Question of the Day

Would you want your tax preparer to have been caught cheating on his or her taxes?

Transparency in Legislation

The link that follows should concern each and every citizen.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Congressional-leaders-fight-against-posting-bills-online-8340658-63557217.html#

What is generally the case if someone is asking you to agree to something or sign a contract without allowing you to read the associated documents or study the agreement? Dishonesty. Corruption. It is simple.

This is not a plague reserved for only the current administration. This is rampant at all levels of government, within all parties, without exception. It has to stop.

William J.H. Boetcker, 1916

The Ten Cannots:

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

Well said

"I'm a Marine Corps vet. And, like you, I did swear an oath to defend my Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. ... Now, I heard you say tonight ... that you're going to let us keep our health insurance. Well, thank you. It's not your right to decide whether or not I keep my current plan or not. That's my decision. ... I've heard recently in the media you and some other people on the national political stage call us 'brown shirts' because we oppose [government health care]. ... A little history lesson: The Nazis were the National Socialist Party. They were leftists. They took over the finance. They took over the car industry. They took over health care in that country. If Nancy Pelosi wants to find a swastika, maybe the first place she should look is the sleeve of her own arm. ... What I want to know is, as a Marine, as a disabled veteran that served this country, I've kept my oath. Do you ever intend to keep yours?" --Marine Corps vet David Hedrick at a town hall meeting in Clark County, Washington, speaking (with resounding applause) to Democrat Rep. Brian Baird

Exactly.

Liberty is Responsibility

I'm compelled to write that I'm concerned about ever-growing encroachments on my liberty and freedom.

That's right, it's mine. My freedom does not belong to any representative, congressman, justice, czar, general, or president. But, without my direct involvement, they will act as if it did.

Over time, a long time, time before I was born, time before my parents were born, my freedom has been slowly, incrementally removed. Sometimes, it has happened under the guise of security. Sometimes, under the veil of safety.

Until recently, I didn't think of it. I took my freedom as a human for granted, probably because I had never seen any of it physically removed. But more and more, the slow, incremental reduction in freedom is turning to bold, in-your-face attempts at removal. I am concerned to the point that action is called for.

If you see something on the web, read something in the paper, or see something on TV that you're not sure of, that sounds in opposition to our nation's fundamentals, do something. Call your senator. Call your representative. Ask them to explain to you the issue. Ask them to tell you their thoughts on the topic. Then tell them yours. Call your friends and family. Discuss these issues, no matter the difference of opinion. Discussion and constructive debate drive optimal results.

We can no longer sit by, apathetically watching our liberty being taken. We are blessed with a system in which we have the ability to participate. No, it's not an ability, it is a responsibility.

Thoughts on Our form of Representative Government

"Congressmen (and women), with due apologies to F. Scott Fitzgerald, are different from you and me. Privilege makes them soft where life teaches the prudent to be hard, cynical where their constituents must be trustful. The congressional entitlement to privilege, wrought not by talent or inheritance but by legislation, explains the typical congressman's blindness to tint and deafness to tone, revealed in the angry 'town hall' confrontations over health care legislation. Instead of reassuring frightened constituents, Democratic congressmen (and women) denounce the voters who sent them to Washington as Nazis, Brown Shirts and the 'un-American.' Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate Democrats, calls the critics 'evil-mongers.' Congress is dead to anything outside the bubble it has created for itself. ... The rage at the town halls is particularly irksome because congressmen are not accustomed to anyone talking back to them." --Washington Times editor emeritus Wesley Pruden

These Town Hall meetings are exactly how our republic is supposed to function, and the reaction by some representatives to passionate opposition should make it clear they are out of touch. If they were so opposed by well-connected lobbyist groups, I'm sure the reaction would be different.

Regardless of your stance on Universal Health Care, you should be concerned, if not appalled, at the behaviour of some of your elected officials. I am.

Inalienable Right...

To Healthcare? There is currently a push to have everyone in the US receive healthcare insurance. Let's put the cost of this, the track record of other government health care systems, and the regulations that currently bind up our private healthcare system aside, and answer this question:

Do you have a right to healthcare?

Question of the Day

I apologize for the abscence of posts lately, and I really have no excuse. Now, though, the question of the day:

What is patriotism?

Thought of the Day

"Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it." --Jewish philosopher Maimonides (1135-1204)

Our British Allies...in more than one sense

Why does it take Bishop Nazir-Ali to tell us how it really is?

Last updated at 7:16 PM on 31st May 2008

By Peter Hitchens

Why is it that nobody in our own elite actually likes or understands this country or its people or its traditions?

Why did we have to wait for Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, born and raised in Muslim Pakistan, to remind us that, as he put it, ‘the beliefs, values and virtues of Great Britain have been formed by the Christian faith’?

Just as important, why did we have to wait for him to urge us to do something about restoring that faith before we either sink into a yelling chaos of knives, fists and boots, or swoon into the strong, implacable arms of Islam?

Most of our homegrown prelates are more interested in homosexuality or in spreading doubt about the gospel or urging the adoption of Sharia law.

Then again, why did it take the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, to explain to us that our parliamentary system was the best guarantee of liberty in the world and to remind us of the courage and valour of our people in war?

This is not what British leaders say or even think, not least because they are busy pulling the constitution to pieces.

It is not what our children are taught in schools.

In fact, any expression of national pride is viewed with suspicion by the state, by the education system and above all by the BBC.

It was not always so.

Half a century ago, we had churchmen, broadcasters, academics and military men who thought it normal to love their own country, normal to support the Christian faith which made us what we are, and were willing to defend it.

The question of what happened in the years between is one of the most interesting in history.

We know, thanks to their endless memoirs and the dramas about them, that this country’s foreign and intelligence services were maggoty with Communist penetration.
I am sometimes tempted to wonder if the same organisation targeted both political parties (especially the Unconservatives), the Church of England, the BBC, the Civil Service, the legal profession and the universities.

The Communist leader Harry Pollitt certainly urged his supporters back in the Forties to hide their true views and work their way into the establishment.

An organised conspiracy could not have done much more damage than whatever did happen.

We have a country demoralised in every sense, its people robbed of their own pride, its children deprived of stability and authority, terrifyingly ignorant of their own culture, its tottering economy largely owned from abroad, its armed forces weak, its justice system a sick joke, its masses distracted by pornography, drink and drugs, its constitution menaced, its elite in the grip of a destructive, intolerant atheism.

Ripe, in fact, for a foreign takeover.

The article above is written by Peter Hitchens for the Daily Mail of the UK. As an experiment, when you read it for a second time now, replace all reference to Britain with the USA. You'll find it eerily close in the result.

Aside from references to weak armed forces and Communist conspiracies and espionage, that is remarkably close to the situation we find ourselves in here in the US. What's the significance of that? I won't try to define it, but it warrants some thought.

Question of the Day #3

Have you ever owed someone money, but they wouldn't let you pay it back? What are normally the intentions of someone who won't let another repay their debts?

Now, imagine someone loaned you a large sum of money. And they gave you this money whether you wanted it or not. The funds they are using actually come from a group of investors. They also do the same thing for several other people. You're not really sure how to take this; it's made apparent that you will have to pay the money back, but you don't know when or at what rate of interest. Then, the person loaning the money decides that one of the others they loaned to isn't using the money wisely, and they take control of the decision-making for that person. Now, you start getting concerned that they'll do the same to you. So, you contact the person that loaned you the money and try to pay them back, but they won't let you. Why would they do that?

If you haven't yet made the connection, I'm trying to illustrate what seems to be going on with the bail-out, or stimulus money, given to banks, financial organizations, and auto companies. So, here's what I want answered:

Why wouldn't the government allow companies receiving money in bail-out or stimulus form to repay the loan as soon as possible?

Expressing displeasure well beyond taxes on tea...

Today there will be hundreds of peaceful protests in our country regarding government spending and the levying of unwanted, and in many cases, unconstitutional taxes. To find a site near you, check here http://taxdayteaparty.com/.

I read a very insightful article this morning on these protests. It's worth reading when you have time, as it points out some key, and exciting, differences going on behind this movement. Find the article here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975867505519363.html.

Let's all remember one thing: this is our country, not the government's country. They are elected, by us, to represent us and our views when decisions are to be made. These protests are a good way to let your view be known, but they aren't and shouldn't be the only way. Find new ways to voice yourself. It makes a difference.

Three Relevant Definitions

UPDATE: Additional definition...

Capitalism - An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. The social system associated with capitalism is based on the principle of individual rights.

Fascism - A social and political ideology with the primary guiding principle that the state or nation is the highest priority, rather than personal or individual freedoms.

Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Communism - A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Words and Actions have consequences

Follow the link below to an opinion article highlighting the differences in the American Revolution and the French Revolution, what the important facets and outcomes were of each, and the dangerous path we are treading as a nation...

http://www.patriotpost.us/opinion/ben-shapiro/2009/04/08/the-second-french-revolution.html

What is moral?

Below is a great insight into some of our nation's problems as given by Walter E. Williams, George Mason University economics professor. He makes a valuable point in regard to what is or isn't morally right. Don't be fooled by the politically-blurred lines of "equal" and "moral."


"Most of our nation's great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values. Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality. ... Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends. ...[That] is because they are sly enough to know that either answer would be troublesome for their agenda. A yes answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind's most horrible injustices such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A no answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget. There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have a moral obligation to pay our share of the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of the federal government. ...[But] now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral." --George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams

Construe the Constitution?

Below is a short piece posted today on Patriotpost.com:

"According to Harold Koh, Obama's nominee for the State Department's legal adviser and considered a possible future Obama Supreme Court pick, Shariah law (i.e., Islamic law) may properly be used to determine certain court cases. That's just one of Koh's off-the-wall positions. A former dean of Yale Law School, Koh is a proponent of what's called a "transnational legal process," which equates our constitutional process with laws instituted in other nations. That's akin to accepting the currency of Zimbabwe (where a loaf of bread can cost billions) at a 1-to-1 ratio for our dollar -- discounting the administration's best efforts to match Zimbabwean hyperinflation. Koh believes that it's "appropriate for the Supreme Court to construe our Constitution in the light of foreign and international law" in its decisions, regardless of the will of American voters...."

Really? Construe the Constitution in light of other entity's laws? Welcome to the United States of the United Nations of America, or something to that affect. This is asanign. Would a referee in a football game consult or view the occurences in the span of one play in light of the rules of basketball? Before you write off that comparison, consider this man's example: Shariah law. No matter what comparison used, the laws of the USA should not be observed or enforced in light of anything other than themselves. I'm sure this is not the first time this has been uttered from one of our honorable "law interpreters," and it will not be the last. Just be aware of this...

Reality Check?

I was talking to a person very knowledgable in the areas of history and government the other day, and I was confronted with a question:

Am I taking some of the current events in our government, our country, and society in general too seriously?

I will admit that I am only recently becoming knowledgable enough in this arena to have an opinion on the topics, and this is contributing to my new-found interest. The well-aimed point was brought to my attention that this is all a bunch of party politics - where our government is concerned - and that it will all be reversed the next time a conservative is in office. Let me say now that I am not a member of any party, but I am conservative by nature. I also believe that the founders of our nation had many things dead right from the onset.

This is going to seem like a rambling and disjointed entry, but I'm looking for some perspective here.

How critical or long-term do you feel are the changes being implemented, or offered for implementation, in our government? I'm referring to the expansion of government in areas of business, markets, education, and health care. Are they things that will be repealed, removed, or retracted during the next conservative administration? Or, are they the "foundational" and "fundamental" changes to our country that Obama and his administration have been referring to, and therefore a permanent change? Please post your thoughts to the comments section...

Inject a bit of History

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45

Human Responsibility

I can start this for us.
What are we responsible for as humans?

• Living and striving to walk the right Path
• Our own well-being and that of our families
• Loving our neighbors
• Kindness, love, and service for those in need
• Avoiding any harm of others
• Mutual respect of others
• Neither enacting nor allowing any form of tyranny or domination
• Our actions - all of them
• Peaceful resolution of conflicts whenever possible
• Respecting and conserving our surroundings and resources

Excepting the first two, this list is not in any particular order. I can not claim to uphold all of these without fail, only that I attempt to. I am and will be accountable for them, nonetheless.

I think many of these are universal - if not all of them. Some come from the Bible, some from historic documents, and some from plain, common sense. Regardless of where or when I've learned or adopted these, I believe that humans are responsible for these things.

With responsibility should come accountability - otherwise, there is no check on whether or not things are done.
As always, I invite comments and discussion here. But remember, mutual respect...

Question of the Day #2

What are we as humans responsible for, and therefor accountable for doing or being? Post thoughts to comments...

Question of the Day #1

Many times when I listen to the radio, watch the news, or read articles on the web, I am confronted with a question. They come in an assortment of topics and complexities. I would like to get some thoughts from others on these same questions. So, I'm starting a question-of-the-day blog, one that will be a recurring event. To start us off:

What are we entitled to as human beings? (Choose your own context...) Post thoughts to the comments section.

Either way you're inclined to think...

"Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood." --John Adams