"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." ~ 2 Thessalonians 3:10
The 14 fleebagger Democrat Senators in Illinois (who are supposed to be doing their jobs in Wisconsin) should be recalled, and the greedy, selfish, overpaid, over-compensated whining Teachers and public workers who are refusing to do the jobs they are being overpaid to do, should be fired.
The so-called doctors who are writing false sick notes for those union employees should be brought up before the medical ethics board, and subsequently lose their licenses to practice medicine.
No if's, and's, or but's.
Remember how President Ronald Reagan handled the illegal Air Traffic controller's strike? The same solution applies.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
What They Want
"This truly sums up the progressive/liberal position. Always apologizing for the USA, denigrating the USA to the world, bowing before foreign dignitaries, sanctioning same-sex unions to undermine society, promoting the murder of children in the womb, etc, etc." ~ Glenn E. Chatfield
In my last post, I encapsulated, "Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility."
Apparently there are those who have failed to comprehend that simple statement. So, I suppose I should elaborate somewhat.
As Glenn Chatfield pointed out, for instance, Liberals want to avoid the responsibility of raising children, thus they support abortion.
They want to avoid the responsibility of being normal heterosexuals, as God intended, so they support the oxymoronic "Gay Marriage".
They want to avoid the responsibility of having to deal with unpleasant people and situations, so they support introducing legislation that would require us, under penalty of law, to accept immoral, illegal, and degenerate behaviors as normal behavior.
They want to avoid the responsibility of providing for their own health care, so they want to force the rest of us, also under penalty of law, to buy the government health insurance, which is really nothing more than an elaborate scheme, intended, in reality, to separate us from as much of our hard earned money as they possibly can.
They want to avoid the responsibility of working for a living, so, they support extending unemployment benefits and endless entitlement programs. As a reminder, Welfare was originally designed to be a hand up, not a hand-out, but Liberals, as usual, have bastardized that intent, much the way they bastardize the Constitution. And why? Because they don't want to be responsible for their own welfare.
They want to avoid the responsibility of funding their own Television and radio stations like NPR and PBS to promote their Liberal agenda, so they support forcing us to pay taxes to fund these stations. Apparently, these stations are incapable of supporting themselves without demanding financial help. Perhaps that should be a clue that their agenda is not too popular.
They want to avoid the responsibility of dealing with possible bankruptcy, so they beg the government to bail them out whenever their businesses suffer financial setbacks because of irresponsible business decisions.
They want to avoid the responsibility of having to defend their indefensible ideological positions so they support the censoring of Conservative speech with proposed legislation called, ironically, the "Fairness Doctrine", which, like everything else they support, isn't fair at all.
Instead of finding another job that will pay them better, they want to avoid responsibility for their own income by demanding the government pay them more, or in the case of Wisconsin public employees, refusing to agree to a minuscule increase in their share of their over-generous compensation package.
I'm sure I have left some things out, but this should serve as some examples of what I was referring to when I said, "Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility."
Actually, I didn't think it was that hard to understand. It only took me a few minutes to think of these examples.
But, I guess that's another avoidance of personal responsibility:
They don't want the responsibility to figure these things out for themselves, so they demand explanations.
In my last post, I encapsulated, "Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility."
Apparently there are those who have failed to comprehend that simple statement. So, I suppose I should elaborate somewhat.
As Glenn Chatfield pointed out, for instance, Liberals want to avoid the responsibility of raising children, thus they support abortion.
They want to avoid the responsibility of being normal heterosexuals, as God intended, so they support the oxymoronic "Gay Marriage".
They want to avoid the responsibility of having to deal with unpleasant people and situations, so they support introducing legislation that would require us, under penalty of law, to accept immoral, illegal, and degenerate behaviors as normal behavior.
They want to avoid the responsibility of providing for their own health care, so they want to force the rest of us, also under penalty of law, to buy the government health insurance, which is really nothing more than an elaborate scheme, intended, in reality, to separate us from as much of our hard earned money as they possibly can.
They want to avoid the responsibility of working for a living, so, they support extending unemployment benefits and endless entitlement programs. As a reminder, Welfare was originally designed to be a hand up, not a hand-out, but Liberals, as usual, have bastardized that intent, much the way they bastardize the Constitution. And why? Because they don't want to be responsible for their own welfare.
They want to avoid the responsibility of funding their own Television and radio stations like NPR and PBS to promote their Liberal agenda, so they support forcing us to pay taxes to fund these stations. Apparently, these stations are incapable of supporting themselves without demanding financial help. Perhaps that should be a clue that their agenda is not too popular.
They want to avoid the responsibility of dealing with possible bankruptcy, so they beg the government to bail them out whenever their businesses suffer financial setbacks because of irresponsible business decisions.
They want to avoid the responsibility of having to defend their indefensible ideological positions so they support the censoring of Conservative speech with proposed legislation called, ironically, the "Fairness Doctrine", which, like everything else they support, isn't fair at all.
Instead of finding another job that will pay them better, they want to avoid responsibility for their own income by demanding the government pay them more, or in the case of Wisconsin public employees, refusing to agree to a minuscule increase in their share of their over-generous compensation package.
I'm sure I have left some things out, but this should serve as some examples of what I was referring to when I said, "Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility."
Actually, I didn't think it was that hard to understand. It only took me a few minutes to think of these examples.
But, I guess that's another avoidance of personal responsibility:
They don't want the responsibility to figure these things out for themselves, so they demand explanations.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
What We Want
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ~ Declaration of Independence
Although the ideological gap between Liberals and Conservatives is often seemingly impassable, in the end all of us really want the same thing:
Freedom.
It is merely the extent of that freedom on which we disagree.
We Conservatives want freedom from excessive governmental restraint. Conservatives want to be free to earn an income in whatever responsible way we choose. We want to be free to keep the money we earn and to do with it as we please. We want to choose our charities, and we want the right to refuse to donate our money to causes and organizations with which we disagree.
We want the freedom to be responsible for ourselves, and to hold ourselves accountable for our successes and our failures.
We want to retain our First Amendment rights: The freedom to worship in the church of our choice, or not worship at all, without being persecuted for that choice. We do not want to be told, by the government or anyone else, where and Whom we should worship.
We want to be permitted to speak our mind freely, without being berated, belittled, ridiculed, insulted, sued, banned, or even incarcerated for our thoughts.
We want the right to assemble together without fear of being shouted down, bullied, or assaulted by opposing factions, and certainly not by representatives of the government.
We want to be free to offer our suggestions about how we believe the government should govern without fear of some degree of retribution.
We want the right to bear whatever arms we deem necessary for the protection of our life, family, and possessions.
We want the freedom to own personal property and we desire a reasonable expectation that our right to our personal property be respected.
Oh, my God. I didn't think this would be this long.
For the sake of brevity, allow me to encapsulate:
Conservatives want to retain our basic freedoms of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility.
Although the ideological gap between Liberals and Conservatives is often seemingly impassable, in the end all of us really want the same thing:
Freedom.
It is merely the extent of that freedom on which we disagree.
We Conservatives want freedom from excessive governmental restraint. Conservatives want to be free to earn an income in whatever responsible way we choose. We want to be free to keep the money we earn and to do with it as we please. We want to choose our charities, and we want the right to refuse to donate our money to causes and organizations with which we disagree.
We want the freedom to be responsible for ourselves, and to hold ourselves accountable for our successes and our failures.
We want to retain our First Amendment rights: The freedom to worship in the church of our choice, or not worship at all, without being persecuted for that choice. We do not want to be told, by the government or anyone else, where and Whom we should worship.
We want to be permitted to speak our mind freely, without being berated, belittled, ridiculed, insulted, sued, banned, or even incarcerated for our thoughts.
We want the right to assemble together without fear of being shouted down, bullied, or assaulted by opposing factions, and certainly not by representatives of the government.
We want to be free to offer our suggestions about how we believe the government should govern without fear of some degree of retribution.
We want the right to bear whatever arms we deem necessary for the protection of our life, family, and possessions.
We want the freedom to own personal property and we desire a reasonable expectation that our right to our personal property be respected.
Oh, my God. I didn't think this would be this long.
For the sake of brevity, allow me to encapsulate:
Conservatives want to retain our basic freedoms of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Revisiting An Old Topic
"I am often so far out in left field, I'm three or four deep in the bleacher seats." ~ Me
Here's something I woke up thinking about this morning. Who knows what makes me think of these things? Anyhow, this is how my thought processes often go:
I think Osama bin Laden is dead. That isn't based on anything scientific, but it's been quite some time since anyone's heard from him. Once in a while a video or audio recording pops up, and al Qaida assures the world that it's proof of his continued existence, but I remain skeptical.
But, why can't we find him?
He's supposed to stand head and shoulders taller than the average man, so, if he was circulating around, he'd be pretty easy to spot in a crowd. The videos we've seen are grainy and blurred, not at all what a high tech high definition modern video looks like (and he is wealthy enough to afford the finest quality video equipment), so I think they were all pre-recorded long ago. And, also, because they are blurry and grainy, one cannot tell if he's aged since the last one was released, which would also offer some insight as to his health, or lack of it.
If he isn't dead, I have thought up a way in which we might capture him:
First, I know this sounds crazy, but, release all the detainees in Guantanamo. But, before we do, plant tracking devices somewhere on or in their persons. Then follow them to see where they'll go. Probably, all of them won't go immediately to meet up with bin Laden, but surely some of them will.
The few that don't meet up with him will still have tracking devices so they can easily be recaptured, along with their confederates in terror, so it's a twofer.
Not only that, but we have the technology to find this guy. We have drones with high powered cameras. We have satellites with telescopic camera lenses that are powerful enough to determine the sex of a fly from outer space. We have black ops. Surely we can put them to use to find Osama.
Which brings to mind a question:
We've had the technology and man power to find and eliminate this man for decades. Why haven't we used it?
Do you buy the story that we just can't find him? I don't.
I don't want to sound like some kind of wacky conspiracy theorist, but, could there be more to this situation than meets the brain? I'll leave that question to greater intellects than myself to reason out.
Here's something I woke up thinking about this morning. Who knows what makes me think of these things? Anyhow, this is how my thought processes often go:
I think Osama bin Laden is dead. That isn't based on anything scientific, but it's been quite some time since anyone's heard from him. Once in a while a video or audio recording pops up, and al Qaida assures the world that it's proof of his continued existence, but I remain skeptical.
But, why can't we find him?
He's supposed to stand head and shoulders taller than the average man, so, if he was circulating around, he'd be pretty easy to spot in a crowd. The videos we've seen are grainy and blurred, not at all what a high tech high definition modern video looks like (and he is wealthy enough to afford the finest quality video equipment), so I think they were all pre-recorded long ago. And, also, because they are blurry and grainy, one cannot tell if he's aged since the last one was released, which would also offer some insight as to his health, or lack of it.
If he isn't dead, I have thought up a way in which we might capture him:
First, I know this sounds crazy, but, release all the detainees in Guantanamo. But, before we do, plant tracking devices somewhere on or in their persons. Then follow them to see where they'll go. Probably, all of them won't go immediately to meet up with bin Laden, but surely some of them will.
The few that don't meet up with him will still have tracking devices so they can easily be recaptured, along with their confederates in terror, so it's a twofer.
Not only that, but we have the technology to find this guy. We have drones with high powered cameras. We have satellites with telescopic camera lenses that are powerful enough to determine the sex of a fly from outer space. We have black ops. Surely we can put them to use to find Osama.
Which brings to mind a question:
We've had the technology and man power to find and eliminate this man for decades. Why haven't we used it?
Do you buy the story that we just can't find him? I don't.
I don't want to sound like some kind of wacky conspiracy theorist, but, could there be more to this situation than meets the brain? I'll leave that question to greater intellects than myself to reason out.
Monday, February 07, 2011
A Sign The Apocalypse Is Upon Us
"Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?" ~ Francis Scott Key
I daresay, one could simply read the lyrics of "The Star Spangled Banner" with more patriotic fervor and love of our country than was demonstrated by it's butchering by Christina Aquilera at last night's Super Bowl. Watch (if you can stomach it):
I couldn't even listen to the whole thing. I had to turn off the volume.
Perhaps I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but I don't understand why these modern pop singers seem to have to meander aimlessly around the scale on every note that comes out of their mouths when they "sing".
I have a theory: All of these pop singers who sing as though they are searching for the right note must be doing it because they know they can't carry a tune in a bucket, and are trying to fool real music lovers into thinking they have singing talent.
They don't convince me. In fact, as I see it, they are proving exactly opposite.
This version, although not sung exactly correctly, was so much better:
I don't know, but I'd take just about any version over Christina's.
Except Roseanne's.
By the way, have you ever heard the other verses? Read these:
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Perhaps Ms. Aquilera should familiarize herself with the remaining verses before attempting to sing it again. Perhaps then she would realize what the song means to real Americans.
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?" ~ Francis Scott Key
I daresay, one could simply read the lyrics of "The Star Spangled Banner" with more patriotic fervor and love of our country than was demonstrated by it's butchering by Christina Aquilera at last night's Super Bowl. Watch (if you can stomach it):
Horrible, and on Reagan's 100th birthday, too!
I'm not talking about just screwing up the lyrics, either. Many much more talented people have done that and still managed to make it sound respectful.I couldn't even listen to the whole thing. I had to turn off the volume.
Perhaps I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but I don't understand why these modern pop singers seem to have to meander aimlessly around the scale on every note that comes out of their mouths when they "sing".
I have a theory: All of these pop singers who sing as though they are searching for the right note must be doing it because they know they can't carry a tune in a bucket, and are trying to fool real music lovers into thinking they have singing talent.
They don't convince me. In fact, as I see it, they are proving exactly opposite.
This version, although not sung exactly correctly, was so much better:
inspiring
Perhaps it was because this was the first Super Bowl performance following 9/11 that this version resonated so strongly with Americans, or maybe her love of our country showed through in her rendition.I don't know, but I'd take just about any version over Christina's.
Except Roseanne's.
By the way, have you ever heard the other verses? Read these:
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Perhaps Ms. Aquilera should familiarize herself with the remaining verses before attempting to sing it again. Perhaps then she would realize what the song means to real Americans.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
What's In My Head
I woke up with this in my head and I really wanted to go to Burger King for Breakfast, which marks the first time in my memory that a TV commercial actually inspired me to do what was suggested. Perhaps there's a subliminal message embedded?
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
So, Who Are The Bad Guys?
Good guys or bad guys?"In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain." ~ Pliny the Elder
I've been trying to get a handle, with the limited time and intellect I have, to understand the events transpiring in Egypt. I know Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is under fire from protesters, and I know about their accompanying riots, resulting in deaths, injuries, and destruction.
But I don't know who the bad guys and good guys are.
I'm not too sure anyone knows. Yesterday, while listening to Sean Hannity, I heard him say something (I don't remember his exact words) that seems to indicate he isn't too sure who the bad guys are, either.
So, I'm trying to figure out exactly who I should be supporting. To that end, I've come up with a few things that I think I understand so far. Walk through this with me:
I know there is a faction calling themselves the Muslim Brotherhood, who, although they didn't start the protests, now seem to be running the show.
As an aside: Anytime the word "Muslim" comes up in a story about the middle east, you know automatically, that death and destruction will be involved.
Regardless of what American Liberals would have us believe, the words, "Muslim" and "Terrorist" have become somewhat synonymous. If not synonymous, at least, inexorably linked.
Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood is calling for war on Israel, which gives me a fairly strong clue.
So, right away, I assume the bad guys in this situation have to be the protesters.
But hold on! Not so fast!
We are told by the American media guys that Mubarek is an evil dictator, who has been oppressing his people for decades.
I had never heard that about him up until now, but then, I tend to be more concerned about domestic matters than international events.
So, in order to ascertain for myself how much of what I've heard is accurate, I took a little of my limited time to google "Hosni Mubarak" to see just how evil he is.
I will confess, now that I've done a little research (very little), I don't see how the media have arrived at the conclusion that he is particularly evil. At least, in comparison with other world leaders. Or a dictator.
Probably, I haven't done enough research. I suppose I should have gone directly to the experts on evil dictators: The Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and The Huffington Post, perhaps.
OK. So let me assume that the American media are being truthful, and that Mubarak is indeed a very bad man. Why wouldn't they be truthful? They have the public trust. That is a great and awesome responsibility. It would be a very bad thing for them to attempt to mislead us. Why would they ever want to do that?
In doing my limited research, I read that Mubarak has been a loyal friend and ally of the United States since he gained power shortly after the assassination of Anwar Sadat. He has maintained control of a "secular government", which, as every one knows, is one of the main goals of the Liberals in this country.
You know, separation of church and state, and all that.
And yet, It seems the Liberals in our country support the Muslim brotherhood in their desire to create a decidedly non-secular government.
I wonder. How do the Liberals explain this apparent dichotomy?
And then, I wondered, where does Obama stand in all this? Who does he support? Because, as you know, knowing who Obama will back would be a definitive indication of exactly who the good and bad guys are.
Actually, I kind of knew what Obama would do when I read that Egypt's Nobel laureate, Mohamed El Baradei, had demanded that Obama call for Mubarek to step down.
And, now, since Obama never met a Nobel peace prize winner he didn't love (particularly if they are antagonistic to the United States), Obama has done what Baradei suggested.
Of course, Obama never met an evil dictator he didn't love, either, so with that in mind, it still could go either way. If Mubarak is really an evil dictator, that is.
That said, according to an ABC news story headline, "Obama Calls On Mubarak to Hand Over Power Immediately".
Well, that kind of answers the question for me. I know if Obama doesn't support Mubarak, Mubarak must be the good guy and the protesters must be the bad guys.
It's really not a difficult conclusion. If it's a question of right or wrong, like most (and I resist the temptation to say "all") Liberals, Obama will always come down on the wrong side.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I support Mubarak's Egyptian government in this one. I figure I have the odds on my side.
Anyone Obama doesn't support can't be all bad.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
How A Liberal Solves Annoyances
"Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice." ~ Arcesilaus
My Liberal Doctor (PhD Education) nephew often unintentionally gives me fodder for blogposts. Just reading his short Facebook status reports give me a unique insight into the Liberal mind. Here is his latest:
"I hereby decree: those who cannot park their Earth Bruisers in one space, drive them in one lane, or reach up high enough to brush the snow off their tops shall not be allowed to operate them."
Some points found within this short statement are singularly noted. First (and I may be wrong, but am pretty sure I'm not), I believe his term, "Earth Bruisers", is used to describe SUV's, and other similar large gas guzzling vehicles. He has swallowed the Liberal line that SVU's are destructive to this sensitive planet, and thus, are evil.
Incidentally, my only problem with people who drive SUV's is their apparent belief that their vehicles are made of glass. Of course, this is a generalization, so it doesn't apply to all SUV drivers. But, many of them are absolutely the slowest, most careful drivers I've ever seen, particularly in inclement weather. They drive as if one little bump in the road has the potential to shatter their vehicle. I was following one of them most of the way home last night, and I swear, the driver never drove over 25 mph in a 45 mph speed zone(and the roadway was dry), and almost came to a dead stop before crawling painfully slowly over a railroad track. "Oh, my God! You're driving a TANK! It's not going to BREAK if you hit a PEBBLE!"
But I digress.
Another point gleaned from my beloved nephew's short comment is his wish to create yet another law (or laws) with which to regulate our private lives. The idea that if something someone does annoys him, they should simply not be allowed to be annoying.
This is typical of Liberal thought, and what I consider a major pillar in the Liberal ideology:
"People are too stupid to take care of themselves, so the Liberal intelligentsia must take care of them, for them."
So, make a law.
As I've often said, people have a right to be stupid. While I agree with my dear relative that people who drive SUV's should drive them more responsibly and intelligently, passing laws to regulate them is overstepping our bounds.
You want to stop irresponsibility? Teach and encourage people to be responsible.
I understand that. Seemingly, Liberals don't.
The Jewish people in Jesus' time had so many oppressive laws it was virtually impossible to go from day to day without breaking several in the everyday course of their lives.
It would seem the modern American Liberal wants to bring those days of over oppressive laws back.
My Liberal Doctor (PhD Education) nephew often unintentionally gives me fodder for blogposts. Just reading his short Facebook status reports give me a unique insight into the Liberal mind. Here is his latest:
"I hereby decree: those who cannot park their Earth Bruisers in one space, drive them in one lane, or reach up high enough to brush the snow off their tops shall not be allowed to operate them."
Some points found within this short statement are singularly noted. First (and I may be wrong, but am pretty sure I'm not), I believe his term, "Earth Bruisers", is used to describe SUV's, and other similar large gas guzzling vehicles. He has swallowed the Liberal line that SVU's are destructive to this sensitive planet, and thus, are evil.
Incidentally, my only problem with people who drive SUV's is their apparent belief that their vehicles are made of glass. Of course, this is a generalization, so it doesn't apply to all SUV drivers. But, many of them are absolutely the slowest, most careful drivers I've ever seen, particularly in inclement weather. They drive as if one little bump in the road has the potential to shatter their vehicle. I was following one of them most of the way home last night, and I swear, the driver never drove over 25 mph in a 45 mph speed zone(and the roadway was dry), and almost came to a dead stop before crawling painfully slowly over a railroad track. "Oh, my God! You're driving a TANK! It's not going to BREAK if you hit a PEBBLE!"
But I digress.
Another point gleaned from my beloved nephew's short comment is his wish to create yet another law (or laws) with which to regulate our private lives. The idea that if something someone does annoys him, they should simply not be allowed to be annoying.
This is typical of Liberal thought, and what I consider a major pillar in the Liberal ideology:
"People are too stupid to take care of themselves, so the Liberal intelligentsia must take care of them, for them."
So, make a law.
As I've often said, people have a right to be stupid. While I agree with my dear relative that people who drive SUV's should drive them more responsibly and intelligently, passing laws to regulate them is overstepping our bounds.
You want to stop irresponsibility? Teach and encourage people to be responsible.
I understand that. Seemingly, Liberals don't.
The Jewish people in Jesus' time had so many oppressive laws it was virtually impossible to go from day to day without breaking several in the everyday course of their lives.
It would seem the modern American Liberal wants to bring those days of over oppressive laws back.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
A Call To Action
"The American, by nature, is optimistic. He is experimental, an inventor and a builder who builds best when called upon to build greatly." ~ John F. Kennedy
The following message had been making the rounds on Facebook recently:
"Kentucky just passed the best law ever. To be on Food stamps, Medicaid,or Cash Assistance on your Children or yourself You have to pass a DRUG Test. Now every other state should do the same. If you agree re-post. People that work HAVE to take a drug test so should they. Amen....re-post if you agree"
When I first read it, I was at first elated, but then, I considered the source, and decided it sounds a little too good to be true.
Following the maxim, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't", I decided before I pass this tidbit on, I should research it to see if it's true.
So, I googled it.
This is what I found.
It turns out that it is partly true, and partly false. A bill has been introduced in one house of the Kentucky legislature. It has not been voted on yet.
Some time ago, I posted a photo of an actual "letter to the editor" that had been printed in some newspaper in the Pacific Northwest. I can't find the post now. Anyway, The author of the letter suggested drug screens should be required for welfare recipients.
Now, it appears the state of Kentucky is prepared to act upon that suggestion.
More likely than not, the bill will die on the house floor, if not sooner.
That is, if it doesn't get enough support.
We the people can make this proposal become a reality.
If you agree that this is a good idea(and I do), spread the word to all your friends and colleagues. We can make this happen by flooding the legislature's switchboard with our calls, and overwhelming their mail rooms and web browsers with messages of support.
We can set the precedence. If Kentucky succeeds in making this proposal a law, you know other states will follow suit.
Well, what are you waiting for?
Cross posted at American Descent
The following message had been making the rounds on Facebook recently:
"Kentucky just passed the best law ever. To be on Food stamps, Medicaid,or Cash Assistance on your Children or yourself You have to pass a DRUG Test. Now every other state should do the same. If you agree re-post. People that work HAVE to take a drug test so should they. Amen....re-post if you agree"
When I first read it, I was at first elated, but then, I considered the source, and decided it sounds a little too good to be true.
Following the maxim, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't", I decided before I pass this tidbit on, I should research it to see if it's true.
So, I googled it.
This is what I found.
It turns out that it is partly true, and partly false. A bill has been introduced in one house of the Kentucky legislature. It has not been voted on yet.
Some time ago, I posted a photo of an actual "letter to the editor" that had been printed in some newspaper in the Pacific Northwest. I can't find the post now. Anyway, The author of the letter suggested drug screens should be required for welfare recipients.
Now, it appears the state of Kentucky is prepared to act upon that suggestion.
More likely than not, the bill will die on the house floor, if not sooner.
That is, if it doesn't get enough support.
We the people can make this proposal become a reality.
If you agree that this is a good idea(and I do), spread the word to all your friends and colleagues. We can make this happen by flooding the legislature's switchboard with our calls, and overwhelming their mail rooms and web browsers with messages of support.
We can set the precedence. If Kentucky succeeds in making this proposal a law, you know other states will follow suit.
Well, what are you waiting for?
Cross posted at American Descent
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
How I Would Balance The Budget
- "If you would be wealthy, think of saving as well as getting." ~ Benjamin Franklin
I didn't watch the speech. There is much more believable fiction on other channels.
As I've said countless times, I am not an economist. These billion and trillion dollar proposals, stimuli, tax increases and cuts boggle my mind. I don't understand how cutting this and raising that will reduce the national deficit very significantly.
I can only compare the national budget to my own personal finances. It is the only way I can relate.
I make far less money than I need with which to balance my budget. And, I can't manage my bank account by speculating that some future windfall is going to drop into my lap. I can only base my accounting on what I physically have in my possession.
I, unlike the government, cannot simply print more money. And, truthfully, because the government can print more money, this is where the comparison between my budgetary concerns diverge from the government's.
I could just stop here, and that would pretty much make my point.
But, I digress. Since I am not, in any way, some kind of economical genius, I devised a way, years ago, of balancing my budget. This is what I do:
When I receive my paycheck, after first depositing a small amount of it into my savings account (for emergencies), the first thing I do is determine what bills are most pressing. Then, I calculate how much of my money I can afford to pay on those bills. If I don't have enough to cover all the most immediate bills, I do one of two things:
1. I call my creditors and make payment arrangements. I negotiate (if they'll let me) a future time and amount that I feel reasonably (barring some unforeseen catastrophe)sure I can pay, and/or...
2. I sometimes have to let a bill or two slide until the next paycheck. This is undoubtedly the worst choice, because once in a while something gets turned off. Unfortunately, that can't be helped. If I don't have the money to pay it, it can't be paid.
Next, I pay the bills I have determined I can pay without going completely broke.
With the remaining money, I calculate how much I can spend per day until the next paycheck. Then I try to stay under my self imposed spending limit every day, thereby increasing the amount I can spend per day until the next paycheck. Hopefully, if I did my calculations correctly, and some unforeseen financial emergency doesn't come up, I will have something left before my next paycheck, which I can add to the paycheck, with which I pay the next round of bills.
I check my bank balance every day, religiously. (By the way, because I check my balance everyday, I have stopped attempts of identity fraud on more than one occasion. You see, what they do is invade your bank account and withdraw a very small amount of money at first to see if you discover it. If you don't catch it, they withdraw huge amounts.)
This system works for me, provided I don't overspend my daily allotment on whims. If I do overspend one day, I have to necessarily adjust my per diem spending limit.
This cycle will continue until I either start getting paid enough to pay my bills and have funds left over, or I receive an unexpected windfall such as win a lottery, or a rich uncle dies and leaves me his entire fortune.
Neither is likely to happen. I don't play the lottery and as far as I know, I have no rich uncle.
Now, the way I see balancing the federal budget is much the same, except on a much grander scale.
Just like myself, unless the Federal government has a trillionaire uncle somewhere who dies and leaves his entire fortune to the U.S. Government, or the federal government wins a trillion dollar plus lottery, the way it's currently budgeting it's money is not working.
The federal government has to first determine how much money it actually has.
Then, it has to pare down it's spending to the point where it can only spend what it has, and no more. If it has to be done daily, the way I do it, then do it that way. If something has to be cut off temporarily, let it be cut off.
Make some arrangements, if necessary. The government should always be aware of exactly how much money it can spend without going over the limit. In other words, the government should be checking it's bank balance every day and making adjustments.
It needs to stop printing up monopoly money. All that does is create a false sense of security that our children and grandchildren will have to pay dearly for later.
Then, don't go over the limit.
Too simple, you ask? Perhaps. But, as I say, I'm not an economist.
Cross posted at American Descent
Monday, January 24, 2011
Welcome Back
"Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And auld lang syne!" ~ Robert Burns
Tugboat Cap'n (or Tug, as I call him) is back! After over a year of inactivity on his blog, I had sadly removed him from my blogroll. He stopped blogging, and even efforts to contact him through his wife and sister (Facebook friends) failed to resurrect him.
A couple of days ago, I noticed an invitation on my Facebook page to befriend a new Facebook user who has a very common name. I checked out his profile but still wasn't sure if he was the same as the man I know as Tug. So, I asked his sister.
To my delight, he answered my question himself! This morning, I noticed a comment from Tug on my blog, so I linked his name and visited his once dormant blog, and found he had written a new post.
I have now re-added him to my blogroll.
I've also dropped a few blogs. Not because I have anything against them. I don't. But my blogroll is really for me, so I can quickly link to my favorites. I doubt anybody else uses my blogroll to link elsewhere. I dropped the ones I rarely, if ever, visit anymore. I just don't have time to spend it dropping by every blog on my roll. Maybe now that I've pared it down somewhat, I can visit more often. For now, any one who reads this who's blog has been dropped, fear not. If you comment here, I will link over and visit yours.
Welcome back, Tug, and thanks for being my friend.
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And auld lang syne!" ~ Robert Burns
Tugboat Cap'n (or Tug, as I call him) is back! After over a year of inactivity on his blog, I had sadly removed him from my blogroll. He stopped blogging, and even efforts to contact him through his wife and sister (Facebook friends) failed to resurrect him.
A couple of days ago, I noticed an invitation on my Facebook page to befriend a new Facebook user who has a very common name. I checked out his profile but still wasn't sure if he was the same as the man I know as Tug. So, I asked his sister.
To my delight, he answered my question himself! This morning, I noticed a comment from Tug on my blog, so I linked his name and visited his once dormant blog, and found he had written a new post.
I have now re-added him to my blogroll.
I've also dropped a few blogs. Not because I have anything against them. I don't. But my blogroll is really for me, so I can quickly link to my favorites. I doubt anybody else uses my blogroll to link elsewhere. I dropped the ones I rarely, if ever, visit anymore. I just don't have time to spend it dropping by every blog on my roll. Maybe now that I've pared it down somewhat, I can visit more often. For now, any one who reads this who's blog has been dropped, fear not. If you comment here, I will link over and visit yours.
Welcome back, Tug, and thanks for being my friend.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
How The Left Honors King
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." ~Dr. Martin Luther King
Martin Luther King's dream can be summed up in that one short statement that he uttered in his famous "I have a dream" speech on the 28th of August, 1963.
Today, I opened up my browser, and I read this. My first thought was, "Now, that is just stupid. Exactly what does Martin Luther King's dream have to do with the tragedy in Tucson?"
Then, I read the article.
Amazingly, the author of the piece managed to create a link between the shooting and Dr. King's message.
It is a tenuous link at best.
Is there nothing the left won't do to let no good crisis go to waste?
Martin Luther King's dream can be summed up in that one short statement that he uttered in his famous "I have a dream" speech on the 28th of August, 1963.
Today, I opened up my browser, and I read this. My first thought was, "Now, that is just stupid. Exactly what does Martin Luther King's dream have to do with the tragedy in Tucson?"
Then, I read the article.
Amazingly, the author of the piece managed to create a link between the shooting and Dr. King's message.
It is a tenuous link at best.
Is there nothing the left won't do to let no good crisis go to waste?
Monday, January 10, 2011
Now, The Blaming Starts
"I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts." ~ John Locke
Even before the news media knew the extent of the recent shooting spree in Tucson, the first non-news commentary I read was an indirect indictment of the entire Conservative movement, and a direct accusation that Sarah Palin was to blame.
While the news media was still erroneously reporting the death of Democrat Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the lefties had already concluded that the deranged shooter was a right wing looney, heavily influenced by the hateful, bigoted rhetoric emanating from the vicious, unbalanced, hate filled, bigoted, homophobic Tea Party.
Then, with the news that Democrat Congresswoman had not died, but Judge John Roll had, we heard Glenn Beck was to blame, too.
Other speculation posited that Judge Roll had been appointed to the bench by George H. W. Bush, and was a Republican, and if he had been the primary target of the day's shooting spree, that might indicate the shooter is a Liberal.
For the record:
The man who carried out the horrendous murders in Tucson, Arizona Saturday was a mentally unstable individual who would have been just as negatively influenced by a bruise on an apple as by any political movement or ideology. From what I've read about him, he was just anti-government, regardless of whether the government espoused Conservative or Liberal values. In short, he was simply a homicidal nut.
No one could have predicted his actions. No one could have stopped him.
As far as I know, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin were not present.
In my humble opinion, the media itself is as much, or more to blame for this shooting spree as any one previously named.
It is the media that selectively edits news stories and interviews to portray events in the most sensational way. It is they who highlight the negative and play down the positive in the news stories they present. It is the media that put a spin on the stories and interviews they choose to air or write about. And, I'm not excluding FOX news from this indictment. They also are guilty of coloring much of their programming with an ideological crayon.
(Incidentally, why do you suppose the media finds it necessary to point out, ad nauseum, that the Congresswoman, who survived, is a Democrat, but the party affiliation of the Judge, who died, is not mentioned?)
But, no, the media did not put the gun in Jared Loughner's bloody hands. They did not incite his violence. They merely put their opinion out there, and sensationalized it, and that did what it was intended to do: Affect emotions.
Those emotions, coupled with an unbalanced mind created the situation that eventually became the tragedy in Tucson.
Even before the news media knew the extent of the recent shooting spree in Tucson, the first non-news commentary I read was an indirect indictment of the entire Conservative movement, and a direct accusation that Sarah Palin was to blame.
While the news media was still erroneously reporting the death of Democrat Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the lefties had already concluded that the deranged shooter was a right wing looney, heavily influenced by the hateful, bigoted rhetoric emanating from the vicious, unbalanced, hate filled, bigoted, homophobic Tea Party.
Then, with the news that Democrat Congresswoman had not died, but Judge John Roll had, we heard Glenn Beck was to blame, too.
Other speculation posited that Judge Roll had been appointed to the bench by George H. W. Bush, and was a Republican, and if he had been the primary target of the day's shooting spree, that might indicate the shooter is a Liberal.
For the record:
The man who carried out the horrendous murders in Tucson, Arizona Saturday was a mentally unstable individual who would have been just as negatively influenced by a bruise on an apple as by any political movement or ideology. From what I've read about him, he was just anti-government, regardless of whether the government espoused Conservative or Liberal values. In short, he was simply a homicidal nut.
No one could have predicted his actions. No one could have stopped him.
As far as I know, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin were not present.
In my humble opinion, the media itself is as much, or more to blame for this shooting spree as any one previously named.
It is the media that selectively edits news stories and interviews to portray events in the most sensational way. It is they who highlight the negative and play down the positive in the news stories they present. It is the media that put a spin on the stories and interviews they choose to air or write about. And, I'm not excluding FOX news from this indictment. They also are guilty of coloring much of their programming with an ideological crayon.
(Incidentally, why do you suppose the media finds it necessary to point out, ad nauseum, that the Congresswoman, who survived, is a Democrat, but the party affiliation of the Judge, who died, is not mentioned?)
But, no, the media did not put the gun in Jared Loughner's bloody hands. They did not incite his violence. They merely put their opinion out there, and sensationalized it, and that did what it was intended to do: Affect emotions.
Those emotions, coupled with an unbalanced mind created the situation that eventually became the tragedy in Tucson.
Friday, January 07, 2011
For, Or Against?
"Remember that what you believe will depend very much on what you are." ~ Noah Porter
A Muslim student reveals what she really thinks during a question and answer session following a speech by David Horowitz at The University of California at San Diego:
I believe this indicative of the attitude of the majority of Muslims around the world. Although friend Jim (and other Liberals)would have us believe they are as harmless as your average Baptist Sunday School association, facts don't support his position.
The fact is, Muslims, in general, have been strangely quiet over the years since 9/11 on support or condemnation of terrorist organizations. While most peaceful Muslims refuse to admit support, they also don't admit opposition.
I find that telling.
Before we blindly accept the supposition that most Muslims are peaceful, perhaps we should pose Horowitz's question to them to ascertain exactly their position on the Jews.
"For, or against?"
I wonder. How many of our peaceful Muslim neighbors would answer that question truthfully? And, how many would say, "For"?
In addition, when the big day arrives when militant Muslims arise and attack the Jews and their allies en masse, who will the peaceful Muslims defend? How many of these "peaceful Muslims" would participate?
In the final anaylsis, if we are to err, doesn't it make more sense to err on the side of caution and automatically suspect all Muslims of supporting terror than to blindly accept the possibly dangerous supposition that they are mostly peaceful?
A Muslim student reveals what she really thinks during a question and answer session following a speech by David Horowitz at The University of California at San Diego:
I believe this indicative of the attitude of the majority of Muslims around the world. Although friend Jim (and other Liberals)would have us believe they are as harmless as your average Baptist Sunday School association, facts don't support his position.
The fact is, Muslims, in general, have been strangely quiet over the years since 9/11 on support or condemnation of terrorist organizations. While most peaceful Muslims refuse to admit support, they also don't admit opposition.
I find that telling.
Before we blindly accept the supposition that most Muslims are peaceful, perhaps we should pose Horowitz's question to them to ascertain exactly their position on the Jews.
"For, or against?"
I wonder. How many of our peaceful Muslim neighbors would answer that question truthfully? And, how many would say, "For"?
In addition, when the big day arrives when militant Muslims arise and attack the Jews and their allies en masse, who will the peaceful Muslims defend? How many of these "peaceful Muslims" would participate?
In the final anaylsis, if we are to err, doesn't it make more sense to err on the side of caution and automatically suspect all Muslims of supporting terror than to blindly accept the possibly dangerous supposition that they are mostly peaceful?
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Introducing The Huxtaballah Family
"Maybe we need a Muslim version of The Cosby Show." ~ Katie Couric
While surfing the net, I came across this news story.
Katie adopts the elitist Liberal condescension pose made famous by Charlie Gibson
Katie Couric suggests an Islamic version of "The Cosby Show", ostensibly I suppose, to combat what Katie calls, "the seething hatred many people feel for all Muslims, which I think is so misdirected, and so wrong -- and so disappointing."
We knuckleheaded Americans need to be educated.
Personally, I find Katie's perky enthusiasm for all things Muslim rather humorous, considering the fact, that, under Sharia law, she would not have anywhere close to the same liberties she currently enjoys under our antiquated first amendment.
But really, it isn't altogether unexpected to hear such moronic inanities issuing from betwixt those ruby red lips.
However, I really didn't want to focus on the hilarity of what "Klueless Katie" has to say. After all, we Conservatives have come to expect such empty-headed Liberal Media types to gush all over anything that's anti-American and pro-Islam.
I would instead point the reader(s) to the comments made about the story. Some are hilarious. Some are disturbing.
Keeping in mind, of course, that there are indeed peaceful Muslims living amongst us.
It's just that, as one commenter said, "The Bingfhndfnghy family living next door to you in the suburbs of America only have a 60% chance of being a muslim/arab terrorist sleeper cell."
I daresay we uneducated Conservative Americans have no similar suspicions about the Baptist family who spend their weekends at Bible study.
While surfing the net, I came across this news story.
Katie adopts the elitist Liberal condescension pose made famous by Charlie GibsonWe knuckleheaded Americans need to be educated.
Personally, I find Katie's perky enthusiasm for all things Muslim rather humorous, considering the fact, that, under Sharia law, she would not have anywhere close to the same liberties she currently enjoys under our antiquated first amendment.
But really, it isn't altogether unexpected to hear such moronic inanities issuing from betwixt those ruby red lips.
However, I really didn't want to focus on the hilarity of what "Klueless Katie" has to say. After all, we Conservatives have come to expect such empty-headed Liberal Media types to gush all over anything that's anti-American and pro-Islam.
I would instead point the reader(s) to the comments made about the story. Some are hilarious. Some are disturbing.
Keeping in mind, of course, that there are indeed peaceful Muslims living amongst us.
It's just that, as one commenter said, "The Bingfhndfnghy family living next door to you in the suburbs of America only have a 60% chance of being a muslim/arab terrorist sleeper cell."
I daresay we uneducated Conservative Americans have no similar suspicions about the Baptist family who spend their weekends at Bible study.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Why We Celebrate
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.
And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.
And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;
(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. ~ Luke 2:1-35
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
Merry Christmas!
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
A Local Event
"And He shall reign forever and ever." ~ George Frideric Handel
I recently posted the following video on my Facebook page, and added that I would like to get one of these flash mob things going here locally.
While I procrastinated, someone else acted, and last night, right here in the Fredericksburg area, nine area choirs assembled in the food court at Spotsylvania's Towne Centre Mall and entertained weary Christmas shoppers with the most majestic piece of music ever composed:
According to our local newspaper, The Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, the "mob" had alerted the local Television stations and newspaper to their intentions, so I am a bit surprised that the videographer was apparently unprepared, because the video begins a couple of bars after the instrumental introduction of the piece.
Other than that, it plays well. I only wish I had known about it beforehand. I was off work when it started, and I could have been there, and I certainly would have participated.
I recently posted the following video on my Facebook page, and added that I would like to get one of these flash mob things going here locally.
While I procrastinated, someone else acted, and last night, right here in the Fredericksburg area, nine area choirs assembled in the food court at Spotsylvania's Towne Centre Mall and entertained weary Christmas shoppers with the most majestic piece of music ever composed:
According to our local newspaper, The Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, the "mob" had alerted the local Television stations and newspaper to their intentions, so I am a bit surprised that the videographer was apparently unprepared, because the video begins a couple of bars after the instrumental introduction of the piece.
Other than that, it plays well. I only wish I had known about it beforehand. I was off work when it started, and I could have been there, and I certainly would have participated.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
About The Secularization Of Christmas
Last year, I wrote this post about the secularization of Christmas. This year, I am adding a short addendum:
Our local Wal-Mart began playing Christmas music over the PA system before Thanksgiving this year, yet none of the songs played are of a religious nature. How can we celebrate Christmas with absolutely no mention at all of the reason we celebrate?
I know I risk sounding redundant by mentioning this again this year, but the problem is worsening.
Atheists and secularists are trying, with no small amount of success, to remove any connection with Jesus Christ from the traditional celebration of His birth.
I would like to point out that Christians don't object to other cultures and religions celebrating their holy days in the way they see fit. You never hear of Christian groups objecting to the celebration by other religions and cultures of Kwanzaa or Ramadan.
I have expressed consternation with the blatant attempts to stifle all connections of the Christmas holy day with Christianity before.
So. Although there is ample evidence to suggest Christmas is indeed being targeted by secularists and atheists, the significance of Christ's birth, life, death, and subsequent resurrection will not be erased.
In the end, they will all realize their folly, as God has promised us, "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." ~ Philippians 2: 10-11
Our local Wal-Mart began playing Christmas music over the PA system before Thanksgiving this year, yet none of the songs played are of a religious nature. How can we celebrate Christmas with absolutely no mention at all of the reason we celebrate?
I know I risk sounding redundant by mentioning this again this year, but the problem is worsening.
Atheists and secularists are trying, with no small amount of success, to remove any connection with Jesus Christ from the traditional celebration of His birth.
I would like to point out that Christians don't object to other cultures and religions celebrating their holy days in the way they see fit. You never hear of Christian groups objecting to the celebration by other religions and cultures of Kwanzaa or Ramadan.
I have expressed consternation with the blatant attempts to stifle all connections of the Christmas holy day with Christianity before.
So. Although there is ample evidence to suggest Christmas is indeed being targeted by secularists and atheists, the significance of Christ's birth, life, death, and subsequent resurrection will not be erased.
In the end, they will all realize their folly, as God has promised us, "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." ~ Philippians 2: 10-11
Sunday, December 05, 2010
Good Company
"When I was born I was so surprised I didn't talk for a year and a half." ~ Gracie Allen
Actually, in my case, I understand I didn't talk for about 4 years. I've been making up for it ever since.
Famous people born on this day, December 5th:
Martin Van Buren, George Armstrong Custer, Walt Disney, Strom Thurmond, Little Richard, Jim Messina, Morgan Brittany, Art Monk, Frankie Muniz.
Not so famous: Me
I've been perusing Facebook this morning. I have received several "Happy Birthday" messages from my Facebook friends.
Because of Facebook, I now have more friends than I've ever had at any given time during my 59 years on this planet.
I don't even know about 90% of them
Puts things in it's proper perspective now, doesn't it?
Actually, in my case, I understand I didn't talk for about 4 years. I've been making up for it ever since.
Famous people born on this day, December 5th:
Martin Van Buren, George Armstrong Custer, Walt Disney, Strom Thurmond, Little Richard, Jim Messina, Morgan Brittany, Art Monk, Frankie Muniz.
Not so famous: MeI've been perusing Facebook this morning. I have received several "Happy Birthday" messages from my Facebook friends.
Because of Facebook, I now have more friends than I've ever had at any given time during my 59 years on this planet.
I don't even know about 90% of them
Puts things in it's proper perspective now, doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
