Painting, 1856, by Junius Brutus Stearns, Washington at Constitutional Convention of 1787, 

In November 1787 General George Washington wrote a letter to his nephew Bushrod Washington, who would later become one of the early Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. The purpose of the letter was for the Father of our Country to explain his support for the yet to be adopted U.S. Constitution. Washington had served honorably as the President of the 1787 Constitutional Convention which crafted this great document.  In the letter the Great General wrote “No man is a warmer advocate for proper restraints, and wholesome checks in every department of government than I am; but neither my reasoning, nor my experience, has yet been able to discover the propriety of preventing men from doing good, because there is a possibility of their doing evil.” In so writing few men have ever more fully and properly espoused the arguments for individual liberty. In essence Washington was saying TRUST your fellow man.

In the 223 years since the adoption of our Nations most revered document people have forgotten that it was hardily debated, and strongly opposed. The mere presence of Washington and fellow American Revolutionary hero Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin 1767

within the Convention was perhaps the greatest argument the Constitution’s advocate’s had for its adoption. And a strong argument it was. Franklin and Washington were held in near God-like reverence by early Americans. Since Franklin and Washington supported adoption of the Constitution as it was ultimately written its adoption became far easier.

Opponents feared the Constitution produced too strong a government, and gave the office of The President too much power. Opponents were aghast at the fact that the Constitution enabled the continuing existence of slavery. Having just fought an eight year bloody Revolutionary War for liberty and freedom from the tyranny of British rule, continuing to hold fellow human beings in forced servitude was an hypocritical conflict some members of the Convention couldn’t stomach. Opponents of the Constitution also objected to the absence of a Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the Constitution granted, or acknowledged, the individual rights we all enjoy and fight over today. But they came after the Constitutions adoption in 1789. Ratification of 10 of the first 12 proposed Amendments (yes 12), The Bill of Rights, was finally ratified by the states more than 2 years later in December 1791.

Washington’s admonition to trust that good not evil would be the end result of a God-fearing and moral people speaks to today’s Democrats calls for increasing government regulations, laws, and controls on the American people. Democrats specifically say more control is necessary in order to prevent some from doing evil (in some form or another).

George Washington

Though Washington was responding to specific concerns about the fear he would become President and subsequently Monarch, and that slavery would continue, and more importantly to the opponents, that recognition of American citizen’s individual rights was not and would not be addressed; he said this is a good document, it should be adopted, and stopping its adoption didn’t make sense merely because some didn’t trust that what did ultimately come-to-pass would come-to-pass.

Were the Constitution not adopted and ratified the 13 original State’s would have split up to ultimately fall under the control of some more powerful and organized nation; perhaps Spain, France, and perhaps Britain again. Imagine. The Bill of Rights would never have been created and the shining light on the hill that the United States of America became for the rest of the world, would never have gotten started. And it would have failed because some didn’t trust their fellow Americans to do the right thing.

Where have we heard THAT before.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Related articles

• Post: George Washington Was Not Elected President of the United States on April 6, 1789 ~ Edrivera.com (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• George Washington, Graffiti Artist (neatorama.com)
• George Washington Attacked Bigotry in Letter to Jewish Community (israelnationalnews.com)
• As George Washington once looked into his cup… (foodservicewarehouse.com)

“Don’t be misled: Opposing sin has nothing to do with how we treat other people. Disapproving someone’s behavior should never stop us from treating them with respect and encouraging what is best for them. Ask any parent whether it’s possible to oppose harmful behavior yet love a person dearly.”

32 times states have been asked to vote on Gay marriage and 32 times voters have affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman. But President Obama says he knows better…again.

This well written commentary may fly in the face of pop culture and populism, but its a very good read for those who call themselves Christian.

Gay marriage offers a moral litmus test – Spokesman.com – May 12, 2012.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

George Zimmerman

The circumstances surrounding the death of teenager Trayvon Martin on that dark and rainy night, February 26th in Sanford, Florida became clearer yesterday. The doctor for the man who shot Martin released the medical records of his examination of George Zimmerman the day after the shooting. Also autopsy records of the black teenager were released. In both reports injuries suffered by the two people were consistent with Zimmerman’s story that he shot and killed Martin in self-defense. If true the hysterics generated over this case may prove to be one more sad case of racism being alleged and loudly expressed but not supported by the preponderance of the evidence.

Trayvon Martin Protest – Sanford (Photo credit: werthmedia)

It maddens me because I love my kids, my black kids, and I want the real racism they may face in their lives to be taken seriously when they and I stand up to it. Too much “crying wolf” from people who have other motivations beyond justice for poor young Trayvon. The old Aesop fable, as shown in this video, teaches us you can only falsely claim racism so-many times before people stop listening.

According to Matt Gutman of ABC News the doctor’s report on Zimmerman showed Zimmerman to have had two black eyes, two cuts on the back of his head, bruising in the upper lip and cheek, lower back pain and a “closed fracture” of his nose.

If you add it up that means Zimmerman was punched a minimum of five times, once in each eye, once in the nose, cheek and lip. And with the two cuts on the back of his head you can determine that Zimmerman was honest about Martin slamming his head against the ground after being severely punched a minimum of five times by the 5-foot 11-inch athletically built young man. And when slamming another man’s head against concrete one must be on top of the victim. It won’t work the other way around (this for those who still claim Martin was defending himself).

Further corroborating Zimmerman’s tale was the autopsy which showed that Martin had only two injuries; the gun shot wound and cuts on his knuckles. Clearly Martin was beating the hell out of Zimmerman.

If you’re Zimmerman, and you know you have a gun, how long are you going to take this beating before reaching into your pocket for the gun and shooting the person who may well kill you?

The wisdom of Zimmerman getting out of his car to follow Martin, who he viewed as suspicious, can certainly be questioned. But Zimmerman’s increasingly believable story is that Martin ran and was lost to Zimmerman. Not knowing where Martin had gone Zimmerman quit his pursuit and was no longer following Martin, but was walking back to his car. That’s when Martin came upon him, Zimmerman, and proceeded to attack the self-made neighborhood-watch-guard.

During the uproar in Sanford throughout the month of March few if any Trayvon Martin supporters, news media, or social media posts thought for a moment that Zimmerman might be innocent though I inferred as much in a blog from March 28th I titled Trayvon Martin’s Killer Should Be Punished, Right? 

Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr.

The farcical acts of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton

Al Sharpton

have stirred up angry emotions before when such outrage proved misdirected or wrong. Their acts are old and dangerous and should end. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for the whole country if such men with such notoriety and capabilities actually devoted their efforts to helping people, rather than screaming about racist bogey men?

I don’t blame Martin’s parents for starting the protests. They lost a son. They have conducted themselves well, as best I can tell. Their loss does deserve some explanation.

The death of Trayvon Martin is without question a tragedy, and one we all hope is not repeated. Zimmerman may be guilty of manslaughter for ignoring the 9-1-1 operators softly worded direction “You don’t have to do that”. But wouldn’t it be another tragedy if this other young man’s life were ended or destroyed worse than it has been because other zealous criers of wolf made him spend years in jail in fear for his life, whether behind bars or not?

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Related articles

• Trayvon Martin’s Killer Should be Punished, Right? (mschuettblahblahblah.com)
• Reports: George Zimmerman Treated For Broken Nose and Head Injuries and Trayvon Martin Had Bruised Knuckiles (themoderatevoice.com)
• Court records say George Zimmerman had multiple injuries after Trayvon Martin’s fatal shooting (radio.woai.com)
• Trayvon Martin death: George Zimmerman medical report reveals injuries (wjla.com)
• ABC News Exclusive: Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting (givemeliberty01.wordpress.com)

Travel with me through the time machine and lets take a look back at how things used to be and what the changes have produced.

How it used to be:

Gay marriage? Why yes. Everybody and I mean everybody was in favor of every marriage being gay. Used to be gay meant something completely different. In today’s context the question of Gay Marriage wasn’t a question at all. It was absurd. I mean really? A man marrying another man? A woman marrying another woman? What the heck are you talking about?

How it is today:

Currently six of the United States allow Gay Marriage, and the momentum clearly shows that list to be growing. Even in states that don’t currently recognize Gay Marriage homosexual domestic partnerships are not uncommon. And last week the President said he was in favor of legalizing Gay Marriage, though he hedged his bets for political reasons and said it was a issue for each state to resolve. (Once again Obama showing the conviction and backbone of a jellyfish)

The results:

Its way to early to offer an opinion on the evolving allowance for Gay Marriage. But its not too early to offer an opinion about the increasingly open subject of being Gay. As recently as 20 years ago it was a big deal when someone was “outed”, revealed publicly that they were homosexual. Now its not even a term people use. Now we discuss with serious straight faces gay children, as if an innocent child knows anything about sex or has an attraction one way or another. More open homosexuality goes hand in hand with more open sexuality.

How it used to be:

Living in sin, unwed! Used to be the idea of living with someone (of the opposite sex) with whom you weren’t married was completely taboo. You just didn’t do it! Because if you did…then…you could be…having sex!!!! OMG!

How it is today:

Really? This was an issue for…who? Men and women co-habitate all the time and its simply not an issue with anyone. And yes…they’re having sex.

The results: 

Certainly you have more children born to unwed parents. We’ve also seen a steady decline in the number of people getting and staying married. According to a Pew Research study published December 2011 shows that barely half of all adults are married, and the age at which both brides and grooms get married for the first time is at a record high age; 26.5 for brides, 28.5 for grooms. In 1960 70% of all adults in the U.S. 18 and older were married. Given that repeated studies show people tend to be happier, more successful, and less likely to be poor when married its hard to see this trend as anything but bad.

How it used to be:

Illegal drugs were thought to be dangerous, even marijuana, and addictive, even marijuana. But ever since most states started making various drugs illegal in the 1920s and 30s people have continued to use marijuana, cocaine, heroine, amphetamines and other drugs. Even Franklin Roosevelt‘s doctor gave the President small doses of cocaine to clear up our Chief Executive’s sinuses.

But in the Hardy Boys and later Happy Days world of the 50s, 60s and 70s drug use was for the people on the edges of society.

How it is today:

Because of our more open and informed society there is a perception that more and more of us use illegal drugs. Studies aren’t completely helpful on whether this is true or not. But certainly we’re more accepting of those who do. Legalizing marijuana efforts have been in existence since it became illegal in every U.S. state by the 1930s. They now seem to have more traction, with more and more states allowing for the medical use of marijuana.

A Gallup Poll in 1969  found that 4% of Americans age 12 or older had used pot. By 1977 that number was 24%. In a study reported by CNN in September last year 9% of Americans report using illegal drugs. It’s important to note the difference in the two things just written. The ’69 and ’77 studys merely reported on cannabis and whether a person had EVER tried it. The 2011 study reported on ALL illegal drugs and reported on how many people regularly use them.

About 200-million people use illegal drugs worldwide.

The results:

Illegal drugs cause 250,000 deaths worldwide each year. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime that’s compared to 2.25-million killed from alcohol use, and 5.1-million killed from use of tobacco. But 2.1 million years of life were lost due to drug use, more than the 1.5 million lost due to alcohol, likely because drug deaths generally affect younger people, while alcohol deaths tend to occur in middle-aged and elderly people.

How it used to be:

Sex and all things related to it were private, not to be talked about publicly, and often not even between two consenting adults involved in sex. I’ve done enough genealogical research and seen enough episodes of NBC’s “Who do You Think You Are?” to know sexual relations involving non-married and married couples happened plenty in decades prior to the sexual revolution. But, again, it just wasn’t something people talked about.

Mike and Carol Brady of the 1970s TV show The Brady Bunch, were the first couple shown on TV in the same bed together. The show aired from September 1969 to March 1974.

How it is today:

A female friend recently happily admitted to me over lunch that she had another “friend with benefits”; referring to the now accepted practice of having a “Fuck-buddy“. For those not in the know this would be someone with whom you have sex regularly but are not married to and don’t even consider a boyfriend or girlfriend. There are two things to consider here:

1. That “friends with benefits” is so increasingly common that its an expression at all.

And

2. That a female friend happily and willingly admits to being engaged in such a relationship.

Both issues serve as metaphors for how sex is considered not such a big deal by so many people today.

A couple years ago while on a beer drinking expedition with several friends the discussion of sexual partners came up. I revealed that I’d had fewer than 10 sexual partners in my entire life. The reaction from my friends was equivalent to me saying I was a 50 year old virgin. They teased me incessantly the rest of the night. Of the three one was 26 years old, another was in his mid-30s, and another was 50 years old. The older guys were married but had been single for much of their life. Along with the 26 year old they all claimed to have had “well over” 100 sexual partners in their lives. The fact that I was dating my wife at age 20, and had remained happily married to her for over 25 years didn’t change the fact that in their eyes I was fresh and innocent.

But that being my perspective…sex is still a big deal to me. Were I to ever engage in it with someone other than my wife I can’t imagine it being merely casual. It would effect me very strongly emotionally.

The result:

The Centers for Disease Control says 41% of all births these days are to unwed mothers. Black babies are born to unwed mothers 72% of the time.

As The Heritage Foundation determined in a recent study publicly championed during the Presidential campaign of Rick Santorum if a person graduates high school, has a job, and waits until being married before having children they have a 98% likelihood of NEVER being in poverty throughout their entire lives.

This just in: sex creates babies! Of course there are all kinds of contraceptives and medical procedures designed to keep a woman from getting pregnant. But most of them are dependent on the user actually using the contraceptive. And we know from recent news stories that money is not an issue. Contraception is easily acquired in this country. But yet we still keep having babies in less than optimal circumstances.

And the transmission of Sexually Transmitted Diseases is a national crisis according to the Center for Disease Prevention. There are over 19-million STD infections in this country costing the U.S. health care system over $17-Billion each year. 

So a more open society on the subject of sex has done….what? Created more unwanted pregnancy, more unwanted children, and more diseases; including AIDS. The positives, besides the fact that sex is fun and great in so many ways? Well, I don’t know. What do YOU think?

Many other things have changed from way back when until now. But these have been in the news a lot lately, AND I honestly believe these are the big ones.

How it used to be:

Roman Catholics make up the most populous church in America. In 1955 75% of Catholics attended church weekly. According to Gallup only 42% of those who claimed a Protestant faith attended church weekly in 1955. Twenty-percent of Americans never attended church, mosque, or synagogue.

How it is today:

According to a Gallup Poll Catholic’s weekly church attendance has leveled off over the past 15 years, to about 45%. Protestant church attendance climbed slightly since 1955 to 45%. Twenty percent of Americans never go to church, a percentage that has remained unchanged for nearly 60 years (despite constant efforts by atheists to make church-going seem like the act of crazy people).

Perhaps not surprising is the fact that those who call themselves Conservative attend church more than any of 28 named sub-groups; and of those 28, Liberals attend church the least.

The result:

Other than Catholics the percentage of people attending church has not changed much in nearly 60 years. But the drop-off from those affiliated with the Catholic church has been dramatic; and since it is the most populous church in the country such a drop-off can’t be ignored.

Is it correct to say that those who are more likely to use drugs and advocate their legalization, those who advocate Gay marriage, those more likely to live out-of-wedlock and have kids out of wedlock, and those advocating a more openly sexual world tend to be liberal more-so than they tend to be Conservative? If that assumption is true (and I think that generally speaking there is no doubt that its true) can it be too much of a surprise that these people are also more likely to not attend church?

A March 2012 Gallup poll indicates that those who go to church are happier, more often. Church attendees give to charities more readily, and lead more successful, fulfilling lives…generally speaking, according to a study published in Canada.

What I find shocking is that these figures need to be reported at all. It seems obvious to me, and has for a very long time.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

The Best and Worst Times to Share on Facebook, Twitter.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

This will be one of those blogs my wife wishes I wouldn’t write because I’ll reveal far too much personal feelings and personal information.

This Obama recession just keeps dragging on. Now we have the buttressing good news of declining gas prices which are made worse by the declining oil prices which is caused by declining economic forecasts. Economists say things could be getting worse…again. But then again…we could just be early with the annual Post-Memorial Day decline of oil and gas prices.

Are you struggling right now financially? I don’t talk to anyone these days who isn’t. It seems a lot of people are like my family…making a steady average to above average income…less than in years past but definitely average or above average…not saving anything…meeting all bills, but just barely…all while living humbly (at least humbly compared to the past 20 years). Things around the house that break, stay broken, at least for a while. We have a desire to help our adult kids, but not the means, other than a roof over their heads, which they reject. And it’s been this way for 2-3 years now.

I have one huge fear. No, not that I or someone in my family gets sick. But now that I mention it…that gives me chills too. Actually my biggest fear is that Barrack Obamawins re-election six short months from now.

It’s not hard to argue that Obama is the most Progressive/Liberal President in U.S. history. And if he’s not he’s a close second, at least on domestic matters to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933. 

And what do they have in common? Both inherited serious economic problems and prolonged them through their own economic policies.

In June 1933 FDR signed into law a series of bills that were anti-competition, like the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, and pro-union measures, like Obama’s pro-union agenda including suing Boeing for having the audacity of locating a plant in a right-to-work state, thereby raising wages to artificially high levels and prices for goods in eleven key industries 25-percent higher than they otherwise would have been.

Such Government control has never been shown to work on a large economy effectively. Or as Winston Churchill said when assessing socialism’s inherent virtue, “the equal sharing of miseries.”.

Question: Can you name one government social program that makes you rich? How about one that makes you reasonably well-off? How about one that sustains you at average life-style levels? You can’t. Because it doesn’t exist. Government entitlement programs give you enough food and shelter and medicine in order to survive; never to thrive. So, with more people dependent on government for subsistence fewer people are eligible for a life of thriving success. The Heritage Foundations 2012 Index of Government Dependence showed more Americans dependent on government for subsistence than ever before.

Which leads me to the question: Has government made it too easy to rely on pay-outs for assistance. Rather than helping the truly needy, are we not creating more needy by creating dependence?

With unemployment benefits now extended 99 weeks in most circumstances dependence on that weekly government check is paramount. How can a teacher who’s been unemployed for nearly two years still be considered a teacher? Isn’t it obvious that if you can’t find employment in your field after two years you are no longer in THAT field? I think its obvious that too many people refuse employment or to look for employment in whatever job they can land in order to hold out for employment in their chosen field, subsisting ever so precariously on government assistance, until that job materializes and not coincidentally after their skills have diminished through nearly 2 years of unemployment.

Republicans consistently miss the boat on winning the support of these people and others who display sympathy for such folks. Republicans don’t talk enough about how they can help the poor and the lower middle-class by expressing the obvious: we have a better plan. How many people would prefer a government check that barely meets their needs over a paycheck no matter what the source for the paycheck?

Mitt Romney can be our next President. But he has to show the compassion for the millions of those who are lost in this meager “recovery” or barely surviving. He can do it by simply emphasizing the obvious. Jobs are better than social programs. And he can do it by better demonstrating the compassion that non-thinking independents and Democrats like most. A sense of sympathy and concern for the most down-and-out will go miles in pulling them from the clutches of the Democratic party.

The Democratic party does a far superior job of giving the poor hungry man a fish; but as every Republican knows the Dems do a far inferior job of teaching a man to fish. We wrote a parable on such a subject some years ago called: The Fisherman, the Hungry Man, and the Wise Man.

Those who are struggling is a long list that sadly seems to be growing longer. An about-face can be achieved by repeatedly emphasizing the words of John Kennedy, “Ask not what your country can do for you…”, and instead emphasizing what can you do for yourself, your family and your country. Do what you need to do, and pretty soon you will be able to do what you want to do. The Republicans have historically been more vocal in support of “traditional values”. They now need to show how those “traditional values”, like a rising tide, can and will lift all boats.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Related articles

• Local Republican Party Newsletter Suggests ‘Armed Revolution’ If President Obama Is Reelected (thinkprogress.org)
• The Democrat in Me. (mschuettblahblahblah.com)
• Soros at Odds With Democratic Party (themoderatevoice.com)
• Which Party Creates More Jobs? (wallstreetpit.com)

When you lazily lay around all day and night week after week, month after month, doing no work shouldn’t you be deprived of any sort of compensation? Pay? Salary? Should you not suffer financially?

If you eat too much food, and food with too many calories shouldn’t you be fat?

If you run a business foolishly; spending more money than your business takes in shouldn’t your business fail?

And if you elect leaders who lie to you, and say they’ll take care of you knowing they really can’t, don’t you deserve what you get?

Nicolas Sarkozy – Meeting in Toulouse for the 2007 French presidential election 0297 2007-04-12 (Photo credit: Guillaume Paumier)

When France (and the rest of Europe) spoils their children citizens with endless entitlements, and social programs (all while relying on the United States for their military defense) and they run-up a debt that becomes insurmountable they turn to a Conservative like Nicolas Sarkozy to bail them out. But when Sarkozy cuts back on the spending that got France into its financial mess that it’s in, the children…errr…the citizens whine and vote him out of office in favor of a man who promises to spend, spend, spend…Oh…and tax their rich up to 75%. In case the brilliance of Francois Hollande‘s scheme eludes you let me elaborate. He’s going to drive millionaires out of his country, all while establishing a nation of equally poor people supported by a diminishing wealthy class, until there is no more wealthy class and every child …err…citizen is equally miserable. Such is the failed policies of Socialism.

Shouldn’t Europeans got through a period of austerity to correct the over spending they’ve lavished themselves with in recent decades? When overspending for a period, something we all do, don’t you need to hold more tightly on to your money for a while in order to bring yourself back into balance?

Vice President of the United States

Vice President Joe Biden appeared on Meet the Press this weekend. He says Gay and Lesbian committed couples should be entitled to each social and civil right, including marriage. For the record I think they should be afforded every social and civil right to. After all why should we discriminate based on a person’s behavior? (Oh…wait…we already do….never mind). And yet President Obama showing the leadership that he has demonstrated repeatedly in his 3+ years in office has said “His position is evolving”. The fact that his 2008 position was to stand against Gay Marriage is meaningless to where he stands now. The fact that his position is “evolving” is a head fake for Gay Rights advocates that he’s got their backs.

President Barack Obama and France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy stand together on Friday, April 3, 2009, during the review of an honor guard at the Palais Rohan in Strasbourg, France. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

President Obama’s lies and lack of truthfulness and openness is so tired. Democrats can help me understand him better if they can just explain to me when I can trust a word that’s coming out of his mouth. Rather than disingenuously saying “well…everybody does it” as your constant fall-back excuse for your party’s leader; shouldn’t the President suffer the consequence of his failures? Shouldn’t we vote him out of office for his lies alone?

Well, that’s what’s in the news this morning. It’s a recurring theme I hope we can visit again. It seems to me one never learns from one’s mistakes or failures unless there are consequences for having committed the sin or sins to begin with. But America is such a forgiving nation that we are repeatedly picking up and dusting off those who have fallen and sending them on their way to trip on the same curb. That’s fine and good. I’m glad we’re a forgiving and generous people. But isn’t the guy who keeps falling down less likely to do so if he picks himself up and observes the curb he keeps taking for granted? Once in a while we should trust that the guy is OK and he can do it.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Related articles

• Socialist Hollande ousts Sarkozy, wins French election – CTV.ca (ctvbc.ctv.ca)
• Nicolas Sarkozy Out in France – Socialist Wins (thegatewaypundit.com)
• Flashy, fiery Sarkozy fades from French scene (news.yahoo.com)
• France hails new leader amid new eurozone debt concern (dailystar.com.lb)

The momentum to legalize marijuana is undeniable and likely to happen nationwide in the next 5-10 years. The question is: how wise a decision is it?

Five years ago I probably would have come down pretty firmly on the side of legalization. After all, Weed is largely safe of detrimental health risks that are much more common with other illegal drugs like cocaine, and heroine. I don’t ever remember hearing of a reported death from overdosing on pot. On the other hand death from acute alcohol poisoning is not uncommon, and alcohol is a legal drug. Besides death alcohol abuse is well-known to cause innumerable problems.

But is the imminent possibility of death from over-use the only reason to make a drug illegal? The answer is obviously No. Regular marijuana use causes its users to lose motivation, drive, goals, aspirations and work ethic. It’s also well documented that pot is a gateway drug that leads far too many users to the more dangerous drugs.

Marijuana growing Islamabad 01 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On the first point, a study is hardly needed. The loose, brain-dead pot smoker is so stereotypical its a cliche`. It’s a cliche` most frequently represented by the portrayal of the fictional Jeff Spicoli, by Sean Penn,

Sean Penn 

in the 1982 movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High:

Do we want a nation of Spicoli’s?

The fact that a regular use of Mary-Jane can diminish drive and work ethic is not without documentation or plenty of examples. I’ve been witness myself to a straight “A” student catching the “pot” habit and slowly decreasing into such a state of lethargy that their high school grades diminished to a point where they failed to graduate; something 75% of all kids manage.

Were pot legalized another big question is whether the number of users would remain as-is or increase. Put simply, would you not smoke pot if it remained illegal, but choose to do so if it were legal? I think the obvious answer is many would. I’d be one of them. My history with pot is minimal. I’m not sure that I ever bought even a gram. But in my youth I wouldn’t turn it down if it were offered. That stopped for me at the age of 19. At that young age I determined I had too many vices and committed to eliminate some. It made sense to make one of them that which is illegal. In the nearly 30 years since I made that decision I’ve partaken in a little pot only a hand full of times, and only when sex was imminent. So sue me. Sex is GREAT when high on weed.

Another reason to oppose marijuana legalization is the fact that it is addictive. Legalization advocates can argue all they want that it’s not. But common sense and repeated studies prove otherwise.

The debate extends far beyond the minimal points that can be made in this blog. But for my part the momentum to legalize is so omnipresent that I felt a moment of pause to recognize there really are detrimental effects to such a move and taking a deep breath is appropriate. A deep, clean breath.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Related articles

• Drug czar: There are no good reasons to legalize marijuana (rawstory.com)
• Recreational marijuana smoking unimportant, should remain illegal (shereekrider.wordpress.com)
• Notable new study reporting increased marijuana use by teens (sentencing.typepad.com)
• Enforcement Group Protests Fed Crackdown on Colorado Pot Dispensaries (danielrrosen.com)

It just makes me sick how Democrats so willing excuse the inexcusable done by their elected leaders. Time and again you point at lies and failures, and uncontrolled spending and Democrats (at least the ones I talk with, read, listen to, see on tv, hear about, etc) wave off the offense as if its nothing, no big deal, everybody is doing it. I got news for you Democrats; if you keep ignoring the offenses of your chosen elected leaders merely out of an irrational hatred of Republicans you’re likely to get exactly what you want. You’ll have someone else taking responsibility for and running your lives.

This is an election year. As such there will be no Federal Budget passed by the Democrats in the U.S. Senate. This comes as nothing new. This will be the fourth consecutive year the Democrat controlled Senate has failed to comply with U.S. laws and perform their most basic of tasks. As of this writing its been 1100-days since it was accomplished.

The fact that it’s taken so long indicates this failure is not so much incompetence as it is cold, calculating politics. Democrat Harry Reid leads the Senate, and has throughout this whole period of failure. In the past two years he has allowed two budget votes for the budgets proposed by President Barrack Obama. The combined number of votes in favor of passing the Presidents proposed budget the past two years was – ONE! The Senate, which is led by the same incompetent party as the President gave him 1 vote of support last year. This year, bupkis.

The Federal budget cycle is governed mainly by the following six laws,

1 Budget and Accounting Act.
2 Congressional Budget Act.
3 Antideficiency Act.
4 Impoundment Control Act.
5 Government Performance and Results Act.
6 Federal Credit Reform Act.

The Budget and Accounting Act was passed in 1921 and says: “Each budget shall include a budget message and summary and supporting information. The President shall include in each budget the following….” The provision goes on to list about thirty items, such as expenditures and receipts for the past year through the fourth year following the budget year, information on debt, financial information, and information on employment levels.

Without a budget we lose the summary and the supporting information and the close examination of what our leaders have decided to make their, or our, priorities. In essence, Democrats are saying “We will not give you a basis in which to judge our performance. We will talk a lot of rhetoric. But there will not be a measuring stick from which you can find flaws with my decision-making.” What kind of leadership is that?

The problem I see and hear repeatedly from run-of-the-mill Democrats not in elected office is “Well…that’s what all politicians do. You can’t blame Democrats for doing what Republicans do.” To which I respond…name the last time a Republican led body of Congress, House or Senate, went 4 years without passing a budget.

Wait! You don’t need to answer that. You don’t need to answer because we have a fair comparative example. In the past two years Republicans have put their political carcasses on the line and passed budgets. The GOP Paul Ryan budget would aim to cut $4-trillion dollars from government spending. It would also take a huge step toward entitlement reform which is mandatory for controlling this country’s deficit spending.

Passing these budgets have shown all Americans what plan the Republicans have going forward. It’s left them open to a lot of scrutiny and criticism; or haven’t you seen the Democrats commercial depicting Paul Ryan wheeling a wheel-chair bound old lady to the edge of a cliff and then pushing her off. And hard-core Democratic voters BELIEVE this crap! Are you idiots? I digress.

Until Democrats decide to grow a backbone and show the world their plans for the future, and how to pay for them, and how they prioritize them not one should get our votes. We can disagree with our political leaders. We can see them make promises they never keep. We can tolerate the mudslinging that makes every election cycle vomit inducing. But we should no longer abide by Senators hiding their goals for our country. They must pass a budget or be removed from leadership.

Personal responsibility is a character trait increasingly hard to find in people of this country. The people of the United States have completely fallen for our “leader’s” efforts to “help” you every time an accident happens, or a negative trend is discovered, or a problem occurs. It’s always someone else’s fault.

A growing and popular topic of discussion in this country is childhood obesity; a problem so pervasive and threatening that we could be raising the first generation ever to have a shorter life expectancy. It’s a war that has drawn the attention of former President Bill Clinton, current First Lady Michelle Obama, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and many others. It’s a serious problem. But if you want to find who or what’s responsible for your child’s heft…go no further than the nearest mirror.

CBS News reported yesterday that a key drug used for adults with Type 2 diabetes, Metformin, was largely ineffective in treating children with Type 2 diabetes. The drug is supposed to help control sugar levels in blood. Obesity is a leading cause of Type 2 diabetes in kids and adults. Since 1980 obesity in children has almost tripled, to over 12.5-million. In the CBS report the studies Director says “If we can prevent them (children) from getting diabetes that would be far preferable than being in a position of treating it.” Doctor Robin Goland correctly points out that historically kids didn’t get Type 2 diabetes. When, and if a child got diabetes it was Type 1, which has little or nothing to do with obesity. Diabetes creates a host of medical problems including poor circulation, blindness, and kidney disease.

In related news a new study reported on by the New York Times discloses that the claims of urban residents around our country being nutritionally disadvantaged because of a lack of stores providing fresh fruits and vegetables is an urban myth, not urban desert. The urban food desert myth was given lots of credibility by…wait for it…First Lady Michelle Obama.

First Lady Michelle Obama (Photo credit: West Point Public Affairs)

I for one am glad Mrs. Obama cares for us all and emphasizes healthy eating and physical activity. It would just be more helpful if she knew what she was talking about. The article in the NY Times reports that two recent studies have been done about the supposed lack of nutritional foods in poor urban environments, “But two new studies have found something unexpected. Such neighborhoods not only have more fast food restaurants and convenience stores than more affluent ones, but more grocery stores, supermarkets and full-service restaurants, too.” So with availability no longer an issue who’s to blame for kids lack of proper diet and their subsequent obesity? Here’s a hint…they got their money for that McDonald’s Super Sized Bic Mac Meal from Mom or Dad, same as yesterday, and the day before and the day before that.

And lets stop blaming McDonald’s and other fast food establishments for our kids being fat. As Bill Wittle explained in a video blog we posted a couple of weeks ago called, Why It Sucks to Be Conservative, all McDonald’s does is open up for business. It’s something they have been doing with largely the same menu for sixty years. Remember when we were kids and Mom and Dad took us to McDonald’s? It was special and exciting? Why? Because it didn’t happen all that often. For me if I got McDonald’s food twice in a month I was fortunate. Now, it’s not unusual for many families to visit the drive-thru two-three-four times per week. We can’t do that to our kids and not have them suffer the ill effects. Let me remind you, they don’t have the money or the car to take them to McDonald’s. You do. You are also the one whose responsibility it is to say NO when the kids ask. Grow a backbone and do so.

Years ago I heard a news report on the radio in which the anchor told the listeners of a study, a multi-million dollar study that concluded obese people were obese because they ate more than the rest of us. Do we really need a study to come to this conclusion?

Used to be a common refrain from social critics was “how much time kids spent in front of the tv”. Well, I don’t hear that too often anymore, though I suspect its more of a concern. Between sitting in front of a tv show, video games and computers your kids are probably more inactive than they used to be. Combine that with the fear of letting them out of your sight and your kids are zombies compared to our youth. And we watched tons of TV, didn’t we? Telling your kids to “go outside and play” may seem like a punishment to them, sometimes. But you are doing them a big favor.

In this as in most all things your Mom or Dad were right when they told you “all things in moderation”. I personally don’t have a problem with buying my kids “junk” food, any kind of junk food. But eaten in moderation it’s not going to kill your kids. Too much of a “good” thing definitely will. And I certainly don’t mind being the bad guy (when my kids were younger) and telling them to go outside and play. The life you create for them through a little more attention being paid to the things you limit will be so much more healthy and full filling and they’ll be thankful too.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.