In a recent post on michellemalkin.com we have news on NY-23 from the horse's mouth. Read Doug Hoffman's post on the chicanery of his opponent to restore her conservative creds.
In His abiding love,
Cecil Moon
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Saviors or “Dogs in the Manger?”
This is the question which should be bothering both Republicans, Conservatives and just about anybody who desires a return to constitutional governance. With the replacement of the entire House of Representatives, a possibility in just over a year, we are gradually moving into campaign mode again.
Provoked by the radical policies of the new administration, more people than usual are taking an interest in careful examination of the credentials of each candidate. The problem arises mostly on the Republican side. There we find unanimity on what the electorate doesn’t want but some confusion concerning just how far to turn policy to the right to please the voters. In an effort to present an electable person, the Republican Party often offers an individual too compromised to satisfy the rapidly emerging Tea Party types in their base.
For example, in New York’s 23rd, an interim election is required to replace Rep. John McHugh, NY-R, who resigned to take an appointment to be Secretary of the Army. The name of Dede Scozzafava was offered to represent the GOP. When it was revealed that she was pro-abortion, backed gay marriage, supported the stimulus package and abetted union organizers, many in the party felt betrayed since she looked more like a Democrat. One can only wonder what isolated position she had which verified her credentials as a Republican. The New York Conservative Party (yes, it is a viable entity in N.Y.) gave her a rating of 15 out of a possible 100.
In response they placed the name of Doug Hoffman on the ballot as a Conservative Party Candidate. His credentials are impeccable, his style more populist and his biggest plus—he is not a lawyer. He is also an avid Tea Party advocate and participant. While it is reassuring to those who share his views, his emergent strength has presented the conundrum. Is it wiser to stand steadfastly behind principle or regain the coveted seat in the House with a middle-left candidate?
In an Oct. 15 poll, the tally was Bill Owens, D – 33%, Scozzafava, R – 29% and Hoffman, C – 23%. With the election only three weeks away, the problem becomes obvious. Combined, Scozzafava and Hoffman easily eclipse Owens. This is not surprising in a district with 45,000 surplus Republican registrants. But, only one will win and no merger/runoff is available to the candidates. The result could easily be a Democrat taking the seat.
Here you have seen some of the details in this hotly contested race and in the upcoming elections, this scenario will more than likely be repeated over and over. Not only must those in the administration be overcome to return to the basics espoused by the founders but also the entrenched party leaders who see only the letter R behind the name on the roster as their goal. Career politicians often rely upon their party designations to sustain their employment first and the aims of Americans second.
In the Senate, the presence of RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only) is equally appalling. In an evaluation by the American Conservative Union (ACU) in March ’09 we found the following ratings.
Olympia Snowe, Maine: (ACU Rating: 12)
Susan Collins, Maine: (ACU Rating: 20)
George Voinovich, Ohio: (ACU Rating: 52)
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska: (ACU Rating: 58)
Mel Martinez, Florida: (ACU Rating: 60)
John McCain, Arizona: (ACU Rating: 63)
Richard Lugar, Indiana: (ACU Rating: 63)
Robert Bennett, Utah: (ACU Rating: 64)
Thad Cochran, Mississippi: (ACU) Rating: 68)
Arlen Specter would have made the list except he changed his party. Snowe scored 1 point higher than Hillary Clinton and 4 points lower than Harry Reid. Collins scored the same as liberal Claire McCaskell and lower than Russ Feingold.
In short, the party is a mess! With friends like these in the Republican Party, the goals of millions of faithful in the Conservative are ill-served. There is a serious question of whether the Republican name is still a viable entity. With half the party leaning to the right and the other half favoring a compromise to keep their jobs, one will obviously question the leadership. Ignoring the will of the people is apparently not the exclusive province of the Democrat party. With the information above one concludes the Republicans are reducing it to an art form as well.
The traditionalists are inclined to ignore the emerging figures in the party who have that leadership capacity which is so missing at present. Palin is a cartoon to them. Huckabee is painted as more entertaining than patriot. Thompson was ignored to the point he got bored. Romney was feared for any number of reasons including being far too good as a leader of men. It appears that anyone with a scintilla of common sense and grasp of the constitution appears to the party leadership as a radical. If that were not enough they have demonstrated a disdain for “ground up” opinion input in favor of the “we are the wise, hear us” posture.
The former concept of the typical Republican being a top-hatted banker from the Monopoly board has been thoroughly put to the lie yet they continue to allow that false concept to be advanced by the opposition without any argument. It is long past time to inform the general public that Republicans are closer to the mainstream in finance than the party of “hope and change.”
All together, this is a serious issue and will require cooperation from every faction for a successful recovery of control by those who favor liberty over all other considerations. The cost of failure in this effort is the sacrifice of our liberties. It must be done and the sooner the better.
In His abiding love,
Cecil Moon
Provoked by the radical policies of the new administration, more people than usual are taking an interest in careful examination of the credentials of each candidate. The problem arises mostly on the Republican side. There we find unanimity on what the electorate doesn’t want but some confusion concerning just how far to turn policy to the right to please the voters. In an effort to present an electable person, the Republican Party often offers an individual too compromised to satisfy the rapidly emerging Tea Party types in their base.
For example, in New York’s 23rd, an interim election is required to replace Rep. John McHugh, NY-R, who resigned to take an appointment to be Secretary of the Army. The name of Dede Scozzafava was offered to represent the GOP. When it was revealed that she was pro-abortion, backed gay marriage, supported the stimulus package and abetted union organizers, many in the party felt betrayed since she looked more like a Democrat. One can only wonder what isolated position she had which verified her credentials as a Republican. The New York Conservative Party (yes, it is a viable entity in N.Y.) gave her a rating of 15 out of a possible 100.
In response they placed the name of Doug Hoffman on the ballot as a Conservative Party Candidate. His credentials are impeccable, his style more populist and his biggest plus—he is not a lawyer. He is also an avid Tea Party advocate and participant. While it is reassuring to those who share his views, his emergent strength has presented the conundrum. Is it wiser to stand steadfastly behind principle or regain the coveted seat in the House with a middle-left candidate?
In an Oct. 15 poll, the tally was Bill Owens, D – 33%, Scozzafava, R – 29% and Hoffman, C – 23%. With the election only three weeks away, the problem becomes obvious. Combined, Scozzafava and Hoffman easily eclipse Owens. This is not surprising in a district with 45,000 surplus Republican registrants. But, only one will win and no merger/runoff is available to the candidates. The result could easily be a Democrat taking the seat.
Here you have seen some of the details in this hotly contested race and in the upcoming elections, this scenario will more than likely be repeated over and over. Not only must those in the administration be overcome to return to the basics espoused by the founders but also the entrenched party leaders who see only the letter R behind the name on the roster as their goal. Career politicians often rely upon their party designations to sustain their employment first and the aims of Americans second.
In the Senate, the presence of RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only) is equally appalling. In an evaluation by the American Conservative Union (ACU) in March ’09 we found the following ratings.
Olympia Snowe, Maine: (ACU Rating: 12)
Susan Collins, Maine: (ACU Rating: 20)
George Voinovich, Ohio: (ACU Rating: 52)
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska: (ACU Rating: 58)
Mel Martinez, Florida: (ACU Rating: 60)
John McCain, Arizona: (ACU Rating: 63)
Richard Lugar, Indiana: (ACU Rating: 63)
Robert Bennett, Utah: (ACU Rating: 64)
Thad Cochran, Mississippi: (ACU) Rating: 68)
Arlen Specter would have made the list except he changed his party. Snowe scored 1 point higher than Hillary Clinton and 4 points lower than Harry Reid. Collins scored the same as liberal Claire McCaskell and lower than Russ Feingold.
In short, the party is a mess! With friends like these in the Republican Party, the goals of millions of faithful in the Conservative are ill-served. There is a serious question of whether the Republican name is still a viable entity. With half the party leaning to the right and the other half favoring a compromise to keep their jobs, one will obviously question the leadership. Ignoring the will of the people is apparently not the exclusive province of the Democrat party. With the information above one concludes the Republicans are reducing it to an art form as well.
The traditionalists are inclined to ignore the emerging figures in the party who have that leadership capacity which is so missing at present. Palin is a cartoon to them. Huckabee is painted as more entertaining than patriot. Thompson was ignored to the point he got bored. Romney was feared for any number of reasons including being far too good as a leader of men. It appears that anyone with a scintilla of common sense and grasp of the constitution appears to the party leadership as a radical. If that were not enough they have demonstrated a disdain for “ground up” opinion input in favor of the “we are the wise, hear us” posture.
The former concept of the typical Republican being a top-hatted banker from the Monopoly board has been thoroughly put to the lie yet they continue to allow that false concept to be advanced by the opposition without any argument. It is long past time to inform the general public that Republicans are closer to the mainstream in finance than the party of “hope and change.”
All together, this is a serious issue and will require cooperation from every faction for a successful recovery of control by those who favor liberty over all other considerations. The cost of failure in this effort is the sacrifice of our liberties. It must be done and the sooner the better.
In His abiding love,
Cecil Moon
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Geezer Squeezer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in the Spring, we wrote about the announcement that Social Security would, for the first time in thirty-seven years, NOT have a COLA increase in the regular stipend delivered monthly to recipients. Coming on the heels of 5.8% increase the previous year, those who were aware were also quite shocked. The program (congressionally mandated) which had made an attempt to keep those payments at a pace equivalent to the rising prices in the economy was suddenly not going to happen.
With the economy in total disarray, the sensible oldsters were disappointed but not really surprised. The media for the most part managed to suppress any general reaction and as a consequence, public outrage over this slight was stifled. The objections to the decision were observed at many of the protest marches, Tea Parties, town halls, etc., but no singular objections were seen. Evidently, there were more hackles raised than were known because now the administration has proposed a one time payment to each participant of a flat $250 one time payment to compensate.
On average, that would amount to roughly a 1.8% increase paid in a lump sum. This is wrong-headed in a number of ways:
One of the villains lies in the miracle of compound interest. Using the lump sum method deprives the receiver of an increased base line for further COLA payments. This means that any further increases are percentages of a lower number than the legal entitlement. For example: With a $1000 monthly payment and an average of a future COLA of 2% over the succeeding 5 years would result in $271.00 less total payment in that interval than if it were included in the baseline. Ergo—a net loss of $21.00, which over years becomes exponentially greater each succeeding year. It seems a small amount but as it accrues it becomes huge.
The immediate outlay would be in the neighborhood of $20 billion dollars, not paid as a monthly increase, which then places an immediate demand on the treasury as an immediate advance. Currently there are so many demands against that money (the war, foreign debts, bailouts, ACORN maintenance etc.) the budget hardly needs to be exposed to unnecessary outlay.
It is unnecessary because of the nature of recipient thinking. I know my contemporaries and how they view these monthly increases in their checks. The proposed lump sum payment spread over the year would amount to what would seem a paltry amount to most working people--$21.00 a month. To the pensioner receiving $1000 a month, an extra $21.00, raising it to $1021 looks considerably more valuable. That device screams at them monthly that the government understands and is making a positive effort to bring an equivalent bonus to ameliorate rising prices. In the geezer mind, the $250 in one shot takes on the appearance of throwing a dog a bone. Same amount but an entirely different psychology. Fully understanding this concept requires that you live in the penury imposed by having Social Security as your only income.
Not least of the negative factors in the decision to send a lump sum payment is the inequity of sending identical amounts to all persons regardless of their entitlement. If your social security check is $2000 a month, you get $250. If your social security is $400 a month, you get $250. The government has decided to take your proportionate share and equalize it with those who have not contributed nearly as much over the years. Therefore you are then involuntarily sharing the fruits of your labor with others who made no equal contribution. It is yet another boon for those who do not produce at the levels of others. This is unfair if it is part of social security. If not tied to FICA then it is unfair to those who have not attained seniority. It is just one more scheme of redistribution of wealth. At our house, I get a lesser percentage and my wife gets a larger percentage. One might argue that she’s worth it.
By misunderstanding the mind set, needs, and emotional make-up of this huge demographic, our Democrat leadership is making a terrible mistake. I love it because seniors are also the most absolutely dependable group going to the polls. Why would they risk the most populous and reliable source of votes among all the citizens? Keep in mind that our largest populations of citizens are not old enough to vote and from 18 to 45, families, higher education and jobs occupy their thoughts, which elevates the importance of the aged at the polls.
Their own dependence on falsely thinking they know the “mind” of the people and their head long instincts to want to herd and not lead will bring about their eventual downfall. One can get by not going to see Granny or one’s aged Uncle every month or so but don’t mess with either check each month. What seems paltry has to be understood in the frame of reference that the recipient has. With a narcissist president and a congress barely less so, continued failure to understand the electorate is a disaster. The truly sweet justice is that the Democrat Party was largely responsible for Social Security in the first place. Thanks, FDR.
In His abiding love,
Cecil Moon
Back in the Spring, we wrote about the announcement that Social Security would, for the first time in thirty-seven years, NOT have a COLA increase in the regular stipend delivered monthly to recipients. Coming on the heels of 5.8% increase the previous year, those who were aware were also quite shocked. The program (congressionally mandated) which had made an attempt to keep those payments at a pace equivalent to the rising prices in the economy was suddenly not going to happen.
With the economy in total disarray, the sensible oldsters were disappointed but not really surprised. The media for the most part managed to suppress any general reaction and as a consequence, public outrage over this slight was stifled. The objections to the decision were observed at many of the protest marches, Tea Parties, town halls, etc., but no singular objections were seen. Evidently, there were more hackles raised than were known because now the administration has proposed a one time payment to each participant of a flat $250 one time payment to compensate.
On average, that would amount to roughly a 1.8% increase paid in a lump sum. This is wrong-headed in a number of ways:
One of the villains lies in the miracle of compound interest. Using the lump sum method deprives the receiver of an increased base line for further COLA payments. This means that any further increases are percentages of a lower number than the legal entitlement. For example: With a $1000 monthly payment and an average of a future COLA of 2% over the succeeding 5 years would result in $271.00 less total payment in that interval than if it were included in the baseline. Ergo—a net loss of $21.00, which over years becomes exponentially greater each succeeding year. It seems a small amount but as it accrues it becomes huge.
The immediate outlay would be in the neighborhood of $20 billion dollars, not paid as a monthly increase, which then places an immediate demand on the treasury as an immediate advance. Currently there are so many demands against that money (the war, foreign debts, bailouts, ACORN maintenance etc.) the budget hardly needs to be exposed to unnecessary outlay.
It is unnecessary because of the nature of recipient thinking. I know my contemporaries and how they view these monthly increases in their checks. The proposed lump sum payment spread over the year would amount to what would seem a paltry amount to most working people--$21.00 a month. To the pensioner receiving $1000 a month, an extra $21.00, raising it to $1021 looks considerably more valuable. That device screams at them monthly that the government understands and is making a positive effort to bring an equivalent bonus to ameliorate rising prices. In the geezer mind, the $250 in one shot takes on the appearance of throwing a dog a bone. Same amount but an entirely different psychology. Fully understanding this concept requires that you live in the penury imposed by having Social Security as your only income.
Not least of the negative factors in the decision to send a lump sum payment is the inequity of sending identical amounts to all persons regardless of their entitlement. If your social security check is $2000 a month, you get $250. If your social security is $400 a month, you get $250. The government has decided to take your proportionate share and equalize it with those who have not contributed nearly as much over the years. Therefore you are then involuntarily sharing the fruits of your labor with others who made no equal contribution. It is yet another boon for those who do not produce at the levels of others. This is unfair if it is part of social security. If not tied to FICA then it is unfair to those who have not attained seniority. It is just one more scheme of redistribution of wealth. At our house, I get a lesser percentage and my wife gets a larger percentage. One might argue that she’s worth it.
By misunderstanding the mind set, needs, and emotional make-up of this huge demographic, our Democrat leadership is making a terrible mistake. I love it because seniors are also the most absolutely dependable group going to the polls. Why would they risk the most populous and reliable source of votes among all the citizens? Keep in mind that our largest populations of citizens are not old enough to vote and from 18 to 45, families, higher education and jobs occupy their thoughts, which elevates the importance of the aged at the polls.
Their own dependence on falsely thinking they know the “mind” of the people and their head long instincts to want to herd and not lead will bring about their eventual downfall. One can get by not going to see Granny or one’s aged Uncle every month or so but don’t mess with either check each month. What seems paltry has to be understood in the frame of reference that the recipient has. With a narcissist president and a congress barely less so, continued failure to understand the electorate is a disaster. The truly sweet justice is that the Democrat Party was largely responsible for Social Security in the first place. Thanks, FDR.
In His abiding love,
Cecil Moon
Special Note for Regular Readers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to an accident which my spouse had on Tuesday, we have been somewhat preoccupied with matters medical and automotive. In plain language, she drove it off the road on a rain slick highway and got a compression fracture in her back for her trouble. Thanks to a prompt response team and excellent medical care at two different hospitals both staffed with caring capable professionals she is ambulatory and on the road to recovery. She will be in a back brace for several weeks until the healing is complete.
We are grateful to those who kept her in their prayers. We both truly believe that you have considerable influence with your Creator. He has obviously listened and harkened to your pleas.
We apologize for the irregular postings. We shall have more for you later both on “Zion Beckons” and “Granny with a Pitchfork.”
In His abiding love
Cecil Moon
Due to an accident which my spouse had on Tuesday, we have been somewhat preoccupied with matters medical and automotive. In plain language, she drove it off the road on a rain slick highway and got a compression fracture in her back for her trouble. Thanks to a prompt response team and excellent medical care at two different hospitals both staffed with caring capable professionals she is ambulatory and on the road to recovery. She will be in a back brace for several weeks until the healing is complete.
We are grateful to those who kept her in their prayers. We both truly believe that you have considerable influence with your Creator. He has obviously listened and harkened to your pleas.
We apologize for the irregular postings. We shall have more for you later both on “Zion Beckons” and “Granny with a Pitchfork.”
In His abiding love
Cecil Moon
Monday, October 12, 2009
Christopher Columbus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever happened to those who would have taken the opportunity to diss old Chris on this, his day? This has been early October sport for at least a generation or possibly more. How can we ever hope to keep every American of Italian descent offended by criticism of that noble explorer if we don’t manufacture outrages on his part while “discovering” the new world.. In the past we have had at least small front page entries in the newspapers or TV film clips celebrating every miscue on his arrival in the America’s.
Have we now decided to just let him rest in peace and ignore the heroics of the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria? Could it be that we have crimes and misdemeanors so severe in our government that they have occluded reportage of Chris’s nefarious efforts to find a route to the Indies? What about those who labored so long to hang black crepe in Columbus Circle in NYC? Have they now joined the unemployed, which total enlarges daily? Possibly we have news sources which prefer to continue fruitless investigations of the CIA and Gitmo over false allegations of the terrors inflicted by the party of intrepid explorers who faced the unknown to locate random islands in the Caribbean.
I have seen exact reproductions of these vessels—one in Columbus, Ohio—and share with you that no sane man would ever contemplate using one for a trans-Atlantic trip. Below decks, the maximum comfortable height for a crewman would be 5’ because that’s the margin between floor and ceiling. Even worse, they used a “hot bunk” protocol which demands that a sleeping man is immediately replaced by one coming off duty. Some cushy trip that was. If, as a crewman, you wanted some relief you go always go topside and enjoy the refreshing spray in your face generated by the typical fall storms in the mid-Atlantic.
Today we shall have to settle for little coverage because those crafty Norwegians have upstaged Chris and provided other, Nobelian, issues to occupy the minds of the pundits. I wonder, today, if that committee would find it in their hearts to reward such an effort in crossing the great sea to lay the groundwork for establishment of a continent of free men. Nah! It was, upon the promise of Isabella, a commercial enterprise to enrich the Spanish government and the intrepid explorer as well. Heaven’s to Betsy, we wouldn’t want anyone to make a profit now would we?
Interestingly, no one can assert that Columbus didn’t keep busy. Wikipedia accuses him of the deaths of 3,000,000 native inhabitants in the fifteen year total of his influence in the Western Hemisphere. Let’s see, that figures out to 547 persons per day. Assuming he rested on Sundays—everything he named had religious significance—that figure would move to 650, or 3900 persons per week. Lacking modern automatic-fire weapons that would have required some awesome physical skills. No wonder he died of complications of arthritic debilitation.
I strongly suspect that the primary criticism of Columbus was his desire to turn a buck on his efforts. Most of the dissatisfaction with his endeavor appear to come from those who, at the same time, see little problem with deaths of over 40,000,000 infants in the United States. Is it not ever thus? After everything which he endured while making ground breaking discoveries, it’s not hard to see why he might have been a little “owley” when he finally got here.
In His abiding love,
Cecil Moon
Whatever happened to those who would have taken the opportunity to diss old Chris on this, his day? This has been early October sport for at least a generation or possibly more. How can we ever hope to keep every American of Italian descent offended by criticism of that noble explorer if we don’t manufacture outrages on his part while “discovering” the new world.. In the past we have had at least small front page entries in the newspapers or TV film clips celebrating every miscue on his arrival in the America’s.
Have we now decided to just let him rest in peace and ignore the heroics of the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria? Could it be that we have crimes and misdemeanors so severe in our government that they have occluded reportage of Chris’s nefarious efforts to find a route to the Indies? What about those who labored so long to hang black crepe in Columbus Circle in NYC? Have they now joined the unemployed, which total enlarges daily? Possibly we have news sources which prefer to continue fruitless investigations of the CIA and Gitmo over false allegations of the terrors inflicted by the party of intrepid explorers who faced the unknown to locate random islands in the Caribbean.
I have seen exact reproductions of these vessels—one in Columbus, Ohio—and share with you that no sane man would ever contemplate using one for a trans-Atlantic trip. Below decks, the maximum comfortable height for a crewman would be 5’ because that’s the margin between floor and ceiling. Even worse, they used a “hot bunk” protocol which demands that a sleeping man is immediately replaced by one coming off duty. Some cushy trip that was. If, as a crewman, you wanted some relief you go always go topside and enjoy the refreshing spray in your face generated by the typical fall storms in the mid-Atlantic.
Today we shall have to settle for little coverage because those crafty Norwegians have upstaged Chris and provided other, Nobelian, issues to occupy the minds of the pundits. I wonder, today, if that committee would find it in their hearts to reward such an effort in crossing the great sea to lay the groundwork for establishment of a continent of free men. Nah! It was, upon the promise of Isabella, a commercial enterprise to enrich the Spanish government and the intrepid explorer as well. Heaven’s to Betsy, we wouldn’t want anyone to make a profit now would we?
Interestingly, no one can assert that Columbus didn’t keep busy. Wikipedia accuses him of the deaths of 3,000,000 native inhabitants in the fifteen year total of his influence in the Western Hemisphere. Let’s see, that figures out to 547 persons per day. Assuming he rested on Sundays—everything he named had religious significance—that figure would move to 650, or 3900 persons per week. Lacking modern automatic-fire weapons that would have required some awesome physical skills. No wonder he died of complications of arthritic debilitation.
I strongly suspect that the primary criticism of Columbus was his desire to turn a buck on his efforts. Most of the dissatisfaction with his endeavor appear to come from those who, at the same time, see little problem with deaths of over 40,000,000 infants in the United States. Is it not ever thus? After everything which he endured while making ground breaking discoveries, it’s not hard to see why he might have been a little “owley” when he finally got here.
In His abiding love,
Cecil Moon
Monday Morning Rant 114
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it seem to you that all I write about is rain? Well this time it’s another 7” which really got our attention. That was the accumulation over about 24 hours. The bridge north was cluttered with 20’-30’ logs over the roadway and the road south had water up to the bottom of the doors on the Exploder. Ah yes, the bucolic life of the country squire. All is well now and we both made it to church.
Gandhi Wuz Robbed
For an interchange with two former presidents I highly recommend that you read the article by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times.
If you would rather not sully your screen with the usual content from the gray lady, you can also find it posted on Giovanni’s World and I guarantee it will come up faster.
It’s a hoot! If dyed in the wool sympathizers such as Dodd and others can take such deadly aim at the “One,” there must a problem. Seems just about everybody is stunned by the award and they all ask the same question: “What for?”
More Wisdom in Comments
I think I’ll just skip reading the posts and devote my full time to the comments. Some of these guys have ability to wrap up complex problems in very few words. See if you agree.
This is from Bob Campbell in response to an article in American Thinker.
“Many folks want to serve God, but only as advisers.”
Now there are ten well spoken words that will haul you up short. If that strikes us a little too close to home maybe we should all rethink our relationship with Him.
This one came from neil c., commenting on the same post on American Thinker:
“I can agree that it is important to maintain objectivity when scrutinizing one's values. I often ask myself why I hold the values I hold. I do my best to live by the same moral and ethical standards that any devout Christian would, yet I am not a Christian. I am an agnostic. It is not my emotional attachment to a god or the fear of the afterlife that drives my conservative beliefs. I like to think that it is sheer logic."
Here's another phrase maybe we should all consider: Ideological Defensiveness. I have yet to meet a liberal who is willing to get into an intellectually honest debate on pretty much any issue. Their logic is circular or incoherent. The same logic can never be applied to more than one topic.
Try this one on a liberal and see how he responds:
If healthcare is a right (which it's not; at least not according to the constitution) and it is government's responsibility to provide it, then why is it not the government's responsibility to provide me with a gun (which the constitution does say is my right)?
If a women's body is so important that the government has no right to tell her she can't have an abortion, then why is it ok for the government to tell her she must have healthcare? (It's implied that if the government mandates health insurance for everyone, then everyone must receive the treatment.)
I could go on and on with examples, but you get the point.
Liberals deflect attack, lie, deny, rationalize, or ignore logical arguments against them. All of them seem to have an uncanny ability to turn a logical argument into a personal attack, making themselves the victims and you the evil attacker. Logical arguments are useless. You can't win an argument with liberals; all you can do is shut them up. The best way to do this is to call them Nazis before they can call you one. Most liberals will at that point realize you have pretty much disarmed them. That's what Republicans need to do in Congress.
When Joe Wilson called Obama a liar, the only response he had was, "nuh uh... no I'm not." That's just about all he could say. He couldn't defend his position. He couldn't debate it. And, at that point it would have made him look very childish to say "nuh- uh, you are."
So you can remain objective all you want, but when it's time to hit the ball field, you better stand with your team mates and call that umpire a blind old fool if he makes a call against you, because you know darn well the other team will.”
Unreal Reality
It is surreal to observe our government in decline. It is happening so fast that one hesitates to get out of bed, crank up the computer, read Drudge or other sites in the morning just to see what outrage has been perpetrated overnight. I truly believe that an outright blitzkrieg would be easier to handle than the creeping onslaught of attacks on the Constitution and the people.
As control of our lives is regulated into oblivion, or at the least attempted, we see little which we can physically accomplish to stem the tide. The biggest challenge is which issue to confront as a valid threat and which one has been thrown up as a smoke screen to cloud other issues which are genuine. While the Nobel Prize was ridiculous and an obviously contrived device to further the agenda of European socialists, the matter did serve to divert our attention from the mischief in the congress to enslave our citizens. Enslave is the correct label to attach to their goals.
Any abridgement of the rights of the Americans people is a step toward enslavement. That condition arises further with each choice denied. Think about it. Consider the simple act of riding a bicycle. Are you wearing your knee pads? Is your helmet on securely? Have you reviewed all the rules for bike safety? Did you do a full safety check--brakes, tire pressure, seat firmly attached, proper handle bar location, all nuts and bolts secure—before you departed? Your mother didn’t even require this of you in her everlasting worry over your activities.
The end result is the over-regulation and policing of everyday activities while law enforcement is diminished at the borders and the penalties for actual crime are reduced. What have we come to?
And Finally
Even with the disruption of activities caused by torrential rains we are peacefully enjoying the good life here on the top of the bluff. The biggest thrill of late has been the presence of the deer extremely close to the house. One of the oaks closest has been shedding acorns at a record pace. Unlike the clutter of the forest which hides that bounty, the acorns lie on the ground, easily accessible to the deer on mowed grass. The dogs go nuts which does little more than keep the deer alert. Given their speed, they have little to fear. We thank God for this entertaining spectacle and the peace it brings.
In His abiding love,
Cecil Moon
Does it seem to you that all I write about is rain? Well this time it’s another 7” which really got our attention. That was the accumulation over about 24 hours. The bridge north was cluttered with 20’-30’ logs over the roadway and the road south had water up to the bottom of the doors on the Exploder. Ah yes, the bucolic life of the country squire. All is well now and we both made it to church.
Gandhi Wuz Robbed
For an interchange with two former presidents I highly recommend that you read the article by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times.
If you would rather not sully your screen with the usual content from the gray lady, you can also find it posted on Giovanni’s World and I guarantee it will come up faster.
It’s a hoot! If dyed in the wool sympathizers such as Dodd and others can take such deadly aim at the “One,” there must a problem. Seems just about everybody is stunned by the award and they all ask the same question: “What for?”
More Wisdom in Comments
I think I’ll just skip reading the posts and devote my full time to the comments. Some of these guys have ability to wrap up complex problems in very few words. See if you agree.
This is from Bob Campbell in response to an article in American Thinker.
“Many folks want to serve God, but only as advisers.”
Now there are ten well spoken words that will haul you up short. If that strikes us a little too close to home maybe we should all rethink our relationship with Him.
This one came from neil c., commenting on the same post on American Thinker:
“I can agree that it is important to maintain objectivity when scrutinizing one's values. I often ask myself why I hold the values I hold. I do my best to live by the same moral and ethical standards that any devout Christian would, yet I am not a Christian. I am an agnostic. It is not my emotional attachment to a god or the fear of the afterlife that drives my conservative beliefs. I like to think that it is sheer logic."
Here's another phrase maybe we should all consider: Ideological Defensiveness. I have yet to meet a liberal who is willing to get into an intellectually honest debate on pretty much any issue. Their logic is circular or incoherent. The same logic can never be applied to more than one topic.
Try this one on a liberal and see how he responds:
If healthcare is a right (which it's not; at least not according to the constitution) and it is government's responsibility to provide it, then why is it not the government's responsibility to provide me with a gun (which the constitution does say is my right)?
If a women's body is so important that the government has no right to tell her she can't have an abortion, then why is it ok for the government to tell her she must have healthcare? (It's implied that if the government mandates health insurance for everyone, then everyone must receive the treatment.)
I could go on and on with examples, but you get the point.
Liberals deflect attack, lie, deny, rationalize, or ignore logical arguments against them. All of them seem to have an uncanny ability to turn a logical argument into a personal attack, making themselves the victims and you the evil attacker. Logical arguments are useless. You can't win an argument with liberals; all you can do is shut them up. The best way to do this is to call them Nazis before they can call you one. Most liberals will at that point realize you have pretty much disarmed them. That's what Republicans need to do in Congress.
When Joe Wilson called Obama a liar, the only response he had was, "nuh uh... no I'm not." That's just about all he could say. He couldn't defend his position. He couldn't debate it. And, at that point it would have made him look very childish to say "nuh- uh, you are."
So you can remain objective all you want, but when it's time to hit the ball field, you better stand with your team mates and call that umpire a blind old fool if he makes a call against you, because you know darn well the other team will.”
Unreal Reality
It is surreal to observe our government in decline. It is happening so fast that one hesitates to get out of bed, crank up the computer, read Drudge or other sites in the morning just to see what outrage has been perpetrated overnight. I truly believe that an outright blitzkrieg would be easier to handle than the creeping onslaught of attacks on the Constitution and the people.
As control of our lives is regulated into oblivion, or at the least attempted, we see little which we can physically accomplish to stem the tide. The biggest challenge is which issue to confront as a valid threat and which one has been thrown up as a smoke screen to cloud other issues which are genuine. While the Nobel Prize was ridiculous and an obviously contrived device to further the agenda of European socialists, the matter did serve to divert our attention from the mischief in the congress to enslave our citizens. Enslave is the correct label to attach to their goals.
Any abridgement of the rights of the Americans people is a step toward enslavement. That condition arises further with each choice denied. Think about it. Consider the simple act of riding a bicycle. Are you wearing your knee pads? Is your helmet on securely? Have you reviewed all the rules for bike safety? Did you do a full safety check--brakes, tire pressure, seat firmly attached, proper handle bar location, all nuts and bolts secure—before you departed? Your mother didn’t even require this of you in her everlasting worry over your activities.
The end result is the over-regulation and policing of everyday activities while law enforcement is diminished at the borders and the penalties for actual crime are reduced. What have we come to?
And Finally
Even with the disruption of activities caused by torrential rains we are peacefully enjoying the good life here on the top of the bluff. The biggest thrill of late has been the presence of the deer extremely close to the house. One of the oaks closest has been shedding acorns at a record pace. Unlike the clutter of the forest which hides that bounty, the acorns lie on the ground, easily accessible to the deer on mowed grass. The dogs go nuts which does little more than keep the deer alert. Given their speed, they have little to fear. We thank God for this entertaining spectacle and the peace it brings.
In His abiding love,
Cecil Moon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
