The Religion of Liberalism

By Chris Dumford

It is interesting that in the arena of the political and cultural wars taking place in America today, few people actually stop to realize that what is actually occurring is a theological battle. Though some may wish to ignore or deny the fact that America was founded upon a Judeo-Christian ethic, the simple truth is that most of our founding fathers laid claim to being Christians.

Christianity is and was more than just a title. It permeates every aspect of a true Christian’s life including their values, principles and how they define every aspect of morality, society and even principles of Government. They view the Bible as God’s Word and that it is the filter and standard by which all judgments of values, principles and government should be filtered. This means that many ideas are held to be concrete (i.e. black and white) and that society both as individuals and as a whole answer to a higher power. This holds largely true to the ideology of our founding fathers.

As an example of the failure of modern Americans to historically examine the development of theological thought in America and its impact on the development of our nation, some modern liberals have championed Thomas Jefferson as the hero of secularism. They do this by reshaping Jefferson’s Unitarian Theology into a secular philosophy held by many of the Constitutional delegates that framed the Constitution. Though some may argue that Jefferson and others rejected the concepts of Divine miracles and foundational Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, they fail to see two aspects that dismantle their attempt to link Jefferson with some ideology that America is in reality not founded upon Judeo-Christian concepts, but rather secular concepts (i.e. sanitizing America from any public acknowledgement of the existence of God) because some of the chief framers of the Constitution was not all true Christians. The first failure in this stretching of Jefferson’s position is that many liberals who take this view know little or nothing of basic theology or its impact in the public arena in Christian America. This history began in Europe.

The first European settlers in America were the Congregationalists and Separatists who fled England. Congregationalism argued that the church needed to remove liturgy and formalism and to get back to their Calvinistic roots. They believed that the church could be reformed from within and advocated that changes take place from within the Church of England.

Separatists, on the other hand believed that the entire church was corrupt and could not be salvaged. They argued that congregations should be independent of ecclesiastical government and that preachers and pastors could preach without being granted licenses by the government. They believed that any body of believers could congregate, elect their own leaders as they saw fit, and establish any covenants and doctrinal views that they believed were Biblical. This ran counter to the mainline European and especially English view that all authority to determine theological positions and to appoint Pastors and Bishops to the various ecclesiastical positions within the Episcopal body were vested ultimately in the King (a true state church).

Due to the conflict between Congregationalist/Separatist thought and Episcopal thought, the Congregationalists and Separatists fled to America. Both groups ultimately settled in Massachusetts. In 1620, some of these landed in Plymouth and upon arrival, they wrote the first governing document in the New World. This first governing document was called the Mayflower Compact and defined the very reason for the establishing a new life in the Americas. It reads thusly,

“IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620…”

It is clear that the original settlers had the ideology of establishing a new colony for the advancement of the Christian faith. Notice that the original settlers believed that the role of government was not only for the advancement of the Christian faith, but also, was not established for individual liberties, but rather for the good of the colony as a whole. In their theological view, the advancement of the Christian faith did not include an official state church concept since that was the very reason they were fleeing England, but neither did they hold that government should be sanitized from any recognition of God as the Supreme ruler as evidenced by the language contained in this first governing document.

By the late 1600’s, there was a marked turn away from traditional Calvinist views that man was wholly subjected in his actions and future eternal state to the unconditional election of God and His Divine Decrees. This turning away from Calvinist ideology had its roots in such groups as the Anabaptists. This view held that man had a will that could either accept Jesus Christ as his personal Savior, or reject Him. This will was based on the concept that man has the freedom to reason out Biblical truth and was wholly responsible and was held accountable for his decisions by God. Ultimately, this led to the age of enlightenment. In this new theological bent, God could be reasoned out based on scientific or natural observations. This view did not reject the existence of God, or His Sovereignty, but rather redefined Him outside of the views presented in the Bible. This led to the rise of Deism. Jefferson, like other Unitarians of his day, being of a strong scientific mind was naturally drawn to this ideology. Jefferson did not hold to an agnostic or atheistic view at all. He saw himself as a deeply spiritual man, although a mainline Christian would define him as heretical in some of his views.

Some of his theology is evident in his drafting of the Declaration of Independence. In the first paragraph, Jefferson writes that all men are endowed by their Creator with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Notice two things about this sentence. The first is that Jefferson recognized that God was Sovereign. God not only was the grantor of life, but also of liberty. Both of which placed God as the ultimate Sovereign over man (and by reason of the Declaration of Independence, the King of England).

Second, notice the terminology. Both life and liberty held vast theological aspects in relation to the Creator. In the realm of life, it was believed by most people in that day that life emanated from God. All accepted that life began at conception based on the theological view that man was a living soul. Though there was a debate amongst theologians regarding the merits of Traducianism, Creationism and Pre-existence when it came to the origin of the soul, what all agreed upon, was that life began at conception. This is concluded because the soul was either traduced at conception, created at conception or was pre-existent and was infused at conception.

The concept of liberty as it related to a Divine Creator was founded upon the principles espoused in the book of Galatians in that liberty was that spiritual aspect that liberated man from the constrictions of theological law and placed him within the realm of grace. Man was now wholly responsible in his actions relating to God and to society as a whole. God had extended grace, but man could choose to accept it or reject it. If he accepted the proffering of grace, then he was liberated from the condemnation and eternal penalty of sin. He then served God by means of the regeneration and leading of the indwelling Holy Spirit, or in the Deistic theological sense, through the conscience and reason. In essence, in either case, with freedom comes responsibility. This responsibility was deemed to be answerable to a higher Sovereign and to the moral conscience of society.

Though Jefferson himself was a Deist, many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were self professed Congregationalists who would not have accepted any governing document that rejected the existence of God. These included,

Samuel Huntington - Connecticut Roger Sherman - Connecticut

William Williams - Connecticut Oliver Wolcott - Connecticut

Lyman Hall - Georgia Samuel Adams - Massachusetts

John Hancock - Massachusetts Josiah Bartlett - New Hampshire

Robert Treat Paine - Massachusetts William Ellery - Rhode Island

William Whipple - New Hampshire

By the time of the writing of the Constitution, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists argued from theological perspectives. The arguments of the Anti-Federalists (Patrick Henry and James Madison being chief among them) indicated that there was a strong bent toward recognizing, even in the Age of Enlightenment of 1787, that America was indebted to God for its existence. Some modern liberal writers have extrapolated these arguments to prove that the triumph of the Federalists indicates their direct intention of producing and espousing a secular government. Some of these writers include Cornell University professors Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore who take this view. Daniel L. Dreisbach, Doctor of Philosophy of Oxford University wrote a rebuttal to Kramnick and Moore in which he dismantles their arguments (http://www.leaderu.com/common/godlessconstitution.html) and shows that the framers did not intend to produce a secular culture or government, but rather left the issue up to the states.

Dreisbach writes,

“The U. S. Constitution's lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer's personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as "godless" or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God…”

It is interesting to note the number of practicing Congregationalists who signed the Constitution of the United Sates,

Roger Sherman - Connecticut Abraham Baldwin - Georgia

Nathaniel Gorham - Massachusetts John Langdon - New Hampshire

Nicholas Gilman - New Hampshire

Modern Liberalism has unshackled itself from the ideology that society as a whole is responsible to God as held by virtually all of the founding fathers in one form or another and as openly espoused by the above named signers. Liberals have replaced this with a new religion that indeed violates their very premise that separation of church and state (not stated in the Constitution) means separation of the state from God. This religion first must redefine the constitution as a living document and it has become their Bible (albeit an ever changing one). That is, that there is no historical precedent by which the Constitution and its aims should be defined, but rather that it is to be stretched, molded or redefined at the whims of each succeeding generation. Thus, each generation, instead of being constrained by a document that covertly has its roots in Christianity with an historical precedent for interpretation, now places the document within their own constraints. The Constitution thus becomes subservient to them, instead of them being subservient to the Constitution.

How does this come about. First, there must be an argument for humanism. The Government must be separated from any form of authority that is higher than it. This places man as the supreme authority. God must be erased from all public expression and man now becomes a god.

Second, all historical precedents must be ignored. Since extreme liberalism tends to be supported by largely atheistic groups, they must redefine the history of our culture, our nation and the beliefs of our founding fathers in order to highjack society through the redefining of our governing documents and the tenets of previous society.

Third, in order to claim the high ground, there must be a series of moral tenets established. These are established in order to foist them on society and in order to encourage the acceptance of these tenets, they must appear to be good and morally just. These tenets redefine Biblical immorality as alternate lifestyles, murder of the unborn as the right to choose, free speech as hate speech, traditional marriage as commitment between any two people regardless of gender etc. All of these are purely based on humanist preferences that do not come from above man, but emanate from man. With enough marketing and public exposure, society will inevitably come to accept these tenets as truth.

Once that the Government is removed from answering to God, and once all evidence that it ever did is removed from public display, and once man is now his own deity, he can then reshape his government as he sees fit to embrace his new religion.

The end result is that life and liberty have been redefined. Life can now be defined not as the view held by the founding fathers, which is that life begins at conception, but rather at birth. We can now kill the unborn under some unwritten ethereal, morally just concept of the right to choose under an implied right to privacy embedded in the Constitution (somewhere?).

Liberty is no longer based on responsibility to God and to society as a whole but rather it is based on individual preferences and rights. Instead of being held to a choice of accepting or rejecting the grace of God and being answerable to Him, we now can choose what we like best as our own sovereign and answer only to ourselves as individuals.

In their zeal to redefine the concepts of liberty, liberals are now replacing the long held practices and laws of a former largely Christian society with individual rights. Where once, the Constitution was believed to be a document defining the power of Federal Government and limiting it to those articles contained therein, and devolving all other power to the states, the Constitution is now held as the new Bible of the individual. It no longer defines the power of the Federal Government, but rather defines the religious (i.e. moral and social rights) tenets of the individual.

Where once, certain practices held as immoral behavior based on a Biblical principles, were largely outlawed by almost every state in the Union (in keeping with the premise espoused by Dreisbach that the states had the right to impose law based on any religious views held by the constituency), now these state laws regarding so called alternative lifestyles, free choice etc. are being overturned by some unprecedented court ruling and now the rights of the individual supersede those of society as a whole. Liberty therefore is not defined within the constraints of being answerable to a higher Sovereign and the moral fabric of society, but rather it now means liberty from these constraints. All protected by the Constitution! Thus, morality and rights are transported from that which is good for society as a whole, to that of individual liberty.

In order to accomplish this, liberals have established their own ecclesiastical presbytery known as the courts. If popular opinion and state law refuses to acknowledge their new religion, then they will have it forced upon the populace through the courts who have unknowingly (or even more frightful, knowingly) have grasped the theology that the Constitution is subservient to us, instead us being subservient to it.

An example of this shift in the courts can be seen in two landmark events in our history. When the issue of slavery was finally settled in 1865, the courts did not rule that the Constitution covered the right for blacks to vote nor to be free, but rather recognized that as originally intended by the forefathers, blacks were excluded from voting and slavery was legal. Neither sociological practice either were stated or implied in the Constitution and as a result, the rights of blacks were left up to the states. As a result, some circuit court did not decide to put forth some ruling allowing blacks freedom and the right to vote, thereby infringing upon the rights of the states. Rather, the Constitution was amended to include the right for blacks to vote and making slavery illegal thereby superseding the rights of the states as the founding fathers intended through the amendment process.

The same can be said regarding women’s suffrage. As late as the 1920’s the ideology that the Constitution was not a so-called living document was still understood. It took a Constitutional amendment to grant women the right to vote.

What is taking place now, is that district courts are ruling that the Ten Commandments, Intelligent Design, prayer in school, public displays of religious symbols and public motto’s such as that of our own state of Ohio (With God All Things are Possible), are now un-Constitutional in opposition to their long held existence in society. To get there, they must follow the three-step plan to the new religion of liberalism.

In the end, what has transpired is a new religion based on a written ever-changing and expanding standard (a living, breathing Constitution) that has replaced the Bible. This new religion contains a new definition of morality that covers any new concept that becomes popular in society and upholds personal liberty and replaces the traditional Judeo-Christian moral law. It is defended by a new ecclesiastical body (the courts) that are set up as the ruling body (much like the Sanhedrin or the Areopogites) to determine the validity of their new definition of morality and theological tenets. Finally, it has as its sovereign a new god, that being themselves.

It is interesting that many liberals accuse the religious right of attempting to establish a theocracy, yet truly, if anyone is violating the concept of the separation of church and state, it is the liberals with their new theocracy.

This Would Be Easier If You'd Just Stay Still!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/president-obamas-message-to-wall-street-tonight-on-regulatory-reforms-dont-fight-them.html

The DNC, despite the economy, is expected to bring in about 3 million dollars tonight at an Obama centered fund raiser. In the remarks Obama will say tonight, he will state, "But we as a country should never again be faced with such a potential calamity because of the reckless speculation and deceptive practices of a short-sighted and self-interested few." Does this mean only Conservatives will be in office from now on? Come on, Obama, I expect you to keep your promise...yeah right!

You can't put restrictions on the Market. If you restrict the Market, the Market cannot function and thus you are left with a Government ran economy. The Market, by nature, will take care of itself. It will weed out bad business on its own. We don't need the all-stealing-hand of Government to "fix" the Market.

Obama will go on to say tonight, "So if there are folks from the industry here tonight, I ask you to join with us in passing what are necessary reforms; don’t fight them. It’s important for our country. And in the long run, it will be good for your industry to have a level playing field in which everyone knows the rules " Don't fight what the Government is doing! Just lay back and take it! Take the higher taxes; take the unconstitutional regulations; take the communism! By the way, everyone knowing the rules doesn't equate a level playing field. It may equate a level starting point, but the playing field will never be level because each of us have our own abilities and talents that will take us in different directions; and cause us to reach for different goals. All a level playing field is to Obama is another way to gain control for his "self-interest few." But, I guess this is the hope for change everyone wanted.

Iran: A Friendly Middle Eastern Country

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568381,00.html

A suicide bomber has attacked in Iran and killed 5 Revolutionary Guard Commanders. Iran says that the "great Satan", the United States backed by Great Britain, are responsible. This is a reasonable accusation since American and Great Britain are known for their suicide bombers. Iran threatens, "Not in the distant future we will take revenge...will clear this region from terrorists and criminals." I hope Iran understands that would mean executing a good portion of their own country. Don't be fooled; you know this was done by Iran just to have a reason to come after the US.

Kerry: Don't Be To Hasty With The Troops

John Kerry gives his Presidential expertise on troop levels in Afghanistan. The same expertise that won him the election in 2004. When Al-Qaeda sees our Government weakened by liberal policies, they will use that opportunity to increase their attacks on us in Afghanistan. Kerry is quick to say no to the troop surge in Afghanistan because in his mind, it won't work. This same mantra was slung towards Bush during the Iraqi troop surge. However, after the evidence came in, even Democrats couldn't ignore its success.

Hillary Clinton said, "We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it’s working." when she spoke to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Dick Durbin stated, "The surge has resulted in a reduction of violence in many parts of Iraq." Senator Carl Levin had to be strong and fight his emotions to say, "The military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq…appear to have produced some credible and positive results." Brian Baird, D-WASH, said, "We are making real and tangible progress on the ground, for one, and if we withdraw, it could have a potentially catastrophic effect on the region."

John Kerry has removed himself from the logical base, if it even exists, of his fellow Congressmen. There is a reason he lost the election - why do people still care what he has to say?

Peace will ultimately be achieved through strength. If we show weakness now, we will ultimately waste all of what our troops have fought for. But, perhaps that is what John Kerry wants. Right now, he's working on invitations to send to all of the troops to have a medal burning party at his Massachusetts mansion. But, this would cause a surge in pollution from the smoke. I don't envy you John Kerry. I'd be a nervous wreck.

All Too Easy

They can't write this stuff any better!

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/16/new-orleans-mayor-visits-cuba-to-learn-about-disaster-response/

New Orleans mayor, Ray "full competence" Nagin visits Cuba to learn how to deal with storms. It has only been a few years since hurricane Katrina sacked and pillaged New Orleans; and it

has only been a few years since Nagin did absolutely nothing to help his people. He quickly blamed the Bush Administration for not acting quickly enough - which begs the question Ray, if you think the Fed is in control of everything, then step down from being mayor - your position is worthless.

Nagin wishes to see how the Cubans deal with their storms. Nagin, once again, throws common sense into the slammer in favor of being lead by the seeing eye-dog of ignorance. "I wonder what these people do when it rains really hard?" he probably ponders while sipping on a mixed drink purchased by those ransacked tax payers. His mind stammers on, "Back home, we just open an umbrella and hope it doesn't get windy. Shoot, I don't know! Hurricanes. Thunderstorms. Earthquakes. We're all going to get wet somehow." But, to top it off, Obama shows up in New Orleans and gives a speech. Obama has been versed in Meteorology and begins to give an expose on hurricanes.

"And (in) the days after it did, this nation and all the world bore witness to the fact that the damage from Katrina was not caused just by a disaster of nature, but also by a breakdown of government, that government wasn’t adequately prepared and we didn’t appropriately respond.”

The damage from Katrina (naturally occurring hurricane) was caused by a breakdown in government?! WHAT?!?!? How is this guy taken seriously?! A government breakdown caused the hurricane damage? Heck, if China's government ever breaks down, the continent of Asia will just sink into the ocean. Yeah, makes sense. The government that didn't appropriately respond what Nagin's government that ignored the warnings from the White House days prior and refused to do anything about getting their people out. Nagin dropped the ball and his people lost their lives. I'm not one for name calling, but this whole story reeks of idiocy.

New Orlean's neighbor, Mississippi, didn't seem to suffer from the same government inadequacies. So, Katrina's damaged was caused a strategic strike of government breakdown? Thank heavens that Louisiana doesn't fully suffer from such incompetence. Governor Bobby Jindal will lead that state into a brighter tomorrow.

Alfred Nobel's Name Laid to Waste

"to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind"

Alfred Nobel, as stated above, wished this award to be given to the one who gave the greatest benefit on mankind during that year. This expectation was established in his will in 1895. It was a monetary award, initially designed to be given in the areas Chemistry and Physics, Medical Science, Literature, and Peace. It was first awarded in 1901. This award wasn't designed to be a flippant reward of cultural defamation. However, we now know that this Prize is as valuable as the stocks of October 29th, 1929.

After much deliberation and evaluation with the highest of academic integrity, the Norwegian counsel decided to award Barack Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize. The counsel justified their decision by stating it is because of Obama's "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples." What efforts are they referring to exactly? To strengthen international diplomacy, all one needs to do is to promise not to defend yourself through war. Today, a strengthened international diplomatic atmosphere translates into a weak America. Unfortunately, that is how it is perceived in the media. Ronald Reagan had it right when he pushed for diplomacy by believing peace was achieved through strength. Hence the results of the Cold War. --You know that section of American History your teacher glosses over because they can't wait to skip ahead to the Clinton's? Obama has done nothing but to make America weak. During the Bush Administration, America's imaged was propagandized as negative by the media. And, from that, our congressmen decided to jump on the bandwagon and begin to criticize America. At least now they have their wish. Unemployment is still rising, despite what Ben Bernanke claims about the "end" of the recession. America has no vision and no leadership to take us there. Ronald Reagan marched America forward to be that shining city on a hill. Obama just seeks to make excuses and apologies to the rest of the world.

Now that the Nobel Prize is worthless, it won't be long until other sacred awards/medals become worthless. We could give Jack Murtha a Medal of Honor. We could give John Kerry a Purple Heart...oh wait, we did (which he later burned if you remember.) We could give Michael Moore a Presidential Citation for bravery. Why stop with the Nobel Prize?--just trash them all! But, through it all, rest assured, even with the millions of dollars Obama has, what ever amount this Prize affords him, his brother in the dirt hut won't see a penny of it. Wow. So deserving of this award he is.

Health Care Bill

As talks keep rising of national health care, I wish to expose what this Bill is all about. This Bill is about shutting down the private insurance industry and forcing Americans to be solely reliant on the Federal Government. On page 168 of 1017 of the health care bill (read it here: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf )

it says there will be a tax imposed on people who do not meet "acceptable health coverage" requirements. In other words, people who opt out of taking Government health care are going to be taxed. Don't be naive to think they will count private insurance as "acceptable coverage." This is the Government we are talking about! By the way, this Bill is 1017 pages long. Why? And do you think the people that will vote "yes" have actually read it from cover to cover?! No! But that doesn't matter--we're giving "health care" to all citizens. When in fact, we already have health care for all citizens and non-citizens! According to an employ from the Department of Homeland Security, we can't ask if an alien is illegal or not. Therefore, "citizenship" is now an afterthought and no longer means anything.

Is it just me, or does anyone else see what these people are doing to our country?!

Grandma Pelosi Still Out Of Touch

"NANCY PELOSI, the Democratic Speaker of the House, became emotional at her weekly press conference on Thursday when she warned that the present climate of incivility in US politics risked leading to violence.
Alluding to the fatal shootings of San Francisco mayor George Moscone and supervisor Harvey Milk on November 27th, 1978, Ms Pelosi appeared close to tears. “I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” she said, referring to anti-gay laws and demonstrations.

“It created an environment in which violence took place.”

Why is the political climate tending towards violence? It couldn't be that it is because are freedoms are being raped by the Federal Government, could it?! We rose up and fought off England when they were oppressive to our God-given freedoms. Why is now any different? As long as we have the right to vote, we have the ability to make changes. When that right is taken away, all bets are off. It will be "Forward! March!" to the White House. However, Pelosi only sees this "incivility" because Republicans don't like Obama, in her eyes. Notice, it is always personal with Liberals. It is never about the actual policy of the person, but it is about the person himself. Ultimately, they are not scared of the violence; they are scared of losing power. Losing power is more frightening than losing their country. That's why the policies Liberals push are intended to create dependency upon the Government. Conservatives push for policy that honors and promotes freedom. Don't expect this "incivility" to end any time soon. We're mad...really mad!

Our Schools Are A War Zone For Socialism

To preserve context, I'm going to post Obama's speech to the children and then comment.

Prepared remarks of President Obama’s back to school event Here are prepared remarks that President Obama is to deliver at noon ET Tuesday a Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. Source: The White House Hello everyone – how’s everybody doing today? I’m here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we’ve got students tuning in from all across America, kindergarten through twelfth grade. I’m glad you all could join us today. I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school. And for those of you in kindergarten, or starting middle or high school, it’s your first day in a new school, so it’s understandable if you’re a little nervous. I imagine there are some seniors out there who are feeling pretty good right now, with just one more year to go. And no matter what grade you’re in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer, and you could’ve stayed in bed just a little longer this morning. I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn’t have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday – at 4:30 in the morning. Now I wasn’t too happy about getting up that early. A lot of times, I’d fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. But whenever I’d complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster." So I know some of you are still adjusting to being back at school. But I’m here today because I have something important to discuss with you. I’m here because I want to talk with you about your education and what’s expected of all of you in this new school year. Now I’ve given a lot of speeches about education. And I’ve talked a lot about responsibility. I’ve talked about your teachers’ responsibility for inspiring you, and pushing you to learn. I’ve talked about your parents’ responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox. I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren’t working where students aren’t getting the opportunities they deserve. But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed. And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide. Maybe you could be a good writer – maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper – but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor – maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine – but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team. And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it. And this isn’t just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future. You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You’ll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy. We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country. Now I know it’s not always easy to do well in school. I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork. I get it. I know what that’s like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn’t fit in. So I wasn’t always as focused as I should have been. I did some things I’m not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse. But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams. My wife, our First Lady Michelle Obama, has a similar story. Neither of her parents had gone to college, and they didn’t have much. But they worked hard, and she worked hard, so that she could go to the best schools in this country. Some of you might not have those advantages. Maybe you don’t have adults in your life who give you the support that you need. Maybe someone in your family has lost their job, and there’s not enough money to go around. Maybe you live in a neighborhood where you don’t feel safe, or have friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren’t right. But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying. Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future. That’s what young people like you are doing every day, all across America. Young people like Jazmin Perez, from Roma, Texas. Jazmin didn’t speak English when she first started school. Hardly anyone in her hometown went to college, and neither of her parents had gone either. But she worked hard, earned good grades, got a scholarship to Brown University, and is now in graduate school, studying public health, on her way to being Dr. Jazmin Perez. I’m thinking about Andoni Schultz, from Los Altos, California, who’s fought brain cancer since he was three. He’s endured all sorts of treatments and surgeries, one of which affected his memory, so it took him much longer – hundreds of extra hours – to do his schoolwork. But he never fell behind, and he’s headed to college this fall. And then there’s Shantell Steve, from my hometown of Chicago, Illinois. Even when bouncing from foster home to foster home in the toughest neighborhoods, she managed to get a job at a local health center; start a program to keep young people out of gangs; and she’s on track to graduate high school with honors and go on to college. Jazmin, Andoni and Shantell aren’t any different from any of you. They faced challenges in their lives just like you do. But they refused to give up. They chose to take responsibility for their education and set goals for themselves. And I expect all of you to do the same. That’s why today, I’m calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education – and to do everything you can to meet them. Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention in class, or spending time each day reading a book. Maybe you’ll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your community. Maybe you’ll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all kids deserve a safe environment to study and learn. Maybe you’ll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learn. And along those lines, I hope you’ll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don’t feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter. Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it. I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work -- that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things. But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won’t love every subject you study. You won’t click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try. That’s OK. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who’ve had the most failures. JK Rowling’s first Harry Potter book was rejected twelve times before it was finally published. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, and he lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed." These people succeeded because they understand that you can’t let your failures define you – you have to let them teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently next time. If you get in trouble, that doesn’t mean you’re a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave. If you get a bad grade, that doesn’t mean you’re stupid, it just means you need to spend more time studying. No one’s born being good at things, you become good at things through hard work. You’re not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don’t hit every note the first time you sing a song. You’ve got to practice. It’s the same with your schoolwork. You might have to do a math problem a few times before you get it right, or read something a few times before you understand it, or do a few drafts of a paper before it’s good enough to hand in. Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day. Asking for help isn’t a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of strength. It shows you have the courage to admit when you don’t know something, and to learn something new. So find an adult you trust – a parent, grandparent or teacher; a coach or counselor – and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals. And even when you’re struggling, even when you’re discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you – don’t ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country. The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough. It’s about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best. It’s the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google, Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other. So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country? Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it. Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.


Obama tries to make nice with the school children but indirectly fills their minds with indoctrination. Notice Obama says, "our government's job" when referring to educational standards. Where in the Constitution is it written that the Federal Government is to be involved with Education? The 10th Amendment clearly tells us that powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States. Education would be one of those powers. The Department of Education is unconstitutional and should be shut down.

"You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free."

Notice the push for the environment and to fight against "homelessness" and to make our nation more "fair and free." He is pushing for the children to use their talents and education to advance a socially progressive agenda.

"My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had." Hmmm...and now Obama has a brother living in a dirt hut in Africa and won't give him a dime. Classic elite-ish compassion!

I don't even want to continue this. This guy is such a fake.

The Fundamental Problem with National Health Care

As society becomes more and more expectant of Government handouts, it is no surprise to see that plan for national health care has made its way to the forefront. Now more than ever, the Liberals in congress and the white house are working feverishly to put into place the biggest Government program since the New Deal. If one focuses through the glitter, one would see the underlying problem with such a program: it promotes Government dependence, not self-reliance.

The more Government programs that are in place, the more the population of the "less fortunate" will rise. These programs are touted as the answer to bring the "less fortunate" to a better status of life. However, it does exactly the opposite. Masquerading as a solution to their problems, it ends up being a black hole that enlarges with each piece of assistance legislation that is passed. Is it our job to help the less fortunate in society? Sure - we all were less fortunate at one time or another. However, the definition of "help" is where true Conservatives would differ with their weaker brother, the Liberal. Conservatives see the potential in everyone and want to provide the opportunity to make something good of one's self. The taste of success is habit forming. But, these are individual characteristics. We don't need the Government to tell us how to live our lives or what our purpose is in this country. Our purpose in this country is two-fold: to love her and to do what I can, not collectively, but individually, to make her great. If everyone individually bettered themselves, then the collective would take care of itself. That's why the idea of team work, where one person picks the slack of others, is garbage! Work and do to the best of your ability. That will translate into self-confidence and self-reliance.

Why can't people afford health care? (And, the numbers you hear on TV are grossly exaggerated, by the way). The majority of people that can't is because they haven't made the provisions in their lives to be able to afford it. What kind of job do you have? What kind of schooling do you have? How much effort did you put into those things?? It isn't your job's responsibility to provide health care to you. That's why they call them "benefits" and not "obligations."

What about "no preexisting conditions?" A preexisting condition is a condition that one has, medically, that existed prior to obtaining health insurance, etc. The health insurance company says that since you had this condition prior to getting coverage, we won't cover it. Does that sound harsh?! Remember, an insurance company has one purpose, to transfer the financial risk you take to themselves. If insurance companies had to pay out hundreds of billions of dollars each year, they would go out of business. Another thing that preexisting conditions do, is it can keep your costs lower. If we did away with preexisting conditions, insurance companies would charge premiums so high, that no one could afford them. --Which, in my opinion, is EXACTLY what Obama wants. If no one can have insurance through the private sector, then they must turn to the Government.

The fact of the matter is, it is illegal ALREADY in this country for a health provider to deny treatment based on one's ability or inability to pay. Why do we need to take it further? This system of national health care will only result in poorer health care service and the creation of more Government drones in society. Can you name one Government run agency/program/system that is ran efficiently? They don't exist!

If national health care is available, I wouldn't take it. I would hope that true Conservatives wouldn't either. Be a Patrick Henry: Give me Liberty or Give me Death!

2nd Amendment Watch

The US Senate this past week couldn't even pass a bill that will allow right-to-carry across state lines. I'm not sure why we are wasting time on this since the 2nd Amendment already exists--there's your right-to-carry. But, since the Supreme Court has been allowed to legislate from the bench, we shouldn't be surprised the 2nd Amendment isn't recognized as a basic right of the people. Let's take a few minutes and examine the myths posed by the anti-gun crowd.

Myth: If everyone had guns, crime/gun-related crime will increase.
Truth: Criminals don't obey laws. That's why they're criminals in the first place. Gun laws only remove the self-defense ability of the law-abiding and makes them sitting ducks for criminals. Look at cities that have the strictest of gun laws and their gun-related crime is the highest in the nation. Now, look at cities that have little to no gun laws and their gun-related crime rates are very low. (See the NRA's report on Right-to-Carry with stats and figures supplemented by the FBI http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=18)

Myth: If we had guns in the home, we would have more accidental murders.
Truth: I love this one -- accidental murders? Murder is PREMEDITATED by definition. You can't accidentally premeditate something. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support this. In cities that have fewer gun laws, you'd expect to find more of these homicides, but we don't. But, this also means that guns carry responsibility. Accidents will happen-with guns, with knives, with trampolines, with firecrackers - should we ban all of these as well?

Myth: Guns promote violence.
Truth: Violence promotes violence. A gun can't think or act on its own. The very existence of a gun doesn't cause one to be violent. How many guns existed during the violence of the middle ages? How many guns existed during the Greek and Roman empires and their conquests? None, exactly. No matter what the "tool" is that is used in a waring fashion, the tool didn't cause the violence, the person wielding it did. "But if the tool wasn't available, then the person wouldn't have used it." OK flapjack, then you have stiff penalties for intentional misuse of the tool. Remember, if the tool wasn't available, you couldn't defend your sorry carcass from an intruder in your home. Good luck swinging a bat in the dark when the gunman is 10 feet away and in one pull of the trigger you're spitting gum out through your forehead.

Myth: If we totally outlawed guns, we wouldn't have this problem.
Truth: Guns would still exist in the black markets and would still be used by criminals--again, they don't care what the law says. This is the same logic that would have to agree that the "illegalization" of drugs has removed all drugs from this country. Faulty logic can't stand up to the evidence!

Myth: Only police and law enforcement should carry guns.
Truth: There isn't enough to protect each individual. It is my right to bear arms so I can remain a free citizen and not a subject of the government.

Remember, we rose up and fought of the greatest military of its day during the Revolution. If our Government becomes that oppressive again, without guns, we have no way of stopping it. Don't be naive--it can happen here just as it does around the world.

Obama Again Reminded What To Do

After days of criticism by Republicans, President Obama finally spoke out against the political environment in Iran. Confidently as ever, Obama said he would wait and see how things "play out." And why not? After all, when Neville Chamberlain went to Munic to meet with Hitler, we saw the grand and glorious outcome of appeasement--and what wonderful peace was had by all!

Now, I'm not advocating that Obama needs to do anything, but drawing attention to the fact that if there was something that needed done, Obama would be the last person to pull the trigger. Iran is a sovereign nation and if the Iranian people are tired of living in tyranny, then THEY must do something about it. In a little over a week from now, the United States will celebrate their independence from England. The colonists ignited a spark of freedom and liberty within each other and rose up and fought back the strongest military force of the day. The colonists refused to live in bondage--the Iranian people need to do the same.

Oil On The Rise: Who's To Blame?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/16/news/economy/oil_on_rise_again.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009061610

When oil reached its height in price during the Bush Administration, the media and the Left were quick on the trigger to lay blame to the President. Bill Maher said, "You know that since George Bush has become president, gas has basically tripled in price. Now, Bush is an oil man. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I’m just saying that if we had elected Colonel Sanders president, and the price of chicken had tripled, I’d be a little suspicious." (as quoted on http://dividendmoney.com/bush-administration-drives-oil-prices/) According to MarkMellman of TheHill.com, "Americans are most likely to blame oil companies for high gas prices, but the Bush administration also shoulders a large share of responsibility." (posted 10/12/2005).

Oh yes! The rage against Bush and his oil dealings flooded the hearts of intellectual light-weights across this country. I'm so glad Obama is President and that we are now enjoying lower gasoline prices because of lower oil prices. Accept, the price of oil was between $30 and $40 a barrel on the last day of the Bush Administration. We are almost half way through the first year of the Obama Administration and oil closed up today at 70.63 a barrel. Hmmm...where is the outrage?! Oil hit its lowest points of 2009 in February and now has risen by about 57% over the last 3 1/2 to 4 months. Do you think Obama is going to do anything about it?! Do you think he is going to start more domestic drilling or institute the construction of more oil refineries? Of course not. He's too busy tackling the more important issues like health care "rights" for gay couples and spending our country into the debt vortex of socialism.

Oh well, at least we have the Republicans to rescue us, right?

Here Kitty Kitty Kitty...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/15/florida.cat.killer.arrest/index.html

A teenager in Florida was arrested after killing 19 cats. Quote, "He could face a maximum of 158 years in state prison if convicted on all counts, said Terry Shavez, spokeswoman for the state attorney's office." That's right! We shouldn't allow this champion of brutality to be on the loose! Come on folks - would you honestly want to live next door to a person that has killed cats?! How cruel! How barbaric!

In an unrelated story, abortionists receive more Federal funding...

Obama To The Rescue

President Obama can't let Sotomayer's comments stand for themselves. He must swoop in and try to explain away what she clearly said. "I'm sure she would have restated it, but if you look at the entire sweep of the essay she wrote, what's clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through that will make her a good judge." What?! Struggles and hardships makes one a good judge? Funny, no mention of her love for the Constitution (because she doesn't) and no mention of standing for the rule of law (because she won't). The Constitution is a vice to liberals--preventing them from unleashing a tidal wave of government handouts and feel-good policies.

Hopefully the Conservatives in Congress will have the backbone to make a big deal about this and stop this confirmation!

Change and Hope

President Obama decided to announce a new justice to replace the tiring, uh, retiring David Souter. Obama says that Sonia Sotomayer is one that has a fair understanding of the law. Sotomayer has spent time as a judge and therefore has the experience, Obama says -- still trying to figure out his experience...

Let's examine some of Sotomayer's cases and see just what we are in for.

1. In 2005, at Duke University, Sotomayer told a group of panelists that "policy is made" in the Federal Court of Appeals. Perhaps the soon to be Associate Justice can read the first Article of the Constitution to find out where policy is made. But, that would mean having a fair understanding of the law.

2. In 2001, at U.C. Berkeley, Sotomayer implied that judicial responsibility should be ruled by one's ethnicity. She said, "I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society...." "I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others...." "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Ethnic biases are a great understanding of the law! (Quotes from cnn.com)

3. She is for affirmative action. In Feb. of 2008, she ruled to throw out exam results that the city of New Haven uses to determine promotions in the fire department. Only one Hispanic and no black Americans qualified based on the exam. So, naturally, instead of requiring harder work, we just give them the promotion based on their race. But, this isn't racist! Not at all!! Don't you know, only white people can be racist!

Obama is just continuing to show his poor judgment in leading America. Perhaps he is pushing for membership in the EU.

Click it or Ticket

It's summer again and why not usher in one of the summer traditions - busting those seat belt abusers! After all, seat belts save lives; why not have it a law?! When one studies the philosophies of John Locke and John Stewart Mill and Thomas Jefferson, we see a difference as it relates to "Positive Claim Rights" and "Negative Claim Rights". Positive Claim Rights focus on the idea of a person's right to be protected from themselves. Where as Negative Claim Rights focus on the idea that it is a person's right to chose what they wish, regardless of the consequences, but knowing they are responsible for their actions.

Positive Claim Rights are propagated by Liberals alike; and as you guessed, seat belt laws fall into this category. Should something be made a law just because it feels good or is a good idea? Brushing your teeth is a good idea, should it be a law? Showering is a good idea, should it be a law?? Seat belts are a good idea, but should they be a law? No. For one, it cannot be consistently applied - what about motorcycles? Secondly, if safety was the issue, why is the penalty monetary? Just as similarly to speeding, the fine is money. The police will spend more time looking and ticketing serial seat belt violators while my wife is broken down a half a mile away and is getting mugged because there is no police to help her. Well done thin blue line.