I keep hearing liberals on tv and radio make the argument about taxes and the role of government an issue of extremes. They try to paint conservatives in the light of wanting no taxes and no government whatsoever. Especially after the tax day tea parties. They like to make the argument that we wouldn't have a police force or firemen or roads or libraries without government and without taxes. Perhaps liberals should pay more attention to those who express opposing views.  Conservatives do not want no government. Conservatives know that a central government is necessary or the founding fathers wouldn't have created one. However, the founding fathers were very careful to limit the functions of central government. Yes some government is necessary and therefore some taxes are necessary. But just because some is necessary does not mean the federal government can take that to the extreme. Winning an election is not a blanket authority to scratch the Constitution and do whatever you please. Yet that is exactly what they are doing. Trillions of dollars of debt through a so-called "stimulus package"; government getting it's hands in private industry, telling mortgage companies who to give loans to, firing CEO's, trying to take over banks by converting their shares of preferred stock to common stock. These are extreme measures, and completely unconstitutional. But I want to clarify in all of this, conservatives (and many moderates I might add) want limited government, not the complete absence of government. We want government held accountable by the people. Government that serves the people, as opposed to ruling them. That's where we differ with liberals. They don't understand this is not an issue of extremes. This isn't an issue of one or the other. This isn't a 'government vs no government' argument. We want government, we just want limited government, that performs the functions outlined in the Constitution.

Now more than ever I am convinced the liberal mind has either a lack of factual knowledge, skewed information, or a dire inability to reason.

One of the new topics in this heated presidential campaign is the issue of Obama supporting sex education for kindergarteners.  The McCain campaign launched an ad attacking Obama on this issue, and the Obama camp has reacted in defense, saying McCain's attacks are not accurate.  The issue is regarding a bill Obama supported in the Illinois State Senate to update the sex education curriculum.  Part of the bill would have lowered the age at which students begin sex-ed, to include kindergarten.  Naturally the bill included disclaimers (it was written by lawyers, mind you), which are what Obama supporters continue to point to.  The biggest of which was that parents would have the opportunity to opt out of their kids being taught in these sex-ed courses, and that the course material would be "age-appropriate".

Specifically, the bill states that, "no pupil shall be required to take or participate in any family life class or course on HIV AIDS instruction if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil."(1)  It also states, "An opportunity shall be afforded to parents or guardians to examine the instructional materials to be used in such class or course."(1) 

Everything appears to be ok, right?  I mean, seems reasonable enough.  Well, I have a couple of questions. One, how are parents/guardians going to be informed of the material in order for them to examine it?  How do they know the curriculum is being updated in the first place and everything isn't business as usual? The bill (which I did read, by the way), makes no mention of that.  Does this mean that parents/guardians are responsible to find out for themselves if their school district suddenly changes the curriculum being taught to their children?  Are school districts simply going to print an ad in the paper and expect everyone in the community to read it?  Or did they expect that the law being passed in-and-of itself was notice enough?  How many people you know can tell you every piece of legislation that was passed in their state, local, and federal government over the past year?  I'll tell you how parents and guardians will find out their child in kindergarten is being taught sex ed….they'll find out when their kid comes home talking about it.

Second question.  Since when is any sex education appropriate for kindergarten? Obama stated that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."(2)  Tell me, Mr. Obama, exactly what part of sex education would you deem to be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners? What part of their psychological, physiological, or emotional state do you believe is prepared to handle such an intimate and profound concept? If a parent or guardian decides to educate such a young child on this topic, though I question their wisdom, it is their right and discretion. Unless the government is the child's legal guardian (you can see where I’m going), it is not the government's place to interfere here. This leads us to what I believe to be the root issue.

Here is one consistency I see in Obama and the left's way of thinking. They believe it is the government's job to raise our kids.  It's the government's job to teach them about sex…[God forbid it be left up to a parent who might teach the child sex was meant to be between a man and a woman – (gasp!)]…they believe it’s the government’s job to pay for our kid’s college education.  It's the government's job to make sure we have a house, a job, a paycheck.  It's the government's job to fix the ailing economy (which the government screwed up, by the way, with such brilliant laws as the Community Reinvestment Act) (3)

Don’t get me wrong. There are instances where government assistance can be very helpful to those going through hard times. A bridge over troubled waters. But it should not be the ultimate provider and dictator of our lives. I will admit there were parts of the bill that I liked. It discussed educating students about how to avoid vulnerable situations that might lead to unwanted sexual approaches, and even rape. That’s a wonderful thing to teach students in middle school or high school, though the issue of who should teach the kids still remains (parents vs school).

But teaching sex-ed to kindergarteners? Seriously Mr. Obama? It would be laughable if it were not such a serious issue.

I'm sorry Mr. Obama. You may be a smooth talker and good with disclaimers, but you will never convince me, or millions of other Americans, that the government can do a better job than us at raising our kids and running our lives.

Sources:

1)  http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=0099&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=

2)  http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/19/obamas-great-idea-sex-ed-for-kindergarteners/

3)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

As the left goes crazy trying to bring everything they can against Palin, all I can do is chuckle. She's being attacked on everything from lack of experience (in spite of having more experience than Obama), to her pregnant daughter who is about to get married, and false accusations regarding the firing of a state trooper.

It's becoming quite comical actually….to see the media and blogsters squirm and fire empty rounds at an unmoved Palin.
She's not worried.  McCain's not worried.  Rightly so.  They have nothing to hide.

The left is trying to make an ordeal about Palin having the state trooper fired (her sister's ex-husband)....saying it was because of personal issues regarding a custody battle with the state trooper and his ex-wife.  Yet they conveniently omit certain facts involved with this issue.  "The concerns regarding the trooper included: using a Taser stun gun on his stepson, illegally killing a moose and driving with an open container in his patrol car. The First Gentleman also expressed concern over death threats made against a family member by the trooper." (source 1)  Not only that, but former Commissioner Walt Monegan (the one bringing the accusations against Palin), has been caught in a lie.....

"For more than a week, Monegan has also falsely accused the Governor of having only four in-person meetings with him over the last 17 months. In fact, a quick review of state records proves more than two-dozen meetings, including one-on-one meetings and calls, Cabinet meetings and visits to the Governor’s home. This does not include meetings with the Chief of Staff and Special Assistants, community events and staff functions. Notably, the Governor and the former Commissioner made several trips to remote areas of the state in an effort to address public safety issues in rural Alaska. In fact, there were three separate trips that the Governor and former commissioner Monegan took together including Bethel, Dillingham and twice to New Stuyahok. During those trips, the Governor and Monegan were seated together and spent their days together tackling rural issues. Several commissioners and cabinet members have also countered Monegan’s claims." (source 1)

No wonder Sarah Palin isn't concerned about this issue.  In fact, she's been very open to investigation on this.

As that stone is being rolled over and proving to have nothing under it, the left is also trying to make a big deal of her 17 year old daughter being pregnant outside of wedlock.  Problem there.  This actually helps Palin to be more relatable to the average American.  The average family isn't perfect.  Families are made of people and people make mistakes.  This will also backfire on the left because the people of America can relate to Palin's family.  They're real, they're genuine, they're human, and they care about everyday issue Americans face.

Then there's Sarah Palin's husband, who allegedly received a DUI when he was 22 years old.  The media pounced on this one, though they don't want to talk about Obama's own admission of using cocaine in Dreams of My Father (source 2).  It's ok to talk about Palin's husband, and his past from over 20 years ago, but let's just forget about Obama's past, shall we?  Not to mention his questionable associations with William Ayres, Tony Rezco, and 20 years under Jeremiah Wright. Seems fair to me.

Lastly there's the issue of experience.  Somehow it makes sense to say Obama is qualified with less than 200 days in the U.S. Senate, and 8 years in the Illinois State Senate....most of which was spent with a voting record of "present" (sources 3 & 4).  Oh yeah, lets not forget about his days as a Community Organizer where he squandered over $110 million, according to internal and external audits (source 5).  Yet Palin's experience is not enough for those on the left, with more years in elected office than Obama, and having actually been in an executive, decision making position.  Palin has done more in 2 years for the people of Alaska (and subsequently the people of America in her fight for energy independence) than Obama has done in his entire political career.  Under her leadership, Alaska invested $5 billion in state savings, overhauled education funding, and implemented the Senior Benefits Program that provides support for low-income older Alaskans. She created Alaska’s Petroleum Systems Integrity Office to provide oversight and maintenance of oil and gas equipment, facilities and infrastructure, and the Climate Change Subcabinet to prepare a climate change strategy for Alaska (source 6).  Not to mention her action to take on corruption, even in her own party, stand up to big oil companies, and lower property taxes for Alaskans. Her accomplishments speak for themselves. No wonder she has one of the highest approval ratings in the country (source 7).

So go right ahead, those of you who want to attack Palin on these issues.
It's pretty entertaining for those of us who have a brain.

source 1:  http://gov.state.ak.us/archive-32504.html
source 2:  http://www.mapinc.org/newsnorml/v03/n1786/a06.html
source 3:  http://www.newshorn.com/forums/viewthread/22237/
source 4:  http://www.newsweek.com/id/142892
source 5 (audio): http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5&ContentGuid=99180c58-a1a8-4d0c-baa9-909dc132014e
source 6:  http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.php
source 7: http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/story/8931698p-8831940c.html & http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288722,00.html


*Aaron is a graduate of the University of North Texas where he earned a BBA in Marketing. He currently works in the financial industry, servicing financial advisors. He has a passion to write about politics, religion, personal values, and finding purpose and balance in life.

Sexuality is certainly a hot topic of our day. In fact, one must be very careful when expressing opinion on this issue due to the political correctness of our society. Not that there’s anything wrong with being politically correct, so long as it does not keep us from discussing and addressing real issues, which so often times is avoided. In this column I hope to provide a new and deeper perspective for those who have written off homosexuality as mere sexual preference or inherited genetics. 

The truth is, when you look deeply into the lives of those who have embraced homosexuality, you generally find one common ingredient in their life experiences….hurt. When you couple hurt (deep-seated hurt) with twisted views of the masculine and feminine roles, you end up with men and women confused in their identity, and ultimately their sexual preference. What do I mean confused in their identity? When a man doesn’t think he’s a real man you have a problem. When a woman doesn’t believe she was born to be feminine there’s an identity issue. How does this all start? Well it usually begins at a very young age. A young boy, for example, may grow up with a distant or abusive father. His father may never encourage him or validate him as a man, so he begins to find his place among the women. They make him feel valuable. On top of that, if daddy doesn’t validate his manhood, he will always question his masculinity, even if it is only subconsciously. Of course, in some cases, that will actually drive the boy to try to be overly masculine….get in lots of fights, be extremely aggressive, seek his identity in physical strength, etc. But in many cases it drives him away from masculinity. In the book Wild at Heart, John Eldridge brilliantly discusses the inherent need for a man to feel like a man. All men are born with a built-in desire to be strong, courageous, and heroic. Why do you think little boys are constantly found playing such games as ‘cops and robbers’ or ‘Cowboys and Indians’? Why are men enthralled with war movies that are full of violence, struggle, and ultimately victory? Why are we so easily absorbed in sports like football or ultimate fighting? We crave courage, we desire honor, and we idolize heroism. We have an inherent need to feel masculine….to feel strong…..to feel like we’re a man. When that is taken away from a boy at a very young age, it alters his entire view of himself and the world around him. A neglectful or abusive father is all it takes to start a boy down the path of doubting his masculinity, and ultimately trying to find it in another man. This is also the reason that many men who have come out of the homosexual lifestyle did so with the help of straight men who were willing to befriend them. They saw the man under the surface, hidden behind the hurt and confused image of himself, and they validated his masculinity. 

The same is true of women. They have a need to feel feminine and beautiful, and that femininity (and beauty) must be validated from a very young age. Again, abusive or neglectful parents, particularly the father, can launch the course to a confused self-image. Many times (not every time, but often) when you find a woman who “came out”, you will also find she had an abusive dad and a weak mom. Dad was horrible, angry and abused her or her mother, and mother wasn’t strong or brave enough to ever confront him. As a result, in her mind, if being feminine means being weak, she doesn’t want to be feminine. The reality is, being feminine does not mean being weak by any means. There is great strength in femininity. But our experiences as we grow up in life have such a profound effect on us. This is also why so many homosexual women have deep-seated bitterness towards men. They’ve been hurt. You very rarely, if ever, find a ‘daddy’s girl’ that ends up being homosexual. Rather you find the ‘daddy’s girl’ wants to find a good young man to marry that reminds her of dad. So in the same case as men, many times the root for women is also hurt, coupled with a confused perspective of masculinity and femininity.

Now am I saying these are the only roots of homosexuality? Not at all. There are people who have grown up in healthy families and have healthy self-images, but for various reasons or circumstances, ended up embracing the homosexual lifestyle. For some the issue is just getting too close to unsafe environments. If you play with fire you will get burned. Hanging out with a homosexual friend at a gay bar because you’re trying to be a good friend and show you’re not threatened by his lifestyle is a very dangerous thing. Our environment is powerful. As is what we put before our eyes. Sometimes addiction to pornography ends in a twist you don’t see coming. What’s my point? When you have a healthy self-image and understand your masculinity or femininity, don’t play around with anything that could pervert that. What?! How dare you use the word perversion! Are you saying that homosexuality is a perverted form of sexuality?! To be clear, yes I am. If men are born with an inherent need to be and feel masculine, and women are born with an inherent need to feel feminine, any alteration in that is indeed a perversion. Many will argue that, if you’re gay, you were “just born that way”. This actually brings up a good point. Some boys will naturally be less aggressive and seem less masculine than others. The same with girls. Some girls will naturally be tom-boys while others are Barbie. This is not to be confused with their true sexuality and identity. This doesn’t change the fact that boys still desire to be seen as strong, courageous and heroic, no matter how non-aggressive or non-masculine they may seem. It doesn’t change the fact that every girl wants to be beautiful and desired as a treasure by a handsome, heroic prince. Where do you think the whole princess and knight in shining armor notion came from? Every young girl wants to be a beautiful princess, and every boy wants to be a warrior that gets the girl (once they get past the ‘girls have cooties stage’ of course). That healthy fantasy only gets twisted by hurtful experiences, confusing perceptions of masculinity and femininity, and an ever growing convoluted message of sexuality presented by the media and society in general.

  In essence, men were meant to be men….strong, courageous, heroic. Women were meant to be women….feminine, caring, beautiful.

Some of us really stress ourselves out trying to decide what we really want to do in life.  What career path to take, what city to live in, what house to buy, who to marry, how to make our lives something of significance… I certainly am no exception. And with the way our society idolizes success, it’s very easy to make success the pursuit, rather than purpose or significance. We so quickly can find ourselves chasing dollar signs, fame, or simply feelings of happiness instead of living for a deeper purpose. Not that having money, being famous, or having a temporary feeling of happiness is a bad thing…but if there’s no purpose behind it, it still leaves us empty. Just look at the rich and famous who are no longer with us because of taking their own lives. They had money, they had fame, but they obviously didn’t feel their life was worth anything.

The level of happiness, or fulfillment, we find in success will be limited to the amount of significance we feel in what we do.

We’ve probably all fallen into the trap of chasing a good thing for the wrong reason. If, for example, I have a friend that is very successful financially in selling insurance, I might be tempted to try my hand at selling insurance as well. But if my only motivation is the money I see my friend making, and I’m not doing it because I really believe in getting insurance to people, then my happiness (or fulfillment) in that career will be very short-lived, if I experience any at all. In fact, it could turn out to be quite a miserable experience. Some of you have been there and know exactly what I’m talking about. If, however, I discover something I truly believe in and enjoy doing, I’ve found a key to tapping into true fulfillment in life. Through my own experiences, and learning from those who have gone before me, I’ve found that it’s wisdom to do only what I have a vision and a passion for. Ultimately, the greatest fulfillment we can find is in doing something we love and changing someone’s life for the better in the process. Whether it’s through business, music, journalism, charity, teaching, raising a family, or any other means we may choose. Our pursuit should not be for success alone, but for purpose. The pursuit of purpose naturally breeds success.  Then we can find fulfillment in what we do in life.

Do only what you have a vision and a passion for.

For years the argument over abortion has been about legality: does the government have the right to tell a woman (or young girl in many cases) what she can and cannot do with the developing fetus in her body? Frankly I don't see this argument coming to rest anytime soon. Furthermore, we are expected to choose sides, and the longer the argument goes on, the more extreme the two sides become. I believe we're wasting time and energy on the wrong issue. The issue is not legality. The issue is education. That may sound a little odd at first, but hear me out. Many girls would never consider entering an abortion clinic until something unexpected happens. They're young, they're scared. They don't know what their options are. They don't fully comprehend the process and what the possible after-effects will be. Granted some do, but I would argue that's a minute percentage. Research has shown the after-effects of an abortion can be traumatic, both physically and emotionally.  Because of what is physically done to their body in the process, they may have problems with childbearing in the future*. Many have also shown to experience severe depression, guilt, and other emotional and psychological after-effects*. What I am proposing is this: Women should be fully educated before stepping into an abortion clinic, so they understand the full and complete process, as well as the possible physical and emotional after-effects. Envision a class, similar to a drivers-ed class, where there is an instructor and/or video presentation. The presentation should not show any political bias, but rather focus only on facts. The class would cover the following:

1)       The actual procedure they will experience in the abortion clinic (what will physically be done with their bodies, the machinery used, safety, concerns, etc)

2)       The possible physical after-effects (based on experiences of women in the past). Not everyone's experience is the same, so multiple testimonies/experiences should be discussed.

3)       The possible emotional repercussions (based on experiences of women in the past). Again, not everyone's experience is the same, so multiple testimonies/experiences should be discussed.

4)       Other options available

I want to take a second to highlight that last point. There was someone very close to me that had gone through with an abortion several years ago. Her story is actually very common among so many of these young girls. The whole thing started by a mistake. She was embarrassed, she was scared, and she didn't know what her options were. She knew she didn't have the capability to raise the baby on her own because of her financial situation, family situation, etc. She also, however, did not realize that there is a waiting list for couples that want to adopt infants. She thought her only options were to have the baby and subject it to a very difficult life, have the baby and give it to an orphanage, or get an abortion. She didn't realize that millions of couples were waiting in line to adopt an infant**. This is something that many of these young girls don't know, and should therefore be part of the education process. 

Once these girls are completely and fully educated (again, simply with the facts and other women's personal experiences) they are free to make their own decision. The only difference is, now they are making an educated decision. They know what the procedure is on their body, they know the possible repercussions both physically and emotionally, and they know all of their options. If, after being fully educated, they decide they still want to go through with the abortion, that's their prerogative. They're going into it fully comprehending what they're doing, and fully prepared for any possible repercussions.