Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Elaboration on Moderation

Jon Schaff has a post on moderation today at South Dakota Politics, a blog I enjoy and read daily. And while he disagrees with something I said on moderation, we are perhaps closer in agreement than it might seem on the surface.

I agree with what Mr. Schaff says, in that you can have too much of just about anything. And almost any behavior can be taken to excess. You might even say the Greatest Commandment could, in a sense, be taken to extreme.

For instance, Jesus said the greatest commandment was to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." Yet some in the ministry might take this to mean they should work so hard that their families are neglected. This isn't what Jesus meant, either. There has to be a certain balance, one that balances all the positive priorities without creating a safe harbor for the bad things. That is perhaps the greatest single challenge for human beings.

Often times it's difficult to explain something without going into a soliloquy, so we rely on shorter terms that we hope will get our point across without making the reader feel like he's fallen into "War and Peace." That's where my statements about moderation fell short.

The kind of moderation I find disgusting is the kind that is so lauded these days: the kind that calls for compromise of important principles.

Of course, in the world of politics you can seldom get everything you want the first time around. Sometimes you have to give a little to win a little.

But when you so water down your stand on an issue that in the end you gain nothing but the facade of victory, then you've not only failed to advance your cause, but you've become a laughing stock before your enemies. They know you're a pathetic pushover that they can throw a bone to and you'll act like you're happy.

That's the kind of "moderation" and "compromise" that cost the Republicans control of Congress last month. For the past several years, they have given in to cries from the Democrats and their propaganda arm in the media for "moderation" and "bipartisanship."

It was made even more pathetic because they were--ostensibly--in charge! They haven't acted like leaders since some time in 1995. They've been unable to achieve a Federal Marriage Amendment, permanent tax cuts, or even meaningful border control. They've been too worried about looking like nice guys to a media that will never like them--ever.

Bush made the same mistake from Day One when he came to the White House. That "new tone" business might have worked back in Texas, where Democrats were a little more reasonable, but it was dangerously naive to believe that national Democrats were ever going to play nice. The best you could hope for from them was that they might smile and shake your hand...before stabbing you in the back. Just as they've done to Bush over and over and over.

Hopefully that makes my position on "moderation" a bit more clear, and why I have such complete disgust for it.

Because moderation in the strictest sense isn't what is being called for today; instead, it's the kind that sacrifices core principle on the altar of looking like a nice guy.


Friday, December 01, 2006

South Dakota Involved in Supreme Court Environmental Wacko Suit

The Aberdeen News is reporting that South Dakota is caught up in an environmental wacko lawsuit that wants the EPA to regulate the much-ballyhooed "greenhouse gasses."

Here's what's before the Court:

Simply put, justices will have to decide whether greenhouse gases from vehicles are air pollutants that should be regulated by the government. It's the first time the high court has tackled the topic of global warming. Oral arguments were this week. A decision is not expected until summer.

The EPA says it doesn't have the authority to regulate "greenhouse gasses," but of course silly things like law, the Constitution, and things like that have never been an impediment to environmental wackos.

Nathan Peterson is the South Dakota rep with the wacko group The National Environmental Trust.
Peterson said The National Environmental Trust has been working on the greenhouse emissions issue since 1999. That's when various environmental groups asked the EPA to regulate greenhouse emissions. In August 2003, the EPA declined. Then, Massachusetts, The National Environmental Trust and other groups challenged the ruling in court. In 2005, a District of Columbia court let the EPA's decision stand. Earlier this year, a petition was filed with the Supreme Court asking it to review the case. In June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments.

And they say Christians are nuts...


Thursday, November 30, 2006

Libs are Cheapskates...Unless it's With Other People's Money

You might have heard about the 20/20 contest which aired last night. It had a Salvation Army bucket in San Francisco--a bastion of liberalism--and one in humble little Sioux Falls, to see which would collect the most money for charity. I had zero doubts as to which would win.

Compared to Charles Dickens' tale of crime, war and deception set in London and Paris, ABC's "20/20" program cast Sioux Falls in a generous light comparing charitable giving of the city and San Francisco.


What were the results?
Stossel said San Francisco collected half as much in Salvation Army buckets in front of Macy's, compared with Sioux Falls at Wal-Mart. Maj. Paul Duskin of the local Salvation Army said the two-day total reached about $1,000.

Seems libs are cheapskates when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is. The only time they really "care" about someone else is when they can reach into YOUR pocket to demonstrate it.

This is why we need to return to the traditional American value of private charity and compassion. Not only does the Marxist model not work (proved that with the failure of the welfare state), it's disciples are hypocrites.


Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Why Conservatives Give More to Charity

Human Events has two posts regarding charity and how conservatives are usually more giving than liberals (of their own money, that is).

You can read Why Conservatives Give More to Charity and What Is Charity? 'Who Really Cares' Explains, both of which are about the book "Who Really Cares?"

One thing that makes this information so credible is that the author doesn't even advocate, as I do, that government butt out of what it has no constitutional authority for and is incompetent at. The book merely presents the information, compelling as it is.


We're Addicted to Washington's Financial Cocaine

Sibby has already blogged on Dr. Walter Williams' excellent column today entitled "Why we love government." But it's so on-target, I couldn't help but add my commendation of Dr. Williams.

It's what separates the so-called "compassion" of liberals--which means reaching into someone else's pocket to be compassionate to people--as opposed to the compassion that conservatives advocate: reaching into YOUR OWN pocket to be compassionate. Numerous philanthropy studies have shown that conservatives are almost always more generous with charity.

And their charity is usually something more lasting than an impersonal government check; it often involves what "compassion" means: "suffering with." To borrow another parable, it often means teaching someone how to fish, rather than just giving them a fish.

Government handouts just breed more government handouts. Not to mention being unconstitutional (look Article 1 Section 8, or the Tenth Amendment--not to mention numerous statements from the Founders--and tell me where government gets the authority to take from one person and give it to another in the name of charity).

Williams sums it up perfectly:

The bottom line: We love government because it enables us to accomplish things that if done privately would lead to arrest and imprisonment. For example, if I saw a person in need, and I took your money to help him, I'd be arrested and convicted of theft. If I get Congress to do the same thing, I am seen as compassionate.


Study Finds New Evidence that Childhood Family Factors Influence Sexual Orientation

As used to be common knowledge, and many of have continued to say, a new study reveals more evidence that homosexuality is caused by childhood problems with the family.

According to the LifeSite article on a Danish study:

"Our study provides population-based, prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood."

Instead of pretending homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy, we should instead be trying to help these folks live a normal, fulfilling life.

Patting someone on the back and affirming their homosexuality is like affirming someone who is eating a slow-acting poison. Contrary to being "compassionate," it's the least loving thing you can do--but it is the easy thing to do, and that's where it's appeal to pop society comes in.

As the Catholics indicated recently in their guideline "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care," we need to help homosexuals achieve a healthy lifestyle, just as we would any person who is stuck in a destructive lifestyle.

Otherwise, you're just passing them more poison...


Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Women talk three-times more than men!

According to a Zee News article about the latest study

In fact, according to Dr Brizendine, a University of California psychiatrist, women tend to talk almost three times as much as men, with the average woman chalking up 20,000 words in a day - 13,000 words more than the average man.

I guess my only comment is, "Naw, really???"

Well, that and, "Who was stupid enough to pay for such a study?"


Monday, November 27, 2006

Once Again, Abortion Protects Rapists, Molesters

This dirtbag molested his granddaughter...and more than 60 other children.

The granddaughter became pregnant by her incestuous molester at one point, but guess what: kill the baby and get a free pass!

The girl said once she found out she was pregnant, she didn't know what to do.

"At first I didn't know what to think," she said. "I thought he was taking me to a doctor to make sure my baby was OK, but it wasn't, it was an abortion clinic."

Not only did this unborn child pay with its life for the crime of its grandfather, the mother now lives with the loss of her child...and the molester kept himself free longer.

Thanks, South Dakota (Un)Healthy Families, for helping molesters cover their crimes at the expense of their victims.


We're Baaaaack

Made it home after a good Thanksgiving with the in-laws. It was cold where we were in North Dakota, but it looks like we beat the snow.

Hope everyone had a blessed Thanksgiving!


 
Clicky Web Analytics