Friday, February 23, 2007

I Love This

"A crime which is the crime of many none avenge." ~ Lucan

A 70 year old "retired member of the U.S. military " proved crime doesn't pay recently in Costa Rica, according to this article from AOL news.

He killed a mugger with his bare hands and guess what? The Costa Rica Police let him back on the ship to continue his trip!

If this had happened in America, he would have been arrested, charged with murder, convicted, and then sued by the dead man's family. And he would have lost, especially if he was sued in one of our many Liberal courts.

America is still the greatest country in the world, political correctness notwithstanding, but this is one time that the crybaby sob sister Liberal whacko's in America would do well to sit up and take notice.

"Whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap" Gal. 6:7.

The mugger had a criminal record as long as your arm, so he got what he deserved, in my opinion. Had he lived long enough, he might have even discovered something that Americans have long known:

Don't mess with a United States Military man!

We need guys like this on regular patrol on the streets of our cities.

I love this!

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Anti-War, Pro-Victory

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." ~ John Stuart Mill

We had a snow and icestorm here in Virginia on Tuesday of last week and ever since, my son has been out of school and bored, so he has been spending a lot more time than usual surfing the internet.

On Thursday, I did something horrible to my car while trying to propel it up our driveway on the ice, which is on a slight incline up to the road. It makes a tremendous racket and the oil smokes. That is, if I can get it started. The engine died as I was limping it back home and I could only manage to let it coast into it's place in the driveway. Since then, it sits, silent, cold and still. It seems to be laughing at me. I don't know how much it will cost, because I don't know whether it is just a fouled plug or two, or if it has something much more serious wrong with it. I can't afford to find out just yet. Wish me luck.

Also, I finally got a job. Apparently my 13 years experience in marketing management outweighed the fact that I am over 40, white and male. Between the ice storm and actually having a job to go to, my time to post entries on this blog and comment on others has been severely reduced.

So for those of you who eagerly await digesting my pearls of wisdom everyday, I apologize.

In a recent comment thread, I made the statement that I am not so much pro-war as I am anti-defeat. More accurately, I would have to say I am mostly anti-war, but more pro-victory. I will be the first to say I hate war. I don't understand those who would opt to go to war before all other options are exhausted.

It bothers me when I hear people make comparisons between the number of casualties in this war versus casualties in Viet Nam, Korea, WWII, and WWI. Yes, there are significantly less deaths in this war than in the previous wars, but one death is nevertheless a tragedy. I think keeping score is abhorrent.

I will not indulge in that.

One of my Liberal commenter's insists there is a way to settle this conflict between Islamic terrorists and Judeo/Christians without resorting to war. And I agree that negotiation will almost always work under certain circumstances.

But those circumstances involve a pretty big "IF .

If the terrorists had the same Judeo/Christian values that we do. If they followed the teachings of Christ rather than the teachings of the false prophet Mohammad. If they didn't consider serving God as murdering innocents. If their idea of negotiation wasn't deciding among themselves whether to use bombs, rocket launchers, or airplanes to kill as many innocent Americans and Jews as they possibly can.

The leaders of the Islamic Jihadists have repeatedly said they will not negotiate. They are continually saying they will never stop waging Jihad until the "infidels" are wiped off the face of the earth.

They have one purpose and one purpose only. The complete eradication of anyone who does not agree completely with them. Buddhist temples have been targeted. Even other Muslims have been killed because their particular sect was not in complete agreement with the Jihadists. Peaceful Muslims are at as much risk of being attacked as we Americans and Jews. No one is safe while the Jihadists exist.

These are not reasonable people. They are vicious, cold blooded animals with a one track mind.


This war on terror is not the preferred method of dealing with enemies. It is the only method. It is a necessary evil. There is only one option:

Kill or be killed.

Any other option is a fantastic exercise in futility.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

In Defense Of Mudkitty

"History is a voice forever sounding across the centuries the laws of right and wrong. Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on the tablets of eternity." ~ James A. Forude

In my previous entry, where I posted my thoughts regarding the field of Republican Presidential candidates, I had a commenter posting under the name Mudkitty. Mudkitty is apparently Democrat, or at least anti-Republican. And that's fine. Mudkitty is entitled to her/his opinion.

Mudkitty said, "Interesting that you like Newtie - a tree time divorce who prosecuted Clinton while having an adulterous affair with a staffer, whom he eventually dumped his second wife for. Clinton gets a bj, but stays with his wife, and you support impeachment. Newt has a full-blown affair, and is divorced twice, and he's presidential material to you guys. Well, logic and consistency has never been a republican virtue."

Mudkitty also said, "Makes you wonder, that when he speaks of protecting traditional marriage and family and which marriage of his, he wants to protect."

In addition, in reference to Rudy Guiliani, Mudkitty said, "So now the rightwingers are going to swallow their pride, and vote for someone who is pro-abortion, someone who is pro-gay, someone who placed the emergency command center in the World Trade Center, someone who sent 217 firemen up into the towers with non-working walkie talkies, so that they couldn't be recalled, someone who carried on a blatant affair with his mistress while in office. Someone who married his cousin. This is what you guys say you're going to do. Pardon me, if this confirms the lack of credibility in rightwing thinking, and the crass hypocrisy of rightwingers."

Then, Mudkitty said, "Rudy is the guy who carried on a flagrant affair with his mistress, whom he left his wife for. Rudy is the guy who supports gay rights and abortion. Rudy is the guy in business with Bernie Kerrik...Rudy is the guy who's first marriage was to his first cousin."

I don't know who Bernie Kerrik is, so I won't comment on that charge.

For the record, I never said I support either Newt or Rudy. My support is behind Duncan Hunter of California.

Be that as it may, Mudkitty, while attacking Republicans, has accidentally made a very good point.

I am unaware of any marital infidelities of Newt Gingrich, but if those allegations are true, I agree. He wouldn't necessarily be an authoritative voice for morality and Christian values. I know Rudy had an affair which ultimately led to his divorce, which would also go against Christian Conservative values. Because of that, he loses some support from that segment of the Republican base.

I also have a problem with a candidate that supports abortion and special rights for gays.

If we, as Conservative Republicans, settle for a candidate who demonstrates, through his actions, a lack of respect for Conservative Christian values, we cannot condemn former President Clinton for his indiscretions.

As I have said on numerous occasions, it is not the infidelity of Clinton that concerned me, so much as the fact that I would hope the leader of a country would have better self control over his wanton sexual desires. My conviction is if he can't even control that, how can we expect him to exercise good judgement when faced with an international crisis?

My point here is Mudkitty is right to be concerned about candidates with questionable family values.

I don't agree that the unfortunate decision (if it was indeed solely Rudy's) to set up a command center inside the twin towers on 9/11 and malfunctioning communications equipment necessarily disqualifies Rudy to be President.

Nor do I agree that because of some candidates indiscretions, it is an indictment of the whole Republican party. That is, of course, preposterous. By that logic, Republicans could say the same about Democrats. Do we really need to discuss Clinton and his dishonesty, affairs, sexual harassment, attempted rapes, and rapes?

I agree with Mudkitty that a Presidential candidate should be morally unblemished. How could we trust a President to properly lead this country if we can't trust him to control his own base emotions?

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Introducing Duncan Hunter

"I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." ~ Charles De Gaulle

So far, I am unimpressed with the Republican candidates that have entered the Presidential race for 2008. I have looked at the popular candidates and I have found taints in all of them.

McCain is likable, and possiby electable (by virtue of the fact that so many Democrats like him), but he's just not Republican enough. He has gone against the party a few too many times. Maybe this means he thinks for himself, and not necessarily what the Republicans want him to think. That could be a good thing, except too often what he thinks is the way the Democrats think. That's scary.

Rudy is strong on crime and the war on Terrorism, and was a rock after the planes hit the towers, but he is soft on illegal immigration and too pro-choice. Many say he stands on his principles, which is a major knock against McCain, but I'm sorry. Standing for a mother's right to kill her baby is not a principle I want my Presidential candidate to stand on.

I like Newt Gingrich, but, like many others has suggested, I feel he carries with him too much baggage. The Democrats slime campaign against him when he was Speaker of the House, charges that were never proven, and probably completely false, has painted Gingrich as corrupt, and that is something that I feel he cannot overcome.

Mitt Romney seems like an excellent candidate, but let's be honest. He's a Mormon. Many people feel Mormonism is a cult, and that alone will prevent many Christian Conservatives from voting for him. I don't know of anything in the Mormon doctrine that would necessarily make him a bad President, but it's the "cult" thing that scares people off.

Some are attempting a "draft Condi" campaign but that, as I see it, is doomed from the start, mainly because she has insisted she has no intentions of running for President. I like her a lot, and I think if she ran, she might get a lot of crossover Democrat votes especially from women and minority voters. But she is pro-choice, and that is a main issue for me, personally.

Then there is my initial pick to run, Sam Brownback of Kansas. He is strong in his opposition to abortion, something I've already mentioned is important to me. But then he went and ruined it all by opposing President Bush's war strategy. I no longer support him.

For another look at the front runners and more information regarding them, check this post by Mark Levin out.

OK. So now you are all probably thinking that I don't like any of the GOP candidates for President in 2008. You would be wrong.

I like Duncan Hunter, Republican Congressman from California. Take a look at him and his qualifications here.

I agree with him on virtually every issue. I don't see a thing wrong with him. So far, there are apparently no skeletons in his closets, and his record reflects strong American Conservative Republican values. Of course, it's early yet. The only problem he has currently is lack of name recognition, but the election is still over a year and a half away, and in that time, I believe we can make him a household name with the right amount of grassroots support.

I don't know if my humble blog gets enough readers to make a difference, but if my readers research Hunter, and if they agree that he is an excellent choice for President, perhaps other blogs will join with me to create a groundswell of support to elect Duncan Hunter President of the United States in 2008.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Hillary's Agenda

"I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'." ~ William Shakespeare

I was going to post a comment on Eric's blogpost about Hillary's speech in which she talks about taking oil company profits, but for some reason, blogger would not allow me to post a comment, so I'm commenting here. For background, Here is what Hillary said:

"The Democrats know what needs to be done. Again, we're working to try to push this agenda forward. The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to find alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence!"

Now, I'm not certain she really meant that she intends to just take the oil company's profits, or if she means she merely wants to tax them, (as if they aren't already being taxed) but, what happens when a company of any type somehow loses all their profits?

That's right. They go out of business.

If, as President, she did take oil company profits, the oil companies would go broke and have to close, throwing hundreds of thousands of people out of work. Not just the oil company employees, but all the companies that deal in petroleum by products and accessories to oil products.

In effect, America would go out of business. Our whole country! In addition, all the countries that depend on America for economic aid would go bankrupt, also.

Now, we're talking about creating millions more poor people world wide than we already have.

That's just the start. Think of alternative fuels. The current leader in the alternative fuels field is ethanol, which is made from corn and other grains. Of course, it is far from being ready to step in and take over at providing fuel for most of the world, but that's only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Not only is ethanol not ready to be our primary source of fuel, it will drive the costs of corn and grain so high that only the rich will be able to afford any product made with corn and other grains.

I've also heard it said that it costs more to make ethanol than it does to refine oil for gasoline. Once again, more higher costs to "save" the planet from evil oil.

So let's break it down and make it simple enough for even Liberals to understand.

Hillary wants to be President. As President, Hillary wants to put oil companies and all other companies that use or manufacture anything remotely related to oil production completely out of business, thereby creating massive unemployment worse than anything we've ever had previously, including during the Great Depression.

In addition to massive unemployment, she wants to create inflation higher than anyone has ever imagined, so high in fact, that even her multi-millionaire friends like George Soros etc, will not even be able to afford bread.

So, in her efforts to steal "Big Oil" profits for the common good of common man, she will completely destroy America's economy.

And the common man will cease to be. But I guess that's what the Liberals say they want.

I guess in the end, the very very wealthy will be the only ones left.

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Rush Is Right...Again

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." ~ George Bernard Shaw

After almost two years of blogging, I am beginning to figure out what issues tend to draw the most attention and generate the most comments from readers. My opinions (or, as Lone Ranger says, my convictions) on homosexuality, abortion, and environmentalism are generally the hottest topics here at my place.

And curiously, a mere mention of Rush Limbaugh appears to make the Liberals blood boil. I once wrote a post where I only mentioned Rush's name once and I received a veritable fountain of angry comments concerning him, and the post wasn't even about him.

Yesterday, I mentioned a recent study that determined Rush is right 97.4% of the time when he made predictions of what the left or the Democrats (not necessarily synonymous) would say or do.

In light of the recent claims by some "scientists" that human activity is definitely the cause of Global Warming, Rush has had quite a bit to say on the subject lately, and naturally, he doesn't agree.

Well, he's no scientist, so how would he know?

For the record, he doesn't say that there is no such thing as global warming. His position is that there is just no scientific evidence to support the theory.
Well today's post is concerning two of the above topics. Rush Limbaugh and Global Warming.

Rush has made the point that in order for there to be a determination of fact on any scientific discovery, first a theory has to be advanced based on observation, then it has to be tested and proven before it can be stated as scientific fact.

And Global warming has yet to be proven. In other words, there is no factual evidence that global warming exists, let alone caused by human activity.

Now, one commenter has suggested Rush doesn't know this is true, he just pulls these tidbits out of his nether regions and presents them as fact to his listeners. I believe the exact words used were, "Rush is a clown who simply blabs descriptions of what he is pulling out of his ass."

It would seem that some of my commenters deny that Rush has the capability to do research, even though he, as well as his staff, have the entire world wide web at their disposal.

Well, I've stumbled, accidentally, across a couple of articles that appear to prove that Rush is right again. And again, I will state, for the record, that neither Rush nor I deny that global warming exists, but rather, we doubt the evidence provided for it by the Liberals favorite global warming scientists, know...Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore.

Anyway, here are the articles. Read them:

"Al Gore is a Greenhouse Gasbag"

Here is an excerpt:

"Not Bob Giegengack. He has described Al Gore’s documentary as “a political statement timed to present him as a presidential candidate in 2008.” And he added, “The glossy production is replete with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, and appeals to public fear as shamelessly as any other political statement that hopes to unite the public behind a particular ideology.” This from a guy who voted for Gore in 2000 and says he’d probably vote for him again."

And, from the Canada Free Press.

Here is an excerpt from this one:

"Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets."

The one thing both reports have in common is they agree with Rush Limbaugh's conclusion that global warming is not a scientific fact, but rather an untested theory. And a poor theory at that, based on their own scientific analysis.

Again, I say, Read them!

I know it is a pain for the Liberals to admit, (so, of course, they won't) but again, Rush is right!

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Limbaugh Nominated For Peace Prize

"A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends." ~ Baltasar Gracian

Rush Limbaugh has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. He was nominated by The Landmark Legal Foundation, headed by Conservative lawyer and author ("Men In Black")Mark Levin.

Not surprisingly, The New York Slimes has skewered this nomination by publishing their readers reaction to the announcement. Could it be that there is no such thing as a Conservative Slimes reader or does the Slimes simply refuse to print comments from Conservatives? I don't know, but after reading all I could stomach of readers comments on the nomination, one (or both) of those explanations certainly seems to be the case.

There are the obligatory comparisons to Nazi's and the predictable slurs claiming Rush is a crack addict and infidel. Also, a racist, woman hater, and gay basher.

Oh, and let's not leave out the comments that he is apparently not worthy of a Peace prize because he doesn't believe women or doctors have a right to kill babies. Does anyone else see a disconnect here?

Here are some of the comments here:

"Hilarious, a drug addict and former welfare recipient (i.e., Rush “Blowhard” Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize. This could be the basis of a new reality show."

Former welfare recipient? Just exactly how does that preclude him from being a Nobel Prize recipient? Or drug addict, for that matter? Any other time that would almost win the prize on it's own. I don't believe he was ever on welfare anyway. His Father was a Lawyer, fer Chrissake!

Here's another:

"Mr. Rush Limbaugh, a crack-addicted neo-nazi bigot who rants at every opportunity against Jews, Blacks, homosexuals, Muslims and non-European visitors to the United States. Mr. Limbuagh has openly and repeatedly advocated violence against both doctors that provide legal abortion to adult women in the U.S. and against Court Judges who fail to support the minimalist interpretation of rights provided under the U.S. Constitution. The sohistry and bigotry of the thrice divorced [due to his extra-marital affairs] Limbaugh would put a necrosmile on the face of the nazi Goebbels. Mr. Limbaugh has every right to be nominated for a Nobel Peace price as long as the Committee takes into consideration the fact that Mr. Limbaugh’s remains the unapologetic mouthpiece of the Hate-4-Faith wing of the U.S. official jingoists."

— Posted by Dr. Henry McDillan

This one is singular, because this commenter managed to include every negative thing he's ever heard about Limbaugh, apparently not pausing to check his facts, while taking a further swipe at Christians and patriots.

Also, take notice that the commenter signs his name with the the prefix Dr. Perhaps he is one of the nation's abortion providers who feel their livelihood is endangered by the possible, if not probable overturning of Roe vs Wade?

One more, and then I'll bring this rant to a close. You can read the rest if you have the inclination:

"He hates blacks, he hates Mexicans, he hates liberals, he loves our involvement in Iraq, doesn’t think 3000 dead soldiers is any problem. All this in the name of world peace."

Now, I listen to Rush often. Not everyday, but often enough that if he ever expressed hatred of any of these groups (including Liberals) I would certainly have heard it. It's interesting to me that those who seem to object to him the most are the ones that obviously don't listen to him.

I am not a big fan of Rush simply because I find him a little too arrogant and egotistic. That said, he is rarely wrong. I suppose that is the reason the Libs hate him with such vigor.

It is generally seen as something of a badge of honor to be hated by your opponents, particularly in the field of politics. He has earned that badge.

He won't win, of course. The Nobel Prize committee is overwhelmingly a Liberally biased organization.

It is, however, a significant slap in the face of Rush haters everywhere. And that is worth something, at least.

Friday, February 02, 2007

Just For Fun

"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. I can't make any sense of it" ~ Groucho Marx

Recent commenters on my blog posts have caused me to start thinking about the difference in writing styles. I consider myself an adequate writer, but there are many that are much better. ER, ELAshley, Jason Bowden, and Wordsmith come to mind.

Coincidently, ELAshley has posted a great example of his writing over at his place this morning.

Some bloggers use words that I literally have to look up in a dictionary, and still others write simply. I would place myself somewhere in the middle concerning verbosity. Sometimes wording an essay simply works better to get the point across.

So, just for fun, I took a little children's song, and rewrote it with what some people call "4 dollar words". Uneducated blogger points to those who can figure out what children's song I changed. Additional points awarded to those of you who can re write it better. Here it is:

Repeatedly propel, through means of external manual propulsion mechanisms, your transport, designed and manufactured specifically to convey humanoid bipeds with maximum buoyancy and expediency, effortlessly along the current of the naturally occurring flowing transparent solution. Ecstatically multiplied fourfold, Human Existence is merely a surrealistic hallucination.

Have fun!