustration in attempting to review the former Governor's correspondence the following:

"Unfortunately, I have some disappointing news with respect to our lawsuit against former Vermont Governor, and current Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean. The Vermont State Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that Dean's secret deal to seal 93 boxes of his gubernatorial records for an unprecedented ten years will stand. You may recall from earlier updates that Dean struck the agreement after he left office to seek the Democratic nomination for President. He told reporters at the time he shielded the records because, "We didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor." (Dean reportedly confirmed this corrupt reasoning to his campaign aides.) Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit, noting that Dean's political ambition is not a justifiable reason to secret government documents from the public. The Vermont Supreme Court, with its decision, essentially ruled against its own precedent, and the rule of law, in a transparent effort to protect Howard Dean. It was a terrible decision and blatantly political. (You can read it here.) And so, the question remains: Why does Dean continue to deny public access to these records? What does he have to hide?" (Judicial Watch Newsletter from Nov. 11, 2005).

How might this attitude harm the aforementioned groups? Think about it; if any of these groups or individuals belonging to these groups should ever have a dispute with the state (employees or agencies) a Governor, sitting or retired who may have information relative or pertinent to the proceedings, could use this 'precedent' to hinder and or obfuscate the claimant's right to discovery to such a degree, that it could very well hinder the claimant's ability to receive a fair hearing! This is stunning hubris! Only an ego-maniac of Howard Dean's stature would forward a position such as this! Also, what could a Governer possibly have to hide from the public for the next ten years? It suggests he is attempting to hide something potentially embarrasing and possibly detrimential to his future political aspirations!

Dr. Dean, liberals and the Dems continue to put forward the lie that the tax burden of this country is being unfairly and disproportionatly borne by the poor, when they know that the exact opposite is true! They continue to say that those who prosper in this country do so at the expense of the poor, when they know that the vast majority of successful people in this country are successful due to hard work, self-sacrifice, and taking advantage of opportunities when they present themselves, or making their own opportunities, and that conversely, the vast majority of the poor do just the opposite! They conveniently do not acknowledge that one of the true heroes of their party, the late JFK was fiscally conservative, advocated tax cuts, and acknowledged in one of his later speeches that no country in the history of this planet has ever "taxed itself to prosperity!" (which seems to be the liberal modus operandi!)

My message to Dr. Dean and the liberals is this; We have had on this planet, governments that have forced God from the public debate, advocated free speech as long as it agreed with the party line (remember Bob Casey), controlled health care, imposed confiscatory taxes upon entrepeneurs to the point of discouraging investment and growth opportunities, denied citizens home ownership and homeowners rights, disarmed law-abiding citizens, contolled repoductive opportunity, told one where and when to work, when and if one could play, suppressed religious freedom and so on and so on. These governments were and are almost always some form of totalitarianism, (socialist or fascists) and they all were and are anathema to the founding principles of this republic!

If I am wrong, please let me know how! I'm willing to debate these issues with you! I am also willing to wager that you are not! The last thing you all seem to want is honest dialouge! I say this based on 1) your party's recent history of suppressing dissention, even among your own, and 2) you really do not want the American public to know your real agenda. You know that if the American public was really aware of your Socialist agenda it would spell the end of your 'Party"!

Who are you really heroes to? I'll put it this way. If you happen to be the Dems candidate for President in '08 against any Republican, for whom do you think Fidel Castro would vote? Oh that's right, he can't vote in our elections. That might change if you get elected!

Is there a Liberal b

2005-10-31T10:34:00.000-05:00

Liberal bias in the Media?
This morning, I was listening to Don Imus interviewing NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. When he got around to asking her about President Bush’s new High Court Nominee, (Judge Samuel Alito), she cited the Judge's support of Pennsylvania’s ‘Casey’ law, noting that the law required a woman seeking an abortion in PA must have “permission from her husband” which is why that provision of the law was ruled by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

The provision of the ‘Casey’ law that she wrongly cited (intentionally I believe) most definitely did not require permission from the husband for an abortion! The law simply required that the husband be notified prior to the abortion!

In its 1992 ruling on the case of “Planned Parenthood vs. Casey” the High Court held that “A Pennsylvania law that required spousal notification prior to obtaining an abortion was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment because it created an undue burden on married women seeking an abortion.” It additionally held up the remaining provisions of the Pa law saying, “Parental notification, informed consent, and 24-hour waiting period were constitutionally valid regulations.” Hence, “Judgment of Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.”

Clearly there was no requirement for the husband's permission as Ms. Mitchell asserted. I consider this an obvious attempt by Ms. Mitchell to foment hostility toward the Judge Alito nomination! Those who would ascribe any other motive to Ms. Mitchell’s comments are either not aware of her history (in my opinion) of Liberal advocacy under the guise of reporting, or are probably Liberals themselves who would consider her to be impartial!

As a Conservative, I like to deal in facts. I admit I was not aware of the issues involved in the ‘Casey’ law, in fact I was not even aware that such a law ever existed until this morning!

After hearing Judge Andrew Napolitano’s description of the law on Fox’s Fox & Friends show, I switched to MSNBC in time to hear Ms. Mitchell’s interview on the subject, and it was clear that there were two distinctly different views of the law’s provision!

Honestly, I tended toward the Judges point of view, because A) I know the Judge to be experienced in the law, and B) I’m familiar with Ms. Mitchell’s history (in my opinion) of slanted reporting. However I decided to research the matter for myself.

It took me less than five minutes of searching the internet to find the PA law as it was written, as well as the Supreme Court's Decision relative to the suit filed by Planned Parenthood in opposition to that law! My point is, I don’t believe Ms. Mitchell can cite ignorance as a reason for being wrong (if that were true, that would be bad enough for a person in her profession)! If I can obtain the facts of the matter within five minutes as an amateur blogger, she has no excuse for being wrong as a professional highly-paid journalist!

What she does have is a reason for being wrong, or to put it bluntly, she had the intent to be wrong! The so-called mainstream media, who have every right to their political leanings, let those leanings color their reporting to the point where objectivity is completely compromised! Ms. Mitchell's interview this morning is glaring proof of this! Liberal journalist will not give you straight facts (except if they are harmful to conservatives) because they are afraid you will make up your own minds and form opinions contrary to their Liberal agenda!

Now this begs the question; if Ms. Mitchell can be so wrong about this matter for reasons which can only be attributed to personal subjectivity, shouldn't that cast doubt on any and everything she has ever reported on or about?

When former Chief Justice Rehnquist passed recently, I found myself in the wee hours of the following morning unable to sleep. I was watching the reporting on Rehnquist on the various 24 hour news channels, when I happened upon an interview on CNN of a Rehnquist biographer. The interviewer actually told the writer (and I'm para-phasing) "Even though Rehnquist was a Conservative, you make him seem human!" As a Conservative, I'm glad to know that I can aspire to someday be thought of as human by Liberals!

Please dear ‘news’ media, could you just give me the news in black and white, and if there’s any coloring to do, leave it to me to do for myself? If you’re doing a news program or an opinion show, please be kind enough to let me now which! Reporters and columnists should never be confused one for the other!

.

It was not our job t

2005-10-26T11:49:00.000-04:00

It was not our job to find WMD’s!

With all the criticism of us not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (not true), I’m sick and tired of this discussion being framed by anti-war, anti-Bush Liberals! Let me say this once more as loudly as I can; It was and is not now our job to find Iraq’s WMD’s! It was Iraq’s obligation, in accordance with the cease-fire agreement to which THEY were a co-signature, to produce its well known, well documented, and oft used, WMD’s! The notion that it proves Saddam did not have WMD’s because we haven’t found them (particularly in light of the fact that he definitely has used them in the past, and that he agreed to destroy them) is as ridiculous as saying that because we can find no slaves today in the U.S. proves that slavery never existed here! Also, how does one agree to destroy that which he does not have? Even with these facts in mind, his refusal to adhere to the agreement alone was justification enough for the current war, particularly in light of the events of 9/11!

The problem is, we have let the Liberals frame the argument, slanted with their anti-Bush rhetoric, and then got on the defensive by being off point in the first place! It’s time we argue the points as they really were framed by history, and not under the colored lenses of Liberal revisionism! Their positions basically come in three categories: a) Give peace a chance, b) War only as a last resort, and c) Avoid war at all costs!

Let’s eliminate the last group (c), because they seldom deal with reality.

As far as the ‘war only as a last resort’ crowd, my answer to them is, that usually means some harm or catastrophe has already befallen us, and that we had no choice but to respond with hostility! We need to understand that our Federal Government’s number one responsibility is the defense of this country and its citizens! It seems to me to be an abdication of that responsibility to not act in the face of credible impending harm to this country, or to wait until that harm is made manifest rather than to act preemptively in order to prevent such harm!

To answer the ‘give peace a chance’ folk, I’ll respond with a few points worth considering:

Point 1) Did we give peaceful negotiations a chance to work?

This is the easiest of all to answer, and I’ll answer with a question; Do you think that the 10+ years from the end of the first Gulf war to the present resumption of hostilities, with all of the begging, pleading, negotiating, diplomacy, etc., was enough time to “give peace a chance”?

Point 2) Did we have a legal right to resume hostilities?

Saddam did not adhere to his agreement to produce and document the destruction of his known WMD’s to the satisfaction of the U.N. inspectors. Remember the hide and seek, peek-a-boo, and kick ‘em out and let ‘em back in games he played with the inspectors for years? If the losing party in a negotiated peace settlement does not adhere strictly to the agreement, the prevailing party has the absolute right to resume hostilities! Also, there were numerous incidents of Iraqi aggression in firing upon our Airmen in their attempts to enforce the “No-fly zone”!

Point 3) Did we give Saddam fair warning and ample opportunity to comply with the cease-fire agreement?

You bet we did! In fact, I believe we gave the Iraqi’s more than enough time to comply; time enough to possibly (probably) secret WMD’s to the possession of willing accomplices, say for example Syria?!

Just because we have not found WMD’s in sufficient enough quantities to satisfy the Liberals (which I don’t think is possible any way; satisfying a Liberal that is) does not mean they never existed; ask the Kurds!

Point 4) Is the freedom of millions, the establishment of hope, and an example of self-government in the Middle East worth the effort?

As an American of African descent, I must answer with a resounding yes! Would that a super-power had intervened on our behalf to end the scourge of American slavery years before it actually was!

Point 5) Is helping to assure that WMD’s destined for use on us or our allies either by direct use by Saddam or distribution to elements hostile towards us, not be used for those purposes worth the sacrifice?

I say yes!

Point 5) Is the deposing of a dictator and a madman, responsible for the murder and torture of millions, and the religious persecution and repression of millions more worth the war?

As a freedom-loving Christian American of African descent, I say Hallelujah!

Quiet as it has been kept, we have been under attack by radical Muslims for over 30 years! There is evidence suggesting that the Oklahoma City bombing may have had its roots in that cause! There is evidence that the young man who recently blew himself up outside of the University of Oklahoma stadium during a game while the stadium was packed, had radical Muslim connections!

The attempt to hamstring the President by the political left for political purposes is criminal! For them to refer to the President as a liar is laughable! If they were truthful, they would tell you that their real motives lay less in oppostion to the war effort, and have more to do with them still fighting the 2000 election! If we were to leave the defense of our country to them, we probably will not suffer 30 more years of terrorist attacks! We won’t have thirty years left!

Can we make a car in

2005-10-19T08:56:00.000-04:00

Can we make a car in America that will last ten years, with low maintenance?

The builders of the Mercedes automobiles seem to embrace the philosophy that one should only have to buy an automobile once in their life; an automobile should last that long! Why do we have to buy a new car every three years in order not to face the inevitable onslaught of frequent and high repair costs! That is the ugly truth of the matter! Most of us buy a new car not so much because we are attracted to the new models, but because we know that our "3/36" is up and we know what’s coming!

With all of the issues I have with the unions in this country, the members of the UAW cannot assemble an automobile that’s sum exceeds the quality of its design and parts! Our domestic manufacturers simply do not design their cars to last! In fact, our design philosophy seems to be to make cars with enough quality to barely outlast the warranty period, while most
Americans would be happy to not have to worry about expensive repairs between the expiration of the warranty, and the last payment!

Last December, after only a year and one half of ownership of a newer, used, low mileage American-made SUV, my truck required over $4,000 worth of repairs! (Not accident-related) These took several trips to various shops, and many hours out of my schedule to arrange and await those repairs. Now in the interest of fairness, I must acknowledge that quite a bit of the repairs were covered under the extended warranty I was wise enough to invest in. But it still required several hundreds of dollars out of my pocket for the deductibles, as well as items not covered under the warranty!

My question is, why? Why can’t we manufacture autos here that we can depend on for ten years or so not to give us constant and or major repair bills? When we are asked to invest 20 to 30 thousand dollars for these piles of junk, shouldn’t the least we could expect is not to have to factor an extra payment in order to maintain them after the age of three?

Here’s what they will tell you your options are;

Buy a new car! (more money for them)

Buy an extended warranty! (more money for them)

Pay out of pocket! (more money for them)

Most people, faced with the prospect of ridiculous repair costs will opt for the new car purchase. Now if you do not think that this is motivation for them to not build the best car they can for the money, then you’ve probably bought into the notion that a car payment is something we must always have and budget for if we are to have dependable transportation!

I say it's time for the American car makers to start building dependable safe and affordable automobiles. I say that they should emphasize a 10-year quality survey, and with as much attention as they emphasize their initial quality surveys! If JD Powers wanted to do the American consumer a favor, they might consider that!

2005-10-10T09:37:00.000-04:00

The Poor Get Poorer?
Charlie Wrangle (Yes I know I've miss-spelled his name, but it seems appropriate, don't you think?) is losing it! The question is, did he ever have it in the first place? In a recent appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, he was unsuccessfully attempting to justify comparing Pres. Bush to Bull Connor, and perpetuate the myth that the poor are getting poorer under the Bush administration. He was verbally flailing so much near the end of the interview, that he more than once mis-pronounced Connors's name so badly, I began to think he was talking about someone else!
O'Reilly was pressing him with facts in an attempt to find out why Rangel and his ilk insist on mis-representing the state of the economy. When O'Reilly presented the senior statesman with the facts, (GDP up, incomes up, home ownership in general, and minority and black home ownership up, entitlement spending up, federal revenues up, and so on...) Rangel's fall-back position, as well as the best and only defense he could muster was "poverty is up"!
If the poor are really getting poorer, they need look no further for blame than the party that they seem to blindly support for the answers to why! For instance, lots of poor smoke cigarettes, and they can thank the Clinton Justice Department for taking a larger chunk of their incomes in order to pay for the substantially increased price of that product! Between the increased cost to the manufacturer (they have to cover the costs of litigation and settlement somehow) and the taxes levied, it's a wonder poor folk can afford to continue smoking at all!
Additionally, your buddies in congress are resisting the one thing sure to lower the cost of gasoline to the consumer, the building of new refineries! The soaring cost of gasoline has less (little) to do with the price per barrel of crude, and more to do with the @ 17 different formulations required nationally (via liberal environmental legislation), and the limited capacity to produce so many formulations with the relatively few and aging refineries we have now! Yet your Liberal buddies in congress steadfastly refuse to consider reducing the numbers of formulations, and/or allowing the building of new refineries! (there hasn't been a single refinery built in the USA in 30 years!) This is significant because of the ripple effect that soaring petro-fuel costs will have thoughout the economy!
There are many more examples out there of liberal legislation, or lack thereof, that directly and indirectly negatively impact the poor, all the way back to the so-called "Great Society Programs".
So are the poor really getting poorer? I don't honestly know but if they are, they may well have their "friends" to thank for it!
I've heard it said that the Democrats are for poor people! I can believe that 'cause they sure know how to keep and expand their base!

2005-10-05T10:55:00.000-04:00

As a recovering Democrat, I have witnessed first-hand the damage and detriment visited upon minorities, from the advocacy of moral equivocation as a way of dealing with issues of right or wrong, to the acceptance of entitlements as a way of life. All supported by the well-meaning (?) left-leaning party. I studied the histories of both major parties, and have concluded that the worst offense I could ascribe to the G.O.P. was indifference to minorities, while the Dems, under the pretense of caring for and acting in the best interests of minorities, have done more harm to us than anyone would care to believe! The truly insidious nature of that harm is so persuasive, that in the face of incontrovertible evidence, many minorities remain so indoctrinated into the Democrat party that they refuse to even consider such evidence!