Archive for February, 2012

Romney: I’m “entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God”

22 Feb

Who can still believe that Romney is a fiscal conservative?

Take 1:

YouTube Preview Image


you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus one percent — and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent — you have opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God. – Mitt Romney

This was a representation of those on the right who have a problem with the president speaking of Americans in classes of people, and pitting them against each other. Many conservatives lean toward a flat tax or a fair tax rather than the progressive tax that penalizes those who create wealth in order to redistribute their property to those who haven’t been creating wealth.

Obama had previously proposed in his “Jobs Bill” limiting deductions on the wealthiest Americans, which would result in fewer donations to charities, and would in effect be a war on non-government charities. The idea is consistent with Obama’s perspective that government is the answer to every problem. He’s simply working on putting charities out of business. First with the “Jobs Bill” reducing contributions, now restricting the exercise of religion on employers.

In addition to dividing Americans into classes, many conservatives object to the language of people paying their “fair share.” The questions are significant: Who decides my fair share? What is “fair”? Why is my “fair share” different than someone else’s? In America, do we even have shares to pay?

Take 2: Today Romney announced his newest tax plan: Drop everyone’s tax rates except for the 1%, who need to pay their fair share:

Romney said his plan to limit mortgage interest and charitable contributions deductions would not impact middle income families. Instead, he noted, he wants to “make sure the top 1 percent keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more.”

Romney’s plan is everything he criticizes in Obama: Dividing Americans, and picking and choosing who to penalize because they aren’t paying their Fair Share.

Romney simply declared today that he is ” encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus one percentandentirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God

We have a liberal, 2 conservatives, and a libertarian running for the Republican nomination. Gingrich continues to lose steam, but will make a great advocate for conservatism. Vote Santorum.


Romney Thuggery – Paying to Remove Santorum Signs

21 Feb

Breaking from Rebel Pundit,

In Michigan, Santorum supporters planted hundreds of campaign signs in Shelby Township prior to Mitt Romney’s appearance today.  Some of these signs were planted alongside sidewalks and roadways across from and surrounding the Romney campaign stop.  Approximately two hours before the scheduled event, Romney campaign staffers, including Dennis Lennox of Topinabee, MI, began planting Romney signs in front of the location.  Around the same time, several other people, who refused to identify themselves, began uprooting hundreds of Santorum signs along the roadway leading to the event.  Signs placed at a commercial intersection were also removed.

When asked to explain his actions, Santorum supporters were confronted with obscenities from one person removing signs.  He claimed to be unaffiliated with the Romney campaign.

One officer on the scene, Lou Francis, refused to assist in retrieving stolen campaign signs valued at over $1500.

YouTube Preview Image

First Romney bussed in college students supporting him to manipulate the vote at CPAC, now he’s paying thugs to remove Santorum signs. Haven’t we had enough of the political thuggery from Obama?

This all wreaks of desperation on Romney’s part, and makes him seem like a real dirt bag.

No Comments

Posted in Politics


Rick Santorum & Thomas Jefferson

16 Feb

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? ” – Thomas Jefferson

YouTube Preview Image

“The ‘why’ of America, who we are as a people, is the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” The constitution is there to do one thing: Protect God-given rights. That’s what makes America different than every other country in the world. No other country in the world has it’s rights based in God-given rights. Not government-given rights. And some people say, “Well, Faith has nothing to do with it.” Faith has everything to do with it. If our president believes that our rights come to us form the state, everything government gives you it can take away. The role of the government is to protect rights that cannot be taken away…. Understand where those rights come from, who we are as Americans, and the foundational principles by which we have changed the world.” – Rick Santorum


Contraception Switcharoo, or Pregnancy is a Disease

10 Feb

The President and Kathleen Sebelius, director of Health and Human Services, just announced a switcharoo.

Obama’s healthcare law declared that employers have to include contraception services on their insurance plans.  Obama and Sebelius just explained why: preventative treatment. Preventing a disease is cheaper than dealing with the consequences of the disease.

Yes, the Obama view is that pregnancy and children are a disease to be prevented. This isn’t new, as he previously said that he didn’t want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” if they “made a mistake” and got pregnant.

The president just announced a change in how the law is implemented, so that insurance will pay for the cost, so religious institutions won’t have to.  Nothing changed. Nothing.

Contraception is still required to be available on every plan. Americans that provide health insurance policies to employees, are legally bound to be paying for a plan that provides contraceptive services, many of which are abortive in nature.

Obama’s announcement of who pays for it changes nothing, for 2 reasons:

  1. Like all companies (think oil companies, banks, etc.), insurance companies’ costs are paid for by consumers. If the cost of providing insurance increases, premiums have to increase in order to pay for the costs.
  2. Sebelius, on an interview immediately following the press conference, said that offering contraceptives has no cost associated with it. That is, the insurance company won’t have to pay any increased costs.

This means that nothing at all has changed about employers having to pay for contraception. Nothing has changed, in our government’s pursuit of preventing the disease known as children.

No Comments

Posted in Politics


Book Burning and The Importance of Reading Old Books

09 Feb

For a few years I’ve led a men’s book club called Book Burning. We have alternated between living and dead authors, fiction and non-fiction for variety, but also under the influence of CS Lewis, who wrote about the importance of reading old books in the introduction to On the Incarnation By Athanasius, our February 2012 book:

here is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about “isms” and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.
    This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler, but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself.
    Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o’clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why—the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity (“mere Christianity” as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.
    Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, “But how could they have thought that?”—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.

No Comments

Posted in Books