Mother’s Day

Mother’s Day is coming up on May 12, the day when we thank our moms for raising us to be the people we’ve become.

But these days, motherhood has a different meaning. For many women, it simply means bearing children, and letting ot
hers take on the responsibility of raising them. And it’s been this way for the last two or three generations, as feminists, businesses, and our federal government have done what they can to diminish motherhood and demean those who still feel it’s important to raise children themselves.

My wife is a stay-at-home mom, and she’s raised two beautiful, smart daughters (with input from me, of course). We both felt early on that it was important for these new people (and yes, they are people, regardless of what others may think, with the same inalienable rights we all enjoy) to be raised in a proper home, by loving, God-fearing parents, without undue interference from the outside.

Not everyone believes that. That’s their choice, of course, but when it comes time to make your final reckoning, the excuse, “I was raised by a village” will ring pretty hollow.

Ironically enough, the Obama economy may be giving many women the chance to stay home with their kids. More than 320,000 women left the workforce in the last two months, and female participation in the workforce is at “historic” lows. (See the story here.) Many of those women probably have kids, so this may be a historic opportunity for a new generation of people to enjoy the benefits of being raised at home by their mother. Always look on the bright side – that’s what my mom taught me.

At the very least, it’s time for mothers (and fathers) to reassert their parental rights, re-assume their parental duties, and raise a generation of people that know right from wrong and will reject the meddlesome influences of those in society who downplay the importance of motherhood.

And regardless of your childhood circumstances, hug your mother this Sunday.

Who’s the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?

The “Occupy” movement believes that American society is inherently unfair, and it’s their job to call attention to it by causing mayhem and destruction to private property.

That is so three years old.

Their biggest complaint is that companies and “the rich” make too much money on the backs of the middle class, and “the 99%” deserve their cut. They do this while texting on their iPhones, wearing their Nikes and American Eagle, or surfing on their iPads.

Irony is lost on these folks.

If the big beef is against big companies, here’s a better way to take them down – buy from someone else.

But they don’t want economic equality, or even economic fairness, they simply want, as Alfred stated in “The Dark Knight,” to “watch the world burn.”

One of the movement’s biggest backers is organized labor. Organized labor purports to stand up for the rights of the middle class, but it’s hard to see how when union leadership drives cars that cost more than the average union worker’s salary, or live in houses that are monuments to excess. Labor uses the Occupy movement as its “useful idiots” to accomplish its goal of strangling business.

Hypocricy is apparently also lost on these people. Or perhaps it isn’t. By pretending to be on the side of fools, it’s easier to use the fools to their purposes.

Want to be really progressive, Progressives?

Embrace personal freedom and personal responsibility. Mankind will progress by leaps and bounds. Or, continue to push the same job-killing, economy-killing, people-killing policies and watch mankind tear itself apart. Your choice, progs. But don’t expect me to go along with you.

Nothing to see here, move along

I was reading an article on NewsBusters this morning regarding a statement made by the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia. (The article can be found here.) In a nutshell, this Grand Mufti called for the destruction of all churches in the region.

(An aside: I believe “nutshell” is a quite appropriate adjective. But I digress.)

The article also indicates that, despite the incendiary nature of these remarks, there has been nary a peep out of the mainstream media. The author posits that it’s either because they consider it “old news” or that the Saudis are still paying Western media outlets to publish or broadcast only positive news about Islam and Saudi Arabia. Both possibilities are true, I guess.

But here’s another possibility: What if the Western media is actually in league with Islam? You know, kind of along the lines of Lenin’s “useful idiots” from the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917?

How’s this for a theory – in addition to paying the media to publish positive stories about Islam, the Islamists have also promised the Western media a “place at the table,” as it were. In other words, a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” arrangement.

Crazy, I know. But look around: There are crazier things happening every day of which we would never have dreamed. Why is this any crazier?

What the media doesn’t understand – in fact, what the enablers of evil have never understood – is that they are doing nothing more than appeasing the crocodile, hoping it will eat them last. And it will, if this is allowed to continue.

The media is OK with the Grand Mufti’s attack on Christianity (what other religion has “churches?”) and they’re OK with Obama’s attack on Christianity (the “contraception mandate”), but let anyone breathe a word, true or not, about Islam, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth begins.

But Islam is not a “religion,” per se, despite the references to a supreme being, prayers, stories of miracles, etc. Islam is an ideology. Here is what I posted to NewsBusters in comment to the article:

Islam is an ideology that has as its only goal world domination (the establishment of the global “caliphate”). In order to dominate, Islam first has to subjugate. And those who won’t go along willingly will be destroyed, in their view.

The always fatal flaw in the plans of those who seek to dominate and control is the assumption that those who they desire to control will simply roll over. As history shows, this has rarely happened (the French surrender to the Nazis in WWII is the only recent example that pops to mind).

The unfortunate thing is that, in resisting subjugation, the world may tear itself apart. Anybody who looks at what’s going on today, and considers it thoughtfully, cannot reject that possibility.

But the mainstream media would rather you not consider that consequence, so they simply don’t report the news.

Bringing Down the Mainstream Media

The recent kerfluffle over the Breitbart tape of President Obama embracing radical Harvard professor Derrick Bell and asking those in attendance to “open their hearts and minds” to what he had to say indicates to me, at least, that there are a lot of people out there who are missing the point. Obama’s radical associations have been well known for some time, and this latest tape seemed to present more of the same, right? Nothing much to see that we haven’t seen before.

Even some conservative commentators have seemed to ask, “Is that all there is?” After the build-up by Andrew Breitbart, some seemed to be scratching their heads, myself among them.

But then I realized that this whole thing is nothing but a distraction from the real issue, and the media whitewash of Obama’s record is a ploy to keep us occupied. Since Obama took office, his regime has undertaken a systematic attempt to bring all aspects of our economy under government control. Energy, transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, health care, all under the government umbrella. And the latest domino to fall is housing. In a report on Reuters today (found on http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46594269/ns/business-real_estate/t/investors-buying-homes-dozen/), it seems as though investors are buying foreclosed homes by the dozens. The American dream of home ownership may soon fall by the wayside.

But that’s not the point. The fact of the matter is, the media is doing all it can to either downplay or hide or outright lie about what’s going on, and this is why the Obama/Bell tape should be such a big deal. Not because it exposes another radical association, but because it exposes the media as the liars and propagandists that they truly are.

Look at all the “news” lately. Obama’s “war on religion”; the Sandra Fluke “controversy”; all of the attacks on Republicans; Bill Maher’s $1 million contribution to Obama’s Super-PAC and the resultant lack of outcry over the vile names he’s called conservative women (and the left wants to hang Rush Limbaugh in effigy – or maybe in person – for calling Ms. Fluke a bad name; can you say “double standard?”); the GOP presidential campaign; and on and on. Yet we’ve heard basically nothing about the Japanese earthquake, tsunami and damage to the Fukusawa nuclear reactor since it happened a year ago; we’ve heard nothing about the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico since the well was supposedly “capped”, although oil continues to seep from the well; and we hear nothing about the fact that prices continue to go up and wages are either stagnant or falling, while the media tries to spin job losses as a good thing. We hear nothing from the media about how the Obama regime is systematically destroying the American economy, because they’re in on it.

And, sad to say, conservatives participate in the misdirection as well. The Breitbart tapes are just another distraction among many. Do they actually have a hope in Hades of destroying Obama’s re-election plans? Unless they show something so damning that Obama cannot spin it away, it’s doubtful. And even if they do, don’t expect to hear about it on the nightly news.

I’ve become Captivated

Last week I got out from under the iPhone and got a Samsung Captivate. It’s a Galaxy S phone that runs the Android operating system, which is quite a bit different from the iOS system that runs the iPhone.

The main reason I switched was because I was tired of being chained to Apple’s way of doing things. The iPhone wasn’t very customizable. I had a lot of apps that did a lot of things, and it was a useful device for me. But I had to go through a lot of steps to do certain things, and it was a bit of a hassle.

My Android is very customizable. I was able to set up an eight-digit passcode to lock the phone (iOS only offers a 4 digit code), I changed my wallpaper out of the box (it comes stock with animated “live” wallpaper, which is cool but eats up battery power), and was able to download just about every app in Android flavor that I used to have on my iPhone.

The things I like best about it are the multiple home screens (where you can park shortcuts to apps, or widgets, or folders that contain other apps, or even shortcuts to contacts in your address book) and the Swype keyboard that allows you to type much faster than your typical touch-screen keyboard. I’m still getting the hang of it, but it seems pretty accurate and offers suggestions for words that you might not spell properly.

The things I don’t like about it are, ironically enough, the customizability – I’m obviously a little ADHD because I can’t make up my mind how I want my phone to behave and look. And I don’t like the lack of a way to go back to other open apps (“multi-tasking”), although it does offer a list of “recent applications” that is somewhat helpful. I also don’t like that you have to go to the “Task Manager” to shut down currently running apps, instead of holding down the “home” button and calling up a list of apps, then holding the app icon until it wiggles and you click the “minus” sign to close it.

On the flip side of that, when an app closes in Android, for the most part it closes completely. So when you exit back to the home screen there’s little left in memory to slow you down.

I think one of the nicest things about this phone is a slot for a microSD card. You can put up to a 32 gigabyte card into the slot, increasing this phone’s storage capacity to 48 gb. You’d have to pay upwards of $600 for an iPhone with 64 gb of storage capacity.

Another nice thing is that you’re not locked into playing Apple’s proprietary m4v QuickTime format for videos. You can play MP4 or AVI videos, and WAV audio as well as AAC and MP3. You can use MP3 ringtones, and it has the 4″ AMOLED screen that allows you to play HD videos if you want. The camera shoots 720p video and 5 megapixel stills (but no flash) and it has a front-facing camera. So you can make Oovoo or Skype video calls (with the newest version of the operating system, Android 2.3 “Gingerbread”) and not be locked into Apple’s Facetime. (You still should use Wi-Fi for video calls, though, because the quality isn’t very good over 3G and you use a lot of data.)

I’ve only had it for less than a week, and I’m sure I’ll find some issues with it, as well as discover other things I like about it. (For example, my wife says my voice sounds weird coming from my phone to hers.)

I also like the thinness of the phone, but the length and width is a little bigger than the iPhone. And I need to find a case. But overall I think I’m happy with it. If anyone has any tips or tricks they’re willing to share (or if you know where I can get a cheap Otter Box Commuter case ) then Tweet or DM me and let me know. I think that’s the best thing about the Android operating system – it’s open, unlike iOS which is arrogantly closed, kind of like Apple itself.

Quickly, the story behind the switch: My daughter’s iPhone was malfunctioning (hardware issues) so she offered to pay for my upgrade to a Captivate if I’d give her my iPhone. We went to the Apple Store first, though, to see if there was a fix they could suggest, but their condescending attitude pretty much turned her off to Apple products completely. And I see her point – Apple assumes its customers are more interested in the flash than in the substance, and their closed environment stifles any innovation other than theirs. Whereas Android is open source, and the community works to improve it, encouraging innovation and growth.

I like that.

Voter ID and its drawbacks

In Texas, there’s some controversy over a law requiring potential voters to show identification when voting – a driver license or state issued ID card. Democrats claim it will disenfranchise minority voters because many of them don’t have a driver license. But there’s one major drawback to requiring a DL to vote.

Are you sure you want someone who texts while driving, cuts off other drivers, doesn’t use their signal, or otherwise drives poorly to vote?

The meaning of Christmas and the First Amendment

Just came across an article by Todd Starnes of Fox News relating to a decision by Travis AFB to not remove a Christian nativity scene and a Jewish menorah from their on-base Christmas display, despite a protest from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

I applaud Travis AFB and the United States Air Force for taking a stand on this issue, but I also believe the MRFF is barking up the wrong tree – and so are atheists and “freedom from religion” people when it comes to the First Amendment, which they cite so often in making their argument.

First of all, it doesn’t say “Government shall not…” That’s where everyone gets it wrong. When it comes to free speech and aggrieved parties who claim their rights are being violated by bigger groups of all stripes (local government, business, school districts, employers, etc.), what they fail to understand is that the First Amendment doesn’t address that issue.

For those who fell asleep in Civics class (or had a left-wing instructor, as so many of us did), here is the text of Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note the first word in that sentence – Congress. Not your local school board, not your employer, not your city council or State legislature, not even your next door neighbor. In fact, they have the same freedom as you to say what they want, or to try and shut someone up who doesn’t want to listen to them, or to put a Menorah in their front yard, or to complain when someone else does.

The MRFF certainly has the right to complain about the Travis AFB display. It’s in the First Amendment. But what they need to rememeber is that the United States Air Force is NOT Congress. And even though it’s a branch of government (the Defense Department), it is not a lawmaking body. And whether some airmen decide to put up a religious display or not is not a government “endorsement” of religion.

The First Amendment doesn’t preclude Congress from making a law that makes it illegal to abridge those rights, but it would be a moot point because the First Amendment exists.

Anyone who cites the First Amendment in claiming they have the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater misses the point, and misuses the Amendment. So, too, does anyone who cites the First Amendment in claiming the USAF has no legal right to set up religious displays.

If you’re going to use the Constitution to defend an action, or argue against an action, at least make sure you understand what the Constitution says.

Some thoughts on the Occupy movement

I’m having a hard time connecting with the people who make up and support the “Occupy” movement. Why? Mainly because I worked for what I have and I don’t want anyone suggesting that I shouldn’t have it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m by no means “rich.” At least, not financially. But I have what many would consider a comfortable standard of living. My income is above the inflation-adjusted median, I own two cars, my home is comfortable and not in need of major repairs, and I have the leisure time to write posts like this.

But I would like to have more. It’s a human trait to want more than you have, and it’s also a human trait to want what others have. It’s called “covetousness,” or envy, and that seems to be the fuel that powers the Occupy movement across the country.

Members of this movement began on September 17 (not so coincidentally, the day the U. S. Constitution was ratified) by pitching tents and setting themselves down on Wall Street for what they termed a “day of rage.” Rage against what was not immediately clear, but it soon became obvious that the members of this movement were angry at the fact that a certain few people in this nation were rich, and they weren’t, and they wanted some of what the “rich” people have. In fact, they wanted all of it.

It reminds me of a young child at Christmas when, confronted with the reality that not everything on their list to Santa was delivered, threatens to hold his or her breath and turn blue until those items are supplied. Extortion by self-destruction.

The Occupy movement and its handlers (ironically, among them the AFL-CIO) began chanting about “income inequality” and calling themselves the “99%” (in reference to the fact that the top 1% of the population makes the most money, as seen in this chart – 2007 is the latest data available). And then they began chanting about “income inequality” and threatening to become Robin Hoods – taking from the rich and giving to the poor. (Never mind that Robin Hood took back money illegally levied as “taxes” by Prince John, who held the English crown while King Richard took part in the Crusades, and gave it back to those from whom Prince John took it. Get it? The government – Prince John – was overtaxing the citizens, not “the rich”) They claimed through their handlers that the “rich” (as embodied by Wall Street) “stole” the money they have from those who don’t have it anymore.

How, exactly, does that work? Are we being forced to purchase goods and services from companies represented on Wall Street? Is that part of that nebulous “good and necessary” clause of the Constitution I never read about? (Let’s not get into an argument about Obamacare right now.) Did those nasty Wall Street “banksters” actually steal some of my hard-earned money? Is going to Wal-Mart or Target considered “theft?”

Wow, if I don’t want Wall Street to steal my money I should just stop buying stuff, right?

The Occupy movement grew from there, with people in places like Pittsburgh, Oakland, Portland, Fort Worth, and even smaller communities like Denton, Texas setting up camp in public locations like parks, sidewalks, and even college campuses. And the irony of this is that the “people” (as the Occupy movement saw themselves) were “occupying” locations that were owned by … wait for it … the government. Which means that the locations they occupied were purchased with tax dollars that, in some cases, they did not contribute.

So who was stealing from whom, again?

At any rate, the Occupy movement appeared to devolve into the 21st Century equivalent of a hippie sit-in. After a time, cities became impatient with the Occupiers and began removing them, mostly peacefully, but sometimes with limited force. Some in the movement took that as an opportunity to add “police brutality” to their list of grievances, even though by disobeying a lawful order to disperse they were breaking the law.

And as the Occupiers dispersed, they set up camp in new places. And their chant began to include something about “income inequality,” which is simply their way of saying, “You have something I want, and I’m going to take it from you.”

Envy. Covetousness.

University instructors, Leftist organizations (like the aforementioned AFL-CIO and “Mother Jones” magazine) began taking up the chant. President Obama came out in support of the movement (even though some of his top contributors in 2008 were Wall Street denizens). The media made them superstars – at least, the national media. On a local level, there were reports of drug use (here, here, here, and here, among others – do a Google search and doubtless you’ll find more), overdoses, crime (to date, nearly 400 incidents, which include shootings and fatalities – you can find a list of reports here).

But here’s my main contention about all of this “income inequality” claptrap – it’s not unequal if you didn’t earn it or don’t deserve it!

The story of the first Thanksgiving is a reminder that “income equality” doesn’t really work. (Here’s a link to the last Washington Times story; you thought I was going to link to Rush Limbaugh, didn’t you?) In essence, “from each according to his gifts; to each according to his needs” would have killed the first English settlers in very short order. In fact, in a letter from Robert Cushman to John Carver and those who wrote the Plymouth Compact, he wrote this:

All men are not of one condition. A. If by condition you mean wealth, you are mistaken; if you mean by condition, qualities, then I say he that is not contente his neighbour shall have as good a house, fare, means, etc. as him selfe, is not of a good qualitie.

See what he did there? This one section is an indictment of envy and covetousness. Yet, the Pilgrims traveled to the New World anyway and tried to live under the Plymouth Compact. But as people began dying and industriousness gave way to sloth, Bradford decided to shake things up – and free market capitalism in America was born. (You can find the writings of Bradford here, lest you think the right wing just made all this up.)

But this is the section that stands out for me, and if you can navigate through the old English spellings, you can see why the Occupy movement is doomed to failure:

The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos and other.ancients, applauded by some of aater times; -that the taking away of propertie, and bringing in communitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and $orishing; as if they were wiser then God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For the yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and servise did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails and cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter the other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, etc., with the meaner and yonger sorte, thought it some indignite and disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it. Upon the poynte all being to have alike, and all to doe alike, they thought them selves in the like condition, and ove as good as another; and so, if it did not cut of those relations that God hath set amongest men, yet it did at least much diminish and take of the mutuall respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have bene worse if they had been men of another condition. Let pone objecte this is mens corruption, and nothing to the course it selfe. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdome saw another course fiter for them.

Bottom line: Socialism didn’t work then, it doesn’t work now, and the Occupy movement will fade into the dustbin of history – because people don’t like to do for others what those others won’t do for themselves.

And crybabies don’t always get what they want. Hold your breath and turn blue, but you’re not getting what you want.

Parents are to blame

The Occupy movement across the nation reminds me of my children when they were much younger. If they wanted something and I wouldn’t give it to them, they promised to stay where they were until they got it. I’m sure my readers have similar stories (“I’m gonna hold my breath till I’m blue in the face” was also quite popular). But to me, the Occupy movement is nothing more than a temper tantrum writ large – and we, the parents, are to blame.

How so, you ask? Why, we’ve given our children everything they wanted – certainly, everything they needed. How can we be to blame for this type of behavior?

Let me give you an example. A couple I know is babysitting their grandchildren for their daughter and son-in-law, who both work. At first, the agreement was that the couple would watch the grandkids until the daughter could quit work and stay home. But in the intervening years, the situation has changed to include not only watching the kids, but also buying groceries and preparing meals! When asked why, the grandparents could only shrug and say, “It’s for the kids.”

What is happening here is that someone, for whom a lot has already been given, is taking even more – and nobody is willing to throw up a stop sign.

Remind you of anyone?

The biggest issue In both cases – the grandparents and the Occupy movement – is that no one was willing to instill a sense of personal responsibility in these kids when they still were kids. The daughter seems unwilling to take responsibility for her kids; the Occupy individuals are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions (or even exhibit any responsibility, if many of the eyewitness accounts are to be believed; you certainly won’t find anything in the mainstream media). This is a textbook exhibit of a massive parenting fail.

The Bible says “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes” (Proverbs 13:24). Many folks have colloquialized this to say “spare the rod and spoil the child.” Most leftists point to this as their reasoning for many of their current child-rearing methods, including awards for participation, “self-esteem”-building exercises, and promotion from one grade to another without justification. Corporal punishment has been done away with as the Left’s example of “child abuse.”

Is it any wonder the Occupy members are acting like spoiled brats? So now, since they weren’t punished as kids, we face the very real possibility of violent confrontation – indeed, it’s already happened in places like Oakland an Denver.

Our kids are trying to kill us.

It’s too late to try and teach these cretins how to be responsible. But perhaps, if we and our nation survive this latest bout of self-inflicted stupidity, we can hold this up as a model for future parents.

And remember the line, “I hope you have a kid just like you”? Not any more, we don’t. Not if they turn out like this.