Saturday, February 28, 2009
The NBA, however, is not fond of such individual expression, and in order to stop the self-promotion, has banned Wade from wearing the "fashion statement."
The reason for the ban, according to NBA spokesman Tim Frank, is that a player can wear a Band-Aid for healthcare purposes, but it should not have any name or identifications on it.
Conformity is the goal, and I understand their reasoning, because sometimes such allowances can be abused. But really, in a league where players are forced to abide by a strict dress code before and after the game, surely this is something that they can let slide. After all, isn't such uniqueness something that will attract more fans?
Remember, this is the same basketball association that two years ago banned full-length tights under uniforms, which players had used as a fashion statement rather than for their intended medical use.
Paul Harvey's News and Comment was a welcome part of my radio morning. Of late, his son has been delivering the news on Paul Harvey's segments.
News that Harvey, age 90, died at his winter home, hit the news circuit today. He was reportedly surrounded by family. No cause of death has been released, but the assumption is that his death was by natural causes.
Paul Harvey reported the news with a special flavor, not afraid to say it as it is. He will be dearly missed by this blogger, and millions of Americans that listened to him on their radio.
No atheist is actually an atheist. Some of them actually recognize this, and call themselves deists, or agnostic. The question in an atheist's conscience is not truly whether or not there is a God, but whether or not that God is the same as the God represented in Biblical Scriptures.
In politics, this issue rises often, because without a relationship with God the atheist (or deist, or agnostic, or. . . ) has a need to feel the void in their spritual character. When government tries to do this, and be the "god" to all citizens, it comes across a major obstacle. Government can't be all things to all people when God is already filling that role. Hence, the reason that socialism is a Godless political ideology. To exist it must eliminate the competition.
Interestingly, when the "God Debate" arises in religious or political debates, the self-proclaimed atheist (or deist, or agnostic) often responds angrily, doing all they can to discount the very Creator that believes in them and loves them. Not all non-believers do this, mind you. Some recognize the principles of Judeo-Christian teachings. For a few it is just a matter of whether or not they are ready and willing to allow their "self" to die, and be reborn as a believer.
Pastor Ray Comfort, in his latest book (as well as others he has written) has taken the time to address the atheist's conscience. Ray Comfort's book, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can't Make Him Think (available at WNDbooks.com), answers actual questions from atheists to Pastor Comfort's blog at Atheist Central.
The book is a "Darwin Day" gift to those people who reject the notion that there is a God out there that loves them.
Ray Comfort is the co-host with Kirk Cameron of the nationally sydicated TV show "The Way of the Master," as well as being a leader in the evangelical Christian Community. His ministry, Living Waters Ministries, is active in the evangelical community and hosts conferences and teaches Christians how to evangelize. Ray has been a guest on news shows like ABC's Nightline debating the existence of God, and now will be on Political Pistachio Radio tonight to do the same.
Come one, come all, atheists, agnostics, deists, and Christians alike. All calls will be accepted, all arguments will be responded to. Join us tonight at 7:00 pm Pacific Time/10:00 pm Eastern on Political Pistachio Radio as we welcome guest Ray Comfort, author of You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think.
Listen Live, or Catch The Archive Later HERE.
Friday, February 27, 2009
One of my listeners, Reverend Don, will be out here in Southern California on vacation. He and I (and a bunch of other listeners and fellow Blog Talk Radio hosts) will be having lunch Saturday at 1:00 pm at Joe's Crab Shack, 314 Harbor Drive
Oceanside, CA 92054 (760) 722-1345 - Feel free to join us should you be in the vicinity.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
As Bobby Jindal approached the microphone to respond to Obama's speech to Congress, Chris Matthews could be heard whispering "Oh, God." The response of the MSNBC staff? The MSNBC crew was laughing.
Then, when describing Jindal's response as the Republican Party speaker, Matthews used the word "outsource." Jindal is an Indian-American whose parents immigrated to the U.S. from India in 1970.
Chris Matthews is a proven idiot, so the fact that he did these things is not what has me writing this post. Such moronic things are expected from the idiot. The silence by his peers in the mainstream media, and the silence of The Left, however, is what has me appalled.
Nobody has cornered Matthews for his remarks (though I heard he later apologized for the "Oh, God" remark.
Could you imagine if such remarks had been made by a "right wing" personality about a Democrat? The journalist in question would quickly be unemployed, run out of the industry (just ask Imus) and the media would be hammering everyone to the right of center for the remarks of the so-called conservative.
And imagine if the, say, FoxNews crew laughed when it was said, too. . . well, all hell would break loose, and the FoxNews Network would be demonized for daring to have staff that would laugh at such an off-color remark.
Of course, double standards are commonplace when it comes to the Democrats.
Speaking of double standards: Remember all of the bumper stickers and signs about George W. Bush, comparing him to various historical madmen, and saying things that if taken literally would be considered a threat?
Not a single arrest, though, right?
But put a sign in your car saying to Abort Obama, and . . . well See Video Here of man pulled over by the police for having that anti-Obama sign on his car.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Perhaps somewhere in Obama's 57 states there is evidence to the contrary.
And most of what Obama had to say to Congress in his latest speech made about as much sense as his automobile remark - does he ever stop campaigning and get to work?
But what stood out strikingly is what was not said. Except for a few bits and pieces of general rhetoric about ending wars to save money, nothing specific is said about foreign affairs. Yet, as Obama articulated to Congress how the government is going on the largest spending spree in history, around the world things are happening that are setting the stage for a showdown.
Obama doesn't like confrontations, however, so don't expect to see him do much more than lob the occassional missile to make it look like he's doing something, and give a few more speeches.
And to be honest, I am not here to defend irresponsible financial decisions on the part of the Postal Service, nor to defend the irresponsible decisions of CEOs and private businesses. But I find it interesting that they, being the liberal Democrats in the White House and Congress, are on a witch hunt for everyone and anyone who is "greedy" in their eyes, when Congress just recently voted themselves a pay raise, and then after that each of them received a $93,000 a year "petty cash" fund to dicker with.
I don't know, it seems a little bit of a double standard, doesn't it? They are hammering people for their greed and arrogance as the arrogant libtards greedily vote themselves into more money via the taxpayer, especially while the economy is teetering and government spending is out of control.
I thought they had a problem with irresponsible financial decisions and deficit spending. . . I guess that only applies when you are anyone other than a Democrat Party Politician.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Of course, nobody is suggesting that an armed conflict is anywhere on the horizon to stop this rapid change to socialism in America by the Obama Administration and the Liberal American Democrats.
Getting involved politically, or by helping to spread the all important message, or both, is the key in this fight.
Ronald Reagan did not win in a liberal dominated environment by force, but by appealing to America's Conservative sense of values.
But, as we wait for Palin, or Jindal, or whoever the next big conservative in the GOP is, it is important to realize that the founding fathers gave us the apprpopriate Constitutional channels to deal with a tyranical government should the American Government impose itself on citizen's and state's rights. The right to bear arms is there as a last resort, and is an important factor in our ability to keep our liberty, but that is not the action we must take until necessary.
The steps being taken now by the states is impressive. The was mentioned recently in a comment by "Call Me Mom." This is a step being taken by the states with a Constitutional ability for states to stop further infringements by the U.S. Government on States. The states rights being specifically addressed that the federal government has no right to enforce or control is free speech, Religion, press, right to bear arms, potential servitude, or implementation of martial law. The Federal government has gone far enough. We need to draw a line in the sand. If there is further egregious, serious disrespect of the US Constitution by the Federal government, it leaves the states no choice. New Hampshire and 21 States are passing Sovereignty Resolutions because they feel the federal government has far exceeded their Constitutional role mandated by the 10th Amendment. In New Hampshire the resolution is HCR6. Oklahoma passed thiers last week - HJR 1003.
Stay tuned, more on this will be forthcoming as the smoke clears.
Tune in tonight on Political Pistachio Radio.
Monday, February 23, 2009
On the campaign trail Barack Obama stated he didn't want his daughter, by getting pregnant, to be punished with a mistake.
Are all babies a blessing? If all people thought so, then there wouldn't be abortion, right?
Last night on Political Pistachio Radio we addressed this very issue. Pastor James Heffington, and listener Nathan from Florida, both called in later in the show to add to the conversation.
If you wish to listen to the archive, you may do so HERE.
And after you finish listening, ask yourself the same question - Are Babies Always A Blessing?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
When McCain called Obama a Socialist, and the Conservatives said "redistribution of wealth" means socialism, the Liberal Left said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a second, you can't call him a Socialist. That's conspiracy, that's crack-pot, right-wing, nutcase talk, you calling him a socialist. What kind of crazies are you?"
Now, the socialism is written on the wall. It's obvious this is what Obama is all about, and Newsweek proclaims that we are all socialists now. Certainly, it is okay to use this word even though they are not really using the word. They use progressivism, they use liberalism.
Understand this, folks, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev; they proclaimed they would bury us. That they would take us over from within. When I bring that up, and I tell people in political conversation that that is exactly what is happening.
Loki then adds: Well, hey, let's bring something else up. Putin is over there sayin' "Hey, you guys better calm down here."
Oh, absolutely. As a matter of fact I am going to bring that up. I am going to bring it up in a second, but I'm. . . and you can bring up the List of 45. You know, Snooper, if he was listening, he'd be calling in the moment I said List of 45, and we'll discuss that later on in the show. But the Liberals, I mean, here's how they respond when I talk about, well, you know, that Lenin, Stalin, and Krushchev are taking us over from within, that we are, we are right now, what is happening right now is exactly what the Soviet hardliners predicted. When I say that, the Liberals, do you know what their response is? "Oh, what are you talking about, the Soviet Union doesn’t even exist anymore."
Loki: Oh, yeah, I mean, come on, now, come on, this is the Soviet Union from the 1940s.
Well, they miss it. When the Communists said, when these Communists, when Lenin, Stalin said they're going to bury us, they're going to take us over from within, they weren’t talking about the Soviet Union taking us over. They were talking about their ideology. They were talking about Socialism. Because they were Socialists. They were brothers in arms, and it was all about socialism, even if the Soviet Union were to collapse, and wither away and vanish. That's what it was about. They knew that the seeds they had planted to lead this nation in the same direction as Russia had been planted. The ideology of socialism they knew would gain control of America from within. And, indeed, they are burying us from within. And, indeed, we are becoming the very socialists that they were.
And you mentioned this a moment ago: Vladimir Putin has even given a warning to the Obama Administration (and I am paraphrasing), "Don’t take the route we took! It destroyed our economy and destroyed us as a nation."
Communism, or the pursuit of it, was socialism, and it is a bad idea. Period. I don't care what you call it.
Loki: Well, and people. . . Richard Nixon, and he was in charge of the House of Unamerican Activities Committee, and Joe McCarthy, they were not wrong. There were Soviet spies and Communists infiltrating the United States Government. Those folks were not wrong.
You want me to validate that? One of my good friends, he, uh, we disagree with each other completely politically, we can't politically argue, we argue like cats and dogs. But he's a friend of mine, he's a small publisher, uh, Dan Bessie; his father was one of the ten Hollywood blacklisted. (in lower voice) And of course that was horrible, you know, you can't go around calling people Communists, and blacklist them. But guess what? His dad was a Communist. Absolutely. So is Dan. Damn near close, anyway. They were exactly right, you know. Now, does that pose something dangerous? Could it be abused? Absolutely. I mean, I don't agree with lynch mobs. But I do agree with doing what you've gotta do to protect your nation against the enemy. But the Liberals say, because of what's happening now, "Well, it's not that kind of Marxism, err, uh, socialism, I mean. You can’t call it that. We’re not taking over by some military coup."
Then what is it?
Loki: You don't have to take over an individual, or a group, by a military coup, you can sit their and legislate them out. And that was one thing - if you go back and look at the turn of this country there were people that were looking at this fact that, you know, a tyrant three thousand miles away can, you know, is no different than a thousand tyrants three miles away. They knew that. They realized that.
So, what is it? What do you call it? If this is not the, if what Obama is doing right now the socialism that, that, it's not that kind of socialism, we are heading for, then what do you call it? Because it is not liberty. It is not capitalism.
Loki: It's Socialism! It's Socialism! Come on!
Of course it is. Of course it is. Capitalism has become the enemy. Listen to the Liberals! The sound like party members of the Soviet Union during the 50s, and 60s and 70s.
"Those Capitalist Pigs are the enemy!" is essentially what they are saying. "We need more government, and nationalized banks, and the government needs to nationalize oil, and healthcare, and this and that!"
Loki: Energy, oh, yeah. Listen to the infrastructure of what they want to do with the Energy, with the, uh, Power Grid. "We need to nationalize that, we can make it better," - NO - the people that make it better are the people that produce the power and send it. They need to send it to these different places.
Well, you know, folks, socialism is socialism, whether it is caused by the hand of the military, a great revolution like the Russian Revolution, or if it's simply - liberty dying amidst thunderous applause as it is happening now - because people are too stupid to realize that the very thing we’ve been fighting against throughout most of the last century is taking us over. I mean, Reagan delivered us from socialism by causing the collapse of the Soviet Union. We were excited about that. And here we are. We are becoming that very same socialism, we are welcoming it with open arms, we are excited!
I had a show, you probably remember this, it was the one when that guy, Ken, called in. I had a show a few months back and I named it "American Socialism," on purpose. And about every liberal on the Blog Talk Radio wave length was tuned in. I mean, I had huge numbers because of all the extra listeners. All the Liberal listeners. Because they were all excited because of the the words "America" and "socialism" in the same sentence.
If what we are seeing the Obama Administration pushing isn’t the same socialism that Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev loved so much, and proclaimed would take us over, then you tell me, what is it?
What do you call it, Liberals?
Do you call it liberalism? Do you call it progressivism?
Because, I am going to tell you right now, folks, and I know you've heard this before, if it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, and has a bill like a duck, guess what? It's a duck. And no matter what you call this ideology creeping across the American government, and through Hollywood, you can call it as many names as you want. You can call it progressivism, you can call it liberalism, you can call it Obamaism, you can call it "Hope and Change," you can call it whatever you want - but in reality, this is straight out socialism, and Obama is America’s Lenin.
And here's something, and I know you are familiar with it, a lot of folks are familiar with it, Obama hates freedom - I believe Obama hates freedom, I believe he hates liberty, I believe he hates the American way - and this is one piece of evidence to support this statement. Obama hates freedom so much that when he got into the White House and he saw a statue, or bust, actually, it was a bust of Winston Churchill in there, a champion for liberty and freedom from Britain, and the bust was loaned to us as a gift from Britain after 9/11 (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/02/15/obama-disses-brits-will-media-miss), Obama wanted it out! He sent it back to the Brits! What a slap in the face of our ally. I thought Obama was supposed to make the world love America. But, boy, he sure sent the Brit's gift back real quick.
And why was he so appalled by Winston Churchill's bust being in the White House? He was appalled by Winston Churchill’s bust being in the White House in the same way that you and I would be appalled if Karl Marx’ statue or bust was in the White House. Freedom sickens the man. Capitalism sickens the man. Liberty sickens the man. I believe that.
He’s a Marxist. We’ve called him a Marxist many times, and we laugh it off like it is some sorry joke, but if he isn’t a Marxist, then what is he? Because I guarantee you he’s not the same freedom loving champion of liberty that Ronald Reagan was, that his hero Abraham Lincoln was, or Kennedy was, or that any of our founding fathers were. This guy, just like the rest of the Democratic Party, has fallen prey to the wiles of the enemy. And now speaking to you few liberals, and the one's listening here later, you people, the folks that voted for Obama, you put him into office. You put an American Lenin, or Stalin, or whatever you want to call this socialist, you made him the most powerful man in the world, and he's a damn Marxist. You people voted for him because you wanted change - change to what? What did you want it changed to? To socialism? And now some of the people that voted for Obama are actually beginning to have a little buyer’s remorse. "Well, we didn’t realize he was going to do all of these socialist things. . ."
We’ve been telling you all along! What part of "He’s a socialist" did you not understand?! What part of "The man is going to tax you to high heaven and the government is going to take over every aspect of your life under his control" did you not understand?
I don’t believe you people (and I mean the people who voted for Obama), that you were so foolish, and so blind - Can you hear them now? "Oh, but he’s going to make everything so wonderful for us. He’s gonna be there for the workers and the poor and punish big business, and pay our mortgage." So said Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao tse tung, so said every communist and socialist leader in the history of this world.
As Europe is waking up from their socialist nightmare, and they have begun to vote out the socialist leaders, and they are voting in more conservative leaders, WE are taking a spiraling path into the path of a speeding train. And you people, the liberal Democrats, do you even dare to argue? I am sick and tired of arguing over these little points, like how much the Community Reinvestment Act affected the economic downturn, and which entitlement program needs to be tossed, and how progressive taxes are modeled, are or are not, modeled after Marxist ideals - - - and whether or not we should nationalize the banks, nationalize healthcare, nationalizing oil - Hugo Chavez, is very proud of you, liberals! - And what is going to happen is we are going to become, if we continue down this path, so weakened economically, and with our pluralistic, relativistic morality, also, we are going to be too weak to defend ourselves, too morally weak, too economically weak, the next time Islamic terror comes to the U.S. Because this time they are not going to settle for a single attack. They are not going to settle for downing a couple of towers.
You know, its funny, I popped a cork, was upset when I wrote this, when I originally ranted this. Because, really, I am sick and tired of arguing this point, because it's so obvious! I don't understand how people can't get it. More government causes problems and takes away your freedoms! Government is about power. And when the people in government get that power their concern is not YOU - their concern is not whether you are going to have a better life. Their concern is whether or not they are going to be able to stay in power - period. That is their only concern. That is why there is already talk about doing away with the 22nd Amendment, you know, the one that limits the terms of the President (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86324). Like Hugo Chavez, Obama and the Democrats would like to be the permanent rulers of the United States. That’s why they are discussing eliminating, doing away with the 22nd Amendment. And that’s why the White House has taken over the census bureau (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0209/020609cdam2.htm?rss=getoday), or that's part of the reason.
It’s about power - and you’re falling for it, Liberals! Every last one of you that voted for Barack Obama, you're falling for his deception! You have a power-hungry, socialist, Marxist-style American - well, we’re not even sure he’s an American - in the presidency of the most powerful nation on Earth. And in the first thirty days of his presidency he has done so many radical things that it’s making my head spin! And you are dancing in the streets with excitement! You are condemning capitalism, blaming the free market. What do you think made this nation great the first 233 years? What do you think made this an exceptional nation the first two centuries? It wasn’t socialism! And it damned straight wasn’t government control. It wasn’t an expansion of government so huge that you can’t spit without the government knowing about it.
Now, I am an optimistic person. I believe that the American People will pull out of this. I hope that the American People will realize the damage that this radical Marxist in the presidency is causing. And I pray that we can undo the damage before it’s too late.
Our nation became great under principles not unlike conservatism.
Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried with no exception. And socialism has been the enemy of the U.S. because it is the opposite of freedom - it is the opposite of liberty - it is the opposite of the American Way - and I am going to add this: It is the opposite of a Godly society. There is no relativism about it.
Nationalizing everything gives the government too much control. Socializing medical care, and so forth, is a one way ticket to this nation becoming a failure - destroying the 233 years of building this nation on a foundation, laid by our founding fathers, that was nothing like what Obama, and these disgusting liberal Democrats, are doing.
This is not the America that Adams and Jefferson and Washington fought for to create.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
My daughter began contractions at 12:47 AM, and at 3:00 AM my wife and I took her to the emergency room. Nearly four hours later the adorable, and very loud, 19" long baby boy was born.
Pictures, as they become available, will be forthcoming.
Friday, February 20, 2009
The person then says to me, "So you listen to that Religious-Right blowhard?"
I replied, "Religious-Right? Not necessarily. He's not religious."
The word "religious" kind of set me aback. I don't consider myself "religious." I consider myself a Christian. A believer in Christ. The word "religious," because of the abuse of faith by various religions, and the negative use of it by the Left, as well as a number of people that call themselves religious without even having an understanding of what God is all about, now has a negative connotation to it.
A religious person, in my opinion, is a person trying to act the way they think God wants them to act. A religious person is a person that is trying to act religious. They try to proclaim they are good and righteous, for goodness' sake. But in reality they are just going through the actions, hoping to look good to everyone else, but often their motives and their heart are not in the right place. That is hardly what a relationship with Christ is all about. Religion is man-made. The gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is God-made.
A month ago I went to a rally where anti-Israel protesters had gathered, and I stood with a small pro-Israel contingent there on the streets of Los Angeles with a sign that read, "I Stand With Israel." And while I was there, I got to talking to some of my Jewish companions at that rally, and they were stunned that a believer in Christ would be in their corner. After all, they thought Christians were supposed to be against them too. I was surprised at that. I explained to them that Israel has no greater friend than the American Christian. Christians recognize the lineage that we share with Jews. The Biblical foundations that we both have bind us. The first Christians, also, were Jews.
I was talking with my mom later about this (she has recently made a trip to Israel), and she said to me, "Doug, you need to understand, the Jewish people look down upon the word "Christian" because they associate it with Rome because of the Roman Catholic Church's alliance with Rome. Rome destroyed their temple, and scattered the Jewish people across the globe. Even though the Christians weren't the controlling factor, they associate the two together."
After thinking about that I got to thinking about how Muslims see Christianity. They see the Crusades when the word "Christianity" is brought up. Of course, they glaze right over the fact that the Crusades were a military response to the Muslim takeover of the Holy Land, as well as the Muslim takeover of North Africa, parts of Spain, and the Muslim attempt to spread across Europe.
Secular-Humanists, when they see the word "Christianity" see a people that believe in fairy tales and superstition. They look back at the Holy Roman Empire and automatically think that Christianity wants to create a theocracy where under a Holy Government the various lifestyles of the non-believers would be outlawed.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
My mother told me to use the word "believer" when speaking to Israelis because you are a believer in Christ, and the Jewish people respect believers in Christ much more than "Christians." You are a believer in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, but not necessarily a member of some mega religion with a spotty history populated by people that claimed to be Christian and left a path of destruction.
But you see, that is how secular-humanism and liberalism works. They take something that means one thing, and they use labels to get it to mean something else. To be religious, or a member of the religious-right, or a born-again Christian, is now a negative. The label has been plastered so many times with a negative connotation by the mainstream media and liberal thinkers that to even use the word now creates a negative image.
Well, I am proud to be a Christian Conservative, and I believe being such is as close as I can get to what the Founding Fathers of this nation envisioned Americans to be.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
I never thought I would see it in my lifetime, but Russia, specifically, former Soviet leaders, are warning the United States not to go socialist, especially during tough economic times.
Putin specifically said: ". . . the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."
I had a discussion about too much government not too long ago with a friend of mine. I emphasized how important it is that we limit government intrusion into our lives. He responded by saying, if we have no government, we will be an anarchy. And then he said that when the government stops caring, and a good example of that is in Mexico where government doesn't care so wages are horrible and so on and so forth, the people will suffer.
This is a great example of the Liberal Mind. Sort of like the commenter here that, when I said we need to lower taxes, ranted on a comment about how if there is no taxes we can't pay for government functions.
I didn't say we should eliminate taxes, just as I never said that we should eliminate government.
But you see, when you make an argument, the liberal left tend to take it as you saying the extreme. To them, if you want something limited, then you must not want it at all. If you want something enacted, then they think you mean that it then must be applied to every person in every situation. If you disagree with entitlement programs, that must mean every program every person somewhere thinks is an entitlement and that you think that every program must be eliminated right now with no questions asked, or chance to reform them. If you say that generally speaking people using entitlement programs have the means to not be dependent on the government, you must think that all poor people are lazy. The Left fails to take into consideration the nuances and exceptions.
Interesting how people who reject absolutes in morality suddenly demand absolutes in political dialogue.
I think that Social Security, medicare, and other entitlement programs like them are unconstitutional. I believe that the programs put into place by the New Deal (FDR), and the increase of these programs through LBJ's great society, are a part of the problem, not the solution.
But, imagine the outcry now that the American People are used to depending on the government for such things, if medicare or Social Security or welfare programs were suddenly eliminated. And that is not to say that all of these programs need to be eliminated. Some merely need sticter guidelines, or need to be reformed into a reasonable size and functionality.
Let me give you an example. I don't necessarily consider disability insurance an entitlement program. In some cases disability and unemployment insurance are beneficial. The programs shouldn't be the size that they are, and people shouldn't have such easy access to them without proving hardship. The systems are heavily abused, but that is what human nature does when it has a chance at some "free money" (or at least that is what many of the people using the programs call it).
What interests me is that very thing that Liberals claim they are trying to avoid they are creating. They want to create a great society, but they are creating a society of dependency. They want to formulate a society where everybody gets along, and everybody works together, but with their tactics of progressive taxes, wage increases, and overregulation of business, they are creating a hostile environment between the wealthy and the middle class - and they are destroying the small business sector, the one link between the middle class and the wealthy. This "class warfare" is further seperating and further widening the trench between the wealth, and the not-so-wealthy. Through liberal programs and their heavy taxation and their attacks on the corporate world the Left is creating a gulf between the two - and are ultimately guiding us into becoming a socialist state - a society of the haves and the have-nots, the powerful and the workers, of big government and peasants. They are trying to create the very thing that has failed time and time again - socialism.
Putin of Russia calls it a perfect storm. A crisis that is fueling a rising wave. The root causes are government intrusion. Socialist systems like the one the liberal Democrats are trying to create in America have "left entire regions, including Europe, on the outskirts of global economic processes and has prevented them from adopting key economic and financial decisions."
No matter what you call it, progressivism, liberalism, Obamaism - Socialism is still socialism - and it is a mistake.
Let's break this baby down, shall we?
$75 billion. 9 million people.
Let's divide that $75 billion by the 9 million people and see what we get.
That comes out to $8,333.33 per person. So, folks, how much of a dent in your mortgage will a little more than eight thousand bucks make?
The numbers don't add up to providing any serious relief, and Obama knows it. He said 9 million people because he wants those that played by the rules to feel like they aren't left out. But he knows you will do what you always do: Pay your mortgage, play by the rules, and do whatever it takes to survive. You are the achievers. You are the prudent ones. You don't need any help. And for this, you must be penalized.
Those folks that took loans they can't repay, however, screwed up, so they are up against the wall, and that group of people numbers between two and three million. These are the Americans that will benefit (I use that word loosely) from the mortgage bailout. The losers are being bailed out, and the achievers that played by the rules are getting the shaft.
In Obama's Speech on the home mortgage situation (crisis is a word being used way too much by the Dems - notice, everything is a "crisis") President Obama said: "Banks and lenders must be held accountable for ending the practices that got us into this crisis in the first place."
You know who he was addressing there, right? He was calling out those horrible predatory lenders. Problem for Barry is, there were no predatory lenders, and their lending practices were not their idea. They were doing what the government told them to do. The liberal mentality that everyone has a right to own a home, and that by not loaning to high risk candidates the banks were somehow being discriminitory in their lending practices, was to be corrected by the Community Reinvestment Act so that everyone can have a home. In other words, the liberal government agenda that is trying to fix this situation, caused it in the first place with regulations that pressured the banks into poor lending practices.
Obama is telling the banks and Wall Street to live up to their responsibilities, when it was government that created the problem in the first place. Also, think about this: The real cause of this economic downturn, as we are being told, is that people were taking on debt they cannot repay; yet, the government is going to attempt to fix the mess by taking on more debt than they can repay any time soon. But of course, the government is exempt from blame - unless the government is under the GOP's watch, of course, then everything is their fault. Just ask Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Dodd.
Fine, Mr. Obama, make the people feel like you are giving it the ol' college try. But what about the people that already lost their homes? Where is their bailout?
This has nothing to do with bailing anybody out, or saving the economy, and every last one of those elitist, liberal politicians know it. This is a power grab for the Democratic Party, and the liberal mindset.
In reality, the free market is responding just as it should. The housing market has too many houses for not enough buyers, which is driving prices lower. That is how the market works. And as the market adjusts, the people who made bad decisions obtaining loans they had no business signing for should lose their homes (leaving them with bad credit for seven years, and stuck in an apartment or living with family for the time being), and the prudent people should benefit by being able to buy homes at lower prices, thus, eventually moving the prices back in the upward direction, but at a rate that is natural to the free market, rather than rapidly upward because of false stimulus and loans that should never have been given.
In other words, the market was finally beginning to work properly after the government screwed it up with their manipulation - and now they want to manipulate it more, which will reward the losers and penalyze the prudent buyer, and artificially adjust the market again. With this government intrusion the prices won't come down to where they belong to be back in line with where they would be if there had never been government manipulation in the first place, which will then also penalyze the first time buyer who, with the lower prices, would have been able to qualify to buy a home.
The Democrat's plans, in the end, enourages bad behavior by helping those making bad decisions. This, in my opinion, is a glaring sign of an irresponsible government.
And this is just during the first thirty days of Obama's Presidency - what is coming next will really be radical.
As Newsweek proclaimed (and then erroneously blamed it all on George W. Bush): We Are All Socialists Now.
I beg to differ, however. The government under liberal rule may be becoming socialist, and Hollywood under the direction of liberal elitists that don't understand what work is all about may be a bunch of socialists, but the American People are primarily center-right, and are hardly ready to embrace socialism.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Here is what he said:
Here is what is going on right now: Pakistan agreed to impose Islamic law in the Swat Valley after reaching a peace accord with local Taliban . . .
So, President Obama, can you put your money where your mouth is? Or was that tough talk about Pakistan just a little more typical politician rhetoric to get elected, and in truth you never meant a word of it?
And this is change?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Third Wave Dave has informed me that:
Kim Priestap over at Wizbang is having a PRESIDENT'S DAY GIVEAWAY! The occasion is to commemorate Obama's signing of the Porkulus Bill in Denver. After all, someone should get something out of it, even if it's only a lousy t-shirt.
According to Kim, the rules are simple:
"Just leave a comment with your favorite quote from your favorite conservative/free market/liberty-loving thinker and I will pick my favorite. Those quotes that are especially pertinent to current events are encouraged but not necessary. If two or more people pick the same quote I will choose the one who suggested it first. You have until Friday, February 20th at 5:00pm. The winner will be announced at 8:00pm."
My quote? President Calvin Coolidge uttered these words: "Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery."
The Mind of the Obama Follower does not understand that Tax and Wage Increases on Business Hurts The Middle Class
The host carefully explained to the caller how, with increased wages comes an increased cost of doing business. With the increased cost of doing business will come an increased price of products. So, in the end, as the cost of everything goes up, the wage increase loses its benefit.
I realize this is not typical of people to believe such idiocy. After all, this is a largely center-right nation that abhors the idea of worsening the economy any worse than it is. But there are a great many folks that actually think as did this caller. They think about what is on the surface, or what fits their bill the best, or what will help the wallet the most directly in the short term, but they never consider the long term ramifications of such actions, or decisions.
Wages, like taxes, are to a business owner just another cost of doing business. Large corporations will survive the increase of wages and taxes, for the most part, by simply passing the increased cost on to the consumer. So, with increased minimum wages, or wages increased to a "living wage" as the liberals call it, you may be making more in your paycheck, but in the long run, it will all catch up to you in the higher cost of goods, services, and so forth.
Small businesses, however, are destroyed by higher taxes and wages. And small business is the link between the wealthy, and the middle class. Although large corporations create a great number of jobs, move goods, and are essential to our economy, the small business is the life blood of our economy. And this is where the majority of the product and services movement in our economy comes from.
To increase taxes on the wealthy is to increase taxes also on these small business owners too. And to increase wages is to increase their cost of doing business. In more instances, than not, that will put the small business owner out of business; thus, destroying the link between the wealthy and the middle class, as well as the one opportunity you and I have of making a better life for ourselves through our own endeavor in the business world.
Isn't opportunity one of the things this nation is supposed to be all about?
Not any more, apparently, unless it is an opportunity to hold out your hand for a check from the all-powerful and all-controlling government.
Ignacio Ramos was sentenced to 11 years for the shooting. Jose Compean was sentenced for 12 years. Originally, the border patrol agents were accused of trying to cover up evidence of the incident, and were thought to have been "out to shoot" some illegals, as well as being fully aware that Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila was unarmed. Ramos and Compean have claimed all along that they were defending themselves in the line of duty.
President Bush commuted their sentences on January 16, but failed to give them a full pardon. As a result, today, Ramos and Compean are finally home, though they remain under federal custody until March 20.
The two border patrol agents will also remain on supervised release for up to three years. Ramos' lawyer, David Botsford, said it was appropriate to commute the pair's sentence in light of the onerous conditions they experienced while incarcerated. The conditions he refers to is the regular beatings that Ramos reportedly received from fellow inmates while in the prison.
Now, home with their families, the pair of Border Patrol Agents are on a gag order until March 20.
Welcome home, Ramos and Compean.
Below, Lou Dobbs on Mexico's meddling, and response to Bush commuting the sentences.
God created men and women to be different specifically for the parenting roles. Women tend to be nurturers. Men tend to be disciplinarians. Now, that is not to say a man cannot nurture at all, or is always a good disciplinarian, or that all women are good nurturers, or cannot be an efficient and effective disciplinarian. But, the tendency to nurture, or to be a disciplinarian, is for the most part, gender specific.
I used to tell my wife regarding our son, when she'd be upset over my disciplining him, that our son didn't need two mothers. I needed to be his father. It takes a man to teach a boy to become a man. After all, it is a man that has gone through the process before, not a woman. In the male world, for example, there is a pecking order that women will never understand, just like there are things about being a woman that men cannot understand. There is a striving by sons to gain the pride of their father, a hope to earn his respect. There are a number of tendencies in men that are very different from tendencies in women.
On the same token, a girl needs her mother to become a woman, and it takes a mother to undertand the emotional difficulties the girl may encounter.
Now this is not to say that girls don't need their father, or sons don't need their mothers. Each parent has a very specific and important role in the raising of children, and in the environment that is presented to them that will help shape their understanding of their roles in society, and in their own families that they have when they become older.
Imagine a child raised by two parents of the same sex. Is it possible that the child will come out of that situation well rounded and able to function in society? Absolutely. But the liklihood of that child to have problems rises. Studies have shown, despite the findings of some liberal studies, that a child is more likely to become gay if raised by homosexuals.
That would make sense when applied with psychology, wouldn't it liberals? I don't agree with all aspects of psychology, but one that I do agree with is that environments play a significant role in the shaping of a person's tendencies. It also lends more evidence to the idea that in the end, homosexuality is really just a behavioral choice.
If someone has an inclination to be gay, the choice to stay away fom such a dangerous lifestyle becomes more difficult. I understand that. But because that behavioral inclination is present, it doesn't make the behavior a good one. If someone is born a cleptomaniac, it doesn't mean the person should hang around with a bunch of crooks, or that stealing is acceptable because they were born that way. We wouldn't want a person like that, in fact, hanging out with a bunch of thieves, because the environment will bring out that behavior even more. Likewise, children do not need to be in the environment of the gay lifestyle. It creates confusion, and encourages immoral behavior.
When these children are being raised in these same sex environements the child becomes confused regarding what their roles in society should be, or how to become what they should naturally become. Naturally, men tend to be a little more aggressive. Little boys tend to play with cars running them rough along the floor as girls nurture their dolls. But in an environment where both parents are of the same sex, the child will only get one perspective. Girls will not receive the nurturing they need from a mother that they will emulate later as a mother. They will not be understood by two male parents when their hormones begin to get out of whack as the age of menstruation approaches. And she will not receive the image of a father figure, or receive the discipline a father has to offer, to shape her values and sense of responsibility should both of her parents be female.
A boy raised by two women would be disastrous because there will be nobody there to teach him the importance of the role of a man. Boys raised by two men, of course, would not receive the nurturing of a mother, or ever understand the importance of certain sensitivities they would receive from their mom.
There are certain communities where the fatherless rate is very high, and a mother alone raises the children. I applaud these mothers for their determination to do what they can to ensure their children are still raised properly. These single parents, be they mothers or fathers, are courageous, and deserve every ounce of our respect. But out of these single parent environments we see a lower number of well rounded citizens being produced. Statistics show that more often than not a fatherless family will produce children who have criminal tendencies, or are unable to adjust to the rigors of life. The same goes for families where there is a motherless environment. So, wouldn't the same be true in a same sex family where a child is either fatherless, or motherless - but in this case gets a double dose of the other?
Same sex adoption is not only wrong for the reasons outlined from a moral standpoint, but bringing children into society raised in an environment where they do not receive all of the tools from parents of each gender can create a dangerous combination for our society. Children raised in such an environment may be one of the many detrimental causes, and symptoms, of a decaying, and eventually destroyed, society.
I can hear the liberal left now, proclaiming that based on what I have written I must believe that all women should be barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen, and of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. My wife, for example, has worked for a couple companies a number of years during our marriage, and she has five college degrees. But on the same token, understanding the importance of parental roles, she ensured she worked when the children were in school, or early on in our marriage the childcare provided was by family. As the children got older, she decided to become a stay-at-home-mom because her children were more important to her than her career, at that point. Now that the kids are grown, she is toying with the idea of returning to the workforce, though she thoroughly enjoys watching our grandson twice per week, and is not sure if she is ready to give that up just yet.
She is a modern woman that chose to be their for her children. That is what she felt was the right thing to do.
Perhaps that is where we are in the most danger as a society. When right and wrong has no meaning, and principles and standards are relativistic or pluralistic, society crumbles in upon itself because it is unable to determine the right thing to do when crisis arrives.
Sometimes, doing the right thing can be very difficult. But for the sake of our society, doing the right thing is necessary.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Last night on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution the topic was a documentary put out by the Christian Action Network called Homegrown Jihad: The Terrorist Camps Around The U.S. As expected, my listeners were very concerned over the prospect of Islamic Terror against America being planned, and terrorists being trained, right here in America. After all, I asked at one point during the program, "What would have been the response if Nazi training camps were sprouting up around the nation during the 1930s? Would Americans be up in arms? Would the government simply allow it, or would they shut down these traitorous facilities?"
The guest, as the conversation became more intense, pointed out that compounds of this nature are operating under the law, and that the group that runs these facilities, Jamaat ul-Fuqra (Muslims of America), is not currently on the Foreign Terrorist Organization watchlist. Besides, pointed out Ryan Mauro, living on these compounds are many people who, though they may be followers of Sheik Muburak Gilani, they are innocent, and may very well not know the nature of the training going on on their compound.
Is the existence of these compounds a threat to the United States? Absolutely, and it is important for us to be aware of them, and to pressure them through media coverage, and the spreading of the information through methods like the Homegrown Jihad documentary, to remain peaceful.
Here's where it gets sticky. We must remain on the path of the law when dealing with these organizations. This is, after all, a nation of laws, and to alter the law to fit our concerns makes us no different than the Jihadists. Americans are above that. We prove it constantly. For example, the rules in the military are that you don't fire until you are fired upon - regardless of the fact that the enemy rejects such a belief. In law enforcement you don't arrest anyone until a crime is committed, even if the same is not true in other nations. And in National Security, private property cannot be seized without just cause. In other words, these facilities are able to remain in place as long as they don't cross any legal lines.
The truth of the matter angers many people. Some folks even say that if the government won't do anything, then it is up to the citizens to take action. But when does such an attitude change from words to actions, and from an upset group of citizens into a lynch mob? Does the law have the responsibility to stop such uprisings in order to protect others that may, or may not be, planning the next attack against America?
This is not the age of "mind crimes." We cannot accuse, arrest, and judge before a crime is actually committed - even if we think that crime is innevitable.
In this nation of liberty we have vast freedoms. But with freedom comes responsibiity. We have freedom of speech, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we have the freedom to say whatever we want, whenever we want. For example, if you were on an airplane, it would not only be irresponsible to shout out the word "bomb" or "gun," but it is illegal, and for good reason. One can argue that their freedom of speech is being impeded by such security measures, but when it comes to the safety of others, such limits of freedom must remain in place.
As a Conservative I recognize that sometimes these laws, or standards, become ridiculously one-sided, or knees jerk a little too quickly, thanks to the growing idiocy of political correctness. It is absolutely insane that our unborn children can be slaughtered at abortion clinics because a woman's choice is more important than a child's life, yet a pro-life pastor can be arrested for carrying a sign and peacefully offering alternatives to abortion outside an abortion clinic while standing outside the edge of the property of the clinic. The gay agenda can proclaim that Christianity should be eliminated, and protest outside churches pounding their fists on the hoods of cars as the church-goers pull off the property of their church, but to carry the belief, and voice such, that homosexuality is a sin can be a hate crime in some circumstances. Groups of Anti-Israel protestors can jam Wilshire in Los Angeles with cries of death to Jews and Americans, and remain safe under the auspices of the law. Illegal Aliens can cross into the United States without being stopped, despite the fact that they are breaking immigration laws in doing so, but an American can face serious consequences for defending his property against these very same outlaws. You are entitled to your freedom of speech, with reasonable limitations (like the example of the plane I used earlier), but Democrats believe that your speech should be limited more with a Fairness Doctrine - I know, it just isn't right. The double standards, and the ridiculous expansion of government into our lives, is out of control. But, as our system is currently set up, as much as it pains me to say it, we are not entitled to take matters into our own hands beyond the ballot box, spreading information, and contacting our representatives.
This brings me back to last night's radio program in question. I know that it is nothing short of treason for American Muslims to be training as terrorists in Islamic Jihadist Compounds right here in The States. I know that until Jamaat ul-Fuqra is placed on the State Department's Foreign Terrorist Watch List, the U.S. government cannot legally shut down any of these camps run by Muslims of America. I know that the operators of these facilities are self-professed enemies of America. But we cannot say things along the lines of taking matters into our own hands and going in and shutting down these places ourselves with guns blazing. As much as you would like to do so, saying such a thing is akin to shouting out the word "bomb" on an airplane. It is irresponsible, dangerous, and illegal.
So, instead, join me in spreading the information. Inform people of the dangers that are lurking among us here in these United States, as well as abroad. Purchase, and share, the Homegrown Jihad documentary. Listen to more shows, like Political Pistachio Radio, to learn more about what is going on, and what you can do to be a part of the solution. Together, we can turn this around. United We Stand, Combined We Kick Butt. This is what Americans do.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
35 Terrorist Training Camps In The U.S. - Tonight's Guest on Political Pistachio Radio Discusses the Video That Exposes This Fact!
The Christian Action Network has gone inside their compounds with video cameras, and questions, in the making of their film.
Tonight's guest on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution is Ryan Mauro, founder of WorldThreats.com, author of Death To America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq, a recent guest on the Dennis Prager Show, Laura Ingraham's radio program, and the Dennis Miller Show, and the terrorism analyst for the Christian Action Network.
Don't miss tonight's very important episode of Political Pistachio Radio at 7pm Pacific, 10pm Eastern.
Catch the live event, and the archive later, HERE
America's Secular Challenge: The Rise of a New National Religion was delivered to me a while ago. I read the book shortly after I received it, and was amazed at how the author, Herbert London, could possibly put so much information that would normally fill volumes into a small, 97 page book. The number of pages fooled me, however. I did not move through the material nearly as quickly as I thought I would.
Contained within the pages of Herb London's small book is a huge message. Mr. London meticulously researched the material, and wrote the book in such a way that the reader can easily understand the otherwise complex data.
When one argues against the principles of secular humanism it is not uncommon to encounter argumentative responses that are based more on conjecture than fact, and rather wordy, and well practiced, "understandings" that are tailored more to elicit angry reactions, than to promote a knowledgeable debate. Herbert London's "Americas' Secular Challenge" is a valuable tool in such conversation and debate. The book will arm you with valid explanations, and well researched responses to any argument those that support secular humanism can muster.
Mr. London's book is a timely argument adressing the war of ideas that pits secularism, radical Islam and Judeo-Christian principles inside a global ring of battle. London recognizes that in the end it is very possible that only one ideology may be left standing, and the result of that battle could very well bring about the end of Western Civilization as we know it.
I read the book a second time, recently, to prepare for the writing of this article, and found myself absorbing even more information than during the first go-around. I was underlining, highlighting and writing notes in the margins of the book. America's Secular Challenge inspired much of my own writing, while I was reading it, as well. I remember when I recommended the book to others when I first began to read it the first time, often the response was, "Oh, yeah, Doug, that is a great book; you are going to like it."
London begins the book by pointing out that part of the reason for the increase in Islamic terror is that there is a "belief circulating in the Islamic World that a secular West no longer has the will to resist Islamic Jihad." Our societal move, though it has been gradual, away from morals and standards, has opened us up to attack. Our actions of compromise and accomodation to Islamic factions, though backed with good intentions, are viewed as a sign of weakness by the Islamic Jihadists. However, rather than recognize the threat for what it is, secular humanists consider Islamic fanaticism as simply being a form of "acting out" over deporable conditions in the Muslim World.
As the book progresses, London delivers arguments regarding why a move by The West in a secular direction is simply the rise of a new religion, providing explanations on how and why secularists justify their anti-religious sentiments. He exposes the absurdity of the secular concerns about the "impending theocracy" of the religious right, and he points out the root causes of such judgments.
In America's Secular Challenge the secularist doctrine is confronted, disassembled, and presented in plain, easy to understand, language. The interweaving of science into the secular agenda is explored. The damage to social cohesian is explained. The powerful campaign underway to suppress religious expression is revealed. Herbert London defines, and places in the proper context, the issues of gay marriage, abortion, and the liberal takeover of the educational system. He uses historical data, as well as modern models, to reveal the moral relativism and secular revolution that is rearing its ugly head, and resurfacing years after its last hayday in the nineteen sixties.
Herbert London, in America's Secular Challenge, recognizes how the fall of Rome from within is an example of how the loss of moral principles can lead a society to death by suicide. The Free Market and the political system becomes infected. The corrosive effects of the "Seven articles of a possible secularist catechism" are described in detail, and provided as a lack of ethics external to man.
Is the U.S. Supreme Court being utilized by secularism to advance their agenda? Is the United States government, as a whole, becoming a vehicle to advance that same agenda? What are the societal changes that have occured in the name of tolerance, discrimination, and discernment?
Hypocrisy is exposed, from the issue of intellectual diversity, to the double standard applied to religion by secular humanism, in America's Secular Challenge: The Rise of a New National Religion.
I recommend Herbert London's powerful, and convincing, book that successfully exposes the undermining of the Judeo-Christian tradition in The West by secular humanism, and its unknowing allies. I urge anyone, even someone that adheres to the secular agenda, to read America's Secular Challenge. You will come away from London's book thinking deeply about the sobering wake-up call you received from the text on its pages, and you will find yourself questioning the very political and social decisions of the powers that be, that you previously thought you could trust.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
One of us is from Venus, and the other is from Mars, or so I heard, so for today I decided it was time for us to naturalize as citizens of Earth.
I saw a billboard the other day while driving my big rig through West Hollywood, right next to the rainbow flags that the city so proudly flies, that promoted a movie titled "I Love You, Man," or something, or other, like that. Underneath, I suppose this was supposed to be the "teaser," it read, "Are you man enough to say it?" The image on the billboard was two men. I believe the men were Paul Rudd and Jason Segel. The movie is something about a bro-mance that grows while one is needing a best man for his wedding, or something like that.
I tell many men "I love them," and they understand the connotation of the phrase without me having to explain it, or at least I hope so. Some non-Christians seem to think that the only man a Christian believes he can tell he loves is Jesus.
I used to tell my father that I loved him, long ago, before he died in 1999. He would usually just respond, "Mmm, hmmm." I knew he loved me, in his own way, and I never pressed the issue beyond the words. He had other ways of telling me he loved me. When I was a kid he, and his siblings, took me out to plays and operas, in a gesture of love. My aunt owned an art gallery she loved almost as much as life itself, and I spent some time there as well. She also bought me hundreds of dollars of books every Christmas. I suppose that is the reason I love to read so much. Anyhow, to show their love, without having to say it constantly, my father, and his family, introduced me to "The Arts," and I have a certain level of "culture" as a result.
Dad, the step-dad that was more of a father than most fathers could ever be, said "I love you," back when I told him (and tell him), but I was never sure how automatic the response actually was. I am not saying that I doubted his love, but I am not sure he ever initiated the love-fest of verbiage. He didn't have to say "I love you" often, anyhow. I figured out that it must be true because he worked hard to provide for the family, and he never treated me any different than the children he made with my mom that had his blood running through their veins. He disciplined me in the same manner as my siblings, and he taught me the meaning of principles and values, as well. From him I learned some of the wisdom of the United States Marine Corps. Once you fire your weapon, for example, you can't take the shot back. No since in worrying about what happened with the shot. If you want to stay alive, your concern has to be getting off the next shot. And so it goes in life. The past is the past, and though we should not forget it for fear of repeating it, the past is not something to be dwelled upon. Look forward, move forward, move ahead.
I enlisted in the United States Navy when I was older, and learned first hand much of the wisdom of the military that many young men have had the honor of acquiring. Some ask me why I didn't get into the Marines, as my dad had been. I normally just grin, and say, "Because I have already been in the Marine Corps - he raised me."
My best bud, who I have been friends with since the 1970's, is like a brother to me. I think I tell him, in fact, that I have love for him more than I actually tell my own brother. Nacho has returned such sentiments often, and we are still on the phone often to talk about the goings-ons in our lives. I don't think, however, that I have ever referred to our friendship as a "bro-mance" as is being conceptualized by that "I love you, man" movie.
Nacho and I, as friends, have been through a lot together, so I suppose we have earned the right to say to each other, "I love you, man." We hit it off right off the bat when we met, sitting next to each other in our seventh period Language Arts class in Middle School. I tell people we conversed well immediately. He tells people I began to talk, and he was willing to listen, and listen, and listen, and listen . . . then he says something about becoming my friend because he felt sorry for me - I am sure he is joking when he says that. I think he is. I am pretty sure he is. I hope he is.
Of course, in this world of changing attitudes, a change for the worse, if you ask me, regarding gender roles and relationships, it sure does give that line in that Flinstones cartoon opening song - you know the one - where it says, "We'll have a gay ol' time," - new meaning.
Perhaps I am old fashioned. I have done things the old fashioned way. Few people I know, in fact, have treated love in that old fashioned way that I have.
I know it is strange, but I married my wife because I love her. There was no "convenience" about it. In fact, it was quite inconvenient, considering I set aside athletic and academic scholarships to do so. My aunt set aside money for me, hoping I would go to Occidental College, and she was quite disappointed I chose a different path early on in my life. Instead, I married, had a kid on the way, and enlisted in the U.S. Navy.
Sure, it was difficult. What things in life worth having aren't? But after a couple dozen years, Mrs. Pistachio and I will be celebrating our 25th Wedding Anniversary this August.
Who does that anymore? What kind of people actually fall in love, marry the one they love, and follow the stipulations of the marriage contract that say, "For better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer?" As far as I can tell, the moment things get worse, the spouses go packing. A little disability or major health issue, and one of the two are telling their friends they don't know if they can stay in the marriage. When the wealthy aren't wealthy anymore, the other member of the couple bails, in search of a new sugar-mama or sugar-daddy. Heck, sometimes they don't even wait for the monetary riches to subside - and take half on their way out the door.
My mom and dad have been married for forty years. Sure, like any marriage, the road has been rough, but they didn't part ways after the kids grew up and moved out. The marriage wasn't about the kids. It was about love.
When Proposition 8 was on the ballot there was a lot of discussion over gay marriage. Some folks were saying, hey, since the heterosexuals can't seem to get it right with their high divorce rate, let the homosexuals have a crack at it. Another proclaimed that he was in full support of gay marriage because he felt the gays should be just as miserable as the rest of us married slobs. I am in the belief that marriage was given to us by God and that it was designed for a man and a woman - Civil Unions provide everything a married gay couple could ever want, minus the word marriage on the paperwork. But nobody will arrest you if you use the word "married" in conversation.
I remember when my children were younger, and my daughter came to me and said, "Daddy, of all my friends, I am the only one whose parents are still married."
That statement is more true now, than it was then.
I was speaking with someone at my Credit Union yesterday who was happily proclaiming she had five kids. Two from a previous marriage, two step-kids, and one from her current marriage. The two from the previous marriage, however, were with their "daddy," to her glee, in another state. They were a handful, and she was glad to dump them off on him somewhere in The South.
Between abortion, and women dumping their kids off, I wonder, sometimes, what happened to the now nearly gone concept of "motherly instinct."
In this brave new world where gender roles and identities are being neutralized by changing norms perpetuated by a minority of people who have decided that men and women are too alike to be different, even though the differences between the sexes are obvious. I ask myself, sometimes, in light of society's changing norms, "Isn't it nice that some folks have stuck with tradition?" After all, isn't it the strength of the family unit that made this nation great?
So when I take my wife out today to lunch, and dinner, and give her a handful of flowers along with a little gift (sshhhhh - it's in a little white box - don't tell her) on Valentine's Day during this cool year of 2009 (so much for Global Warming), my affection for her signifies more than just a marriage that has lasted a quarter of a century. Our relationship is more than just a successful navigation through the stormy seas of a Godly relationship. We represent something lost and forgotten. We are Americana, and a symbol of the long history of worldwide relationships sealed in marriage - an institution that is on the verge of being washed away down the storm drain of history if we are not careful, and vigilant. We, the families of America, are the strength of this nation, the embodiment of all that is good and moral and just.
Of course, if you ask my wife, she doesn't necessarily recognize any of those things. She just says that we figured a way out of loving each other for a long time without killing each other. Sometimes, indeed, love conquers all.
Happy Valentine's Day. May yours be filled with happiness, a joyful date with the love of your life, a lot of chocolate hearts, and a reminder of how important your bond truly is.
And to my wife, Happy Valentine's Day, Virginia. We do, indeed, have the love of a lifetime.
Check out Joshua P. Allem's inciteful article: The Next Boston Tea Party on American Daily Review.
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Great Oz, errr, uh, I mean, Barack Hussein Obama, promised quick resolution to our horrible economic situation that George W. Bush must've caused (never mind the fact that the Democrats took over Congress in 2006, or that a lot of what caused this downturn was caused by past Democrat liberal agenda movements like the CRA and handling of the GSEs); oh, and did I say it is the worst recession since The Great Depression (if you set aside half a dozen other valleys in the great rollercoaster of economic history). Government, under his divine hand, was going to give a quick jolt to the economy that would get things moving, help people pay their mortgages, fix our infrastructure, create jobs, give everyone a tax break, provide a living wage, put a chicken in everyone's pot, invent cars that run on hope and change, align the planets, and hammer those greedy, out-of-control, private airplane riding, wealthy business people into the poor house where those arrogant bastards belong.
Yeah, yeah, you go get 'em, Barry!
Quick as lightning, with a bony finger along the side of his articulate nose, a stimulus package was created by Obama out of thin air. Don't be so silly, doubters. How could you possibly think it was already essentially written by the hand of the prophetess, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid? It is all of the Messiah's handiwork. He said so, so it must be true.
What, pray tell, are those magical stimulus items in the stimulus package that is ready to give a quick jolt to our ailing economy?
I can't wait to read this simple, to the point, easy to understand bill that is only going to spend a measely 800 billion buckaroos (did someone say $900 billion? Wow, it seems to be increasing daily).
Hmmmm, okay, let's see. Let's start with infrastructure. That is supposed to be the part that is going to create millions of jobs. After all, we better act quickly. Nancy Pelosi says we are losing 500 million jobs per month!
Ah, here we are. Infrastructure. Title XII, at CBO.gov, $30 billion for actual highway construction. Let's see here, let me pull out the calculator. Wow, that is a whopping 3.75% of the money going towards. . . huh? Only 3.75%? Well, that is still a lot of money. There must be more important things in the bill that the money is going towards that is keeping the amount for highway construction down.
Obama did promise to make us a more green nation, after all, with the onslaught of man-made global warming where the effects of such a climate disaster - - - wait, this just in, changes in solar cycles are cooling us down. Okay, fine, man-made global warming is a myth, but we still need to be green, right? So let's see those great, green provisions in Obamas Stimulus Package. Hmmm, I see, we have $4.6 billion for the coal industry, $50 billion or a nuclear bail-out (which has those friends of the earth folks all twisted with anger). Wait, that's not very green at all, is it? In fact, that isn't a whole lot of tree huggin', flowers in the hair, dancing in the meadows green at all!
Hmmm, I will have to talk to my Congresswoman (in my case, Mary Bono Mack) about this. Surely she has the Stimulus Bill and can explain to me what the heck is going on. Oh, wait, that's right, the Congressional staffers don't have a copy of the Stimulus Bill. The lobbyists have a copy of it though. Good 'ol Obama, shaking things up by making sure the lobbyists that were supposed to have no part of his administration populate it, and have all the copies of his Stimulus Bill. Gotta love it.
Why, that lying sack of. . .
Calm down. Surely, the rest of the Stimulus Package has great projects sure to stimulate this economy. Of course, it is not full of pork. Obama said so. He told us straight out that there are no earmarks in this bill. Nevermind the billions of dollars going to pork projects that are there because they were written into the bill! Besides, what do you care? After all, Chuck Schumer says you don't care if the thing is loaded with pork!
Back to the bill. Let's see what wonderful things are in there. $30 million for a mouse, $335 Million for Condoms and sex-education Programs (that'll stimulate somebody, but not the economy), $1 billion for Amtrak (the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years), and so on and so on. . .
But hey, a whopping 3.3% is going towards agricultural programs!
Is it too late to take Obama back and get a refund?
I wonder how many people that voted for him are having buyer's remorse?
Unfortunately, I am feeling the socialism spread across America, already. Great Job, Obama. Do you have arm-bands to hand out too?
Also posted on American Daily Review
Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.
Hillary got $8 million for hers.
That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years,
repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.
Sometimes we take a chance, and it pays off.
Sometimes, taking a risk is a good thing. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is downright foolish.
I have no problem with taking chances, considering that they are within reason. I take chances in business all the time. Sometimes they pay off. Sometimes they don't.
This is part of what makes us free. Liberty is about taking chances. Sometimes we fail.
As Glenn Beck says, I have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
Sometimes folks take chances that, however, make us shake our heads.
Last night, after parking my big rig for the evening, I drove around the corner to a gas station to fuel up my little commuter car. I pulled out my credit card, slipped it in and out of the slot, and proceeded to punch in my zip code when prompted.
The final number of my zip code is a three. The three on the number pad was not working, and all of the other pumps were occupied by paying customers slipping their plastic in and out of their designated slots. So, I resigned to go inside and have the woman behind the counter swipe my card and get me set up.
A couple spots in front of me in line was a relatively large woman with a soda, candy, cakes, donuts, and anything else you could think of in the junk-food food-group, wrapped up in her arms. I was amazed that she had not dropped any of the items up to that point, but I wasn't holding my breath.
When Junk Food Mama reached the front of the line she plopped the items on the counter and the gal behind the counter rang them up, coming up with a grand total of about $14.00.
"All I have is ten dollars," said Junk Food Mama, waving ten singles.
Now, at this point the typical person would either pull out their credit card, or debit card, and purchase their spoils in that manner, or they would return a couple items to bring the price below ten dollars, and be happy they got what they got. Ahh, but that would be the typical person. This was no typical person.
The large woman said to the cashier, "Honey, could you hold these items for a little bit, and instead I will buy ten lottery scratchers. I should win enough to buy my food."
Well, I thought, that'll be the end of her.
Junk Food Mama took her ten one-dollar scratchers out to her gas guzzling SUV to commence the task of scratching off the silver surfaces with a penny she had in her vehicle (apparently not in the ash tray, though, since a pack of smokes sat on the dashboard).
I, at that time, decided a soda would hit the spot, and stepped out of line to walk over to the fridge-case to retrieve a Dr. Pepper.
As I was walking back to get in line, Fast Food Mama came back through the door and hopped in line in front of me, clutching her lottery tickets in her hand, and brandishing a huge grin on her face.
When she stepped triumphantly to the counter she proclaimed, "I have two ten-dollar-winners. I would like to use that to buy my food, please."
I fought back the laughter to the point that tears were forming in my eyes. This woman had originally arrived with ten bucks in her pocket, and was going to leave with fourteen dollars worth of food, and six singles in her pocket. Talk about taking a chance and it paying off!
Interestingly, as she drove away, I spotted an Obama-Biden bumper sticker in her back window.
This woman might be one of the luckiest people on the planet. Maybe she should be in Vegas, or something.
Anyhow, on the surface, this was a huge gamble she had no business taking. The fact that she took the chance, and pulled it off, is not the point. Gambling with their money like that is normally what puts people into bad situations. But, regardless of the stupidity of it, she had the freedom to do so. It may have been a head-shaker, but big government didn't come along and say, "No, according to us, that is a bad choice, and we won't let you make it." She had the liberty to take the gamble. And then, when she succeeded, as funny as it was, she deserved it without being demonized or ostracized for it. She had the freedom to fail, or pull off a great win.
Did I think what she did was foolish? Sure, I did. But no one, not me, or the government, or anybody out there in the world of elitists, has the right to keep her from doing such foolish things as long as those foolish things are within the law, and is not compromising others. We should be responsible with our freedoms, but nobody should force that responsibility upon anyone.
This is not to say that I don't have a right to disagree with what she did, or her actions, or to share my personal opinion on such matters. I can, in this nation of free speech, disagree with you all I want, and voice it to my heart's content. You can do the same as well, on your site, or shout it on a hilltop, or whatever. That is the beauty of this nation.
America, for that reason, is exceptional. Or at least it is for now.
By the way, I don't play the lottery, normally. I have a funny thing about gambling. Sure, I sometimes buy a ticket, or go to Las Vegas and pull the arms of a few slots, but like any vice, too much of it can be very dangerous.