Well as usual my PONTIFICATIONS did not fall on deaf ears -- quite the contrary they stirred some of my reading public (both of you) to hurl a few verbal grenades in my direction.
First -- There is the issue of Gay Marriage. I have been married for 42 years (even I can't believe that) and technically what I have is a civil union. I have a license to practice but this also offers my wife and me certain legal protections as well as a certain moral stature in the community. While it would have been nice to have been married and blessed by a religious authority it was not to be (different religions). I strongly believe that the government does not have the right to deny a license to anyone solely on the basis of sex. However, I believe every church or religious institution has the absolute right to offer or to deny the blessings of their particular religious institution. If the government wants to fiddle with the issue of marriage they should make divorce more difficult rather than focusing on the tangential issue of who has the legal right to "practice".
Well to once again to address the Tom Delay situation, I agree that "everyone else is doing it" never got me very far with my parents and certainly didn't work with my children. Also I don't subscribe to the "we're no worse than everyone else" defense. However, the timing of this issue regarding Delay is pure political witch hunting. If there is a real conflict of interest here then the Congressmen who are sniping should come forward, bare their breast, and say we are also guilty and now is the time to stop this practice altogether. He who is without sin should cast the first stone and I don't think that is happening. Personally I am sick and tired of the constant sniping back and forth without regard for the good of the country. I think there are a lot of important issues that need to be dealt with and ad hominem attacks are simply distractions from some very important issues.
And that brings me to judges -- from where I sit the entire issue is pure politics with the Democrats determined to obstruct President Bush at every opportunity. I never believed in filibusters from the time I learned what they were. I don't care who is doing it -- it is wrong. Having said that -- I believe in the Constitution and the rule of Law but what we are getting is a bunch of judges who are making laws without regard for the will of the people. Judges are appointed for life and while I understand the rationale for that I am finding increasingly that the judges are simply out of control and the separation of Church and State is a vivid example. The Constitution does not say that -- it simply forbids the government from making laws that restrict or abridge that right. My nephew is being taught about Islam, Hinduism, and other religions in school but not Christianity on the basis of the separation of Church and State. Obviously this does not apply to Temples, Mosques, WigWams, or Stonehenge. That is down right bizarre! To look at this from the other direction, using this rationale Congress could easily pass legislation eliminating the tax exempt status of these institutions because they are not "Churches". The issue of smoking is another one. While I am not a smoker suppose you substitute the word "Negro" or "Jew" for the word "smoker" and see how these laws read. This is an outright denial of the rights of a large number of people. The judiciary is out of control and needs to be curbed and the appointment of strict constructionist judges is a way (not necessarily a good way).
Bolton is simply another example of the Democratic obstructionist policies. The UN is a corrupt organization, dominated by tinpot dictatorships, radical Muslim States, and virulently anti-American. It has a track record of failure and ineffectualness and as far as I am concerned it should be dissolved or radically reorganized. Bolton -- good or bad -- is a bull dog who is quite capable of pushing the UN around. Certainly Colin Powell was incapable of pushing back on anyone and was a very weak SecState. I am not married to Bolton but I am a supporter of placing someone in the UN who won't take their guff and who will simply stop being their money machine. The accusations that he has bullied subordinates strikes close to home since I have been accused of that as well. When examined this usually means that the bully raised his voice and raked some incompetent subordinate over the coals for not meeting performance expectations. The subordinate usually has been tainted by feminist claptrap or an educational system that assured them that whatever they chose to do was A-OK because their "self-esteem" was at stake. This is pure unadulterated hogwash and I'm sure Bolton simply won't tolerate these hypersenstive idiots -- I certainly haven't and won't.
This brings me to Foreign Aid. The media and Congress are railing about the deficit but I don't hear one voice raised about cutting off foreign aid to Palestine, Israel, Africa, AIDs research, or Asia -- instead we are talking about cutting domestic spending and raising taxes. This is tantamount to not feeding your family so you can give to charity hoping they will give something back or at least be your friend. The same is true with the media calls for an exit strategy from Iraq but not a word raised demanding an exit strategy from Germany, Japan, or Korea and we have had troops there for 60 years. Personally I think we should immediately withdraw from these countries but staying there is a form of foreign aid because an abrupt departure would throw them (Germany especially) into an economic tailspin.
Visualize me shaking my fist at the sky!!!
Monday, April 25, 2005
Friday, April 22, 2005
Odds and Ends
There is a new Pope in Rome and already we hear cries across the land as the secularists beat their breasts and shake their fists at Heaven. What is needed is NOT moral teaching or lectures, what the liberal establishment feels is needed are married priests, female priests, birth control, abortion, and all of those things that are so near and dear to the hearts of the liberals. Personally, I am not a Catholic nor do I subscribe to many of their beliefs, but the fact is the last Pope was a moral beacon in a sea of slime and immorality. He took a stand and stayed the course and for that reason alone he stands out among world leaders who seem to be more focused on their power and perks than on any personal beliefs. But there are some exceptions – George Bush and Tony Blair come to mind as does Bertelsconi (sp) in Italy and I am sure there are others, but the vast majority of “world leaders” fall into the Kofi Annan category --- contemptible power seekers who are corrupt and have no real moral convictions about anything. So the new Pope shows signs of continuing the policies of the last Pope and in my opinion this is a good thing since what the world seems to need is a moral compass and someone to point the way.
The debate on gay marriage continues unabated and I continue to find myself conflicted on the issue. First, I don’t think the government – any government – has the right to deny a license solely on the basis of sex. I think if two people decide to commit to spending their lives together and thus to enjoy the legal and financial advantages of that decision, then the government does not have the right to deny them. HOWEVER, I stop short of “gay marriage” since I think marriage is a sacred and religiously based institution. If a particular church decides to perform a “marriage” ceremony for same-sex couples, then that is their right but they are under no obligation to do so and the state has no right to force them. Furthermore, a civil union is not the same as marriage and the state is under no obligation to recognize same sex couples as “married”. This brings up the alternative situation and that is the civil union of heterosexual couples. Currently there seems to be a growing trend for couples to simply set up house without the benefit of a license or a marriage. These couples seem oblivious to the legal ramifications of this situation but if civil unions are allowed for same sex couples can they be denied for heterosexual couples? Apparently Sweden has elected to provide civil unions for all \who apply and the result has been the virtual elimination of marriage as an institution. Personally I think this is a serious matter because marriage is a commitment that has moral and religious overtones as well as legal ramifications. If the focus is shifted to the legal ramifications only I think it further separates us from the religious and moral teachings that underpin our society whether the liberal secularists like it or not.
I wonder if others have noticed that as the situation in Iraq improves and the number of attacks declines daily, that the New York Times and the rest of the elite media have shifted their attacks on President Bush from Iraq to domestic issues. Suddenly Tom Delay is all over the front page and accused of all sorts of nefarious practices – practices that are commonplace in Congress and have been for years but Tom Delay is being castigated for them. So once again the elite media are showing their partisanship while wondering why their credibility is eroding. Anyone who believes anything they read or see in the elite media are gullible fools.
Of course the media is having a field day with the Bolton nomination. The liberals and internationalists are distraught over Bolton because he has the temerity to speak the truth. The UN is a corrupt ineffectual organization whose sole purpose seems to be to attack and undermine the US while stealing as much money as they can and spending as much as they bleed from the US taxpayer. Bolton was selected because he is an outspoken bull dog who calls a spade and a spade. He is perfectly capable of looking Kofi Annan in the face and calling him a crook. He is quite capable of telling the French they are a two bit third rate nation whose position on the UN Security Council should be consolidated with the British seat. Bolton is a career diplomat but one who has the ability to say what needs to be said. Unfortunately too many of the liberals in this country still believe that getting the French to like us is important and that we can buy friends.
With any luck the people in this country will finally wake up and realize the Constitution does not call for the separation of Church and State it just restricts the Government from passing laws restricting the Church. The time has come to rein in the judiciary and since the Democrats clearly are not capable of doing that, hopefully the new Congress will be more conservative and will get this badly needed job done.
The debate on gay marriage continues unabated and I continue to find myself conflicted on the issue. First, I don’t think the government – any government – has the right to deny a license solely on the basis of sex. I think if two people decide to commit to spending their lives together and thus to enjoy the legal and financial advantages of that decision, then the government does not have the right to deny them. HOWEVER, I stop short of “gay marriage” since I think marriage is a sacred and religiously based institution. If a particular church decides to perform a “marriage” ceremony for same-sex couples, then that is their right but they are under no obligation to do so and the state has no right to force them. Furthermore, a civil union is not the same as marriage and the state is under no obligation to recognize same sex couples as “married”. This brings up the alternative situation and that is the civil union of heterosexual couples. Currently there seems to be a growing trend for couples to simply set up house without the benefit of a license or a marriage. These couples seem oblivious to the legal ramifications of this situation but if civil unions are allowed for same sex couples can they be denied for heterosexual couples? Apparently Sweden has elected to provide civil unions for all \who apply and the result has been the virtual elimination of marriage as an institution. Personally I think this is a serious matter because marriage is a commitment that has moral and religious overtones as well as legal ramifications. If the focus is shifted to the legal ramifications only I think it further separates us from the religious and moral teachings that underpin our society whether the liberal secularists like it or not.
I wonder if others have noticed that as the situation in Iraq improves and the number of attacks declines daily, that the New York Times and the rest of the elite media have shifted their attacks on President Bush from Iraq to domestic issues. Suddenly Tom Delay is all over the front page and accused of all sorts of nefarious practices – practices that are commonplace in Congress and have been for years but Tom Delay is being castigated for them. So once again the elite media are showing their partisanship while wondering why their credibility is eroding. Anyone who believes anything they read or see in the elite media are gullible fools.
Of course the media is having a field day with the Bolton nomination. The liberals and internationalists are distraught over Bolton because he has the temerity to speak the truth. The UN is a corrupt ineffectual organization whose sole purpose seems to be to attack and undermine the US while stealing as much money as they can and spending as much as they bleed from the US taxpayer. Bolton was selected because he is an outspoken bull dog who calls a spade and a spade. He is perfectly capable of looking Kofi Annan in the face and calling him a crook. He is quite capable of telling the French they are a two bit third rate nation whose position on the UN Security Council should be consolidated with the British seat. Bolton is a career diplomat but one who has the ability to say what needs to be said. Unfortunately too many of the liberals in this country still believe that getting the French to like us is important and that we can buy friends.
With any luck the people in this country will finally wake up and realize the Constitution does not call for the separation of Church and State it just restricts the Government from passing laws restricting the Church. The time has come to rein in the judiciary and since the Democrats clearly are not capable of doing that, hopefully the new Congress will be more conservative and will get this badly needed job done.
Friday, April 15, 2005
I Feel Therefore I Am
Yesterday Barbara Boxer, the Senator from California unintentionally articulated the core principal of liberalism in America, when she accused some oil company executive of only caring about his profits – of not caring about others. There it is – the caring – which is what separates the liberals from the conservatives. It isn’t that conservatives don’t care about others but in general conservatives think people are responsible for themselves. Conservatives are focused on individuals while liberals are focused on groups. The oil company executive believes he has investors who are entitled to a fair return on their investment and he is their steward responsible for faithfully managing their investment. Senator Boxer, on the other hand, has no regard for the investors but feels it is the responsibility of their steward to keep prices low in order to help the poor. Why it is the responsibility of this executive and his company to help the poor is never explained. Apparently Senator Boxer and other liberals see those with power and wealth as obligated to share the fruits of their labor with those who are – in their view – less fortunate. The implication is that through no fault of their own these people are poor while those with the wealth and power some how got lucky. The liberal never chooses to make any connection between hard work, education, and self-discipline and wealth or sloth, indifference, and ignorance to poverty. For the liberal the solution is to take from the rich and give to the poor – this is called wealth redistribution, which is actually Marxism under the false flag of “fairness”.
Shortly after the very illuminating interview with Senator Boxer, a Congresswoman from Texas was interviewed regarding the bankruptcy laws. Naturally, she was opposed to this because it would hurt the poor and favor the rich. According to the new rules those people who incurred the debt (the poor) will be unable to walk away from their debt but instead would be forced into a repayment program. By forcing the debtor to accept their responsibility the liberals feel (there’s that word again) this would force the poor into a permanent state of poverty because they would not be motivated to find employment if they would have to repay their debts. Instead they would simply stay unemployed and living on welfare. If they actually elected to become re-employed then the rich creditor would benefit because he would be able to recoup his investment. Presumably they are not entitled to be repaid because their debtor is poor. The idea that the individual might have some personal responsibility for their debts is not even considered – these are poor people while those to whom they owe money are rich. Thus the rich are obligated to forgive the debt because they can afford the loss. This is the mantra of the liberals – the rich don’t deserve their wealth while the poor deserve to share it. How the rich got rich and how the poor got to be poor is never a subject of discussion.
As a member of the undeserving rich, I feel I am constantly under attack by liberal politicians who continue to find ways to take my earnings so they can spend it on the poor, foreign dictators, disaster relief, and a host of other activities that they feel we are morally obligated to support. Personally I am feeling more and more like a rape victim. I find that those people who are poor usually fall into one of two categories – the lazy or the crazy. The crazy should be locked up for their own protection and the lazy should be left to enjoy the fruits of their labor – work to eat – just as I do.
I am totally against foreign aid because I have never seen that it has purchased anything worthwhile. Most of it is stolen by tin pot dictators and whatever trickles down to the people who it was intended to help resent us because it wasn’t more. They show their appreciation by burning our flag, demanding more money, and generally acting against us at every opportunity. The UN is a perfect example of the failure of foreign aid. Not only is the UN totally corrupt it is totally ineffective and has declined into nothing more than an organized anti-American propaganda machine.
Then we have disaster relief. This actually falls into two categories – the foreign variety where the US rushes to help those who have never lifted a finger to help America and the domestic variety. I fail to understand why it is the responsibility of the government to help idiots rebuild their homes that were just flattened by a hurricane, an earthquake, or a flood. If you choose to live on the Florida Coast then you must assume the risk and not expect the rest of us to pay for your poor judgment. If you elect to live in California then you must assume the risk of having your house destroyed by an earthquake and not expect everyone else to help you rebuild time after time. The same is true of rivers and flood victims. Rivers flood – it is part of nature and if you wish to live on the banks of a river then you should expect to experience flood damage. I am slightly more tolerant of tornado victims because these can occur any where and individuals cannot avoid being struck by a tornado.
However, my real irritation is with foreign relief efforts. How many times have France or Germany come to our aid when a disaster has struck in the US. How about all of those countries in the Asia – have they ever attempted to help us? Foreign aid is purely a one way street and our liberal friends continue to believe they can buy friends. If we give money surely they will like us. Personally, I don’t care if they like us or not and I would rather keep my money in my own bank. I feel that’s best for me.
Shortly after the very illuminating interview with Senator Boxer, a Congresswoman from Texas was interviewed regarding the bankruptcy laws. Naturally, she was opposed to this because it would hurt the poor and favor the rich. According to the new rules those people who incurred the debt (the poor) will be unable to walk away from their debt but instead would be forced into a repayment program. By forcing the debtor to accept their responsibility the liberals feel (there’s that word again) this would force the poor into a permanent state of poverty because they would not be motivated to find employment if they would have to repay their debts. Instead they would simply stay unemployed and living on welfare. If they actually elected to become re-employed then the rich creditor would benefit because he would be able to recoup his investment. Presumably they are not entitled to be repaid because their debtor is poor. The idea that the individual might have some personal responsibility for their debts is not even considered – these are poor people while those to whom they owe money are rich. Thus the rich are obligated to forgive the debt because they can afford the loss. This is the mantra of the liberals – the rich don’t deserve their wealth while the poor deserve to share it. How the rich got rich and how the poor got to be poor is never a subject of discussion.
As a member of the undeserving rich, I feel I am constantly under attack by liberal politicians who continue to find ways to take my earnings so they can spend it on the poor, foreign dictators, disaster relief, and a host of other activities that they feel we are morally obligated to support. Personally I am feeling more and more like a rape victim. I find that those people who are poor usually fall into one of two categories – the lazy or the crazy. The crazy should be locked up for their own protection and the lazy should be left to enjoy the fruits of their labor – work to eat – just as I do.
I am totally against foreign aid because I have never seen that it has purchased anything worthwhile. Most of it is stolen by tin pot dictators and whatever trickles down to the people who it was intended to help resent us because it wasn’t more. They show their appreciation by burning our flag, demanding more money, and generally acting against us at every opportunity. The UN is a perfect example of the failure of foreign aid. Not only is the UN totally corrupt it is totally ineffective and has declined into nothing more than an organized anti-American propaganda machine.
Then we have disaster relief. This actually falls into two categories – the foreign variety where the US rushes to help those who have never lifted a finger to help America and the domestic variety. I fail to understand why it is the responsibility of the government to help idiots rebuild their homes that were just flattened by a hurricane, an earthquake, or a flood. If you choose to live on the Florida Coast then you must assume the risk and not expect the rest of us to pay for your poor judgment. If you elect to live in California then you must assume the risk of having your house destroyed by an earthquake and not expect everyone else to help you rebuild time after time. The same is true of rivers and flood victims. Rivers flood – it is part of nature and if you wish to live on the banks of a river then you should expect to experience flood damage. I am slightly more tolerant of tornado victims because these can occur any where and individuals cannot avoid being struck by a tornado.
However, my real irritation is with foreign relief efforts. How many times have France or Germany come to our aid when a disaster has struck in the US. How about all of those countries in the Asia – have they ever attempted to help us? Foreign aid is purely a one way street and our liberal friends continue to believe they can buy friends. If we give money surely they will like us. Personally, I don’t care if they like us or not and I would rather keep my money in my own bank. I feel that’s best for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)