Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Doublespeak of the Secular Left: Two Examples of the New Tolerance

Dan Cathy, owner of Chick-Fil-A did the unthinkable by progressive standards. He defended traditional marriage - marriage as being between one man and one woman - the definition of marriage that has been in existence since  I know that Leftists see anything that is in accordance with tradition as foreign since they like to pervert and twist definitions to fit their own fantasies of what is "is" to fit with their perception of what is "fair" and to fulfill their self-esteem emotional needs so as not to hurt anyone's feelings. Why would we want to uphold that which is defined as "is" when feelings should overrule all the time according to the Libs? 

 Those who support homosexuals and their so-called right to marriage on the basis of fairness while demanding tolerance from others have a problem with reciprocating that tolerance with any person who disagrees with their position - with people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman since that has been the very essence of what marriage is since the beginning of time, and that .  Just like believing in abortion is a test for feminism for progressives so is believing in gay "marriage" for bigotry. Liberals believe in that which goes against human nature.

In response to Cathy's statement of belief on marriage a "tolerant" Chicago Alderman stated that he would block Chick-Fil-A from opening a new franchise in his ward.  Then the Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel stated “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values” seemingly in support of Alderman's statement.  In addition The Herald reported that the Mayor of Boston said this “it will be very difficult” for Chick-fil-A to obtain licenses for a restaurant in Boston…   These people are so tolerant that they want to shut down or prevent the opening of businesses by those with whom they disagree.  To be tolerant of ONLY those you agree with is the definition of intolerance. 

In response to Rahm Emanuel's comment on "Chicago Values" Cardinal George of the Archdiocese of Chicago has penned this:
Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago.  I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval.  Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city?  Is the City Council going to set up a “Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities” and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it?  I would have argued a few days ago that I believe such a move is, if I can borrow a phrase, “un-Chicagoan.”The value in question is espousal of “gender-free marriage.”  Approval of state-sponsored homosexual unions has very quickly become a litmus test for bigotry; and espousing the understanding of marriage that has prevailed among all peoples throughout human history is now, supposedly, outside the American consensus.  Are Americans so exceptional that we are free to define “marriage” (or other institutions we did not invent) at will?  What are we re-defining? CONTINUED

Another example of the tolerant Left is an out of town group, The Freedom From Religion Foundation,  targeting the City of Steubenville logo that the city council had approved in 2011 because the city dared to include in its logo a the silhouette of a particular well-known building from one of the largest employers in Steubenville: the university's Christ The King Chapel which bears a prominent cross.  The group threatened the city with a lawsuit and the City of Steubenville waved the white flag of surrender and have now agreed to remove Christ The King Chapel from the logo.

Here is that utterly "offensive" city logo that the anti-theist jihadist Christrianophobes made it their mission to have removed:

Franciscan University's reaction to the City Council's decision:

“For more than 65 years, Franciscan University of Steubenville has proudly served as an integral part of this community and we were honored to have our chapel included in the new city of Steubenville logo. The city initially included our chapel because it represents Franciscan University, a world-renowned center of higher learning and one of the largest employers in the region. We find it particularly troubling that an out of town and out of touch group targeted the University for removal from the logo solely because of our religious identity.

“Now that the city has decided not to keep the chapel in its logo, the University has declined the city’s offer to be represented by another campus building. The Christ the King Chapel and its cross, which are the centerpiece of the University logo, are internationally recognized symbols of the campus here in Steubenville and are at the heart of our Catholic educational mission. No other campus symbol or architectural feature so immediately identifies the University. 

“As used in the city logo, the chapel image is not an endorsement of any one religion, or religion at all. It merely signifies one of the many treasures of Steubenville—along with Historic Fort Steuben, the Veterans Memorial Bridge, and the downtown cityscape—that are well-known community landmarks.

“For these reasons, Franciscan University has decided not to be included at all in the revised logo rather than to be represented in a way that does not honor our mission as a faith-based institution.”

From The Practicing Catholic:
The Freedom From Religion Foundation sure is … well … religious. What do I mean? These self-proclaimed “freethinkers” gloat on their homepage that “nones” are the second largest denomination in the United States – behind Catholics – according to the 2008 American Religious Identifications Survey. Yes, you read that correctly. According to their own language, non-belief is actually a religious denomination. Seriously. And they are correct. Two definitions of religion from Merriam-Webster:
  • a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices;
  • a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
They refer to themselves as atheists and agnostics, but that’s a lie. They are most decidedly anti-theists, passionately unified to stomp out every trace of any other system of belief by legal challenge and propaganda, targeting Christianity as public enemy number one. Want proof? They offer a so-called “Debaptism Certificate”, as if baptism could somehow be undone simply by renouncing it, even without their made-up document. Laughable.

This anti-theistic group calls themselves "freethinkers" but then they target any organization that does not fit into their anti-theistic code or belief system, who thinks outside of the atheistic bubble, so how is that being for free thinking? A little hypocrisy there? 
FFRF claimed in its letter to the City that depicting the chapel with its cross “…places the City’s imprimatur behind Christianity. This excludes nonChristians and violates the Constitution.” (Yes, they actually used imprimatur, a decidedly Catholic term. They couldn’t just use “stamp of approval”?) Yet, their own news release states, “All citizens — whether Christian, Jewish, atheist or agnostic, Muslim, etc. — must be welcomed as full participants, and the only way to do that is to keep religion out of government.” Except for the religion of anti-theism, apparently.

How is excluding a Christian symbol being inclusive?  Gotta love the atheist progressive doublespeak.

From What do Social Radicals really mean by Tolerance? 
 Welcome to tolerance as defined by secular radicals. In their lexicon “tolerance” is “your right to agree with me.” Live and let live” means, “you have the right to live only where I say.” “Bigotry” applies only to the classes they say are oppressed. “Phobia” (as in Homophobia) applies only to those who oppose their  agenda. “Hate” only exists against the classes they I say who are “protected” and have defined as oppressed. It is never possible for religious or social conservatives to be the object of hate since hate only comes from social conservatives.Yes, welcome to the tolerant utopia founded by proponents of gay sex, gay “marriage” and other social inventions.
Pope Benedict has spoken frequently of the “tyranny of relativism.” What this means, essentially, is that when a culture decides that there is no fundamental basis of truth, (whether of Scripture or Natural Law), the result is that there is no real basis for discussion or resolution of issues. Thus who “wins the day” is not based on reason, but on who shouts the loudest, and/or who has the most power, money or political influence.
The way forward in a relativistic world is not to appeal to reason by reference to Natural Law (in philosophy), or to constitutional principles (in political discourse) or to Scripture and Tradition (in Theology). Rather the “way forward” is to gain power and to implement an agenda that binds.
Farewell to reason rooted in agreed upon principles, hello to tyranny rooted simply in opinion and power.Revolutions which ride in on the train of “freedom” more frequently usher in a reign of terror, as those who claimed to be oppressed and repressed take up their new power and then, themselves, turn to oppress, suppress, and repress any whom they thought, or think, to be on the wrong side of the issue.
Expect more “tolerance” from social radicals. The tyranny of relativism has ushered in a very poisonous and dangerous climate which has little basis for any discussion or true tolerance. And remember, what a social radical means by tolerance has nothing to do with tolerating you,  if you do not belong to a class or group favored by them.
It will require greater and greater courage from those of us who still think of truth as something higher than ourselves. And if you think that an exaggeration, just point to Natural Law, the Constitution, or (gaad zooks) Scripture, and just brace yourself for the immediate scorn you will experience. “Oh, what harm can that cause?” you may wonder. Just ask Dan Cathy of Chick-Fil-A.

From Fulton J. Sheen:

“America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance-it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.”
“Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil … a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error … Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory.
Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.”

Let's end with a bit of jocularity from Tim Hawkins. Enjoy!

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Mini Eagle Freedom Links - The Olympics, Recent Events & Big Health Decision Edition

First we have Dan Cathy of Chick-Fil-A standing up for traditional moral values stating that he believes that marriage is between one man and one woman and that he doesn't agree with gay "marriage" so we have liberals acting like intolerant Christianophobes trying to retaliate in tyrannical fashion by refusing to authorize Chick-Fil-A with business permits as well as some mayors saying I don't want your restaurant in my city.  Second, we have Democrats taking advantage of the Colorado massacre politicizing the horrific tragedy to further their Anti-Second Amendment gun agenda. Third we have the squishies in the GOP acting like Democrats when a few fellow members of Congress ask questions concerning our national security. Shame on you RINOS McCain and Boehner! Those in Congress who are asking questions are putting this nation's security over political correctness. Keep up the great work Reps. Bachmann and Gohmert!

Last weekend through this past Tuesday I was so happy to be able to spend some time with my family.  My sister and one of my nephews was visiting with my parents while I was there.  On Sunday my brother and his family brought Maryland Blue Crabs for us to eat. YUM! YUM!  They were oh so delicious.

My dad, nephew, sister, and I played miniature golf. Somehow I was able to get the lowest score so I won.  That was great fun.  My mom, sister, and I spent part of a day looking at antiques.  That was quite enjoyable.  While I was at my parents I was able to talk with my sister and mom about something very important.  That was much appreciated. Having their support in my health decision is a blessing.

I have been dealing with endometriosis for about 16 years. Since 2008 I have had numerous problems due to this horrible disease. Last October I had surgery yet again and I really thought that this would at least last a few years with stopping the pain and/or endo from spreading.  Well, unfortunately my pain has worsened tremendously since April and I am not left with many options actually only left with but one particular option since I've pretty much tried everything that there is to try to treat the endometriosis. This past Wednesday my doctor and I talked and I/we have decided that I should get a hysterectomy.  This is one of the toughest decisions I have had to make in my life. Mostly because my husband and I have no kids.  But for my sake, my quality of life, I need to do this to better my life.  I have been trying to put this off as far as as I can but now I have reached a certain point where at least I think I can't put this off anymore.  Yes, it breaks my heart that I need to have this done.  I have so longed to have a child.  After making the decision I have been an emotional train wreck asking am I making the right choice?  Even though from the afternoons on I have been in excruciating pain since I have felt semi-decent during part of the morning at various times I have wondered whether I truly do need this surgery.  So far I have come to the conclusion that I do.  But I've heard having second thoughts is normal with this big of a life changing decision. Plus, I have this feeling that something else is wrong with my ovaries or gynecological area beside the endo so as tough as it is I do believe that I'm making the right choice.  If anyone has any suggestions I am all ears.  I may not be around visiting blogs or even posting as much for the next month and a half til a few days after the surgery because I am in the midst of preparing myself for this operation both emotionally and physically. In addition my physical pain may interfere with my blogging. But I will visit as much as possible.

I didn't want to end on that sad note so here are a few pics from the Olympics. Have you been watching the Olympics? What's your favorite sport? I always enjoy watching the swimming events. Did you watch any of the opening ceremony?  This was one of my favorite moments during the opening ceremony.

Ryan Lochte from USA Swim Team 

Sun Yang - China 

Rebecca Adlington - Great Britain 

Team USA -- William Coleman on Twizzle 

Mark Kyle - Ireland 

Beautiful horses!

Team USA - Gabrielle Douglas 

Louise Bowden - Australia 

These sunglasses look kinda whacky

Here are some great links from some awesome patriots. More patriot's links to come in few days. Hope you are enjoying summer. Have a wonderful week!

Conservative Hideout 2.0 -- A Tale of Two Stories: Islamists call for the death of gays, but let's stop Chick-Fil-A from opening new restaurants!

The Daley Gator -- Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel rips Chick-Fil-A but embraces Nation of Islam? 

The Other McCain -- Will the last Democrat leaving Missouri please turn out the lights?  

Mind Numbed Robot -- Ted Cruz Free PAC Speech - #Repeal! 

American Perspective -- Mr. Bean opens up the Olympics (video) 

Sentry Journal -- Building Something Already Gives Us More Than We Contributed 

Western Hero -- Hateful, Intolerant Liberals Attack Chick-Fil-A 

The Conservative Lady -- Obama's Amnesty for Dreamers is a Nightmare 

My Daily Trek -- Chick-Fil-A... Under Attack by the Intolerant Left 

Bread upon the Waters -- The New Party's Offspring Political Party -- Alive and Well 

The Wisdom of Soloman -- In the Wake of the Aurora Shooting 

TOTUS: Conservative Commentary -- Eat at Chick-Fil-A 

Political Realities -- Obamacare Tax Stops Medical Equipment Business Expansion 

Pirate's Cove -- Crazy Research Compares "Climate Skeptics" To 9/11 Truthers 

Randy's Roundtable -- More Proof that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder 

Bunkerville -- Averill Harriman's Mother Financed Eugenics Movement 

Creative Minority Report -- How's that Chick-Fil-A Boycott Coming Along? 

Fuzzy Logic -- Ends Justify Means: Our "Perfectible" "Imperfect Union" 

Reaganite Republican -- Reagnaite's Sunday Funnies 

Woodsterman -- Interesting Statistics

Always On Watch -- Edited Out!  

A Catholic View -- All Nations Enjoy the Summer Olympics... And that Includes the Vatican!

Geeeeeez --  Comments? 

Doug Ross @ Journal -- Simple Venn Diagram Explains Entire Democrat Party 

It Don't Make Sense -- Devil's Breath 

Maggie's Notebook -- Iraq War Vet Gives Back Purple Heart in Obama Protest: I have to pay for my wounds while Obama gives care to illegals 

Say Anything -- With Stocks Plummeting, GM Owes Taxpayers Roughly $41 Billion 

The Camp Of The Saints -- 'Raaaaacism' Is Just Another Word For Nothing Left To Lose 

Atlas Shrugs -- More Obama Leaks To Harm Israel: " U.S. Sees Israel as Spy Threat"

The Born Again Americans -- Restoring Love  

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Ann Barnhardt To Bishops: You Are Being Played. Like Cheap Fiddles.

I found this outstanding post from Ann Barnhardt via Sancte Pater where she really takes the bishops to task.

I do not understand how it is that this isn't glaringly, beat-you-over-the-head obvious, but whatever. I'll explain it. Listen up. Especially if you have a hat shaped like the blade of a posthole digger in your wardrobe, and people actually call you "Excellency."

Withdrawing health insurance (like Franciscan University at Steubenville, Ohio), shutting down schools, closing adoption agencies, soup kitchens or ANYTHING ELSE in "protest" of ObamaCare and the HHS "mandates" is EXACTLY, PRECISELY, TOTALLY and COMPLETELY what the Obama regime wants.

Further, the reason why the "press" has OBVIOUSLY been given the order to keep all of this quiet and to not report in any way on the lawsuits filed by the dozens of various Catholic organizations this week against the Obama regime - the largest religious legal action ever taken against the U.S. government by a long shot - is obvious.

The Obama regime is sitting back and watching all of you cowardly fools fold your own tents. None of the stupid bread-and-circus addicted crowd knows anything about any of this. You have to break out of your narcissistic little world and understand that even though these things are earth-shattering to you, uh, most people in this country don't even know that their "government" has declared war on the Church.

So, in a few months, after you all have played right into their hands and shut down your facilities, hospitals, schools and services, congratulating yourselves on your "brave protest", the Obama regime is going to make a ginormous propaganda offensive telling all of the stupid TV-addled idiots that the Catholic Church doesn't give a crap about "the people" because they have shut down their hospitals, schools, their soup kitchens, their adoption agencies and won't even provide health insurance plans to the poor, poor youths attending their universities. The Catholic Church hates "the people", hates charity, hates sick people, hates women, hates children, hates poor people and is hoarding all of its money.

Oh, but the Obama regime LOVES you. The Obama regime will provide you and anyone else who joins their Free Shit Army with all of the "free healthcare", "free education", "free food" and free unicorn farts they could ever want or need.

Listen, you fools. YOU DON'T SHUT ANYTHING DOWN. You keep going exactly as you have been, and you force those dirty rotten SOBs to literally storm your hospitals and shut YOU down at gunpoint. And I'm not kidding. Make them physically shut down your hospital by dragging you out at gunpoint. Make them physically shut down your schools. Make them shut down your university by force because you won't cover abortions in your student health plan. Make them physically shut down your soup kitchens. Make them shut down your adoption agencies because you won't hand a baby boy over to two men who like to jam various and sundry body parts up each others' rectums.

In other words, STAND AND FIGHT.

The only proper course of action is total non-compliance with these totalitarian edicts of the regime, and FORCING THEIR HAND.

Anything less than that, and you LOSE. MEN fight wars. If you refuse to do your duty and act like MEN, then the war is already lost. And make no mistake, cowardice is a grave sin, and you will answer for it.

Every bishop is given a crosier upon his ordination to the episcopacy. A crosier is a shepherd's staff. It is a six to seven foot long staff that a shepherd uses to beat the crap out of wolves. That's your job. Beating the crap out of the wolves - not killing all of the sheep yourself so that there is nothing left for the wolves to eat. 

Spot on Ann!! The bishops need to grow spines and stand up for the Faith with fervor in an uncompromising fashion. 

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Is James Holmes, The Aurora Shooter, The Face of Evil?

Some people are going to claim that guns are what caused the shooting in a movie theater in the wee hours of a Friday morning.  Others will make the claim that violence in movies, television, and video games is to blame for the shooting, and even specifically blame the Batman movies.  Some people will blame the shooting on poverty or lack of education.  But are any of these really what caused James Holmes who was raised in an upper middle class family and on his way to getting a doctorate in neuroscience to open fire in a theater during the movie "The Dark Night Rises"?

Ted Baehr, a Christian movie critic, says that none of those things are to blame for James Holmes opening fire in a movie theater. None of the above claims get at the crux of the issue and answers the real question: Why did this happen? Ted Baehr makes the claim that wickedness is to blame for the shooting, and that this happened because persons don't have a relationship with the loving God along with having the belief in Jesus' message to bring salvation to all.

 Ted Baehr states:

Actually, none of these reasons answer the question ‘Why?’ The fact is that this is an evil act committed by an evil person, who did not know the truth of Jesus Christ that would set him free from such wickedness. The answer is not more laws, the answer is not to banish movies, nor neuroscience programs, nor weapons that can be used to protect, but rather to get the word of God out. Because "faith comes through hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ" (Romans 10:17). 

I used to be on the radical left, but Jesus Christ got hold of me, and I’ve tried to live my life every day by enjoying Him, using the power of God’s Holy Spirit. As the word of God says in Galatians 5:22-23, "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." 

If you ban the fruit of the Spirit of Jesus Christ from society, including the education system, you’re not banning God; you’re banning goodness, justice, truth, peace, kindness, joy, gentleness, self-control, and love.

Do you think that it is possible for a person to be both insane and evil? It is my opinion that a sane person would not have succumbed to committing such an evil act of violence because of viewing violence on the screen or due to either poverty or a lack of education. There are plenty of people who live in poverty as well as others who don't have much of an education but they don't go around on killing sprees. 

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

John Sununu "I wish this President would learn how to be an American"

In a Romney campaign conference call John Sununu stated, "the president clearly demonstrated that he has absolutely no idea how the American economy functions. The men and women all over America who have worked hard to build these businesses, their businesses from the ground up is how our economy became the envy of the world -- it is the American way." 
He then added this comment "I wish this president would learn how to be an American."

After the backlash from ignorant yahoo Lefties Sununu went on to clarify the context of his remarks in an interview with Wolf Blitzer.  It is obvious to any person who uses common sense (oooohh yeah that's right common sense goes against progressives modus operandi, their normal way of functioning ) that since Sununu actually was talking about business in response to Obama's out of touch comment about those who are successful in the business community -- “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own” “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that."  “Somebody else made that happen.”  --  that Sununu was actually talking about business in America and not Obama's country of origin.  But that's what progressives thrive on - divisive identity politics.  Obama is clueless about America, what makes America great, and how businesses operate and what it takes for a business to be successful.  John Sununu is spot on!  

"What I thought I said, but I guess I didn't say, is that the president has to learn the American formula for creating business," he said. "If I didn't give all that detail I apologize."

“He thinks that jobs are created by giving grants to your cronies, to your bundlers and your contributors, like he did with Solyndra,” Sununu said.  

Obama's the one who thinks that by simply having teachers when attending school and that driving on bridges and roads somehow makes entrepreneurs successful.  Gee if it only took people driving on roads and bridges to be successful then we would all be wealthy and possibly millionaires by now.  He actually thinks just because students may have had inspirational,great teachers that somehow if students grow up and later in life as adults are successful entrepreneurs who have come up with business ideas, invented various products or technologies, or have come up with a new innovation amounts to "this happened because I had one of those great teachers" borders on the insane.  How dare this freaking big government socialist statist diminish the success of our entrepreneurs in the business community.  Obama believes that government is the answer.  Obama believes that the private sector cannot be successful without the help of the government and oh of course how could their businesses survive without his benevolent assistance?  What a friggin narcissist who thinks that he plays a role in everyone's success.  Nope.  I've had it with that it takes a village bull crap!  It is evident that his instituting of both socialist and crony capitalist policies is strangling American businesses.  If  Obama & his cronies would stay the hell out of the private sector then the economy will begin to thrive again. 

Monday, July 16, 2012

2012 Bucket List for America

I found this on Facebook. This is too good not to pass on.

H/T Barack ObamasDeadFly

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Cookie Monster Does Weird Al

Do Machiavellianism and Moral Relativism Go Hand-in-Hand?

In a recent discussion Jack Camwell claimed that he is Machiavellian but most adamantly denied being a relativist. I have consistently claimed that he is a moral relativist because of his positions on abortion and gay "marriage".  Let's take a look at the definitions of Machiavellian and moral relativism.

Machiavellian -- Definition from Collins English Dictionary 


1. of or relating to the alleged political principles of Machiavelli; cunning, amoral, and opportunist


2. a cunning, amoral, and opportunist person, esp a politician

Definition of Machiavellianism from Wikipedia: 

Machiavellianism is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct", deriving from the Italian Renaissance diplomat and writer Niccolò Machiavelli, who wrote Il Principe (The Prince) and other works. The word has a similar use in modern psychology where it describes one of the dark triad personalities, characterised by a duplicitous interpersonal style associated with cynical beliefs and pragmatic morality.[1] "Machiavellian" (and variants) as a word became very popular in the late 16th century in English, though "Machiavellianism" itself is first cited by theOxford English Dictionary from 1626.

Definition of Moral Relativism from Wikipedia: 

Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and culturesDescriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

Definition of Moral Relativism from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

 Most often it {moral relativism} is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.

As you'll notice above the definition of Machiavellianism is more applicable to politics and government policy while Moral Relativism applies to issues of morality.  

In Peter Kreeft's article (1) The Pillars of Unbelief  he calls Machiavelli "the inventor of 'the new morality.'”  Kreeft shows how Machiavelli expounded upon moral relativism and explains how Machiavellianism is a political form of moral relativism. 

For all previous social thinkers, the goal of political life was virtue. A good society was conceived as one in which people are good. There was no “double standard” between individual and social goodness — until Machiavelli. With him, politics became no longer the art of the good but the art of the possible. His influence on this point was enormous. All major social and political philosophers (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Dewey) subsequently rejected the goal of virtue, just as Machiavelli lowered the standard and nearly everyone began to salute the newly masted flag. 
Machiavelli's argument was that traditional morals were like the stars; beautiful but too distant to cast any useful light on our earthly path. We need instead man-made lanterns; in other words, attainable goals. We must take our bearings from the earth, not from the heavens; from what men and societies actually do, not from what they ought to do. 
The essence of Machiavelli's revolution was to judge the ideal by the actual rather than the actual by the ideal. An ideal is good for him, only if it is practical; thus, Machiavelli is the father of pragmatism. Not only does “the end justify the means” — any means that work — but the means even justify the end, in the sense that an end is worth pursuing only if there are practical means to attain it. In other words, the new summum bonum, or greatest good is success. (Machiavelli sounds like not only the first pragmatist but the first American pragmatist!) 
Machiavelli didn't just lower the moral standards; he abolished them. More than a pragmatist, he was an anti-moralist. The only relevance he saw morality having to success was to stand in its way. He taught that it was necessary for a successful prince “to learn how not to be good (“The Prince, ch. 15), how to break promises, to lie and cheat and steal (ch. 18). 

Machiavelli ascribed to either realism or neorealism, political theories which advanced a political cause "to explicitly disavow absolute moral and ethical considerations in international politics in favor of a focus on self-interest, political survival, and power politics, which they hold to be more accurate in explaining a world they view as explicitly amoral and dangerous." In his work The Prince Machiavelli wrote "...there will be traits considered good that, if followed, will lead to ruin, while other traits, considered vices which if practiced achieve security and well being for the Prince."  

Machiavelli completely disavowed, tossed aside absolute moral and ethical considerations when dealing with international politics.  Plato believed that political leaders should follow a virtuous path but Machiavelli had no problem with employing vices in the political arena.  

It is evident that a follower of the Machiavellian philosophy, when trying to apply it to ethics or morality, can range in belief from moral relativism to amoralism since to follow Machiavellianism in a strict sense would mean to disavow absolute moral and ethical standards in favor of whatever means necessary to attain power while following him loosely could mean the belief that every political idea is equally legitimate no matter how unethical or amoral the methods used to attain power are.  Machiavellianism is a term which is applied to political philosophy, government foreign relations policy, and leaders who use any means necessary to attain more power but is not used when discussing issues of morality such as abortion, euthanasia, and gay "marriage".  Jack Camwell may be a Machiavellian in his political philosophy but when he justifies abortion in the name of prudence that is considered moral relativism in the ethical realm.  

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Links & News

Since in the past few days I have been in extreme pain, as well as dealing with some additional symptoms due to my gynecological issues and because of this ended up paying a visit to the ER yesterday afternoon I am linking to some great news articles and blog posts.

According to a survey 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare 

Rep. Darrell Issa Signs Declaration of Internet Freedom

After Brad Pitt's Mom Urged Christians to Pray, blasted Obama on gay marriage and abortion she has now received death threats from the "tolerant" Left on twitter and now is living in fear for expressing her beliefs.

Michelle Malkin penned an article In Defense of Brad Pitt's Mom  Jon Voight has also come out in defense of Brad Pitt's mom. 

The Great Dissent Part I : Four Justices in Obamacare Make For Constitutional Conservatism 

Fuzzy Logic -- Open Letter To President Obama: This Nation Simply Doesn't Deserve You 

Creative Minority Report -- Christian Convert Beheaded on Egyptian TV

Reaganite Republican -- Incompetent, Desperate Team Obama's  Racial Warfare Theme....

The Other McCain - I Can AZ Cheeseburger Rehab  

TOTUS -- American Crossroads: The Real War On Women 

Sentry Journal - Her Name is Macee

Bunkerville -- Obama Signs Executive Order Empowering Kill Switch Over the Internet 

American Perspective -- The Waiting Place... Dr. Seuss 

Conservative Hideout 2.0 -- We Live In A Dysfunctional World 

GeeeeeZ -- I Don't Think Romney Wants a Menage a Trois.... 

I hope you enjoy seeing these bulldogs all dressed up. Too cute and funny....

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

The Religion of Peace Pledges To 'Wipe Christianity From The Face Of The Earth'

The Islamic fascists are at it again. An Islamist group with ties to United Muslim Nations International has released a booklet titled, "The Global Islamic Civilization: The Power of a Nation Revived" where they outlined plans to "wipe Christianity from the face of the earth."  And the Left claims conservatives are intolerant. Geesh... And they say we're overreacting when we push back against certain initiatives which promote Islamic supremacy within the United States.  We must take measures to ensure that our religious freedom remains intact.  We must continue to fight against the Islamo-fascists. 

From Breitbart:

Sheik Farook al-Mohammedi, the leader of the group, has made his intentions clear: "Christianity should be destroyed and wiped from the face of the earth [because] it is an evil, demonic and Anti-Christ system" He added: "The Revived Global Caliphate has set eyes on the West to once and for all rid the world of Christianity and there is nothing you can do about it."  
And in other news, President Obama has spent his presidency telling us that Islamists and Westerners share so much in common: that our differences are minimal but our desires, our hopes and dreams, are so similar. 
I guess Obama hasn't read "The Global Islamic Civilization" yet.

Maybe Obama's views ( at least some of his views) aren't that different from Islamists views? Maybe Obama wants the West to be more like how the Islamists live?  That would be taking this country down more than a notch or two. That would be quite destructive to America which seems to be his administration's modus operandi. 

Monday, July 9, 2012

Is State Nullification The Answer To Ending Obamacare?

Walter Williams thinks so.

As I am not well versed on the idea of nullification I searched the net to gain some more information on it. I found some information at Thomas Woods's LibertyClassroom. He has written an entire book on the topic. This is for those who are new to the term, don't know it's history, and are unaware of how it can be employed today.

What is it?
State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.
Says Who?
Says Thomas Jefferson, among other distinguished Americans. His draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word “nullification” into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson’s formulation that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers. In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution.
But Jefferson didn’t invent the idea. Federalist supporters of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788 assured Virginians that they would be “exonerated” should the federal government attempt to impose “any supplementary condition” upon them – in other words, if it tried to exercise a power over and above the ones the states had delegated to it. Patrick Henry and later Jefferson himself elaborated on these safeguards that Virginians had been assured of at their ratifying convention.
What’s the Argument for It?
Here’s an extremely basic summary:
1) The states preceded the Union.  The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” that “have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of 13 states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted.  The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.
2) In the American system no government is sovereign.  The peoples of the states are the sovereigns.  It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government.  In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.
3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power.  No other arrangement makes sense.  No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power.  In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created.  James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800.
Why Do We Need It?
As Jefferson warned, if the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. In his Report of 1800, Madison reminded Virginians and Americans at large that the judicial branch was not infallible, and that some remedy must be found for those cases in which all three branches of the federal government exceed their constitutional limits.
Isn’t This Ancient History?
Two dozen American states nullified the REAL ID Act of 2005. More than a dozen states have successfully defied the federal government over medical marijuana. Nullification initiatives of all kinds, involving the recent health care legislation, cap and trade, and the Second Amendment are popping up everywhere.
What’s more, we’ve tried everything else.  Nothing seems able to stop Leviathan’s relentless march.  We need to have recourse to every mechanism of defense Thomas Jefferson bequeathed to us, not just the ones that won’t offend Katie Couric or MSNBC.
Won’t This Make the New York Times Unhappy?
More proof it’s a good idea.
Doesn’t Nullification Violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause?
Thomas Jefferson knew about the Supremacy Clause, it’s safe to assume.  The Supremacy Clause applies to constitutional laws, not unconstitutional ones.  For a full reply to this objection, see Professor Brion McClanahan.
Isn’t This Just a Smokescreen for Slavery?
Nullification was never used on behalf of slavery.  As I show in Nullification, it was usedagainst slavery, which is why South Carolina’s secession document cites it as a grievance justifying southern secession, and Jefferson Davis denounced it in his farewell address to the Senate.  Thus Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, backed up by the state legislature, declared the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional (the mere existence of the fugitive-slave clause in the Constitution did not, in its view, suffice to make all the odious provisions of that act constitutionally legitimate).  In Ableman v. Booth (1859), the Supreme Court scolded it for doing so.  In other words, modern anti-nullification jurisprudence has its roots in the Supreme Court’s declarations in support of the Fugitive Slave Act.  Who’s defending slavery here?

From The Daily Caller:

On Rush Limbaugh’s Thursday program, George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams outlined the case that states can nullify Obamacare, citing Thomas Jefferson’s 1789 Kentucky Resolution, which was a claim that the U. S. Constitution is a compact among the several states, and any power not delegated to the U.S. government is void. 
“I think the American citizens ought to press their state governors and legislatures just to nullify the law — just to plain nullify it and say, ‘The citizens of such-and-such-a state don’t have to obey Obamacare because it’s unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court says,’” Williams said. 
Williams cited Marbury v. Madison, which said “all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” to further the case for nullification from the states. 
Nullification is a doctrine introduced in the infancy of the United States and was what some have suggested led to the Civil War. As far as the legal precedent of nullification and how it led to the Civil War, Williams said he doubted the repercussions would as serious as they were in 1861. 
“I think two things are different this time,” he said. “First, most Americans are against Obamacare. And secondly, I don’t believe — and you call me up and tell me if I’m wrong about this — I don’t believe that you could find a United States soldier who would follow a presidential order to descend on a state to round up or shoot fellow Americans because they refuse to follow a congressional order to buy health insurance.”

Two well known college professors, one a libertarian the other a conservative, support nullification. This has to be a good idea!  At least until full repeal of Obamacare is able to be achieved. Personally I like the idea and think we should use nullification to refuse instituting Obamacare which I still believe to be unconstitutional regardless of whether it is considered a tax or not. What do you think?