"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." ~ 2 Thessalonians 3:10
The 14 fleebagger Democrat Senators in Illinois (who are supposed to be doing their jobs in Wisconsin) should be recalled, and the greedy, selfish, overpaid, over-compensated whining Teachers and public workers who are refusing to do the jobs they are being overpaid to do, should be fired.
The so-called doctors who are writing false sick notes for those union employees should be brought up before the medical ethics board, and subsequently lose their licenses to practice medicine.
No if's, and's, or but's.
Remember how President Ronald Reagan handled the illegal Air Traffic controller's strike? The same solution applies.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
What They Want
"This truly sums up the progressive/liberal position. Always apologizing for the USA, denigrating the USA to the world, bowing before foreign dignitaries, sanctioning same-sex unions to undermine society, promoting the murder of children in the womb, etc, etc." ~ Glenn E. Chatfield
In my last post, I encapsulated, "Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility."
Apparently there are those who have failed to comprehend that simple statement. So, I suppose I should elaborate somewhat.
As Glenn Chatfield pointed out, for instance, Liberals want to avoid the responsibility of raising children, thus they support abortion.
They want to avoid the responsibility of being normal heterosexuals, as God intended, so they support the oxymoronic "Gay Marriage".
They want to avoid the responsibility of having to deal with unpleasant people and situations, so they support introducing legislation that would require us, under penalty of law, to accept immoral, illegal, and degenerate behaviors as normal behavior.
They want to avoid the responsibility of providing for their own health care, so they want to force the rest of us, also under penalty of law, to buy the government health insurance, which is really nothing more than an elaborate scheme, intended, in reality, to separate us from as much of our hard earned money as they possibly can.
They want to avoid the responsibility of working for a living, so, they support extending unemployment benefits and endless entitlement programs. As a reminder, Welfare was originally designed to be a hand up, not a hand-out, but Liberals, as usual, have bastardized that intent, much the way they bastardize the Constitution. And why? Because they don't want to be responsible for their own welfare.
They want to avoid the responsibility of funding their own Television and radio stations like NPR and PBS to promote their Liberal agenda, so they support forcing us to pay taxes to fund these stations. Apparently, these stations are incapable of supporting themselves without demanding financial help. Perhaps that should be a clue that their agenda is not too popular.
They want to avoid the responsibility of dealing with possible bankruptcy, so they beg the government to bail them out whenever their businesses suffer financial setbacks because of irresponsible business decisions.
They want to avoid the responsibility of having to defend their indefensible ideological positions so they support the censoring of Conservative speech with proposed legislation called, ironically, the "Fairness Doctrine", which, like everything else they support, isn't fair at all.
Instead of finding another job that will pay them better, they want to avoid responsibility for their own income by demanding the government pay them more, or in the case of Wisconsin public employees, refusing to agree to a minuscule increase in their share of their over-generous compensation package.
I'm sure I have left some things out, but this should serve as some examples of what I was referring to when I said, "Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility."
Actually, I didn't think it was that hard to understand. It only took me a few minutes to think of these examples.
But, I guess that's another avoidance of personal responsibility:
They don't want the responsibility to figure these things out for themselves, so they demand explanations.
In my last post, I encapsulated, "Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility."
Apparently there are those who have failed to comprehend that simple statement. So, I suppose I should elaborate somewhat.
As Glenn Chatfield pointed out, for instance, Liberals want to avoid the responsibility of raising children, thus they support abortion.
They want to avoid the responsibility of being normal heterosexuals, as God intended, so they support the oxymoronic "Gay Marriage".
They want to avoid the responsibility of having to deal with unpleasant people and situations, so they support introducing legislation that would require us, under penalty of law, to accept immoral, illegal, and degenerate behaviors as normal behavior.
They want to avoid the responsibility of providing for their own health care, so they want to force the rest of us, also under penalty of law, to buy the government health insurance, which is really nothing more than an elaborate scheme, intended, in reality, to separate us from as much of our hard earned money as they possibly can.
They want to avoid the responsibility of working for a living, so, they support extending unemployment benefits and endless entitlement programs. As a reminder, Welfare was originally designed to be a hand up, not a hand-out, but Liberals, as usual, have bastardized that intent, much the way they bastardize the Constitution. And why? Because they don't want to be responsible for their own welfare.
They want to avoid the responsibility of funding their own Television and radio stations like NPR and PBS to promote their Liberal agenda, so they support forcing us to pay taxes to fund these stations. Apparently, these stations are incapable of supporting themselves without demanding financial help. Perhaps that should be a clue that their agenda is not too popular.
They want to avoid the responsibility of dealing with possible bankruptcy, so they beg the government to bail them out whenever their businesses suffer financial setbacks because of irresponsible business decisions.
They want to avoid the responsibility of having to defend their indefensible ideological positions so they support the censoring of Conservative speech with proposed legislation called, ironically, the "Fairness Doctrine", which, like everything else they support, isn't fair at all.
Instead of finding another job that will pay them better, they want to avoid responsibility for their own income by demanding the government pay them more, or in the case of Wisconsin public employees, refusing to agree to a minuscule increase in their share of their over-generous compensation package.
I'm sure I have left some things out, but this should serve as some examples of what I was referring to when I said, "Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility."
Actually, I didn't think it was that hard to understand. It only took me a few minutes to think of these examples.
But, I guess that's another avoidance of personal responsibility:
They don't want the responsibility to figure these things out for themselves, so they demand explanations.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
What We Want
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ~ Declaration of Independence
Although the ideological gap between Liberals and Conservatives is often seemingly impassable, in the end all of us really want the same thing:
Freedom.
It is merely the extent of that freedom on which we disagree.
We Conservatives want freedom from excessive governmental restraint. Conservatives want to be free to earn an income in whatever responsible way we choose. We want to be free to keep the money we earn and to do with it as we please. We want to choose our charities, and we want the right to refuse to donate our money to causes and organizations with which we disagree.
We want the freedom to be responsible for ourselves, and to hold ourselves accountable for our successes and our failures.
We want to retain our First Amendment rights: The freedom to worship in the church of our choice, or not worship at all, without being persecuted for that choice. We do not want to be told, by the government or anyone else, where and Whom we should worship.
We want to be permitted to speak our mind freely, without being berated, belittled, ridiculed, insulted, sued, banned, or even incarcerated for our thoughts.
We want the right to assemble together without fear of being shouted down, bullied, or assaulted by opposing factions, and certainly not by representatives of the government.
We want to be free to offer our suggestions about how we believe the government should govern without fear of some degree of retribution.
We want the right to bear whatever arms we deem necessary for the protection of our life, family, and possessions.
We want the freedom to own personal property and we desire a reasonable expectation that our right to our personal property be respected.
Oh, my God. I didn't think this would be this long.
For the sake of brevity, allow me to encapsulate:
Conservatives want to retain our basic freedoms of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility.
Although the ideological gap between Liberals and Conservatives is often seemingly impassable, in the end all of us really want the same thing:
Freedom.
It is merely the extent of that freedom on which we disagree.
We Conservatives want freedom from excessive governmental restraint. Conservatives want to be free to earn an income in whatever responsible way we choose. We want to be free to keep the money we earn and to do with it as we please. We want to choose our charities, and we want the right to refuse to donate our money to causes and organizations with which we disagree.
We want the freedom to be responsible for ourselves, and to hold ourselves accountable for our successes and our failures.
We want to retain our First Amendment rights: The freedom to worship in the church of our choice, or not worship at all, without being persecuted for that choice. We do not want to be told, by the government or anyone else, where and Whom we should worship.
We want to be permitted to speak our mind freely, without being berated, belittled, ridiculed, insulted, sued, banned, or even incarcerated for our thoughts.
We want the right to assemble together without fear of being shouted down, bullied, or assaulted by opposing factions, and certainly not by representatives of the government.
We want to be free to offer our suggestions about how we believe the government should govern without fear of some degree of retribution.
We want the right to bear whatever arms we deem necessary for the protection of our life, family, and possessions.
We want the freedom to own personal property and we desire a reasonable expectation that our right to our personal property be respected.
Oh, my God. I didn't think this would be this long.
For the sake of brevity, allow me to encapsulate:
Conservatives want to retain our basic freedoms of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Revisiting An Old Topic
"I am often so far out in left field, I'm three or four deep in the bleacher seats." ~ Me
Here's something I woke up thinking about this morning. Who knows what makes me think of these things? Anyhow, this is how my thought processes often go:
I think Osama bin Laden is dead. That isn't based on anything scientific, but it's been quite some time since anyone's heard from him. Once in a while a video or audio recording pops up, and al Qaida assures the world that it's proof of his continued existence, but I remain skeptical.
But, why can't we find him?
He's supposed to stand head and shoulders taller than the average man, so, if he was circulating around, he'd be pretty easy to spot in a crowd. The videos we've seen are grainy and blurred, not at all what a high tech high definition modern video looks like (and he is wealthy enough to afford the finest quality video equipment), so I think they were all pre-recorded long ago. And, also, because they are blurry and grainy, one cannot tell if he's aged since the last one was released, which would also offer some insight as to his health, or lack of it.
If he isn't dead, I have thought up a way in which we might capture him:
First, I know this sounds crazy, but, release all the detainees in Guantanamo. But, before we do, plant tracking devices somewhere on or in their persons. Then follow them to see where they'll go. Probably, all of them won't go immediately to meet up with bin Laden, but surely some of them will.
The few that don't meet up with him will still have tracking devices so they can easily be recaptured, along with their confederates in terror, so it's a twofer.
Not only that, but we have the technology to find this guy. We have drones with high powered cameras. We have satellites with telescopic camera lenses that are powerful enough to determine the sex of a fly from outer space. We have black ops. Surely we can put them to use to find Osama.
Which brings to mind a question:
We've had the technology and man power to find and eliminate this man for decades. Why haven't we used it?
Do you buy the story that we just can't find him? I don't.
I don't want to sound like some kind of wacky conspiracy theorist, but, could there be more to this situation than meets the brain? I'll leave that question to greater intellects than myself to reason out.
Here's something I woke up thinking about this morning. Who knows what makes me think of these things? Anyhow, this is how my thought processes often go:
I think Osama bin Laden is dead. That isn't based on anything scientific, but it's been quite some time since anyone's heard from him. Once in a while a video or audio recording pops up, and al Qaida assures the world that it's proof of his continued existence, but I remain skeptical.
But, why can't we find him?
He's supposed to stand head and shoulders taller than the average man, so, if he was circulating around, he'd be pretty easy to spot in a crowd. The videos we've seen are grainy and blurred, not at all what a high tech high definition modern video looks like (and he is wealthy enough to afford the finest quality video equipment), so I think they were all pre-recorded long ago. And, also, because they are blurry and grainy, one cannot tell if he's aged since the last one was released, which would also offer some insight as to his health, or lack of it.
If he isn't dead, I have thought up a way in which we might capture him:
First, I know this sounds crazy, but, release all the detainees in Guantanamo. But, before we do, plant tracking devices somewhere on or in their persons. Then follow them to see where they'll go. Probably, all of them won't go immediately to meet up with bin Laden, but surely some of them will.
The few that don't meet up with him will still have tracking devices so they can easily be recaptured, along with their confederates in terror, so it's a twofer.
Not only that, but we have the technology to find this guy. We have drones with high powered cameras. We have satellites with telescopic camera lenses that are powerful enough to determine the sex of a fly from outer space. We have black ops. Surely we can put them to use to find Osama.
Which brings to mind a question:
We've had the technology and man power to find and eliminate this man for decades. Why haven't we used it?
Do you buy the story that we just can't find him? I don't.
I don't want to sound like some kind of wacky conspiracy theorist, but, could there be more to this situation than meets the brain? I'll leave that question to greater intellects than myself to reason out.
Monday, February 07, 2011
A Sign The Apocalypse Is Upon Us
"Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?" ~ Francis Scott Key
I daresay, one could simply read the lyrics of "The Star Spangled Banner" with more patriotic fervor and love of our country than was demonstrated by it's butchering by Christina Aquilera at last night's Super Bowl. Watch (if you can stomach it):
I couldn't even listen to the whole thing. I had to turn off the volume.
Perhaps I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but I don't understand why these modern pop singers seem to have to meander aimlessly around the scale on every note that comes out of their mouths when they "sing".
I have a theory: All of these pop singers who sing as though they are searching for the right note must be doing it because they know they can't carry a tune in a bucket, and are trying to fool real music lovers into thinking they have singing talent.
They don't convince me. In fact, as I see it, they are proving exactly opposite.
This version, although not sung exactly correctly, was so much better:
I don't know, but I'd take just about any version over Christina's.
Except Roseanne's.
By the way, have you ever heard the other verses? Read these:
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Perhaps Ms. Aquilera should familiarize herself with the remaining verses before attempting to sing it again. Perhaps then she would realize what the song means to real Americans.
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?" ~ Francis Scott Key
I daresay, one could simply read the lyrics of "The Star Spangled Banner" with more patriotic fervor and love of our country than was demonstrated by it's butchering by Christina Aquilera at last night's Super Bowl. Watch (if you can stomach it):
Horrible, and on Reagan's 100th birthday, too!
I'm not talking about just screwing up the lyrics, either. Many much more talented people have done that and still managed to make it sound respectful.I couldn't even listen to the whole thing. I had to turn off the volume.
Perhaps I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but I don't understand why these modern pop singers seem to have to meander aimlessly around the scale on every note that comes out of their mouths when they "sing".
I have a theory: All of these pop singers who sing as though they are searching for the right note must be doing it because they know they can't carry a tune in a bucket, and are trying to fool real music lovers into thinking they have singing talent.
They don't convince me. In fact, as I see it, they are proving exactly opposite.
This version, although not sung exactly correctly, was so much better:
inspiring
Perhaps it was because this was the first Super Bowl performance following 9/11 that this version resonated so strongly with Americans, or maybe her love of our country showed through in her rendition.I don't know, but I'd take just about any version over Christina's.
Except Roseanne's.
By the way, have you ever heard the other verses? Read these:
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Perhaps Ms. Aquilera should familiarize herself with the remaining verses before attempting to sing it again. Perhaps then she would realize what the song means to real Americans.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
What's In My Head
I woke up with this in my head and I really wanted to go to Burger King for Breakfast, which marks the first time in my memory that a TV commercial actually inspired me to do what was suggested. Perhaps there's a subliminal message embedded?
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
So, Who Are The Bad Guys?
Good guys or bad guys?"In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain." ~ Pliny the Elder
I've been trying to get a handle, with the limited time and intellect I have, to understand the events transpiring in Egypt. I know Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is under fire from protesters, and I know about their accompanying riots, resulting in deaths, injuries, and destruction.
But I don't know who the bad guys and good guys are.
I'm not too sure anyone knows. Yesterday, while listening to Sean Hannity, I heard him say something (I don't remember his exact words) that seems to indicate he isn't too sure who the bad guys are, either.
So, I'm trying to figure out exactly who I should be supporting. To that end, I've come up with a few things that I think I understand so far. Walk through this with me:
I know there is a faction calling themselves the Muslim Brotherhood, who, although they didn't start the protests, now seem to be running the show.
As an aside: Anytime the word "Muslim" comes up in a story about the middle east, you know automatically, that death and destruction will be involved.
Regardless of what American Liberals would have us believe, the words, "Muslim" and "Terrorist" have become somewhat synonymous. If not synonymous, at least, inexorably linked.
Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood is calling for war on Israel, which gives me a fairly strong clue.
So, right away, I assume the bad guys in this situation have to be the protesters.
But hold on! Not so fast!
We are told by the American media guys that Mubarek is an evil dictator, who has been oppressing his people for decades.
I had never heard that about him up until now, but then, I tend to be more concerned about domestic matters than international events.
So, in order to ascertain for myself how much of what I've heard is accurate, I took a little of my limited time to google "Hosni Mubarak" to see just how evil he is.
I will confess, now that I've done a little research (very little), I don't see how the media have arrived at the conclusion that he is particularly evil. At least, in comparison with other world leaders. Or a dictator.
Probably, I haven't done enough research. I suppose I should have gone directly to the experts on evil dictators: The Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and The Huffington Post, perhaps.
OK. So let me assume that the American media are being truthful, and that Mubarak is indeed a very bad man. Why wouldn't they be truthful? They have the public trust. That is a great and awesome responsibility. It would be a very bad thing for them to attempt to mislead us. Why would they ever want to do that?
In doing my limited research, I read that Mubarak has been a loyal friend and ally of the United States since he gained power shortly after the assassination of Anwar Sadat. He has maintained control of a "secular government", which, as every one knows, is one of the main goals of the Liberals in this country.
You know, separation of church and state, and all that.
And yet, It seems the Liberals in our country support the Muslim brotherhood in their desire to create a decidedly non-secular government.
I wonder. How do the Liberals explain this apparent dichotomy?
And then, I wondered, where does Obama stand in all this? Who does he support? Because, as you know, knowing who Obama will back would be a definitive indication of exactly who the good and bad guys are.
Actually, I kind of knew what Obama would do when I read that Egypt's Nobel laureate, Mohamed El Baradei, had demanded that Obama call for Mubarek to step down.
And, now, since Obama never met a Nobel peace prize winner he didn't love (particularly if they are antagonistic to the United States), Obama has done what Baradei suggested.
Of course, Obama never met an evil dictator he didn't love, either, so with that in mind, it still could go either way. If Mubarak is really an evil dictator, that is.
That said, according to an ABC news story headline, "Obama Calls On Mubarak to Hand Over Power Immediately".
Well, that kind of answers the question for me. I know if Obama doesn't support Mubarak, Mubarak must be the good guy and the protesters must be the bad guys.
It's really not a difficult conclusion. If it's a question of right or wrong, like most (and I resist the temptation to say "all") Liberals, Obama will always come down on the wrong side.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I support Mubarak's Egyptian government in this one. I figure I have the odds on my side.
Anyone Obama doesn't support can't be all bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
