Clarity Resolves Differences

“Hillary is for abortion, gun control, gay rights, and so is Gulliani [sic]…”

The comparison of Rudy to Hillary in such flippant terms is dangerous.

It is my understanding that satan has successfully employed academia and the media in undermining what was once the desire of intelligent, thoughtful people in discerning and conveying objective Truth.

In reality, Giuliani is not for 'gun control' in the context of what many people understand it to mean, that by which a socialist or dictatorial regime intends on eliminating any private gun ownership. Certainly, in attempting to eradicate violent crime from the streets of NY, restricting access to and distribution of guns by unsavory characters by making the licensing procedures a little more demanding does not compare to the prescriptions of the particular ideologies and governmental philosophies that Hillary manifestly represents.

As far as the abortion issue goes, I believe that there is a real fine line one is forced to walk if one wants to participate in earthly governance.

It is the decision one makes to fight on earth for a position of authority in order to influence the course of human events for good, even if that fight forces one to observe cultural perversities which run counter to personal principle. The opposite is the abandonment of the fight all together for the sake of celestial principle, and to suffer the designs of tyrants.

I know, as a personal testimony, that Giulianni believes abortion to be an abomination. He has said so himself. He does not believe it to be a good policy in any respect. But for him to be able to make a difference and to attain a leadership role in a city that had virtually lost all morality, he had to make a sacrifice. In following the law - what all good men must do according to the LDS Church’s 12th article of faith - he had to say, as any man would say who really cares to win and as even Mitt Romney, when running for a Senate seat and the governorship of MA, had to say, that he would support the right (not a supernal right, but a terrestrial right by earthly law) of a woman to seek an abortion. If he could not say this, there would never have been an opportunity to use the influence of the position to make the needed difference.

This position stands in stark contrast to that of Hillary Clinton who fully supports abortion as a sound policy for ridding a woman of an unwanted and accidental burden, and has expressed, through her promotion of organizations like NOW and NARAL, her unconditional defense of abortion itself, not just the choice of it.

I have not studied Giulianni's position on gay rights because the executive branch of government has very little jurisdiction there. The way Rudy, or the President elect, will have any influence is through the selection of Supreme Court justices. Make no mistake, this issue alone is the most important issue facing our country's domestic policy with the potential retirement of 4 judges in the next 10 years. I am certain that he is not for redefining 'Marriage' to include gay relationships. He understands that it is individual liberty, family and small government that are the foundations of strong societies. Hillary on the otherhand, well we don't have to guess where she stands.

My point, really, and again I want to stress that I am very impressed with your knowledge on these issues. I appreciate those who take seriously the admonishment in Doctrine and Covenants 88: 118 - "...seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.", but I worry about how, as a society, we tend not to discern differences clearly. And then to make matters worse, we communicate poorly about those details and differences, such as I have outlined above. It ruins the strength of our arguments. I see a great gulf between the ideas and policies of Rudy Giulianni and Hillary Clinton and I need to make it clear. You know, I tell my kids all the time to think clearly about what they want to say and then find the right words which will convey most effectively their message. I think it is one of the most important things we can teach our kids in order to restore a living God to this planet.

Indulge me to give a real clear example: A friend, in Church, was talking about the Constitution. He expressed that it was a 'living and breathing' document. Now, I know for a fact that he does not think that the Constitution should be interpreted differently by elite tribunals, age upon age, based on the progressive circumstances of the current society. His intent was to express that through an appropriately rigorous process, it could be amended. But this term, 'living and breathing document' was coined by the factions on the left to mean just that, that the Constitution is not a legal document defining societal order into perpetuity, but that it really is open to interpretation by the powerful Judiciary in order to prevail upon society the agendas of multi-culturists and egalitarians. So why would he use such a term in front of not a few otherwise ignorant and impressionable minds who would, having respect for his intellect and upon hearing the term somewhere else connoting the opposite of his intention, not conclude that he believes just this about it?

This is how satan works, therefore we must be very careful about the arguments we make. satan will ensure that everything we hear, see and say is somehow miscontrued (Reference C.S. Lewis - The Screwtape Letters) to benefit his annilihation of Truth, which is God.

I hope you can respect my concern?

Modern 'Liberalism' is irrational

Liberalism is a mental disorder. – Michael Savage

Extreme liberalism exists in the inability of an individual to rationalize empirical evidence throughout a greater human context. Its values are perception and emotion based. It does not generalize data across the greater spectrum of human understanding.

 

It is an immaturity; a state of being that, for some, never progresses to the higher state of rational human.

 

It is an inability to associate historical empirical evidence with modern outcomes. It is a state of ignorance to ‘what has been’, ‘what will be’, and ‘what will always be’, and perpetuates an impossible idealism.

 

When a human refuses to accept raw data, but rather sustains and guards a belief about some character of earthly existence at the superficial level of emotions and feelings, there will never be personal enlightenment.

 

Human enlightenment comes, and positive change can only occur, once one is able to accept the most basic understandings of how the world works.

 

These experiments and tests have continued for the thousands of years of human existence, and the outcome never changes. The whole thing has been recorded by successful civilizations; first the Hebrews, then the Greeks, then the ‘Catholics’, then the ‘Protestants’. Nothing has changed… except for human understanding to depths and degrees beyond what was available before.

 

 It is liberalism’s unwillingness to accept this ‘doctrine of humanity’ that holds it beyond rational thought. It is not so much an acceptance of Evolution that they purport, but the denial of historical, societal empiricism.

 

 One very clear example:

 

Animals will die… Children too…  No matter how much one cares. However, one has to realize that fewer children will die when the most productive in society are allowed to be as ‘selfish’ as they wish. That without the greedy desire to be better or richer, to have a better technology or own a bigger house, the truly talented who drive industry cannot help, in a circuitous way, the poorest ascend to new echelons of existence.

 

Nevertheless, in order to support this idea, one has to realize that, although one is taught to be all you can be, and that the riches of the earth are the right of every individual to pursue, not all pursues them in the same way, and not all achieve in the same way. Sometimes a bitter pill to swallow.

 

Rational humans realize that if they are to make up the disparity, that it is up to them, but ultimately count their blessings at the end of the day…. Irrational humans seek justification for their inabilities and demand compliance to egalitarian demands, at the expense of the society as a whole.  

 

 

--
Posted By Maurice Enchel to Maurice Enchel at 8/15/2007 09:40:00 AM

Mind your P's and Q's

One thing I try to express to my children is the importance of saying precisely what you mean.

Truth and clarity are the goal of righteous men. We must use specific language at every opportunity to express and clarify our ideas. We should communicate without false intention, but in truth.

Language is a way we express what we think and feel. Through language we are able to expedite activity that becomes either productive or nonproductive, based on the clarity of the message. It also allows us to express ideas that are consistent with our understanding of things, and more importantly, our understanding of truth.

If you think about it, it is through the words we use and the intentions we exhibit that we are able to come to much of the consensus that makes our free society possible.

I have become increasingly aware, however, of how the progressive culture has removed the importance of meaning from language and purposefully alters reality by employing bombast and distortion as tools of persuasion. It is rhetorical knavery perpetrated by radical groups in our society who have the support of liberal factions in academia, news media, and law. All are perceived as authorities presiding with influential power over the mass of information age consumers, holding sway over popular opinion.

Their flippant use of rhetorical propaganda and demagoguery tells me they have no interest in discovering truth, only that they are concerned with protecting their own selfish ideologies, lifestyles and habituations.

Clearly, the example from this column portraying Kenneth R. Willard as "against the teaching of evolution" is, least of all, a disqualification of his true intent. Aren't reporters taught to report openly and without bias? Likely the distortions in the piece have nothing to do with the quality of education Ms. Dean received, but are deliberate perversions by Ms. Dean and the editorial staff of the New York Times to put forward a position which paint a picture of Mr. Willard as a crank.

He will surely spend a lifetime justifying his position as not against the teaching of evolution, but for free speech rights in schools, and for the introduction of competing philosophies. Ideas that are being barred from intelligent debate by the radical secularists who have come to power in education and media.

This article by Cornelia Dean is just another gross example of the venality so prevalent in popular print and television media. An example of the plain and unabashed deception and word play that they'll employ in order to dominate cultural perceptions.

It is much more common from the right that statements are clearly communicated; where words are chosen carefully which express ideas and viewpoints that are consistent with reason and logic, and which tend not to embellish on particular understandings.

In another example easily defined, a phrase like "anti immigration" applied broadly to refer to anyone who opposes an open border policy is ludicrous. But this kind of rhetoric is used everyday in the press to demonize those who believe in a sane, responsible legal immigration and documentation policy.

In another example where the perpetrator was not so witting, I present a previous post which includes a note to a colleague who used the term "the Constitution is a living and breathing document" to express an idea about how revelation from God could clarify gospel doctrine. While we do have a living God that testifies his truth to each and every one of us through the holy ghost, the constitution is a legal document whose reinterpretation requires supermajorities for ratification. It should not be subject to tyrannical trifles.

I found out later that he meant that at some point the Constitution could be amended and ratified by the community of citizens. This explanation does not absolve this individual from the linguistic misstep which will have lasting effects. When we use words or phrases that have been adopted by counter cultural factions to delineate destructive positions and ideologies, we are perpetuating these harmful ideas regardless of our intent. It is so important that we remain conscious of the rhetoric used by the counter-culture and resist the temptation to duplicate it in conversation simply for its familiarity.

So the next time someone wants to talk with you about the 'ban on gay marriage', please remind them that what is proposed is not a ban on gay marriage, but a clarification of what civilized societies have deemed marriage to be for thousands of years, a union between one man and one woman for the blessings of procreation and the perpetuation of the species. 'Ban on gay marriage' assumes there is such an institution as gay marriage which has the support of law through a legislative process. No such thing exists except by judicial fiat which is not characteristic of our democratic heritage.

So you see how simple words, used either purposefully or unintentionally, can have a dramatic impact on the morality and sanity of our culture.

 

 

 

 

Foot in Mouth

"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker.

One of the most telling revelations of this war era; an illustrative admission by the left that setting deadlines, even in the battle of ideas, is perceived as a prelude to surrender.

(htip: Opinion Journal – James Taranto 5/25/2007)

 

 

 

 

The Left's Inclination?

 

Struggling for a foundational explanation of anti-American, left-wing behaviour, I came across this comprehensive study that puts the root in social rejection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Laymen's Terms

I have been hoping to write a comprehensive treatise (longer than an essay, and I like the word) on the harmonious relationship that scientific discovery and Christian theology historically share. I would set out clearly the divergence that science, or many of the scientific mind, has taken away from the very foundation of scientific inquiry, once firmly rooted in Christianity, and toward an inimical dichotomy that has become permanent lore in this modern age.

I would laud history's greatest scientific minds and the free societies of western civilization which reflected a deep faith in an intelligent creator, and decry erroneous doctrines of relativism, humanism and, particularly, social-Darwinism.

In an effort to clarify the dangerous ideologies of the left in our society today which relate to 'secular scientism'; socialism, radical environmentalism and the attack on free speech, free association, and capitalism, I would employ discouraging statistics which reflect the human toll of its raw power politics, and reveal an ignorance of science as a magnanimous application for the betterment of mankind.

... but alas... it has been done.

Tres Bon !!!

Even the French can no longer afford being... well... French.

 

 

 

Oil Profits Good for America and Americans

People, threatening boycotts and government sanctions to punish oil companies for taking record profits is biting the hand that feeds you.

 

Oil is the biggest industry in our country. It employs hundreds of thousands of Americans directly, and millions more are employed in industries that rely on its profitability. Hundreds of thousands of people are invested in it and they're not all 'fat cats' sitting around at the horse track smoking cigars and drinking Mint Juleps. They are people like you and I. Their trying to feed their families, provide their kids the opportunity for a good education and pay the mortgage.

 

This society has been so corrupted by conspiracy theories and distrust of Business. What other country's people would you put more faith in than in the values and integrity of Americans? This country was built with the capital generated by industries like petroleum.  The application of the Judeo-Christian principles of personal integrity and responsibility, free enterprise and private property, and the humbling commandment "Though Shalt Not Covet",  tell us to respect the rights of individuals (corporations are simply individuals working together for a common goal) to take profits.

 

What has happened in our culture when we no longer champion the achievements of the most successful American businesses and celebrate the blessings they bring to the whole of mankind?

 

Where would 80% of the world be if it weren't for the pioneering efforts of Americans in the Oil and Gas industries?

 

For the last 30 years American refineries have suffered tremendously and have taken nothing in the way of solid profits. Layoffs and plant closings were the norm. There was little complaint from Americans when gas prices were low, even though we couldn't refine petroleum in our own country and thousands lost jobs.

 

'But you have to remember that for most of the last 30 years, Wall Street valued refineries as if they were future hazardous waste sites. It made sense to keep money-losing refineries operating in order to avoid the cleanup costs of shutting one down. Refining industry profits seemed to be perennially stuck at low levels due to excess capacity that wouldn't go away.'

 

'Barring a recession, refining profits look pretty solid -- which is a far cry from the industry's historical profit levels...' 

 

I know that you'll agree that restoring refining capabilities in this country is an important step in becoming energy independent, let alone creating employment opportunities where none have existed for years.

 

Most of the profits we are seeing are coming from this resurgence in the refining industry. This should be viewed as a good thing considering the potential for growth in markets for refined components, considered 'downstream' profits in this citation.

 

'But downstream earnings, from oil refining and petrochemical production, shot up 50% to $1.92 billion. Non-U.S. downstream profit rose 81%, to $1.1 billion. U.S. downstream profit grew 23% to $839 million.'

 

Alternative fuel formulas required in highly regulated states and countries, have spurred refining profits as well.

 

This is good news. It means that other markets are finding American refined oil products and petrochemicals affordable again, fueling a different segment of the economy.

 

Your model is overly simplistic. When oil companies take profits they invest them. This does not count as research and development dollars, but the investments go heavily into companies all over the globe who further the interests of the company in effect extending the capabilities of the company itself. Its called Capital Spending and its not just stuffing profits under a mattress.

 

Even so, the oil companies face credible obstacles. The market will allow them to take profits only so long until such a time as, I suppose the Lord, sees fit. Here is an example of one such.

 

'Oil and gas producers also face the threat of rising prices from within industry ranks. The race to produce while prices are high has driven rates for equipment and expertise to historic levels.

Prices for services and equipment leases continue to squeeze exploration margins. In Western Canada, a region particularly sensitive to cost hikes, producers including Apache APA, Devon DVN and ConocoPhillips have shut down various drilling operations to protest high prices.

"There is no love lost between drillers and operating companies," said analyst Fadel Gheit with Oppenheimer. "They really hate them, they call them parasites."  

 

It all comes back to the skepticism that is the hallmark of the left and the influence they exert through the media and academia. One can observe profit as an overarching benefit to society when wielded by exceptional men with exceptional ideas running exceptional companies, allowing the markets associated to regulate who is getting what when, as do supporters of capitalism, or one can observe profit taking as a bad thing and attribute some kind of dishonorable and crooked practice to it, leaving the whole thing open to the consideration of reparations, represented through regulation and taxation where the power of bigger and bigger government is exerted. I tend to trust markets to self regulate. I figure if a company, or an industry, which has taken it in the shorts for quite a while, is blessed with a profitable season, so be it.

 

Ecclesiastes 3:1

 

 

 

OReilly v Rivera

Letter to Joanne Ostrow regarding her column, reproduced in the previous blog below.

I've read your poor critique of the O'Reilly v. Rivera dust up from 'The Factor' and watched the video footage of the event.

Your characterization of it is completely wrong and driven by your craven hatred of conservative perspectives on what are rational and sensible principles of justice.

You claim that the debate had little substance and shed more heat than light, but this is shallow and partisan. 

Comparing postures such as "spewing bile" to "forceful objection" is pure sophistry. Both men were equally vehement. Of course, we all know that males engaged in passionate argumentation can only be, if not simply scary, dangerous from a radical feminist position.

It is unfortunate for the left, who battle to stifle debate, that the debate medium is so popular with the right and becomes more so with the general population every day. It flourishes while established media dries and dies on the vine of tacit acquiescence. The value of what you consider unrefined "modern political discourse", "today's cable chat", and "overwrought exchange" is precisely what  perturbs propaganda proprietors such as yourself. As opposed to somber studio diatribes with edited positions, debate shines light on conflicting views, giving consumers clear alternatives from which to refine and enhance their values. Yet you deride that.

Pity you have so little desire to discern truth.

The truth is Bill remained calm throughout the interview. Commendable, having been subjected as he was to Rivera's defensive badgering and filibustering. (It's typical of the left to belittle with incessant meaningless chatter and then cry when someone dares speak over them.) Rivera's defense of this criminal's behavior was devoid of logic, reason and force of law. Only insanity defends such repetitiously illicit behavior without applying appropriate and serious consequence.

I might have had some sympathy for the guy and could understand, perhaps, the leniency he received after an initial offense of public intoxication, but to allow such an infraction as driving intoxicated to happen more than once is irresponsible and falls at the feet of the mayor as O'Reilly suggested.

Rivera brought up an interesting point, "had the perpetrator been Ramoski [sic]", would anyone have cared? The pertinent detail would be whether or not Jaime Ramoski - in my scenario, a Jewish immigrant - were here illegally. If so, I guarantee O'Reilly would still line up on the side of deportation and justice. You and Heraldo probably would also, revealing your bias to make this issue about pc Hispanic sympathy and not immigration or law.

Scott Cogswell

 

O'Reilly meltdown a new low

Fox News talker comes unglued

By Joanne Ostrow
Denver Post Television Critic
The Denver Post

When Bill O'Reilly nearly came out of his chair and across the desk at Geraldo Rivera on his Fox News show this week, he marked a new low in what passes for modern political discourse. Even by the shallow standards of cable news--and "The O'Reilly Factor" in particular--it was a stunningly foul performance. The clip quickly became the talk of YouTube (click here to see the video).
When a girl was killed by a drunk driver in Virginia, a driver who happened to be an undocumented immigrant, O'Reilly seized the moment to turn the issue into a tirade against illegal aliens. O'Reilly spewed racist bile; Rivera objected forcefully. When Geraldo is the voice of reason driving home solid points, you know things are out of hand.
Today's cable chat shows encourage this kind of overwrought exchange, shedding more heat than light and putting the star opinion-meisters front and center. The fact that the clip drew traffic on the internet only enhances its value. You don't see thoughtful analyses from BBC World News or the PBS NewsHour attracting clicks on YouTube.
As the election cycle ratchets up, the provocateurs of cable will be angling for more attention. But they shouldn't be allowed to steer the conversation. Let's take it as an encouraging sign that the O'Reilly outburst is being laughed at in cyberspace more than it's being seriously considered.

When Joanne Ostrow writes about the incident on the O’Reilly Factor where Bill O’Reilly and Heraldo Rivera both nearly come out of their chairs and across the table at each other over the issue of the recent arrest of an illegal immigrant who, with prior convictions for drunken driving, killed a girl with his car while intoxicated (Bill taking the conservative line that this menace should be deported), she marks a new low in what passes for analysis of open and free debate.

Even by her shallow, left-bent standards, it was a stunningly foul and agenda driven investigation.

Who wants to be the star opinion-meister now?

The fact that analyses from the BBC and PBS aren’t highlighted by YouTube, should be a clear sign that you are not getting anything valuable in the way of a cross-section of societal values and perspectives. Opposing positions fuel debate and debate clarifies and unifies understanding.

What should be clear to sensible consumers now living in the 21st century, having access to all manner of opinion, conjecture and sentiment, not to mention good hard data, is the fact that the format of televised debate, which Ms.Ostrow decries as unrefined modern political discourse, today’s cable chat, and overwrought exchange, actually gives consumers a fuller spectrum of ideas and views; a more colorful palette with which to hue the depths of the socio-political canvas.

Thanks to Fox News, and this debate format, intelligent consumers of news no longer need rely on somber studio diatribes with edited positions.

The fact that this ‘critic’ feels it necessary to comment on this ‘laughable’ episode, shows that she is not beyond her own shallow standards, and is no better than her counter parts at avoiding debate.

Joanne Ostrow is clearly partisan and her comments reflect the need to tear down conservative perspective. She has no intention of shining any light of her own, but prefers, or rather, her intellect will not allow, further inspection of the issue at a level beyond her craven hatred of what are rational and sensible principles of justice.

Apparently, male passion, exhibited in the heated exchange of ideas and opinions, is valuable for entertainment, but worthless, perhaps even frightening, at the level of what this female perceives as thoughtful analysis. Of course, the progressive opinion of Heraldo was only “forceful objection” to Bill’s “spewed racist bile.”

From the dissection of this last sentence alone, I see clearly the attitude and poorly guarded ideology of this hateful leftist.

Typical of Democracy

"I will put my family's safety above sensitivity."

The problem is my US senators and representatives don't. Daily.
My local senator and representative don't. Daily.
My governor doesn't. Daily
My local mayor doesn't. Daily. (hourly if you live in SLC)

Every city leader decries racial profiling (only because they have to get votes from those races.) But, guess what... racial profiling works. It works better than any system we have now. Yes, it might not have stopped McVeigh, but it would have stopped or hindered 9/11, and scores of other problems.
Start profiling if it protects my family.
Guess what, if the profile says that white males are the number one terrorist, fine, send me through the extra search line. And if you are one of the white male terrorist, look out, because I'll be the first one condemning you and screaming for the death penalty or worse. I will not be the one whining that you had a rough childhood, or that you didn't get any scholarships because the minorities gobbled them up, or that you lost your job to affirmative action.(these are what Jesse Jackson would be promoting if he was white) I'm tired of the whining. I'm tired of the hypocrisy. I'm tired of the corruption.

Here's the problem. I think government is screwed up.
I'm fed up with it, and I want to do something about it.
But, where to begin. Also, if I do begin, I am one voice and still live in a democracy. How do I convince my neighbors to speak up when I can't even convince my wife that the conversation is important?
There is an epidemic of apathy in this country that is going to be the death of it.

Take heart my friend... This is the war that your Gospel teaches you about.

It won't end today nor tomorrow... Your children will have to engage it once they come of age... And your grandchildren as well.

I can sympathize with your frustration... My wife will have none of it... She thinks it is my hobby, and not a popular one.

You'll help your cause when you realize that we do not live in a pure democracy, but in a democratic republic... We must sustain and preach about our country in that way in order to minimize the affects of radical libertinism.

Russell Kirk said, "Of all the terrors of democracy, the worst is its destruction of moral habits." He then goes on to quote Fisher Ames, "A democratic society will soon find its morals the encumbrance of its race, the surly companion of its licentious joys."

Many of the Christian founders saw the dangers in the Democracies of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. Where there is no prescription, no formal moral or orthodox duty to code, where men happen along their own abandon, the adversary will have strong influence. They had a great example in the French revolution. Based on the enlightenment thought of Rousseau and Condorcet, men had abandoned reverence for antiquity and decorum.

Fisher Ames also said, "Our country is too big for union, too sordid for patriotism, too democratic for liberty. Its vice will govern it, by practicing upon its folly. This is ordained for democracies."

Many of the conservative thinkers in the early founding of the country recognized the importance of enlightened leadership and understood that the success of democracy, and federalism, were based on a fallacious premise: "the supposed existence of sufficient political virtue, and on the permanency and authority of the public morals."

"On the contrary however, passion, deluded sentiment, and a destructive yearning for simplicity are characteristics of peoples who have exchanged the leadership of the good, righteous and enlightened, for the intoxication of self-expression and the negation of discipline." "The people, as a body cannot deliberate; therefore their appetites are flattered by demagogues, who satisfy the popular impulse toward action by the exhibition of violence and the spectacle of incessant change."

The way to combat this change as I see it, would be to give up your glamorous life as an IT Administrator and go into teaching. Our schools are woeful, and corrupted by progressive thought which undermines enlightened and reasoned learning. We will not change our generation, but can be hopeful that persistent effort will reward us with future generations of moral and upright citizens.

One more very interesting quote from this man Fisher Ames: "Popular reason does not always know how to act right, nor does it always act right, when it knows. The agents that move politics, are the popular passions; and those are ever, from the very nature of things, under the command of the disturbers of society... Few can reason, all can feel; and such an argument is gained, as soon as it is proposed."

Much ado about nothing

As a fastener salesman, how would your boss like it if you refused to sell his nails?

Would that be grounds for termination? I suppose it would...

You see, in my opinion, and the opinion of those on the right who respect the constitution, it is the right of the owner of the company to do what he wishes with regard to the decisions he makes... Now, they may be poor decisions, but that doesn't give me the right to interfere with those decisions because it is his business... you know,,, mind your own 'business'.

The same applies with the appointment of federal employees in the Justice Department. The Justice Department is an office within the Executive Branch of government, over which the President presides,,, like your boss, He has the right to hire and fire within his branch as he sees fit.

It has always been the case and should always be the case. The President, who is chosen by the people and is representative of the views and values of the population who elected him, has the right to employ and work with the people within his 'company' that he feels most confident with until which time that he is no longer employed by the people as President. This case is no exception...

Now, there is no one with any standing within the Washington DC community that will say that anything illegal has taken place. So why the big stink by the Democrats? Just another deliberate waste of your tax money, all in an attempt to smear the President,,, and Republicans in general.

The appointment to Federal Prosecutor is a political appointment... meaning that you are appointed there by the President and his staff for your qualifications, politics not excluded.

It can be expected then, that if you refuse to pursue the cases that the administration wishes you to pursue, then yeah, you could and should be fired.

You do know that Clinton fired all 93 Federal Prosecutors in 1993 when he took office...

This is a witch hunt buddy... The Clinton's wrote the book on it and have employed it within the Dem party since Gingrich was shamed out of office in 1997.

The Dems are all about changing the rules and get a lot of help fooling the public from the mainstream news outlets.

The only wrong done here is that an incompetent Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, began apologizing for something which he had no obligation to apologize for in the first place. If he would have come out and made a statement like, "The administration has made some changes within the Justice Department that will more readily address the issues that it feels important to address at this time.", and not said a single thing more, this whole thing would be over.

His incompetence on that level should cost him his job, but it won't happen for the reasons the Democrats desire and it certainly won't stop their incessant hunger for Bush's head.

PS - Howard Dean does not reflect the moderation within the Democratic Party which will be required to win a national election.

Passive Parenting

Passive parenting... a critique of a Kelsey Grammer poem.

Don't take offense, but it is this kind of understanding of the role of the parent that is wrong with the liberal progressive movement in our culture. It has profoundly affected individual perceptions on moral behavior and natural truth.

The reticence of the Liberal left to make moral distinctions, set strict behavioral limits, and impart traditional wisdom in the way of orthodox values and moral principles, leads children to ambiguity.

We are not instinctually good animals. Left to instincts, we would behave with moral repugnance. It is through the principles in Jewish and Christian Gospel that we as man are able to sustain and extend civilized society.

Quite to the contrary, children need the imposition of moral leaders (preferentially parents) and guidance in making specific life choices that will be beneficial, or atleast not harmful to further development.

A parent should not be a passive bystander, available only for those instances where a child is seeking comfort for a poor and undirected decision, but an active participant and advocate for a course of action that will ultimately lead to righteous and moral behavior.

Kelsey, and people like him - based on the errant theories of enlightenment philosophers like Jean Jacques Rousseau and influential psychologists like Dr. Sigmund Freud and Dr. Benjamin Spock - believe that a child should be left alone to develop their own individual ideas and understanding of the world based on some genetic or inherent character. The only inherent character a child has is that of the Holy Ghost which resides in his soul, but if the child is not coached on how to be attentive to its promptings, the child will fail to make valuable behavioral and moral decisions.

Kelsey would rather, based on this poem, leave it up to his daughters 'innate character' to combat the influence of demoralizing television programming, gangster fashion and Ebonics, and the liberal socialist culture of the public school system.

The idea that a child develops its character primarily from the inside out is ridiculous. A child seeks guidance and tutelage from birth. It requires feedback from its environment to learn and grow and if one as parent is not providing such, the child will find that feedback somewhere else. In this society of violence, sexual explicitness, strong cultures of drug use and disrespect for authority, sorry, I would choose to hold a little influence over my Childs development.

...But that's just me, the fundamentalist Christian that I am.

Individualism doesn't come from filling the human brain with ideas, notions, and options without any underlying property or principle which discerns a common and beneficent goal suitable for both the individual and society.

It comes as the combined understanding of such in a uniform and cohesive ideology reflective of successful societal prescriptions, historical contexts, and individual standards, and in the ability to make the distinctions that further advance society's cooperative progress.