Archive for the 'Liberal double-standards' Category
Point Man: Joseph Wood
A Quick Rant
It has been some time since I have conveyed my opinions here. With that being said, I’ll keep it brief.
It is estimated that, due to the ice storms the country suffered earlier this week, some 300,000 in Arkansas alone are, or have been, without power. Where are the calls for immediate government assistance? Where are the calls for the national guard to come in and keep out looters? I talked to one fellow who stayed at his business all night last night with a loaded .38 by his side, lest anyone should try to break in due to the powerless alarm system. (Of course, no one tried). If this were occurring in a liberal mecca (ahem, New Orleans, or Nawlans as folks from south LA say it) there would be constant cries of despair and complaints that the government is not doing enough.
But not in Arkansas. These people for the most part are self-made men and women; they didn’t get what they have from the backs of taxpayers. And that’s why you don’t hear them complaining much. Instead of complaining, they get to work and do something about it. That’s how they got to where they are today. That’s how we all should strive to be.
Many great men have been quoted upon this blog from time to time: names such as Ronald Reagan, Aristotle, Friedrich Hayek, and others too numerous to mention.* But perhaps the greatest quote to remember is from an ol’ boy born outside of Shreveport and raised in Alabama.
Hank Williams Jr. once said “A country boy can survive”. Don’t forget that, because it’s true. The fine folks of northern Arkansas are demonstrating it right now in fine fashion.
*I do not know for a fact that all of these people have been quoted, it just sounded like a good respectable list of persons.
According to Article II, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution, Hillary Clinton is disqualified to become the next Secretary of State. It is unlikely that a little thing like the Constitution will prevent Senate Democrats and the lord-most-merciful Barack Obama from actually appointing her, but she is certainly ineligible.
Article II, Section 6:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Hillary was a member of the Senate last year when President Bush increased the salary of the Secretary of State by approximately $5,000. Therefore, under this provision, she is ineligible to fill this role.
Historically, some Presidents have gotten around this clause. For instance, Presidents Nixon and Carter both circumvented the clause and appointed sitting public officials to fill cabinet positions that had received a pay raise during their term in office. Reagan, however, resisted the temptation to appoint sitting Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court and upheld the Constitutional provision.
(yet) Another Democrat scandal
Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon was indicted in (yet) another Democrat ethics scandal yesterday. The damage–12 counts of felony theft, perjury, fraud and misconduct in office, and the city’s first sitting mayor to be criminally indicted.
Another day, another Democrat scandal.
Here’s a quick recap of the other numerous Democrat scandals (and this is just the past six months!) :
In Illinois, the state legislature voted to impeach disgraced Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) yesterday, January 9, 2009. Blagojevich was allegedly attempting to auction off Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat. He was also accused of bartering money for a children’s hospital in exchange receive campaign contributions.
In October 2008, Tim Mahoney, Democrat Congressman from Florida, was caught in a nasty scandal involving the bribery of his mistress. She was offered a job as a staffer and hush money to drop a lawsuit against the congressman. Mahoney was elected to fill Mark Foley’s seat after Foley was caught having inappropriate relationships with congressional pages. Mahoney campaigned in 2006 on a platform of morality, and said he wanted to make our world ’safer and more moral.’ Mahoney lost his bid for re-election in November 2008. Coincidentally, Rahm Emanuel, President-Elect Obama’s Chief of Staff, was involved in trying to cover up Mahoney’s promiscuity.
In September 2008, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick resigned as part of a plea deal, pleading guilty to 2 counts of obstruction of justice.
The political climate has changed in America. Ethics are no longer applauded. Being an elected official is no longer about service to one’s country. Being a politician is about winning a popularity contest; it’s about being a celebrity; it’s about using political influence to obtain sexual pleasures, money, and fame. Surely we cannot maintain these lifestyles and hope to prosper. Continuing down this path of selfishness and greed will lead to our country’s ultimate demise.
Obama ran a campaign around the theme of ‘changing Washington’ and ‘reforming politics.’ Well Mr. President Elect, it’s time to get to work. And your party would be a good place to start.
This is just for everyone’s viewing and listening pleasure. Merry Christmas!
cschande
From an Alliance Defense Fund News Release:
Court: Gospel message
stays on NY public highway
Burritt trailer parked on private commercial property along NY highway
Ruling keeps NYDOT from forcibly removing trailer cited as “public nuisance” for donning Christian message
BINGHAMTON, N.Y. — A Christian man represented by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys received a favorable ruling against the New York Department of Transportation in federal court Thursday, keeping it from forcibly removing a trailer bearing a gospel message on Daniel Burritt’s private business property along a public highway.
“Christians shouldn’t be singled out and penalized for sharing their beliefs,” said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “We are pleased the court recognizes that displaying a religious message on private property has always been protected under the First Amendment.”
Bowman added that the state violated the constitution by treating religion less favorably than business by not taking into account that a central aspect of Burritt’s construction business is evangelism.
In August 2007, Burritt placed a tractor trailer—where he stores supplies for his company, Acts II Construction, Inc.,—on his private business property along U.S. Route 11. The trailer displays a gospel message to each direction of highway traffic. The trailer is one of many ways in which Burritt uses his business to evangelize. He was cited that year by Gouverneur town officials over the message, but the charges were dropped after interaction with ADF attorneys. Burritt then received a letter in May 2008 from the New York State Department of Transportation stating his trailer was in violation of state law and would be declared a “public nuisance.” NYDOT asserted that the trailer requires a permit and must be removed or face forcible removal and legal action. NYDOT does not require permits for commercial messages similarly displayed (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4556).
ADF attorneys filed suit on Burritt’s behalf in June and reached an agreement with NYDOT to let the trailer stay until this decision could be reached. The court issued a preliminary injunction Thursday preventing NYDOT from removing the trailer sign while the rest of the case is litigated, and denied the state’s motion to dismiss the case.
A copy of the decision and order in the lawsuit Burritt v. New York State Department of Transportation issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/BurrittDecisionOrder.pdf.
I just wanted to post this article to show that not all news in relation to religious freedoms is bad news. Praise God for groups like the Alliance Defense Fund. By the way, where was the ACLU on this case? Oh yeah, the Anti-Christian Liberties Union isn’t a big fan of religious freedoms (unless, of course, we’re talking about Muslims at Gitmo).
Here’s a story by Nicholas Kristof that confirms what myself and other conservatives have been saying for years: conservatives are more generous than liberals. The article analyzes quantitative research conducted by Arthur Brooks, presented in his book ‘Who Really Cares.’ Before you liberals try and discredit the research, please note: Arthur Brooks is a liberal. His results disproved his political beliefs:
“When I started doing research on charity, I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”
Here are a few of the highlights from the article:
- Conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals.
- Red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
- If donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do.
- If measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.
- If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
Liberals dominate issues such as poverty and international aide…well, at least rhetorically. They successfully paint conservatives as selfish, tight-fisted, capitalist pigs. However, this statistical evidence dispels these two notions: liberals are not nearly as charitable as they want you to think, and conservatives are not cold-hearted in the slightest.
Liberals are bleeding hearts; unfortunately their wallets are not as generous as their mouths. They will likely continue to dominate the rhetoric on the issue, keeping it in their platform and as part of their talking points. Why? Because conservatives give out of the abundance of their hearts. We do not give to score political points or for PR. We give because we care. We do not give in order to receive, we give because it is right. Liberals talk about government benevolence and increasing social programs, but conservatives give their own money–not someone else’s.
How about you, liberals? Time to put your money where your mouths are.
Where is the tolerance?
Of course had Obama picked an outspoken proponent of the gay rights movement for the invocation, conservatives would have been livid. In response, the homosexual activists would undoubtedly have accused us of bigotry, intolerance, and discrimination.
But Obama did not go that route. He chose a man of conviction with high moral standards to deliver the prayer. Conservatives are (naively) pleased, and the homosexual movement is outraged.
2 quick observations:
#1. These activists will never be happy until they are given everything they want, when they want, how they want. Where is the tolerance? Christians are daily being told to sit down, shut up, and accept the homosexual agenda. Well, where is our acceptance? And why is it ok to be openly gay but it’s taboo to be openly Christian? Why are Christians closed minded by homosexuals are just ‘being who they are’ and portrayed as accepting? What a double standard.
#2. While I truly appreciate Obama’s willingness to invite Warren (who he strongly disagrees with), how can anyone stomach this level of political pandering? I mean good grief. Obama is the polar opposite of Warren on almost every issue, and yet he invites the man to pray at his christening? In light of previous policy positions, no one can really consider this a genuine move on Obama’s part. Ok, they are close personal friends, believe that if you choose.
Obama can slight the homosexual movement all he wants and still retain their support. So he is taking advantage of their blind allegiance by appearing to move to the center. They’re making a fuss about Warren, which actually helps Obama’s pseudo-centrist image.
My question is this: how can anyone trust a man that is so obsessed with political expediency? How can anyone believe anything this man says? If standing on his head and singing koom by Yah would gain him three votes, he would do it. Can anyone tell me what this man really believes? Is this really the change that you can believe in?
nhhorton
LE Comment Policy Posted
Please take the time to read our Comment Policy.
Arkansas Patriot
YoungConservative08
derekglover
ptmurphy
scottykimberly
Michael Walker
gpauley21
Recent Comments