I Abhor and Loathe Congress

Any small smidgen of respect I had for Congress just evaporated. Today, the insane-far-left-un-American-unconstitutional-Democratic majority rammed the infamous trillion-dollar Pelosi healthcare bill through to the Senate for approval. According to the New York Times, only 39 Democrats were against it. One Republican, who should be expelled from the Party immediately, voted for it.

I am so sick of the over-paid, elitist group of fat cats known as the United States Congress. While there are some patriots who serve their country unselfishly on Capitol Hill (ie: Rep. Devin Nunes), the vast majority do not. They are elected through special interest groups, labor unions and shady connections. Using the guise of “helping the People,” they ram unconstitutional and unaffordable legislation through in order to pay back those who elected them.

They have un-American agendas and no intention of actually changing anything in the Beltway. Every single congressman/woman who voted for the “stimulus” or Speaker Pelosi’s hack healthcare bill HAVE to be removed from office in 2010 and 2012. These people are a cancer to the American political system and the longer they stay, the more diseased and closer to death the entire country is.

Change Indeed

I’m feeling a lot better than I have been and not just because I’ve got more sleep. Hope and Change are more real tonight than they were a year ago. Virginia and New Jersey are the first indicators of a coming Conservative Revolution in 2010 and Maine and Washington are possibly going to  follow California’s lead in preserving marriage. Voters across the country are also less confident in Obama than they were on Election night 2008.

Tonight, residents of both Virginia and New Jersey elected Republican governors. Republican Bob McDonnell won the gubernatorial race in Virgina and Chris Christie – also Republican – won the race in New Jersey. Recent congressional polls have shown Republicans ahead of Democrats and if tonight’s GOP victory is any precursor to the November 2010 Election, President Obama will have a rough time pushing his agenda through Congress.

Voters in Maine overturned their legislature’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, joining 30 states with explicit same-sex marriage bans (14 other states have statutes prohibiting same-sex marriage). Referendum 71 in Washington – which prohibits same-sex marriage but allows domestic partnerships – has, by most accounts, passed (As of 11/3/09 at 11:30 PM Pacific time, the referendum had over 51% approval). The number of US states where gay marriage is legal will once again drop to 5 (I personally expect Iowans to put a measure on the 2010 or 2012 ballot reversing the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to allow same-sex marriage earlier this year).

According to Gallup, Americans are less sure about President Obama than they were a year ago when he was elected. 68% of respondents feel that the US is more divided than before while only 29% feel otherwise. Gallup also indicated that of the past 9 Presidents this country has had since WWII, Obama ranks number 8 when it comes to approval ratings a year after an election (Currently, his approval is hovering around 53% – going as low as 46% some days).  

Hope and Change. These two revolutionary concepts are not truly appreciated until things come to the brink. Until your whole world seems to be in the process of collapse, you cannot look toward “Hope and Change” with real eagerness. But when the national debt is increased to ungodly levels and a ring of corruption chokes Capitol Hill, we all hope for change. Champions of traditional marriage have pushed back the advances made by gay rights advocates, even in the socially liberal states of Washington and Maine. Will Iowa be the next? Voters in Virginia and New Jersey have led the way so now the question is, will the rest of us follow?

The “Hope and Change” Bus is running on empty

Our 44th President, who rode in on the White Horse of change, reform, and integrity is feeling the weight of public opinion, also know as “people seeing what he really stands for.” According to Gallup, President Obama’s approval rating that was once at an astounding 78% when he first took office has plummeted to a daily average of around 53%, the sharpest drop of any President’s approval within the same amount of time for the past 50 years.

Looks like Obama will become another Carter (one term, horrible presidency). Since American history is so apt to repeat itself, this means that a true conservative should take office in 2012 much the same way Ronald Reagan did in 1980. Republican Revolution? Maybe. Conservative Revolution? Definitely.

However, he’s still Commander-in-Chief for another three years. Bailouts, corrupt cabinet members and czars, socialist healthcare proposals and stalwart foreign policy have taken a toll on America: Hopefully there will be enough to recover in ‘12. But, we can all breath a sigh of relief: Americans gullible enough to vote for this Marxist in presidential clothing are beginning to see the error of their ways. Can we throw this man out in three years? Yes We Can!

Coming soon: Regulation of Kindergarten Finger Painting

I’m so sick and tired of statists calling for “more government regulation” and control over things that the Free-Market should be in charge of. Healthcare, retirement and possibly Mass Media are now subject to federal authority.

The Thought Police at the Federal Communications Commission are busy creating plans to control the internet (the “fairness doctrine” of the internet). This new plan called “Net Neutrality” would essentially prohibit broadband providers from “discriminating against certain kinds of internet traffic.”* Their excuse: The internet is failing (“the sky is falling!”). Freedom of choice, self-interest and competition are completely foreign to these people. If the internet really is failing, why not allow private industry to improve and fix it? What they want is control over what you believe, see, hear and spend your money on.

Hiding behind the guise of “helping the poor” and “public good” they push forth programs that the Constitution doesn’t authorize and the country cannot accomodate (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, TARP, Bailouts, The New Deal, Great Society, etc). In the Leftist mindset, we are all too stupid to make rational decisions. To them our every action requires government oversight and regulation. If there’s a problem, the answer is always “Tax and regulate it.”  No matter what history and economics teach us, we must always repeat past mistakes and continue to dig our own grave. In the words of Ronald Reagan:

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

 

*http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BG8MT00&show_article=1

Is that your final answer?

Today in Philosophy class, abortion was brought up. We were discussing whether or not it was right to put animals to sleep when they’re no longer useful or sick. Once abortion was mentioned, a nervous chill came over the class and once one student talked about “killing babies”, the professor quickly jumped in to say, “It’s not a baby it’s a zygote, an embryo, a fetus.”

I’m glad that my relativist Philosophy teacher has actually taken a stand on something. Yes, Ms. I-don’t-know-what-truth-is has come to the conclusion that the unborn are not in fact “babies” and therefore it’s perfectly okay and morally acceptable to “terminate” them. Is that her final answer?

She also falsely assumed that zygotes (single cell we all begin as) are aborted when she said, “It’s smaller than the tip of this pin, it’s just a cell” – women don’t usually find out there pregnant until around the 5th or 6th week after conception, at which point the zygote is an embryo, developing eyes, a brain, and other organs (Most abortions take place between the 6th and 12th weeks when the unborn has a rapidly developing brain and recognizable skeletal system). And the zygote is far from just another common cell – it’s the largest cell in the woman’s body with a genetically unique identity. Everything, from hair color to the personality type is predetermined at conception, when the 23 chromosomes from the father’s sperm meet the 23 chromosomes from the mother’s egg. There’s not doubt about it, we begin at conception.

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume abortions take place a week after conception. Her argument of simplifying the growing life as nothing more than a small cell evades the real issue. Pro-aborts typically cite the small size as justification. This presents an interesting dilemma: If our humanity and personhood are solely based on our level of development, what else can be justified? Children lack mature sex organs and infants’ bones aren’t fully fused together. Since they are less developed than an adult, is it morally right to eliminate them? We are constantly developing throughout our lifetime, the start of which is conception.

It’s always interesting to hear someone well-versed in moral arguments make the claim that the unborn aren’t people. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, human life has been cheapened and devalued. Instead of referring to the most helpless members of our society as people, we coldly label them “fetuses” and “embryos.” Yes, it’s true that these labels do apply to the unborn, but the way in which they are used is done with indifference to the life of a unique human individual: “It’s just a stomach… It’s just a foot… It’s just a fetus.”  So I ask, to someone who is intimately familiar with various philosophical concepts and arguments and virtually refuses to take a position, is that your final answer?

6 week old unborn

10 week old unborn

Bishop (& Harvard Law Graduate) E.W. Jackson on Homosexuality

Today on Bishop EW Jackson’s Twitter, he posted a series of tweets on the subject of homosexuality and American culture. Jackson is a brilliant man whose views on culture and society are spot on and very much needed in discourse today.

“The homosexual movement is a cancer attacking vital organs of family, faith and military – repositories of traditional values.”

“Violence against homosexuals is a sin and I oppose it. But silence and political correctness is also a sin. It is time to take a STAND!”

“Hate crimes are nothing but an attempt to silence opposition to the normalization of what is NOT normal – homosexuality and cross dressing”

“Homosexuality has been made into a ’sexual religion’ and adversary to Christianity. Hindus don’t attack Christianity and they get along fine.”

“The ‘homosexual religion’ is the most virulent, anti-Christian bigotry and hatred I’ve ever seen. They have threatened me, but not vice versa.”

“The problem is not ‘homophobia’, but Christophobia and Bibliophobia – their irrational fear, hatred and bigotry against the Christian faith.”

If more Christians would take Bishop Jackson’s approach and understand exactly what the Gay Right Movement is, the Church and definately America would be much better than they currently are.

*If you would like to post a negative and demeaning comment, please post it in the “Hate Mail” section at the top of this web page – thanks

My Letter to the Editor in the Visalia Times-Delta 9/24/09

Below is my Letter to the Editor that appeared in the Thursday, September 24th edition of the Visalia Times-Delta. I didn’t pick the title, but I cannot say I disagree…

 

Capitalism Can Solve the Ills of the Nation (9/24/09)

As time goes by and the poll numbers continue to decline, the president’s rhetoric continues. First we were told that health-care reform was needed so all Americans could receive “quality” health-care. Then private health insurance itself was seen as “the status quo” and in need of Soviet-style “reform.” Now, the Administration says it’s the insurance companies, with their deep pockets and greedy capitalist CEOs.

Why does history always repeat itself? Government creates a problem like making competition between insurance companies virtually impossible in many states and unable to cross state lines and then tells the masses that “unrestrained capitalism” is the evil culprit that must be subdued under strict government regulation and control.

Haven’t we learned from The New Deal, The Great Society, TARP and now the “stimulus” that major government intervention in a free-market economy is lethal? Isn’t the whole idea of heavy government interference in a free-market economy contradictory?

Instead of attacking the very system that makes this country free, successful and prosperous - capitalism - why isn’t the president leading the charge to dismantle systems that strike at America’s foundation and very survival? Rather than turning the health-care industry into a government monopoly with substandard quality of care, why not encourage competition between health insurance companies in all 50 states, across state lines? Perhaps I’ll have to ask the Economic Recovery czar, Paul Volcker.

Maybe the UN is relevant after all?

I’m surprised that some UN delegates actually grew spines and other “anatomical features” when they walked out after hearing the sick and twisted rants of that evil lunatic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. After hearing that many in the United Nations are no longer taking this despicable human being seriously, I’ve discovered that I’m not as critical of the largely ineffective organization as I once was. I guess only time will tell. Hopefully, Israel or our own military will step in and intervene in the Iranian government’s lust for weapons of mass destruction. If only President Bush were in office again…

Israel: Doing What We Should Be Doing

Bravo to Israel for letting the world know of their intent to make a pre-emptive strike against Iran. As Imanutjob – aka “21st Century Hitler – continues to avidly pursue nuclear weaponry much the same way Iraq did prior to the Invasion in 2003, our government’s position is an embarrassment. Instead of aggressively trying to stop Iran, we’re effectively issuing “Please don’t bomb people” messages to an audience who could care less what Western powers say.

Saddam Hussein had 16 UN sanctions issued against him, he killed a large portion of his country, he tortured and mutilated people, he sought yellowcake uranium from Africa, and he openly admitted to having WMD’s, which he also used to decimate the Kurds. These types of people are the ones who don’t care about innocent life or peace and negotiation. Their only goal is world domination and they will stop at nothing until they achieve this.

Westerners have a curious habit of forgetting the past and allowing ignorance and a casual attitude toward rogue dictators to get the best of them. When socialist Nazi Adolf Hitler came to power in the 1930’s, Time magazine named him “Person of the Year” in 1938. His leftist policies like eugenics, universal healthcare and strict government regulation of the economy made liberals in America salivate, including radical, racist loon, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. It wasn’t until he sparked WWII and killed 12 million people when US liberals associated themselves with actual patriotism (even then, Leftists in America accused President Roosevelt of lying his way into the war).

Liberals’ disdain for President Bush and his War on Terror policies run so deep, they STILL blame him for just about everything – from burnt toast to clogged toilets. The White House has stripped the CIA of its duty to interrogate terrorists and instead put the burden of preventing attack on themselves. Eric Holder and the John Adams Project of the ACLU hate those that defend the country to the point of endangering the lives of CIA operatives. It really is disgusting to see American citizens and an Administration actively involved in the dismemberment our defenses.

If only liberals in this country would shed their defeatist tendencies and support Israel in its effort to stop Iran, we may actually prevent another 9/11 instead of rolling out the red carpet for another one to happen. Until Washington bureaucrats, in the safety of their air conditioned, tax-payer-funded offices, actually understand what the real world of international terrorism is like, it’s only a matter of time until we’re attacked again.

“Progressive” Healthcare = Worst Care

The First Lady of the United States is now in the business of drumming up support for her husband’s deadbeat healthcare bill. Yes, the same woman who is responsible for dumping patients into low-quality hospitals in Chicago is now lecturing the country on how the current healthcare system is “unacceptable” for American women.

If healthcare in this country is so bad for women then why do we have higher breast cancer survival rates than countries like Canada and Britain, where universal healthcare is practiced? Why do women literally die waiting to receive treatment because of long lines and healthcare rationing? If there’s anything wrong with the current healthcare system, it’s the fact that strict government regulations have driven costs sky high.

What was intended to be a free market, competitive system turns into a quasi-oligopoly, where the lack of legitimate competition keep prices high. State governments across the US have barred certain health insurance companies from crossing state lines. Then there’s the problem of malpractice lawsuits: Thanks to ambulance-chasing lawyers like John Edwards, doctors and hospitals are fined ungodly amounts, leaving them with no other option but to raise costs to stay afloat.

If there’s anything wrong with the American healthcare system, it’s a problem of “progressive” politicians. The politically correct garbage of “everyone deserves free healthcare” doesn’t stand up to the facts: In the United States, the only things we are entitled to are “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” The last one is quite specific, the “pursuit” not happiness itself. Life and liberty are ensured to us in the form of government protection of our very lives and liberties from each other and foreign threats. If we’re going to start giving free healthcare, why not free food, clothes, hygiene products, entertainment sources, cars, etc. If socialism is about making everyone equal, why not tax everyone to death to provide for everyone and no one; isn’t that what we’re doing already?