GraniteGrok

I have no problem with this - there is no reason on earth to highlight someone's work that is trying to get your husband pitched out of office:

Seattle ornament banned from White House Christmas tree

WASHINGTON -- 'Tis not the season to post calls for impeachment on the White House Christmas tree.

A spokeswoman for first lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that the tree will not include an ornament by a Seattle artist that supports President Bush's impeachment.

The ornament was the only one of about 370 submitted for the White House tree that was rejected, she said.

Artist Deborah Lawrence said she wanted to salute Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Seattle, a longtime Bush foe who backs impeachment.

The nine-inch ball Lawrence created is covered with swirly red and white stripes and features a picture of McDermott. Tiny glued-on text hails the impeachment resolution.

[snip]

"I was at first nauseated, then realized it was an opportunity," she said.

The ornament also highlights Washington state's 1919 labor strike, its suffrage movement and the violent anti-World Trade Organization riots of 1999.

Nice Christmas scenes celebrating Christmas....is this the Leftist holiday version of "don't question my patriotism"?

Posted by Skip at 6:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, it starts again here in NH:

PORTSMOUTH — A city Democrat who sponsored the New Hampshire civil union bill passed in 2007 says he believes that law was just one step in a process of gaining full equality for same-sex couples, and he plans to introduce legislation in January to allow same-sex marriage in the state.

I believe many in NH may have thought "Civil unions?  OK, but no further".  To them I say "Er, you haven't been listening":

Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, said he's pleased with the 2007 civil union bill, which he called an "excellent" step in a process leading toward full equality.

"From the beginning it's been a march toward full marriage equality and the dialogue needs to continue," he said. "I'm introducing the full marriage equality legislation for 2009 because I believe the conversation about breaking down this area of discrimination has to continue."

Yet, like many politicians, at the time, Splaine tried to do the spin job on civil unions:

State Rep. Jim Splaine, the openly gay sponsor of the civil unions bill, said time would change those attitudes.

"As we continue to evolve this discussion, we'll see people not worried so much about the marriage word," Splaine said. "This is an important difference. This is not marriage. This is civil union. This does nothing to impact anyone's marriage."

Yet, so why should I believe that nothing less than gay marriage is at the top of the gay agenda here in the Granite State? After all, he tried to play to peoples fear of that next step:

Rep. Splaine is openly gay and wants to call the new institution for gays and lesbians a "spousal union" identical to marriage except in name.

"I continue to support full marriage rights for gays and lesbians with the term marriage," he said, "but I believe it will be difficult to attain that for a while."

He even said it might be in terms of years:

Continue reading "Homosexual Marriage - elections have consequences" »

Posted by Skip at 8:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On this day of Thanksgiving, I'm doing a bit little light surfing while I wait for family to arrive.  In doing so, I ran across this:

Throughout recorded history, most human beings have been poor. Poverty has been the norm and affluence the exception. Given a choice, most of us would rather be affluent than poor, but in this year of jarring financial losses, many of us are realizing that affluence can be fleeting. Affluence presents its own challenges, beyond simply the challenge of how to retain it.

Affluence can be the beginning of the end of a great civilization. Consider this famous outline, attributed to Alexander Tytler (1748-1813) of the sequential stages of a civilization:

From Bondage to Spiritual Faith,

From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage,

From Courage to Liberty,

From Liberty to Abundance,

From Abundance to Selfishness,

From Selfishness to Complacency,

From Complacency to Apathy,

From Apathy to Dependency,

from Dependence back again to Bondage.

We have much to be thankful for.  Yet, for the first Thanksgiving, the Pilgrims had so very little yet were very thankful to God for what they had.  As our abundance has increased, has our thankfulness? 

What stage would you say America is at today?

Posted by Skip at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely. '

'Is God good?'
'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes.'

'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'
'I wouldn't say that.'

Continue reading "GOD vs Science" »

Posted by Judy at 7:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Cyrus the Great

by Amil Imani

Once again October 29th is rolling around. And once again, free people all over the world celebrate the memory of Cyrus the Great, the author of mankind’s arguably greatest document, the first Charter of Human Rights. This benevolent king, ruling over a vast empire of diverse people, enshrined in the Cyrus Cylinder, nearly three millennia ago, the principles that define and protect human dignity.

Cyrus Cylinder

It has been well over four years since the International Committee to Save the Archeological Sites of Pasargad initiated a massive celebration for the International Day of Cyrus the Great all over the world. For the past four years, especially, the courageous Iranian people have gathered by the tomb of Cyrus the Great, to commemorate this momentous international event, despite numerous intimidations and harassments by the agents of the Islamic Republic.

Cyrus the Great’s recognition of human rights, irrespective of any and all considerations, was instrumental in advancing the social and cultural precepts of the diverse people throughout the vast expanse of his empire. Although ethnically Persian, the benevolent king considered himself a trustee of the diverse nationalities of his kingdom. Parochialism and ethnocentrism were alien to this visionary monarch. 

In the same way that Cyrus the Great considered all people members of the same human family, the human family of today holds the great trailblazer of human rights as one of its own. The vast plateau that is the presently encompasses Iran has been inhabited by the most diverse people of any region of the planet. Yet, in adherence to the lofty principles of Cyrus, these people found unity in diversity. They remained loyal to their own unique heritage and successfully linked it to a larger loyalty. The present Iran is a living testimony to this remarkable togetherness where ethnic Persians, Turkic, Kurds, Lurs, Turkmen, Baluchis, Arabs, and others live as one people.

Cyrus’ Charter of Human Rights is the first written document which stipulates that all humans have universal inalienable rights, without regard to any and all demographic considerations such as ethnicity, nationality and religion.

Continue reading "Honoring Cyrus the Great and his Charter" »

Posted by Amil at 7:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Bishop & Nate... Afraid to debate?

As noted in this previous post, I linked to Dartmouth senior Nathan's piece at the Wayward Episcopalian blog where he's put forth the call for suggestions of what he should ask NH's openly gay Episcopal bishop Eugene Robinson in an interview he's conducting with him later this week. Earlier this morning, I availed myself of his call and comment section and left the following suggestions he ask the bishop:

• Ask him how he feels about placing the desires of the flesh above the job of bringing souls to Jesus.

• Ask him what he thinks his Maker will say to him when its his turn.

• Ask him what he would counsel a confused preteen about sexuality-- would he tell him to follow his "desires" wherever they take him?

• Ask him what is worse-- flushing a Koran down the toilet, or using the Bible to promote the gay agenda?

• And ask him if he'll come on our radio program in Laconia to defend his positions and "teachings". (Meet the New Press radio; 1490 WEMJ)

At the time, my posted comments appeared on the blog. I checked it a little while later to see if anyone had responded and, unsurprisingly, no one had... probably not too many people read the kid's tripe anyway. As mentioned above, I referred to Nathan's piece in this prior post about the gay bishop's visit here to our town of Gilford, and I actually copied and pasted the above questions published as I submitted them directly FROM his blog.

Guess what? I refreshed the open page a few minutes ago to see if anybody responded to my input, and, yep-- you guessed it---

MY COMMENTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED, AND THE POST SHOWS "0" COMMENTS

Ya just gotta love these "open minded" and oh-so-"tolerant" lefties like Nate-- everything's just ducky until you raise points they disagree with, or are damaging to their cause. Then, all bets are off. Why engage in debate when you can simply stifle it? This is the future in Barack Obama's Amerika. Are we sure we really want that?

Posted by Doug at 1:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBacks (0)

I guess there are times when doing the Lord's work must be done behind closed doors. There was a time when they used to call it confession. I don't know what you call this, or how the Bible says they can do what they are doing, which is destroying their church.

Today's Laconia Daily Sun has the story, reporting on Saturday's appearance (as noted in this prior post, and discussed on MTNP radio) here in Gilford of NH's gay Bishop Eugene Robinson to promote the movie, "For the Bible Tells Me So" shown at a local "church." Read the whole thing, as what the bish has to say might leave you somewhat dumbfounded, as it did me. "Hatred" for women by Catholics, and in both Testaments of the Bible? I had no idea...

by Ray Carbone

GILFORD- In a revealing moment during the discussion time following the showing of the documentary movie at the First United Methodist Church of Gilford Saturday night, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, told a group of about 100 people that he led a secret retreat for gay Catholic priests two years ago.

"About half were diocesan priests and half were in various (religious) orders where you have a little more flexibility," Robinson said during the question and answer period after the movie, The Bible Tells Me So," the story of about how Christian families deal with learning that one of the family members is homosexual.

The true purpose of the retreat was kept secret from Catholic Church leaders or it never would have been allowed, the bishop said.

Robinson, who is the first openly gay leader in a large American Protestant church, said he told the Catholic clergy members that there's such a strong link between the fear of homosexuals and the hatred of woman and that he did not think the Catholic church would ever accept gay clergy members until it first accepted women clergy members.

"I told them, go home and work for women's ordination and you're going to be 75-percent of the way there, he said.

 

Continue reading "Gay Bishop claims to have hosted secret "gay retreat" for Catholic priests." »

Posted by Doug at 1:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Not content with the debauched lifestyle he has chosen, this "man" seeks to spread what he does through the "churches", and invokes the Bible as justification.

Why can't he just shut up and go about his "business" quietly? What kind of  a "leader" is willing to destroy the very enterprise he heads? And worse, what kind of people are in his "flock" that would allow this to even happen? No wonder the "churches" are emptier and emptier every weekend. Why bother dragging your rear end down to "church" on Sunday when you can simply turn on MTV?

While not officially part of First United Methodist Church in Gilford, the Open Door Fellowship is made up mostly of members of that church and it meets at the church facility. Its mission is to support full rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

"Our goal is to help and support the full rights of everyone in the community and to seek to achieve a more fully inclusive denomination," Thomason said.

Yeah, and if the "church" needs to be destroyed in the process, so be it, I guess.

Posted by Doug at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Actually, while still tiny in the grand scheme of things, bloggers are having impacts in a lot of areas.  While we have seen bloggers on both the Right and Left receive serious courting from politicians and advocacy groups in terms of influencing those that can influence others, there are also those in other areas of interest earning some serious coin (e.g., PrerezHilton.com, a celebrity blogger in Hollywood is asking $18,000 for 1 ad on BlogAds - for one week!  To be fair, there are no takes right now, but he does have 13  ads sold at $4K each.  He also gets about 52 million views during that time period [sigh, we get about 42K - such is the "long tail" of blogging]).

Anyways, beyond the advertising networks, we can get insurance!

I'd love to see the actuarial tables for blogging

Apparently, I can now purchase "blogging insurance:"

Premiums for the policy, underwritten by Axis Insurance, start at about $500 and increase depending on a list of risk factors.

For example, bloggers writing about local government or the pharmaceutical industry will have higher premiums than those writing movie reviews or just musing about their day.

The policy includes a $2,500 deductible and covers up to $100,000 per claim.

Axis offers a similar policy in Canada called CyberLiability, with premiums starting at $2,500 (Canadian dollars). Americans get the cheaper rate if they pass the association's media law course.

and join a bloggers advocacy group!

I would recommend membership in the Media Bloggers Association.

The MBA is non-partisan - its members, board and history are ample proof of this. The MBA is, to some extent, the institutionalization of a dynamic that is anathema to many bloggers: Joining organizations, agreeing to standards (not standardization), bestowing a limited quantum of representative proxy, and interacting cooperatively with people like the MSM, the courts and others whom many bloggers consider sacred cows.

There will always be the ACLU, the EFF and many fine organizations — not all of which are conservatives’ first choice of whom they’d want to call in an emergency — and individuals who are out there fighting the good fight. But right now the MBA is the only grouping of bloggers across the spectrum that is in a position, and is formed for the sole purpose, of protecting the rights bloggers have, to the full extent of the law, to express themselves in their chosen medium to the full extent of their constitutional rights to do so.

If you’re as afraid of an Obama Administration and how it might go for bloggers as some of you say you are (which is a lot more afraid than I am, notwithstanding the scare links in my first paragraph), you’ll consider joining the MBA or perhaps replicating what it has done in a manner consistent with your own tastes — “while you can”!

And yes, with the documented thuggery shown at a radio show at WGN, Law Enforcement officials that were going to go after, with the full weight of the law and threats of broadcast license removal, people who expressed anti-Obama sentiments, and the like....well, maybe ideas that have come at the right time.

Posted by Skip at 12:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Given that it IS the silly season (the election is just a couple of weeks away), there are a LOT of Letters to the Editor (where I kinda got my start in this area).  The one thing that is always true is that elections have a way of focusing attention to issues - after all, while we are voting for people, we are often voting for them because they support the issues (at least most of the most important ones).  

Like this person:

Society should help

Editor, The Citizen As a former teacher it has been my experience that most people are of average intelligence and, for the most part, work up to their capacity. There will always be those who cannot achieve the basics in life, and need society's help. What kind of a country lets these people live in poverty? The rich should feel a moral obligation to help the poor. This means paying more taxes!

Barack Obama's plan will give the poor and the middle class the chance to have health care, an education, jobs and a better life.

Throwing mud at Obama regarding his supposed associations is despicable. He is not aligned with Bill Ayers; he has condemned J. Wright; he is NOT a terrorist. Obama wants what we all want — a better country where there is not such a huge gap between the haves and the have nots.

Barbara N. Mariano
Laconia

My reply was this (yet to be published):

To the Editor,

With respect to Ms. Mariano 10/21 Letter ("The rich should feel a moral obligation to help the poor. This means paying more taxes!"), she and others like her, conflate taxes with charity - they should not. It used to be that taxes were extracted to run government.  Thanks to the Liberals, Government is the "new charity"; over time pushing the traditional charitable organizations to the side (or changing their natures so as to be far different organizations in depending on government rather than the general public).

She imputes that the rich do not pay enough and intimates that they are not moral (because they are rich?).  I wonder if people really do know that the rich already pay far more taxes than the rest of us do - much more! The latest IRS information: the top income taxpayers ARE actually paying more (percentage and absolute dollars) under President Bush's tax plan as compared to Clinton's - the top 1% of taxpayers pay almost 40% of all income taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, and the top 25% (which starts at $64,700/year) pay 86% of all income taxes.

So, answer me - how is it moral or fair to demand others pay for another's needs? Your needs?  Wouldn't it fairer and more moral for Ms. Mariano to simply organizing and asking herself for charitable contributions privately rather than relying on Government to do that work? After all, studies at Syracuse University have shown that as taxes and government encroachment into formerly charitable endeavors (caring for the poor and infirm), private giving of time and money dry up. And is it fair for only the rich, as she writes, to be charitable?  What about the middle class and the poor?  Each of us, in our own way, should be charitable.

I ask - is it a fair society when the majority of its citizens are not invested in the cost of government?  To stretch an analogy, would it not be like your kids doing the "but I want it" schtick without knowing the cost of their demands?  After all, if it is free to me, why can I not have more?  If it doesn't cost me anything, why not give someone else more?  Not understanding the real costs of government or having the motivation of watching over those that govern us breeds that motivation.

Many fear radical Islam as it conflates religion, law, and government (Islam, Shar'ia religious law, and a Caliphate) - we in the West rightly reject such notions.  However, as in European socialism, Ms. Mariano seems to be conflate higher government taxes with personal charity.  Charity used to be called Christian charity - money, time, and talent voluntarily given from an individual's heart and conscience.  Sadly, it may be fading away.

Demanding higher taxes is neither charitable nor patriotic - it is merely obeying the law.  Are we rapidly turning into a society where Big Government is muscling out voluntary giving?  After all, why should we give more when Government takes it from us - and in a lot of cases, at multiple levels (Federal, State, County, and local)?

What kind of society will we end up with when the very few shoulder the
entire cost of society for the rest?  Fairness?

I think not.

Posted by Skip at 7:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

We were fortunate to have Warner Todd Huston on MTNP this past weekend.  Unfortunately, his time with us was shortened as previous "appointments" were missed and we had to scramble HARD to get him in - if he is willing, we will have a return engagement!

In the mean time, he was just published over at Human Events where he defends the selection of Sarah Palin as the Republican  Veep candidate?  No, not from the Dems - anyone partaking of the MSM know how hard they and the Dems have been trying to knock down her popularity.  No, it is from her own part - the blue-blooded, country club, intelligentia that looks down from on high at the run of the mill Republican schlubs (sorta like Doug and I!):

...When Ronald Reagan came into the national limelight, the old guard of the Republican Party turned up its collective nose. The Rockefeller Republicans, the bluebloods, and country club GOPers who were quite comfortable playing permanent second fiddle to the Democrat Party had always scoffed at the rise of the social and religious conservatives and the Reagan Democrats that saw the light of Reagan's lamp. To this wing of the party, position and resume were what was important, not ideology or even votes, for that matter. 

The instant Ronald Reagan began drawing into that big GOP tent more voters than ever before, the rift was created. Reagan welded together a coalition from the disparate parts of traditionally conservative leaning America. He awakened the religious conservatives that saw a culture war raging without being confronted, the economic conservatives that longed for capitalism in a sea of socialist re-engineering, and, of course, the old blueblood country clubbers that finally began to think they just might actually win something for a change (among a few other factions). This was the new Republican Party that was more than its parts, only strong together. 

But there was one major problem. Much of the party was led by the effete bluebloods. They were the ones with the money and the ones with the previous experience in government when Reagan came to Washington. And they had disdain for all the other factions and fought to keep intact their power, despite the desires of the rest of their new party members. For the most part they have won that battle, sadly. Since day one the country clubbers haven't been much interested in sharing. 

...And now comes Sarah Palin, who represents that part of America with whom the country clubbers were always uncomfortable: often fiscally conservative, certainly socially conservative, not credentialed or of noted family background, not educated in Ivy League schools, but of the America that has had to fight its way to success, pulling itself up by the bootstraps every step of the way.

Gee, a woman of the people!  Solidly grounded in small-town-politik, rife with the real world of folks doing what keeps America moving forward who basically don't care for either soaring rhetoric or soaring hand-outs.  No, these are the people who want to do "the right thing", morally conscience, and basically want to be left alone to take care of their families, prosper, and are tired of being reamed (by the Dems and the blue-bloods) for being who they are and for being the problem.

Instead of who they are - the solution.

As Doug has said "my wife is Sarah Palin.....we are Sarah Palin".

Go. Read. The. Whole. Thing.

Posted by Skip at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This speech given by Archbishop Charles Chaput Friday evening at a dinner sponsored by ENDOW (Educating on the Nature and Dignity of Women) contains some of the best words I've heard uttered by an American Catholic leader in a long time. It's fitting it makes the news cycle rounds today, as I walked out of my Church during the homily this morning after being lectured by a very misguided Pastor about voting for candidates that promote "peace" instead of war and torture. This came on top of his euphemistic admonishment to "respect life at all stages" (yes- Father can't often bring himself to speak the "A" word, as he fears offending the liberal portion of his dwindling flock). I forwarded the Archbishop's words to him, as he really needs to read them and LEARN them. It's a long read, but well worth it. The most Reverend Chaput reminds us that as Catholics and Christians, we are NOT obligated to refrain from speaking and acting our beliefs in the political world, nor should we tone down in order to not offend (my Pastor's problem) which is the point of his new book, "Render Unto Caesar"...

I want to do three things with my time tonight. First, Terry asked me to talk a bit about my book, "Render Unto Caesar," and I’m happy to do that. Second, I want to talk about some of the lessons we can already draw from this year’s election. And third, I want to talk about the mission of ENDOW.

Before I do any of that though, I need to say what a friend of mine calls my “Litany to the IRS.” Here it is. I’m not here tonight to tell you how to vote. I don’t want to do that, I won’t do that, and I don’t use code language -- so you don’t need to spend any time looking for secret political endorsements.

I plan to speak candidly, but I can only do that if you remember that I’m here as an author and private citizen. I’m not speaking for the Holy See, or the American bishops, or any other bishop, or even officially for the Archdiocese of Denver. So the things I say tonight are my personal views, nothing more. I think they’re pretty solidly grounded in Catholic teaching and the heart of the Church, but it’s your task as Catholics and citizens to listen, evaluate and then act as you judge best.

As adults, each of us needs to form a strong Catholic conscience. Then we need to follow that conscience when we vote. And then we need to take responsibility for the consequences of the vote we cast. Nobody can do that for us. That’s why really knowing and living our Catholic faith is so important. It’s the only reliable guide we have for acting in the public square as disciples of Jesus Christ.

So let’s talk for a few minutes about "Render Unto Caesar." When people ask me about the book, the questions usually fall into three categories. Why did I write it? What does the book say? And what does the book mean for each of us as individual Catholics? This last question will be a good doorway into talking about the 2008 election, but let’s start at the beginning first. Why did I write this book, now?

 

Continue reading ""Little Murders"" »

Posted by Doug at 12:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

"The left knows this. Most on the right do not."

When I am out on the West Coast, I enjoy listening to Dennis Prager on the radio.  He is insightful and brings up things in such a way that I would not ordinary think of.  He has a column over at Townhall which discuss a claim that many politicians (like McCain and Obama) like to spiel - they are Unifiers.

Hogwash!  Neither of them can be, nor will the American people ever be united politically (at least, over a long period of time).  Why?  Simple - it will require one side to completely capitulate their ideological underpinnings.  Everything that they believe in, their vision of America and where it is and where it should go, goes over the side.

Not going to happen, and Dennis has some observations and reasons why (emphasis mine):

It is time to confront the unhappy fact about our country: There are now two Americas. Not a rich one and a poor one; economic status plays little role in this division.

There is a red one and a blue one.

For most of my life I have believed, in what I now regard as wishful thinking, that the right and left wings have essentially the same vision for America, that it's only about ways to get there in which the two sides differ. Right and left share the same ends, I thought.

That is not the case. For the most part, right and left differ in their visions of America and that is why they differ on policies.

Right and the left do not want the same America.

Continue reading "Why there will be no unity in America (politically)" »

Posted by Skip at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Over at The Volokh Conspiracy,  Jim Lindgren links to a Jeffrey Strain post over at the Street:

20 Reasons Why You’re Not Rich.

Over at the Street.com, Jeffrey Strain has added 10 more reasons why you’re not rich to a list he published last year. Here were the 10 original reasons:

1. You Care What Your Neighbors Think:
2. You Aren't Patient:
3. You Have Bad Habits:
4. You Have No Goals:
5. You Haven't Prepared:
6. You Try to Make a Quick Buck:
7. You Rely on Others to Take Care of Your Money:
8. You Invest in Things You Don't Understand:
9. You're Financially Afraid:
10. You Ignore Your Finances:
    

Here's Strain's new list:

Many people assume they aren't rich because they don't earn enough money. If I only earned a little more, I could save and invest better, they say. The problem with that theory is they were probably making exactly the same argument before their last several raises. Becoming a millionaire has less to do with how much you make, it's how you treat money in your daily life. . . .

Here are 10 more possible reasons you aren't rich:

1. You care what your car looks like:
2. You feel entitlement:
3. You lack diversification:
4. You started too late:
5. You don't do what you enjoy:
6. You don't like to learn:
7. You buy things you don't use:
8. You don't understand value:
9. Your house is too big:
10. You fail to take advantage of opportunities:
    

Read the original posts for the explanations of each point.

Now, I look at the items on that list and notice that a couple of other items that are not on that list - hard work, a bit of luck.  Yes, you can work VERY hard and not be rich.  And yes, you can be rich without having had any luck at all.  Be that as it may (and no, I am not rich), those that I know that ARE rich (millionaires, that is) WORK HARD.  They work HARD and LONG at what they do - far more than most wage earners (be they hourly or salaried).  

That said, look at that list, again and notice the emphasis - not on your company, your friends, your family, the Government.  No, the emphasis is on YOU - what have YOU done, what are YOU doing now (or not)?

I think the philosophy stated here is correct - yes, sometimes being in the right place at the right time with the right idea (think Google) is the way to success.  More often than not, the "luck" is made via sweat, tears, and stick-to-it-iveness. No, it is a guarantee of success, but if those attributes are missing, success is seldom to be found nearby.

Posted by Skip at 6:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A week ago, there was a special meeting in Concord at our State House.  Why?  Solely to increase the amount of money that would be put towards assistance for the poor for heating costs (yes, in NH, it can get cold and stay there for a while - not unusual to have a week where the temps can be -10 degrees F or below). So, you say - good show!  On a given level, one might think that this is a good thing - government helping the poor!

Couple of problems - one, the $10 million the Democrat leadership pushed for is money that the State of NH already doesn't have (the Democrat leadership have already borrowed millions to meet the budget, so now they'll have to borrow more for this additional outlay.

This used to be considered charity.  Done by individuals to help their neighbors - that used to be the NH way (in fact, still is - after 20 odd years, I am still amazed by the number of dinners, raffles, auctions, and the like that are put on for those in need). The question that always should be raised should be "what is the proper role of government?"  Where is that line over which one should not cross?  After all, if there is no line, then government will be responsible for everything.

Yes, the people that just brought you the failure and nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the housing industry, and pretty much the banking system will be responsible for all the little things in your life if this trend continues.

Anyways, one of our House reps, Rep. Nancy Elliott of Merrimack, wrote a letter describe her lament from a Conservative point of view (emphasis mine): 

September 24, 2008.  Today I committed political suicide.  We had one of those touchy feely bills designed to be a political photo op for our governor who is running for reelection.  It sounded so good in the press.  The Legislature at the governor's urging threw out the rules and gave $10 million additional dollars to the fuel assistance program to keep low income families from freezing to death.  While I am 100% against letting our citizens freeze and voted for bills in the past to appropriate heating assistance, this time I was one of 12 who voted against this measure.  Why would I vote against giving out money just before the election?  Surely this will not play well with those waiting at the trough. 

As I read that last sentence, I was reminded of what Lord MacCauley once stated:

"A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship."

So you tell me - where are we on the continuum of a democracy (yes, I know, we are a Republic, but it still applies!)?   Rep. Elliot continues:

Many around me took this voter feeding frenzy into account as they cast their vote for what they were pretty sure was not the emergency it was portrayed to be.

Ah, emotion rules the day!  Four Hundred or so reps feared saying "no" to their constituents.

My reasons are this:  Prior legislation was with the promise of coming federal dollars.  The original program was funded with federal monies, not state revenues.  The dollars came in as promised.  This time we have been promised around 25 million.  We are spending that and the additional 10 million.  There are some that say that the feds are thinking about sending us another 10 to 25 million. I have serious concerns that the feds will be sending any additional money given the problems with Wall Street.  Here's where I have a major problem, we are taking a program that has been a federal obligation and now making it a state obligation.  I listened to the department head yesterday and it was clear that she felt that she would like to see this program expand much more.  This program is not just for those in dire need.  A family of 4 that makes $48,000 is covered.  This is a redistribution of wealth.  The family making $50,000 will now subsidize his neighbor that makes slightly less.

$48,000 is definitely middle class, yet it seems that those that like Big and Bigger Government believes that even at that level, they are economic victims.  Again, I refer back to Lord MacCauley...

We knew what...

Continue reading "Separation of Charity and State in NH? Of COURSE not!" »

Posted by Skip at 8:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Often, I have said that the Liberal call for sacrifice has often been for higher taxes...and have pretty railed against it and then left it at that.  However, Glenn over at Instapundit expresses something that has bothered me for quite some time: for some, having to give up more of the family income in terms of taxes may well be sacrifice, but what about those at the other end of the scale - those that receive from Government? (emphasis mine):

SHARED SACRIFICE: So one theme we've heard in criticizing President Bush is that, post 9/11, he didn't require "sacrifice from the American people." This is generally a euphemism for "higher taxes."

It seems likely that no matter who is elected President, we'll see higher taxes. But an awful lot of Americans don't pay income taxes, or pay only very small amounts -- and their numbers will grow under both the Obama and McCain tax plans. Raising top marginal rates won't affect them. So if we're to see shared sacrifice, what might that mean? It seems to me that shared sacrifice is not only about some people paying more to the federal government, but also about others taking less. And, yeah, that'll hurt, but that's what "sacrifice" is about, right?

He nails it.  It would seem logical, as the Liberals are wont to say, that if we all should sacrifice (e.g., they keep bringing up that if the troops and their families are sacrificing, we all should), we all should sacrifice as a society.  At the top, in the middle, and at the bottom.

There's some evidence that Obama, at least, is quietly moving toward raising the Social Security retirement age. This is inevitable, and the sooner it happens the better. Adjustments should also be based on the cost of living, rather than wages, which would help keep increases under control.

I agree - Social Security started out as "widow's welfare" - assistance from society for those that had no family in their elder years.  We live longer - even as I begin to approach those years, the retirement age should, once again, begin to approach how it was set up in the beginning - just beyond the "regular" lifespan.  And, given the demographics now sweeping the country, with the lack of workers to support the retirees, pegging to the rate of living vs the rate of wages makes lots of sense - the sacrifice is "I want mine!".

We should also cut back generally on spending for entitlements -- say a 10% across-the-board cut, to start. Economic subsidies ("corporate welfare" and farm subsidies, for example) should be cut even deeper. In fact, a 10% across-the-board cut in nondefense federal spending, in both entitlement and discretionary programs, would be a good place to start. This seems unthinkable, but states with budget problems make big across-the-board cuts all the time. (In Tennessee, Phil Bredesen is talking about a 3 percent across-the-board cut, but Tennessee's budget problems aren't nearly as bad).

I'm just dandy to stop ALL tax privileges to businesses - compete on the merits.  But I would also delete all taxes as well - LET them compete!

Remember, entitlements are not cast in concrete (although sometimes it seems that we pay for them in diamonds).  They were created in law and they can be altered in law.  What's needed?

Political will.

The problem with entitlements is that those that receive them don't expect them, they DEMAND them.

TMEW and I ran a small daycare center years ago...

Continue reading "Sacrifice is more than from the top - all or nothing" »

Posted by Skip at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We supported Grant Bosse in the Republican Primary in NH's CD-2.  Alas and alack, he made it not - the voters decided to select Jennifer Horn to run against incumbent Democrat Paul Hodes (we said at the time that all of the Republicans running were good candidates - please consider voting for her in the general election). 

However, I did get an email from Grant that he's going to keep on blogging (albeit, on his campaign blogsite) at:

bosse2008.blogspot.com

I'm betting that he will get a good bit of traffic over time for the same reason we supported him - clear, conscise, reasoning on various and sundry topics.  We'll be adding Grant to the blogroll soon even as he may well be writing for us here as well.

Posted by Skip at 10:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

(H/T: Sue)

Posted by Skip at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Representative from the "global community"

Ed. note: Please welcome the newest 'Grok contributor Elise. Attending an Eastern US university, she finds herself swimming in a sea of liberals and otherwise "malleable minds" that are our up and coming generations. She will share her thoughts on campus life and whatever else comes to mind. We're always on the lookout for fresh perspectives here at the 'Grok and, well let's face it, Skip and I will have a hard time giving that of a 19 year old, because, well, Skip's not 19 anymore... Without further ado, we give you the first contribution from

The GraniteGrok "University Embed"

MTV Video Music Awards (VMA) decided to celebrate the awards show’s 25th year by choosing British comedian Russell Brand to host the special that aired on MTV and VH-1 on Sunday September 7th.

After an exciting opening performance by pop-star Rhianna, Russell Brand welcomed everyone to the VMAs at the Paramount Lot and then proceeded to endorse Barack Obama, insult George W. Bush, degrade Sarah Palin, and make fun of the Christian rock band The Jonas Brothers.

“Now as a representative of the global community, a visitor from abroad, I don’t was to come off a little biased, but could I please ask of you people in America to please elect Barack Obama.

Please, on behalf of the world. Some people, I think they’re called racists, say that America is not ready for a black president, but I know America to be a forward thinking country because otherwise, you know, would you have let that retarded cowboy fellow be president for eight years? We were very impressed. It was nice of you to let him have a go because in England George Bush wouldn’t be trusted with a pair of scissors.”

Just when you thought that MTV had given you your dose for swimming against the sea of pop culture and not jumping right onto the liberal bandwagon, Russell Brand took things even further.

“I am required by broadcasting law to show some balance which means the Republicans might be alright. Uh, Sarah Palin she’s a VILF, a Vice President I’d like to fumble, fondle uh I dunno.”

After degrading Palin he briefly discussed her daughter’s pregnancy as a P.R. stunt, and claimed that Levi Johnston (the father of Palin’s grandchild to be) was immediately flown into the RNC when the news broke and this was his punishment for having unprotected sex.

“The whole situation in fact makes the whole fact of pledging to God to remain a virgin until marriage seem like a good idea."

[Implied: compared to becoming a Republican].

"So well done to the Jonas Brothers! God Bless those boys. In case you didn’t know, each of the Jonas Brothers does wear a tiny ring as a mark of their commitment to God. I’d take them more seriously if they wore it on their genitals.”

MTV is known for its liberal bias. The channel’s infatuation with Hollywood goes perfectly with Barack Obama’s celebrity status and their continued dribble that flows from the tube to the malleable minds of America’s next generations.

Watch the video here: http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1594254&vid=272743

Posted by Elise at 8:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

..

“Child Abuse by Misinformation”

Between us, my husband and I have spent over 69 years as classroom teachers. We have two children and five grandchildren. Our lives have been centered around loving and caring for children, and we have dedicated ourselves to do what we can to guide them to make good choices.  Sometimes this involves exposing those adults and their organizations that practice “child abuse by misinformation.” 

My husband and I just got back from attending a protest rally against Planned Parenthood’s Nobody’s Fool conference in Waco, Texas, where children (Grades 5-9) have their ears filled with Planned Parenthood’s “child abuse by misinformation.”

For some years, Planned Parenthood (PP) has spread its misinformation through www.teenwire.com.  Now PP has set up an even worse site called www.takecaredownthere.org that blatantly encourages promiscuous and deviant heterosexual and/or homosexual sex.  If you think I am exaggerating, please view the sites for yourself. Anyone can access them – even very young children. 

Planned Parenthood half-heartedly recommends abstinence, but PP never mentions the word “marriage.” These Grades 5-9 attendees at Nobody’s Fool are assured that if they want to have heterosexual and/or homosexual sex, all they have to do is to wear a condom.

Participants will not be told that condoms slip or break 1.6% to 3.6% of the time under the best of conditions and that even when used correctly and consistently, those involved in sexual activities can contract the deadly diseases of HIV/AIDS at least 15% of the time.

These students will also not be told that condoms offer little-to-no protection against the discharge diseases of HPV, genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid.  These STD’s (STI’s) can be transmitted through skin-to-skin contact on the parts of the body not covered by the condom.

Again practicing “child abuse by misinformation,” Planned Parenthood does not tell these vulnerable young people that HIV/AIDS is still largely transmitted through the CHOSEN behaviors of male-to-male sex, bisexual sex, and/or drug use. 

Continue reading "Guest Post: "Take Care Down There..." Guess what? You and I are the enablers when we dutifully pay our taxes." »

Posted by Doug at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Warning: Some of the supportive material in the following post is somewhat graphic, and definitely not for small children. Let this be a note of caution as to what medical conditions we'll be enabling subsidizing paying for should we adopt universal healthcare as a nation... (although we probably already pay for much of it, now that I think about it )

“A Logical Medical Choice”

by Donna Garner

Should our country be moving as fast as we can to encourage homosexual behavior?  Why or why not? Some states seem to want same-sex marriage and are passing all kinds of laws that will encourage even more people to participate in homosexual activities. The debate rages on.

However, there is one way to settle the whole issue by answering a single question.

What are the medical consequences of homosexual behavior? 

Our society uses that same standard to make decisio