Self Esteem – Important, Fact or Fiction?

Many conservatives for years tried to point out the importance of self-esteem, and finally the school systems started to try to introduce it into the curriculum. After several years it was deemed a failure. Let’s examine why.

First we need to understand how some one obtains self-esteem. The only way to get self-esteem is to earn it. How does one earn it? By “doing something of redeeming value.” It must be something that almost everyone will be proud of. So, how is that done?

If little Johnny wins a spelling bee, or helps a little old lady across the street, or helps his little brother clean up his room. This is how people feel good about themselves. Is this selfishness?

I went to a seminar and the speaker asked this very deep question….”Is Altruism really possible?”

He went on…”If one helps an old lady across the street, is he doing it purely for selfless reasons, or is he doing it because it makes him feel good? Maybe the answer is that man was meant to seek happiness, (everyone wants to go to heaven because it is where they will be happy), and that through service to others we not only gain happiness, but we help others along the way. Notice I said happiness and not pleasure, there is a big difference. Immorality never was happiness.

In the school systems they tried to “give” the students self-esteem by making it easy to succeed. Notice they didn’t expect them to “earn” it; they wanted to “give” it to them.

How? By making everyone a winner and no losers. This way, they reasoned no one would feel bad and everyone will feel good. Well, you can’t fool most people, including most little kids. They saw through the phony platitudes and reasoned that what they did was nothing to feel proud of, because it required little effort and no sacrifice.

Helping others in need such as with Hurricane Katrina, is how we not only make others feel good through service to them, but it brings us self-esteem and happiness.

What is a Conservative?

The “Political Spectrum” is very easy to discuss once we can agree on the most fundamental view of “mapping” where anything is.

When we are trying to find out how to get somewhere we look on a map. Almost all things with “Universal Opposites” can be mapped by using lines on a plane. For example “Hot and Cold” can be mapped by drawing a line with a left and right ending point.

Hot____________________________________Cold

Now, anywhere on that line we can define where a particular temperature is located. If we are looking for “Room Temperature” we might place a “dot” in the exact middle of the line because if we described it, it would neither be hot nor cold, but between the two.

Next, the amount of being pregnant. On the far left says “Not Pregnant” and to the far right is birth. Any point inbetween are how many days pregnant you are.

Same thing when the line is drawn with regards to Belief in God, either you believe he doesn’t exist, (Atheism), or you have a particular amount of belief, (Theism), in him all the way to the far right which is “Knowledge.”

Now, I said all of this to bring you to the line we draw when it comes to the amount of Freedom we believe in, or to use the negative, the amount of Force, which is the amount of government control that we believe in.

Below is the standard “Political Science” chart of this amount of “Government Control” with one exception: Many professors have changed this spectrum from what it was back a few decades ago to “muddy” the waters and confuse people. These people snuck in a fallacy in order to make the incredibly easy to understand political spectrum, seem incorrect. This fallacy was to move the “fascism” label to the right side of the spectrum. It is clear that all “Dictatorships” belong to the left, or “More Government” control, side of this spectrum, but many including “Libertarians” have fallen for this dupe.

(Click Drawing to Enlarge)

There is often the case where people can be Liberal in their economic views but Conservative in their personal liberty views, or other combinations

My economic views are more toward the far right end of the conservative spectrum, while my personal freedom views are more to the other end of the conservative spectrum...more towards the center-right, but still conservative.

The following public/private scenario is why my political philosophy falls in the “Conservative” range of the spectrum:

The place of where an act of freedom occurs matters, and those two places are private and public. Conservatives believe that the government should have the moral right to police public places where someone else’s act might harm them. Libertarians don’t believe this.

The classic definition of freedom is, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." So we say that people should be able to do anything as long as it doesn't harm or infringe upon the freedom of others.

Let me explain. Suppose you live in a neighborhood where you have a public park at the end of the street, that all of you in the neighborhood freely gave to finance. The park belongs to the public, (neighborhood), and one of the neighbors decides to set up a pornographic sales stand in the park. Now, if that neighbor looked at this filth in his own house, most “live and let live” conservatives would have no problem with it, but put it in the publics view and it should be policed. The Same thing applies to things like “public airwaves”, the “public internet” and other things not done in private. Libertarians don't want any government control of public places.

Conservatives believe that part of the responsibility of being a citizen of a free society is that you must give of your time to defend this country if it calls. Libertarians don’t believe this.

Take the following test at the Libertarian webpage and see where you fall on the political spectrum. I scored as a “Conservative.”

Test Here

Have fun and don’t let others tell you oxymoron things like: “Fascism” belongs to the right, or “Right-Wing-Dictatorship." A Right-Wing-Dictatorship is impossible because a Dictatorship belongs on the "Left", not on the Right. This type of crap is Orwellian “Double Speak” and is meant to confuse the truth, when otherwise it would be plain and easy to understand.

Hillary Saying all the "Right" things!

In the New Your Post no less, Hillary is getting on board with having her "wet finger" in the political breeze and has caught wind of the "Anti-American" IFC and what they are doing to the Ground Zero site.

Here is the aritcle:

HILLARY COMES OUT AGAINST FREEDOM CENTER
By DEBORAH ORIN

EXCLUSIVE



WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday dealt a crushing blow to the International Freedom Center planned for Ground Zero, saying she wants the project canned for failing to listen to the 9/11 families.

"I cannot support the IFC," Clinton declared last night in a strongly worded statement in response to an inquiry from The Post.

Her tough comments are Clinton's first significant remarks about the controversy raging at Ground Zero over the Freedom Center, which 9/11 families and other critics fear will become a center of anti-Americanism.

"While I want to ensure that development and rebuilding in lower Manhattan move forward expeditiously, I am troubled by the serious concerns family members and first responders have expressed to me," Clinton said.

"The LMDC [Lower Manhattan Development Corp.] has authority over the site and I do not believe we can move forward until it heeds and addresses their concerns."

The family members of victims, as well as unions representing the city's cops and firefighters, want nothing less than the Freedom Center being booted from Ground Zero.

Given her influence, Clinton's hard line could spell doom for the Freedom Center's hopes of remaining at the World Trade Center site.

Clinton spoke out the day after the IFC released a plan intended to save its spot at the site, but it was met with immediate opposition from 9/11 families.

Clinton won't support any plan unless the families and first responders back it, said her spokesman, Philippe Reines.

Many relatives of 9/11 victims denounced the Freedom Center plan as an insult to the 2,749 people who diedat the Twin Towers because it would paint them as a little more than a footnote to the world's march toward freedom.

The families, cops and firefighters say the IFC's plan to use hallowed land at Ground Zero to highlight poverty as a barrier to freedom diminishes the tragedy of 9/11.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also voiced concern yesterday and called for a compromise — although he didn't state flat-out opposition to the Freedom Center.

"There's got to be a way to meet the families' sincere and real needs and build a center that honors the freedom that the victims died for. We hope that the LMDC will find some common ground quickly," Schumer said.

Gov. Pataki — who wields strong influence over the LMDC, which will soon decide the Freedom Center's fate — is traveling abroad and has yet to take a stand on the Freedom Center's latest proposal. Pataki has said thathe won't support any plan that offers a forum for anti-Americanism.

Clinton's opposition means that the anti-IFC push is now a bipartisan cause. Three New York Republicans — Reps. John Sweeney (Saratoga), Peter King (L.I.) and Vito Fossella (S.I.) — are already challenging it as a "blame America first" project.

Yesterday, the trio of Republicans formally requested a congressional oversight hearing as a step toward blocking the IFC from getting any of the $2.7 billion in federal funds allocated for Ground Zero.

"The whole thing was hijacked. If you asked people on the street what they wanted at Ground Zero, this would be the last thing that they wanted," Sweeney said.

I sure hope we are lining up a strong canidate to run against her, because she is definitely savy when it comes to demagoguery and winning votes.

What is the Difference between Jews, Hebrews and Israel?

Two different postulates are suggested to the origin of the name Hebrew. One is that Abraham and his posterity were called Hebrews to distinguish them from the races living on the other side of the Euphrates River and the other is it is a derivative of the name Heber, one of the ancestors of Abraham.

Abraham had two sons. The first was born when he was 86 to Hagar. He was named Ishmael. Hagar was told that “And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” (Gen. 16:11-12)

Through the linage of Ishmael came the prophet Mohammad and the religion of Islam. Maybe the information that Hagar was told about her son is very apropos to today’s Radical Islamics.

When Abraham was 100 years old he had his second son. His mother was Sarah. He was named Isaac.

Isaac also had two sons. They were named Jacob and Esau. Jacobs name was eventually changed to “Israel” which means “Contender with God” because he had succeeded in his supplication before God.

Jacob, (Israel), had twelve sons. They were named Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin. They are often called "The Twelve Tribes of Israel."

After Solomon died, the Kingdom of Israel was divided into Israel, (Northern Kingdom), and Judah, (Southern Kingdom.)

Ten of The Northern Kingdom tribes were captured by Shalmanezer in the approximate year of 721 B.C. and carried off to Assyria. This left mainly the Kingdom of Judah.

Through Judah would be born Jesus and what remains of the Tribe of Judah is what we now call “Jews” and many of them are now living in the country of Israel.

Hope this helps clear some of the questions that many of you might have had since Israel plays a leading role in world events.

But then again, maybe you guys already knew this stuff?

Danger - Danger Will Robinson

With Hurricane Katrina still in the minds of all of us we tend to overlook some of the side agendas that are swirling about. Both of the two below have to do with giving away sovereignty to "world laws".

Pressure to sign the Kyoto Treaty because of Global Warming. Despite many scientists proving that the "solar magnetic cycle" is the cause of this warming, and you can see from this article/proof that Gore and his other "Chicken Little" friends are all wet, these "blame America" folks just don't give up.

ICC - The International Criminal Court. This is a real biggie. Imagine you are just getting off the airplane in Germany for a nice vacation after you retired from the military and you are immediately arrested for "war crimes", taken to jail with no civil liberties like a phone call to your lawyer because you will be tried under a International Criminal Court with none of the Constitutional protections because the world is now the Judge and Jury and not U.S. law and justice.

Sound far-fetched? Not if some of the "One World" viewers like Ginsburg, Kennedy, etc. get their way.

These "One World" or "New World Order" folks believe that many/most wars are started only because of National Goals and if there were no "nations", but rather one Nation representing the whole world, then there would be no need for greed, or national goals because the whole world would "share the wealth" of all nations.

Giving up our sovereignty is the worst thing for keeping our freedom that could ever happen.

Dangers of the ICC.

From the Dangers article:

One, they include the repeal of all laws condemning homosexual sodomy.
Two, the legalisation of same-sex marriages.
Three, mandatory and graphic sexual training for children.

She has three paragraphs on the last of these. She says the training has to include instruction, beginning when the child's at the age of 10, on how to engage in sexual intercourse with members of the same sex. Since this will of necessity be graphic, she says, "such materials should be exempted from pornography and obscenity laws".

Caesar and Christ

Will Durant, a famous historian, wrote in his book, “Caesar and Christ”, a summary of the causes of the destruction of the Roman Empire, he said: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within. The essential causes of Rome's decline lay in her people, her morals, her class struggle, her failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism, her stifling taxes…."

One of those class struggles was the notion that a human being is mostly an economic creature. Meaning his material well being is the single most important part of his life, and all other facets including his freedom and privacy are subservient to that well being. (This is also the crux of Marxism.)

Security, food, clothing, housing and medical care are the same things that one might consider necessary in a jail where they are all guaranteed.

Unless everyone bakes a loaf of bread for every other citizen, we cannot guarantee that all citizens will have a loaf of bread to eat.

Government cannot guarantee material gain, economic prosperity, or food, clothing, and shelter. They are only the result of hard work and industrial production.

While government is absolutely necessary in order to have an orderly society, there are concerns that the tendency is to have government seek more power, thus slowly restricting freedoms.

We, the people, granted our government limited powers. They were only granted the following:
1. Defend the Nation.
2. Punish Crimes.
3. Adjudicate and enforce Property Rights.
4. Compel each citizen to bear his fair share of performing the above.

When we allow the government to do activities outside the above limited functions such as welfare and redistributing wealth, or other activities that coerce people into performing a prescribed code of social planning, then we are in grave danger of losing our freedom.

We can only allow the government to force our neighbor to do these things if we have the right as an individual to force our neighbor to do them, because the government only has the same rights as an individual. They get the right to act in our behalf because we grant them that right. If I do not have that right, I cannot delegate it.

“I tell you that freedom does not mean the freedom to exploit law in order to destroy it. It is not freedom which permits the Trojan Horse to be wheeled within the gates, and those within it to be heard in the name of tolerating a different point of view!” – Cicero, 106-43 BC

Welfare, Homosexual Marriage, Removing God from our Country are all “Trojan Horses.” We should never have the freedom to destroy freedom.

In 1976 Ford Motor Company economists showed that there were more people being supported by taxes in the United States (80,655,000) than there were people working in the private sector of the economy to pay the taxes (71,650,000).

“A new American majority is being created,” the study states, “who are exploiting the fact for their own political and professional purposes.” Such was a major factor in the fall of Rome. This group votes! And it Votes for more entitlements! More Social Programs, more Welfare, more Socialism!

Katrina was a terrible disaster, but should the Federal Government institute more Welfare in order to “fix” the problem? Or, is it really outside the powers granted to them by the Constitution?

Perhaps the Government should instead organize the different Charities to give a “helping hand” to help the evacuees to rebuild themselves? Give a “hand up” instead of giving a “hand out?”

Should we use Charity or Welfare to help those who have lost everything? Is it worth the loss of freedom in order to help others through Welfare?

Am I a lone wolf crying in the Wilderness? Am I too conservative? I hope not, or we have all but lost the battle of remaining a free nation.

“A government must be a taker before it can be a provider.” – Winston Churchill

God and the Laws of the Universe

Why Arnold should Veto AB 849.

Some would wonder why Gay Marriage is a problem for Christians. Some would wonder why Christians seem to place so much emphasis upon the Ten Commandments and other Laws and Guidelines that we learn from the Scriptures.

The answer is easy. God understands the “Law of Cause and Effect” better than anyone. Simple as that.

He knows that if you “touch the hot stove, you will get hurt.” He knows it better than anyone dead or alive.

This is why he gives us the guidelines to live by in the Bible such as the Ten Commandments. He knows that if we truly want to be free we must avoid the consequences of bad choices.

He knows that if we steal, murder, etc, we will harm society and therefore harm ourselves.

So, he also tells us that if we commit adultery, we will help to bring down society, because we need a stable family unit to properly teach our children the value of staying together in a marriage.

This same caution is applied to homosexuality. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” - Leviticus 18:22

He even says it is about “Cause and Effect” in the following caution about “unnatural affection” such as in this verse: “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” - Rom 1:27

Recompense is to receive payment for something. Getting paid back for a wrong deed. Or, the Law of Cause and Effect catching up to us.

There is plenty of proof that broken homes cause problems for society, and isn't it interesting that the Bible has plenty to say in this matter. It is almost like God is saying to us, "I have given you a Bible to use as a guide for correct principles, if you choose to ignore it, you will receive recompense for your errors."

God doesn’t have to punish us. It will happen automatically through the Law of Cause and Effect.

Just maybe it is a bad idea to help the minority to force their will on the majority based upon some fake "group" rights. Does anyone care about the feelings of the people who hold marriage as an important social foundation that has roots in sound laws of nature, like the proper way to raise children.

Let's hope we don't have to wait for the "effect" part of the "cause" of ignoring the wise council of the Scriptures.

Isn't it interesting that the Jews, the Christians and the Muslems Scriptures all say homosexual activity is wrong? I know that the majority is often wrong, but then we aren't talking about peoples opinions, but higher and better opinions than that.

Even non religious tribes recognized that something was wrong and unnatural about homosexual activity. Even though some had allowed it, it was always looked down upon.

Activities are not rights. We can not say that any man that likes to fly airplanes, or any man that likes to kiss blondes, or any man that likes to kiss other men has an inherent right to.

There are rules to follow for all activities and as long as all males and females are required to follow the same rules for these activities, then we are being just and fair. (Not to mention possibly avoiding the consequences of the law of Cause and Effect.) All men and all women are required to follow the same rules regardless of their likes or dislikes. All men must marry a woman, and all women must marry a man, regardless of thier likes or activities.

All morals are not laws, and all laws are not moral. As soon as we start to think that the law should be revered as moral judgement, we have lost the insight into true morals and we have lost the spiritual battle with evil.

All laws should be moral, but alas, they often are not.

Arnold is for Jobs

Arnold is a Champion. When he is fighting for what is right, he will always have people who disagree. That is because often people are blinded by rhetoric. We need to look deeper into what is best for our freedom first.

In order to be free, we must be able to function in a free market.

Many bills will either be pro business or anti business.

How does the government obtain money to function?

It comes both directly and indirectly from business. If California makes it hard for businesses to function in this state, they will move to one that is not so hostile.

Businesses employ people. People get paid. Taxes are withheld from their paychecks. Businesses pay taxes. Tax money starts and ends with business. The only way government gets taxes is because businesses employ people.

Arnold understands this and wants to keep businesses in California. If you want to call that special interest, then so be it. I call it our interest.

I like jobs.

Dems and Libs in general hate employers, and supposedly love employees. That is an oxymoron. You can't kill the golden goose and expect to still have the gold.

If the private sector of jobs go away, all of the public jobs will no longer be funded because public jobs require private taxes to exist, yet the Dems take the side of the public unions and say that the members are being hurt by Arnold.

How is that possible when he is trying to remove the strangle hold that the public unions have on the union members and the taxpayers? Arnold is not attacking the public employees, but the public union bosses. Those big Labor bosses; you know those Jimmy Hoffa types.

But those anti-Arnold ads will show you union employees attacking Arnold and making it seem he is against the members....what lies! Unions destroy business and intimidate members. See this article for a good view from an ex-union member as to how union bosses will always abuse their power for the worse. Arnold doesn't like Union Dues being used to run business out of state.

Or maybe some people think what Hoffa did wasn't so bad? Or being against business isn't harmful?

If you want more insight into why Arnold feels the way he does about freedom and economic freedom, read one of his favorite books, "Free to Choose", by Noble Prize winner in Economics, Milton Friedman, and you will see the folly of the anti-business attitude by the left.

FEMA - Welfare or Charity?

We as Americans have a bad habit of looking to Washington to “Fix” any and all problems.

Welfare is one of those problems that we look to the Federal Government to solve.

So, how should we handle Welfare? Let’s look at the proper way to deal with people who are not able to fend for themselves through no fault of their own.

There is a hierarchy of responsibilities that should be observed. Here is the order of priorities:

1. First people should be responsible for their own sustenance if at all possible.
2. Next come families and friends.
3. Next come the local Churches.
4. Next comes the Local Government.
5. Next comes the State Government.
6. And then finally comes the Federal Government.

We as a Nation have this order reversed! The first place everyone looks is to the taxpayer’s pockets.

Imagine if the way we would collect the needed money for FEMA was that a soldier came and pointed a gun at you and said we need $500.00 from you to help the people affected by the Hurricane. And if you don’t give you will be jailed. This is the effect of Federal taxes used to help the poor. If it is not given freely with no coersion, it is not Charity it is Welfare. And the giver will not get the blessing because he had no choice.

Here is the way it should work:

It is back in the days of the Wagon Train. You and some others have just hired a Wagon Master to take you from the East to the West. You and 15 other Wagons are paying the Wagon Master to be your government. He is to protect you and govern you for the duration of the trip.

Now suppose during the trip, the Widow Jones horse that is pulling her wagon gets killed. What should the Wagon Master do?

1. Ask for donations to buy a horse from Mr. Smith who has 20 extra with him.
2. Ask for Mr. Smith to just give Widow Jones a horse.
3. Ask Widow Jones to see if Mr. Smith would let her do clean up and washing/ironing jobs to buy a horse from him on credit.
4. Just have the Wagon Master tell Mr. Smith that the Wagon Train members voted to have the horse taken from Mr. Smith to give to the Widow Jones and he has no say. He is told that he will be under arrest if he declines.

Now, if you said any of the above except #4 then you are on the right track to being fair to your fellow beings. But if you said #4 then you are for Welfare and are not a fair person because you believe that in order to help someone the only way possible is to punish one person in order to help someone else. Rob from the rich to give to the poor.

This is where we are as a nation. We think the answer to the poor is to do the only immoral thing on the list of ways we can help, because we have lost our faith in the kindness of our neighbors.

May God have mercy on those who feel “robbing from the rich to give to the poor” is a moral act.

The Blame Game

In today’s world economy, we as a Nation should act like a unified body. It is like teamwork in any organized body. Teamwork brings synergy. We become more than just the sum of our parts.

But, in order to be a team the first thing that must go is “finger pointing.” These acts are by far the most destructive force to synergy and to existence known to man.

If we allow ourselves to be defeated from within, we will loose our great protections of freedom that this proud nation has been famous for.

A very good management consultant named Tom Peters studied the synergy of the Japanese team concept. While we in the U.S. will put one or two engineers on a single component of a project, the Japanese tend to put a team of up to a dozen or more on a single component.

But Tom said the attitude of teamwork in the Japanese culture was never more prevalent than in the way they solve problems. He said:

“Great managers and great team members look to fix the problem, while poor managers and poor team members look to fix the blame.”

This is the attitude of the Japanese teams. They have learned the destructive nature of "finger Pointing" and do not do it.

I may be paraphrasing a little as I don’t recall the exact quote, but you get the idea.

Any way let us examine some of the ridiculous cases of the Blame Game:

1. It is God’s fault – This one is really over the top. God does often put his hand in nature to bring about his works, but that would make it a “challenge”, not a “fault.” We are often put in a situation as a person or as a Country because of our needs to grow, or our need to be reminded of how we have taken our blessings for granted, and how we have been slow to “bend our knee” in prayer enough. Sometimes we are given challenges because we need them to grow and a person's true character can only really be displayed in a crisis.

2. It is Bush’s fault –"That government is best which governs least.” – Thomas Jefferson. This quote shows that the closer to home we are to the problems, the better equipped we are to solve them. It is clear that the main item that was not taken care of that would have made this disaster much more manageable is the lack of attention to the levy. Had the levy been built to withstand this type of Hurricane, we would not have lost a city. And that was something the local governments should have handled, not the Federal Government.

Let’s don’t look for whom to blame for the lack of attention to the levy, but instead let’s “look to fix the problem” instead of the blame.

Using Words Correctly

It's just amazing how we don't call things the way they are.

Looting is stealing. It is wrong and it gets play as if these people have a need to do it.

I can understand a little bit if they took food that otherwise might spoil, but TV’s, Furniture, etc. it needs to be called "stealing" and not just "Looting."

"Undocumented Worker", what a nice sounding word for "Illegal Alien."

I feel for those people affected by this disaster, but we should use words like "thieves" and "robbers" along with "Looting."

I am not saying that the word "Looting" is not appropriate. It is just that we seem to be numbing the populous to a word that is normally associated with "Valuables pillaged in time of war, spoils of war, etc."

Aren't words wonderful? We try to communicate but we have difficulty because sometimes the right word is just hard to find.

For example the word "torture." To some it can be when someone claws their fingernails across the blackboard, to others it can be playing rock music, but the dictionary uses the word "Severe pain" and usually "Sever physical pain."

Some GITMO prison come to mind? Was it really just as bad as the Gulag? Come on! Not even close. Words have meaning. They need to be precise when used.

Too bad the word "Evil" only has one meaning as well. If we throw around words that have "strong" emphasis all the time, soon they loose their meaning.

Ever notice that according to the Bible, the words "Jesus" and "God" are to be used sparingly? Words loose their importance if over used.

A good example is swearing. Ever notice how often people swear as just a normal part of their language? They are actually limiting their ability to communicate. They begin to loose part of their vocabulary. And they offend many who find bad language offensive.

Let's be more attentive to the words we use, but lets not be afraid to be politically incorrect unless we are being insensitive.