Muslims Murdering Their Own Children Because Of The Clothes They Wear?

I have to begin this blog with a prayer that this story is completely bogus because it's so horrible but with various sources reporting it the story appears to be credible. I hope you're sitting down.

Incredible as it sounds, according to an MSNBC story today it appears that Muslims don't have any qualms about murdering their own youth. According to MSNBC, 14 children have been stoned to death so far in a wave of this in various areas of Iraq the past three weeks.

That's the number according to some of Iraq's more official sources. Incredibly, an unofficial report in the Brussels Tribunal estimated the number of killings to be between 90 and 100. The childrens' crime? Unacceptable hair and clothing styles. Check out MSNBC's story here:
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/10/10634539-iraqi-teens-stoned-to-death-for-wearing-emo-clothes

I strongly desire to go on a rant about this but I can find no words sufficient to describe the horror I feel about this. Perhaps it's not necessary because, for people with an ounce of humanity, the story says all that needs to be said about what's going on there except it begs one question. This kind of behavior within a claimed religion of peace? Really?

It's Okay For Muslims To Puposely Kill Christians And Destroy Their Churches But Burning Qurans Deserves Protests And Requires Accountability And Profuse Apology From Our President

We Americans do NOT have as an objective or policy to destroy or deface Qurans much less kill Muslims for simply being Muslims. As a matter of choice and fact we make a strong effort to show respect for Islam and what Muslims hold sacred. We even practice self-accountablility.

On the other hand, whole Islamic countries have it as their primary goal in life to destroy America, especially Christian Americans, and actually do so at every opportunity. Muslims destroy Christian churches and kill Christians for simply being Christians.

When an American does mess up and deface a Quran our own policies as well as Muslim demands result in profuse apologies and strong accountability. If many Muslims had their way our response would include the severist of penalties (inlucing death) for those who'd do such a thing. Such an offense requires of many Muslims to conduct angry protests demanding retribution.

On the other hand, when Muslims kill Americans and Christians we do nothing in retaliation and Muslims feel no obligation to apologize for it, much less hold the responsible people accountable in any way.

What's wrong with this picture?

Santorum's Comment About Obama's "Phony Theology": More True Than Not

So, here's Santorum's quote that's in the news this week about Obama adhering to an inaccurate theology: Obama adheres to "some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology."

There are two ways in which Obama's own actions and words prove that to be true.

One way is that the president spent a couple of decades attending a church in which the pastor advocated "black liberation theology" and the president was fully aware what that was all about. There are many who think that theology, to express it kindly, takes liberties with the Word of God. Overcoming "mal-distribution" of materials/resources is a good thing but achieving the desired "economic parity" by forced redistributive means preached in support and application of that theology is by no means what God had in mind. (And it has nothing(!) to do with the parable to which the president referred but more on that two paragraphs below.)

Of course we're obliged to take care of the poor and disadvantaged but that isn't meant to replace productive labor with an attitude of not needing to earn what one gets in life. In the Bible God values productive labors in order to take care of one's self and one's family. He encourages Christians to work hard, thus earning whatever it is they collect of material worth. Nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus say everyone deserves "economic parity" regardless whether they earn it. Taking from others just because they have more is not biblical. And it has nothing to do with the parable in question.

The second consideration is associated with things that Obama says about Christianity. Wanting to sound all smart, he instead demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of biblical teachings that suggest his theology is inconsistent with the true meaning of things in the bible. The most recent example is his latest claim that his policy "as a Christian ... coincides with Jesus' teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.'" The bible verse he references, Luke 12:48, has nothing to do with taking from the rich to give to the poor. In fact, it has nothing to do with material matters at all.

It's a parable about whether one is a Christian who understands scripture and is therefore thereafter accountable to God for obeying His commands! It's a parable that refers to what's expected of Christians once they really understand what is required of Christians. MUCH MORE is required of them in teaching others about Christianity than of those who don't understand it yet. The point is, once Christians understand what God expects of them, they are accountable to behave accordingly ... choosing to live a moral life according to God's laws and to teach scripture to others accurately. It does not mean, now that you know the truth about being a Christian, you are obliged to be okay with the government forceably taking your material possessions and giving them to others. The lesson of the parable has nothing to do with sharing material wealth. It has everything to do with sharing God's eternal wealth.

What that parable meant therefore was this: For unto whom much KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING has been given (about the kingdom and what comprises a moral Christian life), much MORAL LIVING AS WELL AS SPIRITUAL TEACHING AND LEADING shall be required.

Note that the parable therefore was NOT talking about our moral responsibility regarding material wealth, the environment or anything else that's material in nature, rather about God's eternal wealth and our eternal souls. That President Obama does not understand what that parable was talking about discredits his pious and pretentious thinking and attitude. I apologize for being blunt but it's deserved ... this guy really needs to get over himself and get real with his Christianity if he's going to presume to preach gospel to us.

So, those are only two ways in which President Obama's theology is inconsistent with what the bible actually means. How 'Christian' does President Obama prove he is then by claiming a parable means something it does not and by pontificating to us that it is supposed to be applied in a way that was never meant by Jesus? For him to lecture us that we Christians aren't doing the Christian thing by not supporting his redistributive agenda is amazing to me. That he would basically chastise us as not being good Christians for not supporting or, worse, daring to challenge that agenda says much about how highly he regards himself. He presumes to understand something about the Word of God and then proves he completely doesn't understand it himself. His statement indeed, reflects accurately the "black liberation theology" of his religious mentor for all those years, Pastor Wright, in stark opposition to the point Jesus was actually making.

The section of scripture President Obama was referring to actually divided people into two groups ... those who understand what's required of Christians and those who don't. By failing to understand that parable, President Obama proves himself to be in the latter category of people Jesus was talking about who do not understand Jesus' commands and are, therefore, not accountable for falling short as Christians. Maybe he is a Christian but he has a lot to learn before he has sufficient cred or authority (per God's 'rules') to lecture the rest of us about what it means to be a Christian. All he accomplished by his misunderstanding of scripture is substantially validate what Santorum said.

Santorum's comment may sound harsh but President Obama's own words prove Santorum is more correct than not, eh?

By the way, Charles Krauthammer expressed it well too with additional relevant commentary:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gospel-according-to-obama/2012/02/09/gIQAngvW2Q_story.html

The Syria Situation (Indeed, All Muslim History): Islam As A Religion Of Peace. Seriously, Really?

Here we go again. This time in Syria. Attrocities by a ruler against his own citizens, against fellow Muslims! Islam is a religion of peace? Really? Can anyone take that seriously any more?

Throughout most of the history of Islam, Muslims have fought wars against one another (in addition to warring against other cultures) and have perpetrated on other Muslims(!) the most awful attrocities and inhumane treatment. Religious warfare on steroids within(!) Islam. Class warfare on steroids within Islam (extreme poverty in oil-rich nations while the rulers live in unimaginable luxury). Average(!) citizens of many Muslim nations would love to live as well as most Americans live in what we call poverty here. Muslim rulers frequently (usually?) keep their country's population in ignorance. A religion that was once the pride of the world in scholarly endeavors has sunk to this. What a waste. How exactly does all this honor or bring honor to Islam?

With this(!) much violence against fellow Muslims coupled with their antagonism against non-Muslims, how can a rational person believe that Islam is fundamentally a religion of peace? If it were as fundamentally true as so many claim, such violence and attrocities against anyone, much less fellow Muslims, would be rare, would be routinely condemned, would be vigorously squashed. In fact, Islam (Muslims' behavior to one another) would be a model of peace to the non-Muslim world. How far are they from that? Yet they somehow expect Islam to be appealing to non-Muslims! And we non-Muslims, especially Americans, are the intolerant ones?

The Sinking Of The Costa Concordia: A Metaphor For A Sinking West Or For Increasingly Spineless Men?

I was going to add comments of my own but after a few failed attempts I couldn't improve on what Mark Steyn said about the sinking of the Costa Concordia this week:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288778/sinking-west-mark-steyn

I'll only add a few questions for you to ponder. To what extent is Captain Schettino's ME FIRST attitude a metaphor for much of what's going on with men all around us today? What is happening to men's sense of responsibility? To what extent has abandon ship (re. responsibility, self-respect, honesty, morality, integrity, family, neighbors, community, etc) become a man's first, if not completely over-riding, impulse? How many of the men you know or know about do you respect? Can you in all honesty say you expect them to man up when a situation calls for it or will they all look around for someone else to do what's necessary? What has been the negative role of feminism, if any, in all this? To the extent family values have eroded significantly, what percentage of it lies at the feet of irresponsible men versus women? Why are there so many out of wedlock births and single mothers? Why are so many kids not completing their K-12 education? Why do so many kids shun technical fields in college?

Having given thought to the answers to those questions, how much better off would we be in those areas if American men had better and stronger values, principles, self-respect, integrity, and morals?

Left Becoming Meaner?

Food for thought:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287648/leftism-makes-you-meaner-dennis-prager

The last paragraph is interesting: "Leftists’ meanness toward those with whom they differ has no echo on the normative right [he's talking about degree and extent ... of course meanness exists on the right too]. Those on the left need to do some soul-searching — because as long as they continue to believe that people on the right are not merely wrong, but vile, they will get increasingly mean. The problem for the Left, however, is that the moment it stops painting the Right as vile, it has to argue the issues."

He isn't saying there's no meanness on the right (of course there is meanness on the right too), just that the left is taking it to a level that's pretty disturbing. Treating people who simply have an opposing view as inherently vile, stupid, ignorant, unkind, uncompassionate, racist, haters, etc is sooooo not good for our society.

The last sentence in the quote above is the most interesting to me. What is the left so afraid of that they refuse to calm down and simply debate the issues? Could it be that they don't have a rational argument?

Santorum: Strong 'America First' Conservative Principles That Are Much Needed In America

On Family Values:

Santorum had a great response to the question last night about what each candidate thought was the single most important issue facing America. He said is was the erosion of family values.

The other candidates gave answers associated with the sorry state of our economy, national security and such. While those are certainly good answers, most conservatives I know tend to think that the erosion of traditional family values underlies most of our current problems to one extent or another. It's a 'root cause' matter, a view of things I'm usually pretty centered on.

If our traditional family values hadn't eroded so badly over the past 50 years or so, chances are we'd be better centered on the other issues in a way that could have avoided our current problems. Values, principles and morals matter in a culture. They not only define a culture's character; they guide and influence action.

Just one but perhaps the most important area in which we've suffered is the sorry state of our education. The root cause of that has everything to do with family values. Our problems in education are significantly behind increasing poverty for example. A country failing in education is doomed to fail in all the areas we're currently having problems.

Greed is pretty much absent among people who have and honestly practice strong family values. Selfishness is pretty much absent. Self-absorption is pretty much absent. More focus on one's iPad than on one's children sitting across the dinner/restaurant table is pretty much absent. Taking care of one's family financial resources and making wise savings/spending/work/education choices is well practiced.

That is not to say people who might rate low on family values (evaluated the way I have here) can't take care of business properly but I believe that they're more likely not to. And I believe that people strong on family values are more likely to do things that are good for their family and, therefore, for their community and their country.

Strong families have arguably been our greatest strength and resource throughout our history. We're far worse off for their erosion. Why do we so strongly resist returning to strong family values and why is discussing them honestly so hated, despised and ridiculed by The Media and the far left? Isn't it pretty obvious that they worked better than what's going on now?

On The Standard 'Issues' Of Our Day:

I couldn't have said it better than the author in the following link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287441/rick-santorum-conservative-stalwart-quin-hillyer

Before Being Quick To Judge The Santorum's Regarding Their Dead Baby, Please Read This

The following article puts the furor surrounding how the Santorums handled the death of their baby in a fair and compassionate perspective:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287410/left-s-so-called-empathy-mark-steyn

Mr. Steyn also uses the situation to point out some interesting hypocrisy in some circles.

More On America's Moral Decline

Some interesting links ... food for SERIOUS thought ... for your consideration following up on my previous blog:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286820/thatcher-vs-decline-rich-lowry
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286822/growth-not-redistribution-michael-barone

What Defined Us In 2011: Do We REALLY Want To Go There Ever Again?

This link pretty much describes what I've thought all year.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286807/2011-you-can-t-win-losing-jonah-goldberg

We're becoming pretty nutty here aren't we? Narcissists and knuckleheads completely lacking in self-control and common sense. In contrast, here's what we ought to be about posted on Facebook by my daughter-in-law, Heather: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/12/23/praise-flows-for-pastor-joe.html

Compassion, humility and selflessness with NO "PC" motivation ... and NO government 'taking care of people'. Just love and doing the right thing. Say what you will about our being a Christian nation but the latter link demonstrates what fundamentally separates us from most. We need to get back to individuals(!) doing more of this simply because it's right.

If You Want: 1) To Know More Details About Cosiness Between Wall Street And Politicians And 2) A Headache, Read This

Honestly, I'm so dumbfounded by this that I have no idea where to start with comments of my own. Does this sound like the dealings of honest 'representatives' who are trying to make us believe they're on our side against the greed inherent in Wall Street?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286704/repo-men-kevin-d-williamson

Check Out "Family Facts" Website Run By The Heritage Foundation: How Broken Families (Esp Broken Men!) Affect Our Kids' Lives And Why Government Can't Fix It

Check this out:
http://www.familyfacts.org/

Several things are clear from that website's statistics and are consistent with what I've been harping on for a couple of years now:

• Our kids are failing in many areas of life/living. School is just one but an important one.
• Broken homes, especially broken men/husbands/fathers, are mostly to blame.
• Government action/money CANNOT fix this.
• American men need to man-up and start putting their families first.

What About The Power Of Unions Over Government And Elections?

Sovereign states ought to, of right, be free (of undo, especially excessive external influences) to conduct their business in due/effective consideration of what's best for their own citizens' short-term and long-term interests. That's not to say national or regional interests should be disallowed from consideration at state and local levels. However, when a nationally-organized and considerably strong special interest pours monumental nationally-derived resources into influencing a state's voting it can make it difficult if not impossible for that state to self-govern in its citizens' best interests. In fact, they become mere pawns in a nationally-organized, nationally-targeted agenda. That's not freedom of the kind envisioned by our founders is it?

The unbalanced biases created by a highly organized external political publicity onslaught in effect renders the state's citizens unwittingly subservient to that external political agenda in the interests of biases not really the citizens' own. Sensible opposing political interests within the community and/or state, lacking the ability to match the national resources coming at it, may find it impossible to mount an effective opposing campaign. The battle is over before it even begins. Brute force wins over sensibility and due, independent and wise consideration.

When a semblance of balance of interests is achievable there's no harm done. In fact, the resulting debate (ie, education on issues) is healthy. But if a national special interest with a virtually bottomless pocketbook lays siege to completely defenseless thinking of a state's population, the result may not be good for the state's citizens. Additionally, such a win can provide important leverage to the national special interest making it easier to expand its agenda elsewhere more easily, including into the courts and congress.

I wonder whether unions are becoming too powerful and influential in gaining outcomes that serve their own interests too much. (What else do they serve, really?) We see what unions have done and are doing in places such as Greece. It's not good for any state in the end, much less a nation. I don't think one special interest ought to have such power to influence outcomes simply by outspending individual states until it gets its way nationally via a simple majority of politically key states. Manipulation of political outcomes on this scale is not ... I say not ... a good thing for our republic.

Citizens ought to be educated on issues, not brainwashed by an unmatchable external(!) onslaught of biased publicity and fact-twisting political machinery. Citizens effectively become mere pawns at the mercy of a national political agenda which they have neither the will nor capacity to assess or resist appropriately by way of their own independent thinking, rationale and effort.

Political interests which have as their goal, the protection of a state's citizens' rights, property and prosperity are doing the good work intended by our founders. Political interests which have as their goal the advancement of their own narrow and selfish interests (invariably at a high price to those who oppose them and to those who aren't members of their group) have no business exercising the kind of power that unions are trying to exert, indeed succeeding. Conscience and morals do not prohibit them from taking whatever they are able to from non-members or even from their own unwitting members. Whatever they can get away with in the near term is by their definition (which is the only one that matters to them) good, regardless its long-term consequences to the community, state or nation. Even regardless the long-term consequences to their own group/organization.

Thoughtlessly killing the golden goose is never an issue with them as long as there's goose on the dinner table this week. We should be asking the average Greek or citizen of other EU countries in a similarly precarious economic condition, how it has worked out for them!

It's Hypocritical For Democrats To Denounce Republicans For Wall Street Connections

Bernie Madoff was active in the NASD (securities industry regulatory(!) organization) and served as chairman of the board and on the board of governors of the NASD. All the while he was perpetrating one of the biggest Wall Street frauds of all times. Oh, and he's a Democrat.

Now we hear that MF Global has filed for bankruptcy and that millions of dollars have mysteriously gone missing there. Jon Corzine runs that. He once ran Goldman Sachs before becoming a US Senator and then NJ governor. There don't appear to be any charges against him so far but this is fishy at best. Another Wall Street insider. Oh, and he's a Democrat too.

So much for the Democratic myth that only Republicans are associated with the immoral, unprincipled and illegal things going on in Wall Street. Someone ought to ask the Occupy Wall Street protesters what they think of this.

I think it's time we all took a deep breath and stopped the nonsense partisan rock-throwing. There's plenty of blame to go around. One thing is abundandantly clear. Democrats are on pretty thin ice trying to claim it's only Republicans who are criminally involved in Wall Street excesses.

So if neither party has clean hands, whom do we get to bring sanity and principles to Wall Street? How rational is it to expect it'll get fixed any time soon?

Aspiring To Be Good At Gaming The System (Ref Previous LIRR Blog)

Thinking about my previous blog about the LIRR fraud case, I've come up with at least three things that should be said about 'Gaming The System':

1. When 'the system' becomes too oppressive or cumbersome it invites, even demands (for thrill or survival sake) people find ways around whatever rules there are whether those ways are illegal or 'only' immoral.
2. There are too many people who accept doing this as a challenge and that to be victorious is a good thing. To them, there's honor in dishonerable actions.
3. There are too many people for whom the immoral aspect of it is irrelevant. This 'moral relevance' thinking based on one's own desires being more important than others' is destructive of civility in a society. If you haven't noticed, it's increasing dramatically in the USA and elsewhere.

An over-reaching and/or too bureaucratic and too 'nanny state' government always leads to this. It's a historical truth. As I've said in recent blogs, it is simple human nature to behave this way. Either the survival instinct kicks in or people find their motivation to do bad things in the thrill/challenge of finding ways to benefit from not following the rules ... to benefit from the pain (economic or otherwise) of others. Their pain is irrelevant. My gain whether deserved or earned is all that matters.

We're going too far down this road. We're becoming a something for nothing society and history is full of lessons why and how this is very, very bad for us. To those doing the gaming, both the historical truth where this leads and the impact on fellow citizens who pay a price to the successful gamer are completely(!) irrelevant. If you can get something from the system that you don't deserve and didn't earn, so what? If 'they' are stupid enough to allow me to do it and get away with it, shame on them. Unfortunately, it isn't 'the system' or government that pays the price, it's one's own fellow citizens, one's neighbors, one's relatives. Personal moral responsibility is irrelevant. In fact, it's a totally subjective thing, not something which has objective importance in absolute terms.

We humans resist objective restrictions on our behavior if they infringe on what we want. Human nature you know. The constitution is too restrictive? Then we must declare it a 'must be made relevant to the times' document and keep it relevant to current 'needs'. We must it change it to accommodate what we want, regardless of the document's historically derived 'healthy society' foundation. But it's justified to change it isn't it? After all, the Founders had no idea how we'd develop materially, scientifically or otherwise. No they didn't. They 'only' understood where human behavior would lead without cultural and government boundaries. They understood the inevitability of our decay if our behvior (wants versus basic needs) were not restrained.

Changing from a society substantially based on personal responsibility for one's life and for the well-being of one's family and community to one based on automatic equal outcomes for everyone is destructive. It gives perceived if not implied and even factual license to people to get whatever's fair by their own definition by any means and at whatever cost to others that are necessary. Wrongness becomes subjective which is destructive of a civil society. This has played out so many times in history that it's irrational to ignore it. It is arrogant and ignorant of us to think it won't or can't happen to us ... that we will manage it better than all those failed societies. Man's arrogance (in the societal and personal sense) knows no bounds. The Founders knew this to be true and did a remarkably creative job of establishing sensible boundaries. We ignore their intentions at great, great risk to our society.

History screams at us: beware what you wish for!

Time To Man-Up Men!!!

For the past 50 years in America we've been allowing our values to erode with respect to in-tact families and the role of fathers and fatherhood. It is helping to create a two-caste system in our culture. In one caste you'll find signficant poverty caused by absent or disengaged fathers and a lack of importance given to becoming better educated and ensuring their kids are too. In the other caste you'll generally find the exact opposite.

For a better description and analysis of the problem and its cause please read these links:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/16/spotlight-on-civil-society-courageous-film-highlights-importance-of-fathers/

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Married-Fathers-Americas-Greatest-Weapon-Against-Child-Poverty?query=Married+Fathers:+America%E2%80%99s+Greatest+Weapon+Against+Child+Poverty

 Of course the problem is more complex than that kind of generalization I made above states but the effects of what's happening to/with fathers are undeniably catastrophic to our society and culture. There can be no doubt that absent or disengaged fathers is causing enormous damage to our culture that cannot be fixed with welfare or, for that matter, with government 'control'.

That doesn't mean government cannot do something positive. Our leaders ought to set a good example in several ways. They should unanimously proclaim what's happening unacceptable and a looming disaster for our country. They should do so with a frequency and intensity that gets people's attention. Also, they should work much harder to be good role models. They should also ensure that all government agencies and programs impinging on families in any way include in their objectives encouraging in-tact families and responsible parenting.

Our churches need to make this a priority too. Churches permeate our country and we're still mostly a faith-based society. Because of that churches may be in the best position to be the most effective turning this around. It's appropriate for churches to make this a top priority for several reasons. First, religions (in their various ways) emphasize family values. They emphasize the importance of marriage, families, husbands, and fathers. They emphasize the importance of responsible living. There is nothing about this that makes it inappropriate for churches to handle. In fact, church leadership ought to be the most outraged by what's happening to/with fathers and families. That justifiable outrage ought to be motivating them more than anyone to do more. The problem demands their outrage as well as their involvement to do whatever they can to fix it.

Rep Weiner (D-NY) Is An Arrogant A**

Look, I'm a pretty forgiving and patient person among Tea Partiers I've known. I'm not bashful about stating my position on things but I make a strong effort to do so honestly based on provable facts and history. I also work hard at showing respect for those on the opposite side of the political spectrum and respecting their opposing views. But I've gotta draw the line here with this guy.

I was even saying about Representative Weiner that he deserves a fair shake (no pun intended) in the claims we've heard about lewd photos someone claimed he sent. Innocent until proven guilty I've said. After all, politicians, especially powerful ones and ones who've made a career of harsh criticism of others, have become targets of some pretty nasty stuff with no basis whatsoever.

But he just proved he's a jerk of the highest order. Check out his revelation:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43299964/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

If you've followed his political positions and comments, you know that he has been very, VERY harsh in his claims about 'The Right' and what Fox News says. VERY harsh without an ounce of give and take. Certainly NO forgivenss. And he has been one of the MOST impatient members of congress with tough questions from The Right and from Fox. He's been on the offensive against us on The Right for standing up for what we believe is right and what we believe is wrong with our country. I guess his revelation means that he's been taking what we said justifiably personally.

This man who is intollerant toward and devoid of forgiveness of others is no doubt going to ask for our forgiveness of him. I have to admit that's going to be very difficult for me because he's been very unfair in his attacks on beliefs of folks like me among the Tea Party crowd.

He is an immoral man and a total hypocrite. Oh, and he's a liar too. Add to that a poor excuse for a husband. He has surrendered all moral high ground that he has arrogantly claimed for so long. You want to know what's wrong with America? You don't have to look any farther than what men such as he who gather power to themselves do with that power. It disgusts me!

He says he doesn't believe that he has violated his oath to his constituents. Hey folks! He violated his oath to his wife!!! Even if he hasn't violated his oath to his constituents (which I think he has in principle if not in fact), he has proven that oaths mean nothing to him. He violated one important oath. Why should we believe he wouldn't violate others if it suited him? After all, he has also just proven himself to be a liar too.

It's time for politicians on both sides of the political spectrum to stop with the completely nonsense claims of moral supperiority and enlightenment. What are we citizens to conclude except that they're mostly morally corrupt liars who are unfit to work for us in government, especially in congress? What reason do we have REALLY(!) to believe that their oath of office means anything to them? Or, for that matter, the constitution? When do we stop forgiving them and pretending that their lying, immorality and unprincipled behavior don't matter?

Blaming This Death On Budgets Is Insane: Handcuffed By Policy? You've Gotta Be Kidding Me!

Check this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43233984/ns/us_news-life/

What's happening to us? Where have the people gone who used to do the right thing simply because it was the right thing to do regardless of policy, preparedness or budgets? Regardless of 'standard safety' precautions?

Truly, I understand the rescue issue here. I had Red Cross swimming safety/rescue training. I know the dangers associated with rescuing someone in water, including cold water, whether they want to be rescued or not. I also understand that if someone really wants to kill themselves they'll find a way that works in spite of anyone's best effort. But, trust me, there are lots of people who'd have done the right thing and tried to rescue the man. Unfortunately, such people of the kind of courage we're known for weren't there that day.

Where, in this picture, was something called a best effort? A mediocre effort? An attempted effort? A valiant effort? Where was a person we used to read about who'd have said this is insane ... I've got to do something simply because it's the right thing to do? Someone finally went in there and got the man but too late. That alone suggests that people can do what needs to be done no matter how cold the water is. It can be done because a person with the will to do something difficult or even dangerous can pull it off. If they're motivated strongly enough to try simply because it's the right thing to do.

C'mon now! We've all read stories of people diving into much colder water to rescue someone. You and I both know it CAN be done. But where was the person or people with the will to do it? Good Grief folks, a rescuer wouldn't even have had to swim! The guy was wading out there!!!

I don't think the 'news' here has anything to do with budgets or policy. It's more a question of moral fiber. It's also a question of becoming dependent on 'someone else' to do the really hard thing. It's not my job. It's too risky. I don't know how. It wasn't that long ago that concerns like that didn't matter when someone's life was at stake.

Face it folks! We're becoming dependent on having someone else do the hard stuff or just the stuff we don't feel like doing. We pay the government to do this so it's their job, not mine. Becoming dependent on the government to do things does diminish much of the good stuff in human nature. The value of human life comes into question too.

It's interesting to me that this happened in the San Franciso area. I lived there long enough to observe first hand how people have become disinclined to get involved in something that requires real effort, difficult physical work, real risks or real personal sacrifice with no obvious person gain. People isolate themselves from unpleasant things and avoid doing something in which there's no personal gain. Safe. Secure. Gotta be something in it for me. Let others do it because I don't want to. I have something I have to do that's more important. Never mind whether it's simply the right thing to do.

I think this says something truly sad about us. Maybe President Obama and other progressives are correct ... we are no longer exceptional ... no longer inclined to do what's the right and/or moral thing simply because it's right to do it. Where's the 'hope' in that?