jump to navigation

The Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs November 7, 2009

Posted by jessetmclaughlin in Uncategorized.
add a comment

Here is a review of The Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs.  Looks pretty interesting.  I think I’ll be getting this as presentations are important in my line of work and I’ve been known to watch a Developer conference or 2…maybe I’m a geek.  So be it.

Click Here for the review.

Did You Know? November 7, 2009

Posted by jessetmclaughlin in Uncategorized.
add a comment

Living Out Your Faith November 2, 2009

Posted by jessetmclaughlin in Uncategorized.
add a comment

Last year I read a book called Crazy Love, by a preacher in California named Francis Chan.  It was incredibly challenging and made me reanalyze a lot of things in my life.  I’m working through a lot of those things, and I’ve learned more from him since, but other’s have made huge changes as a result of the challenges Chan has directed their way.

One such family was recently interviewed on ABC.  Click Here to watch the video.  These folks have made a change that is almost hard to comprehend.  In the end, they decided that living a life for Christ required a drastic change for them.  It is truly inspiring to see.  I hope that their testimony is one that challenges you to greater things for Christ.  Visit their website by clicking HERE and see more of what they are up to.

Our Children’s Faith October 28, 2009

Posted by jessetmclaughlin in Uncategorized.
add a comment

Here fix your center; here direct your aim; here concentrate your efforts; your energies, and your prayers.  Remember, their religious education is your business.  Whatever aids you call in from ministers or teachers, you never must, you never can, you never should, delegate this work.  God will hold you responsible for the religion of your children. –  John Angell James

Evil Big Oil October 20, 2009

Posted by jessetmclaughlin in Uncategorized.
add a comment

Excerpt from Arguing With Idiots, by Glenn Beck:

“But oil profits don’t just enrich investors, they enrich our government also.  While giant corporations free-fall, only to be saved by billion-dollar taxpayer parachutes, Big Oil is paying the government hundreds of billions in taxes.  In other words, Big Oil is giving money directly back to the people (instead of stealing it from them, which other corporations find so trendy these days.)

In 2006, the oil industry paid $81 billion in income taxes.  If you look at Exxon alone, you find that, from 2003-2007, their earnings increased by 89 percent while their income taxes skyrocketed 170 percent.  Over the three-year period from 2006 to 2008, Exxon paid a total of $94.2 billion–an amount approximately equal to the annual GDP of Ecuador and Guatemala…combined.

But that’s just their income tax.  Exxon Mobil’s total taxes in 2008 reached $116.2 billion–more than twice its net profit.  That’s about $318 million in taxes per day.  If anyone is benefiting from these so-called windfall profits, it’s our government.”

If Exxon’s 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filer’s share would be $1,259 /year.  Do you still hate Exxon?

Luke Warm and Lovin’ It October 20, 2009

Posted by jessetmclaughlin in Uncategorized.
add a comment

wow…

What is Your “Routine”? October 20, 2009

Posted by jessetmclaughlin in Uncategorized.
add a comment

The Right to Bear Arms October 20, 2009

Posted by jessetmclaughlin in Uncategorized.
add a comment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.  2nd Amendment

When the governments fear the people, there is liberty.  When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.  Thomas Jefferson

Excerpt from Arguing With Idiots, by Glenn Beck:

“They sure don’t write laws the way they used to.  Back in the eighteenth century, preambles like the one we see in the Second Amendment’s militia clause were actually quite common.  Who knows, maybe the politicians were a little more modest back then and believed they had to offer explanations for the laws being handed down–but, whatever the reason, the rules of English grammar haven’t changed.

Just because the Second Amendment happens to have a preamble doesn’t diminish the fact that the granting of this right to the people is perfectly clear.  When our Founders intended to specifically refer to the militia or the states, guess what–they used those words.  Look at the Tenth Amendment, for instance: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’  Pretty clear, right?

It becomes even more clear when you look at other instances where the Founders used the language ‘ the right of the people.’  Like in the First Amendment, for example: ‘the right of the people peaceably to assemble.’  Or, in the Fourth Amendment; ‘the right of the people to be secure…aginst unreasonable searches and seizures.’

The first clause of the Second Amendment, which discusses the necessity of a well regulated militia, is a reason why the people have the right to arms.  It’s a perfectly good and sufficient reason, but it’s not the only reason, and it doesn’t change who has the right.

Consider the sentence:

Being a fisherman, Joe needs to buy a boat.

Does that mean that Joe should buy a boat only if he fishes for a living?  What if Joe also likes to water ski?

Being a fisherman is a great reason for getting a boat, but it isn’t the only reason and, in fact, it doesn’t even have to be true.  What if Joe is actually alergic to fish?  What if Joe is an accountant who happens to enjoy sailing on the weekends?  What if Joe is a strict vegan, but loves to scuba dive?  Would the above sentence preclude Joe from buying a boat in any of those situations?

Likewise, the militia clause of the Second Amendment doesn’t have to be true for the rest of the statement to stand.  hat if a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state?  We are pretty secure and still (kind of) free these days, but we don’t have a functioning state-militia system.  Perhaps the Framers were wrong–maybe the only thing necessary to security is a nuclear-defensive umbrella, a strong navy, and just plain good luck.

Does a constitutional right go away simply because one of its perceived benefits no longer exists?  Of course not–no individual right depends on the government’s actions.  That’s why the Declaration of Independence made clear that the rights we were fighting for were those we were ‘endowed [with] by our creator’ instead of some elected bureaucrat.”

Postal Service October 20, 2009

Posted by jessetmclaughlin in Uncategorized.
add a comment

A.D.D. Moment from Arguing With Idiots, by Glenn Beck:

“New Zealand corporatized their postal service in 1987.  As Cornell professor Richard Geddes notes, that change “led to improvements in efficiency, a 40 percent reduction in the system’s workforce, a doubling in labor productivity, a decrease in the cost of sending a letter and a decrease in the price of a basic stamp.”  And they did it all without impacting service in either rural or urban communities.”

Generosity of the Government October 16, 2009

Posted by jessetmclaughlin in Uncategorized.
add a comment

This is an excerpt from the book Arguing with Idiots, by Glenn Beck:

“In 1887, Congress passed a bill appropriating money to Texas farmers who were suffering through a catastrophic drought.  These days, that funding would not only be authorized, it would probably be done so under an emergency program that fave more money to the farmers than they ever dreamed of.  But not in 1887.  Not with Grover Cleveland as President.

Here’s how he answered Congress’ request:
I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.  I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public serice or benefit.  A prevalent tendency to disregard, the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.

Time out.  Maybe you need to pause and catch your breath.  Go get a glass of water if you need to, and then read that paragraph again.  When you’re finished, read the rest of his response:

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upone to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune.  This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated.  Fedral aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.’

Wow. Even more impressive was that Cleveland (who was a Democrat!) turned out to be a hundred percent right.  Those “fellow-citizens” he put so much trust in donated ten times more money to those farmers than the amount the president had vetoed, once again proving that when individuals personally sacrifice to help each other, it not only makes us better people, it makes us a better country.  It forces us to notice need instead of simply hiring corrupt politicians to nice it only when they can exploit, publicize, or politicize it.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.