Federal Obesity Dept.

Some quotes from Michelle Obama:

"Most of our kids get the majority of the calories from the meals they eat in schools. We have an opportunity to work with the federal government and the school lunch providers to figure out how to make those meals healthier..."

"People who make soft drinks, people who make food for school lunches, it's community groups, it's businesses who make decisions about where they're going to locate grocery stores. It's our media. It's Disney, it's Nick TV. It's everyone that has an impact on the health and life of our children, our teachers. So it's all of us..."

"This is a solvable issue because it's, you know, it's community-based. I said this in my launch speech, this doesn't require new technology, or, you know, new research. We have the solution in our hand. But it takes a coordinated effort."

I am in agreement that our country has an obesity problem. I also agree that the best place we can have the biggest impact is in our children. I absolutely do not agree that the federal government should have anything to do with it.

Mrs. Obama recognizes the undesirable end result of obesity, but, like her husband, mistakenly seeks to use the federal government to solve a community-based problem. The problem of obesity is the consequence of bad choices. We all know how the federal government tries to influence choices we make, raise taxes on certain things, and levy penalties and fines (like they are doing with alcohol, tobacco and firearms).

This problem starts in the smallest of communities, the family. The federal government is already over involved in the family, we do not need more of a bad thing to solve this problem. Should this be part of public school education? Absolutely. Should these public schools negotiate with vendors supplying lunches to increase the nutritional value of the meals? Definitely. This is a state and local issue, not a federal one. I have heard Mrs. Obama talk about the nutritional choices her family makes (having fruits for dessert, etc.) and think that is a great message for her to share with the nation. She seems to know something about good health choices, practices it herself, she is a good spokesperson for this cause. The federal government has no place in this issue.

Now before you start telling me all the things that the federal government has done in the past to promote health and all the benefits that have resulted, let me just say, "I don't care." This is, as Mrs. Obama so accurately stated, a "community-based" issue, not a federal one. It would be wrong for the federal government to expend any amount of budget (and they can do NOTHING without expending budget) on any program trying to reduce childhood obesity.

Maybe some of you are thinking, "What if the federal government got involved by raising nutritional standards for food stamps and WIC? Those people are likely using Medicaid and better health for them would save us money in the long run. How could you be against that?" Well I would liken this line of thinking to that of those who think it is a good idea to give free syringes to heroin addicts. I have no interest in improving federal government programs that shouldn't exist in the first place.

The bottom line is that there are already too many federal programs justified by the incorrect notion that if they do ANYTHING that can be called good, they are a valid. The real solution to childhood obesity, and many other issues, is to reduce the size, impact, and cost of federal government so our local communities have more and better resources to address these issues (with greater success).

New Element Discovered

Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest
element yet known to science. The new element,
Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant
neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy
neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312
particles are held together by forces called morons,
which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like
particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has
no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected,
because it impedes every reaction with which it comes
into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a
reaction that would normally take less than a second, to
take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of
2 - 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a
reorganization in which a portion of the assistant
neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact,
Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time,
since each reorganization will cause more morons to
become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic
of morons promotion leads some scientists to believe
that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a
critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is
referred to as critical morass.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes
Administratium, an element that radiates just as much
energy as Governmentium since it has half as many
peons but twice as many morons.

Under the pretence of taking care of them

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, 1802

When conservatives object to programs run by the government, especially "social" programs, we are often painted as mean and selfish by liberals. The idea that we could possibly be against a program designed to help people that lost their job, women with children, or people that have worked until age 65 seems to be proof that our hearts are hard and we don't care about others. I suppose that some conservatives are mean and selfish people, just like some liberals are, but not all of us, there is another reason for our position.

Really, there are two main reasons conservatives are generally against many government programs; they are out of scope for the responsibilities of the federal government and they don't work. Before I go into more detail on these, let me share something about my perspective. I have been there and seen it myself. I have been a liberal. The quote often attributed to Churchill, "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain." comes to mind. It is one thing to have a passion to help those in need and another to act on that passion with reckless abandon ignoring the rights of one group in an attempt to restore them to another.

Seeking Fairness

Our federal government has never been responsible for "fairness". Fairness is a liberal PC term meaning so many things that I can't even attempt a definition. This makes it great for politicians wanting to spin either the compassion of their proposed legislation or the callousness of those opposing it. The problem is, without a definition we can't evaluate fairness. Likewise, when we infuse the identity of a bill with "fairness" later evaluation that may reveal anything negative is declared fabricated lies of the mean people of special interest. This is often when you hear all the stories of the oppressed (like this sickening example). There is no right to fairness in this world, and liberals can't create it no matter how many other rights of ours they sacrifice on the PC alter. We should love each other and we should help each other, these are things that the federal government can't do for us. When the Fed tries to do these things, they tax us to support their efforts, taking from those who can (and should) do it better, to fund government operations that can't (and shouldn't) do it.

Government Efficiency - Oxymoron

There is also the argument that because conservatives don't want the federal government to do all these things for us that we are for the "status quo". This bi-polar argument just doesn't work, we can disagree with liberal ideas without proposing an alternative government solution. The solution is usually to keep government out of things and let us take care of each other. Liberals will of course claim this will not work, enter more sad stories of the oppressed, and go back to the "conservatives don't care" attack. The truth is that the government does a few things well, but many others not well at all. Health-Care, Welfare, and Social Security are great examples of this. The thing about those big government solutions, they sure do get a lot of loyalty (and votes) from the entitlement crowd.

Good News and Bad News

The Good news is that the solution is simple, not easy, but simple. We need to reduce the size, scope, and authority or the federal government. There may be some other issues to tackle, like term limits, but if we focus on reducing the Federal government we can fix the vast majority of issues this country is having.

The bad news is that this will take generations to accomplish. Life is not like TV, we don't solve all problems in 20 minutes with two commercial breaks. The issues we face today are born on thousands of bad choices over decades (if not the past century), choices that are contrary to the principles that this country was founded on. These principles gave this nation the tremendous success it has enjoyed, and made it a beacon to people around the world seeking liberty, and thereby, prosperity. The passion for the freedom to seek opportunity, take risks, and earn a better life for us and our children has been replaced by the lie that the government is responsible for insuring our life style is high, our risk is non-existent, and our children will have to pay for it all. Entitlement is the leech sucking out the life blood of liberty, and we will have to burn it off before we can regain our strength.

The solution will require a fundamental shift in ideologies, from entitlement values to opportunity values. We will have to reverse the methods of lowering the ceiling (taking from those who risked to take advantage of opportunity) in an effort to raise the floor (redistributing to those unwilling to take risk to pursue opportunity). The burden of making this shift falls on conservatives. The first thing conservatives need to do is understand their own conservative principles and how they apply to government. As the teachers it is incumbent on us to thoroughly understand before we endeavor to enlighten others. We need not be more intelligent, eloquent, or charismatic than those we share our ideas with. We need only to understand the basic conservative principles that our nation was founded on, employing them in our personal choices, and demanding the same of those who represent us. We need to calmly, but passionately, engage our neighbors, coworkers, and family members discussing issues based on how these principles will work. We must have a grassroots effort to change the hearts and minds of this nation, and let the legislation to correct our mistakes rise up out of this new understanding of liberty.

So where do we start? We start with ourselves, every one of us, learning the foundational conservative principles that are our tools. I do not say this arrogantly, because I need to do the same. I will follow-up with resources that I have found, and hope that you will share yours as well.

Abstinence-Only Approach

In an article from the Associated Press (see sources below):

Billed as the first rigorous research to show long-term success with an abstinence-only approach, the study released Monday differed from traditional programs that have lost U.S. federal and state support in recent years.

This is an interesting study, in essence it found that abstinence makes sense when you teach kids how to think through the "pros and cons" instead of telling them how it is.  Given some guidance, teens (and younger) can easily see that the benefits of sex (let's be honest, there ARE benefits) carry consequences as well.  If they are honest, the consequences are almost completely negative if you are not married and especially if you are a teen (or younger).

What we see here is the difference between telling kids facts and having them regurgitate them for a grade on a test, and teaching them how to make logical choices that consider things fully.  The biggest difference is that memorizing some facts on condom failure can't translate into anything else, but the skill of making a logical choice that is well informed can be utilized in many other areas.  Imagine the social benefit when these kids use the same process to evaluate drug use, shoplifting, gang activity, or education choices.  Even better, when we convince ourselves of something (such as sex before marriage is not a good idea) we are more likely to modify our behavior.

We shouldn't be surprised that when schools teach character building in place of static information we see what we should see, better choices.  The down side of this is that the same holds true when liberal "safe sex" ideas are taught along with the same "pros and cons" method.  When the information provided is biased, it is much harder for the choice to be wise. 

How do we battle this?  Several ways, those of us who actively parent our children can help them both in character building and getting the facts straight.  This might not be as easy as it sounds, sometimes it feels wrong to say that having sex has benefits, but the truth is the truth.  You have to have the courage to be frank about the subject or they will stop listening.

As citizens we can insist that our tax payer funded schools present unbiased facts.  We can vote in school boards that insist on avoiding agenda based education (whether it is religious or planned parenthood).

We can be frank in discussing things with youth we are around (sports, scouts, church, family, etc.) and encourage responsible choice making, knowing the skill can translate in to other areas of their life.
Sources (take your pick):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584519,00.html?test=latestnews
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_he_me/us_med_abstinence_education
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/02/health/main6165752.shtml

More Super Bowl Ads

Who would have thought there would be so much controversy over Super Bowl ads?

Pro-Abortion group Planned Parenthood (Should be named Planned Infanticide) lauched a preemtive YouTube ad to counter a Super Bowl ad by Focus of the Family (http://www.focusonthefamily.com) featuring Heisman Trophy-winning college star Tim Tebow.  From a strategic standpoint PP did well to use the hype ahead of the Focus of the Family ad to get media attention for a fraction of the cost.  The message that their "Woman's choice" position accomodates women who do not want to murder their children is old and tired (and a lie).  Even better, it backfired on them, showing what an extreme agenda they have, and what little tolerance they have for any who see things differently.

Isn't it amazing that this would get so much attention, epsecially by Planned Parenthood, who is getting investigated for "bending the rules" and allowing under age abortions without parental consent in Alabama?  Alabama is giving the abortion clinic until next week to present its plan to correct violations involving minors receiving abortions.  This is not an issue where somebody accedentally forgot to fill out a form, this is an example of the agenda of Planned Parenthood.  Follow the money, noticed that the worker in the video didn't forget to tell her to bring $100 cash.

High Dollar PSAs

The Census bureau is spending $133 million between January and May -- or, more than $13 million for each of the 10 questions they ask, including a $2.5 million Super Bowl ad. This effort is more like Obama's campaign efforts (big surprise, isn't everything he does campaigning?), than a PSA. Instead of "Get out the vote!", it is now, "Get out the census!".

Just a thought, why would this be done? The census is important, but this promotion budget is obscene. This is an obvious attempt to turn the census into a "game changer" for voting districts and representation. Considering that originally ACORN was supposed to help with the census (and we all know how accurate they are when it comes to voter registration....right Mickey Mouse?), it is safe to say that we can count on a very biased liberal slant to this census.

I know, I know, go ahead and call me a conspiracy theorist, but if it walks like a scam and quacks like a scam....

Strength vs. Rhetoric

There are many different immpressions people got from the State of the Union address. I would say that few, especially those outside the US, got a sense of a strong union.

Let's face it, the Union is strained, stressed, and stagnate, but not strong.  We have traded opportunity for protection and liberty for fairness.  Our ideals are lofty, our policies inpractical, and leaders selfcentered and selfserving.  We have forgotten the very principles we were founded on.

The Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  This foundational principle has been forgotten and replaced with something more like, "There is no truth or creator, the federal state is all powerful and will dictate your rights, that amoung these are Life as defined by our limited scientific understanding, Government Regulation to protect you from yourself, and the pursuit of Fairness." 

How many people dream of winning the lottery thinking, "If I had that kind of money all my problems would be solved!"?  How often have you read the statistics of how quickly the average lottery winner is back where they started?  Without the foundational principles of success, a lump sum lottery payout will quickly be wasted in the same way a weekly pay check was.  Likewise, how many stories have you heard of folks who, with very little income, have disciplined themselves and lived according to principles to end up attaining a level of success desired by many, but earned by few.

The last Presidential election liberals thought they had won the lottery.  They thought all they needed was a radical socialist that could talk smooth and the power of the White House, and all their problems would be solved!  What a shock to find out that when you win the lottery everyone and their brother wants a cut.  What a surprise that all the same old socialist ideas that have robbed other people of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, are now doing it to us.

I find no comfort in the very liberals that have backed Obama's mantra of "Hope and Change" are now starting to turn on him.  By the time liberal idiots realize that Obama and his cronies are not going to be able to give them everything they ever wanted, the damage will be done.  Obama won't care what the actual results of his administration are, he will be too busy giving speeches about how he would have been able to do all those things that he promised, but for the horrible mess Bush left him with.

Rhetoric is just talk, results tell the truth.  Obama's rhetoric is contrary to the results.  I just Hope we can undo the damage of the Change.

Voluminous and Incoherent

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be to-morrow."

Federalist No. 62

With ObamaCare having thousands of pages is it reasonable that the average citizen could understand the bill? It is bad enough that a large majority of our representatives are lawyers, but when you have to be a lawyer to understand what proposed legislation means, is there a problem?

Ignorance is no excuse for the law, which you may have learned if you were pulled over because you didn't notice that the speed limit changed from 70 to 55 on that section of highway. Maybe you missed one of the hundreds of hoops that a new business must jump through because you didn't know you needed to, will the IRS care? We are held accountable to the law regardless of our understanding of it. The prevents continual claims of ignorance as legitimate defense to habitual crime, which makes sense.

If we are going to be held accountable to the law, shouldn't we demand laws that we have a reasonable expectation to understand? What is reasonable? Well I would think that we shouldn't have to invest more than a few evenings studying the bill to read and understand it's impact. We shouldn't have to have a law degree to understand the language of the Bill. Bills should deal with individual issues and not be "Omni" in nature (deal with multiple unrelated other legislations).

Would these requirements for reasonable expectation of understanding make it harder to write legislation? Maybe, or it might make it easier, it doesn't matter. The point is that these representatives and the legislation they produce are supposed to serve us citizens. We must be able to evaluate legislation, without specialized education or an unreasonable amount of time, in order for us to judge our representatives efforts on our behalf.

In the end we are a Democratic Republic, not a true Democracy, and so our representatives should do what they believe is best for the country as a whole, while protecting the interest of their constituency. I do not propose that all citizens should vote on all legislation directly, but we MUST have a reasonable ability to evaluate the results of our representation.

Time to set them to rights

"It is to me a new and consolatory proof that wherever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

--Thomas Jefferson

Parasites

"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."


--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Ludlow, 1824

The System is broken, we need the federal government to step in!

Our federal government has responsibilities to the citizens of this country. The system is obviously broken and many of our family, friends and neighbors pay the price for continued inaction in the face of this crisis. The stories of those who have suffered and died because our elected officials refuse to address the problem are heart breaking. Some may want things to stay the same because they take advantage of the predicament of others to further their own personal profit or political agenda, but most of us want change. Money and power, isn't that what it always comes to?

No, I am not talking about healthcare, I am talking about securing our borders. Unlike healthcare, securing our borders is a constitutionally valid area for our federal government to be involved.

Many like to try and make this issue about workers rights, human rights, or that PC favorite called fairness. Let's take them one at a time.

Workers rights, or more accurately, illegal immigrant workers rights, make no sense since it is not legal for them to be here in the first place. The fact that they are not citizens of this country means that the right of citizens does not extend to them. Many try to claim that because they are working and we benefit from it they should be allowed to continue their illegal activities and even extended all the benefits of citizenship. Well, prostitutes work hard, so I guess it is wrong to round them up. Many drug dealers work hard to distribute their product, should we have a rally to protest how local police interfere with their efforts to support their families?

Human rights is another favorite. If you stand for deporting those who have entered the country illegally, you don't care about people. This is a ridiculous position. To claim that the many human traffickers working the borders of this country are like the underground railroad is ludicrous. The US has one of the most open immigration policies in the world, immigrants should be required to adhere to it, 100% of the time. There is no good reason, humanitarian or otherwise, why we should fail to enforce our own laws.

Fairness, whatever that means, in fact, the reason liberals love this one so much is that it means whatever they say it means. As far as I can tell it is something along the lines of, "I risked all kinds of dangers to get here, work for less doing the jobs you don't want to, all to take care of my family because I am such a good person....etc., so it is unfair to deport me." Illegal immigrants and their proponents often reject that they are illegal, claiming that because they are hard working and not pursuing other crimes, they are not illegal. Well, they may not be illegal, but their action of entering the country outside of our immigration laws is. That makes them criminals, maybe likeable, hard working criminals, but still criminals.

So why don't we fix the system and secure our borders? There are several reasons for that.

Political pressure is a big reason. You have all kinds of business owners that benefit from illegal immigrants, and they at best ignore the law, and worse encourage their representatives to make the laws less effective.

The ever increasing population of illegal immigrants, and the sympathetic legal immigrants, now work to influence immigration policy by dangling the carrot of their votes. They march in protest when communities attempt to enforce immigration law, wielding signs proclaiming "We Are Human!" (Maricopa County Arizona) or demanding workers rights.

It is an uncomfortable issue for many. The poster child for illegal immigrants is the downtrodden family trying to make a better life for themselves with hard work and sacrifice. The same thing many of us seeks for ourselves. How can we in good conscience deny them of the same thing we want for ourselves? The short answer is we aren't. Having immigration laws, and enforcing them (no matter how unpleasant) is not being mean, it is being kind. Many emotionalize the issue and demonize those who insist on a rule of law, but that doesn't help create good law.

Follow the money. The cost of enforcing immigration law is often offered as a reason why we can't do it. What a waste of money to deport people who just want to work hard doing the things most Americans don't want to do. The truth is we can't afford not to enforce them any longer.

The United Sates has always welcomed immigrants. We are characterized as the melting pot of cultures from around the world. I embrace this because I believe that all cultures have good people who can add to our great nation. We must be in control of how we accommodate those immigrants though, and if they ignore our laws in order to get here, it seems fair to assume they will ignore any other laws that may interfere with their desires.

Strike a compromise

House and Senate leaders, along with union bosses and White House officials, have been meeting all week in a hard push to strike a compromise on the health care package. The White House reached a breakthrough in talks with House Democrats and union leaders Thursday, agreeing to scale back plans for a tax on high-value insurance plans. - FoxNews.com

A few observations here:
Why are Union bosses involved in these secret talks in the White House? How is it that a public process is not allowed, but the Union special interest is invited to participate? This is change? Sounds like the same kind of partisan agenda that Obama said Bush was guilty of and his new admin. would not have. Despite claims of transparency, eliminating special interest influence, and reaching out across the aisle, Obama has shown that he is all talk (as long as the teleprompter is working).

The breakthrough on the "Cadillac" insurance plans is based on how much they cost. Obama's rationalization of taxing these plans is they do not make anyone healthier. I am wondering how they can determine the health benefit of a plan based on the price? At $24,000 per year (the point that an insurance plan looses it's benefits and becomes a luxury vehicle) that is $2000 per month. I knew of a couple 5 years ago that had to pay $3000 per month for insurance for a few years until they could qualify for Medicare. It is interesting that we had to redefine what a Cadillac is to suit the Unions, but not the rest of us.

For those who have eyes to see, this is just more of the eternal campaign mode that Obama operates in. First the push was to have healthcare reform complete in his first year. Now he is postponing his state of the union address so he can claim a victory in that. Just look at the way he ties his policy ideas to his plug for Massachusetts Democrat Martha Coakley's bid for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, "In Washington, I'm fighting to curb the abuses of a health insurance industry that routinely denies care, and it's clear now that the outcome of these and other fights will probably rest on one vote in the United State Senate." Let me translate, "The reason you should vote for her has nothing to do with her ability to represent you, it has to do with me being able to do whatever I want using the super majority."

Strike a compromise? I would say that is the last thing on Obama's mind. Rest assured that in those secret meetings with Union leaders there was the same kind of vote buying we saw with anyone else who has dared to suggest they might not back Obama's healthcare agenda....oh, unless you happen to be a Republican, they don't count.

I am for the public option

I am for a public option on the current health care bill. No, not the one where the government provides health care insurance for everyone, I am talking about the option for the public to witness the reconciliation of the House and Senate bills.

We have seen, and the Democrat Party has felt the results of the vote buying that has occurred to allow Obama to claim a health care reform victory (one of his campaign promises). Now that the reconciliation process is underway Obama is refusing to have the process be public, on CSPAN, "...so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents..." (another campaign promise). This gives the impression that all the bad press for not making things public is less than the bad press they would receive if we really knew what they were up to.

"I'm on record as saying that taxing Cadillac plans that don't make people healthier but just take more money out of their pockets because they're paying more for insurance than they need to, that's actually a good idea, and that helps bend the cost curve, that helps to reduce the cost of health care over the long term. I think that's a smart thing to do." - National Public Radio interview just before Christmas.

This is the usual sound bite Obama uses to distract from what he is doing, the prestige that distracts you from his sleight of hand. What he is saying is, "I am so much wiser than you that I will decide what health care insurance will make you healthier, and tax you if you disagree. Don't worry though, if you are going to be foolish and spend your money on insurance I do not approve of, you have plenty of extra money to spend helping finance somebody else's health insurance."

Obama seems to have it out for you if you want to live without health insurance, or if you want health insurance that is TOO good. What happened to a federal government that protected our liberty to choose for ourselves how to invest our money and live our lives?

My family spend a good amount of money in the effort to be healthy. We do not need a health insurance with low deductibles since we budget for medical expenses. Besides that, we participate in Medi-Share, a Christian medical expense sharing program. Will we be forced to participate in some other government approved program instead? Will we be fined or jailed if we do not want to change? How can this be fair?

Let's take the "Cadillac" mentality to the next level...where does it end? What is next, a special tax on certain types of makeup because it doesn't make women any prettier? How about a tax on certain "Cadillac schools" like Yale or Harvard because they don't really make you any smarter?

It is interesting that Cadillac is a GM product....you know, GM that is operated by the government....maybe people who actually buy those luxurious vehicles that do nothing to make anyone healthier should be taxed as well? No, wait, got that one backwards, Obama will want to tax those of us who by a Ford to subsidize those government Cadillac's he is selling...how ironic.

Confusing the Free Market

By the government artificially sustaining failing companies that are "too big to fail" they are confusing the free market. Failing companies encourage company leadership to make hard changes and investors to consider new (and better) companies. By allowing companies like GM to continue to operate despite the failing in the free market, you confuse investors. Some that would remove their investment and give it to a growing company to fuel it's good choices will leave their investment (or worse invest more) in companies that SHOULD fail, thereby enabling their bad choices. This creates a double hit on competitors because it removes risk from the failing company while increasing it for their legitimate competitors. It also forces competitors to become investors in the very companies that compete with them, with no hope of a return on their forced investment (in the form of higher taxes).

Government can't create jobs (unless they are government jobs that actually drain the economy). The government can't insure fairness. The government can't bail-out or rescue industries. The government doesn't produce revenue, it consumes it.

The bottom line is that the government has no business being involved in the free market. The market is self balancing and when you have the federal government trying to help, it just creates a pendulum affect.

The Road Not Taken

The Road Not Taken


Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveller, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference

...Robert Frost

'Stop trying to frighten the American people'

President Barack Obama told House Republican leaders to "stop trying to frighten the American people" even as he and Democrats said they see a possibility for bipartisan cooperation on job creation legislation.
See this article

It seems to me that anytime somebody disagrees with the President they have evil intensions according to...the White House. There is no way anyone could have a legitimate disagreement or a valid point that is contrary to Obama's. If you disagree with an Obama revelation you will get a either the arrogant condescension of "You just don't get it you poor ignorant person." or the instant over polarized "If you are against our Jobs bill you must WANT people to be unemployed so you can take advantage of them!"


The Obama Political Machine is so very obvious at this point:

1. Claim a mandate on the issue since you mentioned it when running for office.
2. Use "crisis" at least 10 times any time you speak to the media.
3. Label anyone who asks for clarification on potential problems with your solution as evil or ignorant (or both).
4. Give well read speeches saying things like, "Let me be clear", "The time is now", and "bipartisan", while spinning the issue, wasting time with lots of meetings that exclude those (evil or ignorant) Republicans.
5. Blitz the morning shows talking about "Don't let those Republicans scare you, we are getting it done." (except for FoxNews...they are evil and ignorant...not "real news").
6. Claim this is our only chance to tackle this issue for a generation (we may never make this offer again....CALL NOW!).
7. Claim to have fixed some problem that you blame on the Bush administration (whether you actually did or not).
8. Have a town hall meeting and solve a personal crisis for a person in the audience using the power of the president.
9. Have a beer summit.
10. Take a vacation after the legislation has passed and don't sign it until you are good and ready.
    

It looks like Hope and Change were code words for Fear and Manipulation. If this administration wants to stop the American people from being afraid they should start with themselves.

 

Nothing is sacred anymore

From a FoxNew.com article:

The video ad, "Frosty the Inappropriate Snowman," takes authentic dialogue from CBS' "How I Met Your Mother" and "Two and a Half Men" and dubs it on top of the cartoon classic, changing well-known "Frosty" scenes to contain suggestions that the snowman and his friends visit a "strip club."

"The ad introduces children to the idea of strippers and pornography," Raezler told FoxNews.com. "The people in charge obviously thought this was funny, but the question they should ask themselves is if this is appropriate, not if it's funny."


Raezler said the advertisement is another example of popular culture "pushing the envelope" on everything.


"It's sexing up Frosty," she said. "It really drives home the idea that nothing is sacred anymore."

I can see how this would be a simple mistake to make. Those of us who grew up with these cartoons could laugh at a frosty that grew up too. I don't mean to downplay promoting lewd behavior, or the thoughtlessness of doing so in a way that may attract the attention of children, but I imagine that CBS already does that in many ways. It is one thing to have shows that are "adult" in nature, but another thing to attract children's attention to the adult ideas. I think it was foolish, but sacrilege?

To me, this shows how ignorant we have become about what is "sacred". Frosty the snowman? Are you kidding me? The innocence of our children, that is sacred. God's truth, that is sacred. The gift of salvation through Jesus that we celebrate this time of year, THAT is sacred. We have exchanged the positions of the nostalgic and the sacred. We have elevated entertainment to a position well beyond its value. We have demoted a celebration of the gift of grace to the undeserving to a white elephant gift exchange and our bi-annual appearance at church.

OK, maybe I am getting a little deep and fervent, but there is a good point here somewhere! The press is always eager to latch onto a scoop about somebody being offended by somebody else. Conservatives and liberals both take their turns spinning things into more than they are to server their agenda. Why don't we let Frosty be the fond memory he is for many of us, but remember he is not sacred in the least. There is something sacred about Christmas, I would encourage you to seek it out in earnest.

Protecting vs. Providing Welfare

I do not know the guy speaking, but the sentiment of his speech I agree with. Specifically that our federal government is not responsible for providing a result, or specific quality of life, but rather to avoid impeding our ability to pursue the best opportunities we can find.

I predict that some will be upset by his reference to class warfare, fixing bayonets and charging. For a little perspective understand that many work very hard, take calculated risks (which is hard work if done correctly), and put our families through hardships in order to pursue, and hopefully profit, from opportunities we discover. It is very offensive to us when, after we have done all of this and finally reaping the fruit of our efforts, our gain is stolen from us and given to others. Taking from my family what we have worked to obtain and giving it to somebody else, no matter how needy they are, is wrong, always. I believe that it is important to help others, and I do. However, government bureaucrats and politicians seeking to buy votes from the entitlement minded masses are not likely to be efficient, effective, or unbiased in their efforts to "help".

A Reason Why

Many have wondered what could have motivated the Nobel Committee to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama. Not only has he not actually done anything other than scold everybody for not getting along, there we others nominated that had made great sacrifices and achieve real change for peace.

At the risk of being labeled a conspiracy theorist, I have an idea how this might play out.

Many "world leaders" have spoken of Obama's receipt of this award by stressing that, although he has not yet achieved anything regarding real peace, he has created hope, and there is a great expectation and responsibility accompanying this award. I am sure that when Obama arrives at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen this December he will be reminded of this expectation and responsibility.

Between Obama's penchant for apologizing for the US, his disregard for our founding documents, and the "never let a crisis go to waste" policy, he is a poster child for trading our sovereignty for world government rule. I am sure he has already chosen the pen he will use to sign the treaty, and Rahm Emanuel is crafting the sound bite to adorn Obama's teleprompter. Once he agrees to let a world government supersede our constitution and US law, he can insist that we have no choice on any number of issues because the world government has decided them already.

What could be so harmful about a Global Climate Treaty you say? The harm comes in many ways, for starters we are allowing a foreign body to dictate law to our nation. Any authority ceded to the UN threatens our ability as a nation to protect the inalienable rights we were are founded on. This has a direct impact on our liberty.

Although it is often implied that the UN is somehow pure in intention, it is just another political body, it's global nature making it more corrupt, not less. There are many competing nations, interested in treaties that will enable them to skew the playing field to their advantage. Indeed the idea of "fairness" says that the stronger, more advanced nations should endure more restrictions, greater cost, and greater penalties for failure to adhere. This has a direct impact on our economy.

At this conference "developed" nations are expected to finance the cost of the treaty and it's requirements. According to Connie Hegegaard, COP15 president (called COP15 because it is held in Copenhagen and it is the 15th in a series of conferences stemming from the 1992 Earth Summit in RIO), "They cannot just continue to talk about finance. They must show – prove – to the developing world, we know that we are going to pay..." Obligating our nation to finance a treaty run by the UN (notorious for corruption and embezzlement) will burden us in the midst of our current logarithmic expanse of national debt. This is a direct threat to our viability.

Yes, there is a reason for Obama's prize, just like there is a reason the God Father does you a favor. The real prize for Obama is his oversized ego getting stroked, and for that, I can imagine him doing anything.

Obama's Nobel Mood Prize

I can't say any headline has shocked me as much as the one I saw this morning, "Obama awarded Nobel Peace Prize." What?!? He hasn't even achieved a treaty of peace for the parties to ignore yet, let alone any actual progress towards peace. They literally recognized him for changing the global mood! That would be like a football coach getting awarded coach of the year, after only being coach for a few game (mostly losses), because he gave a couple of inspiring speeches and everyone hopes his team wins.

Here is what the headline SHOULD have said, "World Community encourages Obama to continue degrading US interest so they can gain power."

Here is what was mentioned beyond the "change in global mood":

...his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.

This is simply the One World tyrants cheering the man who is dismantling the only remaining super power. Did you catch that "diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism" lingo? That is code for "Not doing anything we don't approve of". Who is "we"? That would be all the other nations that want to be the most powerful on the planet, so ultimately they can act unilaterally.

Sure they mention reducing nuclear arms, but he hasn't achieved anything real in this area, and he won't. Why would I be so negative? Let me see, maybe because I know that Russia, China, North Korea, and every other nation with any sense (a list that is getting shorter all the time) would not get rid of their nuclear arms. I am not negative, I just know a little bit about humans nature.

What about reducing tension with Muslims? Well he sure has talked a lot about that, but last time I checked Islamic extremists and their supporters were definitely taking advantage of Obama's extended hand of friendship. Unfortunately for us, as Obama stands there with his hand extended (or in some cases bowing in submission to Arab leaders), the Muslims are continuing to pursue Allah's command to "Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush."

The very bad news is how this award will encourage those Americans who think it is unfair that the US can act unilaterally if we need to. I would expect Obama's apologies for the US being strong to continue, if not increase. The joke is on us, we are getting an award for being ashamed of our actual achievements and surrendering our hard won position of power to our global competitors.

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," said Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee.

Yes, I am sure he is getting the attention of the world’s leaders, and building their hope for a better future. Unfortunately for us, that better future includes transfering power and wealth to them from us. Yes, it is very rare that such an eloquent fool would be allowed to give away the hard won liberty of so many.