Recently President Barack Hussein Obama had the following to say about recent legislation signed into law in Arizona:
"That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe,"
What horrible unfair thing are they doing that will destroy the trust between communities and the police? They will require people in Arizona to be legally in the country. The police will have to question people on the legality of their immigration status if there is reason to believe they may not be here legally. So I am wondering what cherished American notion we are undermining. It seems more likely to me that Obama seeks to undermine the cherished notions of liberty and personal responsibility in whatever remote corners of America they still exist in.
In addition to making his arrogant remarks, President Barack Hussein Obama has the Justice Department examining it to see if it's legal. I wonder how the legality of this will be determined since our president intends to Fundamentally Transform America, the constitution, you know, that status quo document written by a bunch of old white guys, certainly can't be used. What we really need is a word from on high from Mr. Hope and Change himself.
Sorry, the irony took me for a second there.
The really insane thing is that Arizona law ONLY requires they be here legally according to current US immigration law. How unfair of them.
If anyone is misguided and suffering from irresponsibility it is the federal government. How often do I say the federal government SHOULD be doing something, should be involved, IS responsible for something? Immigration and border security happens to be one of those things, but our President thinks it is unfair to require people enter our country according to our established immigration law. The things the federal government has no business regulating, outlawing, or providing, Obama insists on. One of the few things our federal government SHOULD do and, guess what, Obama thinks it is bad.
Perhaps he needs all these people to stay so he can grant them amnesty, make them citizens, promise them a bunch of entitlements, all just in time for 2010 elections. The thing is, Arizona is also working on a law requiring all presidential candidates to show proof of US birth, so maybe it is actually good for Obama if Arizona cracks down...all those illegal immigrants will relocate and be able to vote for him in other states.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
President Obama has offered to talk unconditionally
President Obama has offered to talk unconditionally...with Iran, but Israel is a different story.
This month Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Barack Hussein Obama. For once our President didn't bow to the foreign leader, in fact, they didn't even have a photo op for reporters.
Apparently after Obama failed to secure a written promise from Israel to make concessions on settlements, he just walked out of the meeting. Something tells me that is a little different than how he would treat Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the same situation...or Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz (who received both a bow and a photo op)...or the Japanese Emperor Akihito (also received a bow)..or even Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio (she also got a bow). As he was leaving Obama said that the PM could continue to talk to his advisors and get back to him when he was ready to forget about the settlements. Obama then excused himself from dining with Netanyahu and didn't even give him an iPod preloaded with Obama's Greatest Hits or a DVD set of American films.
What is the cause of this ridiculous treatment? Obama is throwing a hissy fit because Israel announced new settlements in east Jerusalem earlier this month when VP Joe "this is a big #$%ing deal" Biden was visiting. Biden on the other hand most likely thanked the PM for distracting the press from headlining whatever stupid thing he said while there.
So what is the moral of the story? Don't stand in the way of Obama's historical Presidency. Netanyahu must have forgotten that Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for...for...well...for nothing really, but that is the point, this could have been proof that Obama is going to bring peace to the middle east. A word of advice to our other allies, just remember, it is all about Obama.
This month Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Barack Hussein Obama. For once our President didn't bow to the foreign leader, in fact, they didn't even have a photo op for reporters.
Apparently after Obama failed to secure a written promise from Israel to make concessions on settlements, he just walked out of the meeting. Something tells me that is a little different than how he would treat Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the same situation...or Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz (who received both a bow and a photo op)...or the Japanese Emperor Akihito (also received a bow)..or even Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio (she also got a bow). As he was leaving Obama said that the PM could continue to talk to his advisors and get back to him when he was ready to forget about the settlements. Obama then excused himself from dining with Netanyahu and didn't even give him an iPod preloaded with Obama's Greatest Hits or a DVD set of American films.
What is the cause of this ridiculous treatment? Obama is throwing a hissy fit because Israel announced new settlements in east Jerusalem earlier this month when VP Joe "this is a big #$%ing deal" Biden was visiting. Biden on the other hand most likely thanked the PM for distracting the press from headlining whatever stupid thing he said while there.
So what is the moral of the story? Don't stand in the way of Obama's historical Presidency. Netanyahu must have forgotten that Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for...for...well...for nothing really, but that is the point, this could have been proof that Obama is going to bring peace to the middle east. A word of advice to our other allies, just remember, it is all about Obama.
Finally something I agree with Obama about!
The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for these interests, for their future. So what they’re looking for is some courage. They’re waiting for us to act. They’re waiting for us to lead. They don’t want us putting our finger out to the wind. They don’t want us reading polls. They want us to look and see what is the best thing for America, and then do what’s right. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. - Barack Hussein Obama
Our leaders should be governing by polls, protests, and re-election hopes. We should elect our politicians based on their professed, and hopefully demonstrated, principles. They should then govern by those same principles. Polls and protests are good for drawing the attention of our leaders to a particular issue, but should not override the principles held by the leader. I am tired of the pandering of politicians to whatever cause or special interest they feel empowers them at the moment, only to switch their position when the wind changes (I was for it before I was against it). I believe Obama has done this pretty well.
The problem is that, no matter what he reads us from his teleprompter, Obama's principles are founded in socialism and self interest. He is an arrogant elitist who believes that he is being the public servant his office is supposed to be by forcing his radical agenda on us for our own good. He vacillates between pity and annoyance at our ignorance.
In January 2009 Rush Limbaugh was criticized for stating that he hoped the soon to be President Barack Hussein Obama would fail. Many couldn't believe that Rush would hope for such a thing, but Rush saw that Obama would lead from his principles, principles of radical socialism. Since Rush's principles are diametrically opposed to Obama's, there is no shame in hoping Obama would fail, anything else would not make sense.
The thing that really bothers me are the many politicians (from all parties) that have only one principle, "Look out for number one." Many have wondered if Obama is politically suicidal by pushing for National Health-Care and other elements of his socialist agenda, but I don't believe that is the case. Obama pursues his principles, polls and popularity be damned. We need some liberty minded leaders with this same principled tenacity.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
They Want To Control Us...big surprise
Rep. John Dingle says it was difficult to design the health-care bill to be able to control us.
Defenders of minorities
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
2010 Census
So I open the 2010 Census, look at the questions and think, "Why are they asking me all these questions?"
How many people live in my home...that I get...used to decide on congressional districting.
The second question, "Were there any additional people staying here April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1?" At first I figured they thought that somebody might have answered with "-1" for question 1 as an April Fools joke or not counted their cyclops inbred daughter in the basement. If the second scenario is you, I think there is a section of the new health-care bill that will pay for special cyclops eye glasses. So anyway, after I called the help number on the back and pressed 1 for English, they told me neither of my ideas were right, but the health-care bill does cover contact lenses for inbred cyclops (the fact that they only need one contact was seen as cost savings that helped justify the bill).
So then they move on to a question about whether your home is a house, apartment, or a mobile home. This got me thinking again (scary huh?), when they say mobile home, are they talking about a Winnebago, a singlewide, or maybe a cardboard box in a shopping cart? Either way I don't see why the government needs to know. I didn't call the help line about this one.
Next they asked for my telephone number so they can call me if they don't understand my answers. I don't see why that would be necessary. Anyone reading this can see how thorough I am in my communication, why would they need to call me?
Now here is where it gets complicated. They ask seven questions about every person in the home. In my home this is a big deal because there are seven of us, so that makes their estimate of "10 minutes to complete, including the time for reviewing the instructions and answers." completely unrealistic for me not even counting the call about the cyclops (talk about something they couldn't understand).
Here are the remaining questions:
5. Name (seems like it should have been first to me)
6. Sex (as in male or female)
7. Age and date of birth (seems redundant)
8. Are you Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
9. Race (uh...human last time I checked)
10. Do you sometimes stay somewhere else (doesn't everybody? I mean, unless you are an inbred cyclops)
All kidding aside, questions 6 through 10 seem totally inappropriate for the government to be asking. The census is about determining population based representation (or at least it should be). I know, I know, I have seen the ads that talk about roads, bridges, and hospitols being based on census numbers. That is the carrot. The stick is up to a $5000.00 fine if you don't answer all the questions.
I am pretty sure that the data is used to qualify areas for their "fair share" of federal funding for projects. I would love to know why they are so concerned with race, Hispanic/Latino roots, and sex of citizens.
How many people live in my home...that I get...used to decide on congressional districting.
The second question, "Were there any additional people staying here April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1?" At first I figured they thought that somebody might have answered with "-1" for question 1 as an April Fools joke or not counted their cyclops inbred daughter in the basement. If the second scenario is you, I think there is a section of the new health-care bill that will pay for special cyclops eye glasses. So anyway, after I called the help number on the back and pressed 1 for English, they told me neither of my ideas were right, but the health-care bill does cover contact lenses for inbred cyclops (the fact that they only need one contact was seen as cost savings that helped justify the bill).
So then they move on to a question about whether your home is a house, apartment, or a mobile home. This got me thinking again (scary huh?), when they say mobile home, are they talking about a Winnebago, a singlewide, or maybe a cardboard box in a shopping cart? Either way I don't see why the government needs to know. I didn't call the help line about this one.
Next they asked for my telephone number so they can call me if they don't understand my answers. I don't see why that would be necessary. Anyone reading this can see how thorough I am in my communication, why would they need to call me?
Now here is where it gets complicated. They ask seven questions about every person in the home. In my home this is a big deal because there are seven of us, so that makes their estimate of "10 minutes to complete, including the time for reviewing the instructions and answers." completely unrealistic for me not even counting the call about the cyclops (talk about something they couldn't understand).
Here are the remaining questions:
5. Name (seems like it should have been first to me)
6. Sex (as in male or female)
7. Age and date of birth (seems redundant)
8. Are you Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
9. Race (uh...human last time I checked)
10. Do you sometimes stay somewhere else (doesn't everybody? I mean, unless you are an inbred cyclops)
All kidding aside, questions 6 through 10 seem totally inappropriate for the government to be asking. The census is about determining population based representation (or at least it should be). I know, I know, I have seen the ads that talk about roads, bridges, and hospitols being based on census numbers. That is the carrot. The stick is up to a $5000.00 fine if you don't answer all the questions.
I am pretty sure that the data is used to qualify areas for their "fair share" of federal funding for projects. I would love to know why they are so concerned with race, Hispanic/Latino roots, and sex of citizens.
Monday, March 22, 2010
This is what change looks like
"The United States Congress finally declared that America's workers and America's families and small businesses deserve the security of knowing that here in this country neither illness nor accident should endanger the dreams they worked a lifetime to achieve." - Barack Hussein Obama
This sounds like an infomercial:
"Yes, that's right folks, you dream it and the US federal government will make sure that nothing, thats right, NOTHING, interferes with your dream. No medical insurance? We have you covered. No money? No problem, we will just make more and give it to you. The responsibility of raising that child you didn't plan on getting you down? We can make it all go away AND it is covered in your new mandatory Health-Care. Your dreams WILL HAPPEN, and all you have to do is VOTE US IN, we will do the rest AT NO COST TO YOU!"
This would make a great SNL skit, but as reality it is not funny.
It is bad enough that the government has taken even more of our liberty in the guise of yet another "just the right thing to do.", but forcing all people participate is such a blatant revocation of our unalienable Rights staggers the mind. The health-care legislation is bad, but that is not the story here. The real story is how we are being forced to make choices on health-care that the government approves of. I am wondering, what, exactly, the federal government can't tell us to do now.
Can the government pass the Organic Vegetarian Diet bill? Can it require that my family eat a strict vegetarian diet of organic food? You could make a case that it would benefit my family, so why would it be wrong? The Fed (pun intended) could have programs for helping those who can't afford organic food and fine those who refuse to change to the government approved diet (you know, because we all pay the bill when those meat eating savages have health issues).
Colon cancer is a big issue, lots of folks die because of it. Maybe we need a federally mandated colon cleanse that all comrades...errr...I mean citizens have to use every 3 months. How could that be wrong, I mean it helps people, right? We could do a test run in Congress, because you know they are full of....uh...well because we know how hard they work on our behalf.
All joking aside, the character of our nation, this grand experiment in liberty, is in peril. The cancer of entitlement will metastasize soon and invade every vital organ in our nation. Now is the time for us to rescue the liberty of our children and grandchildren. We will already bare the shame of allowing our comfort and complacency to lull us into a stupor of inaction, but we can also be known as the generation that woke up just in time. Tyrants abhor a vacuum of power and fill it with their own will if we let them. We still have the opportunity to prove that free men can, and should, rule themselves.
This sounds like an infomercial:
"Yes, that's right folks, you dream it and the US federal government will make sure that nothing, thats right, NOTHING, interferes with your dream. No medical insurance? We have you covered. No money? No problem, we will just make more and give it to you. The responsibility of raising that child you didn't plan on getting you down? We can make it all go away AND it is covered in your new mandatory Health-Care. Your dreams WILL HAPPEN, and all you have to do is VOTE US IN, we will do the rest AT NO COST TO YOU!"
This would make a great SNL skit, but as reality it is not funny.
It is bad enough that the government has taken even more of our liberty in the guise of yet another "just the right thing to do.", but forcing all people participate is such a blatant revocation of our unalienable Rights staggers the mind. The health-care legislation is bad, but that is not the story here. The real story is how we are being forced to make choices on health-care that the government approves of. I am wondering, what, exactly, the federal government can't tell us to do now.
Can the government pass the Organic Vegetarian Diet bill? Can it require that my family eat a strict vegetarian diet of organic food? You could make a case that it would benefit my family, so why would it be wrong? The Fed (pun intended) could have programs for helping those who can't afford organic food and fine those who refuse to change to the government approved diet (you know, because we all pay the bill when those meat eating savages have health issues).
Colon cancer is a big issue, lots of folks die because of it. Maybe we need a federally mandated colon cleanse that all comrades...errr...I mean citizens have to use every 3 months. How could that be wrong, I mean it helps people, right? We could do a test run in Congress, because you know they are full of....uh...well because we know how hard they work on our behalf.
All joking aside, the character of our nation, this grand experiment in liberty, is in peril. The cancer of entitlement will metastasize soon and invade every vital organ in our nation. Now is the time for us to rescue the liberty of our children and grandchildren. We will already bare the shame of allowing our comfort and complacency to lull us into a stupor of inaction, but we can also be known as the generation that woke up just in time. Tyrants abhor a vacuum of power and fill it with their own will if we let them. We still have the opportunity to prove that free men can, and should, rule themselves.
Friday, March 19, 2010
"You know we're going to control the insurance companies"
In an interview with ABC Vice President Joe Biden sounds pretty confident. He is confident that the Health-Care takeover will pass. He is confident that, just like Mikey and Life cereal, once we try it we will like it. He is confident that the Democrat congressmen that are being told to vote this in (or else) will be "rewarded" for it come election time. Just for the record, and Democrat congressmen might want to consider this, he was confident that Ireland's PM Brian Cowen's mother was dead.
What is Biden really saying here? It is an old story really, a story of dependence and entitlement. It is the favorite story, and strategy, of the Democrats. Outwardly Democrats are claiming ObamaCare is all about taking care of the down trodden, standing up for those with terminal or chronic illness against the evil, greedy, insurance companies. This of course is the perfect setup for polarizing the debate into those for the innocent (Democrats...unless you are an innocent unborn child) and those who don't care about the woman who is going to lose her house because she has cancer and no insurance (Republicans...even though she probably won't). What Biden is really saying to congress is, "Forgetaboutit, this has worked a thousand times before. All of this will be over soon and we will be making sure the media runs nothing but stories of people getting rescued by ObamaCare. For crying out loud, if an idiot like me can run these plays and rise to Vice President, think what it will do for you!"....or something like that. Rahm would just say, "If I want to know what ya think about Nationalized Health-Care...I'll tell ya...@#$%ing retard! Now unless ya want me to visit you in the shower, go vote yes."
The bottom line is they don't care what is right, they don't care about the constitution, they only care about building a dependent voter base that believes all the propaganda fed to them by the media. It is about creating a perpetual state of "crisis" so that Obama can demand we act now and figure it out later. Obama hasn't been around long enough to be responsible for the sad state of this nation, but if he has his way, he will be responsible for the death blow that will sever the foundational principles of liberty from our national character.
Resources:
Woman with cancer going to lose her home....or not. - Yahoo and FoxNews.com
Biden Interview with ABC - ABCnews.com
Biden eulogizing Ireland PM's mother (while she is still alive) - YouTube.com
1973-1978 Life Cereal "Mikey" Commercial - YouTube.com
Story on Rahm Emanuel naked with Eric Massa - Reuters.com
Story of Rahm Emanuel calling liberal activists "f---ing retarded." - ABCnews.com
Story of Rahm Emanuel selling his mother for a vote - JustKidding.com
What is Biden really saying here? It is an old story really, a story of dependence and entitlement. It is the favorite story, and strategy, of the Democrats. Outwardly Democrats are claiming ObamaCare is all about taking care of the down trodden, standing up for those with terminal or chronic illness against the evil, greedy, insurance companies. This of course is the perfect setup for polarizing the debate into those for the innocent (Democrats...unless you are an innocent unborn child) and those who don't care about the woman who is going to lose her house because she has cancer and no insurance (Republicans...even though she probably won't). What Biden is really saying to congress is, "Forgetaboutit, this has worked a thousand times before. All of this will be over soon and we will be making sure the media runs nothing but stories of people getting rescued by ObamaCare. For crying out loud, if an idiot like me can run these plays and rise to Vice President, think what it will do for you!"....or something like that. Rahm would just say, "If I want to know what ya think about Nationalized Health-Care...I'll tell ya...@#$%ing retard! Now unless ya want me to visit you in the shower, go vote yes."
The bottom line is they don't care what is right, they don't care about the constitution, they only care about building a dependent voter base that believes all the propaganda fed to them by the media. It is about creating a perpetual state of "crisis" so that Obama can demand we act now and figure it out later. Obama hasn't been around long enough to be responsible for the sad state of this nation, but if he has his way, he will be responsible for the death blow that will sever the foundational principles of liberty from our national character.
Resources:
Woman with cancer going to lose her home....or not. - Yahoo and FoxNews.com
Biden Interview with ABC - ABCnews.com
Biden eulogizing Ireland PM's mother (while she is still alive) - YouTube.com
1973-1978 Life Cereal "Mikey" Commercial - YouTube.com
Story on Rahm Emanuel naked with Eric Massa - Reuters.com
Story of Rahm Emanuel calling liberal activists "f---ing retarded." - ABCnews.com
Story of Rahm Emanuel selling his mother for a vote - JustKidding.com
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Textbook fate in the hands of just 15 people
Who would have thought that textbooks in Texas would be such a hot topic? Well the beat goes on!
One reason this is seen as more of a national issue has to do with the way the textbook market works. Texas represents a large part (everything is bigger in Texas right?) of the textbook market. It stands to reason that if you make and sell textbooks you would want to be competitive in the Texas market. The fear is that the rest of the nation will have to use whatever standards Texas comes up with because that is what the textbook manufacturers will use when they design their books. This somehow ends up falling into the very wide and very grey "fairness" category for many folks.
The bottom line is that all of the "news" outlets like a good controversy...it is good for business. The reality is that this is the free market working as designed, supply and demand. Texas represents the largest demand therefore the supply is targeted to their standards. Unfair? Nope. If a savvy textbook company wanted to let their competition compete with 90% of other textbook companies, while they pursued the combined remaining textbook market, that sounds like a fair, and good, opportunity. A little innovation in low volume printing and customizable text might be a boon to the industry, but don't look for innovation if we beg our government to regulate textbook manufacturers.
Here are some helpful links if you care to keep up with this issue:
Remember, the fate of your children's education is not in the hands of SBOE, it is in your hands. Take that responsibility serious and your kids will get the education that is best for them. Pawn that responsibility off on the government and your children will be taught the values of the state. The choice is ALWAYS yours.
One reason this is seen as more of a national issue has to do with the way the textbook market works. Texas represents a large part (everything is bigger in Texas right?) of the textbook market. It stands to reason that if you make and sell textbooks you would want to be competitive in the Texas market. The fear is that the rest of the nation will have to use whatever standards Texas comes up with because that is what the textbook manufacturers will use when they design their books. This somehow ends up falling into the very wide and very grey "fairness" category for many folks.
The bottom line is that all of the "news" outlets like a good controversy...it is good for business. The reality is that this is the free market working as designed, supply and demand. Texas represents the largest demand therefore the supply is targeted to their standards. Unfair? Nope. If a savvy textbook company wanted to let their competition compete with 90% of other textbook companies, while they pursued the combined remaining textbook market, that sounds like a fair, and good, opportunity. A little innovation in low volume printing and customizable text might be a boon to the industry, but don't look for innovation if we beg our government to regulate textbook manufacturers.
Here are some helpful links if you care to keep up with this issue:
Remember, the fate of your children's education is not in the hands of SBOE, it is in your hands. Take that responsibility serious and your kids will get the education that is best for them. Pawn that responsibility off on the government and your children will be taught the values of the state. The choice is ALWAYS yours.
It's the Liberty Stupid
"I'm more optimistic than I was a week ago," Stupak told The Associated Press between meetings with constituents in his northern Michigan district, including a crowded town hall gathering where opinions on health care and the abortion issue were plentiful and varied.Repeatedly during Obama's push for nationalized health-care the GOP has made a very public last stand on abortions being covered. I am sure this is welcome news for Obama since it gives him the perfect bone to throw to (or maybe at) the GOP.
"The president says he doesn't want to expand or restrict current law (on abortion). Neither do I," Stupak said. "That's never been our position. So is there some language that we can agree on that hits both points -- we don't restrict, we don't expand abortion rights? I think we can get there." - FoxNews.com (of course)
The scenario goes something like this:
Obama designs a national health-care plan that includes abortion on demand, along with thousands of pages of other power grabs for the federal government. As various conservative groups sift through the bill they look for hot issues to illuminate. Once they locate the part about abortion they immediately pass this information on to the GOP legislators (who likely haven't read the bill) demanding they stand up for life. Fearing a backlash in the next election, the GOP legislators grandstand on the "abortion issue". This is music to the ears of Obama since he can push the legislators to make a concession to prove he is non-partisan and the GOP has a voice (what a wonderful guy). The liberal legislators grumble a bit and eventually make the concession (as planned from the beginning) prompting Pro-Life groups to shout "Victory!!" Obama moves to "Get this deal done" and if any GOP legislator objects to any other elements in the bill it proves that the GOP are really just a bunch of obstructionists. The bill goes through after much arm-twisting, mud-slinging, and spin. A year later this issue of abortion not being covered is attached to a bill to provide funds to better equip our soldiers in Afghanistan and Obama has his victory.
How many times have you heard that the Democrats plan on passing the bill via reconciliation and then amending the bill later to "fine tune it"? When was the last time you heard the federal government say, "This nation program isn't working out so we are going to phase it out"? Obama is employing an incremental strategy to get national health-care established in some form (which will never go away no matter how bad it is) and grow it.
Making the nationalized health-care debate about abortion, or any other issue besides liberty, is just wrong. The root issue of national health-care is that it is completely out of scope for the responsibilities of the federal government. As Rep. mike Pence (R - IN) recently said, saying no to bad legislation is underrated in D.C.
More Textbook News
In another FoxNews.com article...what?...Oh, you think I read nothing but FoxNews propaganda and have no mind of my own. Well let me address that real quick. I have found that many (if not most) of the other media outlets (notice nobody calls them news agencies any more) feature and exclude in a very biased way. Take this issue, FoxNews.com picked it up, but I couldn't find it anywhere else in the "Main Stream Media". Don't get me wrong, FoxNews.com has it's share of junk, mostly in the form of celebrity/gossip news and Victoria Secret/FMH advertisements made to look like news, which ticks me off. The difference is that FoxNews.com doesn't ignore news because it doesn't fit their agenda. So....that is enough of that.
As I was saying before I got interrupted, in another FoxNews.com article today there is a bit of controversy in Texas over what should or shouldn't be in their states textbooks. Read it for yourself, I don't want to rehash the details, it is the broader idea I am interested in.
For a very long time liberal interests have worked to be the only voice in education (and their agenda still dominates overall). The questioning of textbooks used to educate our children is a natural result of a sort of awakening that has been (slowly) occurring in the US with regard to conservative values our nation was founded on. When you kids come home and inform you that your conservative ideas are wrong it gets your attention. When you talk about it and they act as if they do not need to discuss anything because their professor/teacher told them your ideas are wrong, and then they point to a page in their textbook that backs it up, it is way past time to question what is going into textbooks.
The "experts" that are interviewed in these articles have opined about the influence of special interests groups inserting their agenda into textbooks. This was fine when it involved inserting Global Warming (like evolution this is taught as a fact, not a theory) into science books, and don't get me started about what is taught about the Civil War. Now when conservatives want to be sure things like the Liberty Bell and Paul Revere are mentioned liberal experts exclaim, "The Christians are coming! The Christians are coming!"
This level of over sensitivity reveals how the liberals value the ability to control education, and thereby, rewrite history and shape the worldview of the next generation. The tenacity of our effort to reclaim the truth in textbooks will reveal how much we conservatives value truth and our children's grasp of it.
As I was saying before I got interrupted, in another FoxNews.com article today there is a bit of controversy in Texas over what should or shouldn't be in their states textbooks. Read it for yourself, I don't want to rehash the details, it is the broader idea I am interested in.
For a very long time liberal interests have worked to be the only voice in education (and their agenda still dominates overall). The questioning of textbooks used to educate our children is a natural result of a sort of awakening that has been (slowly) occurring in the US with regard to conservative values our nation was founded on. When you kids come home and inform you that your conservative ideas are wrong it gets your attention. When you talk about it and they act as if they do not need to discuss anything because their professor/teacher told them your ideas are wrong, and then they point to a page in their textbook that backs it up, it is way past time to question what is going into textbooks.
The "experts" that are interviewed in these articles have opined about the influence of special interests groups inserting their agenda into textbooks. This was fine when it involved inserting Global Warming (like evolution this is taught as a fact, not a theory) into science books, and don't get me started about what is taught about the Civil War. Now when conservatives want to be sure things like the Liberty Bell and Paul Revere are mentioned liberal experts exclaim, "The Christians are coming! The Christians are coming!"
This level of over sensitivity reveals how the liberals value the ability to control education, and thereby, rewrite history and shape the worldview of the next generation. The tenacity of our effort to reclaim the truth in textbooks will reveal how much we conservatives value truth and our children's grasp of it.
Monday, March 8, 2010
The status quo is absolutely broken!
In an article by FoxNews.com Rep. Chris Van Hollen is quoted as saying, "I think the trend is in the right direction because people see that the status quo is absolutely broken," on CNN's "State of the Union" about current Health-Care legislation. Absolutely broken is strong language that recognizes none of the aspects of our current Health-Care system that make it the best in the world.
If I have a car that starts smoking a little, or that pulls to the left when I drive, I do not decide that I need to get a new electric car. Yes, having an electric car would mean that the smoking caused by oil getting into the cylinders would go away, and you could say that is good. A new car would presumably be well aligned when I by it, and not fighting a left steering car is good. The thing is, the new car will have a whole new set of challenges to deal with, maybe more inconvenient than what I am currently dealing with. My point is, if your car is smoking a little bit, you go have a new set of rings put in. If it pulls to the left, you go get an alignment. If the Health-Care system has some problems, you fix the problems individually, you don't nationalize it. What happened to the scalpel Obama talked about during his campaign?
The status quo for US Health-Care is better than most other places in the world. Sure, WE could make it better, and WE should, but WE definitely does not mean having the government do it for us. Obama likes to quote Voltaire saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good", he should take his own advice.
If I have a car that starts smoking a little, or that pulls to the left when I drive, I do not decide that I need to get a new electric car. Yes, having an electric car would mean that the smoking caused by oil getting into the cylinders would go away, and you could say that is good. A new car would presumably be well aligned when I by it, and not fighting a left steering car is good. The thing is, the new car will have a whole new set of challenges to deal with, maybe more inconvenient than what I am currently dealing with. My point is, if your car is smoking a little bit, you go have a new set of rings put in. If it pulls to the left, you go get an alignment. If the Health-Care system has some problems, you fix the problems individually, you don't nationalize it. What happened to the scalpel Obama talked about during his campaign?
The status quo for US Health-Care is better than most other places in the world. Sure, WE could make it better, and WE should, but WE definitely does not mean having the government do it for us. Obama likes to quote Voltaire saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good", he should take his own advice.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Top Home-School Texts Dismiss Darwin and Evolution
I read an article on FoxNews.com tonight that I thought was interesting. It was an AP story they ran on how many, if not most, Home-School biology text books present a creationist world view instead of an evolution world view.
It starts describing the experience of Susan Mule, a home school mom, and her daughter Elizabeth:
The article makes it seem as though Susan and her daughter are victims of a hate crime because their ideas on biology were not taught in these books. If they have such a strong faith in evolution, you would think she would put forth more effort to know what text she was using before she used it. How ridiculous is it for her to get mad at the publishers for what they printed in their biology curriculum, when she obviously didn't take the time to preview it to be sure it fit her worldview.
It gets better though. Apparently home-schooling families that do not subscribe to a creation worldview feel "Isolated and frustrated". Many home-schooling families using these text can empathize with this feeling since that is what drove them to home-school in the first place. You see, in public school (and many private schools) a creationist worldview is considered disallowable because it is associated with the Bible. Despite a lack of substantive proof for the theory of evolution and much evidence supporting creation, the politically correct cult of public education insists on pushing it's agenda that science must never have anything in common with Christianity (or in this case Judaism and Islam as well).
Next they accused the two best selling biology textbooks of stacking the deck against evolution. They even quote a scientist (or at least a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago...I am sure he is not at all biased), who said, "I feel fairly strongly about this. These books are promulgating lies to kids." Well notice he talks about how he feels, but doesn't mention what even one of these so called lies might be. He must think that it is enough that he is a scientist saying so, because, you know, scientist never lie (especially about science like Global Warming).
Skip a few paragraphs and you are introduced to Mia Perry (aka Mia-Like-to-Whine-a-Lot) another home-school mom being discriminated against by the free market.
Here is her story:
Jerry Coyne (the unbiased Prof. from Chicago) is now joined by Duncan Porter, a biology professor from Virginia Tech, in revealing this crisis of blasphemy against the faith of evolution, giving the 10th grade biology text from Apologia and Bob Jones an F. The open minded Coyne chimes in again saying, "If this is the way kids are home-schooled then they're being shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology." He is worried that deceiving naive home-schooled students with these lies will steer them away from careers in biology or the study of the earth.
Adam Browns parents disagree:
It starts describing the experience of Susan Mule, a home school mom, and her daughter Elizabeth:
Home-school mom Susan Mule wishes she hadn't taken a friend's advice and tried a textbook from a popular Christian publisher for her 10-year-old's biology lessons.
Mule's precocious daughter Elizabeth excels at science and has been studying tarantulas since she was 5. But she watched Elizabeth's excitement turn to confusion when they reached the evolution section of the book from Apologia Educational Ministries, which disputed Charles Darwin's theory.
"I thought she was going to have a coronary," Mule said of her daughter, who is now 16 and taking college courses in Houston. "She's like, 'This is not true!'"
The article makes it seem as though Susan and her daughter are victims of a hate crime because their ideas on biology were not taught in these books. If they have such a strong faith in evolution, you would think she would put forth more effort to know what text she was using before she used it. How ridiculous is it for her to get mad at the publishers for what they printed in their biology curriculum, when she obviously didn't take the time to preview it to be sure it fit her worldview.
It gets better though. Apparently home-schooling families that do not subscribe to a creation worldview feel "Isolated and frustrated". Many home-schooling families using these text can empathize with this feeling since that is what drove them to home-school in the first place. You see, in public school (and many private schools) a creationist worldview is considered disallowable because it is associated with the Bible. Despite a lack of substantive proof for the theory of evolution and much evidence supporting creation, the politically correct cult of public education insists on pushing it's agenda that science must never have anything in common with Christianity (or in this case Judaism and Islam as well).
Next they accused the two best selling biology textbooks of stacking the deck against evolution. They even quote a scientist (or at least a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago...I am sure he is not at all biased), who said, "I feel fairly strongly about this. These books are promulgating lies to kids." Well notice he talks about how he feels, but doesn't mention what even one of these so called lies might be. He must think that it is enough that he is a scientist saying so, because, you know, scientist never lie (especially about science like Global Warming).
Skip a few paragraphs and you are introduced to Mia Perry (aka Mia-Like-to-Whine-a-Lot) another home-school mom being discriminated against by the free market.
Here is her story:
In Kentucky, Lexington home-schooler Mia Perry remembers feeling disheartened while flipping through a home-school curriculum catalog and finding so many religious-themed textbooks.So what is next, an article about how disheartened Mia was when she looked through a menu at her local Jewish deli only to find only Kosher foods?
"We're not religious home-schoolers, and there's somewhat of a feeling of being outnumbered," said Perry, who has home-schooled three of her four children after removing her oldest child from a public school because of a health condition.
Perry said she cobbled together her own curriculum after some mainstream publishers told her they would not sell directly to home-schooling parents.
Jerry Coyne (the unbiased Prof. from Chicago) is now joined by Duncan Porter, a biology professor from Virginia Tech, in revealing this crisis of blasphemy against the faith of evolution, giving the 10th grade biology text from Apologia and Bob Jones an F. The open minded Coyne chimes in again saying, "If this is the way kids are home-schooled then they're being shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology." He is worried that deceiving naive home-schooled students with these lies will steer them away from careers in biology or the study of the earth.
Adam Browns parents disagree:
Adam Brown's parents say their 16-year-old son's belief in the Bible's creation story isn't deterring him from pursuing a career in marine biology. His parents, Ken and Polly Brown, taught him at their Cedar Grove, Ind., home using the Apologia curriculum and other science texts.You see, Adam, and many other home-schoolers are taught both theories, unlike most public schooler who are taught only evolution. It seems that public education and many "scientists" are more interested in dictating what science is, instead of observing and letting the truth be revealed.
Polly Brown said her son would gladly take college courses that include evolution, and he'll be able to provide the expected answers even though he disagrees.
"He probably knows it better than the kids who have been taught evolution all through public school," Polly Brown said. "But that is in order for him to understand both sides of that argument because he will face it throughout his higher education."
Thursday, February 25, 2010
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).
"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).
Friday, February 19, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, February 12, 2010
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.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Abstinence-Only Approach
In an article from the Associated Press (see sources below):
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
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.
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....
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....
Thursday, January 28, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)