Category Archives: Conservative Books

Thought Police Recruiting !

PCpolice

I love receiving emails from people responding to issues posted on my website, both positive and negative. Some pieces are written by fellow hosts, bloggers and other writers, but all are issues worth discussing.

I recently posted one about the “birther” issue. There are still investigations as to President Obama’s birthplace. The only people who accept 100 percent that Obama is hiding nothing about his birth, his school years, and his true love for this country are the ones who think right-wing, Bible-believing, conservatives like me should not have the right to freedom of speech simply because we don’t think like them.

Yup. The “thought police” are out in force. One of these thought police actually posted on Facebook that I was racist, and the single, simple proof was that I questioned this president’s birthplace.

The logic of the left always astounds me. Would that same conclusion hold true if the president were white? The educated left doesn’t need dictionaries or thesauruses because words mean only what they want them to mean. Period.

The dictionary defines racism as: 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others; 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination; 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Is the poster saying that my questioning the president’s birthplace suggests I think I am superior to him? That’s a bit of a stretch. Or maybe the poster is saying that by my suggesting we talk about some new “facts” on the issue, it could expose that Obama may or may not be who he says he is, and might be my attempt (again) to show my superiority over his race? (Yes, that’s sarcasm.) Another stretch if you ask me.

And if all else fails, my posting the piece surely shows I hate or am intolerant of the black race, because if you haven’t noticed, the president is black, even though he works so hard to hide that fact. (Yes, more sarcasm.) And here I thought we were all part of the human race.

This is exactly how the left wins arguments, especially those in the herd who are weaker. Most people just want to live their lives, go to work, feed their families and enjoy the fruits of their labor. Old and treasured values of being an American. My grandfather, a Democrat, my dad, a Democrat, my uncle, a Democrat (he died a few years ago and has still been voting Democrat, I’m sure) – all had spirited conversations about politics and religion with people of many colors, origins, religions and political persuasions, but they never walked away from each other hating the thoughts of the other or feeling bad about what they discussed.

I grew up in the state that gave us Kennedy, Tip O’Neil, Dukakis and other famous libs.

Sunday morning church for most was coffee, a cigarette, the Boston Globe, and good, spirited political conversation. No words like bigot, racist or blank-a-phobe were part of the conversation. They treasured open, honest conversation.

Today the party, and many of the people of the “big tent” group, have spawned the PC and thought police.

Wanna start a fight? In my day, it was just looking at your foe and saying, “Hey. Your mamma wears Army boots.” The gloves were off and fists were flying, because those were fighting words.

Today, the enlightened left will call you a hater, ignorant, bigot, racist and a blank-a-phobe for saying things like, “The president has no foreign policy plan,” “The president has failed to protect our soldiers overseas,” “I don’t see what a man sees in another man,” “I get a little uneasy when I see a group of ‘Muslim’-looking men getting on a plane with me,” “Obamacare is a disaster” or “You need God.” Any one of these statements, and even less, could get you in a heap of trouble.

Yes, the thought police will jump all over you like “white on rice.” (Is that politically incorrect or insensitive? Whatever.) They have more and more volunteers on social media sites. Why? Because it doesn’t take any guts to fight and call someone names on social media. It’s easy, and they like easy. That’s why they are looking for volunteers.

Our Founding Fathers had heated and long, drawn-out debates over many issues in the formation of this country. Over the years, people on many political sides of the aisle have had deep and heated conversations over issues of the day. But the current level of attack by the left on all speech that isn’t “liberal speech” is ridiculous.

Hey, thought police. Get out your “tongue cuffs,” because you’re waking a sleeping giant. Many Christian conservatives are waking up and seeing how dangerous you people are. Yes, I said “you people.” The ones who think having a non-liberal vocabulary makes me a hater. You people who think every criticism of the president could only be because I’m a racist. (God forbid he might actually be capable of doing something wrong.)

You people who think that because some of us don’t want a runaway healthcare plan that takes care of people who are here illegally, mooching off the system, we must be racist. (Because only non-whites mooch the system? That just shows your true ignorance.)

You people who think that because some of us want the borders secure so we can actually get our economy and national security under control must mean I’m a racist because, obviously, I’m trying to keep Hispanics out. Not because drugs, guns, criminals and terrorists (from many countries) are crossing the border. Only American-loving Hispanics who want a better life for their families cross illegally, right? If you buy into that, I’ve got a bridge I want to sell you.


Read more at http://therealside.com/2014/06/thought-police-recruiting/#tvJqC3t4Xtlyxsg9.99

One Nation Under God?

OneNationUnderGod

KATY, Texas, April 9, 2014 /Christian Newswire/ — Is the United States still one nation under God?

This is the vital question asked by Richard Capriola in his book, “A Nation Under Judgment.”

Using his signature style Capriola outlines our nation’s social polices and contrasts them with what he believes is God’s point of view from Scripture. Reviewing polices such a hunger, poverty, homelessness, the environment and marriage, Capriola challenges readers to examine these polices and compare them to God’s perspective.

“What does it mean to be one nation under God?” Capriola asks his readers. “Do the words have value only in time of national crises?” He explains, “Our Founding Fathers believed the words were more than a political slogan. Have we strayed from their vision?”

Capriola explains the purpose of his book: “I want it to be a thought provoking journey that empowers readers to decide for themselves if our nation is moving away from God’s point of view when crafting social polices.” He outlines the history of nations that have strayed from God’s point of view and faced judgment and asks readers to consider if our nation is heading in the same direction.

Early reviews for the book have been impressive. For example, Heather Randall, CEO of Christian Women Affiliate said its “Well researched and Scripturally based.” She added: “A Nation Under Judgment seeks to be a catalyst for inspiring believers toward deeper biblical thought regarding social policy.”

Dolores Liesner, a reviewer for Christian Women Affiliate wrote, “Every legislator, and every believer, apologetic, preacher and evangelist needs this resource on their shelves.”

A Nation Under Judgment is published by Mill City Press and is available on Amazon. The book’s website contains a book trailer:
www.anationunderjudgment.com

How Close Is America To A Second Civil War?

book

bookA new novel analyzes how our current bitter political divisions could easily spill into armed conflict—and the horrifying reality of “brother fighting brother.”

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — “Hardcore socialist takeover”…”Right Wing Neanderthals”…” Impeach Obama”…”Wall Street…the reigning American crime syndicate.”

Bitter and unrestrained politic rhetoric like this hasn’t been heard in America for decades—some say not since the turbulent years leading to the attack on Fort Sumter and a conflict that took 620,000 lives. Recession, unemployment, revelations of government surveillance, lies, cover-ups, and bare-knuckle tactics over health care reform have led some Americans to believe it’s time to take up arms–echoing Thomas Jefferson’s timeless reminder that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

J. D. Ludwig, a former Army medic, has witnessed the very human tragedy of combat. Better than most, he knows that war is not the glamorous and heroic affair we see on television and in movies, but a terrible juggernaut that–once begun–would leave soldiers, civilians, and our nation itself with deep wounds that could take decades to heal. In his debut novel Overreach: Blood of Patriots, Ludwig takes the anger, fear, and political division we can all see in today’s headlines and then “war-games” the horrors that would result if restraint and reason give way to blind extremism on both sides.

  • A president, beset by political scandal and convinced of the nation’s desperate need for change, takes a desperate gamble—using the military and executive powers of the government to eliminate his opposition and achieve total control.
  • As a peaceful demonstration descends into mass murder, a brave senator defies political blackmail and personal disgrace to warn the nation of the coming coup.
  • The president plunges the nation into darkness, cutting off power and communications to thwart resistance until he can solidify his control.
  • It falls to one man, retired Special Forces Colonel Ty Denham, to take action–desperately hoping that the power of personal honor and a deep devotion to this nation’s guiding principles will inspire his countrymen to take up arms and fight for their most basic rights and freedoms.
  • The book follows men and women across the country as they choose sides and deal with the chaos and shortages of a shattered infrastructure, and culminates in a accurate portrayal of the best-equipped military forces in the world—Americans all—facing each other in pitched battle where their ancestors fought over a hundred and fifty years ago.

Ludwig comments, “At first, I was reluctant to consider what I’ve explored in this book, but with all the wild rhetoric and sabre rattling we’re hearing from both sides, it seemed to me far better to fight this war in a fictional world—and hope that the reader can grasp the reality of bullets and bloodshed we could be facing in the very near future.”

This is not a dry exercise in political theory—the characters are fully drawn individuals with strong beliefs, honest dreams, and inevitable human weaknesses who find themselves thrust into a crisis they neither sought nor desired. The result, as one reviewer called it, is “a gripping tale of courage, sacrifice, and patriotism that explores the unthinkable.”

Blood of Patriots is the first novel in the Overreach trilogy, to be followed by Blood of Tyrants, and Tree of Liberty.

Overreach: Blood of Patriots by J. D. Ludwig; Ludwig and Son; Fiction; Soft Cover 978-1494387648 $21.95; eBook 978-0-9911972-0-0 $9.95

Availability: iBookstore, Amazon, Amazon Europe, CreateSpace eStore, eBook for Kindle, Barnes and Noble, Nook by Barnes and Noble, Sony Reader Store, Kobo, Copia, Gardners Books, Baker & Taylor, eBookPie, e Sentral, Scribd, Page Pusher

Author: J. D. Ludwig served in the United States Army from 1976 to 1979. He received combat medic training at Ft. Sam Houston in Texas and was stationed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. After leaving active duty, J. D. enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard and served as assistant battalion surgeon for the 1st of the 115th Infantry. He and his wife, Sally, an Army nurse who retired as a lieutenant colonel, spent many years working and raising their six children on bases in Hawaii andTexas before settling in rural Maryland where J. D. has worked for more than thirty years in the commercial real estate industry. He has held several international leadership positions, won numerous awards, and is a Trustee Emeritus for a Washington, D.C. graduate school that teaches statecraft, diplomacy, and national security.   

www.jdludwig.com

Dr. Michael Savage: An Authentic Conservative Voice Crying Out in the Progressive Wilderness

Savage and Teddy

Savage and Teddy

Being an authentic conservative often means standing outside the inner-circle where conservatives should stand together fighting the progressives destroying America and the Constitution.

Dr. Michael Savage understands the alienation and fight better than anyone in radio and print news. He’s banned from entering Great Britain and placed on a terror-watch list for excising non-violent free speech.  Savage has never called for the killing of Muslims and gays.

I’m not sure if being banned from a country where people boil everything they eat and everyone marries their cousin is punishment.

The lack of camaraderie has been wielded against Dr. Michael Savage often. I still wonder where conservatives were when Savage was banned from entering the UK? Why weren’t fellow radio hosts screaming “this is a violation of free speech” and “If this can happen to Savage, it can happen to all of us!”

The fact is, authentic conservatives like Savage, working to restore our Constitutional Republic from socialism overrunning this nation into a soft-communist malaise, are trashed by the Left and Republican elites (who became Democrats for minority vote-grabbing) saving the can and kicking the Tea Party down the road.

I believe moderate Republicans (Democrats in cheap GOP suits) are fearful of Savage’s voice: Heavens! He might offend the people conservatives must stand up against and expose—Islam and illegal aliens—rather than trying to appease America’s greatest threats so the party can say “see, we’re really not racists.”

If you’re conservative, you will be deemed racist no matter what, so why waste time appeasing voters who disdain traditional values and the Constitution, and why pander to the Left that invents non-existent hate for profit?

Savage does not, that’s why he’s popular with millions of Americans:

People listen to me to get a different point of view.

 

Savage doesn’t douse his words in political PCP and wrap his views in Reince Priebus’s pink panties in order to pander to leftists who deserve a good kick in the political ass for destroying this nation from within.

Sugar-coating turns Americans off. People want reason with blunt honesty. For heaven’s sake, we are not Europe, despite what Democrats would have you think! This is America, the land of cowboys!

Have any of you ever seen a French cowboy?

Did that mental image scare any of you out of this Euro-Statist coma we are in?

In his best-seller Trickle Down Tyranny, Savage demonstrates how Lenin’s Statism is Obama’s vision for America:

[Lenin] thought that a nation could only grow more prosperous when it was controlled by a vanguard, an elite…No more haves and have-nots. No more private property. Only boundless prosperity. All Russia had to do was transfer its entire wealth to Lenin’s elite. The Leninist vision  had terrible consequences. If you didn’t want to relinquish your property, Leninists would take it.

Expansive government says “get sick and you are on your own without government, you’ll have to depend on yourself if you don’t have government to feed and cloth you!” But isn’t that what Americans know to be the best success–self-reliance without government dependence?

Savage points out:

Like the Leninists elite, they’ve [Soros, Obama, progressives, the EU] conned the world into believing that they’re looking after the interests of ‘the people’ when in fact they’re in the process of seizing control of the world’s financial assets at the people’s expense.

We’ve allowed everything we disdain to seize control. We put America’s interests last and our enemies first. Conservatives stopped fighting GOP interests while our economy crumbles and money is lost to our enemies.

Going along for the cause is Progressive. Even when it sticks like hard, raw peanut butter on their tonsils, leftists would rather die than admit Islam is evil and breeds terrorists and illegals are “turning the melting pot into a chamber pot.”

Note to Leftists and moderate Republicans: The chamber pot is not something California Food Stamp surfers smoke in the judge’s office. But you would have to read one of Dr. Savage’s many medical books to understand that.

Savage is unafraid to address the trampling of God and Biblical core values our founders upheld and practiced–absolute laws. Savage calls out the activist Supreme Court judges and those communist inbreed “Dogs of Hate” are abolishing our Judeo-Christian heritage with authorized Statist “Religion-Free Zones” in our schools.

 Dr. Savage believes in national sovereignty and is not afraid to admit it: Sovereignty is national pride, something American’s have been taught to hate, because Hitler, a leftist, misused nationalism for destructive means as all progressives do.

Our nation is threatened from within by leftists and moderate Republicans forging socialist deals with Democrats recreating a newly ordered American society like the European Union:

[O]ur federal officials seem to be allies of those international forces who would override our democracy…The emergence of an international social liberalism, which is at its core soft-communism, is a very real threat to the sovereignty of our nation. Forces from within and without our country continue to try and tell us that we are out of step with the rest of the world. The “sophisticated” Europeans laugh at us for our naiveté and our clinging to religion and family values. These Euro-socialists and their American counterparts see a terrible beauty struggling to be born, a beauty that would like to sweep away our dying civilization and bring us into an unbrave new world.

 

Let those vaporized “Aunt Pitty Pats” laugh at us! Who cares if we conservatives stand on the outside because we believe Americans should speak Standard English, illegal aliens should be deported, and Mitt Romney lost the election because 1. He’s a Democrat, and 2. If Democrats wanted a woman on their ballot, they would have put Hillary on the ticket!  

This is why people listen to the Savage Nation: Honesty. If Republicans spoke like Michael Savage, Democrats would put a fork in themselves.

In Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Dr. Savage spoke directly to liberals of something that now screams loudly of modern-day Republicans:

In the end, your tolerance of the intolerable is actually reflection of your loss of clarity; your tolerance of virtually everything and your “anything goes” attitude is not a mark of liberalism, it’s a mark of the degeneration of your ability to judge anything.

 

Furthermore:

While the left is marshalling their battalions to assault the pillars of America, the right is disorganized and provides little national leadership.

 

Conservatives, don’t let the GOP Machine and its supporters silence, gag, and shut out those defending our nationalism and liberty. As Joseph Farah says: “If we don’t all hang together, as they say, we’ll all hang separately.”

Stand up like Michael Savage and let progressives know what we patriots will do to them and their polices: Disorganize them with our battalions of liberty.

 

The Constitution – I’m Not Kidding!

theconstitution

theconstitution
Curtice Mang has an interesting sense of humor. He is not crass like a Todd Kincannon, and is not utterly dismissive of liberals like Kurt Schlichter. However, in his book The Constitution – I’m Not Kidding! And Other Tales of Liberal Folly, Mang places the follies of liberal policies in simplistic terms that can leave any conservative ready to deal with dimwitted progressives at will. Whether it’s dealing with the attitude of entitlement, justification of pork barrel spending, climate change loons, or insane foreign policy choices, there is something for conservatives to hurl back at progressives.

One point that Mang makes early on in his book – in the Introduction no less – is something that should resonate with any conservative that has been faced with dealing with the questionable logic of liberals when it comes to government in general:

It is more important to be earnest, to care, to “do something.” A typical liberal solution goes something like this:

  • a. A perceived problem is identified;
  • b. Pass legislation addressing the perceived problem;
  • c. New legislation either does not solve perceived problem or creates new, unintended problem(s);
  • d. Repeat b and c.
  • The book, of course is titled after Nancy Pelosi’s historic nonsensical speech about having to pass Obamacare to know what’s in it, and that is the topic of the first chapter. Of course, that details the ridiculous stupidity of progressives today, describing how they either believe that healthcare must be more complex than creating a whole new form of government. Or you can take the colossally stupid explanation for why the Affordable Care Act is so long in comparison with the Constitution and the Federalist Papers combined – the legislation was double-spaced.

    But Mang does not restrict himself to the stupidity of liberals when it comes to the Constitution, of course. He covers several other topics, including the ones already listed, plus a few others including Gitmo and Joe Biden. Throughout, there are footnotes of a sort, but most of them are personal asides, or sports trivia. While it is not a compilation of “zingers”, it definitely can be the inspiration for many, given the right circumstances. It is an enjoyable read, and definitely is more amusing than watching Piers Morgan try to match wits with… well… anyone.

    Book Review: Sun Tzu and the Art of Modern Warfare

    Last month, I read a brilliant and edifying book by Mark McNeilly titled Sun Tzu and the Art of Modern Warfare. Although it was published in 2003, regrettably, I had not heard of it (or of McNeilly himself) until last year, and did not pay much attention to Sun Tzu and his work (The Art of War) until last year, either. Once I did start paying attention to him and had read his work – which was a short but illuminating read which changed the way I think about military affairs – I had learned a lot. And once McNeilly’s book was delivered to me, I began reading it and finished the read in 2 days.

    A native of Chicago, Mark McNeilly is a former US Army infantry captain, a graduate of the 101st Division’s Airborne Assault School, a former strategist for a major global corporation, and now an adjunct professor at the University of Northern Carolina (UNC). As such, he has had ample time to study The Art of War and think about it, and through that process he has found what he believes are the six most important principles taught by Sun Tzu in his ancient masterpiece. The purpose of McNeilly’s book is to demonstrate these principles (as well as others laid out in The Art of War), how they fit together, how they apply to warfare (past, present, and future), and to illustrate these principles with historical examples. This is because every theory is worthless if real world practice proves it to be wrong. Sun Tzu’s principles have been put to a test numerous times, and usually (though not always) were proven right.

    The book is organized into seven chapters. The first six deal with each of Sun Tzu’s six key principles:

    1) Win All Without Fighting: Achieving the objective without destroying it;

    2) Avoid Strength, Attack Weakness: Striking where the enemy is must vulnerable

    3) Deception and Foreknowledge: Winning the information war

    4) Speed and Preparation: Moving swiftly to overcome resistance

    5) Shaping the Enemy: Preparing the battlefield

    6) Character-Based Leadership: Leading by example

    The seventh chapter explains how to apply these principles in the future and thus how to prepare the US military for the wars of the future.

    The first chaper, Win All Without Fighting, teaches the important principle of “achieving the objective without destroying it”, that is, winning without firing a shot if possible, and if not possible, winning with the least possible destruction to one’s own military, the country being attacked, and its civilian population, and at the least possible fiscal, material, and human cost. Here, McNeilly, like Sun Tzu, challenges the conventional wisdom that one should do as much damage to a hostile country and its civilian population as possible. McNeilly shows that such policy, regardless of whether it’s moral, is counterproductive: it dramatically reduces the value of what you’re invading while engendering the hostility of the targeted country’s population (to say nothing of its political class) and sets the stage for more conflict down the road. And it does nothing to achieve victory, for, in war, killing enemies or destroying their country is not the goal; indeed, killing enemies is only the means, and not necessarily the best means.

    The second chapter counsels military leaders to attack the enemy where he’s weakest: the weakest sections of a front, the least-defended site, city or province, the weakest wing/flank of an army, etc. Naval commanders, instead of trying to wage a headfirst battle with an enemy navy, should attempt to wage unconventional warfare by e.g. cutting the hostile country off its sources of supplies by controlling the sealanes on which it depends, as the US did against Japan during WW2. Again, McNeilly, like Sun Tzu, challenges conventional wisdom here, including Clausewitz’s theory that one should try to engineer a decisive battle (Hauptschlacht) with the enemy.

    The third chapter deals with the all-important issues of deception and foreknowledge; and as spies are needed for both, McNeilly cites Sun Tzu’s advice on these and explains how to apply it. He also gives historical examples of victors fooling their enemies of their intentions while gaining great insight into their enemies’ minds.

    Chapter four deals with the necessity to attack, fight, and win quickly, not slowly, to overcome resistance as well as gain and maintain momentum (like water). The classic example McNeilly uses to illustrate this is Germany’s successful invasion of France. He’s right; Heinz Guderian, the inventor of Blitzkrieg, said that a tank’s engine is worth as much as its gun.

    Chapter five reminds military leaders not to allow their enemies to shape them, and to shape the enemy instead: hold out baits, fool them, lead them into fields unfavorable to them, annoy their leaders if they are of choleric temper, etc. This also involves building, maintaining, and when the right time comes, dissolving alliances, as well as choosing the right allies and avoiding entanglements with the wrong ones. It also involves offering the enemy a face-saving way out of a war to avoid further conflict. Here, McNeilly makes a credible claim that the Allies should’ve offered Germany a face-saving peace if the Wehrmacht would topple Hitler and the Nazis and give up Western Europe. That would’ve allowed a lot of bloodshed and destruction while resulting in Hitler’s toppling (which German officers tried to do anyway) and Germany turning against the Soviet Union.

    Chapter six shows how military leaders should lead by example. As McNeilly rightly says, “Leadership starts at the top and both good and poor examples of leadership trickle all the way down the chain of command.” McNeilly also deals with caring for, disciplining, rewarding, and punishing the troops, among other issues.

    The book is, overall, a great work. It makes a strong, convincing case and backs it up well. McNeilly has, in my opinion, succeeded in making Sun Tzu’s work more readable and accessible to 21st century readers by explaining how Sun Tzu’s principles should be applied, especially WRT the six most important ones, which he explains in great detail and illustrates with germane, interesting historical examples from many different eras.

    However, the book is not without flaws. And by that, I don’t even mean the few spelling mistakes that are here and there (e.g. “Clauswitz” instead of “Clausewitz”), but far more important issues.

    Firstly, while the author underlines how pointless wars of attrition and headfirst attacks on the enemy are, he nonetheless fails to acknowledge that the Allies’ campaign against Nazi Germany was such a campaign throughout WW2. The Allies did implement some of Sun Tzu’s advice – as McNeilly documents – but despite the deception, the foreknowledge, and knowledge of daily weather patterns, the invasion of Normandy was nonetheless a headfirst attack and a huge blunder. Although the Allies were eventually victorious, they met fierce German resistance and suffered serious losses (about 30,000 men KIA, over 200,000 troops wounded, thousands of others missing). The Allies eventually liberated France and won WW2, of course – but only through their sheer advantage in numbers, not due to any strategic genius or implementation of Sun Tzu’s advice.

    In fact, had the Allies TRULY listened to Sun Tzu’s advice, they would not have invaded northern France directly – that is exactly the kind of a head-on assault that Master Sun always counseled against. They would’ve instead invaded Italy and then the Balkans, advancing to Germany through Austria and liberating Central Europe as well. Thus, they would’ve won with far fewer casualties, far fewer destruction, faster, and without suffering a suprise German counterattack such as the Ardennes Offensive. Moreover, they would’ve significantly limited the Soviets’ conquests. France would be liberated afterwards, eastwards from an occupied Germany.

    Churchill advocated such an invasion, as he wanted to win the war as easily as possible and to limit Soviet conquests. However, President Roosevelt was utterly naive about the USSR and Joseph Stalin, and refused to do anything that might upset the Soviets, and thus, he and Stalin insisted on a landing in France. Normandy was thus chosen as the landing site for purely political reasons.

    McNeilly also wrongly claims that Germany made a mistake by invading Poland. However, it wasn’t a mistake. Although France and Britain did declare war on Germany over Poland, they did nothing effective to help Warsaw, or the Lower Countries and Denmark, when invaded by Germany. Furthermore, the Germans, as McNeilly documents, won overwhelmingly in France, while the British and General de Gaulle’s men were forced to withdraw to Britain. Soon after, the UK itself came under German bombardment. London then made the mistake of rejecting repeated German peace overtures.

    Last but not least, there are a few things which I believe McNeilly should’ve said but didn’t. Firstly, he doesn’t provide much advice on how to use Sun Tzu’s advice to counter the growing Chinese military threat. Secondly, he does not acknowledge (nor deny) that WW2 and the Civil War were also wars of attrition in which even the winners, including the US and the USSR in WW2, paid a heavy price for victory.

    Thirdly, McNeilly does not account for the few cases where a leader went against Sun Tzu’s advice and won anyway. For example, during the Battle of Austerlitz, when Coalition troops went down from the Pratzen Heights to attack French Marshal Davout’s divisions, Marshal Davout decided to oppose and stop them – and won despite his troops being outnumbered 4:1. Sun Tzu wrote that if your enemy is charging downhill, you should never oppose him – but Davout did oppose the enemy and won anyway. How does McNeilly explain that?

    Nonetheless, McNeilly’s book was a quick, enjoyable, and fascinating read from which I have learned much. Having already read Sun Tzu’s Art of War several months prior, I now have read a book which nicely explains his work and applies it to past and future wars alike. It’s well-researched, well-written, interesting, and instructive about the past and potentially the future alike. I would give it a 9/10 rating.

    CORRECTION: While the title of Sun Tzu’s original treatise was indeed The Art of War, Mark McNeilly’s book is titled Sun Tzu and the Art of Modern Warfare (emphasis mine).

    January Book Pick: Evan Sayet’s ‘Kindergarden of Eden’

    Kindergarden of Eden

    Kindergarden of EdenThe late, great Andrew Breitbart once described  comedian Evan Sayet’s 2007 speech at the Heritage Foundation as “one of the five most important conservative speeches ever given”. Five years later that speech (How Modern Liberal’s Think) continues to receive fresh views. Most recently Sayet has taken the meat of that speech and developed and extended the premise into his first book: The Kindergarden of Eden: How the Modern Liberal Thinks.

    How many times have you, as a conservative/Republican asked yourself, “What’s wrong with these people? How can they think like this? Are they evil or just stupid?” It seems mind-boggling that the same people who claim to stand for the poorest among us support energy policy that makes it nearly impossible for the poor to afford energy in their homes. It’s confusing that a liberal would be so passionate about defending the “environment” that they would sacrifice hundreds of thousands of African lives just to ban DDT- the “miracle” chemical that nearly eradicated malaria, the number one killer in some African nations. A chemical that has to this date not been proven to be environmentally hazardous. It’s certainly no more hazardous than, say….malaria! Sayet lays out a brilliant answer to these questions and others, step by step.

    To help you understand the basics of modern liberal thought, Sayet begins the book with a breakdown of “Laws of Modern Liberalism” and a “Corollary of Modern Liberalism”. According to him, there are 4 laws of modern liberalism:

    1)Indiscriminateness – the total rejection of the intellectual process

    2)Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policies. It leads to siding only and always with the lesser over the better, the wrong over the right, and the evil over the good.

    3)Modern Liberal policies occur in tandem. Each effort on behalf of the lesser is met with an equal and opposite campaign against the better. My footnote – there is no better or more recent example of this immutable “law” than the recent rukkus over frakking. Liberals continue to advocate for the least effective forms of energy (wind, solar, etc.) while actively working to crush one of the most hopeful (and cleanest) forms of energy mining to come along in a long time – frakking.

    4)The modern liberal will ascribe to the better the negative qualities associated with the lesser while concurrently ascribing to the lesser the positive qualities found in the better. My footnote – think Islam as “the religion of peace” versus Christianity as the aggressive and oppressive religion.

    Applauding yet? That’s only the first page!

    The real brilliance in Sayet’s argument comes from the title itself: Kindergarden of Eden. I originally had the author on my radio show to talk about his upcoming book last fall just before the elections. It was then that he explained to me the childlike outlook of liberals and how they not only laud childishness, they advocate for this childish Utopia as a superior form of relating to the world around them:

    “In this Utopia that the True Believer envisions, everyone would be like Adam and Eve in the Garden of                        Eden, or, more precisely the secular version – the five-year-old child in another sort of garden paradise: the kindergarten. according to the True Believer’s Blueprint for Utopia, everyone was to live in total ignorance and therefore (or so the promise went) in total bliss.” 

    And to prove this theory, we are directed towards one of the most influential books in modern liberal thought, “All I Really Need to Know  I Learned in Kindergarten”.  Just days after Sayet shared this theory, the liberal media exploded in panic, ridicule and anger when Mitt Romney (in the first debate with Obama) suggested he would cut funding to PBS. Were liberals angry about the debt, the deficit, rising taxes or how these relate to unnecessary public outlets like PBS? No, their panic and dread was directed toward one subject…Sesame Street. Headlines erupted over Romney’s Big Bird hatred and liberals everywhere were outraged that anyone would consider defunding a children’s show that earns over $200 million/year in sales and copyright revenue. Think about it – most of us grew up with Sesame Street; approximately how old were you when you started moving on from Sesame Street to other interests? I’m guessing it was right around the age of … 5. Exactly the age at which Sayet claims liberals are happy to stop progressing. He nailed it.

    Sayet claims this is only the first written version of his theory. He plans to flesh out more and expand his argument in the future. As thorough and eye-opening as this short but entertaining offering was, there is certainly a lot left to be explored on the topic, and Sayet seems to have proven himself just the man to do it.

    If you’re looking for some new, informational books to put on your must-read list for 2013 I highly recommend you add Mr.Sayet’s book to your collection. It’s a quick read, but entertaining and filled with the “Ahhhhhhh!!!” moments that I search for in my “informational” reading. After reading this book you will come away with a better understanding of liberal thought and activism; ultimately you will be better armed to face the challenges ahead as we try to navigate the next four years under Obama and try to win the country back in some form. We are being overwhelmed, that is for sure. It is disheartening, that is for sure as well. The children are running the daycare center and it’s up to us adults to wrestle back control. To quote Sayet one last time:

    “Today we are at a tipping point where the people of God and science will soon be overwhelmed by the demands of taking care of the permanently infantilized. It is unsustainable. If the system collapses under the weight, the future is not merely a slightly less wonderful existence, it is a return to what life had been like for the overwhelmingly majority of people in all other times and all other places…That life was described by Thomas Hobbes as ‘nasty, brutish, and short. We’re not there yet, but we’re close”.

     

    *Keep your eyes peeled for my next Book of the Month coming in February.

    Crescent Moon Rising: The Islamic Transformation of America

    cmr

    cmrHOUSTON, Jan. 17, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — In 1975, Leo Rosten published his Religions of America, an exhaustive compilation of statistical information on every major and minor group of believers in the country. In retrospect, it may seem surprising that the book contained no discussion of Islam. But this was not an oversight; for at the time Muslims in America were a statistically insignificant minority, numbering fewer than one thousand individuals. By contrast, Islam is today the second-largest and fastest growing religion in America, with more than six million adherents.

    In Crescent Moon Rising (Prometheus Books), journalist Paul L. Williams examines the phenomenal rise of Islam in the United States and discusses its implications.

    In the first half of the book, the author traces the beginnings of Islam in this country, in particular the rise and influence of the Nation of Islam among African Americans. He emphasizes the impact of the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act, which abolished national-origin quotas and led to successive waves of Muslim immigrants, who entered this country from Palestine, Kuwait, Iraq, Southeast Asia, Africa, Turkey, and other parts of the world.

    In the second half, Williams considers statistical studies of American Muslims regarding age groups, family size, professional affiliations, annual income, and religious and political commitments. He also addresses a number of disturbing concerns about some aspects of the Muslim presence in America. These include: the connections between many American mosques with Saudi benefactors who promote an ultra-orthodox, anti-Western agenda; the existence of Muslim paramilitary training grounds recruiting ex-convicts; and the ties of even self-described moderate Muslim spokespersons with more politically radical elements.

    Informative and at times controversial, Crescent Moon Rising clearly shows that Islam will be a force to reckon with for some time in America.

    WHY I AM A CONSERVATIVE

     kirk

    To condense into a short essay the reason I’m a conservative is no mean feat. From my perspective In order to represent my reasoning I need to address not only what it is about conservatism that first captured my attention, but also how I believe that the principles of conservatism best suit humankind’s natural inclinations and that of society as a whole.

    My initial introduction to what conservatism embodies was through Russell Kirk’s magnum opus “The Conservative Mind”. Kirk’s rendering of conservatism’s legacy fascinated me primarily because I found it to be such a noble heritage and I was intrigued by conservatism’s persistent quest for seeking the high moral ground. Kirk’s book was consistent with other works on conservatism I read in their respect for virtue, humility, tradition, and piety grounded in the natural laws of Judeo-Christian beliefs. I found it interesting how those wonderful values are also very much rooted in the formation of local communities that serve as the building blocks for the world’s greatest civilizations, epitomized by America’s founding. I also came to appreciate that conservatism’s respect for ancestral wisdom has served as a guiding principle for leaders from Burke, Washington, Disraeli, and Lincoln to Churchill, Thatcher and Reagan.

    However in keeping with the conservative’s propensity for prudence I’ll do my best to refrain from pontificating too much on conservatism’s rich historical heritage or hazard excluding essential elements. I’ll defer to the more capable writings of doyens such as Kirk or George Nash to impart conservatism’s legacy, or recommend the musings of Hawthorne, Chesterton, Tolkien, Orwell or O’Conner or any of the other many brilliant writers with conservative leanings to express the merits of a conservative mindset through life’s lessons.

    I’ve mentioned the influences that led me to conservatism, but it’s more challenging to express how I actually became a conservative. To read about a philosophy and admire its principles is one thing, but it is altogether different to actually embrace it as a beacon for how one conducts their life. So I feel the best vehicle for articulating that thought is through the metaphor of sports. Now I was never what one would characterize as a magnificent athlete, but I certainly wasn’t a “spaz”. I wasn’t gifted enough to play on any of my high school squads (for the record I vied with 2,500 other boys for spots on the squads), but I played basketball, football and baseball in pickup games on sandlots and playgrounds with passion and verve, savoring the thrills and tribulations of each stretched out triple, missed layup or Hail Mary reception.

    It always appeared to me that athletics represent a microcosm of the qualities necessary to subsist in life. Athletes must develop and hone their skills, be prepared for sacrifice, dedication, self-discipline and exhibit a competitive spirit. Sports also have a communal quality. Coaches, trainers, teammates, family, friends, fans, and even fellow competitors are part of the athlete’s overall community, support system and sphere of influence. Most sports also have time-honored traditions, rules, modes of behavior and conduct that the participants and officials hold in high esteem and are maintained as much as possible in consideration of changing times and events.

    The athlete also has a sense of humility and piety. They realize their gifts are special and more often than not express an appreciation to a higher power for their unique talent. And of course the ultimate goal of any athletic endeavor is the sweet sensation of victory. How many times have we heard the star player humbly declare that they would forego individual accolades for a team championship? This is the attitude of the dedicated competitor who places their team above personal gain, and their individual accomplishments are only fulfilled if their team earns the admiration of their peers as the best in class.

    The attributes of sports are analogous to the values of conservatism on many levels. If we dedicate ourselves to our missions in life, take advantage of our God given talents, respect our fellow man’s person and place, appreciate our obligations to those truly in need, contribute to our community, have a sense of humility, pride and piety, learn lessons from our own decisions and those of other’s, and in the course of life’s journey accumulate some property then, whether we know it or not, we’ve led a life of conservative values. Conservatism, like sports, is the anti-entitlement philosophy. We are only entitled to the spoils of that which we have earned, and respectful of those who endeavor toward greatness.

    Russell Kirk once characterized the conservative life as that which strives to live a life of grace. He wrote, “A poor man, if he has dignity, honesty, the respect of his neighbors, a realization of his duties, a love of the wisdom of his ancestors, and possibly some taste for knowledge or beauty, is rich in the unbought grace of life.” Although I may not always hit Kirk’s marks in how I conduct my own life, I couldn’t craft a better testament as to why I am a conservative.

    FOUNDING FATHERS HAUNT OBAMA

    founding-fathers2

    Founding Fathers Know Best, by Ross Edward Puskar. Hugo House Publishers, 2012 vii + 283 pp., Amazon price $17.95 paperback; $9.95 Kindle.

    Have you ever wondered what America’s founding fathers would say to President Barack Obama? Imagine the rhetorical thunder that would ensue from that clash of philosophies. If you’ve been anxiously awaiting such a meeting then you’re in luck. Ross Edward Puskar brings them together in his book Founding Fathers Know Best.

    Mr. Puskar’s first foray into political fiction cleverly inculcates American history with current events through a literary narrative that pays homage to Dickens A Christmas Carol. In Founding Fathers Know Best there is a club known as the President’s Club. The club is comprised of the spirits of deceased U.S. presidents, and it’s purpose is for the spirits to visit sitting Presidents so that they may impart their wisdom and counsel. As one may surmise the president of the club is George Washington, who personally selects the apparitions that visit each sitting president.

    In the case of President Obama George Washington sends his A-team to visit the White House; the spirits of former presidents Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison. Given President Obama’s vision to transform America through his “hope and change” mantra over the course of seven evenings the three spirits endeavor to remind Mr. Obama of his obligations and responsibilities as president. Mr. Puskar imbues each founder with their own distinct personality as they embroil the President in their evening deliberations.

    The spirits deconstruct for the President the negative impact his domestic and foreign policies have on America’s well being and reinforce to him his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. They educate him on America’s rich, proud heritage and strong moral fabric that has sustained it over troubled times. It’s a tall task for Messrs. Jefferson, Adams and Madison as they each take their turn to convince the obdurate President of his misguided principles and challenge his administration’s integrity.

    Over the course of their seven visitations the three spirits confront President Obama on the gamut of challenges facing his administration from domestic and foreign policy, education, entitlements and unions to race relations, environmental issues, immigration reform, corruption, taxes and leadership qualities. It’s a pressure packed week of give and take as the spiritual incarnations of the founding fathers and the President passionately engage each other and debate solutions for the pressing issues facing America.

    Founding Fathers Know Best is a quick and lively read that engrosses the reader in the heated exchanges between three paragons of American heritage and America’s most post-modern progressive president. Through those interactions the reader is also informed of eye-opening facts that may surprise even the most informed political junkie.

    In Ross Edward Puskar’s maiden work he blends fun with facts. Founding Fathers Know Best will be enjoyed by young and old as a book that brings to life the timeless argument between preserving or changing America’s socio, economic and political cultures, and it is undertaken in a “spirited’ fashion.

    The Live 405 Podcast – Interview with Kurt Schlichter

    Follow Kurt Schlichter on Twitter? Or hang by his every word on Breitbart.com? Kurt talks about his new book “I Am a Liberal:A Conservative’s Guide to Dealing With Nature’s Most Irritating Mistake” Both Kurt’s books have made it to #1 in Political Humor on Amazon, so if you’re not reading them, you must be a liberal!

    Listen in as John Grant from The 405 Radio, interviews Kurt. Of course, there’s also a little tag-team action, as Liz Harrison joins in for a few of the questions. If you missed it live, listen here now! #Caring

    Free Market Revolution

    FMR

    Amid the ire directed towards our government, our biggest corporate entities and each other, there are calls from all sides for dramatic change in the policies and politics of America. From TEA party activists, to Occupiers, to the weary long-time unemployed, there is a sense of urgency that something must change, and must change fast. Free Market Revolution is a hard and honest look at the current culture of dependency, the malaise of a once motivated people, and the events that have culminated in our current fiscal crises and ever growing discontent with a system that repeatedly fails to promote growth and prosperity… and offers the only credible and moral ( yes, I said moral) solution to our country’s woes.

    In Free Market Revolution, Yaron Brook and Don Watkins break down the often repeated talking points that our current financial crises was caused by greed and deregulation. They speak factually and bluntly about the actual numbers of regulations that were added during the last and current Administration, and their roles in creating a recipe for guaranteed disaster in the housing market, the resulting credit and lending crises that has been fueling the greatest recession since the 1930s, as well the slowest recovery in modern history. The undeniable blame for the current business-killing climate is laid at the feet of big government and collective calls for more regulation, where it belongs.

    Dispelled, is the myth that America operates under a capitalist, free market system and explained are the reasons why proponents of a purely free market have been incapable of offering a defense of capitalism that appeals to America as a whole: A moral case for capitalism as an economic system that creates opportunity, wealth, and security for all, without ignoring what the left has so effectively defined as “basic need” and “rights”. Critics of Ayn Rand, without fail, point to her lack of empathy for the poor as a means of demonizing a free market system. Capitalists have been unable to argue the emotional talking points and the morality argument presented by the left, giving way to even more cries for social safety nets and spending by the government to pay for those “basic needs”. Until now.

    Free Market Revolution makes clear what capitalists, successful businessmen, and proponents of Ayn Rand’s free market ideas have always known: That the only moral economic system is one that allows for success or failure based on individual effort and self-interest. Yaron Brook and Don Watkins put forth the simple idea that an economy unfettered by overbearing regulation will stimulate innovation and regulate itself via competition and common sense. They handily dismiss the idea that all entrepreneurs and successful business owners are out to gain by nefarious means, and grant the reader the idea that working for your own prosperity is not only fundamentally human, but also fundamentally moral. It is time for supporters of a free market economy to point out that the free market has not existed in America and could not have caused our current fiscal crises. It is time to stop allowing people like Madoff to be the public image of corporate success, and time to stop granting merit to the idea that selfishness automatically means benefiting at the cost of another.

    Free Market Revolution is a tool for free market capitalists. One that offers a logical argument to the more and more public and political shouts against free markets and cheers the morality of an economic system that should not need defending, but extolling. You can order your copy here!

    Yaron Brook (@YaronBrook) is Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute. He has written for the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Investor’s Business Daily, and CNN.com, and appeared on The O’Reilly Factor, The Glenn Beck Show, On the Money, and Closing Bell, among others. A former finance professor at Santa Clara University, he is the co-writer with Don Watkins of a column on business and capitalism at Forbes.com

    Don Watkins (@dwatkins3) is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute and the co-writer with Yaron Brook of a column on business and capitalism at Forbes.com. He appears regularly on radio and TV, and his op-eds have appeared in such venues as Investor’s Business Daily, The Christian Science Monitor, FoxNews.com, and Forbes.

    2016: Obama’s America Delivers A Unique Perspective on Obama’s World View

    2016-obamasamerica

    Dinesh D’Souza’s look at Barack Obama’s life growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia offers unique insight into the perspective of the nation’s 44th president. In the recently released movie “2016: Obama’s America”, the President of King’s College in NY City chronicles the life of a young man who was raised in an anti-colonialist environment.

    Influenced by tails of a father he met only once, and a step father who saw Indonesia finally free itself from Dutch colonial rule in 1949, D’Souza shows his audience the anti-colonial influence that so impressed Barack Obama in his early years. This influence continued when back in Hawaii, he was mentored by the notorious communist Frank Marshall Davis.

    When juxtaposed with a traditional American upbringing, the film makes clear the differences in world view between Barack Obama and the historical American perspective. It explains his animosity toward long time American allies, Great Britain and Israel, and asserts a possible motive for downsizing not only the country’s strategic defenses, but the economy as well.

    In the end, D’Souza asks each viewer to look within themselves and ask the question which world view would they choose for the future of America.

    The film, released in only a few markets last month and expanded nationwide over the weekend, has grossed $9.2 million, and become the top earning documentary of the year (excluding nature films).

    It Would Be ‘Priceless’ If Romney Admitted He Was Wrong

    pricelesscover

    John C. Goodman challenges Americans to rethink healthcare in his book from the Independent Institute, Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis. In the wake of the Supreme Court decision that determined that the individual mandate was constitutional, there has been much talk about “repeal and replace.” That has lead to the question, what does the GOP have to offer to replace Obamacare?

    While Goodman’s suggestions throughout Priceless should probably form the basis of any GOP plan, it’s questionable whether or not that will actually happen. The book is necessarily repetitive, because it suggests a very radical change from what we currently have. Bluntly, the concept of people paying for routine healthcare at a market rate with their own money could be considered frightening, especially to seniors on a fixed income. But, one must keep in mind that Goodman is a long-standing proponent of Health Savings Accounts (HSA’s), and his plan is that people rely HSA’s for healthcare costs not covered by real insurance. In his plan, health insurance would resemble casualty insurance, and would primarily be there to cover major health care expenses.

    Radical as his theories may be, Goodman has managed to get the endorsements of a couple former CBO Directors, and a former Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, based on posted reviews. Well, it would be a better sign if those officials were still working in their respective agencies, and stated publicly that they agreed with his ideas. Of course there are some GOP politicians that have come out saying that they are impressed with Goodman’s book and theories. But there is nothing from Mitt Romney. That’s not surprising, since Goodman has used Romney’s healthcare reform in Massachusetts as a policy poster child of what not to do – or an example of coming attractions nationwide under Obamacare. Either way, it is anything but praise, like the following:

    In fact, there is nothing in the legislation [the Affordable Care Act] that makes “healthcare a right.” Nor is there anything in the new law that makes the role of government more just or fair. To the contrary, a lot of knowledgeable people (not just conservative critics) predict that access to care is going to be more difficult for our most vulnerable populations. That appears to have been the experience in Massachusetts, which President Obama cites as the model for the new federal reforms. True enough, Massachusetts cut the number of uninsured in that state in half through then-Governor Mitt Romney’s health reform. But while expanding the demand for care, the state did nothing to increase supply. More people than ever are trying to get care, but because there has been no increase in medical services, it is more difficult than ever to actually see a doctor.

    Far from being fair, the new federal health law will give some people health insurance subsidies that are as much as $20,000 more than the subsidies available to other people at the same level of income.

    Right after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Obama administration health advisers Robert Kocher, Ezekiel Emanuel, and Nancy-Ann DeParle announced that the new health reform law “guarantees access to healthcare for all Americans.”

    In fact, nothing in the act guarantees access to care for any American, let alone all Americans. Far from it. Again, take Massachusetts as the precedent. The waiting time to see a new family practice doctor in Boston is longer than in any other major US city. In a sense, a new patient seeking care in Boston has less acess to care than new patients everywhere else.

    Fairly harsh words for Romney’s healthcare reform that the campaign has undoubtedly been trying to figure out precisely how to deal with on the road. But, there’s one option, albeit unlikely. Why not admit that the Massachusetts health care reform law was a mistake? It’s not like there’s any shortage of factual proof to back that assertion, since Goodman has already taken the time to not only find it, but also expound on it. Sure, it’s off the reservation for a candidate to admit flaws unless there is absolutely no other option. The Romney camp isn’t there, but this isn’t a typical situation either.

    While Obamacare has some popular features, in general it is disliked by a majority of Americans. Now that the actual costs for the program are becoming more clear, the need to come up with “something better” should be high on the list of things to do for the Romney folks. Saying that repealing Obamacare on day one isn’t enough – back to that whole GOP “repeal and replace” theme. Goodman’s plan is to move healthcare to a market-driven system, and this is something that a good businessman can manage much better than a typical politician. The left has been hammering on Romney’s background at Bain Capital in an attempt to portray him as an out-of-touch corporate man. But if the GOP “replace” plan was to slowly shift healthcare and health insurance to a true business model, even a past as the most ruthless of corporate marauders could be sold as an asset.

    Goodman points out that the primary problem with healthcare is the fact that there is no real price for anything in the industry. Because of this, this complex system does not behave like any other economic system. Contrary to what policy makers would like to have people believe, the problem of increasing healthcare costs is not the amount of money being paid to providers. The problem lies in the fact that people are encouraged to over-consume healthcare services when they are healthy, and under-utilize services when they are ill. This is the direct result of insurance companies catering to the healthy, primarily because their care costs less. Because people are not directly paying for services rendered, and have no real control of healthcare dollars, there is no incentive for them to be frugal in their consumption of healthcare. Bureaucracy has created an environment of wasteful spending, and perverse incentives that keep those that need care the most from actually getting it at all, or at the very least, getting it in the most cost effective way possible. Priceless, while a repetitive text, should be considered required reading for anyone that honestly wants to learn about what ails our current healthcare system, and what problems Obamacare will undoubtedly exacerbate in the near future.

    Obama claimed that he made history with his landmark healthcare legislation. If Romney could manage to be daring enough to publicly admit that his Massachusetts plan is fundamentally flawed, and offer a solution along the lines of those offered by Goodman, the upcoming election could end up re-writing that historical moment. The Supreme Court left this issue squarely on the shoulders of the politicians, and that should be interpreted as a call to the GOP to declare open season on failed Obama policies in healthcare, and everything else. The only wrong answers are already on the books thanks to Obama. It remains to be seen whether or not Romney will have the courage to stand up and offer something more than just a promise to undo Obamacare on day one. What about day two?

    One Cup Humility Plus One Cup Understanding Equals One Sweet Story

    charles_t_cup

    ENUMCLAW, Wash., May 18, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ — There are so many people struggling under the pressure of the weak economy or from the onslaught of natural disasters like tornadoes and hurricanes. Those impacted are reliant on the virtue of self-sacrifice to help them meet their overwhelming needs. How do we teach our children that selfless acts benefit the giver and the receiver? One way is through the story of “Charles T. Cup”, self-appointed commander over the creepy Creamer, the sassy Salad Bowl, the silly Saucers, and all the Others. Charles knows he is the star of the china cabinet. He knows he is, in fact, “absolutely marvelous.” However, a traumatic event causes an abrupt end to his idyllic life; Charles is forced into a dismal life which ultimately proves to be even better. Author Dalen Keys’ latest children’s picture book “Charles T. Cup”, is the story of an arrogant teacup who finds out what is truly important in life.

    Charles is bossy, rude, and very proud of his flawless appearance. All that changed when his beautiful golden rim is cracked, and the Others start calling him Chip. As a result, his luxuriant lifestyle drastically transforms, and he finds himself on a dusty shelf in the Mission Thrift Store between a superhero cup and some old plastic cereal bowls. When Friendly Person decides that Chip can help him serve homeless people a cool drink or a hot cup of coffee, Chip finds that no one cares about his damaged rim. He discovers that life is not about beauty or gold; “life is about serving other people — even if you have a nick.”

    A poignant story for four- to eight-year-olds, “Charles T. Cup”examines the concept of self-worth, the deception of outward appearance, and the value of service to others that children will understand. Using the setting of the Sunday Breakfast Mission in Wilmington, Delaware, Dalen Keys melds a thoughtful fantasy with real-life situations that teaches a lesson while it entertains.

    Watch the trailer:  Click Here

    « Older Entries