Wednesday, October 28, 2009
How ironic that in a week in which the Post underwent a physical "facelift" (new fonts, setup, etc.), it would still show its true colors at a slanted liberal paper.
If you did not read the column, here is a link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR2009102104195.html
I will give the Post editors some credit for running two letters to the editor in Monday's edition that went after Mr. McCartney's slanderous article:
Why voters like Ken Cuccinelli
Monday, October 26, 2009
Robert McCartney's Oct. 22 Metro column bashing state Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II (R-Fairfax) -- I guess your editorial page was just too crowded that day -- missed the main attraction of the attorney general candidate to a weary electorate: his honesty ["Cuccinelli: In your heart you know he's to the right of right"]. In this era of constant media spin, advocacy journalism on news pages and "balloon boy" escapades, it is refreshing to find a politician that you can trust.
I have walked precincts for Ken Cuccinelli in his past two elections. He is hardworking, intelligent and direct. Time and again, I have seen him win over voters who might not agree with him on a particular issue but are impressed with his command of the facts, straight answers and willingness to listen to the other point of view. Very few voters in Fairfax County have ever come across a politician other than Cuccinelli who will give them a straight answer.
It is refreshing and inspiring.
Margaret Baker, Clifton
The writer is a volunteer in Ken Cuccinelli's campaign.
With Republican Ken Cuccinelli II significantly leading his opponent in the polls for months in the race between two Fairfax County legislators to become Virginia's next attorney general based on legitimate campaign factors -- debate results, grass-roots campaigning and positions on issues important to voters -- your paper decided it was time to do its part to engage in an effort to defeat Cuccinelli in his contest against Democratic Del. Stephen C. Shannon.
Robert McCartney's column was an obvious attempt to persuade Virginia voters to ignore the facts of the campaign and stop the social conservative before it's too late.
I would hope that Virginia voters would consider the experiences, endorsements, strengths and weaknesses of the candidates as the basis for their vote and not the biased intentions or assertions of Mr. McCartney.
Voters can see for themselves the differences and positions of these two candidates by conducting an Internet search for "Ken Cuccinelli Steve Shannon Debate." There are numerous videos from their debates available to view. The results are astonishingly clear as to who should serve as the next attorney general, and they validate why Cuccinelli leads in the polls.
Kevin O'Malley, Centreville
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Below are links to download the audio from each part. These talks are great for both Catholics and non Catholics and make for a better way to enjoy a morning or afternoon commute.
Sins and Confession -- Click Here to Listen or Download (21.9 MB, 48:01)
The Holy Eucharist -- Click Here to Listen or Download (22.6 MB, 49:34)
Our Blessed Mother -- Click Here to Listen or Download (24.1 MB, 52:46)
Morality and Life -- Click Here to Listen or Download (27.3 MB, 59:40)
The Importance of Prayer -- Click Here to Listen or Download (24.6 MB, 53:44)
Monday, October 19, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
I am not the only one who sees a strange anomaly in the Oslo committee awarding Mr. Obama the Nobel Peace Prize last week. Considering that his actual nomination had to have taken place before February 1st when he was not even two weeks in office, he could not have possibly done anything to merit this award and he certainly hasn't done anything since! In fact, the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize is the shameless leader of the war against unborn children around the world; his alliance with Planned Parenthood testifies vocally to his pro-death agenda, not to mention his wiping out of the Mexico City Policy to fund the death peddlers around the world. His administration's debates about whether to send 40,000 more troops into Afghanistan seem mildly aggressive in comparison to the war against babies. It is just astounding to think that neither Mahatma Gandhi nor Pope John Paul II received this Prize in their lifetimes, a fact that speaks volumes about the Scandinavians' sense of what constitutes true peace-making.
Keep in mind that American policies can have huge consequences around the world. Already we are seeing evidence that the anti-life movement has been tremendously emboldened by the election of America's strongest abortion promoter ever and one who "released funds" to abortion-promoting organizations by wiping out the Mexico City Policy on his third day in office. In very real terms, this meant the unleashing of terrorism on the unborn with American dollars and influence. Our affiliate in Tanzania recently reported to us that a new sterilization campaign has blanketed his beloved country because the anti-lifers know that they will get away with it now that the US government has no veto power over these things. The UN and the European Union have already been putting pressure on pro-life Catholic countries like Poland and Malta to legalize abortion, and just last week Ireland voted Yes to the Lisbon Treaty which a year ago they had turned down cold. This EU treaty will cajole, slacken and manipulate another pro-life country into eventually legalizing the killing of its own babies. It's just a foot in the door to taking away Ireland's sovereignty on the issue of life and will undoubtedly have a huge long-term impact on the country.
There will be no peace in any society as long as a nation accepts and/or endorses the principle that babies are disposable commodities and can be murdered at will. HLI missionaries continuously tell the remaining pro-life nations that abortion is a war on children which no society can long survive. Its effects are entirely negative and will never get better. Furthermore, there are certain conscientious persons in every population that will fight with every fiber of their beings to see that abortion is never normalized or accepted as a good, and social conflict will be the inevitable outcome. Society will suffer because of the millions of women and men who will be both physically and emotionally injured by abortion and the millions of families that will be destroyed as a result. The worst effect of this war on children is the deadening of conscience that the unrepentant killing of innocents has on the national soul.
Clearly, those who want peace must work for it in a concerted effort to protect the most vulnerable citizens of a nation, not in the good intentions of war-mongering politicians. The Nobel Peace Prize should have been given to the thousands of men and women praying in front of the killing centers of our world and working in the crisis pregnancy centers consoling the desperate women who need peace and resources to choose life. These are the real heroes who actually do have something to show for their peace-making efforts. More peace has come to our world from the pro-life movement than the Nobel Committee could ever dream of.
Tell that to the leftists in Oslo. Tell that to Mr. Obama, war-monger-in chief against the children of this world.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
by Dave Coleman
At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
What allows the kind of excesses that drive conservatives and libertarians mad is the fact that most Americans don’t know what the heck Ben Franklin was talking about.
Most Americans today think that “republic” is simply another name for “democracy”.
Not so. The difference between a republic and a democracy lies in the ultimate source of official power. A republic gets its authority from a charter – in America’s case, a Constitution.
The Constitution places limits on both the government and the governed that no referendum can undo without first amending the Constitution. Amending the Constitution requires 2/3s of states (no voters) to accomplish.
The Founders knew the difference between a Republic and a democracy. That is why they chose a republic.
There is but one kind of republic, since a republic is constituted according to the rule of law, rather than the whims of either the government or the governed.
Democracy (from the Greek, “demos=mob” and “kratos=rule”) comes in many forms. A direct democracy is one which is ruled entirely and directly by the people; to decide on an issue, the question is put to the vote of the population and the majority of those votes determine the outcome.
Benjamin Franklin explained the threat democracy poses to liberty thusly: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
In a representative democracy, citizens elect people to represent their interests in the government, and these representatives determine how issues are decided.
In a republic, people may vote for their representatives, but the state’s responsibilities are limited because they are clearly bound by a charter. Freedom is realized by the willingness of the people to live by the dictates of the charter.
The republic’s charter -- in America’s case, the Constitution – is what protects and guarantees the individual’s rights.
The Declaration of Independence spells out the guarantor of those rights, which is why those who wrongly believe America is a direct democracy and those who would like to change America into a direct democracy hate the preamble so much.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. . . .”
The Founders elected to make God the Guarantor of American civil liberties because what the Creator endows, government cannot take away. Unless the Creator is a myth. If the Creator is a myth, so are your God-given rights. The government then has authority over them as a matter of course.
Founding Father Patrick Henry’s observation has been amply proved over the past half century: "It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains."
When America was truly a Republic, the United States was a society in which people could, by and large, engage in any occupation or economic enterprise without a government license, permit, or regulation.
When America was truly a Republic, people could accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth without government interference, because the Constitution did not permit the government to levy taxes on income.
When America was a republic, the government was not permitted to take care of people — no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, education grants, or foreign aid. America was compassionate, but every citizen was expected to pull his own weight. Charity was the province of the family or the church. It was not the responsibility of government.
The Founders understood that once the government got into the charity business, a significant segment of the population would shift their dependence from family and faith to government handouts.
That would empower the government with the ability to introduce practically anything they wanted by saying that opposing it might threaten Social Security, welfare, unemployment insurance, or, as is currently being debated, health care.
The Obama White House wants health care because threatening Social Security only scares seniors. Threatening welfare only scares that segment of the population that depends on their monthly check. Threatening unemployment insurance only scares the unemployed.
But EVERYBODY needs health care. And if the only place to get it is through the government, then a threat to universal health care would scare everybody.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Charles Yancey in 1816; "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
A recent study of 1000 Oklahoma high school students found that only 3 percent would be able to pass the U.S. Immigration Services' citizenship exam, while incredibly 93 percent of those from foreign countries who took the same test passed.
Only 28 percent of Oklahoma students could name the "supreme law of the land" (the Constitution), while even less could identify Thomas Jefferson as the author of the Declaration of Independence.
Barely one out of every four students knew that George Washington was the nation's first president. None of the students correctly answered 8 or more of the 10 questions, and 97 percent scored 50 percent or less.
The problem is not limited to Oklahoma students. It's a national problem.
A similar study in Arizona found that only 3.5 percent of public high school students would be able to pass the citizenship test. A survey of American adults by the American Civic Literacy Program resulted in some equally disheartening findings.
Seventy-one percent failed the test. Moreover, having a college education does very little to increase civic knowledge, as demonstrated by the abysmal 32 percent pass rate of people holding not just a bachelor's degree but some sort of graduate-level degree.
The Founders understood that the only way to guarantee that freedom would survive in the new republic was through an informed citizenry — one educated on basic rights and freedoms.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
Jefferson also recognized that "[the People] are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
But survey after survey proves that most Americans are constitutionally illiterate, and our young people are not much better. Despite the millions of taxpayer dollars spent on education, American schools do a terrible job of teaching the basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
That’s by design. If Americans don’t understand how their government works, they won’t be able to tell when it is broken. The idea is for it to be so beyond repair as to require a ‘do-over.’
That is one of the reasons that the Obama administration has gone after FoxNews with such venom. This isn’t a defense of FoxNews – if they need defending, they are quite capable of defending themselves on their own.
This is an observation about the state of American government, not FoxNews.
Controlling the news is the first step along the road to totalitarianism. The Democrats control MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and strongly influence ABC. Fox is the only outlet Obama doesn’t dictate terms to – and so Fox has become an obsession.
Obama has declared FoxNews off-limits to all senior members of his administration, clearly hoping that by shutting FoxNews out, the administration will be more able to control the debate.
Here is the difference between a democracy and a republic. The Palestinian Authority is a democracy. Hamas was elected by a democratic election in Gaza. Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela via a democratic election.
Al Gore was ALMOST elected via a democratic election when the Supreme Court stepped in to enforce the Constitution’s Electoral College system.
That’s the difference. America is still, at least marginally, a republic. But whether or not we can keep it is another question altogether.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
CBO today said a modified Senate Finance Committee healthcare overhaul bill would cost $829 billion over 10 years, a modest increase over the original $774 billion price tag, and will decrease the deficit by $81 billion. Changes to the measure appear not have altered coverage, keeping the number of Americans who will have insurance as a result of the proposal at 94 percent.
Questions? Contact webmaster@ReaganConservatives.us
Copyright © 2008-2011, www.ReaganConservatives.us. All rights reserved.