Here’s a very worthwhile video of Dennis Prager speaking at the Reagan Forum on May 1 this year:
Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
Turning “Follow the Money” into Heroic Leadership. Obama on Gay Marriage.
10
May
How is Time considered credible to anyone with garbage like this?
They say the arc of history bends toward justice.
Who says it? Who are you quoting, or rather, misquoting? It was the Republican Baptist Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. who made this quote by Theodore Parker famous. Parker, it seems, was referring to the end of slavery, a world wide immorality that characterized the entire world until movements of Christians in England and Republicans in the US changed everything. King would respond to the question of how long it would be until equal rights with “Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
So “Toure” starts by framing the argument on MLK’s belief that denial of people’s Declaration rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) would end, but misquotes King to remove the absolute morality (inserted “history” and removed “moral universe”), which was the basis of King’s statement.
If that’s true then as a nation we’re having a hard time bending on the issue of gay rights.
Ok… If the arc of history bends toward justice, we’re having a hard time bending on one issue. So if the arc of history doesn’t bend toward justice, then we’re not having a hard time bending on this issue? We’re only at sentence 2 and the writer’s ability to construct sentences is already in question.
“gay rights.”
This is a curious phrase to apply to a discussion of marriage. My marriage is a marriage and would be regardless of whether the state recognized it. People were married before the government granted marriage licenses, thus it doesn’t seem that the government’s distribution of certificates actually affects marriage.
What are rights, anyway? Looking back to the founding documents, we see rights to life and liberty, to speech, gun ownership, the press, etc.
- The Right fights for the right to life, even for unborn humans and people in comas. The Left seeks death in both cases.
- The Right fights for the right to liberty (to do what one wishes with one’s self and the product of one’s labor without infringing on these same rights of others) by pushing for less regulation and lower taxation. The Left believes the government can decide what to do with you (Obamacare) and your stuff (taxation and redistribution of wealth) better than you.
- The Right fights for the right to the pursuit of happiness through pushing for private property ownership and less regulation. The left fights against this, believing you are too dumb to pursue happiness and can’t be trusted with tough choices such as what food to eat and what snacks your kids can buy.
- The Right fights for the right to free speech and press by pushing back against Leftist policies like the fairness doctrine.
- The Right fights for the right to bear arms. The Left consistently seeks to limit this right.
- The Right fights for the free exercise of religion by working to preserve people’s ability to live out their religious beliefs. The Left has made it illegal to do so in many situations and with Obamacare are working to force religious hospitals and other businesses to either cease exercising their religion or cease providing health care.
Rights are consistently defended by conservatives, and consistently assaulted by progressives. Apparently they’re just seeking progress in taking away your rights.
But this week will be remembered as an historic turning point because President Obama threw political caution to the wind and came out as the man who can put principle over politics in announcing his support for marriage equality. “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Robin Roberts in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday.
After Joe Biden came out of the closet as a gay marriage supporter, news broke that several big dollar donors would stop supporting Obama unless he changed his position to support the same. That’s what the article’s author means when he “threw political caution to the wind and came out as the man who can put principle over politics” : He did what would get him more money. Wow. Caution to the wind, principle over politics. Reversing positions to get more money. That’s inspiring! It’s heroic!
With Obama’s declaration that he “personally” thinks one thing, and publicly thinks the opposite, believing the federal government should stay out of it, we have clarity: instead of still trying to hold both sides on the issue, he’s… trying to hold both sides on the issue. So, with his public policy as the president remaining exactly the same, what’s changed?
- Obama’s earliest record on the issue was in 1996, when he answered questions, in writing declaring “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages” as he ran for Illinois Senate.
- In 2008 he spoke on stage with Rick Warren, saying “For me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union… God’s in the mix”
The only change here is that Obama’s temporary pro-traditional-marriage position was picked up when it would benefit his running for office to claim Christian values, and dropped when politically expedient as a fundraising effort for re-election.
The “Toure” article goes on to get facts wrong, contradict itself, and commit most logical fallacies you could name. If you enjoy pain, you can read the entire article. It’s disappointing that this type of poorly written inflammation of an article is considered reputable and worthwhile, but I’m not a leftist, so I’m not calling on people to destroy him and his employment as he has done with Rush Limbaugh.
Dumping Starbucks
08
May
As a frequent customer and shareholder, I emailed Starbucks last week questioning information I had seen at DumpStarbucks.com , which claims that Starbucks is using their profits to lobby government to re-define marriage. Here’s the correspondence.
My wife and I frequent this Starbucks and several others. We are also shareholders. I’m at one location now and just saw a link to the “Dump Starbucks” website which reads in part:
On January 24th, 2012, Starbucks issued a memorandum declaring that same-sex marriage 'is core to who we are and what we value as a company.Starbucks also used its resources to participate in a legal case seeking to overturn a federal law declaring marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
We are very conscious of where our money goes and we do not support the overturning of laws in the pursuit of redefining millennia-old religious terminology. Is this information accurate? Is every purchase and every stock buy we make a contribution toward efforts to work against some of our core beliefs?
Thank you,
[SecondJon]
I received a response from Victor at Starbucks Customer Service:
Hello,Thank you for contacting Starbucks.At Starbucks, we deeply respect the views of our customers and partners (employees) and recognize that there is genuine passion surrounding this topic. Starbucks has many constituents, and from time to time we will make decisions that are consistent with our values and heritage but may be inconsistent with the views of a particular group.
From our very earliest days, Starbucks has strived to create a company culture that puts our people first and treats everyone equitably. Our company has a lengthy history of leading on and supporting policies that promote equality and inclusion, and we are proud to be one of several leading Northwest employers that support of Washington State legislation recognizing marriage equality. We made this decision through the lens of humanity and our commitment to embracing diversity.
We have 200,000 people that work for Starbucks around the world and the equity of our brand has been defined by the relationship we have with our partners and the relationship they have with our customers. Put simply, the success we’ve enjoyed and the resulting shareholder value created are directly linked to the pride our partners have for the company they work for and their connection with the communities we serve.
If you have any further questions or concerns that I was unable to address, please feel free to let me know.
Sincerely,
Victor
customer service
2 points:
Victor wrote that “…the success we’ve enjoyed and the resulting shareholder value created” are because of things like lobbying to redefine marriage. If that were the case, why isn’t there a big sign by the register of every Starbucks declaring they’re opposed to the traditional definition of marriage, that “money from every purchase is used to lobby government to redefine marriage?” Because it’s a lie. They benefit only because they hide their activities and hide behind ambiguity.
“Recognizing marriage equality” sounds nice, but also very ambiguous. As G. K. Chesterton wrote in Eugenics and Other Evils (a book I recommend, available online free), “evil always takes advantage of ambiguity,” so I followed up with an email seeking clarity:
Hello Victor,
Thanks for your response. As a frequent purchaser of products and a shareholder, I’m writing back for clarification, recognizing the power of the money I have invested in Starbucks.
What do you mean by “marriage equality”? My understanding is that currently any man and any woman can get married. The restrictions aren’t based on anything except 1) only 2 people and 2) a man and a woman.
There have historically been efforts to redefine marriage to change the legal marrying age, allow polygamy, or even change from gender restriction to discrimination based on sexual orientation, something like “2 same-sex people can be married, but only if they have sex with each other,” seemingly replacing the gender restriction with a sexual orientation or sexual activity restriction.
I’m guessing you aren’t the one who came up with the policy or the one who decided the rational of Starbucks’ using of my investment money to support the policy, but can you give some clarity of what the policy is that is being supported?
Thanks,
[SecondJon],
Customer and Shareholder
This is the crux of the issue in my mind. Currently, marriage is not defined as “a contract a man and a woman who love each other,” nor as “A man and a woman who have sex.” Both of those situations are plentiful outside of marriage. Legally, marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, recognized and encouraged through some limited benefits, such as additional tax filing options, because since Aristotle philosophers and politicians have seen the importance of strong family units. Certainly our perspective of what makes a family is changing.
Perhaps in reaction to their own parents not living out their marriage commitment, increasing numbers of couples are living together, having and raising children together without ever sealing the relationship with the commitment of a marriage certificate; others have a slightly more sophisticated gang mentality, where they see their group of friends as their family. Obama’s re-election campaign, with their Life of Julia, family is defined as one’s self and the government. As Debra J. Saunders, in the San Fransisco Chronicle, pointed out:
Until her son goes to kindergarten, Julia’s cartoon world does not depict any males, except one, as shown in this quote: “Under President Obama: Julia decides to have a child.”
What’s the goal of re-defining the family away from the natural father-mother-children unit? That’s a long and depressing story. For today, my point is just that it’s happening.
Anyway, Starbucks replied:
Hello,
Thank you for contacting Starbucks.
From the current perspective we are using, we are classifying marriage equality as involving 2 consenting adults.Thanks again for writing us. If you ever have any questions or concerns in the future, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
Sincerely,
Nicholas
customer service
2 consenting adults? Starbucks is lobbying for incest? That’s weird.
Of course they aren’t lobbying for incest. They’re just continuing to be ambiguous.
People cry out “discrimination!” when traditional marriage is upheld, because marriage is defined as:
A commitment of certain things between a man and a women.
What’s the discrimination? There’s nothing in the definition of marriage that explores or restricts based on sexual orientation; there’s nothing in the definition of marriage that restricts based on anything other than gender. One man, one woman. They may not love each other, they may not ever sleep together. The only discrimination is the declaration:
men and women are different.
Why does this drive the Left crazy?
Efforts to re-define marriage are seeking a sort of definition like:
Marriage is a commitment between any two “consenting adults” as long as they have government-approved sexual behavior.
It’s strange. 2 siblings who want the financial benefits of marriage can’t get married if they’re heterosexual. But they could have the financial benefits if they’re homosexual.
Efforts to redefine marriage in favor of gay marriage introduce never before seen discrimination into the definition of marriage.
Efforts to redefine marriage in favor of gay marriage also seek to declare by fiat that these relationships are as beneficial to society as traditional marriage, without any historical reference.
There are so many things we like about Starbucks: the atmosphere; the employees; the employee benefits; double blended java chip frappuccinos with an added pump of white mocha. Unfortunately, they’re using the money we give as customers and shareholders to add to the effort to weaken marriage, the foundation of society as Aristotle pointed out. They say we should be okay with it because our shares have increased in value.
I’m sure many people can be bought that easily. But not us. We’ve stopped spending at Starbucks unless we need to meet with someone there, and we’re selling our shares.
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:
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 percent — and … entirely 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.
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.
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
“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:
- 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.
- 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.
Ron Paul’s Self-Defeating Narrative
21
Dec
There is power in story. Narrative conveys truth and is a powerful persuader. With nearly every detail of his real life locked away, Barack Obama became the President in large part because of the created narrative – he is the smartest man in America (who said there were 57 states); his primary nomination meant the sea levels would change; he won a Nobel peace prize (though never did anything to earn it).
As we near the Iowa Caucus, Ron Paul is looking to win. (This is in large part because of Obama supporters switching parties just to vote Ron Paul in the Republican Primary then support Obama in the general.) Ron Paul also has a powerful narrative. Most Ron Paul supporters are only capable of shouting:
RON PAUL TWENTY TWELVE!!!!!! RON PAUL TWENTY TWELVE!!!!!!
But the real narrative goes something like this:
Ron Paul alone stands as the libertarian messiah, much as Obama stood as the leftist messiah. In Ron alone can the country attain salvation. Ron alone has been standing against all other politicians regardless of party affiliation. RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!
Our lingering teenage angst and our desire to rage against the machine find a lone rebel appealing. Yet a few aspects of this are troubling. Here’s the first:
What has the man actually gotten done in all his years in Washington?
Ron Paul couldn’t get anything done, he’s just one guy, and the two party system is a crock – they’re all united against Ron Paul. RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!
And herein lies the problem. The guy has proven that he can’t accomplish anything. For decades. And that’s from his own campaign website. His supporters tell me he finally got a partial audit of the Federal Reserve. That’s great. Decades of being paid from taxpayer dollars, and he has one accomplishment? And a partial audit at that. He has never gathered a coalition. He has never convinced others to go along with something he wants to get done. The president needs to be someone who can get things done.
If his own narrative is correct, then everyone in government is against him. That means that all he can do is veto – but congress can overpower a veto with enough votes, and they’re all supposedly united against him.
If Ron Paul supporters are right about their candidate, he’s incapable of even advancing his own policies as President.
Bridge to nowhere, vote conservative
26
Nov
Near Wadsworth and Bowles in Littleton, Colorado, a bridge was built over a crosswalk.
The bridge connects Southwest Plaza mall, with its huge parking lot to a huge parking lot of a strip mall that is largely abandoned, save a Staples and a few other stores.
This unused and poorly planned structure carries a price tag in the millions for tax payers. On Black Friday, some people finally used the bridge – to protest it.
