July 30, 2009

 Dear Folks,

 Thanks for asking my opinion! 

I know my answers are not totally what you want but in order for me to be encouraged by spending cuts they must be accompanied by tax cuts and lower income tax for individuals.  This country grew great without individual’s income being taxed at all!  Why then must we maintain our greatness by the income tax?  Remember the foolish Galatians?  Who thought once they were saved by faith and had to now earn their faith?

Corporate welfare is not fair but it does reduce the tax burden.  Taxing corporations does not save the taxpayers anything since all taxes paid by corporations are merely passed on to the consumer.

Also deficits are stupid and ignorant, but repaying loans is not a social program!  Therefore a deficit is “wiser” than a social program.  Until we end (Sine Die) all social programs people will continue to be slothful, lazy, and uneducated.  Until they have to scrap for themselves this country will continue to be burdened by the lazy, slothful, and ignorant.

The answer has always been harvest your crops yourself!  Sow in season, reap in season, Period!

One or two time handouts is not immoral but should be a privately funded endeavor.

Enslavement is always wrong especially under the guise of charity. 

 The problem IS government spending.  The underlying problem is dependence on government.

 If you depend on government it will depend on you! (think $$$$)

 Ralph Reagan

Fiscal and Social Conservative

 

Perez Hilton: The foul face of 'gay' activism

Matt Barber - Guest Columnist - 4/24/2009 9:45:00 AM

You may have heard. During Sunday's Miss USA pageant openly "gay" activist and pageant judge Perez Hilton – the self-styled "Queen of Media" – ambushed Carrie Prejean – the openly Christian Miss California – with a politically loaded question on so-called "same-sex marriage." Prejean's candid answer – as both Hilton and Miss USA organizer Donald Trump later admitted – likely cost her the crown.
 
From the moment she opened her mouth, Prejean has given liberals a clinic in class.  Hilton, on the other hand (a.k.a. Mario Armando Lavandeira), has provided the world a sneak peek into the soul of homosexual activism.

 

This is one for the up-is-down-black-is-white hall of fame. The media's fabricated flap over Prejean's answer – a public defense of legitimate marriage – has a reasonable America scratching its collective noggin in stunned disbelief. Not because of the answer she gave Perez – which was both well received by the pageant audience and overwhelmingly shared by about 70 percent of Americans – but, rather, because of Hilton's hate-filled, misogynistic response to her answer and the disgraceful, knee-jerk defense of that response by liberals in Hollywood, the media, and organized homosexuality.
 
After Hilton asked the lovely and talented Miss California whether "every state" should legalize "same-sex marriage," Prejean responded: "In my country, in my family...I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.
 
Oh the humanity!
 
Evidently this was not the rooty-tooty-fresh-n'-fruity answer Hilton had hoped for.  He promptly marked Prejean's score card with a zero, plopped down in front of the television cameras, and publicly called the pageant contestant a "dumb b****".
 
He then yammered to a sympathetic Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC that, not only was he refusing to apologize, he was actually "thinking the C-word." This, of course, one of the vilest things anyone can call a woman. Yet, rather than taking Hilton to task, O'Donnell joined in on the bash-fest, criticizing Prejean for her traditional view.
 
But Hilton wasn't done yet. Ramping up his vicious attack on the Christian California bombshell, he dove headlong into the annals of dirt-baggery lore by salaciously defacing a photo of Prejean.
 
How did Prejean react?
 
While talking to Matt Lauer on NBC's Today Show she said, "I knew at that moment after I answered the question, I knew, I was not going to win because of my answer, because I had spoken from my heart, from my beliefs and for my God....I wouldn't have answered it differently. The way I answered may have been offensive. With that question specifically, it's not about being politically correct. For me it was being biblically correct."
 
On the Fox News Channel's Hannity program, Prejean shared, "You know, I forgive him. I know that he's angry for whatever reason. I know there must be a bigger issue going on in his life."
 
Like I said – class.
 
Still, Perez Hilton isn't alone in his hatred for Prejean or the three-fourths of Americans who share her opposition to the novel and incongruous concept of "gay marriage."
 
For example, Wayne Besen, a prominent leader in the homosexual activist community, unbelievably went on Fox News' O'Reilly Factor to defend Hilton. He picked up Hilton's anti-Christian torch, incredibly charging that it was Prejean, not Hilton, whose millennia old recognition of biblical marriage "was divisive." Besen then added insult to injury and revealed his true rainbow colors by tagging the 70 percent of Americans who oppose "gay marriage" as "bigots."
 
This whole hateful affair provides the perfect metaphor for the current divide between defenders of traditional sexual morality and the extremist "qu--r" activist movement. As Congress debates the constructive repeal of both the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of "equal protection under the law" and the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion through passage of discriminatory and wholly unnecessary "hate crimes" legislation, this little episode once again reminds us that the self-described champions of "tolerance" and "diversity" are the most intolerant and hateful among us. 

Read Matt Barber's earlier commentary: Separate but unequal protection 

How soon we forget. Just hearken back a few months to the passage of California's Proposition 8, which restored the definition of natural marriage to the Golden State. There we all played witness to "gay" activist calls for church burnings, Mormon Temple vandalism, death threats against Prop 8 supporters, and quasi-riotous assaults against peaceful Christian marriage supporters.
 
So, insofar as liberals continue to dig their own hole by defending Hilton and piling on Prejean, I submit they're doing the other 70 percent of us a favor. In their biting anger, they've cast aside the sublime mask of "tolerance," revealing an ugly, desperate, and most intolerant countenance below.
 
For that, I say thank you. For your treatment of Carrie Prejean, I say shame on you.

 

 

 

Hitler Youth - by Nathan Krekula

Hitler Youth was the persona of discipline of the Third Reich and a well organized one at that. In 1939, the German law made it compulsory that all youth attend Hitler Youth events. The Hitler Youth focused on 10 to 18 year olds. There were separate organizations for boys and girls. The task of the boys section was to prepare the boys for military service. For girls, the organization prepared them for motherhood. We all know the evils of the Third Reich and the atrocities Hitler planned to act out in what he called “the Arian race.”

You would think that this evil was long put to rest at the end of World War II, but you would be wrong. Passed by the House of Representatives with a 321-105 margin, HR 1388: the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, dubbed the “GIVE” act, would require the US government to develop a plan to implement a “service requirement for all able young people.” This service sounds a lot like the Hitler Youth. What is more scary than the potential of making participation in GIVE mandatory is the activities prohibited by participants include lobbying, protesting, unionizing, participating in the political process, and even church attendance (Sec. 1304, Sec. 125). Yes, church attendance. This is a clear and intentional violation of the First Amendment.

When we give our children to the government, we lose our freedom. Why would we so willingly give our youth over to socialism and poison all the blood shed for freedom? The government should not and cannot take on the job of the church and should not see itself as philanthropic. Service cannot replace religion. What better way to pull this nation deeper into socialism than, like Hitler, indoctrinating the youth of the USA with the lie of socialism. HR 1388 passed the House on March 18, 2009, and the Senate on March 26, 2009, and each day left-wing Marxists are moving us closer to the edge of the collapse of this great Nation.

 

February 25, 2009

After reading Chris Sliwa’s op-ed piece (“Obama inspires students”, Feb. 18^th) I wonder where many successful adults got their inspiration prior to the election of our new President. Mr. Sliwa informs us in his piece that the students at Fayetteville State University are now “more serious, focused and they work harder to achieve their goals because they see that the boundaries are limitless”. I beg to differ, and I find it sad that so many students at Fayetteville State University were paying tuition while presumably not working to the best of their abilities to achieve their goals prior to November 4, 2008. Consider many very accomplished individuals both historically and in the present day, including Dr Ben Carson, Miles Davis, Frederick Douglass, Michael Jordan, Ronald McNair, Rosa Parks, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowell, Harriet Tubman, Oprah Winfrey and many others. These individuals are but a small portion of a group of successful leaders who have excelled in many areas, including expanding civil rights, science, sports, politics, world leadership, military leadership, medicine and entertainment. The boundaries were limitless for them, and the inspiration and the ability and motivation to reach one’s dreams comes from within. I personally have seen many FSU graduates in varying capacities in and around our area, many of whom have excelled and are serving in many ways to make our world a better place.

Mr. Sliwa singles out one student for her many admirable accomplishments and philanthropic activities. Did Ms. Simpson wait until after November 4, 2008 to start achieving her dreams and aspirations? I would submit that she has inner motivation and will go on to be a highly productive member of our community. Ms. Simpson sounds like an excellent example of a highly motivated, intelligent young woman who has chosen to excel.

President Obama’s responsibility is not to “raise a new generation of great leaders”, but to provide leadership to our country to keep our nation the greatest, safest democracy in the world. We all have the responsibility to raise our new leaders, and that leadership starts at home and early. Parents have a responsibility to teach their children that they can achieve with hard work and a willing spirit. While admirable, Chancellor James Anderson’s declaration that every FSU student would be learning a foreign language beginning in 2010 is really a miniscule effort toward creating bilingual students, when instead that effort should be concentrated in the elementary schools and reinforced by parents at home.

Yes, education is important. Failure should never be an option unless a best effort has been made. Success should be rewarded. The election of President Barack Obama should not be minimized as insignificant. Much of the inspiration attributed to President Obama’s success was noted by Mr. Sliwa to have come from his admiration of great reformers of long ago. These inspirational historical figures have been around for a great while, and I believe that we would be remiss in dismissing them and their significance to our success as a country prior to November 4, 2008.

Going to a website to see a shivering Al Gore ice sculpture for the humor I noticed a thoughtful post on the site.  I don't know who Renn Man the author is, but his thoughts seemed insightful and informative.  I don't feel that humans have destroyed the climate by slightly alter the makeup of atmospheric gases that's crazy!  Anyway enjoy the post.

 

After having spent most of my life preparing to be an academic researcher, I quit just short of my Ph.D. in atmospheric sciences out of disgust. I had been studying to be a climate researcher, and had already obtained a master's degree in statistics.

Why did I quit in disgust? At the time when I left the field ten years ago, the science was already mostly gone from climate research, and it seemed to have been replaced by true believers engaged in the worst form of confirmation bias. The actual science behind the belief of run-away man-made global warming is pretty awful, and involves far more details than what I can put into a single comment to a newspaper article.

But the short version is as follows: The dirty secret is that carbon dioxide is not very effective at absorbing and re-emitting radiation (heat). In short, it does not absorb over much of the infrared spectrum, and much of the area where it does absorb is already covered by water vapor. To get the run-away alarmist greenhouse effect, it is assumed in the climate models (but not verified at all by observations) that the small amount of additional heat from CO2 will cause more water to evaporate from the oceans without (overly simplifying here) causing additional clouds. Water vapor is a very potent "greenhouse" gas, hence the amplification effect in the climate models.

So what are the problems with the above feedback argument? There are three of them. The first is that if this water vapor feedback exists, then why did we not get a run-away greenhouse effect when the earth was actually considerably warmer than the present, such as during the Medieval Optimum (about 1000 AD, when Greenland was farmed by the Vikings), or, say, during the Holocene Maximum about 6,000 years ago? The second argument is that the assumptions about clouds in the climate models are terrible ... the assumption are the conclusions here, and satellite observations do not support the assumptions. The final point is that the theory is failing in its predictions. As an example, if the climate models were correct, then the mid-atmosphere (about 15,000 feet up) should be warming the most rapidly ... satellite data indicate no warming signature at all.

So we have a theory that makes illogical assumptions, has failed to occur in history, and is failing in its predictions. This is not to say that the earth did not warm up during the 20th Century (though it might be cooling off again now, the earth is always growing warmer or colder throughout history), or that CO2 has no effect. It is just not a big effect, and the natural tendency of humans to believe that we are wrecking an otherwise perfect world (recall our religious creation myths) does not a scientific fact make.

I could go on with so many points here, but this is already too long of a post. By the way, I would *not* want to be Al Gore ... the future will not judge that Nobel Prize very well.

Obama and his ilk, getting millions of dollars to spend willy-nilly is a mouth dropping, insane idea fraught with peril.  Any monies spent by government devalues the dollars that you and I work for, earn and sweat for by the labor we expend.  Working for free has another name. 

Social conservatives need to remember their Bibles specifically in two areas. 1. Jesus parable about paying the workmen what they said they would and paying in a timely fashion every day.  And 2. The borrower is a slave to the lender.

Except in this case government gift money is even worse than a loan it's free!  A lump of money quickly gotten and all that.

Social and fiscal conservatives focus on two sides of the same coin. 

A social conservative is concerned about abortion, and other issues where the government is pushing for death.

A fiscal conservative is concerned about the money being spent correctly and the money being collected fairly and with the least, if any, impact.

But what I have discovered is there is common ground between the two.

Both social and fiscal conservatives are against stealing.  Both social and fiscal conservatives feel that good honest work is the cure for any economic downturn.

Both social and fiscal conservatives feel that the government has limitations on it's power.  (You can't take our Bibles and you can't take our Guns, and you can't take but so much of our money.)

Some wide tent folks feel that social conservatives are a pariah, some social conservatives think that a little government spending won't hurt anybody.  Well you are both wrong.

Abandoning principles and ideas that are correct and dredging up new ones and calling evil good and calling good evil will get you in the heavenly "old sparky" even before eternity!

Social conservatives listen (I am one) fiscal conservatives are right.  It is evil for the government to have taxes higher than what Jesus said.  What did He say?  Simple he said "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's".  God is all about money and spending it right.  The tithe is 10%.  The government should not get as much as God. Period. 

So the government should live within it's means period and if that means that lots of people have to pray to God for help because the government is no longer stealing money across America well that's the way it should be.  Calling on God instead of calling on the government  IS what social conservatives should be about--Thou shalt have no other Gods before me-- sound familiar?  Well in a nutshell that is the crux of the matter.  That is the meeting point between fiscal and social conservatives.

Any liberal or moderate attempt to obscure this is insanity.  Just because a few hundred companies fail there is no reason to quickly move to install the liberal baal on every hill and mountain to bow down and worship at the altar of government. 

Government is not the be all and end all of human existence.  In fact it is simply a fact not unlike the toilet paper holders in our bathrooms.  And Government is a poor, poor, wretched substitute of a loving, gracious, almighty God. 

As they say a stopped clock is right twice a day!

In the hubub over Rick Warren praying at O's festivities a gay bishop said the following:

You can’t blame V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and an early Obama booster, for feeling as if he’d been slapped in the face. “I’m all for Rick Warren being at the table,” he told The Times, but “we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most-watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.”

Notice the last line!  How about that!  Gays don't worship the same God indeed!  Now if we can just get him to say he shouldn't be a bishop!