Usually, I precede my posts with a quotation. Today's post is a quotation. From Mark Levin's blog, in it's entirety:
The President Is Losing Me
I guess it's legacy time over at the White House. The president is imitating Arnold Schwarzenegger now. Does the president have any conservative domestic initiatives that he's actively pursuing? If so, I'd like to know what they are. Richard Nixon tried this when his ratings were low. It didn't work.
Mr. President, the Left hated you the day you walked into the Oval Office, if not before. Their hate for you is frozen in time. If you actually believe in what you are doing, then I and many others misjudged you. You expanded the federal role in education, and we held our nose because of the war. You signed McCain-Feingold in the dead of night, and we held our nose because of the war. You expanded Medicare by adding prescription drugs, and we held our nose because of the war. You increased farm subsidies, and we held our nose because of the war.
Today you disparage us for opposing a massive amnesty program that endangers our economy and national security. Today you even embrace the religion of global warming, a stunning shift from prior policy (your administration even went to the Supreme Court and argued correctly that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant).
What's a conservative to do?
I couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't even attempt to add anything.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The War On Terrorism
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." ~ Robert E. Lee
ER mentioned the GWOT in my last comment section. The letters "GWOT" is an acronym for the Global War on Terror. His comment inspired these thoughts. They are my thoughts. However rambling, they are nonetheless, my own.
Many people on the left say there is no such thing as a Global War on Terror. I would tend to agree.
The term, "Global war on terror" is a misnomer.
There is no war on terror. There is, however, a war on terrorism. The words, "terrorism" and "terror" are not synonymous. There is no global war on terror or terrorism, either. An alliance of a few countries fighting against terrorists is not global.
If anything, based on the number of countries that encourage, or at least tolerate terrorists in their midst, it would be considered a global war of terrorism.
ER also says the war in Iraq is not justified. He says we had a reason to invade Afghanistan but not Iraq. I believe he is wrong.
I think many Americans have forgotten why we went into Iraq in the first place. All of the anti-war rhetoric and political in-fighting since the war began has obscured the true reason for the war. Perhaps the continual accusations of illegality and calls for troop withdrawal are intentionally meant to make the average American forget.
In fact, they have been so successful at obscuring the facts that I myself, have forgotten how many times Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at U.N. sanctions. Was it 11? 15? 18? I don't remember, but it was certainly more than once or twice. He was warned we would attack if he continued to refuse to comply with our demands. He didn't comply, and so we followed through with our promise.
How is that illegal or unjustified?
Saddam started this war. We didn't. If he had simply done the things we had asked, we wouldn't have found it necessary to enforce our demands.
Then, terrorists invaded Iraq, and began to attack our troops. They tried to make it look as though we were the ones who were to blame for global terrorism. Then they began killing their own people. The numbers of innocent deaths that the leftists constantly bring up in their efforts to "prove" America is wrong are innocent Iraqi's that are being killed by the terrorists.
Our troops kill terrorists, not innocent civilians. There is unintentional collateral damage, even atrocities on occasion, but that happens in all wars. Even the ones we are not involved in. It is a tragic fact, but our intention is not to kill innocents.
There has been terrorism for centuries. We didn't create them.
We are not the terrorists.
What reason did we have to invade Afghanistan? According to intelligence reports, Osama bin Laden was there, and being sheltered by the Taliban led government. But was that a better reason to invade Afghanistan than the reasons we had to invade Iraq?
We invaded a country and dismantled a government so we could find one man, who we failed to find. How is that more justified than removing a vicious dictator who willfully and repeatedly refused to capitulate to our demands that he prove to us that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction?
The leftists would insist that since we never found such weapons, they didn't exist, but intelligence reports said they did. Who were we to believe? The murderous, lying, dictator or our own intelligence gatherers?
Did we really have a choice? If any of us feel threatened by another individual, after repeated unsuccessful attempts to talk them into stopping that behavior, wouldn't we do something drastic to stop that behavior?
On a side note, why do the leftists protest the war on terrorism so vehemently when it was their own pet organization, the U.N, with whose sanctions Saddam repeatedly refused to comply?
That seems disingenuous to me. If the UN demanded that Saddam comply and he doesn't, it seems to me that the first people to cry for his deposal would be the Liberals. After all, they believe the UN is more important than the United States.
I hate war. I wish to God we had never gone into Iraq. I wish we had not even had to make a decision on whether or not to go to war. It has led to such division among Americans that I fear we may never be united again.
But regardless of our reasons for being there, and whether we are justified or not, we are there. We must finish. We must win. We at least should be united in that.
ER mentioned the GWOT in my last comment section. The letters "GWOT" is an acronym for the Global War on Terror. His comment inspired these thoughts. They are my thoughts. However rambling, they are nonetheless, my own.
Many people on the left say there is no such thing as a Global War on Terror. I would tend to agree.
The term, "Global war on terror" is a misnomer.
There is no war on terror. There is, however, a war on terrorism. The words, "terrorism" and "terror" are not synonymous. There is no global war on terror or terrorism, either. An alliance of a few countries fighting against terrorists is not global.
If anything, based on the number of countries that encourage, or at least tolerate terrorists in their midst, it would be considered a global war of terrorism.
ER also says the war in Iraq is not justified. He says we had a reason to invade Afghanistan but not Iraq. I believe he is wrong.
I think many Americans have forgotten why we went into Iraq in the first place. All of the anti-war rhetoric and political in-fighting since the war began has obscured the true reason for the war. Perhaps the continual accusations of illegality and calls for troop withdrawal are intentionally meant to make the average American forget.
In fact, they have been so successful at obscuring the facts that I myself, have forgotten how many times Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at U.N. sanctions. Was it 11? 15? 18? I don't remember, but it was certainly more than once or twice. He was warned we would attack if he continued to refuse to comply with our demands. He didn't comply, and so we followed through with our promise.
How is that illegal or unjustified?
Saddam started this war. We didn't. If he had simply done the things we had asked, we wouldn't have found it necessary to enforce our demands.
Then, terrorists invaded Iraq, and began to attack our troops. They tried to make it look as though we were the ones who were to blame for global terrorism. Then they began killing their own people. The numbers of innocent deaths that the leftists constantly bring up in their efforts to "prove" America is wrong are innocent Iraqi's that are being killed by the terrorists.
Our troops kill terrorists, not innocent civilians. There is unintentional collateral damage, even atrocities on occasion, but that happens in all wars. Even the ones we are not involved in. It is a tragic fact, but our intention is not to kill innocents.
There has been terrorism for centuries. We didn't create them.
We are not the terrorists.
What reason did we have to invade Afghanistan? According to intelligence reports, Osama bin Laden was there, and being sheltered by the Taliban led government. But was that a better reason to invade Afghanistan than the reasons we had to invade Iraq?
We invaded a country and dismantled a government so we could find one man, who we failed to find. How is that more justified than removing a vicious dictator who willfully and repeatedly refused to capitulate to our demands that he prove to us that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction?
The leftists would insist that since we never found such weapons, they didn't exist, but intelligence reports said they did. Who were we to believe? The murderous, lying, dictator or our own intelligence gatherers?
Did we really have a choice? If any of us feel threatened by another individual, after repeated unsuccessful attempts to talk them into stopping that behavior, wouldn't we do something drastic to stop that behavior?
On a side note, why do the leftists protest the war on terrorism so vehemently when it was their own pet organization, the U.N, with whose sanctions Saddam repeatedly refused to comply?
That seems disingenuous to me. If the UN demanded that Saddam comply and he doesn't, it seems to me that the first people to cry for his deposal would be the Liberals. After all, they believe the UN is more important than the United States.
I hate war. I wish to God we had never gone into Iraq. I wish we had not even had to make a decision on whether or not to go to war. It has led to such division among Americans that I fear we may never be united again.
But regardless of our reasons for being there, and whether we are justified or not, we are there. We must finish. We must win. We at least should be united in that.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Perverting Memorial Day
"I think of a hero as someone who understands the degree of responsibility that comes with his freedom." ~ Bob Dylan
I mentioned in a post well over a year ago, that I listen to NPR on weekends. I enjoy "A Prairie Home Companion" hosted by Liberal Garrison Keillor. The program has a variety of musical acts and comedy skits that I enjoy, since I like a variety of music from bluegrass to opera. And I like comedy.
It is a funny show, but it wasn't so funny when Keillor sang an Americanized version of an Eric Bogle song called "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda". The original song is an anti-war anthem, and Keillor sang his version, unashamedly, as a condemnation of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq.
I think singing that particular Americanized version of the song to commemorate Memorial day was in bad taste.
Now, I have mentioned several times that I am anti-war myself, but that I recognize sometimes, that war is the only option we have in certain circumstances. I believe the war in Iraq is a necessary evil, and that we need to win it, and win it convincingly.
There are some particular lines in the original song, about an Australian "swagman" who is drafted to fight in WW I, and loses his legs at Gallipoli, that Keillor didn't change.
The lines that condemn war.
Throughout his version, he simply changed the nationality of the narrator from Australian to American, and the band didn't play "Waltzing Matilda" but "The Star Spangled Banner".
But there are some significant differences between Keillor's version and reality. The narrator of song was drafted against his will into the army. Today's fighting men and women were not drafted. They volunteered.
In Bogle's original version, the narrator fights for his life, there being no indication that he fights for any cause other than a selfish one. In reality, our soldiers fight for freedom, often times sacrificing their own lives for the Iraqi people.
In both versions, the narrator laments that none of his countrymen seem to care about his personal sacrifice. In reality, there are millions of people across America who pray for and honor our soldiers for their tremendous sacrifice.
About the only ones that don't are the anti-war leftists, (Like Garrison Keillor) and Democrats. To them, that sacrifice is pointless and a waste.
Then there is the verse that asks, "The young people ask, What are they marching for? And I ask myself the same question." In my opinion there is no doubt that they march in pride of their heroic battle for the freedom of the world.
I find myself asking, particularly because this is the day in which we memorialize the heroes of American freedom, the question, "Why does the American left continually condemn what is obviously a just and unavoidable war?"
I mentioned in a post well over a year ago, that I listen to NPR on weekends. I enjoy "A Prairie Home Companion" hosted by Liberal Garrison Keillor. The program has a variety of musical acts and comedy skits that I enjoy, since I like a variety of music from bluegrass to opera. And I like comedy.
It is a funny show, but it wasn't so funny when Keillor sang an Americanized version of an Eric Bogle song called "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda". The original song is an anti-war anthem, and Keillor sang his version, unashamedly, as a condemnation of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq.
I think singing that particular Americanized version of the song to commemorate Memorial day was in bad taste.
Now, I have mentioned several times that I am anti-war myself, but that I recognize sometimes, that war is the only option we have in certain circumstances. I believe the war in Iraq is a necessary evil, and that we need to win it, and win it convincingly.
There are some particular lines in the original song, about an Australian "swagman" who is drafted to fight in WW I, and loses his legs at Gallipoli, that Keillor didn't change.
The lines that condemn war.
Throughout his version, he simply changed the nationality of the narrator from Australian to American, and the band didn't play "Waltzing Matilda" but "The Star Spangled Banner".
But there are some significant differences between Keillor's version and reality. The narrator of song was drafted against his will into the army. Today's fighting men and women were not drafted. They volunteered.
In Bogle's original version, the narrator fights for his life, there being no indication that he fights for any cause other than a selfish one. In reality, our soldiers fight for freedom, often times sacrificing their own lives for the Iraqi people.
In both versions, the narrator laments that none of his countrymen seem to care about his personal sacrifice. In reality, there are millions of people across America who pray for and honor our soldiers for their tremendous sacrifice.
About the only ones that don't are the anti-war leftists, (Like Garrison Keillor) and Democrats. To them, that sacrifice is pointless and a waste.
Then there is the verse that asks, "The young people ask, What are they marching for? And I ask myself the same question." In my opinion there is no doubt that they march in pride of their heroic battle for the freedom of the world.
I find myself asking, particularly because this is the day in which we memorialize the heroes of American freedom, the question, "Why does the American left continually condemn what is obviously a just and unavoidable war?"
Sunday, May 27, 2007
No Habla Inglais? Adios, Muchacha!
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
No habla Inglais? Adios, muchacha! That's what we should say to the illegal aliens in this country. That, and whatever "get out" means in whatever language applies to the specific illegal alien.
Much has been said over the last couple of weeks about the new immigration bill to which President Bush, Ted Kennedy, John McClain, and others have supposedly agreed. The interesting thing is that this time, there are opposing groups in both parties. Perhaps this is the first and possibly only time the two parties have come to a bi-partisan consensus on something.
I am a Conservative registered Republican, but I completely disagree with President Bush on this one. I cannot understand why any intelligent man could actually think this ridiculous proposal would even begin to work to solve the immigration problem in America.
Personally, I call this an amnesty program. Others on both the left and right agree and disagree.
What a country!
And then, I had a thought:
Why don't we enforce the existing immigration laws?
Michael Chertoff, the head of our Homeland Security Department, says it is impossible to deport every illegal immigrant in America. For this reason, we should give them citizenship? And this is the Head of Homeland Security?
Ann Coulter had a good point. Using that kind of logic, rapist and murderers should receive amnesty.
Here is my solution to this seemingly tricky problem:
1. Finish building the fence. Legislation has already been passed and signed authorizing the United States to build a border fence to keep illegals out. To date, 2 miles have been built. Finish it.
2. Deport every illegal alien to their home countries. Yes, it is a daunting task, but it can be done. We have the resources. We need to use them.
3. Arrest the ones who are wanted for various crimes. Deny them bail, prosecute them, put them in jail, and throw away the key.
4. Keep them from coming back in. That would no doubt require hiring more border patrolmen. And supplying them with the necessary equipment to do their job. Like guns, security cameras, vehicles, and dogs.
5. Prosecute all companies that hire illegal aliens. Fine them. Arrest their executives. Whatever. But punish them.
See? Problem solved! And all in less than 15 minutes! Oh, I love it when things zip along!
No habla Inglais? Adios, muchacha! That's what we should say to the illegal aliens in this country. That, and whatever "get out" means in whatever language applies to the specific illegal alien.
Much has been said over the last couple of weeks about the new immigration bill to which President Bush, Ted Kennedy, John McClain, and others have supposedly agreed. The interesting thing is that this time, there are opposing groups in both parties. Perhaps this is the first and possibly only time the two parties have come to a bi-partisan consensus on something.
I am a Conservative registered Republican, but I completely disagree with President Bush on this one. I cannot understand why any intelligent man could actually think this ridiculous proposal would even begin to work to solve the immigration problem in America.
Personally, I call this an amnesty program. Others on both the left and right agree and disagree.
What a country!
And then, I had a thought:
Why don't we enforce the existing immigration laws?
Michael Chertoff, the head of our Homeland Security Department, says it is impossible to deport every illegal immigrant in America. For this reason, we should give them citizenship? And this is the Head of Homeland Security?
Ann Coulter had a good point. Using that kind of logic, rapist and murderers should receive amnesty.
Here is my solution to this seemingly tricky problem:
1. Finish building the fence. Legislation has already been passed and signed authorizing the United States to build a border fence to keep illegals out. To date, 2 miles have been built. Finish it.
2. Deport every illegal alien to their home countries. Yes, it is a daunting task, but it can be done. We have the resources. We need to use them.
3. Arrest the ones who are wanted for various crimes. Deny them bail, prosecute them, put them in jail, and throw away the key.
4. Keep them from coming back in. That would no doubt require hiring more border patrolmen. And supplying them with the necessary equipment to do their job. Like guns, security cameras, vehicles, and dogs.
5. Prosecute all companies that hire illegal aliens. Fine them. Arrest their executives. Whatever. But punish them.
See? Problem solved! And all in less than 15 minutes! Oh, I love it when things zip along!
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
How To Get Rich(er)
"Nevermind what I told you to do! Do what I tell you!" ~ W. C. Fields
Oh, this is irony. Slip-and-fall lawyer, John Edwards is demonstrating first hand how to beat poverty. From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to UC Davis students about poverty
Here's a teaser:
"Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who as a Democratic presidential candidate recently proposed an educational policy that urged "every financial barrier" be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself -- as a high paid speaker, his financial records show."
The report goes on to say Edwards made 9 speeches overall at American Universities at a total price of more than $285,000.
Let us remember that the University of California at Davis is a tax payer funded institution, so it is Californian tax dollars that are paying for Edwards to spout off in favor of using U.S. tax money to fund college educations. This equates to tax dollars that pay for a speaker who advocates raising taxes to pay for speakers who charge $55,000 a speech.
See? Irony!
And while I'm on the subject of John Edwards; I sometimes wonder about how his wife's doctors feel about treating her, knowing that if he can find anything even remotely negligent about her treatment, they will likely get sued. Treating the wife of a highly successful ambulance chasing lawyer has to be a frightening thought. I bet only the most confident doctors would even attempt the task.
All I can say is they better cure her. That is, if they want to continue practicing medicine.
Oh, this is irony. Slip-and-fall lawyer, John Edwards is demonstrating first hand how to beat poverty. From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to UC Davis students about poverty
Here's a teaser:
"Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who as a Democratic presidential candidate recently proposed an educational policy that urged "every financial barrier" be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself -- as a high paid speaker, his financial records show."
The report goes on to say Edwards made 9 speeches overall at American Universities at a total price of more than $285,000.
Let us remember that the University of California at Davis is a tax payer funded institution, so it is Californian tax dollars that are paying for Edwards to spout off in favor of using U.S. tax money to fund college educations. This equates to tax dollars that pay for a speaker who advocates raising taxes to pay for speakers who charge $55,000 a speech.
See? Irony!
And while I'm on the subject of John Edwards; I sometimes wonder about how his wife's doctors feel about treating her, knowing that if he can find anything even remotely negligent about her treatment, they will likely get sued. Treating the wife of a highly successful ambulance chasing lawyer has to be a frightening thought. I bet only the most confident doctors would even attempt the task.
All I can say is they better cure her. That is, if they want to continue practicing medicine.
Friday, May 18, 2007
The New Immigration Proposal
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." ~ Ernest Benn
Normally, I don't copy and paste news stories here, but I think this story speaks for itself:
"In a striking reach across party lines, the White House and key lawmakers agreed Thursday on a sweeping immigration plan to grant legal status to millions of people in the country unlawfully."
Sounds a lot like amnesty to me. Could it be?
"The compromise brought together an unlikely alliance of liberal Democrats such as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and conservative Republicans such as Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona on an issue that carries heavy potential risks and rewards for all involved."
OK. I already have a problem with this. Anytime Kennedy is involved, I know there will be trouble.
"The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and - after paying fees and a $5,000 fine - ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries first."
Oh yeah, that'll work. Anyone else think illegals who are getting everything free right now will pony up five grand AND voluntarily go back home? Or come forward?
It goes on, but that last part has pretty much convinced me the whole plan is ridiculous, so I am not going to list the other provisions. It won't work. Even if some of the illegals do come forward with $5,000.00, it won't come close to solving the problem.
Why would anyone come forward with that kind of money to be legal when they already have everything they want for free? I know if I was enjoying a free ride with no expectation of responsibility in return, I wouldn't spend a cent to make things even more complicated for me.
Besides the fact that it won't work, the proposal deals somewhat with the number of illegals in the country but it does next to nothing to solve the most serious underlying problem with our open border policies.
This is a National security issue. As I said on a previous post, if friendly, hard working people can enter this country undetected, so can un-friendly murderous terrorists. There is no provision in the current proposal that will prevent terrorists from entering this country illegally for the purpose of committing terrorists acts against innocent Americans.
Build a wall. Deport the illegals. Keep them out. Enforce the border.
Normally, I don't copy and paste news stories here, but I think this story speaks for itself:
"In a striking reach across party lines, the White House and key lawmakers agreed Thursday on a sweeping immigration plan to grant legal status to millions of people in the country unlawfully."
Sounds a lot like amnesty to me. Could it be?
"The compromise brought together an unlikely alliance of liberal Democrats such as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and conservative Republicans such as Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona on an issue that carries heavy potential risks and rewards for all involved."
OK. I already have a problem with this. Anytime Kennedy is involved, I know there will be trouble.
"The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and - after paying fees and a $5,000 fine - ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries first."
Oh yeah, that'll work. Anyone else think illegals who are getting everything free right now will pony up five grand AND voluntarily go back home? Or come forward?
It goes on, but that last part has pretty much convinced me the whole plan is ridiculous, so I am not going to list the other provisions. It won't work. Even if some of the illegals do come forward with $5,000.00, it won't come close to solving the problem.
Why would anyone come forward with that kind of money to be legal when they already have everything they want for free? I know if I was enjoying a free ride with no expectation of responsibility in return, I wouldn't spend a cent to make things even more complicated for me.
Besides the fact that it won't work, the proposal deals somewhat with the number of illegals in the country but it does next to nothing to solve the most serious underlying problem with our open border policies.
This is a National security issue. As I said on a previous post, if friendly, hard working people can enter this country undetected, so can un-friendly murderous terrorists. There is no provision in the current proposal that will prevent terrorists from entering this country illegally for the purpose of committing terrorists acts against innocent Americans.
Build a wall. Deport the illegals. Keep them out. Enforce the border.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Well Done, Good And Faithful Servant
"I am a Christian." ~ Jerry Falwell
Reverend Jerry Falwell graduated to the Church Triumphant yesterday.
I liked Jerry Falwell. I used to watch him preach on TV from his Thomas Road Baptist Church pulpit. I often listened and appreciated him as he preached the truth of the Bible. Contrary to what you may read on Liberal web sites, and blogs, he didn't preach a message of hate or intolerance. He simply told the truth as he saw it, based on his interpretation of the Bible. He preached a message of love, repentance, and forgiveness.
He smiled as he spoke.
I remember one Television broadcast in which he played a videotape of himself bunging jumping. He looked as if he was having fun. It was also, to my mind, a moment which proved Falwell's humanity. In that one short video clip, he showed me humility and and a self deprecating sense of humor.
He made some controversial statements but they were only controversial because people generally don't like to hear the truth if it appears to condemn them.
I am not going to repeat them, or the hateful responses to them here. He deserves a better tribute than that.
He may have been mistaken at times, but the mistakes were not because of what he said, or in their intent, but in how he said it. Or more likely, in how his message was perceived.
Remember, Jesus Christ angered the unrepentant sinner, too. So did the apostle Paul, and every one of the early Christians. Those who were convicted of their sin by the early Christians often responded by putting them to death.
No doubt there are many these days who would have done the same to Falwell, if the law would have permitted.
Just peruse any Liberal web site or blog to read the celebration. They are figuratively dancing on his grave.
Nevertheless, I have no doubt that Reverend Falwell is in Heaven now, basking in the light of God's Glory, with God's words, "Well done, good and faithful servant." echoing forever in his ears.
Reverend Jerry Falwell graduated to the Church Triumphant yesterday.
I liked Jerry Falwell. I used to watch him preach on TV from his Thomas Road Baptist Church pulpit. I often listened and appreciated him as he preached the truth of the Bible. Contrary to what you may read on Liberal web sites, and blogs, he didn't preach a message of hate or intolerance. He simply told the truth as he saw it, based on his interpretation of the Bible. He preached a message of love, repentance, and forgiveness.
He smiled as he spoke.
I remember one Television broadcast in which he played a videotape of himself bunging jumping. He looked as if he was having fun. It was also, to my mind, a moment which proved Falwell's humanity. In that one short video clip, he showed me humility and and a self deprecating sense of humor.
He made some controversial statements but they were only controversial because people generally don't like to hear the truth if it appears to condemn them.
I am not going to repeat them, or the hateful responses to them here. He deserves a better tribute than that.
He may have been mistaken at times, but the mistakes were not because of what he said, or in their intent, but in how he said it. Or more likely, in how his message was perceived.
Remember, Jesus Christ angered the unrepentant sinner, too. So did the apostle Paul, and every one of the early Christians. Those who were convicted of their sin by the early Christians often responded by putting them to death.
No doubt there are many these days who would have done the same to Falwell, if the law would have permitted.
Just peruse any Liberal web site or blog to read the celebration. They are figuratively dancing on his grave.
Nevertheless, I have no doubt that Reverend Falwell is in Heaven now, basking in the light of God's Glory, with God's words, "Well done, good and faithful servant." echoing forever in his ears.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
The Real Imminent Threat To America
"I have to tell you that we are facing a situation, where if we don't control immigration, legal and illegal, we will eventually reach the point where it won't be what kind of a nation we are, balkanized or united, we will actually have to face the fact that we are no longer a nation at all." ~ Tom Tancredo
Garsh, that last post was a horrible one! Obviously, I didn't do much research before writing it, but it just shows how my twisted little mind works at times. Sometimes I just sit down and start typing and whatever flows from the end of my now arthritic fingers spills out onto the monitor and into cyberspace.
How unforgiving the world wide web can be!
Oh well, at least it helped to point out a couple of inadequacies in our culture:
1. AOL is not the place to get one's news. Thanks go out to all my blogger friends who didn't point out the stupidity of my last post and a special thanks to the one who did. (I had already decided to write this post before you posted that last comment, Goat)
2. The glaring problem of illegal immigration and it's affect on our culture.
I can't help but wonder how the lawmakers in this country don't see the most painfully obvious problem with illegal immigration. The fact that anyone can enter this country illegally regardless of intent, if they know how. And what is becoming even more painfully obvious is that more and more are learning how.
I have been working in Northern Virginia for the last couple of months, and I have noticed the Hispanic population there is completely out of control. As I have mentioned before, I don't know what percentage of them are illegal, but I'm reasonably sure that a majority of them are. So few of them speak or understand even a minimum of English points to that fact. I even ran across one woman who not only didn't know a word of English, she couldn't even read Spanish!
I simply cannot believe that people like that are legal.
I don't know how much English is required to be able to become a naturalized citizen in this country, but I'll bet one has to learn at least enough to carry on a conversation in English.
In another recent stupid entry I posted, I said I think if illegals want to become legal, they should be required to learn conversational English. If not, they should be deported. And I still believe that it should be required as part of the naturalization process. But that process should only be extended to those who apply for citizenship legally.
I also stated, in that entry, that it would be next to impossible to deport all the illegal aliens, but upon further reflection, I think we are doing grave harm to our country if we don't at least make a serious concerted effort to round up every last one of them and deport them permanently, and also erect a better, more imposing, more impenetrable wall between the US and Mexico. And while we're at it, I believe we should do the same at the Canadian border.
As I said, I don't understand how the lawmakers in this country don't see the potential danger to this country's security, due to so many unchecked illegal immigrants. My God, they are practically overrunning our nation's capital! They are right under Congress' nose! I realize that President Bush, due to security concerns, doesn't get many opportunities to observe firsthand the prevalence of non-English speaking immigrants, but surely most of the Members of Congress and Senators no doubt come into direct contact with illegal immigrants daily as they live, shop, and worship in the DC area.
Yes, I agree it's true that most of them are law abiding, hard working, friendly people, who came into this country to obtain a higher quality of life for themselves and their families. And the way their families pull together to ensure that better life is inspiring. It is rare to come across a household of Latinos in the DC area, that doesn't consist of father, mother, children, uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents and friends all living and working together under the same roof. The cooperation that is required to sustain that kind of lifestyle is admirable, to say the least.
But let us not forget something: If friendly law abiding hard working Hispanics can enter this country illegally, so can law breaking, hate filled, potentially deadly terrorists. The recent Fort Dix plot underscored the need for improved border reinforcement and stricter immigration laws.
How many more Fort Dix six's are there out there even now?
We were lucky this time. It makes us wonder what could or would have happened if that Circuit City employee hadn't become suspicious and alerted authorities to what he discovered on that tape. Next time, there may not be an alert citizen to disrupt the plans of potential terrorists.
With our modern technology, we can spot a hamster concealed in leaves from deep space! Why can't we find 600,000 illegal aliens?
And another thing: Those who say illegal immigrants are only taking jobs that U.S. Citizens won't do are dead wrong. Many of the illegals are operating their own businesses. Lawn services, roofing, construction, remodeling, etc. The list goes on and on. There is no way they can do that without help from our own Government.
What's wrong with this picture? And what's wrong with a government that turns a blind eye to this danger that is threatening to destroy our great country from within? What's wrong with businesses in America that encourage illegal immigration by hiring them at under the table wages to increase their profit margin? Is the savings to their payroll worth the incredible risks?
Need we remind our lawmakers why illegal immigration is an issue of importance? How's this for a reminder?
I daresay this illegal immigration problem is a far more imminent threat to us than global climate change.
Garsh, that last post was a horrible one! Obviously, I didn't do much research before writing it, but it just shows how my twisted little mind works at times. Sometimes I just sit down and start typing and whatever flows from the end of my now arthritic fingers spills out onto the monitor and into cyberspace.
How unforgiving the world wide web can be!
Oh well, at least it helped to point out a couple of inadequacies in our culture:
1. AOL is not the place to get one's news. Thanks go out to all my blogger friends who didn't point out the stupidity of my last post and a special thanks to the one who did. (I had already decided to write this post before you posted that last comment, Goat)
2. The glaring problem of illegal immigration and it's affect on our culture.
I can't help but wonder how the lawmakers in this country don't see the most painfully obvious problem with illegal immigration. The fact that anyone can enter this country illegally regardless of intent, if they know how. And what is becoming even more painfully obvious is that more and more are learning how.
I have been working in Northern Virginia for the last couple of months, and I have noticed the Hispanic population there is completely out of control. As I have mentioned before, I don't know what percentage of them are illegal, but I'm reasonably sure that a majority of them are. So few of them speak or understand even a minimum of English points to that fact. I even ran across one woman who not only didn't know a word of English, she couldn't even read Spanish!
I simply cannot believe that people like that are legal.
I don't know how much English is required to be able to become a naturalized citizen in this country, but I'll bet one has to learn at least enough to carry on a conversation in English.
In another recent stupid entry I posted, I said I think if illegals want to become legal, they should be required to learn conversational English. If not, they should be deported. And I still believe that it should be required as part of the naturalization process. But that process should only be extended to those who apply for citizenship legally.
I also stated, in that entry, that it would be next to impossible to deport all the illegal aliens, but upon further reflection, I think we are doing grave harm to our country if we don't at least make a serious concerted effort to round up every last one of them and deport them permanently, and also erect a better, more imposing, more impenetrable wall between the US and Mexico. And while we're at it, I believe we should do the same at the Canadian border.
As I said, I don't understand how the lawmakers in this country don't see the potential danger to this country's security, due to so many unchecked illegal immigrants. My God, they are practically overrunning our nation's capital! They are right under Congress' nose! I realize that President Bush, due to security concerns, doesn't get many opportunities to observe firsthand the prevalence of non-English speaking immigrants, but surely most of the Members of Congress and Senators no doubt come into direct contact with illegal immigrants daily as they live, shop, and worship in the DC area.
Yes, I agree it's true that most of them are law abiding, hard working, friendly people, who came into this country to obtain a higher quality of life for themselves and their families. And the way their families pull together to ensure that better life is inspiring. It is rare to come across a household of Latinos in the DC area, that doesn't consist of father, mother, children, uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents and friends all living and working together under the same roof. The cooperation that is required to sustain that kind of lifestyle is admirable, to say the least.
But let us not forget something: If friendly law abiding hard working Hispanics can enter this country illegally, so can law breaking, hate filled, potentially deadly terrorists. The recent Fort Dix plot underscored the need for improved border reinforcement and stricter immigration laws.
How many more Fort Dix six's are there out there even now?
We were lucky this time. It makes us wonder what could or would have happened if that Circuit City employee hadn't become suspicious and alerted authorities to what he discovered on that tape. Next time, there may not be an alert citizen to disrupt the plans of potential terrorists.
With our modern technology, we can spot a hamster concealed in leaves from deep space! Why can't we find 600,000 illegal aliens?
And another thing: Those who say illegal immigrants are only taking jobs that U.S. Citizens won't do are dead wrong. Many of the illegals are operating their own businesses. Lawn services, roofing, construction, remodeling, etc. The list goes on and on. There is no way they can do that without help from our own Government.
What's wrong with this picture? And what's wrong with a government that turns a blind eye to this danger that is threatening to destroy our great country from within? What's wrong with businesses in America that encourage illegal immigration by hiring them at under the table wages to increase their profit margin? Is the savings to their payroll worth the incredible risks?
Need we remind our lawmakers why illegal immigration is an issue of importance? How's this for a reminder?
I daresay this illegal immigration problem is a far more imminent threat to us than global climate change.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
The Most Important Unimportant News Of The Day
"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved." ~ Confucius
I mentioned in an earlier post that I rarely listen to talk radio anymore since the only time I listen to radio of any stripe is when I'm driving, and my car is still not working, so I have been driving an '86 Toyota Pick up that has no radio.
But today, I was driving another car that has a radio and I heard some news that took me by surprise.
Why did it take me by surprise?
Because I hadn't heard it reported in the mainstream news media, and it is of such import, it would seem to me to be a major news development. I don't understand how the major news outlets could have missed the importance. The story didn't even merit as much as a passing mention on AOL news, which is the main source from whence I get the majority of my news. AOL news is the first thing I see every time I sign on to the Internet.
Unfortunately, AOL gets the majority of it's news from the AP and Reuters and UPI, all Liberally biased news outlets.
That may explains the absence of this particular story. Except I would normally assume that even Liberals would be concerned about this story:
It seems that six men were arrested and charged in New Jersey for plotting to launch an attack on soldiers stationed at Fort Dix. From what I understand they were planning to kill hundreds of soldiers.
All six men are Muslim. Perhaps that's just a coincidence? Here's another shocker:
Three of the six were illegal aliens.
Now. Here's what I don't understand. Why doesn't the media consider this story to be more important than...say... President Bush accidentally saying the Queen of England hadn't "visited America since 17...uh...1976"?
Oh yeah. That's a major news story. That ranks right up there with a one legged former model falling while dancing.
Upon further investigation, it seems I am wrong about major news outlets not reporting this story. I have to grudgingly admit that the New York Slimes reported this story, along with several other news outlets. It just didn't make it into AOL, for some reason. But as I mentioned, AOL is my major daily source of news, and I can't find the story there.
But I digress. Getting back to the story, an employee of the local Circuit City notified authorities after the suspects asked him to edit and transfer a video tape to DVD that depicted armed men taking target practice with live ammunition while shouting such innocuous phrases such as "Allah Akbar!" Needless to say, the employee got suspicious.
And probably a little bit spooked.
OK, that's the main points of the story. Now, here is what I heard listening to Conservative talk radio:
There is a terrorism expert in the Balkans claiming that a new "white Al-Qaeda" is operating here that has been trained and planted here from the Balkans and from Kosovo. They do not look like Arabs, but they're being trained to hate and plan and execute terrorist attacks. The Fort Dix Six were apprehended before they could get moving on it, but the Salt Lake City mall shooter who killed four was part of the group.
The Clinton White House ordered the quick evacuation of 20,000 Kosovar refugees that the United States pledged to take, shortcutting normal procedures and background checks. In the refugee village at Fort Dix, N.J., as many as 3,000 of the 20,000 ethnic Albanians that the United States took in are being housed.
A military website, Quartermaster.Army.mil, reports, "A 1996 book by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton titled 'It Takes A Village' became part of a theme for designing the refugee-processing center. The First Lady’s book centered on rekindling a society that totally sustains and supports its families and individuals, especially its children. It was a 530th soldier who had read the First Lady’s book and recommended naming the processing center’s physical location the 'Village' rather than a 'camp' or a 'compound.'"
So, Hillary Clinton has to take some of the blame for these illegals being in this country in the first place? If they hadn't been caught, and their murderous plan come to fruition, would Hillary stand up and take responsibility like a man?
I digress again. Do you suppose this new information that would seem to point to some inadequacies in our current immigration and security procedures will motivate our nation's lawmakers to seal the gaps and renovate the system?
Don't hold your breath.
The Democrats are even now plotting to further undermine the Department of Homeland Security. In light of the latest news regarding yet more terrorists plots, one would think they would support tightening up our national security.
Well, as Fats Waller once said, "One never knows, do one?"
I mentioned in an earlier post that I rarely listen to talk radio anymore since the only time I listen to radio of any stripe is when I'm driving, and my car is still not working, so I have been driving an '86 Toyota Pick up that has no radio.
But today, I was driving another car that has a radio and I heard some news that took me by surprise.
Why did it take me by surprise?
Because I hadn't heard it reported in the mainstream news media, and it is of such import, it would seem to me to be a major news development. I don't understand how the major news outlets could have missed the importance. The story didn't even merit as much as a passing mention on AOL news, which is the main source from whence I get the majority of my news. AOL news is the first thing I see every time I sign on to the Internet.
Unfortunately, AOL gets the majority of it's news from the AP and Reuters and UPI, all Liberally biased news outlets.
That may explains the absence of this particular story. Except I would normally assume that even Liberals would be concerned about this story:
It seems that six men were arrested and charged in New Jersey for plotting to launch an attack on soldiers stationed at Fort Dix. From what I understand they were planning to kill hundreds of soldiers.
All six men are Muslim. Perhaps that's just a coincidence? Here's another shocker:
Three of the six were illegal aliens.
Now. Here's what I don't understand. Why doesn't the media consider this story to be more important than...say... President Bush accidentally saying the Queen of England hadn't "visited America since 17...uh...1976"?
Oh yeah. That's a major news story. That ranks right up there with a one legged former model falling while dancing.
Upon further investigation, it seems I am wrong about major news outlets not reporting this story. I have to grudgingly admit that the New York Slimes reported this story, along with several other news outlets. It just didn't make it into AOL, for some reason. But as I mentioned, AOL is my major daily source of news, and I can't find the story there.
But I digress. Getting back to the story, an employee of the local Circuit City notified authorities after the suspects asked him to edit and transfer a video tape to DVD that depicted armed men taking target practice with live ammunition while shouting such innocuous phrases such as "Allah Akbar!" Needless to say, the employee got suspicious.
And probably a little bit spooked.
OK, that's the main points of the story. Now, here is what I heard listening to Conservative talk radio:
There is a terrorism expert in the Balkans claiming that a new "white Al-Qaeda" is operating here that has been trained and planted here from the Balkans and from Kosovo. They do not look like Arabs, but they're being trained to hate and plan and execute terrorist attacks. The Fort Dix Six were apprehended before they could get moving on it, but the Salt Lake City mall shooter who killed four was part of the group.
The Clinton White House ordered the quick evacuation of 20,000 Kosovar refugees that the United States pledged to take, shortcutting normal procedures and background checks. In the refugee village at Fort Dix, N.J., as many as 3,000 of the 20,000 ethnic Albanians that the United States took in are being housed.
A military website, Quartermaster.Army.mil, reports, "A 1996 book by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton titled 'It Takes A Village' became part of a theme for designing the refugee-processing center. The First Lady’s book centered on rekindling a society that totally sustains and supports its families and individuals, especially its children. It was a 530th soldier who had read the First Lady’s book and recommended naming the processing center’s physical location the 'Village' rather than a 'camp' or a 'compound.'"
So, Hillary Clinton has to take some of the blame for these illegals being in this country in the first place? If they hadn't been caught, and their murderous plan come to fruition, would Hillary stand up and take responsibility like a man?
I digress again. Do you suppose this new information that would seem to point to some inadequacies in our current immigration and security procedures will motivate our nation's lawmakers to seal the gaps and renovate the system?
Don't hold your breath.
The Democrats are even now plotting to further undermine the Department of Homeland Security. In light of the latest news regarding yet more terrorists plots, one would think they would support tightening up our national security.
Well, as Fats Waller once said, "One never knows, do one?"
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
An Interesting Conversation
"How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct." ~ Benjamin Disraeli
Last night I met a lady who has an interesting job and interesting experiences to share as a result. Both her and her husband work for the United States State department, indirectly for Condoleeza Rice.
We had a short but interesting conversation.
Now, many of you are aware that I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Condy, so I couldn't resist the urge to ask how well she knew Secretary Rice. She said she has only met her in person once, but that she was a very sweet, friendly, down to earth, yet classy lady.
She went on to say that she and her husband have met often with President Bush and first lady Laura. She told me that President Bush and Laura are very good people with friendly, real personalities. She likes them. She also said she has numerous photos that she took herself of her own kids sitting on Laura's lap.
She also has met former President Bush and says he is also very nice and friendly.
Then she mentioned meeting Hillary Clinton.
She says, She "was not impressed" by Hillary. Hillary, according to my customer, is very rude, condescending, elitist, and interestingly enough, "always late". Apparently, punctuality is a very important trait to the lady.
By the way, she also mentioned, in the course of her job, she and her husband are often sent overseas to work in American embassies. She said they have spent time in Iraq since the war begun.
She says, people have no idea how well everything is going over there. The American presence there has been positively effective in many ways. She said (surprise!) that the news media rarely reports the positive news from Iraq, preferring to accent the negatives.
Gee. What a surprise! Who knew?
Last night I met a lady who has an interesting job and interesting experiences to share as a result. Both her and her husband work for the United States State department, indirectly for Condoleeza Rice.
We had a short but interesting conversation.
Now, many of you are aware that I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Condy, so I couldn't resist the urge to ask how well she knew Secretary Rice. She said she has only met her in person once, but that she was a very sweet, friendly, down to earth, yet classy lady.
She went on to say that she and her husband have met often with President Bush and first lady Laura. She told me that President Bush and Laura are very good people with friendly, real personalities. She likes them. She also said she has numerous photos that she took herself of her own kids sitting on Laura's lap.
She also has met former President Bush and says he is also very nice and friendly.
Then she mentioned meeting Hillary Clinton.
She says, She "was not impressed" by Hillary. Hillary, according to my customer, is very rude, condescending, elitist, and interestingly enough, "always late". Apparently, punctuality is a very important trait to the lady.
By the way, she also mentioned, in the course of her job, she and her husband are often sent overseas to work in American embassies. She said they have spent time in Iraq since the war begun.
She says, people have no idea how well everything is going over there. The American presence there has been positively effective in many ways. She said (surprise!) that the news media rarely reports the positive news from Iraq, preferring to accent the negatives.
Gee. What a surprise! Who knew?
Saturday, May 05, 2007
What Do You Dislike About America?
"I have to tell you that we are facing a situation, where if we don't control immigration, legal and illegal, we will eventually reach the point where it won't be what kind of a nation we are, balkanized or united, we will actually have to face the fact that we are no longer a nation at all." ~ Tom Tancredo
You just have to hear MSNBC's David Gregory's analysis of the Republican debate Thursday night. Anyone that doesn't think MSNBC is Liberally biased after watching this clip must have tapioca for brains.
I haven't been able to find video replay of the debate, but Mark Levin had this to say:
"NBC can't decide whether its hosts should be blatant liberal partisans or journalists, and it shows. Chris Matthews is not a professional journalist. He's a political junkie with deep Democrat party roots. Many of his questions weren't intended to elicit a candidate's substantive views but to play gotcha and embarrass."
And then he said, "Moreover, Keith Olbermann prides himself on carrying water for George Soros, Media Matters, and the rest of the liberal unintelligensia. His commentaries, including the one delivered last night about 30 minutes before the start of the debate, bordered on the imbecilic. When he finished delivering it, he then immediately pretended to pull on his news analyst pants."
Finally he said, "If the debate had been managed properly — apart from too many interruptions with silly questions and stage-play by the questioners — an effort would have been made to draw contrasts between the Republican candidates and the Democrat candidates. After all, that's the bottom line. Instead, a cast of Bush-haters were more interested in trying to goad the candidates into attacking the lame-duck Republican administration."
I didn't get a chance to watch the debate. I was working. I wish I had now. I have heard some sound bites (bytes?) of some of the questions asked, and now I can't find any of them. The only question I remember being asked from the sound bites is my title question: "What do you dislike most about America?"
That sounds accusatory to me. And knowing that the question came from a Californian increases the odds that it was more an accusation than a legitimate question.
For the record, Mitt Romney had an excellent answer to that question.
Despite it being an obvious "gotcha" question meant to embarrass Romney, I would like to respond to it, myself.
What I dislike the most about America is the lack of border enforcement and the way our politicians look the other way regarding the problem.
But, I have an idea of a solution.
I don't believe we can round up all illegals and deport them. There are simply far too many of them, and we don't have the resources. But we can insist that those who want to stay learn conversational English. Those illegals who do can stay and apply for citizenship. Those who refuse should be deported.
Of course, those who have felony records should be deported regardless.
This idea would solve two problems. We will get rid of the illegals who don't really want to assimilate into America, and the ones who really do will learn how to communicate with the rest of us.
We should not be forced to learn other country's languages. This is our country, not theirs. If they want to live here as American citizens, they should be expected to assimilate themselves into our culture. We should not be forced to have to accommodate theirs. There is nothing wrong with celebrating ones heritage, but there is no reason we should have to celebrate their heritage along with them.
It's a simple solution that will not be simple to implement. Nevertheless, it is worth the effort, in my opinion.
Learn English or go home!
You just have to hear MSNBC's David Gregory's analysis of the Republican debate Thursday night. Anyone that doesn't think MSNBC is Liberally biased after watching this clip must have tapioca for brains.
I haven't been able to find video replay of the debate, but Mark Levin had this to say:
"NBC can't decide whether its hosts should be blatant liberal partisans or journalists, and it shows. Chris Matthews is not a professional journalist. He's a political junkie with deep Democrat party roots. Many of his questions weren't intended to elicit a candidate's substantive views but to play gotcha and embarrass."
And then he said, "Moreover, Keith Olbermann prides himself on carrying water for George Soros, Media Matters, and the rest of the liberal unintelligensia. His commentaries, including the one delivered last night about 30 minutes before the start of the debate, bordered on the imbecilic. When he finished delivering it, he then immediately pretended to pull on his news analyst pants."
Finally he said, "If the debate had been managed properly — apart from too many interruptions with silly questions and stage-play by the questioners — an effort would have been made to draw contrasts between the Republican candidates and the Democrat candidates. After all, that's the bottom line. Instead, a cast of Bush-haters were more interested in trying to goad the candidates into attacking the lame-duck Republican administration."
I didn't get a chance to watch the debate. I was working. I wish I had now. I have heard some sound bites (bytes?) of some of the questions asked, and now I can't find any of them. The only question I remember being asked from the sound bites is my title question: "What do you dislike most about America?"
That sounds accusatory to me. And knowing that the question came from a Californian increases the odds that it was more an accusation than a legitimate question.
For the record, Mitt Romney had an excellent answer to that question.
Despite it being an obvious "gotcha" question meant to embarrass Romney, I would like to respond to it, myself.
What I dislike the most about America is the lack of border enforcement and the way our politicians look the other way regarding the problem.
But, I have an idea of a solution.
I don't believe we can round up all illegals and deport them. There are simply far too many of them, and we don't have the resources. But we can insist that those who want to stay learn conversational English. Those illegals who do can stay and apply for citizenship. Those who refuse should be deported.
Of course, those who have felony records should be deported regardless.
This idea would solve two problems. We will get rid of the illegals who don't really want to assimilate into America, and the ones who really do will learn how to communicate with the rest of us.
We should not be forced to learn other country's languages. This is our country, not theirs. If they want to live here as American citizens, they should be expected to assimilate themselves into our culture. We should not be forced to have to accommodate theirs. There is nothing wrong with celebrating ones heritage, but there is no reason we should have to celebrate their heritage along with them.
It's a simple solution that will not be simple to implement. Nevertheless, it is worth the effort, in my opinion.
Learn English or go home!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
