Tuesday, October 31, 2006

I get it...but it's still inappropriate

Kerry comments on the war and the troops

I’m sure everyone has heard or seen the comments made by Senator John Kerry, so I won’t repeat them. If you haven’t, then the link is provided. I understand what the Senator was trying to say. He was basically suggesting that Bush was not educated and was not attempting to take a cheap shot at the troops. I get it.

But the effect is obvious and the troops will not see it the way he intended. I can speak first hand of this. What he intended and what it sounded like are two very different things and it will obviously hurt him politically. His defiant attitude about it doesn’t help. The least he could do is issue a statement of support for the troops and clarify his attempted insult of Bush. But he refuses to do even that, which reaffirms my decision not to vote for him in 2004. I have seen nothing that comes close to resembling support for our nation’s military from this man, and his recent comments are no different. As a veteran, he should know better.

Senator Kerry could be better. He could be supportive of the military. He could be standing behind the President, saying yes there were mistakes, yes we will adjust our strategy, yes we will work together to solve the problems in Iraq. In fact, the entire Democratic party could be doing this. In my mind, it would go a long way in solving the Iraq problem and, in truth, would probably result in a landslide victory for them next week. Instead, they choose to guttersnipe like this, make snide comments that do no one any good, and demoralize the troops in order to gain political favor. It’s nauseating. Senator Kerry should be reminded that he too voted to remove Saddam from power, so he should be careful about criticizing the President for sending the military to war.

Senator Kerry, you DO owe the military an apology, and I hope you understand that enough to swallow your pride and issue that apology.

Monday, October 30, 2006

Cosby calls it like it is

Cosby critical of black parents

There is a very disturbing trend within the black community that I just don’t understand. That trend involves criticizing success. If a black student works hard and makes the honor roll, that student is teased for acting white. The same is true for someone who speaks in proper English or dresses conservatively. If a black adult becomes successful in a mainstream career or sides with conservative or Republican causes, that person is labeled an Uncle Tom. This is something I do not understand.

The black community is suffering. Currently, over 70% of all black children are born out of wedlock. Poverty and unemployment are high, so is drug use and felony convictions. The leading cause of death for black men under age 25 is homicide. HIV is running rampant in the black community. High school dropout rates remain elevated. These are serious problems that should be addressed, which is why I don’t understand it when a member of the black community seemingly bucks the trend and is criticized for "acting white". It’s shameful, and problems won’t be solved this way.

Enter Bill Cosby. I tip my hat to Bill Cosby because he is one of the few black community leaders that places responsibility on parents and students, and doesn’t use the "white man" as a scapegoat for the failures of the black community. Oprah Winfrey has, at times, done the same. These two people are very successful, and they did it on their own. They should be commended and respected.

But we all know how much criticism Bill Cosby has endured for saying these things. Once again, the words "sellout" and "Uncle Tom" surface. And to his credit, Cosby has not been deterred. It seems that the black community is waiting for someone else (aka, the government) to step in and solve the problems they face instead of taking the initiative and solving them on their own. Well, we’ve had nearly 50 years of the Johnson-era entitlement programs that were meant to solve these problems and guess what…they’re still here. In fact, in many ways, they’ve gotten worse. So maybe the government isn’t the answer. Maybe it’s a mistake to expect the government to solve our problems. Hurricane Katrina should have taught us that.

It’s clear to me that the myriad of difficulties facing the black community won’t go away until: 1) community leaders acknowledge the problems, and 2) they quit blaming others. Why is it whitey’s fault that 70% of black children are born out of wedlock? Until these things happen, the black community in America will be plagued by the issues I mentioned. Keep up the good work, Mr. Cosby. I’m pulling for you.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Which is more ridiculous?

South Park mocks Crocodile Hunter

I hate to even post this because I’m afraid that it will provide unintended publicity to this show, but I do it for a simple statement. I will no longer view Comedy Central or purchase any cable or satellite plans that have Comedy Central included. I will also be watching the response of the sponsors and if any of them speak out in support of this nonsense then I will include them in my own personal boycott. I understand that Comedy Central may hide behind free speech on this, and I don’t question the show’s producers on whether they have a right to do it. But I do question their responsibility. I watched Steve Irwin’s memorial service and I saw his little girl. She is only 8 years old and she is still grieving the loss of her father. South Park’s writers should at least respect that. There is a chance she could see this and I can’t imagine the pain it would cause her. South Park has repeatedly made controversial cartoons, many of them offensive to Christians and other religions, which they have the right to do. But this is over the line. This is no longer a free speech thing, this is a deliberate transgression into someone’s very personal affairs and it’s uncalled for. I hope I’m not alone in my condemnation of this behavior.

Blix says Iraq better off with Saddam in power

Speaking of insensitive and inappropriate remarks, check out this quote from Hans Blix: "Saddam would still have been sitting in office. Okay, that is negative and it would not have been joyful for the Iraqi people. But what we have gotten is undoubtedly worse,".

I understand the Iraq is in a chaotic and difficult situation, only a fool would say otherwise. Yes, people are dying daily and violence is rampant in certain "hot" areas. Yes, it will take many months, even years, for the Iraqi army to put an end to it and stabilize that nation. But at least the people have a fighting chance. At least they have been given a choice: Democracy or civil war. The truth is that the majority of Iraq is peaceful, and the majority of Iraqis don’t have to deal with daily violence. It’s the Sunni triangle and the insurgents in that area that still need to be subdued. Can it be done? I think that’s up to the Iraqi people, and them only.

But to suggest that these people had it better under Saddam’s boot is outrageous. I wonder how his remarks make those whose loved ones were murdered by Saddam feel? It’s brutally insensitive to say that Saddam’s Iraq was better.

If Iraq slips into civil war, then it’s because the Iraqi people chose such a path and there isn’t much we can do about that. You can lead a horse to water…. But at least now they were given the choice, which is something they never would have had under Saddam. Personally, I think the Iraqis will step up and realize that we can’t do it for them. I think they will choose liberty.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

It's time

OPEC prepared for $60 a barrel

OPEC has agreed to cut oil production and our "friends", the Saudis, are on board with it. Apparently, the new accepted minimum price for oil will be $60 a barrel. And this is just further evidence that we MUST do something about foreign oil dependence.

It's funny to me that when gas climbs over $3 a gallon, and the American people are pissed off, and our political leaders try to lean on the Saudis and other OPEC nations to ease the strain, they simply shrug their shoulders and say "there's nothing we can do", as if they have no control over supply and their wells are tapped dry. Then, when the price drops, suddenly the discover they DO have control of supply and decide to stick it to us. That's fine. I'm a capitalist and they have the right to do what they want with their resources, all I ask is that they don't piss on my boots and tell me that it's raining.

Just as they have the right as producers to alter the market, we have the right as consumers to do the same. It's time to END our dependence on foreign oil. The good thing is we can unite on this issue because I don't care if your motivation is to protect the environment or to eliminate OPEC's funding of terrorism, as long as we agree that it's time to stop this. The only question is how.

I think we can reach an agreement, a compromise if you will. First, we drill in the Gulf and the Arctic Wildlife refuge. The environmentalists will have to concede this for a return promise. Within a decade we stop burning fossil fuels for energy and all those drilling rigs can be torn down and the environment restored. Sound impossible? It can be done, especially if we come together on at least this one issue.

Will there be resistance? Of course. The oil lobby is powerful, but they can be encouraged to branch out into grain and grass fuels and hydrogen power. Capitalism always presents oppurtunities. And if we can pull this off, the OPEC crumbles, many of our terrorist enemies lose funding, the environmentalists are happier, and our economy no longer depends on what a few anti-American oil barons decide.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Michael J Fox...exploiting or simply voicing?

Fox ad sparks controversy

I saw the ad last night. There was Michael Fox, speaking about stem cell research. He says one candidate supports it, the other opposes it. Then he implies (in my opinion) that if you vote for the one candidate, then certain diseases like his own can be cured. The whole time he is writhing to and fro, clearly having difficulty controlling his own body movements. I saw the ad. And I simply disagree with Fox. I don’t think voting for one candidate will cure disease and I don’t see any scientific evidence that embryonic stem cell research will lead to miracle cures. I’ve seen theory, but no evidence.

Now for the controversy. Rush Limbaugh suggested that Fox may have been intentionally off of his medication to ad drama to the commercial. He is dead wrong and such a suggestion is unfair. As a physician, I’ll say that the medications used for Parkinson’s have some dramatic side effects including inducing writhing movements like those seen on the ad. Further, when Limbaugh says something like that it detracts from the message that many people simply disagree with Fox and, not only that, but also he was a little misleading when he said the Republican senate candidate did not support stem cell research. But that gets lost when Limbaugh makes the comment that Fox "wasn’t on his medication". It makes him look like he’s picking on someone with Parkinson’s Disease. In short, it makes him look mean.

But, there are people who were upset with this ad, and they have a point in contending that it was done in poor taste. Is Fox exploiting Parkinson’s Disease for political purposes? I personally don’t think so. He has a right to support whomever he chooses for whatever reason. The fact that he has money allows him to run ads during the World Series, but he earned that money himself so more power to him. But I can see how some would take offense. For example:

I could place a camera in the delivery room while a partial birth abortion is performed. I could film the process, film the needle puncturing the baby’s skull, film the last minutes of that child’s life. Or I could simply show pictures of dead babies and say "candidate X supports partial birth abortion, candidate Y does not. If you vote for candidate X, then you vote for partial birth abortion."

I wonder what kind of outrage such an ad would generate? Once again, the media double standard would rear its ugly head. But I wouldn’t have a problem with anyone making such an ad, just like I don’t have a problem with Fox’s ad. Limbaugh shouldn’t speak about medical matters that he knows nothing of, and instead of criticizing Fox the right thing to do would be to make a counter ad – which is exactly what’s being done. Democracy at its finest.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Culture Warrior

America is at war. There is no denying this truth. But what some may not realize is that we are fighting a war on two-fronts against two very different, yet very real, enemies. There are of course the Islamo-Fascists, the radicals who hate everything that resembles democracy and everyone who does not accept their radical religious views. We all know about this enemy. We’ve all seen what they can do first-hand. We may disagree on how to fight them, but we don’t deny their existence or their intentions.

But then there is the war on the home front, a war of culture. This involves the traditionalists, those who honor America’s traditions, the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian principles on which this nation was founded. Countering the traditionalists are the secular progressives. They are a small segment of the population, but they have a lot of power and financial backing. They believe America is inherently flawed, that this country requires drastic change. Their main targets are the Judeo-Christian ethic, free enterprise, freedom of religion and capitalism. Leading the charge is the ACLU – whose founder was a self-proclaimed socialist – and they have chosen the American court system as the battleground.

Bill O’Reilly details this fight in Culture Warrior. Unlike many Americans, I already knew this country was engaged in a fight for her culture. So there wasn’t much new to me. But O’Reilly did a masterful job of pointing out the tactics and strategy of the "SPs" as he calls them. He calls out their leaders, those who provide the financial support for their causes and the top SP supporters in the mainstream media (which is crawling with secular progressives). In short, they have a gameplan and O’Reilly has exposed it. The only question is what will America do about it?

This is not about "separation of church and state". No, this is about separation of church and behavior. This is about humanism conquering spirituality. And it’s not a Republican versus Democrat issue either, as O’Reilly points out. This war is not being fought at the polls because the SPs know that their measures have been and will continue to be defeated in votes, that is until they can corrupt enough of the younger generation to have their will prevail democratically. Until then, they have chosen the court system as a means of imposing their vision for America on the common American and, so far, it’s working. Billionaires like George Soros provide the funds, the ACLU launches the offensives and the mainstream media acts as the defense perimeter – attacking anyone who offers a dissenting opinion or attempts to expose this campaign for what it is.

I don’t know how this will end, who will emerge victorious. But I do know, without a doubt, that if the secular progressive segment of America’s population have their way, then America will become a socialist state where income is redistributed, deity worship is banned, freedom of speech becomes limited, our borders are opened, human life becomes meaningless and humanism becomes the "religion" of choice. Basically, the Constitution would cease to exist and we would begin to flirt with anarchy. That’s the vision for America that the secular progressives share and that’s the domestic enemy America must confront. Mr. O’Reilly has taken this to challenge and I salute him for it. Now, if America would only join the fight.

Monday, October 23, 2006

A few thoughts on Monday

I got a letter from the Make-a-Wish foundation today. It's basically a newsletter. My wife and I contribute regularly as part of our tithe. In this letter they talk about some of the things they've accomplished this year. And then something stands out. They've received a record amount in donations this year.

I think that says a lot about capitalism and the tax system. Right now, taxes are lower (I won't say low because I still think they are obscenely high), the DOW is breaking records every day and has reached the 12,000 mark. Home ownership is up, especially among minorities. Corporate taxes are down and government revenue is climbing - which is starting to drive the deficit down. And in all this, what has happened to charitable contributions? Well, I don't know about charity in general, but one of the most well-known has had a banner year. Take that Karl Marx (or should I say, Howard Dean?).

While listening to the radio this weekend, I hear two pretty interesting stats. First, the defense budget. It's somewhere around 600 billion. Sounds like a lot, but put it in perspective. When looking at it in regards to the GNP, it's actually lower than average. The other thing, spending on social programs is about 1.9 TRILLION. We're spending outrageous amounts of money on social programs (and that's just this year) in an attempt heal our social "ills". Yet, teenage pregnancy is up, so are fatherless households. Divorce rates are up. The crystal meth epidemic is crippling the midwest. The poverty rate hasn't changed all that much since the 60s. Obesity has become epidemic. Our kids have become more violent. Our prisons have developed revolving doors. And we pay 1.9 Trillion a year for this? When do we start questionning the efficacy of these social programs?

Finally, it occus to me that the Dems have a good shot at winning the House, maybe even the Senate. Perhaps the scariest thing about this is the thought of Nancy Pelosi becoming Speaker of the House. This woman is San Francisco politics, that is pro-gay marriage, anti-military, anti-traditional values, pro-income redistribution. Basically, she is a socialist, an extremist, an ultra-progressive. This is a political point of view that only about 10% of the US population shares, yet she could become the Speaker of the House. As if Washington isn't gridlocked enough, if she gets this position NOTHING will happen in Washington for 2 years. And the border situation (the most important social issue facing Washington)? Forget anything being done about it. For 2 more years the border will remain open and our security will remain threatened. Hopefully that won't happen, but we'll see.

Friday, October 20, 2006


Il 'sorry' for nuclear test

So another of Il's multiple personalities has emerged from that dark chasm of a soul. One minute he's threatening the UN with nuclear war, the next minute he's sorry. Give it a few weeks, and he'll be back to his threats and illegal tests. This guy needs an entire team of psychiatrists.

But I have to give credit to the Chinese. I don't know what their Korean envoy had to say to Il, but obviously it got his attention. Perhaps the Chinese didn't like us suggesting that Japan may need nukes of their own to counter Il's threat. Secretary Rice's visit to Japan had a lot to do with it as well.

I think this again shows the incompetence and obsoleteness of the UN. They were unable to do a thing about this situation, yet a single envoy from China put an end to it, albeit likely a temporary end. One wonders just what good is the UN? When was the last time they actually did something beneficial for the the world, not to mention America?

I agree with Newt Gingrich. The only way this issue will be resolved is through a regime change in North Korea. It's good that China is taking the sort of initiative they're taking, but these results will only be temporary. The world will not be safe until Kim Jong Il is no longer in power.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

No excuse

Priest admits inappropriate behavior with Foley.

Rep Foley has stated that he was abused by a priest at age 12-13. He named that priest recently and, apparently, the priest in question admits to some inappropriate behavior with Foley, specifically: skinny dipping with him in Lake Worth, massaging Foley in the nude and taking nude saunas with him. He denies having sex with Foley, but admits that there was an incident that he doesn’t clearly remember because he was in a drug-induced stupor.

First of all, this is no excuse for Foley. I firmly believe that each individual is responsible for his own actions regardless of their past. Having mean parents or a difficult childhood does not excuse illegal or inappropriate behavior, does not diminish the severity of that behavior and should not diminish the punishment for that behavior. I am sympathetic towards Foley, but it doesn’t change what he did. I stand by what I said before: If he broke the law and molested a minor, then he needs to go to jail for a long time.

As for the priest, he should be prosecuted. Regardless of what he thinks, giving a 13 year-old a nude massage, or taking a nude sauna or skinny dipping is not okay. In fact, it’s probably criminal. His being a priest doesn’t make it any less criminal and his "problems" that he speaks of are no excuse either. If he molested Foley – regardless of his drug induced stupor – he should also go to jail for a long time. I don’t care if he is 80 years old. I’m a little fed up with society turning a blind eye to the abuse of our children and I want it to stop. This should not be tolerated in any culture or society. We’re not talking about a mental illness or a psychiatric condition here…we’re talking about a crime and a serious one at that.

In short, Foley was wrong and so was this priest, they should both pay dearly for what they did. They have no one to blame but themselves and their behavior should have dire consequences.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

The double standard

Democrat describes Steele as "slavish"

The double standard in Washington and the "politically correct" arena continues. When a democrat says something clearly insensitive and politically incorrect, then there really aren’t many waves made about it. But let a republican do the same thing, and all hell breaks loose. Anyone remember what happened to Trent Lott? Hillary Clinton?

Recently, Steve Lyons was fired from his broadcasting position for ‘insensitive remarks’ about latinos. I read Lyons’ remarks. He was clearly saying something in good humor and, as far as I can tell, Lou Pinella (whom Lyons was referring to) took no offense. Yet, Lyons still lost his job.
In this article, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer refers to Michael Steele (a black Republican candidate) as someone who "slavishly" supported the Republican Party. I think his words were tasteless and stupid, but I don’t think Hoyer should lose his job over it. And, as far as I could tell, it didn’t really bother Steele all that much. Steele seems to prefer sticking to the issues, especially when he has a clear edge in that area.

But what bothers me is that the media didn’t really jump on this issue. When George Allen mistakingly uses a Hindu slang term, he gets crucified for what can arguably be called an honest mistake. Yet, we haven’t really heard much from the media about Hoyer’s comments. Is it because Steele is a Republican? Should we then think that it’s OK to use insensitive politically incorrect descriptions for black Republicans or any other minority Republicans? That’s what it seems to me.

Hillary Clinton can describe Ghandi as a gas-station owner. Not a word is spoken. Robert Byrd can have – in his past – service in the KKK, that’s alright, unless they decide to switch parties. It seems the Dems are immune to the "racist" label.

I don’t think Clinton or Hoyer are racists, and neither is Trent Lott. All I’m asking for is fairness in Washington and the media. There is no doubt that if Steele was a Democrat and Hoyer a Republican, then Hoyer would have been demonized and probably forced out of the election for this remark.

Being politically incorrect is OK if you're a Democrat, but unacceptable if you're a Republican. That's the double standard in America.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

28 months

Attorney gets 28 months for aiding a terrorist.

We are currently waging a war on terror. There are people who are intent on killing innocent civilians and needlessly attacking American targets. These are the people we are waging war on. Basically, there is an enemy, we know who that enemy is and they are the ones who must be stopped. So what should happen to someone who knowingly aids that enemy? What should happen to someone who passes messages for these people when they otherwise couldn’t do it themselves?

Such was the case with Lynn Stewart, who helped her terrorist client by passing messages to his terrorist buddies while he was in prison. Isn’t that aiding the enemy? Isn’t that espionage? Isn’t that treason?

She was convicted for her actions which is a good thing. But her sentence leaves something to be desired…28 months in prison. 28 months for someone who knowingly aided people who actively target civilians in deliberate and deadly attacks. 28 months. One wonders what would have happened in the 40s to someone who did the same for the Japanese or the Nazis. I can confidently say it would have been a lot more than 28 months. In fact, it may have been death. That was then. This is now.

This says a lot about our determination to win the war on terror and it pales in comparison to our attitude in the ‘40s. If we give our enemies – and Ms Stewart IS an enemy of the United States – this kind of weak punishment, we will NOT win the war on terror. We need to be sending messages that supporting terrorist networks will not be tolerated and 28 months is not the message to send.

Stewart’s sentence is a victory for our enemies and should alert us to the fact that we are not waging this war properly. Our current attitude is, in a word, half-ass and a half-ass attitude will spell defeat. Ms Stewart acted as a spy and even if you follow the most stringent rules of war the punishment for espionage can be death. Should she get the death penalty? I won’t go that far, but she should have gotten much more than 28 months.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Seeking asylum in the UK land of entitlements

UK asylum seekers getting out of hand.

This article is a great representation of what happens to a country with open borders and a massive system of entitlements, all paid for by the working class of course. The UK has seen a dramatic rise in those seeking "asylum", including some Americans. These people are then given free healthcare, free accommodations and a weekly government stipend and they aren’t even UK citizens.

They continue to receive these entitlements while they’re asylum application is reviewed which gives them ample time to blend into the populace. If the request is rejected, rarely do they get evicted or deported. Apparently, the word has gotten out and the UK is being inundated with these people. Obviously, it has and will continue to take its toll on the economy and the tax payers. Not only that, but there is very little background checking, which means that this is not only a social threat but also a national security threat.

Next month we will elect a new Congress and you’d better believe that if the Left takes over, this is the direction we will be heading. There will be nothing done about the border, entitlements will increase and, as a result, so will taxes. In the end, we will be paying for non-citizens to come to America to leech off of our hard work. Sound good to you? I say no thanks. Hopefully, America agrees.

But my concern is that the average American is not very well informed politically. They hear the soundbites on CNN or CBS and base their vote on that. They have no idea what a Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would mean for this country’s future. They have no idea what a "cut and run" policy in Iraq would do to our national defense. And they certainly have no idea how high our taxes will go with the Left in office.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

From Amazon.com

Here is a review posted on Amazon.com written by Byron Justice, author of Violent Night.

Upon reading this incredible book, it's hard to believe it's written by a NEW author. The writing flows naturally, even when there are flashbacks which build the background for the characters. And these are very well-developed characters, many whom will root for, and a few that'll make you cringe. Although the category listed on the back cover is Christian fiction, this is more of a contemporary political thriller. I don't think non-Christian readers will stumble over the Christian aspect.

The characters behave in a manner similar to how Morgan Freeman played the president in the movie "Deep Impact." The dialogue between the characters is most profound. Whoever writes the speeches for our current politians would only wish to be that good! One does not have to wait at all for the story to build. There is a terrorist attack in the first few pages--and after that, this book is addictive. The book is well-edited; everything in the text moves the story along. The print is rather dense, but broken into short sections.

WHEN EVIL PROSPERS is pure adventure: no sex, no vulgarity, no long Bible passages to muddle through. Washburn holds a traditionalist political view; therefore, this novel has an agenda. When the characters conflict over politics, the readers are treated to some very well-crafted drama. Washburn is adept at handling politics. All of the key characters stand by their principles, so I admired even those characters who stand on the other side of the political spectrum from me. Washburn does not pre-judge the characters--those who make the right decisions are vindicated by the results of their actions; those who make poor decisions fail to win the outcome they desire.

I would give this book six stars if I could. If you read my other reviews, you'll know how much this book impressed me. Reading this book will inspire you and make you proud to be an American. If you are an American Muslim, it will make you proud to be an American Muslim (that's not true with many other post 9/11 novels!). If you are a Texan, this book will make you feel proud to be a Texan. You will take from WHEN EVIL PROSPERS a hope that Washburn accurately captured the soul of the average American, and a worry that "when evil prospers," no one will rise to defend our way of life. Better buy this book and read it fast! The story takes place in 2009!

Byron C. Justice, author of "Violent Night"

Friday, October 13, 2006

A look at the headlines

North Korea threatens attack again

How many threats will we tolerate? If we or South Korea or Japan gets attacked by Il, how long will it take for the Left to start blaming Bush and the military. After all, he issued several threats right? That’s what they’re doing with 9/11, assigning blame. Yet, the Left seems to be opposed to actually taking these threats seriously

Iran continues nuclear plans

One nut already has the bomb, another is on the verge. The UN has still done NOTHING in either case. My question is "What’s it gonna take?"

Dems would raise taxes if they controlled Congress

This is filed in the category of …Duh!

Air America files for bankruptcy

This is a good indication of the attitude mainstream America has towards the radical Left. I’ve listened to Air America, more out of curiosity than anything, and it was truly vile. I’ve never heard such hatred and anti-American rhetoric from the commentators on that network. There was no healthy debate. There were a lot of character attacks. In short, there was nothing constructive going on. I’m glad that America rejected this nonsense.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Paying too much for gas? How about more taxes?

Al Gore appears in commercial supporting Proposition 87.

Proposition 87 is an initiative appearing on the California ballot that is aimed at stopping California’s dependence on foreign oil. The goal is to cut oil usage by 25% over 10 years while also encouraging new technology that will help eliminate our oil dependancy. How do you think they are going to do this? Well, it’s a measure proposed by Democrats, so that should be your first big clue.

Yes, they will raise taxes. They will tax America oil companies. And the beat goes on.

The Left still clings to the notion that raising taxes does good things – that it encourages positive behavior. I don’t get it. This is capitalism and in such an economy raising taxes on the corporations only hurts the consumer. We’re already paying $3 a gallon for gas with OPEC threatening to cut production even more and these morons want to RAISE taxes on oil companies and thus make us pay MORE at the pump? I guess they can tell us "it's for your own good". And they somehow think this will stimulate research into alternative fuel sources?

Surely not even the people of California will fall for this nonsense. If the 90s proved anything, it’s that R&D is encouraged by lower taxes. The tech boom of that decade was a direct result of the corporate tax breaks from the Reagan era. The ensuing economic collapse of 2000-01 was a direct result of Clinton’s massive corporate tax-hike. Raising taxes on oil companies won’t hurt the oil companies and it won’t encourage more research. It will simply lead to HIGHER prices at the pump, likely industry job cuts and a more sluggish economy.

We ALREADY have the technology. Instead of taxing oil companies, how about building more nuclear power plants? How about setting up financial incentives to increase alcohol-based fuels or biofuels?

I’m all for eliminating our foreign oil dependence. But raising taxes and slowing down the economy is not the way to do it. Good intention, but very bad idea.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

"It was just a mistake"

Mom throws infant at father

A northwestern Pennsylvania woman accused of using her baby to batter her child's father said she didn't realize what she was doing until it was too late. Chyrotia Graham, 27, of Erie, told police she had been drinking when an argument with the child's father turned violent early Sunday morning, according to an affidavit filed to support Graham's arrest. Graham said she "snapped" and began grabbing things and throwing them at Deangelo Troop, 20, not realizing she had picked up her 4-week-old son, Jarron Troop, telling police she held the child by his legs and swung him at his father. "People are trying to make a big deal about it, but she did not do it on purpose. ... It was just a mistake," he (the father) said.

This story is not a joke, it really happened. A mother used her 4 week old son to assault her mate. Let’s think about this a moment. There is something terribly wrong in our culture. I’ve said so many times on this blog that we, as Americans (indeed as humans) have lost touch with the value of human life. That makes for a solid argument against legalized abortion. In the past, I’ve felt that abortion was wrong but didn’t want to go far enough to say that the government should make it illegal…but the news over the past several years have made me rethink that.

When a society begins to lose its morality, then laws have to be inacted to keep the peace. The fewer morals we have, the more laws have to be passed. Abortion has fallen into that category. Before, we could rationalize its legality by saying that we must protect the woman’s health, or we must have a way for victims of rape or incest to keep from bearing their attacker’s child. That’s a good argument and would hold if we maintained our moral fiber. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Now, abortion is being used as birth control and as a means of avoiding an "inconvenience". We’ve overstepped our bounds here.

So what does abortion have to do with this story? By using it as a tool to eliminate an inconvenience or an ‘oops’, we’ve cheapened human life immeasurably. And I think what started with fetuses is now beginning to spill into infancy. After all, if a fetus has no value then what real value does a 4-week-old have? It’s a disturbing trend, the evidence of which we’ve seen over the past two decades. Just last night, there was a story of a newborn found in a wooded area in Boston wrapped in a Hefty bag, placenta and umbilical cord still attacked, tossed away like yesterday’s trash. And many groups that advocate for abortion on demand are beginning to subscribe to the idea of infanticide as a means of "protecting the mother’s health". Soon, people will use things like post-partum depression and anxiety as a reason to do away with newborns. Some may scoff at this, but there is a real possibility here.

So I support overturning Roe v Wade, mainly because we as a society have demonstrated that we can’t handle legalized abortion as it was meant to be. Like a teenager who gets his curfew extended to midnight, we decided to come home at 4 AM. Legalized abortion is beyond our scope of responsibility and if it remains, I feel it will threaten much more than the human fetus. How long until we base the right to exist for the young and the old on how much they contribute to society or how little they inconvenience society? This is not a medical issue, it’s a moral issue. Medically, abortion should be safe, legal and rare; but that’s NOT how we utilize. Morally, abortion should not be an option for a society that can’t see the value of human life, a society that says "it was just a mistake" when a mother hurls her infant at someone in anger.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Once again, it's Bush's fault

North Korea threatens US with a nuclear strike, and the Dems blame Bush.

This is unbelievable and if it wasn’t for the behavior of the Left over the past 3 years I wouldn’t believe it. A senior North Korean official actually threatened to launch a nuclear warhead on the United States if we did not agree to one-on-one talks. So they are demanding that we do their will under threat.

This is not the stunning part. They’ve been tossing these threats around for years. What shocks me is that while they’re threatening us, the Democratic party is calling FOR unilateral talks with North Korea AND criticizing Bush for mishandling the situation. So, Il is saying "do this or we’ll attack" and the Dems are saying "yep, he’s right, we should do as he says."

Bill Clinton gave in on the unilateral talks. He allowed Il to acquire a nuclear reactor and because of this they eventually developed nuclear weapons. They took our technology, stabbed us in the back and now they are threatening us with that same technology. And the Democrats think we should trust him AGAIN, that somehow this is all Bush’s fault.

What some would do or say to gain political favor is disgusting. They criticize Bush for going unilateral with Iraq and criticize him for NOT going unilateral with North Korea. It’s all politics and it does NOTHING to help the situation. And these are the people asking America for control of Congress?

Sunday, October 08, 2006

It's time to draw a line

North Korea set to test nuke

I've posted on this lunatic several times. I've said that North Korea and Iran WILL obtain nuclear weapons. They're both rubbing elbows with Chavez, someone who lives in the Western Hemisphere, and if you remember your Monroe Doctrine then you know that's a bad thing. I've felt and still feel that Il, Chavez and Ahmadinejad could unite in a three pronged attack against us and Israel. Some have scoffed at me for saying this, and I hope to God it won't happen. But we seem to be heading in that direction.

Ahmadinejad and Chavez deliver a two day UN comedy routine bashing us on our own soil. Iran has YET to meet any UN demands for halting their nuclear program and no one seems to know how close they are to having the bomb. But Ahmadinejad has made it clear what his intentions are, even though he contradicts himself daily. Anyone who says Israel should be wiped off the map has no business getting anywhere near nuclear weapons, yet we sit back and wait for the UN to do something. And, for some ungodly reason, the Left seems to be more concerned about Darfur.

Now, Il is on the verge of a nuclear test. What happens when the voices in his head tell him to launch against us, or Japan, or South Korea, or even China? Nothing is beyond possible for him.

You better believe that the first chance that comes, they will find a way to share their nukes with Chavez. We don't have an effective missile defense shield and we could very well be facing a nuclear attack from three different directions. Paranoid? No. This possibility is very real. I'd feel safer giving a one-year old child a handgun. At least that child doesn't know how to use the weapon. These three are absolutely nuts, and soon they will all three have "the bomb". It's not paranoia. There's a very good reason to feel fearful.

We should send a clear signal NOW! I'm talking about opening a few silos and fueling a few missiles to somehow help these idiots understand that what they are doing WILL NOT be tolerated, UN be damned! If not that, then we should park a couple of submarines in Pyongyang's backyard so Il will understand that if he launches he'll only have a few minutes to enjoy it. Enough with these idle threats. Somehow people have the idea that nuclear action is NEVER an option and I think that's a mistake. There is a proper time to use our most powerful weapon and, folks, we're getting close to that time. Conventional strikes may not get the job done and there is no denying the fact that allowing Il to test and possess a nuclear bomb is simply unacceptable. A line must be drawn and actions must occur when that line is crossed. Kennedy drew that line with the Soviets, as did Reagan, and now we must do it again.

Friday, October 06, 2006

Praise from MyShelf.com

I just received another review of my book When Evil Prospers. This one from MyShelf.com. Thanks for the feedback. If anyone else would like to comment on the book, you can do so at the website www.whenevilprospers.com

"When a terrorist bomb explodes in the Arlington, Texas football stadium there are many casualties. One of them is Teresa, the beloved wife of Dr. Mark Daltry. Teresa, Mark, and his brother, Andrew were taking a well-deserved break from their medical duties to view a crucial baseball game, when the peaceful excitement of the game was shattered by the violent explosion caused by the terrorist bomb.

Two terrorists were captured: one in London, the other in Texas. The Texas terrorist is beaten while being interrogated by Dallas police... a violation of the Geneva Convention. This issue will be the source of controversy and taken to the UN. From their interrogation, it is learned that the terrorists were aided by Iran, Mexico and Cuba. The U.S. turns over this evidence to the UN for action. The UN is now controlled by the Third World nations. It is rampant with bribery and corruption, a safe haven for terrorists, and is bent on decreasing the US influence in the world.

President Hillman is a dove, and in turning the evidence over to the UN hopes to avoid military action against Iran, Cuba and Mexico. The UN, Cuba, Mexico and Iran repudiate the U S claims and cast the US in the role of using the tragedy to exploit their nations. Hillman's refusal to take direct action frustrates Texas governor, Ed Hood. His state has been attacked; his borders are overrun by illegal immigrants; the Mexican drug cartel is in control of the border. The Mexican president refuses any assistance in controlling the situation. Hood, who was raised under the standard of God, country and family is a hawk, and when he is given no assistance from the President, determines to bring in his National Guard to minimize the illegal activity. All points of entry are closed; no one leaves and no one comes over without documentation of citizenship or legality.

Mark desires action of some sort to combat those people who violated his private life. His days of practicing medicine are replaced by a mission to help fight against those who slaughter the innocent. America is in trouble and heading for disaster. He and a small group of Texans prepare for the first strike. Events escalate, causing a change in the political future of some and causing a division in the country. Only strong leadership brings about the beginning of the healing of the nation.

To me the book is a platform for the author's views on the decline of social and spiritual mores of the country and its people, and the need for a few good men to take control to bring the country back to its high standards... men of purpose with the help of God. The characterizations are strong with detailed backgrounds which show the influences in their lives. There is considerable stress on the need to have faith in God in all endeavors. The views of the author are presented in a strong and clear manner. You may not agree with all of them, but you do understand what he is saying and are challenged by them. The premises brought forth in the book are alarming to contemplate, and hopefully the future will be brighter. A fascinating read."

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Secret votes and unfree speech

Senators have power to place secret hold on Senate Bills

A bill comes before the Senate. It allows for full public disclosure of government spending. If Congress spends $800 on a toilet, we can find out. Sounds like a good idea, but when the vote comes up any Senator has the ability to place a "secret hold" on the bill. Basically, the vote is stopped, and the Senator in question remains anonymous.

Alaska Senator Ted Stevens and West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd did just that. Byrd later lifted his hold, but the fact that any Senator can do something like this anonymously is pretty outrageous. IN fact, our elected leaders shouldn't be doing ANYTHING at work anonymously. The last time I looked, a democratic government was supposed to be transparent. I guess our politicians don't agree.

Hopefully the bill gets through and hopefully this "secret hold" rule is canned, but I doubt it. Until the politicians are booted out of Washington, things like this will continue.

And speaking of fascists, did anyone see the news clips of the student protests at Columbia University? Apparently, the leaders of the Minutemen were invited to speak, and about one hour into it a socialist student political group stormed the stage and incited a physical altercation. One of the Minutemen leaders (a black man) was even verbally assaulted with racial slurs. So much for free speech. I thought the Left was supposed to support tolerance and openness. I guess that only applies to those who share their point of view. Add Columbia University to the long list of far left institutions that have lost touch with mainstream America.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

It's the guns, right?

My heart goes out to the families in Pennsylvania. As for their killer, he's likely getting what he deserves at this moment. Say hello to Zharqawi and Hitler for us you sick S.O.B.

It's only a matter of time before the Left starts with their usual outcry. Right now, they're a little distracted with the Hastert witch hunt, but give it time. Soon you'll hear the gun control crowd pipe up. Yes, surely all the school violence and the horrendous crime against our kids can be attributed to the evil guns and gun makers of this country. Give it time. You'll hear from them soon.

In my mind, guns aren't the problem. We've had guns in this country for over 200 years. We've only started murdering our children over the past decade. It doesn't take a genius to see that we've become morally bankrupt in this country. That's the problem with America. That's why our children are in danger. Taking away the guns won't solve a damn thing. Immoral people can kill with a lead pipe just as easy as they can with a gun.

Don't believe me? Stop at any moment in your day tomorrow. Take 5 minutes to look around. What do you see? Kids are growing up without proper parental supervision. The 'single-parent' has become just as common as the two parent household. Child abuse is rampant and now we're calling the pedophiles' criminal behavior an illness. We say they need treatment rather than punishment.

We advocate every form of violence, sex acts and graphic scenes on TV and in art as 'free speech' but we invoke the Constitution as a means of keeping God away from our public school system. Today, you can drink a beer nude while uttering every profanity known to man on television. That's OK. But try to mention Jesus and you'll be mobbed faster than you can say Madeline Murray O'Hare.

We call abortion a medical treatment and the death penalty murder. We turn our heads from the adulterous behavior of a President and instead of our elected leaders taking action to protect our kids, they contribute to the problem. "Separation of Church and State" has been inserted into the Constitution as a means of eliminating God from government and public life. We let our kids watch decapitations, stabbings, shootings, disembowements and eviscerations on TV and in video games, but if one of them tries to read the Bible in school it generates a lawsuit.

Child sex predators are "sentenced" to 60 days in jail, while Martha Stewart gets 5 months for insider trading. It's a greater crime to buy stock with inside information than to rape a child in this country. Abortion is advocated as a form of birth control, but try and detain a group of anti-American terrorists and suddenly we're violating human rights.

And we have the gall to be shocked when a man walks into a school and executes a group of young girls?

Either we are in a massive state of denial, or we've collectively agreed to continue on our self-destructive path, consumed with our self-serving agendas that ignores the needs of the next generation and basically don't care about the end result of our sins. Maybe it's a little bit of both. But, either way, it's a national tragedy and our kids are paying the ultimate price. It's something we will ALL have to answer to one day.

Another unethical policitian....no way?

Democratic Congressional candidate with suspect expense account

Democrat congressional candidate Mike Arcuri, while serving as district attorney of Oneida County, N.Y., has billed taxpayers for several questionable expenses, including a call to a phone-sex hotline, according to records obtained by HumanEvents.com.Arcuri, running in New York’s 24th District against Republican Ray Meier, has spent the past 12 years as Oneida County’s district attorney. During that period, his annual expense reimbursements have skyrocketed. From 1998 to 2005, they increased nearly 7,000%....click link for more

Hmmm...seems like we have a recurring theme. Yet, it's the Republicans who have ethical issues.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Where is our Third Party?

I’ve made no bones about my ire towards politicians, and this Foley scandal is doing nothing to assuage that. I posted yesterday on Foley’s actions. He resigned and is out of politics forever. The GOP has asked the proper authorities to investigate for evidence of any state or federal law violation and, if found, hopefully will call for full prosecution of Foley. That would be the right thing to do. This blogger will be watching.

Now comes the politics, as expected. One by one the Left is parading in front of the cameras, condemning the Republicans and speaker Hastert, as though the entire party is guilty. Fox News, The Miami Herald and The ‘Leningrad’ Times are being criticized for ‘sitting’ on an email in which Foley asked the page in question for a photograph. But, Hastert is taking the brunt of the criticism. Apparently, Hastert should have known there was inappropriate behavior from Foley, even though these three major news outlets – all of which had the same information Hastert had – didn’t see a "story" worth reporting. And anyone who knows The ‘Leningrad’ Times also knows that if they had some dirt on a Republican Congressman they wouldn’t hesitate to report it. They aren’t exactly supportive of the GOP. But they didn’t report it, probably because they are familiar with the defamation and libel laws in this country.

But Hastert should have known, and now they want him to resign. I’m no big fan of Denny Hastert and his do-nothing GOP fatcats, but I don’t see how he is responsible in any way for Foley’s wrongdoing. And when scores of Democrats start claiming moral high ground, it brings the putrid taste of bile into my mouth. I’ll say it again. NEITHER party has ANY basis for claiming moral superiority. I’m tired of this partisan hypocrisy that overlooks the wrongdoing of one only to point fingers at others when it benefits them politically. Politics is a mental illness that has infected our elected leaders and somehow prevents them from ‘calling it as it is’. For some reason, these people only see wrong behavior when it can help them politically. It’s disgusting.

In my opinion, the only Dems who have the right to criticize Foley are the ones who also criticized Rep Jefferson in his questionable financial dealings and Clinton in his adulterous behavior. Does anyone in that party fit this description? No? Then shut it. I don’t want to hear of Congressmen having inappropriate relationships with minors any more than I want to hear of hypocritical charges from the other party. I’m sure I am not the only one who feels that way. Come November, if I had my way, they would ALL be looking for a job. I’m tired of Americans electing people who would better serve this country behind bars than in the halls of Congress, yet we continue to do so. Where is the credible third party that we all so desperately need?

Monday, October 02, 2006

When will we say 'enough is enough'?

Rep Foley resigns, enters rehab

In yet another story of a politician doing something immoral and possibly illegal, Representative Mark Foley resigns and enters alcohol rehab. I've had it.

Politicians are politicians, and neither party has proven to me that they have any interest in serving this country and their constituents ahead of serving themselves. Regardless which party takes control of Congress in November, this will not change. And it's amazing to me how the 'other' party suddenly jumps up screaming about the opposition's shortcomings whenever a scandal like this breaks. I have news for ALL of you...neither party in Washington has ANY basis to claim moral high ground at ANY point, so don't even try it.

Our elected leaders in Congress have failed us, and this latest scandal is just more evidence supporting that. So do we put the Dems in control? Yeah, right. That's the equivalent of dumping gasoline on a fire if you ask me...just because it's liquid and you feel the need to do something doesn't mean you should throw it on the flames.

Politics in Washington won't change until we take the politicians out of it. How? Take the money out. Stop the lobbyists, cut campaign finance to the bone and prosecute fiercely anyone who violates these laws. Cut Congressional salaries to minimum wage or just above and cut benefits.

"No public office should be so profitable as to make it desirable" - Ben Franklin

Until this becomes true, there will always be scandals in Washington. I'm glad Foley resigned and I hope this is investigated. If he solicited sex from a minor, he needs to go to jail for a LONG time.