Copenhagen Collapse

Let me be brief. The world leaders that have converged on Denmark for the Copenhagen Climate Summit have done so with 1,200 limos and 140 private planes. Oh the irony!
So what is supposedly worse for the environment, the abundance of hot CO2 emitted from the mouths of all these leaders or their modes of transportation?

The truth is that these leaders aren't as concerned with the environment as they are with money, power, and control. The redistributive responsibility of trillions of dollars is possibly at stake, and there's not a self-important politician in the world who doesn't want a piece of that action.

Trust in and deference to the government is foolhardy I tell you . . . FOOLHARDY!

The Big Tent Philosophy

I conceptualized something about conservatism over the past few days that highlights a profound distinction it has from other forms of political thought. Many of the supposed elite in the Republican Party want the GOP to incorporate a “big tent” philosophy which requires no adherence to any ideology and accepts a vast array of viewpoints. However, the big tent party philosophy is in most respects antithetical to conservatism, and here's why. Conservatives espouse the idea that certain principles and values, when followed by individuals and governments, lead to peace and success. In order for these principles to yield future achievement, however, they require prospective adherents to manipulate their thoughts, words, and actions so as to coincide with those principle and values. It requires huge efforts from the individual and huge restraint from the government. Be it understood, though, that conservatism does not necessarily discourage varying perspectives and diverse thought. It simply admonishes that these perspectives not contradict the aforementioned values and principles. For a succinct list of these principles and values, click here.

However, liberal ideology promotes the idea of a big tent, all inclusive kind of political party. On a side note, however, all viewpoints are welcome inside the tent provided they are not conservative. Those in the tent seek to marginalize others with a conservative point of view by using ad hominem attacks and labels such as right-wing-extremist or terrorist, tea bagger, nazi, and hatemonger, just to mention a few. However, this big tent philosophy seems to be so wildly popular among liberals and progressives because more is expected from the majority in securing the individual's success rather than more being expected from the individual.

Inside this big tent, minority groups are neither required nor encouraged to forgive the culture and the individuals who systematically oppressed their ancestors, and they are also not required to forgive those who continue to mistreat them. This has gotten so out of hand that even language from a white person in this big tent is to be straight way censored and the white person swiftly punished in the event his or her language honestly criticizes individual members of other races. The responses to Rush Limbaugh’s involvement in a group interested in purchasing the St. Louis Rams exemplify this reality. They branded him a racist for bigoted things he never said, and they also hammered him for other things he said which weren’t actually racist. Therefore, this philosophy is more focused on promoting a culture where the extreme and superfluous censorship of many is preferred over teaching and expecting others to forgive and to be humble.

The all inclusive, all loving big tent of liberal thought also discourages the belief in a supreme being from whom all human rights originate. This view point is repellent in the big tent because it also teaches that the right to marriage extends only to one man and one woman. They hate and disparage this point of view, and they label those who have it as hate-mongers, homophobes, and religious extremists (among other things). As a conservative maintaining this belittled belief, I neither hate nor am fearful of anyone who participates in a homosexual relationship, and I am not deluded into regarding myself as superior. However, I reserve my constitutionally protected right to vote according to my conservative value system, and I respect the right of others to vote contrarily. Though some may be fear-mongers and hateful, the vast majority votes according to the peaceful dictates of its individual consciences. But according to the big tent philosophy, these many are expected to abandon their principles and values in order to accommodate the desires of a few, thus again requiring much from the majority while requiring nothing from the minority.

The big tent philosophy will ultimately fail those who desire cozy residence therein, and it will fail the nation it now seeks to fundamentally change. This illusion of this all accepting, all inclusive, and all loving philosophy will fail because it ventures away from the simple mandates of the constitution; big tentism ventures away from the security and anchor of sound principle. The Declaration of Independence refers to this idea as the laws of nature and of nature's God. Accordingly, the constitution has provided the freedom that produced the most exceptional, successful, and flourishing nation ever designed (Like it or not, conservatism is the only ideology left that champions the constitution and intentions of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, etc). No other nation's story in the annals of history compares to the greatness of this one, and its success can only be renewed and replicated by quickly abandoning "big tent" thinking and by strictly adhering to constitutional principle. Unfortunately, our current administration refers to it as a charter of negative liberties and laments that it limits the government's power and doesn't enhance it. Go back over the last few years, and you will see that our government has acted contrary to the constitution, and we are and will be the worse off for it if we allow them to continue.

Obama supporters, you got some 'splaining to do

Please know before you read this that I am a proponent of neither political party, but my ideology is founded in the principles of conservatism and libertarianism. I understand how it is easy to confuse conservatism with the previous Republican administration and dominated houses of congress. Historically the Republican party based its roots in conservative values; however, the past eight years represent a departure there from, so don’t confuse conservatism with republicanism. The following is a challenge to all those who voted President Obama into office.

Would somebody please make a case for this spending bill? Would somebody explain how incurring more and more debt by spending our grandchildren’s money is fiscally responsible and how it salvages hurting economies? Would someone please substantiate! I understand how allotting money to our infrastructure can be a boon, but only a small fraction of this bill is dedicated to that. The reasons presented by the president and other congressional leaders are that something has to be done. We can’t just stand by and do nothing! We have to act! Only the government can fix this current crisis! My high school English teachers would have failed my papers if my arguments had been as vague and lacking in evidence.

Just remember this—the president’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, recently declared one of his political philosophies and values by saying, “You never want a serious crisis go to waste,” and it looks like they’re milking the fear associated with the current economic crisis for all it’s worth. By all accounts, this bill isn’t even a stimulus package. It is a partisan spending agenda; that’s all.

Sure, something has to be done. Yes, we have to act, but can you or anyone else defend this spending? Can anyone tout the merits of government spending as they relate to economies? Can you convince me that the biggest governmental power grab in history will restore or create the kind of economic prosperity that has been achieved otherwise? When has a government of man ever been known to create prosperity? Historically, a free market system has proven most effective; it hasn’t been proven perfect, but given the failings of big tax and spend governments worldwide, a free market, capitalistic economy has far surpassed the rest.

Consider the following parenting philosophy where any time children fall, make mistakes, or get hurt, the parents rush to their aid and rescue them. These are referred to as helicopter parents. Unfortunately, children born under this kind of nurturing fail to competently problem solve and make appropriate decisions for themselves as they become adults. When mother and father are nowhere to be seen, these kids are crippled. How then are the actions of our government toward these recently failing companies any different? Go ahead, little one, engage in sub-prime lending. Mummy and Daddy are here for you should anything go wrong. After all, you’re too important to fail.

If we had stayed true to our free market, capitalistic system, then these companies would have either pulled through on their own steam, or they would have failed and closed their doors. Allowing them leeway to succeed and fail has its consequences; nevertheless, it would be according to the free market system that allowed them to succeed in the first place. The system is cyclical; where one falls, another rises in its stead. Unfortunately, it appears that too many have lost the bravery necessary to weather the storm, and Mr. Obama seems to be pandering to that fear.

Go back and study the effects of governmental intervention and you will see that Roosevelt’s New Deal not only did nothing to fix the Great Depression, but his efforts prolonged it. It was the need created by World War II that set things straight, but Mr. Obama thinks the New Deal was ineffective because Roosevelt didn’t spend enough. Then how much more do we need to spend? The government has already spent trillions! They can’t even account for the 700 billion they all too recently spent nor the stimulus package of last summer nor the efficacy of recent bailouts. And you want them to spend more of your money? We the people can’t afford to pay for leaders, Democrats or Republicans who can’t balance their own budget. We simply can’t foot the bill anymore.

You may rebut and say that “of course we can pay for it. The rich of this nation make too much as it is, and they should be the ones to pay for this and that, and such and such.” Don’t you get it? The more they are taxed, the less they will be able to make, and the less they make, the fewer tax dollars they have pay for the socialist state that system would create. Furthermore, what incentive do they have to increase productivity when the government puts a cap on their success and earnings anyway? Answer me that! Eventually that well runs dry too!

So please, defend the social spending initiatives as they relate to restoring our economy. Help me see the hope that encouraged your support for our president. Defend your rational that would freely send more money to a system that is already up to its eye balls in debt, a system that has proven to be irresponsible in the dissemination of the people’s money. Is there a foundation to your logic, or is it just hope?

And another thing . . .

Every citizen of this nation should expect success in life to come of their own efforts. However, that isn’t to say that some people don’t experience great hardship and difficulty as they pursue happiness and success. Many are in need and do suffer. They most certainly do, but perhaps if we juxtaposed the sufferings of those in this nation with the sufferings of the poor in Honduras or Haiti, maybe we would cease to bemoan and condemn the free market system whereby we have come to enjoy our prosperity. When we talk about the hungry, suffering, uneducated masses of this country, do we refer to the naked two-year-old scavenging for food, the little boy whose own excrement remains pasted to his inner thighs, whose stomach is overly bloated from malnourishment? Do we refer to the woman making cakes to eat whose main ingredient is clay? Are we talking about moms and dads trying to provide for their families on less than two dollars a day? I doubt it. And tell me—do these people have access to food stamps? Can they get Medicaid? Will they receive unemployment benefits when they lose their jobs? Do their children have state funded public education and facilities where they can safely gather to learn? Do their children have more to eat besides a scant portion of rice and a meager gathering of beans? Do they even have uncontaminated water to drink? I’ve seen poverty there, and I’ve seen it here. There is no comparison, only a stark contrast between one land filled with opportunity and another starving for any opportunity. So to all public officials, please stop politicizing the plight of the poor in our country. It’s embarrassing.

Glenn Beck's Jesus not the Jesus of the Bible?

Recently, Focus on the Family, a self proclaimed Christian organization, decided to retract an interview they published that featured Glenn Beck, an interview centered around his recent book, The Christmas Sweater. Throughout the book and during the interview, Glenn discusses in some measure a few basic tenets of his faith which are founded in the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The withholding of the interview seems to be born of simple ambivalence, ambivalence on the part of Focus on the Family. While they hold Glenn Beck in high esteem, they also deny his Christianity. According to them, because he is "Mormon," he is therefore not Christian. I assume it is Glenn's goodness that the organization highly regards; however, if that goodness is not founded in Christianity, rhetorically speaking, then where is it founded? They don't accept Glenn for his faith, but they believe he embodies, at least in some regard, characteristics of goodness. But if all goodness doesn't find its origin in Christ, then from whence does a Mormon's come if a Mormon be not Christian? Do those espousing the teachings of the Nicene Creed believe that goodness can also find its origins elsewhere? I don't know.

What is most unfortunate about this situation is that the Christian leaders associated with Focus on the Family chose to focus on that which divides instead of unites. They chose a doctrine of exclusion over the more Christian doctrine of inclusion. However, their Mormon, "non-Christian" counterparts believe that all religions, though their names for God and manners of worship are different, believe in the same Supreme power that rules the universe. Ask their leaders, and that's what they'll tell you. However, if you find intriguing the doctrines unique to their manner of worship, Mormon leaders would invite your honest and sincere investigation. If you don't care for those doctrines, then those same leaders hope to nonetheless share in the unity and brotherhood that exists according to the things we hold in common.

Therefore, Focus on the Family forewent a great opportunity to further spread the peace and joy that faith holds for all mankind by not supporting Glenn Beck and subsequently not supporting members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They may assert that Beck's Jesus is not the same Jesus of the New Testament, but you will never hear Beck or any other faithful member of the same church reciprocate such a divisive doctrine.

So thank you, Focus on the Family. Thank you and all others who disdain Mormon theology. Thank you for taking yet another opportunity to divide us, to make Mormons the pariah of the Christian world and for withholding the Savior's merciful olive branch of peace and unity. While you may be ready and willing to condemn Mormons and other "non-Christians," I hope you know that you have another choice. You can assume that God's plan for us all is one of salvation, not condemnation, one where most of us return to him. And You can mete out your judgments of mankind mercifully because in the end, don't you hope that mercy is the sole criterion by which God judges you?

For more info see http://tinyurl.com/94w97b