Solving Problems

"Strong reasons make strong actions." ~ William Shakespeare

Yesterday, there were two events that headlined the news. One issue was the flag burning ban which was defeated in Congress by a narrow margin, and the other was a decision handed down by the Supreme Court striking down the President's handling of Iraqi War detainees, specifically, if I understand it right, making it law to try them in a civilian court rather than by Military tribunal.

I have a couple of brief statements about these events:

First, I believe that every citizen has a right to burn the flag if he is hateful of America enough to do so, but I think there ought to be some governmental regulations regarding it, to wit:

The flag to be burned must be made of a material that will not emit harmful or poisonous gases or hazardous materials while burning. It must be made of a material that doesn't smoke. We cannot allow the flag burner to pollute the air. Second hand smoke, we are told, is a major cause of cancer in people who don't smoke.

Also, we must require that the potential flag burner apply for a permit to burn the flag and require him to fill out forms (in triplicate) with information as to his name, social security number, address, phone numbers, bank account information, credit card information, and at least two forms of valid ID. He must also register for an "enemies of America list", so his anti-American activities can be monitored at all times. He must be required to submit to random drug testing and search and seizure at any time the government feels he may be planning a terrorist attack on America. All of his friends and relatives and casual acquaintances should be scrutinized, at any time and without a reason.

Secondly, on the issue of criminal trials for non-uniformed enemy combatants taken as prisoner in the GWOT:

This issue can be dealt with and disposed of quite simply. We only need to do what our erstwhile enemies do when they take prisoners.

Kill them.

I suppose it would be remiss of me to suggest we torture them indescribably, behead them, and then desecrate and mutilate their bodies. After all, we are civilized Americans, aren't we?

But the problem can be solved simply by not taking prisoners in the first place. At least, not keeping prisoners one minute after they have convinced us they either know nothing of value, or have convinced us we can learn no more than they have already told us. Once we obtain the information we desire from them, or, in case they refuse to talk, they are only taking up space and wasting oxygen.

If we try them or release them, there is always the very real possibility that they will only go back to doing what they were doing when we captured them, namely, blowing up innocent civilians and our soldiers.

So execute them.

No need for either a civilian court or a Military Tribunal. Just kill them. They would no doubt do the same to us.

There. Problems solved. And all before lunch! Oh, I love it when things zip along!

The Truth about Evolution

"The more one studies the paleontological record, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." ~ Professor Louis T. More, University of Cincinnati

In my recent post wherein I addressed the myth of disappearing rain forests, I failed to mention that the "figures" on just how many acres of rain forests are disappearing and just how fast it is happening are apparently in doubt, because one only has to do a google search to see that every group, organization, and other apologists for these environmentalists whackos can't even agree on the "facts". Everyone of them has different figures. How can you rely on them to be telling the truth, when they themselves can't agree on lunch?

But wait. The comments section of that post degenerated into a discussion of whether the theory of evolution is true or not. Many of my current commenters are likely unaware that I have addressed the evolution myth before, oftentimes in passing, but at least once, I devoted an entire post to the question.

It is my conviction that it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than to believe in God. Evolution is the religion of the Liberals.

The fact is that evolution is unproved and unprovable.

Now, before you attack me for that statement, you should know that didn't come from me. It came from Sir Arthur Keith(1866-1955), a British anatomist and anthropologist who wrote 20 books in defense of evolution. He also said, "We believe it(evolution) because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."

So if you want to dispute that point, take it up with the evolutionists, who clearly don't believe their own "fairy tale for grownups" either. By the way, that quote about evolution being a fairy tale is from Paul LeMoine, French evolutionist.

Ann Coulter, in her latest book, "Godless" addresses the subject at length, so I will attempt to cover some of her main points.

1. The truth about the entire fossil record, which shows a very non-Darwinian progression, noticeably lacking the vast number of transitional species we ought to see (if it were true)

This means that there are no fossils of things like a dog with antennae or a fish with hair. According to Darwin's supposed "survival of the fittest", if each one of the incremental mutations is more fit than what preceded it, which it has to be in order to survive, those transitional mutations should have stayed around long enough to appear in the fossil record, before mutating their way to something even better. But sadly, for the evolutionists, there are none.

2. The truth about the Cambrian explosion, in which virtually all the animal phyla suddenly appeared, with no Darwinian ancestors.

The Cambrian period was a relatively short period of time in which a vast quantity of plants and animals appeared on the scene in a blink of an evolutionary eye more than 500 million years ago. In a period of less than 10 million years, there is a sudden explosion of nearly all the animal phyla we have today. Leading Darwinist Richard Dawkins said, "It is as though they were just planted there, without evolutionary history."

3. The truth about the Galapagos Finch population changing not one bit since Darwin first observed them more than 170 years ago.

In a 1991 "Scientific American" article, Darwinist Peter Grant effused about the famous finches saying that if droughts came only once a decade, natural selection "would transform one species into another within 200 years." Well, it's been 170 years and we're still waiting.

4. The truth about the peppered moth experiment.

One of the major triumphs of the evolutionists was the "discovery" that peppered moths had the ability to change color according to their environment. They are photos of white peppered moths resting on black soot covered trees where they can easily be picked off by passing birds, and photos of them on white trees where they blend in, and likewise the black moths against white trees and black trees. The trouble is, Peppered moths are nocturnal (for the Liberals reading this, that means they only come out at night). Furthermore, they rest on the underside of branches, not on the outside of tree trunks. Subsequent studies showed that the moths that were supposed to have proven the "fact of evolution" had been dead, and pinned to the tree trunks by the "scientists" conducting the "study".

The Peppered moth "discovery" is still presented in biology textbooks as proof of evolution.

5. The truth about Haeckel's embryos being a fraud perpetrated by a leading German eugenicist.

Ernst Haeckel was a biologist and eugenicist who drew pictures of vertebrate embryos that purportedly demonstrated the amazing similarity of fish, chickens, and humans in the womb. Thus, proving that all vertebrates evolved from a similar looking organism 500 million years ago.

And then, in the 1990's British embryologist Michael Richardson was looking at vertebrate embryos through a microscope and noticed they look nothing like Haeckel's drawings. As it turns out, Haeckel was a fake. Richardson said, "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in Biology."

Today, Biology textbooks are still displaying Haeckel's doctored drawings to prove the "fact" of Evolution to impressionable young minds, like commenter Jim's.

6. The truth about the Miller-Urey experiment being based on premises no longer accepted.

This was a famous experiment in 1953, which seemed to re-create the beginnings of life in a test tube. Scientist Stanley Miller and Harold Urey reconstructed what was thought to be earth's early atmosphere. They sent a spark of electricity through the primordial soup, and a single amino acid appeared.

The first problem to arise was that for the next twenty years, scientists couldn't get close to the next step, which was to produce proteins. Simple amino acids aren't proteins, much less life, so the bridge between nonlife and life remained elusive.

But the real fly in the primordial soup arose in the early seventies, when geochemists realized that the Earth's early atmosphere was probably nothing like the gases used in the Miller-Urey experiment. Creation of even simple amino acids would have been impossible in Earth's real environment.

The Miller-Urey experiment is still being taught in biology textbooks as proof of evolution.

7. The truth about the non-existence of computer simulations of the evolution of the eye.

There have long been bald assertions by Darwinists of the existence of a computer simulation of the evolution of the eye. David Berlinski tracked down the scientists alleged to have performed this wondrous feat, and discovered it doesn't exist.

In the end, the only evolutionists' argument is contempt. They know that if people are allowed to hear the arguments against evolution all will be lost. So they go to extreme ends to prevent any other possibilities from being taught in schools. Like Intelligent Design. So they demonize the people making the arguments. They say things like, "You're just saying that because you believe in God! You probably believe in a flat earth, too!" That's the kind of argument they usually revert to.

What all this boils down to is simply this:

Evolutionist are willing to believe anything, assume anything, and even lie to promote their belief that there is no God. They look at things they can't explain and say, "We can't explain it, but the one thing we do know is that there is no intelligence in the universe".

At least, there is no intelligence in evolutionists.

Abdul And Achmed Revisited

"We can't accommodate terrorism. When someone uses the slaughter of innocent people to advance a so-called political cause, at that point the political cause becomes immoral and unjust and they should be eliminated from any serious discussion, any serious debate." ~ RUDOLPH GIULIANI

The scene is a nondescript bunker somewhere in the heart of Iraq. Achmed, one of many terrorists who call this place their headquarters, is poring over news reports about the death of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi.

Enter Abdul, Achmed's friend and fellow terrorist.

Abdul: In the name of the most powerful and gracious Allah, and in the name of Mohammed, his prophet, why do you look so despondent, my friend?

Achmed: Allah be praised, my comrade, I am in mourning. Mourning over the loss of our beloved leader. May he bask in the glory of his martyrdom forever. But I feel we are suffering too many losses in our holy mission to overcome the infidel and establish Allahs kingdom on Earth.

Abdul: Allah is most blessed my friend, and shall be praised forever, for I bear with me good news!

Achmed: Praise the most powerful and blessed Allah, what is this good news, my friend?

Abdul: Allah be praised! We have just received news from our ally in America, the New York Times. They have revealed yet more of the secret plans the American infidel President uses to undermine our efforts. For a third time they have helped us in our righteous cause. Praise be to Allah!

Achmed: Praise Allah, indeed! This is wonderful news my friend. I am reinvigorated and am even more determined to defeat the infidels and wipe them from the face of Allahs earth! Allah works in mysterious ways, my friend! Victory is again within our grasp!

Abdul and Achmed together: Allah be Praised! And praise be to his prophet, Mohammed!

This time the New York Slimes has gone over the line. Assuming, of course, they hadn't gone over it before.

President Bush said, "Congress was briefed And what we did was fully authorized under the law. And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful." He was speaking about the disclosure of the program to track terrorists financial transactions.

He was being kind. I call it treason.

"We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America," the President said.

"If you want to figure out what the terrorists are doing, you try to follow their money," the President said, "And that's exactly what we're doing. And the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."

He is exactly right.

The Slimes tries to explain their traitorous act away by telling us, "The public has a right to know" .

Why? For what possible reason do I need to know that The National Security Agency is tracking financial records of known terrorists? What purpose does that serve "the public"? There is only one "public" that would really need to know this is happening. The terrorists "public".

And now they do.

Why do they need to know? So they can modify the way they operate. So they can make financial transactions harder, even impossible, to track.

So they can prevent America from knowing where they will strike next.

Thanks, New York Slimes. I know I can sleep better at night now, knowing the terrorists now are privy to information that we previously used to find out what they may be planning. (the previous statement, for those of you who believe the New York Slimes is not subversive, is satire)

Maybe we'll get lucky. Maybe their next attack on America will make a crater out of the New York Slimes building.

We can only hope.

On Banana Fudgsicles

"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five." ~ Groucho Marx

In the bank, there is a small, square, wicker basket on the counter by each tellers window. Inside this basket is some candy. Dum-dums. Dum-dums are small loli-pops. Some people call them suckers.

Now, I am a type II diabetic so I am not supposed to have a lot of sugar, but I couldn't resist sampling one, because Dum-dums have undergone something of a transformation in recent years. No more do they offer only cherry, strawberry, grape, lemon, and lime. Now they come in all kinds of exotic flavors, like coconut-banana, chocolate, watermelon, banana, etc. They even have a flavor called simply, "Mystery flavor" .

I tried the mystery flavor once, in an attempt to ascertain exactly what flavor it was. It's still a mystery to me. Maybe all those years of smoking took their toll on my taste buds, but I couldn't recognize any specific flavor.

I don't smoke anymore. Remind me to tell you how I quit some day. It's a hoot of a story.

But I digress. The whole point of my rambling on about Dum-dum flavors is the flavor I sampled last inadvertently started a discussion between me and the employees in the bank. It was banana. I said, "Oh, I like this banana flavor, it's good!" Whereupon Ginger, one of the tellers announced she doesn't like anything banana flavored except bananas. "And pudding", she added as an afterthought, "I like banana pudding."

Then the new guy spoke up and announced he likes banana flavoring, too.

Anyway the discussion went on for a few minutes and then, suddenly I was taken back in my mind to a more carefree time, when I was a child, and the ice cream man drove through the neighborhood playing that annoying song on a speaker. It didn't matter what song was playing, and it didn't matter that it annoyed adults, it nevertheless created an air of excitement in us kids.

At he sound of this music, immediately, no matter what activity kids were engaged in at the moment, there was a flurry of children sprinting back to their homes to beg, borrow, or steal money from mom to buy an ice cream bar.

As I recall, the favorite treat of most of my peers in the day, was either a Popsicle or a Fudgesicle. Popsicles were fruit flavored ice on a stick. Fudgesicles were chocolate flavored, but not ice, and not ice cream. To this day I don't exactly know what Fudgesicles are made of, but I loved them.

(This is where a picture of a fudgsicle was supposed to be, but as usual, blogger won't load it)

What spurred this pleasant memory of my childhood was the banana flavored Dum-dum. It brought back to my memory the wonderful banana flavored treat called the "Banana Fudgesicle" . There is no doubt they were my favorite of all the treats.

The new teller guy, who is about 25 years old, maybe less, said, "Banana Fudgesicles sound gross". I had to explain to him that the word "fudge", in this case, is a misnomer.

Banana Fudgsicles had no fudge in them. Or even chocolate. They were all banana flavored and they were very tasty.

They don't make them anymore.

No, that is wrong. They do make them still, but they have been changed. I don't know what they did to them but they just aren't the same and they just aren't as good as they once were.

I wonder why they changed them. I wonder if it was some kind of genius marketing strategy similar to the infamous "New Coca Cola" fiasco. Whatever the reason, it didn't work. They just aren't as good anymore.

I miss Banana Fudgsicles.

I miss happier, carefree times. I miss my childhood.

Disappearing Rain Forests?

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." ~ Mark Twain

Yesterday I took my son to the National Aquarium in Baltimore, Maryland. We saw hundreds of different kinds of fish and aquatic wildlife all nicely displayed in various sized aquariums. Of course, the most fascinating exhibits were those of the sharks and the birds like the puffins that dive under the water looking for food and literally fly underwater without coming up for air. At least, those were the most fascinating to me.

Those were the most fascinating of the animal displays.

But what I was both fascinated and chagrined the most by was the blatant attempt by the aquarium to brainwash the public into believing the hogwash about evolution and about Global warming and about evil man, who is supposedly systematically destroying the environment, particularly the rain forests of South America.

At every exhibit there were warnings of how man was threatening the existence of whatever animal or tree or geology each particular exhibit was displaying. The poison dart frogs were dying out because of man's encroachment in their environment. The sharks were threatened by men fishing for Tuna, the coral reef was disappearing due to man doing something or other. By this time I was so sick of reading about how evil man was that I had stopped reading the environmentalists propaganda.

One thing stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb to me: A statement that read, "Every minute 54 acres of rain forest has been destroyed since 1955."

54 acres? Every minute? Since 1955? I find that highly doubtful. I realize that an acre is a relatively small piece of land in comparison with the vastness of the South American continent, but even so, 54 acres a minute for over 50 years would surely have turned South America into a desert by now.

At least, that was my first thought, before doing the math.

I tried to look up via the internet, some facts about the rain forest this morning, particularly just how much actual acreage of rain forest there is in South America, and could only find articles about how man is destroying it.

We have become so inundated with what I consider the myth of disappearing rain forests, that even responsible clear thinking people have begun to accept it as fact!

So here's where I decided to do a little math on my own. Without any hard figures that I can believe to work with, I can only use speculation and logic, so if I am not making sense, try to understand. This is the way my mind works. Sometimes it's not pretty.

Suppose only 50 acres of rainforest is destroyed every minute, round figures being easier to work with. How many acres of rain forest were there in South America before a single tree was felled? I don't know. I can't find any data on that at all. So let's suppose there are 300 million, again, working with round figures. Maybe there are a lot more than that. Maybe a lot less.

That means it would take 60 million minutes to completely eradicate the rain forests. That's 1 million hours. There are 8766 hours in a year.

Approximately 114.08 years to turn the South American rain forests into the South American desert.

Let's assume that the evil human loggers start at one edge of the rain forest and work their way to the other edge. West to east, or east to west, you get the idea. It would take 114 years for them to work their way across the continent destroying all the trees in their path.

Trees release seeds. Trees grow from seeds. By the time the evil Lumber companies have completed their evil task, and turn around to proudly gaze on their accomplishment, acres and acres of new trees would have sprouted in their wake. Millions and millions of trees. And the first hundred thousands of acres of new trees would be up to a hundred years old!

Well, that wouldn't turn South America into a desert, would it?

What if the evil lumber companies only cut down 20 acres a minute? Uh, no, that would be even less of an atrocity.

Well, what if they cut down 100 acres of rain forest every minute? Hmmm, then it would only take them 67 years to totally destroy the rain forest. OK, now I think we're on to something!

But wait. I forgot. New trees are sprouting and growing behind the evildoers. Trees can still get pretty big in 67 years.

When I was a child, I uprooted a sapling out in the woods and planted it in my mother's front yard for Mother's day. I was probably about 10 then. I am 54 now. That tree is now a stately elm, with a trunk I can't put my arms all the way around. In less than 50 years!

It would seem to me that the disappearing rain forests are not disappearing at all. In spite of evil man's efforts to destroy our world.

Or am I missing something?

About Godless

"If a Martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation's official state religion, he would have to conclude it is Liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law." ~ Ann Coulter

For those who haven't been paying attention, Ann Coulter has a new book out. It's called "GODLESS, The Church of Liberalism". And it has caused quite an uproar, not just in the Liberal community as expected, but many Conservatives have found it objectionable, as well.

The reason for the concern? One simple sentence. You've heard it. She wrote:

"I've never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much."

Well, of course this statement is objectionable, and insensitive. Let me put it in context. The entire paragraph reads:

"After getting their payments (the original $1.6 million average settlement paid to 9/11 victims families was not large enough) jacked up, the weeping widows took to the airwaves to denounce George Bush, apparently for not beaming himself through space from Florida to New York and throwing himself in front of the second building at the World Trade center. These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. The whole nation was wounded, all of our lives reduced. But they believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process. These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much."


Let me comment on this paragraph.

For one thing, yes, I can believe that the widows believed the entire country were required to feel sorry for them. Many people have the need to share their grief with others, and yes, it does indeed help in the grieving process and does often bring about closure. I myself, am the type that needs to share my feelings with people in order to get myself through difficult times.

Yes, the last sentence was highly insensitive, and should have been left out of the book, or at least rephrased to be less inflammatory.

I don't know how well Ms. Coulter knows the "Jersey Girls", but I think it's safe to say she doesn't know what they are thinking. Or what they may have been feeling. Certainly on the surface they appear to be very much exactly what Ann says they are. At least in the way they have promoted themselves and their agenda.

Here is another take on the last sentence:

As much as we want to believe this is not possible, there exists, throughout this country, women who don't love their husbands. Women who wish their husbands would just curl up and die. Women who have so much hatred for their husbands, that if their husband met a tragic sudden death, they would be ecstatic. Add a multi-million dollar settlement to the mix, and that ecstasy is compounded.

I know women who have that kind of hate for their husbands.

There are a myriad of reasons for this hatred. Maybe their husbands abuse them. Physically or verbally. Maybe their husbands neglect them. Maybe their husbands have become so boring and humdrum, they no longer feel any love for them. Maybe their husbands are so obsessed on making as much money as they possibly can, that they have placed their wives in second place.

Who knows?

Of course, If Ann Coulter can say categorically, that these women are among these husband haters, she can't be faulted for her statement. However, I don't believe there is any way she could know that for sure, unless they have personally told her. And that is hardly likely, given the fact that they don't exactly attend the same garden club.

I said all that to say this:

Don't let one objectionable statement color your objectivity when reading this book.

It is a book that makes the Liberals angry, but not because of that one statement. As in Ann Coulter's other books, the thing that Liberals really object to, is the fact that she is absolutely correct in her assessment of Liberals. Not all Liberals, but certainly the most radical of them.

In the first paragraph of the book, Ann makes the statement that "Liberals love to boast that they are not "religious". That is not true. Not even close. Most Liberals I know are self-proclaimed God fearing Christians.

Most, in my opinion, have a strange interpretation of what Christians should believe (for instance: the idea that abortion is somehow not murder), but I believe they usually have the fundamentals correct. And that is enough to insure them a place in Heaven.

For you Conservatives and true Moderates, I recommend "Godless" highly. Ann Coulter can be acidic, and bitingly sarcastic, but she is right.

Absolutely right.

How To Be A Liberal

“Wallow too much in sensitivity and you can't deal with life, or the truth.” ~ Neal Boortz

I've seen this on various blogs and had it sent to me in e-mails. I had it sent to me again last night, and this time decided to post it here. It's probably the most accurate and concise position statement on a positionless ideology I've ever seen, and better done than anything I could have thought of, so I repost it here:

22 ways to be a good Liberal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

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

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

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

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

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

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

WMD Found in Iraq

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." ~ Herbert Agar

I was driving last night, listening to the radio news (WABC, out of New York City...it comes in pretty good in this area at night) and heard what seems to be an earth shattering story.

U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, has announced the discovery of WMD in Iraq.

I was listening to ABC at the time, and it was ABC's lead story, so I figured this was a pretty important story. I didn't think the other major news media would, or could ignore it, but to my surprise, when I awoke this morning, there was little about it on AOL news, or Yahoo news.

Nothing, in fact.

I remember the last time I mentioned some important breakthrough news on my blog that the major news outlets didn't cover. Some of my Liberal readers hadn't even heard about it.

Anyway,I did a quick search and found it, one of the lead stories on the Drudge report web site., which linked me to, you guessed it, FOX News:

The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

I think this is pretty important news, whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, Liberal or Conservative.

It proves that President Bush was right all along. It proves the President didn't lie, as the Bush haters and America haters have alleged.

Could it be this is why the major news networks and outlets haven't covered it? It would seem that they have the same agenda that the Bush haters and America haters have. After the continual mantra, "Bush lied people died", has been trumpeted throughout the universe and carried on American media airwaves, they are now strangely silent about this groundbreaking news.

I wonder why?

Father's Day Revisited

"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." ~ Mark Twain

Today is Father's Day. We don't celebrate Father's Day at my house. My five children are all grown and living lives of their own except the youngest, and he will probably be on his own in a year or so. He doesn't work, and has no money, so he can't buy me anything, but he MAY do something for me today, if I badger him about it long enough. I bought some occassional tables (unassembled) at Walmart the other day. Maybe I will get him to put them together for me for Father's Day, but I doubt it.

It's OK though. Father's, unlike mothers, are supposed to be martyrs.

The following is an encore of the blog post I published last year for Father's day. I still have not received any anecdotes from my siblings. I guess they are too busy with their own lives:

Being the youngest of 6 children in My family, It is perhaps more difficult than my siblings for me to remember much of the things that my father did, or said, that makes him special. So, I sent e-mails to all my brothers and sisters, asking them to send me a short story or anecdote that best describes what our father meant to each of us. For some reason, I didn't get any replies. So, I will simply tell what he means to me.

My father and I had what many would probably agree was the typical rebellious teen/loving but firm father relationship. We fought on numerous occasions over what I wanted to do versus what he wanted me to do, which were, of course, the "right" things. Somehow we made it through and I grew to respect the man on so many levels as time went on.

Now for some memories. I remember more than a few times that my mother would tell me to "Go help your dad" when he was working on the washing machine, or the car, etc. I would go and stand there looking bored and he'd say, "what do you want?" and I'd say "Mom told me to help you." he'd say, "You wanna help? Stay out of the way!"

We were a church going family, but I was not the best behaved boy in church. I remember specifically 2 occasions when my father responded to my behavior unusually. By that I mean he didn't respond the way I would have expected. Both times I had been caught doing something I shouldn't have done in church. I expected, both times, to really get a beating when I got home, (not really beating, just a good spanking, in retrospect) but instead once he dropped by the Dairy Queen on the way home and bought me a pineapple sundae. The other time, he just said nothing about the incident. Years later, I realized what he was thinking. The fear and humiliation I was already feeling was punishment enough.

He was right.

Fast forward to his final days. My father died of a long lasting painful disease called Chronic Respiratory Pulmonary Disease. Once, while visiting him at his bedside on a day that I sincerely believed was very nearly his last, he astounded me with a revelation. He told me about 2 times when he had been proud of me. Perhaps it would be important to say at this time that my dad was not one given to displays of effusion, however, on this occasion he spoke about a time, years before, that I had stood up in church and told the congregation that I was glad that my parents made me go to church with them when I didn't want to go. Personally, I had forgotten that I did that.

But he hadn't.

He also told me he was always proud of how good a basketball player I was. Knock me over with a feather! I had no idea he even knew I played much basketball! Incidentally, I wasn't that good. I tried out for the 7th grade team and was cut, and was so devastated, that I never tried out for another sport in school. But he never said a word about it.

My older brother told me, just last year, that Dad believed if you didn't make any money from the things that you did that it wasn't important. I know that sounds like a pretty shallow man, but you have to see the man the way I do to understand and realize just how special that made him. I wish my siblings had responded to my request, those anecdotes would tie this together so much better.

Dad didn't die in the next few days. Instead, a very different and miraculous thing occurred. He entered the hospital shortly thereafter with severe breathing difficulties, and the Doctor told my mother that he would be surprised if Dad lived through the night. That day, my father prayed to God, asking him to either take him or cure him as he could no longer go on in his present condition. And, contrary to what you are supposed to do, he gave God a timeframe to work with. He told God he wanted to be cured or dead by 2:00 PM the next day. At precisely 2:00 the next day, Dad drew the first unobstructed breath he had drawn in years! From there, he made a complete recovery and was running up steps in a matter of weeks!

Dad didn't just sit back and enjoy this new lease on life he had received. Not my dad.

He applied for and was given a mission from the state home mission board of the Southern Baptist Convention. In the next few years, he planted and pastored a small church in Claflin, Kansas. I believe that was the work God had been grooming him for his entire life. And so did he. After establishing that church, and making sure it was self sufficient, his disease returned and shortly thereafter, he died in my mother's arms.

I don't have many more memories of him that are worth sharing. They are just little things that are special to me alone, that I'm quite sure no one else would be able to appreciate.

One thing that I have always been grateful for: I got the chance that so many people never get, and that is, I was able to reconcile all the differences I ever had with my father before he died.

I don't feel guilty.

I don't feel sorry I never got the chance to say "I love you, Dad". Because, you see? I did tell him I loved him.

Happy Father's Day and God bless you, Dad, rest in peace.

Getting Democrat Votes

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." ~ William Shakespeare

Well, Karl Rove has been investigated and investigated, and investigated. He has been questioned by the Grand Jury over and over. He has been tried and convicted by both the Democrats and the Liberal news media, but not by the Federal prosecutors and not by the Grand Jury.

By the Federal Prosecutors and the Grand Jury, he has been exonerated.

By the Democrats and the news media, he is still guilty.

Guilty? Of what?

Guilty of beating the Democrats in elections. Fair and square.

While the Democrats have tried everything in their bag of tricks to reverse the results of the election and have John (cut and run) Kerry installed as our nations President. They have attempted to use the court system to nullify the votes that put President Bush in office. They have even registered dead people to vote.

All the Republicans did is get more votes. Shame, shame.

You have to give the Democrats credit for tenacity, though. They never give up.

So. What have the Democrats learned from all this? Apparently, they have learned that the way to win elections is to get more votes than the Republicans. How are they going to do that?

Change their platform to one of patriotism, Americanism, and honesty? (Like the Republicans) Back the troops in Iraq instead of undermining them? Distance themselves from people like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, George Soros, etc? Oppose illegal immigrants?

In your dreams.

I think they have discovered that what they need to do is get more votes than their opponents, so they are going about the business of procuring those votes in the same way in which they sought to win the last election. By using the courts and subterfuge.

No. They are trying their very best to have illegal aliens declared legal immigrants and making sure the aliens know it is them that are attempting to do them this favor. They believe if they can get the courts to declare illegal aliens legal citizens with all the rights citizens enjoy, that they will vote Democrat out of gratitude.

Oh, and the news media is doing all they can to broadcast this myth to the uneducated American public.

It sounds like a good strategy to me. If they can get the courts to declare amnesty for 20 million or so illegal aliens and get them the right to vote, maybe they can win the next elections.

The only problem is getting these new citizens to vote. Personally, I don't see illegal aliens being interested in anything but taking advantage of free government programs.

On second thought. Maybe the Democrats won't have any trouble getting the illegal alien vote after all.

A Right To Be Stupid

"Lord, what fools these mortals be!" ~ William Shakespeare

(I have pictures to post on this entry, but blogger won't upload them. Maybe I can edit them in later.)

The recent motorcycle wreck involving Pittsburgh Steelers Quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger, has spawned quite a debate about both the importance of wearing helmets and whether or not helmet laws should be in place.

For those of you as yet uninitiated, a helmet law is a law requiring that motorcyclists wear helmets when driving their motorcycles. It is, after all, for their own protection.

Yesterday, Glenn Beck brought up the point that Pennsylvania used to have a helmet law but that it was repealed in 2003 by a mostly Democrat state legislature. He blamed it on the Democrats.

Personally, I agree with the state legislature in this case. Let me explain why.

Most thinking people, people with brains, agree that wearing a helmet is a wise thing to do when riding motorcycles. As do I. Accordingly, wearing seat belts in cars is a wise thing to do. And child safety restraint systems in cars, and even in shopping carts are pretty wise for those who have concerns about the safety of their children.

But does the government have the right to force us to implement these safety measures?

Don't the people in America have a right to be stupid if they so desire? Isn't that part of the freedoms we are supposed to enjoy here in the land of the free? The right to be stupid?

I often say that Liberalism, to me, stems from the idea that since the majority of people are not smart enough to take care of themselves, the government must take care for them. I think this is one of the basic tenets of Liberalism. In Laura Ingrahams book, "Shut Up and Sing" , the very first line states, "they (meaning Liberals)think we're stupid". (Actually, it could read "they think you're stupid", I don't remember which.) Either way, the point is clear.

The unfortunate fact is, many people in America are stupid. But don't they/we have that right? The right to be stupid?

OK, so that's my point. Helmet laws force people who don't want to wear a helmet to wear them. If a helmet were to prevent serious injury or death, of course, that is a good thing, but if a rider isn't wearing one, and it causes him to die because of his own stupidity, he has that right, in my opinion.

There is a series of books based on a Liberal author's idea that people who remove themselves from the gene pool by dying because they did things requiring a singular stupidity should receive special recognition. It is called "The Darwin Awards" . I ran across a copy of the 3rd book in the series on the clearance shelf at Waldenbooks, and bought it simply because it was only $1.99 at the time. It is humorous, but nothing to rave about, in my opinion.

People who refuse to wear helmets, or for that matter, seat belts, and die in accidents because of it, should receive at least honorable mention for the Darwin Awards, but don't because the sad fact is, Those kinds of deaths are far too common.

Now, let me add here, that I see insurance the same way. We all agree that it's a damned good idea to carry insurance. Health insurance, life insurance, home insurance, and especially car insurance. But should we be forced to carry it by law?

I don't think so.

I know that's a radical thought but stay with me on this one.

I cannot get my car registered without having insurance. I cannot get license tags. I essentially drive my car illegally if I don't carry car insurance. It is law in this state and most other states to carry car insurance. Failure to carry car insurance in this state results in the loss of driving privileges and several stiff fines and fees. If I let my car insurance coverage lapse even one day, it is an immediate $150.00 fine, and something like $3.00 a day thereafter until the insurance is re-instated.

I believe it is a violation of my rights to force me to buy car insurance.

For one thing, When the law requires one to buy his own insurance, it is basically the textbook definition of extortion. If the law is going to require us to have insurance, the government should be the one that supplies it, and at affordable rates. The way it is now, except for government ceilings on insurance fees, insurance companies can conceivably charge whatever ridiculous fees they want.

It is free money for the insurance companies. With the Governments blessing. Not a bad racket if you can get in on it.

Yes, it is very wise to carry insurance. Yes, it can save you an immense amount of expenses should you have an accident. Yes, if you have an accident you will be out a tremendous amount of money, not to mention your mode of transportation, if you don't carry insurance. All these things are true.

But does the government have the right to compel you, against your will, to buy insurance? I think not.

If someone has an accident and isn't carrying insurance, shouldn't just reaping the consequences of stupidity be enough of a reason for him to buy insurance for himself? Having a serious accident without insurance would certainly be costly enough for him to make sure he doesn't get behind the wheel of a vehicle again. For one thing, he wouldn't be able to afford to fix the one he has, let alone be able to buy another one. Especially if his reason for not having insurance in the first place is because he can't afford it.

But what about the other driver, you might ask? The responsible one. The one who was smart enough to carry insurance on his vehicle. Well, that is a good reason to require insurance, I suppose.

But there is a way he can avoid costly repair fees, health care, and various other expenses from an accident.

All insurance policies should be no-fault. Meaning, whether the insured is the one at fault for the accident or someone else, the insurance the responsible driver has bought should make the reparations. But only for him. The uninsured driver must find a way to pay his own bill caused because he exercised his right to be stupid.

Lastly, getting back to the helmet law question, Let's at least require some consistency here. If the law requires seat belts and child safety restraints in cars, and insurance, then it should require motorcyclists to wear helmets.

If the law doesn't require helmets, than it shouldn't require safety belts and child safety harnesses and insurance either.

I am in favor of the latter, not because I want to drive without insurance or seat belts or helmets. But because I believe that we Americans have the right to choose to be safe or not.

We have an inherent, God-given right to be stupid.

Enough Is Enough

"With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost." ~ William Lloyd Garrison

I have been putting off writing this entry for some time now, because I know what the reaction will be. But sooner or later, if the issue isn't addressed it will only become a bigger issue and thus, make it that much more difficult to deal with in a single post.

There is a few commenters on my blog posts that have made some pretty outrageous and offensive statements in my comment section that I have basically just ignored, and I am guessing they know why, although the reason they say I am ignoring them is quite different from the reason they know.

A commenter who calls himself Dan Trabue in particular has been badgering me to answer certain questions of which the true answer, quite frankly, I am sure he already knows. He apparently thinks I will fall into his little trap and answer him as he seems to think I am so ignorant that he can destroy my argument with his clever little Liberal talking points and misinformation that the Liberals are so fond of disseminating among the non-thinking public.

I am not going to go over all the arguments he has attempted to start, but I do want to address a couple, but mostly as a way of presenting evidence that this man is not above twisting and spinning facts to advance his radical conspiracy theories and lunatic Liberal ideals.

I do not respond mostly because it will do no good. He has made his mind up. He will not listen. He will not be persuaded that I am right and he is wrong. There is no point.

It would only be casting pearls before swine.

He doesn't want an answer to his questions. They are only rhetorical questions he wants me to offer answers to so he can misinterpret and then twist my words to try to make me appear to be a fool.

For instance when I wrote a blog entry that shamelessly promoted my friend Sheila's new blog, I added a statement that I believe abortion is wrong. I said, speaking of abortion:

"In my opinion, there is never an excuse to kill babies."

To which Dan responded:

"And so you will come out in opposition to the Iraq War because we've killed babies there?"


By this stupid, inane, apples-to-oranges comparison he thinks he has made a fool of me. Instead, he has made a fool of himself.

Later, he continued to badger me with this and other questions to which he already knows the answer.

On the wrong posts.

Completely off topic.

I haven't responded to these inane questions for a reason. He is only asking them in hopes I will spout off some Republican talking point in ignorance of what he considers "the facts". Then, he believes he can systematically destroy my arguments with his superior intellect and logic.

He knows what I said, and what I said, I mean.

Intentionally murdering babies still in the womb just because the mother wants to continue a decadent promiscuous lifestyle without the "inconvenience" of having to take care of a baby or because of a crime committed, either by a criminal or a family member, is a far cry from a baby being killed accidentally during a firefight in the middle of a war.

A far, far cry.

And Dan, you very well know the difference. If you don't, you are stuck on stupid.

And don't even attempt to use that false argument that you don't believe in abortion but support a woman's right to choose. That is simply Liberal code words for supporting the wanton, intentional murder of innocent unborn babies. Either you are for abortion or you aren't. You cannot justify support of this wholesale slaughter of innocents in this country by recusing yourself from the argument by using the "right to choose" excuse. You cannot divorce yourself from complicity in this outrage by insisting you have no part in the choice to kill.

In every case where a woman chooses to abort her child, the baby still ends up dead.

Dead.

And you support that.

You don't care about babies being murdered in the womb. You don't care about babies dying in war. You don't care about soldiers dying in war. You care only about advancing your own diabolical political agenda. If you can use divisive issues to further your political agenda, you are only too happy to oblige.

As I have stated many times, I do not like war. I don't want war. I am a pacifist.

But I have also stated that sometimes there is no alternative. No means of negotiation left unexplored. These bleeding heart sob sister Liberals who keep insisting war is not the answer still have failed to come up with a better alternative.

They whine that negotiations can stop this war, and that if we only talk to the terrorists, and understand them, and find out why they hate Americans so much, we can reach a level of understanding with them, and we can reach an agreement whereby the terrorists will lay down their guns and bombs, and live in some kind of utopian, idyllic, co-existence with the rest of the Muslims and non-Muslims in the world.

Here's a news flash for you, Dan:

Terrorists do not want to negotiate. They do not want to talk. They do not care to be understood. They do not care if we understand why they hate America. They want to kill. They want to murder.

And if they ever get their hands on you, you will be be-headed just as efficiently and as dispassionately as they be-headed Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg. More in fact. History has proven that the first to be eliminated after fascista victory in war are the ones that supported the enemy.

How many UN resolutions did Saddam ignore? How many innocent civilians will have to be be-headed, how many IED's going off beside the road, how many suicide bombers blowing themselves and hundreds of others up in crowded marketplaces will it take to make you finally understand that there is no negotiation with these animals?

War is an unfortunate necessity that will not go away just because we civilized people deem it obscene. They have to be fought whether we want to or not.

Why?

Because some people are not civilized.

Duh!

We did not bring this fight to them. They brought it to us. If you really, truly believe for one minute that if we hadn't gone to Iraq, the terrorists attacks against America would have stopped, then again, you must be stuck on stupid.

The loss of an innocent baby is never a good thing. Not in war, and not in peace. Especially not in peace.

The difference is that 1.5 million innocent unborn babies a year are wantonly, callously, intentionally murdered in this country everyday by what Dan considers to be "civilized" people, so that the mother can indulge in whatever destructive lifestyle she prefers, seemingly with the apparent blessing of Dan, and ER, and other "Christians ".

Is killing innocent unborn babies (who, by the way, have no choice) a "Christian" act? Do you suppose Jesus would kill babies so that a "Christian" mother could live her life as she wants? Do you really think Jesus would say a woman has the right to choose to destroy His own creation? If you believe that, again, you are stuck on stupid.

I say again. There is never a valid reason to kill babies. Especially not the flimsy reason that a woman deserves a "choice".

Christians defending the murder of millions of innocent babies every year while at the same time, decrying the deaths of a relatively few (by comparison) terrorists, who's main objective is the eradication of Christianity and Judaism and all who do not follow their own peculiar brand of jihadist fascist Muslim perversion of Islam, under the guise of pretending they don't believe in war.

What's wrong with this picture?

And Dan? What's wrong with you?

You also have demanded over and over ad nauseum that I produce lists of the Democrat politicians that are corrupt, apparently to refute my assertion that Democrat politicians are more corrupt than Republican politicians. I don't have to do that. You know Democrats are more corrupt.

The reason there is so much more press about the few Republican politicians being corrupt (ie, "culture of Corruption") than Democrats is explained very simply. The majority of the news media is Liberal, and therefore, they are themselves Democratic party apologists. It isn't hard to find overwhelming evidence of that truth.

And the list of Republican politicians that you used to present your side of the argument is replete with unproven, unsubstantiated indictments, many brought by Democrat prosecutors with a political agenda of their own, such as democratic corrupt politician Ronnie Earle, who went grand jury shopping to find a jury sympathetic enough to Democrats to return a very questionable indictment against Tom Delay. After 3 previous attempts to get an indictment he finally was able to drudge up enough Democratic party supporters to bring an indictment, which will eventually be thrown out of court for being baseless.

All the while the allegations of corruption against Democratic politicians are substantiated and generally accepted by the majority of the thinking public as fact. The only reason so many Democrats are not already in jail is because of the left leaning media, which suppresses all stories of Democratic corruption while magnifying the slightest indiscretion from the right side of the aisle.

Can you say Ted Kennedy (murderer) Gary Conyers (murderer) Bill and Hillary Clinton (murderers) etc. etc. etc.?

Once upon a time, you made respectful comments on my posts, and they were appreciated. I welcome dissenting views and support the free and open exchange of ideas in this space. But you have become increasingly more disrespectful and mean spirited. If you can manage to return to being respectful and logical, as you once were, your comments will be, as always, welcome.

But, Dan. If you ever accuse me of lying, or of being a liar, or suggest that I have lied, or imply in any way, that I might have intentionally told an untruth again, your comments will not be published on this blog.

Altruism

"He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars." ~ William Blake

About a year and a half ago, I was down and out. I had just bought a brand new car with payments I wasn't even sure I could afford in the first place, and within two weeks of purchasing the car, before I had even made the first payment on it, I was laid off.

I applied for unemployment compensation but had to wait 3 weeks to get any and then discovered that it wasn't as much as I thought I should have gotten. I was unemployed for a couple of months. I was falling behind on all my bills, not just the car payment.

Eventually, I was able to get a job that paid little more than minimum wage, but at least it was something more than the small amount I was getting from unemployment.

But I still couldn't pay the car payment. I had hidden the car in a friends garage to avoid reposession. (It was literally mere hours before reposession)

Then a miraculous thing happened.

I mentioned my car payment problems to a group of friends, and a woman I didn't know just offered to make a car payment for me, right out of the blue. I protested that it was my problem and she didn't even know me, but she insisted. I asked her why, and she merely stated that she had her own reasons. And she said she didn't expect repayment. She said she didn't want me to pay her back. I could not dissuade her, so I relented and reluctantly allowed her to make the payment for me.

But the miracle didn't end there. Because she made that one car payment for me, I was able to stave off reposession just long enough to start a new job, in which I used that same car to make an income. A very good income. Without that car, I wouldn't have been able to get that job, and, most likely would not even been able to keep the job I had.

I lost some friends over this incident. Many people accused me of being a con man and a user. There were a lot of hard feelings resulting from this simple act of kindness.

I bore it all with no small amount of consternation.

Fast forward to last week. My income has increased and I finally caught up on all my bills. All of them. And I now have money in the bank. More money that doesn't have to be spent on anything than I have ever had.

So, I wrote a check to my benefactor, who, incidentally, I hadn't kept in touch with, nor she with me, and I sent it to her, after first checking with her to make sure she hadn't moved. It was a good thing I did. She had moved.

I wrote the check for more than the amount she gave me. I figured I owed her interest as well. She wrote me back that when they had moved, they had unexpected expenses and had been unable to get some things out of storage. The money I sent her will cover that expense.

The only thing I asked in return is that she tell the people who accused me of being a can artist and a user that I paid her back.

I feel good. Altruistic. I think I am going to be altruistic more often. Nothing can match the feeling one gets by doing something nice for someone with no expectation of reciprocation.

I don't want a pat on the back. Just pay it forward. You'll be glad you did.

The President Song

"In America any boy may become President and I suppose it's just one of the risks he takes." ~ Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.

Have you ever wished you knew the names of all the Presidents of the United States in order? All you have to do is memorize this song from the Warner brothers cartoon "Animaniacs" and you never will forget them:

(sung to the tune of the Lone Ranger theme)

Heigh ho, do you know
The names of the U.S. residents
Who then became the presidents
And got a view from the White House loo
Of Pennsylvania Avenue?

George Washington was the first, you see
He once chopped down a cherry tree
President number two would be
John Adams and then number three

Tom Jefferson stayed up to write
The Declaration late at night
So he and his wife had a great big fight
And she made him sleep on the couch all night

James Madison never had a son
And he fought the War of 1812
James Monroe's colossal nose
Was bigger than Pinocchio's

John Quincy Adams was number six
And it's Andrew Jackson's butt he kicks
So Jackson learns to play politics
Next time he's the one that the country picks

Martin Van Buren, number eight
For a one-term shot as Chief of State
William Harrison, how do you praise?
That guy was dead in thirty days

John Tyler, he liked country folk
And after him came President Polk
Zachary Taylor liked to smoke
His breath killed friends whenever he spoke

Eighteen fifty, really nifty
Millard Fillmore's in
Young and fierce was Franklin Pierce
The man without a chin

Follows next a period spannin'
Four long years with James Buchanan
Then the South starts shootin' cannon
And we've got a civil war

A war, a war down south in Dixie (This line sung to the tune of "Dixie")

Up to bat comes old Abe Lincoln
There's a guy who's really thinkin'
Kept the United States from shrinkin'
Saved the ship of state from sinkin'

Andrew Johnson's next
He had some slight defects
Congress each
Would impeach
And so the country now elects

Ulysses Simpson Grant
Who would scream and rave and rant
While drinking whiskey
Although risky
'Cause he'd spill it on his pants

It's eighteen seventy-seven
And the Democrats would gloat
But they're all amazed when Rutherford Hayes
Wins by just one vote

James Garfield, someone really hated
'Cause he was assassinated
Chester Arthur gets instated
Four years later, he was traded

For Grover Cleveland, really fat
Elected twice as a Democrat
Then Benjamin Harrison; after that
It's William McKinley up to bat

Teddy Roosevelt charged up San Juan Hill
And President Taft, he got the bill
In 1913 Woodrow Wil...
...son takes us into World War One

Warren Harding next in line
It's Calvin Coolidge; he does fine
And then in nineteen twenty-nine
The market crashes, and we find

It's Herbert Hoover's big debut
He gets the blame and loses to
Franklin Roosevelt, president who
Helped us win in World War Two

Harry Truman, weird little human
Serves two terms and when he's done
It's Eisenhower who's got the power
From fifty-three to sixty-one

John F. Kennedy, he gets shot
So Lyndon Johnson takes his spot
Richard Nixon, he gets caught
And Gerald Ford fell down a lot

Jimmy Carter liked campaign trips
And Ronald Reagan's speeches' scripts
All came from famous movie clips
And President Bush said "read my lips"

Now in Washington D.C.
There's Democrats and the G.O.P.
But the one in charge is plain to see
It's Clinton, first name Hillary

The next President to lead the way
Well, it just might be yourself one day
Then the press'll distort everything you say
So jump in your plane and fly away

Anyone care to make up a verse for our current President?

Carville's Blog

"If men would consider not so much wherein they differ, as wherein they agree, there would be far less of uncharitableness and angry feeling." ~ Joseph Addison

My good friend and new blogger buddy, moderately progressive Liberal Sheila, has finally relented (under pressure from me), to publish her own blog. You can find it here.

This is a picture of Sheila with President Reagan. I stole this picture off Sheila's blog. I didn't get permission from her. I assume it is alright with her. If not, I will remove it with sincerest apologies.

Sheila, although a Liberal, is so far pretty inoffensive to us Conservatives. Of all the moderately progressives who claim they are moderate or progressive, Sheila appears to be, at least so far, genuinely moderate. That is a good thing. What this country needs is more middle of the road voices. Certainly politics would be less divisive.

I mentioned in another post, if I ever would become a Liberal, it would be because of Conservatives like Sean Hannity, whose vitreous statements regarding Liberals and frankly, anyone who disagrees with him, leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Sheila is another reason I would become a Liberal. One of the reasons I switched sides was because I was so thoroughly disgusted with the hate spewing from the majority of Liberals on the political scene. Sheila is not like that. She truly gives a respectful, thoughtful perspective on politics.

And if you read her blog, you will find that it leaves anything but a bad taste in your mouth. In fact, if you follow her recipes (whatever she calls her dishes) you most certainly will be left with a very good taste in your mouth.

I met Sheila through blogging, on another site which I since have pretty much avoided, the commentary from most of the commenters there being hard for this old Conservative to stomach. Sheila is a calm voice of moderation in a tempest of Liberal moonbat vitriol.

Since we met, Sheila and I have become very good friends. We jokingly refer to each other respectively as Carville and Matilin. I am pretty sure that if we lived closer to each other, I might ask her out on a date, since we are both single. No, I take that back. I would definitely ask her out, and she might possibly go, as long as our destination is an apolitical place where the patrons don't know of a difference between Democrats and Republicans, or Liberals and Conservatives. And as long as our discussion doesn't degenerate into a argument over ideologies.

For the record, I will never become a Liberal as long as Liberals continue to promote an ideology that supports the wanton murder of unborn babies. In my opinion, there is never an excuse to kill babies. The Liberals speak often of freedom of choice, yet never seem to consider the choice of the only victim in all this. That of the innocent baby, who did absolutely nothing to deserve a death sentence except be unwanted, which, of course, is not the babies choice, either.

I also think it's hypocrisy to suggest it's wrong to execute vicious murderers but right to murder the disabled and infirmed, and to kill innocent babies.

There is never a valid reason to murder babies. Not even in cases of incest or rape. Where is the logic in killing an innocent because of some crime committed by someone else?

But I digress.

You can link to her blog from my blogroll, under the title "Cooking politicians"

Go visit Sheilas blog. Tell her I sent you.

A Chip Off The Old Blockhead

"So you see, imagination needs moodling - long, inefficient, happy idling, dawdling and puttering." ~ Brenda Ueland

Recently, there have been changes at my job. The company holding my contract closed the office out of which I worked and reduced it to simply a storage garage. So we drivers had to make some changes, not only in time management, which was one of the biggest changes, but also in supplies to help us continue to do our jobs efficiently.

For instance, I had to increase the amount of anytime minutes on my cell phone because we no longer have an office to report into. My number of phone calls tripled after the change. Since we no longer have an office, we also had to make arrangements to handle out paperwork. We used to have a copier in the office, but no more. I had to find a way to make copies of my paperwork, essential to keeping accurate records.

I said all that to say this:

I bought a printer/copier/scanner to use to copy my paperwork. It works very good at making copies. Many times the copy is better than the original. I don't know how. I don't know how to use the scanner, I guess. I tried to use it to create my own paperwork so I wouldn't have to depend on the company to supply it, but for some reason the format comes out all wrong.

Anyway, my 17 year old son, John, knows how to use the scanner and has been scanning different things.

He is quite a talented young artist and so I thought I'd show off some of his artwork since he scanned it into the computer anyway.

(Click the pictures to enlarge them)

This is the first thing he scanned. His own face.

A free hand Octopus.

Popeye.

This is the best of his artwork in my opinion. I think it looks like the wolf in "The Never Ending Story" but he drew it free hand.

I'm pretty proud of my boy!

Pride And Arrogance Part 2

"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit, before a fall." ~ Proverbs 16:18

My good friend, Progressively Moderate Liberal Sheila, has introduced me to a rather disturbing video. Actually, in light of the subject matter of this entry, I should perhaps refrain from the use of the word, "rather" in it's description.

One can find a link to it here.

MSN says O'Reilly lied. He did not. He simply got his facts backwards. He was mistaken. He was wrong. But he didn't lie. His biggest mistake was in not acknowledging his mistake and not correcting it. FOX News' mistake was also in not acknowledging and correcting the mistake.

This video is disturbing not only because it exposes FOX News Bill O'Reilly as undeniably mistaken, but because it exposes him as arrogant and stubborn.

Liberals will no doubt seize upon this video as further proof of Conservative lunacy, or even as part of the infamous "Culture of Corruption" but in fact it is merely further proof that many high profile people are so arrogant that they will actually insist, in the face of insurmountable evidence, that they are indeed right and the rest of the world is wrong.

How sad and pathetic.

When one allows stubborn arrogance and pride to get in the way of facts, it is time for some major attitude adjustment.

Much of the problem here is the decision by the FOX news network to attempt to sweep this embarrassment under the proverbial rug. And when you stop to give it some cursory thought, it is painfully evident that FOX news made a very stupid decision. Do they think that other networks do not have the technology to record the misreporting by Mr. O'Reilly?

I, for one, am embarrassed that Mr. O'Reilly and Fox news didn't have the sense to admit their mistake and issue a public apology the first time this happened, not to mention a second time.

People make mistakes. People understand facts backwards sometimes. It is part of what makes us human and not gods. It is not shameful to be wrong. It is shameful to be wrong and refuse, because of stubborn arrogance and pride, to admit that one made a mistake and apologize.

But before you Liberals convulse in laughter at the travails of one of your most hated Conservative pundits finally getting his come uppance, remember Dan Rather and Mary Mapes. Remember the numerous attempts by the New York Slimes to create sensational stories out of whole cloth, in a transparent attempt to bring down the President and his administration.

Yes, over the top arrogance and pride is not exclusive to the right side of the aisle.

And while I'm on the subject of arrogance, I swear that if I ever become a Liberal, it will be largely because of the arrogance exhibited by Conservative talk show host, Sean Hannity.

I was equally embarrassed by statements he made on his show yesterday about the misstatement by an apologist for Chuckie Shumer that Senator Shumer would like to put a bullet between the eyes of President Bush. Immediately after his speech, the man apologized, and rightfully so, profusely for that error in judgment. Chuckie accepted his apology. President Bush, although I haven't heard an official statement from the White house about it, has no doubt accepted his apologies, but not Sean Hannity.

Mr. Hannity had the audacity to ask his listeners if we should accept his apology. I find this highly offensive as a Christian. Mr. Hannity professes to be a Christian, yet he apparently has forgotten a very important tenant of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Forgiveness.

I am rarely ashamed to be a Conservative, but this is one of those days.

Deja Vu

"It's like deja vu all over again" ~ Yogi Berra

As I was looking for something somewhere to post an entry about this morning, cruising my blogroll, my primary server, AOL, "encountered" a problem and needed to close. So, it closed, leaving the page for "Inside Yahoo" displayed on my monitor screen. I usually just close that page out and was going to do that again, when I noticed this story.

Here is the beginning of the article, although I'm sure it isn't news to any of us:

"VIENNA, Austria - The U.S. and five other world powers have an offer they say Iran can't refuse -- if it knows what's best for it.

The six nations on Thursday came up with incentives they hope will persuade Tehran to stop suspect nuclear activities, but made it clear that Iran risks U.N. sanctions if it rejects the package."

That's enough.

You can read the rest of the article yourself, but you could just as easily retrieve news reports that were written, ad nauseum, in the years leading up to the GWOT.

Iran looks so much like pre-war Iraq, it's frightening. This is only the beginning because Iran's president, Abby-somebody, (I wouldn't be able to spell his name even if I could remember it)is behaving almost exactly the way Saddam did, in the years running up to the war.

The only difference I can see so far, is that Iraq had, or maybe didn't have chemical and biological weapons (I say that for the benefit of my Liberal friends, who refuse to believe facts), and Iran is working on building nuclear weapons.

Big difference.

I fear we are on track for yet another middle eastern war. And that is disturbing, to say the least, to me. I can just about predict what will happen next. Iran will refuse to comply, and the UN will issue another sanction.

And another.

And another.

Etcetera,etceteraa, etcetera.

And they will all be ignored.

What can we do? What can anyone do?

What other alternatives will we have? What other alternatives did we have in Iraq? It is the same situation we had in Iraq, and I don't see any way, at this point, in which we can avoid another war. Not unless someone can come up with an alternative to sanctions. And an alternative to war.

President Bush has been accused or war mongering, but what choice did he have? I wonder what will happen, when he/she is finally faced with no choice, the American President (be he/she Republican or Democrat), has to begin military action in Iran.

Will Americans back him? Or her?

If whoever is President when this powder keg blows up is a Democrat, will the Democrats finally support a war? Will it then be a "just" war?

In the same scenario, will it then be the Republicans that voice opposition to the war?

I find it interesting that the Liberals continually repeat the mantra, "War is not the answer", but they don't seem to know what is the answer. In fact, I don't think they even know the question.

What is the question?

How do we bring peace? How do we stop the violence? How do we stop terrorism?

What about; How do we save the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in these countries that are being led by madmen who refuse to comply to UN sanctions, and how do we protect the world and America from being attacked by terrorists, who do not respond to repeated offers of peaceful negotiations?

I have said this many times. I am anti-war. I do not want to see war happen in Iran. But I also recognize there are times when war is simply unavoidable. Yes, negotiations work to a point, but as I see it, negotiations do little more than delay the inevitable. Unless the Iranian President is removed from office and a reasonable man installed, the ultimate solution will be war.

Sorry to say.

I agonize over the prospect that America will eventually have to resort to military action. Again.

I am reminded of the famous words of that erstwhile philosopher, George Jetson:

"Jane, stop this crazy thing!"

Culture of Corruption

"O that estates, degrees, and offices
Were not derived corruptly, and that clear honor
Were purchased by the merit of the wearer!" - William Shakespeare

Republicans.



Democratic Congressman William Jefferson.

A culture of corruption?

Ok. Another opportunity for the Democrats to practice their spin tecniques before the Fall elections. Once again, Democrats. Spin away.