I'm sure you all remember the Seinfeld episode with "Serenity Now". But here in Lake Arrowhead, the calls of Serenity are being answered with "Not In My Back Yard". The Serenity Lodge is one of several drug rehab houses that have popped up around the Lake Arrowhead area, and Serenity has also recently acquired one of the many local camps.
All of these drug rehab facilities have sparked quite a bit of controversy in our lovely mountain community. Cries that these facilities will drag down property values, and bring unsavory types to our mountain.
Well, I have news for some of my fellow mountain folk. The unsavory types are already here. In case you didn't know folks, drug use in the mountain is rampant. This of course leads to the need for rehab houses. Maybe if you took more time to check up on what your kids are doing, they wouldn't end up needing rehab. I'm sorry if I'm being blunt and stepping on toes, but the general mind set all over this mountain seems to be to let your kids do what they want. Let them smoke a little weed, no problem. Let them have a keg party for prom night, no problem. Oh,so they stepped it up from alcohol and pot to X, no problem. So someone wants to open a "medical marijuana" clinic, no problem. But God forbid we put a drug rehab facility here, it might bring in drug addicts to our mountain. GET A CLUE PEOPLE, the drug addicts are your kids!!
At least the people in the treatment houses are trying to do something about their problem. Let's try and close down Budmart before we try and drive Serenity from our mountain.
SERENITY NOW!!!
My political rants, views and outburst...probably with a pretty conservative slant, but not always what you'd expect.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
Death prayer for Obama?
Much talk has been made about Kansas speaker Mike O'Neal supposedly calling for people to pray for Obama's death. In a recent letter he sent out he quoted Psalm 109:8 which says "May his days be few, and may another take his office." Now the media has pounced all over this as the speaker praying for Obama's death. I'm pretty willing to bet that speaker O'Neal simply meant it as a prayer that Obama lose the election.
Now the media, and probably some of my liberal friends will point out that the following verse calls for his wife to be a widow and his children fatherless. And if you go on in the Psalm it gets pretty gruesome. David was apparently pretty upset with the person he wrote this about. I feel however, that speaker O'Neal probably didn't bother to research his quote this deeply. My guess is he saw the one verse quoted somewhere and decided it was a cute, nice little prayer jibe he could send out to a president he was not fond of. I am relatively sure he does not want the president dead, and if he did he certainly wouldn't put it in print. But of course the media grabbed hold of it, and won't let go.
Now I admit, it was probably a stupid thing for an elected official to put in his newsletter. But I think the media failed to notice that similar wishes were expressed by liberals toward the previous president. Liberals hate conservatives, conservatives hate liberals. Right or wrong, that's the way it is.
Should politicians be more careful with what they say? Yes. Should media be less liberal biased in the panic storms they stir up? Yes. Should people check their scriptures before quoting out of context? You bet.
And the state of American politics brings to mind the words of John 11:35 "Jesus wept"
Now the media, and probably some of my liberal friends will point out that the following verse calls for his wife to be a widow and his children fatherless. And if you go on in the Psalm it gets pretty gruesome. David was apparently pretty upset with the person he wrote this about. I feel however, that speaker O'Neal probably didn't bother to research his quote this deeply. My guess is he saw the one verse quoted somewhere and decided it was a cute, nice little prayer jibe he could send out to a president he was not fond of. I am relatively sure he does not want the president dead, and if he did he certainly wouldn't put it in print. But of course the media grabbed hold of it, and won't let go.
Now I admit, it was probably a stupid thing for an elected official to put in his newsletter. But I think the media failed to notice that similar wishes were expressed by liberals toward the previous president. Liberals hate conservatives, conservatives hate liberals. Right or wrong, that's the way it is.
Should politicians be more careful with what they say? Yes. Should media be less liberal biased in the panic storms they stir up? Yes. Should people check their scriptures before quoting out of context? You bet.
And the state of American politics brings to mind the words of John 11:35 "Jesus wept"
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
No more James or John
America has had 44 presidents in its 235 years, and this year we will elect another (or maybe hang on to 44). Actually if you look closely there has only been 43, since Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms. Of these 43 men 16 of them bore the names James, John, George or William. Almost all the rest had names unique to them (imagine 2 Millards or 2 Ulysses). This election we are once again looking at some unique names. Barack of course was very unique in the last election, and I'm pretty sure it will remain one of a kind.
But looking at the Republican front runners, I really must chuckle; Mitt and Newt. Really??? Mitt and Newt?? Please excuse my humorous tone, but dang, these are FUNNY names. Mitt sounds so 80's preppy, I expect he hang with Biff, Buffy and Kiki. Either that, or maybe his parents were dyslexic and were trying for Tim. And don't get me started on Newt. I'm pretty sure it is short for Newton, but that only reminds me of a guy in a giant fig suit. And whenever I hear the name Newt I can't help but think of John Cleese in Monty Python and the Holy Grail; "She turned my into a Newt!" "A Newt?" "I got better".
So it would appear that James, John and George are off the table for now, and the strange names will win out. So take your pick-- President Newt, President Mitt or President Barack.... tough choice?
But looking at the Republican front runners, I really must chuckle; Mitt and Newt. Really??? Mitt and Newt?? Please excuse my humorous tone, but dang, these are FUNNY names. Mitt sounds so 80's preppy, I expect he hang with Biff, Buffy and Kiki. Either that, or maybe his parents were dyslexic and were trying for Tim. And don't get me started on Newt. I'm pretty sure it is short for Newton, but that only reminds me of a guy in a giant fig suit. And whenever I hear the name Newt I can't help but think of John Cleese in Monty Python and the Holy Grail; "She turned my into a Newt!" "A Newt?" "I got better".
So it would appear that James, John and George are off the table for now, and the strange names will win out. So take your pick-- President Newt, President Mitt or President Barack.... tough choice?
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
I miss Ronald Reagan
In 1981 (31 years ago this week) Ronald Reagan became president. I was a 15 year old kid, and didn't know much. I'm sure I did my share of joking about the old ex-actor thinking he could run a country. But looking back now, I realize he was a great president.
I've been listening to his white house diaries and his mind and his love for his country, God and his wife Nancy is just amazing. He was a man with a warm heart, and a great sense of humor. I only hope in this upcoming election that we can find someone half as good as him to become the next president.
I've been listening to his white house diaries and his mind and his love for his country, God and his wife Nancy is just amazing. He was a man with a warm heart, and a great sense of humor. I only hope in this upcoming election that we can find someone half as good as him to become the next president.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Not the Government's Job.
First off, a thank you to Iowa for making NO clear choice last week, let's see if New Hampshire will do better tomorrow.
Okay, now on to my topic for today. And before I start, I want to say that I realize there are people in this country who truly need help to get by and survive. People who have had a low life husband walk out on them leaving 4 or 5 kids. People who have been hurt or disabled and can't work a full time job. But there are also so many people today living off the government (a government hat is 15 TRILLION dollars in debt) who are simply to lazy to find work, or realize they can make more by just having babies and letting the government pay for them.
Many people seem to think that the government owes them a decent life. It is, according to some, the job of the government to insure that everyone lives the American Dream. The first problem with this is that everyone seems to think the American Dream is having whatever you want whenever you want it. When I was a child I believe the American Dream, as my parents understood it was to be able to work and supply a house and food and clothes for your kids, and offer them a chance to have things a little better than they had it.
Here's the problem, most of our parents (I'm speaking of the senior citizens of today) were able to give us a better life than they had. And my generation and those a bit younger than me began to feel like we deserved everything. And so we started charging to get everything, and to give our kids everything. And now we have a generation of kids who just walk into a store say they want something, and get up set if no one is there with a credit card to get it for them NOW!
But I'm trailing away from my real topic, which is whether or not welfare is the government's job. I say it is NOT. The job of the government should be to uphold law and protect the citizens, not to hand them everything they want/need. I'm going to throw out a word that is bound to stir up fiery emotions from friends on the right or the left. Socialism... this is a word the left tend to embrace, either openly, or at least ideologically. It is a word that generally makes the skin of those on the right crawl with fears of a Marxist regime moving in. I am a conservative, right-wing Republican who says there is a place for socialism. Please don't shoot me now, please don't burn my blog.
Let me explain myself please. One of the things left-wingers love to throw out is that "Jesus was a socialist" and that "early Christians lived in a socialist society". And if you look at the book of Acts, there definitely seems to be a good case at least for the later statement. The early Church lived in a very communal way, helping each other, and providing each others' needs. And throughout the New Testament we are told to help those around you in need,care for the fatherless and the widow.
But here is where I must differ from my left-wing friends who wish to extrapolate this in to saying we need a socialist government to supply our needs, to make sure everyone is taken care of. You see, in the New Testament it was the Church coming together as a group and taking care of each others' needs and burdens. It was not some group of officials, elected or otherwise telling everyone that you need to give your money to him/her, so they have the same.
One thing I find interesting is that liberals tend to be in favor of human rights, and are opposed to governments who violate there citizens human rights. And yet most of these governments are the result of socialistic government taken to far. China is a prime example. And yet they left continues to want to give our government more and more power. And as the government get more power to control more areas of our lives, then they give themselves the power to become the corrupt human rights violators that they claim to oppose.
What my point here is, is that socialism should not be a style of government, in that the people running the government will undoubtedly corrupt it, and get it wrong. But socialism in the form practiced by the early church is something that could make life better for many. Welfare should not be the job of the government...It should be the job of the church! Many churches has outreach programs to help feed and clothe the needy in there communities, and this is wonderful, but many do not. With America's economy in a mess, I think it is time for the Church to step up and say "We are here to minister not only to your spirit, but to your body as well". This is a call out to Christians, myself included, to step up and help out those who are less fortunate, those who need a hand, those who are struggling to get by. Let the Church do the job it is called to do, so the government can get on track to do what it is here to do.
Okay, now on to my topic for today. And before I start, I want to say that I realize there are people in this country who truly need help to get by and survive. People who have had a low life husband walk out on them leaving 4 or 5 kids. People who have been hurt or disabled and can't work a full time job. But there are also so many people today living off the government (a government hat is 15 TRILLION dollars in debt) who are simply to lazy to find work, or realize they can make more by just having babies and letting the government pay for them.
Many people seem to think that the government owes them a decent life. It is, according to some, the job of the government to insure that everyone lives the American Dream. The first problem with this is that everyone seems to think the American Dream is having whatever you want whenever you want it. When I was a child I believe the American Dream, as my parents understood it was to be able to work and supply a house and food and clothes for your kids, and offer them a chance to have things a little better than they had it.
Here's the problem, most of our parents (I'm speaking of the senior citizens of today) were able to give us a better life than they had. And my generation and those a bit younger than me began to feel like we deserved everything. And so we started charging to get everything, and to give our kids everything. And now we have a generation of kids who just walk into a store say they want something, and get up set if no one is there with a credit card to get it for them NOW!
But I'm trailing away from my real topic, which is whether or not welfare is the government's job. I say it is NOT. The job of the government should be to uphold law and protect the citizens, not to hand them everything they want/need. I'm going to throw out a word that is bound to stir up fiery emotions from friends on the right or the left. Socialism... this is a word the left tend to embrace, either openly, or at least ideologically. It is a word that generally makes the skin of those on the right crawl with fears of a Marxist regime moving in. I am a conservative, right-wing Republican who says there is a place for socialism. Please don't shoot me now, please don't burn my blog.
Let me explain myself please. One of the things left-wingers love to throw out is that "Jesus was a socialist" and that "early Christians lived in a socialist society". And if you look at the book of Acts, there definitely seems to be a good case at least for the later statement. The early Church lived in a very communal way, helping each other, and providing each others' needs. And throughout the New Testament we are told to help those around you in need,care for the fatherless and the widow.
But here is where I must differ from my left-wing friends who wish to extrapolate this in to saying we need a socialist government to supply our needs, to make sure everyone is taken care of. You see, in the New Testament it was the Church coming together as a group and taking care of each others' needs and burdens. It was not some group of officials, elected or otherwise telling everyone that you need to give your money to him/her, so they have the same.
One thing I find interesting is that liberals tend to be in favor of human rights, and are opposed to governments who violate there citizens human rights. And yet most of these governments are the result of socialistic government taken to far. China is a prime example. And yet they left continues to want to give our government more and more power. And as the government get more power to control more areas of our lives, then they give themselves the power to become the corrupt human rights violators that they claim to oppose.
What my point here is, is that socialism should not be a style of government, in that the people running the government will undoubtedly corrupt it, and get it wrong. But socialism in the form practiced by the early church is something that could make life better for many. Welfare should not be the job of the government...It should be the job of the church! Many churches has outreach programs to help feed and clothe the needy in there communities, and this is wonderful, but many do not. With America's economy in a mess, I think it is time for the Church to step up and say "We are here to minister not only to your spirit, but to your body as well". This is a call out to Christians, myself included, to step up and help out those who are less fortunate, those who need a hand, those who are struggling to get by. Let the Church do the job it is called to do, so the government can get on track to do what it is here to do.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Iowa's Turn
2012 is upon us and once we embark on the wondrous election process that make America great, and annoys the hell out of us all at the same time. In just a few hours this process begins in Iowa, as the caucuses. I'm not sure how the caucuses work compared to the primary elections in many other states. But I do know they are considered an early indicator for how the elections are shaping up.
In 2012 it is considered a given that Obama will be the Democratic nominee, so all attention is on the Republicans. I know there have been many names floating around in the Republican race, some who have already dropped out, and some seeming to pop up at the last minute. I do not know who I am leaning towards, and since we still have 5 months before elections come to California, I still have time to decide.
I only hope the Republicans in Iowa come out and vote, and help point the way to someone who can beat Obama in November. This should be an election year to watch, and I'll try to keep you updated on what is going on.
In 2012 it is considered a given that Obama will be the Democratic nominee, so all attention is on the Republicans. I know there have been many names floating around in the Republican race, some who have already dropped out, and some seeming to pop up at the last minute. I do not know who I am leaning towards, and since we still have 5 months before elections come to California, I still have time to decide.
I only hope the Republicans in Iowa come out and vote, and help point the way to someone who can beat Obama in November. This should be an election year to watch, and I'll try to keep you updated on what is going on.