Saturday, March 31, 2012

Race Baiters Exposed....

Finally, someone from the black community calling out the race baiters "Reverends" Sharpton & Jackson....

Now if we could find someone to call out the radical Islamic terrorists.....


Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Putting the "Cool" back in Coolidge....

I find myself with a little more time on my hands these days.  So, between seeking my next source of income, studying The Book of Romans and other of life's responsibilities, I decided to enroll in Hillsdale College's online course: "Constitution 101"(free - BTW).  In the process I stumbled upon (required reading, actually) a speech from the apparently often overlooked president, Calvin Coolidge.  In the speech, President Coolidge says the following:

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.... 
No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshipped.  [all emphasis added]  - Calvin Coolidge, “The Inspiration of the Declaration,” in Foundations of the Republic: Speeches and Addresses (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1926), 441–54 
What a great argument against those who believe the founding documents are "living breathing" documents whose meanings are subject to change with the times.  No.  Not at all.  Not even close.  That was precisely what the founding fathers where attempting to keep from happening when they declared:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 
Wow.  Powerful stuff....  Thank you Hillsdale.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Must see videos:

The Path to Prosperity: An overview:

The Path to Prosperity: A visual future of our two choices:

The Path to Prosperity: The truth about Medicare & how to save it:

The Path to Prosperity Pro-growth Strategy:

How come all politicians can't be as clear and concise when they speak as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)?  

Why do typical politicians always want to talk about past failures and place blame, rather than take an honest look at where we are, where we need to get to and paint a picture of that path for us to follow, like  Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) does?

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

So what is after the loony left's nationalization of healthcare?

The pretext:  “Food is one of the only base human needs where the American government lets the private market dictate its delivery to our communities.”

So, now we know.  They are not just going after children's school lunches or soldiers meals.  No, now it is time to get the government involved in food distribution.  As what is the motivation?  Well, it's a "food justice" thing.  a class warfare thing - only the rich can afford to eat well.  

Before the Food Arrives on Your Plate, So Much Goes on Behind the Scenes

Ms. McMillan’s chapters about Walmart and Applebee’s are the book’s best. She is not a slash-and-burn critic of either company: both provide needed jobs and treat their employees at least moderately well. But you will steer clear of both places after reading about her travails.


Monday, March 05, 2012

Finally, The Vetting Begins...

Andrew Breitbart's final legacy...  The vetting of President Barack Hussein Obama.

The Vetting Begins


It turns out "State Senator Baraka Obama" was part of guest panel after the play....

The play, of course, was all about what a great person Mr. Alinsky was.

I'm sure "Baraka" was there to refute what Saul Alinsky stood for, much like I'm sure Hillary Clinton's thesis in college was a refutation of Alinksky as well.  (Go ahead, click the link and read for yourself.  Then ask yourself, "Is she really a moderate?")

I encourage the you to read Breitbart's article.  Please help spread the word about the REAL Barack Hussein Obama.  And remember to watch for future installments on Breitbart's websites:
Big Government, Big Journalism, Big Hollywood and Big Peace.

Porn Stars: The Death of a Sex-Industry Profession

This is a good thing, right?

Not really.  When you read the story you find out the reason the "Porn Star" is a dying breed (pardon the pun) is because of "over supply".  In other words, it is the perfect storm for girls who want to become "Porn Stars".  It seems there is a "near unlimited supply" of girls who will do this kind of work.

The main reason for the oversupply is pretty disturbing.  Our society has finally accepted porn as mainstream, so instead of there being a stigma against "actresses" ending up doing porn as a final desperate act, girls are now growing up aspiring to work in the porn industry (i.e. have sex with strangers for money and have it videoed for distribution on the web).

If this is not a sign our society is in deep trouble, I do not know what is.

Here is the complete article:

Porn Stars: The Death of a Sex-Industry Profession

The Daily Beast
Richard Abowitz
February 28, 2012

The pull quote:

[Mark Spiegler] now turns away more aspiring porn stars than ever before. He notes that if a lot of people are willing to do a task, the star aura of the performers quickly vanishes. “A few years ago there were 100 girls in the entire industry, and now 100 girls enter the industry each week. They used to all be stars; now they all just think they’re stars.” The result, Spiegler says, is that “they’ve become interchangeable.”{Emphasis added}
He talks as if describing the parts of a machine.  'They are interchangeable', like windshield wipers.  Toss out the out worn out ones and plug in the new squeaking clean ones - until they too become old, worn and ineffective.  Like a commodity to be consumed.  

Remember, the "they" he is talking about are you daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, moms and dads.  These are human beings, treated and traded as things.  

For those of us who believe, the "they" he is describing are people created in the image if of God. Desecrated temples....

Friday, March 02, 2012

This ought to scare the bejesus out of you...

I've always held that abortion is murder.  The reason abortion is equivalent to murder is bumper sticker simple:  "If it's not a baby, you're not pregnant".  

So now that we have established abortion is murder all we are arguing about is, "At what point in time does the mother have the right to murder their child?"  Is it less than 26 weeks?  Or maybe it should be less than 3 years old?  The logic is pretty simple.

I guess my argument has gone mainstream....

From The Telegraph:

1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 201

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.[Emphasis Added]
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

 From the Abstract of the actual paper:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. 

So, given the moral relativism of the modern-day liberal (whether it is the Supreme Court Justice who says the U.S. Constitution is a 'living breathing document' subject to interpretation based on changing mores or it is a president who equates the burning of a Quran with the killing of American soldiers) none of this should especially be surprising.  

Now, let's think about this...  According to this report, "After-birth Abortions" are ethical and moral and Obama's Independent Payment Advisory Board [i.e., "Death Panels"] are charged with limiting the cost of health care to the federal budget by determining who qualifies for the expense of caring for certain illnesses.  

Now, cleared of the moral and ethical responsibility of killing children who may be born with "severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to not be worth living..." the IPAB [Death Panels] can require doctors to kill the child using approved 'After-birth Abortion' techniques. Just think about that....

Do any of us wonder why our nation may have fallen out of favor with our Creator?  

Thursday, March 01, 2012

Federal Checkpoints on the "Interstate" Highway system in the U.S.? Maybe...

The TSA Is Coming To a Highway Near You
By Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

Rep. Blackburn makes an effective argument as to why TSA's agents should not me considered TSO's (Transportation Security Officer's).  But to me, the most crucial paragraph is this one:

Interestingly enough, as TSA officials like to routinely point out, their agency’s acronym stands for Transportation Security Administration, not the Airport SecurityAdministration. This fact has extended the TSA’s reach has far beyond the confines of our nation’s airports. Many of my constituents discovered this first hand this past fall as those familiar blue uniforms and badges appeared on Tennessee highways. In October Tennessee became the first state to conduct a statewide Department of Homeland Security Visible Intermodal Prevention andResponse (VIPR) team operation which randomly inspected Tennessee truck drivers and cars.[Emphasis added]
 If I combine the two points Rep. Blackburn makes, I should not have to comply with a TSO on the roads anywhere in the state.  That is Municipal or State Police's territory only.  I wonder if she'll back me up if I get stopped by one and tell them they'll have to call the real authorities if they want to "inspect" anything.  

Just don't taze me bro'!!