Interestingly, every five years or so, the calendar repeats itself day for day. June 21, 2012 falls on a Thursday just as it did in 2007. Every so often, I like to look back over some old columns I wrote and see what the topic of the week was. The more things change, the more they stay the same sometimes.
Five years ago, Selma was dealing with an upheaval and restructuring in its fire department. There were some ungrateful, selfish, and childish individuals that did not want to relinquish their good old boy system, being opposed by some people who wanted to reform the old system for the benefit of and accountability to the town. I would say that five years later, Chief Phillip McDaniel seems to have done a stellar job with what he has to work with in Selma. There seems to have been an improvement in response and in our ISO rating. I have heard no major rumblings about the department other than seeking to raise the fire tax in the unincorporated areas served by the department.
The crux of that column was about maintaining rational thought rather than being blindly ruled by emotions. Ironically enough, I dealt with that concept a bit just within the last few weeks.
Five years ago, gun control legislation, backed by the occasionally spineless National Rifle Association, was being rammed through Congress under the guise of providing better background checks for gun purchasers. Holy flaming dog poo! I just dealt with that same sort of topic two weeks ago. Gun control is a constant battle. Freedom lovers have to be vigilant in order to keep resisting this incessant nuisance. We have to say, “No, No, No, No” every single time it comes up. If we say, “Yes” just once, we have lost that freedom, most likely forever.
Five years ago, school funding was a battle of irrational fear versus level headed common sense. Wouldn’t you know it? I dealt with that some just last week. The subject of taxing internet gaming establishments for the purposes of school funding came up, “for the children” and the emotional hype that comes with educational claims of need. Freedom hating liberals are going to try to fund school systems in which we attempt to prepare students to enter the world with ethics and fairness with unfair taxation upon what some consider to be a vice. The problem is that once the government claims to despise an activity such as gambling and attempts to eradicate it but instead taxes it as a vice, it becomes dependent upon its very existence for a revenue stream. It is the same paradox that exists with taxing tobacco to fund public health care systems. Legislators want to curb a behavior by taxing it. That taxation works somewhat to discourage the behavior, which drops tax revenue, so they raise the tax rate to raise revenue. It is a vicious circle.
Five years ago, the Congress of the United States was attempting to mandate insurance companies include prescription drug benefits for RU-486, often called the abortion pill. Just recently, we have seen the Obama Administration unilaterally require insurance companies to provide birth control pills at no cost to subscribers, even if it violates the conscience or religious values of plan administrators, employers, and benefit providers. Again, the constant “NO” vigilance is required in order to preserve our freedom from government incursion and usurpation.
Five years ago, the county was being asked to fund a private therapeutic horse riding center. This is a classic case of “just because it is a good idea does not mean it is something we should be doing with public funding”. Just within the past few months, the Selma Town Council had to take some tough decisions on whether or not to continue using public funds for charities. I realize that these charitable line items in the budget have traditionally not been huge, and there is actually some benefit to the people being served by the agencies. However, the Council had to consider whether or not it was appropriate to spend taxpayer funds on nice endeavors.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Friday, June 22, 2012
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Column for March 17, 2011
While writing this column, I have been thinking a lot about life and death. I have three family members who’ve had cancer scares this week alone. I am writing this on a Friday afternoon. After I finish writing, we will be packing to head to Florida for the funeral of my cousin’s husband, who died of cancer last week. On top of that, the big news lately has been the earthquake in Japan that has killed hundreds of people and sent a tsunami that has also killed hundreds thus far.
After writing the column I did last week about proposed legislation on abortion and miscarriage, the wife and I have been talking about life, about family, and about where we would like to go with both. I do hold life sacred, and lament its loss. I will be doing so with my cousin within 24 hours of my typing this and I am heavy hearted for the Japanese people killed in a huge earthquake. I lament the loss of so many babies to abortion and natural causes, which believe it or not, did not sit well with some people.
People from all over the country and sometimes the world read my columns, since I also publish them on the internet, but only after they have been published in print here, first. I have gotten some hate mail from internet readers already about last week’s column. I was informed that it is hypocritical of me to be supportive of “making abortion illegal but then offering little to no aid to mothers who have need to financial aid/public aid...people who are pro-life and want children to be born regardless of circumstance should be pro-welfare, too.”
My retort is “that it is not the purpose of government to provide your food, your housing, or your health care. A government that can provide your means can and should therefore be able to dictate your procreation activity limitations. It is in no way incongruous to say you are not allowed to kill a baby but then not supply you the means by which to raise a baby. There are plenty of adoptive parents waiting in line to have a baby (the discussion of adopting has just recently been ongoing in our own home). Why is it the responsibility of the populace to provide financial aid to a woman who did not exercise proper judgment, restraint, or birth control methods? Her decision as to whether or not to accept the responsibility of parenthood was taken the moment she opened her legs to a man. It is not hypocrisy to tell an individual to accept personal responsibility for their actions and procreative activity. Nor is it hypocrisy to tell a woman that either she takes care of her own offspring or allow someone else to love, care for, and raise that child.”
While Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura was confronted by a single mother. She screamed at him about how she was left with children and bills by a man who decided he no longer wanted to support her or her children. She demanded to know what he was going to do for her in terms of college tuition so that she could get a college degree at taxpayer expense and a new job. I sympathize with her, I truly do. I have family members who have had the same situation, whether because of disability, divorce, or death. I am going to visit one such relative this weekend, as stated. Ventura’s answer to this woman was blunt and honest. I am probably slightly paraphrasing here, since I have searched extensively on the internet and have found neither the video nor the transcript of the exchange in question, but I remember watching it several years ago. Jesse said, “Why is it the government’s responsibility to take care of you and your children because you married a loser?” That seems harsh, but it is entirely correct.
Is life fair? Of course not. If it was, people who want to have babies would not have sterility issues or miscarriages while crack heads and high school girls still wouldn’t get pregnant or at least would not be able to slaughter their young. If life was fair, people wealthy enough to support dozens of children would not be sterile by either nature or choice, and the poverty stricken that don’t desire children would bear sterility, instead. Nevertheless, we have a God given responsibility to embrace life and provide for those under our charge.
After writing the column I did last week about proposed legislation on abortion and miscarriage, the wife and I have been talking about life, about family, and about where we would like to go with both. I do hold life sacred, and lament its loss. I will be doing so with my cousin within 24 hours of my typing this and I am heavy hearted for the Japanese people killed in a huge earthquake. I lament the loss of so many babies to abortion and natural causes, which believe it or not, did not sit well with some people.
People from all over the country and sometimes the world read my columns, since I also publish them on the internet, but only after they have been published in print here, first. I have gotten some hate mail from internet readers already about last week’s column. I was informed that it is hypocritical of me to be supportive of “making abortion illegal but then offering little to no aid to mothers who have need to financial aid/public aid...people who are pro-life and want children to be born regardless of circumstance should be pro-welfare, too.”
My retort is “that it is not the purpose of government to provide your food, your housing, or your health care. A government that can provide your means can and should therefore be able to dictate your procreation activity limitations. It is in no way incongruous to say you are not allowed to kill a baby but then not supply you the means by which to raise a baby. There are plenty of adoptive parents waiting in line to have a baby (the discussion of adopting has just recently been ongoing in our own home). Why is it the responsibility of the populace to provide financial aid to a woman who did not exercise proper judgment, restraint, or birth control methods? Her decision as to whether or not to accept the responsibility of parenthood was taken the moment she opened her legs to a man. It is not hypocrisy to tell an individual to accept personal responsibility for their actions and procreative activity. Nor is it hypocrisy to tell a woman that either she takes care of her own offspring or allow someone else to love, care for, and raise that child.”
While Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura was confronted by a single mother. She screamed at him about how she was left with children and bills by a man who decided he no longer wanted to support her or her children. She demanded to know what he was going to do for her in terms of college tuition so that she could get a college degree at taxpayer expense and a new job. I sympathize with her, I truly do. I have family members who have had the same situation, whether because of disability, divorce, or death. I am going to visit one such relative this weekend, as stated. Ventura’s answer to this woman was blunt and honest. I am probably slightly paraphrasing here, since I have searched extensively on the internet and have found neither the video nor the transcript of the exchange in question, but I remember watching it several years ago. Jesse said, “Why is it the government’s responsibility to take care of you and your children because you married a loser?” That seems harsh, but it is entirely correct.
Is life fair? Of course not. If it was, people who want to have babies would not have sterility issues or miscarriages while crack heads and high school girls still wouldn’t get pregnant or at least would not be able to slaughter their young. If life was fair, people wealthy enough to support dozens of children would not be sterile by either nature or choice, and the poverty stricken that don’t desire children would bear sterility, instead. Nevertheless, we have a God given responsibility to embrace life and provide for those under our charge.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Column for March 10, 2011
I recently read of a new bill introduced into the North Carolina General Assembly that would “punish those who commit violent crimes against unborn babies and their mothers.” The bill is called "The Unborn Victims Of Violence/Ethen's Law". Currently, there is no law creating a separate charge for harming or injuring a fetus when a pregnant woman is attacked and that attack results in the death or miscarriage of the baby. Obviously, one would find such an attack heinous. There are exceptions included for acts of abortion, stillbirths, and miscarriages.
I have long believed that abortion is an immoral act amounting to murder of the unborn. I did not always believe that, however. I made my share of mistakes when I was young and stupid. With a newly found Christian world view, I changed my perspective on the act twenty years ago. But even from a civil government perspective, I look at our founding documents and find things that would similarly persuade me. For instance, in our Declaration of Independence, I read “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.”
The “Life” portion is where I diverge from the Libertarian Party and most Democrats. I find it difficult to comprehend how anyone can believe in the sanctity of life, the right to life, or protection of the innocent while at the same time advocating a woman's right to wantonly commit infanticide. Regardless of how the pregnancy occurred, whether from negligence in employing birth control, or even cases of rape or incest, I firmly believe that the right to life trumps a woman's so-called right to choose. The ironic thing is that most (not all, but most) people I know that are “pro-choice” are against the death penalty. They are willing to slaughter the innocent for the sake of personal convenience but want to let the guilty live. Where is the logic in that?
From what I read about "The Unborn Victims Of Violence/Ethen's Law", it is better than the bill proposed by Republican Bobby Franklin of the Georgia State Legislature. He has introduced House Bill 1 that would “classify the removal of a fetus from a woman for any reason other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus as "prenatal murder." Mr. Franklin, like myself, finds abortion abhorrent. However, he goes way too far in his bill. Though he would not place criminal penalties upon natural, spontaneous fetal miscarriages, his bill would require the issuance a fetal death certificate for miscarriages that occur within medical facilities. Miscarriages that occur outside of a medical facility would require an investigation by the government.
Thankfully, this is not proposed in North Carolina, and I do not live in Georgia. As much as I support the choice for life, I would have some rather unpleasant words for Mr. Franklin if he was my representative. In the name of his Christian values, he wants to protect the unborn to such a degree that he wants parents to give account for their due diligence in protection of the fetus.
Franklin's bill states "The State of Georgia has the duty to protect all innocent life from the moment of conception until natural death". With that, I agree. However, to require a full investigation into any miscarriage that does not take place in a medical facility is intrusive and absurd. This is where it gets personal for me. My wife and I went through two miscarriages in 2010, one on June 1st at a medical facility, and one at home just this past Christmas Eve. It was heart wrenching enough for us both to endure in losing our children. The last thing we would want or need is a government official knocking on our door inquiring if we did all we possibly could to keep our embryo/fetus from being miscarried.
With a Christian world view, I realize that we live in a sin cursed world. Sickness, disease, and tragedies occur as a result. That is our inheritance here on Earth as a result of the fall of Adam. As a joint heir with Christ, I look forward to life eternal where there is no sickness, disease, or miscarriage. I don't like the fact that our earthly existence has such things with which we must contend, but that is life. I don't have all the answers, but I do know that I disagree strongly with my libertarian minded and even my Christian brethren when they go to the polar opposites of either allowing the wanton slaughter of the unborn on the one hand or highly intrusive and unnecessary measures to “protect” the unborn on the other.
I have long believed that abortion is an immoral act amounting to murder of the unborn. I did not always believe that, however. I made my share of mistakes when I was young and stupid. With a newly found Christian world view, I changed my perspective on the act twenty years ago. But even from a civil government perspective, I look at our founding documents and find things that would similarly persuade me. For instance, in our Declaration of Independence, I read “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.”
The “Life” portion is where I diverge from the Libertarian Party and most Democrats. I find it difficult to comprehend how anyone can believe in the sanctity of life, the right to life, or protection of the innocent while at the same time advocating a woman's right to wantonly commit infanticide. Regardless of how the pregnancy occurred, whether from negligence in employing birth control, or even cases of rape or incest, I firmly believe that the right to life trumps a woman's so-called right to choose. The ironic thing is that most (not all, but most) people I know that are “pro-choice” are against the death penalty. They are willing to slaughter the innocent for the sake of personal convenience but want to let the guilty live. Where is the logic in that?
From what I read about "The Unborn Victims Of Violence/Ethen's Law", it is better than the bill proposed by Republican Bobby Franklin of the Georgia State Legislature. He has introduced House Bill 1 that would “classify the removal of a fetus from a woman for any reason other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus as "prenatal murder." Mr. Franklin, like myself, finds abortion abhorrent. However, he goes way too far in his bill. Though he would not place criminal penalties upon natural, spontaneous fetal miscarriages, his bill would require the issuance a fetal death certificate for miscarriages that occur within medical facilities. Miscarriages that occur outside of a medical facility would require an investigation by the government.
Thankfully, this is not proposed in North Carolina, and I do not live in Georgia. As much as I support the choice for life, I would have some rather unpleasant words for Mr. Franklin if he was my representative. In the name of his Christian values, he wants to protect the unborn to such a degree that he wants parents to give account for their due diligence in protection of the fetus.
Franklin's bill states "The State of Georgia has the duty to protect all innocent life from the moment of conception until natural death". With that, I agree. However, to require a full investigation into any miscarriage that does not take place in a medical facility is intrusive and absurd. This is where it gets personal for me. My wife and I went through two miscarriages in 2010, one on June 1st at a medical facility, and one at home just this past Christmas Eve. It was heart wrenching enough for us both to endure in losing our children. The last thing we would want or need is a government official knocking on our door inquiring if we did all we possibly could to keep our embryo/fetus from being miscarried.
With a Christian world view, I realize that we live in a sin cursed world. Sickness, disease, and tragedies occur as a result. That is our inheritance here on Earth as a result of the fall of Adam. As a joint heir with Christ, I look forward to life eternal where there is no sickness, disease, or miscarriage. I don't like the fact that our earthly existence has such things with which we must contend, but that is life. I don't have all the answers, but I do know that I disagree strongly with my libertarian minded and even my Christian brethren when they go to the polar opposites of either allowing the wanton slaughter of the unborn on the one hand or highly intrusive and unnecessary measures to “protect” the unborn on the other.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Column for May 27, 2010
I recently took a lot of heat for a commentary I made on former First Lady Laura Bush. As some of you may know, she now has a book that has been released and she has been doing the national talk show circuit to promote her book. During the course of an interview with Larry King, she revealed that she had strong personal disagreement with her husband on the subjects of homosexual marriage and abortion. She was in favor of both. She also later came out in support of the nomination of Elena Kagan.
My initial commentary consisted only of sharing the video clip with my online readers and saying that Laura Bush has lost a lot of respect from me. You would have thought I accused Laura Bush of twisting the heads off newborn kittens. Simply saying that she lost a lot of respect is apparently harsh, judgmental, and cruel.
Personally, I find her revelatory opinions to be extremely hypocritical and an endorsement of both Sodomy and murder, which I later expressed. In this I don't mind being seen as narrow. There is no excusing the killing of innocent babies or for the redefinition of marriage. It is not a matter of being open minded. It is a matter of being accepting of sinful behavior and destruction of the innocent.
If there is one thing with which Laura Bush should be familiar, it is that if you are going to put yourself in the public spotlight and stick your head above the crowd, you are going to have a few tomatoes thrown at you. I have had my share of them, too. In the case of her husband, a lot of tomatoes flew his way. Some of the tomatoes thrown at George W. Bush were justified. Many were patently unfair. When the views that someone publicly expresses are contrary to the faith of the majority of Americans and contrary to the majority of even secularists, then there will be some expressions in contradiction.
As a Christian, I personally believe that it is the duty of believers to do as Proverbs 31:8 states, "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves". That would include the unborn, whose wanton slaughter Laura Bush just openly endorsed. We are to cry aloud and spare not. Woe unto Laura Bush or any other who believe as she does. Isaiah 5:20 says "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." I for one will not remain silent in order to be seen as proper in the eyes of anyone who thinks that a Christian is to be quiet and "nicer than Jesus".
Just last month, my wife and I were in her OBGYN's office watching the ultrasound and listening to the heartbeat of our seven-week-old fetus. Just seven weeks and we heard its heartbeat! Nobody can convince me that my baby is not a living creature and to remove it from the womb would not constitute murder.
This begs the question about whether or not it is horribly judgmental to speak out against not only the case of Laura Bush, but about other topics that we know to be a matter of right and wrong. Should we stay silent in order to avoid accusations such as judgmental against the wrongs in our society? Is it wrong for Christians to acknowledge the presence of unrighteousness? Absolutely not. If that were the case, then we would still be a group of British colonies. Preachers like George Whitfield and patriots like Samuel Adams would have been considered heretics in their day. If it were the case, abolitionists of the 1800's would have remained silent and the Negro slave would have been allowed to stay in bondage.
If anyone thinks I just get paid to stir the pot with outlandish statements to attract and maintain readers for the newspaper, try asking the publisher how much I have received in compensation over my nearly four years of writing this column. Yes, I am opinionated and outspoken. But I have been faithful to write every single week to fill this space because I am committed to and passionate about a set of principles. I am committed to the difference between right and wrong; and to long standing values that made my faith, my country, and my God the greatest to have ever existed.
Whether it is Laura Bush, the federal government, a state governor, a local politician, or even clergymen, take a stand for what is right. It is not arrogant to stand on what you believe, especially if you are on the side of righteousness. God has blessed this nation with a form of government in which you have the right and the duty to take a stand. I encourage you all to do so.
My initial commentary consisted only of sharing the video clip with my online readers and saying that Laura Bush has lost a lot of respect from me. You would have thought I accused Laura Bush of twisting the heads off newborn kittens. Simply saying that she lost a lot of respect is apparently harsh, judgmental, and cruel.
Personally, I find her revelatory opinions to be extremely hypocritical and an endorsement of both Sodomy and murder, which I later expressed. In this I don't mind being seen as narrow. There is no excusing the killing of innocent babies or for the redefinition of marriage. It is not a matter of being open minded. It is a matter of being accepting of sinful behavior and destruction of the innocent.
If there is one thing with which Laura Bush should be familiar, it is that if you are going to put yourself in the public spotlight and stick your head above the crowd, you are going to have a few tomatoes thrown at you. I have had my share of them, too. In the case of her husband, a lot of tomatoes flew his way. Some of the tomatoes thrown at George W. Bush were justified. Many were patently unfair. When the views that someone publicly expresses are contrary to the faith of the majority of Americans and contrary to the majority of even secularists, then there will be some expressions in contradiction.
As a Christian, I personally believe that it is the duty of believers to do as Proverbs 31:8 states, "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves". That would include the unborn, whose wanton slaughter Laura Bush just openly endorsed. We are to cry aloud and spare not. Woe unto Laura Bush or any other who believe as she does. Isaiah 5:20 says "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." I for one will not remain silent in order to be seen as proper in the eyes of anyone who thinks that a Christian is to be quiet and "nicer than Jesus".
Just last month, my wife and I were in her OBGYN's office watching the ultrasound and listening to the heartbeat of our seven-week-old fetus. Just seven weeks and we heard its heartbeat! Nobody can convince me that my baby is not a living creature and to remove it from the womb would not constitute murder.
This begs the question about whether or not it is horribly judgmental to speak out against not only the case of Laura Bush, but about other topics that we know to be a matter of right and wrong. Should we stay silent in order to avoid accusations such as judgmental against the wrongs in our society? Is it wrong for Christians to acknowledge the presence of unrighteousness? Absolutely not. If that were the case, then we would still be a group of British colonies. Preachers like George Whitfield and patriots like Samuel Adams would have been considered heretics in their day. If it were the case, abolitionists of the 1800's would have remained silent and the Negro slave would have been allowed to stay in bondage.
If anyone thinks I just get paid to stir the pot with outlandish statements to attract and maintain readers for the newspaper, try asking the publisher how much I have received in compensation over my nearly four years of writing this column. Yes, I am opinionated and outspoken. But I have been faithful to write every single week to fill this space because I am committed to and passionate about a set of principles. I am committed to the difference between right and wrong; and to long standing values that made my faith, my country, and my God the greatest to have ever existed.
Whether it is Laura Bush, the federal government, a state governor, a local politician, or even clergymen, take a stand for what is right. It is not arrogant to stand on what you believe, especially if you are on the side of righteousness. God has blessed this nation with a form of government in which you have the right and the duty to take a stand. I encourage you all to do so.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Column for Jan. 14, 2010
Democrats are going to lose big in the 2010 elections. At least that is what I keep hearing. I read a lot of news sites on the internet and listen to a decent amount of talk radio. Occasionally I get to watch some news shows with commentary on the television. One mantra that keeps getting repeated is that the Democrats are going to lose a lot of seats in Congress. I am not so sure of that.
I do know that there is a huge groundswell of resentment towards the continuing tax and spend behavior of government at all levels. I know that millions of people are royally miffed at the attempted hijacking of our economy, our health care system, and our form of government.
Just this week I was reading an article in which a newspaper listed the 100 most influential liberals and the 100 most influential conservatives in America. The list was almost laughable, since some very liberal Republicans such as Lindsey Graham made the list of conservatives. The one thing that this newspaper misses is the same thing that most politicians in office miss. There are a huge number of conservatives in this country and they are not necessarily Republicans.
I am one of those people. I did not hold my nose and vote for John McCain in the last presidential election. I just could not do it. Even if he were the lesser of two evils, it would still have been a choice for evil. In the Selma municipal election, I had the same quandary. I will probably have that same dilemma often in the future.
I just read an opinion column with some of the same sage advice that I have been dispensing. The column had 10 tips for Republicans in the upcoming election season. Amongst them were considerations for a return to conservative principles. For all the rhetoric we heard in the last Presidential Primary season about Ronald Reagan and Reagan style principles, the Republicans ran leftward anyway.
Just because people want liberal Democrats out of power does not mean that they want Republicans in power. Unfortunately, there is not much of a choice in this two party dominant system we have today. The GOP cheesed me off a long time ago but I held my nose in their support for years. Eventually I wanted fresh air. Alas, I have found no viable or effective third parties with which to affiliate.
I am a conservative. I do not apologize for that. Actually, I could be more correctly described as a classic liberal, which is not to be confused with what are commonly called liberals today. I believe in freedom. I believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, personal accountability, and morality in all levels of government. My political views are determined by my moral views, which are determined by my religious views. I was not always a conservative. I used to be a Democrat voting, abortion supporting, and religion hating ignorant fool. Though I was for small government and fiscal responsibility, I was fairly loose on many other issues. Then I grew up.
Personally, I don't know if we can rescue the country from the hands of America hating socialists now. They are determined to weaken this nation from within rather than from without. Internal weakening will by default cause us to be weak from without, as well. Here is what I do know. If the GOP wants to rescue this country, not just win, they are going to have to get radically conservative. What good are Republicans in office if they capitulate to and continue in the ways of their predecessors?
In order to fix a radical problem, we need a radical solution. A return to the political values that won the Cold War, flamed the Industrial Revolution, and won The American Revolution in the 1700's seems so radical by today's standards. But that is what we need. Otherwise, why bother? Putting a finger in a leaking dike may delay the inevitable deluge, but it won't solve any problems.
I hear the Beatles song "Revolution" in my head. Sure, I am on the opposite side of a lot of their ideologies, but the lyrics are actually applicable to how I am thinking right now.
"You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world…
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan…
You say you'll change a constitution
Well, you know
We'd all love to change your head.
You tell me it's the institution,
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead."
I do know that there is a huge groundswell of resentment towards the continuing tax and spend behavior of government at all levels. I know that millions of people are royally miffed at the attempted hijacking of our economy, our health care system, and our form of government.
Just this week I was reading an article in which a newspaper listed the 100 most influential liberals and the 100 most influential conservatives in America. The list was almost laughable, since some very liberal Republicans such as Lindsey Graham made the list of conservatives. The one thing that this newspaper misses is the same thing that most politicians in office miss. There are a huge number of conservatives in this country and they are not necessarily Republicans.
I am one of those people. I did not hold my nose and vote for John McCain in the last presidential election. I just could not do it. Even if he were the lesser of two evils, it would still have been a choice for evil. In the Selma municipal election, I had the same quandary. I will probably have that same dilemma often in the future.
I just read an opinion column with some of the same sage advice that I have been dispensing. The column had 10 tips for Republicans in the upcoming election season. Amongst them were considerations for a return to conservative principles. For all the rhetoric we heard in the last Presidential Primary season about Ronald Reagan and Reagan style principles, the Republicans ran leftward anyway.
Just because people want liberal Democrats out of power does not mean that they want Republicans in power. Unfortunately, there is not much of a choice in this two party dominant system we have today. The GOP cheesed me off a long time ago but I held my nose in their support for years. Eventually I wanted fresh air. Alas, I have found no viable or effective third parties with which to affiliate.
I am a conservative. I do not apologize for that. Actually, I could be more correctly described as a classic liberal, which is not to be confused with what are commonly called liberals today. I believe in freedom. I believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, personal accountability, and morality in all levels of government. My political views are determined by my moral views, which are determined by my religious views. I was not always a conservative. I used to be a Democrat voting, abortion supporting, and religion hating ignorant fool. Though I was for small government and fiscal responsibility, I was fairly loose on many other issues. Then I grew up.
Personally, I don't know if we can rescue the country from the hands of America hating socialists now. They are determined to weaken this nation from within rather than from without. Internal weakening will by default cause us to be weak from without, as well. Here is what I do know. If the GOP wants to rescue this country, not just win, they are going to have to get radically conservative. What good are Republicans in office if they capitulate to and continue in the ways of their predecessors?
In order to fix a radical problem, we need a radical solution. A return to the political values that won the Cold War, flamed the Industrial Revolution, and won The American Revolution in the 1700's seems so radical by today's standards. But that is what we need. Otherwise, why bother? Putting a finger in a leaking dike may delay the inevitable deluge, but it won't solve any problems.
I hear the Beatles song "Revolution" in my head. Sure, I am on the opposite side of a lot of their ideologies, but the lyrics are actually applicable to how I am thinking right now.
"You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world…
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan…
You say you'll change a constitution
Well, you know
We'd all love to change your head.
You tell me it's the institution,
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
