Saving Arizona

For those of us that are troubled and frustrated by friends that cannot yet see through this "most transparent president", isn't it nice to know that because of the Electoral College there is nothing quite so irrelevant as an Obama voter in Arizona?

A tax by any other name.......

President Obama is employing more scare tactics than his economy is people.
The latest is that Gov. Romney's fiscal plan would mean a tax increase for the Middle Class of up to $2000/household/year.  This is patently false of course.  Romney neither proposes nor supports any such increase. It is a complete fabrication.  But as President Obama said himself in 2008, "When you don't have a record to run on you paint your opponent as someone to run from."  A prophetic statement.
He also promised he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making under $250K/year. (He has directly broken that promise with the taxes to pay for Obamacare.)  He made that promise, obviously, because people don't like paying taxes. (They only like other people to pay taxes)  I believe he has also indirectly broken that promise. I call it the Economy Tax.
Since Pres. Obama took office median household income has dropped over $4,000/year. Before you utter the name Bush here, understand that it has dropped EVERY YEAR since he took office. In addition to that the cost of living has increased rapidly.  Any of you that go grocery shopping or use gasoline are painfully aware of this. (Interesting that when calculating inflation the government excludes fuel and food: the two most necessary items)  As a result of higher fuel costs, the devaluation of the Dollar due to unrestrained printing of money, and increasingly burdensome regulation on businesses, we will continue to see prices of everything that we need go through the roof.  These expenses effect our families just as adversely as does any direct taxation, yet the administration responsible for it largely escapes scrutiny.
Suddenly a $2,000/year tax increase, especially a fictitious one, doesn't seem so scary.

Decoding the DNC

If you watched or listened to any of the Democrat National Convention last week, you likely heard some phraseology that sounded great, but weren't really sure what it meant.  That is by design. The idea is to use buzz words that pluck emotional chords, but leaving the audience feeling instead of thinking. Both parties do it, but the Democrats have mastered the art.
I offer the following to help you find your way through the rhetorical maze.
Glossary of Terms:
Invest -- To spend taxpayer money. Used in conjuction with things that people universally favor. (Education is a favorite.) Rarely, if ever, comes with any details of how it would be spent. Giving details would defeat the purpose by allowing the audience think.
Working people -- (usually coupled with 'fighting for' or 'working for') Particularly cynical term. Intentionally vague. Specifics would only muddy the waters. Most people believe they work hard, so regardless of the actual context they believe the speaker is speaking of them.
Level the playing field -- A focus-group tested phrase designed to capitalize on the fact that most people tend to be envious of others and believe they had some unfair advantage.  To complete the metaphor imagine a field with high spots and low spots. To level it means to take from the high spots to fill in the low spots.  Redistribute, if you will. (Being accustomed to working dirt, I find this metaphor quite accurate. Once leveled the soil in the low spots is soft, with no real foundation but what's left of the high spots is firm. The wind and elements blow away the soft soil leaving the low spots low once again. It's a never ending process that eventually results in soil lost forever and the overall level of the field becoming lower and lower.)
Fair share -- undefined in terms of actual numbers so that everyone can mentally insert their own definition. Always means taking more from someone else. In the same cynical vane as working people. Ironically used to demand more from those that are already paying a higher percentage than the listener.
Play by the same rules --  Appeals to the cynical view that the successful must have cheated. Again intentionally vague to allow the listener to apply their favorite pet peave.
Tax Cut -- this one is a bit tricky because it has an actual definition that differs from how the Dems use it. They refer to "giving" tax cuts. This relies on the paradigm that the money for which you worked belongs, by default, to the government and that confiscating less of it is a "gift" to you.
Spending Cut -- Another tricky one. In the real world it would mean spending less tax money on something than the previous period.  In the Dem universe it means spending less on something than they intended to spend, even if it's more than in the previous period. (Example: Your family spent $100 on entertainment this month. One of your kids proposed spending $200 next month. You decide to spend $125. You have actually increased your entertainment budget by $25, but in Dem-speak you SLASHED entertainment spending by $75. You jerk!)
The Wealthy -- (as intended to be interpreted) The source of all societal ills in America. They are wealthy because they are greedy, have exploited the weak and cheated the system. The only reason you don't have more is because they have held you down.  Also the potential resource to justify all future spending increases.

I'll come back occasionally and add to this glossary, so check back.  For now I need to take a break from writing. I've spent the last hour trying to think like a liberal and don't want the resulting shrinkage in my brain to become permanent.

Liberals say the darndest things

I saw this posted by someone along with the comments that it demonstrates the problem with government getting too big.  Now it is certainly true that government has vastly outgrown its legitimate place in our daily lives, however it is upside-down and backwards thinking to believe that this is the evidence of it. 

Elected officials repeatedly and unapologetically exceed their intended limits in a free society, inevitably sacrificing our liberty.  The latest and most egregious example is Obamacare, which effectively seeks to control over 1/6th of the American economy.  It has become commonplace in politics to simply try to pass a law to 'fix' whatever the politicians think is broken.  Most of which is not the proper role of government.

But it is the proper role of government, in fact the primary role, to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  When it doubt we err on the side of those principles.

The reason that people oppose abortion is because we believe it to be literally killing a human being.  If one really believes it to be murder, does it become acceptable because it began with rape?  Was the rape the fault of that unborn human being?  Is it somehow possible to remedy one terrible, violent act by committing another?  The rape victim certainly deserves our compassion, but granting license to kill is incompatible with compassion.

(By the way, the poster pictured here is a falsehood.  Romney is in favor of those exceptions.  Obama's "truth" team was rebutted by the Los Angeles Times, (the source they quote) but refused to stop telling the lie.)

 

Obama explains his campaign strategy

In this video Pres. Obama explains why his campaign has been focused on trying to distort Mitt Romney's record, character, experience, etc.
Clearly he truly believes what he said 4 years ago because he is doing exactly what he described.

If there were really any evidence AT ALL, even the slightest little shred that he could puff up and exaggerate, we'd be hearing all about that from him.  We're not because there's not.

Love is as Love does

 A PARABLE: A certain man, as a result of genetic predisposition, was addicted to drugs.  After a time he allowed the addiction to define him as a person.  His friends and family loved him and wanted to help him.  Some of them concluded that because he felt so good when he was on the drugs, and suffered so badly when withdrawing from them, that the most compassionate thing to do would be to supply him with the needed drugs and thus prevent the withdrawal symptoms.  They had been warned that the drugs would eventually kill their friend, but they could only see the short term results.  It made them feel good to shield their friend from the pain and chose not to see that they were in fact harming him permanently.
The others had a longer view.  They believed it was more compassionate to not contribute to their friend's eventual destruction and instead did all they could to dissuade him from using drugs.  They knew the short term pain would blind him and cause their friend to feel victimized and become angry.  Nonetheless they loved him enough to take the brunt of his misplaced indignation, knowing it was best for him and that he would live long enough to eventually be grateful.
Question:  Which group actually loved their friend more?

This post will most likely be regarded as hateful and intolerant by some.  It saddens me that they will choose to ignore the point of my comments because they become defensive.  Labeling people with whom you disagree 'hateful' is intellectual laziness.  My motive is a sincere concern for the welfare, the eternal welfare, of all concerned.

I've recently become aware of a 'movement' made up of members of The Church that are actively supporting legalization of same-gender marriage.  I find this tragic because I wholeheartedly believe these well-meaning church members are shortsighted and that their actions serve to hurt the very people they wish to support.  They are not seeing the big picture.

For the purpose of this discussion I'll concede that same-sex attraction comes naturally to those that experience it.  They don't ask for it and can't help it.  For those conflicted by it I have much compassion.  That said, I believe that makes it no different than other unwelcome temptations faced by all people, except that it has become politicized.  The 'natural man' is routinely beset with temptations which are not welcomed, but that we are nonetheless expected to resist.  What could be more natural than lust, greed, envy, selfishness, pride, hatred, etc. Which should we endorse next?  We all have burdens to carry.  It is a vital component of the growth we came here to experience.
For those of faith that profess to believe in scripture, it is inescapable that those who engage in homosexual behavior will be subject to eternal consequences.  Ignoring this truth does not change the reality of it, disliking this truth does not nullify it, garnering supporters will not alter it.  Defining morality is God's privilege, not ours.
True compassion for those that experience same-sex attraction by people of faith requires that we tell the truth for their long term benefit, even if it means taking the brunt of their misplaced indignation.  I know it's hard sometimes.  Professed followers of Christ that enlist to endorse same-sex marriage simply become well-meaning enablers.  They are in fact harming them badly and permanently.  Good intentions cannot divorce us from the consequences of our actions.

Had enough!

Can I just say that I've had more than enough of the piety of Ron Paul's fanatical supporters?
Is that too harsh?
Just because Paul uses the word Constitution in every sentence doesn't mean he's the master of it.
Just because some of us acknowledge that there is true evil in the world, and would rather prevent being attacked rather than waiting to respond to one, doesn't make us blood thirsty.
I've been involved in politics for many years now, at times very closely. I understand feeling passionately and supporting your candidate(s).
However, I have had it up to here (imagine me holding my hand just above my eyebrows) with many of the Ron Paul supporters misusing scripture, falsly insinuating support of church leaders, and generally acting like anyone that doesn't support him is missing a vital chromosome.
I know we will SOMEDAY see the time when the lion and lamb will lay down together. But RIGHT NOW I pity the lamb that tries it.