Sunday, March 23, 2008

Happy Easter

"Lives again our glorious King, Alleluia!
Where, O death, is now thy sting? Alleluia!
Once He died our souls to save, Alleluia!
Where thy victory, O grave? Alleluia!"
~ Charles Wesley



When I was a child, my family celebrated Easter by going to a sunrise service at church, then coming home and having an Easter egg hunt, usually in the house, because the weather was rarely conducive to having it outdoors. I don't remember having a special Easter meal, other than eating the colored eggs that we children found.

I have since learned that other families have much more elaborate means of celebrating Easter. Many of these include gift giving and traditional Easter meals, usually ham or turkey, served with all the trimmings.

In whatever way each of you celebrate Easter, it is important to remember why we celebrate the most significant event in history. The resurrection of Christ Jesus from the dead.

Christ the Lord is risen today. Alleluia!



Christ, the Lord, is risen today, Alleluia!
Sons of men and angels say, Alleluia!
Raise your joys and triumphs high, Alleluia!
Sing, ye heavens, and earth, reply, Alleluia!

Love’s redeeming work is done, Alleluia!
Fought the fight, the battle won, Alleluia!
Lo! the Sun’s eclipse is over, Alleluia!
Lo! He sets in blood no more, Alleluia!

Vain the stone, the watch, the seal, Alleluia!
Christ hath burst the gates of hell, Alleluia!
Death in vain forbids His rise, Alleluia!
Christ hath opened paradise, Alleluia!

Lives again our glorious King, Alleluia!
Where, O death, is now thy sting? Alleluia!
Once He died our souls to save, Alleluia!
Where thy victory, O grave? Alleluia!

Soar we now where Christ hath led, Alleluia!
Following our exalted Head, Alleluia!
Made like Him, like Him we rise, Alleluia!
Ours the cross, the grave, the skies, Alleluia!

Hail, the Lord of earth and Heaven, Alleluia!
Praise to Thee by both be given, Alleluia!
Thee we greet triumphant now, Alleluia!
Hail, the resurrection, thou, Alleluia!

King of glory, Soul of bliss, Alleluia!
Everlasting life is this, Alleluia!
Thee to know, Thy power to prove, Alleluia!
Thus to sing and thus to love, Alleluia!

Hymns of praise then let us sing, Alleluia!
Unto Christ, our heavenly King, Alleluia!
Who endured the cross and grave, Alleluia!
Sinners to redeem and save. Alleluia!

But the pains that He endured, Alleluia!
Our salvation have procured, Alleluia!
Now above the sky He’s King, Alleluia!
Where the angels ever sing. Alleluia!

Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia!
Our triumphant holy day, Alleluia!
Who did once upon the cross, Alleluia!
Suffer to redeem our loss. Alleluia!

Happy Easter!



Tuesday, March 18, 2008

A Disturbing Promise

"The greatest mistake is trying to be more agreeable than you can be." ~ Walter Bagehot

In previous posts, I have asked questions and made unfounded accusations about Barack Hussein Obama. Some of the accusations were made with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

I made them intentionally just to anger Liberals. They have no sense of humor, as their responses indicated.

But the fact is, Obama is in a lot of hot water because of his association with his minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who Obama refers to as his "spiritual advisor". Certainly, if Obama wasn't in agreement with the hateful, racist, inflammatory things his minister has preached sometime within the last twenty years, it would seem prudent for him to have searched out and joined another church. One whose minister preached a less controversial and divisive message.

Except, now he claims he wasn't present when these things were said. (which is a lie)

And, by the way, it is a divisive message. All men are created equal. Contrary to what Reverend Wright apparently believes, black men are not more equal than white men.

I know I wouldn't continue to go to, or support a church if my minister was continually preaching such non-Biblical doctrines.

It just goes to show. If you have skeletons in your closet, or questionable associations, you'd better not run for public office.

Your sins will find you out.

Personally, I am not so concerned about Barry Hussein Obama's association with his minister as I am about his promise to end the war by negotiation. The only things with which the terrorists will agree are:

1. All Americans convert to Islam.

2. Those who don't convert must be executed.

There is no third choice, thus, unless Obama agrees to these stipulations, the violence will continue until we wipe them out or they wipe us out.

If this is the kind of "change" Obama is talking about, we are better off not changing at all. That is, unless you want to either become a Muslim or die.

It's not that I believe he would actually negotiate a surrender, it's that he is, in fact, making that promise, and that may actually be the most frightening aspect of his candidacy of all.

That he is willing to promise to literally destroy all that America represents. Our freedom, our independence, our life, our liberty, and our pursuit of happiness.

All so he can be President.

What kind of President would make that kind of promise?

Monday, March 17, 2008

St. Patricks Day

O Paddy dear, and did ye hear the news that's goin' round?
The shamrock is by law forbid to grow on Irish ground!
No more Saint Patrick's Day we'll keep, his color can't be seen
For there's a cruel law ag'in the Wearin' o' the Green."

I met with Napper Tandy, and he tuk me by the hand
And he said, "How's poor old Ireland, and how does she stand?"
"She's the most distressful country that ever yet was seen
For they're hanging men and women there for the Wearin' o' the Green."

"So if the colour we must wear be England's cruel red
Let it remind us of the blood that Irishmen have shed
And pull the shamrock from your hat, and throw it on the sod
But never fear, 'twill take root there, though underfoot 'tis trod.

When laws can stop the blades of grass from growin' as they grow
And when the leaves in summer-time their colour dare not show
Then I will change the colour too I wear in my caubeen
But till that day, please God, I'll stick to the Wearin' o' the Green.
~ Traditional Irish Folk Song



The above Irish song is perhaps the best known of all Irish songs. It is usually played with an upbeat tempo as if it were a celebratory song, however, as you can see by the lyrics, it is a mournful expression of grief over the loss of freedom. I've always believed it should be played much more solemn in reverent memory of all the innocents who lost their lives under the cruel thumb of the British.

I could only find horrible, out of tune renditions of it on youtube, so I could only post the lyrics.

Here are some Irish songs that I enjoy all through the year. I was hoping to find some others of my favorites, but couldn't find them on Youtube. I only wish I had the equipment and know-how to create videos of my own. I would post a great medley of "MacNamara's Band" that I have on CD, as well as several other Irish folk songs that I believe are more representative of Irish music. Oh well, enjoy these songs by authentic Irish musicians:

Celtic Woman:


The Irish Tenors (I actually prefer their rendition of Danny Boy to Celtic Woman's but, alas, it is not on Youtube):



Happy St. Patricks Day!

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Et Tu, Brute?

"Who is it in the press that calls on me?
I hear a tongue shriller than all the music
Cry "Caesar!" Speak, Caesar is turn'd to hear.
Soothsayer:
Beware the ides of March.
Caesar:
What man is that?
Brutus:
A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March."


Julius Caesar Act 1, scene 2, 15–19

On this date in 44 AD Julius Caesar was assassinated by several members of the Roman Senate, including his best friend, Brutus.

Since that day, March 15, the Ides of March, has been associated with bad luck. I don't believe in bad or good luck, although I seem to have had, in past years, more bad luck than my share. Just about everybody would say the same.

I don't remember any particular "bad luck" days on the Ides of March in my own history, except for once, when I was fired from a job. It wasn't a very good job. That was so long ago, it could well have happened on the Ides of March, 44 AD. At least it seems that long ago to me.

I don't expect any more "bad luck" than I've already had this week. Tuesday I had a painful encounter with gravity when a ladder I was perched on suddenly fell out from under me. I fell approximately 8 feet and landed flat on my back. I've been in substantial pain since, but it's getting better. The doctor said I tore a ligament that had previously been attached to my pelvis. Something about a sacroiliac or something.

So, I'm going to work, anyway.

Good luck today.

Friday, March 14, 2008

Questions With Obvious Answers

"...I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character" ~ Martin Luther King

Up until now, I've been giving Barack Hussein Obama the benefit of the doubt when it comes to how closely he agrees with the pastor of his church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I had, and still have questions about whether B. Hussein even knows much about his "spiritual advisor".

Like: How often does Barry Hussein actually attend this church? How long has he attended this church? How much of what Rev. Wright says does Hussein agree? How much influence does Rev. Wright have over what Mr. B. Hussein Obama himself believes?

I don't know how many of his beliefs B. Hussein got from his pastor, and I won't make the supposition that he indeed goes along with everything Rev Wright preaches, and I won't automatically assume his pastor is a hateful, bigoted, racist, nor that B. Hussein Obama shares these extremist anti-American, anti-white views. I'll let Rev. Jeremiah Wright speak for himself, and, by Obama's refusal to distance himself from Rev Wright, vicariously, for Barack Hussein Obama:



Then, I discovered this:



Now, I have additional questions about Mr. Barack Hussein Obama:

Does Obama share his pastors views? If not, why is he still a member of this racist, hate-mongering, anti-semitic, anti-white, anti-American congregation? If so, is he the kind of man we want as President of the United States?

If Obama and Jeremiah Wright are "poor black men" what, pray tell, is the definition of a rich black man?

Yesterday, I heard on the radio that Obama went to the most expensive private school in Hawaii when he was a child, He attended Columbia University and Harvard Law School, neither of which are affordable to a "poor black man". His wife, Michelle attended Princeton and makes a reported $300,000+ a year as an attorney in her own right. So once again, Exactly how poor is poor Obama? For that matter, how poor is the pastor of a church with a membership of 8,ooo?

I made five figures (That's somewhat less than $100,000)last year. What is the criteria for determining who is a "rich white man" in comparison with "poor black man" millionaire Obama and his Millionaire Pastor?

More questions:

When did Jesus, who was an Israeli Jew, become black? Where in the Gospels do they say Jesus was black? Where, for that matter, does it say Jesus was poor? How does Rev. Wright's rhetoric, when he said, "He taught me, Jesus did, how to love my enemies. Jesus taught me how to love the hell outta my enemies! And not be reduced to their level of hatred, bigotry, and smallmindedness", square with his message of hate, bigotry, and smallmindedness?

Does this mean only blacks can be discriminated against? Or does it mean it's acceptable to spew racist hate speech as long as it is being directed to whites only?

Does this mean Barack Hussein Obama is a racist? Or does he simply turn his head when he encounters racism against anyone but black men? If so, why?

And yet more questions:

Why hasn't Obama condemned his racist pastor and his extreme hate-filled racist rants? Why does Obama say his church is "not particularly controversial"? Does he actually believe his church's pastor wouldn't have been locked up in prison for hate crimes if the aforementioned pastor were white?

Remember, all that is necessary for whites to be arrested and tried for hate crimes is to hang ropes tied into nooses from trees on college campuses. Ropes don't scream hatred for other races from lofty pulpits, do they? Why is Reverend Wright not languishing in Cook County Jail right now for advocating and supporting racism?

More questions:

If Barack Hussein Obama becomes President of the United States of America, will he work actively to make blacks the ruling class in America? Will he attempt to relegate the white people in America to the figurative "back of the bus"?

If B.Hussein believes and agrees with the hateful rhetoric espoused by his pastor, will he make peace with Islamic Jihadists by throwing white Christians and Jews to the Islamic lions?

Are Democrats who support Barack Hussein Obama stupid, ignorant, or anti-American, or are they just so consumed by "white guilt" that will they ignore the possibility that Obama and his pastor hate white people? If he becomes President will he work to exterminate white people? Will white Democrat supporters of B. Hussein Obama die defending him?

It could be that the conclusion to be drawn by the answers to these questions, depending on what the answers are, is this:

Barack Hussein Obama doesn't represent America. He represents hate, racism, and bigotry.

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Obamalot

"All we've been through, for nothing but an idea! Something that you cannot taste, smell, or feel; without substance, life, reality, memory." ~ King Arthur (From "Camelot")

If Barry Hussein Obama's speeches are to be believed, he will save the world from evil America. He will stop Global warming, or Global cooling, or whatever catastrophe the consensus of scientists on Al Gore's favor list are pushing at the time he recites the oath of office.

Incidentally, when he recites the oath of office, will he place his hand on a Bible or a copy of "The Communist Manifesto"? Will he salute the United States flag at that time or use it as a torch? Will he face Mecca as he takes the oath?

As I mentioned in my previous post, he also intends to end the war by apparently promising the terrorists something that will make them discard their arms and bombs and lovingly embrace the Jews and Christians all over the world.

It is not known what he will promise them, but if it's anything short of surrender and converting the entire world to Islam, it won't work. The terrorists have repeatedly stated at every opportunity that they demand total submission to their God and their laws. They have promised to wipe out everyone on Earth who doesn't convert to their particular brand 0f Islam.

Nevertheless, B. Hussein Obama promises peace. The Lion will lay down with the Lamb, and all will be right with the world.

He promises to deliver free health care for every man, woman, and child in America whether they want it or not. He has even suggested that everyone in America will have to submit to periodical physical exams even if they are healthy. And amazingly, his health care system will not result in long lines of sick people waiting forever for drastic medical procedures. He will presumably rush them right through just like a General Motors assembly line, except with no mistakes.

He has not said how he intends to pay for this extravagant health care plan, but I am sure he has a plan.

All of these things carry an exorbitant price tag, but B. Hussein promises the majority of Americans will not have to pay for them. Only wealthy Americans. One would have to assume he plans to create everyone equal.

In short, Mr. Hussein Obama will bring us his version of Camelot.

Obamalot (with apologies to Alan Jay Lerner)

A law was made a distant moon ago here:
July and August cannot be too hot.
And there's a legal limit to the snow here
In Obamalot.

The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot.
By order, summer lingers through September
In Obamalot.

Obamalot! Obamalot!
I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
But in Obamalot, Obamalot
That's how conditions are.

The rain may never fall till after sundown.
By eight, the morning fog must disappear.

In short, there's simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Obamalot.

Obamalot! Obamalot!
I know it gives a person pause,
But in Obamalot, Obamalot
Those are the legal laws.

The snow may never slush upon the hillside.
By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear.

In short, there's simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Obamalot.

Friday, March 07, 2008

More Catching Up And Obamalot

"In politics you must always keep running with the pack. The moment that you falter and they sense that you are injured, the rest will turn on you like wolves." ~ R. A. Butler

Many Republicans in Texas and Ohio on Tuesday registered as Democrats and voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton in an attempt to help her defeat Barack Hussein Obama in the race for the nomination of President. The supposition is Clinton would be easier for Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain to beat in the general election.

From what I understand, Rush Limbaugh is the mastermind behind this nefarious plan.

I could be wrong about this, because I didn't hear the program in which the plan was hatched. I only heard bits and pieces from subsequent programs which would seem to indicate he did. Anyway, it worked. Hillary won both primaries. Which only goes to prove how much Rush influences his listeners.

Rush is usually right, but I don't think he is this time.

I don't think Hillary would be any easier to beat than Barack Hussein Obama. Especially not by John McCain. He is not that much different than either of them, and, to borrow an oft repeated phrase from Sean Hannity, "There's not a dimes worth of difference between Obama and Clinton."

Whether Hillary might be easier for McCain to beat or not, I think Republicans should stay out of the Democrats business, and let the candidates succeed or fail on their own. I don't much care who wins the Democratic nomination for President at this point.

It's a lock for McCain on the Republican side, and that's the only thing Republicans should be concerned about right now.

Republicans need to focus on beating whoever the Democratic nominee is and let the Democrats fight their own battles.

I just can't imagine the horrors a Clinton or a Barack Hussein Obama administration might inflict on America. Both of them are Marxists.

Incidentally, my resident moonbat, Dan Trabue, says he doesn't believe any black person will vote for Obama solely because of his skin color. I just want to point out that I heard a black caller on Hannity's radio program admit he intends to vote for Barack Hussein Obama because he is black. There was no other reason offered.

So, I'm guessing Dan is wrong on this one.

I'm not drawing comparisons, you understand, but when you see one cockroach, you can bet there are thousands more hiding behind the baseboards. The analogy holds true. If one black man admits he will vote based on skin color you can bet thousands more out there will do the same. The same goes for women who vote for Clinton because of her gender.

Once again, let me make this crystal clear. I am not comparing black people with cockroaches.

Personally, I prefer judging Barack Hussein Obamas viability based on his record. My concern with the possibility that he might become our next President has nothing to do with his skin color, but instead, the content of his character. In my humble opinion, his lack of character is disturbing.

Speaking of cockroaches, one caller to Hannity's program likened Hillary to a cockroach. I appreciate the analogy. His point was that no matter what happens to Hillary, she will always bounce back. Cockroaches have the same traits. They will be the only survivor of an all out thermo-nuclear holocaust.

Cockroaches and Hillary Clinton.

Barack Hussein Obama is promising things he can't deliver. He is promising Utopia if he is elected President. If he is to be believed, and many deluded Democrats do, he will bring about a peaceful end to the war on terrorism without any more bloodshed. The lions will lay down beside the lambs and all will be right with the world. He will negotiate with the Islamic Jihadists and somehow, without promising to convert every American to Islam, they will in turn, promise to never murder anymore innocent people ever again.

It is not known what he plans to promise them in return.

He hasn't yet said how he will accomplish this miracle, but millions of Democrat, Liberal moonbats all over this country swallow this convoluted logic hook, line, and sinker.

He has been hailed by some as the next John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Kennedy had Camelot. Obama, presumably, will bring Obamalot.

Saturday, March 01, 2008

Obamarama

"When the Jews return to Zion
And a comet rips the sky
And the Holy Roman Empire rises,
Then You and I must die.
From the eternal sea he rises,
Creating armies on either shore,
Turning man against his brother
'Til man exists no more."

~ Father Brennan (From "The Omen")

Barack Hussein Obama?

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Catching Up On The News

"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." ~ Will Rogers

Due to illness in the family, I've been too busy to post a new entry lately. I've either been straightening up the house, cooking the family meals, or spending my free time visiting a loved one in the hospital.

Everyone is fine, thank you. Thanks for your thoughts.

I've mentioned in the past that I'm not a news junkie. I will watch almost any other kind of television program before I'll watch news. So, readers will forgive me, I hope, for missing some stories about which other bloggers have already posted and moved on while I have been otherwise engaged in more important pursuits.

While I was thus engaged, I understand Mrs. Barack Hussein Obama (also known as Michelle) giddily announced that she is finally proud to be an American, a comment for which she has been widely criticized. Did she really mean she hadn't been proud to be an American up until that point?

I don't think so. I think it was an unfortunate, though Freudian slip. Maybe I am just giving Mrs. Obama the benefit of the doubt but, in my humble opinion, I see no reason to assume she is any less proud to be an American than any other whiny blame-America-first, bleeding heart Liberal sob sister Democrat.

She is at least as proud as any one of them.

Also, Apparently some of Obama's campaign workers displayed a flag on the wall of their Houston office. It was a flag of Cuba upon which a picture of Cuban mass murderer Che Guevera was superimposed. Does this mean Barack Hussein Obama is a disciple of Che and/or a supporter of anti-American Communist regimes?

I don't think so. Of course, one could argue that if they support both Che and Obama, there must be some significant similarities in the political ideology of the two. But, just because some of Obama's campaign workers are obvious fans of brutal fascist revolutionaries, it doesn't necessarily mean he himself supports anti-American governments above our own.

However, the most anti-American voting record in the Senate might.

By the way, anyone who believes Bill Cunningham isn't intentionally trying to imply Obama is an Islamic Jihadist sympathizer when he continually refers to him by all three names (Barack HUSSEIN Obama) is either stupid, ignorant, or willfully suspending ones own disbelief.

And finally, good news for Republicans. Perennial losing Presidential candidate Ralph Nader has announced his candidacy for President once again. This is good news for Republicans because Nader is a "consumer advocate", which in layman's terms, means he's a environMENTAList wacko. And environMENTAList wackos vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

He, along with Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, who appears to have more respect for flowers and bugs than she does for Capitol Police authority, could actually siphon enough Democrat votes away from Hillary or Obama, that the Republican candidate could very well win the election by default.

It worked for the Republicans when George Wallace ran, and for the Democrats when Ross Perot ran.

Although, come to think of it, Nader didn't garner enough votes to make a difference in his previous attempts, did he?

Then again, the Democratic candidates then had more substance than the two running in this particular campaign. Some Democrats are less than enthusiastic about their choices this time around.

Third parties are often the spoilers.

The Democrats who vote for Nader or McKinney might even offset the percentage of Republican voters who will refuse to vote in protest over the Republicans selecting a Liberal as their candidate in the upcoming general election.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Anonymous Sources Say Hillary Will Have Obama Killed

"The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on." ~ Joseph Heller

The New York Slimes is doing it's Liberal best to smear a Republican candidate. So, what else is new?

They say they have been working on this (non)story for three months. Why?

I don't mean why work on the story for three months. I mean why should it take so long to sit down and write a story filled with so many holes one could drive a semi through? I could sit down and dash a story out with more credibility in about an hour or less.

What's the first sign it isn't factual? The ubiquitous "anonymous sources", of course. Whenever the Slimes or any Liberal news organization wants to do a hatchet job on someone, all they have to do is dredge up a few "anonymous sources", and Voila! They have muck! And they really don't have to dredge them up. All they really have to do is mention anonymous sources. There doesn't have to be any.

Anonymous sources are the perfect source. They don't even have to exist to make a story appear credible.

Ok. Point made.

I've been listening to the talking heads speculate about who the Presidential nominees will choose for their running mates. We hear these rumors every election cycle, and there's nothing wrong with discussing the subject, but I've never seen a Presidential nominee choose a running mate from the pool of Presidential contenders that didn't win.

For instance, Everyone thought Howard Dean would be chosen in 2000, or was it 2004? No matter. It didn't happen. Go down the list of Presidential candidates in the last several elections. None of the candidates from either party ever chose a running mate that experts said they would choose.

Offhand, I can think of Nixon's choice of Spiro Agnew, George W Bush's choice of Dick Cheney, and some one's (I can't remember who) choice of Lloyd Bentzen. These are all Vice Presidential candidates I had never heard of before the nominee chose them.

So, if you're expecting to hear McCain choose Huckabee or Romney as his running mate, it probably won't happen. He would more likely choose Senator Lieberman, but I doubt Lieberman would accept. Who knows, though? Stranger things have happened.

But the one speculation that really amuses me is "Will Obama choose Hillary to be his running mate?" Well, I won't commit myself to saying no, however, in my opinion, he would have to be either fearless, stupid, or crazy to pick her.

The Clinton's have such a lust for power, they have left a long trail of dead bodies strewn behind them (if "anonymous sources" have any credibility to them at all) in their quest for political power. Or to stay in power.

Here is one example from an article (the first one I accessed in a google search of "Clinton's criminal record") entitled "Clinton Lies and Criminal History":

"[C]ritics of the Clintons have made more lurid allegations: that Foster’s death was not a suicide, that it was connected to Whitewater, and that Hillary Clinton was somehow involved by covering up activities together with Foster before his death or in that her relationship with Foster was an intimate one. Other conspiracy theories claimed that she had killed Foster herself or had him killed."

If there is any truth to any of those aforementioned rumors, Obama would be in danger of being assassinated by any of the Clinton's thug pals, or thug pals of their thug pals, if she were placed in the position of "heiress to the throne" so to speak. Anonymous sources speculate she would literally stop at nothing to reach her ultimate goal of attaining the title of "Commissar for life of The Socialist States of America".

Including assassination.

But it doesn't matter. Obama, should he win the Democratic nomination for president, will never choose Hillbillary for his running mate.

You'll see. History will bear me out.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Altruism or selfishness?

"Once, in a spirit of altruism and generosity, I filled a rental car with gas!" ~ Emo Phillips

Lone Ranger posted a link to this web site a few days ago, and after reading some of the testimonials found there, I was left feeling strangely disturbed. I don't know why I'm disturbed. Maybe it's because I don't see these testimonials as examples of altruism, but rather as examples of a pitiful display of self importance. I've been thinking about this since LR posted it, but so many thoughts have run through my head about it that I have difficulty deciding what I want to say.

Read some of them. Really. Go read some of them, and you'll see what I mean.

The old phrase, "Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back" seems appropriate to me.

It's just that I see, instead of unselfishishness in the testimonials, a lot of pride. I am reminded of Jesus Christ's admonition, "But when you do merciful deeds, don't let your left hand know what your right hand does" found in Matthew 6:3. (That's the World English Bible translation, which is not really my preferred version, but it speaks more directly about acts of kindness rather than simply giving money to the poor) I think this applies to letting other people see what you do as well. At least people other than the ones you help.

A genuine random act of kindness is an act that doesn't come with any kind of reward in mind. Not even the reward of receiving accolades from friends or strangers. Again, the words of Jesus come to mind. "Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." Matthew 6:5

I suppose it's long been a pet peeve of mine when I see people do something nice, and then announce to everyone how wonderfully unselfish they are being. The way I see it, as soon as one tells someone else, ones attempt at generosity becomes disengenous.

I posted something on this subject before. Read it here, if you're so inclined.

It is difficult indeed to do some random act of kindness and then be silent. I have done them, and have, for the most part kept silent, but doesn't even disclosing that much lump me in with those who expect some sort of praise? I don't want to seek praise for whatever acts of kindness I do. But at the same time, I want people to know.

It is a dilemma.

I recently wrote about a time when I took the initiative to bring Thanksgiving dinner to a girls group home simply because my heart went out to the girls. Many of the girl's own families had effectively abandoned them and they faced the prospect of enduring Thanksgiving alone, with only their peers for company.

My reason for recounting that incident wasn't for self aggrandizement, but merely to point out the true meaning of Christian charity. I feel guilty to this day about sharing. I could have easily found other examples, but I wanted to draw an example from my own experience. In retrospect, I suppose using another example not from my experience would have sufficed.

In the comments of that entry, I said, "I have my reward".

Those testimonials that seem to point to a desire for attention are not the only ones that disturb me.

For instance, one entitled "Give it away", recounts a story of the author giving away tickets to a concert because essentially, she had 3 tickets her family couldn't use after she had found better seats. I'm sure the beneficiary of the tickets was grateful, but the offer of tickets in this case seems more about throwing the cast offs to the beggars than genuine kindness to me. Kind of like letting the homeless guy have your last couple of bites from the burger you couldn't finish.

Then there's the one entitled, "Stuck in the snow" that is disturbing in more than one way. Not only did the author of this testimonial admit that he didn't even attempt to help until it became obvious no one else was going to, but then he readily admits he did it in hopes that someday someone would help him in a similar situation.

I get the distinct impression that these people who write these testimonials so rarely do anything altruistic, they feel a need to massage their own egos, probably out of guilt for not doing so more often.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

A BB In A Boxcar

"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs." ~ Albert Einstein

The Virginia Primary is over and John McCain won again. The Liberally biased AP gleefully reports that his lead is now officially insurmountable. Of course, Republicans knew that already.

Although McCain has the nomination all sewn up, I went to vote anyway. I am angry at the Republican party, which is traditionally the standard bearer for Conservatism, so I was hoping the Virginia election commission(or whatever the governmental agency that regulates such things is called) would allow write -in votes, but there was no place for write-ins on the ballot.

Since McCain has already secured the nomination, a vote in the Virginia Primary makes no difference other than as a statement of principle. I wanted to write-in Duncan Hunter in protest against the party that abandoned it's Conservative base.

After I received my Republican ballot, I overheard the election workers discussing the fact that more Democrats were showing up to vote than Republicans, which came as no surprise to me because, as I mentioned, there really is no reason to vote in the Republican primary. I am sure many Republicans didn't bother coming in.

But it was important to me to vote to lodge my personal protest.

A vote for a candidate that has no chance in winning makes a statement with less impact to the Republican party than the sound a BB makes rattling around in a boxcar.

With that realization, as I filled in the dot beside the name of Fred Thompson, I felt a minute sense of satisfaction.

I had cast my vote based on principle.

Apparently I wasn't the only one who voted on principle. McCain's margin of victory over Huckabee was slim. And the other candidates received thousands of votes, too. I am reasonably certain that many Republicans only voted for McCain because he is already the nominee.

Perhaps when he looks at the results and sees how many "protest" votes other candidates received it will send a message to him that the Republican party is not wholly behind him in this race. At least, that's my thinking.

Probably not, though.

When the general election arrives in November, I will vote for the Republican nominee, although it will be McCain. Then I will go home and take a shower.

As I remarked to the people at the polls yesterday, it's a pity there isn't a space on the ballot for "Anyone else."

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Government By The People

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." ~ Abraham Lincoln

In October, 2005, President Bush appointed Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States. The outcry of dissent from Conservative Republicans was deafening. The party faithful was not so faithful to the President on this one. Eventually, bowing to the pressure from Conservative Republicans, Harriet Miers took the initiative away from Bush by withdrawing her nomination.

In February 2006 President Bush approved the sale of ports to the United Arab Emigrates. Again, Conservative Republicans let their disapproval be known. The sale was never consummated. Conservatives, by voicing their opinion, cancelled the transaction.

Now, Conservative Republicans are again faced with an unpleasant choice. We may have to vote for Senator John McCain for President in the general election. We can not vote at all, thereby handing the election over to the Democrats. Or we can vote for the Democratic Candidate.

None of those choices are appetizing as far as I'm concerned.

Many are decrying this dipleasing turn of events, and suggesting the Republican party is, for all practical purposes, finished.

But we still have voices, and we still can, by using them, influence Presidential policies, as we have in the past.

Having John McCain as President of the United States is not the end of the world. It is somewhat frightening in many ways, but it will not destroy American Conservatism, especially not if we make ourselves be heard.

We can make a difference.

Remember, ours is a government by the people, as much as of and for the people. A President McCain must abide by the Constitution in all matters of policy. If he doesn't, there are millions of people across this nation that can and will voice their displeasure.

This is an example of what Liberals refer to as "Checks and Balances". Usually they use the term to support legislation by the courts, which is unconstitutional. But in this case, the term applies to public opinion, when a President gets out of line or oversteps his bounds.

We can make McCain change his Liberal leaning policies. If we sound off loud and often enough, we the people can dictate policy.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I appeal to all Conservatives who are threatening to either not vote at all or vote for the Democratic candidate instead of for McCain.

Don't throw away your vote! The alternative is much worse.

There is a greater of two evils and it is any Democratic Presidential candidate. Let's all unite behind our Presidential candidate and get a Republican elected. We can make this work to our benefit.

Trust in God and Conservatism.

Friday, February 08, 2008

Personal Responsibility

"If you would be wealthy, think of saving as well as getting." ~ Benjamin Franklin

The following is just something I was thinking about yesterday while driving.

(Uh, still no spell check available with Blogger, so bear with any spelling mistakes you see. I accept responsibilty for my mistakes and if you correct me, I will gratefully oblige, and will not place blame on anyone but myself.)

Liberals need to get over the fact that some people have wealth and some people don't. It is a fact of life that some people are just better at making money and keeping it than others. These are people who take advantage of positive opportunities and don't give up when adversities happen.

Then there are those who just don't care. They are the ones who don't accept responsibility for themselves, and expect--nay--demand the Government give them money for free and with no strings attached. This is the result of well-meaning Liberals, who believe they can solve all problems by throwing money at them.

They have, through their misguided sense of altruism, created in many people an entitlement mentality.

Libs assume that we are stupid, and since we are incapable of taking care of ourselves, the elites in Government must take care of us. The inescapable problem with this assumption is this:

The money to pay for these has to come from somewhere. Liberals apparently think that the Goverment coffers are bottomless. Or more accurately, they think the taxpayers (That's us. The working people) pockets are bottomless. They reason, "If we don't have enough money in the budget, all we have to do is raise taxes until we do have enough."

The entitlement mentality will insure that there will never be "enough".

Welfare has been bastardized. It was never intended to be used to support thousands or millions of lazy people who won't accept any responsibility. It was originally intended to help people who genuinely needed help when they find themselves in seemingly hopeless situations.

It was intended to be a hand up, not a hand out.

I believe in personal responsibility. If I make numerous mistakes, and by those mistakes make myself poor, I take responsibility for the consequences of my mistakes. I do not expect, nor do I demand help. From anybody. I will not allow myself to depend on America's taxpayers to bail me out when I do something stupid.

Admittedly, if someone offered to help me when I have problems, I would gratefully accept, and then do everything in my power to repay the debt, even if my benefactor insists I don't have to repay him. I feel small and inadequate if i am unable to take care of myself due to stupid and irresponsibile mistakes or bad decisions that I, personally, have made.

If I succeed, I take the credit. If I fail, I take the blame. That is what personal responsibility means.

The wealthy are generally wealthy because of they work hard, take calculated risks, and make wise decisions. Those few who were born into wealth cannot stay wealthy by being irresponsible and/or lazy. So, even they have some sense of responsibility.

Those who became wealthy by sheer luck and chance--like those who win a lottery-- usually lose everything because they have never learned personal responsibility.

Remember that man in West Virginia? He won the biggest single lottery prize in history and blew it all with horrendous decision making. Instead of investing his winnings wisely he began spending like a drunken sailor. He used his money up on drinking and gambling, etc. He left large bundles of cash in his pick-up truck in the parking lot of the local strip bar, and was surprised to find it gone when he returned. Twice.

I find it disturbing that some people resent those who are wealthier than them simply out of envy. If it upsets you so much that others are wealthy, do something to create your own personal wealth. If you aren't ambitious enough to do what you have to do to make that happen, shut up.

People who resent the wealthy because they themselves feel they were dealt a bad hand are misguided. Wealthy people are to be respected for their ability to create and keep wealth.

People who sit on their duffs and complain that the Government doesn't hand them enough are not to be pitied. They are to be despised.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

The Bigger Problem With Illegal Immigration

"Salus Populi Suprema Est Lex"
(The welfare of the people is the ultimate law.) ~ Cicero

On a previous post, I copied the results of a quiz that I took which supposedly matches us up with the Presidential candidate's ideology most closely resembling that of our own. I was disconcerted to find the quiz matched my ideology up more with John McCain that any of the others.

Even more disconcerting than that to me was the fact that none (NONE!) of the candidates agreed with me on the subject of illegal immigration.



For those readers who don't know, or have forgotten my solution to illegal immigration, here's a brief summary:

1. I believe we need to first secure the border. Build a fence or a wall, and if necessary, man it with armed guards as needed, air surveillance, radar, and whatever else is necessary to stop anyone from sneaking across the border. We need to implement this as soon as humanly possible.

Start yesterday.

2. Eliminate any incentives for illegals to remain here. That means prevent, by any means necessary, all businesses from hiring anyone who is in this country illegally. Punish the companies with fines or removal of tax benefits, etc, if they refuse to cooperate.

Eliminate welfare and medical benefits for illegals.

Remove the reason for being here and the illegals will leave by themselves. If they can't make money here, they won't stay here.

Start that yesterday, too.

That, of course, only applies to the illegals that are here to make money.

The most difficult solution of all, but one that needs to be accomplished:

3. Round up as many of the illegal aliens as we can find and deport them. Immediately and finally.

I know many say that is impossible, but, as has been pointed out in several e-mails circulating the net, if we can track down one cow in this whole country with mad cow disease, we should be able to find 12 million illegal aliens.

We all know of the serious strain illegal immigration puts on our nation's economy and if that was the only problem caused by allowing illegals to migrate here unchecked, that would be more than enough reason to get a handle on the problem.

I believe the more serious problem here is the threat to our National security.

Think about the millions of illegal aliens that pour across our borders, both northern and southern, each year that go unnoticed and untracked.

Not all are Mexicans.

They come from every country on Earth, many of the inhabitants of those countries are hostile to America, our American values, and our religious beliefs.

I am speaking specifically about terrorists.

Millions of illegal aliens, and it only takes a few to wreak major havoc on our country. It only took 19 to murder almost 3,000 innocents in one day. Think what could have happened if 19 more had participated.

Think what still can happen if we don't stop illegal entry into our country.

Millions of illegal aliens stroll nonchalantly across our borders and any one of them could be carrying a bomb or some other kind of weapon into our country with them. In fact, every one of them could be potentially dangerous to our National Security.

If the candidate for President you support doesn't take this threat seriously, and, if he/she supports any kind of "amnesty for illegal immigrants" policy, he/she probably doesn't, we could be in serious jeopardy.

If John McCain, or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama is going to be our next President, it is imperative that we make sure they each hear our voices on this all important issue.

Start yesterday.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Black Wednesday

"Look out, ol' Mackie's back!" ~ Bobby Darin


I've asked this before, and I'm still asking. Has the Republican party in this country gone crazy? Is there a worse Republican candidate than McCain? Is he really a Republican? He doesn't bear much resemblance.

Is he some kind of Svengali? Why are so many voters so infactuated with this man?

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing worse than a President McCain is a President Clinton. Any President Clinton. Especially Hillary.

The Virginia state primary is next Tuesday, and although it is probably an exercise in futility, I will cast my vote for Romney.

I think.

At this point, I'm not sure which of the several evils to choose. I really don't trust Romney. Something about him just doesn't seem right to me.

It could be that he managed to get himself elected Governor in a state which is arguably the most Liberal state in the union. There's something wrong with that picture. I figure he must have misrepresented himself to the people of Massachusetts to get their vote.

Is he misrepresenting himself to the Republicans now?

I don't know, and what's more, I think I'm becoming completely disgusted, disgruntled, and apathetic about the whole thing.

I suspect many Republicans feel the same way. I feel like just not voting out of protest.

That's a dangerous thing. The only thing that would more insure a victory for the Democratic candidate, whoever it may be, would be to vote for the Democratic candidate.

I would encourage all Republicans to vote Republican, regardless of the candidate.

This country would have difficulty surviving under the Socialist regime of Hillary or Obama.

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Are You Kidding Me?

"You have all the characteristics of a popular politician: a horrible voice, bad breeding, and a vulgar manner." ~ Aristophanes

Here is yet another of those quizzes that supposedly match you and your ideology with those of the current Presidential candidates. It was created by Minnesota Public Radio, so one would think the questions are Liberally biased, but aside from the question on enviromental policies, it is pretty straight. At least I think so.

Here are my results:

John McCain
Score: 84

Agree:
Iraq
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Environment
Education

Disagree:
Immigration
Marriage


Mitt Romney
Score: 63

Agree:
Iraq
Taxes
Health Care
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Environment
Education

Disagree:
Immigration
Stem-Cell Research
Social Security
Energy
Gun Control


Mike Huckabee
Score: 63

Agree:
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Education

Disagree:
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Energy
Environment


Ron Paul
Score: 49

Agree:
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Energy
Gun Control
Environment

Disagree :
Iraq
Immigration
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Education


Rudy Giuliani
Score: 49

Agree:
Iraq
Taxes
Health Care
Social Security
Death Penalty
Environment
Education

Disagree:
Immigration
Stem-Cell Research
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Gun Control


Barack Obama
Score: 14

Agree:
Death Penalty
Education

Disagree:
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Gun Control
Environment


Mike Gravel
Score: 7

Agree :
Education

Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Environment


Hillary Clinton
Score: 7

Agree:
Death Penalty

Disagree:
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Gun Control
Environment
Education

How did you do? And how fair are the questions, in your opinion?

Friday, February 01, 2008

Terrorists Cross The Line

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Finally, the Democrats have a reason to get behind the war on terror. From the Liberally biased AP, we learn that the terrorists are now using retarded women (excuse me. I mean women with "special needs") as human bombs.

But that's not the reason Democrats will finally support the war in Iraq.

They are also using young boys with Down's Syndrome.

But that's not the reason for supporting the war either.

The real reason they may finally start expressing outrage over the atrocities commited by Isamic Jihadist terrorists is this:

Terrorists are now starting to murder animals!

They can fly airliners into buildings, killing thousands of innocent humans, and the Libs call them "Freedom Fighters".

They can shout "Death to America" and call for the murder of our people and our leaders, and the Libs think they are just misunderstood.

They can detonate bombs in crowded marketplaces, killing hundreds of their own people, and the Libs demand that we sit down with them over tea and crumpets to ascertain why they don't like us.

They can announce to all the world that their sole mission in life is to kill Jews and Christians and everyone else that isn't Muslim, and the Libs insist America is to blame.

And, as Lone Ranger reminds us, they can cut off heads and the Libs call us war criminals for pouring water in their face.

But now, they are targeting pets, as well as Humans. Now that they have started terrorizing wildlife, Libs must finally recognize they are indeed terrorists.

Now, they have crossed the line.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

What Is Wrong With Republicans?

"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." ~ Frank Dane

So, McCain has won the Florida primary. The first primary in which only Republican voters may vote for Republicans. And he has won fifty-seven delegates to the Republican National convention.

This is what Republicans want?

Would there be any point in Democrats (or independents) registering as Republicans just to skew the vote in his favor, now?


I think it's pretty clear now that many more Republicans support McCain than true Conservative voters presuppose.


This reminds me of the particular phenomena on the Democratic side where it appears a majority of Democrats swear they would never vote for Hillary, but nevertheless Hillary gets the majority of the Democratic vote.


I think there are "closet voters" on both sides. That's pathetic in my view. If you support a particular candidate say so. Don't say you don't when you do.


What is wrong with Republicans?

I have pointed out before my belief that there are some self described Reagan Republicans who tend to abandon their Conservative principles simply because they believe another, less Conservative candidate is more "electable".
Those who say they support candidates like Guiliani because the more Conservative candidate isn't electable have it backwards.

You aren't dumping your core Conservative principles because the Conservative candidates are unelectable. Conservative candidates become unelectable because Conservatives dump their principles.


John McCain is a likable, charismatic man. He sounds very sincere when he talks. He appears to the public to be the kind of guy that everyone likes. He has the kind of public persona that some bloggers have described as "presidential".


But John McCain is not Conservative. He is wrong for this country. Granted, he is better than Obama, Clinton, or Edwards, but not much better.


Do you see, now, why standing on principle, no matter how impossible it might seem, is the better course? In sacrificing your principles, you have inadvertently thrown the better, more Conservative candidates under the proverbial bus. And now we will have to choose between two evils in the upcoming general election.


Now, we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of being forced to vote for a candidate that is far from a Reagan Conservative.


Well, you wanted the most electable candidate to run against Hillary, and you got him.


Duncan Hunter is looking pretty darn good, now, isn't he?


It appears that McCain is the most electable candidate. If he is our party's eventual nominee, and it certainly appears that is where we are headed, I will vote for him. Not because I believe he is the best man for the job, because he isn't. But because he will be the only choice for Republicans. I will not vote for a third party candidate. I do not recommend voting for a third party because that will insure a Democrat win. I will not vote for a Democrat. I will do whatever it legally takes to prevent a Democrat win.


Congratulations, Republicans. You got what you asked for.

I hope you are happy.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Gun Control

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." ~ James Earl Jones

There is an interesting poll over at Lone Ranger's place. It is supposed to show you how you stack up against the various presidential candidates on the various issues.

I took it twice because I misinterpreted a question the first time.

On the first poll, my answer to a free trade question was wrong because of my misinterpretation. For the record, I don't believe we should have unrestricted free trade. I think, in this case, the word "unrestricted" has too broad a definition. I've never had much of a position on NAFTA and CAFTA because I am not very well informed on economics, however, after reading Duncan Hunter's position in his opposition of NAFTA and CAFTA, I would have to say that I am opposed to "Unrestricted" Free Trade, but, as I have already implied, it is not a big issue for me.

On my second try, on one of the questions about gun control, the one about whether assault weapons should be banned, my answer was exactly opposite what I really believe.

I know I risk incurring the wrath of my fellow Conservatives on this one, but I don't believe American citizens need assault weapons.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not against guns. I believe in the second amendment. I believe Americans have the right to bear arms.

I don't personally own a gun, but I am not opposed to gun ownership. I have used guns before, and I am a rather good marksman, but I have never felt the need to own one.

People should be allowed to own guns for sport, and for protection, but I see no reason why anyone needs to own any gun that is capable of firing multiple rounds per second.

I can see where firing a machine gun at a flock of ducks would resit in a successful duck hunt, but that kind of takes the challenge out of the sport, doesn't it?

So, there is no reason to carry an M-16 on a hunting trip, but why not for protection?

Assault weapons were created for one purpose, and one purpose only.

To kill people.

Now, I have no love for criminals who are willfully trying to take the lives of myself and my family, and who try to steal my property. But if I can prevent them from doing so with one small caliber bullet, and I can, why would I need to blow him into an unrecognizable mass of tissue and blood? Wouldn't that be non-essential overkill?

If a criminal can be stopped by wounding them with one shot from a small caliber weapon, why would we need to use a multiple shot weapon using armour piercing shells? Unless a burglar is trying to break into my house with a tank, I think a .22 or a .38 is sufficient for protection.

What do you suppose the odds of a burglar using an armoured vehicle to gain entrance into your domicile are, anyway?

There have been numerous examples given of what could have happened in different situations when shooters have opened fire in schools, malls and businesses across the country. In some cases, there was no one with a gun to stop the shootings, and in some cases there were.

In every case where there was someone with a gun nearby, the shootings were brought to a swift conclusion with a relatively negligible loss of human life.

These shootings could have been just as effectively stopped by simply wounding the shooter with a small caliber handgun or rifle. Still, assault weapons were not needed.

When I was a young adult in Wichita, Kansas, a sniper began shooting people from the 27th floor balcony of the downtown Holiday Inn. He was captured when police fired a shotgun through the wall between balconies wounding him in the legs. The assault was over, and the gunman captured, not killed. Again, assault weapons were not only not needed, they weren't used.

On the other hand, if assault weapons are banned, the only people who have them will be the criminals and then how do we protect ourselves?

The second amendment was written a couple of centuries ago by men who couldn't have foreseen the advent of assault weapons. Would they have written an exemption into the second amendment had they known how far technology would advance in weaponry?

You know? I don't think they would have.

On second thought, what right does the United States have to refuse us the right to own assault weapons? Doesn't the individual American have the right to decide if he needs (or wants) assault weapons or not?

Suddenly, it seems cut and dried to me.

Ok, you have read along while I worked through the process of deciding for myself whether it is constitutional to ban assault weapons. I have decided we should not ban assault weapons as they are a protected right under the second amendment.

So, again, I changed my answer.

Ownership of assault weapons should be allowed. But, I still believe they are not needed.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Hunter Endorses Huckabee

"Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall." ~ William Shakespeare

My personal favorite Presidential candidate, Duncan Hunter withdrew from the race, and now, has endorsed Mike Huckabee. I don't understand that endorsement. If Huckabee is really as Liberal as the Conservative pundits and bloggers and commentators say, why would the most Conservative of all candidates endorse him?

Duncan Hunter knows Mike Huckabee personally. Maybe we should start with that knowledge and examine the endorsement from Hunter's viewpoint. According to Duncan Hunter himself:

“I got to know Governor Huckabee well on the campaign trail. Of the remaining candidates I feel that he is strongly committed to strengthening national defense, constructing the border fence and meeting the challenge of China’s emergence as a military superpower that is taking large portions of America’s industrial base.
Along with these issues of national security, border enforcement and protecting the U.S. industrial base, I see another quality of Mike Huckabee’s candidacy that compels my endorsement. Mike Huckabee is a man of outstanding character and integrity. I saw that character over the last year of campaigning and was greatly impressed. The other Republican candidates have many strengths and I wish them all well.”


So that is his official explanation. Unofficially? Who knows?

I think we need to be careful when drawing conclusions from anything any politician says. One thing I've learned in my 56 years is this:

You can always tell when a politician is lying. His lips will move.



I'd say that's a pretty good rule of thumb.

I will say this, though:

I trust Duncan Hunter. I believe he is a man of integrity, a man who sincerely believes in his stated principles. I don't know him personally, so I could be wrong.

I heard some interviews with Huckabee and I thought he acquitted himself quite well. He gave clear and logical explanations in response to the various charges against him. He sounds believable. Some of the accusations that have been made about him could well be taken out of context or be misrepresented.

But, once again, I have to defer to the rule of thumb stated above.

Did Huckabee convince Hunter? Or has Hunter seen something in Huckabee that the experts don't see?

What do I think? I am not saying. I've learned another lesson from all this:

If I publicly support a candidate, he will withdraw. I supported Hunter, and he withdrew. Then I reasoned that the next most Conservative candidate was Thompson. Then he withdrew. So now, I'm not announcing who I will support.

I am not sure now, anyway.

So, I will not publicly support any candidate until the Republican nominee is chosen at convention.

If anyone wants to know who I will vote for, you can be assured:

I will vote for whoever I think best represents my principles. I will vote for principle before I vote for who I think will win. At this point, there is no candidate left in the race who represents my core principles, so, I will hold my nose and vote for the Republican candidate.

OK. Update: The New York Times has endorsed McCain. So guess who I won't support?

There's only one thing I know for sure:

I don't know anything for sure.

Monday, January 21, 2008

A Visit To The Past

"Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true." ~ Martin Luther King Jr.

Lone Ranger has posted a link to a poem about Martin Luther King today, whose author has pointed out the negative changes in the black culture since MLK's death in 1968.

Two years ago, I wrote a letter to the editor of my local paper. It was in response to an article about Martin Luther King and what he accomplished. It was the authors contention that MLK didn't accomplish very much, that there had been little positive change. I then copied and pasted the letter into a MLK day post here on my blog. The paper published my letter in it's entirety. The following, self edited, is what I wrote on my blog:

The local newspaper here had an article written by a David A Love, a writer for Progressive Media Project in Madison, Wisconsin, as a guest columnist. In it, Mr. Love made some pretty astounding statements.

He said since Dr. King died, "Americans have learned few lessons from King". His first example was, "37 million people live below the poverty line including 13 million children."

I had it in my mind that perhaps the percentage of those living below the poverty line might have been higher than that at the time of Dr. King's death, but I couldn't find much information specifically addressing that issue. So, I didn't reply, but I wonder what that has to do with racial equality.

Black and poor are two words that are not synonymous.

Next, he said, "45 million of us don't have health insurance", But I think there are too many factors influencing that to draw the conclusion that Americans haven't learned to accept everyone as equals from that. Some people choose not to have health insurance, and anyway, that isn't the governments responsibility. I decided not to address that statement in my reply, as my letter was already getting longer than I intended.

With that in mind, this is the letter that I sent to the editor of the Hagerstown Herald Mail, addressing the rest of the statements he made:

To the Editor:

According to your guest columnist, David A. Love, in the article entitled, America Should Honor King's Teachings, (Herald Mail Monday Jan. 16) "Americans have learned few lessons" since the death of Martin Luther King Jr.

Mr. Love arrogantly assumes the readers will blindly accept whatever he says as fact, without questioning or doing research. That is a mistake. In this age of the internet, fact checking can be done effortlessly and without having to have a formal education. Let me set him straight.

Today, a black man can enter any restaurant or lunch counter anywhere in America, including the deep south, and sit down next to a white man without fear of being lynched. Or even frowned upon.

And we haven't learned?

No more are there two sets of bathrooms or drinking fountains, one labeled white and one labeled colored. Today a black man can drink from any water source he wants to without fear of angering any white people. In fact, it is doubtful that any white people would give him a second glance.

And we haven't learned?

There are no more lynchings, no more black church bombings, no more middle of the night abductions of black people followed by brutal beatings.

And we haven't learned?

No one forces black girls to sit in the back of the bus, or stands in the doorway of schools to block their entrance.

And we haven't learned?

Today Black writers can write editorials that make outrageously racially biased statements without fear of retribution. You couldn't have written your piece in a mainstream newspaper in 1960, Mr. Love.

What haven't we learned?

Yes, Mr. Love, there are isolated incidents where some backward, ignorant, racist, white people burn crosses in front yards and scrawl racist graffiti on black people's houses, etc. But those instances are few and far between. And there are more, much more incidents of black racists committing racially motivated crimes nowadays.

Mr. Love also writes, "The devastation in New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast brought to light the lingering problems of race and class."

Recently some interesting information was reported in newspapers and on television and radio news outlets across the country: More white people were effected adversely by the hurricanes than blacks.

What lingering problems, Mr. Love?

Next, Mr. Love makes this claim:

"And the nation squanders away it's resources on the failed war in Iraq."

Oh really? What exactly, is Mr. Love's criteria for what constitutes a "failed war"?

For the first time since Saddam Hussein gained power in Iraq, free and independent elections have been held. Not just one. Three of them in the last year.

A murderous, vicious, sadistic dictator, who had hundreds of thousands of his own people slaughtered has been deposed.

Torture and rape rooms all over Iraq have been shut down. Women, who up until now, have been treated as second class citizens at best and pack animals at worst, have attained personhood in Iraq.

Note: Let me add here in 2008: The surge is working.

And all this at the cost of many less American lives than have died in any of America's previous wars.

And we haven't learned?

His last point:

"On March 31, 1968 King preached his final sermon...four days before his assassination. In the sermon, he noted that, 'one of the great liabilities of life is that all too many people find themselves living amid a great period of social change, and yet they fail to develop the new attitudes, the new mental responses, and the new situation demands. They end up sleeping through a revolution.''

Mr. Love, it's time to wake up from your 35 year nap, and see what Americans have learned.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

A Little Comic Relief

"The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think." ~ Horace Walpole

After reading about Lone Ranger's adventures at the doctor's office, I was inspired to post this:



Dennis Wolfberg. Another comic who died too young.

Note: The quote at the top describes the difference between Liberals and Conservatives well.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Bin Laden For Peace

"And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With old odd ends, stol'n forth of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."
~ William Shakespeare

Osama bin Laden's son says he wants to be peace ambassador between the West and Muslims. He says his father is only trying to defend Islam.

"My father thinks he will be good for defending the Arab people and stop anyone from hurting the Arab or Muslim people any place in the world," he said.

He doesn't condemn his father for masterminding and funding terrorists attacks throughout the world, but he thinks there is a better, less violent way to accomplish his father's goals.

According to the Liberally biased AP, "Omar is convinced a truce between the West and al-Qaida is possible".

So, he and his British wife are going to sponsor a horse race.

My god, he sounds like a Democrat!

"My father is asking for a truce but I don't think there is any government (that) respects him. At the same time they do not respect him, why everywhere in the world, they want to fight him? There is a contradiction," he said.

How is that a contradiction? Oh, and by the way, we don't want to just fight him.

We want to kill him.

In my opinion, Omar Osama bin Laden, the child of Osama, is acting like ...well...a child. Does he really think the west is going to just forgive and forget his father?

He wants to broker peace and he wants his father to go free at the same time.

I wonder. Is Omar Osama bin Laden familiar with the old maxim, "You can't have your cake and eat it too"?

Osama offered a truce to the West in January 2006, but it was summarily rejected, and rightfully so. Osama seems to think he can get out of his predicament alive.

He can't.

There is no possiblility of a truce of any kind with bin Laden unless he turns himself in or is killed. One or the other. Or both.

Friday, January 18, 2008

A Life Worth Living

"The secret of a good life is to have the right loyalties and hold them in the right scale of values." ~ Norman Thomas

Tuesday evening, a man named Gary Tebbets received his promotion to the "Church Triumphant". Mr. Tebbets was a music teacher on the faculty of Allen County Community College in Fort Scott, Kansas.

But he was more than that. Much more.

This was the same Gary Tebbets mentioned in a New York Times article after he unsuccessfully petitioned the Missouri Supreme Court to prevent the euthanization of a young woman, Nancy Cruzan. She had been inhumanely denied food and water. According to the Times, "Gary Tebbets of Kansas City, Mo., and Gary Rickman of Kansas City, Kan., asked the State Supreme Court to order that the feeding be resumed, a request denied ... by the State Court of Appeals".

This was also the same Gary Tebbets who fought tirelessly for unborn children, and wrote many articles and letters to the editor of the Kansas City Star protesting abortion. He was an unashamed proponent of the right to life, and unlike so many of us, actually put his words into action.

He was born and lived most of his life in Kansas City, Mo. On Monday night, while driving home from work, he suffered a brain aneurysm and immediately went into a coma, causing his car to run off the road. He had to be cut out of the wreckage and was air-lifted to Wesley Medical Center in Wichita, Kansas. He never regained conscientiousness.

Gary Tebbets was a Christian.

Gary Tebbets was a Musician.

Gary Tebbets was a loving son, sibling, husband, and father.

Gary Tebbets was my cousin.