My New Favorite Cartoon

I am blessed with two small children, one them being a four-year-old boy. That means cartoons. Of course, we limit the amount of TV the kids watch. Television does, in a very real way, rot brains, and since our land has given up democracy for idiocracy, we don't let the TV babysit our kids.

But we do watch cartoons.

I have had so much fun with my boy lately because we have discovered the Boomerang channel by Cartoon Network. It broadcasts all of the old cartoons like Scooby Doo, Where Are You?, Looney Tunes, Flinstones, etc. These cartoons are great! They are full of good ol' fashioned violence, er, slapstick, and there isn't hint drop of political correctness in the lot. No one is trying to propagandize my children by showing pictures of baby polar bears floating on ice chunks or brainwash them into being good little progressives.

As I've been watching, I've re-discovered a cartoon. I didn't like it very much as a child, but Matthew loves it, so we watch it. However, it's quickly become my new favorite--for theoretical reasons.

I love Richie Rich! Richie Rich is a really, REALLY, REALLY, rich kid. Really. He is completely comfortable with his wealth, and he surrounds himself with every kind of luxury imaginable. He is proud of his wealth. But he is also the good guy. He's morally upright with a strong sense of personal integrity and personal responsibility. He's generous; he has no problem sharing his wealth, but he does so at his own discretion. He's inventive and an entrepreneur. And he always beats the bad guy.

The progressive swamp into which our culture has slid is ripe with the putrid stench of the lie that wealthy people are inherently evil. Richie Rich would never--could never--be produced today in the U.S. because of this lie. The powers that be are trying their darndest to convince us and our children that no one could ever emulate Richie Rich because there is no such thing as a person that is both wealthy and good. To go a step further, those powers are instilling a hatred of the wealthy in our national pathos.

But if we're teaching our children to grow up to be the opposite of Richie Rich, then they'll be poor saps with no sense of integrity or personal responsibility. They won't have the resources to concern themselves with being generous (they'll leave the distribution of wealth to the government). Inventiveness and the entrepreneurial spirit will fall by the wayside. There will be nothing for them to be proud of. Though they won't necessarily be bad guys, they certainly won't be good.

What evidence do I have that this is where we're headed? How's this:

• Bank bailouts
• Housing bailouts
• Auto-industry bailouts
• The demonization of Wall St. executives
• Restricting the pay of employees
• Obama care
• Stimulus
• TARP
• Cap & trade, etc.

Nelson: Bought and Paid For

Sen. Landrieu held out on health care and the nation witnessed The Louisiana Purchase II. $300 million bought her off.

Lieberman was holding out too. He even threatened to join with Republicans in a filibuster to block any kind of public option or early buy-in option to Medicare. But he had a committee chair to protect. He didn't back down. Then the Left made a despicable move against the Senator's wife, and he caved. He'll be voting for the Senate bill now.

And then there was one...

Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) threatened to break party lines over the bill's vague treatment of federal funding for abortion. Nelson proposed an amendment to severely restrict such funding, but the pro-abortion/anti-life-ers were able to shoot it down. Nelson moved next to Lieberman and threatened a filibuster.

And then there was none...

I turned on the news this morning at 7:00am Eastern to find that Reid got Nelson too. This
article reports that Nelson got some of the restrictions of the federal funding of abortion, but he also got paid. "Democratic leaders offered Nelson a deal similar to the $300 million in Medicaid assistance Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana got for her support, numerous sources told Fox News." It gets better. "... Sen. Kent Conrad, a key Democratic leader involved in the negotiations with Nelson, said, 'Oh, it'll be much more.'"

It's great to know that our Senators' concern for increasing the deficit and the welfare of the unborn have a price tag.

There are a few questions I still have:

1. Where are we getting the money to pay off these bribes?

2. Is Landrieu kicking herself? She could have held out for more money.

3. Where can I get some good BBQ sauce to help swallow all the pork in this legislative atrocity?

Executive Branch Uses Economy to Blackmail Congress

This article from foxnews.com reports that a top economic official in the Obama administration has warned Congress that if legislation is not quickly passed to regulate CO2, the EPA will do it.

This news comes on the heals of the EPA's declaration that CO2 is harmful to humans.  The declaration, according to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, will allow the EPA to regulate the greenhouse gas under the Clean Air Act.  So it looks like some type of federal regulation will be coming down the pike one way or the other.

The Fox article reports, "The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the [EPA] will take a 'command-and-control' role over the process in a way that could hurt business."

Are you kidding me?  Is the Obama administration really saying that if the Congress doesn't pass legislation that will further damage our critically wounded economy that the Executive Branch, through the EPA, will take steps toward implementing regulations that will hurt worse?

If it is, then expect the Congress to move because this is an attempt at blackmail that will bend the Democrats in both houses over a fence.  Given the language of the article, one should assume that the EPA is ready to move forward with regulations in 2010 if Congress doesn't move first.  The Dems know that passing Cap and Trade during an election year will anger the electorate because of the well-known negative consequences the legislation will have on the economy.  Many Democrats, including Harry Reid, are in trouble already, and this would sound the death knell.  On the other hand, if the Congress fails to act, and the EPA follows through on its "kill business" threat, then the majority party will get hung for failing to act.  Cap and Trade becomes a way to protect the economy!  Unbelievable!

But this is what is just incredible:  Who is it that's threatening Congress?  It's the President!  His administration is telling Congress, "You all had better take the shot at the economy, or we'll do it for you, and our shot will kill it.  Do you really want us to kill the economy?"

Of course, Obama will do the same thing that he's done with the Department of Justice.  He's denied responsibility for Attorney General Holder's investigation of Bush officials with respect to enhanced interrogation measures, and he's denied having a hand in Holder's decision to try KSM, et al. in civilian court.  Rather, Obama has claimed that Holder has acted independently in his role as the nation's chief prosecutor.  But come on! Everybody knows that the head of the DoJ is the President just because he is the chief of the Executive Branch.  Make no mistake.  Obama will say he doesn't want the EPA to do this, but he'll go on to say that the EPA is independent and acting on its own, as if he has no influence on its operations--as if he has no power to change its operations.  Never mind that he does have such influence and power.

In the end, our President is holding the economic well-being of American citizens hostage to extort our Congress.  Is this anything other than thuggery?  Is it anything other than the behavior of a Chicago gangster?

What country do we even live in?  I don't even recognize it!  Who would have thought that an American President, not a foreign enemy, would actively move to break our nation?

What is certain is that Congress better move to protect itself as a Constitutional body.  The Executive branch has gathered such strength so fast that, as the EPA has just proven, the Congress is becoming irrelevant.

Who Care's if Jefferson was a Deist? The Declaration is a CHRISTIAN Document!

If one affirms the United States' being founded upon the bedrock of Christianity, one is familiar with the following retort: "Well, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were Deists, not Christians. And a lot of the Founders were affiliated with a church because they were so obligated by the state." Citing Jefferson is usually enough to silence the defender of our Christian heritage. Jefferson was, in fact, a Deist, not a Christian. Jefferson believed that proper religion was that which could be known through reason alone, without the aid of divine revelation. Jefferson was highly skeptical of the supernatural--so much so that he cut out with a razor blade all of the passages of his Bible that claimed supernatural intervention. That would include the resurrection. Denying the resurrection is enough to put one outside the bounds of orthodoxy, and thus Jefferson could not be a Christian. Couple this with the integral role Jefferson played in shaping our nation: penning the Declaration of Independence, championing a bill of rights, arguing with Hamilton, Jay, and Madison over federalism, serving as President, etc. Perhaps our founding ideas were not inspired by Christianity after all.

This is not so.

When, in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson affirms the equality of all humans with respect to our inalienable natural rights to life, liberty, and property, he is appealing to John Locke's argument in the Second Treatise on Civil Government. Locke starts with Adam. He argues that Adam had no natural or divinely gifted right to dominion over the other persons as a political sovereign. Instead, humans were created equal and independent and in perfect liberty. So that no one mistook this state of liberty for a state of license, Locke wrote:

[F]or men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker, all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business, they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure[.]

From here, Locke concludes that we may not victimize others as if they were created for our pleasure. Rather, as God's artifacts, we are called to respect ourselves and others. We are not our own.

Locke's argument from man being an intentional artifact of God, being made for his purposes alone, implies a level of divine interaction with the created order, and with humans specifically, that is incompatible with the clockmaker god of the Deists. Rather, Locke was a Christian. His God was God. So, despite Jefferson's being a Deist, affirming mankind's universal equality with respect to natural rights, which is argued for by Locke (which was undoubtedly Jefferson's source), he can get those rights only by affirming a personal and involved God.

The 2nd Treatise is a Christian document. Since the Declaration uses it as it's philosophical foundation, the Declaration must be a Christian document as well.

Marx: In His Own Words

Of course, in the beginning [of the revolution], this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, buy which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will of course be different in different countries.

Nevertheless in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of the factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of child factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto.

The frightening thing about this passage is how its ideas are being implemented in the US by our own government. Regarding "despotic inroads ... which appear economically insufficient and untenable" but inevitably lead toward economic restructuring, does the housing crises ring any bells? The results of Frank, Dodd, Obama, and Clinton (and ACORN), pushing banks to make bad housing loans are that more people are WITHOUT property, and the government owns a significant number of banks (owning one bank would be significant enough). These two results also reflect numbers 1 and 5.

We already have 2 in place.

Hefty inheritance taxes reflect a commitment to 3.

If our government is willing to confiscate the property of law-abiding citizens, surely the property of emigrants and rebels is unsafe (see 4 above).

As for 6, Obama has appointed a "diversity czar" in the FCC. This czar is outspoken in his desire to see the state run all media outlets in order to control the flow of information.

GM and Chrysler--point 7.

Of course, once we're all in a national union, they'll have to start forcing us to work (union members don't work). 8 above will be in place.

9 above simply communicates that the state will dictate where people live and what they do. There will be no liberty. If a government-run (single payer?) health care system is ever put in place, this will happen. Check out Reagan's speech on nationalized health care on youtube for the argument.

I don't have to say anything about 10. Free public schools are in place. They're little more than communist incubators.

Of course, Obama isn't a Marxist ...

E!'s The Soup Launches Sexist Attack Against Sarah Palin

A few moments ago, Joel McCale, host of E!'s The Soup, caught his audience up on Oprah's interview with Sara Palin. In actuality, the alleged interview was spliced with portions of Oprah's interview with porn star Jenna Jameson. Coupling the splicing with some other creative editing, The Soup created a poorly thought-out "comedic" bit showing Oprah asking sexualy explicit questions of Sarah Palin. Of course, Sarah Palin was made out to look like the porn star. Oh yes, and Jenna Jameson was made to look like a half-wit that ran for Vice President in '08.

The Left generally and the media specifically have been brutal to Mrs. Palin since she entered the presidential race las summer. There has been no end to the downright sexist attacks launched against her--many protected under the auspices of comedy (remember the Letterman fiasco?). Despite the dispicable onslaught against her because she is a woman, pro-life, a Conservative, and a Christian, The Soup ought to be thoroughly ashamed of itself for such an outright sexist jab.

Let us not forget the double standard. Although the Left took aim at Hillary Clinton because she dared to run against Obama, no media outlet would have dared to run such a bit concerning our Secretary of State. I can think of NO female politician on the Left that has EVER been the subject of such cruel scorn. I can think of no other female politician on the Right that has been subjected to the level of sexually demeaning "comedy."

Again, E! ought to be ashamed of itself. I plan on contacting E! and The Soup and demanding a formal apology. You should do likewise.

(At the time of publication of this post, the relevant clip from The Soup was not yet available on YouTube. However, I suggest that you keep trying to find it and watch it. You will be horified.)

A Lesson From the Democrats

There is no way on earth that a good portion of the elected Dems in the federal government, including President Obama, are going to win re-election in fair, open, and free elections if they continue to push policy and legislation on the citizens that will eventually bankrupt beyond repair the government, every state, county, city, and each individual in this country. They must know this. You cannot willfully and knowingly hack off a majority of the voter base and plan on keeping your cushy job as House Rep, Senator, or President. It's not rocket science.

Since they must know this fact, and since they keep on pushing such damaging policy and legislation, it tells me that they are not concerned with being re-elected. They must be more concerned with ramrodding these policies and bills down the throats of Americans for perpetuity than with keeping their jobs. They are willing to sacrifice their careers for this. This is dedication!

Any Conservative worth his or her salt knows that these planned entitlement programs will kill our nation. Any Conservative worth his or her salt also knows that every single entitlement program already on the books, not the least of which are Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, is already killing this nation.

However...

The plain fact of the matter is that none of the existing or planned programs can continue and there be tax cuts. The plain fact of the matter is that we cannot somehow maintain the current state of affairs and get smaller government--that does not even take into account any new government expenditures.

And here is the lesson to be learned from the Democrats: Republicans, conservative or otherwise, have been more concerned about maintaining power than doing what it takes to make a clear path along which our nation could prosper. They continually lament the ills of the existing entitlement programs and champion personal responsibility, but they dare not move to eradicate these programs. They probably wouldn't get re-elected. Instead they keep chattering about tax cuts and shrinking government.

BUT WE CAN'T AFFORD WHAT WE'VE GOT, AND WE CAN'T AFFORD ANYTHING NEW, SO WE CAN'T CUT TAXES, AND WE NEVER SHRINK THE GOVERNMENT!

It's like their tickling our ears with what they know we want to hear just to let the Left do whatever they want.

So learn from the Left. Get some cajones and take on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Really take them on! Move to eradicate them. Sponsor legislation that would dissallow adding any new persons to the rosters. Eradicate the taxes associated with these programs to guarantee that no new individuals would be added. And when I say "no new persons," I mean even those persons that have paid into the systems but have yet to receive any of the benefits of them. Of course people will be aggravated by that, but who cares. It is not like any of these programs will be around long enough for them to receive benefits anyway--even if things don't change. I'm more than happy to yeild my heretofore paid Medicare and Social Security taxes to help pay off their current shortfalls if it means that those programs are going away forever.

I say "learn from the Left" because any politician that attempts this will be crucified. But if the Republicans can take back the Congress by a wide margin (I can dream), a margin large enough to oeverride a veto if we didn't have the presidency, then WE could ram these massive cuts through, and there wouldn't be anything anyone could do about it!

The cost would be high in political capital, but the benefit would be a genuinely smaller government where tax cuts could be a viable reality. And the best benefit of all is that it would work to restore our nation to prosperity and liberty for all.

Forget this Leftist Communist revolution at the expense of their political careers. Why don't the Republicans pull a good old fashioned American revolution (not violent!) at the expense of their careers. It might work so well that they actually get re-elected.