Some children dream of sugar plums. My child dreams a little bigger.
"Mom, I had a wonderful dream last night!"
"Oh, really, Evan? What?"
"I dreamed that Barack Obama was no longer President and that Mitt Romney had taken the throne!"
Sigh.Two more years, honey. Two more years.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Thursday, November 8, 2012
The Day After the Day After
I spent yesterday in something of a fog. I couldn't sleep Tuesday night and got no more than about 2-1/2 hours of shut-eye. Then Wednesday came and with it, all of the normal Wednesday responsibilities. I tried to put the result of the election out of my mind and do what needed to be done.
I did listen to Rush Limbaugh for a few minutes yesterday. I wanted to see how he, eternal optimist when it comes to conservatism and the American spirit, would react to the re-election of President Obama. The segment I heard was not encouraging. He said that he went to bed feeling, as I did, that the country is lost. And he said something that I think is contradictory. In pure Rush Limbaugh fashion, he said he doesn't believe conservatism lost in this election but that what this election demonstrates is that it's impossible to compete with Santa Claus. Well, in my opinion, that means conservatism lost to Santa Claus (or in this case, Santa Barack). We have apparently reached a point in the United States that the majority of voters desire, more than anything else, to be taken care of by the state. They don't want to know how the state is going to do it and they don't care what freedoms will have to be sacrificed along the way. They don't want elected representatives who will work for them; they want a Godfather who will take care of them. In spite of our 16 trillion dollar national debt President Obama convinced them that he is that Godfather and that all that is needed to ensure their well-being is to continue "investing" in a multiplicity of programs. Where he will find the money to "invest" I don't know. There aren't enough rich people in the country to pay the debt and finance all the new spending he continues to espouse. Oh, wait, I guess I do know. We will continue to borrow from China while printing worthless paper money and refusing to face the reality that we can't continue on this path without grave consequences.
Yesterday I told my husband that I have come to the conclusion that conservative, Judeo-Christian values can no longer win elections in this country because the majority of people in the country no longer believe in them. It's not a matter of weak candidates or ineffective messaging; it's the message itself. Political analysts who describe the United States as a center right country are wrong. The country no longer wants what conservatives are offering.
Maybe if President Obama's second term does not result in the economic turnaround he promises, people will start looking for an alternative and conservatives will have another chance to make their case. But I am not hopeful. I am also not hopeful that social conservatism has any chance of succeeding in its efforts to protect the sanctity of life or the institution of marriage. The secular socialists have successfully taken over the mainstream media, the schools, and the popular culture, and they have spent the last 50 years indoctrinating young people via those tools. Children reflect their upbringing: if they spend the bulk of their time in government schools, interacting primarily with people their age while being constantly plugged into the prevailing news and entertainment media, their worldview will reflect those influences. This is true for the broader culture as well. Those who do not research or think deeply about the issues will have their opinions shaped for them like so much silly putty.
I have largely avoided the news since Tuesday night. What's the point? I did come across several articles online that closely reflect my feelings about this election. One is by Roger Simon, who identifies the same three tools I do when analyzing the scope and power of liberal influence. Another is by Ann Coulter, who says not to blame Mitt Romney for the loss of this election. I agree. He was not my first choice in the primary, but he won me over, and I don't think any of the other candidates would have fared better. Someone like Rick Santorum would have probably fared even worse. The problem is not, as some of my conservative friends believe, that Republicans are not nominating principled enough conservatives. The problem is that the number of conservatives is dwindling. Mitt Romney won the independent vote. It wasn't enough.
I find this realization to be incredibly depressing, and I wonder what the point is of continuing to follow the news. Better to accept that I am in a dwindling minority and to do what I can to make my life and my family's life better. I think I need to pray more, exercise more, study the Bible more, and get back to reading classic literature. I need to play piano and teach my children and accompany my choirs and clean my house and plan meals. I need to get off of Facebook and the blogs and go outside and take a walk. If this Election Day results in my successfully redirecting some of my time and energy to those things, perhaps it will turn out to be a blessing. Still, I fear for the day when I can no longer ignore what's going on in the outside world because of the ways it is invading my day to day life. Lord, have mercy on us all.
I did listen to Rush Limbaugh for a few minutes yesterday. I wanted to see how he, eternal optimist when it comes to conservatism and the American spirit, would react to the re-election of President Obama. The segment I heard was not encouraging. He said that he went to bed feeling, as I did, that the country is lost. And he said something that I think is contradictory. In pure Rush Limbaugh fashion, he said he doesn't believe conservatism lost in this election but that what this election demonstrates is that it's impossible to compete with Santa Claus. Well, in my opinion, that means conservatism lost to Santa Claus (or in this case, Santa Barack). We have apparently reached a point in the United States that the majority of voters desire, more than anything else, to be taken care of by the state. They don't want to know how the state is going to do it and they don't care what freedoms will have to be sacrificed along the way. They don't want elected representatives who will work for them; they want a Godfather who will take care of them. In spite of our 16 trillion dollar national debt President Obama convinced them that he is that Godfather and that all that is needed to ensure their well-being is to continue "investing" in a multiplicity of programs. Where he will find the money to "invest" I don't know. There aren't enough rich people in the country to pay the debt and finance all the new spending he continues to espouse. Oh, wait, I guess I do know. We will continue to borrow from China while printing worthless paper money and refusing to face the reality that we can't continue on this path without grave consequences.
Yesterday I told my husband that I have come to the conclusion that conservative, Judeo-Christian values can no longer win elections in this country because the majority of people in the country no longer believe in them. It's not a matter of weak candidates or ineffective messaging; it's the message itself. Political analysts who describe the United States as a center right country are wrong. The country no longer wants what conservatives are offering.
Maybe if President Obama's second term does not result in the economic turnaround he promises, people will start looking for an alternative and conservatives will have another chance to make their case. But I am not hopeful. I am also not hopeful that social conservatism has any chance of succeeding in its efforts to protect the sanctity of life or the institution of marriage. The secular socialists have successfully taken over the mainstream media, the schools, and the popular culture, and they have spent the last 50 years indoctrinating young people via those tools. Children reflect their upbringing: if they spend the bulk of their time in government schools, interacting primarily with people their age while being constantly plugged into the prevailing news and entertainment media, their worldview will reflect those influences. This is true for the broader culture as well. Those who do not research or think deeply about the issues will have their opinions shaped for them like so much silly putty.
I have largely avoided the news since Tuesday night. What's the point? I did come across several articles online that closely reflect my feelings about this election. One is by Roger Simon, who identifies the same three tools I do when analyzing the scope and power of liberal influence. Another is by Ann Coulter, who says not to blame Mitt Romney for the loss of this election. I agree. He was not my first choice in the primary, but he won me over, and I don't think any of the other candidates would have fared better. Someone like Rick Santorum would have probably fared even worse. The problem is not, as some of my conservative friends believe, that Republicans are not nominating principled enough conservatives. The problem is that the number of conservatives is dwindling. Mitt Romney won the independent vote. It wasn't enough.
I find this realization to be incredibly depressing, and I wonder what the point is of continuing to follow the news. Better to accept that I am in a dwindling minority and to do what I can to make my life and my family's life better. I think I need to pray more, exercise more, study the Bible more, and get back to reading classic literature. I need to play piano and teach my children and accompany my choirs and clean my house and plan meals. I need to get off of Facebook and the blogs and go outside and take a walk. If this Election Day results in my successfully redirecting some of my time and energy to those things, perhaps it will turn out to be a blessing. Still, I fear for the day when I can no longer ignore what's going on in the outside world because of the ways it is invading my day to day life. Lord, have mercy on us all.
Friday, November 26, 2010
History Lesson
Evan's birthday was in October and his baptismal birthday in November. To mark both occasions, his godparents gave him several gifts. One was this floor puzzle of the presidents from Melissa & Doug Toys :
It has totally captured Evan's imagination. He is at that stage of development where he loves lists and sequences. For the first few days after he got the puzzle he enjoyed showing it to whoever happened to be around. But soon it became clear that the question "Can I show you my president puzzle?" was an invitation not merely to see the box but to be treated to a catalogue of the presidents in order as he pointed to each and pronounced his name: "That's our first president. His name was George Washington. That's our second president. His name was John Adams." And so on, through all forty-four.
The fascination with the presidents has led to some history lessons. The lessons are brief, just a descriptive sentence or two so that Evan has something simple to latch on to: "George Washington was a general in the American Revolution." "Woodrow Wilson was president during World War I." (Evan is particularly interested in World War I these days since that's when that great Flying Ace, Snoopy, imagines himself fighting the Red Baron.)
Tonight at dinner the subject of President Obama came up. Evan is growing up in a strongly conservative Republican household and he long ago learned the bottom line about Mr. Obama. If asked about our President, he will unhesitatingly and definitively state: "Barack Obama is a socialist. He's ruining the country!"
And that's what happened tonight as we were getting dinner on the table. The name "Obama" came up (as it frequently does because we discuss politics a lot in our house), and my husband called across the kitchen to our son: "Evan, tell us about Barack Obama." Evan's reply came immediately:
"Barack Obama is a socialist! He's ruining the country!"
But that wasn't all. Tonight there was more.
"And so is William Jefferson Clinton. And James Earl 'Jimmy' Carter, Jr. They wanted to ruin the country, too!"
Oh, dear, how we laughed. I think I laughed, as much as anything, at my first grader's knowing and being able to pronounce without a hitch the presidents' full names, including first, middle, last, nicknames, and suffixes. I asked my husband if he taught Evan to say those things and he said no. At least, not in so many words. I think we are seeing some rather advanced thought on the part of our 7-year-old. Dad has said enough that Evan was able to put Clinton and Carter in the same category as Obama, which to him means they must have been country-ruining socialists, too. If the shoe fits . . . .
And to think Evan hasn't even put that puzzle together yet.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Your Vote Matters
I hear it a lot these days: "It doesn't matter who you vote for. All politicians are the same. There's no real difference between Democrats and Republicans. They're too entrenched. Nothing is ever going to change."
Excuses, all. Excuses for sticking one's head in the sand and not investing, not caring, not studying, and not contributing to the process.
It does matter. They aren't all the same. Things can change. This election proves it. Anti-establishment candidates all over the country are riding a wave that may take them all the way to Washington (or their state capitols). We may be celebrating conservative victories tonight that a year ago no one could have ever dreamed of.
Ultimately, if it's true that it doesn't matter, that they're all the same, that reclaiming our country's Constitutional foundation is impossible, we have no one to blame but ourselves. United States citizens today have more freedom than any people in history ever have. We have come close to squandering it. But thank God many are starting to wake up. It's time to make a big noise, folks. We can do it. And if we make a loud enough noise, tomorrow "Yes, we can" (to borrow a phrase) will be come "Yes, we did."
Go and vote and catch the wave that is only now beginning, that will take us to 2012 and beyond as we fight to get our country back.
Excuses, all. Excuses for sticking one's head in the sand and not investing, not caring, not studying, and not contributing to the process.
It does matter. They aren't all the same. Things can change. This election proves it. Anti-establishment candidates all over the country are riding a wave that may take them all the way to Washington (or their state capitols). We may be celebrating conservative victories tonight that a year ago no one could have ever dreamed of.
Ultimately, if it's true that it doesn't matter, that they're all the same, that reclaiming our country's Constitutional foundation is impossible, we have no one to blame but ourselves. United States citizens today have more freedom than any people in history ever have. We have come close to squandering it. But thank God many are starting to wake up. It's time to make a big noise, folks. We can do it. And if we make a loud enough noise, tomorrow "Yes, we can" (to borrow a phrase) will be come "Yes, we did."
Go and vote and catch the wave that is only now beginning, that will take us to 2012 and beyond as we fight to get our country back.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
"The war is actually begun"
The words of Patrick Henry have been ringing in my ears tonight. Amazing how appropriate they are to the situation at hand. Bart Stupak would do well to read them. Trusting the likes of Obama & Pelosi is akin to trusting George III. By the way, take note of the date.
Speech to the Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Riddle Me This, America
So. The number of people who approve of President Obama's job performance is steadily dropping, while the number who disapprove is steadily rising. (Source.) American Thinker says the pitchforks are starting to come out. What I can't figure out is why anyone in this country would be surprised at what this administration has done. Candidate Obama ran on a platform of change. I didn't like the changes he was proposing and voted accordingly. But the majority embraced his promise of change, and they are now getting what they voted for. They should not be surprised. Anyone who took the time to study the issues and candidates with any seriousness would know that they were voting for a radical who would appoint like-minded radicals to the Supreme Court, continue our descent into socialism, and institute a new era of weakness and conciliation on the international front.
Last night on Sean Hannity's television show pollster Frank Luntz led a focus group composed of 50% Obama voters and 50% Bush voters. And yet only three people in the whole group approve of the President's plan for health care and have faith in the government's ability to solve the health care "crisis." Again, where were these people eight months ago? This is what he said he would do, people. I almost feel a little sorry for the guy. He's probably totally bewildered: "But I thought they liked me. They said they liked me."
Be that as it may, Mr. President, they aren't liking you much these days. They are starting to pay attention, and they are learning, and they are figuring out that maybe they don't want what they thought they did. And your job as their President is to listen to them. If you don't, they will find someone they like better, someone who will not make them feel like children asking new and serious questions, only to be told, "That's really too complicated for you to understand. Trust me. I'm smarter than you, and I'll take care of everything."
Excuse me. I'm going to go sharpen my pitchfork.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Double Standard
Most conservatives would agree that most of our news media exhibit a liberal bias. But more and more I think they have moved beyond a merely liberal bias to a specifically Obama bias. Dick Morris (former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton, now a political writer and commentator) was on The O'Reilly Factor last night after President Obama's press conference. He pointed out that last night's event was President Obama's third prime time press conference since taking office. He is basically having one per month. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, had only two prime time press conferences during his first term. Dick Morris said that the Clinton administration asked for more--would have liked more--but the networks wouldn't cough them up.
It seems to me that Obama is still in campaign mode and that these press conferences are as much about whipping up popular support and keeping the adulation quotient up as they are about answering questions. Moreso, in fact. I read an article this morning at American Thinker about the importance of Americans' fascination with celebrity to President Obama's popularity. Here's a key quote: "The emergence of Barack Obama marries American popular culture and American politics."
Considering the state of our popular culture in this country, that's a troubling thought indeed.
It seems to me that Obama is still in campaign mode and that these press conferences are as much about whipping up popular support and keeping the adulation quotient up as they are about answering questions. Moreso, in fact. I read an article this morning at American Thinker about the importance of Americans' fascination with celebrity to President Obama's popularity. Here's a key quote: "The emergence of Barack Obama marries American popular culture and American politics."
Considering the state of our popular culture in this country, that's a troubling thought indeed.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Doublespeak
Our president is on television right now talking about how he plans to launch a new era of spending discipline in which if the government wants to institute a new program or a tax cut it must first tell the American people where the money is coming from. His statement was met with wild claps and cheers from the adoring crowd.
Does anyone find this is as chilling as I do?
Does anyone find this is as chilling as I do?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Give This Man a Bonus
I saw this Studio B segment live on Fox News this afternoon, and it had me standing up, clapping and cheering out loud in my empty bedroom. Mississippi boy Shephard Smith, one of my favorite Fox anchors, lays out the facts of the mortgage scandal, the bailouts, and the current "financial crisis" in one of the most succinct summaries I have ever seen, nailing Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for their complicity as well as their current hypocrisy in daring to feign outrage at a situation they created.
I wish everyone in America could see this. Shep's comments begin just as today's congressional hearing on the AIG bailout was ending. The video is about seven minutes long, but the part you mustn't miss is the three-minute rant that kicks it off. If you're not already hopping mad about what's going on in Washington these days, you will be after watching this.
Hope? I beg your pardon. We haven't seen any such thing from this crew. And the change, in my opinion, has all been for the worse. But if we had a national press that was actually interested in reporting the facts, and if more Americans took the time to understand and learn such facts as are presented here, maybe we would finally start to see some positive change and a genuine basis for feeling hopeful about the future of this country.
But I'm not holding my breath.
I wish everyone in America could see this. Shep's comments begin just as today's congressional hearing on the AIG bailout was ending. The video is about seven minutes long, but the part you mustn't miss is the three-minute rant that kicks it off. If you're not already hopping mad about what's going on in Washington these days, you will be after watching this.
Hope? I beg your pardon. We haven't seen any such thing from this crew. And the change, in my opinion, has all been for the worse. But if we had a national press that was actually interested in reporting the facts, and if more Americans took the time to understand and learn such facts as are presented here, maybe we would finally start to see some positive change and a genuine basis for feeling hopeful about the future of this country.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Scary Thought
I saw Dick Morris on Bill O'Reilly last night, and he proposed that President Obama may actually be what a lot of people say they want: a leader who truly puts principle above politics. In other words, he cares not about reelection, but looks at this term as his best opportunity to put his permanent stamp on the country by enacting as much of his agenda as he possibly can before he has to run again. If that's the case, there's really no check on him, unless Democrats in Congress decide to cool his jets to protect their own reelection hopes.
"Politics" has become a bad word these days. We hear that we should put "politics" aside and work together to "get things done." Yet I always thought that's what politics was: people--citizens--functioning as a group to accomplish group goals. Sometimes it's a messy process, but it's not inherently bad (except for the fact that people are inherently bad). The etymology of the word is Latin ("politicus") and Greek ("politikos"), both meaning "of citizens and the state." The Greek word is rooted in "polites"--citizen, and "polis"--city. Politics is simply citizens working together to run the city (or organization, church, synod, state or country). So saying that we are going to eschew politics so that we can work together is like saying we are going to stop working together so that we can work together. It makes no sense. (But it sure makes a good campaign slogan.)
Aristotle got it right: "Man is by nature a political animal." We can't escape it, and we shouldn't try. It's how we interact to accomplish things. Otto Von Bismarck said, "Politics is the art of the possible." I think that's a pretty good definition. But considering the human capacity for messing things up, I think I like this one even better, from John Kenneth Galbraith: "Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."
Oh, that we had choosen the latter in this last election cycle.
"Politics" has become a bad word these days. We hear that we should put "politics" aside and work together to "get things done." Yet I always thought that's what politics was: people--citizens--functioning as a group to accomplish group goals. Sometimes it's a messy process, but it's not inherently bad (except for the fact that people are inherently bad). The etymology of the word is Latin ("politicus") and Greek ("politikos"), both meaning "of citizens and the state." The Greek word is rooted in "polites"--citizen, and "polis"--city. Politics is simply citizens working together to run the city (or organization, church, synod, state or country). So saying that we are going to eschew politics so that we can work together is like saying we are going to stop working together so that we can work together. It makes no sense. (But it sure makes a good campaign slogan.)
Aristotle got it right: "Man is by nature a political animal." We can't escape it, and we shouldn't try. It's how we interact to accomplish things. Otto Von Bismarck said, "Politics is the art of the possible." I think that's a pretty good definition. But considering the human capacity for messing things up, I think I like this one even better, from John Kenneth Galbraith: "Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."
Oh, that we had choosen the latter in this last election cycle.
Friday, February 6, 2009
The Prince
I'm having my homeschool literature class read Machiavelli's The Prince right now. It's been a while since I read it myself, so I can't remember what my reaction was the first time around. But this time I find myself thinking that this guy gets a bum rap. These days when you hear the adjective "Machiavellian" it is almost always pejorative. When Shakespeare called a character a "Machiavel" it was not a compliment. To be Machiavellian is bad--we don't like all that "ends justifies the means" stuff. But I keep coming across lines in this book that make me want to stand up and cheer! For example:
From Chapter 16, "Of Liberality and Niggardliness"
" . . . it would be well to be considered liberal; nevertheless liberality such as the world understands it will injure you, because if used virtuously and in the proper way, it will not be known, and you will incur the disgrace of the contrary vice [niggardliness]. But one who wishes to obtain the reputation of liberality among men, must not omit every kind of sumptuous display, and to such an extent that a prince of this character will consume by such means all his resources, and will be at last compelled, if he wishes to maintain his name for liberality, to impose heavy taxes on his people, become extortionate, and do everything possible to obtain more money. This will make his subjects begin to hate him, and he will be little esteemed being poor, so that having by this liberality injured many and benefited but few, he will feel the first little disturbance and be endangered by every peril. If he recognises this and wishes to change his system, he incurs at once the charge of niggardliness.
A prince, therefore, not being able to exercise this virtue of liberality without risk if it be known, must not if he be prudent, object to be called miserly. In course of time he will be thought more liberal, when it is seen that by his parsimony his revenue is sufficient, that he can defend himself against those who make war on him, and undertake enterprises without burdening his people, so that he is really liberal to all those from whom he does not take, who are infinite in number, and niggardly to all to whom he does not give, who are few. In our times we have seen nothing great done except by those who have been esteemed niggardly; the others have all been ruined. . . .
For these reasons a prince must care little for the reputation of being a miser, if he wishes to avoid robbing his subjects, if he wishes to be able to defend himself, to avoid becoming poor and contemptible, and not to be forced to become rapacious; this niggardliness is one of those vices which enable him to reign."
(Oxford University Press translation by Luigi Ricci); emphasis mine
I'll post a few more of these quotations over the next day or so. But right now the teacher has to get ready for class!
From Chapter 16, "Of Liberality and Niggardliness"
" . . . it would be well to be considered liberal; nevertheless liberality such as the world understands it will injure you, because if used virtuously and in the proper way, it will not be known, and you will incur the disgrace of the contrary vice [niggardliness]. But one who wishes to obtain the reputation of liberality among men, must not omit every kind of sumptuous display, and to such an extent that a prince of this character will consume by such means all his resources, and will be at last compelled, if he wishes to maintain his name for liberality, to impose heavy taxes on his people, become extortionate, and do everything possible to obtain more money. This will make his subjects begin to hate him, and he will be little esteemed being poor, so that having by this liberality injured many and benefited but few, he will feel the first little disturbance and be endangered by every peril. If he recognises this and wishes to change his system, he incurs at once the charge of niggardliness.
A prince, therefore, not being able to exercise this virtue of liberality without risk if it be known, must not if he be prudent, object to be called miserly. In course of time he will be thought more liberal, when it is seen that by his parsimony his revenue is sufficient, that he can defend himself against those who make war on him, and undertake enterprises without burdening his people, so that he is really liberal to all those from whom he does not take, who are infinite in number, and niggardly to all to whom he does not give, who are few. In our times we have seen nothing great done except by those who have been esteemed niggardly; the others have all been ruined. . . .
For these reasons a prince must care little for the reputation of being a miser, if he wishes to avoid robbing his subjects, if he wishes to be able to defend himself, to avoid becoming poor and contemptible, and not to be forced to become rapacious; this niggardliness is one of those vices which enable him to reign."
(Oxford University Press translation by Luigi Ricci); emphasis mine
I'll post a few more of these quotations over the next day or so. But right now the teacher has to get ready for class!
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Old Men and Young Men
Sometimes wartime presidents are portrayed by their opposition as old men who lightly send their young men into battle. The implication is that it's an easy thing for them to do because it doesn't place them personally in harm's way. I would wager that every president who has ever done so has grappled with his decision, especially as he immediately sees the consequences in the separation of families, the injuries large and small, and tragically, the premature deaths of young people who should have lived another fifty years.
I wonder if some of the old (and not-so-old) men who are now making plans to borrow from the future so that we can keep living it up today have given any thought to those future generations, some children of which are as yet unborn, who are going to have to pay for all of this. If so, they have apparently decided that since they won't personally be around to help pay the bill, it doesn't really matter.
I have more respect for the president who makes tough decisions that yield immediate consequences he will have to face and take responsibility for than the one who makes easy decisions with consequences that extend so far into the future that he may not even be around to help clean up the mess.
I wonder if some of the old (and not-so-old) men who are now making plans to borrow from the future so that we can keep living it up today have given any thought to those future generations, some children of which are as yet unborn, who are going to have to pay for all of this. If so, they have apparently decided that since they won't personally be around to help pay the bill, it doesn't really matter.
I have more respect for the president who makes tough decisions that yield immediate consequences he will have to face and take responsibility for than the one who makes easy decisions with consequences that extend so far into the future that he may not even be around to help clean up the mess.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Hope
We're hearing a lot about hope these days. It's an irresistible word, yielding much in the way of good feelings but requiring little specificity or accountability. This, of course, is why politicians love it. For who could possibly be against hope? We want our children to feel it as they consider their future. It pains us when unpleasant reality forces us to share harsh truths that may have the effect of dashing youthful hope and idealism.
Sometimes, though, we have to do it. We have to be honest with our children about the fallen condition of the world in which they live. Perhaps it seems cruel and unfair.
But what I think is more cruel and unfair is to create and nourish false hope, as so many are doing today by buying into and propagating the lie that one man can singlehandedly wipe the slate clean and create an environment in which understanding reigns supreme and all problems can be solved if we just put our minds to it. I know all politicians engage in such rhetoric to some extent, but in my lifetime I have never seen so many people hang so much on one individual. It's as though at noon tomorrow we are all going to find ourselves in a brand new reality, one defined by hope. But here's a rather "inconvenient truth": feeling hopeful doesn't accomplish much. We have some big, big problems in this country. Human nature is such that we will never solve them all. As we try to address them, there will be differences of opinion, and it is not unreasonable or partisan to air those differences.
As much as we might like to, we can't promise our children a world in which hoping for something equals achieving or receiving it. But wouldn't it be nice if we could give them a world that at least promises them the chance to hope and to dream and to pursue all that it means to be human?
Mr. Obama, you were given that chance. Shouldn't everyone?
HT: Pastor Esget
Sometimes, though, we have to do it. We have to be honest with our children about the fallen condition of the world in which they live. Perhaps it seems cruel and unfair.
But what I think is more cruel and unfair is to create and nourish false hope, as so many are doing today by buying into and propagating the lie that one man can singlehandedly wipe the slate clean and create an environment in which understanding reigns supreme and all problems can be solved if we just put our minds to it. I know all politicians engage in such rhetoric to some extent, but in my lifetime I have never seen so many people hang so much on one individual. It's as though at noon tomorrow we are all going to find ourselves in a brand new reality, one defined by hope. But here's a rather "inconvenient truth": feeling hopeful doesn't accomplish much. We have some big, big problems in this country. Human nature is such that we will never solve them all. As we try to address them, there will be differences of opinion, and it is not unreasonable or partisan to air those differences.
As much as we might like to, we can't promise our children a world in which hoping for something equals achieving or receiving it. But wouldn't it be nice if we could give them a world that at least promises them the chance to hope and to dream and to pursue all that it means to be human?
Mr. Obama, you were given that chance. Shouldn't everyone?
HT: Pastor Esget
Monday, January 12, 2009
Living Out Our Faith
An Issues, Etc. podcast that I recently listened to included a comment from a listener concerned about the equating of Christianity with a certain political philosophy. He specifically objected to what he felt was an insistence by some in the recent presidential election that the only reasonable way for Christians to vote was for the McCain/Palin ticket. I liked program host Pastor Wilken's answer a lot. He said that while Issues, Etc. is a program that is pro-life, pro-family, and pro-marriage, it does not endorse any one candidate or political party. The business of Issues, Etc. is the proclamation of Law and Gospel, so it concerns itself with those issues on which one can read the Bible and pronounce, "Thus sayeth the Lord." Political parties and candidates take stands on all sorts of issues to which God's Word does not speak directly. Thus, said Pastor Wilken, Issues, Etc. does not presume to do so either.
Listening to this made me think of the whole question of world view and how it is informed by my faith and in turn informs the choices I make. My vote for the McCain/Palin ticket in the recent election was certainly influenced by my faith, since my faith is so much a part of who I am. Likewise, our faith is a factor in other decisions that my husband and I make, such as how we choose to rear our children. But that doesn't mean we look to the Bible for explicit instructions on whom to vote for or how to teach and discipline our children.
I therefore get uncomfortable when fellow Christians purport to know what is the right choice for other Christians on issues for which God's Word is not obviously prescriptive. I'm not talking about things like the Commandments and Articles of Faith. Our Lord is clear about what sin is and about our need for a Saviour. He is clear that there is only one path to salvation and that it runs through the body and blood of His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. But there are all kinds of decisions in our lives that He grants us freedom to make. And while we may very well (and should) base those decisions on what we believe to be most in line with the living out of our faith, we should not presume to tell other Christians that our choices should be theirs. As much as I believe in homeschooling, I would never tell a non-homeschooling friend that the way she has chosen to educate her children is an indicator of a less mature or committed faith. Homeschooling is a left-hand, not a right-hand kingdom, issue. And while I believe the choice to homeschool is one way that I as a parent am fulfilling my calling to my children ("Fathers [and mothers], do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord"--Ephesians 6:5), I don't believe it is the one and only right way to do that. I just think that at this point in time it is best for our family.
Likewise, I would never presume to tell Christians who have elected to use non-abortifacient birth control that their choice somehow indicates a lack of trust in the plans that God has for them or an effort to usurp those plans. Yes, God told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply," but He did not tell them how or on what schedule to do so. Yes, he said, "Thou shalt not murder," but barrier or rhythm birth control methods and natural family planning do not put an end to a human life; they merely prevent conception. And an all-powerful God can certainly work around them! I respect those Christians who have decided to embrace "perpetual parturition" (like the charming, brilliant, and breathtakingly witty ladies whose thoughts I love to read over at the Concordian Sisters blog), and I say more power to them. We need more little Christians--and particularly Lutherans--running around! But I also think there are families for whom non-abortifacient family planning is the way in which they can best fulfill their calling to perform their own parental roles and to bring up their children in the way of the Lord.
Homeschooling is the lifestyle that my husband and I have chosen, and we have chosen it because we believe in it passionately. We will gladly share that passion with others and encourage them to consider making the same choice, because it is the best way we have found to nurture our family and bring up our children in the faith. But we would never say to those who do not home school their own children that their choice is standing athwart God's purposes and that somehow they are not following His will for their lives. It is not our place to claim to know God's will on such a matter.
Likewise, I have great respect for those men and women who have chosen a lifestyle that places the number and timing of children entirely in God's hands. I love to see large families. I grew up in one myself. And since those who have chosen this path must certainly believe in its merits, I am not offended to hear them sing its praises. But what does offend me is the attitude of some who have disavowed any sort of birth control that they are more trusting of God because they are taking no steps to manage their child-bearing years. There are those for whom another baby is a kind of tempting of fate or testing of God akin to jumping off a building and trusting God to save them. If every fiber of their being is saying "No, I'm not ready for this," then who am I to say otherwise? Maybe the mental or physical condition of the mother or father is such that the well-being of parent and/or child would be a huge question mark. Maybe there are difficult financial or logistical issues--not issues of comfort or luxury, but issues of how to feed and clothe and educate another child. Maybe there are aging parents whose care would be compromised if the caregiver had another baby. Yes, children are a blessing. But for some families the blessings that have already come their way are such that they demand an extra measure of care. And perhaps there are burdens in the mix that lead the man and woman contemplating another child to use their God-given discernment to decide that it might just be God's plan for them to hold off on a new blessing so that they can attend to the needs of those who are already before them.
Listening to this made me think of the whole question of world view and how it is informed by my faith and in turn informs the choices I make. My vote for the McCain/Palin ticket in the recent election was certainly influenced by my faith, since my faith is so much a part of who I am. Likewise, our faith is a factor in other decisions that my husband and I make, such as how we choose to rear our children. But that doesn't mean we look to the Bible for explicit instructions on whom to vote for or how to teach and discipline our children.
I therefore get uncomfortable when fellow Christians purport to know what is the right choice for other Christians on issues for which God's Word is not obviously prescriptive. I'm not talking about things like the Commandments and Articles of Faith. Our Lord is clear about what sin is and about our need for a Saviour. He is clear that there is only one path to salvation and that it runs through the body and blood of His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. But there are all kinds of decisions in our lives that He grants us freedom to make. And while we may very well (and should) base those decisions on what we believe to be most in line with the living out of our faith, we should not presume to tell other Christians that our choices should be theirs. As much as I believe in homeschooling, I would never tell a non-homeschooling friend that the way she has chosen to educate her children is an indicator of a less mature or committed faith. Homeschooling is a left-hand, not a right-hand kingdom, issue. And while I believe the choice to homeschool is one way that I as a parent am fulfilling my calling to my children ("Fathers [and mothers], do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord"--Ephesians 6:5), I don't believe it is the one and only right way to do that. I just think that at this point in time it is best for our family.
Likewise, I would never presume to tell Christians who have elected to use non-abortifacient birth control that their choice somehow indicates a lack of trust in the plans that God has for them or an effort to usurp those plans. Yes, God told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply," but He did not tell them how or on what schedule to do so. Yes, he said, "Thou shalt not murder," but barrier or rhythm birth control methods and natural family planning do not put an end to a human life; they merely prevent conception. And an all-powerful God can certainly work around them! I respect those Christians who have decided to embrace "perpetual parturition" (like the charming, brilliant, and breathtakingly witty ladies whose thoughts I love to read over at the Concordian Sisters blog), and I say more power to them. We need more little Christians--and particularly Lutherans--running around! But I also think there are families for whom non-abortifacient family planning is the way in which they can best fulfill their calling to perform their own parental roles and to bring up their children in the way of the Lord.
Homeschooling is the lifestyle that my husband and I have chosen, and we have chosen it because we believe in it passionately. We will gladly share that passion with others and encourage them to consider making the same choice, because it is the best way we have found to nurture our family and bring up our children in the faith. But we would never say to those who do not home school their own children that their choice is standing athwart God's purposes and that somehow they are not following His will for their lives. It is not our place to claim to know God's will on such a matter.
Likewise, I have great respect for those men and women who have chosen a lifestyle that places the number and timing of children entirely in God's hands. I love to see large families. I grew up in one myself. And since those who have chosen this path must certainly believe in its merits, I am not offended to hear them sing its praises. But what does offend me is the attitude of some who have disavowed any sort of birth control that they are more trusting of God because they are taking no steps to manage their child-bearing years. There are those for whom another baby is a kind of tempting of fate or testing of God akin to jumping off a building and trusting God to save them. If every fiber of their being is saying "No, I'm not ready for this," then who am I to say otherwise? Maybe the mental or physical condition of the mother or father is such that the well-being of parent and/or child would be a huge question mark. Maybe there are difficult financial or logistical issues--not issues of comfort or luxury, but issues of how to feed and clothe and educate another child. Maybe there are aging parents whose care would be compromised if the caregiver had another baby. Yes, children are a blessing. But for some families the blessings that have already come their way are such that they demand an extra measure of care. And perhaps there are burdens in the mix that lead the man and woman contemplating another child to use their God-given discernment to decide that it might just be God's plan for them to hold off on a new blessing so that they can attend to the needs of those who are already before them.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
A Taste of Chicago
If you have been following the political shenanigans in Illinois with any degree of interest, you will not want to miss this tour de force from Tribune columnist John Kass.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Gambling on the Future
Remember this song?
Just read an excellent column at American Thinker, a site that all conservatives should know about, that Gambler-like asks and attempts to answer what are right now the two million-dollar questions: what battles--at least for the foreseeable future--have conservatives lost? And in what battles do we still stand a chance of prevailing? If we can answer those questions with some accuracy we can focus our energy where we actually have a chance of making a difference.
The list of areas in which the author, Larrey Anderson, says we have been beaten and should resign ourselves to the Obama agenda is frightening:
1) The Judiciary
2) Socialized Health Care
3) Higher Taxes
4) The War on Terror
5) Bailouts
Here are the areas in which he says we should keep fighting:
1) Illegal immigration
2) Education
3) Freedom of Religious Expression
4) Global Warming/Energy
I encourage you to go read the entire article to see what he specifically says about each of these areas, both the ones he claims we have lost and we ones in which we still have a fighting chance.
Anderson ends with this admonition:
"My advice to conservatives for the next two years: Focus on the fundamentals--especially education and freedom of religious expression. It will be almost impossible for us to stop most of the socialist political agenda that will soon be law. We must educate our children, our neighbors, and ourselves in an effort to insure that next time around 'we don't get fooled again.'"
Good advice for any time, but never moreso than right now. I'm more convinced than ever that Christian homeschoolers may be the force that rises up in the next generation to lead this country back to its roots.
I think I'll go work on indoctrinating a few members of that next generation right now.
On a warm summer's evenin' on a train bound for nowhere,
I met up with the gambler; we were both too tired to sleep.
So we took turns a starin' out the window at the darkness
'Til boredom overtook us, and he began to speak.
He said, "Son, I've made a life out of readin' people's faces,
And knowin' what their cards were by the way they held their eyes.
And if you don't mind my sayin', I can see you're out of aces.
For a taste of your whiskey I'll give you some advice."
So I handed him my bottle and he drank down my last swallow.
Then he bummed a cigarette and asked me for a light.
And the night got deathly quiet, and his face lost all expression.
Said, "If you're gonna play the game, boy, ya gotta learn to play it right.
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table.
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done.
Ev'ry gambler knows that the secret to survivin'
Is knowin' what to throw away and knowing what to keep.
'Cause ev'ry hand's a winner and ev'ry hand's a loser,
And the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep."
And when he'd finished speakin', he turned back towards the window,
Crushed out his cigarette and faded off to sleep.
And somewhere in the darkness, the gambler, he broke even.
But in his final words I found an ace that I could keep.
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table.
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done.
(Kenny Rogers, "The Gambler")
Just read an excellent column at American Thinker, a site that all conservatives should know about, that Gambler-like asks and attempts to answer what are right now the two million-dollar questions: what battles--at least for the foreseeable future--have conservatives lost? And in what battles do we still stand a chance of prevailing? If we can answer those questions with some accuracy we can focus our energy where we actually have a chance of making a difference.
The list of areas in which the author, Larrey Anderson, says we have been beaten and should resign ourselves to the Obama agenda is frightening:
1) The Judiciary
2) Socialized Health Care
3) Higher Taxes
4) The War on Terror
5) Bailouts
Here are the areas in which he says we should keep fighting:
1) Illegal immigration
2) Education
3) Freedom of Religious Expression
4) Global Warming/Energy
I encourage you to go read the entire article to see what he specifically says about each of these areas, both the ones he claims we have lost and we ones in which we still have a fighting chance.
Anderson ends with this admonition:
"My advice to conservatives for the next two years: Focus on the fundamentals--especially education and freedom of religious expression. It will be almost impossible for us to stop most of the socialist political agenda that will soon be law. We must educate our children, our neighbors, and ourselves in an effort to insure that next time around 'we don't get fooled again.'"
Good advice for any time, but never moreso than right now. I'm more convinced than ever that Christian homeschoolers may be the force that rises up in the next generation to lead this country back to its roots.
I think I'll go work on indoctrinating a few members of that next generation right now.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
More Thankfulness
A couple of Thanksgiving Day links. If you only have time for one, skip the first and don't miss the second.
Ten Reasons for Conservatives to be Thankful - by Jennifer Rubin
Steadfast Faith - by Rev. Dr. Timothy Rossow
Back to the kitchen!
Ten Reasons for Conservatives to be Thankful - by Jennifer Rubin
Steadfast Faith - by Rev. Dr. Timothy Rossow
Back to the kitchen!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Quote of the Day
I was doing some reading for our homeschool literature class and came across this perceptive observation:
Barack . . . oh, Barack . . . are you listening?
"The true champion of justice, if he intends to survive even for a short time, must necessarily confine himself to private life and leave politics alone."
(Socrates, from Plato's Apology)
Barack . . . oh, Barack . . . are you listening?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Clue Me In, Please
Does it not seem a contradiction that the same politicians who deny the reality of "trickle-down" economics are the ones calling for a Wall Street bailout because they say a failure to do so will have adverse effects on Main Street?
Am I missing something here?
Am I missing something here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)