Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Palestinian Sheik Issam has stated, "If two people are united and a third person comes along and tries to incite disunity, kill him."
The establishment for Khilafah, an Islamic Superstate which would unite the world's Islamic countries (currently numbered at 57), is an Islamic duty. Muslims have been ordered by radical clerics to kill Muslims and non-Muslims who threaten coming Superstate.
Indonesian cleric Ismail Yusanto has called for the sons and daughters of Islam to help build and defend Sharia Law (absolute form of Islam) across the globe, and to prepare for the inevitable war against the Western powers. He also stated that "Sacrifice must be encouraged."
The call for Muslims to obtain military training and prepare for the jihad has gone out. If the capital of the Islamic Superstate (Khilafah) fell and was occupied by the invading forces, the rest of Islam must be involved in an all-out war against the occupiers.
According to Muslim prophecy, the seat of world government is to be in the city of Kufa, Iraq.
During the 1930's, the majority of Germans did not consider themselves to be Nazis. In fact, very few German people were true Nazis. However, many were enjoying the promise of returning German Pride. They figured the Nazis were a bunch of fools, could never do more than make a lot of noise, and resolved to go about their business making lives for themselves, and letting the politicians be the ones to worry about politics.
In the end, the world for those Germans came to a violent end. As the majority sat back and watched, the Nazi Party led Germany into World War II, followed by the destruction of Germany by allied forces, with a great many of those citizens that decided to do nothing winding up in concentration camps before it was all over.
Communist Russia was founded on the principle of peaceful co-habitation. The Russians wished to live in peace in a utopian society where everyone worked together for the state. The Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of over 20 million people.
Chinese Communists, once again the majority of people in that nation desire to live in peace and make no waves, have managed to murder 70 million people.
Japan's majority, before World War II, was not populated by a bunch of sadists poised for global domination. Yet, Japan's minority led the country into murdering and slaughtering its way across southeast Asia systematically murdering 12 million Chinese civilians.
Rwanda is said to have been populated by peace loving citizens, but history tells a story of Rwanda collapsing into a butchery that rivaled Cambodia's killing fields.
Today, it is well understood that a great majority of Muslims wish to live in peace, and shrug off these radical Islamic clerics as a bunch of fools whose threats will amount to nothing. Their tirades about a great Islamic Superstate forged from war and terrorism is just a bunch of meaningless fluff, according to the peace loving Muslim majority. Nobody would ever let it get to that point.
Radical Islam is not much unlike Naziism. Islamic fanatics are rampaging around the planet in the name of Islam, and it is a fact that this minority of violent men currently rules Islam. These fanatics, that are simply a minority of old fools, are all over the news as they wage four dozen or so wars worldwide. It is these fanatics that are systematically slaughtering Christians and tribal groups throughout Africa in an attempt to take over the entire continent. It is these fanatics who practice civil rights violations against women and gays by beheading or stoning them. It was these fanatics that pulled together the resources to fly planes into American structures, killing thousands of Americans, on September 11, 2001.
Peace-loving Muslims are the majority, and for the most part have remained silent. Like their predecessors in Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Rwanda, and so forth, they may find themselves some day in the future under the complete rule of the fanatics, and it will be too late.
The good Muslims are allowing radical Islam to spread across the globe. And we are just as guilty fighting among ourselves and refusing to fully support the effort in the Middle East.
Iraq cannot be abandoned. We have struck the prophesied seat of power for a future fascist Islamic superstate, and we have engaged the enemy in the heart of their homeland. Since our presence, terrorism has not returned to the United States. If we pull out of Iraq, World War II will be nothing more than a jaunt through the park by comparison. Israel will be destroyed, followed shortly by a jihad that will be waged against all nations of the West. Regardless of the reasoning by the current administration for going into the region, and regardless of any errors made in the planning of this conflict, the fact is we are in the region and pulling out would be disastrous.
Makes me wonder if the anti-Christ will be wearing a turban.
Related pieces by fellow, esteemed bloggers:
@ Biga's Rants
@ Right Truth
@ Conservative Sense
@ American and Proud
@ Crush Liberalism
@ Gunz and Ebyjo
This article is also posted at A Right Angle in a Left Turn World
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
So how, you may ask, does Doug deal with liberals without wanting to wrap my fingers around their throats?
First thing's first. When I have to confront a liberal I remember that the liberal bottom feeders of our nation do not fight fair, twist factual data to fit their argument, and tend to exist well beyond the realm of reason - - and as many of you have heard me say before, you can't reason with the unreasonable. So, since they fight unfairly with emotionally driven facts that are far from factual, I simply decide not to bring myself down to their level. Basically, I refuse to get down into the mud with mudslingers.
However, sometimes verbal or written interaction is necessary. This is when knowing the facts, and what you believe, are important.
The best weapon, however, is to simply refuse to recognize their idiocy. Sometimes it is best to refuse to respond in an argumentative way. Taking the high road has its advantages.
Just a thought.
Monday, January 29, 2007
My, my, the more things change the more they stay the same.
Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, and Tim Robbins were also present, and stepped up to the microphone.
Fonda drew parallels of the current war to the war in Vietnam. She claimed that veterans, soldiers, and their families are increasingly against the Iraq War. Every soldier I've met has told me the opposite.
I found it fascinating that the Associated Press article regarding this event was quick to report on children at the rally, as well as members of the military against the war, but failed to say anything about the counter-protest, or the fact that anti-war protesters were spitting on a disabled veteran of the Iraq War who supports the effort.
As expected, the mainstream media threw their own slant on the event and failed to provide the entire story.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Aw, shucks, it's not as funny if I have to explain the joke - The 2008 Donkey Race is (drum roll please) . . . up in the air and they can't handle the load.
I thought it was funny, anyway.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
2008 Donkey Race
The race of the donkeys ends in 2008, and the jackasses are already out of the gate. The donkey with the most energetic burst of speed is Barack Obama, but the jackass in the lead is Hillary Clinton. Her massive teeth and leftwing kick may hold off Obama for a while, but the race may come down to the wire. Perhaps.
Both continue to attack Bush's policies in Iraq, but are slowly realizing that their ultra-liberal stances are actually pushing voters away from them. With the recent election for Congress where a number of Democrats leaning more to the center won their races, it is clear that though their propaganda to make people believe that all things conservative are evil, Pelosi at the helm in the House have reminded people that all things liberal are not what folks desire as well.
The dark horses (or should I say dark asses) are John Edwards and Al Gore. Edwards seems to be leading the opposition to the war, his surge energized by Bush's Iraq troop increase. Fact is, as evil as Hillary and Obama are, they have voiced that they wouldn't vote for a funding cutoff, now that the troops are in harm's way (and Hillary claims that is the whole reason Bush pushed for the increase in troop numbers, and is stepping up deployment). Edwards is not a Senator, and doesn't have to vote, so he does not feel obliged to make the same statement, and having the strongest anti-war position of the group, he'll probably even proclaim Obama and Hillary weak for "not standing up to the evil Bush."
Al Gore has created his own niche among the environmentalists with his movie about global warming, but I think that most people are beginning to take his movie about as seriously as Jimmy Carter's book, which makes Gore look stupid, if you ask me.
Hillary Clinton will probably win the race because of the army of single women that will flock to the booths just so they can make sure a woman takes office in the White House. And why not her? She made history by winning a United States Senate seat as first lady.
And Hillary is in to win.
And she may win, because the Republicans are fast losing the trust of conservatives. Reaganite Republicans recognize that George W. Bush is a neo-con, and disagree with a number of his issues. Despite the disagreements, he has been voted in for two terms because his liberal counterparts are too frighteningly stupid, and would love to see the United States of America driven into the ground by socialist ideals.
Reagan was the great communicator. He pushed policies that were rooted in firm ideas that seethed with common sense, and he pulled it off with a Democrat-controlled Congress. They passed because they were grounded in truth, and were proven to work. He stood nose to nose with the Soviet Union until it collapsed, and he cut taxes so that the American economy could soar.
Now, Republicans have forgotten that if given the chance, the human spirit will rise to the occasion when not shackled by the oppression of socialistic ideas, or taxation that has overstepped its limits. Republicans have squandered the legacy bequeathed to them. They have failed to follow what Reagan taught. As a result, the Democrats won the elections last November.
Conservatives need to take back the Republican Party by supporting Social Security reform that returns the system to what it was originally intended to be, shrink the size and scope of the welfare system, make some concerted effort to stop abortion, limit federally funded stem cell research, and halt federal expansionism.
Even their attitude needs to be adjusted. When Foley's Folly exposed the man's inappropriate pursuit of Capitol Hill pages, the Republican Party acted as if it was a public relations problem. They fought to protect the image of the Party. It was a morality problem that should have been approached as such. They did not recognize it as a problem of immorality, and failed to take punitive actions against Mr. Foley. The GOP has forgotten Reagan's words. They fail to remember that those in the government are beholden to the people. They are supposed to be honorable public servants.
Republicanism has been hijacked by liberal Republicans, and the solid conservatives are crouching in the corner.
Conservatism is on the rise in nationwide trends. Heck, conservatism is even on the rise in the Democratic Party. Jim Webb is a former Republican, and Bob Casey Jr. is pro-life.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have expanded the federal government, and the lesson don't seem to be clear to them. Bush's Administration must do what it can to return the party to conservative ideas, or a candidate that stands for conservatism must rise from the ashes, otherwise, the donkey race will provide the next President of the United States in 2008, and I don't think this nation can withstand another four years of a Clinton at the helm.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Pretty depressing, if you let it get to you.
But there is plenty of good news.
Fidel Castro is going to be okay after his recent battles with health problems, which includes being fitted with an artificial anus (okay, that's not good news, it's just funny). Tijuana police, after being discovered by the federal government of acting as body guards for drug traffickers moving drugs into the United States, have had their guns stripped away from them, and are now using sling shots (equipped with bags of ball bearings). Serena Williams beat Sharapova in the Australian Open (or more accurately, the American beat the Russian). Rocky Balboa is a great movie that reminds us that the heart is the strongest part of our bodies if we let it be. And the Muslims, angry with what happened to those six praying imams in Minnesota, have decided to boycott US Airways, making that airline the safest airline in the world.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Mrs. Pistachio Speaks Out about the No Child Left Behind Act
As a quick qualifier, before you get to what Mrs. Pistachio has to say, let me run down my opinion on the matter. (Just like a man, huh? Gotta get the first and last words in!)
Republicanism centers around the idea of small government. In other words, the federal government should butt out regarding local concerns. I view the No Child Left Behind Act as big government putting their mittens on the education of our children. Don't get me wrong, our educational system is far from perfect, and needs a lot of help in getting turned around. But one of the provisions of the Act is to take away funds from educational programs that fail to meet the standards. I believe that provision is in error.
Failure normally deserves punishment, but not when it comes to the financial funding of our schools and the educational welfare of our children. The suffering programs, as a result of this Act, receive less funds as a form of punishment, and in turn find it more difficult as a result to climb out of the cellar. Also, the increased work load on the children is beneficial only for a small percentage of kids who does not need any special tutoring or assistance. One example is of my own children who both had speech impediments because of the way their tongues lay upon their palettes. My son was being accused of being lazy and unwilling to learn. Once a wise teacher recognized the problem to simply be speech articulation, he was put into a special program that assisted him in his speech abilities, which then led to improved reading (hard to read a word you can't even pronounce), and his grades came up.
Most children do not need a heavier work load and more stringent standards, but more assistance in helping them understand the work before them. Some simply need to be offered more reasons why being educated is in their best interests. Unfortunately, this is where the parents should be involved, but often don't because each of them work. They are so busy trying to make a living, that they forget all about the children.
I suggest more stringent standards for teachers, and rewarding teachers (rather than the schools) for higher grades by the students. I believe the money spent on this program should be altered to employ more teachers so that the class sizes will dwindle, as well.
The idea for improving our school system is noble, and needed. But how much money are we going to pump into the system before we realize that it is being pumped into the wrong areas? And why should we penalize our children for falling short? Pay raises as incentives for successful teachers (other than schools) would give the teachers more reason to work on "teaching" rather than "babysitting."
Okay, that was my take, here's Mrs. Pistachio's take on this:
I do not believe that the No Child Left Behind Act is a good idea. The intention is good, but the program fails to provide funds for the children that really need help. And children that need a little extra helping hand exist throughout the system, and are constantly ignored, because they just don't make the grade. But if these children have difficulty understanding the material, how are they going to perform better with tougher standards? And who's going to help them? The teacher? Are you kidding me? She's already fully taxed by an overcrowded class size. A teacher's response will usually be something like, "I am doing the best that I can." This is where the parent's need to get involved, as well.
So how is a child to make the grade and move on to the next grade level? With this No Child Left Behind Act in place the children are the ones that are suffering from an increased stress load placed upon them. They are expected to increase their abilities, but they are not given any tools to meet that challenge. And the one person that should be able to help this child reach the new higher standards set by Bush's education Act simply cannot help, because the teacher has too many other kids in the class to worry about.
Granted, the teacher made the choice to be a teacher, and he or she knew going in what they were up against. If the No Child Left Behind Act is to actually work, rather than taking away funding for failure, the program needs to back up the schools with more teachers and supply the teachers with the necessary help that they need so that the children can make the grade. We are so worried about falling behind in the world that we have neglected the very thing that we should be trying to achieve. What we should be trying to do is make sure that all of the children receive the same, equal opportunity for education.
Virginia Gibbs has four Associates Degrees (Two in Human Development), will receive upon completion of two more classes her Bachelor's Degree in Psychology later this year, and has worked in the past as a Pre-School Teacher in both the Secular and Christian school environments.
And in my opinion, her opinion is right because it goes beyond the politics, and looks at the needs of the children. The question is, how to put these goals into a workable plan that makes drastic improvements upon the No Child Left Behind Act. Problem is, Bush worked with Kennedy for this bad law, and thinks that somehow using big government is "compassionate conservatism." Bush is no conservative, and I say that partly because of "No Child Left Behind." If it wasn't for his position on fighting the war, and a few other issues, I'd be ready for a different president.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
2007 State of the Union as presented by President George W. Bush
The order of the items, I suppose, were in a different order, and that made it a whole new speech.
President Bush, after making a comment about being the first president to be able to say "Madam Speaker" to which Nancy Pelosi used an over the top form of body language by pumping her fists and mouthing the word, "Yes," dove right in to remind us that despite what the doom and gloom liberals pronounce, our economy is strong and growing. Job growth, low inflation and rising wages all made it into his speech. Congratulations, free enterprise, tax cuts and government getting off our backs has proven itself again to be a successful way to run an economy. This is news, of course, the Democrats deny acknowledgment of, declaring erroneously that we are heading for a recession and all is horrid on the economic front. I guess the liberals see a glass of water as half empty.
Balancing the budget without the need to raise taxes came up next, and it was nice seeing how facts (deficit cut in half 3 years ahead of schedule) shut the Democrats up, and had them sitting on their hands as the Republicans cheered and rose to their feet in loud applause. Bush proposed to submit a budget, now, that will eliminate the federal deficit in the next five years. Interesting. The deficit is dying by the hands of a Republican, and the Democrats have spent so many years blaming The Right for the deficit in the first place, declaring that it was not possible to eliminate it within the next couple generations. See, Democrats, what can be done when people quit complaining and get to work? The Left could care less about balancing the budget. They want Bush to fail, because rather than helping the growth of America, their primary agenda is simply to win the 2008 Presidential Election.
Special interest items called earmarks have been fitted for coffins, according to Bush, and this alone should free up a lot of money, which will assist greatly with the budget.
Bush also vowed to protect Medicare and Social Security, programs long abused by The Left (Democrats in the past have continuously borrowed from Social Security to fund programs, and passed that permanent disability be pulled from Social Security, allowing certain individuals to pull money out of their Social Security account than they put in).
The No Child Left Behind Act was mentioned. Bush loves this program, but I have problems when the federal government gets too entangled in education. I believe the way to fix education is to ensure funds are provided for special education (which he did propose) and that higher standards must be met by teachers in order to continue to provide education for our children.
Healthcare is an issue that Bush spoke on for quite a while, and he alluded many times that he supported regulation, but not government sponsored health care. This defiance to socialized health care was met by silence from The Left. Of course. Their Marxist agenda is the complete socialization of medical care, as well as the eventual socialization of our entire society.
The proposed tax incentives in regards to health care seems to be a stable strategy, while still placating The Left with assurances that the poor will also be provided with the opportunity to secure reliable coverage.
Bush's continued weak stance on immigration poked its ugly head into this speech, but he was surprisingly slightly stronger than in the past. However, I have a better plan. Build a wall along our southern border, enforce the law regarding not allowing illegals to cross, and ensure that immigrants follow the proper legal protocol before being allowed into this country. Why is it so hard for politicians to understand that you should not reward criminals for breaking the law? Breaking the law is exactly what the border jumpers are doing when they cross the line into our country.
Energy and technology go hand in hand. I agree that we need to divorce ourselves from the oil habit. This will provide for a cleaner environment and will ensure that our money stops landing in the sweating palms of nations that support terrorism. However, I believe that this can be best achieved in the private sector. Incentives ought to be offered, tax cuts for certain programs would be dandy, but the government should not provide straight out funding which opens Pandora's Box for abuse and misuse. The goals of reducing gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next 10 years is admirable and achievable, but the government cannot sponsor every part of that journey.
Our system of justice is like no other in the world, and Bush's comments and commitment to nominate justices that are servants of the law rather than legislators from the bench is commendable.
Iraq and the War on Terror dominated the speech, and I agree with the president one hundred percent. Our highest responsibility is to protect our country from danger. This protection occurs when we remain on the offense by taking the war to the terrorists. He explained that everything didn't go as planned (what war does) but that by standing up to these people who preach with threats we have made the world a safer place. We must finish what we started and win this war. We must not abandon the battlefield in the midst of war. Regardless of the reasons we entered Iraq, the fight we are in now requires that we stay in that region, keeping our promises, not abandoning our friends, and doing whatever we can to assist Iraq in reaching the goal of providing their own security.
The current battle for Baghdad may be the defining moment of whether or not Iraq is succeeding or failing.
Overall, I think that it was a strong speech, and one that addressed every issue Americans care about, even though it was a lot like the last speech a year ago.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Roe v. Wade, Border Disease, Jailed Border Agents, and Muslim Activism
In South Texas several cases of cysticercosis, which is a rare brain worms disease, has slipped across the border. The disease is normally spread by unsanitary food-handling practices regarding a tapeworm found in pork. Once ingested, the cysts make their way through the body, lodging in the muscles, eyes, brain, or spinal cord. Undiagnosed and untreated, the victim faces inevitable death. The condition is rare in Muslim countries, where eating pork is forbidden, and the United States, where food-handling standards are high. Cysticercosis joins Morgellons Disease as a new mysterious infection on a list of new illnesses spreading throughout South Texas, whose appearances coincide with increase of the flood of illegal aliens crossing the border into the United States. So far more than 100 cases have been reported in Texas. Doctors indicate washing hands, cooking meats thoroughly, and washing fruits and vegetables are the best ways to avoid the disease.
Another disease coming across the border is the fact that 144,000 illegal alien sex offenders are currently in the United States.
Two U.S. Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, have been convicted as criminals for shooting an illegal alien that happened to also be a drug dealer. The gunshots were received by the victim in the rear-end. The Border Patrol Agent's mistake was that knowing they fired outside of established standards (which is that you cannot fire upon any suspect without being fired upon first), they attempted to cover up their actions by collecting the empty shells as the wounded criminal hopped back into Mexico. They are now facing prison time because the drug dealer they were chasing decided to throw an accusation at them, and testify in court against them. They broke the rules of the department, and do need some kind of punishment, I guess, but a possible 10 year sentence for doing their job is a little extreme. What are they supposed to do when a suspect is fleeing? Call out, "Hey, drug dealer, please don't run away!"? The rule they broke needs to be changed, anyway, so that our border patrol agents aren't handcuffed from doing their job, and Bush ought to pardon these men so as to send a message to illegals and drug dealers that we support the men and women that protects our borders, and enforces our immigration laws.
The Fox television show, 24, has made the terrorists on the show Muslim (for the same reason that The Godfather made mafia characters Italian, and why the actors used as a part of the enemy faction in Apocalypse Now were portrayed as Vietnamese). A couple years ago when the terrorists on "24" were portrayed as Muslims, the Muslim community (led by CAIR) went into an uproar, and the show gave in, adding a service announcement explaining to everyone that the show is only fiction and that not all Muslims are terrorists, and followed that up with last season by resorting to making the terrorists for that 24 hour period Russians. Now, 24 has regrown their cajones, and the terrorists are Muslim again, with is historically more accurate considering that the majority of worldwide terrorist attacks have been perpetuated by Muslims. Now CAIR is really pissed. They claim that the show gives an overwhelming impression of fear and hatred for Muslims. I disagree. I think the show gives an overwhelmingly accurate depiction of Muslim terrorists. I think that terror attacks such as 9/11 is what gives people an impression of fear for Muslims. Okay, common sense, folks. Obviously not every Muslim on the planet is a terrorist. But, the majority of terrorists do tend to be Muslims. Maybe Fox should have made the terrorists a bunch of Ricola Horn Blowing Swiss dragging cough drops across the hills, threatening to catapult them into the neighborhoods of Nome, Alaska. Nah, the Eskimo-rights groups would have been all up in arms over that one.
Nobody, however, considered it insensitive when Radical Muslim Groups were seen celebrating the deaths of 13 U.S. Troops in the crash of an Army Black Hawk helicopter in Baghdad.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
The Whole Point of the War in Iraq
An Iraqi went to the bank to cash a check for his salary from a French Company. The Saudi bank teller asked him to endorse it on the back of the check.
“That’s humiliating,” shouted the Iraqi, “Why should the French be able to sign on the front and I must sign on the back? I want my money NOW!”
The Saudi refused to pay him, and the Iraqi kept shouting in the bank until the bank manager, who happened to be an American, walked into the lobby carrying a five pound sledge hammer. The American walked up to the screaming Iraqi and knocked him on the head with the hammer.
The Iraqi dropped to the deck out cold. After five minutes passed the Iraqi woke up, signed the back of the check without a complaint, and received his money. The Saudi clerk, amazed at the Iraqi's sudden change of attitude, asked the Iraqi, “Tell me why did you not sign the check on the back the first time, but signed it now?”
The Iraqi said, “You missed the point. You only told it to me, but the American explained it.”
Saturday, January 20, 2007
In that post, one of the arguments I made was that abortion has diminished the value of human life. These remorseless killings are no longer shocking to society, because after being immersed by it for over thirty years, we have become numbed to it. This violence against unborn children, I stated back then, goes against our built-in instincts to protect our innocent offspring. And I believe that it is human nature to worsen our activities, to always take what we do to the next level. If aborting during the first timester is fine, why not during the second trimester. If a fetus is not technically a child, then anytime it is in the womb it must not be a baby, even if it can survive on the outside. Right?
It sickens me that now partial-birth abortions, and even post-birth abortions, are being performed in our world.
However, this article is not, technically, about abortion. It is about a disturbing article I received from a friend of mine titled: Murder to Order.
I am troubled by the emergence of Stem Cell Research as much as I am abortion. I am even more troubled by the fact that there are politicians trying to enable government funding for such projects -- in essence, using tax dollars that I paid from my hard earned dollars to fund something I am so against.
I've heard the argument. A cure for Parkinson's disease is more important than discarded embryos, and the embryos have no chance to become babies anyway, and adult stem cells are being researched into, etc, etc, etc.
Remember what I said about it being human nature to always take our actions to the next level?
In the Ukraine, according to the article linked above, the stem cell capital of the world is butchering healthy new born babies to feed the flourishing international trade in stem cells. And this practice is not isolated to only the Ukraine. Baby snatching in maternity wards is on the rise, and according to the BBC, it seems that the business of stem cell research has produced this practice with its ever-growing need for more and more healthy stem cells.
And even worse, these dead babies in the Ukraine were dismembered in that facility. These poor little bodies were ripped apart so that the doctors could harvest stem cells from the bone marrow.
Unborn children aren't technically human, argues Pro-Choicers. The lefties in California are pushing a bill to make spanking a child under four years of age a criminal offense, yet these very same people support abortion and embryonic stem cell research. It doesn't matter to them if it has been proven that an unborn child feels, reacts, and is a complete (though immature) human being. A woman's choice, and the progress of science, has become more important than a child's opportunity for life.
When will they start to grow these babies into older people before harvesting their organs and cells? When will the next line be crossed? When will we finally realize how precious our children are again?
And why must these Ukrainian doctors wait until babies are born before taking their stem cells? Why must they butcher these babies in the interest of science?
Because embryonic stem cells are unusable. Stem Cells taken from immature fetuses tend to become tumors when injected into subjects. Science is no closer to a cure of any disease than the day they came up with this theoretical idea of stem cells. And the stem cells are more stable in the late stages of pregnancy, or in the infant stages, during periods of life that even the most staunch pro-choicer must admit is survivable by the child, at which time it becomes straight out, un-arguably, murder.
If we keep allowing these scientists to continue to convince everyone that it is okay to kill babies in order to search for a cure for diseases that is still only in a theoretical stage, and hasn't produced any results except failures and tumors, it won't be long before killing newborn babies to harvest non-tumor-forming stem cells will become common place in America as well.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Have you seen these latest stories draped all over the news channels?
Going back a few months, I remember coming across a similar news item about parents filming their kids fighting, betting money on the battles, and then broadcasting the matches on the internet.
This most recent one is about teenage girls beating the crap out of each other and filming it with their cell phones. The videos are all over the net.
We live in a violent society.
I am sure you've heard all of the arguments as to why we have become more violent. First be began to blame it on the movies, and there is a shred of credibility to that argument. Then we turned to the National Babysitter, television. Once again, there is some validity to that argument. Parents have always seen fit to blame our out of control youth on the music. Heck, all of us remember our parents hating the music we listened to, no matter what generation you hail from.
Gang violence is up, and damn near every teenager out there seems to think that they have some reason to think that they are a gangster. It's all about who's the meanest, how many fights one has been in, et cetera. The boys quite often shave their heads (motives, people, I am not making a blanket statement that shaved heads are a bad thing, but when one shaves the head and accompanies it with attitude, certain clothing, etc., the motive is apparent), drop their pants halfway down their buttcracks, turn their ballcaps sideways, throw signs, and begin speaking a language that only the dogs from the ghetto can understand.
Okay, I admit that right now I am running a huge risk of sounding like my parents twenty-five plus years ago. My parents didn't really understand my generation either.
I still remember my dad making the comment, after catching a brief snippet of my music, "You know, music is supposed to rhyme."
It did rhyme, but I suppose the wanging guitars and the tongue flicking, blood drenched lyrics were foreign enough to them that he didn't get the point.
"It's only rock-n-roll, man. If it's too loud, you're too old!"
Perhaps that is all this violence in society truly is. Maybe it is nothing more than the rantings and ravings of America's misunderstood youth, and we are just a bunch of old farts that don't understand the evolution of the generations.
Never mind the fact that with a sky rocketing divorce rate we never see fathers around taking on their responsibilities anymore. Let's just forget about the fact that as a society we tend to come up with as many excuses for our deteriorating society as we can, and then drug our children and ourselves to make it look like we are doing something proactive about it.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are real ailments out there that require real solutions. Depression exists. Sometimes people's chemical balances in their brains get out of whack and it is necessary for the application of one kind of drug therapy, or another. Fine. I accept that.
But it seems to me that abuse of these true scenarios is in our midst. As a result, we have taken psychological ailments and drug therapy to the extreme, and I believe it stems from humanity's fear of taking responsibility for our poor decision making abilities.
I saw a television commercial last night about a new drug out there for "Restless Leg Syndrome." Perhaps that is a real ailment. I am not putting down people who truly suffer from such discomfort. But it just seems like everything under the sun is an infliction, anymore, and there is a medical name for every one of them.
The one I see coming to us on the horizon is P.L.E.A.S.e (Post Labor Exhaustion Ailment Syndrome).
In my mind's eye I can see the television advertisement now for it:
Do you come home from a hard day's work and suffer from excess fatigue? Is it difficult for you to physically perform your usually easy 40 ounce curls? Unable to receive your expected eight hours of sleep during the work week because of having to rise out of bed early in the morning so that you can get ready for another laborious day on the job? Then the new drug, ScrueBoss, might be for you.
Medical Experts have identified a condition now known as Post Labor Exhaustion Ailment Syndrome, or P.L.E.A.S.e, that has been found to afflict a large number of the population normally after a long day of employment.
Some symptoms include aching joints, sore muscles, and tired limbs. This condition may interfere with your ability to perform some recreational activities, and could lead to more serious conditions such as anger, boredom, and hating your employer; which in some individuals, though rare, could lead to more serious conditions like "Going Postal."
Ask your doctor if ScrueBoss is for you. Some side effects may occur, such as an empty wallet, bruising from pissed off spouse, loss of house and home, lowered dignity levels, oversleeping, and vomiting. ScrueBoss is not for everyone, and may lead to more serious disorders like laziness or divorce. If any of these side effects result from taking ScrueBoss, stop taking the medication immediately, and promptly call a lawyer and sue your doctor.
Our parents had a better name for this ailment, and the growing discontent of today's society - - Irresponsibility.
Myself? I have been married for 22 years, have worked my butt off for 24 years, am the father to a prodigal son that nearly became a victim of our idiotic society (however, being an active parent can produce wonders), and a teenage daughter whose life is full of drama and trauma (as expected from a teenage girl), but she has a job and good grades as a junior in high school.
Being responsible may seem foreign to some people, but let me tell you, it really works.
So what's the point of this? And what does it have to do with a bunch of teens beating the crap out of each other?
Kids will be kids. They are not capable of making the decisions that we make, because they have not been seasoned by a long life of trials and errors. However, if not provided limitations, rules, and a foundational structure rooted in the values that hammer the difference between right and wrong, this kind of ridiculous activity can be expected. The girls are wrong for their actions, but the ultimate blame for the fighting girls, and the fall of our society into a shadow of what it once was, lays primarily on parents. A large number of parents are too busy with both of them working, and trying to make a living, that they forgot how to make a life. They forgot that the kids come before that expensive sportcar, and that fourteen hour day.
If you build a strong foundation, the kids may rebel at one point or another, but most often they will return to those strong values that they were taught. But to return to such values, the values must be presented by parents taking their parental roles seriously, and doing everything they can to produce children that will be a fine addition to our society.
I am not pointing fingers at anyone - - - but discipline goes a long way.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Freedom of Speech
And now that I am a member of the Wide Awakes, I am getting a mess load of e-mail from them. One of the issues bouncing around is the proposed Fairness Doctrine. The last one was in effect until 1987, after which it was eliminated, partly because of the difficulty enforcing it.
Are you kidding me? Air America failed, and NPR (NPR Sucks!) has only a following of socialist freaks, and a few liberal jackasses that don't understand the twisted bull that NPR spreads (I listen to NPR on occasion, when I am in the mood for a good, hardy laugh regarding how idiotic people can really be).
FoxNews (which claims to be fair and balanced, and I feel that they are) has ratings that the other cable news networks drool over. Conservative shows dominate the airwaves (radio and television) because that's what people want to hear. Since liberal talk shows can't seem to succeed, the liberal Congress is going to force the lefties onto Conservative shows, claiming it is in the interest of allowing equal time for opposing points of views. And internet radio may be under fire as well.
Not my show. It will be what I want to say, and that's it. They don't like it? Fine me. Jail me. How dare they desire to take away my Constitutionally protected right to free speech and press.
Freedom of Speech seems to only be applicable if you agree with the libs according to the lefties.
And on top of that garbage, Pelosi wants to force lobbyists to register with the government, and expands the definition of lobbyists to include any church or organization that is seen by them to be striving to influence public opinion. This means that if your church speaks out on major moral and political issues such as partial-birth abortion, same-sex marriage, or a military chaplain's right to pray in a public place, they will be classified as lobbyists (in essence forbidding free speech) and if they don't register they will be criminally prosecuted, giving way to fines up to $100,000 and imprisonment.
The Democrats claim that they support Freedom of Speech, yet are proposing to laws designed to squash that freedom.
I'm telling you right now, they won't silence me. I will be heard. Be loud. Be clear. Demand that the Marxists that call themselves the Democratic Party do not take away our freedoms. Demand your freedom. Demand your rights as Americans.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Sunday, January 14, 2007
A Simple Thank You
The author of this piece explains how while at the airport he heard someone in the distance clap, until the clapping became the sound of applause. Curious, he looked for the source, and he noticed that people were stopping what they were doing, putting their luggage down, laying their packages aside and clapping for returnees from Iraq, still dressed in their desert camouflage and sand-colored boots.
He claims that there must have been over 100 of the returning troops marching by, and as they looked around, the applause grew louder, until everyone in the terminal was applauding the returning soldiers.
The Democrats try very hard to convince everyone that the American public sees these fine soldiers as baby killers and war-mongers. But it is at times like this that the truth makes its way to the surface.
A television commercial by a beer company has a similar scene. When I first saw it, it brought tears to my eyes. I couldn't imagine the tears that I would have been shedding had I been at this airport with G.M. Roper when this scene he describes on his blog took place.
This is what it means to support our troops.
My step-dad was in Vietnam, and one of the things that still bugs him to this day is how he never received that kind of response. It wasn't that he wanted it for ego reasons, he just desired to be appreciated for putting his life on the line for his nation. He was a helicopter door-gunner, and it wasn't until last October that someone aside from family thanked him for his service.
I had attended a Book Fest put on by the Military Writers Society of America, and two writers at that book fest, after I told them about my dad, gave me signed copies of their books to give to him. One of the writers (Jason Robertson), an orphan from Vietnam that fled in 1975 with the assistance of a wonderful American woman who pulled over two-hundred orphans out of the country just before the fall of Saigon, autographed his book, "A Love Beyond Explaining", to my dad, saying: "Glad you made it home. Thank you for your sacrifice." When I gave the book to my dad for his birthday last year, and he read what had been written by the author on the title page, it was one of the few times in my life I ever saw my dad's eyes moisten.
To all of our troops: Thank You for your service, and for your sacrifice. God Bless you.
Friday, January 12, 2007
The Seven Greatest Wonders
Now for tonight's post:
Ever heard of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World? Quick list: The Great Pyramid of Giza, The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Statue of Zeus at Olympia, Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, The Colossus of Rhodes, The Lighthouse of Alexandria.
But what, my friends, are the seven wonders of today?
Depends on who you talk to.
For some, having a running toilet is a wonder. Worldwide, for a few of the fortunate, freedom. Yet, according to the polls by liberal media outlets, 67% of Americans are unhappy with the direction our nation is headed.
I suppose that means that they are unhappy that they have been forced to enjoy freedom, a strong economy, and a military full of people willing to die to ensure that our liberty remains intact. Maybe our electricity and running water is a wonder to them. Perhaps having a paycheck. Are those Americans unhappy with the direction our nation is headed upset that they have a job and are able to use the money they earn to buy good food at the market up the street, unlike most of the rest of the world?
Perhaps they can't stand the fact that they can drive to any continental state of the union without having to worry about presenting identification papers. Just being able to own and drive an automobile is a modern wonder.
How about the emergency services? The fact that most Americans own a home? And if that home catches flame, the fire department responds immediately? Or the police response if someone breaks into that home? Is that a wonder? Or does the American people find that upsetting?
Perhaps the American public is bothered by the fact that we have religious, social and political freedoms?
Or perhaps we are just a bunch of ungrateful jerks.
This is a society that shells out nine bucks a pop to go to the theater and watch blood and guts on the movie screen, yet does not have the stomach to support our troops fighting for our nation. And the media plays on it. The media plays on your emotions, and some of you fall for it.
And here's what really gets me. When I asked earlier what the 7 greatest wonders are, what did you come up with? Great Wall of China? The Space Shuttle Program? The Pyramids?
We look so quickly to what is man-made.
How about the things that have been God-made?
1. The ability to see.
2. The ability to hear.
3. The ability to touch.
4. The ability to taste.
5. The ability to feel.
6. The ability to laugh.
7. The ability to love.
That's the seven greatest wonders in my opinion. And those wonders are enhanced by our freedom. But that freedom must be protected. It must be safeguarded. It must be fought for.
Just a thought.
Update on that harsh e-mail
And then, upon acknowledgment of me being a vet, said "As an American I certainly honor your sacrifice for our country."
Holy cow. Am I getting this right? First, my resident lefty, Mudkitty stands up for me (thank you my dear, and thanks to the rest of you too - I loved the comments on that post), and then this guy apologizes for being harsh.
And it gets better.
He stated he is feeling a little foolish about the e-mail. Perhaps he feels like he jumped the gun and acted on emotion - - - which, to be honest, I believe is a typical liberal trait. If folks would stop and consider that we are all in this together, and we all have a right to an opinion, we might get something accomplished in this country. So far, I don't think the leftwingers in Congress have taken my new friend's lead, just yet.
The e-mailer also stated, and I recognize his right to have an opinion, that he doesn't understand the point about protecting this nation by starting a war with another nation who is not threatening us.
He then thanked me for responding, and of course I sent an e-mail thanking him for his response, and inviting him to comment on Political Pistachio, explaining that I try to be fair with my commenters. As long as the mudslinging doesn't get too bad, or folks don't do things like X-out Christ in their wording, I accept all comments.
Now, I feel obligated to respond to his statement that we ought not be starting wars with nations not threatening us. That, my friends, is where I differ from the left. I believe that nations that harbor terrorists, fund terrorism, train terrorists, have outside connections with 9/11 (I will provide my info on that on a later date), and proclaim in mass rallies "Down With America" as they wave their guns in the air, a threat. I also consider any nation who's goal it is to annihilate one of our most precious allies, Israel, also to be a threat. So, in response to your statement, I don't believe we started a war with another nation who is not threatening us. Saddam Hussein was a threat. I believe he had weapons of mass destruction that he planned to unleash on the U.S., but was able to get them out of the country, probably to Iran or Syria, before we located them. I believe that he was providing a safe haven for al Qaeda terrorists (such as Zarqawi). I believe that our presence in the region is one of the main reasons we have not been hit again by terrorism in the United States, however long that may last. And I believe that if we pull out of Iraq like the Democrats desire, Iraq will fall harder than Vietnam did in 1975. Iran and Syria will use Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists. Anybody found to have supported the U.S. presence in that nation will be slaughtered, making the Killing Fields of Cambodia look tame. Kurdistan would be no more. And Israel would fall under a threat that would either obligate them to strike against the aggressors with nuclear weapons, or Israel will be annihilated as the Radical Islamists desire.
And for those who use the arguments about the dangers of all fundamental religions, don't. This is an ideology like no other. You would think that Democrats and Liberals would support this fight against Islamism. Islam is guilty of human rights atrocities from all ends of the spectrum. They wish to kill anyone that is not of their religion, gays, women who stand up for themselves, and so on. To do nothing is to allow the cancer to spread, and we must not allow such a thing.
As for my harsh e-mailer, I hope you visited again and are reading this. I don't hate anyone, but I have values that I stand up for, and I am willing to fight for. Freedom isn't free, and neither are the values that you are enjoying right now.
This is not just a war on terrorism. It is a war to protect the American Way.
I was accused by e-mail to be just another rightwing blowhard
I found your page through a link in the moderatevoice.com and I must say you and your views disgust me. If you are so pro-Bush and pro-war, why the hell aren't you over in Iraq tough guy? I'm sure you've heard that troops are needed haven't you? What's holding you up? I mean come on, put your money where your mouth is. Pick up a gun and get your ass over there man...or wait. Maybe you are just another bag of hot air who loves to talk about war, and imagine it, and pretend about how noble it is, but don't want to get anywhere near it...because you are nothing more than a coward Douglas. I bet you still play with army men and GI Joe's don't you?
You are just another right-wing blow hard who loves putting other people in harms way (and for what?!) and berating other Americans like me who don't feel the same. Too afraid to do anything but sit at home in your pajamas between jerk-off sessions and fire blanks at imagined enemies like "the democratic party and the left-wing media" as you so eloquently put it in your insipid little "biography". BTW Douglas, in case you didn't know this, biographies are supposed to tell a little about you...the BS you put down is more like a mission statement OK? Punks like you make me sick.
Again, if you are just so certain about it all, grow a pair and get down to your recruitment officer. We need more people like you over in Iraq dying for nothing.
Interesting, huh? Now for my response:
Sorry you don't agree with my points of view, but be careful what you say about my not participating in the fight in Iraq. I was once in the military. I am a partially disabled veteran that was medically discharged, and now I drag my carcass to the veteran's hospital many times a year just to keep the old bod working. I wish I could "put my money where my mouth is" and be a part of fighting for liberty. Understand, I am not pro-war. I wish that such efforts as the one in Iraq was not necessary. However, I realize that conflict is sometimes necessary to protect the nation. Also, I grew up in the household of a United States Marine, and was raised around honor and discipline. Fact is, I believe that doing nothing only puts us as a nation in jeopardy. Freedom, in my opinion, is something that must be continuously fought for.
Thanks for visiting, nonetheless.
Oh, by the way, of course my bio is a mission statement. I'm an unpublished writer that would like to create a buzz about myself that will help me get published someday. At least I have a free enterprise goal, rather than sucking off of the tax payers like most folks that lean way to the left.
Okay, folks, I know that I shouldn't care what morons like this guy says, and believe me, it really doesn't bother me a bit. But in his rant against me notice the hate, and the venom. Liberals spend so much time accusing conservatives of being hate-mongers, and they fail to look inward. Most interesting is that he didn't leave a comment on my site. He either did not want me to know where his site is (if he has one...folks like this usually comments anonymously anyway), or he was afraid that he would be berated by my readership. So, who's really the coward?
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Response to President Bush's Speech
As President Bush stated, this struggle in Iraq will determine the direction of the global War on Terror. And that direction will directly dictate our safety here at home. His new strategy is not necessarily a new strategy, but a correction of direction, and a more determined effort toward victory. There have been failures, he admitted. There have been miss-steps. However, think about my friends, has there ever been a war where everything went exactly as expected?
Leftwingers have argued with me, saying that, "Maybe the Iraqis don't want us to push our democracy on them.
"Bush said in his speech that ". . .just over a year ago nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement." The numbers in term of percentage of population was higher than that of voter turnout in the United States, and these people voted under the threat of death. I find it hard to believe that they don't desire democracy.
Unfortunately, rather than pulling the nation together, violence has continued. The violence is directly influenced by the Shia/Sunni conflict, as well as outside influence from Iran and Syria. President Bush claimed responsibility for the continued violence in Iraq. He said that the blame was his because he didn't increase the number of troops soon enough.
Fact is, regardless of the situation, departing from Iraq will spell failure, and failure will prove to be devastating to the United States.Democrats keep crying out, "But the American People are against staying in Iraq."The American People, then, are wrong.
Good thing Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Harry Truman refused to listen to the loudest protests during their efforts, or we would be a very different nation, or a number of divided nations.
Fact is, and Bush verbalized this during his speech, if we pull out of the region Radical Islamism will grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be emboldened to topple moderate governments, increase violence in the region, and use the oil revenues to fund their actions. And Iran would complete their drive for nuclear weapons. With a fallen Iraq, Islamism would have a safe haven for planning, training for, and launching attacks against the free world.
With what I believe to be dry runs for terror around the world, specifically in Britain and Miami, America must succeed in Iraq. We must remain strong, and the enemy must continue to second think taking another action against our nation as they did on September 11, 2001.
One change in strategy dictated by President Bush is simple. Prior to this speech after securing an area we would leave and move on to another province or city to begin securing that zone. Problem is, after we'd leave a secured area, the enemy would return and practice their violent ways. Now, not only is the American Military going to go door to door if they have to to secure the zone, but also they will keep a contingent in the area to keep the zone secured. This will require an increase in the number of troops in Iraq.Although I originally agreed that there should be an increase of some kind, I did not originally agree with Bush's numbers. I felt he wanted too many troops to be added to what is already in Iraq.I was wrong. After he detailed his plan, I understand the reasons for the number he came up with.
He also made it clear that Iraq must follow through on its promises, and act for themselves as well.
Bush explained that improvements will not be visible immediately, it will take time. And the Iraq government must establish its authority. Iraq must take responsibility for its security. To assist, we will increase the embedding of American advisors and help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped Army.
Still, even as Iraq gains the ability to govern herself, Bush indicated that we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq, and we must not allow the terror group to come closer to its goals of bringing down the Iraq Democracy.
Understand, folks, this is not just a struggle against a bunch of thugs in the streets of Baghdad. This is a struggle against a radical ideology that believes in killing the innocent, using children to spread their violent ideology, and quelling the rights of women and anyone that disagrees with their cause. And lastly, something Bush did not mention, I think we need to be investing in ways to divorce ourselves from the need of foreign oil. It has nothing to do with what the environmentalists scream about. If we no longer need their oil, they lose their grip on us. They know that our fuel habit can only be supported by their oil, and they are taking full advantage of it. Our dependency upon foreign oil is literally funding the very enemy that wishes destruction upon our nation.
I agreed with all Bush had to say. I just hope the plan is stuck to. And I wish the Democrats would quit politicalizing this war and support the troops with funding.
Interestingly, these Democrats that are demanding withdraw were demanding an increase in troop presence only a few months ago. Typical flip-flop of the left.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Somali Bulls Eye
As devastating as Darfur in Sudan was, it was nothing more than another senseless tragedy in Africa. The rebels and socialists and Islamists are constantly producing news of this kind from that continent.
The War on Terror's primary concern, as it was in the beginning, is al Qaeda. So, this morning's headline about Somalia caught my attention. A Somali official said that witnesses claim that when U.S. forces launched a third day of strikes, senior al Qaeda suspect Fazul Abdullah Mohammed was killed.
Reminiscent of Zarqawi.
Before this, yesterday, Washington also said that the U.S. killed five to ten people believed to be al Qaeda.
This latest casualty, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, is said to have trained in Afghanistan with Osama bin Ladin, and has long been known to be an associate of the terror group. He is suspected of planning the car bombing of a beach resort in Kenya and the attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner in 2002.
The assault on Somalia began with gunship strikes in southern Somalia, attacking al Qaeda fighters, in the first offensive in Somalia since 1993 (of which is partly depicted in the film, Black Hawk Down).
Now that we've accomplished this, the Somali Prime Minister is requesting that American Troops assist on the ground. Covert operations may be underway, but as of yet, there are no troops pounding ground in Somalia.
Ethiopia has been in Somalia in an attempt to assist the anti-terror operations, and support the Somali government, for some time. Ethiopia's military has succeeded in driving the bulk of the Islamic militia out of the capital city of Mogadishu, and toward the Kenyan border. Ethiopia is largely Christian, a fact that upsets the already anti-American population of the Muslim dominated Somalia.
Mohammed is one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists. Before his recent, Somali confirmed, death, he has evaded capture for eight years. If the report is true, it is a significant victory.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Nancy Pelosi's Back-Patting
I won't quote, here. The link to the entire exchange is above. But, for the most part, Nancy said some things that seemed reasonable, and some things that reaked of her liberal position. Of course, she also made sure that the viewer was aware that this war was contrary to the will of the American People. Fine, she's entitled to her opinion, idiotic as it may be. Just remember, the majority of the opinion polls held by the media are held in the Northeast (blue state galore) and Los Angeles (the home of Hollyweird). I don't think they ask Joe American in the Bread Basket of America, or what not, his opinion very often, and probably for good reason.
She also indicated that Congress will not cut funding to the troops, but won't increase funding either. So much for troop escalation, not that I agree with the number Bush came up with for the increase in troops. I don't think we should increase the troop levels too greatly, though I think a reasonable increase is warranted, but we definitely don't need less troops in the region. What we require in Iraq is more weaponry, and a defined strategy that keys in on winning, not defending. If you play defense in a chess game you may last a while, but you will eventually lose. To win you must be on the offense, decisive, precise, and clever. You many lose a few pawns in the process, but check-mate will come if you are always on the offensive while protecting your pieces simultaineously.
Pelosi indicated that she believes we ought to increase the size of our military, but not necessarily increase the size of our presence overseas.
Bob asked if there would be chaos if we pull out. Her response? "There's chaos now?"
What's the definition of chaos? Lots of people with guns sneaking up and taking pop-shots at our troops? Sunnis and Shiites shooting each other when they aren't setting up IEDs? Gunfights in the streets of Baghdad? That isn't chaos. That's war. Now, if our guys were running around in circles with no weapons and targets on their backs, then that would be chaos. Hmmm, actually that description fits what it's like when the boys from the UN with their blue helmets show up.
Then, after a little talk about penalizing our wealthy for success, which would in turn break the backs of the middle class as jobs get cut through the trickle down economics of increased taxes on the upper-class, she vaguely alluded to the universal health care idea. Sure, universal health would be great. Higher tax to pay for it, whether you utilize it often or not. Longer waits, decreased quality of care, economic slowdown. Thanks, but no thanks.
Oh, and then she says, to pay for their many packages taxes may go up. Oh, how comforting, they may go up. That's much better than definitely. Wait, she's a liberal, "may" means "definitely".
Then on to ethics. Ethics? Liberal Ethics? Oxymoron.
Then Bob Schieffer made a grave error in judgment. He asked, "As a woman. . . "
This leads to the main point of this post.
In the transcript you can't pick up tone and body language. However, her words since moving up to be Speaker of the House is more than evident. To hear her brag about her election as Speaker is to hear a woman act like it is the greatest step for a woman since passage of the 19th ammendment which allowed women to vote. Hey, don't get me wrong, becoming Speaker of the House, especially as the first woman, is an accomplishment, and I am sure it is inspiring to many young women out there that wish to enter the political forum, but Pelosi has been so self-congratulatory that it is making people sick.
Besides, what about Condi Rice? Nobody in the press or on the left made a big deal about it when Condoleezza Rice became Secretary of State on January 26, 2005. She was the first black woman to become Secretary of State, and is fourth in line to be President. Now that is an accomplishment to be patted on the back for.
But all we heard back then was the sound of crickets.
My dear, Nancy Pelosi, understand this. Nobody will think much of your accomplishment if you have to go around telling everybody about it. Greatness is judged by action, not words.
On MyPoint Radio it was brought up that I have a number of sites. Just to give you an idea of what I write elsewhere, here are a few other articles of late I have floating around the internet:
Islam's Media War Against the United States at A Right Angle in a Left Turn World
Yes, the SEC is that good in College Football, and we need a playoff system! at Armchair GM
Where do I go from here? at DVGibbs WIP Blog
Mysterious Ways at The Long Journey
The Importance of Backing Up Your Files at Defender of the Blahs
Job 8:1-19 = Job's friends accused him. . . at Carried by Christ
Romans 6:1-2 KJV at Carried by Christ Too!
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Our Dedicated Congress and MyPoint Radio
This diligence was promised last December on the front page of the Washington Post. The headline said "House to Work 5 Days a Week."
The Democrats stated that the labor issue most on the minds of Congress is their own. Hoyer said members of the House will be expected in the Capitol for votes each week by 6:30 pm Monday and will finish their business about 2 pm Friday.
Don't you love it when politicians make promises?
Wait, what's this? Today a press release by Hoyer proclaims that on Monday, January 8, 2007: "The House is not in session."
Huh? What about that five day work week?
According to the DrudgeReport, The House is taking Monday off this week because of the College Football National Championship.
Tape it, folks, or use the DVR. You said 5 day work week, so give it to us.
Wait, there's more. The following Monday is Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday. Oops, two four-day work weeks in a row.
Willing to work Saturdays?
Of course not.
Okay, so the 100 hours will take a little longer than promised. I'm sure they will stick to their other promises of preventing us from listening to terrorists' phone calls, stop us from properly interrogating captured terrorists, continue to keep us from monitoring terrorists' financial transactions, oppose the Patriot Act, confer unmerited rights on terrorists and illegal aliens, oppose profiling to identify terrorists in our midst, continue to call our president a war criminal as they quit the battlefield in the midst of war, send us spiraling toward a recession as they make it more difficult for businesses to conduct business, penalize the successful for becoming successful, and so on and so on and so on.
By the way, in the morning, MyPoint Radio will be on the air 7am pacific time, and I plan to call in for a while to discuss this, and many other issues that interest you. Tune in if you can, or listen later through the archive.
Because I love to write.
Defender of the Blahs is my first and original blog. It was created in March of 2006, and has become my forgotten site. Not just by readers (Aside from my main site at www.douglasvgibbs.com, it gets the least amount of hits of my dozen or so sites), but by myself. What it is supposed to be a journal, a journal about me, a journal about my slow and lowly rise in the vicious world of publishing. Every once in a while I might throw in a snippet here and there, but the posts have become forced. And I've gotten to the point that I am searching for things to write about.
I suppose when the world is going to hell, and you have a site like Political Pistachio to spew about it, you forget about the simple pleasures in life. I plan to devote just a little more time to "Blahs" again. Make writing in it fun again.
Oh, don't you worry, liberals and terrorists and the alien invasion from south of the border still ticks me off, and I will continue to spew commentary about each of these subjects, but do me a favor; visit Defender of the Blahs every once in a while, just to see how I'm doing, because that is where I write what's really going on with me.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Thought you might enjoy this interesting prayer given in Kansas at the opening session of their Senate. It seems prayer still upsets some people. When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they heard:
"Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance.
We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done.
We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values.
We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have killed our unborn and called it choice.
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem.
We have abused power and called it politics.
We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.
The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the prayer in protest. In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev. Wright is pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls responding negatively. The church is now receiving international requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa and Korea.
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, "The Rest of the Story," and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired.
With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called "one nation under God."
When I sent this to my "enlightened" cousin in San Francisco, she responded: "Interesting at times to see the alternative realities some choose to inhabit...bit filthy though...as it is so unenlightened (light brought to the subject)...some choose to stay in the dark of ignorance...oh well! How political and narrow minded...it's stunning that this is what passes for religion today ...it explains why we are in such deep sh1t!
Grow up! We don't need a dysfunctional father god."
She voted for Nancy Pelosi. I wonder if this is a typical lefty response to something that seems to me to be so accurate, and so inspiring.
Friday, January 05, 2007
I strive to write thought provoking posts on all of my blogs (and if you think this is my only site, you are sadly mistaken - the list of my sites is located somewhere on the sidebar on the left). I do my best to give intelligent responses to those people that come into my life and present me with various ideas (I touch on a recent interchange with Howard V. Hendrix at my Defender of the Blahs Blog). Mom's words of, "You become who you hang around," I suppose, is one of the reasons that I enjoy writing political posts here at Political Pistachio.
But sometimes I fear that I may be simply spouting the rightwing party line, which, if it's correct and accurate, I don't mind doing. Truth is truth. However, I don't always agree with all things Republican. I suppose that is why I call myself a Conservative.
But sometimes the simple things in life gets you thinking more than any complicated political situation. As an example, when I went in for my post-operative appointment the other day (for those that only visit on occasion, I had a double-hernia operation on December 29th, and won't be returning to my real job until Thursday as a result) my wife and I had a rare slight disagreement.
Okay, back up. I was already a little bothered because I have spent a large portion of my life in the care of doctors to the point that I want to just have a body-transplant and be done with it. (Rapture?) Every time it seems like I might achieve a clean bill of health, something else oozes to the surface. And true to form, I have experienced a few complications from my recent surgery as well. One of which is that I blistered like crazy (nasty ones, too) all around my incisions.
My son said it best, "Dad, you have a reaction to everything."
So, not being the biggest fan of the bedside manner (or lack thereof) of many members of the medical profession in the first place, as Doctor You're-just-a-slab-of-meat-to-me was removing the staples from my stomach, I was flinching and let out a whimper when he pulled out one that was particularly irritating. Then the doctor said, "Stop that. This is nothing. I just removed 40 staples from the patient before you and they weren't acting like this."
That, for lack of a better word, pissed me off. My wife knew it, grinned at me in that devoted wife look that she has, and I silenced my tongue (and grunts and whimpers).
My wife used to be a tough cookie, still is in many ways, and in the last couple years has softened in many ways to the point that we don't even argue anymore. How can I argue with such a devoted and loving creature? Anyhow, as I was steaming out of my ears on the way out, we passed by an OB/GYN clinic and it was jam-packed with pregnant women. The gal closest to the window that we were gazing into had tattoos up and down each arm, all over both legs, and licking up her neck. My wife, never fearing what other people think, immediately voiced her opinion in the middle of the busy lobby, "That's terrible," she said. "What kind of message is that woman sending her kids with all of those tattoos all over her body." She said something about disgracing the body, damaging the skin, something like that I think, but by that time my memory centers had been shut down by a sudden urge to crawl under the nearest rock.
Obligated to comment, I said, looking quickly around at the numerous faces that stopped what they were doing in the lobby to simply see how I would reply, "I agree with you and disagree with you, darling. Can we talk about this in the truck?"
Don't get me wrong. I do not typically cower in the face of confrontation. But some things need to be handled delicately, and throwing absolutes around when it comes to people's personal decisions like that of inking the body is not something one does in mixed company. (And I know I am opening a can of worms with that statement, so MK and any other lib, load up, cock your weapon, and fire away. I'm ready for what's comin').
Tattoos are a sticky subject. I have a friend who has this marvelous tattoo on his forearm memorializing his mother who died when he was only seventeen years of age. The tattoo is a portrait of her, and is graced with the words, "In loving memory." My brother has his kids names tattooed on his forearms. Many of my military friends have "Semper Fi," or "USN" or other military icons plastered on their arms, chests, and backs. An old friend of mine that was once in the fire department has a fireman carrying a child through a wall of flames on his leg. These are commendable tattoos. I have no problem with tattoos, for the most part.
However, one fact of life is true. People judge us visually. As members of this society, what people think of us is in direct correlation with what people see. Not just our bodies, but what we wear, what we drive, where we live, et cetera. Sometimes, and this is unfortunate, folks make determinations based on our ethnicity as well. That said, we have enough against us as it is, why would anyone decide to turn the tables against themselves by being tattooed from head to tow, with jewelry popping out of their lip, eyebrows, and nose while they're at it?
I may have lost a number of readers at this point, and that is a shame. This is only a matter of opinion, and rather than getting ticked and clicking off my site, I'd rather you voice your opinion in the comments section. Tell me I'm a dumb, intolerant so and so. Fine by me. Just remember, I do understand that people are people. Underneath, none of that junk on the outside really matters. Some of the nicest people I know scared the crap out of me when I first saw them (not that I scare easily).
And I understand individuality. That is what makes this nation so great. I just hope that the decision to ink up is for a reason that can be lived with, rather than an angry stab at a society misunderstood by its trappings of absolutes and visual judgements.
I guess where I am going with this is that to me it is perfectly fine what folks do. It's their business. In my opinion, it all really comes down to motive. What is the motive for inking up from head to toe? What's the motive for getting an earring that stretches the ear lobe to diameters far beyond natural? What is the motive of a man when he decides that the opposite sex is not for him? What is the motive of people when they decide that the values that founded this nation are no longer acceptable? What is the motive of politicians when they make decisions that may place our society in jeopardy?
Motives, my friends. Sometimes right and wrong is not what is on the surface, but the motives behind it. What's your motive?