Fostering an Environment of Freedom

Hello all! After my short vacation from blogging, I am back and ready to go forward. Thank you all for your patience in waiting. I would like to write today a short post on the current state of the US as I see it.

We live in a country which, by it's very nature, is meant to be free. It is meant to encourage it's citizenry to grow to their fullest potential. It is meant to be a country where the people are in control by who we elect and don't elect. It is meant to be one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.

What is truly, then, the best way to foster this environment of freedom?
-Keep the government out of the way. How can we be free if we are being held down? Move restrictions of government out of the way and let the people live their life as they see fit. Freedom.
-Keep the government out of our pocketbooks. How can we be free if the government is spending our money for us? This is not to say that government doesn't need to have tax revenue; police forces and any public safety is very important. Do we, however, need to pay millions of our dollars to research cow flatulence? I don't think so. (Yes, this research is for real and happening with our tax money right now.) Let the people have their money and spend it as they please. Freedom.
-Keep the debate ways open. This is where our country is at it's best. We live in a place where freedom of debate is available and openly used. Let me, however, say what debate is not. It is not marching down the street, offending as many people as you can while destroying private or public property. It is not a disruptive force; it is a conversation. Let the people discuss the best way to move forward. Freedom.

Of course, what this all comes down to is the individual citizen's responsibility to be involved and informed about this country, the elected officials, and the events surrounding them. Ignorance of American citizens leads to a government with unlimited control over the citizenry; able to manipulate and guide their opinions. Awareness leads to freedom; it allows the citizens to understand not only what's happening, but a way to change what will happen. Let us all, therefore, be informed and ready to make the decisions this country asks of us; and as always God Bless America.
I leave you now with a quote from Thomas Paine's Common Sense: "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom."

Conservative Response to Liberalism - Part #3 - Government's Role

I would like to take a moment this morning to post the last part of my conservative response to liberalism series. (PART 1 HERE) - (PART 2 HERE) I haven't touched on this for a while now, since the topics of discussion were leading elsewhere, but I do feel it necessary to finish what I started. So, here is my last response to Mr. McKinley's Proud to Be A Liberal article.

To quote;
"Liberalism is "The Pursuit of Happiness." It is the freedom to create an environment where the individual can excel. What is freedom if it cannot be used to better our lives? A truly free society must be one where its members can rise above their limitations and expand their futures. We call it "The American Dream," and it's alive and well in the heart of the Liberal. Liberals believe in equal opportunities for all to rise above our means. Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our education levels. Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our social status. And Liberals believe each and every family should have an equal opportunity to make this world better for their children."

Once again, we are met with Mr. McKinley stating that liberalism is creating freedom. I cannot except this as true, however. Liberalism seems to do nothing but get in the way of freedom, and in the process, get in the way of the pursuit of happiness (as they are often times one in the same).
Liberalism is about growing government bigger. The modern liberal holds that the government can solve all the problems of the day. This 'big government' does nothing but block the individual's freedoms; it stops them from living as they want to. The bigger government gets, the less chance any individual has to do with there life what they want. If laws are put in place saying a person can't own a gun unless the are screened for months, register yearly, report there comings and goings, and face charges if their gun is used (even if they aren't the ones using it), than you are putting forth a situation where many wouldn't bother owning a gun. A freedom taken away. (This freedom is even constitutionally defined)
The modern American government is in our life constantly. It is telling the schools what to teach our children, and discouraging those who disagree and wish to homeschool. This is called, in many cirumstances, indoctrination. Don't get me wrong here, I don't believe that every class in every school is some type of government indoctrination. However, when the government says that the school cannot teach Creationism as an alternative to evolution, that is indoctrination. It is presenting only one side of the issue at hand and not letting any type of free decision to be made; it is stopping free-thinking from ever occuring.
In the end, do we really want the government to be growing, giving a small group of people more and more power? Sinful man, in his fallen state, cannot in most cases be trusted, unless fervently seeking God. Yet, our government has turned away from it's Christian founding. This government was founded by God-fearing people who looked upwards for the solutions to what they saw around them. The constitution was written on the premise that the government needs to stay as small as possible to allow freedom and liberty to reign across the land. The founders admitted their fallen, sinful nature and understood that power would corrupt government; they knew that the size of the government needed to be small to preserve the nation; and they knew that it was from a gift of God that they had a chance to form this country.
So where are we today? Our government is growing (along with the national debt), our President publicly states that we are not a Christian nation (even though we were founded on Christianity), our President is going around the world apologizing for our actions (instead of being proud of our heritage and what we have acomplished), and our people are turning their backs on God, leading to the moral deprivation of the individual.
Liberalism the pursuit of happiness? No, it's not. It is going farther and farther from it everyday. Only when man understands his governments role, and this nation is truly One Nation Under God, will this country be free and the people free to pursue happiness.

Morality - A Summation of My Thoughts

Here is a writing I have been working on for some time now. I have tried to pull together all my ideas from the past couple weeks of discussion on this site and state them concisely and completely as possible. I apologize for the length of this posting, however, this is a huge topic. I intend this to be the last posting on this subject before moving on to something else, as well, unless popular demand deems otherwise. Anyway, enjoy and feel free to comment below. Thank you all for your time.

Morality, as a guidepost for human decisions, is built into each person. The long standing debate has been where this morality comes from. Some hold to an evolutionary theory explaining how social animals evolved into humans, and as such, the necessary rights and wrongs that develop in a social system are the instincts that have carried into humanity, as we are, in the end, only animals anyway.
Others, (myself included), hold that religion, (particularly the Christian religion), best explains morality. In this view, God has placed in each person a moral compass, built into our souls, residing in our flesh. This moral compass, often called our conscience, guides us to hold certain things as right, (i.e. giving, caring attitudes to others), and certain things as wrong, (murder, stealing, etc.). Christianity also holds all Christians accountable to God for the things they do. This accountability is one of the strongest differences in Christian morality and evolutionist morality.
So, in the end, morality is debated not on the basis of what it is, but on the basis of why it is there; whether through God or through evolution. This debate, then, changes depending on how it is framed. If it is started from a biblical standpoint, it becomes a debate about whether religion can explain the world best or not. If the debate is framed from the evolutionist’s standpoint, it then becomes whether evolution can answer the questions of the world.
Furthermore, because of this prerequisite way of framing the debate, as well as the length of time this debate has taken place, each side can pull from its “bag of tricks” that has been developed for years. There are certain things which cannot be known by modern science; this is one of them.
Where does that leave us in today’s society then? We have the people who hold to the Christian view of things and battle for morality and justice. We also have the Evolutionists who will battle for a more relativist approach to morality. Yet we live in a country where we both have a chance to speak, and everyone has a choice to make freely and openly.
All that’s left, really, is for us to each make our personal case for morality, religion, politics, etc. and let the individual decide by asking questions and debating what is presented. So, here is my concise presentation of my beliefs.
1. - If the Bible and Christianity is everything it claims to be, and is the Word of God, it should present itself with all the answers needed to respond to critics of it. I believe wholly and truly it does. [2 Tim 3:16; Matt 2:18; 1 Cor 2:7-14]
2. - If religion itself is important and true, each person should be unashamed of presenting it fully. [Phil 1:5-6; 1 Thess 2:13]
3. - Morality is written in our hearts by God, as presented in the Bible, and manifest in each person through the conscience. [Rom 2:15]
4. - Each person then must choose whether to answer God’s calling or ignore it and move into a lifestyle of sin. This lifestyle is full of constantly trying to justify personal decisions through man’s corrupt mind, and therefore, can never be complete, but instead, always searching. [Rom 1:18-32]
Of course, the evolutionist / naturalist could make a list of their beliefs too. I believe, however, that their answers would be missing something (God), full of errors in other places (science changes it’s mind rapidly), and incomplete (science cannot know the beginning or the end), and therefore incorrect.

Hopefully my presentation here is clear enough to get my point across, well written enough to be clear, and open enough to allow for questioning and debate. Thanks again for taking the time to read and being a part of this sites mission; open debate in a public forum about issues that effect us everyday. Thank you.

Eternity, Morality, Gaia Theory and God - A Continuing Conversation

Hello all and thank you for the conversation started here. It makes my job much easier when it comes to writing new posts :) So, I would like to refresh the conversation started on the comment string of Morality - Absolutism v. Relativism with new post here. This is, however, simply a response to conversation below.

First off, to J.C. ~ I do agree with you that we can look into the Bible as our guide for what is to come and see that the world is going to do alright until God decides when it is time for judgement. I have always found it interesting that the event which will eventually destroy the universe, (nuclear explosion it seems [2 Peter 3:10]), was built into the world from the beginning. I have read that it would take a matter of seconds for an uncontrolled nuclear explosion to eliminate the entire universe. Very interesting. Another sign of God knowing the end from the beginning. I would, however, like to have you elaborate on your two God statement. The way I think about it, I believe in one God manifest in three Persons, but it is very possible to have more than one infinite being, as all Christians will one day be infinite, physical beings living with God in New Jerusalem. (Rev 21) Something to think about...

Anonymous - Glad to see you are engaged here, and I thank you for the time you are putting into this conversation. It's much appreciated.
Now, to expand on what I started yesterday (about the personal objective God and the impersonal, subjective 'infinite beings'). I would like to move to your next question about animals.
I believe that animals do not have a soul, but are simply physical beings on this planet that were created by God. That does not, however, mean that they do not have the means to think. Their brains can still function and make decisions; even some basic reasoning functions are present in animals. The soul, on the other hand, is something different. It is eternal and ever-lasting. The soul allows us, as humans, to have the hope of future glory in eternity.
I wonder, if animals have souls, as you say, and we all evolved in a billion year long process (am I wrong in assuming you believe this?), where the soul came from? I cannot come to an answer there, which leads me away from that theory and back to my Bible, the source of God's word and knowledge.
To answer one further question you have brought up, (I hope I am getting them all, let me know what I am missing), I believe that humans are valued above all living things because we were created apart from the rest of creation in God's image. During the creation week, God made all the animals in groups, (land creatures, creatures of the air, creatures of the sea, and bugs), but Man was created separately. The history of the world is not centered around the history of animals, but the history of man. Animals are a resource, and as such, should be treated with care and compassion, yes. However, human life is so much more valuable. If we were on the same level as animals, we would then be forced to say that it would be better to save twenty cows from death than to save one person from death. That is something I cannot except, and I believe that if that were excepted, human morality would be lost.
Thank you for the information about Lovelock and the Gaia theory. I did do some research and found it to be quite interesting. I think that the Gaia theory does, in a very unscientific way I will admit, attempt to explain a biblical view of the world (without the Bible, however).

And thank you to all who are reading this now. I welcome anyone to join in on this conversation with the comment section below, or by emailing me at kelbylovelady@gmail.com.

Conservative Response to Liberalism - Part #2

In a continuation of the post below, here is part two of my response to Mr. Brian McKinley's analysis of what liberalism is.
The next section put forth in the "Proud to be a Liberal" article by Mr. McKinley is as follows:
Liberalism is "Liberty." It is the freedom to do as your conscience dictates without impeding another's rights. Fleeing oppression in mother Europe, our founders established a nation where personal belief and self-determination are protected, not persecuted, where hard work is rewarded, not demanded, and where each person is bestowed with the ability to better his or her life because of citizenship, not class. Liberals believe in freedom of speech to protect us from political oppression. Liberals believe in sound regulations to protect us from economic oppression. Liberals believe in just laws to protect us from social oppression. And Liberals believe in quality education to protect us from the oppression of ignorance.
My first thoughts after looking at this part draw me back to the first line over and over, where it says '... the freedom to do as your conscience dictates'. This is being shown every day to be a major sticking point between conservatives and liberals. It was brought up in the comments on the previous post (thank you J.C. Klemencic). Perhaps a good place to start would be where I personally view this subject.
Liberalism holds to a moral relativism that is degrading the society. This relativism that is pushed onto people teaches that things may seem wrong to some people and right to others, and both are fine views. This view, then, appeals to the very basic, sinful side of human reasoning. It allows the person to justify their thoughts and actions, no matter what they are, or how selfish they are. For example, abortion as I see it, is murder of an unborn child. However, someone holding onto relativism can speak of the life of the mother, the quality of life the family will have, etc. and try to legitimize it all in their mind. Of course, even the thinnest veil of legitimacy is enough when your mind is wrapped up in relativism; which then convinces the liberal that anyone who doesn't think that way is 'behind the times' or 'not as sophisticated' as they.
Many conservatives, (not all, as I dare not lump all into this group), hold to a different set of moral beliefs. It can be called original sin (if the morality originates through the person's religious views) or I've also heard it said to be a black/white morality. Either way, it states that certain things in this world are right, and certain things are wrong. For example, murder and theft are wrong, where taking care of the poor and weak is right. By putting morality into these black and white categories of right and wrong, we are led to have certain misgivings that are held to strongly. This also provides a base with which to look at the world; it provides a reasoning behind the thoughts and conclusions one comes to about the world around them. There is, then, no need for long debates over whether something is moral or not. It simply is right, or it is wrong, end of story. I, personally, receive this moral view through my religion, though some come to it by simply looking at the world around them and understanding that there is right and wrong.
This morality is not 'out of touch' or 'behind the times' at all, but holds to what we all have in our conscience; what we all know to be right and wrong.
I don't mean to sound preachy here, but moral relativism, when pulled to it's conclusion, destroys all value of human life. If everyone who believed strongly in moral relativism, (even if they didn't realize that's what it is called), thought about what they were doing, this world would destroy itself immediately. There would be no reason to have children, as it is to much of a burden for the self-gratification seeking relativist. Besides, why not seek self-gratification, this world is all there is, right? Anyway, there would also be no reason to value human life at all. What makes us more valuable then, say, an animal, or a tree? (PETA comes to mind here) So, we could all just kill each other, and it wouldn't really matter. Besides, it might be seen as right and just in the killer's eyes to kill. How can he be wrong if there's no morality?
As you can see, it's a dangerous path. The only thing stopping a relativist from going that far is a little piece of the conscience drawing a line and not taking relativism to its full conclusion.
So, a conservative, (at least most conservatives), believes that there is a moral right and wrong, and uses it as a guide post with which to look at the world. It is not impeding someone else's rights. It is, simply, right or wrong. It is valuing human life. And, through valuing human life, a conservative then is brought to valuing human opinions, valuing human work ethic, valuing human freedom, and valuing human liberty. Conservatives do not believe in taking from the rich people to give to the poor. Conservatives believe in helping that poor person to work hard and raise themselves up from their situation into a better one.
Basically, the response to Mr. McKinley's entire look at 'Liberalism is Liberty' all comes down to where the morality comes from. That, also, of course dictates how you, the reader, will react to what I have just said, and really how this entire debate is framed.
I am at a loss of where to go from here, and this post is getting quite long, so I will leave this open ended for now and gather my thoughts on it some more. Feel free to leave comments below and let me know what you think. As always, thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts and show your involvement in the open debate that has made this country what it is today, and will continue to guide it to what it's future will be.

Conservative Response to Liberalism - Part #1

Today I am going to start a series of writings in response to an article I found while wandering the Internet entitled "Proud To Be Liberal - Why Liberal values are American values" by Brian McKinley. In it, McKinley attempts to show that Liberalism is what being American should be. So, piece by piece, I will offer the rebuttal for conservatism... and yes, I have invited Mr. McKinley to join the conversation if he feels so inspired to do so.
First off, I would like to assert the fact that I do not assume all liberals wrong all the time. I simply want to take the time to point out the differences between liberalism and conservatism as I see them. And no, this doesn't mean the difference between Democrat and Republican. This is more about an ideology; a way of thinking and looking at political problems. So, anyway, here is the first section of Mr. McKinley's article.
"Liberalism is "Life." It is freedom from physical dangers that can kill or disable us. The Liberal believes it is a nation's job to protect its citizens from physical harm, whether from external sources, such as hostile nations, or internal ones, like crime, disease, or hunger. Without the solid ground of physical well being, our nation and its citizens cannot enjoy the benefits of being free. Liberals believe in a strong military, well suited to defend the nation. Liberals believe in good laws, hard-working police, and a just legal system to protect its citizens from crime. Liberals believe in affordable health care for everyone, to keep our people strong. And Liberals believe in the availability of food and shelter for its needy, not as a hand out but as a reasonable step in moving all Americans toward self-reliance and the freedom that comes with it."
Well, I would say that we are not far away from a common path here. Conservatism is also life. Conservatives believe that this country's government was put in place to protect it's citizenry from the threats that would seek to damage it. Conservatives also believe, of course, that people should be safe from the worry of disease, hunger, and crime. It's how to go about that protection that brings about the difference in ideas.
First off, the protection from outside threats, such as terrorism or hostile countries. A Conservative holds that a strong military is the best way to safety. If a country looks on the US and knows that they will be destroyed immediately with any sort of offensive action against us, they will seriously think twice before doing any harm to us. For instance, if you look at the history of the Cold War between the US and Russia, the real turning point came when Reagan proposed the 'Star Wars' missile defense system. This prompted the Russians to put so much into there military spending to try and keep up with us that their economy effectively collapsed. They were left with no choice but to back off or destroy their own people. A strong military is the best defense system. (To give a modern perspective on this, President Obama is currently slashing huge amounts of money from defense budgets, during a time when the US is being threatened from many countries around the world. To a Conservative, that is a dangerous idea.)
As far as protection from crime, disease, and hunger, a Conservative believes that the best way to do this is to promote a system which encourages and allows the individual to freely prosper. The citizenry's health and well being can be assured through providing a climate that is free of obstacles blocking freedoms, like high tax levels. For example, if a business is thinking of expanding outward to produce more goods, the first thing it will look at is taxes. How much does the additional tax burden cost? Then, or course, there is the loopholes to jump through for building on new land, the licensing and restrictions put in place by local, state, and national governments to take into consideration, etc. It quickly would discourage many businesses from expanding. But what if that business was in a climate with low taxes, so that was not a big concern? What if the business was in a climate that promoted business expansion? What if the business didn't have to work 3 years in order to get through the loopholes and obtain the licensing necessary before being able to expand, when those additional goods may not be in as high of demand anyway? This business then becomes an economic boost. It can grow, and hire more workers, and give those workers benefits they may not have access to. This business creates a competition in the workplace. Are the wages/benefits good there? More quality workers will try to get the job. Are the wages/benefits bad there? Workers will find elsewhere to work.
This is capitalism and Conservatism working hand in hand to ensure that the economy is strong, thus ensuring people have the access to the health and wellness they desire. Plus, if there is more opportunity for business to grow in a low tax environment, there will be more business, more population, more housing, more schools, etc. It all goes hand in hand. Even Liberals would end up happy in the end, because all the new businesses and housing and services, while getting taxed at a much lower rate, would end up bringing in more revenue to local governments just by size.
So, Conservatism believes in peoples freedoms through economic expansion and competition; ie: capitalism. If you start on that side of the coin, the bottom end of the spectrum will be taken care of naturally. And, as a bonus to the whole thing, the local governments will have more money in the end to support shelters for the homeless, police and fire stations for protection, etc. Liberalism says to start at the bottom and work upward. Prop up the poor by taxing the top end. This only serves to stifle economic growth and lead to big government.

Thank you for taking the time to read this post. I know, its getting long, but it is important... I believe it to be, anyway. As always, feel free to comment below and open up this conversation.

A Government Out of Touch - A Call to Return to Our Roots

Well, it's now four days out from the nation wide tea parties. Hundreds of thousands of American citizens got together all across the country to let their voice be heard; no more big government; no more out of control spending; and no more disconnect between the people and those that represent them.
Of course, as expected, most media outlets gave very unfavorable coverage to the events. I am not surprised at all about that. I am, however, surprised at the White House response. ABC's Dan Harris on Good Morning America reported on April 15th the following - "The White House says the president is unaware of the tea parties and will hold his own event today." Isn't this a perfect example of what the protests were really about? When the government doesn't represent the people, the government no longer can be called effective.
A majority of Americans did not approve of their tax money being used for the TARP funds, as passed under George Bush, and yet our representatives passed it. A majority of Americans did not approve of their tax money being used in the Stimulus Bill, and yet our representatives passed it. A majority of Americans do not approve of abortion being funded by taxpayers (or abortion at all), yet our government is now doing just that. This is not how our government is supposed to work.
“Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.” --Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
This quote shows exactly where we are today. Our government, a necessary function that needs to have limits pressed on it, is running out of control, breaking down constraints at every pass. This big government system cannot stand forever. It will grow to a size so big that it will cripple the economy and tear away our freedoms.
And yet, there is a simple answer. It's called the Constitution of the United States. It's the document that says how the government is supposed to work. It puts limits where they need to be, and spreads power with checks and balances as to create control. Articles 1-7 explain exactly what the government can and can't do, and how to do it. The Amendments afterwards dive further into details. That's where the answer is. If our representatives do not hold to the constitution, vote them out. They all take an oath to do just that. What if the government wants a program that isn't directly under their power as given in the Constitution? Amendment X has the answer: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, as always, I ask not for some extreme revolution, but a returning to a time when the Constitution was upheld. We all need to be informed, as an informed citizenry is the only way to ensure the freedoms and liberty's we all take for granted continue. It is fine if we disagree, that's what this country is founded on, and debate is protected in the Constitution. However, if we all understand where the debate has to start, at the beginning, then we can have a firm foundation with which to grow on.

Tax Day TEA Party - My Impressions

I attended the TEA Party in St. Paul, MN yesterday, to show my support of fiscal responsibility, (the government not overspending), limited government, (the government not in the way of peoples freedom), and free markets, (the government letting businesses work).
The crowd estimates for this party were between eight to ten thousand people. Multiply that by the hundreds of tea parties going on across the country and you have a huge event. Now I hope the country was listening.
Of course, many media outlets were not willing to just report the story as it was happening. CNN even went so far as to demonize and harass those attending. ((Watch the video here)) This is showing what conservatives have been saying for a long time; the media is blatantly and unashamedly bias. Every report I could find either hugely downplayed what was happening or linked the people in attendance to "extremists".

Extreme? How extreme is a rally that starts with the Pledge of Allegiance? How extreme is a rally that numerous times broke into chants of "USA, USA"? How extreme is a rally of people who see a news helicopter and turn around to wave? (I thought that was a bit corny myself, but it did go to show how peaceful the demonstration was). Most rallies are liberal in nature. They involve screaming and chanting, they often times have some violence thrown in (RNC Welcoming Committee for example), and tend to be very resentful to any authorities. This is why the media loves to report on rallies. There tends to be something violent happening, and something 'exciting' to show on TV. These TEA Party rallies were not like that. They were sane, peaceful, and had a very easy to understand message - stop spending our money like there is an infinite supply of it.

So, as the country moves forward, where do we go? I sincerely hope that we can move forward in a direction where the conservatives of this country are not afraid to say what they believe; not afraid of being demonized by the media or even those around them. I hope for the country to hear the conservative voice and listen to what they say. But most of all, I hope for a country that is informed about what is happening and willing to get involved with what is happening. Let's all be open to debate, open to conversation, and open to involvement in the process of this country. I leave you now with my favorite picture from the rally.

Comments on "The Dirty Dozen" - Heritage Foundation Research

The Heritage Foundation, (a policy research group), has released a list of twelve policies which the Obama administration has put in place that show "disregard for the civil society of American life." I would invite anyone who is interested to view the list here, and I would like to add some of my thoughts on the subject (though not on all twelve topics addresed; I will leave those to you).
The first on the list is the administrations attack on charitable giving by the wealthy of this country. The President's budget would decrease the amount of money that is deductible on taxes from charitable giving, taking away part of the built in incentive to donate to charity. This will undermine the money flow that so many charities count on for their existence. I understand why Obama wants to do this; more tax money flowing into the government which means bigger government. I question, however, why he cannot stop expanding government and instead cut spending. If the growing government trend continues, we will become a nation who cannot afford to make these private donations to charities. This would allow the government to chose which charities exist, as our tax money would be split between whomever they chose. Sounds like a dangerous picture, right? And, of course, we know that faith-based charities are already out of the picture, as Obama has reversed a Bush administration policy to include faith-based charities in the funding lists. You may say that I'm taking this too far, but I am only looking ahead to where the trends inevitably are going.
The Obama administration has also written a new executive order, (no deliberation or vote on these), which could be set to go into place soon, stating that doctors and nurses can no longer morally object to performing certain procedures, such as abortions. This would force all hospitals and clinics across the country to perform abortions, even if there are moral objections by the staff. This is a dangerous command. The Catholic-run charity hospitals have already threatened to shut down if Obama goes through with this order, citing the fact that they would never perform abortions in their buildings. This would have a huge impact, especially in urban areas where many poor depend on these charity hospitals for care. Also, many doctors and nurses, morally objected to the abortion procedure, have talked about quitting their practice. Obama would essentially shut down hospitals across the country. Of course, this would open up the way for government funded hospitals, (our tax dollars), to be set up and 'save the day', another sign of growing government. If a big government is what he wants, he certainly has found a good way to do it.
On the same abortion note, Obama wrote and signed an executive order lifting the ban on so-called "family planning groups" overseas from receiving US taxpayer funding. These groups perform abortions on demand, so much so that many countries in Europe are having their population stagnate due to the number of abortions being performed. And our tax money is now helping to fund it all. First of all, why is our tax money being used overseas to fund these types of groups? That doesn't make sense in and of itself. We have plenty of use for our tax money here at home; and then to use our money to fund abortion, which the majority of Americans object to? Absurd is the only word that comes to mind. How can the land of "life and liberty" be funding the murder of children around the world? Our own President supports not only partial-birth abortion, but what is known as "post-partum abortion", the killing of fully born children if the parents don't want them. It is a sad day in this country when life is snuffed out on a whim; when the self-centered society we have turned into becomes so selfish that would-be parents would rather have no responsibility for there actions and kill a child than take that child and care for it, or put it up for adoption so someone could give that child a chance to live. God help us for condoning these acts. Life is not to be thrown away, but cherished. We are not to play God and decide who shall live or die on a whim. Shame on us.
As for the rest of the list, you can look at it and decide what you think here. I only wanted to give a brief look at a few topics. I thank the Heritage Foundation for the work they are doing to ensure the life, liberties, and freedoms we all hold onto continue in this country; and I thank you the reader for taking the time to see what I have to say and become informed about what is happening in this country. Until next time, thank you all.

Obama's Silence Speaking Volumes - An Ideologue in Action

I have a question for the President. Why the silence?
The Somali pirates have captured a US merchant ship. In an effort to free his crew, the captain gives himself to the pirates as hostage. Now, he is being held in the middle of the ocean on a small boat, which is out of fuel, as a hostage while the US Navy is staring them down. A mid-ocean standoff of sorts, with more warships on the way and negotiators from both sides working for an answer to the problem. Just this morning, the heroic captain made an escape attempt, trying to swim away, but was captured again by the pirates. Sounds like a new TV show on Fox, (maybe an episode of 24), but this is really happening, creating headlines all over the country. A well publicized story, full of suspense, involving a US citizen being held captive. You would think this would be something the President would want to comment on, right?
Well, you wouldn't be thinking of Obama. He was asked during a press conference to comment on the situation, and responded by saying "Guys, we're talking about housing right now." He then ushered the reporters out of the room.
Reality check time. First of all, the "pirates", as everyone likes to call them, are not pirates, not just mere criminals. They are terrorists. They are using terrorism to try to get money and power. They may be using piracy to do it, but they are terrorists. However, as I noted before, in my March 25th post, the administration doesn't like to use the word terrorist anymore. So, we call them pirates.
Second of all, this administration is so concerned with controlling the focus of the public that this distraction can't be talked about. In a look back at the time he has been President, he has constantly stayed on target with 'getting the big things done'. His rhetoric is always the same. His teleprompter always reads the same lines. He has become an ideologue; a walking mouthpiece for the liberals of this country. And now, we have a situation with a US citizen, held hostage by a terrorist organization in the middle of the ocean, surrounded by US warships, and he can't even go off message for a moment to say anything about it.
This country may have voted for a President, but they got an ideologue; a vision of liberalism in America that is so focused and determined to accomplish it's goals, it can't break course for a moment. This President is buried in the rhetoric and visions he has and unable to move away from it. Many would say that is a good thing, that he is focused on what he has to accomplish. I say he isn't being a leader. He isn't being involved with what's happening; he's only involved with what's on his mind (or teleprompter) at the moment.
I really do wish the best for this country. Looking at this administration's actions over the past few months, however, has made me quite afraid of the direction we are going in. I ask us all to be aware of what's happening in this country, be prepared to talk about, and be ready to defend your views. Our country is changing, so lets be ready for what lies ahead.
And, of course, in the next few days, watch for Obama to be told what to say about the Somali terrorists. He can't stay silent on it forever. People want him to say something.

The Faith Our Country Was Built On - Not Worship of the State

I will start of by saying that this is a sensitive subject. Perhaps if you would like a longer discourse from me on the subject, you can email me at kelbylovelady@gmail.com and I will try to go into a bit more depth than I do here. But, as with any subject of serious significance, it is always going to be argued and fought over. So anyway, here is the video clip of President Obama in Turkey.
((Video Here))
In this video, Obama treads into water that I feared him going into, and does so on an international stage. He calls us a "secular nation" and also a "nation of citizens". In other words, a nation which doesn't have it's guidance in God or faith; doesn't have it's morals coming from a firm foundation, but instead uses a moral system that changes with the times and situations (moral relativism); a nation of people who have to look somewhere for guidance and will lean on their government, not themselves, their faith, and the freedoms and liberties granted to them.
It may not seem like a big statement that Obama made, but every person has to put there faith in something. I have learned this is always true, and with some deep self-searching, it can be figured out to be true by anyone who is honest with themselves. Where that faith is put determines a lot about the person. If a person puts their faith into God and religion, they have moral absolutes, right and wrong, black and white, a reason and purpose for their thoughts and actions; if a person puts their faith into government or self or any other man made group/thing, you then end up in inevitable moral relativism, loss of sanctity for human life, and a de-valuing of human experience.
So, what did the founders of this country think of religion in the citizenry? Here's John Adams, the second President of the United States:
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature."
How about Benjamin Franklin, one often pointed out as the 'un-Christian' founding father of this country. What did he have to say?:
"I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe; that he governs it by his Providence; that be ought to be worshipped; that the. most acceptable service we can render to him is doing good to his other children; that the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as be left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is like to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it."
How about one more? Thomas Jefferson, perhaps:
"I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigm of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
I don't mean to force any thoughts or religion on anyone. I only mean to demonstrate hear that this country was founded on religion. This country was founded on faith and belief and moral absolutes and working towards a higher purpose. This country was not founded on moral relativism, worship of self and of state, worship of material things, or any other.
Mr. Obama, you have worked hard in your overseas trips to make friends with the nations of the world, and for that I applaude you. But, please be careful in how you speak. Do not take away from our heritage as a country founded on the principles of religion. We do not worship government, or hold to government, but hold strongly to freedom, to liberty, and to faith given to us from above.
As the Declaration of Independence states (added emphasis mine):
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Government In The Way of Freedom - In Response to Peter Orszag on the Jon Stewart Show

I was directed this week to watch the following videos of Peter Orszag, the White House Budget Director, explain the budget on the Jon Stewart show. Here are the links:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=222776&title=peter-orszag-pt.-1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=222777&title=peter-orszag-pt.-2
I thoroughly enjoy listening to people with views different from my own and also think that Mr. Orszag is a brilliant man. He explains himself and this complex issue of the budget very eloquently. As I listened, I had to pause many times to gather my thoughts, and this is what I came up with.
First of all, Mr. Orszag said that they have inherited a terrible deficit. This is true, as President Bush overspent and built debt, however, it is not true that Obama is coming to the rescue. Bush's deficit during his eight year term was a grand total of $1.3 trillion dollars with his last year in office bringing in the biggest piece of that with $482 billion overspent in one year. Obama's outlook on eight years totals $15 trillion dollars. ((See chart here)) I understand completely that is a long outlook and they plan to change things to help cut that number down, but $15 trillion in deficit spending in 8 years? That's a lot of our money; a lot of borrowed money. Why can't government, instead of saying they need more money to fund themselves and grow government, say they are cutting back spending? This is the fix that stops the tax raises, that stops the borrowing, and that stops government intrusion into our personal freedoms. Not talked about in the above interview is the fact that this budget, while proposing huge deficits, also is piling on new taxes (in the range of $686 billion in new taxes by the end of the ten year outlook). Treat the taxpayers money with the respect it deserves is all I ask.
Which brings me to my second point. Jon Stewart asks why the government is allowed to play by a different set of rules then we the people are. That is the point of true conservatism (notice the emphasis on true conservatism, not moderate conservatism). The government's spending is so out of control, we are forced to spend borrowed money, increasing our debt, or raise taxes on the people of this country. Neither option is good; yet President Obama is planning doing both.
Also, during the interview, Orszag admits very openly and without shame that the White House is telling people to leave certain companies, and wants the authority to reach more companies than they currently can. What? Since when is the President the overseer of private company's actions? Since when has the President looked into companies and told people to leave because he didn't like the way they did things? This is not freedom and liberty, and this is certainly not capitalism. The President should not do this; the free markets should. If a company is failing, it is up to the company and no one else to do something about it. And it is certainly not up to the President to use taxpayer money, or money borrowed from foreign investors, to help them along. If a company fails, it can either drop out and move aside for someone else to come in and provide better service, or it can file Chapter 11 and restructure itself properly and efficiently. That is how it is supposed to work. Yet now our tax dollars are invested in banks, in car companies, and many other businesses. Why? Let the markets work and move on.
This is where people like myself are coming in with the idea of 'socialism'. The government moving in and firing employees of companies as it pleases, taking over businesses to run them they way they want them to be run, running what many would call a 'nanny state', where it is not people with the freedom to control their money and life as they please but the government there every step up the way helping people along; that is the groundwork of socialism. This country was founded on the idea that people would do what they could to succeed without interference from the government. If you failed in your attempts, you would get help not from the government and the taxpayer's money, but from the local charities, churches, and organizations set up for that purpose, who fund themselves through the goodwill of the people. National government was not meant to be the all powerful government; neither was state government; neither was local government. Yet now here we are, with the idea that we all should lean on government to get by, to help us through, to make it work; that's not how it should be.
I could continue to go on for a while, but will stop myself for now, as this is getting to be quite a large post. Thank you for reading and feel free to comment or email me at kelbylovelady@gmail.com. I love getting feedback and conversation. And as always, stay informed, aware, and ready for conversation, because that's the groundwork that a free America, full of liberty, is built on.

In Response to Comment on "A President Crossing the Line"

First of all, I would like to thank you, whoever you are, for sharing your thoughts and putting yourself forward. That is what we as Americans need to do; discuss the situations at hand openly and freely as the founders, as the founders desired. I would like to respond to what you said, and, as always, feel free to continue this conversation too, either here or with me personally at kelbylovelady@gmail.com.
First off, I don't want to try to put myself forward as a great thinker, someone who feels they are above the rest; someone on a 'high horse'. I am not at all. I am an average person, making average wages, living in an average small town. I'm sorry if my comments seem very forward and blunt, but I feel very strongly about what I am doing here. I am not trying at all to put down the American people for the choices they make. Do I feel they made the wrong choice in the last election? Yes. There is nothing different in me saying that now and the last eight years of everyone (including the so-called impartial media) ripping into Bush at turn of the shoulder. Part of the Democratic process of this country is people who are willing to stand up and oppose the ideas that are put forward because they whole-heartedly feel they are wrong for this country. I don't want to see wrong happen to this country in the same way that I'm sure no one wants to see wrong happen to there families, or even themselves. I'm just doing my part to defend the freedoms we all take for granted every day and continue the tradition of open debate.
So, to answer the question of "what I am doing here" directly, I am holding strong in my views, putting them forward for all to see because of my freedoms accounted to me by the Constitution and my Creator, and being prepared to defend myself and my ideas when need be. This is open conversation; freedom and liberty at its best. I'm not asking for everyone to agree with me, but to be willing to talk about it.
Now, on to the second part. I, as a Christian, in no way have meant to use God in a sarcastic statement, and have never meant to insult anyone. "God help America" was not meant with any sarcastic tone behind it, though I understand how it may read that way. We, as Americans, really do need God's help if we are to pull this country back towards what it can be at it's best. Furthermore, I believe that Christian love can be shown through caring about what is happening in this country, and working to help this country succeed. God doesn't only work in love, but also in convictions and trials. Please don't get me wrong, the love of God and the mercy shown every day by Him is amazing in itself, but Jesus didn't show his love of man by showering everyone with "worldly love". He often times rebuked the people, even those closest to him, in order that they may grow in understanding and maturity. I do not believe that what I am doing here is in any way compromising my Christian faith. In many ways, I think it is expanding it; right now is a perfect example. Yes, our sinful natures are the driving force behind what is happening in this country, but that doesn't mean we can't fight against it. The apostle Paul told us to put our sins behind us every day; he wants us to fight.
As far as what we can do in our daily lives goes, I understand how it can be hard to see in my writings. In national politics, we are only able to do so much as individuals, but I believe that our greatest responsibility is to be aware of what is happening; to be informed citizens who understand what is going on in our country and ready to react when able. When we are aware, and holding discussions with people we know; when this country is engaged in what is happening; when people understand politics in much more than a "vote every four years and not care any other time" way; that is when this country is at its best. My call to every citizen is to be informed and concerned. I'm not saying that we all need to be involved in politics everyday, all the time. Being informed is just a matter of knowing what is going on in this country and being willing to form an opinion on it.
Lastly, I would like to take the time to thank you, the readers of my writings, for taking part of your day to read what I have to say, and for showing that you care about this country enough to listen to discussion about what is going on. Thank you all and God Bless.

A President Crossing the Line - The GM/Wagoner Saga

Obama has gone over the line; no other President would dare cross it, and Obama leaped over with such grace that the media seems to be missing the point. Buried deep into the NBC news website, tucked away behind CNN's breaking news about Madonna, and peeking out just slightly at the FoxNews website, is a President of the United States pushing a CEO out.
Obama has fired Rick Wagoner, former Chairman and CEO of General Motors. The mainstream news media brushes by the fact, because they know how this looks to people who pay attention. For instance, on the CNN story, they briefly say that Obama 'asked' Wagoner to step down, followed by a long discussion on the size of his retirement package. NBC news let the cat out of the bag, saying that Obama put the ultimatum on the table of "fire him if you want bailout money". They then, of course, went on to talk of how this is 'Obama working hard for the American people' to ensure their not going to lose "America's car company."
Of course, this whole thing is a mess. Obama threw himself into the fray and it's a complete mess now (Deja Vu). Let me offer my spin.
Let GM go under, by itself, no taxpayer money getting dumped into it. Let them then, if they so desire, file Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure the company. This would give them time to figure out what went wrong, (unions, poor product, price control, for a few examples), and start over, costing you and I, the taxpayers, nothing. This is called Capitalism. It ensures the right to fail and start over. It is what I would have to do in the circumstances, what any small business would have to do, and what any freedom loving American should do. Take your burden on your own shoulders.
Enter, then, Bush and Obama's auto bailouts. Taxpayer money thrown into a failing business. A President pressuring a CEO of a private company out. This is a road leading straight to Socialism. And, let me say this, even though it's no secret; SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK!! (ie. Russia, Venezuela, many Caribbean islands, most of Central America, Britain, Canada, etc... Countries that are not doing well because of their government getting in the way of the peoples freedoms; the freedom to be the best that they can be, to succeed, to fail and get back up again, to start fresh and new, to live their life the way they see as best.)
I guess this is the start of the long, slippery slope to Socialism America voted for. Congratulations everyone. You've created a monster. God help America.

Wednesday Link - Rick Santelli Setting The Mood

This week's video link shows the mood of the country, and is what set in motion the April 15th 'tea parties'. Rick Santelli, CNBC journalist, surrounded by investors and financiers, starts ranting, and no one knows what to do. Enjoy!

Rick Santelli Rant

One more quick note - Obama has announced that the term "global war on terror" is no longer what he wants to use. He prefers "overseas contingency operation". Well, Mr. Obama, you can change what its called if you like, but I ask that you not forget that it's really about protecting the country. Of course, I'm saying this to a President who is already cutting our defense budget, so I guess I'm just blowing wind here. This is just another example of Obama diverting the attention of the Americans who are too apathetic to pay attention, creating a 'feel good' environment for everyone. Remember, though, that changing the name won't change what's happening; and cutting defense puts us all at risk.

An Update, A Revolution Beginning, and A Frightening Revelation

First off today, a quick update on HR1388 (see post below). It has officially passed through both the House and Senate, making it almost impossible to stop now, (Obama has already promised to sign it when it hits his desk). The official financial numbers on it? Increase spending from $418 million a year to around $5.7 billion a year. Once again, I have to ask, where is this money coming from?
I am encouraged, however, by a movement sweeping across the Internet that is starting to take roots in actual events. Ever since the beginning of the Obama administration, one has been able to find many people, like myself, rambling on about the wrongs of government, the overspending liberals, etc. There have been videos, such as this one here, (Thomas Paine video), that have been made to try to spur on some action. That action has finally arrived in the form of modern day 'tea parties'. I encourage each and every person who feels like they are not represented by their government, who is scared of what all this spending and massive deficit means, to go to the Tea Party Website and find a rally near them. April 15th can be a great day for this country if we all get behind it and make the government listen to the people.

One final note on the rather scary direction this country is going in. In Texas, there is a law being proposed that would allow for mothers to kill their babies. This is not abortion, though that is also murderous and terrible, (and supported by the administration, which even wants to lift partial birth abortion bans). The Texas law would punish a mother who killed their baby, (defined as any child up to one year old), with a maximum penalty of two years in prison. Class A felonies for premeditated murder carry a maximum penalty of 99 years, but because this is a baby, this law would cut the time to two years. It's reason? The bill lays out the terms as "postpartum issues". Understand that Texas, along with a few other states, has a lot of sway as to what laws get passed across the country. It is one of the lead states that others look to. These are scary times indeed. Please, I ask each and every person, to get involved, get aware of what's happening to this country, and get out there to make a difference.

Wednesday Link - A Poem plus A Note on Past Events

For this week's link, I would like to direct your attention to a poem by  Rudyard Kipling, written in 1919. It may seem like long ago, but this poem sounds as if it could have been written yesterday. Enjoy.

The Gods of the Copybook Headings - Rudyard Kipling

Also, just a quick note on the tone being given by the Obama administration, and the short-sightedness of Americans. If we look back just two weeks ago, Obama was running around talking about "the worst economy since the great depression", and yet is now talking like we are on our  way back to boom times. He was also talking about the "long, hard fight for Afghanistan", yet now is holding his tongue on the whole thing. So, as Americans hear this shift in talking points from doom and gloom to happy go lucky, how do they react? Well, most everyone is buying every word. Please, let's not forget our past. Let's all hold onto what we learn each day as a guide post to the future. If we can't remember two weeks ago, how can we ever learn from past mistakes and move forward? As American citizens, we should all hold together and demand accountability for what is said by the President, not submit to every turn of the hat. 

A Comment Response - Personal Responsiblity and Wealth - American Citizenry

In response to the rather large comment left below the Milton Friedman link; it's a bit too large to quote directly, but I want to give a few general thoughts about what I have read.

First off, let me say thank-you to whomever you are. You are the standard for what a concerned citizen of this country should be; active and vocal, looking to make a difference. I applaud your efforts. I would, however, like to make some points for you to consider. Feel free to contact me either through this page or by my email; kelbylovelady@gmail.com.

First off, I want to remind you directly that wealthy does not in and of itself equal evil. Wealth is a product of hard work. (Of course, there will be exceptions at every level, but I'm speaking generally now.) These people spend every waking moment working, or attempting to figure out what to do with the wealth they've acquired. It's not easy to see from a middle class perspective, but wealth creates it's own monster. Having millions, or billions, of dollars creates wealth by itself (interest); not to mention that the mechanics of that money making are probably still continuing to make money as well. Being wealthy is having a constant burden. The Reverend Frederick Gates said it best to John D. Rockefeller Sr. when he said, "Mr. Rockefeller, your fortune is rolling up like an avalanche! You must distribute it faster than it grows! If you do not, it will crush you and your children and your children's children!" Just think of that immense burden.

Secondly, greed is not inherint in all wealth. Greed is in a corrupt soul, not following in the steps of God's will. Greed is the taking over of the spirit by human corruption. If the people of this world were to follow their moral calling to perfection, we would never have issue. But, then again, we live in a broken, fallen world, corrupted by the sin we all live in every day. Wealth may breed greed, but wealth is not the creator of greed. Sin is the creator of greed. The 1% club, as you so aptly call them, are constantly burdened by there wealth, and yes, many are burdened by there greed as well. That is where my next point comes in.

I am very pleased with how you talked on personal responsibility, (though you never called it that, you went on at length about it in the second paragraph). This is the key to freedom and liberty, not just for the rich, but for all citizens of the country and the world. If people don't like something, don't partake in it; simple as that. If people have a problem with clothes that cost $100 dollars, don't buy them. The company making the clothes will have to change or fail. And that, my friend, is the whole of capitalism. If people remember their personal responsibility, they would have never signed a contract for a home loan that has payments doubling in 5 years. That's utterly ridiculous. Do they honestly believe they would make twice as much as they did when they signed the loan 5 years down the road? NO. They were looking for a government handout, which is what this administration is doing. They are giving out exactly what the irresponsible people of this country wanted. A handout. An easy way through. This is rewarding irresponsiblity. If every single American were to carefully consider purchases, this country could straighten itself out very quickly. But people don't want to think. They want the handouts this administration has promised. This is the greed in the middle class. This is greed of the impoverished. Don't work your way out, stand in line for a handout. Scary to think of how this type of thought pattern will progress in this country.

So once again, thank you for your comment and inspiring me to write this post. Lets all, each one of us, keep talking about the situation in this country, keep working for ways back to freedom, responsibility, and liberty, and take hold of ourselves through personal responsibility, so we may experience what liberty is like in this world.

A (Very) Brief History of Big Government

In this country, I truly believe that most all politicians seek office with the best of intentions. These people feel that they are doing what is best for the country with their spending, pork-barrel projects, etc. This concept of big government spending is called Keynesian economics. Based on these theories, if the government expands its size from the bottom up, (ie. from the demand side of the spectrum), that the top side (the suppliers) will follow suit. This is the real soul of big government. The 'lets do it for the little guy' spirit.
I hope not to be to much of a preacher here, but this is, however, a failed system, as history has shown. FDR didn't pull us out of the depression with big government, even though this is how many public schools teach it to be. No, his 'New Deal' economics only put a band-aid solution to a big problem, and when the spending pulled back, as all spending must at some point, the bottom fell out. It was WWII that pushed this economy out of depression. Then came Lyndon B. Johnson's 'Great Society'. This was mostly New Deal part II, and thought of by Kennedy anyway. Shortly after spending was cut back, which it always has to be, economic problems surfaced again.
This is where history is getting to be repeating. Jimmy Carter came into office with the mantle of 'Change'. Sound familiar? His administration drove unemployment to astronomical heights (upwards of 20%, though the exact number escapes me), and created huge inflation with spending. What stopped Carter's dreaded stagflation (stagnant economy, high unemployment and high inflation)? Conservatism.
Supply-side economics pushed by Reagan changed the country. Cut capital gains taxes down so that businesses have the means to expand. This brings more jobs to the economy. Cut taxes across the board for poor and rich alike, so that people have money to spend to live their lives how they want to. Keep government out of the way of people's freedoms! This economic time brought the largest peace-time expansion of the economy this country has ever seen; and it all came through controlling government's size and spending -- not expanding government size and spending.
So here we are today, with a President trying the failed systems of the past, all under the guise of change. Is this really change we can believe in? I see it as lessons we should have learned years ago.

Conservatism v. Liberalism in America

In response to the following comment:

"Could it not be said that perhaps part of the problem (while albeit not denying the lies, extortion, and other political garbage tactics) is that we really live in what should be considered as it is, a republic. If you doubt my logic, check the Pledge of Allegiance (if you don't know it because you've not been allowed it, Google it). The basic "Democratic" principles are broken by the fact that acting so as a republic, the people's power is more a facade designed to make us feel as though we are electing "our" president, when really we are just creating someone to blame."

I would first of all say that this country, as laid out in the constitution, is a Democratic Republic. It's a representative form of government. The people of this country elect the representatives and have chances quite often to change who the office holder is. People are not elected for life. However, this still means that the citizens of this country must be informed and also have a proper understanding of their role in the process.

It is the lack of caring of each citizen which elects those to office who don't have any business being there. The representatives are DIRECT representations of those who elect them. This is why you see congress people from California who are extremely liberal. It's a representation of the culture they are in; and if I may be so bold to say it: apathy leads to liberalism.

On the surface, liberalism presents itself as a sunny, warm place where everyone is getting what they "need" in life from the government. For people making quick glances at an issue, liberalism seems nice. But it is in true conservatism that the answers which are best for this country are found. True conservatism, however, is not an easy thing to come by in today's political climate. It takes effort. It takes someone willing to sacrifice a bit here and there for the better of the country. It takes understanding. It takes removing your faith in the government and finding another place to put it. (religion)

I will grant that all of this is an outlook that many aren't comfortable with. That is where a site like this comes in. A conversation to have; understanding to grow. Let's take politics off of the back burner and move it into a daily conversation. If we could all place it with a bit more importance into our daily lives, I can almost guarantee this country would change for the better.