Public policy corrupting personal character

The idea of having a "strong work ethic" has long been held to be a virtue. Diligence, industriousness, reliability, self-reliance have been esteemed for millennia as marks of both good character and good citizenship. As the Bible says, "He who does not work should not eat." Over the years, I have known a significant number of people who have lost a job and gone on unemployment. Every last one of them stayed on unemployment until about two weeks before it ran out. They then went out and got a job. Perhaps there are some who genuinely cannot find work for a protracted period of time. And perhaps we could have a discussion about the morality of the government helping these people out with cash payments. But this business of subsidizing indolence needs to stop. It is corrupting of good character and perpetuates dependency on the Mommy State.

Come on liberals, get real.

I heard some female liberal hack on Fox News a few nights ago saying that spending all this money on infrastructure will add jobs, because how can people get to work with all these crumbling roads and bridges? Now let's get real. I might agree that we need to make some significant investments on road and bridge repair. My state, Pennsylvania, has had an on-going plan for repairing all bridges for quite some time, so why we now need the federal government to butt in, I don't know. Regardless of the current needs, as one who has been all over this country, I have yet to see a place where Americans could not get to work because of the disrepair of roads and bridges (not withstanding the collapsed bridge in Minneapolis, which was due to shoddy workmanship). If these people are going to argue for their side, they ought to at least stay within the realm of realism. I guess this is just another way of trying to make the America Obama inherited from Bush seem like little more than a third-world nation.

Savior and Lord

The Bible describes Jesus Christ as both Savior and Lord. This is because, in order to save us, He must have the authority to tell us what to do. It is as though we are in a burning building and He can get us out only if we listen to Him and obey Him scrupulously. This is why Hebrews 5:9 describes Him as "the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him." Conversely, if a person will not listen to Jesus and submit to His instructions, he is on his own. Of course, Jesus does not impose Himself on anyone. His lordship and salvation are only for the willing.

This principle plays out in the political world as well. The only way a leader can be a savior of the people is by controlling them. If they are left to do as they please, the leader’s ability to impact their lives and the life of the nation is greatly restricted. This was the Founders’ antidote to tyranny. Each man was to be self-governing as he pursued his own brand of life, liberty, and happiness. The government only stepped in to control those who through criminal conduct were inhibiting the freedom of the citizenry.

Mr. Obama has put himself forward as a savior figure, saying that he will usher in a new age of hope and change which will be superior to every pervious generation. His message is clearly messianic in scope and tone. This is why he is a man to be greatly feared. As H. L. Mencken said, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."

Trash

This is how the green, eco-conscious, Obama-loving liberals left our nation's capital. Watch this incredible video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMrJE7J3fWU

The Pledge

I swear, this trivial little video is really heartbreaking. You've probably seen it. It features a bunch of "celebrities" pledging - as a way to support Obama - to do all sorts of things both big and small, all, presumably, aimed at making the world a better place. The link is here:
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86695

The pledges, of course, are empty and meaningless and most of those making these pledges are not and never will be in a position to actually realize them. What's heartbreaking is that they're all almost dewy-eyed with patriotism and love of country now that they've elected a person whose politics they agree with (to the extent anyone really knows where Obama stands on anything). So, implicitly, they're only Americans when a democrat is in office.

Where were they, though, when President Bush was all alone, heaving his guts out in the dark of night, wracked by guttural sobs that only Laura saw and heard, because of the decisions he had to make to keep these "pledgers" safe and free? Where were they? I'll tell you. They were doing everything they could to make his life as miserable, as isolated, as difficult as possible. They were doing everything they could to belittle him and ridicule him in the eyes of the world, extending not one single shred of human decency, not one single solitary drop of the milk of human kindness to sustain him.

Shame, I say.

It's an ugly spectacle, really. And the antithesis of patriotism (That is, a patriot doesn't get to choose when and when not to love his country.)

The spirit of true American patriotism

"I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon—if I can. I seek opportunity—not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations, and to face the world boldly and say, this I have done. All this is what it means to be an American." ~ Dean Alfange

Myth superceding reality

Why restrict ourselves to historical reality when the myth everyone wants to believe is so much more exciting? For example, Mr. Obama seems to bask in the idea of being identified with Lincoln, the man who in many ways acted more like a dictator than a president; the man who presumed he could supercede the rule of law with a presidential decree (the Emancipation Proclamation); the man who imprisoned over 13,000 private citizens without charging them with a crime...simply because they were critical of his regime; the man who thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court when he disagreed with its decision; the man who conducted the most vicious and reprehensible kind of war against 5,000,000 of his fellow Americans, destroying their homes and land, and leaving them in a state of utter devastation. OK, there may be grounds for comparison.

As we know, the Great Emancipator emancipated no one. His proclamation only applied to the states that had seceded, not the states he had actual governance over. Furthermore, his proclamation was issued primarily to demoralize the South and to keep France and England from becoming her allies. As a matter of personal belief, Lincoln never envisioned an integrated nation. In 1858 he stated, "There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which...will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality." His plan was to free the slaves so they could be deported to the Carribean or Africa. So if this is who Mr. Obama wants to identify himself with, then so be it. But let us all beware.

A new declaration?

So our new president says this country needs a new declaration of independence. Presumably and implicitly, that old 18th century document just doesn't cut it anymore.

So what's this new manifesto to contain? Well, the messiah says we need to declare independence from ideology, small thinking, prejudice and bigotry.

Let's set aside for a moment the utter banality of this statement and just translate it into English. What the one is saying is that he wants us to be free from the ideology of the right (his political philosophy, of course, isn't ideology; it's just an expression of the way every normal person thinks). Ideology, by their definition, can only be conservative.

So sure, let's get rid of that. And of course, the same is true for all the other things we need to be free of: Small thinking? That's the kind of thinking that disagrees with me! Bigotry and prejudice? Only white males can be guilty of these things (again, by definition) so of course we want to be free of them.. . . and them?

There is no end to this man's arrogance, foolishness, and cynicism. he's obviously a narcissist; I believe he goes beyond that to megalomania.

The Height of Hypocricy

"The great and swift decline in America's influence is one of the most important motivations for Israelis to wage such a barbaric attack on Gaza, in a bid to try and make use of the last days of Bush's mandate and the neo-conservatives." So says Osama Ben Laden, promoter and financial backer of the barbaric attack on 9/11, which killed nearly 3000 people.

Atlas Shrugged is here!

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls." (Stephen Moore, Wall Street Journal, January 9, 2009)

They're Already Acting Like Stalin!

Obama hasn't even taken office and he and his gang are acting like the Stalinists they are. This is especially noticeable in the way they are treating each other. Mr. Burris is appointed by a sitting governor, in accordance with the Illinois constitution, and the Democrat leader of the U.S. Senate orders the sergeant at arms of the Senate to deny his credentials. They don't care if he's black, they don't care if he's pure, they don't care if he's "qualified." Stalin, during the Great Terror, didn't care about these things, either. The point was that if they weren't toeing the particular Stalinist line of the moment, which could change at any moment, they were the enemy. Period, end of statement, no if's, and's or but's.

And incidentally, the law doesn't matter, either, any more in our country than it did in the Soviet Union. The Supreme Court ruled in the Adam Clayton Powell case several decades ago that if the candidate was constitutionally qualified, he must be seated, whether or not a ministerial act like signing by the state attorney general is lacking. Is there now a good faith argument for some exception or extension that should apply to Burris? Anyone?

And let's not forget Al Franken, "the spiteful troll," as the Great Mark Levin calls him. He and his party cronies in Minnesota have apparently brazenly stolen the Senate election in Minnesota right in front of everybody's eyes.

In all these instances, the end justifies the means, and the end is simply and exclusively power.

Awww: Poor Billy Can't Be a Player

Poor Bill Richardson, shown here enthusiastically greeting his philosophical soulmate, communist dictator Hugo Chavez, has to bow out of the Obama "change" administration (though he's another Clinton retread) because--surprise!--he might be a crook. Ah, well, there'll be another designated Hispanic to take his place. Bye-bye, Billy!

The More Things Change. . .

. . . the more they stay the same. The two Clintons and "Mayor-for-Life" Mike Bloomberg drop the famous ball in Times Square.

I finally started reading a book I've wanted to read for many years, "The Harvest of Sorrow," about some of Stalin's hope and change for the peasants in the early 1930s. As I say, socialism kills. As the author, the great Robert Conquest, points out, power is not a means to an end; it is the end. And so it is with Obama & Co.