Crazy Radicals

If ever there was a sure sign that a large number of Muslims have no sense of civilization, justice or any other decent trait, it is their sentencing of a teacher to prison for letting her students name a stuffed animal "Muhammad".

Religion or no, that is just plain nuts! Even worse, many Muslims are crying out to EXECUTE her for that. In America, that would be considered pathological.

Perhaps worst of all is the complete lack of any "mainstream, moderate" Muslim to speak up and denounce such crazy, heathen ignorance. That tells us that virtually ALL Muslims feel the way those "radicals" do. The only difference is that they are afraid to SAY so.

Now hear this! I have a rat - vermin - that lives under my shed. I just named him "Muhammad". And I will be setting a trap for the filthy creature with the intention of sending him to his reward of 72 virgin rats.

If that offends anyone, that's just too bad! Every rat should have a name, and Muhammad is as good as any. It's only a name. A word. It is about as sacred as a sack of beans or a side of pork.

If Christians were to ever take such offense at anyone bestowing the name "Jesus" on another, a big part of the population from south of the border would be in big trouble!

Listen up, radical clowns! It's time to stop acting like little, spoiled children. It is time to take on adult responsibility, and that includes showing at least a basic knowledge of civility. Only pathological, mentally deficient people would find glory in murdering anyone. Only idiots would consider that women are not the equal of men. And only fools would believe that any name is somehow sacred.

And any Muslim that does NOT speak up and denounce such travesties is just as bad as those who commit them. It is acceptance by silence.

Fixing Global Warming

My daughter had an excellent idea on how we could put an end to global warming. To reduce the amount of hot air, all we have to do is get the people who keep yapping about how global warming is such a problem to just shut up.

That should reduce the amount of hot air by at least 30%.

Let's see, if we put an end to political rhetoric, that should reduce it by yet another 40%.

The Anti-American U.N. Strikes Again

Every time the U.N. speaks, it is designed to harm America. This time, they have crossed the line, into absurdity. Hopefully, they will soon cross over into irrelevancy.

Their latest "list" of Best Places to Live starts out with Iceland (what is so great about cold weather) and numerous socialist nations - the Top 10 even includes France, if you can believe that. But one country that is absent among the Top 10 is America.

That makes me wonder.

I wonder why the free-est nation on Earth is so undesireable to the U.N.

I wonder why the richest nation in the world is not good enough for the U.N.

I wonder why 12 million Mexicans are not trying to sneak into Iceland, or Norway, or France

I wonder why the most powerful nation is so unworthy by U.N. standards

And I wonder why the nation with the best of everything is only second-rate in the eyes of the U.N.

Let me see now. Could it be that the U.N., consisting primarily of nations that dislike us because we are so powerful, is just trying to give us another slap in the face, in order to make themselves appear more powerful and righteous? Children play "King of the Hill", and try to take down the guy on the top. The children at the U.N. are the same.

Yeah- I think that just about covers it! And they should consider themselves very lucky that the U.S. is a nation with moral turpitude. Otherwise, we would be turning the U.N. buildings into low-income housing for Americans, boot their asses off our shores, and make all those nations face bankruptcy by forcing them to pay all the parking tickets incurred by their "diplomats".

As Khalil Gibran once said, "Only the strong can afford to be kind."

We can well afford tolerance of these international clowns. But that is not to say our patience is infinite. Americans are good people. But they are not dumb, and they will not tolerate abuse for very long.

Lest they forget, the U.N. should remember the words of Hirohito after bombing Pearl Harbor - "I am afraid we have awoken a sleeping giant." And pissed him off!

The Great Rip-Off

It's no secret that the oil companies are gouging the public. We've known that for a long time. But what you may not know is that their gouging is minimal compared to how other fuel providers are ripping us off.

At least the oil companies have some sort of excuse - oil prices have, indeed, risen, and their is instability in the region where oil is produced.

Now I would like to hear the reasons why natural gas, wood pellets and cordwood have risen proportionately to oil.

Last I knew, these fuels are not derived from the Middle East. Nor has the actual cost to procure them risen much. Sure, the cost of gas and oil to run chainsaws and woodsplitters would increase the cost of wood a little, but not dollar for dollar with the cost of oil.

There has been almost NO increase in the cost to produce and distribute natural gas, except for the minor cost of fuel used to transport. Yet, the cost of natural gas has kept pace with that of oil.

So again I must ask, just what is the real justification for the excessive cost of cordwood, pellets and natural gas?

Seems to me these suppliers need to be regulated, even more than the oil companies!

I know, because I cut and use cordwood. It costs me about $2.00 per cord in additional costs due to the rise in oil prices. But the cordwood companies that sell commercially have nearly doubled their prices for cordwood - up to $225 per cord, having been around $125 earlier. How do they justify a $100 per cord price increase when the cost has only risen by less than $5.00 (including delivery costs)?

It is long past time for people to say "enough". Let's get our Congressmen to consider regulating prices on fuels that are not a luxury - they are a necessity of survival.

College for Illegals

Gee, it sure does sound altruistic, offering a college education to children of illegal immigrants. It even sounds like the Christian thing to do.

But it is neither.

We have all heard how taxpayers should not be required - or even asked - to foot the bill for sending illegals to college (most colleges are subsidized with taxpayer money). While that is a valid point, it is not the best point - or the most important one.

It occurs to me that most people are overlooking the most important point of all - a point that every parent trying to get their kid into college is all to familiar with. There are a lot more students wanting to go to college than there are spaces in colleges. Every decent college is limited as to how many students it can accept. For every illegal they accept, that is one AMERICAN student who cannot attend the college.

Personally, we need to take care of our own, first. Then, and only then, should we even consider educating illegals.

To extrapolate this point further, one must understand that the better jobs go to college graduates. By educating illegals at the expense of American students, the illegals will end up being the CEO's while American citizens become the labor force. As Oliver Hardy would say, "That's a fine kettle of fish."

This is an insult and a degradation to all Americans.

Tell you what. Why don't the liberals who back education for illegals try sneaking across into Mexico, and try putting their kids through a Mexican college. Under Mexico's laws, those liberals and their kids would all end up in prison!

What Is A "Huckabee"?

So many Presidential candidates; so little choice!

This particle article is not going to get into Democratic contenders - they are too busy trying to cut each other to ribbons, so I will wait until some of the bloodletting is over to see who is still standing.

On the Republican (?) side, there seems to be a shortage of actual Republicans.

First, there is the "favored child", Rudy Giuliani. Good leader, as far as taking the reins during a crisis. And while he is a registered Republican, he is all too liberal. He appointed liberal judges, made NYC a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants, is pro abortion and anti gun. I'm sorry, but that sounds too much like Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi to suit me.

Then there's Mitt Romney. Another liberal wearing a Republican hat. From an ultra-liberal state (Massachusetts), Romney carries his own baggage on abortion, anti-gun and sanctuary.

John McCain? I think he has lost his way, what with wanting to grant amnesty to illegals, and opposing taking necessary measures (short of actual torture) to extract life-saving information from terrorists who want only to see us die.

Whatever happened to Republicans being conservative? More important, if either of these two "favorites" get the nomination, can they mobilize the Republican base? Definitely not! I have heard from many republicans who would rather sit home on election day than vote for a phony Republican. They figure it would be no different from having a Democrat in office, so why fight it?

And then there is this thing called a "Huckabee". Sounds like someone out of a Mark Twain novel. And that may be a fair representation.

I have been a supporter of Mike Huckabee since he first announced interest in running. The only other person I would have rallied behind with fervor is Newt Gingrich, but he has opted out of the race. Why do I support Huckleberry Huckabee? Because Mike is a true conservative, for starters. More than that, he is a man of deep, abiding faith. He is almost too honest and upstanding. He has a great sense of humor. And he has a proven record of leadership.

If ever there were a Presidential contender who represents Mom, Baseball, hot dogs and apple pie, it's Huckabee. I think he he could easily be accepted even by moderate, sane Democrats (which are becoming an endangered species). More important, I think Huckabee is the only Republican contender who can mobilize the base, because he is a conservative, and an honest, good man.

And at this moment, as I hear that Mike is rapidly rising in the polls, in spite of not having the money the others have, I am content that maybe, just maybe, Republicans will get around to doing the right thing (also becoming a rarity these days) and vote for the Dark Horse Huckabee.

Let others pray for world peace this Christmas season. I'll pray that Mike Huckabee gets the nomination and goes on to be President of the greatest nation on Earth during its time of greatest need of direction. Because Huckabee is up to the task, and I believe he is the best chance for the world peace others are praying for.

And that's MY word!

You Won't Hear This in the Media

Well, here is a story of importance, yet you will not likely hear about it in the liberal media.

Global Warming has taken another hard hit!

The "global warming" Chicken Littles made a number of predictions. This last spring, based partly on "global warming" theory, they predicted 15 hurricanes this year, with several expected to be Cat 5. By July, when hurricanes were curiously absent, they reduced their prediction to 9 hurricanes.

Well, the storm season is pretty much shot for this year. Hm-m-m. Call me a skeptic, but it seems to me there were only 6 hurricanes, and none that hit the U.S. were Cat 5.

Scientists attribute this to "cooler water". Of course, for those of you who are up on Global Warming 101, the waters are supposed to be warming, not cooling.

And contrary to Al Gore's erroneous claim, the 5 warmest years in recorded history - and this is according to NASA - all occurred prior to World War II. (Al Gore said 1997 was the warmest, but it did not even come in the top 5).

Once again I would like to state clearly: I do not doubt that the Earth is experiencing a warming trend. But unlike all the Chicken Littles, I have very serious doubts that Mankind is the primary cause (there is NO indisputable evidence of it), and history tells us this trend is temporary, and will not likely create disaster.

And if this is an exception - if catastrophe occurs? In that case, I strongly doubt there is any point in trying to prevent any event of such magnitude, so let's break out the wine, and dance.

Encroachments of Liberty

 

America - land of the free. Or so we are told. But is it really a free country?

At one time, it was. Citizens were free to pioneer, settle, farm, create, build - all without much government interference, as the Founding Fathers intended. And for almost two centuries, Americans could actually claim that they were a free people.

And then, with the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, then Franklin Delano Roosevelt came a new, liberal, socialist line of thinking. Government began encroaching on American liberties, restricting what we could and could not do.

Granted, the government has every right to restrict freedoms in areas that directly affect the health and welfare of the general public. But when something has no obvious effect on the health and welfare of anyone else, does the government still have a right to interfere? The answer, according to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is "NO".

Take zoning, for example. Zoning laws are, for the most part, unreasonable and in violation of our natural rights. While the government has an obligation to protect the citizenry, they have gone far beyond that. Zoning that prevents a property owner from causing loss to a neighbor is certainly laudable - we all need protection from those who would run a toxic dumpsite next door to our home.

But it is when zoning laws are written for purposes that violate our rights that we must stand up and fight back, or gamble on losing ever more freedom.

Here is an example. I live in a tiny, rural farm community no one ever heard of, in Maine. My home has been a farmhouse for over 100 years, nestled on almost 15 acres of farmland. On the north border is woods, leading to another home. On the east is woods, leading to the local swimming hole. On the west is a large farm, raising beef. On the south is another personal residence.

For reasons that make no sense whatever, the zoning board decided to zone my little farm property, nestled in a rural area, as "commercial" property. As such, I am no longer permitted to having the same rights as a "residential" homeowner.

The people whose residences are zoned rural, or residential, can upgrade their homes, simply by getting a building permit. They can add on, build a garage etc. But if a property is zoned commercial, you may not do those things without going before the zoning board and getting their permission, which is difficult, if not impossible to do.

I discovered all this when I decided to add a sunroom to our home. It would have been on the side of the house, with the nearest property line over 200 feet distant. A sunroom on my home, which has zero effect on anyone else in the entire world, could not be built because my rural farm was classified as "commercial", for no reason at all. My property cannot be used for commercial purposes - it is on a class IV road, and heavy trucks are not permitted during much of the year. So much for deliveries or shipping! Where is the "commercial" use?

So, I have to ask - if a "FREE" citizen is not allowed to build a sunroom on their home, even though it has no effect on the health and welfare of others, is that not an unreasonable encroachment on our liberty? Of course it is.

Frankly, I think it is high time the American People stood up and demanded to take back their country, and their liberties. Certainly, we must allow the government to regulate things that affect the general public, but otherwise "butt out" of our affairs.

A free man should not have to fight for permission to make a better home for his family, or to pave his driveway, or build a garage to protect his vehicles.

Think about it, folks! Look around, and see what liberties have been taken from you. Isn't it strange that the very same liberals who cry out for "freedom of choice" when it comes to killing babies - those same liberals tell us that "freedom of choice" does not extend to OTHER choices - only the ones on their agenda. When it comes to abortion, there is a constitutional "freedom of choice". But when it comes to choosing what to do with our homes, or whether we wear a seatbelt, or anything else of personal importance, those same liberals tell us there is no constitutional "freedom of choice". Simply put, liberal lawmakers want power over us - and they pass laws that over-regulate. And regulation = lost freedom. That is what socialism is all about. Liberals are socialists. And socialism requires that we give up many of our personal freedoms, and have the government run our lives for us, from cradle to grave.

So, which is it? Is there a constitutional right to free choice, or not? If yes, liberals must be prevented from robbing us of those choices. If no, then Roe vs Wade must be overturned. Can't have it both ways!

But as long as the good people of this great nation choose to accept such encroachments, and not fight them, then the liberals will win, and Socialist America is not far off.

It's All About Politics

America - land of the free. Or so we are told. But is it really a free country?

At one time, it was. Citizens were free to pioneer, settle, farm, create, build - all without much government interference, as the Founding Fathers intended. And for almost two centuries, Americans could actually claim that they were a free people.

And then, with the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, then Franklin Delano Roosevelt came a new, liberal, socialist line of thinking. Government began encroaching on American liberties, restricting what we could and could not do.

Granted, the government has every right to restrict freedoms in areas that directly affect the health and welfare of the general public. But when something has no obvious effect on the health and welfare of anyone else, does the government still have a right to interfere? The answer, according to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is "NO".

Take zoning, for example. Zoning laws are, for the most part, unreasonable and in violation of our natural rights. While the government has an obligation to protect the citizenry, they have gone far beyond that. Zoning that prevents a property owner from causing loss to a neighbor is certainly laudable - we all need protection from those who would run a toxic dumpsite next door to our home.

But it is when zoning laws are written for purposes that violate our rights that we must stand up and fight back, or gamble on losing ever more freedom.

Here is an example. I live in a tiny, rural farm community no one ever heard of, in Maine. My home has been a farmhouse for over 100 years, nestled on almost 15 acres of farmland. On the north border is woods, leading to another home. On the east is woods, leading to the local swimming hole. On the west is a large farm, raising beef. On the south is another personal residence.

For reasons that make no sense whatever, the zoning board decided to zone my little farm property, nestled in a rural area, as "commercial" property. As such, I am no longer permitted to having the same rights as a "residential" homeowner.

The people whose residences are zoned rural, or residential, can upgrade their homes, simply by getting a building permit. They can add on, build a garage etc. But if a property is zoned commercial, you may not do those things without going before the zoning board and getting their permission, which is difficult, if not impossible to do.

I discovered all this when I decided to add a sunroom to our home. It would have been on the side of the house, with the nearest property line over 200 feet distant. A sunroom on my home, which has zero effect on anyone else in the entire world, could not be built because my rural farm was classified as "commercial", for no reason at all. My property cannot be used for commercial purposes - it is on a class IV road, and heavy trucks are not permitted during much of the year. So much for deliveries or shipping! Where is the "commercial" use?

So, I have to ask - if a "FREE" citizen is not allowed to build a sunroom on their home, even though it has no effect on the health and welfare of others, is that not an unreasonable encroachment on our liberty? Of course it is.

Frankly, I think it is high time the American People stood up and demanded to take back their country, and their liberties. Certainly, we must allow the government to regulate things that affect the general public, but otherwise "butt out" of our affairs.

A free man should not have to fight for permission to make a better home for his family, or to pave his driveway, or build a garage to protect his vehicles.

Think about it, folks! Look around, and see what liberties have been taken from you. Isn't it strange that the very same liberals who cry out for "freedom of choice" when it comes to killing babies - those same liberals tell us that "freedom of choice" does not extend to OTHER choices - only the ones on their agenda. When it comes to abortion, there is a constitutional "freedom of choice". But when it comes to choosing what to do with our homes, or whether we wear a seatbelt, or anything else of personal importance, those same liberals tell us there is no constitutional "freedom of choice". Simply put, liberal lawmakers want power over us - and they pass laws that over-regulate. And regulation = lost freedom. That is what socialism is all about. Liberals are socialists. And socialism requires that we give up many of our personal freedoms, and have the government run our lives for us, from cradle to grave.

So, which is it? Is there a constitutional right to free choice, or not? If yes, liberals must be prevented from robbing us of those choices. If no, then Roe vs Wade must be overturned. Can't have it both ways!

But as long as the good people of this great nation choose to accept such encroachments, and not fight them, then the liberals will win, and Socialist America is not far off.

Carbon "Offsets" Hoax

For reasons I cannot quite get a grasp of, this bit of liberal dishonesty seems to have a life of its own, in spite of the fact that every person with an IQ above 35 understands that "carbon offsets" are as bogus as hen's teeth.

The premise, which (like many liberal ploys) looks logical on the surface, is based on paying money in order to be able to continue having a large carbon footprint. Instead of decreasing your footprint, you simply buy credits, and the funds from those credits would be used to tackle projects intended to offset your excessive use.

But the theory has little in common with the reality. Upon further research, it appears that funds paid for these so-called offsets are nowhere near enough to offset the excessive uses. And much of those funds go to company execs, in salaries and perks, rather than directly to offsetting anything.

But here is the real test to determine if these offsets are real or bogus - what happens if everyone were to buy these credits, rather than reduce their carbon footprint?

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if no one reduces their carbon emissions, and the funds from credits do not effectively offset the use, then the problem of carbon dioxide will continue to grow, not shrink. In fact, major polluters now have permission to increase pollution, simply by buying up these "carbon credits".

Bear in mind that every company that sells these bogus credits are owned by liberals. And it is liberals who are making a fortune selling them.

Where I come from, this sort of "product" is referred to as "snake oil". And, as usual, the snake oil salesmen are liberals.

Who Owns Yellowstone Park & Other National Sites

 

 

If you were to ask 100 Americans "Who owns Yellowstone Park", I suspect most would say "the American People", or "the U.S. government". And they would be wrong, for all practical purposes. 

 

 The United Nations controls Yellowstone park - and most other historical properties in America, including the Statue of Liberty, Grand Canyon, Yosemite and more. 

 

Although the United States Constitution declares that we, the people, shall maintain sovereignty over our lands and treasures, a treaty was signed in 1972 that forces our government to protect historical sites under United Nations mandate. In other words, if the ultra-socialist UN decides that people are causing harm to these places, they can order them closed to the public. We, the People, would have no right to use or visit those places. 

 

In essence, the United Nations' World Heritage Treaty effectively takes away our sovereignty over our own property. A full 68% of all U.S. parks, monuments and preserves are now covered by the UN mandate, including 51 million acres of wilderness. This is in violation of the Constitution and federal law. 

 

Federal legislation has been introduced to restore the rights of Americans against this threat to freedom. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act of 1999 sought to preserve the sovereignty of the United States over public lands and preserve the private property rights of private citizens. It would have required congressional oversight of U.N. land designations within the U.S. Having researched this proposal, I have been unable to find out anything beyond the bill being turned over to the Senate. No mention of the bill ever having been passed. 

 

I strongly urge all Americans to contact their Congressmen and let them know they need to bring this proposal back to life and get it passed into law. This is not a "party" issue. It is an American Sovereignty issue. (as of 1/27/2021 The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act of 1999 still has not been passed into law.)

 

 NOTE: This is not the only instance in which the rights and freedoms of Americans is slowly being turned over to the United Nations - which, by the way, consists primarily of nations that want to see us destroyed. There are proposals that would allow the UN to decide whether or not vitamins and minerals, as well as natural herbal remedies, be removed from the open market. And proposed control of guns in America. And there have been proposals that would grant the same kind of control over private property in the US. And the Kyoto Treaty would require the US to lose its position as the major industrial nation, while allowing our competitors (like India & China) to have a free pass on pollution. 

 

We simply cannot allow anyone to take away our sovereignty. Particularly not an enemy organization like the United Nations. Give those nations the chance and they would quickly disembowel us.

 

/

San Francisco's non-I.D.

I swear, if it were not for San Francisco politicians, I would not laugh half as much as I do. They are always good for a chuckle.

Now they are pushing forward a plan to create a new "I.D." card for residents. Now, the first thing I think when I hear the word "I.D." is identification. But it appears than San Franciscan leaders believe that "I.D." should not be permitted to identify, as that might constitute some sort of "profiling".

So, this new I.D. would not include, for example, the bearer's gender. After all, far be it from San Francisco to want to put anyone in danger by identifying which sex they are!

On the surface, the diatribe they use to explain why gender should not be included makes a kind of sense, particularly in a city where the gender of so many residents is in question. By leaving gender off the I.D., the bearer would not be subject to "gender discrimination". Assuming, of course, that the gender is not obvious.

But let's look a bit deeper into the actual reality involved. Just about the only people who have any authority to ask to see ID are law enforcement personnel. Now, in a city like San Francisco, with its trans-sexuals, transvestites, hermaphrodites etc., any police office who has cause to arrest such a person will have no legal means by which to determine how the person should be treated. Not knowing if that "woman" is really a man, or vice versa, they risk being sued if they search, or frisk the person. They can be sued if they inadvertently put a woman in a cell with a man. And with so many San Franciscans so adept at costuming themselves and passing themselves off as something they are not, not being able to determine gender visually is a real problem.

The repercussions are staggering. In effect, the San Francisco non-I.D. would effectively prevent law enforcement from doing their jobs. The effect, of course, results in trans-gendered people receiving preferential treatment, or even protection from arrest, for fear of legal action against the police.

Of course, the San Francisco politicians stand by their bogus explanation as to why their new "I.D's" must be gender neutral. But the fact remains, we are what we are, and not calling a man a man does not change what he is. Feel free to bleach the spots off a leopard - it is still a leopard, and will devour you first chance it gets.

And if that leopard is sitting next to me, I damn well want to know about it!

A Seattle Thanksgiving

It appears that, once again, Seattle has decided that they want no part of tradition, no part of reality, and no part of the truth. For they have arbitrarily decided to rewrite history to suit their own liberal agenda. 

Seattle school officials have decided that Thanksgiving should be banned. They make numerous claims they know to be false, in an attempt to win support. But all they have won is disdain from good people across America. 

You see, the Seattle officials claim that Thanksgiving is a time of "mourning" for native Americans. That, of course, is blatantly false - every native American I know (and since both my wife and I have NA blood, we know quite a few), all celebrate Thanksgiving. They realize that Thanksgiving is not a time to reflect on any past injustices. Rather, it is a time to give thanks for all those things we are thankful for. And, while some Native Americans may object to what the white man did, they are nonetheless thankful for each year's bounty, for friends, family and every other good thing granted to us by God. 

Those secular-progessives (SP's) in Seattle also claim, falsely, that Thanksgiving represents all the injustices done by whites, to native Americans. Of course, anyone who knows any history at all is fully aware that, at the time of the first Thanksgiving, the white man and Indian often worked together, and shared knowledge. Just because things went sour afterwards does nothing to negate the purpose of the first Thanksgiving. If anything, Thanksgiving represents the better side of Mankind, which is diametrically opposed to what those Seattle clowns are trying to feed us. So, why the attack on Thanksgiving? 

Think about it. The people attacking Thanksgiving are the same secular progressives that are attacking Christmas and Easter. And they understand - perhaps better than most - that Thanksgiving is a holiday based in religion. After all, just WHO are we thanking? Are we thanking President Bush for our lives, family, friends, bounty? Perhaps we are thanking Hillary, or some other person of note. Nope! Don't think so. Whenever anyone gives thanks, they are thanking whatever entity is their personal God. And that is what the secular progressives are so strongly opposed to. Thanksgiving helps to reinforce belief in a greater power, and the SP's just cannot stand that. They cannot stand it because it is precisely that belief in a greater power that prevents the SP's from taking control of America. 

Once again, the liberal SP's have chosen the fine art of deception in order to push their crazy agenda. Once again, they have chosen to lie, and to impose their will upon others, in a nation where such tyrannical acts are socially unacceptable. 

And, once again, sane and reasonable people see through their ploy, and find SP's to be ridiculous, dishonest, disingenuous and just plain wrong. As usual.

The Case For English Only

In some California school districts, and in many other places around the country, there are attempts being made to make America a multiple language nation. The people pushing this agenda want school tests in Spanish, and workplaces that allow non-english speaking employees.

While that does sound like a good thing on the surface - tolerance is a good thing - anyone who scratches the surface will find that abandoning "English Only" would be a catastrophe for everyone.

Does anyone remember the story of the Tower of Babel, in Genesis? Apparently, liberals have not. In that story, the people had decided to work together to build a tower that would take them to the Heavens. God was unhappy about this, so he "confused their tongues", causing all the people to speak different languages so they could no longer work together. And so, the Tower of Babel was never built.

The moral of the story is obvious - if you want to keep people from working together for a common good, prevent them from speaking the same language.

People in America who only speak Spanish will be very limited in their opprtunities. They will be limited in the education they receive, and the careers available to them. They will always be "second-class" citizens.

For the good of all those Spanish-speaking people, and for the good of our entire country, it is imperative that we become a one-language nation. Only then do we have any chance of working together for the common good.

Encouraging a multi-language nation is a disaster waiting to happen. But it is even more insidious than that. The push for the acceptance of Spanish has intended, nasty consequences that are all but made invisible by the drivel being spouted by those who push this agenda. So allow me to be exceedingly clear:

Over the last 70 years - ever since FDR created the biggest welofare system this country had ever seen - the liberals have made it a point to be the ones to provide the lower income people with handouts (welfare) designed not to end poverty, but rather to make the poor more dependent upon liberals for their existence. And this results in the lower income people becoming a huge, pre-determined voting bloc for Democrats. The majority of lower income people, and all minorities, tend to vote Democrat. And they do this because the Democrats provide handouts. It is not unlike getting people addicted to drugs, so that the drug cartels can live in style, on the backs of those addicts. The addict cannot turn against those who provide his "fix". And the poor cannot afford to turn against democrats for the same reason. And if anyone thinks that is unintentional, then he just is not thinking at all. Either the democrats are smart enough to know the consequences, or they are too stupid to hold political office. So, if you think it is not a calculated plan, then you should not be voting for such stupid people. And if you do think this is calculated, then you should be afraid to vote for those people.

By sucking up to the Spanish-speaking people, the liberals understand that they are "buying" their votes for generations to come. And that is precisely why those SAME liberals are pushing to legalize all those Spanish-speaking people: the sooner they can get them and/or their offspring into the voting booths, the better it is for the liberals.

Liberals cannot win against conservatives in any open debate, because conservatives have facts, common sense and truth on their side. So the liberals do the only thing they can - they buy votes from those people living on the edge.

Make no mistake about it - and if you doubt this, look carefully through the history of the last 70 years. You will find that liberals have consistently and religiously been buying up large voting blocs by providing a "free ride" to those who, for whatever reason, do little on their own to support themselves. And democrats purposely keep those people on the edge - giving them just enough to keep them loyal, but not enough to better their lot in life.

It is in the best interests of the Democrats and liberals to keep the poor just as they are - poor. As such, they can keep their votes, by continuing to support them. The poor and minority groups are not stupid - they know that it is unwise to bite the hand that feeds you.

And now the illegal immigrants are the new "voting bloc" that the democrats are lining up. And if you are still around 30 years from now, remember this blog - remember it when you see that Latino bloc voting almost unanimously for democrats. Remember it when you notice that the same Latino bloc has, for the most part, been kept poor, just like the democratic "welfare system" has kept other minorities poor for 70 years.

Dumb Arguments Part II

Dumb Argument: "Gun laws reduce crime."

Response: Statistics have shown that communities and states with the toughest gun laws tend to have the most crime (i.e. New York and D.C.). Let's see - a criminal knows community A has guns, and community B does not. Where do you suppose he will go?

Dumb Argument: "We should sit down and talk with the terrorist states because diplomacy is the answer."

Response: Diplomacy would be the answer if the folks on the other side were sane and reasonable, and willing to enter into an honest discussion. But the fact remains that terrorist states have an agenda, and have no intention of changing their beliefs. It's like asking a priest to stop praying, or trying to pacify a hungry lion with words. In the '30's, everyone tried to pacify Hitler with diplomatic efforts and appeasement. See how well it worked?

Dumb Argument: "We must be politically correct to avoid hurting people's sensitivities."

Response: OK. A fat person is weight challenged and an illegal immigrant is "undocumented". And when you say that, they know you are calling them fat or illegal. Just because you use different words does not change the meaning - or the truth. Hence, being politically correct does nothing more than draw attention to an issue, making it even more hurtful. But it allows the liberal elites to be even more smug, as they wrongly believe they have eliminated a stigma simply by changing the language. It's like carbon offsets - it's just a "feel good" thing that has no substance. Political correctnes is damaging to all - people still feel hurt, but the politically correct snobs can free themselves of guilt, or change perceptions by covering the truth. Political correctness was never about sparing anyone's feelings. It has always been about freeing oneself of guilt, or changing perceptions to push an agenda.

Dumb Argument: "The Menorah may be displayed on public property, but not the Cross or Nativity, because the Menorah is not a religious icon. Christians may display a tree."

Response: The Menorah is one of the most revered religious symbols of Judaism, whereas the "Christmas tree" has absolutely no religious significance whatever. To compare one with the other is absurd.

Dumb Argument: "Illegal immigrants should have all the same rights as any American citizen because they are human beings."

Response: With that logic, we would be obligated to guarantee those rights to every person in the world, and they should all be entitled to our entitlements. That said, with American rights come American responsibilities - one of which is adherence to our laws. The very first act of illegal immigrants in this country is illegal - coming across without permission. If an immigrant does not accept American responsibilities, they should not be entitled to American rights. They go hand-in-hand.

Dumb Argument: "Ballots should be in various languages to accommodate non-English speaking voters."

Response: Since our naturalization laws require a person to learn English before becoming a citizen, there are no "non-English speaking voters." If they cannot speak English, they cannot be a naturalized citizen, and therefore cannot vote.

Dumb Argument: "We need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions because it is a pollutant causing global warming." (that noted group of climatologists we call the Supreme Court :o)

Response: First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant - it is, and always has been an essential, major atmospheric gas (one of three - oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen), and is what all plants breathe. Reduce carbon dioxide and you reduce the amount of breathable air for all plants, which then reduces the source of food for all higher animals - including us. Second, there is no scientific evidence to prove carbon dioxide contributes significantly to any warming. Third, there is no proof - only speculation - that global warming is even ocurring. The jury is still out, and qualified climatologists disagree. Finally, the justices of the Supreme Court are discussing a topic which none of them even understands or has any substantial knowledge, so they really need to butt out.

Dumb Arguments Part I

Dumb Argument: "We cannot detain, arrest or deport illegals because it breaks up families."

If we cannot arrest or detain people who break the law simply because it would break up families, then we cannot arrest or detain the guy who knocks over a liquor store, or sells drugs - not if he has a family.

Because arrest would break up a family is no excuse to allow lawbreakers to go free.

Dumb Argument: "I don't have to change my lifestyle - I buy carbon offsets."

So, if everyone were to buy carbon offsets so they would not have to change their carbon emissions, just how does that reduce carbon emissions? (Although I do see how it would make certain liberal groups who sell the offsets very wealthy)

Dumb Argument: "We must stop using the phrase "Global war on terror" because it infers that there is a serious crisis."

Duh! We are fighting (war) people who want to kill us in any way they can (terrorists), and we are fighting them here and abroad (the world). Sounds like a "global war on terror" to me.

Dumb Argument: "Religious people should keep their religious beliefs and opinions private because it is not right to impose your beliefs on others."

Sounds like the person who said this (Mary Shanks) is trying to impose her beliefs on others. The surest way to kill any belief is to not share it. It is the duty of every religious person to "spread the word." In the 1800's, there were religious sects that did not permit sex. Since there were no children, once the adults died, there was no one left to keep the religion alive, and the sects died out (see "Osgoodites"). In order to survive, religions must spread the word.

Dumb Argument: "Don't waste time trying to change the world - the world is too big, and you are too small."

Tell that to Jesus, Muhammad, Alexander the Great, Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King.

Dumb Argument: "It is OK for those illegal immigrants to burn the U.S. flag because the Supreme Court says flag burning is protected speech."

But the flags they burned belonged to other people! And they were still attached to someone's house! Such acts are NOT protected free speech. It is legal to strip a car, too. But not if it's someone else's car.

Dumb Argument: "Global warming is a serious problem because all the scientists say so."

First, fewer than half of all climatologists agree that global warming is a real threat. Second, most of those who claim it is a threat are doing so because it is the only way they can get federal funding for their pet projects (scientists live by grants). You can't get funding if you claim your research is not very important. Third, "all scientists" once believed the Earth was flat, and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Back in the 1970's, they believed we were on the verge of an ice age. Throughout history, "all the scientists" have been wrong at least as often as they have been right.

Dumb Argument: "Women should have the right to choose because it is their body."

OK. So how come we do not have this "freedom of choice" in matters of seatbelts, helmets or other personal choice issues? After all, it's our bodies. And whatever happened to the choices they made before they got pregnant - the choice to say no, or the choice to use protection? Choice is good. But giving people the right to escape the responsibility for choices already made is not good - it encourages more bad choices.

Dumb Argument: "The mother should get custody because she carried the child and has a special bond."

Giving birth is a physical act that any fertile female can do, regardless of emotional or mental stability. A mother can be a bad parent, too. Custody should be granted according to which parent is the best choice for raising the child, regardless of who carried the baby for 9 months.

Dumb Argument: "Islam is a religion of peace."

And that is why muslims around the world kill one another - muslim and non-muslim - in the name of their religion. And that is why no muslims - not even the self-proclaimed "moderates" - are standing up and taking the fight back to the "radicals". No muslims are raising up against the jihadists. This is because Islam is a religion of peace. Yup! Sure.

Dumb Argument: "We should place our health in the hands of doctors, hospitals and drug companies."

So, we should trust those people with our health even though they only profit when we stay ill. Do you really think they want us all to be healthy? If we were, they would all have to become plumbers and bookkeepers.

Dumb Argument: "We need to reform pedophiles, not punish them."

This, in spite of the fact that reformation of pedophiles has never been successful, and the rate of recitavism is nearly 100%. And our justice system is based on punishment, moreso than reform.

Dumb Argument: "Gun laws reduce crime."

Statistics have shown that communities and states with the toughest gun laws tend to have the most crime. Let's see - a criminal knows community A has guns, and community B does not. Where do you suppose he will go?

Dumb Argument: "We should sit down and talk with the terrorist states because diplomacy is the answer."

Diplomacy would be the answer if the folks on the other side were sane and reasonable, and willing to enter into an honest discussion. But the fact remains that terrorist states have an agenda, and have no intention of changing their beliefs. It's like asking a priest to stop praying, or trying to pacify a hungry lion with words. In the '30's, everyone tried to pacify Hitler with diplomatic efforts and appeasement. See how well it worked?

Dumb Argument: "We must be politically correct to avoid hurting people's sensitivities."

OK. A fat person is weight challenged and an illegal immigrant is "undocumented". And when you say that, they know you are calling them fat or illegal. Just because you use different words, the meaning - and the truth - remain the same. Hence, being politically correct does nothing more than draw attention to an issue, making it even more hurtful. But it allows the liberal elites to be even more smug, as they wrongly believe they have eliminated a stigma simply by changing the language. It's like carbon offsets - it's just a "feel good" thing that has no substance, and only serves to create deception.

Dumb Argument: "Girls under 18 should be able to get an abortion without their parents knowledge."

But she cannot legally buy a beer, vote, or get into an "R" rated movie. Is this what you might call a part-time adult?

Dumb Argument: "The Menorah may be displayed on public property, but not the Cross or Nativity, because the Menorah is not a religious icon. Christians may display a tree."

The Menorah is one of the most revered religious symbols of Judaism, whereas the "Christmas tree" has absolutely no religious significance whatever.

Dumb Argument: "Illegal immigrants should have all the same rights as any American citizen because they are human beings."

With that logic, every person in the world should have those rights, and they should all be entitled to our entitlements. That said, with American rights come American responsibilities - one of which is adherence to our laws. Their very first act in this country is illegal - coming across without permission.

Dumb Argument: "Ballots should be in various languages to accommodate non-English speaking voters."

Since our naturalization laws require a person to learn English before becoming a citizen, there are no "non-English speaking voters." If they cannot speak English, they cannot be a naturalized citizen, and therefore cannot vote.

Dumb Argument: "We need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions because it is a pollutant causing global warming." (that noted group of climatologists we refer to as the Supreme Court :o)

First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant - it is, and always has been an essential, major atmospheric gas (one of three - oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen), and is what all plants breathe. Reduce carbon dioxide and you reduce the amount of breathable air for all plants, which then reduces the source of food for all higher animals - including us. Second, there is no scientific evidence to prove carbon dioxide contributes significantly to any warming. Third, there is no proof - only speculation - that global warming is even ocurring. Finally, the justices of the Supreme Court are discussing a topic which none of them even understands or has any substantial knowledge, so they really need to butt out.

Dumb Argument: "We should allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses, so we can know who they are, and we will be safer on the roads because they will be tested before getting a license."

Absolutely! We will have nothing to fear on the Interstate from that terrorist on his way to blow something up and kill a bunch of Americans. We need not be afraid he will dent our bumper. He's a safe driver, and we know who he is.

Semi-Global Warming

A couple weeks ago, a news item caught my interest. The south pole of Neptune is currently running 18 degrees warmer than the rest of the planet. The reason? Planets do not rotate evenly through their journey around the sun. Planets wobble. This wobble has placed Neptune's south pole a wee bit closer to the sun, as it has done for 40 years. Eventually, the wobble will cause the south pole to be further from the sun, and therefore cooler.

So, here is food for thought:

Our own planet Earth also wobbles. We all know that "magnetic north" moves around, ever-changing as the Earth wobbles its way along its orbit. That being the case, there are extended periods when our own poles get closer or farther from the sun. When the north pole is closer to the sun, the ice melts. When it gets farther, it freezes.

Global warming afficionados would have you believe that this warming of the north pole is caused by Man, and is a "permanent" and disastrous occurence. What they are not telling you is that the south pole is getting colder, and the ice is building. And they do not tell you that the natural wobble of the Earth causes periods of warming and cooling that are quite natural - and temporary.

The mean temperature of the Earth in the 1930's was warmer than today - abnormally so. And the mean temperature in the 1970's was abnormally cooler. And now, right on schedule, it is warmer once again.

In short, it is a natural cycle. Yes, there is global warming, but by and large it is not caused by the meager efforts of Man (though I do believe we need to mature, and stop polluting the Earth). More important, it is a temporary situation. Soon enough, the cooling will begin once again, and all those scientists will pull the alarm about the "coming ice age", which they did in the '70's.

So, why do many people cause unnecessary alarm about global warming?

Three reasons (if you are one of them, simply choose which reason is yours):

1) Money. Scientists live by grants. Grants are only given in order to solve problems. The worse the problem, the more money you get. So, sound the alarm, or don't get the money...

2) Power. Unscrupulous politicians see the issue of global warming as a political platform from which to snatch votes by instilling fear in people.

3) Sucker. A lot of people, many of whom are naive, and the rest "sheep", will blindly follow people in the above categories. And many will latch on to any "cause" that comes their way.

Now, when someone says, "But ALL the scientists say global warming is caused by Man and will be a disaster", you might consider reminding them that, earlier in our history, ALL the scientists said the Earth was flat, and ALL said the sun revolved around the Earth. Even as recently as the 1970’s, ALL the scientists claimed we were well on our way to a new Ice Age. In fact, ALL the scientists have been wrong at least as often as they have been right!

Just because "everyone" agrees does not necessarily mean "everyone" is right. It only means they agree. Nothing more. When someone uses the "everybody" argument, it is because they are "sheep", all to willing to fall for whatever others tell them. The "everybody says" argument is groundless, and absurd. Doesn't anyone remember the story of Chicken Little? He got (almost) everyone to believe the sky was falling. But just because they all believed it, that did not make it true!

Here is my take on global warming. It's real. It's a natural cycle. It's temporary. Pardon the pun, but don't sweat it!

Welcome to (un)Common Sense

Greetings!

This BLOG, one of several that I post to, is specifically designed to dismantle the "spin" that many people rely upon these days to push an agenda. While having an agenda is fine, I have a real problem with those who use dishonesty and deceit to push their agenda.

Politically, I consider myself an Independent. But over the last 10 years or so, I have seen a vast growth among liberals in using and abusing spin. Certainly, some conservatives are also guilty of this. But by and large, the liberals seem to have created some sort of "machine" into which they pour the truth in one end, and it emerges from the other having been stripped of anything that is not conducive to their agenda, and no longer can be called "truth".

While I could certainly expound on many examples, I simply do not have that much time. But for starters, I would have you take note of the liberal concept that is referred to as "political correctness". This is entirely a liberal creation. It is a method by which liberals may avoid guilt, or chasnge perceptions, by renaming things. It's kinda like castration - while technically the individual may still be a male, he is no longer a FUNCTIONING male. And that is the ugly secret behind political correctness.

When a conservative says someone is "overweight", they are being honest and straight to the point. But a liberal, not wanting to be accused of hurting anyone's feelings, insists on saying the person is "weight challenged". In this way, the liberal may proceed without any guilt - even though nothing has changed. The other person is still overweight, and he is not so stupid as to think "weight challenged" means anything besides "fat". So, using politically correct language, liberals may insult people politely, and walk away feeling like they were nice to the other person. It is a method whereupon liberals do not have to live in the real world.

Political correctness is a sham. Like carbon offsets.

Common sense says that a person who immigates (immigrant) to our country without having done so legally (illegal), is an "illegal immigrant".

Liberals, however, understand all to well that the truth hurts their cause (open borders), so they try to change perceptions by changing the truth. Instead of calling those people what they are (illegal immigrants), they insist on calling them "undocumented workers" (even though many are gang members, not workers, and some are terrorists). This sounds better, having removed the negative connotation of breaking the law, which makes it easier for liberals to push their "open border" agenda. This new term for illegal immigrants make them sound much more benign.

If this were not so serious, it would make me laugh hysterically. But it is serious! The liberals who resort to such deceptive measures - who would stop at nothing to push their agenda - are trying to radically change America into something none of us would recognize, and most of us would not like at all. Their insidious methods are winning, by biting off small bits at a time. A small win here, a small win there. No Christmas plays in school, no Christmas tree in the town square. Sanctuary cities where illegal criminals are seldom jailed and never deported. Child molesters released to molest more children, because liberal judges have taken it upon themselves to violate their oath of office, and push their agenda that such people only need to be "understood". And the ACLU is behind most of these travesties.

They are winning because liberals are organized. They understood long ago that in order to control the country, they must control what the people see and hear - what they believe. They began taking over in the areas that would benefit them most - the vast majority of the media are operated by liberals - newspapers like the NY Times, magazines like Rolling Stone, cable news like MSNBC and CNN, and even the internet - YAHOO, Google, MSN and AOL all show a liberal bent in their reporting of the news and other stories.

To make matters worse, they understood the power they would gain by being in charge of "educating" young minds. In the 1950's, the vast majority of schools and universities were conservative, by natural order (it was not planned that way). By the 1970's, liberals, in a concerted effort, began taking over. When one would gain power in the educational system, he/she would then hire only other liberals. Today, the vast majority of public schools and most colleges and universities are populated almost strictly with liberal teachers and professors. And they do not believe in teaching both sides of an issue! They teach anarchy, and help turn impressionable children into thugs and fascists. Just look at all those kids who storm the podium whenever a conservative speaker shows up. The little fascist thugs prevent free speech, claiming that they are only exercising their own right of free speech. In reality, that is liberal spin - using ones right to free speech to deprive others of their own rights is not "free speech". It's fascism, pure and simple. Like Hugo Chavez, who imprisons people who speak against him. A fascist thug. Nothing more.

It is difficult being an Independent these days! An independent believes in conservative, traditional values, but not blindly. On the other hand, while the Independent sits on the fence, looking at both sides so he can make an intelligent, wise choice, the liberals are throwing stones at him, trying to knock him off.

Yep! It's tough being an independent. But I could never be anything else. And while liberals will read this and automatically accuse me of being on the "far right", that is only because from where they stand, on the far left, Independents - and even some liberals - are on the right. They have become so clouded in their thought process that anyone who does not agree with them must be on the "right".

Need proof? MoveOn.org, Media Matters and Code Pink all believe that Clinton is now on the right. And anyone to the right of Clinton must therefore be "far right".

That is the fallacy - and the absurdity - of living in the la-la world of liberalism.

This blog is dedicated to (un)common sense. Showing things for what they are, not what we would like them to be. Yes, I will "pick on" liberals far more than conservatives. But that is because liberals are far more deserving, having spent so much concerted effort into separating themselves from the truth for so long.