Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

So I really don’t want to start writing about politics because that topic is discussed at length in my house. But I have to share something. We normally don’t watch American Idol anymore since the talk of Ellen Degenerate being on the show.

However, my youngest was going through the channels and we saw that the show was being held on a U.S. aircraft carrier. They said it was in the name of patriotism.  Whoa! Now wait a minute here! It’s not OK to mix Church and State, but it’s OK to mix Hollywood and State? What the heck? Our government is going to embrace Hollywood, but throw the church out! We spend a lot of tax payer money fighting the existence of the church within the halls of government.  Before the money is even counted we then spend more on inviting Hollywood into the same halls.

What type of money was spent on security for the aircraft carrier? Isn’t there procedures for allowing people on any military base or craft? What if there were terrorist trying to sneak onto the ship via the “American Idol” conduit. Has our government lost it’s mind? Yes I believe they have. Hold on people were in for some rougher times.





“As a Christian nation, we should support health care for all.”

Such is the cry of some who attempt to impose a higher moral standard on those who assert that health care is, in fact, a commodity, rather than a right. The notion of health care as a right is patently ridiculous. We neither have a right to a house, a job, food, or a vehicle. We must either be willing to pay or work for what we want. Let’s be honest: the people who support socialized medicine are the same people who believe that someone else should meet their needs.

On the surface, socialism has an air of fairness and compassion about it, yet it ultimately violates our innate human desire to pursue excellence, to profit according to our labors and to work toward the betterment of ourselves and our standing in life – and the lives of our children. When excellence goes unrewarded, there is little cause to pursue or expect it. We have seen socialist nations suffer and dissolve as a result of dysfunction and widespread poverty – a direct result of government authorities rationing commodities.

Our nation was created as a capitalist republic. As individuals, each of us possess certain gifts, talents and abilities which enable us to produce and contribute services and benefits which generally enable us to provide support for ourselves, our families and others. Capitalism allows each individual the opportunity to succeed. Some will enjoy more financial success than others. So what? We have also been gifted with extended families, friends, neighbors, churches and community organizations to support each other in times of need.

 None of us has a right to determine how much wealth a person is allowed to earn or acquire, whether through inheritance, investment or effort or to claim any amount we deem as “excess” for ourselves or others. The wealthy already pay a highly disproportionate percentage of their income in taxes to support our government system while using far fewer services. (The top 1% pays approximately 40% of the income tax in the nation; the bottom 95% pays a little less than 40% of all income tax revenue.) Redistribution of wealth — a form of socialism — essentially penalizes those who take risks and excel, and rewards those who fail to work, plan or save. 

It is those of relative wealth who provide the vast majority of jobs in this nation. Job creators make significant investments of time, money and energy and take considerable risks to start businesses and provide jobs. It is these businesses and jobs that fuel our economy and generate the tax revenue to support government functions including public safety, infrastructure, and education. How many poor people will give you a job? Yet our culture denigrates and demonizes job-creators as greedy and heartless. Many similarly condemn “profits” in the insurance industry – and others. How many doctors will work if there is no profit? The day you remove profit from any profession is the day the profession ceases to exist – which is perhaps what the socialists want. Capitalism inspires competition through innovation and efficiency to offer consumers value. On the other hand, government programs are very often characterized by unchecked growth, impersonal service, inefficiency and fraud. Do you really want to stand in line and take a number at a DMV-style health care facility to see a surgeon? This probably seems a fair trade for those who want health care but expect someone else to pay for it. Socialism reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator.

Jesus never saw the government as the solution to our problems. While it makes sense to advocate for moral leadership in our government, (“When the godly are in authority, the people rejoice. But when the wicked are in power, they groan.” Proverbs 29:2 – NLT) charity is to be genuinely personal and voluntary, not mandated by a government bureaucracy. “Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.” James 1:27.

Our health care system would benefit from less regulation, more choice, and more people sharing in the cost of their care as well as charitable participation. These issues could be addressed without resorting to the costly, punitive, counter-intuitive and unsuccessful model of socialism.


Posted: August 23, 2011 in Politics


Very good article, of course from a Marine !!!!

“The Gun Is Civilization”

Interesting take and one you don’t hear much. . . . . .

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago , IL Gun Ban,
I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine),  that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter….

“The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone.
The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)