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.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Friday, January 4, 2008
Learning From Iowa
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Charlie Wilson's War
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.
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.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Bhutto Wins?
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Would Liberals Eat Their Young?
It is incredibly ironic that liberals are so adept at making claims about being "for the children." Every time we turn around, they are trying to pass some wacky, socialist crap off on the people while proclaiming how it is "for the children." Since they claim to be so much inline with the needs of the children, let's take a closer look, shall we?
It always bothers me when anyone exploits children. That is why I find it so disgusting every time Nancy Pelosi and her ilk parade children around every time they want to push a radical agenda that Americans would never consider, otherwise.
S-CHIP, a very high cost socialist program offering medical care for "more children". For those who actually take the time to look at the facts, the "children" will not benefit, but they certainly will pay. For starters, all low-income children are already covered by government insurance provided by taxpayers. And the wealthy do not need insurance. This insurance, therefore, would cover children of the middle-upper middle classes - whose parents usually are either covered by employer policies, or by their parents, who are NOT living in poverty.
However, the extremely high cost of such a program would burden those in the middle classes the most - after all, the poor do not pay taxes. So, those "children" will have to suffer because their parents - already overtaxed, according to liberals, would be taxed much more, BECAUSE of liberals.
We need to fight "global warming" for the children. Although there is nothing more than theory behind global warming, and in spite of the fact there is really nothing we could do about it, anyway, I am not sure how fighting global warming translates into helping the children. But I can certainly see how it benefits the liberals - the people receiving taxpayer grants, the people selling carbon credits, etc.
These are just two of numerous examples of how Democrats play the "benefit of the children" card.
Now let us look at the Democrats actual record when it comes to children:
The Democrats have fanatically defended abortion - something that has murdered 35-40 MILLION babies since Roe vs Wade. I find it ironic that Democrats are more concerned with the rights of lab rats, but have no problem throwing innocent babies in front of the bus.
In several recent court cases, Democrat, liberal judges have released convicted child molesters, so they can keep molesting children. In one case, a multiple child rapist was given probation. This is how Democrats "protect the children".
A law protecting children, known as "Jessica's Law", has been passed in most states. In every state where it was rejected, the proposed law was shot down by Democrats. in EVERY case. And Democrats say they are vested in protecting the children.
And it is liberal Democrats who, in their arrogance and ignorance, insist on school policies that result in arresting 8 year olds for normal 8 year old "transgressions". And Democrat policies that allow uneducated children to graduate, anyway, to insure that their "self-esteem" is not damaged. Personally, I would have more self-esteem if I were held back, and forced to learn, than by graduating with full knowledge that I am totally unprepared for real life.
Although study after study, some going back many generations, show that children fare better in a typical familiy environment of one man and one woman and their children, liberals keep seeking new ways to destroy the typical family. They try to convince us that, contrary to the facts, "alternative families" are just as good. They definitely are NOT! Liberals demean and attempt to destroy families by touting gay marriage; multiple marriage; multiple, simultaneous spouses; single parent families; even non-parent families, where the children are actually raised by the "nanny state". Why do liberals try so hard to destroy the American family? Because they hate children. They want to abort as many as possible, regardless of whether there is any just cause. And of those that survive, they want the nanny state to take over control of their upbringing - they simple do not want to take the chance that the children might actually be subjected to moral values. Liberals have no moral values - they are active proponents of pornography, legalized sex with children (even by adults), and putting money and personal gratification above anything else.
So, any thinking person who is not blinded by liberal partisanism realizes that while Democrats exploit children, they generally hate children. But why? Why would anyone hate children?
Narcissism, for one. Look at the "Hollywood Elite", for example. Children would get in the way of their selfish lifestyle, which revolves around gluttony, greed and personal selfworth. Heaven forbid that any liberal should have to sacrifice anything on behalf of another! And no one requires more sacrifice than children.
Another problem they have with children is that most people, upon becoiming parents, become more protective - more conservative. And these conservative values are passed on to the children. If there is one thing liberals hate more than children, it's conservatives.
And this brings us to the reason why liberals want to create a "nanny state", where the elite will raise the children instead of the parents. They know the truth of the old adage "The hand that rocks the cradle also rules the world." So, liberals want to be the ones rocking the cradle, even though they generally hate children. They want to control what the children hear, see, read, believe. They want the children to have liberal beliefs.
And now it makes sense - why liberals want to remove parents from parenting. Why the liberal schools provide free contraceptives to 11 year olds, without parental consent. Why liberals push for 12 year olds to get abortions, without even informing parents. The list goes on.
And this all brings us back to why liberals love abortion - it helps prevent parenting that might lead to conservatism. It prevents conservative children from ever being raised. It reduces the number of children they have to "nanny". It simply makes their job that much easier. The fewer children there are, the more time they have to pursue their selfishness.
THINK! It is no secret that liberals have long been in favor of "zero population growth". They feel children are a threat to their selfishness (they do not want to share the resources with children); they believe children contribute to environmental strains on resources; and they believe that children will contribute to more "global warming." They have been telling us they feel this way. Yet, they try to convince feeble-minded sheep into believing they love, and protect children. Bull!
Liberal Democrats like to blather about how much they want to protect our children. But the reality is that, given the chance, they would likely eat their young. And ours, too! Just another resource to be used and abused.
It always bothers me when anyone exploits children. That is why I find it so disgusting every time Nancy Pelosi and her ilk parade children around every time they want to push a radical agenda that Americans would never consider, otherwise.
S-CHIP, a very high cost socialist program offering medical care for "more children". For those who actually take the time to look at the facts, the "children" will not benefit, but they certainly will pay. For starters, all low-income children are already covered by government insurance provided by taxpayers. And the wealthy do not need insurance. This insurance, therefore, would cover children of the middle-upper middle classes - whose parents usually are either covered by employer policies, or by their parents, who are NOT living in poverty.
However, the extremely high cost of such a program would burden those in the middle classes the most - after all, the poor do not pay taxes. So, those "children" will have to suffer because their parents - already overtaxed, according to liberals, would be taxed much more, BECAUSE of liberals.
We need to fight "global warming" for the children. Although there is nothing more than theory behind global warming, and in spite of the fact there is really nothing we could do about it, anyway, I am not sure how fighting global warming translates into helping the children. But I can certainly see how it benefits the liberals - the people receiving taxpayer grants, the people selling carbon credits, etc.
These are just two of numerous examples of how Democrats play the "benefit of the children" card.
Now let us look at the Democrats actual record when it comes to children:
The Democrats have fanatically defended abortion - something that has murdered 35-40 MILLION babies since Roe vs Wade. I find it ironic that Democrats are more concerned with the rights of lab rats, but have no problem throwing innocent babies in front of the bus.
In several recent court cases, Democrat, liberal judges have released convicted child molesters, so they can keep molesting children. In one case, a multiple child rapist was given probation. This is how Democrats "protect the children".
A law protecting children, known as "Jessica's Law", has been passed in most states. In every state where it was rejected, the proposed law was shot down by Democrats. in EVERY case. And Democrats say they are vested in protecting the children.
And it is liberal Democrats who, in their arrogance and ignorance, insist on school policies that result in arresting 8 year olds for normal 8 year old "transgressions". And Democrat policies that allow uneducated children to graduate, anyway, to insure that their "self-esteem" is not damaged. Personally, I would have more self-esteem if I were held back, and forced to learn, than by graduating with full knowledge that I am totally unprepared for real life.
Although study after study, some going back many generations, show that children fare better in a typical familiy environment of one man and one woman and their children, liberals keep seeking new ways to destroy the typical family. They try to convince us that, contrary to the facts, "alternative families" are just as good. They definitely are NOT! Liberals demean and attempt to destroy families by touting gay marriage; multiple marriage; multiple, simultaneous spouses; single parent families; even non-parent families, where the children are actually raised by the "nanny state". Why do liberals try so hard to destroy the American family? Because they hate children. They want to abort as many as possible, regardless of whether there is any just cause. And of those that survive, they want the nanny state to take over control of their upbringing - they simple do not want to take the chance that the children might actually be subjected to moral values. Liberals have no moral values - they are active proponents of pornography, legalized sex with children (even by adults), and putting money and personal gratification above anything else.
So, any thinking person who is not blinded by liberal partisanism realizes that while Democrats exploit children, they generally hate children. But why? Why would anyone hate children?
Narcissism, for one. Look at the "Hollywood Elite", for example. Children would get in the way of their selfish lifestyle, which revolves around gluttony, greed and personal selfworth. Heaven forbid that any liberal should have to sacrifice anything on behalf of another! And no one requires more sacrifice than children.
Another problem they have with children is that most people, upon becoiming parents, become more protective - more conservative. And these conservative values are passed on to the children. If there is one thing liberals hate more than children, it's conservatives.
And this brings us to the reason why liberals want to create a "nanny state", where the elite will raise the children instead of the parents. They know the truth of the old adage "The hand that rocks the cradle also rules the world." So, liberals want to be the ones rocking the cradle, even though they generally hate children. They want to control what the children hear, see, read, believe. They want the children to have liberal beliefs.
And now it makes sense - why liberals want to remove parents from parenting. Why the liberal schools provide free contraceptives to 11 year olds, without parental consent. Why liberals push for 12 year olds to get abortions, without even informing parents. The list goes on.
And this all brings us back to why liberals love abortion - it helps prevent parenting that might lead to conservatism. It prevents conservative children from ever being raised. It reduces the number of children they have to "nanny". It simply makes their job that much easier. The fewer children there are, the more time they have to pursue their selfishness.
THINK! It is no secret that liberals have long been in favor of "zero population growth". They feel children are a threat to their selfishness (they do not want to share the resources with children); they believe children contribute to environmental strains on resources; and they believe that children will contribute to more "global warming." They have been telling us they feel this way. Yet, they try to convince feeble-minded sheep into believing they love, and protect children. Bull!
Liberal Democrats like to blather about how much they want to protect our children. But the reality is that, given the chance, they would likely eat their young. And ours, too! Just another resource to be used and abused.
Voter ID
Indiana (smarter than most states) passed a law requiring voters to produce photo ID in order to vote. But liberals, and their secular fiends at the ACLU have sued over this, claiming it might keep immigrants from voting. The lower courts have all tossed this out, and it is now going before the Supreme Court.
Let me see if I have this right. The Democrats, who are trying to push forth a national ID card requirement for everyone in the country, are upset that people should actually have any need for such an ID.
At this time, it might also be worthwhile to mention to the Democrats that "immigrants" do not have the right to vote, anyway, unless they have become naturalized and are citizens - in which case, they have photo ID's, anyway. You cannot bank, fly, get into a courthouse, drive, or otherwise function in America without ID. So the Dems who claim that such a law prevents people from voting are patently absurd - and they know it!
Even more absurd was the Democrats' demand to have ballots written in different languages, so as not to discriminate against voters who do not speak English. While that may make sense to liberals who are too stupid to understand the laws, people who cannot speak English are not ALLOWED to vote - because they are not citizens. One of the REQUIREMENTS of naturalization is being able to speak English.
The reason Democrats do not want ID's for voters, but want ballots in Spanish is so they can pump millions of illegal aliens into the polling booths, to vote for Democrats. If ballots are in Spanish, and no picture ID is required, just exactly how would we prevent citizens of other countries from electing our officials? In fact, how would we keep Muslim Jihadists from electing our officials?
I have said it before, and I will say it again - for the most part (with few exceptions), Democrats are dishonest, deceitful and just plain immoral. I can remeber when the Democratic party had some (but not much) honor. But that is no longer true. Finding an honest Democrat who has integrity is getting to be as difficult as finding a "moderate" Muslim opposed to violence, and who loves America.
I have heard rumors - fostered by liberals - that there are such things, but I have yet to see even ONE "moderate" Muslim with any influence at all, standing up to be counted, and denouncing his Jihadist brothers. Not one. And with the exception of Kirsten Powers, I have a hard time finding any Democrat that has any integrity at all - one who can actually debate issues without resorting to lies, name-calling and other slimy Liberal ploys.
Personally, I think our voting laws should be even more strict - I think voters should be required to know the policies of those they are voting for. Of course, that would seriously hamper Democrats, as they do not have any policies, except killing 40 million babies in the name of Freedom of Choice (which, by the way, is NOT one of the freedoms in the Constitution), and then claiming they are the party that protects the children.
Sure. And Saddam was a benevolent ruler who treated all his citizens with respect and mercy.
Let me see if I have this right. The Democrats, who are trying to push forth a national ID card requirement for everyone in the country, are upset that people should actually have any need for such an ID.
At this time, it might also be worthwhile to mention to the Democrats that "immigrants" do not have the right to vote, anyway, unless they have become naturalized and are citizens - in which case, they have photo ID's, anyway. You cannot bank, fly, get into a courthouse, drive, or otherwise function in America without ID. So the Dems who claim that such a law prevents people from voting are patently absurd - and they know it!
Even more absurd was the Democrats' demand to have ballots written in different languages, so as not to discriminate against voters who do not speak English. While that may make sense to liberals who are too stupid to understand the laws, people who cannot speak English are not ALLOWED to vote - because they are not citizens. One of the REQUIREMENTS of naturalization is being able to speak English.
The reason Democrats do not want ID's for voters, but want ballots in Spanish is so they can pump millions of illegal aliens into the polling booths, to vote for Democrats. If ballots are in Spanish, and no picture ID is required, just exactly how would we prevent citizens of other countries from electing our officials? In fact, how would we keep Muslim Jihadists from electing our officials?
I have said it before, and I will say it again - for the most part (with few exceptions), Democrats are dishonest, deceitful and just plain immoral. I can remeber when the Democratic party had some (but not much) honor. But that is no longer true. Finding an honest Democrat who has integrity is getting to be as difficult as finding a "moderate" Muslim opposed to violence, and who loves America.
I have heard rumors - fostered by liberals - that there are such things, but I have yet to see even ONE "moderate" Muslim with any influence at all, standing up to be counted, and denouncing his Jihadist brothers. Not one. And with the exception of Kirsten Powers, I have a hard time finding any Democrat that has any integrity at all - one who can actually debate issues without resorting to lies, name-calling and other slimy Liberal ploys.
Personally, I think our voting laws should be even more strict - I think voters should be required to know the policies of those they are voting for. Of course, that would seriously hamper Democrats, as they do not have any policies, except killing 40 million babies in the name of Freedom of Choice (which, by the way, is NOT one of the freedoms in the Constitution), and then claiming they are the party that protects the children.
Sure. And Saddam was a benevolent ruler who treated all his citizens with respect and mercy.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Ron Paul
Have you noticed that in all the scientific polls conducted by all the professional pollsters, Ron Paul barely makes a showing? He comes in dead last in every poll, in every state. Yet...
This is strange - in non-scientific polls by agenda-driven websites such as AOL, Ron Paul shows to have a huge lead in 46 states - including Iowa, where other polls show he barely exists.
Now, Mr Paul does seem to be able to raise vast amounts of cash on the Internet. But it would be interesting to discover where that money is coming from. Based on the wide discrepancy between the legitimate polls and the "other" polls, here's my guess:
The money - and the votes in those "straw polls" on AOL - are coming from liberals. MoveOn.org and Media Matters may very well be behind this effort to sabotage the Republican party and primaries. Why?
If the left-wingers can boost a whacky candidate into the Republican primaries, then the Democrats will have no problem beating him in the general election next fall. The far left would like nothing better than to have their candidate run against Ron Paul - it would be an easy win for the Dems.
And even if they cannot buy the nomination for Mr. Paul, the attempt, alone, could sabotage the Republican party. Imagine what republican voters in NH or SC would think if they see Ron Paul make a real showing in Iowa, for example. That could throw the party into disarray, and cause serious conflicts within the party, dividing it even further.
I'm here to tell you - if I were running the Democrat spin machine, I would be asking all Dems to contribute the max to the Democratic candidate, and ALSO give as much as possible to Ron Paul. I would also have them vote for Paul in all the non-scientific polls, to artificially inflate the numbers and make the Republican party appear to have lost their senses. That would be the surest - and simplest - way to derail the Republican party.
So, how do we know if the liberals are behind this dangerously deceptive tactic? Short of getting the financial records to see where those donations are coming from, all we really have to do is wait a few days and see how Paul fares in the Iowa caucus. If it turns out the scientific polls are correct and Paul does poorly, then you can bet your bippy that the liberals are the ones fueling the Ron Paul train.
This is strange - in non-scientific polls by agenda-driven websites such as AOL, Ron Paul shows to have a huge lead in 46 states - including Iowa, where other polls show he barely exists.
Now, Mr Paul does seem to be able to raise vast amounts of cash on the Internet. But it would be interesting to discover where that money is coming from. Based on the wide discrepancy between the legitimate polls and the "other" polls, here's my guess:
The money - and the votes in those "straw polls" on AOL - are coming from liberals. MoveOn.org and Media Matters may very well be behind this effort to sabotage the Republican party and primaries. Why?
If the left-wingers can boost a whacky candidate into the Republican primaries, then the Democrats will have no problem beating him in the general election next fall. The far left would like nothing better than to have their candidate run against Ron Paul - it would be an easy win for the Dems.
And even if they cannot buy the nomination for Mr. Paul, the attempt, alone, could sabotage the Republican party. Imagine what republican voters in NH or SC would think if they see Ron Paul make a real showing in Iowa, for example. That could throw the party into disarray, and cause serious conflicts within the party, dividing it even further.
I'm here to tell you - if I were running the Democrat spin machine, I would be asking all Dems to contribute the max to the Democratic candidate, and ALSO give as much as possible to Ron Paul. I would also have them vote for Paul in all the non-scientific polls, to artificially inflate the numbers and make the Republican party appear to have lost their senses. That would be the surest - and simplest - way to derail the Republican party.
So, how do we know if the liberals are behind this dangerously deceptive tactic? Short of getting the financial records to see where those donations are coming from, all we really have to do is wait a few days and see how Paul fares in the Iowa caucus. If it turns out the scientific polls are correct and Paul does poorly, then you can bet your bippy that the liberals are the ones fueling the Ron Paul train.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)