Destroying America through its children

Reblogged from PointMan:

I recall hearing a pro-life advocate suggest that Christians are too eager to share what they’re against and not what they’re “for” in terms of political arguments and debate. I thought he made a good point. But then I continue to read stuff like this. Apparently the National Teacher’s Association — that’s the union that represents the working conditions and pay of teachers while falsely claiming to have the best interest of the children at heart — thinks that sex education should begin (wait for …

I initially posted this to my faith-based blog, but it really has much wider implications.

Why don’t I trust Obama’s motives?

It’s obviously not just me.

A quick Google search using the phrase “Dictators streamline government” popped with more than 41 million hits. Many of those hits include stories on President Obama’s latest talking point to streamline the federal government.

It’s easy not to trust this President when he says things like this… or at any time for that matter! While a majority of Americans favor cutting the federal government down to a much smaller and manageable size, the skeptic in me sees Obama as nothing more than a dictator on a quest for totalitarian rule under the guise of so-called Republican tenets.

Obama’s true colors and motives were blatantly evident when I heard a sound byte on the radio where he said that he will do this with or without the approval of Congress. Whatever happened to the rule of law and the separation of powers as articulated by the Constitution? Those are the words and premises of a dictator, not an executive who understands his authority and role!

Why wait until now to propose streamlining the government? Wasn’t that implied in the whole “Hope and Change” mantra that he ran upon? Why did he push the massive health care plan that had to be lied about and massaged to purportedly keep under a trillion dollars in cost? With government costs and debt spiraling out of control, why propose streamlining some of the smallest agencies in the federal government when the budgets of agencies such as the EPA have ballooned in size since Obama was elected? At what time in American history has any agency of the government had to do more with less (unless, of course, it’s the repeated call from Liberals to take a hatchet to the Department of Defense)?

The idea to streamline government is noble. It needs to be done if the United States collectively, as well as the individual states, are going to survive economically. But history shows that governments that accumulate power and wealth (the United States is no different) have never been able to vote themselves a smaller piece of the tax pie.

Related articles

• Obama Seeks Greater Power To Shrink The Federal Government (huffingtonpost.com)
• President Obama Seeks Power to Streamline Government: A Slog Poll (slog.thestranger.com)
• Obama seeks more power to merge agencies, streamline government – Washington Post (washingtonpost.com)
• Obama Wants To Shrink The Size Of Federal Government (alan.com)
• Boehner spokesman: Will agency merger help or is it just for show? (thehill.com)

California: Leading the way to moral and social depravity

Having left California a little more than a year ago I still find it intriguing to follow the news there. For example, the spate of new laws going into effect January 1 always top news reports in the Tarnished State (it’s not appropriate to call California the “Golden State” anymore since the elected representatives there seem hell-bent on doing all they can to destroy the state’s economy).

I recall several years ago when California voters fired one governor then hired another with promises that things would turn around. At the time California fired Gray Davis California’s economy was arguably the 5th or 6th largest in the world. Now it’s closing in on third-world status as businesses leave, residents escape and state lawmakers set up laws to exacerbate problems.

Take for instance the second-to-last paragraph in this ABC story. With a young daughter in California public schools this worries me greatly.

Image via Wikipedia

While test scores in California schools continue to decline and kids there are kicked along to the next grade without the necessary skills to master last-year’s lessons, the political plantation owners that run the California Legislature have decided that Martin Luther King Jr.’s ideals of a colorblind society, where people are judged on the “content of their character,” are no longer vogue. Then again, it’s patently apparent to most residents the value of California’s political character, particularly when this kind of debauchery is pushed.

When California eighth graders read below a second-grade level and can’t perform simple math problems from the first and second grade, why must students be taught the sick and offensive biases of the rabid homosexual lobby? Apparently students don’t need to know how to read, write and do their arithmetic, but they do need to know ”the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other cultural groups.”

What happened to the values that made America a great nation? It would seem this kind of teaching would go much farther to promoting and preserving the kind of American exceptionalism that is responsible for creating and spreading vast amounts of wealth and prosperity across the globe.

Related articles

• From Tanning Beds to Immigration Policies, States Set to Enact Controversial Laws (abcnews.go.com)

Reclaiming agriculture: America’s sovereignty depends on it

I’ve said it before and it bears repeating. A vibrant agricultural economy in America is much more than just farmers and ranchers doing what they do to feed the rest of us; American agriculture and our ability to be agriculturally self-sufficient is vital to our national sovereignty.

Paul Wenger

I was reading a recent speech California Farm Bureau Federation President Paul Wenger gave at the organization’s recent annual meeting. Wenger called on California’s farmers and ranchers to “reclaim California” by having a plan, and that is to make political action a priority and part of farmers and ranchers individual business plans. In short, Wenger was asking farmers and ranchers to stop merely complaining and to put feet and dollars into action to prevent California agriculture from becoming extinct.

“If everyone in agriculture doesn’t get involved, others will — and they will be the ones setting the political and regulatory agenda you will have to face in the coming years.” ~ CFBF President Paul Wenger

For years California business interests have been fighting against a version of what we see nationally in the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. Urban interests have long been at odds against rural and agricultural interests. Given that the votes and numbers lie with the urban groups (including the environmentalist movement), it’s not difficult to see where farmers and ranchers fall on this spectrum.

❦❦❦

I realize that Wenger’s speech needed to be in broad terms and motivational for the several hundred Farm Bureau members in attendance. I was not there, so I cannot say how his address was received, or what discussions might have taken place in response to his address. I do know this, however, from working as an “outsider” in agriculture: farmers and ranchers need more “outsiders” inside their circles if they’re going to be successful in a world charged with political slogans and run by people who haven’t the slightest idea what it truly takes to fill their food pantries, refrigerators and stock their favorite restaurants with the food they like.

What do I mean by the term “outsider?” Let me tell a personal story.

I didn’t grow up on a farm. I did grow up in a rural part of California and was exposed to farming and ranching operations, however, my dad provided for us by busting his knuckles on automobiles and heavy equipment.

I enlisted in the Army out of high school as a stepping stone to college; I needed money for college and the Army offered me that. College provided me access to a degree in journalism and an education in a few other fields, including philosophy and photography.

It was through journalism that I was exposed even more to agricultural operations. My job required me to ask questions and try to understand what farmers and ranchers were about if I was going to effectively communicate their message to my readers. It’s also where I gained a fascination for agriculture and what it takes to put the food I like to eat on my plate. Journalism also gave me great insights into politics, which likewise piqued an interest within me that I have to this day.

Over the years I’ve worked in and out of agriculture, writing for ag-based publications and for general circulation newspapers. Both genres, if you will, allowed me to discover interests and hone my ideals and beliefs. As my interest piqued in agriculture and politics, I was fortunate enough to be able to blend the two while working for a county Farm Bureau in California. Some of that work even included the opportunity to work  and talk with Paul Wenger as his participation and influence in Farm Bureau circles grew.

❦❦❦

Outsiders to agriculture have a unique perspective that insiders (farmers, ranchers and those directly related to them) may not, particularly if the outsider can develop an understanding for what goes on within farming and ranching. Moreover, the person who can see how other issues are connected to agriculture, the more informative that person can be if he or she also has the skills to communicate them. We see the good and the bad of the various situations and, while we might hold a strong belief in and respect for farmers and ranchers, and what they have to endure to harvest a crop or produce a commodity, we also enjoy the view from the vantage point of a consumer of those agricultural commodities.

While Wenger doesn’t come out and say it directly, I would like to think that he understands the need for allies (outsiders) from a whole host of areas not directly related to agriculture, and the need to educate them in a language that they can understand. These allies will become important as Farm Bureau develops and implements its plan, with the end result being the improvement of conditions that allow for a vibrant and successful agricultural economy, and the furthering of America’s ability to be agriculturally self-sufficient.

Related articles

• Farmers need better PR (conservativepoliticalblog.wordpress.com)
• Dairy Farmers Can’t Catch a Break from EPA (conservativepoliticalblog.wordpress.com)
• Ethanol’s ROI not just bad for MPG’s (conservativepoliticalblog.wordpress.com)

Problem solved: Just give us all your oil

So let me see if I’ve got this right: Women can’t drive in Saudi Arabia because it would otherwise cause them to lose their virginity and would cause the men there to become gay and like pornography. Hey, I don’t make this stuff up… I just read it in the media!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t some of the 9-11 attackers (I think some of them were Saudis) seen in topless bars here in America leading up to the attack on America? I guess all that doesn’t matter now since the attackers died for Allah and were each “rewarded” with 72 virgins of their own! Yeah, right.

It all makes sense though. We let women drive here in America and we have homosexuals and people addicted to pornography here, so it must be true. Right?

I’ve got a solution for the Saudis that I’d like to propose to the king:

Your Majesty

In the spirit of international cooperation, we in the United States would like to relieve you of the burden of people in your kingdom seeking permission to allow women to drive. The most effective way to accomplish this, in my humble opinion, would be to simply donate all of your vast oil supplies to the United States. Without oil, your country cannot power the vehicles that people drive there now, and you could avoid the embarrassment of the issue of women wanting to drive in your country.

Simply give us all your oil… our women already drive here and we’re obviously not going to be able to put that Jeannie back in the bottle here. In fact, you could probably say it’s all gone downhill for us ever since we gave women the right to vote with the 19th Amendment to our Constitution. Moreover, our women like to drive big SUV’s, which need more oil than the little cars that are more common in your kingdom.

We want to help. Therefore, please consider this request as in the best interest of both our countries. We get the oil we need to power our SUV’s, and you get to keep your women in their place.

That’s my idea… What do you think?

I cannot consume it unless American farmers produce it

What happens when houses replace our farmland? © Todd Fitchette

I am not a farmer.

I don’t pick it, pack it, plant it or pluck it.

I don’t grow it, graze it or raise it.

I don’t get up at 2 a.m. to feed it, milk it or turn on the water.

I don’t need a row to hoe or trees to top. I buy my water by the bottle, not by the acre foot.

My home office does not include a filing cabinet with documents, forms and letters to and from the USDA, EPA, regional water board, regional air board and the county ag commissioner. I don’t need to file pesticide reports, water usage reports or annual acreage reports. I don’t know any milk inspectors, OSHA inspectors or anyone from the state labor relations board.

I am an American consumer… I rely on the American farmer to do all these things and more so I can simply buy it, cook it and eat it.

America’s Christian heritage is evident: historical texts prove it

The idea that truth is somehow relative truly hurts my brain. Stick with me on this… It seems that in America today we can come up with “our own” truth, while our neighbors can somehow come up with a different truth simply because they are, well, different than us. While we’re certainly “free” to come up with our own ideas of the truth, logically, and philosophically, it makes no sense at all.

Take the founding of America for instance. Truth be known, most of those who spilled blood and sweat to found this great nation had as their guide the Creator of Heaven and Earth. And that Creator, Jesus Christ, called Himself in John 14:6 “the way, the truth, and the life.” (Emphasis added) According to Josh McDowell, that statement alone implies that Jesus Christ was either a colossal liar (He knew He wasn’t God, but perpetuated a myth anyway), a lunatic who didn’t realize He was crazy, or the Lord He claimed to be. There are no other logical options. McDowell’s book “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” dispels in great detail the notions that Christ was a liar or a lunatic.

In many of the founding documents and historical writings surrounding the founding of America you see a direct reference to God. Implied in this is the same God who parted the Red Sea and told Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the grains of sand on the sea shore. You don’t have to believe me, just read the preambles to the various state constitutions or the Declaration of Independence itself to see direct reference to God in our historical founding documents.

In its historical context, the Old Testament is an excellent illustration of how the success of nations is wholly dependent upon how those nations respond to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Follow God’s laws and seek His guidance and nations succeed. Trash those laws and dismiss God altogether and nations fail. It’s that simple and history proves it.

Noted American historian David Barton’s Wallbuilders website has a plethora of information and links to more information that definitively points to America’s Christian heritage. But again, the great thing for both of us is you don’t have to take my word for it… go do an honest study of American history for yourself, starting with Barton’s site.

Related articles

• America’s Christian heritage censored? (toddfitchette.wordpress.com)
• America’s Judeo-Christian Roots are Bigger Than Texas (Guest Voice) (themoderatevoice.com)

Climate change is racist: Now that’s funny!

Image via Wikipedia

Now climate change is racist. That must mean that people like George Bush and Dick Cheney (you know, those “evil” white men) caused it for the express reason of inflicting as much damage as possible on American Indians. Pardon me while I pick myself up from the floor after my fit of hysterical laughter!

According to an article in the Farmington Daily Times, the hoax that is man-made global climate change is now responsible for a disproportionate impact on the sovereign Indian nations that dot the North American landscape. Hence, climate change is racist! The solution: charge American citizens (a separate sovereign nation) with the bill for the problem. That’s sort of like charging the United States for the pollution in Beijing, China.

But wait just a minute. Indian tribes in the Four Corners region of the United States burn a disproportionately large amount of coal during the winter months to heat the squalor in which their government leaders force them to live. We’ve all been told that burning coal is killing the planet: just ask Al Gore, who uses as much energy to heat and cool his compound as a small city. You see it every winter in towns like Shiprock, NM and Gallup, NM: vendors selling bags of coal on the Navajo Nation for personal home heating. You see the evidence of it pouring black from the stove pipes coming out of the trailers and small homes that dot the reservation.

Deep within the article is the notion that the US Government, via our own Congress, must appropriate money and send it to the sovereign Indian nations via the Bureau of Indian Affairs to do what the government of the sovereign Navajo Nation appears to not be doing, and that is, take care of its own citizens. After all, they’re a sovereign nation, right?

Related articles

• Al Gore Compares Climate Change Skeptics To 20th Century Racists (mediaite.com)
• Al Gore Compares Climate Change Skeptics To Civil Rights Era Racists (thenewspundit.com)
• Al Gore Compares Climate Change Skeptics To Civil Rights Era Racists (businessinsider.com)
• Gore on Climate Change and Racism (theroot.com)

Federal overspending made simple to understand

The following comes from David Barton at Wallbuilders. It puts the federal budget into numbers that are much easier to comprehend for those of us who don’t deal in millions, billions and trillions!

If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in debt on their credit card. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. That is a cut of $3000 per year. They are still going to overspend their income by $14,000 each year. So in another 10 years they will owe about ½ million dollars on their credit card.

These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we canunderstand.

Here’s another one that was published on The Wall and Broad Report:

The USA Has NO BUDGET since OBAMA has Become President!!!

The U.S. Congress sets a federal budget every year in the trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is so federal spending needs to be broken into simple terms to be understood.

Let’s put the 2011 federal budget into perspective:

• U.S.income: $2,170,000,000,000
• Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)

It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to. Therefore, let’s remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Jones family.

• Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700
• Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200
• Amount of new debt added to their high-interest credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710

Because the Jones’ realized they’re in trouble, they decided to become responsible and cut their spending. After a lot of posturing and wrangling, they agreed to cut a whopping $385 from their budget.

Either way we’re in a heap ‘o big trouble in America and our elected representatives — OUR EMPLOYEES — are committing malfeasance on a daily basis and we the people seem to be powerless to stop it. Well, we’re not!

U.S. call for Assad to leave could be rewritten for America

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech today calling on Syrian President Assad to step aside for the sake of his people and democracy.

After hearing her on television then reading her speech online I was struck by how, with just a few word changes, this same speech could be given in response to the current American regime that continues to destroy the hopes, aspirations and wealth of millions of Americans. I took the liberty of editing the first and last paragraphs of Clinton’s statement and have included them here. For editing sake, I struck out the words used by Secretary Clinton and underlined the added words for the proposed text:

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning. For months, the world has borne witness to the Asad Obama regime’s contempt for its own people. In peaceful demonstrations across the nation, Syrians Americans are demanding their universal human rights. The regime has answered their demands with empty promises and horrific violence, name-calling, and the elimination of vast amounts of private wealth. torturing opposition leaders, laying siege to cities, slaughtering thousands of unarmed civilians, including children. (Not yet, at least)

The people of Syria the United States deserve a government that respects their dignity, protects their rights, and lives up to their aspirations. Asad Obama is standing in their way. For the sake of the Syrian American people, the time has come for him to step aside and leave this transition to the Syrians Americans themselves, and that is what we will continue to work to achieve.

Her entire speech can be found here.

Related articles

• ‘It’s time for Asad to get out of the way’ (thehill.com)
• Harper, Obama call on Assad to step down (windsorstar.com)
• Obama Supports Muslim Brotherhood Takeover of Syria (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
• Obama tells Assad to ‘step aside’ (jta.org)