Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
Can you Smell the Hypocricy?
When the smell of sugar cookies and apple pies should fill the air in the days before Christmas, it's the stench of hypocrisy that permeates instead. Just 2 months ago, seven Democratic Senators, and one former Democrat, penned a letter dated October 6, 2009, to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Among other things, all eight of these Senators called for a requirement that health care legislation, and associated costs, be posted publicly for a minimum of 72 hours before a final vote on the legislation. Putting aside the fact that even 72 hours is ludicrous given the size and complexity of the bill being considered in the Senate, all eight of these Senators voted for cloture of debate last night at 1 a.m., a mere 38 hours after the bill was introduced on the floor of the senate. How many American, let alone senators, have even had the time to read and thoughtfully consider the provisions of this bill? The leading eight hypocrits: Mary Landrieu (D-LA); Jim Webb (D-VA); Evan Bayh (D-IN); Mark Pryor (D-Ark); Ben Nelson (D-NE); Clair McCaskill (D-MO); Blanch Lincoln (D-Ark); and Joe Lieberman (I-CT).
Jim Webb and Mark Warner: You Sold Virginia Short!
Jim Webb and Mark Warner, how dare you support health care reform, and have nothing to show for it. Perhaps you need a reminder that you were elected as fiscally responsible, moderate Democrats. You were not elected to do Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's bidding. You chose to ignore the overwhelming opinion of every day Virginians who are opposed to government bureaucrats coming between them and their health care. You ignored demands that the government not take over 1/6th of our nation's economy, increase the already incomprehensible size of the nation's crippling deficit, or impose more big intrusive government that invariably will diminish individual liberties and result in increased and job killing taxes on American citizens and employers.
Adding insult to injury, you also did it all without so much as a fight. You did not secure any special advantages for Virginians as, say, Mary Landrieu did for Louisiana or Ben Nelson did for Nebraska. Nope, you were blinded by the thought of more power in the hands of bureucrats like yourselves, convinced that by making more people dependent on big government programs that you promote, you will help ensure your lifelong employment by the citizens of Virginia.
Well, you didn't listen to our voices, so now you will listen to our votes. It's time to brush up your resumes and hope and pray that there are actually alternative jobs for you in 2012 and 2014. Virginians across the Commonwealth are coming together to make sure that you never have an opportunity to do what you did in the dead of night this morning, voting to shut down debate on legislation that has not even been available to Americans to read, let alone for members of the Senate to read and appreciate its full impact. Your days in office cannot end soon enough.
Adding insult to injury, you also did it all without so much as a fight. You did not secure any special advantages for Virginians as, say, Mary Landrieu did for Louisiana or Ben Nelson did for Nebraska. Nope, you were blinded by the thought of more power in the hands of bureucrats like yourselves, convinced that by making more people dependent on big government programs that you promote, you will help ensure your lifelong employment by the citizens of Virginia.
Well, you didn't listen to our voices, so now you will listen to our votes. It's time to brush up your resumes and hope and pray that there are actually alternative jobs for you in 2012 and 2014. Virginians across the Commonwealth are coming together to make sure that you never have an opportunity to do what you did in the dead of night this morning, voting to shut down debate on legislation that has not even been available to Americans to read, let alone for members of the Senate to read and appreciate its full impact. Your days in office cannot end soon enough.
The Most Outrageous Act of Our Lifetimes
Well, the Democrats have done it. They've struck back-room deals behind solidly closed doors. They brought a bill to the Senate floor and less than 48 hours later, insisted on a cloture vote to cut off further debate. They've insisted that the Democratic members vote on the bill before Christmas, even demanding that Senate members, and their staff, remain in the Capitol until the vote is done, depriving these members and their families of being home with their families over one of the most Holy days in the Christian faith. They've done all this with a bill that will take over 1/6th of America's economy with over 2,500 pages of legislation, which I dare say few members have even read, let alone understood the full impact. This is nothing short of OUTRAGEOUS.
Why the rush? The Democrats saw what happened when they let their members go back to their districts at the end of the summer. Massive and vocal spontaneous protests erupted all across the country, with every-day Americans of all stripes showing up to demand that this Congress not force a government takeover of our health care system.
Well, every day Americans -- be damned. The likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama are going to shove this health care bill down your throats whether you like it or not. It reminds me of forcing patients in the 1800s to take Mercury to heal their ailments -- it turned out killing them, but at the time they were promised a miracle cure.
Well, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama -- we're not buying it. Your motives are far from pure. Your goal is, and always has been, dependency on the Federal Government. It is not about improving the lives of every day Americans. Instead, it is about assuring the maximum number of people rely on your government programs because then, you've assured your own destiny. How can anyone vote for less government when you've made their very lives dependent on government and your votes to preserve and expand it? But guess what, we're not that stupid, Harry, Nancy, and Barack. Your days in office ARE NUMBERED. For every outrageous act you take, you energize many more every day Americans to take action. You motivate us to open our pocketbooks and our wallets to contribute to further the goals of responsible government, to make a phone call and write a letter, to post something on Twitter or in a blog, to dedicate our time to people who remain true to the American ideal of independence, hard work, and LIBERTY, without undue interference by big government.
You three are the triumphant evil -- the three who have shown the true colors of today's Democratic party. We will not let you destroy the America we love. We will stand and fight you every step of the way. 2010 is the beginning of the end of your ilk, and a new beginning for America.
2010 is when the likes of you will be swept from office, never to return again.
Why the rush? The Democrats saw what happened when they let their members go back to their districts at the end of the summer. Massive and vocal spontaneous protests erupted all across the country, with every-day Americans of all stripes showing up to demand that this Congress not force a government takeover of our health care system.
Well, every day Americans -- be damned. The likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama are going to shove this health care bill down your throats whether you like it or not. It reminds me of forcing patients in the 1800s to take Mercury to heal their ailments -- it turned out killing them, but at the time they were promised a miracle cure.
Well, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama -- we're not buying it. Your motives are far from pure. Your goal is, and always has been, dependency on the Federal Government. It is not about improving the lives of every day Americans. Instead, it is about assuring the maximum number of people rely on your government programs because then, you've assured your own destiny. How can anyone vote for less government when you've made their very lives dependent on government and your votes to preserve and expand it? But guess what, we're not that stupid, Harry, Nancy, and Barack. Your days in office ARE NUMBERED. For every outrageous act you take, you energize many more every day Americans to take action. You motivate us to open our pocketbooks and our wallets to contribute to further the goals of responsible government, to make a phone call and write a letter, to post something on Twitter or in a blog, to dedicate our time to people who remain true to the American ideal of independence, hard work, and LIBERTY, without undue interference by big government.
You three are the triumphant evil -- the three who have shown the true colors of today's Democratic party. We will not let you destroy the America we love. We will stand and fight you every step of the way. 2010 is the beginning of the end of your ilk, and a new beginning for America.
2010 is when the likes of you will be swept from office, never to return again.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Harry Reid: You're an Utter Disgrace.
When Barack Obama became president, we knew times would be bad. But did any of us really anticipate how bad? After all, who really thought through the consequences of an utterly unchecked far left socialist president? Did any of us really anticipate a filibuster proof Senate, or a one-sided government controlled at every level by an energized hard-left Democrat party that has effectively forced out of its ranks all voices of moderation?
Well these last 12 months have been eye-opening to say the least; perhaps shocking is a better word. For far too long, God-fearing, America-loving middle America remained passive and allowed ourselves to be steamrolled. The cost of our silence is now nothing short of the possibility of waking up in a completely transformed America, an America where dreams are no longer possible; where opportunity no longer abounds and allows any one of us, through hard work and ingenuity, to be widely successful in our own unique ways. No longer will America serve as that "shining beacon on a hill."
On this, the brink of a government takeover of our nation's health care system -- 1/6th of our total economy -- is a call to arms (figuratively, not literally). Now is the time to stand up and fight harder than we ever have fought before. We must refuse to be silent, and we must take back our country NOW, before it's too late.
Target number one: Harry Reid. Senator Reid is a complete and utter disgrace to his constituents in Nevada and to the entire United States of America. He has shown contempt for a majority of Americans and his own constituents, calling opponents to his health care bill no different than advocates of slavery. He refused to meet with his constituents in Washington to hear their concerns about the bill he has forced through the Senate chamber, unbelievably saying he could "smell the tourists" who had come to voice their opposition to government run care. If he had his way, he would have cut and run in Iraq, surrendering that nation to the terrorists and leaving thousands of our military men and women who had already given their lives to have died in vein. It's time that every single one of us that love our country do what we can immediately to ensure this travesty of a man is no longer in a position to make any decisions that impact this country. HARRY REID HAS GOT TO GO.
Watch this video, and then TAKE ACTION NOW!
Well these last 12 months have been eye-opening to say the least; perhaps shocking is a better word. For far too long, God-fearing, America-loving middle America remained passive and allowed ourselves to be steamrolled. The cost of our silence is now nothing short of the possibility of waking up in a completely transformed America, an America where dreams are no longer possible; where opportunity no longer abounds and allows any one of us, through hard work and ingenuity, to be widely successful in our own unique ways. No longer will America serve as that "shining beacon on a hill."
On this, the brink of a government takeover of our nation's health care system -- 1/6th of our total economy -- is a call to arms (figuratively, not literally). Now is the time to stand up and fight harder than we ever have fought before. We must refuse to be silent, and we must take back our country NOW, before it's too late.
Target number one: Harry Reid. Senator Reid is a complete and utter disgrace to his constituents in Nevada and to the entire United States of America. He has shown contempt for a majority of Americans and his own constituents, calling opponents to his health care bill no different than advocates of slavery. He refused to meet with his constituents in Washington to hear their concerns about the bill he has forced through the Senate chamber, unbelievably saying he could "smell the tourists" who had come to voice their opposition to government run care. If he had his way, he would have cut and run in Iraq, surrendering that nation to the terrorists and leaving thousands of our military men and women who had already given their lives to have died in vein. It's time that every single one of us that love our country do what we can immediately to ensure this travesty of a man is no longer in a position to make any decisions that impact this country. HARRY REID HAS GOT TO GO.
Watch this video, and then TAKE ACTION NOW!
Ben Nelson looks a Lot Like Judas
There's a lot of truth to what Mike Huckabee had to say about Ben Nelson's announcement that he'll now be voting for the Senate Health Care Reform fiasco. Just like Judas sold out Jesus for silver, Nelson sold out not just his constituents, but his country, through back-room deals that did not even deliver what he said he wanted: the preservation of the Hyde Amendment. So, not only will taxpayer dollars now be used to fund morally reprehensible abortion on demand (assuming this bill passes after reconciliation with the House), but we all suffer with higher taxes, the biggest expansion of the Federal Government in history, declining health care standards, and bureaucrats that will come between each of us and our doctors. It's time to Give Ben the Boot in a big way. Visit http://GiveBenTheBoot.com, and get started doing your part today.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Virginia's Republicans Come Roaring Back!
Hallelujah! Living in a very "Blue" city in a state that turned purple this last election, there is cause for celebration. Since 2003, the Democrats have controlled all six seats on the Alexandria City Council. Their dominance has earned Alexandria the distinguished nickname, the People's Republic of Alexandria. Tonight, Republicans raised their voice and said enough is enough! Enough reckless spending. Enough taxation. Enough strangulation of businesses. Tonight, for the first time in 6 years, Alexandria elected 2 fiscally responsible common-sense conservatives -- Republican Frank Fannon and Republican-backed Independent Alicia Hughes to the City Council. Proof positive that it all starts at the local level.
Tonight, we can rejoice in this small victory in a very Democratic city. We must now redouble our efforts to take back the State House with the election of Bob McDonnell for Virginia's Governor.
Tonight, we can rejoice in this small victory in a very Democratic city. We must now redouble our efforts to take back the State House with the election of Bob McDonnell for Virginia's Governor.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Query: Can charity exist in this era of “entitlement”?
Charity, from the Latin caritas, means to act without self-interest, to act disinterestedly for the good of others.
Charity by definition is unmerited; no one is entitled to the disinterested beneficence of another. Because God has shown unmerited love toward them, Jews and Christians are commanded to show charity to others.
Intentionally or not, the federal government since FDR’s administration has critically undermined the concept of charity. First, it has re-characterized any need as deserving of alleviation. During the Great Depression, FDR’s administration was careful to characterize its massive, redistributive programs as “entitlements” rather than charity: if you were willing to work, you were entitled to a job; if you had worked most of your life, you were entitled to a retirement income (i.e., social security). LBJ’s “Great Society” programs in the late sixties extrapolated this notion of entitlement, suggesting merit, to any need. If you need food, you are entitled to it; if you need housing, you are entitled to it; if you need medical care, you are entitled to it. Hence, food stamps, low-income housing, and Medicaid.
Second, the federal government since FDR’s administration has undermined the concept of charity by increasingly substituting government programs for private charitable enterprise. Individual citizens no longer need to seek ways to show charity, to alleviate the suffering of others—government does it for us. Those of us who support such government efforts feel a certain self-congratulation: we are charitable by proxy. We pay our taxes, and government does the rest.
Two problems: First, we set up what in formal debate is known as a “straw man”: the notion that those who do not support such government efforts are un-charitable—they are selfish and greedy; they have no desire to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, etc. Second, while moral benefit certainly accrues to those who give of their resources to help others, no such benefit accrues to those who force someone else to use his resources to help others. Voting to increase taxation on others to fund government redistributive programs confers no moral benefit on the voter.
Avenues for further exploration: 1) the moral effect of entitlement on recipients of assistance; 2) whether supporting government redistributive programs causes moral harm to the voter.
Charity by definition is unmerited; no one is entitled to the disinterested beneficence of another. Because God has shown unmerited love toward them, Jews and Christians are commanded to show charity to others.
Intentionally or not, the federal government since FDR’s administration has critically undermined the concept of charity. First, it has re-characterized any need as deserving of alleviation. During the Great Depression, FDR’s administration was careful to characterize its massive, redistributive programs as “entitlements” rather than charity: if you were willing to work, you were entitled to a job; if you had worked most of your life, you were entitled to a retirement income (i.e., social security). LBJ’s “Great Society” programs in the late sixties extrapolated this notion of entitlement, suggesting merit, to any need. If you need food, you are entitled to it; if you need housing, you are entitled to it; if you need medical care, you are entitled to it. Hence, food stamps, low-income housing, and Medicaid.
Second, the federal government since FDR’s administration has undermined the concept of charity by increasingly substituting government programs for private charitable enterprise. Individual citizens no longer need to seek ways to show charity, to alleviate the suffering of others—government does it for us. Those of us who support such government efforts feel a certain self-congratulation: we are charitable by proxy. We pay our taxes, and government does the rest.
Two problems: First, we set up what in formal debate is known as a “straw man”: the notion that those who do not support such government efforts are un-charitable—they are selfish and greedy; they have no desire to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, etc. Second, while moral benefit certainly accrues to those who give of their resources to help others, no such benefit accrues to those who force someone else to use his resources to help others. Voting to increase taxation on others to fund government redistributive programs confers no moral benefit on the voter.
Avenues for further exploration: 1) the moral effect of entitlement on recipients of assistance; 2) whether supporting government redistributive programs causes moral harm to the voter.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Free Speech, So Long as You're Liberal
In Obama's America, the First Amendment is alive and well -- provided, that is, you tow the Obama line. Deviate from it, though, and watch out. The full weight and force of the Obama establishment will come crashing down on you.
Do we need anymore proof than what is happening with Rush Limbaugh? The DNC has put him front and center in its coordinated campaign, hand-and-glove with Obama, to paint Limbaugh as a babbling, dangerously extreme idiot who represents (in fact is the leader of) the Republican party. Why, Limbaugh even had the audacity to express hope that Obama's socialistic policies would fail (never mind that James Carville and 51% of Democrats expressed the same hope about Bush in 2001). The goal, of course, is to convince enough gullible people that Limbaugh is so subversive that his views and radio show warrant censorship or better yet silencing altogether with an archaic, anti-free speech law that Congress ditched 20 years ago -- the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine." That doctrine would essentially spell the end of conservative talk radio to the delight of Obama and his liberal ilk.
One might chalk the liberal's efforts to partisan politics (overlooking, of course, the sheer irony that a "liberal" would advocate for speech censorship). But what is so infuriating is the complicity of the liberal media in this brazen effort to curtail free speech. Look no further than this week's cover of Newsweek. Across an unflattering, almost frightening picture of Rush Limbaugh is inscribed in big, bold letters the word: "Enough!"
Is free speech on the verge of extinction in this country? If so, isn't it time that every man, woman and child in this country take a stand and themselves say "Enough" to the Obama silence machine? The time to act is now. Enough truly is enough!
Do we need anymore proof than what is happening with Rush Limbaugh? The DNC has put him front and center in its coordinated campaign, hand-and-glove with Obama, to paint Limbaugh as a babbling, dangerously extreme idiot who represents (in fact is the leader of) the Republican party. Why, Limbaugh even had the audacity to express hope that Obama's socialistic policies would fail (never mind that James Carville and 51% of Democrats expressed the same hope about Bush in 2001). The goal, of course, is to convince enough gullible people that Limbaugh is so subversive that his views and radio show warrant censorship or better yet silencing altogether with an archaic, anti-free speech law that Congress ditched 20 years ago -- the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine." That doctrine would essentially spell the end of conservative talk radio to the delight of Obama and his liberal ilk.
One might chalk the liberal's efforts to partisan politics (overlooking, of course, the sheer irony that a "liberal" would advocate for speech censorship). But what is so infuriating is the complicity of the liberal media in this brazen effort to curtail free speech. Look no further than this week's cover of Newsweek. Across an unflattering, almost frightening picture of Rush Limbaugh is inscribed in big, bold letters the word: "Enough!"
Is free speech on the verge of extinction in this country? If so, isn't it time that every man, woman and child in this country take a stand and themselves say "Enough" to the Obama silence machine? The time to act is now. Enough truly is enough!
Obama's America: Scary and Getting Scarier
My sister, Kenda, forwarded to me the following e-mail that is making its rounds. It's by the author of Atlas Shrugs, Pam Geller. Through this short article, Geller makes her point in a very powerful, clear, persuasive way, and should motivate patriot, God-fearing Americans everywhere to take a stand now before it's too late:
"Something of Historic Proportion is Happening" by Pam Geller
I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books in
six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is
something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a
banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes, these
exist but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is
only now coming into a sharper focus.
Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because
I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to
it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something
happening within our country that has been evolving for about 10 - 1 5
years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.
We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make
massive loans to people whom we know can never pay back? Why?
We learned just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or
no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is
$2,000,000,000, 000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to
whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine.
And that is three times the $700B we all argued about so strenuously
just this past September.
Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms
unavailable to us? Who asked for it?
Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "We the People,"
who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. ... Apparently not.
We have spent two or more decades Intentionally de-industrializing our
economy. Why?
We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and
no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why
we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think
critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers
are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election
(now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial
that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman). Did
you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?
We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected
judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then
mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting
system into a banana republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing is on the verge of
collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our
entire government.. Our education system is worse than a joke ( I teach
college and know precisely what I am talking about.) The list is
staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x
10. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of
offending people of the same religion who cannot wait to slit the
throats of your children If they have the opportunity to do so.. And now
we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so
much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla , Alaska. All
of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen
fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip,
is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak
about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force
stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of
course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then
demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000
wardrobe is more important.)
Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change.
Why?
I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am
now. This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has
never, ever done in his professional life.
In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push
us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different
power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will
never see the same nation again. And that is only the beginning.
I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral
German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former
smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average
German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was
associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people
with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage
through great oratory and promises.
Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great
speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers,
were afraid to speak out for fear that his "Brown Shirts" would bully
them into submission. And then he was duly elected to office, with a
full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression].
Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power,
department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy.
The kids joined a "Youth Movement" in his name, where they were taught
what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it
promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for
the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the
children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages,
better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the
country, across Europe, and across the world.
He did it with a compliant media - Did you know that? And he did this
all in the name of justice and ...change.
And the people surely got what they voted for. (Look it up if you think
I am exaggerating. ) Read your history books. Many people objected in
1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of.
When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while
seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister),
he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was
right, though. Don't forget that Germany was the most educated,
cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums,
hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years -
a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency - it was
rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws,
turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All
with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with
them.
As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I
have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of
evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can
believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven
decades; or I can hope I am wrong, close my eyes, have another latte and
ignore what is transpiring around me.
Some people scoff at me; others laugh or think I am foolish, naive, or
both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the
eye and tell them exactly what I believe - and why I believe it. I pray
I am wrong. I do not think I am.
"Do not suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty by any
pretenses of politeness, delicacy or decency. These, as they are often
used, are but three names for hypocrisy, chicanery, and cowardice." John
Adams, 1789
"Something of Historic Proportion is Happening" by Pam Geller
I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books in
six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is
something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a
banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes, these
exist but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is
only now coming into a sharper focus.
Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because
I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to
it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something
happening within our country that has been evolving for about 10 - 1 5
years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.
We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make
massive loans to people whom we know can never pay back? Why?
We learned just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or
no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is
$2,000,000,000, 000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to
whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine.
And that is three times the $700B we all argued about so strenuously
just this past September.
Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms
unavailable to us? Who asked for it?
Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "We the People,"
who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. ... Apparently not.
We have spent two or more decades Intentionally de-industrializing our
economy. Why?
We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and
no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why
we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think
critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers
are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election
(now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial
that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman). Did
you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?
We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected
judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then
mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting
system into a banana republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing is on the verge of
collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our
entire government.. Our education system is worse than a joke ( I teach
college and know precisely what I am talking about.) The list is
staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x
10. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of
offending people of the same religion who cannot wait to slit the
throats of your children If they have the opportunity to do so.. And now
we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so
much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla , Alaska. All
of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen
fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip,
is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak
about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force
stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of
course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then
demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000
wardrobe is more important.)
Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change.
Why?
I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am
now. This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has
never, ever done in his professional life.
In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push
us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different
power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will
never see the same nation again. And that is only the beginning.
I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral
German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former
smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average
German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was
associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people
with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage
through great oratory and promises.
Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great
speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers,
were afraid to speak out for fear that his "Brown Shirts" would bully
them into submission. And then he was duly elected to office, with a
full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression].
Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power,
department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy.
The kids joined a "Youth Movement" in his name, where they were taught
what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it
promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for
the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the
children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages,
better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the
country, across Europe, and across the world.
He did it with a compliant media - Did you know that? And he did this
all in the name of justice and ...change.
And the people surely got what they voted for. (Look it up if you think
I am exaggerating. ) Read your history books. Many people objected in
1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of.
When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while
seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister),
he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was
right, though. Don't forget that Germany was the most educated,
cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums,
hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years -
a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency - it was
rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws,
turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All
with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with
them.
As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I
have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of
evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can
believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven
decades; or I can hope I am wrong, close my eyes, have another latte and
ignore what is transpiring around me.
Some people scoff at me; others laugh or think I am foolish, naive, or
both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the
eye and tell them exactly what I believe - and why I believe it. I pray
I am wrong. I do not think I am.
"Do not suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty by any
pretenses of politeness, delicacy or decency. These, as they are often
used, are but three names for hypocrisy, chicanery, and cowardice." John
Adams, 1789
Charities Step Aside: Government to the Rescue.
There can be no doubt now what Barack Obama stands for: a large, expansive government that, if not socialistic, certainly seems that way. Obama's $3.5 trillion proposed budget makes real the whole "Joe the Plumber" scenario from the campaign: shift wealth from the haves and give it to the have nots. But there is another very disturbing provision within the proposed budget that should have every charitable American up in arms. Obama's budget proposes reducing, if not phasing out, the tax deductions available for contributions to private charities by any American currently in the 33% to 38% tax brackets (which soon will include a whole lot more of us). The obvious result, of course, will be a reduction in the amount of money funding America's private charitable organizations. Can this leave any doubt that Obama's ultimate goal is to progressively increase overall dependence on the federal government?
Monday, February 16, 2009
A lesson for today
If you read one article today, let it be this one by Ed Kaitz at American Thinker. It's titled: How Democracies become Tyrannies.
I have to say that American Thinker is slightly reactionary, even for me. However this article rings true as it contrasts Plato's Republic to the rise of socialism in America, with inferences to our current President.
It's a sober story and worth reading.
I have to say that American Thinker is slightly reactionary, even for me. However this article rings true as it contrasts Plato's Republic to the rise of socialism in America, with inferences to our current President.
It's a sober story and worth reading.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Silence is complicity
This week, I've read two articles that are particularly chilling and I'm at a loss as to what to do.
The first is this opinion piece by former President Jimmy Carter. Found in The Washington Post and titled: "An Unnecessary War," the article starts thus:
"I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.
After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty. Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action. "
The article then spends the next nine paragraphs explaining how Israel is totally to blame for the current hostilities in Gaza. If I have seen such a maniacal screed by someone of the stature of a former president of the United States, I cannot recall it. I have read Carter's writing in the past; this one has me floored.
My question is: "How do common citizens respond to things like this?" Do we simply whine about the crazy old man in the corner, hoping that no one is paying attention? Do we write the author and newspaper in order to try to set the record straight? Do we send emails to our friends in the media and ask them to write a rebuttal? At this point, none of this feels as if it's enough.
So, this blog post is one small way to not be silent.
The second article that absolutely stopped me in my tracks is a blog post from Melanie Phillips at the website of The Spectator. Very bad things are happening in Europe in regard to the rise of anti-Semitism. Ms. Phillips includes eye witness accounts of violent demonstrations in England. She ends her post with this:
"For silence is complicity, as once gentle, decent, civilised Britain changes before our horrified eyes into something very ugly indeed."
The first is this opinion piece by former President Jimmy Carter. Found in The Washington Post and titled: "An Unnecessary War," the article starts thus:
"I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.
After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty. Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action. "
The article then spends the next nine paragraphs explaining how Israel is totally to blame for the current hostilities in Gaza. If I have seen such a maniacal screed by someone of the stature of a former president of the United States, I cannot recall it. I have read Carter's writing in the past; this one has me floored.
My question is: "How do common citizens respond to things like this?" Do we simply whine about the crazy old man in the corner, hoping that no one is paying attention? Do we write the author and newspaper in order to try to set the record straight? Do we send emails to our friends in the media and ask them to write a rebuttal? At this point, none of this feels as if it's enough.
So, this blog post is one small way to not be silent.
The second article that absolutely stopped me in my tracks is a blog post from Melanie Phillips at the website of The Spectator. Very bad things are happening in Europe in regard to the rise of anti-Semitism. Ms. Phillips includes eye witness accounts of violent demonstrations in England. She ends her post with this:
"For silence is complicity, as once gentle, decent, civilised Britain changes before our horrified eyes into something very ugly indeed."
In a trip to Europe this summer, my husband and I visited the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam. The visitors to the museum slowly and silently made their way through the different levels of the home, going from the normalcy of Anne's father's business that was run from the lower floors of the building to the betrayal of the Frank's, their friends, and the whole of the Jewish population of Europe in the 1940's.
I doubt that one person in that building on that day believed it could happen again.
I do believe that we are close to it happening again.
And we cannot be silent.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
How conservative thoughts can be refined
When I was invited to contribute to this blog, I was a bit hesitant because I feel that I'm less than eloquent in expressing political ideas. However, there are some conservative writers that have helped refine my conservative thinking. Although I've not always agreed with every word they've said, these are my favorites:
Victor Davis Hanson
Jeff Jacoby from the Boston Globe
Charles Krauthammer from the Washington Post
None of these men can be considered hard-right in their thinking. Rather, they provide a center-right view that balances liberty with compassion.
And while Christopher Hitchens can certainly not be considered "conservative" or "liberal," he, too, is one of my favorites. Mr. Hitchens understands the threat of terrorism and what it means to our freedoms.
If you're not familiar with these writers, click on the links above. They are sure to provide some very good food for thought.
Victor Davis Hanson
Jeff Jacoby from the Boston Globe
Charles Krauthammer from the Washington Post
None of these men can be considered hard-right in their thinking. Rather, they provide a center-right view that balances liberty with compassion.
And while Christopher Hitchens can certainly not be considered "conservative" or "liberal," he, too, is one of my favorites. Mr. Hitchens understands the threat of terrorism and what it means to our freedoms.
If you're not familiar with these writers, click on the links above. They are sure to provide some very good food for thought.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Free Choice?
The "Employee Free Choice Act." An innocent-enough sounding piece of legislation. But take a closer look and this legislation stands to fundamentally alter labor-management relations in the United States, and in the process destroy employee free choice.
What does the law do? Essentially, it does away with decades of established and honed labor-management law that guarantees employees the right to an uncoerced and secret ballot when choosing whether to be represented by a labor union. The current system allows the union and management to each present their respective cases about unionization, and the employees to make a free and informed choice about representation via secret ballot.
The law would replace this system with a "card check." Under the proposed "card check" system, employers would be required to recognize a labor union as its employees' collective bargaining representative when the labor union collects representation cards signed by just over 50% of employees. No longer would employees be entitled to an informed choice, or a choice made by secret ballot and overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. Instead their choice would be overseen by union bosses and union organizers. Can anyone say "coercion?"
What's driving this madness? Today, unions represent just 7.5% of the private sector work force. Unions predict that by injecting this lawful ability to subtly (or not so subtly) coerce employees to choose unionization, they can double the unionization rate in the US. That's why unions have made passage of the law priority number 1. With Democrats in Congress and the President-elect indebted to Big Labor, you can bet this bill stands a solid shot of becoming law in 2009.
Ironically, though, the very Democrats pushing hardest for the law, to include Education and Labor Chairman George Miller, recognize the importance of secret union ballots -- in Mexico! Miller wrote in August 2001 to a Mexican council: "We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose." Can anyone say "hypocrite?"
What's right for the Mexican labor force is right for the American labor force. Conservatives in the 2009 Congress must fight this blatant attempt to usurp free choice in American workplaces.
What does the law do? Essentially, it does away with decades of established and honed labor-management law that guarantees employees the right to an uncoerced and secret ballot when choosing whether to be represented by a labor union. The current system allows the union and management to each present their respective cases about unionization, and the employees to make a free and informed choice about representation via secret ballot.
The law would replace this system with a "card check." Under the proposed "card check" system, employers would be required to recognize a labor union as its employees' collective bargaining representative when the labor union collects representation cards signed by just over 50% of employees. No longer would employees be entitled to an informed choice, or a choice made by secret ballot and overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. Instead their choice would be overseen by union bosses and union organizers. Can anyone say "coercion?"
What's driving this madness? Today, unions represent just 7.5% of the private sector work force. Unions predict that by injecting this lawful ability to subtly (or not so subtly) coerce employees to choose unionization, they can double the unionization rate in the US. That's why unions have made passage of the law priority number 1. With Democrats in Congress and the President-elect indebted to Big Labor, you can bet this bill stands a solid shot of becoming law in 2009.
Ironically, though, the very Democrats pushing hardest for the law, to include Education and Labor Chairman George Miller, recognize the importance of secret union ballots -- in Mexico! Miller wrote in August 2001 to a Mexican council: "We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose." Can anyone say "hypocrite?"
What's right for the Mexican labor force is right for the American labor force. Conservatives in the 2009 Congress must fight this blatant attempt to usurp free choice in American workplaces.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Free Speech in America?
As conservatives, we cherish the Constitution. The Constitution arguably formed the most perfect union ever to exist, and has established the guiding principles upon which this nation has functioned for over 200 years. It remains as relevant today as it did during the days of the Founding Fathers.
Conservatives respect the Constitution, and believe that our government should operate within it. This topic deserves an extensive discussion about what this means and how conservatives differ from liberals dramatically on this point. What I want to discuss briefly today, however, is one of the most fundamental aspects of the Constitution -- Freedom of Speech. Liberals are frequently viewed as the most ardent free speech advocates. Liberal groups like the ACLU rush to court to protect even the most radical speech. Yet, are liberals truly advocates of free speech, even when they disagree with it?
Much evidence exists to argue that they are not. One very recent example occurred at Prince George's Community College in Maryland. An instructor at the school -- Ayanna Watson -- allegedly asked students to write about the merits of Barack Obama. When one of her students, Gloria Alfonzo, voiced differences with Obama, Alfonzo says that the instructor demanded to know whether she was a Republican. When Alfonzo responded "yes," the trouble began. Her classmates, according to Alfonzo, stood up, started pointing at her and repeatedly yelled racially charged expletives (e.g., [expletive] white girl, and daughter of a [expletive]). The instructor allegedly did nothing. When reporters went to the instructor's home for further information on the story, the instructor did not answer but her political beliefs were certainly on display. She boasted a large Barack Obama sign on her front door. The traumatic experience has caused Alfanzo to withdraw from the school.
Unfortunately, Alfonzo's experience is repeated in colleges all across the country -- albeit perhaps not to the serious degree. Liberals dominate campuses and there are repeated stories of conservative students being intimated by both professors and fellow classmates for speaking in favor of Republicans or Conservatives. Even when I was in school years ago, liberals repeatedly took efforts to silence views with which they disagreed -- from staging vocal demonstrations against Conservative speakers to ripping down promotional signs for events sponsored by Conservative groups. Over the years, however, this push to silence critics has reached new levels and is evident even among the highest levels of the Democratic party.
In the late days of the Presidential race, the Obama campaign took unprecedented steps to "punish" anyone who asked tough questions or voiced disagreement with Obama. Take for example, the Florida news anchor, Barbara West, who posed tough questions to Joe Biden. The Obama campaign immediately reacted by canceling the station's already-scheduled interview with Michelle Obama, and by digging up and disseminating what they considered "dirt" about the anchor and her husband. The same thing happened with the now famous "Joe the Plumber" who simply showed up at an Obama event and raised questions about Obama's tax plans.
Going forward, liberals have advocated for reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine." While they attempt to wrap this in terms that make it easier to sell to the American people, the biggest effect of this doctrine will be to shut down Conservative talk radio and thereby silence some of liberals' biggest critics.
Conservatives must remain true to the Constitution. We must fight every attempt by Liberals - on our college campuses, in our communities, and within the press - to silence our voices. This is one of the most important issues domestically for Conservatives, and one that we must not loose sight of.Av
Conservatives respect the Constitution, and believe that our government should operate within it. This topic deserves an extensive discussion about what this means and how conservatives differ from liberals dramatically on this point. What I want to discuss briefly today, however, is one of the most fundamental aspects of the Constitution -- Freedom of Speech. Liberals are frequently viewed as the most ardent free speech advocates. Liberal groups like the ACLU rush to court to protect even the most radical speech. Yet, are liberals truly advocates of free speech, even when they disagree with it?
Much evidence exists to argue that they are not. One very recent example occurred at Prince George's Community College in Maryland. An instructor at the school -- Ayanna Watson -- allegedly asked students to write about the merits of Barack Obama. When one of her students, Gloria Alfonzo, voiced differences with Obama, Alfonzo says that the instructor demanded to know whether she was a Republican. When Alfonzo responded "yes," the trouble began. Her classmates, according to Alfonzo, stood up, started pointing at her and repeatedly yelled racially charged expletives (e.g., [expletive] white girl, and daughter of a [expletive]). The instructor allegedly did nothing. When reporters went to the instructor's home for further information on the story, the instructor did not answer but her political beliefs were certainly on display. She boasted a large Barack Obama sign on her front door. The traumatic experience has caused Alfanzo to withdraw from the school.
Unfortunately, Alfonzo's experience is repeated in colleges all across the country -- albeit perhaps not to the serious degree. Liberals dominate campuses and there are repeated stories of conservative students being intimated by both professors and fellow classmates for speaking in favor of Republicans or Conservatives. Even when I was in school years ago, liberals repeatedly took efforts to silence views with which they disagreed -- from staging vocal demonstrations against Conservative speakers to ripping down promotional signs for events sponsored by Conservative groups. Over the years, however, this push to silence critics has reached new levels and is evident even among the highest levels of the Democratic party.
In the late days of the Presidential race, the Obama campaign took unprecedented steps to "punish" anyone who asked tough questions or voiced disagreement with Obama. Take for example, the Florida news anchor, Barbara West, who posed tough questions to Joe Biden. The Obama campaign immediately reacted by canceling the station's already-scheduled interview with Michelle Obama, and by digging up and disseminating what they considered "dirt" about the anchor and her husband. The same thing happened with the now famous "Joe the Plumber" who simply showed up at an Obama event and raised questions about Obama's tax plans.
Going forward, liberals have advocated for reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine." While they attempt to wrap this in terms that make it easier to sell to the American people, the biggest effect of this doctrine will be to shut down Conservative talk radio and thereby silence some of liberals' biggest critics.
Conservatives must remain true to the Constitution. We must fight every attempt by Liberals - on our college campuses, in our communities, and within the press - to silence our voices. This is one of the most important issues domestically for Conservatives, and one that we must not loose sight of.Av
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Vigilance
Before November 4, certain friends and I shared concerns about what an Obama presidency combined with a Democratic Congress would bring. We worried about higher taxes and a declining standard of living. My husband and I had discussed restrictions of 2nd Amendment rights. We stocked up a little extra home-grown home-canned food this year and have made plans to head for the cabin if needed. Some would say that we overreacted. Sometimes I think I've been a little silly.
Then comes a video like this:
This is quite creepy. The plan is to impose mandatory "civil defense training" upon every citizen somewhere between the ages of 18 and 25. If you listen through to the end, you would think that Rahm Emanuel is spoofing a mafioso. It should make your stomach turn.
I know that this is supposed to be a place of positive discussion. Frankly, I'm finding it difficult to find much hope for the next four or eight years.
In the absence of optimism, I think vigilance will be necessary to guide our way.
h/t Ace
Then comes a video like this:
This is quite creepy. The plan is to impose mandatory "civil defense training" upon every citizen somewhere between the ages of 18 and 25. If you listen through to the end, you would think that Rahm Emanuel is spoofing a mafioso. It should make your stomach turn.
I know that this is supposed to be a place of positive discussion. Frankly, I'm finding it difficult to find much hope for the next four or eight years.
In the absence of optimism, I think vigilance will be necessary to guide our way.
h/t Ace
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Veteran's Day
Hey Y'all. As a little introduction, one of the bloggers here sent me an invitation to contribute to Fight On...and I cannot think of a better way to develop the skills needed to speak up for freedom than to hang around a bunch of positive conservatives. So...thanks, I hope to be able to contribute in a positive way.
Today is a special day. I called my son, wished him a happy Veteran's Day and thanked him for his service to our country. As I write this, I can see his wedding photo that shows him in his dress uniform - at twenty-three years of age, he was married ten days before being deployed; the photo sits next to a crystal container with all his letters from war. On the wall is a collage of pictures from a memorial service after the 9/11 attacks. In it, he appears in his uniform, a very young National Guardsman, standing proudly at attention and quite unaware that he would be called to war two years later.
Words cannot describe the pride that a mom has for a son who answered the call and spent a year in Iraq as a prison guard, treating the detainees well - even learning their language.
The young men and women whom I have come to know personally and through reading about their service in the current conflicts are amazing human beings. When peace comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, they will be remembered fondly and seen as equals to the "greatest generation."
On this day, we pause to thank our veterans of the major conflicts of WWI, WWII, the Korean War, and especially the Viet Nam war. We thank those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who have fought in places like Panama, and Bosnia, and Somolia in attempts to bring freedom to those who are unable to fight for themselves. We thank all veterans, from the cooks to the generals, who all work together to complete the mission to keep us free.
Today is a special day. I called my son, wished him a happy Veteran's Day and thanked him for his service to our country. As I write this, I can see his wedding photo that shows him in his dress uniform - at twenty-three years of age, he was married ten days before being deployed; the photo sits next to a crystal container with all his letters from war. On the wall is a collage of pictures from a memorial service after the 9/11 attacks. In it, he appears in his uniform, a very young National Guardsman, standing proudly at attention and quite unaware that he would be called to war two years later.
Words cannot describe the pride that a mom has for a son who answered the call and spent a year in Iraq as a prison guard, treating the detainees well - even learning their language.
The young men and women whom I have come to know personally and through reading about their service in the current conflicts are amazing human beings. When peace comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, they will be remembered fondly and seen as equals to the "greatest generation."
On this day, we pause to thank our veterans of the major conflicts of WWI, WWII, the Korean War, and especially the Viet Nam war. We thank those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who have fought in places like Panama, and Bosnia, and Somolia in attempts to bring freedom to those who are unable to fight for themselves. We thank all veterans, from the cooks to the generals, who all work together to complete the mission to keep us free.
Today’s Quote: It is…for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us; that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address
When I was a child, I would sometimes talk my father and my uncles—my mother’s brothers—into taking me along with them to fish, either from the banks of the Sewanee River or down in the Keys. On one such outing, I remember curling up on my father’s lap in the front seat of an uncle’s car. I remember, too, drowsing in that utterly relaxed and heavenly state on the border between waking and sleeping. As evening enveloped us, I could feel my father’s baritone rumble as he chatted with the uncles. My father and all of the uncles were veterans, either of World War II or Korea. Inevitably, as we rode along in the dusk, the conversation turned to war reminiscences. Thinking that I was sound asleep, my father began to tell his war story. Months after graduating from West Point and marrying my mother, he received his orders for Korea. He was to serve as second in command of a platoon somewhere on the front. Within weeks of his assuming his duties, the captain of the platoon was killed. And so my father found himself, a young second lieutenant, in command of this platoon. He recounted the terrible chaos of combat, the heavy burden of responsibility for other men’s lives. He also recounted how, on one unfortunate afternoon, he climbed a small hill to find himself face-to-face with a North Korean soldier who held a bazooka. Before my father could move, the soldier had fired the bazooka, striking my father in both legs at close range. The miracle is that my father survived. Somehow he was evacuated to a hospital ship in the China Sea where, after months of surgery and rehabilitation, he was sent back into Korea to lead another platoon.
My father received a Purple Heart for the injuries he sustained. Years later, when I was no longer a child and we were involved in another war in Southeast Asia, my father told me that he had never met a veteran who loved war; he said that soldiers know better than anyone how horrible war is. Later still, when the subject of Vietnam came up at my church, a man declared that he could not think of anything worth killing for. I realized then that, during his lengthy and distinguished service to his country, my father did not think in terms of “things worth killing for;” he thought, instead, of things worth dying for.
He knew that, ironically, without things worth dying for, nothing is worth living for. Thanks always, Dad, for your example and your service. Love,…
When I was a child, I would sometimes talk my father and my uncles—my mother’s brothers—into taking me along with them to fish, either from the banks of the Sewanee River or down in the Keys. On one such outing, I remember curling up on my father’s lap in the front seat of an uncle’s car. I remember, too, drowsing in that utterly relaxed and heavenly state on the border between waking and sleeping. As evening enveloped us, I could feel my father’s baritone rumble as he chatted with the uncles. My father and all of the uncles were veterans, either of World War II or Korea. Inevitably, as we rode along in the dusk, the conversation turned to war reminiscences. Thinking that I was sound asleep, my father began to tell his war story. Months after graduating from West Point and marrying my mother, he received his orders for Korea. He was to serve as second in command of a platoon somewhere on the front. Within weeks of his assuming his duties, the captain of the platoon was killed. And so my father found himself, a young second lieutenant, in command of this platoon. He recounted the terrible chaos of combat, the heavy burden of responsibility for other men’s lives. He also recounted how, on one unfortunate afternoon, he climbed a small hill to find himself face-to-face with a North Korean soldier who held a bazooka. Before my father could move, the soldier had fired the bazooka, striking my father in both legs at close range. The miracle is that my father survived. Somehow he was evacuated to a hospital ship in the China Sea where, after months of surgery and rehabilitation, he was sent back into Korea to lead another platoon.
My father received a Purple Heart for the injuries he sustained. Years later, when I was no longer a child and we were involved in another war in Southeast Asia, my father told me that he had never met a veteran who loved war; he said that soldiers know better than anyone how horrible war is. Later still, when the subject of Vietnam came up at my church, a man declared that he could not think of anything worth killing for. I realized then that, during his lengthy and distinguished service to his country, my father did not think in terms of “things worth killing for;” he thought, instead, of things worth dying for.
He knew that, ironically, without things worth dying for, nothing is worth living for. Thanks always, Dad, for your example and your service. Love,…
Monday, November 10, 2008
Melting Pot or Salad Bowl?
When I was growing up, I learned about America as the Great Melting Pot. A place where peoples from the world over came for greater opportunity and a better life. The American Dream was not something unique to Americans, it was something that human beings all over the world yearned for…the chance to succeed, to build wealth, to own a home, to raise a family free from government intervention and tyranny. And America was the place, more than any other, where that Dream was possible. It’s what made America America, and it is this common spirit that has bound our citizens together for two centuries.
Recently, as I worked in corporate America, I stopped hearing reference to America as a “melting pot.” In fact, on one occasion as I reviewed training materials for a major corporation’s Human Resource’s department, I read reference to America as a “Salad Bowl.” No longer, I was instructed, was it appropriate to refer to America as a “melting pot.” The new terminology, with the exact opposite meaning, was “salad bowl,” where each individual maintains his/her identity, interests, culture, and customs. No longer, I was told, can America expect its citizens to have a common spirit that binds them. Instead, we must encourage and thrive on our differences.
In a very real sense, this shift in mentality is reflective of the differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe that Americans share fundamental beliefs, the inherent rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the notion that hard work reaps rewards and that anyone of us has equal opportunity to build wealth and live the American Dream, whether that dream be a modest home in the suburbs, a small business, a palatial estate, or hundreds of other unique ideas. The common theme is that anything is possible in America with hard work and perseverance.
Liberals, on the other hand, survive on emphasizing differences…differences in wealth, differences in race, differences in religion, differences in gender. By pitting groups against each other, liberals encourage resentment, and through resentment, garner power. A perfect example of this is the recent campaign’s emphasis on pitting the “haves” against the “have nots,” the notion that being financially successful is to be scorned (i.e., the famous “spreading the wealth” line). There are myriad of other examples, but the point is that unlike conservatives, who believe as Americans we all share a common “American spirit” which allows any one of us the chance for enormous success, liberals must accentuate the differences among individuals and groups of individuals to survive.
Today, as new citizens pledge their allegiance to this great country, and as our nation’s youth grow into adults, we must reclaim what it means to be an American. We as conservatives – in our schools, in our citizenship classes, in our families – must constantly remind ourselves and share with those around us what it means (and has always meant) to be American. We must never lose sight of what America stands for, and we must, as a people, focus on our common American spirit. In short, we must reject the salad bowl mentality. To do otherwise is to run the risk of our differences destroying the very fabric that binds us together as a people and has kept America that “Shining City on a Hill” for more than 200 years.
Recently, as I worked in corporate America, I stopped hearing reference to America as a “melting pot.” In fact, on one occasion as I reviewed training materials for a major corporation’s Human Resource’s department, I read reference to America as a “Salad Bowl.” No longer, I was instructed, was it appropriate to refer to America as a “melting pot.” The new terminology, with the exact opposite meaning, was “salad bowl,” where each individual maintains his/her identity, interests, culture, and customs. No longer, I was told, can America expect its citizens to have a common spirit that binds them. Instead, we must encourage and thrive on our differences.
In a very real sense, this shift in mentality is reflective of the differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe that Americans share fundamental beliefs, the inherent rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the notion that hard work reaps rewards and that anyone of us has equal opportunity to build wealth and live the American Dream, whether that dream be a modest home in the suburbs, a small business, a palatial estate, or hundreds of other unique ideas. The common theme is that anything is possible in America with hard work and perseverance.
Liberals, on the other hand, survive on emphasizing differences…differences in wealth, differences in race, differences in religion, differences in gender. By pitting groups against each other, liberals encourage resentment, and through resentment, garner power. A perfect example of this is the recent campaign’s emphasis on pitting the “haves” against the “have nots,” the notion that being financially successful is to be scorned (i.e., the famous “spreading the wealth” line). There are myriad of other examples, but the point is that unlike conservatives, who believe as Americans we all share a common “American spirit” which allows any one of us the chance for enormous success, liberals must accentuate the differences among individuals and groups of individuals to survive.
Today, as new citizens pledge their allegiance to this great country, and as our nation’s youth grow into adults, we must reclaim what it means to be an American. We as conservatives – in our schools, in our citizenship classes, in our families – must constantly remind ourselves and share with those around us what it means (and has always meant) to be American. We must never lose sight of what America stands for, and we must, as a people, focus on our common American spirit. In short, we must reject the salad bowl mentality. To do otherwise is to run the risk of our differences destroying the very fabric that binds us together as a people and has kept America that “Shining City on a Hill” for more than 200 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
