Free Hand Thinker

Wow... that's it? I figured it would be more.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 46% who are Very Angry.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 27% are not angry about the government's policies, including 10% who are Not at All Angry.

Don't get me wrong. This is a good direction. It tells me that people are starting to wake up from this childish idea that the government can solve anything, but I have a feeling that most of these people are basing their opinion on the direction of the economy which is continuing to go south, and not the fed's continue involvement in sectors they have no business or credibility involving themselves in. They probably still hold out "hope" that with the right leadership, their lives would be better.

This is the real lesson Americans need to relearn. There is only one person who can make their lives better, and that is themselves.

Thank goodness!




Is it just me, or does the Left suddenly declare debates completed when they are starting to lose?

I know this is probably a little late, but the following speech is so important on so many levels. I'll let it speak for itself.

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

If you are like me, you have at the top of your head a single, good question. Why isn't this taught in school today? I can remember learning about the history of Thanksgiving in elementary school. It was all pilgrims and Indians around a long table with a large turkey that was oddly cooked to today's standards. I never heard a thing about George Washington or his and Congress's thanks to God for all that had happened during the formation of our country.

Secondly, where is the supposed "separation of church and state" that the Left actively points to to impress their secular agenda on us all? If the founders truly envisioned a society where God played no part, would they really have declared a day of actual Thanksgiving to God? While, I agree with the popular notion that our founders didn't want the church to have a first hand in our country's governance, I doubt they ever intended for God to be completely blotted out of the public sector.

So, during this weekend, take time to thank God for His role in the founding of our country as well as your personal lives.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

At some point, most American's reach a revelation about what they believe and hold dear, and they compare that what is happening in their country. Mine came about 4 years ago a few years before I rejoined the collegiate community. My father and other relatives had always told me about the leftist slant of today's institutions of higher learning, so I felt compelled to discover my own values before someone was given the chance to decide that for me.

During that time, I have seen many lines drawn on both the left and the right. I have seen how both sides attempt to define their own or the opposing sides viewpoints through titles and words--the best example being the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice titles, but oddly enough, there is one defining title that we all seem to use happily use when referring to a segment of the battle of ideologues. That is the Mainstream Media.

The Mainstream Media loosely defines those elements of the media that have the mileage to their resumes to back up their clout. NBC (now MSNBC), CNN, CBS, and newspapers such as The New York Times and the LA Times all fall under the Mainstream Media mantle. Now, why do I bring this up? Well, as you might have guessed, I have a problem with this title.

Now, my problem is not the grouping. God knows that all these institutions belong together. My problem is the classification. When I think "mainstream" news sources, I think of news sources that define or help steer the climate of political debate. Are the before mentioned institutions steering the debate? Are they steering anything at all? I say no.

Let's start simple. I would assume that in order to be effective a news organization would need people to tune in. If no one gets the information, how are they supposed to effect anything? It is no secret that this is the big handicap of the "mainstreamers". Newspapers are failing and loosing ad revenue; cable news organizations are loosing viewers. It is so bad that even the Huffington Post can't ignore the numbers. But, let's face it. There is much more than numbers to look at. Like simple coverage.

Scandals can make or break a political agenda. Watergate destroyed the Nixon administration. Lewinsky severely damaged Clinton. And with media careers being made on the coverage of scandals, you would think that any media outlet would leap at the opportunity to cover one. Not this media. As of today, we have had two major... HUGE scandals that while they are not directly tied to this President, would still be damaging if properly covered. I am speaking of course about the ACORN and Climategate scandals. And who has covered them? Not the "Mainstream" media. You'd be hard pressed to find any talk about Climategate, and even Jon Stewart thought the non-coverage of ACORN was a bit unsettling.

So where are we? The "mainstream" media obviously doesn't want to do their job, and no one wants to listen to what they have to say. Is this what passes for "mainstream" in Obama's America? I think we should redefine them. Whether should call them the "Lamestream Media" as Bernard Goldberg calls them or the "State Controlled Media" as Limbaugh says is up in the air. But mainstream? Not so much.

So, while looking at the wires at Breitbart.com, I came across a poll that says that a majority now support a public option. It showed that 52% of Americans now support a public option. Of course, when it come to any poll, you want to make sure they are legit. And the best way to do this is too look at the methodology.

We have a right to question what polls might say with CBS and others polling more Democrats in order to get a more favorable result for their programs. So, it is only logical that one might see these results as fishy. Especially with other pollers showing much different numbers. So I followed the actual wire and guess what I found... only this:

A picture:



And only what they talk about in the wire:

In the AP-GfK poll, the differently worded questions on the public plan each had a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. The poll interviewed 1,502 people from Oct. 29-Nov. 8 with an overall sampling error margin of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Nothing about their methodolgy. Nothing about who they interview; their voter status; or even who they interviewed them. Was it a phone interview or a sit down with random college students from the Stanford campus? I have looked everywhere, and I haven't found it.

Are they hiding the methodology so that people with focus on the results rather than the methods used to get the result they wanted? I don't know. This only fuels the skepticism that the American public has for the media.

I finally got around to finishing Dan Brown's newest book The Lost Symbol. The book was long and interesting like all of Dan Brown's book, but this one is probably at the bottom of my likability scale, which is tough for me to say. I have read all of Brown's book, and I can honestly say that I enjoyed and reread every single one of them. But, this book, was definitely not one I would read again.

The book follows Brown's most popular character Robert Langdon, the esteemed symbologist from Harvard who has been used in matters of religious background. Langdon has had an interesting life, first being used by the Vatican to help unearth a plot to destroy the Catholic headquarters and second being caught in an mad man's attempt to uncover the Church's biggest secret. In this book, another mad man seeks to use Langdon to uncover the long hidden secret the Freemasons have long protected until the world of was to receive it.

My first problem with the book is the recycled plot line Brown has seemed to have suck himself in. It was a good idea for the first to books, but it seems like a person whose only real skill is deciphering is ancient, religious symbols is finding that his specialty has few customers and even fewer exciting uses for his talent. Or maybe Brown is not using his talents creatively. There is a lot of potential for a character like Langdon. Why not have him uncover some lost civilization? Solve some ancient, cross racial/religious grudge? Who knows? Brown needs to branch out from Christianity.

My second problem is the length and pace of the book. It didn't have the thriller feel that Brown had in all his other books. The chapters were short as you might expect from a thriller, but their pace was drawn out. And there seemed to be a lot of information that wasn't required for the book to progress. All this caused me to take at least a week to read the book rather than the average day or two Brown's other books take me to read.

What I like about the book was Brown's approach to religion that Brown has become known for. Brown seems to want his readers to see the problems of fundamentalism in religion. This, as everyone knows, created a lot of negative publicity--which might be why his book became so popular--around his book, The DaVinci Code.

Overall, the book was okay. But not what I expected from a suspense writer from like Dan Brown. If there was a star system, I'd say 6 out of 10 stars.

So, here we are. Over eight years later after the worst mainland attack in the United States, we find ourselves in a wondrous position. We have the masterminds of the attacks in a military prison. The country and more importantly, the families of the dead have moved on with their lives while still holding to the memory of those taken of them. Everything is relatively kosher for a people who have witnessed one of the world's worst tragedies. That was until today.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced today that they will be putting the masterminds behind 9/11 on trial in New York City. In the interest of justice, the Obama Administration has decided to take the mad men back to the city the crimes were committed and try them in civilian court.

Now, I ask a question that all of us are probably asking: Why? Why now? Why a civilian trial and not a military tribunal? Why waste the resources at all? They confessed to the crimes (if you can call them that) and requested to be executed. As a prosecutor with a full confession and a perpetrator with the willingness to receive the maximum sentence, this shouldn't even go to trial.

Not to mention the trouble the prosecution will have just taking this to trial. There is no telling how hard it is going to be to find an impartial jury in a city where everyone knows someone who died in those attacks? Let's not forget about the Defense's right to discovery. They are going to have access to undercover agents lists, intelligence reports, classified documents, the list goes on. Any prosecutor in their right mind, especially one that does not wish classified information to fall in the hands of overzealous lawyers, would NOT want this to go to trial.

I question the motives of this decision. Especially the timing of the trial. Four years? It seems odd to me that this president with his extremely ambitious list of things he wants to get done wants nothing of what he wants to get done to take effect until his second term in office. Health care, if passed, won't go into effect until 2013. This grand trial of the mastermind behind 9/11 won't be until 2014?

What are they hiding I wonder?