It is tragic that Prime Minister Bhutto was murdered, probably by Al Queda followers. But there is now the possibility that Al Queda will be the ones to suffer tragedy, as the people of Pakistan - and the world - are outraged. Bin Laden's boys may very well have just shot themselves in the foot.
Until now, the people of Pakistan have been opposed to any western effort to clean out the terrorists in their country. They have been protecting them. But the same people who have been protecting their "fellow Muslims" may now turn against them. And in any case, if Musharraf wants to go on breathing, he may now be forced to join us in a real attempt to clean house. He must know by now that he is next in line for assassination. He needs our help now, more than we need his.
Bhutto was a positive force in life, but ironically, she may prove to be an even greater force in death. We must now wait (but not very long) to see what choice Musharraf - and America - makes.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Would Liberals Eat Their Young?
It is incredibly ironic that liberals are so adept at making claims about being "for the children." Every time we turn around, they are trying to pass some wacky, socialist crap off on the people while proclaiming how it is "for the children." Since they claim to be so much inline with the needs of the children, let's take a closer look, shall we?
It always bothers me when anyone exploits children. That is why I find it so disgusting every time Nancy Pelosi and her ilk parade children around every time they want to push a radical agenda that Americans would never consider, otherwise.
S-CHIP, a very high cost socialist program offering medical care for "more children". For those who actually take the time to look at the facts, the "children" will not benefit, but they certainly will pay. For starters, all low-income children are already covered by government insurance provided by taxpayers. And the wealthy do not need insurance. This insurance, therefore, would cover children of the middle-upper middle classes - whose parents usually are either covered by employer policies, or by their parents, who are NOT living in poverty.
However, the extremely high cost of such a program would burden those in the middle classes the most - after all, the poor do not pay taxes. So, those "children" will have to suffer because their parents - already overtaxed, according to liberals, would be taxed much more, BECAUSE of liberals.
We need to fight "global warming" for the children. Although there is nothing more than theory behind global warming, and in spite of the fact there is really nothing we could do about it, anyway, I am not sure how fighting global warming translates into helping the children. But I can certainly see how it benefits the liberals - the people receiving taxpayer grants, the people selling carbon credits, etc.
These are just two of numerous examples of how Democrats play the "benefit of the children" card.
Now let us look at the Democrats actual record when it comes to children:
The Democrats have fanatically defended abortion - something that has murdered 35-40 MILLION babies since Roe vs Wade. I find it ironic that Democrats are more concerned with the rights of lab rats, but have no problem throwing innocent babies in front of the bus.
In several recent court cases, Democrat, liberal judges have released convicted child molesters, so they can keep molesting children. In one case, a multiple child rapist was given probation. This is how Democrats "protect the children".
A law protecting children, known as "Jessica's Law", has been passed in most states. In every state where it was rejected, the proposed law was shot down by Democrats. in EVERY case. And Democrats say they are vested in protecting the children.
And it is liberal Democrats who, in their arrogance and ignorance, insist on school policies that result in arresting 8 year olds for normal 8 year old "transgressions". And Democrat policies that allow uneducated children to graduate, anyway, to insure that their "self-esteem" is not damaged. Personally, I would have more self-esteem if I were held back, and forced to learn, than by graduating with full knowledge that I am totally unprepared for real life.
Although study after study, some going back many generations, show that children fare better in a typical familiy environment of one man and one woman and their children, liberals keep seeking new ways to destroy the typical family. They try to convince us that, contrary to the facts, "alternative families" are just as good. They definitely are NOT! Liberals demean and attempt to destroy families by touting gay marriage; multiple marriage; multiple, simultaneous spouses; single parent families; even non-parent families, where the children are actually raised by the "nanny state". Why do liberals try so hard to destroy the American family? Because they hate children. They want to abort as many as possible, regardless of whether there is any just cause. And of those that survive, they want the nanny state to take over control of their upbringing - they simple do not want to take the chance that the children might actually be subjected to moral values. Liberals have no moral values - they are active proponents of pornography, legalized sex with children (even by adults), and putting money and personal gratification above anything else.
So, any thinking person who is not blinded by liberal partisanism realizes that while Democrats exploit children, they generally hate children. But why? Why would anyone hate children?
Narcissism, for one. Look at the "Hollywood Elite", for example. Children would get in the way of their selfish lifestyle, which revolves around gluttony, greed and personal selfworth. Heaven forbid that any liberal should have to sacrifice anything on behalf of another! And no one requires more sacrifice than children.
Another problem they have with children is that most people, upon becoiming parents, become more protective - more conservative. And these conservative values are passed on to the children. If there is one thing liberals hate more than children, it's conservatives.
And this brings us to the reason why liberals want to create a "nanny state", where the elite will raise the children instead of the parents. They know the truth of the old adage "The hand that rocks the cradle also rules the world." So, liberals want to be the ones rocking the cradle, even though they generally hate children. They want to control what the children hear, see, read, believe. They want the children to have liberal beliefs.
And now it makes sense - why liberals want to remove parents from parenting. Why the liberal schools provide free contraceptives to 11 year olds, without parental consent. Why liberals push for 12 year olds to get abortions, without even informing parents. The list goes on.
And this all brings us back to why liberals love abortion - it helps prevent parenting that might lead to conservatism. It prevents conservative children from ever being raised. It reduces the number of children they have to "nanny". It simply makes their job that much easier. The fewer children there are, the more time they have to pursue their selfishness.
THINK! It is no secret that liberals have long been in favor of "zero population growth". They feel children are a threat to their selfishness (they do not want to share the resources with children); they believe children contribute to environmental strains on resources; and they believe that children will contribute to more "global warming." They have been telling us they feel this way. Yet, they try to convince feeble-minded sheep into believing they love, and protect children. Bull!
Liberal Democrats like to blather about how much they want to protect our children. But the reality is that, given the chance, they would likely eat their young. And ours, too! Just another resource to be used and abused.
It always bothers me when anyone exploits children. That is why I find it so disgusting every time Nancy Pelosi and her ilk parade children around every time they want to push a radical agenda that Americans would never consider, otherwise.
S-CHIP, a very high cost socialist program offering medical care for "more children". For those who actually take the time to look at the facts, the "children" will not benefit, but they certainly will pay. For starters, all low-income children are already covered by government insurance provided by taxpayers. And the wealthy do not need insurance. This insurance, therefore, would cover children of the middle-upper middle classes - whose parents usually are either covered by employer policies, or by their parents, who are NOT living in poverty.
However, the extremely high cost of such a program would burden those in the middle classes the most - after all, the poor do not pay taxes. So, those "children" will have to suffer because their parents - already overtaxed, according to liberals, would be taxed much more, BECAUSE of liberals.
We need to fight "global warming" for the children. Although there is nothing more than theory behind global warming, and in spite of the fact there is really nothing we could do about it, anyway, I am not sure how fighting global warming translates into helping the children. But I can certainly see how it benefits the liberals - the people receiving taxpayer grants, the people selling carbon credits, etc.
These are just two of numerous examples of how Democrats play the "benefit of the children" card.
Now let us look at the Democrats actual record when it comes to children:
The Democrats have fanatically defended abortion - something that has murdered 35-40 MILLION babies since Roe vs Wade. I find it ironic that Democrats are more concerned with the rights of lab rats, but have no problem throwing innocent babies in front of the bus.
In several recent court cases, Democrat, liberal judges have released convicted child molesters, so they can keep molesting children. In one case, a multiple child rapist was given probation. This is how Democrats "protect the children".
A law protecting children, known as "Jessica's Law", has been passed in most states. In every state where it was rejected, the proposed law was shot down by Democrats. in EVERY case. And Democrats say they are vested in protecting the children.
And it is liberal Democrats who, in their arrogance and ignorance, insist on school policies that result in arresting 8 year olds for normal 8 year old "transgressions". And Democrat policies that allow uneducated children to graduate, anyway, to insure that their "self-esteem" is not damaged. Personally, I would have more self-esteem if I were held back, and forced to learn, than by graduating with full knowledge that I am totally unprepared for real life.
Although study after study, some going back many generations, show that children fare better in a typical familiy environment of one man and one woman and their children, liberals keep seeking new ways to destroy the typical family. They try to convince us that, contrary to the facts, "alternative families" are just as good. They definitely are NOT! Liberals demean and attempt to destroy families by touting gay marriage; multiple marriage; multiple, simultaneous spouses; single parent families; even non-parent families, where the children are actually raised by the "nanny state". Why do liberals try so hard to destroy the American family? Because they hate children. They want to abort as many as possible, regardless of whether there is any just cause. And of those that survive, they want the nanny state to take over control of their upbringing - they simple do not want to take the chance that the children might actually be subjected to moral values. Liberals have no moral values - they are active proponents of pornography, legalized sex with children (even by adults), and putting money and personal gratification above anything else.
So, any thinking person who is not blinded by liberal partisanism realizes that while Democrats exploit children, they generally hate children. But why? Why would anyone hate children?
Narcissism, for one. Look at the "Hollywood Elite", for example. Children would get in the way of their selfish lifestyle, which revolves around gluttony, greed and personal selfworth. Heaven forbid that any liberal should have to sacrifice anything on behalf of another! And no one requires more sacrifice than children.
Another problem they have with children is that most people, upon becoiming parents, become more protective - more conservative. And these conservative values are passed on to the children. If there is one thing liberals hate more than children, it's conservatives.
And this brings us to the reason why liberals want to create a "nanny state", where the elite will raise the children instead of the parents. They know the truth of the old adage "The hand that rocks the cradle also rules the world." So, liberals want to be the ones rocking the cradle, even though they generally hate children. They want to control what the children hear, see, read, believe. They want the children to have liberal beliefs.
And now it makes sense - why liberals want to remove parents from parenting. Why the liberal schools provide free contraceptives to 11 year olds, without parental consent. Why liberals push for 12 year olds to get abortions, without even informing parents. The list goes on.
And this all brings us back to why liberals love abortion - it helps prevent parenting that might lead to conservatism. It prevents conservative children from ever being raised. It reduces the number of children they have to "nanny". It simply makes their job that much easier. The fewer children there are, the more time they have to pursue their selfishness.
THINK! It is no secret that liberals have long been in favor of "zero population growth". They feel children are a threat to their selfishness (they do not want to share the resources with children); they believe children contribute to environmental strains on resources; and they believe that children will contribute to more "global warming." They have been telling us they feel this way. Yet, they try to convince feeble-minded sheep into believing they love, and protect children. Bull!
Liberal Democrats like to blather about how much they want to protect our children. But the reality is that, given the chance, they would likely eat their young. And ours, too! Just another resource to be used and abused.
Voter ID
Indiana (smarter than most states) passed a law requiring voters to produce photo ID in order to vote. But liberals, and their secular fiends at the ACLU have sued over this, claiming it might keep immigrants from voting. The lower courts have all tossed this out, and it is now going before the Supreme Court.
Let me see if I have this right. The Democrats, who are trying to push forth a national ID card requirement for everyone in the country, are upset that people should actually have any need for such an ID.
At this time, it might also be worthwhile to mention to the Democrats that "immigrants" do not have the right to vote, anyway, unless they have become naturalized and are citizens - in which case, they have photo ID's, anyway. You cannot bank, fly, get into a courthouse, drive, or otherwise function in America without ID. So the Dems who claim that such a law prevents people from voting are patently absurd - and they know it!
Even more absurd was the Democrats' demand to have ballots written in different languages, so as not to discriminate against voters who do not speak English. While that may make sense to liberals who are too stupid to understand the laws, people who cannot speak English are not ALLOWED to vote - because they are not citizens. One of the REQUIREMENTS of naturalization is being able to speak English.
The reason Democrats do not want ID's for voters, but want ballots in Spanish is so they can pump millions of illegal aliens into the polling booths, to vote for Democrats. If ballots are in Spanish, and no picture ID is required, just exactly how would we prevent citizens of other countries from electing our officials? In fact, how would we keep Muslim Jihadists from electing our officials?
I have said it before, and I will say it again - for the most part (with few exceptions), Democrats are dishonest, deceitful and just plain immoral. I can remeber when the Democratic party had some (but not much) honor. But that is no longer true. Finding an honest Democrat who has integrity is getting to be as difficult as finding a "moderate" Muslim opposed to violence, and who loves America.
I have heard rumors - fostered by liberals - that there are such things, but I have yet to see even ONE "moderate" Muslim with any influence at all, standing up to be counted, and denouncing his Jihadist brothers. Not one. And with the exception of Kirsten Powers, I have a hard time finding any Democrat that has any integrity at all - one who can actually debate issues without resorting to lies, name-calling and other slimy Liberal ploys.
Personally, I think our voting laws should be even more strict - I think voters should be required to know the policies of those they are voting for. Of course, that would seriously hamper Democrats, as they do not have any policies, except killing 40 million babies in the name of Freedom of Choice (which, by the way, is NOT one of the freedoms in the Constitution), and then claiming they are the party that protects the children.
Sure. And Saddam was a benevolent ruler who treated all his citizens with respect and mercy.
Let me see if I have this right. The Democrats, who are trying to push forth a national ID card requirement for everyone in the country, are upset that people should actually have any need for such an ID.
At this time, it might also be worthwhile to mention to the Democrats that "immigrants" do not have the right to vote, anyway, unless they have become naturalized and are citizens - in which case, they have photo ID's, anyway. You cannot bank, fly, get into a courthouse, drive, or otherwise function in America without ID. So the Dems who claim that such a law prevents people from voting are patently absurd - and they know it!
Even more absurd was the Democrats' demand to have ballots written in different languages, so as not to discriminate against voters who do not speak English. While that may make sense to liberals who are too stupid to understand the laws, people who cannot speak English are not ALLOWED to vote - because they are not citizens. One of the REQUIREMENTS of naturalization is being able to speak English.
The reason Democrats do not want ID's for voters, but want ballots in Spanish is so they can pump millions of illegal aliens into the polling booths, to vote for Democrats. If ballots are in Spanish, and no picture ID is required, just exactly how would we prevent citizens of other countries from electing our officials? In fact, how would we keep Muslim Jihadists from electing our officials?
I have said it before, and I will say it again - for the most part (with few exceptions), Democrats are dishonest, deceitful and just plain immoral. I can remeber when the Democratic party had some (but not much) honor. But that is no longer true. Finding an honest Democrat who has integrity is getting to be as difficult as finding a "moderate" Muslim opposed to violence, and who loves America.
I have heard rumors - fostered by liberals - that there are such things, but I have yet to see even ONE "moderate" Muslim with any influence at all, standing up to be counted, and denouncing his Jihadist brothers. Not one. And with the exception of Kirsten Powers, I have a hard time finding any Democrat that has any integrity at all - one who can actually debate issues without resorting to lies, name-calling and other slimy Liberal ploys.
Personally, I think our voting laws should be even more strict - I think voters should be required to know the policies of those they are voting for. Of course, that would seriously hamper Democrats, as they do not have any policies, except killing 40 million babies in the name of Freedom of Choice (which, by the way, is NOT one of the freedoms in the Constitution), and then claiming they are the party that protects the children.
Sure. And Saddam was a benevolent ruler who treated all his citizens with respect and mercy.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Ron Paul
Have you noticed that in all the scientific polls conducted by all the professional pollsters, Ron Paul barely makes a showing? He comes in dead last in every poll, in every state. Yet...
This is strange - in non-scientific polls by agenda-driven websites such as AOL, Ron Paul shows to have a huge lead in 46 states - including Iowa, where other polls show he barely exists.
Now, Mr Paul does seem to be able to raise vast amounts of cash on the Internet. But it would be interesting to discover where that money is coming from. Based on the wide discrepancy between the legitimate polls and the "other" polls, here's my guess:
The money - and the votes in those "straw polls" on AOL - are coming from liberals. MoveOn.org and Media Matters may very well be behind this effort to sabotage the Republican party and primaries. Why?
If the left-wingers can boost a whacky candidate into the Republican primaries, then the Democrats will have no problem beating him in the general election next fall. The far left would like nothing better than to have their candidate run against Ron Paul - it would be an easy win for the Dems.
And even if they cannot buy the nomination for Mr. Paul, the attempt, alone, could sabotage the Republican party. Imagine what republican voters in NH or SC would think if they see Ron Paul make a real showing in Iowa, for example. That could throw the party into disarray, and cause serious conflicts within the party, dividing it even further.
I'm here to tell you - if I were running the Democrat spin machine, I would be asking all Dems to contribute the max to the Democratic candidate, and ALSO give as much as possible to Ron Paul. I would also have them vote for Paul in all the non-scientific polls, to artificially inflate the numbers and make the Republican party appear to have lost their senses. That would be the surest - and simplest - way to derail the Republican party.
So, how do we know if the liberals are behind this dangerously deceptive tactic? Short of getting the financial records to see where those donations are coming from, all we really have to do is wait a few days and see how Paul fares in the Iowa caucus. If it turns out the scientific polls are correct and Paul does poorly, then you can bet your bippy that the liberals are the ones fueling the Ron Paul train.
This is strange - in non-scientific polls by agenda-driven websites such as AOL, Ron Paul shows to have a huge lead in 46 states - including Iowa, where other polls show he barely exists.
Now, Mr Paul does seem to be able to raise vast amounts of cash on the Internet. But it would be interesting to discover where that money is coming from. Based on the wide discrepancy between the legitimate polls and the "other" polls, here's my guess:
The money - and the votes in those "straw polls" on AOL - are coming from liberals. MoveOn.org and Media Matters may very well be behind this effort to sabotage the Republican party and primaries. Why?
If the left-wingers can boost a whacky candidate into the Republican primaries, then the Democrats will have no problem beating him in the general election next fall. The far left would like nothing better than to have their candidate run against Ron Paul - it would be an easy win for the Dems.
And even if they cannot buy the nomination for Mr. Paul, the attempt, alone, could sabotage the Republican party. Imagine what republican voters in NH or SC would think if they see Ron Paul make a real showing in Iowa, for example. That could throw the party into disarray, and cause serious conflicts within the party, dividing it even further.
I'm here to tell you - if I were running the Democrat spin machine, I would be asking all Dems to contribute the max to the Democratic candidate, and ALSO give as much as possible to Ron Paul. I would also have them vote for Paul in all the non-scientific polls, to artificially inflate the numbers and make the Republican party appear to have lost their senses. That would be the surest - and simplest - way to derail the Republican party.
So, how do we know if the liberals are behind this dangerously deceptive tactic? Short of getting the financial records to see where those donations are coming from, all we really have to do is wait a few days and see how Paul fares in the Iowa caucus. If it turns out the scientific polls are correct and Paul does poorly, then you can bet your bippy that the liberals are the ones fueling the Ron Paul train.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Blue Man
In the news, a man whose skin has turned a lovely shade of blue. Seems he used very large quantities of colloidal silver. Over-dosing on silver can cause the condition known as "argyria". In days of old, wealthy royalty, always eating and drinking from silver utensils, would often develop slight cases of argyria. This slight bluish tint among the wealthy is where the term "blueblood" comes from.
There are only about 4 known cases of argyria over the last century, probably because silver is just too expensive :o)
All joking aside, however, this case is being used by many in the drug industry and the media to try and convince people that "alternative medicine", and colloidal silver in particular, is a bad thing. But that is absolutely, positively not the case.
Let's actually insert a fact here.
FACT: More than 100,000 people die each year from prescribed medicine. But there are no reported cases of deaths from alternative medicines
But here are yet a few facts specific to colloidal silver. Even the experts accept the fact that silver is a very strong anti-bacterial that has none of the adverse effects of other antibiotics. Even the AMA and FDA accept this. It is a simple fact.
This "blue man" simply over-medicated himself, taking large doses, and even applying it topically. Had he used colloidal silver responsibly, he could never have turned blue.
I speak from experience. My family and I have been using colloidal silver for 17 years. None of us are blue, because we use it correctly, and only as needed.
For the first 40 years of my life, I would suffer from serious colds and flu at least 3-4 times each year. I had developed chronic bronchitis by the time I turned 16. So, every "bug" that came along found my body to be a suitable host for tormenting me.
In 1990, a friend told me about colloidal silver. Very skeptical, I spent months researching it. And then I decided to make my own, and use it. But I vowed only to use it when I first felt any "onset" of any illness or uneasiness, and I would stop using it when symptoms disappeared.
That was in 1990. And in the last 17 years, no one in my family has suffered any colds, or any bouts with the flu. None. Zero. Zilch. In fact, no one in my home has been affected by any disease in that 17 years. For a man who was always prone to colds and flu, this was nothing short of a miracle.
After the first two years without any colds, I was sold on silver. There was little doubt of its usefulness. I then started making a salve, a mix of colloidal silver and petroleum jelly. We would use it topically to help prevent infection from wounds.
Colloidal silver, if used properly, works. But people like the "blue man" have taken a good thing and abused it, and the result is now being used as ammunition against alternative medicine. And that is a shame.
You have heard of the "super bugs" that are now appearing, for which there really is no cure. These super bugs were created by the use of drug-type antibiotics. Whenever an antibiotic is used, any bacteria that survives it will become immune, and create a stronger, more virulent strain. So, we produce a stronger antibiotic, which eventually results in even stronger super bugs.
But that does not happen with colloidal silver. Silver does not "attack" bacteria, as drugs do. Instead, it simply "starves" them, so they cannot develop an immunity, and it cannot result in creating any "super bugs." In this respect, silver is a safer and a more responsible choice.
The ONLY reason why colloidal silver is not being used or sold commercially is because the drug companies cannot profit from it. It cannot be patented. Anyone can easily make their own. Drug companies would lose billions of dollars each year if colloidal silver were to hold its rightful place in the medicine chest.
My family swears by colloidal silver, because "the proof is in the pudding". There has been no illness in our home since 1990. And that is the year we began using colloidal silver responsibly.
But one important point: if you decide to use colloidal silver, please note that it will kill ALL the bacteria it encounters. This is important because the human body relies on several good bacteria (flora) in order to maintain good health. As with any antibiotic, the good flora are destroyed along with the bad. For this reason, it is imperative that you help your body replenish the supply of good flora once you have completed your antibiotic or colloidal silver regimen. You can do this either with fermented foods such as yogurt or sauerkraut, or by taking probiotic supplements.
If you do not replace the good flora after using an antibiotic, your body's immune system will not work properly - it will be weakened, and susceptible to other disease.
As long as silver is used properly, and good flora replenished, silver can be a most useful method of destroying bacteria.
There are only about 4 known cases of argyria over the last century, probably because silver is just too expensive :o)
All joking aside, however, this case is being used by many in the drug industry and the media to try and convince people that "alternative medicine", and colloidal silver in particular, is a bad thing. But that is absolutely, positively not the case.
Let's actually insert a fact here.
FACT: More than 100,000 people die each year from prescribed medicine. But there are no reported cases of deaths from alternative medicines
But here are yet a few facts specific to colloidal silver. Even the experts accept the fact that silver is a very strong anti-bacterial that has none of the adverse effects of other antibiotics. Even the AMA and FDA accept this. It is a simple fact.
This "blue man" simply over-medicated himself, taking large doses, and even applying it topically. Had he used colloidal silver responsibly, he could never have turned blue.
I speak from experience. My family and I have been using colloidal silver for 17 years. None of us are blue, because we use it correctly, and only as needed.
For the first 40 years of my life, I would suffer from serious colds and flu at least 3-4 times each year. I had developed chronic bronchitis by the time I turned 16. So, every "bug" that came along found my body to be a suitable host for tormenting me.
In 1990, a friend told me about colloidal silver. Very skeptical, I spent months researching it. And then I decided to make my own, and use it. But I vowed only to use it when I first felt any "onset" of any illness or uneasiness, and I would stop using it when symptoms disappeared.
That was in 1990. And in the last 17 years, no one in my family has suffered any colds, or any bouts with the flu. None. Zero. Zilch. In fact, no one in my home has been affected by any disease in that 17 years. For a man who was always prone to colds and flu, this was nothing short of a miracle.
After the first two years without any colds, I was sold on silver. There was little doubt of its usefulness. I then started making a salve, a mix of colloidal silver and petroleum jelly. We would use it topically to help prevent infection from wounds.
Colloidal silver, if used properly, works. But people like the "blue man" have taken a good thing and abused it, and the result is now being used as ammunition against alternative medicine. And that is a shame.
You have heard of the "super bugs" that are now appearing, for which there really is no cure. These super bugs were created by the use of drug-type antibiotics. Whenever an antibiotic is used, any bacteria that survives it will become immune, and create a stronger, more virulent strain. So, we produce a stronger antibiotic, which eventually results in even stronger super bugs.
But that does not happen with colloidal silver. Silver does not "attack" bacteria, as drugs do. Instead, it simply "starves" them, so they cannot develop an immunity, and it cannot result in creating any "super bugs." In this respect, silver is a safer and a more responsible choice.
The ONLY reason why colloidal silver is not being used or sold commercially is because the drug companies cannot profit from it. It cannot be patented. Anyone can easily make their own. Drug companies would lose billions of dollars each year if colloidal silver were to hold its rightful place in the medicine chest.
My family swears by colloidal silver, because "the proof is in the pudding". There has been no illness in our home since 1990. And that is the year we began using colloidal silver responsibly.
But one important point: if you decide to use colloidal silver, please note that it will kill ALL the bacteria it encounters. This is important because the human body relies on several good bacteria (flora) in order to maintain good health. As with any antibiotic, the good flora are destroyed along with the bad. For this reason, it is imperative that you help your body replenish the supply of good flora once you have completed your antibiotic or colloidal silver regimen. You can do this either with fermented foods such as yogurt or sauerkraut, or by taking probiotic supplements.
If you do not replace the good flora after using an antibiotic, your body's immune system will not work properly - it will be weakened, and susceptible to other disease.
As long as silver is used properly, and good flora replenished, silver can be a most useful method of destroying bacteria.
Archbishop of Lunacy
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Anglican Church) made some pretty ridiculous statements recently. Not all that unusual for the Anglican Church, except for the height of stupidity that these particular statements reached.
Among them:
1) There is no "proof" that the Nativity ever happened.
RESPONSE: There is no "proof" of evolution, either - or Einstein's Theory of Relativity, or even the existence of God. Not having "proof" does not mean these things are not real. But just to correct the record - and it seems the Archbishop is not well educated in these matters - there is actually substantial evidence there was a Nativity. The actual "cave", preserved thoughout the ages, can still be visited. And written records of the event have been passed down through the years. Are we now to disregard written accounts of history by those who were there? If so, we must toss out all history that predates our own lifespans.
2) The Archbishop claims that it is not necessary in Christianity to believe in the virgin birth in order to be a good Christian.
RESPONSE: I hate to break the news to the venerable Archbishop, but the virgin birth is the very crux of Christianity. It is the Immaculate Conception that gave credence to Jesus being the Christ. If not for the IC, Jesus would have been seen as just another carpenter's son, rather than the Son of God.
I would like to inquire of the Archbishop as to exactly how Jesus could be the Son of God, or God incarnate, if not for the Immaculate Conception?
I am not an expert on the Anglican Church, but if the Archbishop is indicative of Anglican tenets, then as far as I am concerned the Anglican Church has no credibility as a Christian Church.
Here is a refresher for the Archbishop: the entire concept of Christianity is, by definition, the following of Christ. The word "Christ", literally translated, is "the anointed one", or the "messiah". Therefore, in order to be Christian, one must believe in the Messiah. And according to all accounts, the Messiah is the Son of God. As such, his birth must have occurred as an Immaculate Conception.
For the Archbishop to declare that a person can believe in Christianity without believing in the Christ is not only wrong, but patently absurd.
Among them:
1) There is no "proof" that the Nativity ever happened.
RESPONSE: There is no "proof" of evolution, either - or Einstein's Theory of Relativity, or even the existence of God. Not having "proof" does not mean these things are not real. But just to correct the record - and it seems the Archbishop is not well educated in these matters - there is actually substantial evidence there was a Nativity. The actual "cave", preserved thoughout the ages, can still be visited. And written records of the event have been passed down through the years. Are we now to disregard written accounts of history by those who were there? If so, we must toss out all history that predates our own lifespans.
2) The Archbishop claims that it is not necessary in Christianity to believe in the virgin birth in order to be a good Christian.
RESPONSE: I hate to break the news to the venerable Archbishop, but the virgin birth is the very crux of Christianity. It is the Immaculate Conception that gave credence to Jesus being the Christ. If not for the IC, Jesus would have been seen as just another carpenter's son, rather than the Son of God.
I would like to inquire of the Archbishop as to exactly how Jesus could be the Son of God, or God incarnate, if not for the Immaculate Conception?
I am not an expert on the Anglican Church, but if the Archbishop is indicative of Anglican tenets, then as far as I am concerned the Anglican Church has no credibility as a Christian Church.
Here is a refresher for the Archbishop: the entire concept of Christianity is, by definition, the following of Christ. The word "Christ", literally translated, is "the anointed one", or the "messiah". Therefore, in order to be Christian, one must believe in the Messiah. And according to all accounts, the Messiah is the Son of God. As such, his birth must have occurred as an Immaculate Conception.
For the Archbishop to declare that a person can believe in Christianity without believing in the Christ is not only wrong, but patently absurd.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Person Of The Year
Well, TIME magazine has done it again. This year they have chosen a murderous, egomaniacal, communist as "Person Of The Year". But that comes as no surprise, considering that TIME is a liberal, socialistic rag.
In contrast, I would like to share with you who I have chosen as "Person Of The Year":
EVERY AMERICAN SOLDIER WHO IS RISKING HIS/HER LIFE FOR US ALL
In contrast, I would like to share with you who I have chosen as "Person Of The Year":
EVERY AMERICAN SOLDIER WHO IS RISKING HIS/HER LIFE FOR US ALL
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Schools - More Dangerous Than You Think
As I look over all the news stories concerning our public schools over the last few years, it is clearly apparent that schools are dangerous to our children. But perhaps not in the way that you might think.
Certainly, there are situations in which students are killing both students and teachers in our public schools. And while that, of itself, constitutes a clear danger, it is not the real danger that is now inherent in our schools.
The majority of schools and colleges are under the influence of hard-left liberal administrators, teachers and professors. This is not an opinion - it is an established fact. As such, the schools are making a strong attempt to indoctrinate our children into a socialistic mindset - to brainwash them into accepting the phony "truths" of the far left, and to make them believe that this is a "nanny state" in which their freedoms and rights are dictated to them by the "nannies".
At one elementary school, teachers and school administrators have a 10 year old girl hauled off by the police to be charged with a felony, simply because she used a knife to cut her steak at lunch. This paranoia on the part of liberals rubs off on our kids - those kids are being indoctrinated into believing that a "nanny state" is already here, and that they do not really have any freedoms or rights. When they become adults, these kids will be much more apt to waive their rights and freedoms, because it is what they have become used to. They will learn to fear authorities, and to avoid any conflict, rather than stand up for themselves.
At another school, a HISTORY teacher was taped, ranting about how Christianity and conservatives are destroying civilization. While this has nothing to do with history, it has everything to do with the indoctrination of our children into a liberal, secular "nanny state" where civil rights and freedoms will no longer exist.
At our universities, professors are allowed - even encouraged - to further pollute the minds of our children. They teach that America is the cause for all of the world's problems, and that the victims of 9/11 were "Nazis" who deserved what they got.
In Portland, Maine, the school administrators have decided to take away parental rights, and now make contraceptives freely available to any child over the age of 11 without parental consent. And in many other schools, the curriculum includes sex education but prohibits teaching abstinence; teaches evolution as if it were fact instead of theory, while criminalizing the teaching of Creationism, and rarely are our kids being introduced to our Declaration of Independence or even the Constitution. And in a growing number of schools, holding hands or touching anyone is being criminalized, and that is in direct opposition to the tenets of most religions, and encroaches on sanity.
At colleges around the country, students are encouraged to be fascist thugs, preventing any other viewpoint from being expressed - if a conservative (or Christian) speaker is invited to speak, he/she is shouted down, or attacked on-stage. Meanwhile, liberal speakers - even Ahmadinejad - are allowed to speak without interruption.
Frankly, I believe that a good school that does not follow an "agenda" written by the left wing-nuts is far safer for my kids, even if there is a chance of a shoot-out. That's because in a shoot-out, only a few are adversely affected. But in a liberal school, ALL of the students are attacked and harmed.
As Americans, it is time to make a choice - either insist on taking back our schools and outlaw a one-sided teaching agenda, or take our kids out of public schools and into homeschooling, or non-agenda driven private schools, where EDUCATION is the primary objective, rather than INDOCTRINATION.
Personally, I think we should expose every teacher and school administrator to a test of their ability to be fair and impartial, and if they do not pass, they lose their teaching credentials. Our teachers should be like judges and juries - impartial.
Our school administrators and teachers need to stop being so paranoid, petty and agenda-driven. They need to stop acting as if America were a nanny state, and they are the appointed nannies. They are better described as "ninnies". Of all the people in this country, they are the LEAST qualified to instill values in our children. They should EDUCATE. Parents are the ones who should instill values. And if teachers MUST instill values, they should be mainstream values acceptable to the majority of parents.
Wake up, America! Our schools are subtly, but effectively paving the way to a nanny state in which individuals will no longer have any rights except those that the "nannies" are willing to give us. And that will not be an America that any of us recognize, nor want. But it is coming, inexorably, because the general populace just is not interested in fighting it.
Unless you want your children and grandchildren to live in a socialist, fascist state, you had better drop the apathy and get involved. Fight the little, local battles, to insure they do not grow into larger, national mandates. If each of us simply refuses to let the liberals on a local level to push their agenda, they cannot grow to control a national stage.
But if you sit idly by and let minor, local officials dictate that which they have no right to dictate, then you are selling your children's heritage of freedom for 30 pieces of silver. Because once they win on a local level, they gain power and influence to win on a state level, and then a national level. There is much truth in "A stitch in time saves nine." If you do not stop them in your community, they will rule over us all. And I can guarantee you will not be pleased!
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Enabling Insures Failure
For several years I managed the largest homeless shelter in New Hampshire, which typically sheltered about 100 persons each night. Many were alcoholics or drugs addicts, some were mentally deficient, and some were just "set back" by some tragedy such as death or divorce.
But they all had one thing in common - "enabling" them always made their situation worse. When you enable someone, you give them a reason to keep doing the things that put them in the position they are in.
When I first began managing the shelter, it was an environment of enablement. The homeless were not required to make any changes in their lives - they were fed, clothed and housed without anything ever being asked of them. And that sort of "free ride" not only allows them to stay on the dole, but encourages it. When I left that job, the shelter had case managers to help people confront and deal with their "devils", and everyone was required to contribute to the workings of the shelter in some manner. And for the first time in the history of that shelter, some of the lifelong homeless had found a way out, a better life, and freed themselves from their chains.
The point of this is simple: enablement is never a good solution to a problem. Never.
But a lot of well-meaning yet non-thinking people want to enable immigrants to "get by" in America without having to bother with learning English. These people oppose "English Only" systems, thinking that an "English Only" system is somehow "discriminatory". What they do not understand is that it is discriminatory to NOT require English. Here are some reasons why:
1) A non-English speaking resident will never have the same opportunities as English speaking residents.
2) It is natural for a person to avoid, fear, or discriminate against those he cannot understand. They don't call it a language "barrier" without good reason. Not speaking a common language does, indeed, create a barrier. If you really want to tear down barriers, make "English Only" a reality in this country.
3) A person in America who cannot speak English is much easier to exploit. Human nature what it is, there is no shortage of people who WILL exploit them.
So, for all you brainwashed liberals out there who believe "English Only" is a bad thing, you need to open your eyes. By enabling people to not need English, you limit their opportunities, cause fear and misunderstanding, and enable unscrupulous people to exploit these immigrants.
And that is wrong, no matter what side of the political fence you are on!
English Only is what we should all be behind. We need to stop making it easy for people to just "get by" without having to learn English. Take those "other" languages off our packaging, out of our restaurants, out of the workplace. Force immigrants to learn English - not for our good, but for theirs! If we do not do this, we are doing every immigrant - legal or otherwise - a disservice.
Besides, if you enable one, it would be discrimination to not enable them all. What will we do - write everything in 112 different languages? Most packaging and menus are not that big, and the cost to businesses would put them out of business.
No. The only answer is to make all of America "English Only", for the good of everyone who lives here.
But they all had one thing in common - "enabling" them always made their situation worse. When you enable someone, you give them a reason to keep doing the things that put them in the position they are in.
When I first began managing the shelter, it was an environment of enablement. The homeless were not required to make any changes in their lives - they were fed, clothed and housed without anything ever being asked of them. And that sort of "free ride" not only allows them to stay on the dole, but encourages it. When I left that job, the shelter had case managers to help people confront and deal with their "devils", and everyone was required to contribute to the workings of the shelter in some manner. And for the first time in the history of that shelter, some of the lifelong homeless had found a way out, a better life, and freed themselves from their chains.
The point of this is simple: enablement is never a good solution to a problem. Never.
But a lot of well-meaning yet non-thinking people want to enable immigrants to "get by" in America without having to bother with learning English. These people oppose "English Only" systems, thinking that an "English Only" system is somehow "discriminatory". What they do not understand is that it is discriminatory to NOT require English. Here are some reasons why:
1) A non-English speaking resident will never have the same opportunities as English speaking residents.
2) It is natural for a person to avoid, fear, or discriminate against those he cannot understand. They don't call it a language "barrier" without good reason. Not speaking a common language does, indeed, create a barrier. If you really want to tear down barriers, make "English Only" a reality in this country.
3) A person in America who cannot speak English is much easier to exploit. Human nature what it is, there is no shortage of people who WILL exploit them.
So, for all you brainwashed liberals out there who believe "English Only" is a bad thing, you need to open your eyes. By enabling people to not need English, you limit their opportunities, cause fear and misunderstanding, and enable unscrupulous people to exploit these immigrants.
And that is wrong, no matter what side of the political fence you are on!
English Only is what we should all be behind. We need to stop making it easy for people to just "get by" without having to learn English. Take those "other" languages off our packaging, out of our restaurants, out of the workplace. Force immigrants to learn English - not for our good, but for theirs! If we do not do this, we are doing every immigrant - legal or otherwise - a disservice.
Besides, if you enable one, it would be discrimination to not enable them all. What will we do - write everything in 112 different languages? Most packaging and menus are not that big, and the cost to businesses would put them out of business.
No. The only answer is to make all of America "English Only", for the good of everyone who lives here.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Huck 'n' Chuck
I was watching O'Reilly this evening, as I often do, and there was a piece with Mike Huckabee and his friend, Chuck Norris. It reminded me of what I had told my wife over a year ago, that Huckabee struck me as a fine man, and a good choice for President, but I did not believe he had a chance.
Why? Because the left-wing, secular media likes to tear apart anything that has to do with being a Christian. And after the last election of Congress, I lost faith in the common sense of the American voting public. I just did not see Huckabee ever getting out of the single digits in the polls.
So count me surprised now that Huck has moved way, way up in all the polls. It's enough to (almost) renew my faith in the American voter. But alas, I still don't think Huck can pull it off, and here's why: there are just too many people who vote that have no clue whatsoever about the people they vote for. They choose this one or that one only because it's a name they know, or because they belong to a certain party, or because their circle of friends are voting for so 'n' so.
I found it to be distressing that, among dozens of people chosen at random walking about New York, only one in ten even recognized pictures of the primary political candidates. And most did not find the names of those candidates familiar - but they all picked out Britney Spears in a line-up. And when asked who they would vote for, most said "Hillary", but when asked why, none could relate even one specific reason that qualified her as a President.
In other words, too many voters choose to be ignorant. They simply do not make any effort to understand the issues, or the repercussions of those issues. Yet, they elect our leaders! And that is very, very scary.
When I look at Hillary, my instinct tells me she cannot be trusted - she blows with the wind. I look at Giuliani, and I see a Democrat in Republican clothing. I see a man who is just a little too slick and glib when I look at Mitt Romney. Obama's lack of experience, and unwillingness to actually take positions on touchy issues makes me nervous. Of all the candidates on either side, the only one I see to just be a good, honest, knowledgeable leader is Mike Huckabee.
He's the only one I trust out of the whole bunch. The only other two Americans I would vote for as President would be Newt Gingrich, because he is a man of solid, well-thought-out ideas and solutions, and Tony Snow, because he is probably the finest, most honorable and non-polarizing person I have ever known.
Whoever America chooses to lead us into this dangerous, new world, I just hope it is people who are up to it, and will move Heaven and Earth to do what is best for AMERICA, rather than what is best for their career, or their party.
Huckabee is that kind of person. But as good as ANY presidential candidate may be, he or she is nearly irrelevant as long as we have the current do-nothing Congress.
Why? Because the left-wing, secular media likes to tear apart anything that has to do with being a Christian. And after the last election of Congress, I lost faith in the common sense of the American voting public. I just did not see Huckabee ever getting out of the single digits in the polls.
So count me surprised now that Huck has moved way, way up in all the polls. It's enough to (almost) renew my faith in the American voter. But alas, I still don't think Huck can pull it off, and here's why: there are just too many people who vote that have no clue whatsoever about the people they vote for. They choose this one or that one only because it's a name they know, or because they belong to a certain party, or because their circle of friends are voting for so 'n' so.
I found it to be distressing that, among dozens of people chosen at random walking about New York, only one in ten even recognized pictures of the primary political candidates. And most did not find the names of those candidates familiar - but they all picked out Britney Spears in a line-up. And when asked who they would vote for, most said "Hillary", but when asked why, none could relate even one specific reason that qualified her as a President.
In other words, too many voters choose to be ignorant. They simply do not make any effort to understand the issues, or the repercussions of those issues. Yet, they elect our leaders! And that is very, very scary.
When I look at Hillary, my instinct tells me she cannot be trusted - she blows with the wind. I look at Giuliani, and I see a Democrat in Republican clothing. I see a man who is just a little too slick and glib when I look at Mitt Romney. Obama's lack of experience, and unwillingness to actually take positions on touchy issues makes me nervous. Of all the candidates on either side, the only one I see to just be a good, honest, knowledgeable leader is Mike Huckabee.
He's the only one I trust out of the whole bunch. The only other two Americans I would vote for as President would be Newt Gingrich, because he is a man of solid, well-thought-out ideas and solutions, and Tony Snow, because he is probably the finest, most honorable and non-polarizing person I have ever known.
Whoever America chooses to lead us into this dangerous, new world, I just hope it is people who are up to it, and will move Heaven and Earth to do what is best for AMERICA, rather than what is best for their career, or their party.
Huckabee is that kind of person. But as good as ANY presidential candidate may be, he or she is nearly irrelevant as long as we have the current do-nothing Congress.
Airlines vs Humanity
Well, the airlines are going to fight the Air Passenger Bill of Rights that guarantees stranded passengers will have food, water and sanitation.
I am still a bit confused here - I do not see any of the liberals trying to push this Bill of Rights in other states. Yet they are the same people who think feeding Gitmo detainees quiche, giving them wine, and keeping their quarters clean is "torture".
Strange how liberals do not think it is torture to keep a person against his will, deprive him of food and water, and refuse proper sanitation as long as it happens to honest, tax-paying American citizens.
Stranger still that the airlines, which get PAID to treat people badly, somehow think they are the victims here.
Personally, I do not think that a state-by-state Bill of Rights is the answer - each state would pass something different, and the cost to the airlines to comply with 50 different versions would be unfair. But what other choice is there when our do-nothing Democratic Congress refuses to take up the issue on a national basis?
The airline industry is overtaxed and under-prepared for the sheer amount of fliers. What is really needed is more airports at other popular destinations, more planes, more air traffic controllers. If America were to put resources into accomplishing that, regulation would be unnecessary, and passengers would not have to be stranded as often - only for inclement weather, which cannot be helped. But in those cases, the airlines owe it to their passengers to make them comfortable, no matter how inconvenient it may be for the airlines.
I am still a bit confused here - I do not see any of the liberals trying to push this Bill of Rights in other states. Yet they are the same people who think feeding Gitmo detainees quiche, giving them wine, and keeping their quarters clean is "torture".
Strange how liberals do not think it is torture to keep a person against his will, deprive him of food and water, and refuse proper sanitation as long as it happens to honest, tax-paying American citizens.
Stranger still that the airlines, which get PAID to treat people badly, somehow think they are the victims here.
Personally, I do not think that a state-by-state Bill of Rights is the answer - each state would pass something different, and the cost to the airlines to comply with 50 different versions would be unfair. But what other choice is there when our do-nothing Democratic Congress refuses to take up the issue on a national basis?
The airline industry is overtaxed and under-prepared for the sheer amount of fliers. What is really needed is more airports at other popular destinations, more planes, more air traffic controllers. If America were to put resources into accomplishing that, regulation would be unnecessary, and passengers would not have to be stranded as often - only for inclement weather, which cannot be helped. But in those cases, the airlines owe it to their passengers to make them comfortable, no matter how inconvenient it may be for the airlines.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Religion & Politics
It's hard to miss - Republicans make no bones about telling folks that their religion is the basis upon which their lives are built. And Democrats make it a point to tell folks that, while they are "just as religious", they do not believe religion has any place in politics.
I have to laugh at the latter. Last I knew, if religion and faith does not rule every aspect of your life, you are not a "true and good" follower of that religion. Every religion requires that the follower hold God above ALL else, and to keep Him in the midst of every part of your life. If a person removes God from ANY part of his/her life, then that person dishonors Him, offends Him and is not truly religious. He/she is nothing more than a cheap phony. A hypocrite. A pretender.
This is typical of Democrats - they don't really stand for much of anything. They have no central principles with a moral compass. The central principles they DO have are immoral - abortion being Number One.
Alan Colmes, of Hannity & Colmes made the most ignorant statement, yet it is one that most Democrats seem to adhere to. He said that Democrats are just as religious as Republicans, but they just "do not believe it has any place in the public square".
Pardon me, Alan, but if God does not belong in the "public square", where people live, work, play and raise their families, then just where DOES God belong???
Seems to me that any TRUE Christian, understanding that everything belongs to God, would realize God belongs EVERYWHERE, and most especially in the public square.
Now hear this, all liberals, secularists and Democrats: every religion REQUIRES its followers to "go forth and spread the word of God." The most effective place to do that is in the public square, which, by the way is EXACTLY where Jesus did His preaching.
Hypocritical Democrats - they say they "believe in God", and are "just as religious" as Republicans, yet they try to kill religion at every turn, by suffocating it, passing laws that contradict the tenets of religion, and they even admit they do not believe God has any place in certain aspects of life, or in public.
In short, they like the idea of thinking they are religious when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. If a person believes they can be religious while not being faithful to God in all aspects of life, that is like believing you can have a good marriage while cheating on your spouse.
I have more respect for atheists than I do for liberal Democrats like Alan Colmes. At least atheists are honest about their beliefs.
I have to laugh at the latter. Last I knew, if religion and faith does not rule every aspect of your life, you are not a "true and good" follower of that religion. Every religion requires that the follower hold God above ALL else, and to keep Him in the midst of every part of your life. If a person removes God from ANY part of his/her life, then that person dishonors Him, offends Him and is not truly religious. He/she is nothing more than a cheap phony. A hypocrite. A pretender.
This is typical of Democrats - they don't really stand for much of anything. They have no central principles with a moral compass. The central principles they DO have are immoral - abortion being Number One.
Alan Colmes, of Hannity & Colmes made the most ignorant statement, yet it is one that most Democrats seem to adhere to. He said that Democrats are just as religious as Republicans, but they just "do not believe it has any place in the public square".
Pardon me, Alan, but if God does not belong in the "public square", where people live, work, play and raise their families, then just where DOES God belong???
Seems to me that any TRUE Christian, understanding that everything belongs to God, would realize God belongs EVERYWHERE, and most especially in the public square.
Now hear this, all liberals, secularists and Democrats: every religion REQUIRES its followers to "go forth and spread the word of God." The most effective place to do that is in the public square, which, by the way is EXACTLY where Jesus did His preaching.
Hypocritical Democrats - they say they "believe in God", and are "just as religious" as Republicans, yet they try to kill religion at every turn, by suffocating it, passing laws that contradict the tenets of religion, and they even admit they do not believe God has any place in certain aspects of life, or in public.
In short, they like the idea of thinking they are religious when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. If a person believes they can be religious while not being faithful to God in all aspects of life, that is like believing you can have a good marriage while cheating on your spouse.
I have more respect for atheists than I do for liberal Democrats like Alan Colmes. At least atheists are honest about their beliefs.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Schools Gone Wild
Have you noticed how school officials, believing they are empowered to rule over everyone, have decided to do just that? It matters not to those power-crazed idiots that they are not so empowered, and have no right whatsoever to inject themselves into every aspect of family life, both in and out of school.
In Portland Maine, the school has decided they have the right to make birth control available to 11 year old children, without parental consent. If I lived in Portland, I would be suing their obnoxious, self-righteous butts! They cannot legally give an aspirin to a child without parental consent, but they can give out birth control, and in doing so, send the message that having sex is OK? If they send that message to my kids, they would certainly be answering to me!
In Standish, Maine, the Bonny Eagle High School is making it MANDATORY for every senior to send out college applications - if they do not, they cannot graduate! What right do they have to a) require sending applications, or b) to withhold a diploma from a student who has all the academic grades to graduate? They had better think twice about that one - first, not every student CAN go to college, as they simply are not qualified. Second, there are students who just do not WANT to go to college. What right does the school have to force them to apply to colleges they cannot or will not ever attend? What right do they have to impose a much greater workload on the college administrators who must read, judge, and respond to all those bogus applications, at their own cost?
I can tell you WHY the school is doing this - MONEY! The school gets $50 in government grant money for every college application that seniors send out. The school, in short, is forcing our kids to be dishonest, disingenuous frauds, just so the schools can pocket more taxpayer money. How corrupt is that? If they plan to teach MY kids that deceit is OK, they will find themselves in serious trouble. I have already put the principal and supervisor on notice that I will not hesitate to sue if they refuse to let my daughter graduate - she has been on the honor roll every semester, but she does not intend to start college until she has been out of school for at least a year. And she will refuse to send out fraudulent applications, just so the school can make $50 off of her.
And now a school has decided to suspend an 11 year old girl from school for something that she did that was not during school hours, or on school grounds. They have injected themselves into the private affairs of a family, and have taken it upon themselves to punish someone's child for something they have no business getting involved in. It is a FAMILY matter! In NO case does ANY school have the right to impose it's values and discipline on any child that is not on school grounds or at a school sponsored event.
Imagine, you and your child are on vacation. Your child does something bad. And the school decides that it is their affair, not yours, and that they have the right to punish your child anytime, anywhere, for anything they choose. Frankly, that's bullsh*t, and everyone but school officials and liberal jerks know it.
I'll tell you this: the schools WILL stay out of my family's affairs, or they will find themselves in court, and those idiot officials will be looking for new jobs more suited to obnoxious clowns. And I certainly hope that, if you are parents, that you take the same stance to protect your rights and family values. If you let them get away with it, they will encroach more and more, until parents have no rights at all.
In Portland Maine, the school has decided they have the right to make birth control available to 11 year old children, without parental consent. If I lived in Portland, I would be suing their obnoxious, self-righteous butts! They cannot legally give an aspirin to a child without parental consent, but they can give out birth control, and in doing so, send the message that having sex is OK? If they send that message to my kids, they would certainly be answering to me!
In Standish, Maine, the Bonny Eagle High School is making it MANDATORY for every senior to send out college applications - if they do not, they cannot graduate! What right do they have to a) require sending applications, or b) to withhold a diploma from a student who has all the academic grades to graduate? They had better think twice about that one - first, not every student CAN go to college, as they simply are not qualified. Second, there are students who just do not WANT to go to college. What right does the school have to force them to apply to colleges they cannot or will not ever attend? What right do they have to impose a much greater workload on the college administrators who must read, judge, and respond to all those bogus applications, at their own cost?
I can tell you WHY the school is doing this - MONEY! The school gets $50 in government grant money for every college application that seniors send out. The school, in short, is forcing our kids to be dishonest, disingenuous frauds, just so the schools can pocket more taxpayer money. How corrupt is that? If they plan to teach MY kids that deceit is OK, they will find themselves in serious trouble. I have already put the principal and supervisor on notice that I will not hesitate to sue if they refuse to let my daughter graduate - she has been on the honor roll every semester, but she does not intend to start college until she has been out of school for at least a year. And she will refuse to send out fraudulent applications, just so the school can make $50 off of her.
And now a school has decided to suspend an 11 year old girl from school for something that she did that was not during school hours, or on school grounds. They have injected themselves into the private affairs of a family, and have taken it upon themselves to punish someone's child for something they have no business getting involved in. It is a FAMILY matter! In NO case does ANY school have the right to impose it's values and discipline on any child that is not on school grounds or at a school sponsored event.
Imagine, you and your child are on vacation. Your child does something bad. And the school decides that it is their affair, not yours, and that they have the right to punish your child anytime, anywhere, for anything they choose. Frankly, that's bullsh*t, and everyone but school officials and liberal jerks know it.
I'll tell you this: the schools WILL stay out of my family's affairs, or they will find themselves in court, and those idiot officials will be looking for new jobs more suited to obnoxious clowns. And I certainly hope that, if you are parents, that you take the same stance to protect your rights and family values. If you let them get away with it, they will encroach more and more, until parents have no rights at all.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. Horn - Hero or Killer?
In Texas, a fellow by the name of Horn shot and killed two illegal immigrants who were robbing his neighbor's home. Even though it turns out that the criminals were unarmed, Texas law may be on Horn's side.
Liberals want Horn prosecuted for murder, or at least for manslaughter. But most Americans are hailing Horn as a hero. So, on the surface, this might appear to be a very complex issue.
But it is not at all complex. First, the criminals chose to be criminals, knowing full well that they could get shot in the act of their crimes. First and foremost, they need to be accountable for their own choices and deeds. And while their crimes might not warrant a death sentence, had they not chosen a career in crime, they would not have been in jeopardy, and would still be alive today.
More to the point, however, is the simple fact that, at least in that part of Texas, criminals may now think twice before committing crimes. I have said it many times before - if community "A" outlaws guns, and community "B" encourages gun ownership, most criminals will avoid community "B" and go to community "A" to commit their crimes. Not even criminals are dumb enough to rob an armed group, when an unarmed group is available.
If more criminals were to get shot in the act, there would be far less crime, guaranteed. Partly because many would be deterred, and many simply would no longer be alive to commit crimes.
Yes, I know this sounds callous and perhaps uncivilized to a point. But in a society that is not yet fully civilized, it is foolish to be 100% civilized - it sets us up to be victimized.
We all know - and the facts substantiate this - that violent crime is on the rise, and in many areas, is totally out of control. This can be directly attributed to our society having become more tolerant of crime, of criminals, and of evading personal responsibility.
It is time that we, as civilized people, begin to draw a hard line and say, "Enough is enough!" It is time to stop coddling lawbreakers, stop plea bargaining their felonies down to misdemeanors, stop paroling violent offenders, and stop being so accepting of crime. Once you accept something, it becomes a reality.
Vigilante Justice is wrong. There is too much room for error and injustice. But the folks also need to have the right to protect themselves, and others. My suggestion is that all states pass laws that permit people to protect themselves, their property, and others, but to place strong restrictions that would help alleviate any possibility of things going wrong. Texas has made an effort in this regard, but I think they need to consider placing harsh consequences on folks who go too far, or in situations that do not require deadly force. In the case of Mr. Horn, there is some question as to the need for deadly force. I think he went further than was necessary.
Unfortunately, our laws are so crazy that Horn knew that he must kill, not just wound, the criminals. If he were to wound them, the law says they could sue Mr. Horn. Laws should not permit any criminal to sue for anything that happens in connection with any crime he commits. If we take even that small step, Horn could have simply shot them in the legs to stop them. Easy enough to do with a shotgun at such close range.
I only have one problem with what Mr. Horn has done. Because of him, Texas criminals may now seek a new hunting ground - and it might be where I live. And where I live, the state does not allow citizens to protect their property with deadly force. They would prefer to make me a victim, rather than to make criminals the victims.
Liberals want Horn prosecuted for murder, or at least for manslaughter. But most Americans are hailing Horn as a hero. So, on the surface, this might appear to be a very complex issue.
But it is not at all complex. First, the criminals chose to be criminals, knowing full well that they could get shot in the act of their crimes. First and foremost, they need to be accountable for their own choices and deeds. And while their crimes might not warrant a death sentence, had they not chosen a career in crime, they would not have been in jeopardy, and would still be alive today.
More to the point, however, is the simple fact that, at least in that part of Texas, criminals may now think twice before committing crimes. I have said it many times before - if community "A" outlaws guns, and community "B" encourages gun ownership, most criminals will avoid community "B" and go to community "A" to commit their crimes. Not even criminals are dumb enough to rob an armed group, when an unarmed group is available.
If more criminals were to get shot in the act, there would be far less crime, guaranteed. Partly because many would be deterred, and many simply would no longer be alive to commit crimes.
Yes, I know this sounds callous and perhaps uncivilized to a point. But in a society that is not yet fully civilized, it is foolish to be 100% civilized - it sets us up to be victimized.
We all know - and the facts substantiate this - that violent crime is on the rise, and in many areas, is totally out of control. This can be directly attributed to our society having become more tolerant of crime, of criminals, and of evading personal responsibility.
It is time that we, as civilized people, begin to draw a hard line and say, "Enough is enough!" It is time to stop coddling lawbreakers, stop plea bargaining their felonies down to misdemeanors, stop paroling violent offenders, and stop being so accepting of crime. Once you accept something, it becomes a reality.
Vigilante Justice is wrong. There is too much room for error and injustice. But the folks also need to have the right to protect themselves, and others. My suggestion is that all states pass laws that permit people to protect themselves, their property, and others, but to place strong restrictions that would help alleviate any possibility of things going wrong. Texas has made an effort in this regard, but I think they need to consider placing harsh consequences on folks who go too far, or in situations that do not require deadly force. In the case of Mr. Horn, there is some question as to the need for deadly force. I think he went further than was necessary.
Unfortunately, our laws are so crazy that Horn knew that he must kill, not just wound, the criminals. If he were to wound them, the law says they could sue Mr. Horn. Laws should not permit any criminal to sue for anything that happens in connection with any crime he commits. If we take even that small step, Horn could have simply shot them in the legs to stop them. Easy enough to do with a shotgun at such close range.
I only have one problem with what Mr. Horn has done. Because of him, Texas criminals may now seek a new hunting ground - and it might be where I live. And where I live, the state does not allow citizens to protect their property with deadly force. They would prefer to make me a victim, rather than to make criminals the victims.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Campaign Finance Gone Awry
I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I can tell when something is amiss.
Each of us - you and I - are limited to making a maximum $2500 contribution to a political campaign. But it seems that SOME of us are more equal than others, and can contribute millions.
Consider this - IF you could get Oprah Winfrey to make an appearance at one of your events, she would charge you perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, her time, and her celebrity, is worth that much.
So how is it that she can contribute that value on behalf of a campaign? Every time she shows up on behalf of Obama, she is effectively contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign. Why is this not a violation of campaign laws?
It was not long ago that the New York Times took a beating for giving MoveOn.org a price break on political advertising. What is so different when the value of a celebrity appearance is not considered as having any value?
According to the IRS, if Oprah's time and celebrity has "appearance value", and she were to contribute her time and celebrity to a campaign, that should, under current law, constitute a taxable gain to Obama. But for some reason, he is not taxed on the value received (as we would be), nor is her contribution considered to be a contribution.
Like I said, I can tell when something is amiss. As a consultant who charges for his time, if I were to donate my consulting services to anyone, the IRS would deem that as taxable gain to the recipient. But not so when it is a celebrity donating to politicians. Why is it different?
In reality, of course, it is not different. It is simply "conveniently" overlooked. And it is not just celebrities who get away with this - the media does the same thing. The New York Times will spend millions promoting political campaigns in their rag. Yet, it is not considered a "contribution".
But it is, indeed, a contribution - giving value to another without charge. That is a contribution.
Each of us - you and I - are limited to making a maximum $2500 contribution to a political campaign. But it seems that SOME of us are more equal than others, and can contribute millions.
Consider this - IF you could get Oprah Winfrey to make an appearance at one of your events, she would charge you perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, her time, and her celebrity, is worth that much.
So how is it that she can contribute that value on behalf of a campaign? Every time she shows up on behalf of Obama, she is effectively contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign. Why is this not a violation of campaign laws?
It was not long ago that the New York Times took a beating for giving MoveOn.org a price break on political advertising. What is so different when the value of a celebrity appearance is not considered as having any value?
According to the IRS, if Oprah's time and celebrity has "appearance value", and she were to contribute her time and celebrity to a campaign, that should, under current law, constitute a taxable gain to Obama. But for some reason, he is not taxed on the value received (as we would be), nor is her contribution considered to be a contribution.
Like I said, I can tell when something is amiss. As a consultant who charges for his time, if I were to donate my consulting services to anyone, the IRS would deem that as taxable gain to the recipient. But not so when it is a celebrity donating to politicians. Why is it different?
In reality, of course, it is not different. It is simply "conveniently" overlooked. And it is not just celebrities who get away with this - the media does the same thing. The New York Times will spend millions promoting political campaigns in their rag. Yet, it is not considered a "contribution".
But it is, indeed, a contribution - giving value to another without charge. That is a contribution.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
They're Starting on Huckabee
Now that Mike Huckabee has become a serious Republican contender in the Presidential race, the left-wing media is wasting no time attacking him.
But today's weak attempt only shows these clowns for what they are - partisan, "spinning" jerks who have no business calling themselves newsmen or journalists.
Today's article, spread by the Associated Press, describes how, in 1992, Huckabee stated that it might be wise to quarantine people with AIDS.
It really does not matter which side you are on in the AIDS issue - that has nothing to do with what the AP is "reporting". Or rather, "spinning."
Let's set aside personal beliefs for just a moment and look more closely at this attempt to smear a man. Huckabee thought quarantine for AIDS carriers to be a viable plan in 1992. In case you missed it - 1992! That's just eleven short years after AIDS was introduced to America, and just a couple of years after it became a very real threat. Almost everyone was scared to death of AIDS, because we had just found out that anyone - ANYONE - could get AIDS. And in 1992, the majority of people considered the wisdom of some sort of quarantine for this disease that was not only deadly, but had no cure in sight. It's not like Huckabee was alone in considering quarantine. Even the CDC gave it consideration to some degree.
Let me ask you one question: is there not something that you believed 15 years ago that you no longer believe? Have you not changed your opinion on anything in the last 15 years?
I'll be honest with you - as much as "quarantine" may be a very poor option, and would be cruel and not a viable option, it is still the option that, purely from a survival standpoint, is the option that makes sense.
Can we do it? No. Should we? No. But if we were concerned more with survival and less with being civilized, it is the only option that would make sense. So, none of us has any right to judge anyone else who, 15 years ago, in the height of the hysteria, thought quarantine might be a solution.
The Associated Press and all the other partisan media should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for spinning this non-story strictly for partisan purposes. Any media that is supposed to present news objectively, but pulls this crap instead, are just, plain despicable.
But today's weak attempt only shows these clowns for what they are - partisan, "spinning" jerks who have no business calling themselves newsmen or journalists.
Today's article, spread by the Associated Press, describes how, in 1992, Huckabee stated that it might be wise to quarantine people with AIDS.
It really does not matter which side you are on in the AIDS issue - that has nothing to do with what the AP is "reporting". Or rather, "spinning."
Let's set aside personal beliefs for just a moment and look more closely at this attempt to smear a man. Huckabee thought quarantine for AIDS carriers to be a viable plan in 1992. In case you missed it - 1992! That's just eleven short years after AIDS was introduced to America, and just a couple of years after it became a very real threat. Almost everyone was scared to death of AIDS, because we had just found out that anyone - ANYONE - could get AIDS. And in 1992, the majority of people considered the wisdom of some sort of quarantine for this disease that was not only deadly, but had no cure in sight. It's not like Huckabee was alone in considering quarantine. Even the CDC gave it consideration to some degree.
Let me ask you one question: is there not something that you believed 15 years ago that you no longer believe? Have you not changed your opinion on anything in the last 15 years?
I'll be honest with you - as much as "quarantine" may be a very poor option, and would be cruel and not a viable option, it is still the option that, purely from a survival standpoint, is the option that makes sense.
Can we do it? No. Should we? No. But if we were concerned more with survival and less with being civilized, it is the only option that would make sense. So, none of us has any right to judge anyone else who, 15 years ago, in the height of the hysteria, thought quarantine might be a solution.
The Associated Press and all the other partisan media should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for spinning this non-story strictly for partisan purposes. Any media that is supposed to present news objectively, but pulls this crap instead, are just, plain despicable.
Friday, December 7, 2007
The Piss 'n Moan Club
Well, the whiners are at it again.
Governor Romney gave a speech to let the American people know more about his stance on religion. He did this because the people wanted to know, and deserved to know.
In the speech, he mentioned that America was founded under God, which it actually was. All the founding fathers believed strongly in a Judeo-Christian philosophy, as shown in their letters, and in the Declaration of Independence.
So now the secularists and atheists are all bent out of shape, accusing Mr. Romney of saying if you are not Christian, you are not American. But Romney never said any such thing.
The secularists are once again trying to gain traction by "spinning" the truth into something deceitful and dishonest. By whining and moaning every time someone even mentions God, they hope to create an issue, knowing there will always be some people who can be led like sheep - just like the clowns who propagate all those conspiracy theories.
These atheists go on to complain that America is a secular nation, not a nation under God. They make this bogus claim because they twist the purpose of the founders who decided to leave God out of the Constitution. What they so dishonestly "forget" to tell people is that the founders left God out of the Constitution for the purpose of making the Constitution a concrete foundation based on law. They knew full well that if they were to inject God into Man's Law, it would reduce God to Man's level, and weaken both the nation and its religious foundation. To insure that the Constitution could never be usurped on the basis of religious change, they kept religion out of it. The Constitution had to be pure law, to eliminate the need to rewrite the Constitution every time the religious foundation changed. The Constitution had to be timeless, and unaffected by ANY outside influences. But the other documents of the time proves that the founders knew and accepted that America was a nation under God. Of that there is no doubt.
The Piss 'n Moan club will always be with us, trying to destroy the nation that the founders crafted, and Americans fought and died for, over the last 230 years. They are fully aware that if they can remove religion from the public square, it will become weak and die. This is their goal because it is religion, and only religion, that sets limits on behavior. Secularists want no limits. They want abortion on demand - even at birth. The want to be able to euthanize the elderly. They want to legalize drugs, and some have even expressed that they want sex between adults and children to be legalized. Secularists want NO boundaries. They want to be able to pursue their personal Sodom & Gomorrah without repercussions. They do not want to have to account for their actions. In fact, that is the very reason they choose not to believe in God. If there is no God, then there is no punishment for sins. Which means, in effect, that there can be no sin. Anything goes in a Godless society.
Certainly, I will defend the rights of the P&M Club to hold to their beliefs. I will defend their right to express those beliefs. But no one should defend their intentional use of deception and lies to promote those beliefs. And we certainly should not humor them - that only encourages them to do more of the same.
In the letters of each of the founding fathers, they made it perfectly clear that they were well aware that the only thing that could keep a nation together was religion. They carefully expressed that it is religion that sets the limits on moral behavior, which would help America grow and become strong. A nation requires a steady moral compass, which only religion can provide.
That is still true today. It will remain true tomorrow.
It matters not if you, personally, believe in God or not. What does matter is that America remains a strong, moral nation. And for that purpose, we all need to stand, and recognize the need for that moral direction provided by religion.
Because if we do not preserve the strength that comes from morality, America cannot stand. And if we lose that, we also lose our rights - including the right to be either religious or secular.
Religious or secular, we all need to keep America strong, independent, free and morally straight. And that means religion needs to play a very major role.
As a side note, all those secularists and atheists are not really atheists at all. In fact, they believe in God even more than the rest of us. Think about it. If they truly believed there is no God, then they would not care one iota if the rest of us practice our religion wherever and whenever we please. It simply would not matter to them, because they would "know" that we are performing rituals that have neither meaning nor effect. To illustrate, ask yourself if you would complain vehemently if you were to see aborigines worshiping the Volcano God. No - you might be amused, but you would not consider their rituals any threat to you.
But atheists do complain. They do consider religion a threat to them. Why? It is because they do, indeed, believe in God, but because they want to live in sin, they hate God. The only way they can "justify" their choices is to refute God. But how do you refute something if it does not exist?
Atheists believe in God. But they would prefer it if there were no God. So, they hate God, which is why they fight religion so strongly. They hope that if they can "kill" religion, that will "kill" God, and without God, they would be spared having to pay for their sins.
Again - if a person truly does not believe in God, then they simply would give no thought to those of us who do. The very fact that religion bothers them so much only goes to prove that they consider it a threat - they fear it. And since there is no point in fearing that which does not exist, their actions prove they do, indeed, believe in God. They just want to kill Him, so they can live in sin without penalty.
It is a shame that they do not understand what "immortal" means. You cannot kill a God. And He does not stop existing simply because you refuse to acknowledge Him. He will still be there when it's your turn to cross the Great Divide. Not believing in it will not prevent it.
As a side note, it is strange that secularists, known for putting their faith in science, appear to overlook the latest scientific studies on the probability of the existence of God. A number of SECULAR, ATHEIST scientists and researchers, studying all available documentation and recorded facts, came to the conclusion that there is a 67% probability that God does exist. And some of those same scientists went on to join the ranks of believers.
Governor Romney gave a speech to let the American people know more about his stance on religion. He did this because the people wanted to know, and deserved to know.
In the speech, he mentioned that America was founded under God, which it actually was. All the founding fathers believed strongly in a Judeo-Christian philosophy, as shown in their letters, and in the Declaration of Independence.
So now the secularists and atheists are all bent out of shape, accusing Mr. Romney of saying if you are not Christian, you are not American. But Romney never said any such thing.
The secularists are once again trying to gain traction by "spinning" the truth into something deceitful and dishonest. By whining and moaning every time someone even mentions God, they hope to create an issue, knowing there will always be some people who can be led like sheep - just like the clowns who propagate all those conspiracy theories.
These atheists go on to complain that America is a secular nation, not a nation under God. They make this bogus claim because they twist the purpose of the founders who decided to leave God out of the Constitution. What they so dishonestly "forget" to tell people is that the founders left God out of the Constitution for the purpose of making the Constitution a concrete foundation based on law. They knew full well that if they were to inject God into Man's Law, it would reduce God to Man's level, and weaken both the nation and its religious foundation. To insure that the Constitution could never be usurped on the basis of religious change, they kept religion out of it. The Constitution had to be pure law, to eliminate the need to rewrite the Constitution every time the religious foundation changed. The Constitution had to be timeless, and unaffected by ANY outside influences. But the other documents of the time proves that the founders knew and accepted that America was a nation under God. Of that there is no doubt.
The Piss 'n Moan club will always be with us, trying to destroy the nation that the founders crafted, and Americans fought and died for, over the last 230 years. They are fully aware that if they can remove religion from the public square, it will become weak and die. This is their goal because it is religion, and only religion, that sets limits on behavior. Secularists want no limits. They want abortion on demand - even at birth. The want to be able to euthanize the elderly. They want to legalize drugs, and some have even expressed that they want sex between adults and children to be legalized. Secularists want NO boundaries. They want to be able to pursue their personal Sodom & Gomorrah without repercussions. They do not want to have to account for their actions. In fact, that is the very reason they choose not to believe in God. If there is no God, then there is no punishment for sins. Which means, in effect, that there can be no sin. Anything goes in a Godless society.
Certainly, I will defend the rights of the P&M Club to hold to their beliefs. I will defend their right to express those beliefs. But no one should defend their intentional use of deception and lies to promote those beliefs. And we certainly should not humor them - that only encourages them to do more of the same.
In the letters of each of the founding fathers, they made it perfectly clear that they were well aware that the only thing that could keep a nation together was religion. They carefully expressed that it is religion that sets the limits on moral behavior, which would help America grow and become strong. A nation requires a steady moral compass, which only religion can provide.
That is still true today. It will remain true tomorrow.
It matters not if you, personally, believe in God or not. What does matter is that America remains a strong, moral nation. And for that purpose, we all need to stand, and recognize the need for that moral direction provided by religion.
Because if we do not preserve the strength that comes from morality, America cannot stand. And if we lose that, we also lose our rights - including the right to be either religious or secular.
Religious or secular, we all need to keep America strong, independent, free and morally straight. And that means religion needs to play a very major role.
As a side note, all those secularists and atheists are not really atheists at all. In fact, they believe in God even more than the rest of us. Think about it. If they truly believed there is no God, then they would not care one iota if the rest of us practice our religion wherever and whenever we please. It simply would not matter to them, because they would "know" that we are performing rituals that have neither meaning nor effect. To illustrate, ask yourself if you would complain vehemently if you were to see aborigines worshiping the Volcano God. No - you might be amused, but you would not consider their rituals any threat to you.
But atheists do complain. They do consider religion a threat to them. Why? It is because they do, indeed, believe in God, but because they want to live in sin, they hate God. The only way they can "justify" their choices is to refute God. But how do you refute something if it does not exist?
Atheists believe in God. But they would prefer it if there were no God. So, they hate God, which is why they fight religion so strongly. They hope that if they can "kill" religion, that will "kill" God, and without God, they would be spared having to pay for their sins.
Again - if a person truly does not believe in God, then they simply would give no thought to those of us who do. The very fact that religion bothers them so much only goes to prove that they consider it a threat - they fear it. And since there is no point in fearing that which does not exist, their actions prove they do, indeed, believe in God. They just want to kill Him, so they can live in sin without penalty.
It is a shame that they do not understand what "immortal" means. You cannot kill a God. And He does not stop existing simply because you refuse to acknowledge Him. He will still be there when it's your turn to cross the Great Divide. Not believing in it will not prevent it.
As a side note, it is strange that secularists, known for putting their faith in science, appear to overlook the latest scientific studies on the probability of the existence of God. A number of SECULAR, ATHEIST scientists and researchers, studying all available documentation and recorded facts, came to the conclusion that there is a 67% probability that God does exist. And some of those same scientists went on to join the ranks of believers.
This 'n That
Well, it's official - I am now working on my SECOND million. I gave up on the first. My brother Bobby told me I should have married for money. I reminded him that I did, with my first marriage, but as soon as her $36.42 was gone, so was I.
I started out with nothing, and I'm proud to say I have most of it left. And I agree with Ben Stein, that I should give Uncle Sam 10% more of my income. What the Hell - 10% of nuthin' doesn't come to very much, anyway. In fact, I'm willing to offer twice that much. If someone needier than me can make good use of it, I say "go for it".
But my generosity doesn't stop there - I'm going to give you twice as much this Christmas as I gave you last Christmas. But not my ex-wife. She's not gonna get anything else from me until she uses what I gave her last Christmas. That burial plot cost me too much to want to see it go to waste.
Seriously though, my ex wasn't that bad. And that was the problem. If she had put a little more effort into being BAD, we might still be together. But it still wouldn't have worked - $36.42 can go just so far.
The aliens were here again last night. They left their bigfoot tracks in the snow (otherwise known as "global warming residue"). But not before they participated in a carcophany of noise that almost sounded like refrains of "Silent Night". My wife says they left without incident once she gave each of them a cup of hot cocoa.
I have decided to extend my Christmas goodwill to Muhammad - you know, the rat that has taken up residence under my shed. I am going to postpone trapping him until after the holidays - a Christmas reprieve, so to speak. But come the new year, that little sucker is going to his reward, to wherever it is rats go when they leave this world.
I have even decided to do something for Al for Christmas. Al, as you may recall, is our local know-it-all. Being single, I have decided to introduce him to my ex-wife. Hey, I never said I was going to do something NICE for him!
I'm already giving some thought to my 2008 New Year's resolutions.Since no one keeps their resolutions anyway, I have decided to be more tolerant of liberals, and to give "moderate Muslims" the benefit of the doubt. What the heck - maybe I'll even give Hillary the benefit of the doubt.
Nah! That's going to far.
My wife dyed her hair blonde, and now her brain is like teflon. She forgets everything in 2.3 seconds flat. I know it's not a precursor to alzheimers because she has no problem remembering every little mistake I have made in our 16 years together. She just can't remember why the car keys were in the fridge.
The other day, as I was snow-blowing all the global warming residue out of the driveway, my wife came out to help, shovel in hand. But no boots on her feet! I sent her back into the house to get boots on, and when she reappeared, the shovel was gone. She couldn't remember where she put it, but at least she had boots on. I kissed her, then finished plowing.
I started out with nothing, and I'm proud to say I have most of it left. And I agree with Ben Stein, that I should give Uncle Sam 10% more of my income. What the Hell - 10% of nuthin' doesn't come to very much, anyway. In fact, I'm willing to offer twice that much. If someone needier than me can make good use of it, I say "go for it".
But my generosity doesn't stop there - I'm going to give you twice as much this Christmas as I gave you last Christmas. But not my ex-wife. She's not gonna get anything else from me until she uses what I gave her last Christmas. That burial plot cost me too much to want to see it go to waste.
Seriously though, my ex wasn't that bad. And that was the problem. If she had put a little more effort into being BAD, we might still be together. But it still wouldn't have worked - $36.42 can go just so far.
The aliens were here again last night. They left their bigfoot tracks in the snow (otherwise known as "global warming residue"). But not before they participated in a carcophany of noise that almost sounded like refrains of "Silent Night". My wife says they left without incident once she gave each of them a cup of hot cocoa.
I have decided to extend my Christmas goodwill to Muhammad - you know, the rat that has taken up residence under my shed. I am going to postpone trapping him until after the holidays - a Christmas reprieve, so to speak. But come the new year, that little sucker is going to his reward, to wherever it is rats go when they leave this world.
I have even decided to do something for Al for Christmas. Al, as you may recall, is our local know-it-all. Being single, I have decided to introduce him to my ex-wife. Hey, I never said I was going to do something NICE for him!
I'm already giving some thought to my 2008 New Year's resolutions.Since no one keeps their resolutions anyway, I have decided to be more tolerant of liberals, and to give "moderate Muslims" the benefit of the doubt. What the heck - maybe I'll even give Hillary the benefit of the doubt.
Nah! That's going to far.
My wife dyed her hair blonde, and now her brain is like teflon. She forgets everything in 2.3 seconds flat. I know it's not a precursor to alzheimers because she has no problem remembering every little mistake I have made in our 16 years together. She just can't remember why the car keys were in the fridge.
The other day, as I was snow-blowing all the global warming residue out of the driveway, my wife came out to help, shovel in hand. But no boots on her feet! I sent her back into the house to get boots on, and when she reappeared, the shovel was gone. She couldn't remember where she put it, but at least she had boots on. I kissed her, then finished plowing.
Broken Record
This will be a short post, because it is unplanned. As you may know from previous posts, each morning I go to the coffee shop to hang around, BS with the guys over a mug of joe, and check the obits in the morning paper, just to make sure I'm not in them. Oh, and of course, there's the resident know-it-all (the OTHER know-it-all), Al.
Frankly, Al is starting to sound like a broken record on this "global warming" conspiracy theory. When there is less snow than normal, blame Global Warming. More snow? Global Warming. Temperature higher than normal? Global warming. Temperature colder than normal? You guessed it - Global Warming.
I only bring this up because I made the mistake of mentioning, in earshot of Al, how it was unseasonably cold for this time of year. At 9 degrees Farenheit, that's about 20 degrees shy of normal for this time of year. And the 10 inches of snow is about 10 inches more than normal. This is exactly the opposite of last year, but Al claims global warming is responsible for both. It simply defies logic. But then again, the promoters of the global warming theory - and let us not forget that it is only a theory - well, those promoters cannot be accused of promoting logic.
Well, I still have not managed to trap Muhammad, the rat that lives under my shed. So I have to get out there, shovel some of that white "global warming residue" away from the shed and set another trap for him. But if I do get him, I won't be able to bury his carcass - global warming has the ground frozen solid!
Frankly, Al is starting to sound like a broken record on this "global warming" conspiracy theory. When there is less snow than normal, blame Global Warming. More snow? Global Warming. Temperature higher than normal? Global warming. Temperature colder than normal? You guessed it - Global Warming.
I only bring this up because I made the mistake of mentioning, in earshot of Al, how it was unseasonably cold for this time of year. At 9 degrees Farenheit, that's about 20 degrees shy of normal for this time of year. And the 10 inches of snow is about 10 inches more than normal. This is exactly the opposite of last year, but Al claims global warming is responsible for both. It simply defies logic. But then again, the promoters of the global warming theory - and let us not forget that it is only a theory - well, those promoters cannot be accused of promoting logic.
Well, I still have not managed to trap Muhammad, the rat that lives under my shed. So I have to get out there, shovel some of that white "global warming residue" away from the shed and set another trap for him. But if I do get him, I won't be able to bury his carcass - global warming has the ground frozen solid!
Thursday, December 6, 2007
A Conspiracy of Conspiracy Theories
We are all familiar with many "conspiracy theories" of one kind or another. As a reminder, here are just a few:
* Bush/Cheney directed the 9/11 disaster
* The "Illuminati" were behind the 9/11 disaster
* The Freemasons were behind the 9/11 disaster
* The Israeli's were behind the 9/11 disaster
* The "second shooter" in the JFK assassination
* The government is behind the UFO's
* No human has ever walked on the moon - it was faked in a studio
Such theories go back throughout recorded history. And I think the whole "conspiracy theory" thing is another conspiracy, and aliens are behind them all!
On a more serious note, however, altogether too many people fall prey to these ridiculous theories. One might wonder how it is that any sane and reasonable person could possibly believe such foolishness.
Assuming some of the "believers" are, indeed, sane and reasonable (most, like Rosie, are not), there is a reason why some people could be fooled. In a words, it is FACTS!
Every conspiracy theorist can produce indisputable facts to back up their theory. And it is those facts, being indisputable, that are very convincing to people who do not take the time to stop and think.
Allow me to explain. The simple truth, known to those who propagate these theories, is that you can find facts to back up anything. Literally, anything. But what they do not tell you is that there are also facts that disprove their theory. Think about it - if their facts were the only facts, then there could only be one theory on any given event. But as shown above, there are several different theories on who orchestrated 9/11. There are certain "facts" behind each - but unless the entire population of the world was behind 9/11, they cannot all be true. Just common sense.
A conspiracy theorist will sift through all of the known facts concerning an event, then proceed to keep those that agree with his theory, and toss out all the rest. By using "selective facts", the theorist can present an almost iron-clad case for his theory.
Some people, seeing only those facts, would believe the theory. Most people, however, would ask more questions, look more deeply into it, and upon finding facts that dispute the theory, would then discount and dismiss it.
Let us look at an example.
Conspiracy theorists state the "fact" that in the entire history of Mankind, no other steel building ever melted in a fire. The fact they conveniently leave out is that in the history of man, no jet plane carrying 5000 gallons of jet fuel, flying at 600 miles per hour, ever hit a steel building. And they neglect the fact that fire can, indeed, melt steel (in fact, that is how steel is made).
They state the "fact" that "coincidentally", the Air Force was holding training exercises on 9/11, which explains the attack, or at least a knowledge that there would be one. However, the fact that such training exercises are a daily, normal event for the Air Force is not mentioned.
They mention the "fact" that Building #7, not hit by any planes, also collapsed, so it must have been sabotaged. What they fail to mention is that the extreme heat of a fire such as that of the Towers would severely damage nearby buildings (many had to be demolished later, due to damage), and that the falling of the Towers created an "earthquake" of sorts. Some buildings would not be able to survive that combination.
And their "theories" also conveniently neglect other facts that easily show how ridiculous their theories really are, or they rely upon "made up" facts, which they then corroborate on their own websites. One such "made up" fact centers on their claim that all the bodies were found, so why could they not find the planes? Of course, all of the bodies were not found - the ones nearest impact points were incinerated by the same superheat that incinerated most of the planes. But plane parts were, indeed, found nonetheless.
So, for those of you who give credence to such theories, I would only make one point, and ask you to do just one thing:
POINT: Anything can be proved with facts, provided other facts are not made available. Selective fact-finding can effectively prove the Earth is flat - and, for hundreds of years, did exactly that!
DO THIS: Research. If you can find even one fact that disputes the theory, then the theory is bogus. It is fine to accept facts presented by theorists. It is not fine to assume those are the only facts available.
Without any effort at all, I have been able to dig up facts that disprove the 9/11 theories, disprove the government is behind UFO's, and disprove the Global Warming theory. Sure, there are facts to back up those theories. But as I said - and this is common sense - if you can find even ONE fact that disputes a theory, then the theory is bogus. Period.
Just a small example:
Videos, ticket records, eyewitnesses and cellphone calls all verify that the people who hijacked the 9/11 planes were definitely Arab. If you can find 19 Arabs - or even one - who would work in concert with an Israeli, please let me know.
UFO's have been recorded since before the Bible was first written. Correct me if I am wrong, but that sort of predates the U.S. Government, and its ability to be behind the UFO phenomenon.
And as for global warming, please don't get me started! Suffice it to say that 1) the Earth "wobbles" in its travels, regularly putting the north pole closer to the sun while the south pole is further, 2) the Earth's orbit around the sun is elliptical, not round, which insures regular climatic changes that may last for a hundred years or more, and 3) the Earth regularly undergoes climate changes in both directions, and Mankind has little effect on that. Also, according to NASA's records, and contrary to what Al Gore says, the 5 warmest years in recorded history all occured prior to World War II.
The problem lies in the desire of some people to find conspiracies. They need them, like an addict needs his "fix". The Rosie O'Donnell's of the world fall into depression if they cannot find a conspiracy to cling to. And the Michael Moore's of the world are all to willing to pocket a ton of cash by providing the fodder for the theories.
Conspiracy theories will remain as long as their are profiteers to promote them, and fools to believe them. Unfortunately, that accounts for a pretty sizeable part of the population! The latest polls show that one person in six believes in at least one conspiracy theory.
But not me! I know the truth. It's ALL a conspiracy, and the aliens are behind it. Or maybe Bigfoot, (Actually, I have evidence that George W Bush is an alien Bigfoot) :o)
* Bush/Cheney directed the 9/11 disaster
* The "Illuminati" were behind the 9/11 disaster
* The Freemasons were behind the 9/11 disaster
* The Israeli's were behind the 9/11 disaster
* The "second shooter" in the JFK assassination
* The government is behind the UFO's
* No human has ever walked on the moon - it was faked in a studio
Such theories go back throughout recorded history. And I think the whole "conspiracy theory" thing is another conspiracy, and aliens are behind them all!
On a more serious note, however, altogether too many people fall prey to these ridiculous theories. One might wonder how it is that any sane and reasonable person could possibly believe such foolishness.
Assuming some of the "believers" are, indeed, sane and reasonable (most, like Rosie, are not), there is a reason why some people could be fooled. In a words, it is FACTS!
Every conspiracy theorist can produce indisputable facts to back up their theory. And it is those facts, being indisputable, that are very convincing to people who do not take the time to stop and think.
Allow me to explain. The simple truth, known to those who propagate these theories, is that you can find facts to back up anything. Literally, anything. But what they do not tell you is that there are also facts that disprove their theory. Think about it - if their facts were the only facts, then there could only be one theory on any given event. But as shown above, there are several different theories on who orchestrated 9/11. There are certain "facts" behind each - but unless the entire population of the world was behind 9/11, they cannot all be true. Just common sense.
A conspiracy theorist will sift through all of the known facts concerning an event, then proceed to keep those that agree with his theory, and toss out all the rest. By using "selective facts", the theorist can present an almost iron-clad case for his theory.
Some people, seeing only those facts, would believe the theory. Most people, however, would ask more questions, look more deeply into it, and upon finding facts that dispute the theory, would then discount and dismiss it.
Let us look at an example.
Conspiracy theorists state the "fact" that in the entire history of Mankind, no other steel building ever melted in a fire. The fact they conveniently leave out is that in the history of man, no jet plane carrying 5000 gallons of jet fuel, flying at 600 miles per hour, ever hit a steel building. And they neglect the fact that fire can, indeed, melt steel (in fact, that is how steel is made).
They state the "fact" that "coincidentally", the Air Force was holding training exercises on 9/11, which explains the attack, or at least a knowledge that there would be one. However, the fact that such training exercises are a daily, normal event for the Air Force is not mentioned.
They mention the "fact" that Building #7, not hit by any planes, also collapsed, so it must have been sabotaged. What they fail to mention is that the extreme heat of a fire such as that of the Towers would severely damage nearby buildings (many had to be demolished later, due to damage), and that the falling of the Towers created an "earthquake" of sorts. Some buildings would not be able to survive that combination.
And their "theories" also conveniently neglect other facts that easily show how ridiculous their theories really are, or they rely upon "made up" facts, which they then corroborate on their own websites. One such "made up" fact centers on their claim that all the bodies were found, so why could they not find the planes? Of course, all of the bodies were not found - the ones nearest impact points were incinerated by the same superheat that incinerated most of the planes. But plane parts were, indeed, found nonetheless.
So, for those of you who give credence to such theories, I would only make one point, and ask you to do just one thing:
POINT: Anything can be proved with facts, provided other facts are not made available. Selective fact-finding can effectively prove the Earth is flat - and, for hundreds of years, did exactly that!
DO THIS: Research. If you can find even one fact that disputes the theory, then the theory is bogus. It is fine to accept facts presented by theorists. It is not fine to assume those are the only facts available.
Without any effort at all, I have been able to dig up facts that disprove the 9/11 theories, disprove the government is behind UFO's, and disprove the Global Warming theory. Sure, there are facts to back up those theories. But as I said - and this is common sense - if you can find even ONE fact that disputes a theory, then the theory is bogus. Period.
Just a small example:
Videos, ticket records, eyewitnesses and cellphone calls all verify that the people who hijacked the 9/11 planes were definitely Arab. If you can find 19 Arabs - or even one - who would work in concert with an Israeli, please let me know.
UFO's have been recorded since before the Bible was first written. Correct me if I am wrong, but that sort of predates the U.S. Government, and its ability to be behind the UFO phenomenon.
And as for global warming, please don't get me started! Suffice it to say that 1) the Earth "wobbles" in its travels, regularly putting the north pole closer to the sun while the south pole is further, 2) the Earth's orbit around the sun is elliptical, not round, which insures regular climatic changes that may last for a hundred years or more, and 3) the Earth regularly undergoes climate changes in both directions, and Mankind has little effect on that. Also, according to NASA's records, and contrary to what Al Gore says, the 5 warmest years in recorded history all occured prior to World War II.
The problem lies in the desire of some people to find conspiracies. They need them, like an addict needs his "fix". The Rosie O'Donnell's of the world fall into depression if they cannot find a conspiracy to cling to. And the Michael Moore's of the world are all to willing to pocket a ton of cash by providing the fodder for the theories.
Conspiracy theories will remain as long as their are profiteers to promote them, and fools to believe them. Unfortunately, that accounts for a pretty sizeable part of the population! The latest polls show that one person in six believes in at least one conspiracy theory.
But not me! I know the truth. It's ALL a conspiracy, and the aliens are behind it. Or maybe Bigfoot, (Actually, I have evidence that George W Bush is an alien Bigfoot) :o)
In the Spirit of Giving
The Christmas season is a time where families gather, friends party, and good people give to charities.
And it never ceases to amaze me. Liberals incessantly harp about how they are the "givers", the protectors of the poor and downtrodden. They paint conservatives as greedy, rich people who care little about those in need. Nancy Pelosi and her ilk are famous for such rhetoric.
But the facts show precisely the opposite.
John Stossel: "But it turns out that this idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the twenty-five states where people give an above average percent of their income, twenty-four were red states in the last presidential election. Conservatives are even eighteen percent more likely to donate blood".
According to a study by Arthur Brooks, director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and author of Who Really Cares, "When you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about thirty percent more per conservative-headed family than per liberal-headed family. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
Brooks is a former Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent. "You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal are far less likely to give their money away." Liberals are the ideological group that holds to income distribution by the government.
Liberals mistake government re-distribution of income for charitable giving, but there is no relation. First, the taxes used for income redistribution (welfare etc.) is not paid voluntarily. Second, the person contributing the taxes has no say in where it goes or how it is used. Third, there can be no personal gratification as there is in directly supporting a charity. And, finally, most of the neediest and best charities are religion based, and the liberals are the first to remind us that we must maintain a wall of separation between church and state, and would therefore fight any attempt to use taxes to fund such charities.
My first question to any liberal who says the government should redistribute income to better support the needy is this: "If you want the needy to have more of your money, why don't you just donate to the charities that do the job? Why not open your wallet and just GIVE?"
But they are not particularly interested in matching the generosity of conservatives.
Ben Stein, famous for declaring that people should pay a lot more taxes to help support good causes is, himself, very wealthy. But every time a conservative talk-show host asks why he doesn't just voluntarily send more money into the IRS, Stein clams up. Hm-m-m. This seems typical of the liberal methodology of TALKING a good game, without the willingness to PLAY the game.
Which is my point exactly. Liberals TALK a lot about caring for the less fortunate, but personally DO little about it. They would rather have the government do it, from taxes taken from conservatives who are already doing their part.
Once again it appears that if talk is what you want, liberals are the ticket. But if you crave action, and want to actually see something get accomplished, go with conservatives.
I would like to challenge all those "fat-cat" liberals who ache for income redistribution to each open their musty, unused wallets sometime before Christmas Day, and put a substantial amount of their moldy money where their over-active mouths are. You know, the money they SAY they want Uncle Sam to take and re-distribute. Say, 10% of everything earned in 2007, since the Ben Stein liberals claim we should all be taxed another 10%.
The Salvation Army would be a good place to start.
Oops! I forgot. The liberal-backed ACLU is trying to get the Salvation Army Santas outlawed, and thrown out of public places. Maybe the Boy Scouts. Ooops - the ACLU is suing them, too. How about Catholic Charities - nope. That's religious.
Makes one wonder just WHICH of Americas "needy" the liberals would have us all support with increased taxes. One thing is certain - it would only be those that fit a liberal agenda! Like illegal immigrants getting free college. Or foot-wash facilities for Muslims.
And it never ceases to amaze me. Liberals incessantly harp about how they are the "givers", the protectors of the poor and downtrodden. They paint conservatives as greedy, rich people who care little about those in need. Nancy Pelosi and her ilk are famous for such rhetoric.
But the facts show precisely the opposite.
John Stossel: "But it turns out that this idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the twenty-five states where people give an above average percent of their income, twenty-four were red states in the last presidential election. Conservatives are even eighteen percent more likely to donate blood".
According to a study by Arthur Brooks, director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and author of Who Really Cares, "When you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about thirty percent more per conservative-headed family than per liberal-headed family. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
Brooks is a former Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent. "You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal are far less likely to give their money away." Liberals are the ideological group that holds to income distribution by the government.
Liberals mistake government re-distribution of income for charitable giving, but there is no relation. First, the taxes used for income redistribution (welfare etc.) is not paid voluntarily. Second, the person contributing the taxes has no say in where it goes or how it is used. Third, there can be no personal gratification as there is in directly supporting a charity. And, finally, most of the neediest and best charities are religion based, and the liberals are the first to remind us that we must maintain a wall of separation between church and state, and would therefore fight any attempt to use taxes to fund such charities.
My first question to any liberal who says the government should redistribute income to better support the needy is this: "If you want the needy to have more of your money, why don't you just donate to the charities that do the job? Why not open your wallet and just GIVE?"
But they are not particularly interested in matching the generosity of conservatives.
Ben Stein, famous for declaring that people should pay a lot more taxes to help support good causes is, himself, very wealthy. But every time a conservative talk-show host asks why he doesn't just voluntarily send more money into the IRS, Stein clams up. Hm-m-m. This seems typical of the liberal methodology of TALKING a good game, without the willingness to PLAY the game.
Which is my point exactly. Liberals TALK a lot about caring for the less fortunate, but personally DO little about it. They would rather have the government do it, from taxes taken from conservatives who are already doing their part.
Once again it appears that if talk is what you want, liberals are the ticket. But if you crave action, and want to actually see something get accomplished, go with conservatives.
I would like to challenge all those "fat-cat" liberals who ache for income redistribution to each open their musty, unused wallets sometime before Christmas Day, and put a substantial amount of their moldy money where their over-active mouths are. You know, the money they SAY they want Uncle Sam to take and re-distribute. Say, 10% of everything earned in 2007, since the Ben Stein liberals claim we should all be taxed another 10%.
The Salvation Army would be a good place to start.
Oops! I forgot. The liberal-backed ACLU is trying to get the Salvation Army Santas outlawed, and thrown out of public places. Maybe the Boy Scouts. Ooops - the ACLU is suing them, too. How about Catholic Charities - nope. That's religious.
Makes one wonder just WHICH of Americas "needy" the liberals would have us all support with increased taxes. One thing is certain - it would only be those that fit a liberal agenda! Like illegal immigrants getting free college. Or foot-wash facilities for Muslims.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Snowy Boots & Sugar Cookies
As I sat alone in front of our Christmas tree in my living room (my wife and daughter had gone to an Evanescence concert), I decided to play some of the old Bing Crosby Christmas songs I had listened to as a child of the '50's. I closed my eyes, and a flood of sweet and bittersweet memories swept like butterflies across the meadows of my mind.
I could almost smell the balsam "Christmas tree" smell, and feel the dry warmth of the wood stove crackling in the night silence. The colorful lights that actually "bubbled", and "icicles" made of leaded tin and pewter. Mom had baked sugar cookies earlier, and the smell still lingered throughout the small rooms of the tiny house we called home.
Visions of Bing, Danny Kaye & Rosemary Clooney, dancing and singing at the Vermont inn, in "White Christmas". Dad carrying in wood for the stove, shaking off snow throughout his trip through the kitchen, and Mom none too happy with the mess.
And at 4 am Christmas morning, my older brother Eddie would awaken my kid brother Bobby and myself, and we would sneak out and get our ragged, long woolen stockings hanging from the bannister. Now stuffed with what in retrospect might today be called junk, each penny item was a true treasure. For the next three hours we would pore over the goodies, eat the candy, peel the orange, all the time yawning from precious little sleep the night before, as we held our ears to the vent in the floor, to hear if Santa was there yet.
My reverie was lost when the girls stomped in, shaking the snow off their own boots. And for a fleeting moment, I wished...I wished that if I could leave my daughter anything at all, I would leave her those very same, precious, bittersweet memories of a simpler time, a harder time, and a much, much treasured time. A time when the simplest things were the things that mattered most. And remembered longest!
And I smile to myself as the smell of sugar cookies waft through our home, the fire crackling in the parlor stove and the leaded icicles and bubbling lights on the balsam tree all tell me it was worth the effort to have the real thing. She may not understand it now. But someday, when she sits alone in front of her own tree, perhaps she, too, will be overcome with sweet thoughts of a simpler time, when the littlest things were the most memorable.
Merry Christmas to All, Happy Hannukah to Many, and may you all take a moment to remember...
I could almost smell the balsam "Christmas tree" smell, and feel the dry warmth of the wood stove crackling in the night silence. The colorful lights that actually "bubbled", and "icicles" made of leaded tin and pewter. Mom had baked sugar cookies earlier, and the smell still lingered throughout the small rooms of the tiny house we called home.
Visions of Bing, Danny Kaye & Rosemary Clooney, dancing and singing at the Vermont inn, in "White Christmas". Dad carrying in wood for the stove, shaking off snow throughout his trip through the kitchen, and Mom none too happy with the mess.
And at 4 am Christmas morning, my older brother Eddie would awaken my kid brother Bobby and myself, and we would sneak out and get our ragged, long woolen stockings hanging from the bannister. Now stuffed with what in retrospect might today be called junk, each penny item was a true treasure. For the next three hours we would pore over the goodies, eat the candy, peel the orange, all the time yawning from precious little sleep the night before, as we held our ears to the vent in the floor, to hear if Santa was there yet.
My reverie was lost when the girls stomped in, shaking the snow off their own boots. And for a fleeting moment, I wished...I wished that if I could leave my daughter anything at all, I would leave her those very same, precious, bittersweet memories of a simpler time, a harder time, and a much, much treasured time. A time when the simplest things were the things that mattered most. And remembered longest!
And I smile to myself as the smell of sugar cookies waft through our home, the fire crackling in the parlor stove and the leaded icicles and bubbling lights on the balsam tree all tell me it was worth the effort to have the real thing. She may not understand it now. But someday, when she sits alone in front of her own tree, perhaps she, too, will be overcome with sweet thoughts of a simpler time, when the littlest things were the most memorable.
Merry Christmas to All, Happy Hannukah to Many, and may you all take a moment to remember...
The Good Side of Liberalism
What causes liberalism? And why do so many people embrace it, when conservative, tried-and-true values have proven their worth over the centuries?
I have spent a great deal of time considering this, and I have come up with a rather logical explanation. And it is based on things we already know. Why are the young the most virulent liberals, often going overboard, while those over 35 tend to be conservatives? It is obvious that, for this to happen, young liberals must be transforming into conservatives as they grow older. But why?
We know that young people, trying to break free from their parents, seek out different roads to travel. They rebel against the establishment. Even ancient Greek philosophers wrote of this thousands of years ago, and Jesus spoke of it as well. It is nothing new. It is nature at work.
Rebelling against the establishment is a natural phenomenon, geared to force the young to go forth on their own, and build their own lives, which is necessary for the survival of the species. So, liberal thought is a natural, necessary part of life which serves a specific purpose - to cut the apron strings.
But it is what happens after this that has perplexed conservatives since the days of Aristotle.
Most of these youthful rebels, after having successfully separated from their parents, and as they mature, will begin to discover certain indisputable "facts of life" that cause them to become more conservative. I am sure we are all familiar with the ,"Oh my God, I am becoming my mother/father!" This phenomenon is also quite natural. As we mature, most of us realize that we are simply learning what our parents already learned; that our parents, too, had been rebels in their day, just as Jesus said. And in that learning, we come to understand that certain values are timeless, and are designed to protect us from harm. After all, it is important to our survival to embrace traditions that have been founded as a result of self-preservation.
A case in point, most youth do not believe that the "over-protective" nature of parents is a good thing, that parents need to learn how to set their children free. But when they, themselves, are placed in the role of parent, with an obligation to nurture and protect, those same people become "like my mother " - protective.
In nature, liberalism is the tool that preserves the species by putting a wedge between young people and their parents, to force the young into going out on their own. But nature also provides that, in most cases, the liberalism fades and is overtaken by common sense.
The problem lies with those who never mature enough to outgrow their liberal mindset. They do not learn from history. They do not come to value the traditions that protect the species. And these "rejects" in the natural order of things use that liberal mindset to gain power - because during their youth, their liberal tendency is so strong that they captivate the imaginations of many. Case in point: Jane Fonda.
They then combine that power with their liberal bent to convince the new generation that they are the true leaders that they must follow. Those youth, in their desire and need to non-conform, cling to these elder liberals as icons to be admired and held in awe. They see them as "rebels who fought against and survived" the establishment. The Jane Fondas become the icons that the young follow. And it starts all over again.
And it should, to some degree. But it is unnatural and dangerous when that liberalism gains so much power through deception that the young, themselves, do not mature, and continue being liberals throughout their adulthood. They become so deeply immersed in the deceptions of the Jane Fondas that they never outgrow the blindness, as most of us eventually do. The liberalism of today borders on fanaticism, and in some cases (Pelosi and Reed come to mind), cross the line into the fanatical.
Nature needs the young to rebel. But nature also needs those young to eventually mature, and give up their childish ways, becoming more conservative ("When I was a child, I spoke as a child, but as I became a man, I had to put aside childish things". That comes from 1st Corinthians in the Bible). But the problem lies with those who never mature, and continue to cling to liberalism. The Jane Fondas, Michael Moores and other "old liberals" never grew up; never put aside their childish ways. Their youthful rebellion was the high point of their lives - the time when they were able to lead their peers. They were the instigators. They were the ones who STARTED rallies instead of JOINING them. And as they grew older, they clung to that popularity, like an aging movie star clings to the days of her beauty. They just cannot give it up. It is the liberal movement that gave them power, and they do not want to relinquish that power, for fear of "becoming mediocre, like my mother."
Frankly, I would rather be mediocre and sane than to be powerful and insane. And liberalism in adults is just that - insane. Sane people learn from the past and move on. Insane people cling to the past and never outgrow it. And never learn from it!
And that is why most liberals are found among the young, and most of them become conservatives once they discover the truth about life - usually by age 35 or so. That is why, for most people, they do, indeed, become "like my mother."
The rest? Well, perhaps we should pity them, as we would pity anyone who spends their life in a world apart from reality. Like the fellow who believes he is Napoleon, these "elder radicals" simply live in a world of make-believe.
Perhaps that explains Hollywood. Those folks make their living in the world of make-believe. Perhaps they find it difficult or inconvenient to leave it behind when the studio closes for the day.
So, to all of today's youth I would say, "Go forth, and be liberal enough to break out on your own." But to those same youth I would also warn, upon maturing and becoming an independent part of the human community, put aside the liberalism and embrace conservative values that have survived thousands of years because it is those values that protect us. Family values. Community values. If you spend your life opposing those values, and "fighting the establishment", you do harm to the entire race. You help to keep us divided. United we stand, divided we fall.
Here is a hint to the Jane Fondas of the world: anyone who believes at 70 what they believed at 20 simply has not learned anything new in 50 years. And that is pathetic.
I have spent a great deal of time considering this, and I have come up with a rather logical explanation. And it is based on things we already know. Why are the young the most virulent liberals, often going overboard, while those over 35 tend to be conservatives? It is obvious that, for this to happen, young liberals must be transforming into conservatives as they grow older. But why?
We know that young people, trying to break free from their parents, seek out different roads to travel. They rebel against the establishment. Even ancient Greek philosophers wrote of this thousands of years ago, and Jesus spoke of it as well. It is nothing new. It is nature at work.
Rebelling against the establishment is a natural phenomenon, geared to force the young to go forth on their own, and build their own lives, which is necessary for the survival of the species. So, liberal thought is a natural, necessary part of life which serves a specific purpose - to cut the apron strings.
But it is what happens after this that has perplexed conservatives since the days of Aristotle.
Most of these youthful rebels, after having successfully separated from their parents, and as they mature, will begin to discover certain indisputable "facts of life" that cause them to become more conservative. I am sure we are all familiar with the ,"Oh my God, I am becoming my mother/father!" This phenomenon is also quite natural. As we mature, most of us realize that we are simply learning what our parents already learned; that our parents, too, had been rebels in their day, just as Jesus said. And in that learning, we come to understand that certain values are timeless, and are designed to protect us from harm. After all, it is important to our survival to embrace traditions that have been founded as a result of self-preservation.
A case in point, most youth do not believe that the "over-protective" nature of parents is a good thing, that parents need to learn how to set their children free. But when they, themselves, are placed in the role of parent, with an obligation to nurture and protect, those same people become "like my mother " - protective.
In nature, liberalism is the tool that preserves the species by putting a wedge between young people and their parents, to force the young into going out on their own. But nature also provides that, in most cases, the liberalism fades and is overtaken by common sense.
The problem lies with those who never mature enough to outgrow their liberal mindset. They do not learn from history. They do not come to value the traditions that protect the species. And these "rejects" in the natural order of things use that liberal mindset to gain power - because during their youth, their liberal tendency is so strong that they captivate the imaginations of many. Case in point: Jane Fonda.
They then combine that power with their liberal bent to convince the new generation that they are the true leaders that they must follow. Those youth, in their desire and need to non-conform, cling to these elder liberals as icons to be admired and held in awe. They see them as "rebels who fought against and survived" the establishment. The Jane Fondas become the icons that the young follow. And it starts all over again.
And it should, to some degree. But it is unnatural and dangerous when that liberalism gains so much power through deception that the young, themselves, do not mature, and continue being liberals throughout their adulthood. They become so deeply immersed in the deceptions of the Jane Fondas that they never outgrow the blindness, as most of us eventually do. The liberalism of today borders on fanaticism, and in some cases (Pelosi and Reed come to mind), cross the line into the fanatical.
Nature needs the young to rebel. But nature also needs those young to eventually mature, and give up their childish ways, becoming more conservative ("When I was a child, I spoke as a child, but as I became a man, I had to put aside childish things". That comes from 1st Corinthians in the Bible). But the problem lies with those who never mature, and continue to cling to liberalism. The Jane Fondas, Michael Moores and other "old liberals" never grew up; never put aside their childish ways. Their youthful rebellion was the high point of their lives - the time when they were able to lead their peers. They were the instigators. They were the ones who STARTED rallies instead of JOINING them. And as they grew older, they clung to that popularity, like an aging movie star clings to the days of her beauty. They just cannot give it up. It is the liberal movement that gave them power, and they do not want to relinquish that power, for fear of "becoming mediocre, like my mother."
Frankly, I would rather be mediocre and sane than to be powerful and insane. And liberalism in adults is just that - insane. Sane people learn from the past and move on. Insane people cling to the past and never outgrow it. And never learn from it!
And that is why most liberals are found among the young, and most of them become conservatives once they discover the truth about life - usually by age 35 or so. That is why, for most people, they do, indeed, become "like my mother."
The rest? Well, perhaps we should pity them, as we would pity anyone who spends their life in a world apart from reality. Like the fellow who believes he is Napoleon, these "elder radicals" simply live in a world of make-believe.
Perhaps that explains Hollywood. Those folks make their living in the world of make-believe. Perhaps they find it difficult or inconvenient to leave it behind when the studio closes for the day.
So, to all of today's youth I would say, "Go forth, and be liberal enough to break out on your own." But to those same youth I would also warn, upon maturing and becoming an independent part of the human community, put aside the liberalism and embrace conservative values that have survived thousands of years because it is those values that protect us. Family values. Community values. If you spend your life opposing those values, and "fighting the establishment", you do harm to the entire race. You help to keep us divided. United we stand, divided we fall.
Here is a hint to the Jane Fondas of the world: anyone who believes at 70 what they believed at 20 simply has not learned anything new in 50 years. And that is pathetic.
More Ignorance on "The View"
Well, I guess it had to happen. "The View", in a fake attempt at adding balance to their far-left leaning diatribe, added the airheaded Sherri Sheppard. That's like counterbalancing an elephant with a pebble - only goes to show how deceptive and dishonest the producers of "the View" really are.
But that is not the point of this post - it is simply a build-up to a bigger issue all too prevalent on The View - IGNORANCE.
In a discussion on Christianity, Ms Sheppard, clearly confused, said that Christianity predated the (supposedly ancient) Greeks. Whoopi, true to liberal form, tried to correct her.
Unfortunately, they are both right - and wrong.
Ms Sheppard is not the sharpest tool in the shed, and erred in her line of thought. But she was technically correct. And Whoopi, though correct in her assumption based on a lack of knowledge of the Christian religion, was correct about the Greeks predating Jesus, but wrong in her assumption that the Greeks predated Christianity.
"How can that be", most liberal, self-righteous know-nothings would ask?
"How can Christianity predate Christ, after whom it got its name?"
Allow me to attempt to straightened out the Goldbergs of the world who like to discuss topics they know nothing about.
In the Christian religion, Jesus was GOD, come to Earth as a Man so He would be accepted. He is not Jesus Christ. He is Jesus, THE Christ. Christ is WHAT He was, not WHO He was. Christ is the Word of God, which predates all living things.
In Christianity, Jesus and God are one in the same. And while the BODY of Jesus may not predate the Greeks, God certainly predates everyone. Christianity is the word of GOD. The word of God has always existed - the first statement in the Bible is, "In the beginning there was the word, and the word was God." So, Christianity has ALWAYS existed. And Jesus brought it to us.
So, Ms. Sheppard was, quite by accident I am sure, correct. And Ms Goldberg was, quite by indoctrination I am sure, wrong.
Narrow-minded, bigoted, self-righteous liberals need to either open their minds to something other than liberal diatribe and LEARN about subjects they choose to discuss, or should refrain from putting their mouth in gear while their brain is not engaged.
Otherwise, they sound just like the airheads they choose to go up against.
Which brings us to another question - why do liberals choose only to debate with people who are not equipped for the battle? They only feel comfortable "debating" with airheads. I guess it's because they know they cannot effectively debate with anyone with an I.Q. more than two digits. And it seems that is why the Goldbergs and Bahars of the world choose to debate the Sheppards of the world.
Now, if the producers of The View really want to see debates that will attract maximum viewers, make the dias more equal - pit two INTELLIGENT, KNOWLEDGEABLE conservatives against two INTELLIGENT, KNOWLEDGEABLE liberals.
But that is too much to ask. The producers know that if they were to do that, the public might actually realize that liberal diatribe is baseless and deceptive. Can't allow people to know the emperor is not wearing any clothes, eh?
But that is not the point of this post - it is simply a build-up to a bigger issue all too prevalent on The View - IGNORANCE.
In a discussion on Christianity, Ms Sheppard, clearly confused, said that Christianity predated the (supposedly ancient) Greeks. Whoopi, true to liberal form, tried to correct her.
Unfortunately, they are both right - and wrong.
Ms Sheppard is not the sharpest tool in the shed, and erred in her line of thought. But she was technically correct. And Whoopi, though correct in her assumption based on a lack of knowledge of the Christian religion, was correct about the Greeks predating Jesus, but wrong in her assumption that the Greeks predated Christianity.
"How can that be", most liberal, self-righteous know-nothings would ask?
"How can Christianity predate Christ, after whom it got its name?"
Allow me to attempt to straightened out the Goldbergs of the world who like to discuss topics they know nothing about.
In the Christian religion, Jesus was GOD, come to Earth as a Man so He would be accepted. He is not Jesus Christ. He is Jesus, THE Christ. Christ is WHAT He was, not WHO He was. Christ is the Word of God, which predates all living things.
In Christianity, Jesus and God are one in the same. And while the BODY of Jesus may not predate the Greeks, God certainly predates everyone. Christianity is the word of GOD. The word of God has always existed - the first statement in the Bible is, "In the beginning there was the word, and the word was God." So, Christianity has ALWAYS existed. And Jesus brought it to us.
So, Ms. Sheppard was, quite by accident I am sure, correct. And Ms Goldberg was, quite by indoctrination I am sure, wrong.
Narrow-minded, bigoted, self-righteous liberals need to either open their minds to something other than liberal diatribe and LEARN about subjects they choose to discuss, or should refrain from putting their mouth in gear while their brain is not engaged.
Otherwise, they sound just like the airheads they choose to go up against.
Which brings us to another question - why do liberals choose only to debate with people who are not equipped for the battle? They only feel comfortable "debating" with airheads. I guess it's because they know they cannot effectively debate with anyone with an I.Q. more than two digits. And it seems that is why the Goldbergs and Bahars of the world choose to debate the Sheppards of the world.
Now, if the producers of The View really want to see debates that will attract maximum viewers, make the dias more equal - pit two INTELLIGENT, KNOWLEDGEABLE conservatives against two INTELLIGENT, KNOWLEDGEABLE liberals.
But that is too much to ask. The producers know that if they were to do that, the public might actually realize that liberal diatribe is baseless and deceptive. Can't allow people to know the emperor is not wearing any clothes, eh?
The Deceivers
The Bible says it best - that millions of people will be fooled by the deceivers, who will convince many that they are the truth tellers.
To show just how deceptive the liberal, secular progressive folks really are, they push an agenda that is unpopular, then convince their own followers that it is the conservatives who are pushing that agenda. Insidious!
Here is an example. The left wing loonies want a federal I.D. so that everyone can be tracked. They are also the people who have created "tracking chips" and want people to have them embedded so they can "have more convenience." Look it up - see who is actually behind such things.
But the liberals know that such things are very unpopular with the majority of Americans, so they tell their followers that it is the conservatives who want to place "chips" in people, for tracking purposes, and control. (The Bible refers to this as the mark of the beast).
But if a person, with an open mind, were to actually think about it, they would see the truth. The very term "conservative" means "traditional", wanting to keep things as they are, cautious of new things. Yet, liberals convince their own followers that conservatives are pushing these major, unpopular changes. Note that the term "liberal" means a person who seeks change for the sake of change. Understanding what a conservative IS, and what a liberal IS, will tell you who is behind such treachery and deceit.
But the sheep that follow the left-wing loonies won't listen to the truth. They want nothing to do with facts. Even logic is illogical to them. Their liberal leaders have brainwashed them beyond repair.
Another case in point: Liberal politicians CLAIM that they support the troops, and honor them. Yet it is those same liberals who keep trying to take funding from the troops, declare the war is lost when it is not, and have done nothing substantial to back the troops. In fact, it is liberal politicians who have kicked ROTC out of schools across the country, and do not allow recruiters any access to students. This is what they call "supporting the troops".
Another case in point: the liberals profess heartily how they treasure our children, and only want what is best for them. They accuse conservatives of having no feeling for the children. But it is the liberals who insist on the right to kill the children at will, through abortion, and even at the time of birth (partial birth abortion). How's THAT for loving children? And in EVERY case where a child molester is released and set free by the courts, to molest more children - in EVERY instance it was a liberal judge who set them free. And in every state where Jessica's Law has been stonewalled or killed, it was done by Democrats. NEVER a Republican! So, the liberals again profess one thing, but do the opposite. And their "blind sheep" followers believe everything their leaders tell them.
Liberals push for the legalization of drugs. After all, it is easy to control people when they are addicted. Simply give them their drugs in order to get them to do whatever you want. Hold back their drugs if they rebel.
Liberals want to expand welfare. Same as drugs, only they keep the masses obedient and subservient with handouts instead of heroin.
To sum up: Liberals say they love kids, conservatives do not. But it is liberals who kill them, prey upon them, and exploit them by bringing them into Congress as "show pieces" to push an agenda.
Liberals say they support the troops. But it is liberals who are emasculating the armed services.
Companies owned by liberals produce tracking chips, they clone creatures etc. Yet liberals claim that it is conservatives who want such things.
The list goes on, and on, and on...
I feel true pity for the mindless sheep who are following those deceptive disciples of Satan, for they are being led to the slaughter and don't even know it. In fact, if you try to point out the truth, you find they are so brainwashed that they refuse to even hear what you say - instead, true to liberal form, they will try to talk over you, or cut you off, or even resort to violence to shut you up.
All the more reason to pity them, and despise those who poisoned them.
To show just how deceptive the liberal, secular progressive folks really are, they push an agenda that is unpopular, then convince their own followers that it is the conservatives who are pushing that agenda. Insidious!
Here is an example. The left wing loonies want a federal I.D. so that everyone can be tracked. They are also the people who have created "tracking chips" and want people to have them embedded so they can "have more convenience." Look it up - see who is actually behind such things.
But the liberals know that such things are very unpopular with the majority of Americans, so they tell their followers that it is the conservatives who want to place "chips" in people, for tracking purposes, and control. (The Bible refers to this as the mark of the beast).
But if a person, with an open mind, were to actually think about it, they would see the truth. The very term "conservative" means "traditional", wanting to keep things as they are, cautious of new things. Yet, liberals convince their own followers that conservatives are pushing these major, unpopular changes. Note that the term "liberal" means a person who seeks change for the sake of change. Understanding what a conservative IS, and what a liberal IS, will tell you who is behind such treachery and deceit.
But the sheep that follow the left-wing loonies won't listen to the truth. They want nothing to do with facts. Even logic is illogical to them. Their liberal leaders have brainwashed them beyond repair.
Another case in point: Liberal politicians CLAIM that they support the troops, and honor them. Yet it is those same liberals who keep trying to take funding from the troops, declare the war is lost when it is not, and have done nothing substantial to back the troops. In fact, it is liberal politicians who have kicked ROTC out of schools across the country, and do not allow recruiters any access to students. This is what they call "supporting the troops".
Another case in point: the liberals profess heartily how they treasure our children, and only want what is best for them. They accuse conservatives of having no feeling for the children. But it is the liberals who insist on the right to kill the children at will, through abortion, and even at the time of birth (partial birth abortion). How's THAT for loving children? And in EVERY case where a child molester is released and set free by the courts, to molest more children - in EVERY instance it was a liberal judge who set them free. And in every state where Jessica's Law has been stonewalled or killed, it was done by Democrats. NEVER a Republican! So, the liberals again profess one thing, but do the opposite. And their "blind sheep" followers believe everything their leaders tell them.
Liberals push for the legalization of drugs. After all, it is easy to control people when they are addicted. Simply give them their drugs in order to get them to do whatever you want. Hold back their drugs if they rebel.
Liberals want to expand welfare. Same as drugs, only they keep the masses obedient and subservient with handouts instead of heroin.
To sum up: Liberals say they love kids, conservatives do not. But it is liberals who kill them, prey upon them, and exploit them by bringing them into Congress as "show pieces" to push an agenda.
Liberals say they support the troops. But it is liberals who are emasculating the armed services.
Companies owned by liberals produce tracking chips, they clone creatures etc. Yet liberals claim that it is conservatives who want such things.
The list goes on, and on, and on...
I feel true pity for the mindless sheep who are following those deceptive disciples of Satan, for they are being led to the slaughter and don't even know it. In fact, if you try to point out the truth, you find they are so brainwashed that they refuse to even hear what you say - instead, true to liberal form, they will try to talk over you, or cut you off, or even resort to violence to shut you up.
All the more reason to pity them, and despise those who poisoned them.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Bigfoot, Yeti and...
For hundreds of years, people have claimed that a hairy, man-like creature roamed the wild mountains. For hundreds of years this myth persisted. And for hundreds of years, skeptics have scoffed at believers, calling them fools, and telling them there is no scientific evidence to prove the claims, so they must be bogus. Just a "boogeyman", to frighten children.
Sound familiar? It should. This sounds exactly like the discussions going on right now, on AOL and many other media, as archaeologists produce "casts of Yeti footprints".
But the first paragraph of this post does not refer to the Yeti. It is an accurate description of the reality of 1846, as people spoke of a mythical, hairy man-like creature roaming the wilds of Africa. Scientists and skeptics called the believers "fools". And in 1847, the plains Gorilla was discovered.
Then the same discussion occurred for 50 years as people claimed a different hairy, man-like creature was roaming the mountains of Africa. Again scientists and skeptics scoffed. And in 1902, the Mountain Gorilla was discovered.
Today, the same discussion is taking place. And while I do not know if there exists a Yeti, or Sasquatch, I do know that the only fools in this discussion are those who refuse to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe we still have much to learn.
I guess some people, devoid of imagination, just have to have proof of everything. They cannot take anything on faith, or on the word of others. I suppose that is why those same folks, unable to have faith in anything they cannot touch, refuse to believe in a Supreme Being. Strange, however, that those same people will readily accept as fact something that is unproven theory - evolution, or global warming. Contrary to what many of them believe, there still is no concrete evidence that either actually occurs. Yet, with no solid proof, they believe. And then call us fools for believing in God. Which is more foolish - to believe God created everything, or to believe NOTHING created everything?
As for me, if I must believe in something not proven, I would rather believe in God. Why? Because science tells us, if nothing else, that there is always something greater. We are a microcosm on Earth. Earth is a tiny item in the solar system, which is infinitesimal in the milky way, which, in turn is only a microscopic part of the universe.
Yet some people believe that we - tiny little viruses infecting this tiny speck of dust in the universe - are the highest intelligence in the universe. Wow! Especially since our intellect and knowledge is so limited that we can't even say for sure if there is a Yeti. But the "elite" people still refuse to believe there can be a greater intelligence. Now that scares me!
The way I see it, that kind of myopic thinking is not only ignorant, but extremely arrogant, and has no basis in logic. And if science is not logical, then all is lost, because only chaos can endure. And that type of limited thinking only goes to prove my point - we simply aren't smart enough to be the highest intellect in the universe.
As for the Yeti, Sasquatch or Bigfoot, I only hope and pray that if they do exist, we never discover them. The dream is always so much better than the reality, and discovery would diminish us all - and probably cause the extinction of such great creatures.
Sound familiar? It should. This sounds exactly like the discussions going on right now, on AOL and many other media, as archaeologists produce "casts of Yeti footprints".
But the first paragraph of this post does not refer to the Yeti. It is an accurate description of the reality of 1846, as people spoke of a mythical, hairy man-like creature roaming the wilds of Africa. Scientists and skeptics called the believers "fools". And in 1847, the plains Gorilla was discovered.
Then the same discussion occurred for 50 years as people claimed a different hairy, man-like creature was roaming the mountains of Africa. Again scientists and skeptics scoffed. And in 1902, the Mountain Gorilla was discovered.
Today, the same discussion is taking place. And while I do not know if there exists a Yeti, or Sasquatch, I do know that the only fools in this discussion are those who refuse to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe we still have much to learn.
I guess some people, devoid of imagination, just have to have proof of everything. They cannot take anything on faith, or on the word of others. I suppose that is why those same folks, unable to have faith in anything they cannot touch, refuse to believe in a Supreme Being. Strange, however, that those same people will readily accept as fact something that is unproven theory - evolution, or global warming. Contrary to what many of them believe, there still is no concrete evidence that either actually occurs. Yet, with no solid proof, they believe. And then call us fools for believing in God. Which is more foolish - to believe God created everything, or to believe NOTHING created everything?
As for me, if I must believe in something not proven, I would rather believe in God. Why? Because science tells us, if nothing else, that there is always something greater. We are a microcosm on Earth. Earth is a tiny item in the solar system, which is infinitesimal in the milky way, which, in turn is only a microscopic part of the universe.
Yet some people believe that we - tiny little viruses infecting this tiny speck of dust in the universe - are the highest intelligence in the universe. Wow! Especially since our intellect and knowledge is so limited that we can't even say for sure if there is a Yeti. But the "elite" people still refuse to believe there can be a greater intelligence. Now that scares me!
The way I see it, that kind of myopic thinking is not only ignorant, but extremely arrogant, and has no basis in logic. And if science is not logical, then all is lost, because only chaos can endure. And that type of limited thinking only goes to prove my point - we simply aren't smart enough to be the highest intellect in the universe.
As for the Yeti, Sasquatch or Bigfoot, I only hope and pray that if they do exist, we never discover them. The dream is always so much better than the reality, and discovery would diminish us all - and probably cause the extinction of such great creatures.
How To Spot A Liberal in a Dark Room
Over the years I have noticed there are several traits common among liberals. They have one objective - to take over the United States by turning America into a socialist state. To that end, they will do ANYTHING! They will lie, deceive, spin. They will plant false information in the media, and brainwash our children. They will tie us up in the courts on so many bogus counts that, simply by virtue of the numbers, they would win a few legal battles upon which they could further build other, more important cases - all built from a decision that was initially flawed. A case in point is abortion: while there may be a basis for passing laws that permit abortion, the actual arguments used in Roe vs Wade were Constitutionally flawed. From that flawed ruling, other rulings were made, creating a "concrete" foundation for the secularist, socialist agenda.
Next time you watch liberals and conservatives in action, look for these (10) common traits (there are others).
1) Black is white. A liberal will tell you something is what it really is not. He will try to convince you by pointing to made up facts. He or she will keep saying it, over and over, assuming that by virtue of saying it often enough, it will somehow become true.
EXAMPLE: "Bush lied". Now, everyone with an ounce of sense knows that Bush may have been wrong, but he did not lie. He stated the EXACT same thing everyone else was saying - including Hillary & Bill Clinton. Being wrong is not the same as lying. Contrary to what Michael Moore would have us believe, in order for something to be a lie, it must be INTENTIONAL. If it is not intentional, then it is an error, a mistake. But not a lie.
Other examples: Bush & Cheney are responsible for 9/11. Bush & Cheney are responsible for Katrina. Bush & Cheney are responsible for Abu Grahib. They are torturing prisoners at Gitmo (yeah, they force them to watch "The View").
Liberals keep saying these things over and over, like a mantra. And they keep pointing to "facts" that have been invented, and really are not facts at all, such as claiming that Bush somehow had information available to him that no other government had available, and even our own intelligence agencies did not have access to. Absurdity in its highest form!
2) Talk 'em down. In any "debate" between a liberal and a conservative, 9 out of 10 times the liberal will try to talk over, and talk down, the conservative. Watch: when a conservative brings up an actual fact that the liberal is unable to dispute, he starts to talk over the opponent, and keeps him from making any valid point. If you cannot win a debate, simply make it unintelligible by talking over the other person. It is very rare for a conservative to use such a dishonest tactic.
3) Cut 'em off. Alan Colmes is particularly good at this liberal tactic. If a conservative tries to make a valid point for which liberals have no defense, Alan will just cut them off and take over the conversation.
4) Take the last (dishonest) word, then change the subject. Another Alan Colmes specialty. After a conservative makes a valid point and the issue is put to rest, liberals will suddenly make some bold, unsubstantiated statement that is incredibly non-defensible, and without missing a beat, changes the subject to prevent the conservative from offering a rebuttal. This is designed to provide credibility to incredulous claims by not permitting a rebuttal.
5) Relieve conservatives of the burden of any right to free speech. We see this almost every week. A conservative is invited to speak at some function, and liberal thugs show up and prevent the conservative from speaking. They claim they are exercising their right to free speech, but that is not what they are doing. Instead, that little piece of deception is meant to disguise that they are actually VIOLATING the conservatives right to free speech. No one - NO ONE - has any Constitutional right that allows them to deprive others of their rights. Yes, we all have rights, but we do not have the right to ABUSE our rights. Liberals abuse the rights our Founders helped to insure.
6) If all else fails, be true to form and use violence. They could not stop Coulter from speaking, so they throw a pie at her. They could not prevent the Minutemen from speaking, so they forcibly try to take them off the stage. Whenever liberals cannot get their way, they have a temper tantrum, yet they are the same people that condemn violence and claim they are "tolerant". There is no one more intolerant than a liberal..
7) Tell every half-truth you can get your hands on. This is a classic, going back to the King of the Communist Socialists, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Also made famous in Hitler's Mein Kampf. In short, you tell just enough truth so people can accept the basis, but not enough of the truth to allow people to have ALL the facts from which to make an informed decision. Informed decisions are not permitted in the liberal lifestyle. So, a liberal nutcase like Mark Cuban can take one minor, remote act and build a movie upon it that makes it appear that the act is not remote, but rather a standard. The remote act did occur - that may be true. But it is NOT true that our military habitually murders or rapes civilians. Cuban took a minor truth, and without regard for the REST of the truth, turned it into a poisonous lie. An honest person would say, "This act did occur, but that act is not indicative of our military in general." But a lying, backstabbing, obnoxious, snake would take that single act and make it appear to be the norm, just so he can push the dishonest, liberal agenda.
8) Spin 'til they get dizzy. Liberals will spin on and on, nonstop, if given the chance. The worst part is, they BELIEVE their spin.
9) The famous non-apology. Liberals never, ever truly apologize for anything. They will make statements that SOUND like an apology, but there is no apology. Case in point: John Kerry's statement about our soldiers being mercenaries. When the hue and cry went up against Kerry - even from Democrats - Kerry decided to "apologize". But if you actually read his "apology", it was nothing more than an added insult. He NEVER apologized for making the statement. What he clearly said was that he apologized that WE were offended by what he said. No, he never apologized TO anyone for what he said. He apologized FOR US BEING SO STUPID that we were offended. He called us stupid, and that was considered an apology because he used the word "apology". So, Kerry was right - we ARE stupid! He insulted us, we considered that an apology, and he laughed all the way home because the liberal media told us it was an apology and we bought it.
The next time a liberal apologizes, listen to the actual words. If you do, you will NOT hear an apology. You will hear an insult disguised as an apology. Something like, "I'm sorry if people took it wrong", or "I apologize if you were offended." Such statements do not apologize for anything. They insult us by saying there is no need for an apology, but that there is a need to point out that we should not have been offended. In other words, instead of apologizing TO us for being wrong, they apologize FOR US for being offended that they were wrong. A true apology would state "I am sorry that I was wrong." But what a liberal will say is "I am sorry that you were wrong in being offended."
10) Rewriting history. A liberal's worst enemy is the truth, so it is easy to see how they would have a real problem with history. So, they rewrite it, to suit their agenda. They claim Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the greatest president ever (they refuse to acknowledge what Roosevelt, himself acknowledged about having an affinity for Communism.) They claim the Constitution says there is to be a wall separating Church and State (there is no such thing in the Constitution). Bill Clinton did not lie about his affair with Monica and is not a sexual predator (I guess it was just an honest mistake - he simply was so unimpressed with Lewinsky and all the others that he forgot he had sex with them).
Next time you watch liberals and conservatives in action, look for these (10) common traits (there are others).
1) Black is white. A liberal will tell you something is what it really is not. He will try to convince you by pointing to made up facts. He or she will keep saying it, over and over, assuming that by virtue of saying it often enough, it will somehow become true.
EXAMPLE: "Bush lied". Now, everyone with an ounce of sense knows that Bush may have been wrong, but he did not lie. He stated the EXACT same thing everyone else was saying - including Hillary & Bill Clinton. Being wrong is not the same as lying. Contrary to what Michael Moore would have us believe, in order for something to be a lie, it must be INTENTIONAL. If it is not intentional, then it is an error, a mistake. But not a lie.
Other examples: Bush & Cheney are responsible for 9/11. Bush & Cheney are responsible for Katrina. Bush & Cheney are responsible for Abu Grahib. They are torturing prisoners at Gitmo (yeah, they force them to watch "The View").
Liberals keep saying these things over and over, like a mantra. And they keep pointing to "facts" that have been invented, and really are not facts at all, such as claiming that Bush somehow had information available to him that no other government had available, and even our own intelligence agencies did not have access to. Absurdity in its highest form!
2) Talk 'em down. In any "debate" between a liberal and a conservative, 9 out of 10 times the liberal will try to talk over, and talk down, the conservative. Watch: when a conservative brings up an actual fact that the liberal is unable to dispute, he starts to talk over the opponent, and keeps him from making any valid point. If you cannot win a debate, simply make it unintelligible by talking over the other person. It is very rare for a conservative to use such a dishonest tactic.
3) Cut 'em off. Alan Colmes is particularly good at this liberal tactic. If a conservative tries to make a valid point for which liberals have no defense, Alan will just cut them off and take over the conversation.
4) Take the last (dishonest) word, then change the subject. Another Alan Colmes specialty. After a conservative makes a valid point and the issue is put to rest, liberals will suddenly make some bold, unsubstantiated statement that is incredibly non-defensible, and without missing a beat, changes the subject to prevent the conservative from offering a rebuttal. This is designed to provide credibility to incredulous claims by not permitting a rebuttal.
5) Relieve conservatives of the burden of any right to free speech. We see this almost every week. A conservative is invited to speak at some function, and liberal thugs show up and prevent the conservative from speaking. They claim they are exercising their right to free speech, but that is not what they are doing. Instead, that little piece of deception is meant to disguise that they are actually VIOLATING the conservatives right to free speech. No one - NO ONE - has any Constitutional right that allows them to deprive others of their rights. Yes, we all have rights, but we do not have the right to ABUSE our rights. Liberals abuse the rights our Founders helped to insure.
6) If all else fails, be true to form and use violence. They could not stop Coulter from speaking, so they throw a pie at her. They could not prevent the Minutemen from speaking, so they forcibly try to take them off the stage. Whenever liberals cannot get their way, they have a temper tantrum, yet they are the same people that condemn violence and claim they are "tolerant". There is no one more intolerant than a liberal..
7) Tell every half-truth you can get your hands on. This is a classic, going back to the King of the Communist Socialists, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Also made famous in Hitler's Mein Kampf. In short, you tell just enough truth so people can accept the basis, but not enough of the truth to allow people to have ALL the facts from which to make an informed decision. Informed decisions are not permitted in the liberal lifestyle. So, a liberal nutcase like Mark Cuban can take one minor, remote act and build a movie upon it that makes it appear that the act is not remote, but rather a standard. The remote act did occur - that may be true. But it is NOT true that our military habitually murders or rapes civilians. Cuban took a minor truth, and without regard for the REST of the truth, turned it into a poisonous lie. An honest person would say, "This act did occur, but that act is not indicative of our military in general." But a lying, backstabbing, obnoxious, snake would take that single act and make it appear to be the norm, just so he can push the dishonest, liberal agenda.
8) Spin 'til they get dizzy. Liberals will spin on and on, nonstop, if given the chance. The worst part is, they BELIEVE their spin.
9) The famous non-apology. Liberals never, ever truly apologize for anything. They will make statements that SOUND like an apology, but there is no apology. Case in point: John Kerry's statement about our soldiers being mercenaries. When the hue and cry went up against Kerry - even from Democrats - Kerry decided to "apologize". But if you actually read his "apology", it was nothing more than an added insult. He NEVER apologized for making the statement. What he clearly said was that he apologized that WE were offended by what he said. No, he never apologized TO anyone for what he said. He apologized FOR US BEING SO STUPID that we were offended. He called us stupid, and that was considered an apology because he used the word "apology". So, Kerry was right - we ARE stupid! He insulted us, we considered that an apology, and he laughed all the way home because the liberal media told us it was an apology and we bought it.
The next time a liberal apologizes, listen to the actual words. If you do, you will NOT hear an apology. You will hear an insult disguised as an apology. Something like, "I'm sorry if people took it wrong", or "I apologize if you were offended." Such statements do not apologize for anything. They insult us by saying there is no need for an apology, but that there is a need to point out that we should not have been offended. In other words, instead of apologizing TO us for being wrong, they apologize FOR US for being offended that they were wrong. A true apology would state "I am sorry that I was wrong." But what a liberal will say is "I am sorry that you were wrong in being offended."
10) Rewriting history. A liberal's worst enemy is the truth, so it is easy to see how they would have a real problem with history. So, they rewrite it, to suit their agenda. They claim Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the greatest president ever (they refuse to acknowledge what Roosevelt, himself acknowledged about having an affinity for Communism.) They claim the Constitution says there is to be a wall separating Church and State (there is no such thing in the Constitution). Bill Clinton did not lie about his affair with Monica and is not a sexual predator (I guess it was just an honest mistake - he simply was so unimpressed with Lewinsky and all the others that he forgot he had sex with them).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)