iPandora

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously claimed under her leadership the Democrats would run the most ethical congress ever.

My question: why even try?

If ethics are situational and morality is ambiguous at best and pointless at worst, why even pretend, in all your intelligence, to pander to use rubes down here in the trenches?

For many of the leadership in Washington, and most of the Democrats in that rarefied local, there is no objective truth. The only morality comes from being caught.

And so, instead of claiming to run the most ethical congress ever and training a huge microscope and target on yourself, use all that energy to cover and obfuscation and hide what we know you’re going to do anyways because when you don’t believe in objective truth and morality, there’s no reason to trust you to do anything except what furthers your own aim and brings power to those things you consider most important.

So, with the recent “everybody knows except Pelosi” Rangel scandal, and now the Massa issues, and Mr. Porkulus (may he rest in peace) Murtha, and Mr. Sweetheart-Deal Dodd, and Mrs. My-Husbands-Business-Likes-My-China-Policy Pelosi herself, it seems that (D) stands for Dishonest.

The bible asks what companionship can light have with darkness. This isn’t just good marriage advice. It’s good advice for any place where we trust others to work on our behalf. For the average Joes and Janes out here in the sticks, we can still operate as friends and coworkers and have normal friendly relationships. But when we are speaking of handing power and national responsibility to people, we need to ask ourselves this: “If I wouldn’t truth them babysitting my children, why would I trust them running my country?”

Scott Brown casting his vote

Republican candidate Scott Brown is now Senator-elect Scott Brown, filling the vacancy left when Senator Edward Kennedy shuffled off his mortal coil.

Winning with 52% of the vote so far (as of 9:30 CST), Brown will deny Senate Democrats they’re 60th vote for health care. Now if we can shore up the ranks by shaming Ben Nelson (D – Nebraska) into coming back to his real principles.

While health care has passed the Senate already, the bill in the House must be reconciled with the bill passed by the Senate in conference. The big vote sold to Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson was only to settle the Senate’s version. House Democrats don’t like the Senate bill as it stands, but because of the loss of the Massachusetts seat, their only chance of passing any health care socialization is to accept the Senate bill as it stands. Any edits they make would require the Senate to reexamine the bill and vote on it again.

So the Tea Party movement and the backlash to President Obama’s, Harry Reid’s, and Nancy Pelosi’s ugly ideology have won this battle. The problem is, there is still a war to be fought.

We have won this battle mainly due to a strong upheaval in the populace continuing from the waves of the Tea Parties. But if there’s one thing I know about people who live conservatism, it’s that they just want to get back to their homes and families and work and lives.

Will this victory last? Will we dance back to our houses, clapping each other on the shoulder and then go to bed and sleep the sleep of a clean conscience and then awake and forget what has transpired?

I hope not.

What needs to happen now is education.

We need to talk in our workplaces, in our social clubs. Get in discussions at church and in restaurants. During the half-time shows and at the bar.

We need to cash in on those myriad relationships which make up our broader lives, using the fact that we have credence with our friends based on our friendship to cause them to think. Even a little thought, properly motivated and directed, can go a long way towards straightening out the skewed thinking of so many.

We need to strike at the cult of celebrity which surrounds our current President and demand substance and truth in candidates along with their rhetorical skills.

It’s not that we need to talk politics, we need to talk ideology. Ideology is much easier to talk about because it applies to so much more of life. Politics is just one small corner of the extent of our lives. Politics wants to control more of life, but it belongs in the corner.

Ideology is the big “Why?” of our life. Our worldview informs our entire perception of life, and as such, you can talk about it from any perspective.

How do you respond to a medical emergency? Do you call the government or do you drive to the hospital?

If you see a promotion opportunity at work, do you try to make yourself the better candidate?

Is the government the best source for your pursuit of happiness?

Would you rather the professor gave some of your high grades to the slob in the back row of class so he can pass too?

And most important: Is Jesus a liar, a lunatic, or our Lord?

After all, if our friends haven’t got the bedrock of their life philosophy connected and rooted in the most accurate explanation for the entirety of life, nothing they believe will really match reality. And that’s what conservatism is, the most political philosophy that most accurately corresponds to the true nature of humanity and the world.

So congratulations America, you’ve forestalled oblivion yet again. But what happens tomorrow? And the next day?

Do you forget and go on with life, accepting the tranquil bonds of servitude until you awake yet again and find you’re no longer allowed to amass political power to right the ship again?

Or do you start making changes on all fronts, attacking the lies of our world at every turn. Each time maneuvering, like a chess master always circling the opponents king, to touch the heart of the matter.

We’ve been harmless as doves long enough, now let’s become shrewd as serpents.

Pudge at Sound Politics doesn’t “know Rep. Matt Shea (R-4th LD, around Spokane), but… consider(s) him a bit of a hero, actually standing up for rights and liberty when most people, on either side of the aisle, don’t.”

Read the list of bills Rep. Matt Shea has submitted that were dropped by that august assembly.

In the critical race for “the people’s seat” in Massachusetts, the ideological walls are as high as can be. Incumbent Martha Coakley (D), the favorite for the seat recently vacated at the passing of Teddy Kennedy is defending herself against the increasing tide that is support for Scott Brown.

Coakley supports ObamaCare, opposes the war in Afghanistan, and favors higher taxes on the wealthy. Brown is against the health care legislation, backs the president’s surge in Afghanistan, and wants across-the-board tax cuts à la JFK. Coakley is an EMILY’s List prochoice hard-liner; Brown condemns partial-birth abortion and is backed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Coakley has no problem with civilian trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Brown thinks it reckless to treat enemy combatants like ordinary defendants.

Other differences abound. Coakley doesn’t like being questioned about her stated and public views when they may reflect poorly on her and she doesn’t like admitting the possibly she may have been incorrect in the past. Even CNN reveals her follies. While Brown homeschools his kids, speaks eloquently regarding the true nature of government, and promises to be a serious thorn in the side of the currently prevailing powers in Washington.

Should Brown win, the Democrats are already threatening to block his appointment to the Senate, until after the “health-care” bill is passed.  We shall see.

Pat Robertson, again

Neil asks for someone to please take away Pat Robertson’s microphone. I agree.

But they won’t take it away because the portions of our culture that despise Christianity are much happier if they don’t have to misrepresent. Even denying morality and absolutes, they’ll take a juicy truth over a conjured or fabricated tale if it achieves the desired result.

So I’d love for that man to just go away, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t going to happen until God deems his time right.

Neil again

Neil continues his fight against liberal theology and liberal theologians.

That man has more patience than I could ever find in dealing with these people so invested in lies and fabrications, so intransigent in their fallacies.

I am glad Neil is that way, though. Perhaps those he preaches against will someday hit their heads on a doorpost so hard the voices of rationalization and self-justification will shut up, and they’ll see, through the might hand of the one true God, the truth as it is, and not as they wish it to be.

Keep up the good work my friend.

The way things ought to be

WinteryKnight is very much about that, hence his many “MUST-READ’s“.

The good news is, they all are.

He’s also very concerned about the plight of manhood and boyhood in our society. From the feminized path that boys must take through our public school system to the extreme cases of insane feminism beating down men trying to do the right thing by their children and families, WinteryKnight chronicles the sad story of the life of the man today.

Frankly, I didn’t know quite what I was up against.

But I’m glad to have found this new blogging buddy and I encourage you to check him out to.

Bonus for single ladies: he’s single, is a great catch, and has very high standards (which some of us are working to fix).

I can’t stand having pockets over full. Too often pants pockets today are constructed shoddily, almost as an afterthought, and the contents of the pockets bump against my legs and rub and get in the way and abrade.

But what can you tell about a man from his pockets? The Art of Manliness posted a selection from a 1933 Esquire magazine which portrayed the story of a man through the contents of his pockets.

Contents of His Pockets at Ten

1 watch, lacking a main spring.
1 report card, badly frayed and unpresented at home.
1 much damaged cigarette, unsmoked.
1 penknife.
1 rubber band, for use in sling-shot.
Remains of an exploded toy balloon.
2 marbles.
4 caps of milk bottles, won in competition
1 dirty handkerchief.
1 piece of chewing gum.
2 keys which do not fit locks.
7 pieces of string.

Read A Pocket History Of Milton J. Wurtleburtle.

Los Angeles School District

The San Francisco Chronicle posted an article today regarding a rather stunning happening in the LA School Board.

Liberal Democrat, former teacher’s union organizer, and current Mayor of Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa was the driving force behind a policy just handed down which stipulates that almost a third of the public schools in LA must convert to charter or magnet schools.

Charter schools inject the free market into public education through several methods including merit pay for teachers, competition for students, and greater autonomy for the school from the school district.

Villaraigosa noted the LA School District was plagued by violence and a 50% dropout rate spurred him into this path which is diametrically opposed to the majority of leadership in his party and the teacher’s unions.

One teacher quoted in the story says “this is the power that teachers have always been asking for, the authority to choose what is happening in our schools. With power comes responsibility. We are accountable for the results, and I don’t mind that.”

This is public education’s fall of the Berlin Wall. The old model of the compulsory, one-size-fits-all, factory-style public school is being tossed on the scrap heap of history, to be replaced by upholding the U.N. Charter of Universal Human Rights, which guarantees the right of parents to direct the education of their children.

Props to Mayor Villaraigosa for this stand which will no doubt earn him the ire of many of his regular supporters.

Read the whole article Revolution in U.S. education is in California.

Harry Reid, Leader

It is a normal trait of effective leaders that they find points of agreement between disparate viewpoints. Otherwise attempts at progress end in pointless wheel spinning as the factions go at each other with ferocity.

Especially bad is when the leader himself joins in the mud-slinging.

It’s a sign of anything from immaturity to imbecility. At the very least it shows they aren’t up to the job.

Enter Harry Reid. Ham-handed at best, he’s stooped low even for his own standards and equated those against the biggest boondoggle in the history of government with those against the abolition of slavery.

Yep. That’s right. A member of the party of the slave holders called people who are against the government taking over a 6th of the US economy the equivalent of slave holders.

Ironic, isn’t it?

Mr. Reid, it’s about time you got on the right side of history.

The mad hatter's haven't been to the real tea parties

Representative David Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin, wants you to share in the sacrifice of the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. But not like you may think.

His “Share the Sacrifice Act of 2010″ is a tax.

So what? What’s new and wrong about a new tax?

It’s the rationalization for the tax that is so ugly here.

This tax is to raise money to prevent payment for the war in Afghanistan from interfering with the monetary obligations piling up from the numerous other new and continuing social programs including socialized medicine.

In other words, the tax and spend quibblers on the Hill are admitting they’ve spent more than we’ve got and they’re coming to us again. And in order to justify this new tax upon us, recognizing our growing antipathy towards additional confiscation of our natural and just property through damaging levels of taxation, they claim it’s for the war.

We’re not fooled.

You can’t keep your yes hand zipped or even dream of living within our means, and so your forcing us to cough up more of what we’ve earned rightfully.

The co-sponsors of this bill, H.R. 4130, are the usually laundry list of suspects from the hallowed halls, Reps. John Murtha, Barney Frank, and James McDermott, to name a few. The unprincipled lot are after our pocket books again.

OpenCongress.org is an excellent source of information on all things Congress, and you can keep track of this egregious H.R. 4130 there.

Obama's Health Care - You're going to get screwed

Socialized healthcare is just such a big target.

A good friend of mine a few weeks ago said his main argument against it is the historical argument: what programs has the United States government run successfully in the past that can serve as a model for the successful management of the entire healthcare system of the US?

It’s a good question.

I get echoes of “Bueller… Bueller… Bueller…?” in my head just thinking about it.

United States Senator Tom Coburn thinks it’s a very relevant question to, as he uses it to correct a lady who is asking for his support of socialized medicine in the US.

UPDATE: Neil from 4Simpsons says the health care bill does contain funding for abortion. His logic is the same we use to find black holes. If  you don’t find something you expected to find, there’s probably a good reason.

Senator Kennedy has died . . . and all I can say is what a relief for the country.

Sure, he is being labeled as one of the best Senators at working across the isle. Sure he is being called an advocate of the poor and needy (Do they really need another advocate? What about an advocate for the middle class?), but does any of that really overshadow his moral bankruptcy and the political corruption that some called “savvy”?

If I might remind you, Senator Kennedy “forgot” to tell authorities that he was driving the car when it fell off the bridge with a girl inside (Anyone remember the bumper stickers that said “My guns has killed less people that Senator Kennedy’s car”?), he screwed intern in the back of restaurants, and most recently he called for the rules regarding his replacement be changed . . . after he had changed them to their current standard in 2005.

Yes, Senator Kennedy did so, so, so much to help the poor and needy? But did he do it for them, or to secure his political future (the vote)? Yes, Senator Kennedy did so much good, but did he ever resolve that he was a lying perverted cheat who was charged with manslaughter?

Actually, even though I believe that he should have been disqualified for public office, he doesn’t have to resolve the lying perverting cheater part with us . . . he is now before a much larger judge . . . with a case that I am afraid he will lose.

So, now we are approached with the “icon” label . . . but is he an icon to the Kopechne family . . . among others (read about the rape incidents by his nephew that took place at his home). What really makes Senator Kennedy an icon? Fighting the war in Iraq so that millions of people could remain in a tyrannical dictatorship, being unable to do his job but refusing to resign, changing laws to fit his political needs?

Wait, I think I may have to recant my statement. Let us label Senator Kennedy as an icon. Let us proclaim his as the leader, the head, the top gun. That is right, Senator Kennedy is iconic of our legislative system and our representatives (not all of them, just too many of them).

I will let Senator Kennedy be an icon, he just will not be my icon. He will not represent me. He has his place in our history . . . but his story ends there. His only legacy is one echoed by corruption in Washington, by tears in Chappaquiddick, and the groans of the middle class.