Offended by Christmas trees?
What is the nation thinking that Christmas trees offend some people. How could the ancient druid custom of decorating a tree near the the time of the winter soltice cause people to be offended?
Federalism, Free Markets and the Liberty To Let One's Mind Wander. I Am Very Worried About the Fate of Liberty in the USA, Where Government is Taking people's Lives ____________________________________________________________________________________________ "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater-
Peggy Noonan's Op-ed on the Obamessiah's amateurish presidency, here.
Here. It seem s as if rule of law and private property rights drive wealth and prosperity. Take these away, and there is anarchy and arbitrary government intervention that reduces the value of work and investment.
George Washington proclamation to Congress asking to declare Thanksgiving day in recognition and service to God....
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor – and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”In today's United States, there are those that insist on removing God from all things public. Its like trying to remove all the water from the seas after which these people will insist that they are to remain seas but in fact they will will be dry and lifeless deserts. God is what makes our world and lives what they are. This is why we give thanks.
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be – That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks – for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation – for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war –for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed – for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions – to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually – to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed – to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord – To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and Us – and generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
A socialist or Marxist must have a difficult time dealing with opinion from those with real world experience. So what does the idealist Marxist do? They only hire those within the same group as themselves. This particular piece actually shocked me. How can you find so many people without private sector experieince? Imagine the vetting process..... Worked for a living..... REJECTED!!!!!
A friend sends along the following chart from a J.P. Morgan research report. It examines the prior private sector experience of the cabinet officials since 1900 that one might expect a president to turn to in seeking advice about helping the economy. It includes secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security—432 cabinet members in all.
I opened the mail and found a pre-declined credit card.
Barack Obama does not have Angelina Jolie's seal of approval.And may I add, he's an empty suit. Here. I guess that she and I have at least this in common!
"She hates him," a source close to the U.N. goodwill ambassador, 34, tells the new issue of Us Weekly (on newsstands now).
"She's into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts. She thinks Obama is really a socialist in disguise," adds the source.
But don't expect to see the Salt actress rally against Democrats on Fox News like her staunch Republican father, Jon Voight.
"Angie isn't Republican, but she thinks Obama is all smoke and mirrors," the source says.
And those political views are putting her at odds with Brad Pitt, 45, who is a big fan of the president and even went solo to the 2008 election party in Chicago.
"They get in nasty arguments all the time about it," says the source. "She doesn't respect Brad when it comes to politics, but, in the end, this won't tear them apart."
The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
-Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004)-
We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and, ultimately, human fulfillment are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire post-war period, contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development. The societies that have achieved the most spectacular, broad-based progress are neither the most tightly controlled, nor the biggest in size, nor the wealthiest in natural resources. No, what unites them all is their willingness to believe in the magic of the marketplace.
During a visit to the mental asylum, I asked the director how do
Someone in the USA particularity NYC, taking responsibility for their own actions!!! Who would have thunk it?
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'I think that this biblical passage is important to contemplate even for those that are not Christians. It implies and argues for assistance to the suffering, promoting the underprivileged, including all in our lives, seeking justice and understanding and meeting the needs of others.
-Matthew 25:40, NIV -
Competition is a "discovery procedure," Nobel-prize-winning economist F. A. Hayek taught. Through the competitive market process, we producers and consumers constantly learn things that force us to adjust our behavior if we are to succeed. Central planners fail for two reasons:From here. And what about innovation? Well, innovation for a centrally planned economy heads towards servicing what the government central planners can contemplate and fit into their limited models. Since market information is not found in any accessible place and information actually becomes less accessible under that static model since there is no information available from prices since prices are set by the planners themselves, changes to meet shifting needs or demand are not adjusted since this information is impossible to recognized. In this model, real innovation suffers and loses its ability to create outsized returns whereas servicing government and their process becomes the focus for investment. So investment, since government is now the decision maker will not need to service actual shifts in demand or needs but to service the central planners need to be relevent.
First, knowledge about supply, demand, individual preferences and resource availability is scattered -- much of it never articulated -- throughout society. It is not concentrated in a database where a group of planners can access it.
Second, this "data" is dynamic: It changes without notice.
No matter how honorable the central planners' intentions, they will fail because they cannot know the needs and wishes of 300 million different people. And if they somehow did know their needs, they wouldn't know them tomorrow.
I expect political hardball on any legislation as important as the health care bill.If there is a church group, like most Northeastern Protestants that support socialized medicine, will they too be audited? And as Woolsey asserts, is the separation between church and state, one in which religious organizations are not allowed to opine or be involved at all in legislation? Maybe the IRS should audit all churches that were against the war(s) in Iraq and Afghanistan too.
I just didn’t expect it from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
Who elected them to Congress?
The role the bishops played in the pushing the Stupak amendment, which unfairly restricts access for low-income women to insurance coverage for abortions, was more than mere advocacy.
They seemed to dictate the finer points of the amendment, and managed to bully members of Congress to vote for added restrictions on a perfectly legal surgical procedure.
And this political effort was subsidized by taxpayers, since the Council enjoys tax-exempt status.
When I visit churches in my district, we are very careful to keep everything “non-political” to protect their tax-exempt status.
The IRS is less restrictive about church involvement in efforts to influence legislation than it is about involvement in campaigns and elections.
Given the political behavior of USCCB in this case, maybe it shouldn’t be.
-Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus-
"Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man."See, according to those that want to create the perfect Utopian society, it is important that religion does not get in way of making the government the center of population's spiritual life in addition to its economic life. And there are others that used the idea that a religious fanaticism towards government as an assisting tool for their domination.....
"Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters .. inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death "
"are taught by religion to practice charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven."
-Vlaimir Lenin, Russian socialist-
The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others.Sounds like Democrats and their attitudes towards socializing medicine. So, a controlling central government needs to create a spiritual replacement to God that manifests in a charismatic leader such as a Hitler, Mao, Kim, Lenin, Stalin, etc. But in addition, the central government cannot tolerate trouble coming form the church an typically will try to marginalize or keep it out of political, social or economic debate...
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12 -
Hitler did attack the church indirectly by enforcing all sorts of ridiculous paralyzing financial transactions, laws against proselytizing, imprisonment when anyone dared to speak or even hint at opposition.Here. Democrats need to shut down people that may not be completely for every aspect of their Utopian societal meddling, whether it be through IRS harassment or through the "Fairness Doctrine" that intends shutting down the voice of conservatives.
Germany already had a history of anti-Catholic persecution under Otto von Bismarck and the Rheinland in particular came under persecution in the 1870's. Priests were often in hiding from the Berlin regime which was (supposedly Lutheran), but also managed to find the more conservative Lutherans unacceptable and persecuted them too. The laws which these persecutions came under were known as the "May laws." Eventually they were all overturned as it caused chaos.
I am totally against just cutting and pasting someone else's opinion on one's blog. What does it tell you about the blog writer? No original thoughts? Generally, I think that it is appropriate to take pieces and thoughts from one writer and meld it with one's own. However, Sowell's material needs to be considered in it's totality. He has a simple yet powerful writing style that allows the reader to consider issues without overly confusing the subject matter. Enjoy.
The "Costs" of Medical Care: Part IIFrom here.
Although it is cheaper to buy a pint of milk than to buy a quart of milk, nobody considers that to be lowering the price of milk. Although it is cheaper to buy a lower quality of all sorts of goods than to buy a higher quality, nobody thinks of that as lowering the price of either lower or higher quality goods.
Yet, when it comes to medical care, there seems to be remarkably little attention paid to questions of both quantity and quality, in the rush to "bring down the cost of medical care."
There is no question that you can reduce the payments for medical care by having either a lower quantity or a lower quality of medical care. That has already been done in countries with government-run medical systems.
In the United States, the government has already reduced payments for patients on Medicare and Medicaid, with the result that some doctors no longer accept new patients with Medicare or Medicaid. That has not reduced the cost of medical care. It has reduced the availability of medical care, just as buying a pint of milk reduces the payment below what a quart of milk would cost.
Letting old people die instead of saving their lives will undoubtedly reduce medical payments considerably. But old people have that option already-- and seldom choose to exercise it, despite clever people who talk about a "duty to die."
A government-run system will take that decision out of the hands of the elderly or their families, and thereby "bring down the cost of medical care." A stranger's death is much easier to take, especially if you are a bureaucrat making that decision in Washington.
At one time, in desperately poor societies, living on the edge of starvation, old people might be abandoned to their fate or even go off on their own to face death alone. But, in a society where huge flat-screen TVs are common, along with a thousand gadgets for amusement and entertainment, and where even most people living below the official poverty line own a car or truck, to talk about a "duty to die" so that younger people can live it up is obscene.
You can even save money by cutting down on medications to relieve pain, as is already being done in Britain's government-run medical system. You can save money by not having as many high-tech medical devices like CAT scans or MRIs, and not using the latest medications. Countries with government-run medical systems have less of all these things than the United States has.
But reducing these things is not "bringing down the cost of medical care." It is simply refusing to pay those costs-- and taking the consequences.
For those who live by talking points, one of their biggest talking points is that Americans do not get any longer life span than people in other Western nations by all the additional money we spend on medical care.
Like so many clever things that are said, this argument depends on confusing very different things-- namely, "health care" and "medical care." Medical care is a limited part of health care. What we do and don't do in the way we live our lives affects our health and our longevity, in many cases more so than what doctors can do to provide medical care.
Americans have higher rates of obesity, homicide and narcotics addiction than people in many other Western nations. There are severe limits on what doctors and medical care can do about that.
If we are serious about medical care-- and we should be serious, since it is a matter of life and death-- then we should have no time for clever statements that confuse instead of clarifying.
If we want to compare the effects of medical care, as such, in the United States with that in other countries with government-run medical systems, then we need to compare things where medical care is what matters most, such as survival rates of people with cancer.
The United States has one of the highest rates of cancer survival in the world-- and for some cancers, the number one rate of survival.
We also lead the world in creating new life-saving pharmaceutical drugs. But all of this can change-- for the worse-- if we listen to clever people who think they should be running our lives.
Four Catholic men and a Catholic woman were having coffee. The first Catholic man tells his friends, "My son is a priest, when he walks into a room, everyone calls him 'Father'."
"As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials."It doesn't really sound like something that he would actually say, but it is a relevant thought. I was too was completely shocked, first that the Democrats selected the horrendously under-qualified Obamessiah over the nominally somewhat more qualified Hillary Clinton. Secondly, that the Republicans chose a super centrist that does not represent true Conservatism, John McCain as their candidate. Thirdly, that the United States elected the empty suit over someone with true accomplishments.
There is no better way for China to get rid of toxic chemicals then to put them into products that they export to foreign countries. The latest problem is chemical fumes emanating from drywall sold to American consumers used for building homes, here.