Reagan On Mount Rushmore

I found this petition for those who want to see Ronald Reagan's face put on Mount Rushmore.

I'm not particularly concerned about our leaders putting his face on the monument (although I wish they would). I mostly did it because I like Reagan's style and values.

If you agree, then you might want to check out the petition.

If you like the picture above, you can buy the poster for about $40 from here.

Roe vs. Wade

This post is mostly filled with questions. Do you think Roe vs. Wade could really be overturned?
I watch BOSTON LEGAL a television show that is overtly liberal. They have one character that represents conservative ideas, Denny (played by William Shatner). The show is funny and very political. Two weeks ago the show focused on Roe vs. Wade and insinuated it would be overturned. For a liberal show it took a very hard stance on abortion. It had the liberals of the show (two of the main characters Alan (James Spader) and Shirley (Candice Bergen)) really examine how they feel morally about abortion.
Several comments were made that I loved. The writers articulated my thoughts beautifully and they put them in the mouths of the liberals of the show. Alan says "It is hard to argue, even from a scientific argument, that a life doesn't start at conception. We have one-celled organisms." At another point of the show Shirley states, "As a person who has exercised the right to choose I can state it is something that a person never quite gets over and to pretend that is not a factor is just wrong." This is in the context of letting teenagers make the decision without parental consent. It is funny how we don't allow teenagers to even drink at age 18 but hey, they should be able to get abortions without telling their parents. Please, explain the reasoning!
I think my favorite line in the whole show comes from the conservative Denny, he turns to Alan and says, "I do believe you pro-choice people need Roe vs. Wade you hold onto it so tight to make you feel better."
Alan later in the show reveals he has 'participated' in two abortions. Denny and Alan are talking on the balcony as they do at the end of the show and Alan gives statistics how crime is down and it is probably because of abortion. That the would be criminals that would have been born in the 1970's to low income mothers were not born. Therefore, in the 1990's crime was lower. Denny turns to Alan with question "Does this make you feel better about those two abortions?" Alan is quite.
I have so often asked myself how we justify abortion? We call it a woman's choice? A choice to kill? It is funny to watch our society. When a woman wants the baby, we get excited about the ultra sound , the sonogram pictures. We eat special, give up smoking and drinking. We throw 'baby showers' all for a fetus, Right? According to pro-choice people it is not a baby it is a fetus and nothing until it is born, right? Or, is it a baby when you 'want' it and a fetus when you are aborting? And how as a society do we so easily allow for such distinctions?
BOSTON LEGAL did a nice job with this topic. I highly suggest viewing this episode. It makes a person think. It argues both sides. It even delves into the issue of parental consent,nicely. The show definitely leans on the conservative side on this issue, which is odd.

Zogby Expose

A recent Zogby poll revealed how little Obama-voters knew about the actual election facts. This exposes both the failure of democrat voters to competently follow the election as well as the deception of the media.

Check out the results at here at the bottom of the page.

The results show that only 12% of Obama voters knew their candidate promised to bankrupt the coal industry and send engergy prices "sky high", but 87% believed Sarah Palin claimed to see Russia from her house (which was actually said by Tina Fey).

Also, 96% of Obama voters identified Sarah Palin as having received $150,000 worth of clothes from the RNC, but 57% of them didn't know which party controlled congress (50/50 chance by guessing) and 71% didn't know Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of his plagarism (25% by guessing).

The news media think they are entitled to pick our leaders. As Americans we need to stand up to them. Fortunately, millions of Americans are becoming wise to this. As Rupert Murdoch recently noted, the media has taken big risks in the election and subscriptions are down. Many of the major news distributors are cutting their staff dramatically. Hopefully they will be less able to influence the next election.

Congrats to the Politico for the courage to report this. Check out their report here.

Personality Cult

One of the most difficult things about Obama's victory over McCain is reading these ridiculous puff pieces about him in the headlines. Time magazine has been doing this for more than two years (it's actually why I canceled my subscription).

Look at this headline from the AP (as Rush calls them, the APO -Associated Press Obama). The headline is Obama staff combines DC minds with Chicago roots.

George W. Bush was continually attacked for the Texas members of his staff (who I happen to like a lot, especially Karen Hughes, Rove, and Harriet Myers). For Obama the Chicago politicans are part of an advanced hybrid staff -or so we are spoon fed to believe.

Don't forget those AP articles comparing Obama to other great presidents who came to power 'during a time of crisis'. Foolishly I clicked on the link to read about how Roosevelt and Licoln came to power during a time of crisis, and so is Obama. (By the way, Obama is the next Roosevelt and Lincoln -just take our overeducated opinion for it).

I also read a disturbing piece this weekend saying Obama is 'obviously a student of Lincoln' for putting his former opponents on his staff (unlike the evil, Republican Nixon who would never do that). He is always compared to the most well-remembered of our presidents.

Don't forget the Washington Post has openly admitted it's bias towards Obama (See here). And two studies have shown more anti-McCain headlines than anti-Obama ads among the major news carriers (Fox News was determined to be 50/50 by Rueters or the AP, I forget which).

And now there is effort to have Obama's birthday recognized as a national holiday. They already have a President's day, but Obama deserves his own because his presidency (which hasn't started yet, and, by the way, he hasn't passed any legislation that anyone can remember) is the greatest in history.

Don't be surprised if Mr. Obama gets his face on Mount Rushmore before the inauguration.

(Comics by Pat Oliphant).

CHANGE! CHANGE! CHANGE!

The ever growing list of companies and Retail stores closing means more people out of work. The news is more and more depressing. I am so hoping for change. Not holding my breath.
What I would love to see is some campaign reform. The amount of money spent on campaigning is just wrong. If our politicians are so good at getting donations, well, hell why don't we have them do some fundraising for worthwhile causes. My Goodness, what they raised alone for their campaigns could have saved social security (I don't know if anything can save it, really)
Anyways, I think a change is needed on campaign policies. Limits on spending/fundraising and time. For Goodness sakes, if we cut back, said, hey two months of the bullshit, that would cut the cost.
I am hoping for CHANGE, CHANGE and more CHANGE. AND we all know Obama had a lot of CHANGE! Would he really before campaign reform? I am sure someone out there will try to say his rhetoric says he is but ACTIONS say a lot. Obama had a lot of CHANGE! Not sure he would give it up?

Palin Hoax

MSNBC admitted that some of its smears against Sarah Palin turned out to be false.

It sounds like they assumed it was true because 'someone sent it to them in an email'.

Well, I think it's clear how much we can assume MSNBC reports true stories.

Get the whole story from breitbart.com.

The Invisible Hand

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

Adam Smith. On the Nature and Cafes of the Wealth of Nations.

There are essentially two approaches to economics: the visible hand and the invisible hand.

The visible hand approach assumes that people are more productive when the motivations and effects of labor are visible. The invisible hand approach allows people to have any motivation they want.

The more visible handed the approach, the less freedom people have. Freedom is invisible, and it implies people's choices cannot be made by others. A visible hand approach leads to a large government or religious structure.

For example, in Soviet Russia, people couldn't choose to start or join a business. These determinations were all made by central planning. This presupposed that greed could be eliminated by making everything out in the open. This approach tends to focus on appearances (i.e. it's visibility).

In Adam Smith's invisible-hand approach, people are free to do anything economically ... which assumes that if there is a duty, it is an invisible duty and something that each person must come to terms with for themselves.

Adam Smith would probably not say the 'invisible hand' of economics is duty (although he might call it a self-duty). He would probably call it a 'will', and from his perspective a visible-hand approach negates the will of the individual. But will and duty are closely related.

Our duties are the things which we want the most dearly. Although they may be subtle, although we may neglect them -we derive our duty to treat people well because we see how strongly we want to be treated well. This is the golden (and invisible rule).

In my opinion, the whole problem with the direction of America -flashy Hollywood, systematic professors, and pro-structure politicians- is that they want to directly control people instead of letting them make their own choices.

The US Constitution lets people vote in secret, and it emphasizes this secret duty. In the same way the Bible calls people to make a decision about the One who stands at the door knocking. These invisible choices are the ones that matter the most.

Separation of Church & State

I do believe there is major confusion in Separation of Church and State. I truly believe a small faction is using it to get what they want, the wiping out of God from our country. What scares me is with our over zealousness to be politically correct or better yet our pluralistic society is allowing small groups to control the majority.

To go back in history the reasoning behind Separation of Church and State was really quite simple. Many settlers came from places of religious persecution and they did not want this to happen again. They just wanted the right to worship as they saw fit.
Now, it seems we are not allowed to worship. We have to be careful about where we pray and how we use God's name.
Here is what cracks me up, no I guess it frustrates me more, why are Atheist so afraid of prayers and using God's name? Other religions(Hindu's, Muslims etc..) don't seem to have a problem, you know why? because they understand faith and belief. In addition, they would not want the persecution against them and they do not feel threatened.
But again, if Atheist do not believe, why are they threatened? or even offended? Really, what is bad about the Ten Commandments in a judges chambers? Are they offensive? Are they promoting harm? I mean really, Atheist love to argue logic. Where is the logic in removing the Ten Commandments? Or a manger? How is it offensive? Or how does if 'force' someone to believe? Faith is personal and just walking by a manger can't possibly be a traumatic experience? Placing, "In God we Trust" on money, how is that offensive if you don't believe? You just don't believe. O.K. W
hy if the majority does have faith do we have to 'wipe' out our signs of belief. We live in a Republic, were we vote and the majority wins. We agree to Tolerate each others opinions, beliefs and so on BUT the majority gets to win, and as long as the majority is not doing anything detrimental or harmful to the minority then, oh well!! And what is sad for years the majority did rotten things that should have been stopped but mangers and ten commandments, and bibles, really, this is getting outrageous. I would dare say, the Atheist are not being Tolerant to the majority!

Once again, still not understanding how they can claim the above stuff is harmful, detrimental, or abusive. Matter of fact, I would argue religion teaches community living and well being, and that is not just Christian religions that teach those values.
Therefore, if Atheist claim they use logic, I don't know, I think the logic is off. C'mon if you don't want to say God in the Anthem then don't, but what hearing it 'offends you'? This is the state cramming a Religion or Church down your throat? Really, stretching a bit thin, aren't you?

Lastly and most important Separation of Church and State really just meant the government was not to enforce A Religion on it's people. I have yet to see the United States do this and the majority better start speaking up or God is going to BLACKED out of all of our historical documents for a small faction of people.
Once again, this is not a new argument for our country. Our framers struggled with the concept of balancing, democratic, republic and even pluralistic ideals. How do we handle small factions and tolerance. Right now, looks like we are bending over and taking it in the a _ _. As a Catholic I am over it. I heard a Reverend from a Methodist Church say it nicely "God does not need America, America needs God and we better start remembering that when we vote." I could not agree more, or as a Christian would say AMEN!

We Need the Conservative Balance NOW!!

I fear The United States is losing it's conservative voice. This tends to happen during economic crisis. If one goes back in history you will find that people get scared,they look for a strong leader and they tend to surrender their rights for the promise of a better life. Usually, that leader is promising that by increasing the leader's power this increased power will enable him/her to make their lives better, (sounds fishy?). In the United States I am fearing we are going to watch yet another increase in the Federal Government.
Americans have to wake up. Before they know it, they will not recognize their own country. The promises sound great when you are scared and hurting but please think of what you are giving up to get your so called security. The United States is truly far from a capitalist society, we already have many government regulations on the market but we are heading more and more towards socialism.
Socialism is an economic system that aspires to the idea that the government should have partial or full control of production and distribution of goods. This is a step towards the political system, called communism. The idea behind communism which never came to fruition was that everyone would be 'equal'. It never played out that way and led to a totalitarian government, which failed.
Unfortunately, the idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor always sounds great when economic struggle has hit the country. It also sounds great to the people that the government needs to control health care when the people are down and out. Quite frankly, those two ideas fall under socialism. There is no other way to slice it people. Call it what it is and move on. If that is what you believe then state it but truly think about it. I always ask "So, if you start making $250k you have no problem moving up in the higher tax bracket?" Blank stare. See, people don't like it when you put them in the tax bracket and what happens when the government decides 100k or 75k is a lot? Yikes, now more are in the tax bracket of giving back.
This is not the first time our country has been down these roads. But we seem to never learn. It has been researched and quite frankly pretty much established that FDR's New Deal programs did not pull us out of the depression (those programs were all government sponsored programs to put Americans to work or get money into their hands). Americans loved FDR because he was a strong leader seen as trying to 'save' them. But, it also was realized at this time it was needed to put a term limit on the Presidency. Why? Because it was realized we could actually give one person too much power for too long. Not to mention many other things FDR did to increase the executive branch (not the only President, by no means to do this) BALANCE is important. The changing of the guard is important. The BALANCE is missing. People are scared. They want the government to fix it, they will surrender to the government because the 'promise' sounds good. I beg you, remember what we stand for. Individual rights. If we allow the government to choose to take from one group to give to another group what prevents them from stepping on other individual rights. THINK. Do not surrender your power to the government. It is hard to get it back.
We need to increase business incentives, put people back to work and encourage proper individual spending. Individuals need to stop blaming everyone else for their problems and start working to fix their own situation. This sense of entitlement has got to change.

Redistribution Quotes

Obama has openly said the Supreme Court needs to get involved in redistributing the wealth (and that the US Constitution stands in the way of doing this).

Our greatest leaders have been against this for some time. As my grandma says, the nation is in trouble when it discovers it can vote itself more money.

Here are the quotes:

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they COULD and SHOULD do for themselves."

-Abraham Lincoln

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty, but leading them or driving them out of it"

-Benjamin Franklin

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers have acquired too much, in order to spare to others who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equaled industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'to guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'"

-Thomas Jefferson

"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as thouse which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."

-Samuel Adams

A special thanks to “Don” who posted these quotes at: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html