(un)Common Sense

With people such as these, is it any wonder America has problems?

2010-12-07T20:35:00.000-08:00

The following are all true events. Makes you wonder how America survives...

1) A man, wanting to rob a downtown Bank of America, walked into the Branch and wrote this, "Put all your muny in this bag." While standing in line, waiting to give his note to the teller, he began to worry that someone had seen him write the note and might call the police before he reached the teller's window. So he left the Bank of America and crossed the street to the Wells Fargo Bank. After waiting a few minutes in line, he handed his note to the Wells Fargo teller. She read it and, surmising from his spelling errors that he wasn't the brightest light in the harbor, told him that she could not accept his stickup note because it was written on a Bank of America deposit slip and that he would either have to fill out a Wells Fargo deposit slip or go back to Bank of America. Looking somewhat defeated, the man said, "OK" and left. He was arrested a few minutes later, as he was waiting in line back at Bank of America.

2) Early this year, some Boeing employees on the airfield decided to steal a life raft from one of the 747s. They were successful in getting it out of the plane and home. Shortly after they took it for a float on the river, they noticed a Coast Guard helicopter coming towards them. It turned out that the chopper was homing in on the emergency locator beacon that activated when the raft was inflated. They are no longer employed at Boeing.

3) A guy walked into a little corner store with a shotgun and demanded all of the cash from the cash drawer. After the cashier put the cash in a bag, the robber saw a bottle of Scotch that he wanted behind the counter on the shelf. He told the cashier to put it in the bag as well, but the cashier refused and said, "Because I don't believe you are over 21." The robber said he was, but the clerk still refused to give it to him because she didn't believe him.At this point, the robber took his driver's license out of his wallet and gave it to the clerk. The clerk looked it over and agreed that the man was in fact over 21 and she put the Scotch in the bag. The robber then ran from the store with his loot.The cashier promptly called the police and gave the name and address of the robber that he got off the license. They arrested the robber two hours later.

4) A pair of Michigan robbers entered a record shop nervously waving revolvers. The first one shouted, "Nobody move!" When his partner moved, the startled first bandit shot him.I live in a semi-rural area. (probably Weyauwega , Wisconsin ) We recently had a new neighbor call the local township administrative office to request the removal of the Deer Crossing sign on our road. The reason: "Too many deer are being hit by cars out here! - I don't think this is a good place for them to be crossing anymore." From Kingman , KS .

5) I work with an individual who plugged her power strip back into itself and for the sake of her own life, couldn't understand why her system would not turn on. A deputy with the Dallas County Sheriffs office no less.

6) When my husband and I arrived at an automobile dealership to pick up our car, we were told the keys had been locked in it. We went to the service department and found a mechanic working feverishly to unlock the drivers side door. As I watched from the passenger side, I instinctively tried the door handle and discovered that it was unlocked. "Hey," I announced to the technician, "its open!" His reply, "I know - I already got that side." This was at the CHEVY dealership in Canton , Mississippi

The scary part - all these people are allowed to vote - and reproduce!

/

Sedition

2009-12-18T07:42:00.000-08:00

The definition of "sedition" is the act of attempting to overthrow, or incite to overthrow the government.

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States, which is the ultimate law of the land reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

Therefore, any person who acts to overthrow the Republican form of government is guilty of sedition, a crime against the United States.

What this means is that any person who acts to change our Republic into a socialist, Marxist, Communist or other form of government is guilty of sedition, as they are acting to overthrow the Republican government guaranteed under the Constitution.

Almost all of President Obama's advisors are self-proclaimed Marxists or socialists - one was even a communist (his own words). All are actively inciting or acting to overthrow the Republican government and instituting a socialist government.

And many of the liberal Democrats in the House and Senate are guilty of sedition, as they are actively working to turn America into a socialist state by passing unconstitutional bills designed to move us into socialism.

And other so-called Americans who stand on the far left, are also guilty of sedition, including Michael Moore, Ariana Huffington, George Soros and many, many others. You know who they are - the ones who praise Chavez and Castro. The ones who always find it necessary to insult, then apologize for America.

Do not misunderstand - dissent is a good thing. But what the far left liberals are doing goes well beyond dissent. It is sedition, plain and simple.

If you actively work to change our form of government, you are guilty of sedition.

One of the earliest and most successful seditionists was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was he who removed the word "Republic" from the description of America, and replaced it with "Democracy." No one noticed. To this day, almost no one has noticed that in one simple stroke, he caused the entire nation to forget we are a Republic, and are, instead, a Democracy, which is entirely different. He even had it changed in the textbooks. Roosevelt changed the Republic to a Democracy in 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression. The people were so preoccupied with the depression that they took no notice - and really did not care. By the time things got back to normal, Democracy had already entrenched itself for 15 years, so it still went unnoticed. Even back then the socialists lived by the decree not to let a good crisis go to waste. (Hilary Clinton still uses that phrase). And they are doing it again, with TARP, Stiumulus Bills, bank and automaker takeovers, cap & trade, and now health care. Next it will be amnesty for illegal immigrants.

AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY. IT IS SO DEVREED IN THE CONSTITUTION. ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL WHO PROMOTES ANYTHING OTHER THAN A REPUBLIC IS GUILTY OF SEDITION.

The Founding Fathers had considered a Democracy, and rejected that in favor of a Republic. They did so because they (like Roosevelt) knew that a Democracy always leads to socialism - and Roosevelt was an admitted socialist, whose chief advisor was a card-carrying communist.

Here is the major difference: in a Republic, every person, and his/her rights, are equal, and cannot be over-ridden by anyone else. In a Democracy, it is "majority rules", which means if the majority want to deprive you of a right, they may do so. (This is how the Supreme Court was able to change eminient domain in the constitution from "public use" to "public benefit". Now, your land can be taken even if the public cannot get use of it, but if a private party can make better use of it and pay higher taxes, which is a public benefit). The Supreme Court committed an unconstitutional act - only the legislative body, with three-fourths of states ratifying it, can change a single word of the Constitution. So, their ruling is unconstitutional, and any Justice who voted for the change should be recalled and replaced as incompetent and grossly negligent.

When the majority rules, they soon learn that they can vote themselves in certain perks and entitlements. And they do - the temptation is too strong. And that is the road to socialism, as those entitlements must come from the government. This gives the government more power over our lives, and power corrupts. More entitlements equals more government, until the people become completely subservient to the government.

What patriotic Americans must do is first reinstate the Republican form of government the Constitution guarantees - throw out any official who resists, or who pursues a more "democratic, socialist" view. Take the word DEMOCRACY out of the description of America and replace it with REPUBLIC. And learn the differences.

Then insist that ALL elected AND non-elected officials follow the Constitution, as written. It does not require "interpretation". Interpretation is whatever a reader wants. The Constitution is clear and simple - do not interpret it - just follow it or get out.

Do not vote for anyone who will not pledge to do the above, and if they reneg, throw them out of office. It matters not what party they belong to - either they are FOR America, a Republic, or they are not.

/

Health Care Jail

2009-09-28T19:41:00.001-07:00

Did you know that the Health Care plan proposed by Sen. Baucus has a section that states if you do not buy health insurance you will be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished with either a $25,000 fine OR A YEAR IN JAIL?

Can you believe these people? Not only do they want to violate your Constitutional Rights by FORCING you to spend your money on something you may not want or need, but they want to put you in prison if you do not comply with their Gestapo tactics.

Think about this - if for some reason you lose your insurance, you would be forced to spend $3800 to enter the "government" option, or go to jail. Hell, for most folks, if they do not have insurance it is because they cannot afford it. So the Democrats want to put you behind bars for being broke.

Don't think so? Think again. Baucus has already admitted that it exists in the bill. Now think about this - let's say the government says if you earn more than $48,000 a year, you can "afford" the $3800/year for their insurance. Yet, for all they know, your bills and expenses come to $48,000 a year. So how will you pay $3800 for insurance without going bankrupt and losing everything? In other words, it will not matter how much debt you already have - if you EARN a certain amount, the government says you can afford it - even if you cannot. So, you go to JAIL!

In America! With each passing day, the Obama Administration is changing America from the land of the free to the land of the enslaved.

Of course, the liberal media refuses to tell folks about this part of the Baucus bill, because they know the folks would revolt, big time. As far as I can tell, the only news source to show this is Fox News. No wonder it beats ALL other news stations combined.

Folks - if you have an ounce of common sense and a modicum of interest in what kind of future our children will have, get on the horn and call your senators and congressmen TODAY. Tell them if they vote for the health care bill, you will vote for their opponent in the next election. This is far too important for anyone to sit on their hands and hope someone else will fight the fight for them.

/

Divine Intelligence?

2009-01-13T19:22:00.001-08:00

In looking for a sound means of expressing why an educated, intelligent person would believe in a greater intelligence often referred to as "God", I have come up with many. But none are so powerfully convincing as this one.

To begin, it is important to understand that evolution, or accidental existence, by its definition and nature, cannot include concepts such as planning, thought, or even the ability to determine a need for something. All of those things require intelligence.

Therefore, without accepting the existence of a God, it is impossible to explain why - and how - the act of sex creates a physical sensation of ecstacy.

Certainly, any "designer" would understand that in order to survive, creatures must procreate. And to insure they do so, it would be necessary to instill such a sense of pleasure derived from the act of sex. But my point is this - it takes rational thought, planning, and determining a need for the sense of pleasure. Without intelligence, "nature" and accidental existence would not beget such pleasure. Not being able to think, plan or determine, nature could not possibly, and by sheer accident, instill in us the sense of sexual pleasure.

Some might say that the ecstacy evolved because of the need for it. But that raises two questions:

1) how does nature, unable to think or plan, determine such a need, and "evolve" it, and

2) if it evolved over time, how did life survive long enough to develop that sense of ecstacy? Without it from the start, it is unlikely that creatures would procreate.

Certainly, evolution can explain many things. But what each of us should think about are those things that evolution cannot explain.

Take, for example, the intricacies of coexistence. Needs between two or more living things cannot be explained through evolution, as one species has no way of "knowing" what another needs. Here is an example:

Birds eat raspberries. But they cannot digest the seeds. Instead, those are excreted while the birds sit on tree branches. This allows the raspberry seeds to produce new plants because a) the seeds were not digested, b) the seeds were deposited beneath branches where they receive the required shade for the young roots, and c) the seeds are deposited with a glob of bird manure, to fertilize the seeds. An intricate series of instances that produces an end result. And because of it, the birds are helping to produce their own food supply.

This raises questions, for those who do not believe in a Divine Intelligence. One such question: why is it that the seeds are not digested? Surely evolution, without intelligence, would insure that the digestive system of birds would digest everything they eat. Considering all of the separate things that must occur, in concert, in order to continue the cycle, and each must occur without the knowledge of any of the "players", it is difficult for any thinking person to reject out-of-hand the concept of a Divine Intelligence.

Of course, as a believer I always like to ask non-believers the following two questions:

1) Since only living things can evolve, how do you explain the existence of all the non-living things, like rocks? Since they could not evolve, the only other explanation is that they were somehow created. By what? Why? How?

2) Assuming evolution explains how humans got here, how do you explain the very first living thing? Being the first, it could not have evolved from anything, because it was the first. So, where did that first living thing come from? How did it become alive?

In any case, I always come back to the wonder that is the ecstacy we feel when we complete the sex act. Such a thing is something that has a defined purpose, but not a true need except in the context of propagation of the species. And nature, or accidental existence, being unable to think and therefore unable to care, would not provide such a solution. The fact that 96% of all species that ever lived have already become extinct proves that nature does not care if we survive or not. Providing a solution for a purpose is something that requires intelligence, thought and planning.

No Guts!

2008-10-08T18:22:00.001-07:00

That is what I saw as I watched the presidential debate. Both candidates addressed the financial crisis, but neither one showed an ounce of passion. No anger. Neither one related to we, the People.

As I listened to these two losers, all I heard was, "Gee whiz, I know you are hurting. And I will fix it." Not exactly what I would call commanding.

Tell ya what - regardless of party affiliation, I will vote for the first one to stand up, get angry, and say, "When I am president, I will find out the people responsible for this. I will identify those who robbed us of our pensions. And I will punish them to the maximum extent that the law allows. Jail time, not bail time! I don't care who they are, or what party they belong to. I'm going to nail them. And then I will make sure that this will never, ever happen again."

But I am betting that neither will do that, and do it with conviction. Because I do not see any passion or guts in either of them. Yes, McCain is a war hero. But in matters such as this, where the people expect him to take on the crooks, he and Obama are both gutless.

If you feel as I do, feel free to do as I did - write to the clowns that manage these losers and tell them how you feel. I wrote to both the chairman and the campaign manager, at chairman@gop.com and political@gop.com, because personally, I do not believe Obama would ever turn on those that supported him. But if you are an Obama fan, then contact his handlers. But for crying out loud, ONE of these idiots needs to show some passion, conviction and guts.

Why Don't They Get It?

2008-09-03T18:59:00.001-07:00

Still hearing from "green" people about increasing sources of ethanol - corn, switchgrass, stinkweed - the list goes on. And these people actually believe this is a sound, "green" alternative. Why have they not thought it through? Why do they ignore the facts?

Let's start with the most obvious point - lack of arable land to use for ethanol production. If we were to use EVERY acre of tillable land in America for growing ethanol sources, it still would not produce enough ethanol to keep our cars going. And even if it could, we would be able to drive to the supermarket, but the shelves would be empty because there is no land being farmed for FOOD. It is just plain stupid to burn your food supply. Because of ethanol production, the cost of food worldwide has risen sharply - and the poor, already hungry, are now starving.

But it gets even worse. For every gallon of ethanol produced, it takes 1.3 gallons of fossil fuels to produce it. So, it is not even green. It actually INCREASES the CO2 levels.

It takes fuel to till the soil. Fuel to fertilize. Fuel to irrigate. Fuel to harvest. Fuel to transport to the processing plant. Fuel to process into ethanol. Isn't it strange that somehow the "greenies" overlook such things. Instead, all they can see is the end product - "WOW! Fuel from weeds!"

And what about those "electric" cars? Again, it's "WOW! Run cars without burning fossil fuels!" The problem lies in the simple fact that it takes fuel to create the electricity! Simple physics teaches us that there is ALWAYS some loss when you change from one energy to another. So, it takes more fuel to create the electricity than it would have taken to simply fuel the car in the first place.

Sure, perhaps the electricity comes from nuclear, or water. But currently, most of our electricity comes from oil, gas and coal. And we already suffer "brownouts" - a lack of sufficient electricity. Imagine if all vehicles used electricity - we would be living in the dark.

The folks who want "green" solutions are correct in believing our future depends on green solutions. But they are absolutely looking in the wrong direction. They are not thinking things through. They are going forth while wearing blinders. And ignorance is even worse than burning oil.

Majority Rule?

2008-07-07T14:40:00.000-07:00

Before the Supreme Court had a conservative majority and the liberals were in charge, they made yet another, of many, poor rulings, in violation of the Constitution. They ruled that "eminent domain" could be used to take private lands for public BENEFIT, rather than the public USE required under the Constitution.

Their wrong-headed thinking violates not only the Constitution, but also the very tenets of our Republic. This is because liberals want America to be a Democracy, but it is not. Under the law, and by decree in the Constitution, America is a REPUBLIC, which is quite different from a Democracy.

In a Democracy, majority rules. Democrats like that, because it empowers them to levy more taxes and rob us of more rights. All they need is to convince a majority that something is best, and that's it! The government gains power, and the people lose it.

But in a Republic, the majority does not rule. Each of us has the sole power. As Henry David Thoreau so aptly put it, "When the rights of the majority take away the rights of the one, we all suffer." In other words, we should never forget that EACH of us is the ONE. Sometimes we are in the majority; sometimes not. Do we give up our God-given rights just because we are not in the majority?

The Founding fathers thought about a Democracy as a form of governance, and flatly rejected it, and chose a Republic, instead. The primary reason lies in the fact that, by nature, Man will always favor having others take responsibility for them. And that invariably results in bigger government, until government finally is the sole power. No longer would it be "of the people, by the people, for the people." We are very close to that now, thanks to liberals.

If we, as Americans, are ever to set things right, and prevent losing our rights, we have but one choice. We must once again declare our independence as a Republic, and toss out the notion that we are a Democracy.

It was FDR that changed the landscape, and began brainwashing Americans into thinking we are a Democracy. Until then, everyone knew we were a Republic. Now, we must set the record straight. We must teach our children the difference, and teach them the importance of being a Republic.

And teach them that if we allow the majority to rule, we all lose, because we are all just ONE.

What It Takes To Be A Democrat

2008-07-04T10:43:00.000-07:00

Found this floating around on the Internet...

To Be A Good Democrat...

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. Nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that "gender roles are artificial" but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters who support & protect nature don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.G. Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

17. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

18. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, but manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

19. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States .

20. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

21. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas."

22. You have to believe that only liberals have freedom of speech, while all others should be shouted down.

23. You have to believe that it is necessary to subject Americans to embarrassing searches at airports in the name of national security, but it's not a problem for illegal immigrants to sneak across the borders by the millions without any controls whatsoever.

24. You have to believe that people who retire and collect Social Security are unpatriotic because they "suck up tax money", but it's just fine to use that same tax money to support illegal immigrants.

25. You have to believe it is a crime for a republican to commit perjury for a crime that never even occured (Libby), but it is perfectly acceptable for a democrat to be involved in bribery (Jefferson), illicit sex (Clinton), or leaving a girl to drown in your car (Kennedy).

Open Borders?

2008-05-17T20:26:00.000-07:00

A lot of liberals believe America should open its borders to any immigrant that wants to come here. So, let us take a brief look at what would happen.

First, since we are a rich nation, every thief and criminal in the world would rush to America - the pickings are so much better than in, say, Peru or Norway, and our legal system provides them far better protections.

Of the 6 billion people on this planet, nearly 4 billion are poor. Most of them would prefer to live here if they could. So let's assume even 10% of them actually take advantage of open borders - that's 400 million people, which more than DOUBLES the current population. And since the census bureau claims the population will double in the next 40 years, that means America would have to support more than 1.6 BILLION souls.

So what, say the liberals. The more the merrier!

But here is where their HUGE blind spot starts to become apparent.

Our highways are already crowded, as are our cities. Imagine the road rage with 4 times as many drivers on the already crowded streets. And while you have your imagination working, imagine the unemployment rate - there are just so many jobs. And school systems, already strained to the breaking point, would have to find ways to educate 4 times as many children - most of whom cannot even speak English - in already overcrowded schools. Colleges and universities, already unable to take all the students that apply, will now have 4 times as many applicants - so the chances your child or grandchildren will get a college education is either reduced, or the cost is far too great as demand quickly outstrips supply.

Speaking of supply and demand, the demand for products and services would quadruple, increasing costs considerably. And where, pray tell, would an extra billion people find homes to live in? And what about overcrowded emergency rooms, and increased healthcare costs?

Social Security is bankrupt. Imagine having 4 times more people trying to cash in on it.

Look, it's simple math. Four times more people means we need 4 times more schools, homes, businesses, jobs, roads, parking areas, parks, offices, etc. etc. etc. If you think your neighbor is too close now, imagine how close they will be with open borders. If you think housing is already too expensive, it would be 4 times as much with open borders.

And we are already incapable of producing enough energy for our citizens - brown-outs are a regular occurrence in many areas. Imagine increasing the load by 400%.

We are a rich nation because our population has not out-paced our resources. With open borders, that would change, and your standard of living would be forced downward.

Ask yourself: does America really need to play host to a billion poor, and probably uneducated people who can contribute little, but use up much of our resources? Low income people do NOT pay taxes. But they use resources and services all the same.

So, why do liberal elites want open borders? Most of them simply have not thought things out. But some, like George Soros, have. Those people are a real threat to the American way of life. They know that by bringing in so many low-income, uneducated people, it would put such a strain on our system that we would be forced to embrace socialism. In order to support everyone to at least a minimal degree, incomes must be redistributed. The tax rate would be at least 70%, in order to socialize our system. And nothing pleases a liberal more than to have greater control over your money.

And another point: the largest population in the world, short of Chinese, are muslims. So a huge number of muslims would suddenly flood American shores. And as many countries have already discovered (i.e France or Denmark), a surge in the muslim population results in loss of control of your heritage. Even here, muslims are already abusing our system to change the American way of life. Muslim cabbies won't transport you if you are not "in tune" with THEIR beliefs. They are requiring special priviledges (foot washing facilities, for example), knowing it would look like discrimination or "racial profiling" if we object. Muslims emmigrate to free nations, then pull together to bring that nation to its knees, to praise Allah. Don't think so? Look around. Many nations have already fallen, including Somalia, Indonesia, and other non-Arab lands. And they are striving to outnumber citizens in Denmark, France, Germany and England.

'Nuff said.

Black History - With Blinders On

2008-05-06T21:28:00.000-07:00

Lately, thanks to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, there has been a lot of discussion where many black Americans claim they have good reason to be angry. They claim that the "white" Americans somehow "owe" them something. They claim that, because we have not "suffered the black experience" that we cannot understand.

Now, here is why all of that is pure BS.

First, while it is true that hundreds of years ago whites owned slaves, let us set the record straight about a few things, such as:

1) It was Black Africans who captured and sold other blacks to the slave traders

2) It was also white Americans who FREED the slaves

3) It was white Americans who gave their lives in the fight to free the slaves

4) Now this one is crucial - had we not brought the slaves to America, and then freed them, all Black Americans today would not be free - they would still be in Africa, suffering disease, famine and AIDS.

5) Not one single living Black American was ever a slave in America, and not one single living white American ever owned black slaves in America. For them to want retribution for slavery is absurd.

6) No person is responsible for the acts of others, particularly if those "others" died before the person was even born.

7) I am not guilty, and do not owe any black American an apology for any white people who, generations ago, may (or may not) have owned slaves. I will not carry the sins of others upon my back.

8) If black Americans believe it is fair to hold white Ameicans accountable for sins long since past, then they, too, should be held accountable for the sins of their own ancestors - sins like cannabalism. Frankly, both are absurd.

9) In many early black cultures, the tribes also captured and enslaved their fellow man. By their own standard, should they not be held just as accountable for having enslaved people? What makes them so special that THEY can have slaves with impunity, but when a white person owns slaves, it is unforgivable?

10) While black Americans claim to have suffered discrimination, they would do well to bone up on their history - at one time or another, every race, and every religion has suffered discrimination. Are Christians to hold modern Romans responsible for being fed to the lions? Should Jews hold todays Germans accountable for the acts of the Nazis? Are all Scots to be held accountable for the acts of terrorist Timothy McVeigh? And should fat people pass guilt on to all thin people for the abuse they suffered in schoolyards across America? Black Americans do not have exclusive rights to claims of discrimination.

It is high time for black Americans to stop the whining and crying over something that happened long ago, and to stop perpetuating the hatred, suspicion and anger that divides, rather than unifies.

One step they need to take is to stop making it a point to differentiate themselves by always labeling things as "black" or "white" - "black" American, "white" church, "black" history, "white" supremacy. As long as they use such divisive labels, there will never be harmony, or full acceptance. I do not think of myself, or call myself a "white" American. I am just an American. I do not go to a "white" church - I just go to church. Imagine if we all were to go around calling ourselves by our labels - "Hello, I am Bill, a white Scottish Christian with some Indian blood." Or, "Can you tell me where I can find the closest Greek Orthodox Church for Half-Breed Orientals and Caucasians?" If it sounds ridiculous, it is. And it is just as ridiculous when black American do it. They are just, plain Americans. No more, no less.

While many Black Americans make it a point to cry "racism" or "discrimination", the simple fact is that they are the ones who are racist. They are discriminating. Most "white" Americans are color blind when it comes to race. But then someone like Rev. Wright comes along, and using hatred, anger and anti-American racism, fans the old flames back to life by trying to make us feel guilty for something we had no part in. And then when those flames burn once more, Wright points, and says, "See? I was right. They are racist." In fact, Wright is the racist - fueling the fire for the express purpose of causing division.

But we were not racist until he made us that way by using his color to try and paint us as bad people, in an evil country, just because 200 years ago my great-great grandpaw paid twenty dollars for his great-great grandpaw. He forgets that it was my great grandfather who fought and died to set his great grandfather free. He forgets it was my grandfather who changed the Constitution, giving him the right to vote. He forgets that it was me, with thousands of other whites who marched on Selma, Alabama to fight for the rights of black Americans.

If white Americans are guilty of anything, we are guilty of spending blood, sweat and tears for hundreds of years to try and make things right. To eventually do the right thing. And to understand that it WAS the right thing, and worth the price that both blacks and whites paid.

If black Americans REALLY want equality, and REALLY want a country where color does not have any bearing, then the first thing they need to do is abandon those who fan the flames of hate. People like Reverend Wright, and those who follow him.

In closing, it strikes me that Wright is not only anti-American and anti-white, but also anti-Christian. The Christ that I know would never stir anger, suspicion and hate in a person's heart, just to push His own agenda. Christ professed forgiveness - Wright will not allow his followers to forgive. Christ professed love of everyone - Wright only loves blacks. Christ said to turn the other proverbial cheek - Wright just gives us the proverbial finger.

As long as there are Rev. Wrights, and those like him, America will never be one people. And we will all - black, white, red and yellow - pay for that.

Labels - good for foodstuffs in the grocery store. Bad for people!

Time Travel

2008-03-29T11:43:00.000-07:00

Today I watched a show on the History Channel called UNIVERSE. In that show, scientists - supposedly intelligent, educated people - were discussing the probability of time travel.

I guess a good education cannot instill common sense, because here's what I figured out a long time ago.

Let us assume time travel eventually exists. Sooner or later, someone will abuse it, and use it to change history. That is as certain as the fact that, eventually, someone will gain control of, and abuse, nuclear material. It is human nature.

So, let us assume that Joe Blow, in 2145, returns to the past, to 1932, and assassinates Hitler. At the precise instant he does so, he changes the entire future from that point on. The change is instant - it must be, because the previous circumstances no longer exist.

So, in the "new" year of 2145, Joe Blow cannot go back in time to kill Hitler, because Hitler never rose to power, and was never a problem. But if Joe cannot go back and kill Hitler, Hitler would then survive and rise to power.

This would, at best, create an unbreakable time loop. And here is why that is not possible, either. The only events that changed were "local" events - local to a specific period, on one tiny planet in the universe. It simply defies logic and science for such an event to create a loop that the entire universe would be caught up into. There is no logic or scientific data that indicates that time on Earth is separate from time elsewhere, and that time on Earth cannnot affect time on Mars, for example. Because a change in our history - and future - could change any future that includes travel to, or colonization of Mars, so time is therefore not separate. Any loop created on Earth would ultimately affect the entire universe.

Now, here is my "proof" that such is not possible: it has not occured. If time travel ever becomes possible, future citizens would already have traveled back in time. They would already have visited. And changes would already have been made, creating a loop.

Of course, I could be wrong - maybe such a loop has already been created. That would, after all, account for all those instances of deja-vu.

Separation of Church & State?

2008-03-28T19:47:00.000-07:00

Before we get ahead of ourselves, I would like to make it clear that nowhere in the Constitution does it say there is to be a "separation of church and state." Nowhere. That assertion was nothing more than a misinterpretation by one Thomas Jefferson who, by the way, had no part in writing or approving the Constitution.

The Constitution simply states that "Congress shall make no law" that would infringe on our right to practice our religions. Period.

In other words, the Constitution precludes the state from interfering in religion, and prevents the state from establishing a state church - a religion that all citizens must adhere to. But nowhere does it even suggest that government must be separate from religion, or vice versa.

In other words, the government can fund churches, but only if the offer funding to ALL churches equally. The government may not, however, pass laws that RESTRICT religion, or restrict the practice of the religion by its parishoners.

Communities and states that prohibit practicing religion in certain places are violating the Constitution - the are "passing laws" that interfere with religion.

No, there is not supposed to be a wall between church and state, and building one only serves to hurt us all. If we truly want what is right, and what the founding fathers intended, it is as simple as allowing everyone to practice their religion as they see fit - even if it is on government property, because that is the right that we are guaranteed by the Constitution. And the government - city, state or federal - shall "make no law" in respect to religion.

But liberal courts feel that they have the right to usurp the Constitution. They have often ruled, in opposition to the Constitution, that government may, indeed, restrict religious practice, and to make laws concerning religion and the free practice thereof.

Such judges should be stripped of their robes and tossed out into the streets. If they cannot understand the plain English in the Constitution, they have no business practicing law.

"Mis-spoke"?

2008-03-25T05:52:00.000-07:00

Hillary Clinton's campaign said she "misspoke" last week when saying she had landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in March 1996. Mrs. Clinton often refers to the goodwill trip as an example of her foreign policy experience.

During a speech last Monday, she said, "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Now, please forgive me if I am not as "eloquent" as Mrs. Clinton, but where I come from, when you say something that is blatantly false, it is not referred to as "mis-speaking". It is called "lying".

It comes as no surprise to me that Mrs. Clinton has lied about this, since it is painfully obvious to most people who have their eyes open that both Clintons have always been patholigical liars.

Mrs. Clinton has absolutely ZERO foreign policy experience. Neither does Mr. Obama. The primary difference between them is that Obama is not trying to BS the public into believing he has such experience.

Reclaiming Your Health

2008-03-19T18:50:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot of discussion lately on health care. But what no one seems to be talking about is that what they really mean is "sick care". It's not about staying healthy. It's all about being sick.

Health Care in America is expensive only because so many Americans get sick so often. This is not natural. In nature, good health is the norm, simply because it is necessary for survival of the species. So, why are so many Americans forced to spend so much of their treasure on fighting ill health?

IntelliBiz, publisher of "The Simple Man's Guide" series of how-to books has the answer to that, as well as a solution to most of our ills. Their latest work, "The Simple Man's Guide to Natural Health & Healing" is the result of 7 years of intensive research and practical application. In it you will discover how and why we got into such a sorry state, and exactly what we can do, individually, to regain and maintain optimal health for ourselves and our families.

For example, did you know that our air has 40% less oxygen than it did just 100 years ago? Or that our soil, necessary for producing our food supply, is 80% depleted of nutrients and trace minerals, necessary for good health?

These and many other important facts are thoroughly researched, and solutions are provided that you, yourself, can implement. The volume also covers all the nutrients, minerals, vitamins, amino acids, fats, carbs and proteins, and shows you why you need each them, and how to make sure you get them in the right quantity, and in the right combinations.

The Guide then explores a natural, healthy, filling diet of good, wholesome foods including meats, fruits, nuts, and veggies (vegans can eliminate the meats), and includes a sample menu for maintaining optimal weight and health.

And finally, "The Simple Man's Guide to Natural Health & Healing" includes an alphabetical directory of illnesses and the natural treatments for them.

All in all, this is the best, most informative book we have ever reviewed on the subject of health. At just $19.95, it is the cheapest "Health Care Plan" around.

"The Simple Man's Guide to Natural Health & Healing" can be ordered online here.

You won't be disappointed.

Gun Control At The Supreme Court

2008-03-18T18:49:00.000-07:00

It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many naive people who actually believe that banning guns will somehow result in lowering the rate of violent crime.

A couple of things I would like to point out to those folks:

1) People kill people. They kill people with or without guns. They strangle, use knives, pipes, bombs, arrows, vehicles, poisons - you name it, it has been used to kill.

2) People have been killing people since we first dropped out of the trees. That's about 40,000 years before guns. Guns simply make killing more efficient.

But the most important point lies in simple common sense. Imagine you are a violent criminal. You plan to rob liquor stores for a living, so you can get your drug money. To the east is a town where the residents are encourged to own - and learn how to use - guns. A lot of armed citizens in that town. To the west is another town, like Washington DC, where citizens are prohibited from owning guns. Unarmed citizens (otherwise known as "prey").

Now I ask you - which town are you most apt to head for?

My next question is also founded in common sense: if you are a violent criminal, the kind who has no compunction about killing, would you be afraid to break the law by owning a banned gun?

There is a lot of truth in the old saying, "If you ban guns, only the criminals will be armed". And that is a very dangerous scenario, indeed.

Our Supreme Court justices are often wrong, and in some cases downright ignorant. But I really do not believe they have so little intelligence that they would uphold the DC ban on guns.

Solution to Health Care

2008-03-10T17:29:00.001-07:00

It seems every politician is getting on the "health care" bandwagon these days, and, frankly, I find it disturbing that none of them even know what the issue is - so how can they solve the problem?

We do not have a "health care" crisis - we have a "sick care" crisis. The problem is not the cost of getting well, or maintaining our health. The problem is that Americans are being made sick by aggressive businesses who are getting rich at the expense of our health.

Let's understand a couple of very important facts:

1) The natural state of health is good health. In most cases, and barring genetic disease, we only become ill when we become weakened by our own foibles and actions (or inactions).

2) The vast majority of the food that is made available to consumers is not food at all. It has little in the way of nutrients, and generally is loaded with chemicals, antibiotics, preservatives, growth hormones, and even petroleum products - all of which are toxic.

3) The water in most communities is polluted with flouride or chlorine - both are poisons.

4) Drug companies, doctors and hospitals do not want people to be cured of anything - they would all go bankrupt if the population were to regain their natural state of health. Instead, they only want to keep us from dying, and to help us to "maintain" life. As long as they can do that - keep us alive, and keep us coming back - only then do they profit. If they cure us, they can no longer dip into our pockets.

So, if we keep from getting sick in the first place, then health care would not be a problem, and would not be expensive at all. Therefore, the issue is not "how to pay for health care" so much as it is "how to eliminate the need for health care".

Anyone with a desire to solve the health care crisis in America need look no further than to improving food and water supplies, and to necessitate at least a minimal amount of exercise on a daily basis.

Our foods and our water should be natural and organic, free of pesticides, chemicals, hormones, antibiotics and petroleum products. Certainly, this would make food more expensive, but not nearly as expensive as the health care that becomes necessary because of all the poisons in our diet.

And we need to go back to the days when physical education was a requirement in school. And every business should set aside at least two 10 minute breaks for employees to get aerobic exercise of some sort - even if it is just walking, stair-climbing or jogging in place. Exercise should be encouraged.

And we need to re-learn how to eat. Man was designed as a forager - walking all day, seeking small amounts of food. Call it "grazing", if you will - there was no ready supply of "instant food" from the local supermarket. The fact is, the body can only use just so much fuel at any given time, so the body is most efficient when we fuel it as we use it. Isn't it obvious that if your body can only use 100 calories per hour, that if you eat a 1000 calorie meal, much of that will get stored as fat? What the body cannot use, it stores or excretes. For this reason, nature indicates that we can better achieve optimal health if we 1) at natural foods, and 2) spread the eating out throughout the day, in 4-6 small meals and snacks.

If any politician wants to solve the health care crisis, let him or her confront the real issue - making it easier to stay healthy in the first place!

The Democrat Double Standard

2008-03-10T16:08:00.000-07:00

We all know - though the mainstream media never admits it - that the Democrats adhere to a very strict set of double standards when it comes to ethics. Whenever a Republican makes an error in judgement, he or she is to be villified, removed from office, indicted and imprisoned, whether the scandal is one of sex, money or power. But when a Democrat runs afoul of the same thing, he or she is to be honored as a true American who just happens to be human - no big deal. No villification, no removal from office, no indictments and no prison.

A Republican alledgedly touches another man's knee, and he is arrested, goes to court, and is thrown out of office. But a Democrat has sex with an intern in the Oval Office, and he becomes a hero. When a Republican gives praise to a past member of the KKK at his birthday party, that Republican is tossed from office. But when a Democrat is actually a past member of the KKK, he gets re-elected for life.

And so it will be with great interest that I watch what will happen to New York Governor Elliot Spitzer. He got himself elected by arresting and prosecuting those involved in prostitution, while he, himself, solicited prostitutes. And now that he has been fingered, it will be interesting to see how the Democrats handle this. Bear in mind, this is not a simple case of getting it on with a hooker. It is important to note that Spitzer made his reputation - and even got elected - partly on his harsh stance against prostitution. He has already set the standard by which he, himself, should be judged. He sent people to prison for taking part in prostitution. Now he is guilty of the very same thing.

His cases as state attorney general included a few criminal prosecutions of prostitution rings and into tourism involving prostitutes.In 2004, he was part of an investigation of an escort service in New York City that resulted in the arrest of 18 people on charges of promoting prostitution and related charges.

Again, it is with interest that I will watch this play out. I'm betting that most Democrats will simply try to brush it off as a minor indiscretion that is not worthy of punishment. Any takers?

Is "Green" Really Green?

2008-03-03T20:33:00.000-08:00

"Green" this; "green" that. It's all you hear in some circles. And frankly, most of those who are talking do not have a clue - either that, or they are just being dishonest.

Most "green" solutions are not green at all.

Take electric cars. One of the first things we learn in middle school science class is that converting energy always - ALWAYS - results in a net loss. To make electricity, we need to expend even more energy than we get in return. Now, I may not be a genius, but to me, a loss is a loss, and not a gain. If we have to burn more fossil fuels to make electricity, then the "green" cars are actually polluting the air even more than those that run on petrol.

Ethanol: Same thing. Major universities have completed studies that prove that we actually burn up to 1.7 times MORE fossil fuels in the production of ethanol. Plowing the fields. Planting. Irrigating. Harvesting. Transporting. And only then do we incur the hude energy expenditures in processing it. Every stage requires the burning of fossil fuels.

Then these new light bulbs. They require three times more glass (which must be produced in factories that contribute to CO2). They have mercury, and once they burn out, they must be disposed of as hazardous waste - which means the average person must burn two gallons of gas traveling back & forth to the nearest HazMat site, just to dispose of a light bulb!

I think it is time that we stop looking at the surface of something, and begin looking deeper into things. We need to start extrapolating into the future, by thinking, "If I do this now, what will be the probable effects later on. How will it affect other things?" (Bear in mind that ethanol has caused huge price increases in almost everything we eat and drink because it creates a shortage of corn, used to feed animals, from which we get meat, dairy etc. That means your cheese pizza is costing more. And milk is up to $5.00 per gallon!)

But be forewarned - the foolish (or dishonest) "greenies" won't like that sort of thinking. And they will argue with and dispute the facts. Frankly, they have bought into a lot of BS, and now refuse to back away. Good luck if you choose to try and sway them with the facts.

Chink in Obama's Armor

2008-02-28T12:28:00.001-08:00

Senator Barak Obama has once again mis-spoken, and has once again retreated into the "spin zone" in order to change the subject.

Obama stated that he would draw the troops out of Iraq, and send them back in if Al Queda were to return to Iraq. Senator McCain corrected him, stating that Al Queda is already in Iraq, which is true.

Obama's "spin" response was that Al Queda is only in Iraq because Bush and McCain brought them into Iraq. This was not the issue, and is dishonest on several levels. The issue, presented by Obama, himself, was the implication that Al Queda is no longer in Iraq - after all, how could they "return" if they never left?

First, we are not in Iraq due solely to Bush and McCain, as implied by Obama - even the vast majority of Democrats voted for going into Iraq.

Second, for someone claiming to be the "agent of change for the future", Obama seems to retreat into the past in order to cover his mis-steps. After all, the issue had nothing to do with how, why or when Al Queda came to Iraq. The issue was whether or not they are there now, as stated by McCain, or if they were already gone, as implied by Obama when he said he would send troops only upon "Al Queda's return to Iraq". "Return" implies they are not there at this time, and that is incorrect. McCain was simply trying to correct Obama's statement, since Obama is obviously ignorant of what is actually going on in Iraq.

Obama, thinking people know that you are an empty suit, with words as your only strength. We realize you know nothing of foreign policy, or what is really going on. We know you have no inkling about money and economics, because your numbers do not even come close to balancing. We know you are nothing but a gas-bag, albeit a charming one. You remind me of the Pied Piper, and if given the chance, you will lead all your lemmings to destruction.

We know these things because you have no experience. We know it because you have not accomplished anything substantive while in office. We know it because you still refuse to talk issues, and offer anything of substance. We know it because your financial numbers do not even clome close to balancing. So far, your entire campaign has been one of rhetoric. Like you, there has been no substance.

So, I challenge you, Obama! Get in front of the cameras and tell America exactly what solutions you offer. Be specific. Deal with the issues. And explain to us what the effects of your choices would be. Begin answering some of the hard questions, and not just the stupid, meaningless ones that the Oba-maniacs in the media have been tossing your way, such as whether or not you like Farrakhan.

Stand up, Obama. Tell us what is really in your heart. If you are going to propose 400 million in new government programs, show us, exactly, how those programs will be paid for. If you think government should rule the people rather than vice versa, tell us why.

Exactly what would you do about the illegal immigrants already here? How, exactly, would you fund free college for everyone? And what would be the effect if every child were to go to college, even though the number of jobs requiring college degrees are not increasing? What, exactly, would you do about "sanctuary cities" that laugh at and ignore the laws of this country? What type of person, exactly, would you appoint to the Supreme Court? Why, exactly, do you refuse to wear the American Flag lapel pin, and why, exactly, do you refuse to place your hand on your heart when the pledge of allegiance is recited?

If you want the votes of thinking people, Obama, then you must begin giving us something more substantive to think about. The fools, the blind and the lemmings will follow you simply because of your empty words. But thinking, educated people need more.

So, whatcha got, Obama? I'll bet you have nothing. Nothing but grand words of hope and change. I'll bet you have nothing more to offer except empty promises, grand lies and useless rhetoric.

Human Sacrifice in America

2008-02-27T20:45:00.000-08:00

Well, it had to happen. Another illegal immigrant has killed Americans because the "sanctuary mindset" of liberals allows illegals to hide in plain sight.

This woman, Olga Franco from Guatamala, hit a school bus, killing four innocent children. Over the last year, there have been several incidents similar to this.

My big beef is with the liberal "thinkers" (is that an oxymoron?) like Geraldo Rivera who keep harping that these situations (and deaths) are not an immigration issue - rather, they are issues of drunk driving, bad driving or criminal activity. They claim that such things happen even to Americans.

Of course they do. But that is not the point. The very simple and clear point is that deaths caused by illegal immigrants are PREVENTABLE. If we were to take a harder stance on illegal immigration, and if we were to prohibit "sanctuary cities", and deport illegals when discovered, and if we were to enforce the law, all those deaths could have been prevented. THAT is the issue.

Of course we cannot prevent all such deaths. But we most certainly can and should prevent those that are preventable. For people like Geraldo to minimalize the death of Americans by saying "We cannot prevent all deaths, so let's not prevent any" is not only absurd, but incredibly immoral.

Liberals need to understand that if even one death can be prevented by simply adhering to current laws, then that is what we must do. But, unfortunately, people like Geraldo believe that some unnecessary deaths are acceptable - perhaps even desired - in order to achieve their liberal agenda. They believe, apparently, in human sacrifice, not unlike the pagan sacrifices of tossing virgins into volcanoes to appease the Gods.

Of course, any thinking person already knows that liberals believe in human sacrifice - they condone deaths at the hands of illegals; they advocate strongly for abortion and partial birth abortion; and they even support euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. Liberals, of course, do not see it as human sacrifice, however. To them, it is simply a case of "the end justifies the means."

To me, it is a case of them having no respect for life, honesty or the law.

Electability???

2008-02-21T22:05:00.000-08:00

My point exactly! Republicans, for all their faults, tend to vote for the person they believe is best suited to the job that needs to be done. In fact, that is what most sane and reasonable people would do.

In watching the "Lunt Forum" after the Democratic debate on Thursdy evening, the Democrat voters in the room were asked why they would vote for one candidate or the other. Their general response was "electability."

It really makes one wonder how so many voters could be so blinded by partisan ignorance! Instead of wanting to vote for the best Democratic candidate suited to lead, and protect America, they feel it is more important to vote for the person who is most likely to beat the Republican candidate. So what if their candidate might be an inexperienced fool. Perhaps even downright dangerous and incompetent. As long as the candidate can beat the Republicans, that's all that counts!

How utterly stupid.

The way I see it, each and every American citizen of voting age should vote for the person who has the best leadership ability, has a good grasp of the problems at hand, and has solid, sound solutions to offer. And we should vote for that person regardless of whether he/she is Republican, Democrat, or Independent. Sure, belonging to a party is fine. But regardless of party, we are supposed to be electing the best leader available.

It does not matter one iota if he or she smiles better, orates better, dresses best, or can eat a taco without getting salsa on their shirt. And it does not matter what party they are affiliated with. All that matters - and all that should be seriously considered in the voting booth - is who is best qualified to do the job that faces America over the next four years.

Sometimes that may be a Republican. Sometimes it may be a Democrat. Right now, at this point in our history, we need a leader who understands the threats our nation is facing. Heaven forbid if Al Gore had been president on 9/11!

It does no good whatever to provide health care or jobs if we are dead, dying, or fighting for our very survival!

I would like to see a better health care system. And a better education system. But even more important, I would like our nation to get the murderous threat of terrorism behind us, first. Unless we do that, it may be a waste of time to do anything else. Dead people do not need doctors or schools.

Make no mistake about it - Islam has one objective (even the so-called "moderate Muslims"), and that is to rule the world. It says so in their Koran. Their prophet has told them to have as many children as possible, to overwhelm all others. He told them to go forth to other lands, and infiltrate every nation. He told them to use force, and murder, if necessary.

Look around, folks. That is exactly what is happening. They are spreading out in every nation. They are propagating like rabbits. Just look at that one Muslim woman in India who was in the news this week. At 120 years old, she has 11 children, 120 grandchildren, 250 great-grand children and 20 great-great grandchildren. For those who have basic math skills, that one Muslim woman is responsible for bringing forth 401 new Muslims.

And the "soldiers" among them - the jihadists - are killing anyone who stands against them. It has nothing to do with detente. And all the "nice" talk in the world will not deter them. Their objective is clear, and nothing anyone does will make them waiver from it. Total world domination, at whatever cost. And if liberals on the left want to hide their heads in the sand, or refuse to acknowledge that the threat is real, and cannot be stopped by peaceful means, then they deserve everything they get.

But my family deserves better! So I will vote for the candidate that will take the strong stand. Because weakness will only get us dead.

Clinton has said she wants to make nice with the enemy, and even protect them (she refused to vote for extending FISA, for example). And Obama is even worse - he wants to welcome them with a smile and open arms.

We would be safer if we elected Britney Spears!

Dangerous Presidential Candidates

2008-02-16T20:24:00.001-08:00

This is something that we, the people, need to stop and think about.

First, it is important that Americans know what our presidential candidates stand for. We have a RIGHT and an OBLIGATION to know where they stand on issues important to us. Of this there is no doubt.

But many presidential candidates use dishonesty to hide what they stand for, and refuse to offer any insight into where they stand, or in presenting solutions. But it's even worse than that.

Here is an example: this week, the Senate voted on important issues concerning terrorism, FISA and surveillence. Neither of the Democratic presidential candidates voted. And the insidiousness of this becomes apparent when you realize WHY they chose not to vote: had they voted for these things, they would lose the support of the far-left, and if they voted against them, they would lose the Independent and centrist voters. In other words, both Clinton and Obama chose not to vote for purely devious reasons - to hide from the voters the position they take on such issues. Yet, they ask people to vote for them, anyway. They want us to vote "blindly", without us knowing whether or not they will act on our behalf. They show they are more concerned with popularity and polls than they are with facing the tough issues and taking a stand, and doing the work of the people. It shows they are unwilling to do the current job we elected them to do, so why should we consider giving either of them an even higher position? They can't even handle the job of Senator, so they are obviously unfit to be President.

Can America really afford a President that refuses to take a stand? Or refuses to have core principles? Can we really afford a President that acts according to the most recent polls, rather than on principle?

If neither Clinton nor Obama are willing to stand up and vote for or against important issues, for fear of losing voter support, then they have no right to ask for any votes at all. They have no business running for any public office, let alone the most powerful office on Earth.

Their unwillingness to take a position on important issues only proves they are unworthy, and cannot be trusted.

I say we should toss those bums out on their ears - not only should we not give them our votes to be President, but we should not even re-elect them to any other office. They are either unwilling or unable to do the job. They were elected to vote on those issues. They chose not to, because they were afraid of losing support. Do we really want a President whose fear of losing popularity will affect their decisions?

I certainly do not! I would rather vote for someone who took an unfavorable stand than to vote for someone who was too weak and fearful to take any position at all.

The "Super-delegate" Farce

2008-02-12T09:27:00.000-08:00

The Democratic party, in its quest to subvert the election process and the Constitution, uses a dirty trick known as "Super Delegates". These delegates are not elected by the people, nor are they required to vote according to the will of the people. They are, instead, appointed by the Democratic Party leadership - the elites, not the folks - and may vote any way they please (or are instructed to by the leadership).

The Constitution goes to great lengths to detail precisely how the election process is to work, and nowhere does it mention, or allow for, such "super delegates".

These delegates are "set aside" by the Democratic party, to be called upon to choose the party nominee regardless of who the people may actually vote for. For example, if Obama gets more "regular" delegates than Hillary, and the party leadership prefers Hillary, the super delegates will be used to swing their weight behind Hillary, and make her the nominee, against the will of the people.

Super Delegates are illegal, since they are not given any such power by the Constitution. No party should be permitted to hijack the will of the people - or even be in a position to make that possible.

But then again, we are talking about the Democratic party - in my opinion they are the sneakiest, most dishonest, disingenuous bunch of liars and crooks to ever assemble. These are the same people who hijacked the Congress when it came time to vote on judicial nominees, rather than to allow a vote, as called for in the Constitution. These are the same people who appointed justices who subverted the Constitution to allow state and local governments to steal the property of citizens, and who find "hidden" rights in the Constitution that simply do not exist.

So why should it surprise anyone that the Democrats would hijack the election process?

Why The Economy Went South

2008-02-01T21:01:00.000-08:00

I am not so naive as to think any one factor is responsible for the economy being weakened. But I can say with certainty just exactly what the pivot point was - the one thing that started the pendulum swinging the other way. Are you ready? The increased minimum wage, courtesy of the only thing the Democrat Congress is solely responsible for.

How can that be? After all, aren't low income people getting more money to spend? Wouldn't that juice up the economy?

On the surface (which is the only way Democrats ever see anything), that would appear logical. But conservatives are a bit wiser and smarter - they tend to look below the surface.

Let's get one thing straight - every time we increase the minimum wage, we do great harm to the economy. Period. If you do not believe that, consider what really happens when the minimum wage is increased.

Let's start with where those extra funds for wages will come from. I certainly hope you are bright enough to realize the employer is not going to take it out of his own pocket. If he did, there would be no gain to the economy because for every dollar extra that low income workers now have to spend, the employer has one less to spend, so it would be a wash. More to the point, the employer is not going to jeopardize his own security by paying that money out of his own pocket, even if he could afford to. That leaves only one place where the money can come from - the employer must increase the prices of his products and services. In short - you, me and the low income person will have to pay more for our goods and services.

About the extra dollar per hour...

It does not benefit the low income family at all. Not one iota. Why? Because for every dollar extra that he gets paid, he must now pay an extra dollar for the higher priced goods and services, because the prices of products and services had to increase in order to pay the minimum wage.

But it gets worse. Now a spiral has been set in motion. With rising prices (caused by an increase in minimum wage), all other income earners are now suffering a loss. Their income did not go up, but the cost of living has gone up. In order to avoid losing ground, every other employee across the country must request a raise in pay, to cover the cost of living increase. And once again, where do you think all that raise money is going to come from? You guessed it - another increase in prices of products and services.

With this second round of price increases, the low income person is now spending more in higher prices than he is getting in increased wages, resulting in a net loss, causing more poverty.

Common sense and logic indicates that forced wage increases result in damage to the economy, higher prices, inflation, recession and more poverty - exactly the opposite effect that was desired.

And that is why conservatives oppose minimum wage increases.

And that is the precise moment that the economic pendulum began to swing the other way.

And that is why I can say with certainty that the economic momentum was stopped by the Democrats - again!

Berkeley vs the Marines

2008-02-01T14:00:00.000-08:00

Well, Berkeley, CA is at it again. By all their actions it is evident that the people of Berkeley are unpatriotic, anti-American anarchists. Now they are trying to drive Marine recruiters out of town - they want no part of the U.S. Military.

Hm-m-m. I know just what to do. It's simple, really.

First, I would remove all military personnel from Berkeley. Then I would make sure every citizen of Berkeley is made aware that no matter what happens, the federal government will never send any federal people - or money - into Berkeley. If they suffer wildfires, they can put them out alone. Mudslides? No federal help there, either. And if that overdue massive quake hits? Sorry, Berkeley - you are on your own.

And I would make sure they fully understand just how alone they are - even if terrorists were to attack in Berkeley, the military and federal government would sympathize - but would not interfere or lift a finger, because the military is not welcome in Berkeley.

And then I would make sure the entire world - even the terrorists - understands that Berkeley is no longer under the protection of the U.S. government, because the "will of the people of Berkeley" ousted the military.

And once the terrorists know they can hit a city of liberal acceptance of sin, and do so with impunity, it may not be long before we no longer have to worry about Berkeley, or the nutcases that live there. And other malcontents who would consider making the same unpatriotic move would have second thoughts...

Berkeley residents seem to be far too ignorant to understand one simple fact: the liberal ideas that Berkeley loves are precisely the same decadent things that Islam cannot condone, and wants to destroy. It seems most unwise for rabbits to party in front of the wolf's den, and actually believe that they can use diplomacy to keep the wolf at bay.

Not merely unwise, but downright stupid!

Oh - these nut jobs are Democrats, and want Hillary or Obama to become president. Think about that when YOU go into the voting booth.

Hillary Snubs Independents

2008-01-29T20:32:00.000-08:00

Surprise! Hillary Clinton's first words upon winning in Florida was "Thank you Florida Democrats".

Seems like she does not give any recognition to the many Independents who made her "win" possible.

Perhaps Independents in other states should take note.

Personally, I have no use for anyone, of either party, who is so self-serving, self-righteous and arrogant.

The Red Herring Economy

2008-01-28T16:19:00.000-08:00

Both the Republican and Democrat presidential candidates are beathing a huge sigh of relief now that the economy seems to be in trouble. It's the best thing that could have happened for them. Why?

Because they really, really needed a "red herring" issue to take the discussion away from the more important, and more difficult issues, like immigration.

The last thing presidential candidates on either side of the aisle want is to have to talk about immigration. That's because the political elites of both parties are so far out of sync with "normal" Americans. Most Americans - over 80% - want to control the border and not provide amnesty of any kind. But the politicians, thinking they know better, want amnesty. They do not want to control the border.

Any issue that moves the discussion away from immigration, Social (in)Security reform or any number of other political thorns is a blessing to both parties.

It is my opinion that no candidate should be allowed to base their campaign on one issue, while putting the others on the back burner, hoping voters will not notice. Every candidate needs to thoroughly address each of the important issues. And they need to provide details on excatly how they would deal with each.

Any candidate that cannot, or will not do that will certainly NOT get my vote.

And as a special note to John McCain, I put more stock in your past voting record than I do in your empty promises for the future. You have been in Congress for generations, and you have a long history of siding with liberals on important issues. That is not the sort of thing that can be buried by rhetoric and hype - a leopard does not change his spots overnight. If you were to get elected, you would quickly forget your promises and push your own, liberal agenda, just as you always have.

McCain - Democrat in Republican Clothing

2008-01-28T11:28:00.000-08:00

It is with great despair that I see McCain making such a strong showing in the polls. And I know it is only because, like the Democrats, he is willing to tell any lies that are necessary to con the folks into voting for him.

Although he voted AGAINST the Bush tax cuts, he now says he is for them. And while he said he would vote AGAINST making them permanent, he now says he would make them permanent. Although he voted to provide amnesty to 20 million illegals, he now says he would build a fence - but he STILL is not saying he would oppose amnesty - he still wants that.

McCain is always aligning himself with the most liberal Democrats in Congress. No Democrats are more liberal than Teddy "drown them and run" Kennedy, or Russ "surrender as fast as possible" Feingold.

The McCain/Feingold act was a travesty perpetrated against the First Amenment, and has caused serious problems in campaign financing.

The propoed McCain/Kennedy bill would have granted amnesty to 20 million people who broke our laws - even those who are murderers and rapists.

In the past, when McCain ran for President, Rpublicans could easily see him for the liberal Democrat he is. This time around, McCain has decided that, to win, he must be much sneakier. He must not run on his record, but rather on promises of what he will stand for in the future.

Hype and BS, frankly. McCain is a liberal Democrat who calls himself a Republican just so he can appeal to the larger base (most people are conservative by nature). He is a con-artist of the highest order - right up there with Murtha, as far as I am concerned.

McCain will say anything to get elected. But the TRUTH is that he does NOT understand the economics of capitalism, he does NOT understand the flaws in his immigration bill, he does NOT understand what "the people" want, and he does NOT understand what a Republican is.

Typical liberal Democrat. And any Republican who would vote for him should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for allowing him to fool them so easily.

If McCain is nominated, I doubt he will win the Presidency, because true conservatives - about half the Republican party - would probably rather stay home than vote for him.

Crime and Non-Punishment

2008-01-24T09:31:00.000-08:00

I'm sure I am not the only one to notice that our judicial system is badly broken. It is geared toward protecting criminals while penalizing innocent victims.

The Bill of Rights guarantees us the right to be protected from illegal search and seizure. No problem - that is a good amendment, to be sure. The problem I have lies in how lawmakers and the courts have usurped and corroded it.

Nowhere in the amendment does it say that a proven criminal should go free, to wreak more havoc on innocent people, just because of a typographical error on a search warrant. Nowhere does it say that a guilty person should ever get a "get out of jail free" card simply because someone did not cross all the T's.

But that is exactly what happens. It seems the courts - more interested in protecting the rights of criminals - have arbitrarily decided that an illegal search should result in the criminal being set free - rewarded for being guilty.

That is bad law. VERY bad law! Two wrongs do not make a right!

In a sane world, the guilty party, being guilty, would still be punished, but he would have company - the person who made the error and violated his rights. This is a simple case that there are two crimes here - the crime that the criminal committed, and the crime that was then committed against him by violating his rights. Two crimes should result in two punishments.

Instead, our legal system says that two crimes should result in NO punishment. The criminal goes free, and the people who violated his rights are not held accountable, either.

Is it any wonder we have so much crime? And so much disrespect for the legal system?

We, the People, need to stand up and demand that crimes be punished, regardless of technicalities. And if a criminal's rights are violated, the violator should be held accountable, as well. But to actually reward a criminal just because a law official makes an error is absolutely unconscionable.

Yes, we are to be protected from illegal search and seizure. But that in no way erases our liability when we commit a crime.

Snow Day Tirade

2008-01-24T05:58:00.000-08:00

In Virginia, a middle school child called the school superintendent and left a nasty message on the man's machine because the man had not called a "snow day".

The man's wife then called the child back and gave him Hell for what he did.

The child then posted the woman's tirade on the Internet, where people soon began berating the woman.

But I think there seems to be a loss of perspective here, and I think people are being conned by that kid.

First, he did not post his OWN message on the Internet - you know, the one where the little SOB went on a tirade of his own, and showing incredible disrespect for authority.

I can tell you a couple of things about this situation. First, the kid was WAY out of line. He had no business questioning the authority or decision of the superintendent. Second, the kids' parents are to blame, for not raising their brat to have any respect. And raising a kid that thinks "it's all about me." A selfish, self-righteous, disrespectful little brat who would benefit from some strict discipline.

And the woman was correct - the little brat was way out of line.

And if my child had ever done something like that, I would have grounded him for a week for making the call, and I would have grounded him for two months for posting his one-sided propaganda on the Internet.

I have raised three children. I raised them to be respectful, honest, and to have integrity. I never had to spank any of them, and only grounded one of them once. And every one of them grew up to be fine young men and women to be proud of.

But I can guarantee that the brat who is responsible for this stupidity over a snow day will grow up to be a loud-mouthed, bigoted, self-righteous ass that no one except Michael Moore could be proud of. This kid, and his parents, are what is wrong with the world today.

Martin Luther King Jr

2008-01-21T21:39:00.001-08:00

I am old enough to remember Dr. King. And I can state with a fair degree of certainty that if he were alive today, he would be a Republican.

Why? It's simple - being a wise and intelligent person, he would realize that Democrats are purposely keeping black Americans down, in a type of economic slavery. It is Democrats that create the entitlements, and try to insure that those in poverty should forever remain in poverty.

He would also note that the Republican Welfare Reform Act was the second single greatest act in history to empower black Americans. Because of that, the percentage of blacks to increase income, and the percentage of blacks to open their own businesses has snowballed.

Dr. King would understand that while the Democrats are all too willing to give a hungry man a fish, the Republicans would rather teach him how to fish, thereby empowering him.

And Dr. King just might notice that it is Republicans, not Democrats, who have appointed black Americans into some of the highest positions in the land.

And Dr. King would be a Republican today.

Confederate Flag Debate

2008-01-18T21:13:00.000-08:00

This is really an absurdity!

Why does anyone debate whether or not the Confederate Flag should fly?

Sure, I understand that it represents a reprehensible part of our history. But that is exactly the point.

We need to be reminded of the bad part of our history every bit as much as the good part. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Since no one alive today was present during the Civil War, we NEED reminders.

Those who object to the flag are myopic, bigoted, narrow-minded people who strive to cause a rift where none exists. They are divisionists.

The Confederate Flag represents a tough period in our history. But it is only a piece of cloth, and it is a necessary reminder, lest we forget what so many Americans died for. It is not just a symbol of the Confederacy. It is a symbol of how far our country went to abolish slavery. Had there been no Civil War, we might still have slavery today.

When I see the Stars and Bars, I see something that points out that there will always be differences among people, and in most cases, good wins out over evil. When I see that flag, I see an America that fought to abolish the slavery it stood for. It reminds me that the battle between good and evil is never over.

Sure, we could outlaw all symbols of "bad" history - the Confederate flag, the swastika etc., but if we were to do that, new generations would have no knowledge of the evil, and we would be doomed to make the same mistakes all over again.

Those narrow-minded divisionists need to get a life! They need to understand that the flag is not the problem - THEY are the problem! What we do NOT need are those who would purposely divide people, the same way that the Confederate flag once divided people.

The flag is harmless. But the people who make it an issue are not - they are dangerous!

More on Taxes

2008-01-18T11:22:00.000-08:00

As you know, the Democrats have a love affair with taxes - they just cannot get enough. That is because the Democratic party is socialistic in nature, and they believe that virtually all income should go to the government, and the government should supply everything the people need. Of course, history proves that socialism does not work, but that does not stop the Democrats.

But here is an eye-opener on taxes - something that Democrats do not want you to notice. And it explains how and why even one more penny of taxes is devastating.

Let's say you earn $100. The IRS takes 20%, leaving you with $80 to put into the economy. And you do just that - you pay that $80 to your accountant, which has now made $80. The IRS taxes him 20%, leaving him with just $64. Like a good capitalist, he spends that $64. The person who gets it has earned $64, and the IRS takes 20%, leaving only $51.20 to put back into the economy.

As you can see, it will not be long before the government has all the money, and there is nothing left to put back into the economy.

That is the "Law of diminishing returns" in action.

So, why is there still money? Because the government spends it. Instead of the PEOPLE putting it back into the economy, the government does that. Unfortunately, the government is wasteful, and there are always "administration costs". So, we, the People, do not get our money's worth, as we would if we were the ones to be spending it.

So, what would work best, and still allow for a reduction of taxes?

The very first thing that we, the People, should insist upon is that everything that can be taken care of at a lower level should, indeed, be handled at that lower level. In other words, we should first try to handle things at the family level. If too big for that, it should then be passed to the community or church. If too big for them, then it goes to the county level, and bigger jobs to the state. The ONLY jobs the government should be handling are those very few that are just too big and complex to be handled at any other level. Like national defense, or the Postal Service.

By removing so much of the burden from Uncle Sam, he will no longer need as much money. This leaves each of us with more money (and more responsibility).

We need to stop being lazy and irresponsible. We need to stop passing our responsibilities off onto the schools, the states and the federal government.

The People are supposed to be in control - remember "Of the People, By the People, For the People"? But we cannot be in control if we keep passing our responsibilities onto government, which, in turn, forces them to tax us more, and waste more.

If you want to take back your country; if you want to regain your freedoms; if you want to keep more money in your pockets; then you must stand up and take responsibility. Contact your representatives and let them know this is how you feel, and if they want your vote, they need to make changes. If enough voters were to do that, Congress would have little choice but to put things right.

The Danger of The Democrat Platform

2008-01-16T21:50:00.001-08:00

It's high time someone told it the way it really is, without all the spin and hype.

Democrats profess to stand for certain things. Let's take a closer look:

1) Universal Health Care. Exceedingly expensive, made more so because government involvement, by law, will require administrative costs to be added. And, since the government's only source of income is taxes, the burden will be passed to all Americans, making them poorer, and more dependent upon the government

2) They want to "fight poverty", so they say. But the reverse is true. See #1 above - higher taxes equals less money in your pocket. Period. The Democrats fight to KEEP people poor, because it keeps them dependent (see #5 below). And if a person depends on you, they will vote for you, to keep the entitlements coming. Democrats NEED to keep people poor, and need to increase poverty.

3) They say they are "for the children." Again, the reverse is true. They use children. They exploit children (watch them parade kids in front of Congress and the press in order to push their agenda - you'll never see a Republican do that). Democrats are all for abortion, any time, any place, any reason - just how does that "protect" the children? They are killing them! And EVERY judge who has set child molesters free has been a Democrat. And every legislator that fought AGAINST Jessica's law has been a Democrat. Is that how they protect the children? If so, keep them away from my kids!

4) Democrats cannot get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan fast enough. That is true. But it is also dangerous. Every time we lose a war, we lose power, credibility, and we set ourselves up for more attacks because our enemies view retreat for what it is - weakness! And as much as I would like this to be a perfect world, it is not. In this world, the strong survive and the weak die. No matter how "civilized" some of us may become, life on this planet will ALWAYS be a case of survival of the fittest. So, it matters not at this point whether we should have gone to war. What matters now is that we win, because the alternative will create a more dangerous world for every American.

5) Democrats want to tax the rich even more. The problem lies in the simple fact that the poor do not add much to the GDP, nor do they hire a lot of employees. It is the wealthy who hire people, pay them, produce goods and keep the economy humming well enough so that most other Americans can live reasonably well. Take more money from the rich, and you reduce the capital for hiring and producing. This causes layoffs, reduced health care benefits etc. As a business owner myself, every time my taxes go up, I am forced to make cuts in the workforce, or buying equipment for producing the goods that Americans want and need. When my taxes go down, I can hire more people, and produce more. It cannot get any simpler than that. Why can't Democrats understand that?

6) Democrats want more entitlements. While it is nice to get "freebies", the problem lies in the simple fact that a) it raises taxes, and lowers our income, b) it makes us more dependent upon government, which reduces our freedoms, and c) it becomes a tool for generating votes (see #2 above). Not many people will bite the hand that feeds them. And that leads to tryanny of the worst kind. It is why blacks and latinos tend to be poorer, yet vote Democrat. Think about it - if a person depends on entitlements, that person becomes the slave to the master who hands out the entitlements. Like a whipped dog, waiting for his master to put a few morsels in his dish.

At this point, allow me to interject some insight. Whenever people are placed in such a position, they have little left to lose, and little self-respect. Is it any wonder that our prisons are full of people who come from such a background? They are not criminals because they are black, hispanic or because they are poor. They are criminals because liberal Democrats have robbed them of their dignity, self-respect and independence, and there is nothing left. Why not sell drugs? Why not steal? Why not join gangs?

7) Democrats want open borders and amnesty. And while it sounds good that America welcomes everyone, there are realities that the Democrats either refuse to acknowledge, or are simply ignorant of them. For one thing, America's resources are not without end - the more people who demand them, the less there is to go around, creating more poverty. And open borders would cause billions of people to come here, since America is the nation of opportunity that so many others want to come to. If you think housing is expensive now, imagine the cost when our population doubles (and demand doubles). And there are other limitations - we already do not have enough energy to go around. We do not have enough spaces in school or college classrooms for all students who want to attend. Environmentalists will not allow us to develop many areas, so resource availability will dwindle and evaporate. Unemployment would soar, as the population grows much faster than jobs. And imagine twice as many cars on the highways...the list goes on.

What I find really strange is the sheer hypocrisy of the liberals. For example, on the one hand they want to open America's doors for everyone. Yet it is those very same liberals who passed laws in most states that require communities to restrict growth. Here in Maine, only a certain number of building permits for new homes can be issued each year in a community. Even if you buy a piece a land, you may never be able to build your home on it, unless you "win" the permit lottery. Still, those liberals want us to let everyone come here. Where will they live? As I write this, my own community is passing zoning that would prohibit building on any piece of land less than 3.5 acres. Where would millions upon millions of immigrants live, when the liberals who invite them here will not allow them to build a place to live?

There is no doubt that the liberal, Democrat agenda is dangerous to America. And it becomes even more sinister because they are so adept at brainwashing uneducated, poorer people into believing that they will make life better and easier for them. Vote Democrat, and keep the food stamps and rent vouchers coming. Only now we can add health care, and other entitlements, to suck even more people into the insidious liberal web.

On the other hand, Republicans believe in empowering the people. Make them less dependent. Make them stronger. Help them to help themselves, and prosper.

The long and the short of it:

Democrats believe in giving a hungry person a fish. And when he is hungry again, they will allow him to come back tomorrow and beg for another fish.

A Republican would rather teach the hungry person HOW to fish, so he can continue feeding himself forever, with dignity, and without begging.

And when the day comes when the government coffers are empty, the people that depend upon government will perish. But those who were taught how to fish will survive.

You see, it really is this simple - Democrats know that weak, poor, dependent people keep Democrats in office for the short term. Republicans know that strong, independent people make a strong, free nation for the long term.

If you doubt this, ask yourself: how many poor, entitlement-dependent people ever got ahead? How many are in Congress? How many have ever been elected President? How many ever get to go to Harvard?

And then ask "Why?" It is not the Republicans who are holding them down, or imprisoning them with entitlements. Every entitlement is a chain that keeps a man bound to his master.

Don't believe it? If you have a job, and it provides good benefits that you and your family depend upon, just how often will you say "No" to your boss? Just how much would you grovel to keep your job? Be honest - no one is watching.

Except God.

The CFL Farce

2008-01-14T14:12:00.000-08:00

So, the "greenies" want to mandate that we all use ONLY the CFL lights - flourescents.
They tell us that they are "better" for the environment.

So, being the person I am, I always have to ask "What are they NOT telling us?"

Well, they don't tell us that flourescent lights require mercury - a very toxic substance. And when asked about this, they say, "It's minimal." But not so minimal that the government requires they be disposed of as hazardous waste, and not simply tossed out.

OK, so let's assume there is a "minimal" amount of toxic mercury in a flourescent bulb. My next question is, "How minimal is it?" when, by mandate, hundreds of millions of these flourescents will soon be in use. Multiply even a "minimal" amount by hundreds of millions and I somehow do not think it is minimal anymore. So, upon disposing of them, how "minimal" will be the environmental impact of all that mercury.

And that is only the first set of questions. What about these facts:

1) Each CFL bulb uses about 10 times as much glass as an incandescent bulb. Multiply all that extra glass - and the cost to produce it, and the pollution created to produce it - by hundreds of millions of bulbs. Do you REALLY believe the environmental impact is still minimal?

2) If these hundreds of millions of bulbs will have to be disposed of as toxic waste, what is the cost of such disposal? Very few communities have accommodations for disposing of hazardous waste. So, you must either travel a considerable distance each time you blow a bulb (and use a lot of gas and oil) to dispose of them, or pay someone $15 plus shipping to dispose of them for you.

All in all, perhaps it is time for someone who is not pushing a liberal agenda to figure out EXACTLY what is the environmental impact of hundreds of millions of these bulbs, compared to incandescent bulbs - adding up the additional production costs, additional disposal costs, and the huge amount of mercury that must be dealt with - and the cost incurred in doing so.

And all for a bulb that produces a very inferior kind of lighting. Reminds me of the "ethanol" farce, where is costs 1.7 times as much to produce ethanol as petrol, and uses even more fossil fuels in the production of ethanol than if the fossil fuels, themselves, were used. And all so we can now pay $5 per gallon for milk, and a lot more for beef, chicken, eggs, cheeses, pizza, ice cream and anything else that relies on dairy (which relies on the corn, now made so expensive because it is being used to make the stupid ethanol).

Just another mindless scheme by liberals who simply cannot see past their noses. It doesn't matter to them if it does not make sense. Does not matter to them if it is counter-productive, or even if it does not do what it is supposed to do. All they care about is that it's DIFFERENT, and they WANT it that way. Liberals want change for the sake of change, and not for the sake of improving anything.

Of course, money helps! Liberals make a lot of money selling bogus carbon offsets, toxic light bulb disposal services etc.

Suggestion: before buying into any liberal hype, take a moment to think things through. Ask what they are NOT telling you. Figure out what the end result will be, down the road. Whether it's CFL's, ethanol, global warming or health care - ASK MORE QUESTIONS!

Sure, health care for everyone SOUNDS good. But think about it - just exactly WHERE do you think the government will get all the money that such a massively expensive plan will cost? remember, the government has only ONE source of income - TAXES. And WE pay those taxes. So, the health care is not free, nor inexpensive, since by involving the government, the administration costs will be huge.

So, instead of paying $1.00 for a dollar's worth of health care, we will now pay $2.00 for that dollar's worth of health care.

Dumb! There are better ways, cheaper ways, more effective ways of dealing with problems. Involving the government in ANY of them is just asking to be ripped off, cheated, short-changed and dependent.

But that is the liberal, Democrat way - pay all your money to the government, and they will take care of you, cradle to grave. Of course, that means giving up your independence, which means you no longer are a free people. Instead of being "Of the People, By the People, For the People", it would be "Of the Government, By the Government, For the Government", making all of us nothing more than subjects, rather than citizens.

So, enjoy your wasteful ethanol. Enjoy the higher prices. Enjoy the higher taxes. Enjoy all the mercury. Enjoy the bastardized health care. And remember fondly of the days when being an American meant you were free, independent, and in charge. Because those days will be gone forever.

Global Warming???

2008-01-12T21:37:00.000-08:00

Well, I have done even more research concerning Al Gore's bogus assertions concerning global warming - while I do not necfessarily doubt that the climate changes, I seriously doubt that Al Gore knows what he is talking about.

So, for those of you who are not yet ready to follow Chicken Little in his belief that the sky is falling - at least, not without more evidence - here are a few facts that have surfaced, that Al Gore has "conveniently" left out of his "Inconvenient Truth":

1) According to NASA, the five warmest years ever recorded on Earth all occured before World War II (before 1940)

2) The hottest temperatures ever recorded on the face of the Earth were between 1913 and 1922. The temperature reached 134 degrees in California in 1913, in 1917 it reached 120 degrees for 43 consecutive days, and in 1922, in Libya, the temperature reached the current record high of 136 degrees. Of course, the industrial revolution had hardly started, and Man's "carbon footprint" was minimal. Until we begin seeing such temps again, I am not going to be too quick to worry about global warming.

3) The COLDEST temperature ever recorded on planet Earth occured in 1983, reaching -129 degrees in Antarctica

4) The most snowfall ever to fall on Earth occured in the winter of 1998-1999, in the state of Washington - a whopping 95 feet on Mount Baker!

5) The polar ice cap at the South Pole is getting thicker each year

6) The average mean temperature on Earth was warmer - for DECADES - in the 1300's than it is now - perhaps Al Gore can blame that on all the cows and sheep passing gas.

7) While there are no SUV's on Neptune or the other planets, astronomers tell us that the average temperature at Neptune's South Pole has risen an average of 18 degrees over the last 40 years, with similar increases on at least three other planets. This would seem to indicate a NATURAL, cyclical occurrence, rather than anything caused by Mankind. In short, it appears that the Sun may be running a little hot lately - as it has, periodically, ever since the solar system began. The heat of the Sun does not remain constant.

8) While there may (or may not) be more "scientists" who agree about global warming, the majority of scientists in the field of climatology and weather tend to disagree - and THEY are the experts.

9) Many of the scientists who originally believed in global warming have since changed their position, now that more facts have come to light. Changing one's position when new facts arise is a sign of intelligence. Unfortunately, most of the sheep who blindly follow Al Gore, the Chicken Little of the modern age, are not that intelligent - they refuse to allow facts to change their beliefs.

Frankly, I feel quite secure in making the following statements:

1) The Earth may be warming, but it is not caused by Man, nor can Man stop it

2) The warming is cyclical, natural and temporary

3) Al Gore has no clue - he is pushing the Global Warming farce for political and financial gain

4) The people who mindlessly follow the global warming scam, without ever being intelligent enough to actually research the facts for themselves, deserve to be fleeced, as do all sheep

5) Whenever any spinster makes a disingenouos statement such as "most scientists agree", understand what they are NOT saying - they are not saying "experts in the field of climatology". Many of those "scientists" they are quoting are NOT experts in climate - a herpetologist (who studies snakes), is a "scientist" that may agree there is global warming. But what does a snake-charmer know? So, always ask for clarification - don't buy "facts" that have no real bearing on the issue at hand.

6) Throughout history, "everyone" has been wrong more often than they have been right. Just because "everyone" believes we are responsible for global warming does not make it so. To offer examples:

a) "Everyone" once thought the world was flat

b) "Everyone" once thought the Sun revolved around the Earth

c) "Everyone" once believed there were witches

d) "Everyone" once thought "bleeding" a person would heal him

e) "Everyone" once thought Man would never fly

f) "Everyone" once thought Man would never walk on the moon

g) "Everyone" once believed in the Sun God

i) Until last year, "Everyone" believed Pluto was a planet (it has since been proven to not be a planet)

j) Until 1853, "everyone" thought the gorilla was a myth

k) Until 1963, "everyone" believed the coelocanth had been extinct for millions of years - until a fisherman caught one

l) Until the Japanese caught one on film last year, "everyone" thought the "giant squid" was science fiction

m) And, in the 1970's - just 30 years ago - the same scientists who are now crying "global warming" were claiming that we were entering a new "Ice Age". Even Newsweek printed stories on it. And "everyone" believed it.

Just because "everyone" believes something, that does not make it so. In fact, history indicates that if "everyone" believes something, there is a 63% chance that it is NOT true, because "everyone" has been wrong 63% of the time.

All I am saying is that a WISE person will, at the very least, keep an open mind, and not simply believe something just because "everyone else" says so.

But the real question remains: if global warming is not what Gore, scientists and the UN say it is, why are they saying it?

The reasons are far more sinister than global warming - and more dangerous. While scientists push it for money, because they make their living from research grants (which are NOT given unless the scientists make a strong case for their research), Al Gore and the UN push if for a very dark reason - globalization, which the liberals and the UN have been pushing for decades.

By coming up with a "global" problem of massive proportions, they can literally force people to give up their rights, their freedoms and their sovereignty, all for the "global good". The UN can impose their will on free people, and reduce us to "subjects of the Earth" rather than citizens of our free nation.

The UN is made up of nations which, by themselves, have no power. They are small, and America poses a threat to them by virtue of our strength. They have on goal - to minimalize America. Reduce its strength and power. And the best way to do that is by using fear of a pending "global" disaster.

Al Gore never made any secret of his yearning for a One World nation. But in order to create it, America must give up its Constitution, its freedoms, and its sovereignty. There would be no "America". There would only be the New World Order, spoken so highly of by the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, the Rockefellers, Kennedys and other liberal elitists who hate everything America stands for (Bill Clinton tried very hard to decimate our intelligence agencies and military, and even wrote that he hated the military). To this date, liberal Democrats are trying to minimalize our military.

Global Warming: it is more than just a farce. It is a sinister part of a larger plan to minimalize America and decimate its strength. As far as I am concerned, those who promote golbal warming are traitors, and those who follow them are mindless zygots.

The Fallacy of Ethanal

2008-01-07T20:14:00.000-08:00

There have been a number of people who have been trying to convince us that ethanol is a viable source of energy. But is there any truth in what they claim?

According to David Pimental (agricultural expert, Cornell University) it would take 11 acres of farmland to grow enough corn to make enough ethanol to run the average U.S. automobile for one year, if blended with gasoline, as it now is. This is equal to the amount of farmland required to feed seven people for one year. More important, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol, while one gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. This means it takes 70 percent more energy to produce ethanol than the energy that is actually in the ethanol.

Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs. In other words, production of ethanol creates a substantial LOSS of energy, making ethanol production unsustainable. An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels. But even more important is the fact that we cannot replace the fossil fuel with ethanol, because ethanol is so much more expensive than fossil fuels when you add the costs of converting the corn into ethanol.

The growers and processors can’t afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn’t afford it, either, if it weren’t for government subsidies to artificially lower the price. Now, here is something the ethanol crowd won't tell you. Corn is a "heavy feeder" - it requires more fertilizer, more nitrogren and phosphorous than most other crops, erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn uses up groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water.

In short, corn is not a sustainable energy source, especially in the amount that would be required. And then we must consider costs to consumers. Using all the corn necessary to make a difference results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States. Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices. Your food costs would increase significantly. And if a drought occurs, food for human consumption could disappear. And, to make matters worse, the U.S. Census states the world population is expected to double over the next 40 years. With food resources already strained, can we really afford to turn food into fuel?

If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States. I would like to see America become self-sufficient insofar as energy is concerned. But before we jump onto any bandwagon, we really need to look at the bigger picture, and ask ourselves what the ultimate cost would be. What are the long term effects? Is it sustainable? Does it cost more to make than what you get? What are the dangers?

I just hope we do not run out of time before we find answers.

Pandemic

2008-01-07T12:05:00.000-08:00

This post covers an unusual topic, but I would feel remiss if I did not try to express an appropriate level of concern, and offer some thoughts on it.

Pandemics are a natural occurrence - they are one of nature's methods of "cleansing".

In 1918, the world suffered a pandemic - the Spanish Flu - which is estimated to have killed over 50 million people in just 18 months. If the world were to suffer another pathogen of that same level of deadliness, the loss of life could easily be upwards of 100 million people - partly because the population is so much greater today, and partly because modern air travel would help it to spread much faster, and further.

Most people fool themselves into thinking it cannot happen in this "day and age." But as even the CDC states, it WILL happen. The only real question is when, and how bad will it get.

You see, a vaccine cannot even begin to be created until the disease actually hits. We can then use the pathogen, itself, to create a vaccine. This stage - creating a vaccine - takes 2-3 months. It takes another 3-6 months to produce and distribute enough vaccine to protect only 10% of the population. By this time, the pandemic has already done much of its damage, since any flu can go worldwide within a few short weeks - or even days, under the right conditions.

We know a pandemic will occur. What we do not know is exactly what the pathogen will be, nor how bad it will get. But rest assured it will be very, very bad, if only by virtue of our congested populations and the frequency of air travel.

So the issue at hand is: what can a wise person do to help insure survival of his or her family?

While there are no guarantees, there certainly are steps that can be taken that will dramatically reduce your risk of contamination. Everyone should take these simple steps now, and be prepared, even if you do not think there is any danger. Remember: the wise person hopes for the best, but prepares for the worst. It is time to prepare.

Steps anyone can and should take:

1) Stock up on some N95 face masks. 100+ per family should be sufficient, because going out in public should be extremely limited during a pandemic

2) Stock up on nitrile gloves (like latex, but will not produce any allergy). If you do not know the proper way to remove them without contaminating yourself, ask a nurse to show you how.

3) Stock up on a supply of MRE's and non-perishable foods - preferably enough for your family for at least 6 months (preferably a year).

4) Stock up on hydrogen peroxide

5) Optional, if you can afford it: a propane generator with a large torpedo tank, to produce emergency electricity. In a pandemic, fuel will not be getting delivered to homes or gas stations.

6) Optional, in cold climates: a wood stove, with a supply of wood. If power fails, you will not freeze, nor be forced into shelters where infected people might be encountered.

At first sign of a deadly disease hitting the US, buy up as much non-perishable foods as possible, before panic sets in. Quarantine your family, at least for a week or so, to determine if the disease is a threat that is spreading

Do not permit anything into the home that has had human contact, including mail, unless it is handled and treated properly (use gloves, hydrogen peroxide etc.)

Burn mail after reading it, if possible. Otherwise, try to disinfect it with an anti-VIRAL (not antibiotic). Food packaging, if brought in: pour contents into other containers and burn the packaging.

If you must shop, choose off hours, such as late night or early morning, and wear mask and gloves. Do NOT allow anyone to touch or contact anything you will be bringing home - do not accept change, and do not allow anyone to swipe your card for you. As soon as you can, wipe your card with peroxide after swiping it.

In other words, take precautions.

Note, too, that most people may suffer a loss of income during a pandemic, so if you have savings, you will be better off.

But the essentials are simple: masks, gloves, hydrogen peroxide (anti-viral) and food stores.

One last note: it takes about two days to feel symptoms after becoming infected. So do not assume that you are safe just because no one in your area has symptoms. If you wait until your neighbors get sick, it is too late - you have probably already been infected. That is why I say - first case in the US, quarantine your family for at least a week, to see what transpires.

I sincerely hope this post reaches a lot of ears, and that those ears are resident on wise people.

Learning From Iowa

2008-01-04T14:36:00.000-08:00

Well, the caucus in Iowa is now history. And while most pundits are now concentrating on New Hampshire's primary, I am thinking about what we might learn from Iowa.

The first thing we learned is that the far left liberals tried every deceptive trick in the book to convince people that Ron Paul was in the lead - WAY in the lead. Not only in Iowa, but in 45 states (which, of course, is completely bogus). Their purpose, of course, is to undermine the Republican primary process by artificially inflating Paul's numbers. I point, as a prime example, to the AOL "straw poll" that has shown Ron Paul well in the lead for the last two weeks - right up until the results came in.

Another thing we learned is that Hillary Clinton is not the "shoe-in" that many Democrats believed. She obviously is not the automatic pretender to the throne - though a pretender she is.

And we learned that a large number of voters actually support a solid Christian ethic in our government.

But most important, we learned that, in Iowa at least, the people want things to change in Washington.

And therein lies an enigma. Yes, they want change. But not just any change. They want more honesty, more integrity and more leadership. If they get those things, the people realize that all the rest - Iraq, health care, social security, taxes - will all fall into place.

Rather than focusing on issues, the people are focusing on character and leadership. The contenders should pay heed!

Of course, there are those pundits who will say that the vote for "change" is specific to the heartland, and that the more "elitist" places like New York and LA may have different ideas. And, to some extent, that is true. But even in those places the people want meaningful change. The difference, of course, is that middle America is grounded and the elitists are not. While middle, mainstream America seeks change in the quality of Washington, elitists have been brainwashed into believing the only change that is necessary is a change in party.

And that will cause a problem in '08. In many elitist areas, people will vote for a "shallow" and meaningless change, by voting for Hillary or Obama, while grounded Americans will vote for real change in the form of integrity and leadership.

Most of us know that leadership and integrity should win out. The problem, however, lies in the simple fact that a great number of people are so clouded by partisan hatred that they would rather vote for the Devil, himself, than to vote for a Republican - even if their futures depended upon it.

And that is sad. The American people deserve the best leaders we can get - and it should be of small consideration as to what party they belong to.

We should all strive to forget party for a moment, and think about the realities of the candidates' leadership ability. Hillary claims that ability, but the facts, and her record, actually show otherwise. And Obama is so incredibly inexperienced - in today's world, that is not what we need in a leader. Ron Paul is a nut. Giuliani is a Democrat in Republican clothing, which shows an inherent dishonesty. McCain is too liberal on important issues, such as immigration. And Romney - well, it's hard to pin him down, which also is not a good sign of leadership.

That leaves three true contenders, if meaningful change is what you want. But only two are running, with only one a serious contender.

Newt Gingrich is a strong, thoughtful man with proven leadership ability. He is probably the best man for the job facing us in the years ahead. But he is not running. Duncan Hunter is nearly ideal, but he is not a serious contender because the financing is not behind him - it's hard to raise money when you refuse to become a puppet of special interests.

That leaves Mike Huckabee. He has integrity, and the ability to lead. And his funding comes from the people, not special interests. His message is strong and clear, since it got through even though he could not compete with the others on a dollar-for-dollar campaign. In other words, any candidate who can make such a great showing, without having the money behind him to get the word out, is obviously a man with the right message.

Now we have to wait and see if the majority of America is willing to vote for real change, and not empty political promises.

Charlie Wilson's War

2008-01-01T19:15:00.000-08:00

If you have not yet seen this movie, you have likely seen the commercials promoting it. But whether you have seen it or not, or intend to, there are a few things you may want to take note of.

First, the movie, though BASED on true events, is a work of fiction. Congressman Charlie Wilson did play a critical part in getting congress to approve funds to support the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, so they could fight the Soviet Army. The idea, of course, was to keep the Soviets so embroiled in an unwinnable war, using up their resources, so they would not be able to grow stronger in the Cold War. The war in Afghanistan was seriously depleting the Soviet strength.

The effect, which was far greater than Charlie Wilson ever dared dream, was that eventually the Soviet Union collapsed under continual fire from Ronald Reagan, with the Soviets having been weakened in Afghanistan. So, while it may be true that Charlie Wilson helped in defeating the Soviets, he was only one part that contributed to their demise. It is very likely that the Soviet Union would still have floundered in Afghanistan, and would still have collapsed even without American funding.

But here is what the movie does not really tell. Osama bin Laden was one of the leaders of the Mujahideen. He used the American funding, arms and training AGAINST America as soon as the Soviets were defeated. If not for Charlie Wilson's "contribution", bin Laden might not have survived Afghanistan, and even if he had, he would not have had the same level of arms and training to use against us.

No one can say for sure how history may have been altered had Charlie Wilson not involved himself in the affairs of the Mujahideen. Perhaps there would have been little difference. On the other hand, perhaps there would never have been an "Al-Qaeda", or its leader, to plan the 9/11 attack, or the attack on the USS Cole.

What is certain, however, is that Charlie Wilson's actions directly benefitted Osama bin Laden and his followers.

I would have greater respect for the "Hollywood Elitists" if they were to cover a topic with greater objectivity and truth, and tell the whole story - and not just the part that pushes their liberal agenda. Charlie Wilson is a Democrat, and in this important election year, Hollywood was determined to create a Democrat hero for the whole country to embrace.

While I can appreciate Charlie Wilson's actions, and in that respect he may well be some sort of hero, I also acknowledge the consequences of those actions, which have brought tragedy to the world.

In conclusion, the movie, like the book, is entertaining. But take it with a large grain of salt - there is much more to the story, and the ultimate ending has not yet occurred, because the effects of Charlie Wilson's "war" are still playing themselves out, and will continue to play out as long as there is an Al-Qaeda.

Bhutto Wins?

2007-12-27T20:09:00.000-08:00

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.

Would Liberals Eat Their Young?

2007-12-26T11:47:00.000-08:00

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.

Voter ID

2007-12-26T09:31:00.000-08:00

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.

Ron Paul

2007-12-23T21:55:00.000-08:00

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.

The Blue Man

2007-12-20T21:47:00.000-08:00

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.

Archbishop of Lunacy

2007-12-20T19:05:00.000-08:00

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.

Person Of The Year

2007-12-19T21:19:00.000-08:00

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

Schools - More Dangerous Than You Think

2007-12-18T09:01:00.000-08:00

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 encourgaged 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 chilren'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!

Enabling Insures Failure

2007-12-15T17:20:00.000-08:00

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 but 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.

Huck 'n' Chuck

2007-12-14T20:11:00.000-08:00

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.

Airlines vs Humanity

2007-12-14T17:33:00.001-08:00

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 they 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.

Religion & Politics

2007-12-13T21:30:00.001-08:00

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 spead 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.

Hypocitical 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.

Schools Gone Wild

2007-12-12T20:29:00.000-08:00

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 Bonney 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.

Mr. Horn - Hero or Killer?

2007-12-11T20:20:00.000-08:00

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" encourgages 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.

Campaign Finance Gone Awry

2007-12-10T18:47:00.000-08:00

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.

Debunking Conspiracy Theories

2007-12-09T09:17:00.000-08:00

Every time I turn around there's another conspiracy theory. In my Dad's day, it was the theory (still floating around the Internet) that FDR knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor two weeks before it happened, and did nothing because he wanted us in the war to help Britain.

Then there were the conspiracy theories around the JFK assassination, ranging from the involvement of the Mob, Castro and Marilyn Monroe to the theory about a second shooter. Then the theory that no astronaut ever really walked on the moon. Watergate theories, the "new ice age" theory, theories on the goivernment being behind the AIDS epidemic, etc. And now it is 9/11, Iraq and Iran. I just can't wait to see what the kooks will come out with tomorrow!

If you have fallen for any of these theories, I can explain why you fell for them, and how you can become "normal" again.

The people who create and promote conspiracy theories all have one thing in common - they will cherry-pick the facts, leaving out any fact that does not jive with their theory, then weave their "theory" (AKA fiction) around those facts. By weaving facts into their work, it gives credibility. The conspiracy theorist can then say, "See, even the government says this is a fact, and you cannot dispute facts. So, my theory must be true."

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The movie National Treasure is solid proof that you can intricately weave many facts into a story of fiction. But including those facts does not make the movie true - it is still fiction.

So, to debunk any theory, the scientific method of finding additional facts is the sure way. Instead of concentrating on the facts that are included in the theory, we try to find out if there are facts that are not included - facts that were "conveniently" left out because they would disprove the theory.

If you understand nothing else, know this: if there is even one, solitary proved fact that runs contrary to a theory, then the theory is wrong. Period. This is the entire basis of scientific discovery.

EXAMPLE: at one time, all the facts pointed to the Earth being flat, and everyone believed it. And then other facts were discovered which disproved the theory, and now most of us know the Earth is not flat. So, just because conspiracy theorists weave a lot of known facts into their theory, that does not prove the theory, as they would have you believe.

So, let's take a look at a couple of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Bear in mind that if we can find even ONE fact that disproves the theory, then the theory is wrong.

THEORY: Israel was behind the attacks.
FACT: Cellphone calls from passengers on the planes, videos at the airport, ticket records, and even bin Laden's own confession tells us that the hijackers were Muslim extremists. No Muslim extremist would ever work, or die, on behalf of any Israeli. Never.

THEORY: The "13 World Banking Families" (the so-called "Illuminati") were behind the attacks.
FACT: Of those banking families, some (like Goldman-Sachs) are Jewish. See above theory - Muslims will not benefit Jews. And Islamic extremists would never lend themselves to the desires of capitalist bankers, Jewish or otherwise.

THEORY: Bush/Cheney orchestrated the attacks.
FACT: As detailed in the first theory, there is solid proof the hijackers were Muslim extremists. Bush & Cheney are Christians. Don't expect Muslims to aid Christians anytime soon.

Other theories: the Freemasons were behind the attacks. The Knights Templar were behind the attacks. And aliens (the ones from space, not Mexico) were behind the attacks.

Here is yet another fact: if those conspiracy theories were true, then the whole world had to be behind the attacks. If each theory is "proved by facts", then each one disproves the others, because it is not logical to believe that EVERYONE was behind the attacks.

To debunk any kooky theory, all you have to do is find just ONE fact that does not fit the theory. Just one is all it takes, because a fact cannot exist if it is not true.

And all those conspiracy theories - every one - can be destroyed by other facts that are known, but were left out of the theory.

I have only found one to be true - the Bigfoot Aliens who run Harvard and Yale are behind it all. And I can provide facts to prove it.

They're Starting on Huckabee

2007-12-08T19:51:00.000-08:00

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.

The Piss 'n Moan Club

2007-12-07T20:22:00.000-08:00

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 relgious 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 worshipping 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

2007-12-07T14:27:00.000-08:00

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.

Broken Record

2007-12-07T07:15:00.000-08:00

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!

A Conspiracy of Conspiracy Theories

2007-12-06T17:30:00.000-08:00

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 disater
* 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

2007-12-06T15:01:00.000-08:00

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.

Snowy Boots & Sugar Cookies

2007-12-05T19:41:00.000-08:00

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...

The Good Side of Liberalism

2007-12-05T18:41:00.000-08:00

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 philosphers 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 tendancy 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"

2007-12-05T13:15:00.000-08:00

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. Chistianity 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 dabates 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

2007-12-05T08:12:00.000-08:00

The Bible says it best - that millions of people will be fooled by the deceivers, who will convince many that they are the truthtellers.

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 everone can be tracked. They are also the people who have created "tracking chips" and want people to have them imbedded 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 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.

Bigfoot, Yeti and...

2007-12-04T20:24:00.000-08:00

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 archeaologists 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". In 1847, the plains Gorilla was discovered.

Then the same discussion occured 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. Contrary to what many of them believe, there still is no concrete evidence that evolution actually occurs. Yet, with no solid proof, they believe. And then call us fools for believing in God.

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

2007-12-04T17:51:00.000-08:00

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 vitue 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.

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 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).

When Both Sides Are The Same

2007-12-04T14:50:00.000-08:00

Last winter, here in Maine, the winter was rather mild, with less snow than normal. As I was discussing this at the local coffee shop one morning, Al, a hard-core global warming enthusiast simply said, "Of course - it's the global warming. It causes more cloud cover that holds in the heat."

Fine. Whatever.

This fall, so far, has been colder than normal. Over the last two days we have had almost a foot of snow. You may want to note that snow is rather rare this early in the season, and this much snow is almost unheard of. And the temperatures are still well below normal.

And as I sat at the coffee shop this morning, and Al sat down, I thought I would have some fun. I mentioned how this year is colder and snowier than normal. And guess what? Al calmly said, "Of course - it's the global warming. It causes more cloud cover that blocks the sun."

You just can't win with these Chicken Little fanatics. No matter what happens, they will claim it can be expected with global warming.

What garbage! What junk science! What foolishness, that so many people who actually know nothing about climatic science should simply follow like sheep.

Pettiness

2007-12-04T11:56:00.000-08:00

Now Hispanics have taken offense that a ball team wants to use a pig named PorkChop as a mascot. Seems they somehow equate to that, though I fail to see it - maybe I have more respect for Hispanics than they have for themselves.

But the bigger point, of course, is the pettiness of some people - the professional "complainers" and "whiners". You know who they are - they are the mindless little zigots who take offense at just about anything, just so they can have something to cry about, and say, "poor little old me."

These are the spoiled, narrow-minded little people who simply cannot grow up. And I have yet to find one who is not a liberal.

I would call them children, but that would be an insult to children everywhere. Because even little children know that "sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me."

These brainless little twerps who take offense at every little word, and every deed, do not even deserve consideration.

"A pig mascot offends me"
"An Indian Chief mascot offends me"
"A Christmas Tree offends me"
"Someone praying in public offends me"
"A cross in public offends me"
"This word or that word offends me"

Frankly, it is the whiners and complainers who offend me. So perhaps they, too, should be outlawed.

There are a lot of things that offend me - complainers, Muslims who refuse to stand against the radicals, liberals who will deceive in order to push an agenda, conservatives who don't act like conservatives, jocks who think they are God's gift, and the women who date them. People who believe that killing is OK if done in the name of some heathen God. People who break all the Commandments, and laws of decency, then run to rehab for a few hours and "absolve" themselves from responsibility, claiming they are "cleansed." The ACLU.

But none of that matters, because nowhere in the Constitution - or in life - are any of us granted the right to never be offended. Those people have every right to be offensive. And so do I. And so do ball teams who want a pig as their mascot. Of course, in a civilized world, we would not overtly go out of our way to be offensive - if no offense is meant by having an Indian as a mascot, or by putting up a Christmas tree, no offense should be taken. Those who find offense where none was intended are just trouble-makers, looking for a fight; looking to cause discord and hatred. They are actively trying to divide people, causing rifts and more hatred. And those people are the most offensive of all.

Personally, all this politically correct BS is just that - BS! I would much rather live in a world where honesty prevails. Political correctness is as dishonest as it gets.

So, the next time you hear some little baby whining that this or that offends them, and it needs to stop, just smack the brat and tell him to grow up.

Well, I'm off to set the trap for that filty, disease-ridden rat under my shed - the one I named Mohammad. Because rats offend me.

Where are the Reporters?

2007-12-04T07:40:00.000-08:00

Today, President Bush got bashed by reporters because the NIE report claims that Iran may not be as close to atomic weapons as earlier believed.

We no longer have reporters - all we have is narrow-minded, biased political hacks.

Seems to me it wasn't all that long ago that Intelligence reports claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

So, why are know-nothing reporters so eager to believe Intelligence reports now? Perhaps because those reports make it look like Bush is wrong.

I declare unequivically that, had those reports said that Iran was only a week away from nuclear weapons, that the press would be taking the opposite stance, and would be claiming that the reports are "hyped" by the Bush Administration.

Frankly, what those dunce reporters believe has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that matters is the truth. Dumb-ass reporters can believe the sky is falling, if they wish (and, as far as global warming is concerned, they do), but that does not mean the sky is falling.

Iran is our enemy. Period. They want to destroy us. Period. We know this because their leaders have actually stated these things, and because their religious beliefs are diametrically opposed to our own. Iran is still working hard at producing nuclear fuel, which can still be used to build nuclear weapons. Just because they are not currently building the weapons, themselves, may be nothing more than a case of choosing to put the horse before the cart.

In closing, we would all be well-advised to note that the "facts" behind this weeks NIE report were actually determined in 2003. It has taken our "intelligence" agencies four years to analyze that info and bring forth a report. So, it would follow that, whatever Iran is doing TODAY will not be made available in a report until 2012. So, if we are 4 years behind in our information, it is entirely possible that Iran is back to building the warheads.

If I were a reporter, I think I would refrain from playing politics, and simply try to be objective. In the long run, that would help insulate me from being seen as one of the fools that persist in the White House Press Room these days.

Case in point: Helen Thomas. This "reporter" is so incredibly biased and so terribly ignorant that it amazes me she has even managed to survive past childhood. Her comments yesterday about civilians that may have been killed in the Iraq war is just so stupid and ignorant as to not even warrant a response. But I must.

Ms. Thomas is old enough - Lord only knows she's old enough - to have lived through several wars. And she, like everyone else, knows that civilians get killed in wars. There is no other way to win a war.

Perhaps Ms Thomas is so dumb as to think that, in World War II, when we were bombing German cities, that those cities were populated only with soldiers. Or maybe she is so ignorant as to believe Nagasaki and Hiroshima were nothing more than military installations when we dropped the bomb on them.

OK, Helen, now hear this: in a war, there can only be one of two outcomes - you either win, or you lose. And in order to win, there must be collateral damage. It simply cannot be avoided. And if a person is so incredibly arrogant and disingenuous as to believe that America has ever intentionally killed civilians without a military objective, then those people should get the Hell out of this country - we do not need them here. If they think America is so bad, they should leave. After all, if you don't like the place you live, it only makes sense to move. If you choose to stay, you have no room for complaint.

Ms. Thomas, if you and your ilk do not like America, then we Americans who do love our country invite you to find a better place to live. Can I buy you a one-way ticket to Venezuala? The Sudan? Russia?

Crazy Radicals

2007-11-30T21:43:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixing Global Warming

2007-11-29T15:20:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

The Anti-American U.N. Strikes Again

2007-11-28T21:57:00.000-08:00

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

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

That makes me wonder.

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

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

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

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

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

Let me see now. Could it be that the U.N., consisting primarily of nations that dislike that we are so powerful, is just trying to give us another slap in the face, in order to make themselves appear more powerful and righteous?

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

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

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

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

The Great Rip-Off

2007-11-28T21:01:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know, because I cut and use cordwood. It costs me about $2.00 per cord in additional costs due to the rise in oil prices. But the cordwood companies that sell commercially have nearly doubled their prices for cordwood - up to $200 per cord, having been around $125 earlier. How do they justify a $100 per cord price increase when the cost has only risen by less than $5.00 (including delivery costs)?

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

College for Illegals

2007-11-28T20:18:00.000-08:00

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

But it is neither.

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

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

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

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

This is an insult and a degradation to all Americans.

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

What Is A "Huckabee"?

2007-11-27T20:38:00.000-08:00

So many Presidential candidates; so little choice!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's MY word!

You Won't Hear This in the Media

2007-11-27T12:30:00.001-08:00

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

Global Warming has taken another hard hit!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Encroachments of Liberty

2007-11-27T11:04:00.001-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's All About Politics

2007-11-26T20:12:00.000-08:00

It is an indisputable fact that most media are liberal, and actively work to support the Democrat party. Except for the fact that they deceptively present themselves as "objective", I have no problem with them expressing their views.

But I do have a problem that they lie. They lie about how things are going in Iraq. They lie about Afghanistan. They lie about so many things - but there is a reason for it.

Because they are liberal, and because they want Democrats elected at any cost, they will print or air anything that will make Republicans look bad and Democrats look good. And, since they cannot do that and still tell the truth, they lie. It's all about politics.

Like the Democrats in Congress, the media actually want us to lose in Iraq, though they will not openly admit it. And the Democrats are scrambling to find ways to sabotage our efforts in the Middle East, because if we lose, it makes George Bush and the Republican party look bad. If we win the war, the Democrats know that it would be an uphill battle for them to retain power. So, the Democrats actively seek methods to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They simply cannot afford to have America win in Iraq, because that would mean that George Bush wins, and Republicans would get elected. It's that simple.

That is why Pelosi openly met with Bashir, in Syria, in defiance of the wishes of the administration. It is why Harry Reed stated that "the war is lost", even as we were moving toward victory. And it is why they keep trying to prevent funding the war, and keep calling for a pull-out. If they could get away with it, the Democrats in Congress and their bedfellows in the media would be more overt, and openly sabotage the efforts in Iraq and elsewhere. But that would cost them dearly among the saner Democrat voters. They are caught between a rock and a hard place - trying to placate the far-left loonies like MoveOn.org and Media Matters, without losing the loyalty of saner, more moderate Democrats.

It's all about politics. Pelosi, Reed, the New York Times and their ilk do not care one iota about America, or our troops, or about Democracy. The only thing they care about is power - winning Congress and the Presidency. And they will do whatever they can to push their agenda.

They will lie. They will sabotage. They will deceive.

And all too many people will blindly follow them, like sheep to the slaughter.

Carbon "Offsets" Hoax

2007-11-25T18:03:00.001-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Owns Yellowstone Park

2007-11-24T20:40:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

Federal legislation has been introduced to restore the rights of Americans against this threat to freedom. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act of 1999 sought to preserve the sovereignty of the United States over public lands and preserve the private property rights of private citizens. It would have required congressional oversight of U.N. land designations within the U.S. Having researched this proposal, I have been unable to find out anything beyond the bill being turned over to the Senate. No mention of the bill ever having been passed. I strongly urge all Americans to contact their Congressmen and let them know they need to bring this proposal back to life and get it passed into law. This is not a "party" issue. It is an American Sovereignty issue.

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

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

San Francisco's non-I.D.

2007-11-24T11:46:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Seattle Thanksgiving

2007-11-24T10:49:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

So, why the attack on Thanksgiving? Think about it. The people attacking Thanksgiving are the same secular progressives that are attacking Christmas and Easter. And they understand - perhaps better than most - that Thanksgiving is a holiday based in religion. After all, just WHO are we thanking? Are we thanking President Bush for our lives, family, friends, bounty? Perhaps we are thanking Hillary, or some other person of note.

Nope! Don't think so. Whenever anyone gives thanks, they are thanking whatever entity is their personal God. And that is what the secular progressives are so strongly opposed to. Thanksgiving helps to reinforce belief in a greater power, and the SP's just cannot stand that. They cannot stand it because it is precisely that belief in a greater power that prevents the SP's from taking control of America.

Once again, the liberal SP's have chosen the fine art of deception in order to push their crazy agenda. Once again, they have chosen to lie, and to impose their will upon others, in a nation where such tryannical acts are socially unacceptable. And, once again, sane and reasonable people see throught their ploy, and find SP's to be ridiculous, dishonest, disingenuous and just plain wrong.

As usual.

The Case For English Only

2007-11-23T19:22:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dumb Arguments Part II

2007-11-21T20:08:00.000-08:00

Dumb Argument: "Gun laws reduce crime."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dumb Arguments Part I

2007-11-21T19:55:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dumb Argument: "Gun laws reduce crime."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-Global Warming

2007-11-21T19:41:00.000-08:00

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

So, here is food for thought:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to (un)Common Sense

2007-11-21T17:57:00.000-08:00

Greetings!

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

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

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

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

Political correctness is a sham. Like carbon offsets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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