The death of common sense ~ By Patrice Lewis

Patrice concludes this column by saying, "This ain't rocket science, folks. It's just common sense. Remember, stupidity is a choice." The choices we make in life are either made with common sense, or with stupidity. There really is no other kind of choice that we can make.

And when you read this outstanding column by Patrice, you may find out that our government doesn't seem to be coming up with common sense solutions to problems, and in fact, it seems that they actually encourage stupid choices. Just sayin'...

As my brother once noted, if you totally "fork up" and become a "victim," you're a hero. You receive praise for the hardships you've "overcome." You get elected. You can write books. You get free housing and medical care. But if you're constantly responsible in life, you get nothing. No praise, no accolades, no talk-show circuit.

In other words, we've gotten to the point where bad choices and irresponsibility are rewarded. Good choices and personal responsibility are ignored at best, penalized at worst.

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: April 17, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

When I was growing up, my mother often lamented how uncommon common sense was. For years she hammered into my head that education or beauty or intelligence or other blessings will only go so far unless someone has the common sense to make decent decisions in life.

Now that I'm grown up, I see the wisdom – dare I say, the common sense – of her words.

I've written before how continually astounded I am by how stupid people choose to be. Because, make no mistake, stupidity is a choice.

To me, it makes perfect sense to, say, choose a decent person to marry. Your spouse will have a great impact on your future life (duh). So why would you marry the wrong person in spite of the massive red flags waving in your face? If you married a handsome stud with a reputation for womanizing, why do you later whine that you "didn't know" he would sleep around or you "thought you could make a difference" in his habits or attitudes that have been ingrained since adolescence?

I'm not saying people can't change for the better. I'm saying it's stupid to marry someone whose morals or behavior doesn't bode well for your future happiness. Where's the common sense?

Why would someone decide not to wear a seatbelt when driving? Is the thought of being thrown from a rolling vehicle more attractive than the minor confinement a seatbelt requires? Where's the common sense?

Why would a woman choose to sleep around? Doesn't she know sex can result in unwanted pregnancies, which then require the making of difficult, heart-wrenching or immoral decisions? Where's the common sense?

Why would someone purchase a house with a mortgage far beyond his ability to pay? Just because a banker says you're "qualified" is no excuse for taking on a half-million dollar home when you work as a janitor. (No kidding, I know someone who did that.) Yes, I know this is a harsh economy, but a lot of people are in trouble simply because they bit off more than they could chew. Where's the common sense?

I have a great interest in the concept of Simplicity. Contrary to popular belief, a simple life doesn't mean you hug trees and live in a log cabin. No, a simple life means you strive to make good choices. Common sense – making good choices – is one of the most under-appreciated factors in keeping your life steady in a complex world.

And the repercussions can be profound. How much simpler would your life have been if you'd listened to the wisdom of your elders instead of barging down the road of your own selfish whims? How much easier would your life have been if you hadn't married the womanizer, hadn't slept around, had worn your seatbelt or had rented an apartment instead of "buying" a McMansion?

Look, life is tough enough as it is. Things get thrown in our paths that are entirely outside our control. How much easier would it be to handle the unexpected obstacles if we've already laid a solid foundation of common sense and sound choices?

When life throws you a monkey wrench – when you face a devastating illness or suffer through a natural disaster – how much better would you fare if you already have a solid bedrock of faith, a happy family life, no debts, a preparedness mentality and other tools for coping? What I'm trying to say is, much of life's difficulties – even those beyond our mortal control – can often be mitigated by common sense before, during and after the difficulty. It drives me nuts to see people make stupid choices and then wonder why they have it so tough.

Worse, our society now encourages us to make stupid decisions without consequences. Pregnant? Here's a welfare check. Massive mortgage? Here's relief from the government. Unemployed but prefer to go fishing rather than look for work? We'll extend unemployment benefits for another week. Month. Year.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

Jim Bunning is a hero ~ By Benjamin Shapiro

Benjamin Shapiro discusses why Senator Jim Bunning is doing the right thing. It all comes down to understanding the difference between negative rights and positive rights, and how they affect freedom.

No country that focuses more on positive rights than negative rights can remain truly free for long. Negative rights provide a space in which individuals can pursue happiness; positive rights impose crushing burdens on some for the benefit of others.

By Benjamin Shapiro

Posted: March 03, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., is the most unpopular man in the Senate, according to his colleagues. "Today we have a clear-cut example to show the American people just what's wrong with Washington, D.C.," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. "He's hurting the American people," spat Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

What is Bunning doing that deserves such reproof? He has the audacity to stall a 30-day extension of unemployment and COBRA health-care benefits on the grounds that the extension would add $10 billion to the federal deficit, which is already expected to hit $1.6 trillion this year. Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., wants to pass that extension unanimously in order to expedite the process; Bunning has refused, correctly pointing out that the Democrats passed a "pay as you go" policy that was supposed to make spending deficit neutral, and that now they're tossing that policy out the window for political convenience. Bunning has even suggested a way to make the extension deficit neutral: Take money out of the unspent chunk of the Obama stimulus package and use it to fund the extension. Democrats have refused.

Here's the truth: Bunning is a hero, and his senatorial critics are villains. That goes for Republicans as well as Democrats. Bunning's opponents are liars and hypocrites of the highest order. The Democrats have no intention of lowering the deficit or abiding by "pay-go," and this only proves it. President Obama set up a joke commission supposedly designed to restore fiscal responsibility (he appointed noted spendthrift and Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern), but at the same time, Obama's mouthpiece, Robert Gibbs, is informing the American public that "This is an emergency situation. Hundreds of thousands have been left in the lurch. … I don't know how you negotiate the irrational."

The Democrats and Republicans who oppose Bunning want fiscal responsibility, unless it actually requires them to act fiscally responsible. Unless it's an "emergency." Here's the question: If we can't trust legislators to be fiscally responsible during economic emergencies, how can we trust them to be fiscally responsible during economic swells?

But there's something even more insidious going on here than simple political gamesmanship. Too many Americans now believe that the checks they receive every month from the unemployment office – like the checks they get from the welfare office, from Medicare, from Social Security – are inalienable rights. They are not.

Our politicians and our press have become too loose with "rights talk." Everything is now a "right." The "right" to work. The "right" to health care. The "right" to a own a home. Each and every one of these "rights" is actually a restriction on liberty.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Free ice cream for all! ~ By Patrice Lewis

Patrice Lewis explains the dangers of "free ice for all!" Once people become dependent on the welfare state for all of their needs, they will no longer be willing to try take personal responsibility for their own well-being.

I fear a day of reckoning is coming when it won't just be the availability of ice cream that dries up. It will be a whole lot more. Our benevolent and generous government will be so deeply in debt that we will implode under the cheerful, happy – but entirely immature and unrealistic – promises of free ice cream for all.

God help us when that day comes.

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: February 27, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

There's a story that circulated the Internet in 2008 about a third-grade class that held a mock presidential election to teach the children about the real election. Two kids – Jamie and Olivia – were selected to be candidates.

Jamie's speech was a thoughtful analysis of how he could make the classroom a better place if he were elected. He received enthusiastic applause.

Olivia's speech was more concise. "If you vote for me, I will give you ice cream."

Needless to say, the class went wild. Upon further questioning, Olivia could not explain who would pay for the ice cream. The class didn't care. They were 9 years old, after all. They just wanted free ice cream.

Apparently Olivia didn't care who would pay for the ice cream, either. All she cared about was getting elected. She expertly manipulated her classmates, dancing them like puppets on strings. She knew she could make empty promises, give no accountancy of how those promises would be kept, and win. She was right.

Does this sound familiar?

One year into his administration, Obama has become an expert at manipulating his childish classmates … er, supporters. He promises an endless stream of ice cream with no accountancy of who will pay for it beyond a vague "tax the rich" mantra.

I believe an ice cream mentality is a sign of immaturity. We expect third-graders to vote for free ice cream because 9-year-olds don't understand economics. But mature people know that someone must pay for the ice cream. This is known as TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch. Ladies and gentlemen, it's you and I – the hardworking citizens of this country who are desperately clinging to whatever employment he can find – who will be paying for the ice cream, along with generations of our descendants. And, I might add, receiving very little of it ourselves.

John Stossel's column "Hurtling down the road to serfdom" explains the obvious: "If government relieves us of the responsibility of living by bailing us out, character will atrophy. The welfare state, however good its intentions of creating material equality, can't help but make us dependent." This, Stossel adds, shouldn't be controversial. Or as I'm fond of saying, it ain't rocket science (except perhaps to liberals).

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Your tax dollars at work ~ By Patrice Lewis

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Patrice Lewis Posted: January 23, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 A great sadness has befallen some friends of mine. They are expecting their first grandchild. My friend "Linda" has two stepchildren. Bob, her 19-year-old stepson, is a decent and responsible young man who brings her great joy. Jane, her 21-year-old stepdaughter, has done little but spread misery and conflict her entire life. From the moment Linda married her husband when Jane was 5, the girl was trouble. Most of Jane's time was spent with her biological mother, but when it was time for the children to visit their father, Jane lost no opportunity to create havoc in Linda's house. As Jane entered her teenage years, the havoc grew worse. She delved into drinking, drugs, prostitution, theft and death threats against her father's second family. It got to the point where she was placed in a lock-up facility when she was 16. She was "sprung" on her 18th birthday and happily continued her descent into hell with a couple of suicide attempts, more death threats against her extended family and other joyous expressions of love. Linda's husband, once his legal obligations of child support were over, refused to give Jane a penny because he knew how it would be spent. Jane supported herself by sponging off her mother, selling drugs and occasional excursions into the world's oldest profession. And now, at age 21, she's pregnant. This was inevitable, of course, but it brings great stress and sorrow to Linda and her husband. "I pray she doesn't have an abortion," I wrote to Linda. "I pray she gives the baby up for adoption." "Oh, she won't," Linda wrote back. "She's thrilled to be pregnant because it means a free ride for her. She thinks the baby is the answer to all her money woes. She knows welfare will cover it. She's already signed up and, since she's pregnant, she's already approved." At 21, Jane is an expert at manipulating the system. So there you have it. Your tax dollars at work. While welfare was created for the most humane of reasons – no one wants to see mothers with small children begging on the street – the Law of Unintended Consequences meant that women are encouraged to have illegitimate babies. Or, to put it another way, women are no longer discouraged by economic hardship or societal standards not to have illegitimate babies. This isn't rocket science, nor is it news. It's just tragic. There's a line from the 1940 movie version of "Pride and Prejudice" with Greer Garson and Lawrence Olivier. "You must learn, Mrs. Collins," intones the haughty and condescending Lady Catherine de Bourgh, "to draw a firm line between the deserving poor and the undeserving." Off-hand, that remark sounds callous and snotty. Yet the more I think upon it, the more I can't help but apply it to Jane. READ FULL STORY >

Charity: Not in the Constitution ~ By Larry Elder

From WorldNetDaily

By Larry Elder Posted: August 27, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Assisting the needy in health care is a "moral imperative" – not a constitutional right. The two are as different as a squirt gun and an Uzi. If something is not permitted under our Constitution, the federal government simply cannot do it. Period. The Founding Fathers vigorously debated the role of the federal government and defined it in Article I, Section 8 – spelling out the specific duties and obligations of the federal government. Most notably, this included providing a military for national security, coining money, establishing rules for immigration and citizenship, establishing rules for bankruptcy, setting up a postal system, establishing trademark and copyright rules, and setting up a legal system to resolves disputes, in addition to a handful of other matters. Charity is not there. Congress began ignoring its lack of authority for charity before the ink dried on the Constitution. When Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist French refugees in 1792, James Madison – a Founding Father and principal author of the Constitution – wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." But what about the Constitution's general welfare clause? Madison said: "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." [READ ENTIRE COLUMN]

We're all inner-city blacks now - By Star Parker

Blacks are not given enough credit for being trendsetters in America. Blacks discovered the politics of victimhood, then the rest of America started catching on. Blacks bought into dependency and the welfare state. Now the rest of America has bought in. If we have any luck, some of the better instincts of blacks today will also set trends. read more | digg story