CNN has an article up about a plexiglass/copper shoe monument that has been erected outside of an orphanage in northern Iraq. It is a monument to the "reporter" who threw a shoe at President Bush a few months ago. It stands outside the orphanage because as the sculptor says, "Those orphans who helped the sculptor in building this monument were the victims of Bush's war, the shoe monument is a gift to the next generation to remember the heroic action by the journalist." I am not a fan of this war either, and will not be a cheerleader for our previous President but why do you think the sculptor did not make one of these to honor Saddam Hussein when he was dictator of Iraq? (He didn't want to get killed...) Hussein made hundreds of thousands of children orphans, did he not deserve a statue too? (Yep) He even killed a lot of the orphans...does he not stand out at all?
Meanwhile, I have another question. Why is this the story that CNN runs on the front page of their website? Shouldn't they be running stories about the upcoming Iraqi elections? The only other Iraqi election story I could find near the front of their site was about the murders of 3 provincial candidates and 2 poll workers. The Christian Science Monitor has a good article up about the momentous occasion taking place in Iraq.
* 9 Senate Republicans voted with President Obama and the Democrats on SCHIP. Look for those taxes of yours to rise as we move towards socialized (Federal) Healthcare. Who were those spongy, spineless RINO's? It's the same old, same old... Specter (PA), Snowe (ME), Collins (ME), Murkowski (AK), Martinez (FL), Hutchinson (TX), Corker (TN), Alexander (TN), and Lugar (IN). The first 5-6 are our USUAL SUSPECTS but I was a little surprised by the last 3. Not being from Tennessee I am at a loss but perhaps the constituents of the Tennessee Republican Senators are SCHIP supporters...?
Does anyone else get tired of reading that Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski are voting with the Democrats again...?
* Rush talks about his stimulus plan.
* The FCC commissioner reminds us that they scrapped the Fairness Doctrine because it was unconstitutional! He also notes that it might be used again anyway.
* Rush responds to the attacks on him from the LEFT.
* The Rangel Rule. Completely Awesome.
* Which states are the reddest and bluest?
* Is it just me or is this happening way too often?
* Ahmadinejad honors killer who crushed baby's skull.
* We need a new Captain America.
* President Jemmy Cawhtah has some reassuring words for President Bush. Video that may support his idea.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Are Republicans starting to remember why they were elected?
* There have been far too few good days for the Republican Party over the last few (like 6) years... but yesterday was one of them.
My only problem with the way the Republicans stood up to the bailout was...why didn't this happen sooner? Why did these same people allow President Bush to forcefeed us the first bailout? Why did these people allow the Democrats to write those stimulus checks? Where have the fiscal and government power conservatives been for the last 6 years? It smells of hypocrisy...and I am not an ends justify the means guy. I need consistent stands on principle, not waffling from my leaders. I know the Democrats won't give me what I am looking for and I doubt the Republicans can find the stones to start doing it now. But here's hoping.
* Rush Limbaugh offers up his suggestion for a bipartisan stimulus.
* ABC and CBS are mad at Republicans for not supporting Mr. Obama's stimulus plan. Here is a great quote from Katie Couric:
"Republicans relentlessly attacked the bill despite the President's extraordinary efforts to get bipartisan support.”
* Dick Morris with some suggestions for the loyal opposition.
* President Obama says the problem with FDR's New Deal was that he didn't spend enough money fast enough... uh-oh. We might be in a bit of trouble. Oh, and the government has fiscal diarrhea.
* Some of the fun stuff in the bailout bill.
* Democrats want illegal aliens to cash in on some of the stimulus.
* Will the mainstream media cover the Iraqi elections this week?
* Guess what... torture policies of the new administration are not so different from the last!
* Having access to a gun in your home lowers the crime rate.
* Hollywood's problem with Jesus.
* My greatest fear is driving down the road and seeing this...
My only problem with the way the Republicans stood up to the bailout was...why didn't this happen sooner? Why did these same people allow President Bush to forcefeed us the first bailout? Why did these people allow the Democrats to write those stimulus checks? Where have the fiscal and government power conservatives been for the last 6 years? It smells of hypocrisy...and I am not an ends justify the means guy. I need consistent stands on principle, not waffling from my leaders. I know the Democrats won't give me what I am looking for and I doubt the Republicans can find the stones to start doing it now. But here's hoping.
* Rush Limbaugh offers up his suggestion for a bipartisan stimulus.
* ABC and CBS are mad at Republicans for not supporting Mr. Obama's stimulus plan. Here is a great quote from Katie Couric:
"Republicans relentlessly attacked the bill despite the President's extraordinary efforts to get bipartisan support.”
* Dick Morris with some suggestions for the loyal opposition.
* President Obama says the problem with FDR's New Deal was that he didn't spend enough money fast enough... uh-oh. We might be in a bit of trouble. Oh, and the government has fiscal diarrhea.
* Some of the fun stuff in the bailout bill.
* Democrats want illegal aliens to cash in on some of the stimulus.
* Will the mainstream media cover the Iraqi elections this week?
* Guess what... torture policies of the new administration are not so different from the last!
* Having access to a gun in your home lowers the crime rate.
* Hollywood's problem with Jesus.
* My greatest fear is driving down the road and seeing this...
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Burn up those phones!
* STOP THE BAILOUT! CONSERVATIVE BLOGGERS AND THEIR READERS ARE BURNING UP THE PHONES...JOIN IN, NOW!!
Find a list of phone numbers to call here!
* Gary Graham finds it ironic that the "love generation" spawned cultural acceptance of murder/abortion.
* Brian Williams thinks Obama was the first good option for President in generations.
* Proof! Tax reductions are a more effective stimulus than tax rebates! Here is a synopsis of the report from Neal Boortz.
* Remember when Paul Krugman called opponents of the new Obama stimulus "dishonest flacks"? Well more than 200 distinguished economists beg to differ...they have signed an open letter to President Obama opposing the bailouts. Here are some more economists against the spending...
and the not so stimulating effect of the proposed stimulus. "This isn't just your run-of-the-mill pork. What we are seeing happen right now is that Congress sees this crisis as an opportunity to enact a whole variety of programs that they've wanted to pass for years, especially (but not only) the Democrats who no longer fear a veto, and now finally have the chance."
* A spread the wealth grading policy.
* Economic times are so tough that we are sending tax dollars overseas to fund abortions. 4 Republicans voted to do this with the Dem's they are; Collins (R-ME),
Murkowski (R-AK), Snowe (R-ME), and Specter (R-PA). RINO's one and all.
* Can you guess the political persuasion of most college professors? Bet you can...
Here is the study to back up the report.
* Thanks to Strike the Root for this complete list of nation's that were formerly poor then adopted socialism and became prosperous. How long do you think this list is? Exactly.
* Connecticut is considering punishing low level marijuana users with a fine instead of criminal charges! A step in the right direction....
* 60% of Americans are worried that President Obama and the Democrat Congress will increase spending too much in the next four years. It's a little too late to start worrying about that folks!!!
* Obama the Imperialist.
* This is how much I support the President.
* Ted Nugent exposes Attorney General nominee Holder on gun control. Here's a HUGE surprise...Arlen Spector will vote yes, on Mr. Holder. Will someone please get rid of the RINO?
* PBS says that President Obama is the first "truly American" President. Pardon?
* Did you know that President Obama is too perfect to make fun of?
* Public Schools no longer taking Veteran's Day off as a holiday because, "student's don't understand the meaning behind the day." I'm sorry...why do they go to school?
* John Updike...not as good as they say.
* Maybe Detroit's unions could learn a little from these folks...?
* An honest look at global warming figures. And a former NASA employee is "embarrassed" by his underlings global warming work. More from Algore on global warming.
* Norm Coleman has a new recount website up.
* "What's my party?" bias...prostitution style!
* Not so funny news of the day: Why PETA is dangerous.
* Very funny news of the day: President Obama shows that maybe President Bush was the smart one!
Find a list of phone numbers to call here!
* Gary Graham finds it ironic that the "love generation" spawned cultural acceptance of murder/abortion.
* Brian Williams thinks Obama was the first good option for President in generations.
* Proof! Tax reductions are a more effective stimulus than tax rebates! Here is a synopsis of the report from Neal Boortz.
* Remember when Paul Krugman called opponents of the new Obama stimulus "dishonest flacks"? Well more than 200 distinguished economists beg to differ...they have signed an open letter to President Obama opposing the bailouts. Here are some more economists against the spending...
and the not so stimulating effect of the proposed stimulus. "This isn't just your run-of-the-mill pork. What we are seeing happen right now is that Congress sees this crisis as an opportunity to enact a whole variety of programs that they've wanted to pass for years, especially (but not only) the Democrats who no longer fear a veto, and now finally have the chance."
* A spread the wealth grading policy.
* Economic times are so tough that we are sending tax dollars overseas to fund abortions. 4 Republicans voted to do this with the Dem's they are; Collins (R-ME),
Murkowski (R-AK), Snowe (R-ME), and Specter (R-PA). RINO's one and all.
* Can you guess the political persuasion of most college professors? Bet you can...
Here is the study to back up the report.
* Thanks to Strike the Root for this complete list of nation's that were formerly poor then adopted socialism and became prosperous. How long do you think this list is? Exactly.
* Connecticut is considering punishing low level marijuana users with a fine instead of criminal charges! A step in the right direction....
* 60% of Americans are worried that President Obama and the Democrat Congress will increase spending too much in the next four years. It's a little too late to start worrying about that folks!!!
* Obama the Imperialist.
* This is how much I support the President.
* Ted Nugent exposes Attorney General nominee Holder on gun control. Here's a HUGE surprise...Arlen Spector will vote yes, on Mr. Holder. Will someone please get rid of the RINO?
* PBS says that President Obama is the first "truly American" President. Pardon?
* Did you know that President Obama is too perfect to make fun of?
* Public Schools no longer taking Veteran's Day off as a holiday because, "student's don't understand the meaning behind the day." I'm sorry...why do they go to school?
* John Updike...not as good as they say.
* Maybe Detroit's unions could learn a little from these folks...?
* An honest look at global warming figures. And a former NASA employee is "embarrassed" by his underlings global warming work. More from Algore on global warming.
* Norm Coleman has a new recount website up.
* "What's my party?" bias...prostitution style!
* Not so funny news of the day: Why PETA is dangerous.
* Very funny news of the day: President Obama shows that maybe President Bush was the smart one!
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The abortion debate.
The argument over abortion generally tends to come from one of two sources. Pro-abortion; the government should not be able to tell a person what they can or cannot do to their own body. Anti-abortion: life beings in the womb, ergo abortion is state sanctioned/sponsored murder. This is largely the reason abortion arguments rarely end with a changed mind (and usually end by dissolving into an argument over fascism and licentiousness) ... the arguers start from completely different points.
The argument must begin from the same starting point. But where to start? How can we fairly choose where the argument begins? The pro-abortion argument begins with the mother. The anti-abortion argument begins with the in utero baby (or fetus). Perhaps, both perspectives should be argued to truly come to a conclusion?
The argument that the government should not be able to tell a person what they can or cannot do with their body is a specious and fallacious argument. The government imposes bans on many personal issues. You cannot use (or even carry) illicit drugs, there is an age level set for use of alcohol and tobacco, smoking tobacco is restricted in certain locations, you may not sell your organs or body parts, in the same vein, you may not sell your body (sexually) in most places, nudity is prohibited in most locations, self mutilation will land you in a mental institution, and suicide is illegal everywhere. There are many other examples...
While I may personally agree that government should not be able to dictate what you can and cannot do with your body...it is not an argument that can be supported by an abortion rights advocate. I think that even if we both agree the government has no place telling you how to deal with your body, we would both agree that the government must prohibit behavior that could be harmful to others. For example; drunk driving, assaulting another person, using speech to defraud, etc...
This leads us the anti-abortion argument. Life begins in the womb, so abortion is murder. How do we decide when life begins? Is it at conception when the new life begins to grow? Or at 40 days when an EEG can first sense brain function? Or at viability - what the US Supreme Court defines as 28 weeks - when the child can survive outside the womb, with aid? Or how about as early as 20 weeks when some babies have been known to survive live birth? Or is it at birth...whenever that happens?
Some have argued that abortion should be legal in any case and that infanticide should be what is argued.
Peter Singer uses the arguments for abortion to defend infanticide saying infants lack "rationality, autonomy, and self consciousness" and therefore "simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person."
The rational decision is that one of two choices must be made; That life does indeed begin at conception and therefore the in utero child must be treated as a person. Or we must decide that Mr. Singer is correct and we should be arguing over the age that is appropriate to stop infanticide and not abortion.
My choice is that abortion should and must be called murder. If the mother has chosen to take part in sexual behavior and is pregnant she should be compelled to carry the pregnancy out to its natural conclusion (even in the case of rape or incest ... which makes up less than 1% of abortions). What is the reason the mother must be compelled? As I said earlier it is the responsibility of government to make and enforce laws that protect one person from another.
Some may see this as doomsaying but see the signs understand the the times that we live in. We have the most pro-abortion President our nation has ever seen and we have a Democrat controlled Congress. President Bush signed the Mexico City Policy which would not allow federal funds to be used in abortion clinics overseas, he also signed the partial-birth abortion ban which stops doctors from partially birthing the baby before killing them. The Democrat party was against both of these policies. President Obama has already revoked the Mexico City Policy, and federal funding is now flowing into abortion clinics internationally. He is also a proponent of partial birth abortion, and of the Freedom of Choice Act (which would prohibit any federal, state, or local governmental entity from interfering with a woman's ability to have an abortion). (You can fight FOCA here, sign the petition.) Very soon abortion law will be codified at the National level and like Europe and other western nations; free and easy access to abortion will become the norm in the United States. When even our opponents openly acknowledge that the child within the womb has life and yet abortion still exists we must understand the forces against us. It is as old as time itself. Life v. Death ... I daresay ... Good vs. Evil. Peter Singer, a hero of the abortion (and now infanticide) movement says that while children in the womb (and infants) may have life...they do not have personhood.
Peter Singer argues that pro-life groups are not wrong about the inception of life in the womb.
"The pro-life groups are right about one thing: the location of the baby inside or outside the womb cannot make such a crucial moral difference. We cannot coherently hold that it is all right to kill a fetus a week before birth, but as soon as the baby is born everything must be done to keep it alive."
Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse, "On Letting Handicapped Infants Die," in The Right Thing to Do, James Rachels, editor (New York: Random House, 1989), p. 146.
"[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life." (Rethinking Life and Death 105) Peter Singer
I am not Catholic but the video gets the point across...
The argument must begin from the same starting point. But where to start? How can we fairly choose where the argument begins? The pro-abortion argument begins with the mother. The anti-abortion argument begins with the in utero baby (or fetus). Perhaps, both perspectives should be argued to truly come to a conclusion?
The argument that the government should not be able to tell a person what they can or cannot do with their body is a specious and fallacious argument. The government imposes bans on many personal issues. You cannot use (or even carry) illicit drugs, there is an age level set for use of alcohol and tobacco, smoking tobacco is restricted in certain locations, you may not sell your organs or body parts, in the same vein, you may not sell your body (sexually) in most places, nudity is prohibited in most locations, self mutilation will land you in a mental institution, and suicide is illegal everywhere. There are many other examples...
While I may personally agree that government should not be able to dictate what you can and cannot do with your body...it is not an argument that can be supported by an abortion rights advocate. I think that even if we both agree the government has no place telling you how to deal with your body, we would both agree that the government must prohibit behavior that could be harmful to others. For example; drunk driving, assaulting another person, using speech to defraud, etc...
This leads us the anti-abortion argument. Life begins in the womb, so abortion is murder. How do we decide when life begins? Is it at conception when the new life begins to grow? Or at 40 days when an EEG can first sense brain function? Or at viability - what the US Supreme Court defines as 28 weeks - when the child can survive outside the womb, with aid? Or how about as early as 20 weeks when some babies have been known to survive live birth? Or is it at birth...whenever that happens?
Some have argued that abortion should be legal in any case and that infanticide should be what is argued.
Peter Singer uses the arguments for abortion to defend infanticide saying infants lack "rationality, autonomy, and self consciousness" and therefore "simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person."
The rational decision is that one of two choices must be made; That life does indeed begin at conception and therefore the in utero child must be treated as a person. Or we must decide that Mr. Singer is correct and we should be arguing over the age that is appropriate to stop infanticide and not abortion.
My choice is that abortion should and must be called murder. If the mother has chosen to take part in sexual behavior and is pregnant she should be compelled to carry the pregnancy out to its natural conclusion (even in the case of rape or incest ... which makes up less than 1% of abortions). What is the reason the mother must be compelled? As I said earlier it is the responsibility of government to make and enforce laws that protect one person from another.
Some may see this as doomsaying but see the signs understand the the times that we live in. We have the most pro-abortion President our nation has ever seen and we have a Democrat controlled Congress. President Bush signed the Mexico City Policy which would not allow federal funds to be used in abortion clinics overseas, he also signed the partial-birth abortion ban which stops doctors from partially birthing the baby before killing them. The Democrat party was against both of these policies. President Obama has already revoked the Mexico City Policy, and federal funding is now flowing into abortion clinics internationally. He is also a proponent of partial birth abortion, and of the Freedom of Choice Act (which would prohibit any federal, state, or local governmental entity from interfering with a woman's ability to have an abortion). (You can fight FOCA here, sign the petition.) Very soon abortion law will be codified at the National level and like Europe and other western nations; free and easy access to abortion will become the norm in the United States. When even our opponents openly acknowledge that the child within the womb has life and yet abortion still exists we must understand the forces against us. It is as old as time itself. Life v. Death ... I daresay ... Good vs. Evil. Peter Singer, a hero of the abortion (and now infanticide) movement says that while children in the womb (and infants) may have life...they do not have personhood.
Peter Singer argues that pro-life groups are not wrong about the inception of life in the womb.
"The pro-life groups are right about one thing: the location of the baby inside or outside the womb cannot make such a crucial moral difference. We cannot coherently hold that it is all right to kill a fetus a week before birth, but as soon as the baby is born everything must be done to keep it alive."
Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse, "On Letting Handicapped Infants Die," in The Right Thing to Do, James Rachels, editor (New York: Random House, 1989), p. 146.
"[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life." (Rethinking Life and Death 105) Peter Singer
I am not Catholic but the video gets the point across...
Monday, January 26, 2009
Hey-Hey! It's Bob Barr!
I got the opportunity to meet Mr. Bob Barr today, and must say I was very impressed. He gave a short talk about the Libertarian Party and the necessity for third party's in the political discourse. Best line: "The Libertarian Party is for smaller government. Smaller government with a capital S." Here's a picture of me and the affable Presidential candidate!
* Paul Krugman says that anyone who disagrees with the President over the stimulus should be "written off as a...dishonest flack".
* ACORN and other similar groups could get billions in stimulus money.
* ABC and George Stephanopoulos continue to carry the water for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party.
* Soviet Britain... Will the same thing happen here?
* The Democrat Party is the party of war. VP Joe Biden shows who the war hawks really are. This shows how hypocritical supporters of the Democrat Party and the Party itself are...the only time war is bad is when the Republicans are in control. Word is the Obama administration has already rejected an Afghan peace program.
Dr. Ron Paul says "Don't expect a change in foreign policy."
* Old Gitmo detainees...rearrested for terrorism.
* Not so "peaceful" Palestinian supporters attack actually peaceful Israeli supporters.
* The National Review's pictures of the March for Life. Now the LA Times coverage. See any difference?
* Yet ANOTHER, name that party example of media bias. In fact this edition is special because it fails to name the party (Democrat) of 3 different corrupt officials. Another "name that party" example from Good Morning America.
* The Huffington Post proves once again to be a confederacy of dunces.
* Geert Wilders banned from British House of Lords.
* Pot growers in northern California are doing just fine.
* I have your next must read! “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media” by Bernard Goldberg. Here is an early review of this sure to be fabulous book. Here you can find a couple of other suggestions to be read.
* Will Matt Damon accept the debate challenge? Doubt it.
* Hundreds of Democrats rally for pedophile mayor.
* Ridiculous News of the day!! Your Democrat government at work... $135K in Pennsylvania spent teaching 17 kids to iceskate.
* Paul Krugman says that anyone who disagrees with the President over the stimulus should be "written off as a...dishonest flack".
* ACORN and other similar groups could get billions in stimulus money.
* ABC and George Stephanopoulos continue to carry the water for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party.
* Soviet Britain... Will the same thing happen here?
* The Democrat Party is the party of war. VP Joe Biden shows who the war hawks really are. This shows how hypocritical supporters of the Democrat Party and the Party itself are...the only time war is bad is when the Republicans are in control. Word is the Obama administration has already rejected an Afghan peace program.
Dr. Ron Paul says "Don't expect a change in foreign policy."
* Old Gitmo detainees...rearrested for terrorism.
* Not so "peaceful" Palestinian supporters attack actually peaceful Israeli supporters.
* The National Review's pictures of the March for Life. Now the LA Times coverage. See any difference?
* Yet ANOTHER, name that party example of media bias. In fact this edition is special because it fails to name the party (Democrat) of 3 different corrupt officials. Another "name that party" example from Good Morning America.
* The Huffington Post proves once again to be a confederacy of dunces.
* Geert Wilders banned from British House of Lords.
* Pot growers in northern California are doing just fine.
* I have your next must read! “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media” by Bernard Goldberg. Here is an early review of this sure to be fabulous book. Here you can find a couple of other suggestions to be read.
* Will Matt Damon accept the debate challenge? Doubt it.
* Hundreds of Democrats rally for pedophile mayor.
* Ridiculous News of the day!! Your Democrat government at work... $135K in Pennsylvania spent teaching 17 kids to iceskate.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton
Today is the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court's horrendous decision to allow the genocide of an entire generation. The road to legalized abortion was paved when the Supreme Court decided that a mother could kill her baby for any reason until the point when the baby "becomes viable". The Court decided that viable would mean the point when the baby could survive outside the mother's womb. At the same time the Court ruled on the lesser known Doe v. Bolton, the decision there said, that an abortion could be obtained after viability to "protect" the mother's "health". However, the Court decision viewed the mother's "health" in very broad terms, basically allowing a mother to feign mental anguish or physical stress and thereby allowing her to kill her baby.
Abortion is a sick and deranged answer to the problem of sexual immaturity. If you are unable to deal with the consequences of your actions...then do not partake in those actions. The baby should not suffer for the immaturity and irresponsibility of two horny people.
For those of you who argue for abortion in cases of rape or incest ...please remember that these instances account for less than 1% of abortions.
Check out Blogs for Life for more info.
* President Obama is expanding abortion rights on the Roe v. Wade anniversary. Patrick Looby discusses the Obama Abortion Stimulus.
* Is the Ryan Frederick case a brazen example of police state injustice?
* Overthrowing the system of public education.
* We must be the "loyal opposition".
* What is the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative?
* Conservatives already answering President Obama's call for responsibility.
* A conflict of interest with Carlos Slim's infusion to the New York Times?
* Why doesn't the media like to identify corrupt Democrats?
* How about some predictions for the new administration...
* "Che" Obama.
* Ann Coulter on Obama's next four years.
* Slate skewers Chris Matthews.
* Ted Nugent calls out the guilty parties.
* The economics of anarchy.
* Time to unendow the arts?
* Jay-Z and Young Jeezy proving once again, that racism is alive and well. More from the venerable Michelle Malkin. And the Huffington Post going so far as to call Mrs. Malkin a "whore".
Abortion is a sick and deranged answer to the problem of sexual immaturity. If you are unable to deal with the consequences of your actions...then do not partake in those actions. The baby should not suffer for the immaturity and irresponsibility of two horny people.
For those of you who argue for abortion in cases of rape or incest ...please remember that these instances account for less than 1% of abortions.
Check out Blogs for Life for more info.
* President Obama is expanding abortion rights on the Roe v. Wade anniversary. Patrick Looby discusses the Obama Abortion Stimulus.
* Is the Ryan Frederick case a brazen example of police state injustice?
* Overthrowing the system of public education.
* We must be the "loyal opposition".
* What is the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative?
* Conservatives already answering President Obama's call for responsibility.
* A conflict of interest with Carlos Slim's infusion to the New York Times?
* Why doesn't the media like to identify corrupt Democrats?
* How about some predictions for the new administration...
* "Che" Obama.
* Ann Coulter on Obama's next four years.
* Slate skewers Chris Matthews.
* Ted Nugent calls out the guilty parties.
* The economics of anarchy.
* Time to unendow the arts?
* Jay-Z and Young Jeezy proving once again, that racism is alive and well. More from the venerable Michelle Malkin. And the Huffington Post going so far as to call Mrs. Malkin a "whore".
Update to Geert Wilders story:
If you'd like to express your support of Mr. Wilders here is a link to a petition of support:
http://www.petitiononline.com/wilders/petition.html
Also, please keep updated by surfing over to Gates of Vienna for the latest in the ongoing struggle for the protection of free speech in Europe.
Holger Danske is stirring...rising to protect Denmark from destruction.
http://www.petitiononline.com/wilders/petition.html
Also, please keep updated by surfing over to Gates of Vienna for the latest in the ongoing struggle for the protection of free speech in Europe.
Holger Danske is stirring...rising to protect Denmark from destruction.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Travesty of Justice
A Dutch court has commanded prosecutors to put Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders on trial for making anti-Islamic statements. Mr. Wilders has in the past made disparaging comments about Islam; likening it to Nazism, and comparing the Koran to 'Mein Kampf' which was Adolf Hitler's ode to himself. Mr. Wilders has also recently made a movie titled 'Fitna' (which is a term taken from the Koran which translates as "strife"), where he implied that practicing Islam leads to violence. In the film he shows clips and pictures of terrorist attacks (committed by Muslims), rallies, protests, and marches (where Muslim followers are shown holding signs like "God bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to Hell"). Mr. Wilders has also been under police protection since 2004 when a fellow Dutch anti-Islamist (Film director Theo Van Gogh) was murdered by a fanatical Muslim terrorist.
For these "crimes" Mr. Wilders is being put on trial for inciting hatred and discrimination.
The Court said "In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line." Mr. Wilders response, "Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted."
The travesty here is that this is a blatant attack on free speech in a democratic society. Free Speech is paramount in a democratic society...that is what the court should have decided. There can be no freedom within a society where the people fear prosecution for their thoughts, beliefs, and statements. Nowhere does Mr. Wilders use his speech to purposefully incite violence against Muslims, though the fanatical sects that create terrorist factories do. Nowhere does he condone violence against Muslims, though the same groups that order fatwa's on men like him, do.
If freedom of speech can be subverted then very quickly freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion can also be assaulted.
(Here is a solid running commentary from Gates of Vienna.)
For these "crimes" Mr. Wilders is being put on trial for inciting hatred and discrimination.
The Court said "In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line." Mr. Wilders response, "Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted."
The travesty here is that this is a blatant attack on free speech in a democratic society. Free Speech is paramount in a democratic society...that is what the court should have decided. There can be no freedom within a society where the people fear prosecution for their thoughts, beliefs, and statements. Nowhere does Mr. Wilders use his speech to purposefully incite violence against Muslims, though the fanatical sects that create terrorist factories do. Nowhere does he condone violence against Muslims, though the same groups that order fatwa's on men like him, do.
If freedom of speech can be subverted then very quickly freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion can also be assaulted.
(Here is a solid running commentary from Gates of Vienna.)
Big Day Done
* Top 10 Media Bias moments... I found so many more links to the media gushing (mostly from NBC and MSNBC) that I got a little sick. I think I threw up a little in my mouth...
Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Thanks to newsbusters for most of those links! I am not kidding, those are all examples of different things said or done just yesterday...I think I am feeling sick again.
* Dr. Ron Paul thinks that President Obama's inauguration speech was "scary:.
* Al Roker makes fun of Chris Matthews...
* Now that the festivities are over...let's get back to spending some money!
Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Thanks to newsbusters for most of those links! I am not kidding, those are all examples of different things said or done just yesterday...I think I am feeling sick again.
* Dr. Ron Paul thinks that President Obama's inauguration speech was "scary:.
* Al Roker makes fun of Chris Matthews...
* Now that the festivities are over...let's get back to spending some money!
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Relief mingled with fear...
As of Noon EST today (about 23 minutes ago) we have a new President.
* How do you counter Obamania? Try Young Americans for Liberty. Any ideas on the messianic nickname that Obama will give himself (and Lincoln doesn't count). Here is a running tally of the Obamamedia's crowning day.
* More media love for "His Excellency" the President. Here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. The last one is Keith Olbermann of MSNBC calling for the prosecution of President Bush and invoking Nazism and Slavery. Keith Olbermann will also be anchoring MSNBC's Inauguration coverage all day today... ah, the unbiased "news".
From Cox and Forkum
* Tom Brokaw comparing Vice President Cheney to Dr. Strangelove.
* President Bush enduring more heckling from idiots.
* Timothy Geithner has made a big mess.
* The War on the terrorist Geese!
* Some Big hopes and fears in an Obama administration.
* The Bush administration was a boon to miner safety.
* Another "Name that Party" media bias account.
* The hypocrisy of Hollywood!
* Would Tom Hanks call the majority of Americans, un-American?
* From the annals of the insane; Whoopi Goldberg on Economics.
* And at long last, from lewrockwell.com, the quote of the day;
"So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause." - Queen Amidala (Star Wars)
I could not find a more poignant quote to sum up the days activities.
For me, I am relieved that President Bush's time has passed and he has gone...and worried now that President Obama's time has begun.
* How do you counter Obamania? Try Young Americans for Liberty. Any ideas on the messianic nickname that Obama will give himself (and Lincoln doesn't count). Here is a running tally of the Obamamedia's crowning day.
* More media love for "His Excellency" the President. Here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. The last one is Keith Olbermann of MSNBC calling for the prosecution of President Bush and invoking Nazism and Slavery. Keith Olbermann will also be anchoring MSNBC's Inauguration coverage all day today... ah, the unbiased "news".
From Cox and Forkum* Tom Brokaw comparing Vice President Cheney to Dr. Strangelove.
* President Bush enduring more heckling from idiots.
* Timothy Geithner has made a big mess.
* The War on the terrorist Geese!
* Some Big hopes and fears in an Obama administration.
* The Bush administration was a boon to miner safety.
* Another "Name that Party" media bias account.
* The hypocrisy of Hollywood!
* Would Tom Hanks call the majority of Americans, un-American?
* From the annals of the insane; Whoopi Goldberg on Economics.
* And at long last, from lewrockwell.com, the quote of the day;
"So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause." - Queen Amidala (Star Wars)
I could not find a more poignant quote to sum up the days activities.
For me, I am relieved that President Bush's time has passed and he has gone...and worried now that President Obama's time has begun.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Civil Disobedience
I wanted to take some to write about something I have been considering in recent days. My previous post was an article written by a Pastor that I have great respect for, and it was his opinion about what the Bible teaches of Civil Disobedience. I don't believe that people generally think about Christians when they consider the idea of civil disobedience but it is an idea that has deep roots in Christianity. Our LORD Himself and His apostles were prime examples of practicing civil disobedience the right way. Well, what I want to ask is along these lines...
I was raised in a nominally conservative home; I say "nominally" because while my family is conservative it was a conservatism with an emotional base instead of an intellectual one. Today, my political choices are overwhelmingly more intellectual than emotional. There are several political ideas that I have been struggling with, and have come to realize that though I may agree with them with my mind my heart wanders. Gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, etc. These are things that I assent to with my brain but I find it hard to be supportive with my heart...
Which brings me to this; I have great respect for civil disobedience (Here is a good article on a Christians duty to practice civil disobedience) and feel it is an integral part of being a good citizen. But when is the right time to practice civil disobedience? I recently read about this young man who carried some marijuana through a town square in New Hampshire. I respect him for his stand, but I don't know if the legalization of marijuana is something I am willing to break the law over. I would definitely debate or write a letter to my representative...but civil disobedience? I don't think so.
Is there a line? Are some things inconsequential enough to not break the law for? Is the line different for some people than it is for others? I would practice civil disobedience over abortion, eminent domain, attacks on the Bill of Rights, to demonstrate against the one world order, unjust war and there are many others. But I don't think I would do it for marijuana, or prostitution, etc. Perhaps those fights are for someone else who feels more strongly about them, and my fight is for the things I feel more strongly about?
I think that Thoreau, Gandhi, and Dr. King, Jr. were geniuses with ideas that completely bucked societal trends with their purity and honesty. I had just never considered that we may have to be very selective in choosing our battles. If we fought against everything wouldn't we burn out very quickly? Am I missing the boat on this? Should I be more broad minded? I just can't imagine going to prison for certain things.... not out of fear but out of inconvenience.
Thought I am struggling with today:
"I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill."
Mahatma Gandhi
I was raised in a nominally conservative home; I say "nominally" because while my family is conservative it was a conservatism with an emotional base instead of an intellectual one. Today, my political choices are overwhelmingly more intellectual than emotional. There are several political ideas that I have been struggling with, and have come to realize that though I may agree with them with my mind my heart wanders. Gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, etc. These are things that I assent to with my brain but I find it hard to be supportive with my heart...
Which brings me to this; I have great respect for civil disobedience (Here is a good article on a Christians duty to practice civil disobedience) and feel it is an integral part of being a good citizen. But when is the right time to practice civil disobedience? I recently read about this young man who carried some marijuana through a town square in New Hampshire. I respect him for his stand, but I don't know if the legalization of marijuana is something I am willing to break the law over. I would definitely debate or write a letter to my representative...but civil disobedience? I don't think so.
Is there a line? Are some things inconsequential enough to not break the law for? Is the line different for some people than it is for others? I would practice civil disobedience over abortion, eminent domain, attacks on the Bill of Rights, to demonstrate against the one world order, unjust war and there are many others. But I don't think I would do it for marijuana, or prostitution, etc. Perhaps those fights are for someone else who feels more strongly about them, and my fight is for the things I feel more strongly about?
I think that Thoreau, Gandhi, and Dr. King, Jr. were geniuses with ideas that completely bucked societal trends with their purity and honesty. I had just never considered that we may have to be very selective in choosing our battles. If we fought against everything wouldn't we burn out very quickly? Am I missing the boat on this? Should I be more broad minded? I just can't imagine going to prison for certain things.... not out of fear but out of inconvenience.
Thought I am struggling with today:
"I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill."
Mahatma Gandhi
Christians and Civil Disobedience
Christians and Civil Obedience
Rev. Richard D. Phillips
First Presbyterian Church, Coral Springs/Margate, FL
September 12, 2004 Copyright reserved
Tonight’s question box asks, “How should Christians think about civil
disobedience?” This has been an important question to believers over the
centuries, especially for those living under wicked regimes.
The main biblical passage on this subject is found in Romans 13:1-7,
which begins, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.”
This is the Bible’s position, not merely for Christians but for all people:
They are to be submissive to legitimate government powers. Paul explains
this with two arguments. The first of these is theological: it is God, he
says, who put government officials into power and so they are to be
respected as his agents. Verse 1 adds, “For there is no authority except
from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Verse 6
says, “The authorities are ministers of God.” The point is that God has
put governing authorities into place, that they are accountable to God, and
that Christians should be submissive citizens. According to verse 7, this
submission includes paying taxes and rendering honor to those in power.
Paul gives a second and practical reason for civil obedience: “For rulers are
not a terror to good conduct but to bad” (v. 3). Those who do what is
right have nothing to fear from governing officials. This does not deny the
reality of persecution, unofficial and official, but states the general
principle that no government can afford oppose faithful citizens.
So, before we approach exception to this that might call for civil
disobedience, let us first observe that Christians are to be strongly disposed
in the direction of civil obedience, out of respect to God and out of a
desire to “live in peace with all men” (Rom. 12:8). Remember that Paul
wrote this to people living under the tyrannical and godless reign of the
Roman Caesars, so we are wrong to assume this obedience is only due to
rulers of whom we approve. In general, Christians are to concern
themselves with their own lives, living in peace with others, and serving the
kingdom of God, leaving oversight to rulers in God’s hands. In a
democratic system like our own, this does not argue for lack of
involvement in the electoral process, but respectful obedience to all who
are elected and serve in government positions.
This brings us to the matter of civil disobedience. One example of this is
given in the Bible, when the apostles Peter and John refused the Jewish
Sanhedrin’s command to stop preaching the gospel. This tells us that we
must not accept government commands that require us to betray our
allegiance to the Lord, either by sinning or by refusing to proclaim the
gospel. John and Peter responded not by organizing an armed resistance
but by rejoicing at the privilege of suffering persecution for Jesus’ sake.
Church history also provides several examples of Christian civil
disobedience. I think of the English Civil War, in which our Puritan
forefathers not only engaged in armed conflict with their king, Charles I,
but beheaded him when the war was won. Another example is the
American Revolution, in which Christians were divided in their attitude to
civil disobedience. More recently, we have the situation of Christians
under the Nazi regime in Germany. In all three of these cases, some
argued that Christians should obey their rulers no matter how evil, in
accordance with Romans 13:1-7. Some German ministers justified their
collaboration with Adolf Hitler in this way. What was the justification,
then, of men like Oliver Cromwell, who commanded the Puritan Army,
the pious Anglican, George Washington, or the celebrated Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, a theologian who helped conspire to assassinate the Fuhrer?
The historic answer, and certainly that which the English and American
Revolutionaries used to justify their rebellion, is that while private
Christians are called to obey their immediate overseers, Christians in
positions of public authority are required to thwart evil and to oppose
other rulers who have betrayed their basic duties. Therefore, it was a
Puritan Parliament that rebelled against Charles I because he tried to force
false religion on the people. With what I consider considerably weaker
grounds, it was the American Continental Congress – not private citizens –
which rebelled against King George because he required taxation without
representation.
What does the Bible indicate? First, Romans 13:1-7, while providing a
strong basic framework for civil obedience, does not determine the entire
biblical stance. In the Bible itself, believers are commended for rebelling
under the following conditions: 1) when the worship of God is being
prohibited (Ex. 5:1); 2) to oppose the taking of innocent life (Ex. 1:15-
21); 3) when the rulers are seeking the lives of God’s servants (1 Ki. 18:1-
4); 4) when it requires the worship of idols or of mere men (Dan. 3:1-7;
6:6-9); and 5) when it forbids the spread of the gospel (Acts 4:17-20).1
In each of these instances, believers were faced with a specific command to
violate God’s law, which they rightly refused and opposed. In most cases,
civil disobedience in the Bible is passive, that is, it involves not rebellion
but simply a refusal to comply or a thwarting of specific evil plans. We
might liken this to non-violent opposition to abortion today. By any
biblical standard, organized rebellion ought to take place in only the most
dire of situations, and should be advanced not by private Christians but by
those entrusted by God with the exercise of authority for the public good.
While Christians must respect the state as having been established by God,
we must never treat the state as if it were God, but in this arena as in every
other we are to be prepared to pay the price for obedience to Jesus Christ
in an evil world, even when it requires reluctant disobedience to the
authorities entrusted by God with our civil oversight.
1 See Norman L. Geisler, “A Pre-Millennial View of Law and Government,” Bibliotheca Sacra 142 (1985): 262.
Rev. Richard D. Phillips
First Presbyterian Church, Coral Springs/Margate, FL
September 12, 2004 Copyright reserved
Tonight’s question box asks, “How should Christians think about civil
disobedience?” This has been an important question to believers over the
centuries, especially for those living under wicked regimes.
The main biblical passage on this subject is found in Romans 13:1-7,
which begins, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.”
This is the Bible’s position, not merely for Christians but for all people:
They are to be submissive to legitimate government powers. Paul explains
this with two arguments. The first of these is theological: it is God, he
says, who put government officials into power and so they are to be
respected as his agents. Verse 1 adds, “For there is no authority except
from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Verse 6
says, “The authorities are ministers of God.” The point is that God has
put governing authorities into place, that they are accountable to God, and
that Christians should be submissive citizens. According to verse 7, this
submission includes paying taxes and rendering honor to those in power.
Paul gives a second and practical reason for civil obedience: “For rulers are
not a terror to good conduct but to bad” (v. 3). Those who do what is
right have nothing to fear from governing officials. This does not deny the
reality of persecution, unofficial and official, but states the general
principle that no government can afford oppose faithful citizens.
So, before we approach exception to this that might call for civil
disobedience, let us first observe that Christians are to be strongly disposed
in the direction of civil obedience, out of respect to God and out of a
desire to “live in peace with all men” (Rom. 12:8). Remember that Paul
wrote this to people living under the tyrannical and godless reign of the
Roman Caesars, so we are wrong to assume this obedience is only due to
rulers of whom we approve. In general, Christians are to concern
themselves with their own lives, living in peace with others, and serving the
kingdom of God, leaving oversight to rulers in God’s hands. In a
democratic system like our own, this does not argue for lack of
involvement in the electoral process, but respectful obedience to all who
are elected and serve in government positions.
This brings us to the matter of civil disobedience. One example of this is
given in the Bible, when the apostles Peter and John refused the Jewish
Sanhedrin’s command to stop preaching the gospel. This tells us that we
must not accept government commands that require us to betray our
allegiance to the Lord, either by sinning or by refusing to proclaim the
gospel. John and Peter responded not by organizing an armed resistance
but by rejoicing at the privilege of suffering persecution for Jesus’ sake.
Church history also provides several examples of Christian civil
disobedience. I think of the English Civil War, in which our Puritan
forefathers not only engaged in armed conflict with their king, Charles I,
but beheaded him when the war was won. Another example is the
American Revolution, in which Christians were divided in their attitude to
civil disobedience. More recently, we have the situation of Christians
under the Nazi regime in Germany. In all three of these cases, some
argued that Christians should obey their rulers no matter how evil, in
accordance with Romans 13:1-7. Some German ministers justified their
collaboration with Adolf Hitler in this way. What was the justification,
then, of men like Oliver Cromwell, who commanded the Puritan Army,
the pious Anglican, George Washington, or the celebrated Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, a theologian who helped conspire to assassinate the Fuhrer?
The historic answer, and certainly that which the English and American
Revolutionaries used to justify their rebellion, is that while private
Christians are called to obey their immediate overseers, Christians in
positions of public authority are required to thwart evil and to oppose
other rulers who have betrayed their basic duties. Therefore, it was a
Puritan Parliament that rebelled against Charles I because he tried to force
false religion on the people. With what I consider considerably weaker
grounds, it was the American Continental Congress – not private citizens –
which rebelled against King George because he required taxation without
representation.
What does the Bible indicate? First, Romans 13:1-7, while providing a
strong basic framework for civil obedience, does not determine the entire
biblical stance. In the Bible itself, believers are commended for rebelling
under the following conditions: 1) when the worship of God is being
prohibited (Ex. 5:1); 2) to oppose the taking of innocent life (Ex. 1:15-
21); 3) when the rulers are seeking the lives of God’s servants (1 Ki. 18:1-
4); 4) when it requires the worship of idols or of mere men (Dan. 3:1-7;
6:6-9); and 5) when it forbids the spread of the gospel (Acts 4:17-20).1
In each of these instances, believers were faced with a specific command to
violate God’s law, which they rightly refused and opposed. In most cases,
civil disobedience in the Bible is passive, that is, it involves not rebellion
but simply a refusal to comply or a thwarting of specific evil plans. We
might liken this to non-violent opposition to abortion today. By any
biblical standard, organized rebellion ought to take place in only the most
dire of situations, and should be advanced not by private Christians but by
those entrusted by God with the exercise of authority for the public good.
While Christians must respect the state as having been established by God,
we must never treat the state as if it were God, but in this arena as in every
other we are to be prepared to pay the price for obedience to Jesus Christ
in an evil world, even when it requires reluctant disobedience to the
authorities entrusted by God with our civil oversight.
1 See Norman L. Geisler, “A Pre-Millennial View of Law and Government,” Bibliotheca Sacra 142 (1985): 262.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
More and more Media Bias
* Another corrupt Obama supporter...is this still funny? President-elect Obama's choice for Treasury Secretary didn't just "forget" to pay his taxes; he got a tax reimbursement for NOT paying them. Do you expect me to believe that even after he got the reimbursement he did not realize that he didn't pay taxes!?! The Wall Street Journal is reporting that he was repeatedly advised he would be responsible for his taxes! Ridiculous. Is the Washington Post trying to bury the story?
* Change you can believe in...
* Media Bias? The Washington Times cheers President-elect Obama upon his arrival to their offices. I have no problem with this on it's face, I think the President (and President-elect) should be cheered. My problem is this; would the folks at the Washington Times cheer the arrival of President Bush? I think not. Recent report that shows the media is "happier" on Democrat Inauguration days!
* Andrew Klavan brilliantly exposes the lies the media feeds us...and we actually start to believe.
* This is why my fellow Libertarians are wrong about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President Ahmadinejad of Iran says "It is not feasible for Israel to live." I understand where the Libertarian Party gets it's stance on this issue and I am with them 100% if the argument is between two nation's with a disagreement. I agree about the war in Iraq, and in general about American Imperialism...but Israel's fight is for it's survival. We may not agree with the Neocons but if Israel is not careful her neighbors (Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.)will drive her into the sea.
* The U.S. military reports that a sudden collapse of the Mexican government is possible. Why, you ask? Drug cartels. I wonder what would happen to these cartels if the US government ended it's war on drugs. Could the free market help to destroy these cartels and save the Mexican government at the same time...probably...but we will never know.
* Will McCain finally just abandon the Right? He may be Obama's secret weapon.
* A great article about "The Worst Mayor in America".
* (GASP) Jon Stewart and Fareed Zakaria get laughs and cheers by saying "I blame Bush..."!
* The case for "sweatshops".
* Would you have been a Nazi? Most people might be surprised at what they could do when a little peer/government pressure is applied.
* Parents who named their son after Adolf Hitler...have the kids taken by the state. When did we actually arrive in Nazi Germany?
* Change you can believe in...
* Media Bias? The Washington Times cheers President-elect Obama upon his arrival to their offices. I have no problem with this on it's face, I think the President (and President-elect) should be cheered. My problem is this; would the folks at the Washington Times cheer the arrival of President Bush? I think not. Recent report that shows the media is "happier" on Democrat Inauguration days!
* Andrew Klavan brilliantly exposes the lies the media feeds us...and we actually start to believe.
* This is why my fellow Libertarians are wrong about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President Ahmadinejad of Iran says "It is not feasible for Israel to live." I understand where the Libertarian Party gets it's stance on this issue and I am with them 100% if the argument is between two nation's with a disagreement. I agree about the war in Iraq, and in general about American Imperialism...but Israel's fight is for it's survival. We may not agree with the Neocons but if Israel is not careful her neighbors (Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.)will drive her into the sea.
* The U.S. military reports that a sudden collapse of the Mexican government is possible. Why, you ask? Drug cartels. I wonder what would happen to these cartels if the US government ended it's war on drugs. Could the free market help to destroy these cartels and save the Mexican government at the same time...probably...but we will never know.
* Will McCain finally just abandon the Right? He may be Obama's secret weapon.
* A great article about "The Worst Mayor in America".
* (GASP) Jon Stewart and Fareed Zakaria get laughs and cheers by saying "I blame Bush..."!
* The case for "sweatshops".
* Would you have been a Nazi? Most people might be surprised at what they could do when a little peer/government pressure is applied.
* Parents who named their son after Adolf Hitler...have the kids taken by the state. When did we actually arrive in Nazi Germany?
Camille Paglia Day!
I have state on more than one occasion that Camille Paglia is "My favorite liberal" , and she just continues to edify my respect for her.
Honestly, is there a more intelligent and respectful thinker on the left? I think not. Paglia continues to astound me; I never thought I could understand, enjoy, and (GASP) at times agree with as ardent a liberal as Paglia...and yet, here I am. I appreciate her intellectual curiosity and honesty. Unlike many on the Left and Right, Paglia is willing to think for herself and chooses to disagree with liberal orthodoxy when logic and reality tell her to do so. There are maddeningly few pundits willing to do that.
I have clipped a few of my favorite lines out from her latest question and answer session.
* "...but Harry Reid is a cadaverous horse's ass of mammoth proportions. How in the world did that whiny, sniveling incompetent end up as Senate majority leader? Give him the hook!"
* The entire last paragraph of page one where she derides Katie Couric as the "stupidest person to ever interview her".
* "If there's anything that demonstrates the straying of the Democratic Party leadership from basic liberal principles, it's this blasted Fairness Doctrine -- which should be fiercely opposed by all defenders of free speech."
* "Liberals, who go all hushed and pious at Hays Code censorship in classic Hollywood, should lay off the lynch-mob mentality. Keep the feds out of radio!" * "Until I see stronger evidence, I will continue to believe that climate change is primarily driven by solar phenomena and that it is normal for the earth to pass through major cooling and warming phases."
* "But retrospective psychohistory is out these days, and the only game in town is pin the tail on the oppressor."
* " The American system of higher education has become an insane assembly line -- bankrupting families to process hapless students through an incoherent, haphazard and mediocre liberal arts curriculum."
I think what I most appreciate about Paglia is that she is always so respectful of those who disagree with her. To me her writing is like intellectual poetry. Her words are full and satisfying and each article is sumptuous to read ... almost like a meal of words.
If you haven't done so yet, I would suggest searching out more of Paglia's articles and taking the time to get to know this splendid writer. Keep an open mind, and remember that just because she is an ardent liberal does not mean she doesn't have important thoughts to add to our collective discourse.
Honestly, is there a more intelligent and respectful thinker on the left? I think not. Paglia continues to astound me; I never thought I could understand, enjoy, and (GASP) at times agree with as ardent a liberal as Paglia...and yet, here I am. I appreciate her intellectual curiosity and honesty. Unlike many on the Left and Right, Paglia is willing to think for herself and chooses to disagree with liberal orthodoxy when logic and reality tell her to do so. There are maddeningly few pundits willing to do that.
I have clipped a few of my favorite lines out from her latest question and answer session.
* "...but Harry Reid is a cadaverous horse's ass of mammoth proportions. How in the world did that whiny, sniveling incompetent end up as Senate majority leader? Give him the hook!"
* The entire last paragraph of page one where she derides Katie Couric as the "stupidest person to ever interview her".
* "If there's anything that demonstrates the straying of the Democratic Party leadership from basic liberal principles, it's this blasted Fairness Doctrine -- which should be fiercely opposed by all defenders of free speech."
* "Liberals, who go all hushed and pious at Hays Code censorship in classic Hollywood, should lay off the lynch-mob mentality. Keep the feds out of radio!" * "Until I see stronger evidence, I will continue to believe that climate change is primarily driven by solar phenomena and that it is normal for the earth to pass through major cooling and warming phases."
* "But retrospective psychohistory is out these days, and the only game in town is pin the tail on the oppressor."
* " The American system of higher education has become an insane assembly line -- bankrupting families to process hapless students through an incoherent, haphazard and mediocre liberal arts curriculum."
I think what I most appreciate about Paglia is that she is always so respectful of those who disagree with her. To me her writing is like intellectual poetry. Her words are full and satisfying and each article is sumptuous to read ... almost like a meal of words.
If you haven't done so yet, I would suggest searching out more of Paglia's articles and taking the time to get to know this splendid writer. Keep an open mind, and remember that just because she is an ardent liberal does not mean she doesn't have important thoughts to add to our collective discourse.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Terrorists like to terrorize...?
* A very persnickety and cantankerous Senator. And, he just happens to be a Democrat.
* Soon to be Secretary of State Clinton promises to make fighting climate change a priority of her office. Someone needs to tell her that we are already winning this climate change thing, she should focus on something else.
* Has anyone ever seen this kind of uproar with the Presidential Inauguration before? Obama received the same number of votes that President Bush did in 2004...but I don't remember there being some kind of ground swell of euphoria with his election. This is just more proof that the media is in bed with a political party, and cannot be trusted.
*Released detainees from Gitmo are returning to terrorism...duh. Doesn't this make more sense than the alternative..."people we arrested for terrorism aren't really terrorists." If we detained them because of ties to terrorists doesn't it make sense that spending time in a military prison would not deter them from going back to that!?!
So what do we do with them now that it seems we will actually close down Gitmo?
* A scathing anecdote on the state of our criminal justice system.
* The destruction of the Federal Reserve is long overdue.
* The recently released movie "Che" is a bad movie about an evil man. There are conservatives who disagree.
* Losing the war on drugs.
* Are ya'll ready for war to be okay, again?
* The Dems say, "Tax the poor!"
* Enjoy the First Amendment while you can...
* Soon to be Secretary of State Clinton promises to make fighting climate change a priority of her office. Someone needs to tell her that we are already winning this climate change thing, she should focus on something else.
* Has anyone ever seen this kind of uproar with the Presidential Inauguration before? Obama received the same number of votes that President Bush did in 2004...but I don't remember there being some kind of ground swell of euphoria with his election. This is just more proof that the media is in bed with a political party, and cannot be trusted.
*Released detainees from Gitmo are returning to terrorism...duh. Doesn't this make more sense than the alternative..."people we arrested for terrorism aren't really terrorists." If we detained them because of ties to terrorists doesn't it make sense that spending time in a military prison would not deter them from going back to that!?!
So what do we do with them now that it seems we will actually close down Gitmo?
* A scathing anecdote on the state of our criminal justice system.
* The destruction of the Federal Reserve is long overdue.
* The recently released movie "Che" is a bad movie about an evil man. There are conservatives who disagree.
* Losing the war on drugs.
* Are ya'll ready for war to be okay, again?
* The Dems say, "Tax the poor!"
* Enjoy the First Amendment while you can...
Monday, January 12, 2009
Mundane Monday!
* The latest annual awards for best conservative blogs is out...and no, Ramblin' didn't make the cut!
* A good citizen being arrested for practicing civil disobedience by holding a bag of marijuana. Arrested for touching a plant.......
More at freekeene.com.
* Is the movie Wanted, a shill for fascism?
* British police have admitted to, and now plan to increase, hacking home computers without a warrant.
* President Bush has agreed with our next President to continue the socialization of our country.
* The Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme case proves that more government is not the answer. Government forced inflation is the "non-threatening" way to redistribute income.
* A newspaper editor in Sri Lanka wrote his own obituary before meeting his gruesome death.
* Top Russian scientists believe we are in for some intense global cooling.
* Mickey Rourke doesn't "blame all of our problems on Bush".
* The Christian film Fireproof was Hollywood's best investment this year.
* The world's first flying car is ready for test runs!
* A good citizen being arrested for practicing civil disobedience by holding a bag of marijuana. Arrested for touching a plant.......
More at freekeene.com.
* Is the movie Wanted, a shill for fascism?
* British police have admitted to, and now plan to increase, hacking home computers without a warrant.
* President Bush has agreed with our next President to continue the socialization of our country.
* The Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme case proves that more government is not the answer. Government forced inflation is the "non-threatening" way to redistribute income.
* A newspaper editor in Sri Lanka wrote his own obituary before meeting his gruesome death.
* Top Russian scientists believe we are in for some intense global cooling.
* Mickey Rourke doesn't "blame all of our problems on Bush".
* The Christian film Fireproof was Hollywood's best investment this year.
* The world's first flying car is ready for test runs!
Saturday, January 10, 2009
'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years
I recently read the below article, and thought it was a brilliant piece. Ayn Rand's work is as meaningful and important as ever and should be discussed in our hall of government. The article is titled; 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years and it was written for the Wall Street Journal by Mr. Stephen Moore
Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.
Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.
Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.
For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.
In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?
These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.
The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."
When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated -- always in the public interest -- into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."
In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.
The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."
Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand's political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer.
One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:
Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"
Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"
"And you'll obey any order I give?"
"Implicitly!"
"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."
"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. "We couldn't do that . . . How would we pay government employees?"
"Fire your government employees."
"Oh, no!"
Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.
David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."
Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.
Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.
Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.
For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.
In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?
These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.
The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."
When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated -- always in the public interest -- into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."
In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.
The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."
Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand's political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer.
One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:
Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"
Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"
"And you'll obey any order I give?"
"Implicitly!"
"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."
"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. "We couldn't do that . . . How would we pay government employees?"
"Fire your government employees."
"Oh, no!"
Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.
David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Ann Coulter and Free Publicity!
* An American Muslim cleric has announced that destruction is coming to America "soon". More on this from Gateway Pundit.
* Mentioned this yesterday but it was good enough to repost, and really, the article is a must read. Heather Mac Donald has written an enlightening piece on crime and violence in America's black community. La Shawn Barber adds her astute observations to the discourse.
* Hitler had a New Deal too. There are signs that President-elect Obama's new New Deal won't help the economy one bit. Oh, and apparently his economic "advisers" don't know what advice to give!
* The Nobel Prize winning comedian, er, I mean economist, Paul Krugman predicts how conservatives will "spin" the "failure" of Obamanomics.
* The porn industry wants a bailout.
* The government should be indicted for the Ponzi scheme it runs, that makes Bernie Madoff look like a small time hood. While we are at it the Democrat Party should be indicted too, for promoting violence upon the rich...class warfare.
* Media bias. Ann Coulter appeared on NBC today (twice), first with Matt Lauer, then with Hoda and Kathie Lee. I did not get to watch the action but I was able to read the transcripts and I have to say I was amazed by the second interview! I felt that Hoda and Kathie Lee were fair, and that they had valid concerns about Coulter's writing. They focused on the tone of her writing, and I think it is fair to say that Coulter can be quite caustic with her words. She defends herself by basically saying, 'it's satire' and 'it sells'. Matt Lauer on the other hand was dripping with disdain. Coulter held her own in the interview but Lauer was... less than impartial.
* Jewish students are not being admitted into certain Danish schools because of fear of violence from Muslim students.
* Human Events interviews the President one last time, before he leaves office.
* Ted Nugent on Israel's path to peace.
* After reading this review, I may indeed drop some cash to see "Valkyrie" at my local theater.
* Mentioned this yesterday but it was good enough to repost, and really, the article is a must read. Heather Mac Donald has written an enlightening piece on crime and violence in America's black community. La Shawn Barber adds her astute observations to the discourse.
* Hitler had a New Deal too. There are signs that President-elect Obama's new New Deal won't help the economy one bit. Oh, and apparently his economic "advisers" don't know what advice to give!
* The Nobel Prize winning comedian, er, I mean economist, Paul Krugman predicts how conservatives will "spin" the "failure" of Obamanomics.
* The porn industry wants a bailout.
* The government should be indicted for the Ponzi scheme it runs, that makes Bernie Madoff look like a small time hood. While we are at it the Democrat Party should be indicted too, for promoting violence upon the rich...class warfare.
* Media bias. Ann Coulter appeared on NBC today (twice), first with Matt Lauer, then with Hoda and Kathie Lee. I did not get to watch the action but I was able to read the transcripts and I have to say I was amazed by the second interview! I felt that Hoda and Kathie Lee were fair, and that they had valid concerns about Coulter's writing. They focused on the tone of her writing, and I think it is fair to say that Coulter can be quite caustic with her words. She defends herself by basically saying, 'it's satire' and 'it sells'. Matt Lauer on the other hand was dripping with disdain. Coulter held her own in the interview but Lauer was... less than impartial.
* Jewish students are not being admitted into certain Danish schools because of fear of violence from Muslim students.
* Human Events interviews the President one last time, before he leaves office.
* Ted Nugent on Israel's path to peace.
* After reading this review, I may indeed drop some cash to see "Valkyrie" at my local theater.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Big Hollywood!
The renowned Andrew Breitbart has just started a new web page catering to his fellow Hollywood conservatives. While the name really says it all, the website is a great way for the rest of us in fly-over country to get a handle on the goings-on of the Hollywood elite but with a conservative spin.
So please take the time to surf over to BIG HOLLYWOOD and check out some of the just posted articles. Breitbart has found some intelligent and creative writers to pen their views of the modern day Vanity Fair.
Just a couple of good articles already on the site:
* Andrew Klavan on the purpose of BIG HOLLYWOOD.
* Hollywood's love-hate relationship with Christians.
* Hollywood's obsession with politics.
* Conservatives are persecuted in Hollywood.
* Greg Gutfeld being very, very funny.
From elsewhere:
* Paul Krugman is a very funny man...the problem is...it's not on purpose. More on kicking the Krugman habit.
* Cal Thomas interviews the President one last time before he leaves office.
* European-Israeli relations may be dissipating quickly.
* Stomach churning article of the day. The Left wants to be patriotic thanks to President-elect Obama.
* CBS brings Ann Coulter on their morning show only to disrespect her...no such thing as media bias, huh?
* One of your fellow citizens has been indicted in Oklahoma for being pro-democracy...this is a disgusting portrait of a power hungry politician abusing his position.
* Jack Cafferty is full of stupid questions.
* The New York Times...clueless?
So please take the time to surf over to BIG HOLLYWOOD and check out some of the just posted articles. Breitbart has found some intelligent and creative writers to pen their views of the modern day Vanity Fair.
Just a couple of good articles already on the site:
* Andrew Klavan on the purpose of BIG HOLLYWOOD.
* Hollywood's love-hate relationship with Christians.
* Hollywood's obsession with politics.
* Conservatives are persecuted in Hollywood.
* Greg Gutfeld being very, very funny.
From elsewhere:
* Paul Krugman is a very funny man...the problem is...it's not on purpose. More on kicking the Krugman habit.
* Cal Thomas interviews the President one last time before he leaves office.
* European-Israeli relations may be dissipating quickly.
* Stomach churning article of the day. The Left wants to be patriotic thanks to President-elect Obama.
* CBS brings Ann Coulter on their morning show only to disrespect her...no such thing as media bias, huh?
* One of your fellow citizens has been indicted in Oklahoma for being pro-democracy...this is a disgusting portrait of a power hungry politician abusing his position.
* Jack Cafferty is full of stupid questions.
* The New York Times...clueless?
Monday, January 05, 2009
You might be a Democrat if...
* Bill Richardson is dirty, at least according to President-elect Obama's people. I was surprised when I first heard the news that the FBI was investigating Richardson and his administration, but I guess I shouldn't have been. Politics as usual...
Corruption? Someone linked to Obama is corrupt? I don't know...sounds like media bias to me!
It almost sounds like there should be a comedy routine with a string of jokes that end with "You might be an Obama supporter if..." (Oh, and in advance...I offer links to support my jokes...no joke is driven by hatred, racism, bigotry, or phobia...just by the news.)
1. If you are a radical who was a terrorist in Weather Underground, you might be Obama supporter
2. If you are a racist minister that thinks God should damn America, you might be an Obama supporter.
3. If you are a friend of a racist minister and preach hate and race-baiting too, you might be an Obama supporter.
4. If you are from Harlem and don't know the difference between the Republican platform and Democrat platform, you might be an Obama supporter.
5. If you vote for people based on the amount of melanin in their skin, you might be an Obama supporter.
6. If you are the governor of Illinois and are about to be convicted on charges of corruption, chances are, you might be Obama supporter.
7. If you are a vice presidential candidate that thinks President FDR went on TV to talk about the onset of the Great Depression years before the TV was invented or before the start of the Depression, you might be an Obama supporter.
8. If you are the corrupt Governor of New Mexico, you might be an Obama supporter.
9. If you are a homicidal maniac with aspirations of ruling a nation and committing genocide, you might be an Obama supporter.
10. If you are an organization that registers people to vote illegally, you might be am Obama supporter.
11. If you still think we need to worry about the global warming farce, you might be an Obama supporter.
11. If you think that we should try some of Karl Marx's great ideas, you might be an Obama supporter.
12. If you are currently going to, have been, or if your future plans consist of going to prison for corruption, you might be an Obama supporter.
13. If you don't think any of these jokes are funny, you might be an Obama supporter.
* In case you haven't seen it quite yet...you have to read Gateway Pundit's latest Global Warming update.
* The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher on Bailouts! Now there was a leader.
* Star Parker is not a Rick Warren fan.
* Neal Boortz wants a Constitutional Convention to consider 3 new amendments, and I for one am on board.
* Not one single protest against the suppression of this terrorist organization...not named Hamas. How about this for "fair" press coverage? Middle East media outlets blaming Hamas for the current crisis.
* FDR did not fix the economy.
* Barack Obama will be more of the same when it comes to foreign policy. And who is the early leader for RINO of the year? Why Charlie Crist.
* Ron Paul thinks Israel was wrong to invade Gaza.
Here is someone who thinks Israel acted properly.
Corruption? Someone linked to Obama is corrupt? I don't know...sounds like media bias to me!
It almost sounds like there should be a comedy routine with a string of jokes that end with "You might be an Obama supporter if..." (Oh, and in advance...I offer links to support my jokes...no joke is driven by hatred, racism, bigotry, or phobia...just by the news.)
1. If you are a radical who was a terrorist in Weather Underground, you might be Obama supporter
2. If you are a racist minister that thinks God should damn America, you might be an Obama supporter.
3. If you are a friend of a racist minister and preach hate and race-baiting too, you might be an Obama supporter.
4. If you are from Harlem and don't know the difference between the Republican platform and Democrat platform, you might be an Obama supporter.
5. If you vote for people based on the amount of melanin in their skin, you might be an Obama supporter.
6. If you are the governor of Illinois and are about to be convicted on charges of corruption, chances are, you might be Obama supporter.
7. If you are a vice presidential candidate that thinks President FDR went on TV to talk about the onset of the Great Depression years before the TV was invented or before the start of the Depression, you might be an Obama supporter.
8. If you are the corrupt Governor of New Mexico, you might be an Obama supporter.
9. If you are a homicidal maniac with aspirations of ruling a nation and committing genocide, you might be an Obama supporter.
10. If you are an organization that registers people to vote illegally, you might be am Obama supporter.
11. If you still think we need to worry about the global warming farce, you might be an Obama supporter.
11. If you think that we should try some of Karl Marx's great ideas, you might be an Obama supporter.
12. If you are currently going to, have been, or if your future plans consist of going to prison for corruption, you might be an Obama supporter.
13. If you don't think any of these jokes are funny, you might be an Obama supporter.
* In case you haven't seen it quite yet...you have to read Gateway Pundit's latest Global Warming update.
* The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher on Bailouts! Now there was a leader.
* Star Parker is not a Rick Warren fan.
* Neal Boortz wants a Constitutional Convention to consider 3 new amendments, and I for one am on board.
* Not one single protest against the suppression of this terrorist organization...not named Hamas. How about this for "fair" press coverage? Middle East media outlets blaming Hamas for the current crisis.
* FDR did not fix the economy.
* Barack Obama will be more of the same when it comes to foreign policy. And who is the early leader for RINO of the year? Why Charlie Crist.
* Ron Paul thinks Israel was wrong to invade Gaza.
Here is someone who thinks Israel acted properly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
