WEP has returned from the holidays. I hope everyone had a safe and Merry Christmas. Before I post today, I want to send a special prayer for Benazir Bhutto, her family and supporters, the people of Pakistan and America. The radical Islamists once again show that they have hardly retreated into the shadows. Bhutto was a friend of the West. She believed in democracy, equality and basic human rights. She rejected much of the old Sharia that so many radical Muslims embrace, and she was murdered for it. Now, an entire nation is ready to be ripped apart at the seams while Musharraf appears powerless to stop it. Make no mistake, this is a very dangerous situation with implications for every citizen of the world. Pakistan has dozens of nuclear weapons and if Musharraf loses control of those the Iranian threat suddenly becomes minute in comparison.
On a related note, I'd like to point out yet another tasteless moment from John Edwards. He called Pervez Musharraf after the murder of Bhutto, apparently to urge the Pakistani president to continue to press for democracy in his counry. This was moments after a major political figure was assassinated and the entire country was on the verge of brutal riots, and John Edwards - someone with absolutely NO political power or position in our government - decides to put in a personal phone call. Huh? Pretentious doesn't begin to describe this. Tacky, inappropriate, arrogant, assuming would all fit as well, insert your own synonym, but this is a prime example of the type of person John Edwards is...delusional AND cocky.
And let's not leave out Mike Huckabee, who (along with every other presidential candidate) attempted to capitalize on the situation by claiming (along with every other presidential candidate) that HE was best suited to deal with similar international incidents as president. My guess is that Huckabee probably couldn't find Pakistan on a map, but that's another post. The actual reason why I singled him out of the crowd of buzzards is because during his opportunistic stumping he made a statement regarding his concern for martial law in Pakistan and how much longer this would go on. Apparently, no one informed Mikey that martial law ended over 2 weeks ago. Yeah, and this guy wants to be president? I don't care how close you are to Jesus. If you can't keep up with current events in the Muslim community, especially ones involving nuclear nations, then the White House is the last place you need to be.
Meanwhile, here is a link to the latest info from Iraq with an excerpt below:
BAGHDAD — Iraq's interior ministry spokesman said Saturday that 75 percent of Al Qaeda in Iraq's terrorist network had been destroyed this year, but the top American commander in the country said the terror group remained his chief concern. Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf said the disruption of the terrorist network was due to improvements in the Iraqi security forces, which he said had made strides in weeding out commanders and officers with ties to militias or who were involved in criminal activities.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Monday, December 24, 2007
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us." When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written: "'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'"
Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him." After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route. When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him."
So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more."
After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead." So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."
--Matthew 1:18 - 2:23 New International Version
Merry Christmas to all! May God keep you and yours safe this holiday season!
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us." When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written: "'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'"
Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him." After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route. When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him."
So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more."
After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead." So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."
--Matthew 1:18 - 2:23 New International Version
Merry Christmas to all! May God keep you and yours safe this holiday season!
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Harry Reid seems to have changed his mind about some things in Iraq:
4/19/07: “I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — that this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq,”
12/21/07: "The president said, "Let's send some more troops over there, and that will give the Iraqis the time to take care of themselves." We sent other troops over there, and there are a lot of reasons the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that."
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
And here is Steven Milloy's latest column on the recent Energy Bill passed by Congress. A sample follows: "First, the law requires auto fuel efficiency standards to increase by 40 percent by 2020. Unfortunately, this goal is presently only achievable by reducing vehicle weight — but lighter cars are deadlier cars. So what’s the purported benefit of mandating 4,000 or more deaths per year? The law’s supporters claim that it may reduce national oil consumption by about 5 percent (400 million barrels of oil per year). Doing the math, your life is now worth about 100,000 barrels of oil. In touting the law, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “it is an environmental issue, and therefore a health issue… it is an energy issue, and it is a moral issue.”
But what exactly is the morality of risking thousands of lives every year to reduce oil consumption by an inconsequential amount?"
4/19/07: “I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — that this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq,”
12/21/07: "The president said, "Let's send some more troops over there, and that will give the Iraqis the time to take care of themselves." We sent other troops over there, and there are a lot of reasons the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that."
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
And here is Steven Milloy's latest column on the recent Energy Bill passed by Congress. A sample follows: "First, the law requires auto fuel efficiency standards to increase by 40 percent by 2020. Unfortunately, this goal is presently only achievable by reducing vehicle weight — but lighter cars are deadlier cars. So what’s the purported benefit of mandating 4,000 or more deaths per year? The law’s supporters claim that it may reduce national oil consumption by about 5 percent (400 million barrels of oil per year). Doing the math, your life is now worth about 100,000 barrels of oil. In touting the law, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “it is an environmental issue, and therefore a health issue… it is an energy issue, and it is a moral issue.”
But what exactly is the morality of risking thousands of lives every year to reduce oil consumption by an inconsequential amount?"
Thursday, December 20, 2007
I've made my thoughts about Mike Huckabee known, but the latest headline on his campaign is beyond ridiculous. I don't like the guy's politics and will most certainly NOT vote for him in the primary, but he is getting a raw deal on this Christmas ad fiasco.
In the ad, Huckabee basically says that there is a lot of nastiness going on in politics, and that maybe it's a good idea to put that aside and reflect on what's important this Christmas. He refers to family, friends, and celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, which is the reason why Christmas is celebrated and why it is a federal holiday. Naturally, this is enough to have liberals foaming at the mouth, even Catholic League president Bill Donahue called the ad inappropriate. But there's apparently more to the ad. Behind Huckabee is a white bookcase, and the shelves of that bookcase form a cross that appears to "hover" behind Huckabee's head. Donahue says this is a subliminal message and has heavily criticized Huckabee for it. Huh?
Click here to watch this heinous ad
Personally, I think it was well done. Yes, I am tired of all the political ads and we haven't even cast a single vote. So it's refreshing to see a candidate showing his human side, not saying anything derogatory, and wishing viewers good tidings. In short, it was nice. Mike Huckabee is entitled to his beliefs. He celebrates Christmas because of the birth of Christ. That's "what really matters" to him and this ad was partly meant to express that to people. I didn't see anything offensive. I didn't see him thrusting his religion on anyone. He didn't ask anyone to convert to his faith. He made a simple statement about what he believes. Put it this way, had Joe Leiberman run a similar ad in 2000 wishing everyone a Happy Hannakuh, I would have felt the same way, and I certainly would not have been offended or felt as though he was forcing his Jewish faith on me or anyone else. I would have supported Leiberman in doing that as I support Huckabee now.
And the white cross thing is laughable. Yes, I saw the image but it seems purely coincidental. In fact, towards the end it actually resembles an upside-down cross. Maybe Huckabee secretly worships the devil. When you think about it, there are crosses everywhere. Maybe Christians are planning a theocratic coup. You can't spell United States without using 3 crosses, which is the same number that stood on Golgotha the day Christ was executed. Coincidence? Oh, I think not!
But seriously, let's just suppose that it's not a coincidence and the director filmed it that way on purpose. What would the subliminal message be? That Huckabee believes in Jesus? I think he's pretty clear about that. There's nothing subliminal about it. Bill Donahue and the rest of the crazies need to relax a bit. It's okay if a politician talks about Jesus. He's not trying to force you to worship our God. If you vote for him, no one is going to forcibly baptize you.
I never understood the hysteria surrounding Christianity these days. Maybe it's just coming from the left's Bush derangement syndrome, but it seems like whenever a political candidate talks about his faith (especially a Christian faith) the left seems to recoil in horror. There is a fear amongst the lefties of any politician who believes in Jesus. Why? And why now?
For the better part of two centuries this country was run predominantly by Christians. References to America's Christian heritage are everywhere. Our greatest leaders - from Washington to Jefferson to Lincoln to Dr King to Roosevelt - were all devout Christians (yes, I said Jefferson). In fact, Jefferson's claim that our basic human rights are endowed "by our Creator" was an incredibly important fundamental principle in the creation of the USA. Not one of them sought to impose this religion on the nation. Not one of them advocated for a theocracy. Yet, I get the impression that that's exactly what the left fears...that a Christian leader or leaders will attempt to transform American into some fanatical Christian theocracy. Again I say, huh?
I don't know, nor have I ever known, a single Christian who would support such an action. First, the Constitution forbids it, and Christians believe, support and abide by the Constitution. Second, the BIBLE forbids it. Jesus Himself said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". This is the very philosophy that found it's way into the first amendment.
America was founded, in part, because people were escaping religious persecution. Protestantism came about, in part, because Christians did not want church leaders to have too much power over them. Let me say it plainly...CHRISTIANS DO NOT WANT AMERICA TO BE A CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY. And, even more importantly, CHRISTIANS DO NOT SEEK TO CONVERT ANYONE AGAINST THEIR WILL. That would be a violation of our God's directives.
I can't be much clearer. And, to be honest, I wonder if there is something more to the story. I wonder if lefties fear Christian leadership for other reasons. Oh well, I guess that's another post. For now, I salute Huckabee for his message. I don't think there was anything malicious about it, and I don't think there is anything offensive about it. He doesn't have my vote, but he has my support in this particular matter.
In the ad, Huckabee basically says that there is a lot of nastiness going on in politics, and that maybe it's a good idea to put that aside and reflect on what's important this Christmas. He refers to family, friends, and celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, which is the reason why Christmas is celebrated and why it is a federal holiday. Naturally, this is enough to have liberals foaming at the mouth, even Catholic League president Bill Donahue called the ad inappropriate. But there's apparently more to the ad. Behind Huckabee is a white bookcase, and the shelves of that bookcase form a cross that appears to "hover" behind Huckabee's head. Donahue says this is a subliminal message and has heavily criticized Huckabee for it. Huh?
Click here to watch this heinous ad
Personally, I think it was well done. Yes, I am tired of all the political ads and we haven't even cast a single vote. So it's refreshing to see a candidate showing his human side, not saying anything derogatory, and wishing viewers good tidings. In short, it was nice. Mike Huckabee is entitled to his beliefs. He celebrates Christmas because of the birth of Christ. That's "what really matters" to him and this ad was partly meant to express that to people. I didn't see anything offensive. I didn't see him thrusting his religion on anyone. He didn't ask anyone to convert to his faith. He made a simple statement about what he believes. Put it this way, had Joe Leiberman run a similar ad in 2000 wishing everyone a Happy Hannakuh, I would have felt the same way, and I certainly would not have been offended or felt as though he was forcing his Jewish faith on me or anyone else. I would have supported Leiberman in doing that as I support Huckabee now.
And the white cross thing is laughable. Yes, I saw the image but it seems purely coincidental. In fact, towards the end it actually resembles an upside-down cross. Maybe Huckabee secretly worships the devil. When you think about it, there are crosses everywhere. Maybe Christians are planning a theocratic coup. You can't spell United States without using 3 crosses, which is the same number that stood on Golgotha the day Christ was executed. Coincidence? Oh, I think not!
But seriously, let's just suppose that it's not a coincidence and the director filmed it that way on purpose. What would the subliminal message be? That Huckabee believes in Jesus? I think he's pretty clear about that. There's nothing subliminal about it. Bill Donahue and the rest of the crazies need to relax a bit. It's okay if a politician talks about Jesus. He's not trying to force you to worship our God. If you vote for him, no one is going to forcibly baptize you.
I never understood the hysteria surrounding Christianity these days. Maybe it's just coming from the left's Bush derangement syndrome, but it seems like whenever a political candidate talks about his faith (especially a Christian faith) the left seems to recoil in horror. There is a fear amongst the lefties of any politician who believes in Jesus. Why? And why now?
For the better part of two centuries this country was run predominantly by Christians. References to America's Christian heritage are everywhere. Our greatest leaders - from Washington to Jefferson to Lincoln to Dr King to Roosevelt - were all devout Christians (yes, I said Jefferson). In fact, Jefferson's claim that our basic human rights are endowed "by our Creator" was an incredibly important fundamental principle in the creation of the USA. Not one of them sought to impose this religion on the nation. Not one of them advocated for a theocracy. Yet, I get the impression that that's exactly what the left fears...that a Christian leader or leaders will attempt to transform American into some fanatical Christian theocracy. Again I say, huh?
I don't know, nor have I ever known, a single Christian who would support such an action. First, the Constitution forbids it, and Christians believe, support and abide by the Constitution. Second, the BIBLE forbids it. Jesus Himself said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". This is the very philosophy that found it's way into the first amendment.
America was founded, in part, because people were escaping religious persecution. Protestantism came about, in part, because Christians did not want church leaders to have too much power over them. Let me say it plainly...CHRISTIANS DO NOT WANT AMERICA TO BE A CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY. And, even more importantly, CHRISTIANS DO NOT SEEK TO CONVERT ANYONE AGAINST THEIR WILL. That would be a violation of our God's directives.
I can't be much clearer. And, to be honest, I wonder if there is something more to the story. I wonder if lefties fear Christian leadership for other reasons. Oh well, I guess that's another post. For now, I salute Huckabee for his message. I don't think there was anything malicious about it, and I don't think there is anything offensive about it. He doesn't have my vote, but he has my support in this particular matter.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
MISSION VIEJO, Calif. A Mission Viejo history teacher is being sued for making what a student calls anti-Christian comments.Capistrano Valley High School sophomore Chad Farnan and his parents filed the lawsuit against James Corbett last week.They allege that Corbett's remarks during an Advanced Placement European history promoted religious intolerance in violation of the First Amendment.Court papers cite classroom tape recordings in which Corbett says "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth," and other remarks that troubled Farnan.
Some of the comments by his teacher, James Corbett, included, "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth” and "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies – that's interfering with God's work.” The comments were made while he was teaching Advanced Placement European history at Capistrano Valley High School.
Corbett also said that Christians want their women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Nice.
I completely agree with Chad Farnan and I wish him all the best. I hope that he is vindicated in this lawsuit and the teacher in question is reprimanded. I have said many times that anti-Christian bigotry is the only accepted form of hate in mainstream America nowadays. This is just another example, but there are many more out there. Recently, a commentator with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer said this about Mike Huckabee: “If you happen to be walking behind presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee, you might see a small trail of blood and hear a scraping sound. That’s because his knuckles are dragging. This darling of the evangelical right has proven himself to be every bit the caveman we mainstreamers believe him to be.”
And what's interesting is that these are the very people who claim Christians are intolerant! Amazing.
Farnan's claim is that the teacher violated his first amendment right by promoting religious intolerance and hostility towards the student's religion. Liberals often forget that the first amendment protects the "free practice thereof" when it comes to religion, something I'm sure many of them would LOVE to change. In my opinion, I think Farnan has a legitimate gripe, although proving the teacher was prohibiting his free practice of religion may be a stretch. Nevertheless, I hope the young man is successful.
I think a better argument would be one of discrimination. What this guy said was blatant bigotry. Don't believe me? Well, let's take the "Jesus glasses" comment, change one word, and see how it sounds:
"When you put on your BLACK glasses, you can't see the truth"
"When you put on your JEW glasses, you can't see the truth"
"When you put on your GAY & LESBIAN glasses, you can't see the truth"
"When you put on your MUHAMMED glasses, you can't see the truth"
"When you put on your FEMINIST glasses, you can't see the truth"
I think my point is clear. I'm willing to bet that CNN, the NY Times and the major networks didn't cover this story, which would hardly be the case if a public school teacher had uttered one of the above remarks to his high school history class. In fact, one of the above remarks probably would have gotten a teacher fired on the spot. But not when that person attacks Christians.
I've said before, attacking someone for their religious beliefs is fundamentally un-American, UnConstitutional and should not be tolerated in any environment. This teacher deserves a serious reprimand and all teachers must learn a valuable lesson. Your job is to teach our children history, math, English and science while keeping your personal hatred and bias to yourself. If you can't do this, then it's probably time to find a new profession.
Some of the comments by his teacher, James Corbett, included, "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth” and "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies – that's interfering with God's work.” The comments were made while he was teaching Advanced Placement European history at Capistrano Valley High School.
Corbett also said that Christians want their women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Nice.
I completely agree with Chad Farnan and I wish him all the best. I hope that he is vindicated in this lawsuit and the teacher in question is reprimanded. I have said many times that anti-Christian bigotry is the only accepted form of hate in mainstream America nowadays. This is just another example, but there are many more out there. Recently, a commentator with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer said this about Mike Huckabee: “If you happen to be walking behind presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee, you might see a small trail of blood and hear a scraping sound. That’s because his knuckles are dragging. This darling of the evangelical right has proven himself to be every bit the caveman we mainstreamers believe him to be.”
And what's interesting is that these are the very people who claim Christians are intolerant! Amazing.
Farnan's claim is that the teacher violated his first amendment right by promoting religious intolerance and hostility towards the student's religion. Liberals often forget that the first amendment protects the "free practice thereof" when it comes to religion, something I'm sure many of them would LOVE to change. In my opinion, I think Farnan has a legitimate gripe, although proving the teacher was prohibiting his free practice of religion may be a stretch. Nevertheless, I hope the young man is successful.
I think a better argument would be one of discrimination. What this guy said was blatant bigotry. Don't believe me? Well, let's take the "Jesus glasses" comment, change one word, and see how it sounds:
"When you put on your BLACK glasses, you can't see the truth"
"When you put on your JEW glasses, you can't see the truth"
"When you put on your GAY & LESBIAN glasses, you can't see the truth"
"When you put on your MUHAMMED glasses, you can't see the truth"
"When you put on your FEMINIST glasses, you can't see the truth"
I think my point is clear. I'm willing to bet that CNN, the NY Times and the major networks didn't cover this story, which would hardly be the case if a public school teacher had uttered one of the above remarks to his high school history class. In fact, one of the above remarks probably would have gotten a teacher fired on the spot. But not when that person attacks Christians.
I've said before, attacking someone for their religious beliefs is fundamentally un-American, UnConstitutional and should not be tolerated in any environment. This teacher deserves a serious reprimand and all teachers must learn a valuable lesson. Your job is to teach our children history, math, English and science while keeping your personal hatred and bias to yourself. If you can't do this, then it's probably time to find a new profession.
Monday, December 17, 2007
The state of New Jersey today has officially banned the death penalty. This is welcome news to eight of New Jersey's most vile criminals who were on death row when the Governor issued the ban. Among those is Jesse Timmendequas, a sex offender who murdered 7-year-old Megan Kanka in 1994. The case inspired Megan's Law, which requires law enforcement agencies to notify the public about convicted sex offenders living in their communities.
The Justice system felt Timmendequas deserved to die for his crime. Thanks to the latest efforts by lawmakers, that will not happen. Timmendequas will now spend the rest of his life as a ward of the state. He gets to read books, exercise, watch TV (probably with cable) and eat three hot meals a day while the New Jersey taxpayers pick up the tab for someone who should be executed. I'm sure there are many who think this is good news, not me. But that's a problem the people of New Jersey will have to deal with.
Soon, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments about lethal injection and whether this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This seems laughable at best, but the fact that this has made it all the way to SCOTUS is no laughing matter. How anyone could think that a technique (IV injection) that is used to save lives would constitute cruel and unusual punishment is beyond me. But this is typical from the bleeding hearts who think criminals deserve more pity than their victims. Whatever.
I will be watching SCOTUS with interest. This is the same court that allows elective abortions of human fetuses. I'd like to point out that there is considerable evidence that a human fetus is capable of feeling pain as early as NINE weeks gestation and it is generally accepted that a 13 week fetus most certainly has this ability, yet the Supreme Court feels it is acceptable to inflict pain on these people during the process of killing them. I feel they should weigh this as they hear the arguments on IV injection. If injecting a lethal substance constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, then I'd like to hear how they balance that with a second or third trimester abortion OR a partial birth abortion. It should be interesting.
The Justice system felt Timmendequas deserved to die for his crime. Thanks to the latest efforts by lawmakers, that will not happen. Timmendequas will now spend the rest of his life as a ward of the state. He gets to read books, exercise, watch TV (probably with cable) and eat three hot meals a day while the New Jersey taxpayers pick up the tab for someone who should be executed. I'm sure there are many who think this is good news, not me. But that's a problem the people of New Jersey will have to deal with.
Soon, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments about lethal injection and whether this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This seems laughable at best, but the fact that this has made it all the way to SCOTUS is no laughing matter. How anyone could think that a technique (IV injection) that is used to save lives would constitute cruel and unusual punishment is beyond me. But this is typical from the bleeding hearts who think criminals deserve more pity than their victims. Whatever.
I will be watching SCOTUS with interest. This is the same court that allows elective abortions of human fetuses. I'd like to point out that there is considerable evidence that a human fetus is capable of feeling pain as early as NINE weeks gestation and it is generally accepted that a 13 week fetus most certainly has this ability, yet the Supreme Court feels it is acceptable to inflict pain on these people during the process of killing them. I feel they should weigh this as they hear the arguments on IV injection. If injecting a lethal substance constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, then I'd like to hear how they balance that with a second or third trimester abortion OR a partial birth abortion. It should be interesting.
For any parents out there who are thinking of taking their children to see the latest "children's movie" The Golden Compass, here are a few things to know:
A mysterious, truth-telling compass, shape-changing creatures, ferocious, armored bears racing across snow-covered landscapes, and a scrappy 11-year-old named Lyra Belacqua as the heroine — all that and more are promised in The Golden Compass, a film scheduled for release this December and based on the first volume in Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials, a Carnegie award-winning series for young adults. But there’s more to these books than a well-told adventure story. Here’s the scoop on this immensely praised but controversial trilogy.
The Christian Church featured in the world of the novels — a parallel world to our own — is portrayed as a powerful group of misguided, sin-obsessed individuals bent on oppressing truth, knowledge, and “every good feeling.” The group is often referred to as “the Magisterium.” In this world, the Authority — the God of Christianity, and also a representative of authority in the general sense — is a tyrannical liar who only pretends to have created the universe and who, by the time the trilogy’s ultimate battle is waged, is a pitifully frail old man who is relieved that someone has come along to put an end to his existence. The character Mary Malone, a former nun introduced in the second book of the trilogy, sums up what would appear to be the author’s view: “The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that’s all.” MORE from CATHOLIC DIGEST
Here is a link to SNOPES, confirming the underlying theme of this movie, and the mission of the leading characters to kill god
A mysterious, truth-telling compass, shape-changing creatures, ferocious, armored bears racing across snow-covered landscapes, and a scrappy 11-year-old named Lyra Belacqua as the heroine — all that and more are promised in The Golden Compass, a film scheduled for release this December and based on the first volume in Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials, a Carnegie award-winning series for young adults. But there’s more to these books than a well-told adventure story. Here’s the scoop on this immensely praised but controversial trilogy.
The Christian Church featured in the world of the novels — a parallel world to our own — is portrayed as a powerful group of misguided, sin-obsessed individuals bent on oppressing truth, knowledge, and “every good feeling.” The group is often referred to as “the Magisterium.” In this world, the Authority — the God of Christianity, and also a representative of authority in the general sense — is a tyrannical liar who only pretends to have created the universe and who, by the time the trilogy’s ultimate battle is waged, is a pitifully frail old man who is relieved that someone has come along to put an end to his existence. The character Mary Malone, a former nun introduced in the second book of the trilogy, sums up what would appear to be the author’s view: “The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that’s all.” MORE from CATHOLIC DIGEST
Here is a link to SNOPES, confirming the underlying theme of this movie, and the mission of the leading characters to kill god
Sunday, December 16, 2007
And if we're still looking for $50 billion to fix the AMT, consider the recent farm bill that both houses are working on. The Senate on Friday approved a $286 billion farm bill with an election-year expansion of subsidies for growers and food stamps for the poor.
$286 billion to EXPAND subsidies. For those who don't know, one consistent sure-fire result of government subsidies is higher prices. Look at the current price of corn and you'll understand. This is the result of government subsidies in order to increase ethanol fuel. And Congress wants to spend nearly $300 billion to EXPAND these subsidies to other crops like wheat, barley, oat and soybeans. Just wait, the prices for all of these will soon begin to climb the moment this legislation is made into law.
And before you start advocating for the average American farmer, you should know that the vast majority of these subsidies don't go to the poor Midwest farmer working the family plot of a few hundred acres. Oh no. Most of this money goes to major corporations that have bought up these farms all over the country. For those who curse "big oil", you may also want to take a close look at "big corn". You may be surprised at what you find. Check out this article on Archer Daniels Midland, a company that raked in $236 million in corn profits in 2005.
But the Senate wants to limit this. They propose capping payments to anyone who makes more than $750,000 a year. The House wants to cap at $1 million. Bush wants that cap to be $200,000. Apparently that's unacceptable to Congress. Funny, I thought the Dems were opposed to the wealthy. I guess when it comes to "big farming" that's a different story.
I'm sure if Congress adopted Bush's proposal they'd be able to find the $50 billion for AMT relief. Remember, this is a $300 billion bill. Obviously, subsidizing major farming corporations is much more important than fair taxes for the middle class. Who knows, if Congress fixed the AMT there may not be as much of a need for food stamps for the poor.
$286 billion to EXPAND subsidies. For those who don't know, one consistent sure-fire result of government subsidies is higher prices. Look at the current price of corn and you'll understand. This is the result of government subsidies in order to increase ethanol fuel. And Congress wants to spend nearly $300 billion to EXPAND these subsidies to other crops like wheat, barley, oat and soybeans. Just wait, the prices for all of these will soon begin to climb the moment this legislation is made into law.
And before you start advocating for the average American farmer, you should know that the vast majority of these subsidies don't go to the poor Midwest farmer working the family plot of a few hundred acres. Oh no. Most of this money goes to major corporations that have bought up these farms all over the country. For those who curse "big oil", you may also want to take a close look at "big corn". You may be surprised at what you find. Check out this article on Archer Daniels Midland, a company that raked in $236 million in corn profits in 2005.
But the Senate wants to limit this. They propose capping payments to anyone who makes more than $750,000 a year. The House wants to cap at $1 million. Bush wants that cap to be $200,000. Apparently that's unacceptable to Congress. Funny, I thought the Dems were opposed to the wealthy. I guess when it comes to "big farming" that's a different story.
I'm sure if Congress adopted Bush's proposal they'd be able to find the $50 billion for AMT relief. Remember, this is a $300 billion bill. Obviously, subsidizing major farming corporations is much more important than fair taxes for the middle class. Who knows, if Congress fixed the AMT there may not be as much of a need for food stamps for the poor.
And while the AMT remains on the table, Nancy Pelosi and her merry band of fleecers have moved to pass an energy bill that...well...does absolutely nothing good for Americans. The bill requires an increase in automobile fuel efficiency to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 and also requires an increase of ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a nearly sixfold increase over expected 2007 production. It also requires new efficiency standards for appliances, light bulbs and commercial buildings.
Pelosi says this will save people money at the pump and put us on the road to energy independence. Sounds great!
But what she didn't say is that ethanol is a very inefficient fuel and, mile-for-mile, is no cheaper than gasoline (in fact, it will likely cost more). So automakers will have to figure out how to build fuel efficient cars that run on inefficient fuel. Sounds expensive to me. She also didn't mention what these government mandates will do to the corn market. How much do you pay for a gallon of milk nowadays? Expect it to go up. She also didn't mention that gasoline use in automobiles accounts for only a small percentage of our foreign oil consumption. She also didn't mention that all of these requirements will increase costs for corporations, who will subsequently pass those costs to us the consumer.
So, we will be putting fuel in our cars that is less efficient and will likely cost more than gasoline, while paying more for milk than we do gasoline, and not getting any closer to energy independence, all while our overall cost of living increases. Thanks, Ms Pelosi and (if he signs it) Mr. Bush.
By the way, there is nothing in the bill that addresses additional domestic oil drilling, especially the prospect of drilling off-shore in the Gulf of Mexico where China and Cuba are eyeballing the rich oil fields. There is nothing about increasing nuclear power, a clean fuel that could greatly reduce our foreign energy dependence. There is nothing about building more refineries, the lack of which contributes greatly to high gas prices.
Oh yeah, Congress still hasn't fixed the AMT.
Pelosi says this will save people money at the pump and put us on the road to energy independence. Sounds great!
But what she didn't say is that ethanol is a very inefficient fuel and, mile-for-mile, is no cheaper than gasoline (in fact, it will likely cost more). So automakers will have to figure out how to build fuel efficient cars that run on inefficient fuel. Sounds expensive to me. She also didn't mention what these government mandates will do to the corn market. How much do you pay for a gallon of milk nowadays? Expect it to go up. She also didn't mention that gasoline use in automobiles accounts for only a small percentage of our foreign oil consumption. She also didn't mention that all of these requirements will increase costs for corporations, who will subsequently pass those costs to us the consumer.
So, we will be putting fuel in our cars that is less efficient and will likely cost more than gasoline, while paying more for milk than we do gasoline, and not getting any closer to energy independence, all while our overall cost of living increases. Thanks, Ms Pelosi and (if he signs it) Mr. Bush.
By the way, there is nothing in the bill that addresses additional domestic oil drilling, especially the prospect of drilling off-shore in the Gulf of Mexico where China and Cuba are eyeballing the rich oil fields. There is nothing about increasing nuclear power, a clean fuel that could greatly reduce our foreign energy dependence. There is nothing about building more refineries, the lack of which contributes greatly to high gas prices.
Oh yeah, Congress still hasn't fixed the AMT.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
To piggyback on my last post, just as Congress whines over not being able to find $50 billion to cut from the budget to allow for eliminating the AMT, I thought I'd include some examples of what they feel is necessary spending. As you read, remember that Congress would rather spend this money on these projects than provide middle class families protection from the heinous AMT. Click here for a full list, but here are a few examples:
$500 million in aid to the Palestinians (in addition to the $400 million already pledged)
$2 million for Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service, City College of New York
$1million for Clinton School of Public Service, Little Rock, Arkansas
$3.76 million for LBJ Presidential Library
$2 million for Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation
$4 million Fourteen-Mile CSX Bridge, Alabama
$1 million Irish Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
$9 million Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
$2.4 million Urban Collector Road, Mississippi
$10.6 million National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
$5 million Norfolk (Virginia) Light Rail Project
$2 million Cooling, Heating, and Power at Mississippi State University
$1 million Light Brown Apple Moth (whatever that is?)
These are just a few. As middle class Americans get stiffed with the AMT, YOUR tax dollars will be paying for heating, cooling and power at Mississippi State University!
$500 million in aid to the Palestinians (in addition to the $400 million already pledged)
$2 million for Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service, City College of New York
$1million for Clinton School of Public Service, Little Rock, Arkansas
$3.76 million for LBJ Presidential Library
$2 million for Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation
$4 million Fourteen-Mile CSX Bridge, Alabama
$1 million Irish Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
$9 million Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
$2.4 million Urban Collector Road, Mississippi
$10.6 million National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
$5 million Norfolk (Virginia) Light Rail Project
$2 million Cooling, Heating, and Power at Mississippi State University
$1 million Light Brown Apple Moth (whatever that is?)
These are just a few. As middle class Americans get stiffed with the AMT, YOUR tax dollars will be paying for heating, cooling and power at Mississippi State University!
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The latest from Washington shows that Congress continues with their same ol' tricks. At center stage is the Alternative Minimum Tax. I'm sure everyone is aware of this. It's an alternative tax put in place in the '60s designed to keep the rich from deducting their way to low tax rates. It makes sense, understanding that the wealthy can afford an army of accountants who are capable of finding write-offs anywhere. But the "makes sense" part of it ends there because the Democrat congress of the 60s, in all their grandiose intelligence and foresight, forgot to index the tax for inflation. So now, 40 years later, average middle class Americans are finding that they trigger the AMT which is usually a rather substantial tax burden that they simply can't afford. Every year more and more American families are forced to pay more than their fair share and it's passed time for Congress to fix it.
So, enter Pelosi's congress. Surely the party of the poor, the champion of the middle class will fix this assault on our middle class families, right? Wrong. Here are the basics of what is going on:
The Dems are prepared to waive the AMT, but this tax accounts for upwards of $50 billion in the federal budget. It's quite a chunk of change and the government supposedly needs that money. So, to offset that loss, the Dems are seeking to (what else) RAISE taxes elsewhere to pay for the fix. Much of this is driven by moderate "blue dog" democrats who demand congress stick to the pay-as-you-go philosophy and will not vote for any taxcuts that aren't accounted for elsewhere, either through other taxes or cuts in spending and there's NO WAY the Dems will go along with spending cuts. Imagine that! Congress showing fiscal responsibility! Obviously, this concept has them all extremely confused, thus adding to the gridlock.
Naturally, the Republicans will not approve ANY tax increase, even one designed to fix the AMT. They feel that spending cuts are the way to go.
No one appears willing to give in. And so the AMT remains in effect, and tax season is just around the corner.
In my opinion, there is NO reason why Congress can't fix this problem. This tax is unfair and places too much financial burden on families who can't afford to give the gov't a big chunk of their salary. There is NO excuse for not fixing this problem...NONE. I don't want to hear it. I'm sick of the finger pointing, the bickering, the blaming. And there are many Americans who agree. If Congress allows one more year to go by while sticking the American taxpayer with this bogus thievery, they will have a lot of questions to answer.
Find a way. That's all there is to it. I don't care if you have to cut your own salaries to help with the effort. Find a way to fix this problem! Congress can cut $50 billion from the budget. It's not that hard. And if it is, send me a copy of the budget and I guarantee I will be able to find $50 billion that doesn't have to be spent. Notice these imbeciles refuse to do away with earmarks as a way to help end this tax. That appears to be off the table. They want to reserve the right to spend America's money on some bridge or park in their respective district, but lack the sack to do something that would actually help the American people. They bellyache about needing the money and not being able to cut so much from the budget while spending our money like trust fund brats out for a night on the town after swiping daddy's visa. There is NO EXCUSE!
And while I appreciate the Republicans digging in on no new taxes, I also demand that they not let this idea keep them from eliminating the AMT. Yes, we shouldn't be raising taxes anywhere, but the reality is that the Dems may not agree to anything without a tax hike, so some compromising may be in order. Why can't they meet half way? How about $25 billion in spending cuts and $25 billion in tax hikes? What's so hard about that?
This is a big issue, and I will be watching it closely. I will include the names of those who put up roadblocks to fixing this issue. The AMT must go. There is NO EXCUSE for not doing so.
So, enter Pelosi's congress. Surely the party of the poor, the champion of the middle class will fix this assault on our middle class families, right? Wrong. Here are the basics of what is going on:
The Dems are prepared to waive the AMT, but this tax accounts for upwards of $50 billion in the federal budget. It's quite a chunk of change and the government supposedly needs that money. So, to offset that loss, the Dems are seeking to (what else) RAISE taxes elsewhere to pay for the fix. Much of this is driven by moderate "blue dog" democrats who demand congress stick to the pay-as-you-go philosophy and will not vote for any taxcuts that aren't accounted for elsewhere, either through other taxes or cuts in spending and there's NO WAY the Dems will go along with spending cuts. Imagine that! Congress showing fiscal responsibility! Obviously, this concept has them all extremely confused, thus adding to the gridlock.
Naturally, the Republicans will not approve ANY tax increase, even one designed to fix the AMT. They feel that spending cuts are the way to go.
No one appears willing to give in. And so the AMT remains in effect, and tax season is just around the corner.
In my opinion, there is NO reason why Congress can't fix this problem. This tax is unfair and places too much financial burden on families who can't afford to give the gov't a big chunk of their salary. There is NO excuse for not fixing this problem...NONE. I don't want to hear it. I'm sick of the finger pointing, the bickering, the blaming. And there are many Americans who agree. If Congress allows one more year to go by while sticking the American taxpayer with this bogus thievery, they will have a lot of questions to answer.
Find a way. That's all there is to it. I don't care if you have to cut your own salaries to help with the effort. Find a way to fix this problem! Congress can cut $50 billion from the budget. It's not that hard. And if it is, send me a copy of the budget and I guarantee I will be able to find $50 billion that doesn't have to be spent. Notice these imbeciles refuse to do away with earmarks as a way to help end this tax. That appears to be off the table. They want to reserve the right to spend America's money on some bridge or park in their respective district, but lack the sack to do something that would actually help the American people. They bellyache about needing the money and not being able to cut so much from the budget while spending our money like trust fund brats out for a night on the town after swiping daddy's visa. There is NO EXCUSE!
And while I appreciate the Republicans digging in on no new taxes, I also demand that they not let this idea keep them from eliminating the AMT. Yes, we shouldn't be raising taxes anywhere, but the reality is that the Dems may not agree to anything without a tax hike, so some compromising may be in order. Why can't they meet half way? How about $25 billion in spending cuts and $25 billion in tax hikes? What's so hard about that?
This is a big issue, and I will be watching it closely. I will include the names of those who put up roadblocks to fixing this issue. The AMT must go. There is NO EXCUSE for not doing so.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
"Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
This was uttered recently by Mike Huckabee during an interview with a New York magazine. To be fair, Huckabee's campaign claims that his comment was taken out of context, and Huckabee himself has already apologized to Romney. Later, he told reporters "After the debate today I went to Mitt Romney and apologized to him. I would never pick out some part of your faith and make it an issue." But isn't that exactly what he did?
Before I get to Huckabee's comment, I want to say a few things about his campaign. Let me preface this by saying that I am a devout Christian. My faith is very important to me and I stand beside my Christian brothers and sisters in the causes we support. With that being said, I think Christians have a bad habit of voting dumb. I don't mean that as an insult. Christians often tend to be suckers. If a candidate happens to be a Baptist minister or is very open about his faith, then many Christians will vote for that person simply for that reason, without knowing much about his platform and positions. That's what I mean when I say "voting dumb". Voting for a candidate just because he is a Baptist minister is just as mindless as voting against him for the same reason. The same can be said about voting for a woman, or a Latino, or an African-American, etc. For me, it's all about the issues. And when it comes to the issues, Huckabee is lacking.
Personally, I think the guy is a phony and I simply don't like him. He is surging in the polls because the Christian block is flocking from Thompson, and because he has performed well in the debate. He has the gift of charm, which is the same gift Clinton rode to the White House. That is reason enough for me not to like him, never mind the fact that his position on the issues is virtually unknown. This guy dodges questions much like a Clinton, but his "aw shucks, Jesus-never-would-have-entered-politics" wit goes only so far. His cutesy responses don't impress me, and they shouldn't impress any responsible voter. I would like to hear from Huckabee's supporters. What would Mike Huckabee do about the chaos on the southern border? What would Mike Huckabee do to salvage the glorious disaster that is Social Security? What would Mike Huckabee do about our foreign energy dependence? What would Mike Huckabee do about terrorist regimes in Iran and Syria? The growing socialist threat in South America? Russia's gradual move back to totalitarianism? What would Mike Huckabee do about our bloated federal government? Tax rates? Out of control spending? Does anyone know? And you're not allowed to look on his website. I've watched the debates, and I have no idea where this guy stands. All I know is that he is quick with a joke, and even quicker with a dodge.
Now, about the Mormon comment. There are few things that get my blood boiling as much as one person attacking the religious belief of another. That ire is amplified when the parties involved are both Christians. For one, Christ taught tolerance and respect. He taught sympathy for those who don't share your beliefs. Second, Christians in this secular day and age face enough resistance from the mainstream without senseless infighting and bickering. Whether it's Catholics and Protestants, Baptists and Methodists, Protestants and Mormons, or whatever, this never ending debate about who is more right is getting quite tiring. We basically believe the same thing, but have some subtle differences in interpreting those beliefs and in how we worship. SO WHAT! I don't think Jesus cares. Enough already. When you take a phony "superior" position and look down your nose on other religions, you give Christianity a bad name, and I won't allow that without a response. My criticism of people like this has ALWAYS been quick and harsh, and it will continue to do so. Radical ideas will not hijack my faith without a fight. In Huckabee's case, it just confirms my suspicion of the man as a hack. This behavior is cheap and petty, and amounts to nothing more than pandering to his building Protestant base. The fact that that base doesn't rapidly reject such behavior is quite concerning.
I'm glad Hackabee apologized, but I don't buy it for a second. In the first debate, he took a cheap (although subtle) shot at Romney's faith and I called him on it. This isn't the first time. And when it happens again, yours truly will be here hammering away. If Hackabee wants my respect, he needs make this issue a non-issue, and not allow any of the pundits to make it an issue. We are all aware of Mitt Romney's faith. We are all aware of Hackabee's faith. Leave it at that. If you want to get into the mud and drag your opponent's religious belief through the mud with you, then I think there will be a backlash. At least I hope so.
And finally, a tip of the hat to Fred Thompson for standing his ground against a blatantly liberal debate moderator today. She tried to get the candidates to take a position on global warming by a "show of hands" without a chance to explain their position, and Thompson refused. His action was applauded and rated very high with focus groups. Perhaps this will light a fire in his campaign. The "most Reagan-like" of all the candidates is still alive, although barely, and if he is going to make a move he needs to do so quickly, or it will be over.
This was uttered recently by Mike Huckabee during an interview with a New York magazine. To be fair, Huckabee's campaign claims that his comment was taken out of context, and Huckabee himself has already apologized to Romney. Later, he told reporters "After the debate today I went to Mitt Romney and apologized to him. I would never pick out some part of your faith and make it an issue." But isn't that exactly what he did?
Before I get to Huckabee's comment, I want to say a few things about his campaign. Let me preface this by saying that I am a devout Christian. My faith is very important to me and I stand beside my Christian brothers and sisters in the causes we support. With that being said, I think Christians have a bad habit of voting dumb. I don't mean that as an insult. Christians often tend to be suckers. If a candidate happens to be a Baptist minister or is very open about his faith, then many Christians will vote for that person simply for that reason, without knowing much about his platform and positions. That's what I mean when I say "voting dumb". Voting for a candidate just because he is a Baptist minister is just as mindless as voting against him for the same reason. The same can be said about voting for a woman, or a Latino, or an African-American, etc. For me, it's all about the issues. And when it comes to the issues, Huckabee is lacking.
Personally, I think the guy is a phony and I simply don't like him. He is surging in the polls because the Christian block is flocking from Thompson, and because he has performed well in the debate. He has the gift of charm, which is the same gift Clinton rode to the White House. That is reason enough for me not to like him, never mind the fact that his position on the issues is virtually unknown. This guy dodges questions much like a Clinton, but his "aw shucks, Jesus-never-would-have-entered-politics" wit goes only so far. His cutesy responses don't impress me, and they shouldn't impress any responsible voter. I would like to hear from Huckabee's supporters. What would Mike Huckabee do about the chaos on the southern border? What would Mike Huckabee do to salvage the glorious disaster that is Social Security? What would Mike Huckabee do about our foreign energy dependence? What would Mike Huckabee do about terrorist regimes in Iran and Syria? The growing socialist threat in South America? Russia's gradual move back to totalitarianism? What would Mike Huckabee do about our bloated federal government? Tax rates? Out of control spending? Does anyone know? And you're not allowed to look on his website. I've watched the debates, and I have no idea where this guy stands. All I know is that he is quick with a joke, and even quicker with a dodge.
Now, about the Mormon comment. There are few things that get my blood boiling as much as one person attacking the religious belief of another. That ire is amplified when the parties involved are both Christians. For one, Christ taught tolerance and respect. He taught sympathy for those who don't share your beliefs. Second, Christians in this secular day and age face enough resistance from the mainstream without senseless infighting and bickering. Whether it's Catholics and Protestants, Baptists and Methodists, Protestants and Mormons, or whatever, this never ending debate about who is more right is getting quite tiring. We basically believe the same thing, but have some subtle differences in interpreting those beliefs and in how we worship. SO WHAT! I don't think Jesus cares. Enough already. When you take a phony "superior" position and look down your nose on other religions, you give Christianity a bad name, and I won't allow that without a response. My criticism of people like this has ALWAYS been quick and harsh, and it will continue to do so. Radical ideas will not hijack my faith without a fight. In Huckabee's case, it just confirms my suspicion of the man as a hack. This behavior is cheap and petty, and amounts to nothing more than pandering to his building Protestant base. The fact that that base doesn't rapidly reject such behavior is quite concerning.
I'm glad Hackabee apologized, but I don't buy it for a second. In the first debate, he took a cheap (although subtle) shot at Romney's faith and I called him on it. This isn't the first time. And when it happens again, yours truly will be here hammering away. If Hackabee wants my respect, he needs make this issue a non-issue, and not allow any of the pundits to make it an issue. We are all aware of Mitt Romney's faith. We are all aware of Hackabee's faith. Leave it at that. If you want to get into the mud and drag your opponent's religious belief through the mud with you, then I think there will be a backlash. At least I hope so.
And finally, a tip of the hat to Fred Thompson for standing his ground against a blatantly liberal debate moderator today. She tried to get the candidates to take a position on global warming by a "show of hands" without a chance to explain their position, and Thompson refused. His action was applauded and rated very high with focus groups. Perhaps this will light a fire in his campaign. The "most Reagan-like" of all the candidates is still alive, although barely, and if he is going to make a move he needs to do so quickly, or it will be over.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
A leader of the CIA team that captured the first major al Qaeda figure, Abu Zubaydah, says subjecting him to waterboarding was torture but necessary. In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds. "The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline." "From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks." FULL STORY
DOZENS OF ATTACKS. That should stick with you. Waterboarding one person thwarted dozens of attacks, saving how many lives? Hundreds? Perhaps thousands? And yet there are people out there who say it isn't worth it. Rest assured, if their home town or their building was targeted the attitude on waterboarding would change.
I'm glad to see someone from the CIA come out with statements on how effective this technique is. I'm all for it as an interrogation measure. I don't agree that it is torture, but I do agree that it is absolutely necessary as a last resort, and that it saves lives.
DOZENS OF ATTACKS. That should stick with you. Waterboarding one person thwarted dozens of attacks, saving how many lives? Hundreds? Perhaps thousands? And yet there are people out there who say it isn't worth it. Rest assured, if their home town or their building was targeted the attitude on waterboarding would change.
I'm glad to see someone from the CIA come out with statements on how effective this technique is. I'm all for it as an interrogation measure. I don't agree that it is torture, but I do agree that it is absolutely necessary as a last resort, and that it saves lives.
Monday, December 10, 2007
A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child. Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime. Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits. And he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India. FULL STORY
There was a time when large families were valued. There was a time in western culture when human life was cherished. Times have certainly changed. Now, that same life that was once cherished is now looked upon as a burden.
In the US, 30 million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade, the vast majority of these for the convenience of the mother. Stem Cell research is applauded, despite the life that is lost in the process. That life doesn't carry much value when it is lost in the name of "research". Most recently I blogged about a British woman who sterilized herself for the benefit of the planet.
And now, an Australian enviro-Nazi advocates taxing babies and implementing population controls. If you think this is fringe, don't be too sure. It may sound outrageous, but many environistas (extremist or otherwise) wouldn't be too opposed to the idea. In the states, we currently give people tax breaks to help raise their children, but if the environistas have their way, this may change.
One has to be concerned when his culture stops valuing human life. It seems like the cornerstone for the survival of a society or culture is the protection and nourishment of the next generation. Has that vanished from western culture? Indeed, if the enviro-extremists had their way, there wouldn't be a next generation. And don't forget, "green" is in. It's the hippest thing since L Ron Hubbard wrote his devotion to self-fulfillment. And when you couple this new fad with a do-your-part call to action, which can include not having babies, then you have created a dangerous situation, ie the beginning of the end for western society.
It's also important to realize that our lack of respect for human life is part of the reason why western society is hated so much by traditional cultures. In my mind, there is nothing more sacred than the life of another human being. It represents the future. It represents the continuation of the work we do, the things we build, the nation we sustain. When we stop cherishing that, we stop living. Eventually, the human race is reduced to shambles. It's self-destructive in a simple sense. If we stop protecting the next generation, stop valuing what they represent, then we risk our own survival. And then, a healthy environment becomes pointless.
There was a time when large families were valued. There was a time in western culture when human life was cherished. Times have certainly changed. Now, that same life that was once cherished is now looked upon as a burden.
In the US, 30 million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade, the vast majority of these for the convenience of the mother. Stem Cell research is applauded, despite the life that is lost in the process. That life doesn't carry much value when it is lost in the name of "research". Most recently I blogged about a British woman who sterilized herself for the benefit of the planet.
And now, an Australian enviro-Nazi advocates taxing babies and implementing population controls. If you think this is fringe, don't be too sure. It may sound outrageous, but many environistas (extremist or otherwise) wouldn't be too opposed to the idea. In the states, we currently give people tax breaks to help raise their children, but if the environistas have their way, this may change.
One has to be concerned when his culture stops valuing human life. It seems like the cornerstone for the survival of a society or culture is the protection and nourishment of the next generation. Has that vanished from western culture? Indeed, if the enviro-extremists had their way, there wouldn't be a next generation. And don't forget, "green" is in. It's the hippest thing since L Ron Hubbard wrote his devotion to self-fulfillment. And when you couple this new fad with a do-your-part call to action, which can include not having babies, then you have created a dangerous situation, ie the beginning of the end for western society.
It's also important to realize that our lack of respect for human life is part of the reason why western society is hated so much by traditional cultures. In my mind, there is nothing more sacred than the life of another human being. It represents the future. It represents the continuation of the work we do, the things we build, the nation we sustain. When we stop cherishing that, we stop living. Eventually, the human race is reduced to shambles. It's self-destructive in a simple sense. If we stop protecting the next generation, stop valuing what they represent, then we risk our own survival. And then, a healthy environment becomes pointless.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
At last NBC has decided to show its true colors. Any objective viewer could easily see that NBC was well entrenched in the Left camp. I mean, could MSNBC be any more biased? But the actual NBC network seemed to fake it for a time, and at least attempt to portray a persona of non-partisanship. Until now.
NBC is the only network that refuses to air an ad sponsored by Freedomswatch.org. This ad is non-political and certainly non-partisan. Its content is nothing more than a series of people saying "thank you", and their gratitude is directed towards the men and women serving in the US armed forces.
That's it. There is nothing voicing support for Bush, or support for the Iraq War. There is nothing condemning Congress or the Democrats. This is a simple thank you for America's fighting forces, a token of appreciation for the upcoming holidays.
And NBC won't air it because it is considered "controversial".
Now, in fairness, they say the ad includes the Freedomswatch website, which is what disqualifies the ad from airing. Does anyone actually believe that? Again, no other network (not even CBS or CNN) had a problem with it. But NBC considers it way too controversial to thank America's soldiers.
To view the controversial ad, CLICK HERE.
And remember this the next time you're flipping through the channels. If given the choice, I'm gonna watch something else.
NBC is the only network that refuses to air an ad sponsored by Freedomswatch.org. This ad is non-political and certainly non-partisan. Its content is nothing more than a series of people saying "thank you", and their gratitude is directed towards the men and women serving in the US armed forces.
That's it. There is nothing voicing support for Bush, or support for the Iraq War. There is nothing condemning Congress or the Democrats. This is a simple thank you for America's fighting forces, a token of appreciation for the upcoming holidays.
And NBC won't air it because it is considered "controversial".
Now, in fairness, they say the ad includes the Freedomswatch website, which is what disqualifies the ad from airing. Does anyone actually believe that? Again, no other network (not even CBS or CNN) had a problem with it. But NBC considers it way too controversial to thank America's soldiers.
To view the controversial ad, CLICK HERE.
And remember this the next time you're flipping through the channels. If given the choice, I'm gonna watch something else.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
The big story in the news is the latest National Intelligence Estimate, and it's leaving a look of glee on the Democrats' faces. For yours truly, it is leaving me very concerned, more concerned than ever before about the Iran situation. It's my opinion that a nuclear Iran is dangerous and unacceptable. If Ahmadinejad gets the bomb, he will use it, and the world will be plunged into a global war. There is no doubt in my mind about this. When I hear liberals say things like "there is no threat" in regards to both Iran and Iraq, I just shake my head in amazement. Saddam was taken out just at the right time. Had he not been, those two nations would be engaged in an arms race that would bring about nothing good. Iran is no different and the latest NIE report does NOT change my mind. In fact, I feel the situation has become much more dire.
Iran has repeatedly told the US and the international community that they were not seeking nuclear weapons. The NIE report shows that they were lying, but the lie has been sugar coated. The NIE says that Iran hasn't been working on a bomb since 2003. Sounds great! But the devil is always in the details. And the details, and the consequences of this report, should have any peace-loving citizen of the world filled with more than a little anxiety.
The NIE states that Iran has not been pursuing a nuclear bomb since 2003. However, it DOES continue to enrich uranium and it DOES continue to pursue nuclear technology for commercial and domestic purposes. It doesn't take a degree in nuclear physics to know that the rate-limiting step in producing a nuclear weapon is the ENRICHMENT of URANIUM. Once that is accomplished, it can be weaponized in a matter of months. The NIE states that if Iran chooses to resume their nuclear program, they could have the bomb as early as 2009.
Of course, these details did not find their way into the mainstream media reports. No, what they echoed was nothing more than 'another US intelligence failure', and the liberals in America couldn't be more gleeful. Funny how those people shunned US intelligence prior to Iraq, but now take the latest NIE report (at least parts of it) to be the equivalent of a holy gospel. But that's another post. At any rate, what's happened with the public release of this report has me most concerned.
Basically, the West has lost all credibility, and all bargaining power. It was going to be difficult to convince the international community to take action against Iran, even something as simple as economic sanctions was an uphill climb as long as Russia and China held their veto power. And now that possibility is all but dead. The West has no chance at convincing Iran to stay away from nukes, and no one knows this better than Ahmadinejad. It wouldn't surprise me if he ordered the resumption of his 'bomb' program the day this report was released. Who's gonna stop him? No matter what our future intelligence discovers, no one is going to take it seriously, making us powerless to pressure Iran away from nukes. For that alone I question the wisdom in releasing this report publicly. But what's done is done.
So now it's time for plan B. I think any effort to pressure Iran is futile, so the US and our allies must begin preparations for what will happen when Iran becomes a nuclear power. We need to continue our efforts at building a missile shield in Europe, and maybe even extend that shield to Israel, for they will certainly be the first target. And the next President must step into office with a clear and distinct plan for what action he/she will take if Iran chooses to use their nukes. Everything from a tactical battle plan, to a PR campaign, to domestic humanitarian response needs to be worked out NOW, before this happens. This may sound paranoid and jumping-to-conclusions, but once this report was released it became clear to me that Iran was going to possess a nuclear weapon within the next decade, and there was nothing we could do to stop it.
I applaud the President for not changing his tone, but I'm afraid that we've moved past that now. I think the right thing to do is to prepare for the reality of a nuclear Iran. And when that happens, those who decided to release this intelligence publicly will have a lot of questions to answer.
Iran has repeatedly told the US and the international community that they were not seeking nuclear weapons. The NIE report shows that they were lying, but the lie has been sugar coated. The NIE says that Iran hasn't been working on a bomb since 2003. Sounds great! But the devil is always in the details. And the details, and the consequences of this report, should have any peace-loving citizen of the world filled with more than a little anxiety.
The NIE states that Iran has not been pursuing a nuclear bomb since 2003. However, it DOES continue to enrich uranium and it DOES continue to pursue nuclear technology for commercial and domestic purposes. It doesn't take a degree in nuclear physics to know that the rate-limiting step in producing a nuclear weapon is the ENRICHMENT of URANIUM. Once that is accomplished, it can be weaponized in a matter of months. The NIE states that if Iran chooses to resume their nuclear program, they could have the bomb as early as 2009.
Of course, these details did not find their way into the mainstream media reports. No, what they echoed was nothing more than 'another US intelligence failure', and the liberals in America couldn't be more gleeful. Funny how those people shunned US intelligence prior to Iraq, but now take the latest NIE report (at least parts of it) to be the equivalent of a holy gospel. But that's another post. At any rate, what's happened with the public release of this report has me most concerned.
Basically, the West has lost all credibility, and all bargaining power. It was going to be difficult to convince the international community to take action against Iran, even something as simple as economic sanctions was an uphill climb as long as Russia and China held their veto power. And now that possibility is all but dead. The West has no chance at convincing Iran to stay away from nukes, and no one knows this better than Ahmadinejad. It wouldn't surprise me if he ordered the resumption of his 'bomb' program the day this report was released. Who's gonna stop him? No matter what our future intelligence discovers, no one is going to take it seriously, making us powerless to pressure Iran away from nukes. For that alone I question the wisdom in releasing this report publicly. But what's done is done.
So now it's time for plan B. I think any effort to pressure Iran is futile, so the US and our allies must begin preparations for what will happen when Iran becomes a nuclear power. We need to continue our efforts at building a missile shield in Europe, and maybe even extend that shield to Israel, for they will certainly be the first target. And the next President must step into office with a clear and distinct plan for what action he/she will take if Iran chooses to use their nukes. Everything from a tactical battle plan, to a PR campaign, to domestic humanitarian response needs to be worked out NOW, before this happens. This may sound paranoid and jumping-to-conclusions, but once this report was released it became clear to me that Iran was going to possess a nuclear weapon within the next decade, and there was nothing we could do to stop it.
I applaud the President for not changing his tone, but I'm afraid that we've moved past that now. I think the right thing to do is to prepare for the reality of a nuclear Iran. And when that happens, those who decided to release this intelligence publicly will have a lot of questions to answer.
For those who haven't seen this, I want to share it. I've heard of this procedure being done, but never actually saw a photo of it. Thanks to my dad for sharing the photo. This should give any pro-abortionist something to think about. In many states, it is legal to abort a 21 week fetus. Here is the background to photo:
One of the most amazing photographs that you’ll ever see — is this picture of Samuel, a 21-week old baby boy, whose tiny hand reaches out of the womb and grabs the finger of the surgeon who was operating on him, as if to say, "Thanks doc, you did a wonderful job." It should be seen by the whole world.
It happened when Dr. Joseph P. Bruner, director of fetal diagnosis and treatment at Vanderbilt University Medical Center was performing a cutting edge procedure on a 21 week old fetus.
Bruner and Samuel’s parents hope the surgery will alleviate the effects of spina bifida, a disabling birth defect in one or two of every 1,000 babies born.
During the procedure, surgeons remove the uterus from the mother, drain the amniotic fluid, perform surgery on the tiny fetus, then put the uterus back inside the mother. The procedure took about an hour. Baby Samuel was carried to term and born in good health, an apparent success story for this incredible cutting edge procedure.
For more about the photo, here is an excerpt from the photographer Michael Clancy, a freelance photographer who was employed by USA Today at the time.
Monday, December 03, 2007
BJ has done it again! This time, while stumping for his "wife" in Iowa, Clinton appeared to blame our illegal immigration problem on Bush's tax cuts. The story first appeared on Neil Cavuto and the Left is upset because they claim Clinton's words were wrongly spun. The point Clinton was making was that Mexico is loaning money to the US and this money is partly being used to fund Bush's tax cuts. Mexico could better spend this money investing it into their own economy, thus putting more Mexicans to work and eliminating the problem.
Okay, on the surface it seems to be a valid point. But BJ is missing something. What he doesn't mention is that all of this illegal immigration has become Mexico's 2nd largest export. Money coming back into Mexico from their US population is quite substantial, surpassing the amount of money Mexico loans to the US to pay for those evil tax cuts, which amounts to a good investment for that country. Yet, the Mexican gov't does not appear to be doing a whole lot of good with all that money, especially when it comes to investing in their own economy to put their citizens to work. This would simply be foolish. If Mexico finds jobs for all of these people, then they may not want to come to America, which would mean the demise of their SECOND largest export. Basically, Mexico has no reason and no motivation to stop illegal immigration from their country to ours, regardless of Bush's tax cuts. In fact, if the problem was stopped, it would be very detrimental to them. This is why the Mexican leadership gets so upset whenever we talk about sealing off the border.
The other point BJ misses is that government revenue is higher now than it was when he was president, tax hike and all. What??? Tax cuts lead to more revenue? Obviously the Democrats STILL have not grasped this concept. We'll keep trying. Eventually they'll understand. Eventually.
It's not like this is a new probelm. Illegal immigration has been an issue since the '80s, INCLUDING the Clinton years of astronomical income tax. Clinton's point is fundamentally unsound and completely political...and he knows it. So who's spinning here? Yet, I can hear the sheep in the distance, agreeing with ol slick willy, and looking upon him as though he has just enlightened the world on this issue...bah!
I guess Clinton's answer to this problem would be higher taxes. Of course. Don't the Democrats answer EVERY issue with higher taxes? If we tax the American people until their eyes bleed, then we wouldn't have to borrow money from other countries. Of course, conditions in this country would be so crappy, that no one would want to immigrate here anyway, so it would be a non-issue. Perhaps that's the Dems ultimate strategy. Let's make America suck more. That's how we solve the immigration problem. Unbelievable.
But I'm happy BJ is discussing immigration. I've said before the polls clearly show this to be a losing issue for the Democrats. They are so desperate to lock up the Latino vote, that they have no idea what the majority of Americans want, which translates into a losing issue for them.
So keep it up, BJ. Keep immigration on the forefront. If this is the biggest domestic issue in next year's election it will lead to the defeat of the Democrat party.
Okay, on the surface it seems to be a valid point. But BJ is missing something. What he doesn't mention is that all of this illegal immigration has become Mexico's 2nd largest export. Money coming back into Mexico from their US population is quite substantial, surpassing the amount of money Mexico loans to the US to pay for those evil tax cuts, which amounts to a good investment for that country. Yet, the Mexican gov't does not appear to be doing a whole lot of good with all that money, especially when it comes to investing in their own economy to put their citizens to work. This would simply be foolish. If Mexico finds jobs for all of these people, then they may not want to come to America, which would mean the demise of their SECOND largest export. Basically, Mexico has no reason and no motivation to stop illegal immigration from their country to ours, regardless of Bush's tax cuts. In fact, if the problem was stopped, it would be very detrimental to them. This is why the Mexican leadership gets so upset whenever we talk about sealing off the border.
The other point BJ misses is that government revenue is higher now than it was when he was president, tax hike and all. What??? Tax cuts lead to more revenue? Obviously the Democrats STILL have not grasped this concept. We'll keep trying. Eventually they'll understand. Eventually.
It's not like this is a new probelm. Illegal immigration has been an issue since the '80s, INCLUDING the Clinton years of astronomical income tax. Clinton's point is fundamentally unsound and completely political...and he knows it. So who's spinning here? Yet, I can hear the sheep in the distance, agreeing with ol slick willy, and looking upon him as though he has just enlightened the world on this issue...bah!
I guess Clinton's answer to this problem would be higher taxes. Of course. Don't the Democrats answer EVERY issue with higher taxes? If we tax the American people until their eyes bleed, then we wouldn't have to borrow money from other countries. Of course, conditions in this country would be so crappy, that no one would want to immigrate here anyway, so it would be a non-issue. Perhaps that's the Dems ultimate strategy. Let's make America suck more. That's how we solve the immigration problem. Unbelievable.
But I'm happy BJ is discussing immigration. I've said before the polls clearly show this to be a losing issue for the Democrats. They are so desperate to lock up the Latino vote, that they have no idea what the majority of Americans want, which translates into a losing issue for them.
So keep it up, BJ. Keep immigration on the forefront. If this is the biggest domestic issue in next year's election it will lead to the defeat of the Democrat party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)