Things That are Right

General Conference

2010-10-03T20:22:00.001-06:00

This weekend was the semi-annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. How blessed are we to have prophets on the earth today to help us to know the will of God, and to encourage us to seek His will and use our agency to follow it. This conference strengthened my testimony of Jesus Christ and renewed my strength to live it. I hope you will all take a look at the messages of truth and hope spoken by the Lord’s servants. Click the link below.

General Conference

Obamacare Reality Sets In

2010-09-30T11:58:00.001-06:00

Recently, some health insurers requested permission to raise rates to cover the cost of Obamacare’s mandatory benefits, and now McDonald’s says it might drop its mini-med plans unless it can get a waiver from the government that would allow them to pay for the higher administrative costs of keeping them for a high-turnover workforce.

This reminds me, yet again, of Atlas Shrugged. In that book, the government deemed transportation a right and a human necessity, so railroads had to get permission to raise ticket prices to cover costs and make a profit (I know, profits are evil). When the government denied one such request, the railroad executive wondered who would pay for the operation of the railroad. The government told her that that was her problem. Well yes, yes it is. A big problem.

The same thing is happening in our federal government today. Obama tells insurers and employers to provide certain benefits to consumers, and then ties their hands when it comes to paying for them. Who is going to pay for this? Could it be that Obamacare doing the opposite of what it was intended to do? Or could it be that this was part of the plan all along in order to “fundamentally transform America”? Either way, it’s a disaster.

It doesn’t take a law degree from Harvard to know that if you tell companies that they have to provide additional benefits to customers, they will have to raise rates to provide them.

Critical Side Note: What kind of country do we live in where a company has to request government permission to raise prices in the face of increasing costs, and another has to get permission from the government to cover its costs the way it sees fit? Certainly not a capitalist one.

A Tax Cut that isn’t Actually a Tax Cut Doesn’t “Cost” the Government Anything

2010-09-29T16:01:00.001-06:00

Congressional Democrats barely scraped up enough votes to adjourn today without voting on extending the Bush tax cuts past their December 31 sunset date. My focus is not on whether this was a cowardly move by shady politicians trying to buoy up their ever-fading election chances, but rather on the notion that 1. Congress is voting on tax cuts, and 2. tax cuts cost the government money.

From the article: “Democrats say the nation can't afford the $700 billion, 10-year cost of extending the lower rates for upper income groups, while Republicans say raising taxes on those individuals now could stifle the recovery.”

That sentence pretty much sums up the views of each party.

Also, I listened on Sunday to David Axelrod tell a slobbering Christiane Amanpour that Republicans want to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires and that “we just can’t afford” the $700 billion dollars it would cost to give these tax cuts. Here is the problem with that statement:

First, the Republican view—that not extending the Bush tax cuts is a tax increase—is exactly right. If Congress fails to extend the current tax rates as they now stand, everyone’s taxes will go up on January 1, 2011. This is literally a tax increase, or, if you prefer, and increase in the rate at which income is taxed. The debate right now is whether we should keep the current tax rates, or do nothing and let them revert to pre-Bush-tax-cut rates, resulting in an increase in the rates for all tax brackets. Democrats are trying (and failing) to fool the American people into thinking that they want to give the middle class a tax cut, when in fact all they want to do is keep the current tax rates for the middle class, and let the higher tax brackets revert to their pre-Bush levels. Thus, Democrats are not at all calling for any type of tax cuts. In fact, what they are trying to tell you is that “not raising your taxes” equals “cutting your taxes.”

Second, you can’t spend money you don’t have, and you’re not spending when you let people keep their money instead of giving it grudgingly to the federal government. Thus, keeping tax rates where they are would not cost the federal government one dime, let alone $700 billion. On the other hand, spending $700 billion in taxpayer money on failed and logic-challenged federal programs does cost the federal government money. Interestingly, the Bush tax cuts produced record government tax revenues, yet the government spent all this money and more on failed economic policies and grew the federal government. Tax cuts don’t cause budget deficits, big-government politicians spending money they don’t have causes budget deficits.

Finally, here’s the problem with both sides of the aisle on this argument. Democrats have and want to raise taxes and have spent and want to spend more, and Republicans have cut and want to cut taxes and have spent more. We’ve seen that raising taxes doesn’t actually bring in more money. We’ve seen that cutting taxes actually brings in more tax revenue. Unfortunately, we’ve also seen that Democrats and Republicans can’t stop growing government and spending more than they have.

How about we try cutting taxes (not just extending the Bush tax cuts, but actually cutting taxes from their current rates) and shrinking government and spending less—much less.

Words Can’t Express . . .

2010-03-04T10:45:00.001-07:00

There Ought to be a Law—Oh Wait, There IS!

2010-03-04T10:21:00.001-07:00

I have been in law school for almost six semesters now. I have come to realize—and the realization is maddening—that the most common argument I have heard is some variation on the following:

“Well, it’s just so hard for Congress to pass a law like this, so we should just let the president do it on his own.”

I have two incredibly huge problems with this. First, these arguments are coming from individuals in LAW SCHOOL, who we should like to think are a little more educated on the structures of the Federal Government—which leads to the second problem I have with this argument and those who make it: Have you read the Constitution of the United States? Do you know why, how, when and for what purposes it was drafted?

The Constitution provides for procedural hurdles before a bill becomes a law. Not the least of the reasons why these procedures were put in place is that it SHOULD BE DIFFICULT for the Federal Government to pass any law that affects the people of the United States. The Constitution provides checks and balances, both structural and procedural, on the ability of the federal government to act upon the people.

So, my response to this argument has been and will always be, “You’re dang right it’s too hard to pass a law like this. That’s by design, and you should know that.”

Please read the Constitution. Please read Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Just do it. We’ll all be better off if you do.

A Simple Question

2010-02-05T09:54:00.001-07:00

This week, the House of Representatives voted to raise the federal government’s debt limit by $1.9 trillion—yes, TRILLION. So I humbly ask, what is the point of having a debt ceiling if you can just vote it higher every time you make horrendous spending decisions?

More Jobs Lost, Obama Gives Americans the Finger

2009-11-12T15:19:00.001-07:00

This post (the first one in months, as it turns out!) is going to be more personal than previous posts. That’s because, now that I’m an adult about ready to enter the real-jobs sector, I personally feel the effects of a president’s actions.

You know that the unemployment rate, as reported by the Department of Labor, recently passed 10%, but you may also know that the REAL unemployment rate is at least 17.5%. That’s because a lot of people have just plain given up on finding a job for now, and the Department of Labor does not count someone as unemployed if they have not looked for work in the last four weeks. Now, on to why this has become so personal for me.

I’ll be graduating from law school in about 5 months. “Great!” you say? “You must already have a job lined up with a degree like that, right?” Well, the answer to that is a big fat NO, and I’ll tell you part of the reason why.

Mr. Obama promised us that if the “stimulus” bill passed, we wouldn’t go above 8% unemployment. He also stated that the main goal of the “stimulus” was to create jobs. Now that he’s calling for new action to create jobs, we know that the stimulus wasn’t about jobs any more than Little Women was about female midgets. I, for one, have grown weary of the lies. Obama has one thing on his mind: “fundamentally transform[ing] America.” If anyone still thinks that means anything other than increasing government control over individuals’ lives and surrounding himself with Marxist, Maoist, Fidel-Castro-Lovin’ Socialists, wake up!

Back to why this is personal. NO ONE IS HIRING (“Sorry. While your credentials are admirable we are not able to hire any new associates at this time.”), because Obama’s actions, by design, are killing the private sector. When the government sucks up the supply of the money it prints to pay for its entitlements, welfare, and union-provided prostitution ring advice, not to mention sucking money out of people and business who make this country go round with confiscatory taxes to “spread the wealth around,” there’s a diminished supply for the job-creating private sector. No, Obama is not about creating jobs. Obama is about Obama. And blatantly-anti-capitalist Obama is about creating a new Socialist America. And the way to do that is to create mass dependence on the federal government. You know, I used to think that maybe that view was a little extreme. But now that I’ve seen what Obama has done in these first 10 months, I am convinced that this is exactly what he has in mind—along with all the other admitted Marxists radicals in his administration.

Capitalism is the fairest system. Capitalism allows the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people without having one group of people decide who gets what. Socialism is tyranny—a tyranny that allows a small group to dictate the behavior and income of the rest of us. As Milton Friedman said, “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” If we cannot be free as individuals to engage in commerce without the constraints of a tyrannical federal government, we cannot truly be free.

We need to stand up and fight! The answer will never be a bloated, tyrannical federal government with more control over our lives, our bodies, our money! The answer is FREEDOM! Freedom has produced the greatest advances in the history of the world. Freedom allows each man to act according to the dictates of his own conscience, and not be subject to the evil that is suppression of free will. Stand up and FIGHT! Oppose oppressive taxes. Oppose increased government control. Oppose socialized medicine. Fight for Freedom!

Dishonest Dems Attempt to Re-Write History With a Double Standard

2009-08-06T22:17:00.005-06:00

Nancy Pelosi makes up stories while talking to reporters.

This one has me fuming. But at the same time, I have hope because the Progressives, Statists, whatever you want to call them, are showing who they really are and the American people are smart enough to see it. What has me fuming—and, I must admit, laughing a little at their ignorance of history—is the intellectual dishonesty and double standard displayed by those who seek to grow government and its influence on individuals. So, on to the story ...

As you know, while Congress is in recess this month, Democrats are conducting town-hall-style meetings to discuss Obamacare with their constituents. And despite what you may have heard, the constituents expressing their anger over Obamacare at these meetings are not planted by Republicans or insurance companies. They’re just like you and me: angry at the path down which this administration is leading us, kicking and screaming.

A blog from Michelle Malkin tonight is what got me going tonight. She explains how Nancy Pelosi (along with others) has equated these concerned Americans with Nazis, spouting off an outrageous and unfounded claim that they are “bringing swastikas and symbols like that” to the meetings. One Congressman likened them to Brown Shirts, and another Democrat calledthem fascists. For one, this doesn’t even make sense if you know your history. But what happens when Rush Limbaugh points out how it is actually Obama and the Democrats who are more closely aligned with Nazis (NATIONAL SOCIALISTS!")? The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee starts up a petition for Republicans to “immediately condemn Limbaugh’s hateful rhetoric.”

Excuse me, but where were you when Democrats were comparing Bush to Hitler? Where WERE you? For starters, any similarities between Bush and Hitler came not from his War on Terror, as seemed to be the sentiment among Bush bashers, but from his big government, progressive, statist domestic policies. And secondly, if anyone reads his history on Nazis, he would most definitely see the glaring and startling similarities between Nazis and today’s liberals and progressives. Just read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, and you’ll get the idea.

For clarity, here is what Rush said:

Now what are the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business (Rush later corrected this by saying that they were against private sector capitalism. Similar to what Obama is doing with GE and other large companies, Naziism involved a certain degree of corporatism as well.). They hated big business and, of course, we all know that they were opposed to Jewish capitalism. They were insanely, irrationally against pollution. They were for two years mandatory voluntary service to Germany. They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working one of which was the Autobahn.
They were against cruelty and vivisection of animals but in the radical sense of devaluing human life, they banned smoking. They were totally against that. They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables as we all know and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized health care. I have always bristled when I hear people claim that conservatism gets close to Naziism. It is liberalism that's the closest you can get to Naziism and socialism. It's all bundled up under the socialist banner. There are far more similarities between Nancy Pelosi and Adolf Hitler than between these people showing up at town halls to protest a Hitler-like policy that's being heralded by a Hitler-like logo.

Learn history. Get to know your forms of government. Follow up on that feeling in your gut that tells you something just isn’t right about what Obama and Congress are doing. If you’re represented by a progressive—Democrat OR Republican—who wants to shove Obamacare down our throats, go tell them how you feel about it. Our Founding Fathers fought against tyranny in the name of Individual Liberty. This new tyranny is designed to erase that victory, and remake America, and we must fight it. Not with guns and violence, but we must fight it and defeat it. They say we have no solutions, but we know the solution. It is capitalism, individual liberty, and a limited government whose only function is to protect our individual liberties.

Beck calls Obama "Racist," Left Goes Nuts, Misses the Point

2009-07-29T14:34:00.003-06:00

I'm sure you've heard by now that Glenn Beck called President Obama racist. And I'm sure you've heard some of the media going nuts over it (that link there even ties Beck to the people who think Obama isn't a US citizen--a movement Beck has explicitly disavowed) and thinks that it's just about the Henry Louis Gates thing. And I'm sure you've heard a lot of talk about how Glenn Beck is the racist, not to mention stupid, evil, et cetera, et cetera.

*SIGH*

What's funny to me is that these people are the ones who have been crying racism for years and years without backing it up at all, and the media runs with it (you know who you are, Al, Jesse, Rev. Wright--I'll get to him). These are also the people who preach open mindedness, tolerance and acceptance. Yet they bludgeon themselves in the head with their jerking knees and close their minds to the fact that Beck has been making this case with--gasp!--factual background on his radio show for weeks. As Beck demonstrated on his radio program this morning (click the link and listen), his claim that Obama is racist comes from research into Obama's words and associations.

Obama is racist, Beck says, because he assumes whitey is out to get blacks. He is racist, Beck says, because he advocates health care and education reform that would "disproportionately affect" (read: benefit) blacks. He is racist, Beck says, because he attended a Black Liberation Theology church for TWENTY YEARS in which its pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said that white people in the U.S. government--I wish this was a joke--created the AIDS virus to kill black people. He's racist, Beck says, because he called his own grandmother "a typical white person." Obama assumes that white cops are out to arrest black people. Obama and his wife think that we still have a long way to go in relations between blacks and whites. We might, but a lot longer way if they keep assuming all whites are racist, and that blacks are incapable of being racist.

And yet, as I write this, a white police officer is getting ready to meet the black president (elected by a lot of white people's votes) and the black Harvard scholar in the White House tomorrow, so they can lecture him, a racial profiling expert and instructor who was just responding to a call of a possible break-in, on racism in the United States.

Young, Black . . . and Conservative?

2009-07-08T10:53:00.004-06:00

The following is the full text of an op-ed written during the 2008 campaign by a young, black conservative, Jerome Hudson. Hudson displays some good-old-fashioned common sense. Speaking of common sense, everyone must read Glenn Beck’s book, Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government.

Jerome Hudson’s op-ed, as it appeared in Glenn Beck’s Daily Newsletter on July 8, 2009:

While attending a black fraternity party, I recently learned it’s a bad idea to profess one’s affinity for Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.

Worse, according to current polls, it appears I may be the only black 22 year old in America who will be voting for Sen. John McCain.

It’s not that I was unaware that being a black conservative Republican puts me in the ultimate “minority.” After all, Shelby Steele’s classic article “ The Loneliness of the Black Conservative” has become an article of faith that I’ve all but committed to memory.

But I guess I had made the mistake of buying into all that liberal yammering about being “open minded” and supporting “diversity” that I’d deluded myself into believing that a civil, discussion about the herd-like ideological mentality of so many of my contemporaries suffer from was possible.

Boy, was I wrong. Big time!

My official “Negro” card got stripped away. I instantly lost my “blackness.” And now, consequently, I now am greeted with this: “Hey, y’all, here comes The Black Republican.”

And that’s when I think to myself, Hmmm…so this is how it feels to be an "Uncle Tom."

Still, being labeled “The Black Republican” is undoubtedly a promotion from: "Hey, why are you dressed so nice? You got a job interview or something?" Or, worse, “Man, why are you talking like that? You sound white? Who do you think you are? A conservative Kanye West?”

But my path to ideological emancipation began where all the most important things always begin—with my father and mother. Growing up, my Army drill sergeant father was a firm believer in tough love. My parents instilled in us Christian values. But I believe that first part—having an involved mother and father—was critical. With 70% of all black babies being born out-of-wedlock, it’s no wonder black poverty remains entrenched, welfare has become a way of life, and that many of my fellow young black male counterparts choose gangsta life over college.

But it wasn’t until college that I realized I had been ensnared in what John McWhorter calls the “Cult of Victimology.” One of my professor’s pointed me toward a world of literature I’d never been introduced to: Thomas Sowell, John McWhorter, Shelby Steele, Star Parker, Angela McGlowan, Larry Elder, Walter Williams—they obliterated the Leftist foolishness that floods my community.

It was then that my eyes were opened to the truth, a truth that my father was willing to give his life for, a truth that hundreds of thousands of American soldiers have paid the ultimate price to pass on to future generations. And that truth is this: America remains the greatest country that God gave to man.

So imagine me, a member of various organizations that largely consist of young black Americans, most of whom are womb to the tomb Democrats and liberals, speaking openly about the many opportunities and blessings we enjoy in our great nation and refuting Michelle Obama’s supposition that America is a “downright mean place..”

Can you say…..social suicide?

"So Jerome,” the partygoers asked, “you’re REALLY a Republican?!"

Duh!

Of course I’m a Republican! And your great grandparents were too!

Yes, I’m a member of the Anti-Slavery Party, the party responsible for: the 13th (abolished slavery), 14th (gave former slaves full citizenship rights), the 15th Amendment (gave slaves voting rights), the Civil Rights Act of 1871(protecting southern blacks from the Ku Klux Klan), the Reconstruction Acts, and the 1866, 1875, 1957, 1960, and 1964 Civil Rights Acts.

And no, my brothers and sisters, yesterday’s southern Democrats are NOT today’s Republicans! If so, former Klansman, Sen. Robert Byrd—the highest ranking senate Democrat and President Pro-Tempore of the Senate—apparently didn’t get the memo and forgot to switch parties.

But it’s more than just the history. I’m proud to stand for self-empowerment, personal responsibility, strong family values, small government, low taxes, free markets, a strong military, and individual achievement etc.

And don’t even get me started on which side stands up for the precious 1.4 million unborn children (32% of whom are black), who will be casualties in the war inside the womb. When I see these so-called “black leaders” bashing conservatives for “racist policies,” I wonder how they justify cheering on the political team who proudly defends the annihilation of 13 million black children since 1973.

And conservatives don’t care about black people? I don’t think so!

No, I think I’ll ride with the team who says enough with the welfare cancer that has destroyed people’s innate desire to achieve. Yes, I’ll ride with the folks who respect me enough to consider me their equal and not insult me with Affirmative Action racism. Yeah, I’ll ride with the gang who would rather create effective policies than emotional “feel good” symbolism that robs individuals of their desire to aspire.

So while it may take a little getting used to walking into college parties where I’m known as “The Black Republican,” I now realize I am a newly inducted member of a rich tradition of ideologically emancipated black conservatives. And guess what? I’m more than cool with that. I’m proud, actually.

“The conservative Kanye West”?

Hmmm….

Has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?

Jerome Hudson is a sophomore at Tallahassee Community College with plans to transfer to Florida A&M University in the fall.

The Secrets of Obamacare

2009-06-15T14:53:00.001-06:00

This article and George Will explain this way better than I ever could. The article is a rundown of the (at least) four dirty little secrets of Obama’s universal health care plan—besides being Socialism and completely, ridiculously too expensive and inefficient.

Here’s the link: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/06/14/george-will-tells-dirty-little-secrets-universal-healthcare

Bailout for this Moral Bankruptcy?

2009-06-04T09:13:00.001-06:00

I recently had a discussion with someone regarding same-sex marriage. He assumed that my arguments against it were purely religious in nature, and thus dismissed my arguments before he even heard them. First of all, I must point out that an argument is no less valid simply because of its religious origin. Second, I provided him with a well-reasoned argument against same-sex marriage, as shown below, and what ensued is one reason liberals and conservatives have so much trouble finding common ground. Here is the verbatim discussion, with the names edited out to protect the parties, and minor edits made to preserve continuity. Notice how he still dismisses this argument as a religious one.

My Argument

No fault divorce radically changed the institution of marriage. What was once perceived as a permanent arrangement, with certain specific exceptions to that permanence, has now become an arrangement that anyone can get out of for any reason at all. Estimates show that no-fault divorce increased the divorce rate by 10%. This means that more children are subject to parents splitting up, which means that more children are being shuffled from home to home, subject to mom’s boyfriends or dad’s girlfriends coming in and out of the home, etc.. Read: instability for children. So how does this relate to same-sex marriage?

Supporters of same-sex marriage say that it won’t affect children or heterosexual marriages. Let’s look at marriage though. Marriage was institution set up for procreation and protection of children, among other less important things. If it’s as gay marriage supporters define it, however, marriage is about love between two people. That’s only part of it though. Children are an important part of marriage (yes I know that not all heterosexual married couples have children, but that by itself does not change the institution of marriage—no-fault divorce did. And EVERY CHILD HAS PARENTS).

Now let’s say that same sex couples can marry. Some will inevitably want children (some same sex couples already have children). How do they get that child? The same sex couple must necessarily involve a third party. Let’s say that a lesbian couple needs a sperm donor for one member of the couple to conceive. Now, if the donor chooses not to be involved with the child, or if the couple decides to not let the donor be involved with the child, the child is automatically deprived of the right to have a father. He is deprived of the right to know half his genetic and medical history, and since the child cannot defend that right, it is society’s responsibility to do so through things like marriage laws. Deprivation of that right of the child is pretty cruel. “We have no right to assume that the children of same sex couples will be uninterested in their biological origins.”

Let’s say the donor is involved though. The child now has three parents. Confusing to a child, to say the least. Instable as well. But now that the child has three involved parents, there’s really no logical basis for limiting marriage to only two people. Now what if the lesbian married couple divorces? Now the child has three or three sets of parents to be shuffled among. This sounds great, doesn’t it? And then wait until the custody battle ensues.

What if the non-biological parent sues for custody of the child created by her partner and the donor. Let’s say both of them want custody too? As has already happened (in Washington state) the courts will be forced to determine who is a parent. This leaves the possibility that the non-biological “parent” could gain parental rights over the donor, who actually IS the biological parent of the child. I don’t think judges should be assigning parental rights in this manner. In other words, same-sex couples need medical and legal intervention to have a child. The law must dislodge the parental rights of the donor, and attach parental rights to the non-biological “parent” in the same-sex couple. So, whereas marriage used to be one of the things that attached children to parents, it will now also be used to take children away from parents.

One last thing. When same-sex marriage becomes a reality (notice the when), fathers will be further marginalized. If two women can raise a child just as well as a woman and a man, what importance do fathers have at all if children don’t need their fathers? You might say, “well, if two men can raise a child as well as a man and a woman, you could say, ‘children don’t need their mothers.’” But who is going to say that children don’t need their mothers? That’s ridiculous. But people already say that children don’t need fathers. And as a father, I can testify of the blatant and evil falsity that that is, and that it is just as ridiculous to say children don’t need their fathers as is to say that they don’t need their mothers. So there you have it. What started with no-fault divorce will only get worse for marriage and children if same-sex marriage becomes the norm. There you go. I’m done.

His Reply

I'm not going to address the no-fault divorce issue because it would simply divert the discussion on a different tangent. Thank you for explaining the train of thought though.
As for donors, you clearly don't know how donors work. Donors provide a biological profile but they are explicitly NOT given access to the child. They have no rights nor connection to the offspring. So the child gets the biological profile for medical purposes, but there is no awkward entanglements with regards to three parents.

As for divorce, same-sex divorce would offer no more trouble than a normal divorce. Also, as a side note, same-sex couples experience a lower rate of divorce and marital unhappiness. So the likelihood of a divorce is less.

As for the need for fathers and mothers, I don't think that is significant. The trouble is that you are accepting as axiomatic that a child needs a mother and a father. You are going to have to back that up with research. The research that I have seen has shown quite the opposite, that same-sex couples do just as well if not better than mixed-gender couples. There are plenty of reasons why this is, which I will not get into at the moment, unless you would like me to do so.
Ultimately though, your argument still suffers from the problem of being completely founded in your personal religious convictions. You have provided no actual evidence. Your whole argument rests upon the postulate that male and female parents are crucial. But that is also the conclusion as well. Therefore, you have assumed the conclusion, which is a logical fallacy.

I would love to see any research you can provide which corroborates your viewpoints. I will make one note though. A study which simply shows the importance of being raised by two parents is not sufficient. The study would need to show that mixed gender parents are better than same gender parents. There are plenty of studies which show the importance of two parents. People often times make the logical fallacy of assuming this means that a male and female parental unit is necessary. Such studies do not say that unless they are comparing against same-sex couples as well.

Conclusion

I chose not to reply to his reply. I cannot reason with someone who is so morally bankrupt that he refuses to believe that a child is better off with one mother and one father, who are committed to each other in a stable marriage. Yes, I did assume that conclusion in my argument and I was truly shocked to see that anyone would argue against it. And yes, I have seen the statistics that show, unequivocally, that children in a stable home with married opposite-sex parents are much better off than children without a father (income, education, etc.). But it would be a complete waste of time to provide those to him, as he is so morally bankrupt that we cannot find common ground on this issue—not to mention the other issues we’ve debated—nor can he take off his Che Guevara/Liberal Fascist goggles off long enough to understand where I’m coming from as a father with certain moral convictions. Furthermore, this is why we can’t “just all get along.”

It’s OK, I’m a Minority, I Can Make Racist Comments All I Want

2009-05-27T12:33:00.001-06:00

As you all have heard by now, President Barry nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left by Justice Souter’s retirement. And hopefully you’ve heard by now some of her views and famous quotes. She says that the U.S. Courts of Appeals are where “policy is made,” and she thinks that judges should decide cases by drawing from their own life experiences, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

But there’s one comment that has me riled up a bit more today. She said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Now, switch around the words “Latina woman” and “white male.” If you need some help, this is how it would read:

I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of [his] experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.

If the italicized quote came from a white male judicial nominee, he would never be allowed to set foot near a courtroom for the rest of his life. Can you say, “Double standard”? But this is more than a double standard now. This is the liberals’ acceptability of hate against white men, simply because they are white men, who apparently don’t know anything about anything, and have no life experiences worth mentioning. As a white man with many rich, life-altering experiences, I would have to disagree, while taking issue with the premise of her quote anyway.

That brings me to my next point. Take a look at this picture to the left here. What do you notice about Lady Justice? That’s right, she’s blindfolded. Obama and Sotomayor think we should take the blindfold off, and that judges need to know how the law relates to people like Sotomayor, who grew up in the Bronx. Guess what guys . . . most people in America didn’t grow up in the Bronx or in the projects, or in segregated Georgia like Clarence Thomas. Americans all grow up in different places and in different circumstances, which is exactly why justice is blind! As for me, I’ll take a judge who can look at the facts and the law and apply the latter to the former in an uninterested way. Leave the law-making to the legislative branch, like the Constitution says. Silly Constitution.

Sotomayor won’t get Borked because of her views on white males. Sotomayor won’t get Borked because of her activist views of the judiciary. She’ll get confirmed with relative ease, with the media giving her a pass on all this crap, instead turning their gaze toward the conservatives who are questioning her qualifications. Oh wait, they’ve already started doing that. Just read this, and this, which say that the media hasn’t and won’t call Sotomayor a liberal, but had no problem calling Roberts and Alito, “very, very, very conservative.”

These two are making a mockery of our judicial system, the separation of powers, and our Constitution.

Californians(!) Reject Higher Taxes, Bigger Government

2009-05-20T15:33:00.001-06:00

I know, it’s quite a headline. But, yes, Californians overwhelmingly rejected proposals to take even more money from struggling taxpayers, voting down a series of measures designed to take money from citizens to satisfy politicians’ compulsion to keep throwing away other people’s money.

This comes from a state so blue you might wonder if they had all hyperventilated when Obama won, and not long after the all-wise, all-knowing, “Republicans-should-just-be-Democrats” Colin Powell said that “Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.” In case you needed more proof, Colin, that nothing could be further from the truth—more proof than Californians telling their government to cut spending and quit wasting money—you might want to look at this poll, which says that 71 percent of Americans really, truly, don’t want more government in their lives.

What’s more telling is that even San Franciscans(!) voted these measures down. Just take a look at this map for county-by-county results of the vote. So, are we to believe—even though this big blue state full of millions of people doesn’t want higher taxes, but actually wants government to shrink and be more fiscally responsible—that Americans want the federal government and its reach and control to grow to the extent proposed by Barack Obama?

Let this vote in California be a lesson to power-grabbing politicians everywhere. Higher taxes are not the answer. Bigger government is never the answer. And the more you try to tax and spend your way out of massive debts created by government putting its grubby hands where they have no place being, the more we, the taxpayers, will tell you to SHOVE IT.

Good Riddance

2009-04-28T11:09:00.003-06:00

Let the cleansing of the Republican Party begin! Everybody's favorite RINO, Arlen Specter, announced today that he'll go ahead and put the big D after his name from now on. Specter said that he "now find[s] [his] political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

Really, Arlen? Just now? You're pro-choice, you voted for the Porkulus bill, and you just now find that your philosophy is more in line with Democrats?

Contrast this announcement with his adamant insistance in March that he would not become a Democrat because of the need for checks and balances, saying that "[t]hat's a very important principle in the operation of our government." Apparently, keeping his job is more important to him, as he admits in his statement that this switch is mostly about winning re-election in 2010.

When it comes right down to it, Specter knows he would lose in the Republican primary to Pat Toomey. And being the liberal that he is, Specter holds power above principle.

But this is just fine for conservatives and classical liberals, because it just means that there is one less RINO in the party--the party that we need to save from guys like this.

Note: Click the links in the text for the sources.

The Fairness Doctrine and Its Proposed Effectual Equivalents

2009-04-26T20:50:00.001-06:00

Recently, I completed a paper for my Entertainment and Sports Law class in law school. I called it Power Grab: The Unfair Fairness Doctrine and Its Proposed Effectual Equivalents. I conclude that the the Fairness Doctrine and ownership caps/diversity requirements in broadcast radio are unconstitutional and as such, are nothing more than radical liberals in Washington—including the president—engaging in a blatant power grab and trying to silence their critics. If you’d like to, you can read the paper below. As always, your comments are welcome. Thanks for reading.

ARF

Power Grab

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Essays & Theses School Work obama fairness doctrine

Find Your Local Tea Party Today!

2009-04-15T09:48:00.001-06:00

To find your nearest Tea Party, click here.

Sanchez and Olbermann: Typical

2009-04-10T09:36:00.001-06:00

True to form, these two hacks blame FOXNews and right-wing talk radio—not the shooter. Let me repeat that: NOT THE SHOOTER—for the murders of three Pittsburgh police officers last week.

Sanchez said that the gunman “was convinced, after no doubt watching Fox News and listening to right-wing radio, that quote, ‘Our rights were being infringed upon.’”

And Olbermann put the blame squarely on Glenn Beck, saying, “You, Glenn Beck, you personally are encouraging Americans to shoot other Americans.” Hey, Keith. We’ll just forget that you showed a picture of Rush Limbaugh as the target of gunfire and being “blowed up real good.”

It seems that these comments all stem from conservatives pointing out that Obama has a questionable record on Second Amendment rights, as illustrated in the following excerpt from a FOXNews report during the presidential election campaign:

GARRETT: Obama, a former constitutional law professor said at the time that the DC gun ban and others pass constitutional muster because they dealt with the real threat of urban crime which he said had to be balanced against the right to possess a handgun.
OBAMA: We also have a violence on the streets that is a result of illegal handgun use, and so there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets.

(Author’s side note: Mr. Obama, doesn’t a complete ban on handguns include a ban on LEGAL handguns? Yes, if they’re all banned, they’re all illegal, but you’re forgetting to think about a little thing called the Second Amendment. Nice try with the clever language there, but I’m on to you.)
. . .
GARRETT (on camera): In 2004 Obama voted in the Illinois legislature against shielding anyone using a handgun in self defense from being prosecuted. In the U.S. Senate, Obama has voted to allow civil lawsuits against firearms manufacturers . . . .
(Source: Political Headlines Fox News Network June 26, 2008 Thursday (emphasis added).)

Oh, dear. See, it used to be that journalists would actually try to be a check on the government and let us know when the government infringed on our rights, or when candidates or government officials had ideas that, if implemented, would take away a Constitutional right. But now, people on TV and radio like Glenn Beck, who point these things out, are accused of being accomplices to murder, while the media fails to lay the blame with the wacko who pulled the trigger. This is just a typical example of liberals throwing personal responsibility and accountability out the window and blaming talk radio for the evil actions of others.

John Adams is Underappreciated

2009-04-01T09:48:00.001-06:00

This book is fantastic. David McCullough introduces us to an all-too-often forgotten Founding Father, whose contributions to our nation are unmatched by nearly all. I think that the Jefferson Memorial in Washington should be made a little smaller to make room for a grand memorial to John Adams.

Fiercely loyal to his country and its cause, John Adams, vain though he was, never shirked his duty to his family or his country, no matter how menial his assigned task. He was a man of principle, not party; a man who knew the meaning of hard work, and whose loyalty to and pride in his wife and family shine as an example to all of us.

As president, Adams avoided war with France (Napoleon) by backing up diplomacy with military strength, even when folks like Thomas Jefferson thought this to be a dangerous paradox. But perhaps the most touching aspect of Adams’ character was that he was willing and able to forgive and forget. Knowing that Jefferson was the source of a multitude of lies about him, Adams nevertheless forgave Jefferson and rekindled a lasting and historic friendship--of which we Americans are blessed to know through the pages of letters exchanged between the two figures at the end of their lives.

This book is right because McCullough brings Adams to life so we can all really know this extraordinary man in personal and meaningful way.

Go to the library and check out this book, or buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/John-Adams-David-McCullough/dp/141657588X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238600833&sr=1-1

Jake DeSantis is Right

2009-03-25T14:09:00.001-06:00

Jake DeSantis, an AIG Financial Products executive who received a retention bonus, sent the CEO his letter of resignation today. In sum, he feels betrayed. He agreed to stay on at AIG, taking a salary of one dollar a year, to help sort out the mess AIG is in. He was promised, like the other executives he worked with, that if he stayed for a year and helped out, that he would be compensated for it. So he did. But despite staying on and doing all that he was asked to do, he was wrongfully vilified and thrown under the bus amidst political pressure. His letter sums up everything that’s wrong with politicians and spineless CEO’s who once promised to defend their workers. It was but a handful of workers, who have since jumped ship, that doomed AIG, said DeSantis, and those that stayed on for a buck to fix it are now taking the blame.

“None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house,” he said.

So what is DeSantis doing with the money he is rightfully keeping? Probably keeping it all to himself at the expense of poor, helpless, starving children, right? Not even close.

“I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.”

DeSantis gets it. He knows that government-mandated charity and populist anger resulting in arbitrary confiscation and redistribution of wealth is not going to get us anywhere. Good for you, Jake, for having principles and sticking to them.

For the entire text of DeSantis’s letter of resignation, click on the following link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=3&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all

Oh There’s More

2009-03-25T10:41:00.001-06:00

The Teleprompter of the United States, also known as Barack Obama (pictured here at the right), is lying through his teeth about this AIG bonus fiasco. For the record, this blogger doesn’t really care that AIG executives got their contractual retention bonuses, which they are giving back in the face of what some say could be an unconstitutional bill of attainder. This blogger doesn’t think AIG should have gotten any tax dollars or newly printed cash from the Fed in the first place.

No, what’s infuriating about all of this is that TOTUS is feigning outrage at AIG executive retention bonuses while knowing all along that they would be handed out. Read this exchange from the Teleprompter’s press conference last night:

Reporter: But on AIG, why did you wait — why did you wait days to come out and express that outrage? It seems like the action is coming out of New York and the attorney general’s office. It took you days to come public with Secretary Geithner and say, “Look, we’re outraged.” Why did it take so long?

Obama: It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak.

Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com exposes this lie with a bit of explanation:

The problem with this is that it took him a couple of days — and he still got it wrong. If you’ll recall, Obama and his team first claimed to know nothing about the bonuses, and then modified that claim to knowing nothing about the amendment in the omnibus plan that allowed them to get paid. Subsequently, we discovered that not only did Tim Geithner and Congress discuss the bonuses on March 3rd (and that Geithner wrote an e-mail about them while with the New York Fed in November), but that it was Geithner and his staff that directed Chris Dodd to make the necessary changes to the amendment that enabled the bonuses. In otherwords, Outraged Obama made the bonuses possible.

What His Highness, the Supreme Teleprompter of the Land, is doing here is setting us all up for more government control over private businesses because he hates capitalism and thinks that government can do it better and more fairly. You see, Obama has successfully guided populist anger toward AIG and its executives, while the anger should be directed at Obama, Geithner and the Democrat-controlled Congress. They are the ones who pushed through the Porkulus bill that props up these failed companies—the same bill that contains the amendment that lets people keep their bonuses, paid for with tax dollars or Monopoly money. Once Obama can paint all corporate executives as evil, money-grubbing, incompetent imbeciles, while at the same time make you believe that the well-being of these failed companies are vital to your economic well-being, he can bypass the market and take control of businesses. In fact, he’s already said that he wants to make it easier for government to seize firms.

Government Officials Lying to Americans

2009-03-23T09:28:00.003-06:00

At least that’s what the media’s headlines should be saying right now. We have Geithner telling us he didn’t know about the bonuses going to AIG executives until at least 8 or 9 days after he actually found out. We have Senator Dodd telling us he didn’t write the amendment that allowed the executives to keep the bonuses; then telling us he did; then telling us that he did only because he was pressured to do so (grow a pair, Doddy-pants!). And we have the Teleprompter of the United States telling Jay Leno, of all people, that he was “stunned” to find out about these bonuses.

But despite all these lies, the mainstream media chooses instead to tell us how Charles Manson is looking old, or how the Pope is in Angola, how Bernie Madoff is staying in jail, or—and I must thank CBS news for almost trying—how the deficit might be really big. (These stories were the headlines on cnn.com, msnbc.com, abcnews.com, and cbsnews.com, respectively a couple days ago.) Even FoxNews.com’s headline at the time of writing this is a story about how kids are grinding up candy and “smoking” it.

If Bush were still in office (and believe me I’m no big fan of his on all this bailout mess), the headlines would read, “What Did He Know and When Did He Know It?”, “Bush Lied, People Lost a Lot of Money,” or “Bush is the All-Time Greatest Failure Ever and He Should Fry for What He Has Done to Our Country.”

Here’s the point: The mainstream media has FAILED in its watchdog role, and it’s up to us to dig for the truth about our elected and appointed officials when our gut tells us something isn’t right. Let’s take an active role in the government of our country and let’s not let these guys get away with this. Get ready for 2010.

P.S. Maybe every Democrat who voted for the "stimulus" bill would have known about these bonuses if they had ACTUALLY READ THE BILL before they voted on it!

Chavez Would Make a Great Senate Democrat

2009-03-04T11:44:00.001-07:00

Compare this . . .

. . . to this . . .

. . . and this.

Is anyone else worried about Democrats sounding like paranoid Socialist dictators?

Sources:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504466,00.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Sen_Harkin_We_need_the_Fairness_Doctrine_back_.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Sen_Stabenow_wants_hearings_on_radio_accountability_talks_fairness_doctrine.html?showall

Going Gault?

2009-03-04T10:16:00.002-07:00

Michelle Malkin has a written a column describing the actions of some fed up tax payers. In a nutshell, they have decided to "Go Galt" and reduce their incomes and outputs to deprive the federal government of tax revenue, a protest against Washington's "confiscatory policies," and America's new Socialism.

John Galt, the protagonist of Ayn Rand's famous novel, Atlas Shrugged, advocated the cessation of productive activities in order to deprive the government of revenue.

Perhaps this is the only way to get Obama and Congress to stop spending our money to bail out failed companies and irresponsible "homeowners." But not so fast. We forget that billions of dollars were simply printed by the Fed for these corporate bailouts. It seems like a lack of money in the coffers is no issue to our government, who just says, "No problem, we'll just make more."

Dr. Sharon Poczatek said it best, as quoted in Malkin's column:

". . . if I’m going to be working just to give it back to the government — it’s de-motivating and demoralizing.”

Amen, Dr. Poczatek. But that seems to be the objective of Reid, Pelosi, and the Obama administration: de-motivate individual entrepreneurs, and make more people dependent on the federal government. That way, you see, the Democrats in power will have perpetual power and control, and will always get the votes of those people who they have made dependent on them by taking away their ambition, their incentive to produce, their pursuit of happiness.

So what do you think? Should we curb our productivity to deprive the federal government of revenue? Would that send these Socialists a message? Or should we continue to produce and let them take our hard-earned bounty and re-distribute as they, in their infinite wisdom, see fit? Send me your thoughts.

Source: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/04/going-galt-and-the-next-tea-party-wave/

Uh-Oh!

2009-03-02T10:08:00.002-07:00

Thanks to glennbeck.com’s Picture of the Day. This guy might want to find a lawyer.

(This is right 'cuz it's funny.)

Some Governors Understand Strings Attached to the Porkulus Bill

2009-02-27T11:17:00.001-07:00

A few Republican governors—and even one Democrat governor—are refusing or may refuse “stimulus” bill money meant for unemployment benefits. How could they be so (insert typical liberal accusation, such as “racist,” or “insensitive” here)? Well, it turns out that the money comes with significant and really heavy strings attached—as does all federal money. These governors actually read the bill, unlike the members of Congress, who actually could not possibly have read the bill before they voted on it. You see, accepting the federal money in this bill for state unemployment benefits would put these states on the hook for expanded benefits later on. The states are also required to increase the number of people eligible for the benefits by re-working their eligibility formulas.

Facts are stubborn things, aren’t they? These governors are right for getting the facts and making a good decision based on them.

Until next time, Comrades!

Source: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090225/NEWS02/902250416

This is More Than Sportsmanship, and it is Right

2009-02-19T18:36:00.009-07:00

Here's a great story of two high school basketball teams. Long story short, a player on one team lost his mother to cancer the day of the game. He showed up to the game later and wanted to play, but the referees informed both teams that they would have to call a technical foul and give the other team two free throws (the player who lost his mother wasn't on the roster before the game). The coach of the team who would take the free throws argued with the refs for a few minutes.

"We're not taking it, we're not taking it," the coach said, but the refs would not relent. Finally, the coach asked which one of his players would take the free throws, and one player, Darius McNeal, volunteered shoot them.

The coach told his player, "You realize you're going to miss them, don't you?"

McNeal nodded his head and headed to the free throw line. "His first attempt went about two feet, bouncing a couple of times as it rolled toward the end line. The second barely left his hand."

Realizing what the McNeal had done, and why he had done it, the other team, and soon everyone in the stands, stood and applauded his sportsmanship.

"I did it for the guy who lost his mom," McNeal said. "It was the right thing to do."

Indeed it was. This is what's right with America. Real people doing truly charitable things, with no government telling them to do it.

Source:
http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=914609

Note: The player in the picture is Darius McNeal, the player who missed the free throws.

Monkey Cartoon Enrages Morons

2009-02-18T18:43:00.003-07:00

Today, as I took a break from writing my paper, "Silence! How the Fairness Doctrine Would Wrong the Right" (look for it here in the coming months), I turned on the old CNN and watched the broadcast of this story. I watched as Al Sharpton and some dude from BET went on and on about how this cartoon here at your left was racist and how the cartoonist and the New York Post should acknowledge it and apologize.

"I don't see any other way to interpret it," Sharpton said, than that the monkey represents our Black president, Barack Obama. The dude from BET said that "no one in their right mind" would think this was anything other than a racist critique of Obama. Well, I guess I'm not in my "right mind" because I found another way--the CORRECT way--to interpret this cartoon.

You see, police in Connecticut the other day had to shoot a woman's pet chimp because it was brutally attacking another woman. So, this clever cartoonist (too clever for Sharpton and company, I guess) wanted to say here that this chimpanzee could have written a bill as crappy as the one that Obama just signed. The end. Nothing racist about it. The only ones thinking of race here are--surprise!--the guys who think we whiteys are all racist.

"It's absolutely friggin' ridiculous," said the cartoonist of Sharpton's cries of racism. Amen, brother. And, memo to Sharpton and Roland Martin (click his name for unbridled stupidity--really, it's a piece of work, I tell ya), Obama didn't write the "stimulus" bill. We can thank caucasians and therefore fellow racists Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their minions in Congress for that.

So, Sharpton, BET Dude, and Roland Martin, you are all ridiculously moronic and WRONG to think this had anything to do with race.

By the way, the cartoonist is RIGHT for thinking a monkey could have written the Porkulus bill; The New York Post is RIGHT for defending him against such stupidity; and my interpretation is the intended and RIGHT one.

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/chimp.cartoon/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/martin.cartoon/index.html
and check out this Australian paper who, at least by looking at the headline, swallows Sharpton's race bait, hook, line and sinker: http://www.smh.com.au/world/newspapers-cartoon-links-obama-to-dead-chimp-20090219-8bmc.html

What is a Tax Cut? Check out This Graphic

2009-02-10T10:58:00.004-07:00

A graphic from the Congressional Budget Office shows us where and when this Porkulus bill will be spent. I'm glad the Budge Office pointed out that what some Democrats call "tax cuts" are actually free money given to people who don't pay taxes, and therefore really does constitute spending, whereas true tax cuts--a reduction in the rate of taxes actually paid by people--are not spending, but simply a reduction in the amount of money the federal government expects to receive (Coincidentally, it has been shown time and time again that tax rate reductions actually broaden the tax base and generate more tax revenue for the federal government, so these actual tax cuts might actually not "cost" as much as projected in this graphic. They might actually generate more revenue for Obama to hand out to people who don't pay taxes).

Mitt Romney on the Economic Crisis

2009-02-06T09:16:00.002-07:00

Here's a good article by Mitt Romney on how we get out of this economic mess we're in. He says it best at the end of the article:

"The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government."

Mitt Romney is right.

LDS Church Corrects "Erroneous Media Reports"

2009-02-04T11:39:00.005-07:00

Monday, the LDS Church issued a statement to correct such erroneous and misleading media headlines and statements as "Mormon Church Misstated How Much It Spent in Prop 8 Fight," and "[t]he documents show the amount spent by the Mormon Church is greater than what was initially stated."

The fact of the matter is that California law required the Church to make multiple financial statements detailing their Proposition 8 expenditures, each covering different periods of time. The latest report from the Church is the total of their expenditures (and mostly non-monetary) for the Proposition 8 campaign. This report was due January 31. Again, the Church filed previous reports, as required by California law, that disclosed expenditures for certain, smaller time periods of time, and this latest one was the required full disclosure.

The LDS Church is right for stepping up to correct false and misleading media reports, and for meeting all of its deadlines to file its reports to the proper California authorities.

For the full text of the LDS Church's statement, go here.

This is Right

2009-01-30T09:19:00.009-07:00

This book is right. It's a great read. Among other things, it sheds light on the inner workings of the nomination and confirmation process of Supreme Court justices (oh my). Justice Thomas details his humble beginnings, his human struggles, and ultimate redemption through his relationship with God and his family. Even if you don't like law or politics, you'll be inspired by Thomas' honesty and perseverance.

House GOP Unites, Votes Unanimously Against Pork

2009-01-29T21:46:00.004-07:00

Wednesday, the House voted on its version of the $819 billion (more or less, depending on who you talk to) "stimulus" bill. As it became clear that most of the money wouldn't be spent for at least 18 months, and then spent on stimulating things like STD prevention (hey, abstinence is free, isn't it?), helping people quit smoking, and NASA climate change research (check it here), every Republican stepped up for the American people and voted against this Pork sandwich. Nevertheless, the Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, who once was for bipartisanship, passed the bill, 244-188, with 11 Dems joining the Republicans. Kudos to the united House GOP for returning to conservative principles. That is why their unanimous vote against wasteful government spending is this blog's first Thing That is Right.

Article from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123315486943524321.html

Welcome to Things That are Right

2009-01-29T21:35:00.000-07:00

I welcome you to my new blog, Things That are Right. As you may have guessed, this blog will be about things that are right. Check back soon!