Bill Press and the Fairness Doctrine - Did Atlas Shrug?

I heard Bill Press on the the radio the other day promoting the Fairness Doctrine, or something like it. Supposedly, according to Hugh Hewitt, the guy is actually a pretty good talk radio host, but no station will carry him as talk radio is dominated by conservatives, and Bill is a liberal.

I was kind of shocked when he said that he just needed a chance, and he could be just as successful as conservative talk radio hosts, but yet he wanted the government to insinuate itself on his behalf to get more markets opened up to him. This just about made me sick to my stomach to hear, as it is no kidding straight out of Atlas Shrugged, where the men who can't run a company leverage their relationships in Washington to get favorable laws passed for them so that everything is more fair.

I recommend to Mr. Press that he read this book, again if he has before, and see what this sort of attitude leads to.

Jason Unmasked!!!

I really like this article from Friday the 13th.

http://tinyurl.com/c88zux

If I were wanting to translate the name Hussein into an American equivalent name, would I be off base in saying that Jason would be a good name?

If so, could I then call the President Barry Jason Obama, to totally Americanize his name?

Isn't Jason the name of the bad guy in the Friday the 13th movies?

Coincidence? I will let the so called Stimulus Package reveal the gory details...

Its about confidence

I have heard the statistic that 58% of Americans are not happy with the so called stimulus package. I listen to my fair share of talk radio, which until it is hamstrung by the Fairness Doctrine, continues to lambaste Obama for his inability to do what he says. My tweeps that I follow are amongst the Right Wing pundits. What I am hearing is that this bill sucks, but I am not hearing a lot about what should be in it.

For instance, Michael Medved today had said that its not that the government shouldn't do something, it is just that what Obama is leading is the wrong thing. Also, I have heard over and over, that it was not the New Deal that ended the Great Depression, it was World War II, which to me is a great talking point until I start thinking about it a bit more. If World War II was the thing that ended the recession, what was it that did it? Didn't the government just spend tons of money on industry to buy tanks, ships, subs, etc? In the Great Depression, supposedly everyone was beaten down, out of work, and the economy tanking. Then all of a sudden, we aren't putting people to work digging ditches, but building tanks, and sending them off to fight. Medved told me the difference was that 16 million people were drafted, and that the government was buying stuff. I then said, well aren't these bail outs going to the same companies, like Ford who were paid to build tanks? He said yes, but that in WWII the Government was buying goods, not just providing loans. He cut me off as I was about to ask about Obama's plan to buy a new green car for every government employee, and why drafting 16 million people was better than hiring them to do jobs like in the New Deal. I can see how the liberals would think that all it will take to get the economy back on track is to hire more civil servants and buy a bunch of stuff from industry. Unfortunately, there is no demand for the stuff that industry is making in the government, China has commoditized most manufacturing, and the green stuff is too expensive to be commercially viable. Maybe these subsidies for Green industry will make that start to work, but is it really cheaper than coal, gas, and oil?

Unfortunately for Obama, he thought that his divine coronation would allow him to lead Congress, but he didn't realize that they are controlled by various special interests which will kill his attempts as bipartisanship, and will prevent him from keeping the pork out of any stimulus package he wants to put through. He just needs to accept that if he wants to move out on his agenda in DC, he is going to have to pay off Congress to get stuff done, just like any other President, unfortunately, he seems to willing to pay, just to show movement, and of course I will end up having to pay for it in the near term, and my kids and grandkids in the long term.

I think the real thing that turned the economy around was that the Greatest Generation went to war, and united together, then came home with a "can-do!" attitude. I don't really think the money spent was as important as the threat of destruction of the American way of life, and the ability of Americans to step up and smack down that threat in a consolidated and unified effort. After that, their confidence returned, and they felt that they were world beaters. That is the kind of leadership I would like to see out of Obama, or any other person in Washington. Unite us for a common goal, and restore our confidence. You aren't going to do it by spending my son's money today. I think we need to start with industry, and start doing things that are pro-business and not pro-entitlement. Unfortunately, with all this entitlement spending and big government programs, we continue the inevitable slide to socialism.

Barack, draw a line in the sand, listen to the people who really run this country's economy, and move us back to Capitalism, before it is too late.

Corporate Social Responsibility

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4d25c8a-f13d-11dd-8790-0000779fd2ac,s01=1.html

The problem with Green and what Pelosi, Obama, and Reed can't seem to get around.  It is more expensive, and people have less money, so their initiall caring for BDF starts to wane.  My Strategy Prof in business school has the same bottom line:  The most corporately responsible thing a business can do is make a profit.  That leads to jobs, economic stimulus, and prosperity for society.  Once they rise to a level of income, they can start worrying about buying a $35 Green T-shirt to promote themselves and make them feel better about rumors of exploitation. 

Of course who defines exploitation is another issue altogether.  When I was in China, I saw construction workers living in what I considered nasty conditions.  I was told that free market capitalism actually raised the standard of living for all  people, as they were making more money and living in better conditions than they were on their farms in central and eastern China. So maybe Socialism/Communism isn't socially responsible!

Ponderings from the Horizon Men's Retreat

First weekend in February, I attended a Men's Retreat for my Church, in Murrietta. During the course of the weekend, I was meditating on a video that was shown to me and came up with the below commentary.

Some of the questions that I pondered about while writing this post:

• Secularly, can western civilization assimilate massive numbers of Muslim immigrants into society, and still maintain the values of a culture rooted and founded in Christianity?
• What will happen to Christian values as Western societies are taken over by increasing numbers of Muslims?

Western civilization is about to die a slow death, according to a video shown at the Horizon Men's Retreat. Canada and Europe both have declining birth rates for their native citizenry, but are being augmented by the immigration of Muslims. In Europe the difference in birth rates is 1.38 for native Europeans and 8.1 for the Muslim immigrant population. It is similar for Canada.

If these immigrants are not assimilated, and valued from a secular sense, their rejection can lead to segregation and potentially into militancy. So what is to be done? Will the EU become a sort of Islamic republic? Can western culture assimilate these people or evolve into something which hybridizes the values of these cultures? If majority rules in a democratic country, then is it difficult to believe that a majority might make or influence laws? Ask the homosexual community in California how voters have affected their perceived "rights"? Could militant Islamists have burqas for every woman, genital mutilation, harems? Or are the ideals of Western Society compelling enough to keep freedom ringing?

People with good intentions want to allow for gay marriage, because that seems fair today, or for evolution to dominate education over creationism or intelligent design, or maybe some of the Muslim traditions need to be rolled into our culture, so to make sure everyone is treated equally. Or maybe we just get rid of religion altogether, as some might advocate, but then are we where the Russians were, the Chinese were, and the Cubans are...look how that worked out for them.

In the end, we need to have a basis for our society, and that comes from foundational principles of what is right and what is wrong. For the US, that comes from Christianity. It may not be best for all people, like homosxuals who want to be married, but as we slip away from core values, then everything becomes relative, and who ends up deciding on what is moral or legal, may not be in step with your core values. A lot of people in Afghanistan welcomed the Taliban at first...

Does evil exist in the world? Is there really a Satan? Could it be that evil infects otherwise moral, nice, ethical people through concessions, good intentions, or appeasement? Then before they know what has happened, the evil has become a terminal disease that descends society/culture into chaos and hell on earth? Maybe ask Neville Chamberlain? German citizenry or the Jews in Europe in the late 1930’s early 1940’s? Many in churches today see our society gradually eroding as we give up traditional conservative values and make concessions in the name of political correctness, tolerance, or even “Change we can believe in!”

An Abundant Harvest Coming

• What are Christians doing today to effectively share their faith, even with those they know, love, and work with on a daily basis?

According to Paul Saber, who showed the video, this means that Christians need to be working especially hard at saving the lost souls, and especially the massive numbers in Europe and the Middle East. The influx of new culture does not mean that we as Christians need to give up on our neighbors, but rather that we have the opportunity to help these people understand that they are loved by God and can find salvation through his grace.

Western society cannot, in the secular sense, overcome the advance of the Islamic Republic, especially as we move away from the spiritual foundation of western values. As we compromise our spiritual values, in the name of tolerance, political correctness, or what we "feel" is right, “new” may be created, but is that new thing filled in a spiritual sense with spiritual values acceptable to us as Christians or even as Americans? At what point does the new become a false idol? For instance, does our love of celebrity and acceptance of what was once considered perversion help us to save humanity and accept other cultures as major influences, in this case the Muslim world, or is it offensive and drives them to isolation, marginalization, and to be more open to radical militancy? While the left claims that they are tolerant and it is the religious right who are the source of society's problems, the degradation of culture and thought to accept things that our against our foundational principles as a Christian nation may be more of a threat to western society than the perception of intolerance by the religious right. What will have to be compromised to assimilate Muslims, or will it be that they just make Western societies into what they want based on democratic process and their sheer numbers alone? What are you prepared to give up as a Christian should conservative/radical/militant/orthodox/sunni/shia Islam begins to define your society?

Saber's main point in showing this video was to express that as a Christian our purpose is the "harvesting of lost souls", and there are lots of them coming. I believe that we need to begin within our personal spheres of influence, so that we can bring the underlying principle values of society back to the foundation, which is the rock of the Bible, not the sand of multi-culturalism, tolerance, or political correctness. We need to get over the fear of insulting someone or from shame for the beliefs of Christians are not cool. Actions speak louder than words it is true, but the Word is what needs to be heard. For the good of mankind and the people that we know, they need to learn from us the path to salvation, and the consequences of sin.

From a secular sense, obviously our freedom as Americans allows us to practice any religion, and as Christians we have the right to free speech to allow us to spread the Word. I do not believe that I can save a single person, every person must save themselves. However, they have to understand how to save themselves and the consequences for choosing to forsake God. In the end we can only spread the word and hope that people will use their free will to male a decision for God's love.

Although there are many, and some who follow this blog, who believe that Christians are acting out of small mindedness and restricting freedom, when they are preaching the "good news" but most Christians feel that they are acting out of love for mankind. Again, so long as you hear what Jesus has to offer, it is up to you individually to decide what to do about it. Modifications to and changes to the Word based on culture can be a dangerous slide, if in fact the Bible is correct. Maybe it has been happening for centuries...You can read the DaVinci Code, the Last Templar, or other books by people who are anti-Church and want Christianity to be something different than what is based in the Bible. Maybe Christmas Trees or the time of the year that Christmas is celebrated comes from some pagan winter solstice ceremony, maybe there are missing parts of the Bible, but maybe not. Maybe the end times are near, and maybe the way to Salvation is spelled out in the Bible, and maybe we should be doing more to make sure everyone knows how to get there.

The Stimulus I Believed Would Come...so I didn't vote for Obama

If 58% of the people are against the stimulus package, then how could Obama win?  Didn’t they understand that this is exactly what he promised?  Or did they think he could control the pork barrel spending that a Democrat controlled Congress would push through?  Well he is even supporting the crap in these bills, like a new fleet of cars for the US government – read: "Payback to the unions who got me elected, let me help you stay afloat for a bit longer before we have to shut the doors on the Big 3."

 

More "Change" I Can Believe In

I bought Atlas Shrugged, and am bout 20% though it...I am marking pages, and will post my favorite quotes that apply to today and the way of thinking of too many of my fellow country men.

In the mean time, here are a couple of choice news bits...

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/20471.asp

A fellow blogger at The Conservative Manifesto linked this one, which shows that Obama has made 17 exceptions to his no lobbyists in the administration rule.  But hey rules are meant to be broken, right?  

This one is also a classic,  

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/daschle-withdraws-health-human-services/story.aspx?guid=%7BD9808006%2D4386%2D41BF%2DA301%2DCEE274D85684%7D&siteid=bnbh

I guess Daschle has standards, and understands that as a Senator, he wouldn't have confirmed himself?  Surely that can't be right!    The real interesting part of this story, is that the White House Performance Officer also withdrew her name for tax problems as well.  That is three, two that withdrew, one who was confirmed.

Rules are for other people to follow, especially the rules that a narcissicst makes for what he controls.   But then we the people don't apply are own rules fairly to this new Messiah of the Left.  No way that John McCain would have gotten a free pass on Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, or his association with a group like ACORN.  Obama not only gets a free pass, he just continues to abuse the systems and make excuses for his inexperience, incompetence, and hypocrisy.  

This sucks!