In case you do not know, Tod Aiken is the Missouri congressman who is challenging Claire McCaskill for her senate seat in that state. This past week in a radio interview Mr. Aiken said that the female body has a way to shut down during a rape, preventing conception from occurring. This theory was first proffered by an associate of Planned Parenthood back in the early 1970s. It is, of course, completely without scientific or medical merit of any kind. Mr. Aiken apologized and said he was wrong, but that didn't stop a parade of Republicans and Conservatives from calling for Mr. Aiken to leave the senate race and allow someone else to challenge the embattled Ms. McCaskill.
I think that Congressman Aiken should step aside and remove this unwanted distraction from this November's election. The very fabric of our republic is in jeopardy, and no one man is above the importance of the larger goal of shrinking government and reinforcing individual liberty.
If I may be so presumptive as to articulate what I think was Mr. Aiken's larger point; there has never been and will never be a case of incest or rape where the guilt for the despicable act lies with the child that is the result of it. Aborting the life of a baby because its conception was the result of incest or rape is analogous to executing the child of a murderer. The only exception I would make for ending the life of a baby is when there is no other way to save the life of the mother.
My pro-life beliefs are based in morality and science. A fertilized egg in a woman's womb fulfills the biological definition of life. And that life, if left to grow, will always create a human being. And now with what we know about DNA, that life in the womb has a different DNA signature than that of the mother. That makes it a unique human life. It is not, as the pro-abortion crowd would have us believe, just another part of a woman's body. The fetus within her, as a unique human being, has all the rights and protections that we have.
I think if Mr. Aiken had said that an unborn child deserves protection no matter the circumstance of its conception, he would have been factually correct and would have garnered the support of those on the right. He still would have faced a firestorm from the left, but that will happen to any Conservative who is expressing their beliefs. The sin that Mr. Aiken committed is one which those on the left commit on a daily basis, i.e., using fraudulent science and unsubstantiated statements in order to advance an agenda.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Romney Just Sealed Obama's Fate
In the run-up to Mitt Romney's selection of a running mate, the Obama campaign (including his super pacs of CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times, et., al.) was holding its collective breath hoping for Tim Pawlenty or Rob Portman. Conservatives were holding their breath hoping the choice would not be someone like the aforementioned gentleman. Not that there is anything wrong with the two men I mentioned, both are competent and well-spoken. It's just that neither of these two men compliment Mitt Romney, they match him. And with an economy on the brink of another recession and the Federal fiscal house in danger of sliding over a cliff, the country needs a bold economic plan that will right the ship. That plan is the Ryan budget, and who better to explain it on the campaign trail and implement it as part of the Romney Administration, than Paul Ryan himself.
I had heard of Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Budget Committee, several years ago, but really became a fan in 2009. The newly elected President Obama had a health care meeting with Republicans (back in the day when the President at least pretended to work with the other side, now he refuses to even talk to them at all). In that meeting Paul Ryan demonstrated that he knew more about the President's health care plan than he did himself and made the President look very foolish. But in that moment I realized that Paul Ryan, in the words of Bob Dylan, knows his song well before he starts singing. He insures that he knows everything about a subject before he opens his mouth, unlike our current Vice-President and President for that matter.
No matter how much the Obama campaign tries to divert the voters' attention away from his failed policies which have given us record debt and unemployment, the election is going to be decided on economic prowess. Both Mitt Romney, and now his VP, have demonstrated throughout their careers to have the budgetary and economic skills necessary to lead the country to prosperity. President Obama has failed spectacularly at this task.
Paul Ryan not only brings his desperately needed budget plan to the table, but he possess that rare talent to be able to unapologetically articulate Conservative principles. In very understandable language he is able to inculcate in people the logic and rationale of Conservative principles and why they work every time they are tried. I applaud Mitt Romney for thinking outside the box in making his VP choice, and after he wins the election in November, this will be seen as one of the defining moments of the campaign. I also look forward to watching Paul Ryan debate the hapless and feckless Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate. The true validation of Mitt Romeny's pick of Paul Ryan will come from the left in the following weeks and months before the election. They will try to convince Conservatives what a bad choice Ryan was and will spew lies, half-truths and slander in an effort to poison the voters against him. The more they attack him, the more it will convince me of the ineffable wisdom of Mitt Romney's choice. Someone oughta tell the Obamas to start packing now.
I had heard of Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Budget Committee, several years ago, but really became a fan in 2009. The newly elected President Obama had a health care meeting with Republicans (back in the day when the President at least pretended to work with the other side, now he refuses to even talk to them at all). In that meeting Paul Ryan demonstrated that he knew more about the President's health care plan than he did himself and made the President look very foolish. But in that moment I realized that Paul Ryan, in the words of Bob Dylan, knows his song well before he starts singing. He insures that he knows everything about a subject before he opens his mouth, unlike our current Vice-President and President for that matter.
No matter how much the Obama campaign tries to divert the voters' attention away from his failed policies which have given us record debt and unemployment, the election is going to be decided on economic prowess. Both Mitt Romney, and now his VP, have demonstrated throughout their careers to have the budgetary and economic skills necessary to lead the country to prosperity. President Obama has failed spectacularly at this task.
Paul Ryan not only brings his desperately needed budget plan to the table, but he possess that rare talent to be able to unapologetically articulate Conservative principles. In very understandable language he is able to inculcate in people the logic and rationale of Conservative principles and why they work every time they are tried. I applaud Mitt Romney for thinking outside the box in making his VP choice, and after he wins the election in November, this will be seen as one of the defining moments of the campaign. I also look forward to watching Paul Ryan debate the hapless and feckless Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate. The true validation of Mitt Romeny's pick of Paul Ryan will come from the left in the following weeks and months before the election. They will try to convince Conservatives what a bad choice Ryan was and will spew lies, half-truths and slander in an effort to poison the voters against him. The more they attack him, the more it will convince me of the ineffable wisdom of Mitt Romney's choice. Someone oughta tell the Obamas to start packing now.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Chick-Fil-A, Liberal Intolerance and a Priest Named Francesco
As I stood in line at my local Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday to show my support for Dan Cathy and his company, I thought about the complete intolerance of those on the left. When Mr. Cathy expressed his belief in traditional marriage on a Baptist radio program, the left called it hate-speech. Mr. Cathy was speaking for himself and did not demonize homosexuals. But the left did not afford him the same respect for having an opinion that differed from their own. This kind of intolerance has become the cornerstone of modern-day Liberalism. This intolerance is illustrated every day by the vile and despicable manner in which Democrat politicians and the Liberal media treat Sarah Palin, Clarence Thomas and most Conservatives who have the audacity to express an opinion that is contrary to Liberal talking points. This kind of demonization of their opposition has been increasing over the last 30 years, mainly because the left cannot support their positions with substantive arguments. It's one of the most important rules in Rules For Radicals by Sol Olinsky, President Obama's favorite book. Instead of debating their opposition, they merely criminalize their opinions and try to isolate them from the mainstream of political discourse.
This Liberal intolerance is further evidenced by the man who called himself Adam Smith. "Mr. Smith" went through the drive-thru at a Chick-Fil-A and in a not too clever attempt to make a point about the hate he perceived the company to be spreading, harassed the girl at the window and spewed his own brand of leftist hatred. Then he made a point of saying that he wasn't gay, as if he would have been embarrassed by that. Therein lies the difference between Conservatives and Liberals. As Conservatives we use intelligence guided by experience to illustrate how the left is wrong. Liberals on the other hand, say that Conservatives are evil and hateful for having a differing opinion from theirs. This demonization is all that is available to people who don't have substantive arguments to bring to the arena of ideas.
As a boy I was friends with an Italian Priest name Francesco. I don't know what was his political ideology, but he said something which started me thinking about how the free market works for the good of all involved. He said that if someone makes a god product that people want to buy, the person's ideology doesn't detract from the quality of that product. This is the core morality of capitalism, someone provides a product or service at a price that others are willing to pay and a transaction occurs. The market will weed out bad actors because people won't buy their goods and services if they are not perceived to be a good value by the potential customer. Very little government involvement is needed for this to happen.
In the marketplace of ideas, the Liberal product cannot compete so they must coerce people to "buy" it. This is why unions have to force people to join and how Obamacare was passed with over 60 percent of the American people to this day being desirous of its repeal. Chick-Fil-A has extolled the same values since its founding almost 70 years ago. If they were so hateful and out of the mainstream, their business would not have been so successful. "Adam Smith" on the other hand has found himself unemployed due to his harassment of a Chick-Fil-A employee who was only trying to serve him. But I am sure that Dan Cathy would not hold it against him and probably would give him a job in one of his restaurants.
This Liberal intolerance is further evidenced by the man who called himself Adam Smith. "Mr. Smith" went through the drive-thru at a Chick-Fil-A and in a not too clever attempt to make a point about the hate he perceived the company to be spreading, harassed the girl at the window and spewed his own brand of leftist hatred. Then he made a point of saying that he wasn't gay, as if he would have been embarrassed by that. Therein lies the difference between Conservatives and Liberals. As Conservatives we use intelligence guided by experience to illustrate how the left is wrong. Liberals on the other hand, say that Conservatives are evil and hateful for having a differing opinion from theirs. This demonization is all that is available to people who don't have substantive arguments to bring to the arena of ideas.
As a boy I was friends with an Italian Priest name Francesco. I don't know what was his political ideology, but he said something which started me thinking about how the free market works for the good of all involved. He said that if someone makes a god product that people want to buy, the person's ideology doesn't detract from the quality of that product. This is the core morality of capitalism, someone provides a product or service at a price that others are willing to pay and a transaction occurs. The market will weed out bad actors because people won't buy their goods and services if they are not perceived to be a good value by the potential customer. Very little government involvement is needed for this to happen.
In the marketplace of ideas, the Liberal product cannot compete so they must coerce people to "buy" it. This is why unions have to force people to join and how Obamacare was passed with over 60 percent of the American people to this day being desirous of its repeal. Chick-Fil-A has extolled the same values since its founding almost 70 years ago. If they were so hateful and out of the mainstream, their business would not have been so successful. "Adam Smith" on the other hand has found himself unemployed due to his harassment of a Chick-Fil-A employee who was only trying to serve him. But I am sure that Dan Cathy would not hold it against him and probably would give him a job in one of his restaurants.
Obama's Success is Our Failure
Shortly after President Obama was inaugurated, Rush Limbaugh said, "I hope he fails." He took quite alot of heat for that statement, but he knew that the way in which Barrack Obama wanted to transform the country meant less wealth and more economic hardship for everyone. And now with almost 6 trillion dollars added to the national debt in just under four years, an unemployment rate that has stayed above eight percent for more months than at any other time in our history, with GDP growth well under two percent when the post-WWII average is 3.2 percent and with 3 million fewer people working than when the President took office, President Obama says his plan has worked. This unbelievable statement was recently uttered by the President on the heels of his comments in Roanoke, Virginia in which he made his now famous statement that entrepreneurs didn't build their own businesses.
But I'd like to focus on the President's recent statement that his plan has worked. I think when one looks at the economic data and the malaise that has resulted from it, the only logical conclusion is that this is what the President thinks of as success. And therein lies the worst policy that President Obama has saddled this nation with, the policy of hopelessness. Because, if Barrack Obama and his defenders are saying that the current economic state is the best we can achieve, that is in deed a very dark picture for the future.
This past week was the hundredth anniversary of the Milton Friedman's birth. Milton Friedman was one of the most brilliant economic minds of recent history. Mr. Friedman once asked the rhetorical question, "Is it somehow more honorable to work in one's political self-interest as opposed to one's economic self-interest?" This statement is supported by thousands of years of history. Simply stated, the bigger a government grows the more impoverished a nation becomes. There are no examples in history where this is not the case. It wasn't the government which made the United States a great nation that was able to advance the human condition more than any other in history, it was individual liberty that allowed people to work in their own economic self-interest which created opportunity for other people. It is individual freedom which allows for advancements in medicine, technology and industry to thrive. I have outlined above the harvest we have reaped as a result of President Obama and others working in their own political self-interest. Which do you prefer?
We are now three months away from the most important election in any of our lifetimes. This election is a choice between a big government top down approach where bureaucrats dole out entitlements to an ever dependant population or a limited government approach where the free market can bring the most prosperity to the greatest number of people. We have seen what comes from President Obama's success, I hope the majority of my countrymen will hand him the failure that Rush Limbaugh talked about almost four years ago.
But I'd like to focus on the President's recent statement that his plan has worked. I think when one looks at the economic data and the malaise that has resulted from it, the only logical conclusion is that this is what the President thinks of as success. And therein lies the worst policy that President Obama has saddled this nation with, the policy of hopelessness. Because, if Barrack Obama and his defenders are saying that the current economic state is the best we can achieve, that is in deed a very dark picture for the future.
This past week was the hundredth anniversary of the Milton Friedman's birth. Milton Friedman was one of the most brilliant economic minds of recent history. Mr. Friedman once asked the rhetorical question, "Is it somehow more honorable to work in one's political self-interest as opposed to one's economic self-interest?" This statement is supported by thousands of years of history. Simply stated, the bigger a government grows the more impoverished a nation becomes. There are no examples in history where this is not the case. It wasn't the government which made the United States a great nation that was able to advance the human condition more than any other in history, it was individual liberty that allowed people to work in their own economic self-interest which created opportunity for other people. It is individual freedom which allows for advancements in medicine, technology and industry to thrive. I have outlined above the harvest we have reaped as a result of President Obama and others working in their own political self-interest. Which do you prefer?
We are now three months away from the most important election in any of our lifetimes. This election is a choice between a big government top down approach where bureaucrats dole out entitlements to an ever dependant population or a limited government approach where the free market can bring the most prosperity to the greatest number of people. We have seen what comes from President Obama's success, I hope the majority of my countrymen will hand him the failure that Rush Limbaugh talked about almost four years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)