GraniteGrok

There is a lot of controversy going around about the current census form - is it too intrusive?  Is Government asking too many personal questions in addition to the Constitutional aspect of enumeration of the population?

Sure, the counting part is what it is all about.  However, even Government has politicized it and made it all about the money (emphasis mine):

Dear Resident:

About one week from now, you will receive a 2010 Census form in the mail. When you receive your form, please fill it out and mail it in promptly. Your response is important. Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need. Without a complete, accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share. Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely, Robert M. Groves
Director, U.S. Census Bureau

Like many, I too am upset - A Letter sent to expect a Letter?  This is their idea of frugality?  A good expenditure of taxpayer monies?  Hey, its just money!

However, there is another, perhaps more important deal going on (and has been for years). For me, the Progressive / Liberal obsession with group or identity politics does nothing to unite people - it only separates the American people.   In fact, it fits with their ideology - split the citizens so as to have them compete amongst themselves - for basically their own money.  Send DC the money, and we will, and ONLY we will, dole it out as we see fit!

This, indeed, one of the terrors of an unlimited government - handing out the strings first with which to wrap one up into, and then offer to pay you with your own money for you having done so.

So, let's use their tools to begin the process of uniting ourselves again.  Am I a hyphenated American (e.g., Irish-American, Swedish-American, Evangelical-American, Married/paunch (but 21 lb less paunch!)-American?

Nope.  I will choose "Some other race": and fill in AMERICAN.

Mark Krikorian at NRO started it:

[W]e should answer Question 9 by checking the last option -- "Some other race" -- and writing in "American." It's a truthful answer but at the same time is a way for ordinary citizens to express their rejection of unconstitutional racial classification schemes. In fact, "American" was the plurality ancestry selection for respondents to the 2000 census in four states and several hundred counties.

So remember: Question 9 -- "Some other race" -- "American." Pass it on.

We'll continue it...

(H/T: NRO, RedState, Powerline, Michelle Malkin,  

Posted by Skip at 8:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

George Will almost always a great column - a good one here (just about the singular reason why I might read Newsweek) but I think he missed a real important point:

Current economic hardships have had what is called in constitutional law a "disparate impact": The crisis has not afflicted everyone equally. Although women are a majority of the workforce, perhaps as many as 80 percent of jobs lost were held by men. This injury to men is particularly unfortunate because it may exacerbate, and be exacerbated by, a culture of immaturity among the many young men who are reluctant to grow up.

Increasingly, they are defecting from the meritocracy. Women now receive almost 58 percent of bachelor's degrees. This is why many colleges admit men with qualifications inferior to those of women applicants—which is one reason men have higher dropout rates. The Pew Research Center reports that 28 percent of wives between ages 30 and 44 have more education than their husbands, whereas only 19 percent of husbands in the same age group have more education than their wives. Twenty-three percent of men with some college education earn less than their wives. In law, medical, and doctoral programs, women are majorities or, if trends continue, will be.

In 1956, the median age of men marrying was 22.5. But between 1980 and 2004, the percentage of men reaching age 40 without marrying increased from 6 to 16.5. A recent study found that 55 percent of men 18 to 24 are living in their parents' homes, as are 13 percent of men 25 to 34, compared to 8 percent of women...

Permissive parenting, Cross says, made children less submissive, and the decline of deference coincided with the rise of consumer and media cultures celebrating the indefinite retention of the tastes and habits of childhood. The opening of careers to talented women has coincided with the attenuation of male role models in popular culture: In 1959, there were 27 Westerns on prime-time television glamorizing male responsibility...

All this led to "ambiguity and confusion about what fathers were to do in the postwar home and, even more, about what it meant to grow up male." Playboy magazine, a harbinger of perpetual adolescence, sold trinkets for would-be social dropouts: "Join the beat generation! Buy a beat generation tieclasp." Think about that.

Although Cross, an aging academic boomer, was a student leftist, he believes that 1960s radicalism became "a retreat into childish tantrums" symptomatic "of how permissive parents infantilized the boomer generation." And the boomers' children? Consider the television commercials for the restaurant chain called Dave & Buster's, which seems to be, ironically, a Chuck E. Cheese's for adults—a place for young adults, especially men, to drink beer and play electronic games and exemplify youth not as a stage of life but as a perpetual refuge from adulthood.

I agree with Cross - and have often said that the 60's, the Boomer Generation, was just about the worst generation in American history (and yes, I is one).  Selfish, self-absorbed, and certainly living the "its all about me" - traits that have now been passed down to the next generations.

Media, pop culture of "playas"; all, too, have played their role.  However, Will and Cross don't mention what I believe are two important facets of the problem.

With the sexual license of the 60's and the ramifications of the pill, and add in the continuing secularization of society (and thus, moving away from traditional Judeo-Christian views), the bar for morality has dropped.  But that's only one reason.

The second, and more insidious, factor is that of the role of Government; an example is illuminating. Here in the Lakes Region, there is a a young man (loosely termed) that once came to my home as the Eldest was dating his sister.  At 14, his sister cut his steak for him (yes, that coddled).  After dinner, we had to move somethings from the Eldest's car up into the loft of the garage; this kid just stood off to the side as the Eldest climbed the ladder while his sister, TMEW, and I started shuffling stuff from the truck to the garage. 

Seeing that he had no intention of offering to help and was just standing there, I grabbed his arm,

Continue reading "Immaturity of young men" »

Posted by Skip at 8:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Shoulda put this up earlier, but it's still valid.  People may have wanted Change after having President Bush, but after just a year, they REALLY want a Change.  Gotta hand it to Barry, he's done in a year that it took Bush 8 years.

Continue reading "Wrong Way Obama?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, it seems that a few people have taken exception to my post "Here comes the ONE campaign again...and there's Rich Ashooh", again" fairly personally. No, I have not heard from Mr. Ashooh, nor Shaun Doherty or Cliff Hurst.  But I did get this from a friend whom I though was as conservative as I was:

I'm part of the ONE Campaign. So are a bunch of people with ideas I dislike. But your post today is a little paranoid. You're arguing that I'm a leftist because I'd like to help the poorest people on Earth emerge from crushing poverty.

In effect, what I thought might happen (although I did not have this person in mind when I wrote it).  The premise is wrong because it assumes (there's that word again) that I believe only Lefties want to help the poor - how absurd!  What this person did was to validate, however, the common liberal notion that only those who drift Leftward care about the unfortunate (that conservatives are MEAN and SELFISH); something that Dr. Arthur Brooks of Syracuse disproved with his precedent setting research ("Who really cares") [listen here, for the Meet The New Press's podcast for the week of 12/2/06, Hour 2] which showed that Conservatives out give Progressives in both time and money (which is KEY here, as it makes sense given that most Conservatives feel an individual responsibility to help where Progressives maintain it is a function of government).

Not wishing to let it go, I sent back this response (slightly edited here):

I have no problem with INDIVIDUALS acting in concert in a cause.  In fact, that is what I was trying to portray in the post - as well as showing that ONE, with an emphasis on governmental action, is the antithesis of that de Tocqueville ideal.

I have a BIG problem with a GROUP that has decided to bend the ear of politicians so as to gain access to tax monies, my tax money, for their charitable purposes by convincing politicians of their cause. After all, it's always for the children, the poor, the disadvantaged - isn't that always a good cause?   It happens in multiple places and in a multitude of venues; here's a another good example of the further professionalization / governmentalization of charity: Not Mine to Give

<Name redacted>, when I say that I am FOR limited Government, it means that I, if staying true to that principle, must maintain an active process of trying to deny any attempt to enlarge government.  In a case like this, it is yet another attempt to involuntary socialize what should be an individual voluntary act of charity.  I'm not saying that you are a Leftist but consider this: if ONE does persuade local, country, state, or Federal level politicians to spend tax monies on this, aren't you then aiding the Left by necessarily increasing the tax burden and the size of Government? After all, more people / committees / bureaus will be needed to oversee / regulate / disburse the monies, right?

Where am I wrong?  Obama already tried to get Federal legislation for this, and another person (whose name escapes me) is resubmitting a work alike bill, when all I hear at the State level is that "we are failing the needy, so we need to spend more"?

I SEE the words - I HEAR the words in that very direction of Government engulfing more and more - how does that make me paranoid?  IN THEIR OWN POST, they lauded have Political Leaders amongst them - what then am I supposed to believe?  When the NH Education Secretary wants ONE curriculum put into the schools, what then am I supposed to believe?

I asked the question and will ask it again - Where am I so wrong?

-Skip  

Well, that did set so with with my emailer; as Yoda might have stated: Defensive, he got. His words (my emphasis):

You're wrong to impute the words and motives of some members of a group onto all members of that group.  I want to eliminate poverty through free markets and democracy. ONE is not and should not be a government enterprise, and I don't support giving it taxpayer money.

Every time a conservative wants to sit down with a liberal to find common ground, you freak out and decide that he's not real conservative. You can certainly make up your own mind about candidates, but stuff like this ruins your credibility.

Notice that my question "Where am I so wrong?" went unanswered.  Instead, MY motives were attacked - and if you really read the original post, I used pretty much the words from the ONE site and contrasted it against the principle of limited government.  The key phrases:

• ONE is not and should not be a government enterprise,
• I don't support giving it taxpayer money.
• but stuff like this ruins your credibility

Well, in all cases, it showed, like it many things, the devil is in the details.  My response is this:

1. No, ONE is not a governmental entity, but it certainly is trying to influence the direction of government to support its charitable activities by getting politicians on board - and very few people have bankbooks larger than the taxpayer Treasuries.
2. Do do #1, it has to use tax payer money
3. Credibility - I freaking read their own site!  Their words, their actions, their declarations - and not mine.

SOoooo, my response:

>> ONE is not and should not be a government enterprise, and I don't support giving it taxpayer money.

Alright, assume I'm wrong. From that post was this:

Proud to be an American today, proud to be ONE Vote ‘08!

Set me straight - what was the purpose of ONE Vote '08?

If ONE is, as you say, a free market and individual activity, what the heck does VOTING have to do with it?  Vote WHAT, if not money (and remember, actions take money to happen)?  <Name redacted>, I AM TAKING THEM AT THEIR OWN WORDS - I didn't write it, but the implication is clear - "politicians, vote to spend money on what we want or our votes will go to someone else".  How else do I take that post where they put politicians and voting onto the center stage?

Alright, assume I'm wrong; 'splain it to me because I believe when people utter words, a lot of times they should be taken for face value.  What else can they be intimating if not voting to have Government do something?  Tell me where and why I'm off base here....

-Skip

Nothing back as of yet.  So, being a blogger, and having a wee bit of time (I'm only a citizen journalist, you see), I did a wee bit of digging to back up my words.  It's wasn't hard or difficult to find the spots on the ONE site that talked directly to my premise - that ONE actively is working to have politicians spend tax payer money for their charitable purposes (e.g, as Obama told Joe the Plumber "spreading the wealth around" and what political science / economics calls "redistribution of wealth").

Sidebar: Many may bristle at me calling using the phrase "redistribution of wealth" as they only want to help people.  Sorry, but words have meanings no matter your purposes.  If you are taking money (not soliciting of their free will, but taking) from one set of people to give to another, that is redistribution of wealth.  When government starts to do that, you are well on the road to socialism, or as Hayek said "The road to Serfdom".  Go ahead, get mad; but if you truly are honest about this, at least have the intellectual temerity to call it by the real definitions and not wrapped up in emotional angst.

First up

Continue reading "Well, sounds like my ONE post ticked off a few people" »

Posted by Skip at 5:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

PLEASE JOIN US FOR A

BIRTHDAY BASH FOR THE GIPPER

To honor our late, great President

Ronald Reagan

and

Haitian Earthquake Relief Fundraiser

Friday, February 5, 2010

6 to 8 p.m.

at Great Bay Gallery

25 Willand Drive, Somersworth NH

This will be a celebration of Reagan’s life

Featuring Videos:

 “The Wit of Ronald Reagan”

and one of his greatest speeches, “A Time for Choosing”

Food and door prize ticket with admission

Cash Bar  -  Raffle

Suggested donation - $20 per person/$35 per couple

ALL PROCEEDS WILL GO TO

EMT Zach Bourque and Vision International Missions

Republican Candidates for

Governor, Senate, and Congress will be invited to speak.

Other Republican candidates will be introduced.

RSVP

If you are unable to attend, donations may be made by email.

Posted by Skip at 9:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Interesting article by Dennis Prager: Is America still making Men?  This part especially caught my eye:

America has become a rights-centered rather than a responsibility-centered society. Aside from helping to produce a pandemic of narcissism, the rights-centered mindset is the opposite of the obligation/responsibility-centered mindset that makes a boy into a man. It is not good for either sex to be rights-preoccupied; but it is particularly devastating to developing men, as men are supposed to be obligation-directed. The baby boomer generation helped destroy manhood in most of the ways described here. One additional example was its widespread slogan, "Make love, not war." One cannot come up with a more unmanly piece of advice: "Don't fight for your country, screw girls." If the greatest generation had adopted that motto, Hitler and Tojo would have won. A few years ago, the city of Chicago named a street after Hugh Hefner, a man who has played games much of the day and night, lived in pajamas and devoted his life to sex -- quite a model of manhood for American boys.

Certainly the popular culture portrays men in negative lights - just watch the sitcoms or commercials (generally nitwits), dramas (the bad guy, the conniver, or the bad capitalist).  

"He's a stand up guy" - I don't hear that phrase often anymore; it means that someone has morals that can be depended up on, takes responsibility for his actions, does what he says, takes care of his family, and pulls his weight when the times require it by stepping in when a need is seen.

As opposed to the hip-hop culture, the Hugh Hefner and gangster ethos on steriods, where "the playa" is on the pedestal for pretty much acting like a child - fulfilling their desires in a "me orientation" if the few videos that I have watched are to be believed.

Add government into the mix - the social ramifications of welfare are known for causing the nuclear family to disintegrate in the inner city where the "responsible husband' is now the social worker with a check and vouchers?  The teen-agers and twenty-somethings (and trending ever upward to thirty-somethings) ?  Often, between the current culture and Government, the message is "hey, we'll take care of things - you are not needed".

We reap what we sow - and by not expecting (nay, demanding) responsibility for one-self on the part of the younger generation(s), why should we be surprised at the lack of adult behavior?

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Update: I failed to mention when I first put up this post that there will be those that will state "well, what about those people who might be put to death undeservedly because they are truly innocent"? It is a good question. My answer is by way of an extremely short but powerful lesson encapsulated in a simple, plain spoken statement spoken by Doug:

"I am willing to give up the death penalty for the guilty if Liberals will be willing to give up abortion (the death penalty applied to the truly innocent- the unborn children)."

Belknap County House Reps

Those voting "Nay" to extend the deterrent of the Death Penalty to cover innocent civilians:

Beth Arsenault (D)

Peter Bolster (R)

Bill Johnson (D)

Liz Merry (D)

James "Doc" Pilliod (R)

Judy Reever (D)

Dick Stuart (D)

Those voting "Aye":

Laurie Boyce (R)

Dennis Fields (R)

Don Flanders (R)

Alida Miham (R)

David Russell (R)

Jeff St. Cyr (R)

Elaine Swinford (R)

John Veazey (R)

" Bill O'Brien is a courageous leader of conservatives in the New Hampshire State House. In this video Democrats in the state house show why their party is often referred to as "The Party of Death."  

(H/T: Tim)

Posted by Skip at 4:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Angus Ian MacGregor at 8:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On the first of the year, I had posted Lt. Col Allen West's (ret.) YouTube speech that pretty much was a "take no prisoners" attitude: "we are in the fight of our lives; will we live under Socialism or under the Founders' Vision"?

Kathleen over at RightWingNews posted a letter that addressed the brouhaha that occurred over the weekend as various sites leaked the juicy parts of the new political book, "Game Changer" - a tell-all of the 2008 political campaigns.  In this case, he is addressing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) words about Obama concerning his "light skin color" and lack of a "Negro dialect except when he [Obama] wanted one."

Note: Mr. West is black, so if I were in the tank of Political Correctness, I could say that he has the "cultural standing" to discuss this (while I, being a rather pale white, could not).

His comments on double standard that Democrats enjoy - or as Angus says: "Hypocrites!" (emphasis mine):

The revelation of Senator Harry Reid's comments referencing "negro talk" is just indicative of the true sentiment elitist liberals, and indeed the Democratic party, have toward black Americans. The history of the Democrat party is one of slavery, secession, segregation, and now socialism. It is this new aged socialism born from the Johnson Great Society programs that have castigated blacks as victims needing government dependency. One need only to look upon the city of Detroit to ascertain what liberal social welfare policies have produced for the inner city... the new plantation for black Americans.

The Ku Klux Klan was birthed by the Democrats as a terrorist wing to intimidate blacks, and whites, who sought to promote economic and education independence and social justice for blacks. What was once overt has just morphed and become covert, yet still exists.

One can only imagine the insanity and media outrage if Reid's quote had come from a member of the Republican party. I look forward to hearing from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on Reid's comments... or has liberal hush money paid for the silence of these proprietors of poverty and victimization theory. Actually, if President Obama had any courage he would demand Reid step down as Senate Majority Leader, and discontinue any support for his Senate reelection... notice I said "if". I am quite sure the Soros money which elevated Obama to the position of President has bought his servitude.

Why am I running for US Congress as a Republican? Simple...

Continue reading "Lt. Col Allen West - on how Progressives treat blacks" »

Posted by Skip at 5:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Seacoast Freedom Network, a member in the NH TEA Party Coalition,  is sponsoring a film festival.

From the Seacoastonline.com:

PORTSMOUTH — Film festivals tend to tilt left, and the founders of the Seacoast Freedom Network have taken notice.

So on Saturday they are offering a counterpoint to Al Gore and Michael Moore with what's being billed as the first-ever conservative film festival in Portsmouth.

Right-Compass Film Festival
When: 1 to 5 p.m. Saturday
Where: Portsmouth Public Library, 175 Parrott Ave.
Details: Event free; e-mail the Seacoast Freedom Network at seacoastfn@aol.com for info.

"That's why it's called Right-Compass," said Sue Polidura of Portsmouth, Seacoast Freedom Network co-founder and co-chairwoman with Diane Bitter of Rye Beach. "We're pointing in a different direction."

The Right-Compass Film Festival will be held from 1 to 5 p.m. at the Portsmouth Public Library.

Polidura and Bitter went to Washington, D.C., for the Sept. 12, 2009, tea party march, and it was there they met the producers of this festival's headlining documentary, "Not Evil, Just Wrong: The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria." (This is "the film Al Gore and Hollywood are working hard to make sure you can't and don't see," the movie's Web site states.)

At least three other films will also play at the free festival, to be chosen by the participants that afternoon from a list of several dramatic and comedic options — including three with local ties:

• "I.O.U.S.A.: One Nation. Under Stress. In Debt" — Co-written and executive produced by Stratham native Addison Wiggin, this film won the award for best documentary at the 2008 New Hampshire Film Festival in Portsmouth.
• "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" — In 2008, the Clarion Fund — whose executive director, Peter Connors, lives in Portsmouth — distributed 28 million copies of this film to various newspapers.
• "The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision for America" — The Clarion Fund also promoted this follow-up to "Obsession" and it played at the 2009 N.H. Film Festival with Connors in attendance to answer questions. Polidura and Bitter both attended its Portsmouth screening.
• "Tea Party" — Documentary about the Sept. 12 march on Washington.
• "Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin was Targeted" — Documentary about media bias in the 2008 primary and general elections.
• "A More Perfect Union: America Becomes a Nation" — Feature film dramatizing the events of the Constitutional Convention.
• "33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age" — Heritage Foundation documentary about nuclear attack threats.
• "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" — Comedian-commentator Ben Stein investigates science being taught today.
• "An American Carol" — This comedy, a Michael Moore parody, is "just kind of fun," Bitter said, and is an option in case the festival starts feeling too heavy.

Group discussion will follow the viewing of each film.

The plan is to have "Not Evil, Just Wrong" play in the library's larger Levenson Room (capacity of about 125) and then have three more films play in that room with three others playing upstairs in one of the smaller meeting rooms.

The festival will be very casual, Polidura and Bitter said, and people can slip in and out of screenings if they've seen the current selection playing, but they do ask that people show up on time so they can start right at 1 p.m.

Light refreshments will be offered, they said, and they mean light since they have "zero budget" and are just putting this together themselves.

If the festival is a success, they could make it an annual or some other repeating event.

"It's a trial. We'll see how it goes," Bitter said.

The Seacoast Freedom Network doesn't have any official membership but it has an e-mail list with about 200 names, including people who belong to other local organizations.

"The response we have had (to the film festival) so far has been very positive," Bitter said. "They are very excited about it."

Polidura and Bitter are both members of Seacoast Republican Women and town Republican committees, but they launched the Seacoast Freedom Network last year — after the April tea party event in Portsmouth — as a nonpartisan forum, open to people who may have frustrations with both parties.

The SFN was founded "for the purpose of promoting the freedoms and liberties granted to the American people in the U.S. Constitution and to enhance the knowledge and understanding of these rights through education and example."

Continue reading "Right-Compass: a Right leaning film festival" »

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

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

Posted by Skip at 7:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

she oft times (lately) drifts from the Right.  This column? I think she gets spot on (emphasis mine):

...It is one thing to grouse that dreadful people who don't care about us control our economy, but another, and in a way more personal, thing to say that people who don't care about us control our culture. In 2009 this was perhaps most vividly expressed in the Adam Lambert Problem. More on that in a moment.

America is good at making practical compromises, and one of the compromises we've made in the area of arts and entertainment is captured in the words "We don't care what you do in New York." That was said to me years ago by a social conservative who was explaining that he and his friends don't wish to impose their cultural sensibilities on a city that is uninterested in them, and that the city, in turn, shouldn't impose its cultural sensibilities on them. He was speaking metaphorically; "New York" meant "wherever the cultural left happily lives."

...This was behind the resentment at the Adam Lambert incident on ABC in November....People were offended, and they complained. Mr. Lambert seemed surprised and puzzled. With an idiot's logic that was nonetheless logic, he suggested he was the focus of bigotry: They let women act perverse on TV all the time, so why can't a gay man do it? Fifteen hundred callers didn't see it as he did and complained to ABC, which was negligent but in the end responsive: They changed the West Coast feed and apparently kept Mr. Lambert off "Good Morning America."

...I don't mean to make too much of it. In the great scheme of things a creepy musical act doesn't matter much. But increasingly people feel at the mercy of the Adam Lamberts, who of course view themselves, when criticized, as victims of prudery and closed-mindedness. America is not prudish or closed-minded, it is exhausted. It cannot be exaggerated, how much Americans feel besieged by the culture of their own country, and to what lengths they have to go to protect their children from it.

Continue reading "I don't always agree with Peggy Noonan as" »

Posted by Skip at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the joys of being on the 'Net is sometimes you see really bad ad placement by the ad servers.  A quick example might be one where a story on a news site about toddler killed in a tragic accident and right next to it pops up an ad for a funeral home.  Not good for the site, the ad network, the advertiser, and certainly not the grieving parents and family.

Well, this kinda fits.  From the Concord Monitor (Concord, NH) was this article that there are attempts to repeal a 200 year adultery law:

You look at the diamond ring on the right hand side and think - oh, it's part of the story!

Er, not so much:

Continue reading "Humor - bad Ad Server antics" »

Posted by Skip at 1:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I started to read this post by George Joyce over at American Thinker:

Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton has penned what should become known as the most devastating exposé regarding the decades-long but self-deceptive liberal claim to the mantle of “compassion.”

In other words, Scruton’s is the first essay of its kind in recent memory to demonstrate a stark but unsettling (at least to liberals) truth well-known to such profound but academically silenced thinkers of the past like Edmund Burke and Aristotle.  Scruton’s bombshell:

“[T]he conservative conscience is governed not by self-interest but by a concern for the public good.”

and said to myself - I have to read this post that he linked to for his commentary - I was blown away.  First, Roger Scruton's beginning (emphasis mine):

Conservatives recognize that social order is hard to achieve and easy to destroy, that it is held in place by discipline and sacrifice, and that the indulgence of criminality and vice is not an act of kindness but an injustice for which all of us will pay.

Thus, we start out with the fundamental differences between Conservatives and Liberals.  Freedom requires self-responsibility which requires an attitude of active decisions and follow up.  It means being willing to say "I have decided this and will bear the consequences of that decision or that action - and not "push off" that responsibility to others.  It also requires delayed gratification - the ability to say "I will go without for something better in the future" either for oneself or for others.

In the Liberal world, these attributes are not high value ones - in fact, from what I see, Liberals tend to absolve others of or for them; they are simply not a requirement.  

Conservatives therefore maintain severe and -- to many people -- unattractive attitudes. They favor retributive punishment in the criminal law; they uphold traditional marriage and the sacrifices that it requires; they believe in discipline in schools and the value of hard work and military service.

Conservatives believe that...

Continue reading "If you want a great description between Conservatives and Liberals....1" »

Posted by Skip at 8:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As a follow on to my negative post on Elites, I found that Don Boudreaux over at Cafe Heyak has a similar viewpoint (emphasis mine):

The “Progressive” mindset ignores modern-society’s extraordinary complexity.  It’s oblivious to the full, vast range of inescapable trade-offs and unintended consequences unleashed by human actions.  Convinced that the only forces keeping earth from moving closer to paradise are the mean, stupid, and greedy people who always seem to have disproportionate power, “Progressives” have a fetish for Great Leaders promising dramatically to smite the backward bullies and then lead humankind to salvation.

How disappointed these faithful congregants must be when their messiah is exposed as a mortal, delaying still further the fulfillment of their fantasies.

Posted by Skip at 2:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My friend Chan over at WeekendPundit asked for a link

I don't always read what others post here on Weekend Pundit.

... It's my blog and, in the end, it's my responsibility for what's posted here.

It seems that a co-blogger may have gone a smidge over a line as far as Chan is concerned...

Posted by Skip at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Please, all Christians join together and wish everyone you meet during the holidays a

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Christ is The Reason for the Christmas Season!

(H/T: Bill)

Posted by Skip at 8:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest post by Jeff Chidester

As New Hampshire continues to spend itself into bankruptcy, there are those who believe the answer to our financial woes rests in the false promise of gambling.

Gambling is nothing more than gasoline to be thrown on the fire of irresponsible spending; and who are the willing pyromaniacs fiddling as Concord burns?

Our representatives in Concord, and in particular the Democratic leadership of Norelli, Larsen, Hassan and Governor Lynch.

It does not matter at this point whether any politician in Concord supports gambling. The real issue is their lack of fiscal discipline has set New Hampshire on the road to economic ruin, which in turn has opened the door to the false salvation of another government sanctioned Ponzi scheme in the form of expanded gambling. Gambling does nothing more than encourage our commonsensical challenged representatives to add another link to the chain of debt we have placed around the necks of future generations.

The facts are simple:

• Compulsive gamblers will increase by 100 to 500 percent when gambling is introduced (Kindt, University of Illinois).
• Casinos earn more than one half of their incomes from problem/pathologic gamblers (Grinols, University of Illinois).
• The crime rate is nearly double for those communities that allow gambling (US News and World Reports analysis).
• The promise of tourism dollars is greatly overstated. Most of the money made by those businesses that offer gambling comes almost entirely from in-state residents (Better Government survey in states that sponsor legalized gambling).
• Gambling is nothing more than a regressive form of taxation. The poor always lose the greatest share of their income (Wisconsin Policy Research Institute report).
• In fact, casino gambling causes up to $289 in social costs for every $46 of economic benefit. (Grinols, University of Illinois).
• Bankruptcy dramatically increases wherever gambling has been introduced: 1,000 Minnesotans annually file for bankruptcy since the introduction of riverboat gambling; gambling related bankruptcy has increased 40 percent in Detroit since the opening of a neighboring casino.
• Each problem gambler costs society an estimated $15,000 to $60,000 per year (Goodman and Robert, Free Press).
• It has been calculated that for every $1 the state receives in gambling revenue, they will spend at least $3 in increased criminal-justice, social-welfare and other related expenses (US House of Representatives on Small Business testimony).

Continue reading "Gambling is not the answer to N.H. spending woes" »

Posted by Skip at 9:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I don't always agree with Pat Buchanan - while there may be things that make the head go up and down, much of it is more of a shoulder shrug and click onto the next thing.  This piece about Oath Keepers, not so fast.  What cornered my attention was this from near the end of his writing:

In their lifetimes, they have seen their Christian faith purged from schools their taxes paid for, and mocked in movies and on TV. They have seen their factories shuttered in the thousands and their jobs outsourced in the millions to Mexico and China. They have seen trillions of tax dollars go for Great Society programs, but have seen no Great Society, only rising crime, illegitimacy, drug use and dropout rates.
    
They watch on cable TV as illegal aliens walk into their country, are rewarded with free educations and health care, and take jobs at lower pay than American families can live on -- then carry Mexican flags in American cities and demand U.S. citizenship.
    
They see Wall Street banks bailed out as they sweat their next paycheck, then read that bank profits are soaring, and the big bonuses for the brilliant bankers are back. Neither they nor their kids ever benefited from affirmative action, unlike Barack and Michelle Obama.
    
They see a government in Washington that cannot balance its books, win our wars or protect our borders. The government shovels out trillions to Fortune 500 corporations and banks to rescue the country from a crisis created by the government and Fortune 500 corporations and banks.

America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right.

Pat is right.  Much of what I was taught and have believed in seems like just so much Alice in Wonderland pixie dust - what was once believed to be good:

• telling the truth
• stay in school, get a degree
• working hard
• protect my family and that being a father and husband does not mean being a continual target of ridicule on tv
  
• be nice
• pay my taxes
• patriotism is an "always" attitude and not based on what party is in power
• having a high regard for our laws and measuring them against the Constitution
• having a moral code based on the Bible is a good thing
• freedom of speech should not be limited by someone's notion of political correctness
• that our press reports the news instead of ideological slants

I could go on and on - that that's the point - that I could.  What is up is now down, what used to be right is either wrong or made sport of.  There used to be societal norms - now, anything goes.  Self-responsibility from an internal "governor" has been replaced by a society that tells us that "bad decisions should no longer have bad outcomes".  Government used to be "in the background"; now its shadow overstretches above us all.  A common sense of decency and morality  has been supplanted by a sense of "anything goes - and how DARE you criticize me for my lifestyle or my choices" (even as I may have to pay, in some way, for someone else's bad decisions. 

And an ever increasing sense of entitlement from others in society: Society owes me something; YOU owe ME (even as I have done nothing wrong).

A storm is brewing - and make no mistake - there will be strong gales, lightning, and huge waves.

Posted by Skip at 12:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

More and more news is coming out regarding the monsters disguised as human beings responsible for the hideous murder and attempted murder of a mother and daughter in Mont Vernon, NH.  The Nashua Telegraph reports that one of the suspects,

“Christopher Gribble updated his Facebook status: ‘had an awesome time with steve and autumn! dexter is such a funny show!’ That update was made at 10:58 a.m. Sunday. Earlier that morning, around 4 a.m., police say Gribble and three other teens entered the home of Kimberly Cates killing her and injuring her daughter, the primary weapons being a machete and a knife. Gribble, of Brookline, has been charged with first-degree murder, accused of stabbing her repeatedly.”

The piece then tells us

“Dexter is a popular TV show about a serial killer who murders those who he feels deserve to die or who have slipped through the justice system.”

Reading this news while surfing the Internet, I also stumbled upon the story of the banning of a Christian song at a public school. OneNewsNow.com had the details back in September, surrounding events occurring in 2006:

“The Everett School District in Washington State would not allow students in an instrumental ensemble to play ‘Ave Maria’ at their high school graduation.”

It continued, quoting The Rutherford Institute founder John Whitehead, representing one of the students in a suit filed in the matter:

"The 'Ave Maria' that they chose is not the one we all know. It’s the one by France Babel, which is unrecognizable. There were no lyrics and no words,’ he recounts. ‘When school officials found out that the wind ensemble, which is a group of students, had chosen ‘Ave Maria,’ they thought it was too religious and they banned it and said that they couldn't play it at the graduation ceremony.’”

In an op-ed piece published this week lamenting the fact that the Courts sided with the song-banners, Whitehead writes,

“In an attempt to avoid offending anyone, America’s public schools have increasingly adopted a zero tolerance attitude towards religious expression. The courts have not helped, allowing schools the discretion to let an offended minority control a cowed majority. Such politically correct thinking has resulted in a host of inane actions, from the Easter Bunny being renamed ‘Peter Rabbit’ to Christmas Concerts being dubbed ‘Winter’ Concerts and some schools even outlaw the colors red and green, saying they’re Christmas colors. And now, simply because someone is offended by the title, students cannot play music which has no words and is performed with no religious intent.”

So why do I bring this up with the story of the Mont Vernon murder? Simple. I was struck by the fact that these murderous punks are being exposed to television shows like Dexter (of which I had not heard prior to now) glorifying serial killing, of all things, while at the same time, America’s courts are keeping the publicly-funded government schools—and most other areas of “the public square”-- free from the “threat” of the Christian religion. Might it just be possible that, perhaps if the alleged killer Gribble and his comrades had received some little bit of religion that teaches the value of fellow human beings and the sanctity of each and every life, maybe—just maybe—they might have thought twice before committing this grisly and heinous act?

Posted by Doug at 8:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

After attending a hearing with the Judiciary Committee this morning, one thing's for sure, the Democrats are back at it again.  They are trying to push through MORE radical legislation this year. 
 
The Judiciary Committee met today to hear proposed amendments to HB 304 which is a physician assisted suicide bill. 
 
Yes, in the middle of a recession, when people are losing jobs and seeing their wages frozen, the Democrats again remind us what's important to them.  This time, they want to create death panels to administer a death dose to terminal NH residents.

Did they miss something?  Like the latest news on the unemployment rates, job losses, stagnant wages, and foreclosures?  Or are they simply forging ahead with more social engineering projects that do nothing to help the average NH resident?
 
After several requests from the Republicans on the Committee to include public testimony, the Democrats voted to deny public input.  Several people took time out of their day to offer testimony however the Democrats denied them their voice today.  There was some discussion about a future meeting in which the public might be able to testify, I guess we have to hope and pray the Democrats allow them a voice at a later time.
 
Well to all of you who are concerned about your jobs, the current economic crisis, a quality education for your children, healthcare, etc.  the message is loud and clear: Democrats do not hear you but hey, they did bring us gay marriage, a transgender rights bill and now a death panel to administer a death dose.
 
Can you say?  Out of touch!!  A new slogan aimed at the Democrats in NH.........

IT'S THE JOBS...STUPID!
 

Posted by Ann Marie at 4:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Was surfing this morning before work and ran across this post over at Town Hall:

Demasculation of America's Boys
by Rebecca Hagelin

Every time I write about how the modern culture seems dead-set on destroying the confidence of America's little boys, I am swamped with e-mail. It seems that everyone with a son or grandson has a story to tell about how manhood and chivalry are under attack. Last week I heard from a dad, Bill, who echoes the sentiments of many: "The boys are getting emasculated and wimpy/passive as they're now intimidated by girls due to fear of sex harassment charges and pro-female/anti male societal/educational tilts."

Sadly, he's right. As a mom of two sons and a youth leader I have seen how boys cringe when television shows depict boys as crude and stupid while the girls are always smart and powerful. I've experienced their confusion when girls snub them for opening the door. One day I observed the pained looks on the faces of male high school students when a teacher explained that a major assignment would be to watch a movie of their choice and write a paper on how women in the film are discriminated against.

Just watch TV - while the time of "Father Knows Best" is gone, so should the shows that characterize the males as buffoons and cretins, never knowing which end is up. This also caught my eye:

I've also observed on countless occasions a minor, but powerful, display of how ours is quickly becoming a culture where men are having trouble being men: females struggling alone to lift a heavy suitcase into the overhead compartment on a plane all the while surrounded by men who pretend they don't see. 

Been there, sat there.  I have mixed emotions about this.  I do have two herniated disks in my back so I do have to be very careful about what lifting and twisting I do - cortisone has helped but I have had to consciously moderate what I do so that I don't end up in a puddle for a few hours or days.  That said, if I see an elderly lady trying to put something "reasonable" into the overhead, I'll stand up and try to do the right thing (giving the younger, stronger guys in the area the "hey moron, where's your manners??" look.  Sometimes, I do get the guilty look back).

However, when a younger lady is obviously stuffing a too large bag up there, and is exhibiting that "attitude" (usually discerned from noticing behavior before boarding), I'm just going to sit there and do nothing.  It works both ways:  if feminists want to be treated as equals, I will do so -let them haul their OWN bags as I never offer to help other guys unless they have an obvious infirmity. 

But the chivalrous part of me is going "tsk, tsk, tsk".  But, decisions have consequences and if they have made that decision, let them live with (and hopefully, learn from) the consequences...

Posted by Skip at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Every year, Beloit College publishes the "history" for their incoming Freshman class - and yes, we need to realize that not all of us share a shared history of our nation or our world.  Every year, I gain a better appreciation of the nuances of what I missed when my "elders" spoke and remembered.  Things do change.

1. For these students, Martha Graham, Pan American Airways, Michael Landon, Dr. Seuss, Miles Davis, The Dallas Times Herald, Gene Roddenberry, and Freddie Mercury have always been dead.
2. Dan Rostenkowski, Jack Kevorkian, and Mike Tyson have always been felons.
3. The Green Giant has always been Shrek, not the big guy picking vegetables.
4. They have never used a card catalog to find a book.
5. Margaret Thatcher has always been a former prime minister.
6. Salsa has always outsold ketchup.
7. Earvin "Magic" Johnson has always been HIV-positive.
8. Tattoos have always been very chic and highly visible.
9. They have been preparing for the arrival of HDTV all their lives.
10. Rap music has always been main stream.
11. Chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream has always been a flavor choice.
12. Someone has always been building something taller than the Willis (née Sears) Tower in Chicago.
13. The KGB has never officially existed.
14. Text has always been hyper.
15. They never saw the “Scud Stud” (but there have always been electromagnetic stud finders.)
16. Babies have always had a Social Security Number.
17. They have never had to “shake down” an oral thermometer.
18. Bungee jumping has always been socially acceptable.
19. They have never understood the meaning of R.S.V.P.
20. American students have always lived anxiously with high-stakes educational testing.
    

Continue reading "Once again, I get to feel older..." »

Posted by Skip at 8:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest post by Andrew Hemingway

There is so much happening in our world today that children and teens in the US really have no chance of keeping up. There is every imaginable toy, song, gadget  you can think of to keep them from the reality that is their life, and when they are not listening to headphones, they are texting their friends. I sound like an old man here. I am on the leading edge of what they call Generation  Y. There is in every society cycles, cycles of good (boomers) and cycles of bad (depression era), but not just in our own history, but in the history of civilization this has been true. Some generations ride on the coat tails of others, and some generations wake up to find themselves having to fight to retain their freedom.

Now, before you turn me off and think this is a young man bemoaning his lot in life- Think Again! My generation is the first generation that will not earn enough to pay for our parent's entitlements. You see we are unfortunate to have parents in the Boomers. It is mathematically impossible for us to pay for them as the entitlements stand today. We can not pay for it! The upside is that like it or not FINALLY some politicians are going to have to acknowledge this and try to address it. I know you are laughing thinking of all the ways politicians over the years have lightly stepped around this issue leaving it for the next guy, as more and more seniors begin drawing on the system. 

As a member of this special generation, the generation that is being robbed blind. Yes we are being robbed blind! The Federal Government has spent all the money that generations before us could ever earn, and with each new “Fantastic” program they are working on spending all of our money. They are taking from us not just our money, but they are taking our ability to start businesses, and our ability to graduate from college and find jobs, they are taking away from us the most important thing to any Liberty loving society- Freedom. Our government, in the name of “humanity”or being “green” or what ever other reason they can possibly think of are, bill by bill, stealing from us our freedom.

My generation is not graduating from college with high hopes, we are not our starting businesses as generations before us have. We as a generation, and as a country are on the path that only leads to one end- Tyranny. Soon we will not choose a college, or a career they will be chosen for us. And if your grades are not that great you will be sent to work with your hands and others will be chosen to go ahead of you. We are very quickly approaching this.

Continue reading "Generation Y. Saving America from the ravages of the Boomers?" »

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

Noted author John Wohlstetter, a national security and foreign policy expert with expertise in the Middle East and Israel, has written an excellent review of George Gilder’s new book, The Israel Test, for the American Spectator. We are pleased to share the piece with our readers...

Israel Inside 

The Israel Test
By George Gilder
(Richard Vigilante Books, 296 pages, $27.95)

This latest book from one of the planet's intellectual titans of the past generation is one of his most important. Given George Gilder's astonishing range and foresight -- including family structure, welfare, the practical and moral case for enterprise capitalist wealth creation, the transformation of the computer and telecommunications industries -- this is saying a lot.

What Gilder sets out to do in his poetic prose is show how Israel's accelerating migration over the past twenty years from a socialist to a capitalist economy has transformed the Jewish state from an economic basket case to a powerhouse player in the world economy. Gilder then applies the implications of this metamorphosis to the prospects for finding a way to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Israel has become such a huge driving force in computing and telecommunications that Gilder intellectually riffs off the "Intel Inside" logo that sits on the exterior case of countless millions of personal computers, and says that today's Internet and computers should be labeled "Israel Inside." Now Israel is making major moves in biotechnology, including drugs for plants used in agriculture. Symbolic of the more agile Israeli economy, one CEO noted: "The process is faster for drugs because the plants don't have lawyers."

Calling Israel the central front in the war dividing two global camps, Gilder begins his book by framing the divide:

The prime issue is not a global war of civilizations between the West and Islam or a split between Arabs and Jews….The real issue is between the rule of law and the rule of leveler egalitarianism, between creative excellence and covetous "fairness," between admiration of achievement versus envy and resentment of it….

The test can be summarized by a few questions: What is your attitude toward people who excel you in the creation of wealth or in other accomplishment? Do you aspire to that excellence, or do you seethe at it? Do you admire and celebrate exceptional achievement, or do you impugn it and seek to tear it down?

The Palestinians, needless to say, epitomize the wrong side of these juxtapositions, while Israel and America generally are on the right side. But now America must look toward Israel, whose Prime Minister exemplifies the right side of these divides, whereas the newly elected American President is on the wrong side -- despite his having been richly rewarded by the society he now wishes to turn away from its historical celebration of private capitalist enterprise.

 

Continue reading "Book Review: The Israel Test" »

Posted by Doug at 8:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

What about those who use the actual events of September 11, 2001 for FINANCIAL gain? Or Katrina? And I'm not talking about retelling a story in book or movie fashion, per se, which is still the act of creating, when you come down to brass tacks. Anyway...

So I'm reading this interesting article in WSJ.com about a rash of post-apocolyptic flicks soon to come out (I am attracted to this sort of stuff, but more in book form- The Stand, Lucifer's Hammer, On the Beach, etc) thinking that one or two of these might actually cause me to watch a movie, which I rarely do.

And then I read this:

In the film version of “The Road,” as in the novel, the apocalypse that blackened the landscape and set the narrative in motion isn’t described. Director John Hillcoat says he pressed author Cormac McCarthy for an answer about what happened. Mr. McCarthy “said it didn’t matter whether it was nuclear war or mini volcanoes or a comet,” Mr. Hillcoat says. What mattered was the backdrop for the intimate relationship between a father and son.

Though the calamity remained ambiguous, the filmmakers used real disaster footage to render their setting. A panoramic scene in the movie includes the improbable sight of ships marooned on a highway. The image was shot in New Orleans in the days after Hurricane Katrina hit, captured on 70mm IMAX film by a crew that had been in the area to shoot a documentary about the bayou. [bold emphasis added]

Hmmm. It continues:

Rather than use computers to create massive smoke plumes, the filmmakers patched in news footage of the billows that erupted from the World Trade Center as it burned. Other images came from Mount St. Helens and volcanic devastation in the Philippines. The collage technique was both allegorical and practical (and helped keep the budget to a lean $20 million), despite the fact that most viewers won’t recognize the source material. “Our logic is if you’re within that place, whether it’s Katrina or the Twin Towers, it would be the same as a global apocalypse to you,” Mr. Hillcoat says. [bold emphasis added]

Using footage of the events of the Katrina aftermath or September 11 as a means to save money in the course of making a fictional movie? Boy, I'm not sure that sounds right at all. What do you think? Should I not care?

Posted by Doug at 4:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest post by Karen Testerman

What Happened?

I have been pondering a question recently posed to me asking what happened to my state?  What is happening to our nation?  I was reminded - "My people perish for a lack of knowledge."   Hosea 4:6 But what knowledge?

Do you wonder why the polls of our youth today show a leaning in favor of homosexuality?   Perhaps we can find a glimpse of an answer here.  Just recently the National Education Association (NEA) passed an action item that amounts to an endorsement of same-sex marriage - as well as a call to oppose national laws protecting one man, one woman marriage.

The NEA is described as the largest professional organization and largest labor union in the United States,[1][2] representing public school teachers and other support personnel, faculty and staffers at colleges and universities, retired educators, and college students preparing to become teachers.   And they the people who teach at our public schools, have just passed an action item to endorse same-sex marriage.

Jeralee Smith is the founder of the NEA Conservative Educators Caucus.  Jeralee declared that the resolution will not stop at just endorsing gay unions. 

The NEA, financially supported the attempt to defeat Proposition 8 in California last year. Voters passed Prop. 8, which defines marriage as between one man, one woman.

The teachers have two alternatives. . . Teachers who do not want their money being used to support the organization's liberal agenda can attempt to become a religious objector - someone who can show that their faith puts them in conflict with what the union is doing. They can file to have at least some of their dues redirected to causes that do not conflict with their faith.  Oh really?  What about the recent legal cases challenging the teachers for religious expression?

A better alternative for these teachers is to join an alternative union that does not support causes that conflict with their deeply held beliefs and values. Tracey Bailey, director of education policy with Association of American Educators, said he wants teachers to know his group can also help with any legal issues.

But what can we as parents do?  How do we combat the "tolerance" mantra when we ask as did David Parker and Rob Wirthlin to opt our children out of these instructions?  Is it really legal to displace parents?

Continue reading "Drip. Drip. Drip. Slow but steady goes the decline..." »

Posted by Doug at 6:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

New national bird to replace Bald Eagle?

As we prepare to celebrate yet another Fourth of July, I cannot help but feel a bit melancholy as I review and contemplate the Declaration of Independence, and think about the birth of this “great experiment”, known as America. Have we reached the end of the line, as far as our belief in and adherence to the principles upon which this Nation was founded? When reading the beautiful and eloquent words as created and agreed to by the Founding Fathers, how can you not feel a sense of distance and unfamiliarity when comparing them against the realities we see today.

Consider what is unquestionably the most famous part of the Declaration:

“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…”

Are there any “self evident truths” and “unalienable rights” here in the new Age of Obama, or are these things just merely quaint, outdated ideas from a bygone era? Do these words somehow mean the “Creator” gives a woman the right to “terminate” pregnancies? As she exercises “choice,” what about the unborn child’s right to “life?” President Obama has famously declared that that he wouldn’t want his young daughters “punished” with a pregnancy. So much for the unalienable right to life for his grandchildren-- Such a fine example set by our “dear leader.” What part of the Fourth does he honor?

In our supposed enlightened age, how many Americans even acknowledge some sort of “Creator,” anyway? While many claim to believe, they willingly turn a blind eye as the rights given us by the Creator are systematically stripped away—even to the point of a knowing chuckle or two at those who suggest that much of what our present government does is immoral. “What old-fashioned notions,” they say. “Don’t be so melodramatic.” One must conclude that if they actually believed in a God as a giver of rights to begin with, they would be more vehement in the defense of such. Think about that—why would a person go to the mat for something he or she doesn’t believe in?

Does “pursuing Happiness” give a person the right to the fruits of the labor of others? I suppose one could be happy with getting an extra “slice of the pie” that somebody else has paid for. But what if you happen to be the person that actually earned the “pie?” How happy will you be at the prospect of watching more and more of your just due taken and distributed to others? Is this not what’s happening on a grand scale all around America today? No matter where you look-- whether it’s the federal, state, county, or local government—it’s all the same: all are poised to take an even greater share of the fruits of our labors through taxation. They say money can’t buy happiness, but it sure does help. No matter what consists of “happiness” for a person in 2009, the fact is, it’s going to cost more.

Continue reading "Fourth of July. Are we even worthy?" »

Posted by Doug at 8:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Cute!

Caution - one word may not be Work safe so keep the volume down

(H/T: Tom)

Posted by Skip at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Obama's own book, Dreams From My Father, said that he always sought out the socialists and Marxists when he moved from school to school during college.  Given the influence of his self-avowed Communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, while he was growing up in Hawaii, I am not surprised at all at his tendency to want to make Government / the collective the locus of everyone's life instead of extolling the individual.

Socialism has been tried here in America before.  The earliest versions of socialism / communal living did not work out well at all (as one can see from one of my Thanksgiving Day posts).  That said, I was not aware how many times people thought that they could make it work (misguided fools)!

This post by Ryan Seifert over at American Thinker has a whole lot more on this:

There seems to be a need in American society to have to relearn the same hard lessons over and over again, regardless of whether the results were seen on the other side of the planet or suffered through by our own people.

We're living in a country that elected a President that believes in redistributing wealth. He's mentioned this himself, from the "Joe the Plumber" incident[i] to his critique[ii] of the failures of the civil rights movement. Whether you call it Socialism, Communism, Marxism, or by its simpler name, theft, they are all part of the same economic system that destroys private property and puts everything in central control of the state.

The lesson we, and the rest of the world, seems to fail to learn is how socially and economically destructive this sort of system is. The problem is, these lessons don't have to be learned from studying the histories of far off lands, for we have numerous examples of collectivist/socialist experiments here at home.

• Jamestown
• Pilgrims (my example) 
• New Haven - 1825 by Robert Owen
• Another set of communes by Charles Fourier (none last more than 12 years)
• 1804 - Harmony in Pennsylvania (which was moved, sold, and died later)
• 1841 - The "Perfectionists" failed
  

He also brought up one line of thought that is utterly 1984 Doublespeak in its dunderheadedness - slavery is complete freedom:

George Fitzhugh, an influence on Berry, actually argued that slave labor was preferable because the slaves were ultimately free. It was property owners and free laborers that were the slaves. He advocated that taking decision-making out of the hands of individuals made the African slaves better off than free whites and claimed that not only all blacks, but most whites too, should be slaves.[xiv] His theory was ultimately squashed with the support and ratification of the 13th and 14th Amendments, which not only freed the slaves but also established they had constitutionally protected private property rights.

Ryan's lesson?

These few examples, and there are more out there, show how American culture even before the Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression, depending on your location) tried communal living and centrally planned economic models. Despite the good intentions of the people involved, they always fail because of the inherent flaws in Socialism. Unfortunately, given the reach of the federal government and current make-up of the executive and legislative branches, we are set to learn this lesson the hard way. Again.

The moral of the story?  Each time, Government or the collective is placed in a importance and priority above that of the individual, it fails.  Socialism believes that altruism can reign supreme over long periods of time, that we can and should put our fellow man and society as a whole ahead of one's own interests - and it is wrong.  Too often, people game the socialist system because of their own self-interest, which is the problem.  No, not the gaming, but that the role of self-interest is channeled negatively.  Capitalism allows for the self-interest to work for positive outcomes, not only for the individual and one's immediate family, but for society as a whole.

Posted by Skip at 11:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Obama and the Progressives are all about the Collective - we're all in it together, only the group can solve the problem, we have to rely on us all.  To some degree, it is right, but when enforced or coerced, no - it is not the right answer.  It is "rugged individualism", the yearning to better oneself and do better by one's family, that has been one of the driving forces of American culture.

One that the Libs, with the incessant dribble to denigrate "the cowboy" image and to rely not on oneself but on Government or others, may prove to be our military downfall (as well as economic and cultural).  After all, there can be no "equal outcomes" in a war now, can there?  Wars are fought to a binary result - you either win, or you lose.

As this post from Stragegy Page points out, other countries may well outdo us in some things, but there is that certain difference that Americans bring that no one else can match (emphasis mine):

June 16, 2009: As foreign military leaders (especially those in China) scrutinize American military performance in the last decade, there is a debate over how to replicate it for themselves. The American achievement has been striking. They defeated a seemingly intractable Islamic terrorist campaign in Iraq, and are inflicting the same kind of damage on the Taliban in Afghanistan. In doing this, the U.S. troops are suffering casualties at a third of the rate of previous wars, and with fewer troops in combat (to accomplish similar tasks from past wars.)

It's not just the fighting prowess that is envied, but the ability to quickly solve tactical and technical problems, and rapidly adapt new technology and tactics to battlefield needs. And then there's the fact that the United States is still, after over a century,  the largest economy on the planet. Yet Chinese students score higher on math and science tests than do their American counterparts. A disproportionate number of graduate science students in the United States are from China, because these schools are seen as the best in the world. Many Chinese believe that this shows how China will surpass America. But Chinese military analysts looking at Iraq and Afghanistan, are not so sure. The Americans are not the best at math or physics, but they do have a knack for coming out on top. There's something else the Americans have going for them that doesn't seem to be widely recognized, or even have a name.

Some Chinese, who have been educated in the United States, and come back home to work, talk about the spirit of entrepreneurship and individual accomplishment. This is quite different from the collectivist and statist (state control) attitudes that dominate in the rest of the world. America has, for over a century, been the source of the most new jobs, and new businesses, on the planet. Those attitudes of innovation and accomplishment seem to have carried over to their armed forces as well.

The Chinese leadership does not want to encourage entrepreneurs and individualists. In Chinese history, this has led to change and unrest. Chinese leaders see this sort of thing as disruptive to the natural order of things. So the generals and admirals are told to take what they can from the American experience, and leave behind what China cannot digest.

Freedom breeds this sense of self-reliance (and visa versa). A can-do spirit is still there. Yet, the Liberals are all but hell-bent in getting rid of it with a larger Government that insists to do more and more for us whether we want it to or not.  Could it be that they have no sense of it themselves?  Or that they cannot trust themselves to be self-reliant? This could be a Goose / Golden Egg situation if they don't realize the cultural ramifications.

If the Liberals are successful, they will remake America to be like the rest of the world - I, for one, am opposed to that.  Why in God's green earth would I want to be like everyone else when when everyone else wants to be like us?

Hey, Libs - you listening?  You change us, the Law of Unintended Consequences may kick in. With results that may well result in a Really Bad Hair Day.

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

Just when we thought that we might put the gay agenda in the back of ours minds as we head into summer before regrouping to decide what to do next here in the Granite State, along comes Barack Obama to smack us back into reality... a reality that demonstrates the gay movement never stops. It never rests, and will not miss a trick as they seek to transform long held traditions and norms. And naturally, the Magic Obama is right there to help them along with an official proclamation declaring June to be Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Pride Month, 2009.

In the proclamation, the president states

LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country's response to the HIV pandemic.

Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration -- in both the White House and the Federal agencies -- openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.

The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done...

You'll be further thrilled to learn that, in our name (and paid for with our taxes) that

My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.

Pssst Hey, Mr. President, perhaps we could reduce the HIV/AIDS "epidemic" if certain persons were to stop engaging in dangerous practices? Why don't you say that? I thought we already outlawed workplace discrimination? Or, is it you won't stop until business owners have absolutely NO rights, and you've created a world where the thought police will decide what we can and can't say and think? Will I soon find myself charged with a crime for publishing a post such as this one?

Of course, the most important thing this does, and what I am MOST upset with the president and his ilk about is the fact that this will end up further pushing the radical gay agenda into our young children's minds as they sit, captured, in the government schools. THAT'S what really pisses me off. I DON'T care what you do in the bedroom. Really. I DO care when you bring your bedroom antics and garbage into the classrooms...

[H/T MassResistance, Sue P.]

Posted by Doug at 9:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

 HRC Rep, Lynch, and Buckley

Pleased as punch - quite the happy trio as they helped Lynch break his word!

So, you think New Hampshire gets to determine its own future?  Not a freakin' chance anymore.  In this case, the Human Rights Campaigns (which is really a gay rights special interest group) spent, spent again, and then spent more...much more.

Mo Baxley of the NH Freedom to Marry Coalition, admitted that if it were not for this group and its money / resources, this effort would have failed.  Look at some of their activities - then think of how much money it cost to do all that!

• Creating, organizing and implementing an extensive statewide grassroots field plan in conjunction with NHFTM;
• Deploying 10 field staff to New Hampshire, including four staff members who were on the ground for two full weeks in early May;
• Hiring three New Hampshire-based field consultants to assist with field organizing efforts;
• Gathering more than 11,000 petition signatures from residents across the state to deliver to the governor’s office;
• Generating more than 1,000 phone calls from New Hampshire residents to the governor’s office;
• Canvassing high-traffic downtown areas, college campuses and key residential areas to engage in personal conversations about marriage equality with New Hampshire residents;
• Organizing well-attended public visibility events in Concord, Portsmouth and Hanover;
• Recruiting and/or supervising more than 100 local volunteers for canvassing and phone banking activities;
• Coordinating traditional and new media efforts on behalf of NHFTM, including a Facebook page (5,000+ fans) and a Twitter feed;
  Mobilizing HRC members and supporters via online Action Alerts and telephone calls.
  

Grass roots? This was well planned, coordinated and maintained over several years Hardly...Lynch and the Dems - seemingly well and done - bought and paid for, that is.  Kudos to them - they wanted to force acceptance on us more and spent more to get it done. They say that money is the mother's milk of politics - looks like in this branch, they brought in the dairy.  Moo.

Yes, NH now has Gay Marriage.  However, we now have Lynch on record for both sides of the issue - and lying about what he would do.  Did.  Done. 

Voters will now have the final say if he even thinks about running again.  I make the prediction that with Gay Marriage codified into law, the recent "drivers, movers and shakers" in the Democrat Party may well disappear....

The Dems will also have to face the fact that they got bought....and have to run on that as well.

Posted by Skip at 8:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (1)

Welcome to the Gay State.

What's next? An income tax? That's all that's left. Well, other than helmets and seatbelts. Big whoop.

Posted by Doug at 5:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

Today, our friends at CPR-Action in conjunction with the National Organization for Marriage launched the new television ad “His Word”.

Commenting on the ad, CPR-Action Executive Director, Kevin Smith, stated, “From the very moment the Governor introduced this amendment, we believed he did so as cover for having flipped his position on gay marriage.  Much like the “religious amendment” made to HB 436 in the Senate, the Governor and Legislature are playing politcs by crafting sham amendments as excuses to vote for gay marriage and pretending to placate the religious community at the same time .  If they were truly concerned about the citizens’ religious beliefs, they would have included language that covers the conscience of private individuals and business owners who oppose gay marriage because of such.”

Smith added, “The bottom line here is the Governor needs to stop playing politics with gay marriage.  He said he would veto it if his language did not pass, which it didn’t.  It is time for the Governor to finally keep his word, veto this legislation, and get on with the real work of the state.”

The new ad begins airing Thursday, 5/28, on cable and network affiliate, WMUR, in New Hampshire, and will continue through Sunday, 5/31.

NOW IS THE TIME TO CALL THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
TELL HIM TO KEEP HIS WORD BY VETOING HB436!
CALL: 271-2121

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

Here are three posts that do a very good job at discussing why social conservatives may think that they are right, but lose. Too often, to take Christians to task for a bit, we have some folks that are fine and dandy for standing up for what they believe in.  The vast majority do not - much to my chagrin.  Along with much of the non-Christian population, they may vote, but otherwise are apathetic about politics on the meme of "...not of this world..." or the Christian version of the Islamic meme "Inshallah" ("If God wills it"). 

Problem is, that's nothing but BEING LAZY.  Yes, we should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar - but we are in a democratic Republic; WE, the public, decides what will or will not be by our votes for candidates.  But while many Christians may gnash their teeth over public policies that are enacted, many fail to do anything about it.  They sit in their collective pews and pray (which helps) but outside the sanctuary, they do bupkis.  And then wonder why society is going into the crapper.  They forget that they are called to be the "salt of the earth" - not only in the spiritual sense but also in the real world sense as well.

Anyways, back to the posts...

The Trouble with Social Conservatives   [Maggie Gallagher]

Back a while ago, when I was complaining about Republicans who think the GOP has just too darn many religious voters ("funny, so do the Democrats"), I promised I would explain how social conservatives have contributed to this misimpression — and also to their oddly subordinated role within the GOP governing coalition.

It's simple. Social conservatives have had bad models for political action. We've depended on two basic strategies, and neither of them work very well:

1. The Mass-Uprising Model. "The people will rise up and throw off their oppressors spontaneously." Well, it's nice when it happens, but it's hardly a plan, is it?

2. The Secular-Messiah Model: Join with others in the GOP to elect a godly man to office and then expect him to solve all your problems for you. This last model resulted in me fielding calls from reporters about whether or not I thought Bush was responsible for failing to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment — at a time when the poor man was 33 percent in the polls. Gay-rights groups don't behave like this. They understand it's their job to make it easy for politicians to do what they ask, not the other way around.

Social conservatives simply have not been in politics. We lack institutions that can defeat our enemies and directly assist our friends.

After a while, threatening to leave the coalition unless the coalition does what you want gets old. And tiring. And ineffective. It makes your allies not like you very much. Social conservatives talk like that because it's our one lever of power.

Time to get some new levers.

Continue reading "Another reason why we lose politically..." »

Posted by Skip at 5:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

New TV ad from Cornerstone running in NH through Wednesday:

Commenting on the ad, CPR-Action Executive Director, Kevin Smith, stated,

“We’re running this ad to remind New Hampshire’s citizens that Governor Lynch broke his word by misleading voters to believe that he opposed gay marriage.  It is also our intent to inform the viewer that their legislators will once again be voting on gay marriage this week and that they should urge them to put “principal over politics.”

Posted by Doug at 4:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

As we all mostly know, illegitimacy is going way up - way, way up.  A combination of feminism and culture that has said "it's all about me" and "stupid husbands"?  Or can we also add in a lack of morals and ignorance of the outcome?

From Joanne Jacobs:

Marriage ‘isn’t a priority’ for parents

Unwed motherhood is way up, primarily because women in their 20s and 30s don’t see marriage as essential or because single women nearing 40 prefer a sperm donor to a marriage of convenience. Nearly four of 10 babies are born out of wedlock, up from one third in 2002 and double the 1980 rate.

"It’s been a huge increase — a dramatic increase,” said Stephanie J. Ventura of the National Center for Health Statistics, which documented the shift in detail.
There’s little or no stigma in unwed motherhood. But it remains a bad deal for the mothers and a very bad deal for their children, who are much more likely to grow up in poverty and without a father’s love and care.

In New Carrollton, Natrice McKenzie, 25, a teller supervisor at a bank, said she did not set out to become a single mother but has no regrets.

“Getting married was something I had in mind, but that basically was not what happened,” said McKenzie, pregnant with her third child.

Something else didn’t happen either: birth control. I can understand one unplanned pregnancy. But three by the age of 25?

Three by the age of 25....on a teller's wages?  You know what the result is - society, once again, will be socializing bad decisions - she plays, we pay. So, why SHOULD she worry about birth control?

Or a father for her children...I feel sorry for them as they will probably end up with a Merry-go-Round line of live-ins:  here today, gone next week.

The Christian Church can (and should be shouldering) much of the blame in this (and I say that as a battleground state for gay marriage as this is typed) - we have failed to prove why one needs to be committed when it comes to marriage and why divorce should be a non-existent topic (e.g., "it just does not exist in my vocabulary - failure is not an option") except in those rare instances of physical danger to one of the spouses.

Laura from Hot Air says it well:

Continue reading "Marriage - not a priority...sigh...." »

Posted by Skip at 7:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of my favorite pundits lives right here in NH - Mark Steyn.  He has written a wonderful essay for Imprimis Magazine labeled:

Live Free or Die

after our State's motto.  Sadly, as the Democrats have taken over the reins of power, we are starting to not live free anymore as we are beginning to lose our economic freedom and cultural heritage.

Part of his piece discusses the societal problem of indolence (emphasis and a bit of reformatting mine):

"Indolence," in Machiavelli's word: There are stages to the enervation of free peoples. America, which held out against the trend, is now at

Stage One: The benign paternalist state promises to make all those worries about mortgages, debt, and health care disappear.
Stage Two of societal enervation—when the state as guarantor of all your basic needs becomes increasingly comfortable with regulating your behavior. Free peoples who were once willing to give their lives for liberty can be persuaded very quickly to relinquish their liberties for a quiet life.

Stage Three: When the populace has agreed to become wards of the state, it's a mere difference of degree to start regulating their thoughts.

Stage Four: what you're forbidden to think . . . .

Final Stage: cultural ennui and demographic disaster:

"Give people plenty and security, and they will fall into spiritual torpor," wrote Charles Murray in In Our Hands. "When life becomes an extended picnic, with nothing of importance to do, ideas of greatness become an irritant. Such is the nature of the Europe syndrome."

The key word here is "give." When the state "gives" you plenty—when it takes care of your health, takes cares of your kids, takes care of your elderly parents, takes care of every primary responsibility of adulthood—it's not surprising that the citizenry cease to function as adults: Life becomes a kind of extended adolescence—literally so for those Germans who've mastered the knack of staying in education till they're 34 and taking early retirement at 42. Hilaire Belloc, incidentally, foresaw this very clearly in his book The Servile State in 1912. He understood that the long-term cost of a welfare society is the infantilization of the population.

Americans face a choice: They can rediscover the animating principles of the American idea—of limited government, a self-reliant citizenry, and the opportunities to exploit your talents to the fullest—or they can join most of the rest of the Western world in terminal decline.

(H/T: Powerline)

Posted by Skip at 7:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Our friends at Cornerstone Policy Research write:

Late yesterday, Governor Lynch announced that he will SIGN the same-sex marriage bill if the House and Senate agree to make some changes, despite having told the New Hampshire public time and time again, that he opposes gay marriage.

Governor Lynch has proposed a "cover" religious exemption amendment - much like the same smokescreen amendment the Senate added.  This new language adds protections for religious organizations that are ALREADY covered under the First Amendment - but still does NOTHING to protect independent business owners and persons of faith, who are Justices of the Peace, who will now be forced to provide their services for gay 'marriage' ceremonies or risk being fined up to $50,000 by the Human Rights Commission!

Now, the legislature is going to add yet another amendment to another bill (the third one) in an attempt to "fix" what was a very poorly written bill to begin with.

Bottom line: Governor Lynch has broken his trust with the New Hampshire public by stating he will sign this bill, and has given in to the radical special interests.

What are the religious liberty problems with New Hampshire's bill?  if you haven't done so yet. read the letter HERE from a University Law Professor who supports gay 'marriage', but says the New Hampshire law has serious flaws.

Stay tuned...

Posted by Doug at 8:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

CONCORD - Gov. John Lynch released the following statement today regarding same-sex legislation in New Hampshire:

"The gay marriage debate in New Hampshire has been filled with passion and emotion on all sides.

"My personal views on the subject of marriage have been shaped by my own experience, tradition and upbringing. But as Governor of New Hampshire, I recognize that I have a responsibility to consider this issue through a broader lens.

"In the past weeks and months, I have spoken with lawmakers, religious leaders and citizens. My office has received thousands of phone calls, letters and emails. I have studied our current marriage and civil union laws, the laws of other states, the bills recently passed by the legislature and our history and traditions.

"Two years ago, we passed civil unions legislation here in New Hampshire. That law gave same-sex couples in civil unions the same rights and protections as marriage. And in typical New Hampshire fashion, the people of this state embraced civil unions and agreed we needed to continue our tradition of opposing discrimination. 

"At its core, HB 436 simply changes the term 'civil union' to 'civil marriage.' Given the cultural, historical and religious significance of the word marriage, this is a meaningful change. 

"I have heard, and I understand, the very real feelings of same-sex couples that a separate system is not an equal system. That a civil law that differentiates between their committed relationships and those of heterosexual couples undermines both their dignity and the legitimacy of their families.

"I have also heard, and I understand, the concerns of our citizens who have equally deep feelings and genuine religious beliefs about marriage. They fear that this legislation would interfere with the ability of religious groups to freely practice their faiths.

"Throughout history, our society's views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded.  New Hampshire's great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections.

"That is what I believe we must do today.

"But following that tradition means we must act to protect both the liberty of same-sex couples and religious liberty. In their current form, I do not believe these bills accomplish those goals.

"The Legislature took an important step by clearly differentiating between civil and religious marriage, and protecting religious groups from having to participate in marriage ceremonies that violate their fundamental religious beliefs.

"But the role of marriage in many faiths extends beyond the actual marriage ceremony.

"I have examined the laws of other states, including Vermont and Connecticut, which have recently passed same-sex marriage laws. Both go further in protecting religious institutions than the current New Hampshire legislation.

"This morning, I met with House and Senate leaders, and the sponsors of this legislation, and gave them language that will provide additional protections to religious institutions.

"This new language will provide the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions. It will make clear that they cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles.

"If the legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the legislature doesn't pass these provisions, I will veto it.

"We can and must treat both same-sex couples and people of certain religious traditions with respect and dignity.

"I believe this proposed language will accomplish both of these goals and I urge the legislature to pass it.

Posted by Doug at 5:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest Post by Representative Paul Ingabretson

As we are carried full speed into the legitimization of homosexual marriage in New Hampshire those of us who have tried and failed again to resist find ourselves once again examining the direction in which we are now moving as a society.  Unless the Governor actually vetoes HB436 we are facing not only the legal ratification of, but the state’s blessing on, homosexual lifestyles as something they can never truly be.  In the process we are falsely and wrongly implying the acceptance of the  people themselves many of whom are truly offended in their consciences at the very idea of doing so.    The party that has historically expressed outrage that a state should involve itself in individual moral choices has found itself in a classic political hypocrisy.   Instead of simply ceasing the criminalization of persons for their moral choices (that happened long ago) it has changed the stakes and replaced in law the time honored morality of the past with a new morality for our age.

Instead of promoting the rational and healthy Constitutional standard of one man, one woman (ideally married for life without outside sexual liaisons) we now honor with marriage those whose unhealthy sexual behaviors go against nature itself.  Where once we elevated liberty of conscience we now elevate and endorse the tolerance of libertine behavior.  Where once our state honored the bonds of matrimony for the protection of children we now offer easy divorce - oh, well, for the injured innocent child.  Where once we as a state welcomed the contributions of the church with its moral standards we now want political separation from it.   Moral ambiguity is now taught in public schools.  Actual morality must give way to tolerance.   It is virtuous to look the other way.  It is now immoral to even speak accurately of a dangerous behavior as the once higher standard of freedom of speech gives way to the fiendish hate crime.   The old order of the self-evident truth is gone and a new age of “whatever” has dawned.  Morality is dead, welcome to the new morality.

Even the question of rights is upside down when we now have the right to be compelled to go to school.  When minor children have a right to have surgical procedures as long as it is related to eliminating a baby gotten as a result of enjoying their right to participate in sex play before adulthood but parents should  have no right to manage their offspring in either area.  They do have the right to pay the bills of course, or else.   So, as usual we wind up with more questions than answers.  Like,  is it time to return to the self-evident and the universals and the tried and true values of all time or should we continue down this strange evolutionary path?

"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea," according to Thomas Jefferson.  Yet we, in the ambiguity of our acts,  undermine the very idea of unchanging and universal virtues.  We are allowing our politicians, ever the chimerical lot, to negotiate the meaning of the word “is.”  By saying nothing we are accessories after the fact.

Posted by Ann Marie at 6:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

by Karen Testerman

According to Noah Webster, "The moral principles and precepts found in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws."  

Yet, today, the schools are a haven for forcing values instead of basics, and a worldview in contention with that of the original intent.  After a few generations this leads to a people who lack the knowledge and background to defend the Truth.

The 6-12 Project of GLAD (Gay Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) is but the latest focus in the quest to silence the defenders of morality.  Their goal is to force homosexual (counterfeit) marriage in all six New England states by 2012. 

Spurred on by their progress to gain acceptance in Massachusetts and Connecticut, Lee Swislow, GLAD Executive Director, stated, "We can make New England a marriage-equality zone by strategically combining existing legal, electoral and on-the-ground know-how to fast-track marriage in every New England State.  By 2012, we not only can have marriage equality throughout New England, we can have a road map for the rest of the country."

And, this is not just some small grassroots group hoping to do this, it is part of a well funded, multi-faceted plan that is in the game for the long haul.  A case in point is Tim Gill, an open homosexual and considered the number one funder and political strategist in the nation.  Frustrated by the lack of acceptance and change in the political climate achieved by using his donations to non-profit organizations, Quark software mogul, Tim Gill, organized a conference of supportive donors to strategically target state and local political races.  His goal is to produce more change in political make up of the policy makers at a fraction of the cost.  Beginning in his home state of Colorado, Gill took advantage of the libertarian political leanings to unseat strong pro-family legislators.  

According to a 2007 Time magazine article (pdf),

"Another formidable element of Gill's power is his network of deep-pocketed allies in the mountain states. An hour south of Laramie, in Ft. Collins, lives medical equipment heiress Pat Stryker, who is, along with Gill, known in local political circles as one of "The Four Millionaires." (Actually, Stryker is a billionaire; her brother Jon is gay and both give generously to gay causes.) The two other members of the quartet are Bluemountain.com entrepreneur Jared Polis, who lives in Boulder, and Denver's Rutt Bridges, who made his fortune in petroleum exploration and runs the Bighorn Center for Public Policy."

The "Four Millionaires" then stealthily began changing the political landscape over the next several election cycles to topple those strong pro-marriage legislators in several locations around the nation including New Hampshire, Iowa and Colorado, and flipping the political make up of the legislatures in those states. 

Continue reading "Guest Post: Turning NH Upside Down" »

Posted by Doug at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

But Wait, I Thought Violence Never Solved Anything   [Jonah Goldberg]

Your second-amendment tale for the day:

Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.

“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’” said George Williams of the College Park Police Department.

Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.

That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.

The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.

“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.

That, my friends, is justice.  This is when counter - violence is justified, warranted, and desired.  There is never a time when self-defense is indefensible.  In this anecdote, at least one innocent woman would have been raped (and possibly multiple women) and innocent people would have died.

The complementary whine is that of "Wars never solved anything!".  So what about:

• The Revolutionary War
• War of 1812
• Spanish-American War
• Civil War
• World War I
• World War II
• The Cold War

The Korean War ended in a stalemate but it did allow South Koreans to have a safe democratic society.  The Gulf War, while not ending until the Iraq War, also answered questions and punished the evil.   While the decision about the Iraq War is still out (but looking favorable),  Afghanistan is still being decided.

Wars do solve things.  So does violence.  Both can be justified.

Posted by Skip at 7:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

Today, CPR-Action in conjunction with the National Organization for Marriage launched the television ad, “Our Trust” aimed at  informing the viewer on where Governor Lynch has stood on the issue of same-sex ‘marriage’ throughout his tenure as Governor.  The ad shows a series of statements made by the Governor, including one from a debate in 2006, in which the Governor has unequivocally stated that he opposes gay ‘marriage’.  The ad ends by asking Governor Lynch to keep his word, because in New Hampshire “keeping our word matters.”

Commenting on the ad, CPR-Action Executive Director, Kevin Smith, stated,

“Going back to when the Governor was running as a candidate to his most recent comments in April of this year, Governor Lynch has repeatedly stated that he opposes same-sex marriage and believes that marriage should be reserved to the union of a man and a woman.  This ad will serve as a reminder to the public of where the Governor has consistently stood on this issue and we hope he keeps his word by vetoing this bill.”

Smith added,

“Should the Governor choose to let this bill become law without his signature, it will be seen as the equivalent of having signed it, but without the accountability of taking ownership for ones actions.  We believe the people elected Governor Lynch to show leadership in the most important of times, and we are hopeful that Governor Lynch will do just that, by sticking to his word and vetoing HB436.”

Tell him to stay true to his word!!
CALL: 271-2121
EMAIL the Governor HERE

Posted by Doug at 11:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Once again, we ask that you call or email Governor Lynch about HB 436 and tell him that he made a statement that marriage is between a man and a woman.  Hold him to his own words!

Your effort counts; his assistants are tabulating the counts - make your's known!

As Doug so thoughtfully provided:

Tell him to stay true to his word!!
CALL: 271-2121
EMAIL the Governor HERE

We know it is working:

Gov. Lynch at center of gay marriage debate in NH

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — If phones really could ring off the hook, Gov. John Lynch's would look like a jumping bean. Since last week, when the state Senate approved a gay marriage proposal, both sides have mobilized, inundating his office with calls, e-mails, letters and postcards.

Lynch says he believes marriage is a word that should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman but has not said he would veto a gay marriage bill if it reaches his desk. There is no shortage of guidance.

"We have received over 2,000 phone calls since the Senate passed the bill," spokesman Colin Manning said on Tuesday, as calls and voice-mails continued pouring in.

Add more than 2,000 e-mails and "at least hundreds" pieces of mail, including preprinted post cards, he said...

...Manning said the messages will be tallied for Lynch before he has to decide.

"He'll know how many people have contacted the office and what the general sentiment has been," Manning said.

Posted by Skip at 7:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE:  Skip here:  I have taken a screen capture of Ms. Larsen's blogsite and posted a JPG of it AFTER the jump to this post.  You can also click here (just search on "klan") and see the original HTML page as well.

KKK, eh?  Thanks for the compliment, President Larsen.  After all, if Alinksy's Rule 13 says to demonize anyone that opposes you; just call them a "hater" to win the argument!

============================================================

Senate President Sylvia Larson compares Pro-marriage Defenders to Ku Klux Klan legacy!

As first reported at Now!Hampshire.com, On Friday, May 1, Senate President Sylvia Larsen wrote in her blog on the official State Senate website, remarks about the passage of same-sex ‘marriage’ and the defeat of the so-called ‘transgender rights’ bill.  Senator Larsen, in comparing the ‘marriage equality’ rights of gays and lesbians to the segregated south in the 1960’s, then wrote the following comments inferring pro-traditional marriage advocates are carrying on the legacy of the Ku Klux Klan:

 “Passing a law does not end discrimination by itself. One has only to look at the legacy of the Ku Klux Klan to see that. It takes fair laws and changing public attitudes…”

Larsen then continues the analogy while drawing on examples from the recent defeat of the transgender “bathroom” bill.

In a statement to the press, Kevin Smith, Executive Director of CPR-Action, reacted to the comments,

“Senator Larson has just heightened the rhetoric on this issue to an intolerable level with her hideous and offensive comments inferring that the thousands of traditional marriage supporters in this state are equivalent to the Ku Klux Klan.  Further, it is the height of hypocrisy for Senator Larson to demonize those who opposed the transgender bill when the Senator herself voted against it!”

Smith added,

“I call on Senator Larson, as President of the Senate, to apologize to the thousands of New Hampshire citizens, who support traditional marriage, for her irresponsible and reckless analogy.”

Oh, and this isn't the first time a NH Democrat has invoked the "those who oppose are like the KKK" mantra. Remember Manchester state representative Lily Mesa?  She ended up resigning. Should Ms. Larsen perhaps follow suit? At the very least, she needs to hear how outraged you are at her assertion. Call her at 271-2111 or email her at sylvia.larsen@leg.state.nh.us and demand she, at the very least, apologize. Then, for good measure, call Governor Lynch at 271-2121 and ask he renounce her comments.

Continue reading "KKK in New Hampshire!?" »

Posted by Doug at 11:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Dr. Walter Williams is one of my favorite pundits - the word "wisdom" is a word that I easily use when mentioning his name.  His latest column hit a large nail in our society with a very large hammer.  Unfortunately, Liberals that need to hear and understand the message and differences between internal vs external governors will not understand:

A civilized society's first line of defense is not the law, police and courts but customs, traditions and moral values. Behavioral norms, mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error. They include important thou-shalt-nots such as shalt not murder, shalt not steal, shalt not lie and cheat, but they also include all those courtesies one might call ladylike and gentlemanly conduct. The failure to fully transmit values and traditions to subsequent generations represents one of the failings of the so-called greatest generation.

Behavior accepted as the norm today would have been seen as despicable yesteryear. There are television debt relief advertisements that promise to help debtors to pay back only half of what they owe. Foul language is spoken by children in front of and sometimes to teachers and other adults. When I was a youngster, it was unthinkable to use foul language to an adult; it would have meant a smack across the face. Back then, parents and teachers didn't have child-raising "experts" to tell them that "time out" is a means of discipline. Baby showers are held for unwed mothers. Yesteryear, such an acceptance of illegitimacy would have been unthinkable...

Continue reading "Internal vs External governors - without the former, the latter will be necessary" »

Posted by Skip at 8:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Some points from the latest Quinniapac University Polling Institute on the current state of Americans and Gay Marriage:

• American voters reject 50 - 44 percent the argument that ending discrimination against homosexuals is as necessary today as ending discrimination against blacks was in the 1960s.

• Voters support 50 - 44 percent the federal law allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states

• American voters oppose 55 - 38 percent a law in their state allowing same-sex couples to marry, but support 57 - 38 percent allowing same-sex couples to form civil unions.

• "In general, Americans tend to be more supportive when it comes to narrow equity questions like serving in the military or collecting federal benefits," Brown added. "But they are less accepting of more philosophical issues such as equating gay rights with civil rights for blacks and the belief that people are born gay rather than it being a choice. For example, 65 percent of those who think people are born gay support legalized gay marriage compared to 15 percent among those who say being gay is a personal choice."

• There is a gender gap on most questions, with women six to 15 points more supportive of gay rights than men. Jews are the religious group most likely to support gay rights; evangelical Christians the least likely and white Catholics in the middle.

• For example, Catholics support same-sex civil unions 68 - 27 percent while evangelical Christians oppose these unions 61 - 34 percent. Catholics support gay adoption 61 - 33 percent, while evangelical Christians oppose gay adoption 64 - 30 percent.

• "Lifting the ban on gays in the military has public support as does repealing part - but not all - of the key sections of the federal Defense of Marriage Act," said Brown. Americans support the part of that federal law allowing states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. But they want to repeal another part of the law that bans the federal government from recognizing gay marriage for any purpose, the most important of which would be eligibility for federal financial benefits such as spousal Social Security benefits."

From April 21 - 27, Quinnipiac University surveyed 2,041 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.2 percentage points.

Posted by Skip at 8:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What WILL he do?

Now that the Democrat-controlled Senate has followed in their House comrades' footsteps and passed gay marriage for New Hampshire, the hot potato lands in Gov. Do-Nuthin's Lynch's lap. The big question is whether he will remain true to his word and stop this garbage?

The NHGOP Chair John H. Sununu puts it best:

“It’s clear that there was a lot of arm-twisting that took place yesterday in the Senate Democrat Caucus. The real test of course, will be whether Governor Lynch is strong enough to support his own statements of opposition to same-sex marriage and have the courage to veto this legislation. I certainly cannot believe the rumors that he is going to allow it become law without his signature because that, of course, would make it clear to the voters of New Hampshire that there is no capacity for leadership or accountability in the Governor’s office today.”

NOW IS THE TIME TO START CALLING AND WRITING GOVERNOR LYNCH AND ASK HIM TO VETO THIS BILL! 

Tell him to stay true to his word!!
CALL: 271-2121
EMAIL the Governor HERE

[UPDATE] This is the statement from Gov. Lynch following the Senate passage of gay marriage for NH:

“I recognize that the issue of same-sex marriage is intensely passionate and personal, and raises strong emotions on all sides.

"I still believe the fundamental issue is about providing the same rights and protections to same-sex couples as are available to heterosexual couples. This was accomplished through the passage of the civil unions law two years ago. To achieve further real progress, the federal government would need to take action to recognize New Hampshire civil unions."

Posted by Doug at 4:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (41) | TrackBacks (2)

From Conerstone Policy Research (via NOW!Hampshire) comes this factoid in the NH Senate Districts that will be the swing votes in tomorrow's Senate voting:

But a broader survey of 150,000 state residents by the conservative Cornerstone Policy Research shows the opposite. According to their findings, strong majorities in key senate districts support traditional marriage:

    SD18 - Devries - 70% Support Traditional Marriage
    SD20 - D’allesandro - 65% Support Traditional Marriage
    SD2 - Reynolds - 61% Support Traditional Marriage
    SD12 - Gilmour - 57% Support Traditional Marriage
    SD15 - Larsen - 52% SUpport Traditional Marriage

“We are not surprised with the amount of public support for protecting the definition of marriage to mean: one man, one woman. We are hopeful that the Senators will listen the majority of constituents in their districts who oppose this measure to change the definition. It is clear that the citizens of New Hampshire do not want to go the way of their liberal New England neighbors,” Cornerstone Executive Director Kevin Smith said in a statement.

Apparently, Ray Buckly, leader of the LGBT lobby within the Democrat Party, is whipping his Democrat Senators hard on this vote on gay marriage tomorrow.

YOU can make a difference - click here to contact your NH Senator !

Here's the email I sent to my NH Senator, Kathy Sgambati:

Dear Senator Sgambati,

As you represent NH Senate District 4 here in the Lakes Region,  I am respectfully asking that you vote down the so called Gay Marriage bill, the Transgendered bill, and the bill that would make changes to the language of the Human Rights Commission.

• I believe that the civil union bill passed a while ago covers all of the State legalities for gay couples; please do not become part of the effort to redefine the traditional definition of marriage!  I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.  I would hope that this does not make me a bigot in your eyes; I simply wish for marriage to stay the way it is.

• I believe that the Transgender bill, while altruistic for folks who unsure of their sexuality, will put our wives and our daughters (young and old) at risk for the sexual predators that WILL take advantage of this new law.  It is unconceivable, to me, that my fellow voters can condone this undoing of the safety of their loved ones when their sense of decorum would normally lead them to stay out of those areas themselves.  I do not wish to be forced to feel that I will feel that I have to go into a womens bathroom with my wife to ensure that she will be safe - and if this law passes, I will!  I am quite sure that a lot of traditional voters may be thinking the same thing - it is an unnecessary affrontage  to our sense of "what is right" for their loved ones' security.

• I believe that the changes to the HRC will be destructive to my free speech rights.  As we all saw with Miss California during the Miss USA contest, someone who has plainly (but politely) has been publicly excoriated by those supporting gay marriage.  And there are lawsuits being filed in California against those whose only crime is to have publicly supported Proposition 8; are you willing to be the vote that could allow a Perez Hilton type to do that to me?  Look what has happened up in Canada with their Human Rights Commissions and the problem our fellow NH citizen, Mark Steyn, had when someone felt that his speech was "offensive".  He may have the money to defend such an ordeal (I can't say trial - it isn't) - I do not.  That I must police my speech and my thoughts so as not to be "offensive" for simply expressing my belief (or that of my Pastor) like Carrie Prejean has - is that the NH way?
  

As you may know better than I, new laws can have serious negative consequences well beyond that dreamed of by the originators of their bills; all of these laws could be twisted very easily  and led far from their intended purposes.  Again, please vote "No" on these bills.

Kindest Regards,

Please contact your Senator if you live in NH!

Posted by Skip at 7:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

My oldest goes to school in Boston and decided she wants to attend a tea party in Boston tomorrow, so she did a search online to find out where it was to take place. She discovered, much to her chagrin, that not all of Wednesday's tea parties have the same theme of less taxing and spending. And, let's just say that the "Indians" at this tea party, should there be any, will be somewhat different than the "Mohawks" of December 1773...

Tea Time?

From the Huffington Post:

Gay Activists Plan Their Own Tea Party at Boston Harbor

Tea party protests won't be limited to the rightward-leaning, anti-spending, anti-tax crowd come April 15. In Massachusetts, the LGBT community is planning to reenact the Boston Tea Party to protest the tax code's unequal treatment of same-sex couples. Similar protests are also planned for post offices across the country.

The press release:

LGBT COMMUNITY DEMANDS EQUAL TAXATION

Boston Tea Party Re-enactment Planned for Tax Day

BOSTON, MA - On April 15th, thousands of same-sex couples across the United States will be reminded of their second-class status when they file their federal tax return form. Despite living in committed relationships, same-sex couples--even those married in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California--must file as individuals, forgoing over 1,100 federal rights granted to heterosexual married couples.

This tax day, the LGBT community is demanding equal rights for equal taxation. Massachusetts citizens will be at the Long Wharf dock, near the site of the original Boston Tea Party, from 5:30pm to 7:00pm putting on a Boston Tea Party Re-enactment, rallying and passing out literature to protest the federal government's tax policy toward same-sex couples. The intent is to inform the public of the discrimination that same-sex couples continue to face.

Rallies are being planned at local post offices across the country and these events have been sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest LGBT rights organization in the United States, Join The Impact, Join The Impact MA, and Marriage Equality USA.

"Married same-sex couples are blatantly discriminated against under federal tax law, among other areas, and we're doing our part to shine a light on that injustice. A Boston Tea Party Re-enactment is a spirited way to do just that and it also adds some variety to your standard protest," said Paul Sousa, co-chair of Join The Impact MA.

Among the most egregious policies is the federal government's denial of social security benefits and inheritance rights to same-sex couples. LGBT individuals are blocked access to their partner's social security benefits, often making retirement financially difficult, if not impossible. They are also denied access to the lump sum given to survivors which can make it hard to cover hospital and funeral expenses for their loved one.

The Boston Tea Party Re-enactment is being organized by Join the Impact MA, a grassroots organization that is working towards full LGBT equality on the state and national level. More information about the rallies and their locations can be found at the website http://www.jointheimpactMA.com/taxday/.

Is there nothing these people aren't willing to taint in order to foist their lifestyle on the rest of us and our children? How much do you want to bet that the media covers this 'tea party' and ignores others taking place in the Gay Bay State?

Posted by Doug at 3:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Caution!

From our friends at Cornerstone Policy Research comes the bad news via email, with a call to action:

House PASSES Bathroom Bill on Re-vote 188-187!

Folks, if you hear the Calliope Music playing again, it's because the New Hampshire House was in back in session today, and once again, overturned another vote, this time by passing the egregious 'Bathroom Bill', HB415, by ONE vote!

In an unusual move, House Speaker Terie Norelli (271-3661) (terie.norelli@leg.state.nh.us), spoke on the House floor and urged House members to vote in favor of this bill.

The House also voted down an number of floor amendments that sought to provide protections to religious institutions, municipalities, and businesses from being open to endless amounts of litigation from those who would sue on the grounds of "gender expression."  They even voted down an amendment which would have "tightened up" the language in the bill to only cover those persons with actual biological or physical sexual disabilities - the very people the supporters "claim" they are trying to protect.

The House has now debated this bill for nearly 6 hours over the course of TWO days, even though not a single word has been said yet with regard to the budget! 
Where are their priorities?!

This bill now moves to the Senate for a public hearing.  It is vital you contact your Senator TODAY and tell them ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!  Contact them HERE

Also, Call Governor Lynch (271-2121) as ask him to PLEASE exert his leadership as Governor of New Hampshire by stating he will veto this outrageous piece of Legislation!

Posted by Doug at 8:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 As Doug says "the Magic Obama and his minions".  Me?  Just "Obama the Magician" - while he has you looking over here, he'd doing something over there.  Problem is, as this snippet by Fred Barnes shows, he's better than I thought.

1. Direction Number One - We're just helping - camel's nose under the tent via cash

When Obama intervened last week to prop up General Motors, he said he was merely helping the company get through a rough patch. "Let me be clear," he said. "The United States government has no interest or intention of running GM." Rather, his aim is to give GM "an opportunity" to restructure itself and become "a stronger and more competitive company." Obama made this sound like the corporate equivalent of car repair.

2. Mis-Direction - take one - the change over

The media have likened Obama to Franklin Roosevelt. But Obama's intervention at GM goes far beyond anything FDR attempted in the New Deal or even dreamed of. Obama fired GM president Richard Wagoner and at least half of the board of directors. He picked the new president. He guaranteed the warranties on GM cars. He dispatched a White House team to Detroit to impose a new business plan and to negotiate with bondholders and union chiefs the terms of a managed bankruptcy.

3. Mis-Direction - take two - the REAL change over

On top of that, Obama advised GM and the other auto companies about the kind of cars they should be producing. Since auto executives remain in their jobs at Obama's pleasure, they aren't free to ignore his advice. Besides, he offered an incentive. He called on Congress to provide a "generous credit" to owners of old cars if they turn in their clunkers and buy "cleaner" cars.

GM created its own crisis.  As the "free money" was starting to flow for the banks, this was perceived as a lifeline if they could get to the money line.  Hey fellows, have you figured out that it really was a rope being set as a hangman's noose?  Under the guise of "helping", Obama has stayed true to his "crisis opportunity" mantra in order to make his own ordered society. 

Most people know of the assistance by the Government.  Firing of the CEO a bit less so - redoing the board is only for news / political junkies like us.  Now, with full control, he's about to remake GM into making high-tech (not go far) electric cars.

I'm thinking the equivalent of electric Yugos.

I remember the Yugo.  I remember lots of us making fun of Yugos.  I remember Yugo going out of business because nobody bought them.

4. And the final result:

Why wasn't Obama candid about his unprecedented action? He had good reasons. Bailing out auto companies, especially GM, is enormously unpopular. Better to pretend he's only tinkering. By grabbing control of GM, he's able to advance his agenda of slowing the production of trucks and SUVs--without saying so. These are the vehicles people love, but his allies in the environmental movement regard them as evil. 

He is out to take away our freedom, by a takover of GM and Chrysler, by decreasing our choices (betcha Ford is loving this IF they can end up being the last man standing) and forcing that change by artificially raising our energy costs on oil and gas. And let's not forget, that by "owning the banks" and refusing to take the TARP money back, he can "muscle" those financial institutions to set up financing so as to make it more attractive to consumers to purchase the cars he wants them to (not even bringing up the "clunker" bill where taxpayers will pay for others to turn in their older cars - for his new clean cars).

Problem is, what he can't do via cash and laws, he WILL do via regulations - think CAFE standards (which they just upped for next year - raising the costs on the car companies that already need a bailout).

Freedom to choose - heading for the gallows?

Posted by Skip at 8:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE: Part 10 in the series is up!  Here is where the various strings and thoughts start coming together concerning the fragility and the importance of how we treat marriage (or not).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Amazing Power of The Culture (Part 10)   [Maggie Gallagher]

Between 1960 and 1980, cultural elites (those with cultural power, the power to name reality) increasingly defined marriage as the problem and family fragmentation as the solution. But between about 1980 and 2000, elite opinion on marriage did something remarkable: It changed.

In 1990, if you said, "The ideal for a child is a marriage mom and dad," many scholars, reporters, policymakers,  and writers vigorously contested the idea; the counterfactual or contest response was, "Single mothers are just as good as married mothers, and the idea that marriage is special hurts women's freedom."

By 2000, if you said, "The ideal for a child is a married mom and dad," people began to say, "Duh, that's obvious." (At least, if you added, "provided that marriage is not high-conflict or violent.")

A lot of work went into that consensus shift in elite opinion. I was a bit player; David Blankenhorn and the scholars he gathered around him at the Institute for American Values deserve the lion's share of the credit, but I watched it happen. And I also saw that it never happened in Europe, even though the social-science data was the same.

Some policy shifts happened as well: Changes in property distributions muted some of the worst effects of no-fault, welfare reform was enacted, and in 2000 the president of the U.S., without much public resistance, appointed a marriage czar to Health and Human Services who began to reshape the culture of the nation's social-welfare bureaucracy into a more marriage-positive direction.

And over the same period — it could be an accident, a mere correlation — we began to see some signs of a marriage turnaround. Divorce rates peaked in the early 1980s and began to decline — especially among the college-educated. Unmarried childbearing, after galloping up and up — began to tail off.  By around 2002, it looked as if the out-of-wedlock birthrate may have peaked — perhaps we would begin a new period in modern American history, one where each year more babies, rather than fewer and fewer, would begin life with a mom and dad committed to caring for their baby together, in one family.

(To be continued) 

Continue reading "The Amazing Power of Culture" »

Posted by Skip at 7:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Bluntly put, when Conservatives think of Community Organizing (at least, THIS one - me), it is sheer voluntary on the part of the participants. An idea bubbles up, and if someone decides to act as a leader and if the need and persuasive powers are sufficient, people will get the job done and the need satisfied.

Then they go home.  Repeat the cycle.

Notice that individuals do the recognization of the need, the will to act, the pride of the job done, and either a self-functioning group remains or a disbanding happens.  No one else that outside that group is affected - it is self contained.

Not so much with the Obama / Alinsky style of Community Organizing as this snippet points out:

...There has always been a strong line of argument on the left that volunteerism, charity, philanthropy, and other cogs of civil society are atavistic and counterproductive. According to some on the Left, the Burkean platoons are drug dealers, peddling opiates to the masses, and, hence, keeping them from properly understanding their interests.   After all, if something is worth doing, why shouldn't the government do it?  

...This points to what always bothered me about Barack Obama's experience as a "community organizer." Lots of liberal defenders of Obama were stunned that conservatives would make fun of community organizing. Remember all that nonsense about how Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilot was a governor? What hypocrites, they cried, you talk about civil society, localism, and charity and here's a guy who worked as a community organizer and you mock it!?

The problem is that there are many rooms in the mansion of community organizing. Obama, trained in the Alinsky method, had little use for the Burkean little-platoon school of civil society. His brand of community organizing was all about organizing to more effectively petition the government for more help. Here's how Byron York put it in his excellent piece on Obama's Chicago days:

Perhaps the simplest way to describe community organizing is to say it is the practice of identifying a specific aggrieved population, say unemployed steelworkers, or itinerant fruit-pickers, or residents of a particularly bad neighborhood, and agitating them until they become so upset about their condition that they take collective action to put pressure on local, state, or federal officials to fix the problem, often by giving the affected group money. Organizers like to call that “direct action.”

In other words, community organizing isn't about organizing the community to build a barn, it's about organizing people to whine so loudly about the lack of federally-provided barns that the government comes in and does it for them.

And that, is the major difference in this domain between Conservatives and Progressives.  We believe that if we identify the problem, we need to fix it.  We generally know if it is something that we can do as private citizens and if so, proceed as private citizens.  Once the need is taken care of, involving ONLY those needed, then go away.

Not so Liberals.  The end game of the Obama style organizing is NOT the self-responsibility to actually address the need directly, it is to have someone ELSE take care of the problem.  Obama organizing, simply stated, is mere whining about something loud enough so as to get Governmental politicians to spend other peoples' money on it (read the book!).  A success via this type of organizing also generally results in a permanent change to the government in its size, for what bureacrat in their right mind, once given more responsibility, power, and budget, is going to let it go?  The operative phrase will always run similar to "but there are other needs / work to be done!".  And certainly, where there are perceived needs, whining, and politicians, the tax dollars are sure to follow.

(H/T: NRO)

Posted by Skip at 1:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I sent an email to Rep. Thompson reacting to a post at Cornerstone Policy Research about a response Mr. Thompson gave to one of that group's supporters. From Cornerstone:

So, it seems that once again one of our elected officials are of the opinion that we will just believe anything they write…

The latest case being State Representative, Robert Thompson of Manchester, who recently sent what appears to be a “stock” response to one of our Cornerstone supporters…

After our supporter sent Rep. Thompson an email urging him to not support The Bathroom Bill, HB415, as it would trample on religious liberties among other reasons, Rep. Thompson replied that not only does “religion have no place in government”, but that the founding fathers were so concerned about this, that they added a “separation of church and state” clause into the Constitution.

Click here to read the whole post, including Thompson's offending note.

This is my response to him:

Rep. Thompson,
How could you be such a boob as to write the following false statement in an email:

"Secondly, I certainly feel that religion has no place in government. Our founding fathers, who wrote the constitution, were very concerned about religion interfering with law making and included a separation of church and state into the constitution. This is a very important part of our constitution that has seemed to have gotten away from us. The Judeo-Christian values our country were founded on are important but do not belong in government."

Robby, You've obviously never bothered to read the Constitution, or much of anything one might guess. The U.S. Constitution only refers to religion once in the 1st Amendment where it guarantees freedom OF religion, and that means religion of the public square. Your red-herring concept of a separation was first mentioned in a letter by Mr. Jefferson to the Danbury, CT Baptists who were complaining to him when he was POTUS years AFTER the Constitution had been written and ratified that they thought it was unfair that they had to pay taxes that went to support the CT state religion at the time which was Congregationalism, because contrary to your moronic lack of knowledge about American history, the respective states had official state religions well into the 19th century. That so-called "separation" Jefferson coined referred to government having no power over religious liberty among the various states, including their 10th amendment right to establish state religions which they did in fact have. You shouldn't even be a legislator, you're so ignorant of the laws governing this land and even the history of New England where you reside..  It's uneducated buffoons like you that make our democracy as horribly fragile as it's recently become.

Furthermore, on religion in "government" as you ridiculously call it, in your attempt to set up a straw man,...John Adams who knew a helluvalot more than I would dare say you do, especially when it comes to the documents he was involved in drafting and ratifying, but even more so on questions of wisdom...political, moral and otherwise, said the following:

Continue reading "A letter to Representative Robert Thompson of Manchester regarding his ignorance of American history and the Constitution" »

Posted by BillA at 6:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Our friends at Cornerstone Policy Research have released a new web ad urging viewers to contact at Gov. Lynch at 271-2121 and ask him to say "no" to HB 436, the the so-called "genderless marriage" bill...

Don't you just love the "new" New Hampshire, brought to us by the majority Democrats? (And aided and abetted by a few RINOs-- the usual suspects)

Posted by Doug at 4:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Update:  So, being against the Stimulus Bill is now racist?

See what I mean!  Do or be against anything the Liberals want and it gets you labeled as a racist....sheesh!

The highest-ranking black congressman said Thursday that opposition to the federal stimulus package by southern GOP governors is "a slap in the face of African-Americans."

U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., said he was insulted when the governors of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and his home state, which have large black populations, said they might not accept some of the money from the $787 billion stimulus package.

=================================================================

Or so says Eric Holder, Obama's Attorney General.

Nice.

Nice to see such stereotyping going on at the highest levels of our government.  Nice to see that the top law enforcement dude, other than Obama, is calling me a racist. Well, tell you what.  First thing this AM I looked at CNN:

Latest News

• Holder: U.S. a 'nation of cowards' on talking race
• Brown: Holde's speech cuts through bull
• Martin: NY Post's chimp cartoon is racist

Look at that last line - it says it all.  Let me be blunt.  When old fuddy duddy middle-class white dudes like me and talk openly and honestly about race without being denigrated, called out, campaigned against, and castigated as the lower than the lowest scum of the earth, then and only then will the discussion proceed.  When all of the political correctness is cast aside, when the reverse racism is done and over with, then perhaps we'll talk.  Because it seems as soon as we do, someone stands ready to lower the proverbial ton of bricks upon our heads for almost any perceived slight.

And until the race-baiters (e.g., people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) are silenced by public acclamaition, then and only then will we be able to discuss race in a civil manner and without rancour.

And hopefully, blacks will see the problems in their own community and fix them.  And whites can look at their own problems and fix them.  Pick a color - extrapolate.

And then, can we just forget about the color?

Mr. Holder, don't accuse me of something that I am not.  While there certainly are those that are still rascist on all sides of the color line, I believe we live in a time that is far better than in the 50s and 60s and 70s when I grew up.  But to do what you did only raises defenses.

And casts doubts on your ability to be neutral.

Posted by Skip at 6:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I don't even know how to start this post - how else do you explain the expectation of people who want government to do everything for them?  And not see it as a help but as a right?  I saw this when we owned a daycare center and we had welfare parents and their children the State of NH as clients.  Those parents that paid full boat out of their own pocket were very appreciative and would listen when we had suggestions or requests.  Our "State" clients - with the exception of a very few, they were the worst - always demanding and argumentative and never willing to sometimes help their own kids (e.g., sugar cookies for breakfast?  Refusing to bring in a blanket for their child for nap times, saying that THEIR child didn't need one or why the <bleep> didn't we supply one for them??)

Then there is that nitwit Nadya Suleman (she of unmarried status with 6 kids and who just added 8 more).  She's not on welfare - not in her eyes:

The Southern California mother of octuplets receives $490 a month in food stamps and three of her first six children are disabled and receiving federal assistance, her publicist confirmed Monday evening.

Spokesman Michael Furtney said Nadya Suleman did not want to disclose the nature of the disabilities, or the type or sum of the payments.

Furtney confirmed the public assistance payments after two sources told The Los Angeles Times that Suleman was receiving food stamps and federal supplemental security income.

"In her view these are just payments made for people with legitimate needs and are not, in her view, welfare," Furtney said. "She just believes that there are programs for people with needs and she and her children qualify for some of them."

It is this "it's due me / I'm entitled" mentality that, in conjunction with the politicians that pander and enable this outlook that is starting to cause Atlas to Shrug.  Now with over 50% of this country's  citizens no longer paying the freight for the cost of running this country, why would they not be thinking "what will this country next do for me?" instead of saying "what I am going to do for myself and my family"?

"I'm really angry about that," Angela Suleman said of the doctor's decision to perform the procedure. "She already has six beautiful children. Why would she do this? I'm struggling to look after her six. We had to put in bunk beds, feed them in shifts and there's children's clothing piled all over the house."

Angela Suleman said Nadya's boyfriend was the biological father of all 14 children, but that she refused to marry him.

"He was in love with her and wanted to marry her," she said. "But Nadya wanted to have children on her own."

Right. 

Six, plus eight more.  Won't give her kids a real Dad, but is just fine and dandy with you and I paying to indulge her obsession with little kids. 

Another example of someone wanting government to do the work for them? Look at today's Insta-star, Julio who pleaded with Obama how come government isn't going to force McDonald's to give him a better benefit package because he had worked there for 4 long years?

Right.

Tell me, Mr. 19-year-old Edison State College, have you figured out that you are either worth what you are paid (and no more) or that you have failed to educate yourself sufficiently to get a better position either with McD's or elsewhere?  Have you not figured out, from sheer stupidity, that entry level work is a starting place?  And that better compensation is not OWED to you just because of seniority?

Posted by Skip at 7:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Nadya Suleman is the "lady" (sarcastically used) that had 6 kids already and just had that set of octuplets out in Whittier, California.  Unmarried, 33, and broke.  Her self-declared obsession with children put her parents (good souls trying to help her and her children) had to declare bankruptcy last year.

Selfish?  Or sick (like an addict)?

Probably both.  The problem is, because of the real victims here, those little babies, society will end paying the bills (running to millions by the time they are grown IF they all survive).  While this is certainly an outlier, you and I are on the hook for this.

Most of us have the number of kids that we can afford. We look at the future costs, weigh what we think we will have for future earnings, and move forward.  What this case truly brings into focus is whether or not it is ethical for anyone to have more kids than they can afford.  After all, that was one of the major items that welfare reform tried to address - does it make sense to continue to pay unwed or wed mothers additional money for every baby they have?  Yet, there are those that will look at this and see nothing wrong.

Why?  I blame it on the continued break down of morals as we become a more secular society (there are real costs as societies move from a set of absolute values to one of relative moralism) and continue from the other stream of "who are you to judge me!?!?!".  It is a continuation of the relatively new (and very dangerous) trend of having society absorb all bad decisions made by individuals.  The problem is that as we continue to excuse and rationalize these problems away, more and more of it will happen. 

So, when do we get to the tipping point, for as we continue to give a behavior an incentive to continue by funding it, we will get more of it.

Mona Charon has it right:

But movie and sports stars don't do those things, nor even members of Congress these days. Consider Rep. Linda Sanchez, who represents the district in which Suleman lives. She announced last November that she is pregnant, though single. "I don't know how it'll be received," Sanchez told the Los Angeles Times. "I hope people will recognize that to be able to plan that in your life — I don't think that marriage and childbirth are black and white. There are certain instances in which you have to do things in reverse order." Yes, well, she needn't have worried. Everyone was totally understanding. No marriage yet either.

People think the old stigma about unwed childbearing was all about sex. It wasn't. It was about children and what's best for them. Of course some women want babies the way others crave shoes, but babies are not, or at least shouldn't be treated as, consumables. Badly done all around.

Just because someone decides that having babies out of wedlock is not subject to "black and white" means that it is.  What Ms. Sanchez is doing is simply rationalizing her decision to discard providing a father for her child.  In that respect, her decision, although not the same in quantity (or sanity) as Ms. Suleman's, is still the same in quality.  There are good and valid reasons why children need both a Mom and a Dad. 

I grew up with out my Dad because of divorce.  My step-dad and I had problems as I was growing up, some of them severe, so a role model there was lacking (note: as I passed into adulthood and into my own fatherhood, he and I did patch things up and we ended up with a pretty good relationship up until the day he passed away from COPD).

I can tell you that while I may have tried hard, given all of life's circumstances, there were definitely times that I wish I had had a Dad to look back on as I tried to figure out what needed to be done or modeled for my own two sons.  I'd like to think that I got it much more right than not, but I as I look back, there are times that I wish the holes that I can see did not have to happen.

The Bible (Numbers 14:18)talks about the sins of the fathers extending down 3 or 4 generations - while not a "sin", it is a lack.  I can tell you the lessons that I never had the chance to learn also meant that my sons did not have the chance to learn them as well.  

Posted by Skip at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Pelosi as Solomon?

Just got this from the NRCC. Somebody should tell Madame Speaker that concentration camps did wonders for the German economy back in the day, too....

Washington- Just weeks after Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) cast her vote to elect Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, Pelosi made “no apologies” for her intention to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on family planning services to somehow “stimulate” the economy.  Pelosi defended her efforts to include this funding as part of the Democrats’ so-called “stimulus” bill during an interview on Sunday when she appeared on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

Nancy Pelosi “seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.” (Drudge Report, 1/26/09)

The American people are hurting and the economy is in a recession.  So as the Democrats’ record-breaking $825 billion bill is ready to be voted on this week, the voters in New Hampshire deserve to know: Does Carol Shea-Porter agree with Nancy Pelosi that taxpayer-funded contraception will help the economy?

“Now we know what Carol Shea-Porter really meant on the campaign trail when she said she would protect the middle-class,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “Carol Shea-Porter promised to protect New Hampshire’s middle-class values, but now her pick for Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is trying to use taxpayer dollars to pass out birth control in what she calls an attempt to ‘stimulate the economy.’ Middle-class families in New Hampshire are hurting and they need a representative in Congress who will put their needs and values above the agenda of San Francisco liberal Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”

Nancy Pelosi’s defense of spending taxpayer dollars on contraception is just one egregious example of wasteful government spending included in the Democrats' plan that ignores the needs of the middle class.  According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), less than half of the Democrats’ stimulus plan will be spent in the next two years. The legislation contains 152 separate appropriations.  Only 34 line items have estimates in the committee report estimating jobs saved.  117 appropriations have no job saving estimate at all.

House Republicans are on the side of the American taxpayer and have a plan that includes lower and middle-class tax cuts that will deliver fast-acting relief to Americans now and provide the resources to create real jobs. 

 

Posted by Doug at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

From RedState:

• You and your friend are flying to Myrtle Beach to do some golfing. Sounds like fun; have a good time!
• Oops! Your regular carrier cancels your flight! Well, that’s all right: they get you a flight on another airline. So, you fly off…
• …and your plane promptly loses both engines because of a flock of what were likely geese*. And, oh, look, there’s the Hudson River.
• Fortunately, your captain today is Chesley B. Sullenberger III, who proceeds to demonstrate that he’s just that good. So you manage to actually walk away from a forced water landing in the middle of winter. Don’t buy any more lottery tickets, by the way - and look both ways while crossing the street from now on. You’ve used up your quota of luck for a while.
• All of this means that you never actually make it to Myrtle Beach.
• And so, when you eventually get around to calling your original carrier to cancel your return trip, guess what happens?
  

That’s right! Spirit Airlines charges you a $90 cancellation fee! See also here.

I have flown hundreds of thousands of miles - never have I run into anything as bizarre as what happened to these folks, especially at the tail end of the episode with a cancellation fee! 

Things have gotten worse for fliers since I started in the early 1980's - from being treated as a person, now most passengers would agree that the flying experience is not much different than riding a bus with wings; I am glad that my position right now does not require trips away from home.

But even with the hard times and the search for squeezing every dime to save the biz does not give Spirit the lame excuse to charge a $90 fee....

Posted by Skip at 9:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This at MichelleMalkin's caught my eye:

Followed the link on Spike Lee's picture to this by Mark Finkelstein at Finkelblog:

Spike Lee: God Ordained Financial Crisis To Ensure Obama Victory

I guess this lets those evil Wall Street speculators off the hook . . .

Spike Lee has declared that God himself ordained the financial crisis to happen when it did in order to propel Barack Obama to victory.  The film director offered his odd analysis on today’s Morning Joe . . . but not before declaring that tomorrow’s inauguration will be “the most important day in the history of the United States of America.”

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Let’s talk about tomorrow.  What are you looking for?

SPIKE LEE: I think it’s going to be one of — I think it’s going to be the most important day in the history of the United States of America. I was able to finagle a good seat for my wife Kai and I, so I don’t really want to try to guess how I’m going to feel, but it’s going to be something deep and profound. Thank God I’m going to be able to witness with my own four eyes tomorrow. 

Important?  From the fact that the first black President will be sworn in.  From my perspective, once done, it over.  To me, the important part then is the policies he puts forward and not his skin color.  In fact, as far as I'm concerned, his skin color doesn't matter at all.  

As the holder of the Office of the President, he will have my loyal respect as the current President of the United States.  And I will also oppose, as part of the fairly vocal Loyal Opposition, any policy he promotes that goes against my core beliefs.

BTW, I can think of a few more:

• The day when the first Founding Father first plotted for these formerly British colonies to be free
  
• The day of the Signing of the Declaration of Independance
• Winning the Revolutionary War
• Putting the Constitution and First Articles of the Bill of Rights into force of Law
• Winning the War of 1812
• The Civil War ending with the Union not split asunder
• Winning World War II
• Winning the Cold War 

Posted by Skip at 8:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This past Tuesday morning, leaving central NH about 3:30am, I took the Youngest back to Logan to fly back to his base in GA.  TMEW and I both gave him the obligatory (and heartfelt) kiss and hug goodbye and the usual admonition to "stay safe" (this to a guy who is excited, if he passes AIT, who will be going to Air Assault school to learn to rappel out of helicopters - the Australian technique is to go head first).

And of course, we asked "have everything".  Normal response - "yes, Dad" in that ever so special "I'm not a moron, Dad" way.  Good attention to detail, Son.

Got home in time to go to work and cleaned out the car - and there was his green knit cap.  Part of his uniform.  So, I called him - and his response was, in that "Dad, I'm a moron!" fashion,  to PLEASE Next Day the hat. And no, as a recruit just having passed Basic, he would not have time to go to the PX to replace it. And if he didn't have it, no one else in his platoon would be allowed to wear one either.  And while it is warmer there than here in NH, it's still chilly - his lapse will not go over well at all.

For the sin of the one, the many will suffer.  And suffer they will (according to the panic in his voice).  Which means, he may suffer later and more and not just from the Drill Sgts.  Oh, he will have learned his lesson; never again will he forget that hat.  He has also learned that "attention to detail" actually means something and that HE is responsible for his decisions.

That's the thing about the military that I think is right.  No, not the emphasis on the extremely petty, but on learning attention to detail, as that detail may later save his and his mates later on when it really counts.  Small things teach him to THINK, to REASON - WHY is this important?  And that you have to be responsible for himself and the well being (especially in combat, where he is headed).

And that has been one of the hallmarks of the American military fighting man - the ability to observe, evaluate, adjust, and carry on and not (a la Soviet style) merely take orders.

And yes, shame is used as a tool. And rightfully so.

Lessons that traditionally have been the hallmark of society - grow up, be responsible, and know that decisions have consequences....

Continue reading "For the sin of one, many pay the price" »

Posted by Skip at 10:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Imagine some future archaeologist finding in the remains of a lost civilization the following remnants of an email from a remarkably well-preserved hard drive:

What: 36th Roe v. Wade Anniversary Gala
When: January 27, 2009, 5:30 - 8:00 pm
Where: Capitol Center for the Arts, Concord, New Hampshire

Come join us in celebrating the ground-breaking Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade with honoring pro-choice elected officials, women's studies professors and students, and community members all dedicated to renewing their commitment to CHOICE!

Of course, being the knowledgeable expert, the discoverer is aware that, for this long-collapsed society, "choice" meant killing babies. "What barbarians," the archaelogist thinks to himself. "And to 'celebrate' such acts at a 'gala' hosted in one of the finest buildings of the former capitol city!"

Why? Why would people, beyond the mere fact that they were murdering babies in the womb, go out of their way to have an event CELEBRATING that fact in one of the most elegant and expensive venues around? In the normal course of events, as the archaeologist knows, murder is just plain wrong. How could a society calling itself "civilized" allow such a thing? A society that looked further back than itself and called this wrong:

Then turned around and CELEBRATED this:

Is it any wonder that such a misguided society ultimately fell?

Posted by Doug at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Changes in individuals reflect back to society, and reflect back to individuals.  Not a hard concept to grasp.  The problems that may occur when traditional social mores are cast aside may be worse than the "original" problem (if, indeed, it was one in the beginning).  From City Journal:

...I experienced other instances of this modesty. I used to pass the time of day with the husband of an elderly patient of mine who would accompany her to the hospital. One day, I found him so jaundiced that he was almost orange. At his age, it was overwhelmingly likely to mean one thing: inoperable cancer. He was dying. He knew it and I knew it; he knew that I knew it. I asked him how he was. “Not very well,” he said. “I’m very sorry to hear that,” I replied. “Well,” he said quietly, and with a slight smile, “we shall just have to do the best we can, won’t we?” Two weeks later, he was dead.

I often remember the nobility of this quite ordinary man’s conduct and words. He wanted an appropriate, but only an appropriate, degree of commiseration from me; in his view, which was that of his generation and culture, it was a moral requirement that emotion and sentiment should be expressed proportionately, and not in an exaggerated or self-absorbed way. My acquaintance with him was slight; therefore my regret, while genuine, should be slight. (Oddly enough, my regret has grown over the years, with the memory.) Further, he considered it important that he should not embarrass me with any displays of emotion that might discomfit me. A man has to think of others, even when he is dying...

...Gradually, but overwhelmingly, the culture and character of British restraint have changed into the exact opposite. Extravagance of gesture, vehemence of expression, vainglorious boastfulness, self-exposure, and absence of inhibition are what we tend to admire now—and the old modesty is scorned. It is as if the population became convinced of Blake’s fatuous dictum that it is better to strangle a baby in the cradle than to let a desire remain unacted upon.

Certainly, many Britons under the age of 30 or even 40 now embrace a kind of sub-psychotherapeutic theory that desires, if not unleashed, will fester within and eventually manifest themselves in dangerous ways. To control oneself for the sake of the social order, let alone for dignity or decorum (a word that would either mean nothing to the British these days, or provoke peals of laughter), is thus both personally and socially harmful...

Continue reading ""From self-restraint to self-indulgence" - changing society" »

Posted by Skip at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I just got this in the email from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. He rightfully notes we should remember that there is One of a higher authority than any person, no matter how important:

We are in transition in Washington these days. The sitting President isn't sitting much. George W. Bush is determined to "finish sprinting." We wish him well and we thank him and his family for what he has accomplished and what he has been willing to endure to keep our nation safe and free.

These days most people are focused, understandably, on the words and deeds of the incoming President. As the new administration of Barack Obama takes shape, we will certainly have much to say.

Political power has always attracted attention. The people's eyes naturally go to the wielder of the sword and the scepter. It was so in Biblical times. The Gospel of Luke tells us that "a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed." The Roman Empire was vast in those days. It stretched from Britain in the north, to Spain and Portugal in the west, deep into Africa and Egypt in the south, and as far east as modern-day Syria. Caesar Augustus ruled all of this territory and the teeming millions who inhabited it.

Rome needed increased revenues, and Caesar knew how to get it. He first ordered that a census be conducted. He wanted a head count in order to apportion the amounts of money each provincial governor-like Cyrenius, governor of Syria-would be required to raise.

 

Continue reading ""more important than all the Caesars..."" »

Posted by Doug at 7:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We were told that America is hated in the world because of George Bush's penchant for what was called "cowboy diplomacy" - the go-it-alone, self-confident, assured that if anything can done, America can do it.  After all, we are the world's Sheriff, right?

And once he was replaced by Obama, the entire world was just going to love us again!  Sweetness and light, all kumbaya drum-circle time for all the nations.  We would just be one of equals, and not just the one superpower.  Diplomacy, those sweet words to soothe all savage beasts, would rule the day. After all:

Throughout his campaign, Mr. Obama reiterated the popular liberal notions that America is hated throughout the world, and this hatred is all because of President Bush, and once Bush is out of the White House the world will love America again. In his famous speech from Berlin last summer, Obama claimed that both Americans and Europeans need to follow the example set by “the vast majority of Muslims” who seek peace throughout the world. And his campaign promise to deliver a speech in an Islamic capitol was thought to be the ultimate gesture of tolerance and acceptance, the ultimate celebration of diversity, that would finally bridge the gap between the Muslim world and civilized society.

So, who is throwing around the accusatory "cowboy" moniker at our President again?  Our great international friend, Iran.

OOPS!  Umm, er, how come it isn't Bush's name being used????  Is something not going as planned?

Iran accuses Barack Obama of 'cowboy talk'

Iran's conservative parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani has branded US President-Elect Barack Obama's comments on Tehran's nuclear activities as "cowboy" talk, the ISNA news agency reported.

"These comments resemble those of old American cowboys. If you have something to say about (Iran's) nuclear issue, just say so. Why wave a stick," asked Mr Larijani, in a speech in Qazvin province.

"The new US president has said he wants to pressure Iran since it seeks to produce atomic weapons and because it supports the terrorists like Hamas and Hizbollah," he added.

In an interview broadcast on Sunday, Mr Obama vowed "tough but direct diplomacy" with Iran, offering incentives along with the threat of tougher sanctions over its atomic programme.

And I thought Obama said that "strong diplomacy" would solve all problems?  I did wonder about that supposition, given that Germany, France, and Britain have been trying on their own for the last 5 years to get Iran to stop - all with just diplomacy - words!  Even some "enticements" (hey, stop, and we'll give you stuff!).  Words and bribes - Yup, that's worked out real well so far.

Surely, Obama is going to do something way different (being the Obamessiah, all he has to do is "speak the words", right)?

As president from January 20, Mr Obama said he would make clear to Tehran that the nuclear program was "unacceptable," along with support of Hamas and Hizbollah and its "threats against Israel."

Mr Obama, whose offer of direct talks with Iran represents a break with three decades of US foreign policy, promised a "set of carrots and sticks in changing their calculus about how they want to operate."

Three days ago, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Hassan Ghashghavi said "the carrot and stick approach has proven to be useless."

Er, not so much...

Welcome to the real world, Mr. Obama, where sometimes, the singular truth is true - they hate us not for our leaders but because of who we are and what we espouse - freedom, not tyranny; self-rule vs "their rule"; all religions vs "their religion"; you can keep filling in more examples.

Posted by Skip at 4:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Vox Day has a strong column:

In Minnesota, 100,000 Somalis now live amidst the German and Scandinavian Lutherans that bravely, and perhaps unwisely, chose to settle the land of Ten Thousand Mosquito Factories. Last week, one of those Somalis, Shirwa Ahmed, was buried in Burnsville, his remains having been returned from Somalia subsequent to his murder of 29 people in a suicide bombing there. He was described by the media as "a Minnesotan and a naturalized U.S. citizen."

The truth is that he was neither, and to pretend otherwise is to accept the legal fiction that national and cultural identity are nothing more than paper. An official document stating that the color of one's eyes are blue does not suffice make them blue when they are observably brown, and Shirwa Ahmed was no more Minnesotan than Vineeta Gupta is English. A genuine Minnesotan might consider digging up the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field, (actually, a proper porphyrogenite would be much more keen to blow up the wretched Hump and see the Vikes playing outside in the snow again where they belong), but the thought of attempting to kill large quantities of people in Somalia would simply never enter his mind.

Whenever anyone points out the undeniable fact that multiculturalism is a cancer slowly killing Western culture, it is customary for left liberals to angrily demand to know why that individual hates people from other cultures. But one need not hate anyone to prefer the continued existence of one's culture and society. A much more relevant question should be directed at the proponents of multiculturalism and immigration: Why do you hate Western society so much that you wish to see it destroyed?

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

Liberals hate to have the word "accountability" applied to them as well as the results of their policies. After all, if a cost / benefits and results oriented review of programs paid by taxpayer dollars were done on a regular basis, I bet many would be discontinued in a flash.

Sometimes, it isn't about the money - it's about the signal government gives to others? An example?  Here's one sent to the most vulnerable amongst us - school kids.  I just saw a bit on Fox News where a Superintendent Bernard Taylor in Grand Rapids no longer wants to hold his students accountable for flunking (more here).

My thought?  This is just another attempt of a liberal society to mitigate bad decisions.  While nobody like to wish ill (for the most part) on others, there are times when people have to fail in order to learn to do better.  In fact, many of our real successful people (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Henry Ford, Abraham Lincoln) failed multiple times before obtaining success.  Eliminating that outcome can only cause society to fail later on.

And now, we have some experimental evidence that failure, and holding freeloaders accountable for their failure, works to self-correct that problem:

The threat of punishment actually does stamp out freeloaders, tending to transform them into rule-following members of a society, a new study suggests.

The research results show how established norms and rules in a society could keep freeloaders in check and increase pro-social behavior, such as helping others or sharing with them rather than looking out for number one.

In the past, studies have found that while punishing freeloaders can increase their cooperation with others, the punishment itself was too costly and in the end, punishment wouldn't be worth it. These past studies were based on short-term effects, however.

The new study shows that over the long term, punishment gets ingrained in people's psyches in a way that causes them to fear getting into trouble. This fear can keep otherwise freeloaders, who would normally act as sponges to soak up the generosity of others without having to contribute any time or money, on the straight-and-narrow.

The research will be published in the Dec. 5 issue of the journal Science.

Liberals tend to blame everything under the sun for the sins of transgressors (hey, they'll love that bit too!).  Society is at fault, poverty is the problem, bad education, horrible parents, uncaring this, that, and the other thing - everything other than the problem person.  Everyone and everything is held accountable except for the person who has failed.

It's nice to see, even in a limited experiment, that what seems to be common sense, really is commonsensical.

Posted by Skip at 7:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm not a big fan of tats; I guess I just don't "get it" as to the "tribal" collective ("hey, I've got one too!") need for them.  I'll admit - I have this fascination with watching Miami Ink or L.A. Ink, or when body art documentaries are on - I'll never get one myself but I can appreciate the talent that it takes to create "artistic" tatoos (as opposed to the simple "asian" character ones). 

But this?  I think this person has pretty much taken himself out of the running for a "front line" contact position.  He may be the greatest person in the world with the best manner (alright, this IS an arrest mug shot - mostly likely, he's not).

So, what's your opinion?  Am I misguided in believing that he has self selected himself out of the job market?

(H/T: The Smoking Gun via Boortz)

Posted by Skip at 8:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Here is an interesting story that is making the rounds. I first found out about this from our friend Bill S. via an email. I'm guessing he discovered LiveAction last night on O'Reilly:

BLOOMINGTON, IN, December 3 –- New footage released today from an undercover camera inside an abortion clinic in Bloomington shows Planned Parenthood staff deliberately violating the state's mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse.

The footage shows Lila Rose, a UCLA student journalist and president of right-to-life advocacy group Live Action, posing as a 13-year-old girl. In an appointment with a Planned Parenthood nurse, Rose says she has been impregnated by a 31-year-old man, a clear case of child molestation under Indiana state law.

On tape, the nurse acknowledges her responsibility to report the abuse, but assures Rose she will not. The nurse says, "I am supposed to report to Child Protective Services," but tells Rose, "Okay, I didn't hear the age [of the 31-year-old]. I don't want to know the age."

She then instructs Rose how to obtain a secret abortion by crossing state lines in order to avoid Indiana's parental consent law. The nurse also coaches Rose to cover for the 31-year-old man by saying he is only 14. She says, "You've seen him around, you know he's 14, he's in your grade and whatever. You know what I mean."

Rose said she and other students in Live Action recorded the video over the summer in a multi-state investigation of the abortion industry. Rose described the undercover audit, called The Mona Lisa Project, as "demonstrating the routine lawlessness of abortion providers at Planned Parenthood." Rose noted, "Today's video release is only a sample from many hours of similarly disturbing footage."

Planned Parenthood, a tax-exempt nonprofit, made over $100 million in profits last year and has a billion-dollar budget, nearly a third of which comes from taxpayers through government funding.

Jackie Stollar, student president of a Live Action chapter in Oregon, accompanied Rose on the investigation. "In a repeated pattern, Planned Parenthood has violated the public trust. It should have its government funding revoked," she said. "During an economic crisis, can the government really spare $300 million to support such an unethical organization?"

"The Mona Lisa Project demonstrates how quickly the abortion industry's disrespect for unborn children becomes disregard for all humans," Rose explained. "Planned Parenthood offers no solutions for the victim of statutory rape—they give her an abortion and a bag of condoms and send her straight back into the arms of the abuser."

I am thrilled to see young people so passionate and involved in the protection of innocent life. Live Action's website announces who they are and what their mission is all about:

We are a youth led human rights movement dedicated to the respect and protection of all human life including the unborn. We use new media and educational presentations to share the truth about life and the threats to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness posed against the born and unborn.

Good for them. It's great to see them making such good use of the modern technological tools available to ordinary people. And I'm glad that Bill O'Reilly has presented this group's activities to America at large. Click here to see more of their undercover films. I wonder what such an undercover "sting" might reveal if they were to visit our local teen clinics as discussed in this prior posting? These are just kids, for God's sake!!!

Posted by Doug at 3:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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 (7) | 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 (3) | 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