"There is a New America every morning when we wake up. It is upon us whether we will it or not." ~ Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.
I'm sorry I haven't posted any entries the last few days. The fact is, besides being distracted by economic problems here at home, which I can't seem to solve, I have been completely overwhelmed with the frightening amount of egregious acts and statements issuing from the Oval office. I suspect my personal economic problems and Obama's "change" are connected, but that connection as yet, remains to be proven.
There are simply too many things going on with Barack Hussein Obama, I can't focus on just one of them. Any one of his decisions have the potential for driving the United States of America over the cliff to our doom. And amazingly, he has accomplished this much in less than two weeks!
At this rate we will have a full blown Marxist dictatorship inside of two years.
I don't know what to comment on first.
I fear we are witnessing the final death throes of the United States of America.
Obama is intent on change, alright. He wants to change this country from the United States of America to the United Soviet States of America.
From his first day, every thing he has done is a disaster in the making. From signing the order to close GITMO, suspending trials for the terrorists, cutting our military budget by 10% (that's just the beginning of the dismantling of the military, mark my words), threatening to abolish free speech, to the capping of Wall Street executive's salaries.
What gives Obama the right to dictate (key word)how much executives can make? What gives him the right to limit how much any one can make? Today it's the Wall street executives. Tomorrow it may be you. That's Marxism at it's worst!
Can't the American people see what he's doing?
He has the power and he has the political backing of the other Marxists in the two houses of Congress, and if he stays in office long enough, and has the opportunity, he will pack the Supreme Court with Marxist judges.
He is taking us further into Socialism with every executive order, with every pronouncement, and with every concession he makes to the enemies of our country. And I include on that list enemies of America who call themselves Americans while actively trying to undermine America's security and freedoms.
What has to happen for Americans to rise up and throw this Marxist bum out on his ear? Does he have to declare himself "Dictator for Life" before the American people wake up and see what he's doing?
So. What can we do? We need to clean house, that much is certain. But, how do we do it?
I don't have anywhere enough of a readership to accomplish anything. I feel as if I'm talking to a wall. I have no power to lead a grassroots movement against this traitorous government.
But we need to act. Now. We need to let our voices be heard. Now. We need to throw these bums out, and the sooner, the better. Perhaps, if we move quickly enough, we can salvage what's left of our liberty.
Make no mistake. Obama is systematically destroying our country. And he's not even being subtle. He is blatantly dismantling the Constitution before our very eyes and we seem to be powerless to stop him.
We can write our Representatives in Congress. We can jam the Congressional switchboards with our calls. We can take to the streets and shout our frustration to the world. But the problem with that is this:
The media are in the tank for Obama, and our protests will not be heard. The Democrats in Congress are backing Obama, and will back him all the way to our death, and most of the Republican Representatives are spineless. They will sit back, watch, and complain.
Which is, by the way, the only thing we ordinary freedom loving Americans can do.
God help us all.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Monday, February 02, 2009
No Bail Out
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." ~ Albert Einstein
U. S. Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat, of Missouri believes she has the solution to Wall Street executives spending their share of the Federal bail-out money on Corporate jets, extravagant vacations, and million dollar bonuses.
That's right, she wants to cap their income at $400,000.00 a year, which just happens to be the same amount President Obama makes. In this way, she believes the Democrat controlled government can force these corporations to spend their free money responsibly.
How would that keep them from using the bail-out money irresponsibly? It seems to me that limiting their salaries would only encourage them to use their free money to pay themselves even bigger bonuses to make up the difference.
Who wouldn't take full advantage of free money? As I've mentioned before, would a starving man turn down a free sandwich?
The fact is, the more money they get, the more they will spend. If irresponsibility got them into their circumstances, handing them more money to spend foolishly won't get them out.
I once worked the customer service counter at a dry cleaner that was a fairly successful mom and pop operation. The cleaners did a bustling business until the owners wife got a taste of the good life. Whenever she wanted a new outfit, a new purse, new shoes, jewelry, or dinner at Ruth Criss', she simply opened the cash drawer and took out whatever amount she needed. Eventually, her extravagance drove her husband out of business.
Nobody bailed them out, nor should they have.
It is called fiscal irresponsibility, and it is this problem that Missouri's Senator means to address.
But, Ms. McCaskill is approaching the problem completely wrong. You don't give money to anyone who you know is going to waste it. That's just common sense.
In the free market system, businesses succeed and fail everyday. They succeed by making intelligent decisions and they fail by making stupid decisions.
Suppose I am behind on my house payment, utility payments, and car payment. If I receive a hefty Income tax refund, and go out and spend my refund on a big screen plasma TV instead of paying those bills, I deserve to lose my house.
Would anyone feel sorry for me? Would anyone feel obligated to send me money to help?
Also, how many of these corporations lobbied for bail out money when they didn't really need it in the first place? Something tells me if they really needed it, they wouldn't be wasting it on frivolous luxuries.
The free market system works best without outside help. It is a perfect model of the survival of the fittest. If a corporation employs sound business practices, re-invests their profits wisely, and keeps their operating costs to a minimum, they will succeed.
If they spend their profits like a drunken sailor on extravagances like corporate jets, vacations, etc, with no regard to the possible consequences, they will fail, as well they should.
If they fail because they spent their profits foolishly, they deserve to fail. They certainly don't deserve help from a government that is already suffering economic woes of it's own. Especially when much of the blame goes to the Government for contributing to such bad financial decisions.
Rest assured, if a corporation fails there will be plenty of other companies perfectly willing to step in and take up the slack. Don't let Claire McCaskill or anyone else tell you that won't happen.
No, the free market system can take care of itself. They don't need free money. The smart executives will find a way to overcome temporary financial setbacks and the foolish corporations will go bankrupt, and that's how the free market works.
Our Government needs to use our money to pay Government debts and let the corporations use their gross income to pay theirs.
That's how it was designed, and that's the best way.
The American way.
U. S. Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat, of Missouri believes she has the solution to Wall Street executives spending their share of the Federal bail-out money on Corporate jets, extravagant vacations, and million dollar bonuses.
That's right, she wants to cap their income at $400,000.00 a year, which just happens to be the same amount President Obama makes. In this way, she believes the Democrat controlled government can force these corporations to spend their free money responsibly.
How would that keep them from using the bail-out money irresponsibly? It seems to me that limiting their salaries would only encourage them to use their free money to pay themselves even bigger bonuses to make up the difference.
Who wouldn't take full advantage of free money? As I've mentioned before, would a starving man turn down a free sandwich?
The fact is, the more money they get, the more they will spend. If irresponsibility got them into their circumstances, handing them more money to spend foolishly won't get them out.
I once worked the customer service counter at a dry cleaner that was a fairly successful mom and pop operation. The cleaners did a bustling business until the owners wife got a taste of the good life. Whenever she wanted a new outfit, a new purse, new shoes, jewelry, or dinner at Ruth Criss', she simply opened the cash drawer and took out whatever amount she needed. Eventually, her extravagance drove her husband out of business.
Nobody bailed them out, nor should they have.
It is called fiscal irresponsibility, and it is this problem that Missouri's Senator means to address.
But, Ms. McCaskill is approaching the problem completely wrong. You don't give money to anyone who you know is going to waste it. That's just common sense.
In the free market system, businesses succeed and fail everyday. They succeed by making intelligent decisions and they fail by making stupid decisions.
Suppose I am behind on my house payment, utility payments, and car payment. If I receive a hefty Income tax refund, and go out and spend my refund on a big screen plasma TV instead of paying those bills, I deserve to lose my house.
Would anyone feel sorry for me? Would anyone feel obligated to send me money to help?
Also, how many of these corporations lobbied for bail out money when they didn't really need it in the first place? Something tells me if they really needed it, they wouldn't be wasting it on frivolous luxuries.
The free market system works best without outside help. It is a perfect model of the survival of the fittest. If a corporation employs sound business practices, re-invests their profits wisely, and keeps their operating costs to a minimum, they will succeed.
If they spend their profits like a drunken sailor on extravagances like corporate jets, vacations, etc, with no regard to the possible consequences, they will fail, as well they should.
If they fail because they spent their profits foolishly, they deserve to fail. They certainly don't deserve help from a government that is already suffering economic woes of it's own. Especially when much of the blame goes to the Government for contributing to such bad financial decisions.
Rest assured, if a corporation fails there will be plenty of other companies perfectly willing to step in and take up the slack. Don't let Claire McCaskill or anyone else tell you that won't happen.
No, the free market system can take care of itself. They don't need free money. The smart executives will find a way to overcome temporary financial setbacks and the foolish corporations will go bankrupt, and that's how the free market works.
Our Government needs to use our money to pay Government debts and let the corporations use their gross income to pay theirs.
That's how it was designed, and that's the best way.
The American way.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Comedy On NPR
"I never cease being dumbfounded by the unbelievable things people believe." ~ Leo Rosten
As most of you know, I listen to National Public Radio (NPR) on weekends, when I'm in my car. There is no programming worth listening to on weekends on the Conservative talk radio stations in this area (Unless you think shows about mulch are entertaining), so I listen to NPR, a decidedly non-Conservative radio network, which is partly subsidized by our tax dollars.
Their Liberal bias is even more obvious than MSNBC, if that is possible.
I wonder, how many billions of dollars in the new Porkulus package are earmarked for public radio and television?
But I digress.
There are, believe it or not, some programs on NPR worth listening to, particularly on weekends. There is "Car Talk", "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me", and "A Prairie Home Companion". I enjoy the comedy, when it is not specifically directed at Conservatives and Republicans.
Well, sometimes even then.
There are always nuggets of comedy to be found on all of the aforementioned shows.
But this week, the best comedy line wasn't on any of those shows. It was, instead, on a "serious" show called "This American Life".
The host of the program announced a new editorial policy, which was encapsulated in one line, to wit:
"Don't try to force Obama to stop smoking."
But, hold on there!
That isn't the line to which I referred. The line I am referencing as the funniest line of the day came next:
"Smoking is Obama's ONLY flaw."
Who knew NPR was so funny?
Perhaps our tax dollars aren't being wasted by subsidizing Public Radio after all.
As most of you know, I listen to National Public Radio (NPR) on weekends, when I'm in my car. There is no programming worth listening to on weekends on the Conservative talk radio stations in this area (Unless you think shows about mulch are entertaining), so I listen to NPR, a decidedly non-Conservative radio network, which is partly subsidized by our tax dollars.
Their Liberal bias is even more obvious than MSNBC, if that is possible.
I wonder, how many billions of dollars in the new Porkulus package are earmarked for public radio and television?
But I digress.
There are, believe it or not, some programs on NPR worth listening to, particularly on weekends. There is "Car Talk", "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me", and "A Prairie Home Companion". I enjoy the comedy, when it is not specifically directed at Conservatives and Republicans.
Well, sometimes even then.
There are always nuggets of comedy to be found on all of the aforementioned shows.
But this week, the best comedy line wasn't on any of those shows. It was, instead, on a "serious" show called "This American Life".
The host of the program announced a new editorial policy, which was encapsulated in one line, to wit:
"Don't try to force Obama to stop smoking."
But, hold on there!
That isn't the line to which I referred. The line I am referencing as the funniest line of the day came next:
"Smoking is Obama's ONLY flaw."
Who knew NPR was so funny?
Perhaps our tax dollars aren't being wasted by subsidizing Public Radio after all.
Friday, January 30, 2009
When One Door Closes, Another Opens
"Competence, like truth, beauty and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder." ~ Laurence J. Peter
Just a couple of short (hopefully) comments today. First, does anyone remember when this happened?
Bush was at a conference in China, and, upon conclusion of a news conference, attempted to leave through what proved to be a locked door. Undaunted, he made a humorous comment about it, and moved along.
But the Liberally biased media didn't move along, did they? For weeks afterward, Liberal reporters and blogs guffawed at the image of a President who was so stupid he wasn't even able to Divine the door was locked before he tried it.
I mean, after all, no Liberal has ever made the obviously stupid mistake of trying to open a locked door, have they?
Now, has anyone seen this article from the New York Daily News?
Just a couple of short (hopefully) comments today. First, does anyone remember when this happened?
Bush was at a conference in China, and, upon conclusion of a news conference, attempted to leave through what proved to be a locked door. Undaunted, he made a humorous comment about it, and moved along.But the Liberally biased media didn't move along, did they? For weeks afterward, Liberal reporters and blogs guffawed at the image of a President who was so stupid he wasn't even able to Divine the door was locked before he tried it.
I mean, after all, no Liberal has ever made the obviously stupid mistake of trying to open a locked door, have they?
Now, has anyone seen this article from the New York Daily News?
It seems, "On the way back to the Oval Office Tuesday, the President approached a paned window, instead of the actual door -- located a few feet to his right."
The article goes on to state, "Obama, who was returning from meeting with Congressional leaders, may have been distracted by Republicans' icy reception to his $825 billion stimulus package, which is poised to pass on Wednesday even without a groundswell of Republican support."
Yeah, that's right. Bush is stupid because he didn't know a door was locked. But Barack Hussein Obama was simply distracted and confused by those big 'ol mean Republicans and, while trying to get away from their merciless, unwarranted attacks, tried to exit through a window, mistakenly confusing it for a door.
Well, at least Bush knew it was a door, eh?
Whoever said in my comments recently that Bush and the Republicans will be blamed for any failures of the Obama administration must have been correct. Or so it seems.
In other news, Illinois Democrat Governor Rod "Show me the F***ing money" Blagojevich has been removed from office after a State Senate unanimous verdict of guilty in his impeachment trial.
In addition, he will no longer be allowed to hold any public office anywhere within the state of Illinois.
There's still hope for 'ol Roddy, though.
Perhaps President Barack Hussein Obama will appoint his Chicago buddy to the new position of Secretary of Ethics in his administration.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes
"Change is the constant, the signal for rebirth, the egg of the phoenix." ~ Christina Baldwin
I've updated my blogroll recently. I've deleted some and added others. The reasons I've made these updates vary almost as much as the different styles of the sites listed.
Since blogger started the "followers" feature (at the left, on the sidebar), some bloggers have added themselves as followers of my blog. I was flattered that they count themselves among my regular readers, but I've found some who say they follow, don't. At least, there is no indication they do. This is perplexing to me, to say the least. Why click on "follow this blog" if you have no intention of ever returning?
In the beginning, I added everyone who became a follower to my blogroll (except those followers who were already on it), and made a conscientious effort to read their blogs as regularly as I could, which is difficult, as I have a life outside the blogospere, and not as much time as I need to visit every one's blogs on a daily basis.
Which, incidentally, is another reason I deleted some of them. Too many to read regularly.
The first casualty was a blogger who clicked the "follower" button one time, and when I went to his blog, and informed him that I saw he became a follower of my blog, he in turn informed me he only did it so he could return later if he needed for a reference for one of his future post. In other words, he had no intention of actually following. I was just a possible "idea creator" for him, I assume, in case he ran out of ideas of his own.
And, he has never commented on my blog, either.
Anyway, after waiting for some sign that he actually reads my entries, and finding none, I deleted him from my blogroll. He is, however, still listed as a follower. So what? It looks good.
Then, there are a couple, still listed as followers, that seem to have no reason at all for following. One site consists of nothing but bad insults. Weird.
Another has a blogsite entitled, "Impeach Obama", a sentiment I can get behind, but the subject matter leaves little room for variety. He has a total of two posts since November, and neither of them is very insightful nor interesting. Consequently, he is not on my blogroll.
One blogger stopped visiting after we had a disagreement concerning the Republican primaries. Many of my regular readers may remember when I chastised the self named "Reagan Conservatives" for supporting very un-Reagan like near-Liberal candidates for President such as Rudy Guiliani and John McCain, etc. I blamed them, along with the majority of Republicans, for handing the selection of candidate for President to Liberal John McCain by default, instead of my choice, true Conservative Duncan Hunter.
Apparently, my criticism insulted her. She said, and I quote, "OK, Mark. I'm done with you." I lost her at that time as a visitor, though I continued visiting her blog for several weeks afterwards. And still do, on occasion.
Besides that, her blog often goes off into what I feel are un-interesting diversions such as who won "American Idol" or "Dancing with the Stars", and other similar yawners. I care absolutely nothing for these television shows, but that is my burden to bear, and I don't blame her choice of subjects for deleting her blog. I blame the fact that she abandoned me because she couldn't stand a little constructive criticism.
I said the same about Mike's America at the time, also, but as far as I know, he didn't hold it against me. Hence, he is still on my blogroll.
Another one lost his place in my blogroll after calling me a whiner, simply because I was being honestly humble about my parenting ability. I don't think any father is perfectly satisfied with the way he parents at all times. I was just honest enough to admit that I make mistakes. And, I wasn't whining, nor do I ever.
For the record, the particular blogger referred to is not even a husband, much less a father. He isn't a very good writer either. He uses way too many mixed metaphors for my taste and his punctuation and sentence structure is maddening. Not that mine is much better, but at least I understand what I write.
Others are simply blogs I don't get to very often and bloggers who rarely post anything. A couple were deleted because after I left comments at their places several times, I never received any response at all. I can only assume they don't appreciate my patronage. So, they are deleted now.
I need to delete some others, too, but I have a soft spot for the rest of them. They are old buddies. Can't seem to bring myself to dispatch them to the recycle bin.
As for additions, I am quite happy with the new blogger buddies I have accumulated. I have added everyone on my followers list except the aforementioned "Daily Insult", "Impeach Obama", and one blog that doesn't fit into the type of blogs I regularly read. I have no animosity for the lady who calls herself "Haft's Happenings", but it's more of a personal web blog, and I prefer blogs that deal with current events and politics. No offense intended, Haft.
There's Pamela D Hart, a refreshingly insightful blogger, and Miss T C Shore, a remarkably intelligent young lady who renews my faith in the younger generation. Kris, Krystal, and Kirsten all have interesting blogs.
Then, there's a few I'd known about from other blog comment sections but only recently began reading their blogs. These include DD2(Debonair Dude), and Always on Watch. Rounding out the rest are Conservative and Elephant Man, two who mysteriously became followers who I checked out and since, have thoroughly enjoyed reading.
Finally, the most recent blogroll addition is not really a blog, but a website that can best be described as the Conservative alternative to the Liberal humor site, "The Onion", a really funny satire site called "The Endive" . This one came to me in a different fashion. The administrator of the site sent me an unsolicited e-mail inviting me to check his site out and let him know if I like it or not.
I like it. Check it out.
I've updated my blogroll recently. I've deleted some and added others. The reasons I've made these updates vary almost as much as the different styles of the sites listed.
Since blogger started the "followers" feature (at the left, on the sidebar), some bloggers have added themselves as followers of my blog. I was flattered that they count themselves among my regular readers, but I've found some who say they follow, don't. At least, there is no indication they do. This is perplexing to me, to say the least. Why click on "follow this blog" if you have no intention of ever returning?
In the beginning, I added everyone who became a follower to my blogroll (except those followers who were already on it), and made a conscientious effort to read their blogs as regularly as I could, which is difficult, as I have a life outside the blogospere, and not as much time as I need to visit every one's blogs on a daily basis.
Which, incidentally, is another reason I deleted some of them. Too many to read regularly.
The first casualty was a blogger who clicked the "follower" button one time, and when I went to his blog, and informed him that I saw he became a follower of my blog, he in turn informed me he only did it so he could return later if he needed for a reference for one of his future post. In other words, he had no intention of actually following. I was just a possible "idea creator" for him, I assume, in case he ran out of ideas of his own.
And, he has never commented on my blog, either.
Anyway, after waiting for some sign that he actually reads my entries, and finding none, I deleted him from my blogroll. He is, however, still listed as a follower. So what? It looks good.
Then, there are a couple, still listed as followers, that seem to have no reason at all for following. One site consists of nothing but bad insults. Weird.
Another has a blogsite entitled, "Impeach Obama", a sentiment I can get behind, but the subject matter leaves little room for variety. He has a total of two posts since November, and neither of them is very insightful nor interesting. Consequently, he is not on my blogroll.
One blogger stopped visiting after we had a disagreement concerning the Republican primaries. Many of my regular readers may remember when I chastised the self named "Reagan Conservatives" for supporting very un-Reagan like near-Liberal candidates for President such as Rudy Guiliani and John McCain, etc. I blamed them, along with the majority of Republicans, for handing the selection of candidate for President to Liberal John McCain by default, instead of my choice, true Conservative Duncan Hunter.
Apparently, my criticism insulted her. She said, and I quote, "OK, Mark. I'm done with you." I lost her at that time as a visitor, though I continued visiting her blog for several weeks afterwards. And still do, on occasion.
Besides that, her blog often goes off into what I feel are un-interesting diversions such as who won "American Idol" or "Dancing with the Stars", and other similar yawners. I care absolutely nothing for these television shows, but that is my burden to bear, and I don't blame her choice of subjects for deleting her blog. I blame the fact that she abandoned me because she couldn't stand a little constructive criticism.
I said the same about Mike's America at the time, also, but as far as I know, he didn't hold it against me. Hence, he is still on my blogroll.
Another one lost his place in my blogroll after calling me a whiner, simply because I was being honestly humble about my parenting ability. I don't think any father is perfectly satisfied with the way he parents at all times. I was just honest enough to admit that I make mistakes. And, I wasn't whining, nor do I ever.
For the record, the particular blogger referred to is not even a husband, much less a father. He isn't a very good writer either. He uses way too many mixed metaphors for my taste and his punctuation and sentence structure is maddening. Not that mine is much better, but at least I understand what I write.
Others are simply blogs I don't get to very often and bloggers who rarely post anything. A couple were deleted because after I left comments at their places several times, I never received any response at all. I can only assume they don't appreciate my patronage. So, they are deleted now.
I need to delete some others, too, but I have a soft spot for the rest of them. They are old buddies. Can't seem to bring myself to dispatch them to the recycle bin.
As for additions, I am quite happy with the new blogger buddies I have accumulated. I have added everyone on my followers list except the aforementioned "Daily Insult", "Impeach Obama", and one blog that doesn't fit into the type of blogs I regularly read. I have no animosity for the lady who calls herself "Haft's Happenings", but it's more of a personal web blog, and I prefer blogs that deal with current events and politics. No offense intended, Haft.
There's Pamela D Hart, a refreshingly insightful blogger, and Miss T C Shore, a remarkably intelligent young lady who renews my faith in the younger generation. Kris, Krystal, and Kirsten all have interesting blogs.
Then, there's a few I'd known about from other blog comment sections but only recently began reading their blogs. These include DD2(Debonair Dude), and Always on Watch. Rounding out the rest are Conservative and Elephant Man, two who mysteriously became followers who I checked out and since, have thoroughly enjoyed reading.
Finally, the most recent blogroll addition is not really a blog, but a website that can best be described as the Conservative alternative to the Liberal humor site, "The Onion", a really funny satire site called "The Endive" . This one came to me in a different fashion. The administrator of the site sent me an unsolicited e-mail inviting me to check his site out and let him know if I like it or not.
I like it. Check it out.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
On Obama's Agenda: The Destruction Of The Traditional Family
"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments." ~ William H. Borah
The following discourse is another comment I began to leave at our team blog, which was a short comment that linked to a Town Hall piece by Alan Sears, founder and CEO of The Alliance Defense Fund, but it became so long, I decided it would make a good subject for a post on it's own:
The subject of the aforementioned article by Mr Sears is an analysis of parts of President Barack Hussein Obama's agenda according to his official web site. Mr. Sears' position is that Obama's agenda is "a virtual declaration of war against those who oppose the demands for special rights and privileges by those who engage in homosexual behavior."
The first commentary was on Obama's agenda of "Expanding the definition of, and ramping up the penalties for, 'hate' crimes".
This is my opinion about hate crimes legislation:
I am a little confused about hate crimes legislation, and have been ever since hate crime legislation was first introduced. As I understand it, it was introduced to combat violent crimes committed by person A against person B because person A hates Person B.
Already this requires a judgment call. Who can say what anyone thinks about anyone else during the commission of a felony? Who can read minds?
Very few violent crimes are committed because the perpetrator loves the victim, if any.
Now, if person A admits that he committed a violent crime against person B because he hates person B, there is indeed just cause to prosecute, however, original hate crimes legislation was introduced to protect those victims who are considered minorities, and in particular, homosexuals.
But even in that scenario, isn't the fact that a violent crime was committed enough of a reason to prosecute? Why is labeling any violent crime a hate crime even needed?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was already a crime to assault, batter, and/or murder someone else, and whatever reason, except in cut-and-dried instances of self defense, motive isn't even required in the determination of guilt or innocence. It often helps to know why, but it is not necessary.
I've mentioned before that hate crimes legislation is an perfect example of what I call "government overkill". Which means the government spent a lot of time, energy, and tax payer money to pass a law that was essentially already on the books.
Government overkill happens when some one sues some government entity over some perceived negligence, justified or not. That's when government goes into full blown CYA mode, and over-reacts by proposing some legislation that creates some new law that is neither useful nor necessary.
Like hate crimes legislation.
Where the state used to prosecute the crime of murder, they now have to spend additional time and money to determine if said murder is a hate crime or simply a run of the mill murder.
I say, what's the difference? The victim is still just as dead, and the perpetrator is still just as guilty.
The second part of the article quotes the Obama website as follows:
Expanding “anti-discrimination” employment laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
I agree with the author that this is simply an attempt to place the decision of who to hire into the hands of the government. According to Mr Sears: "...[T]his is about forcing religious groups (including churches) and private organizations (like the Boy Scouts and businesses) to hire those whose open announcement of sexual behavior runs counter to the beliefs of the organizations. And when those organizations point to those beliefs...well, see 'Hate Crimes' above."
Let me add here, this is an egregious violation of the Constitution of the United States, particularly the establishment clause of the first amendment.
Third, and fourth, Obama declares, "Opposing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex “marriage,” while promoting the legalization of these and other same-sex relationships – granting them the same federal legal rights and privileges as other married couples."
And, "Securing full adoption rights for same-sex couples."
This third point is where Mr. Sears and I part company. While I agree that allowing same sex couples to marry is disgusting and sickening, I really don't have a problem with it if they choose to do so. Whatever floats their boat. As long as they don't try to shove their immorality down my and my children and grand children's throats, they can marry each other as many times as they want.
They are welcome to the same feeling of hopelessness and entrapment that married couples have had to deal with since time began. And, since homosexuality is depravity, they no doubt deserve it more.
But I draw the line at allowing homosexual couples to adopt children.
In my opinion, allowing homosexual couples to adopt children is child abuse. Let them play house if they want to. More power to them. But leave innocent impressionable children out of the picture.
Give them a chance to grow up mentally healthy without all that additional unnecessary trauma.
The following discourse is another comment I began to leave at our team blog, which was a short comment that linked to a Town Hall piece by Alan Sears, founder and CEO of The Alliance Defense Fund, but it became so long, I decided it would make a good subject for a post on it's own:
The subject of the aforementioned article by Mr Sears is an analysis of parts of President Barack Hussein Obama's agenda according to his official web site. Mr. Sears' position is that Obama's agenda is "a virtual declaration of war against those who oppose the demands for special rights and privileges by those who engage in homosexual behavior."
The first commentary was on Obama's agenda of "Expanding the definition of, and ramping up the penalties for, 'hate' crimes".
This is my opinion about hate crimes legislation:
I am a little confused about hate crimes legislation, and have been ever since hate crime legislation was first introduced. As I understand it, it was introduced to combat violent crimes committed by person A against person B because person A hates Person B.
Already this requires a judgment call. Who can say what anyone thinks about anyone else during the commission of a felony? Who can read minds?
Very few violent crimes are committed because the perpetrator loves the victim, if any.
Now, if person A admits that he committed a violent crime against person B because he hates person B, there is indeed just cause to prosecute, however, original hate crimes legislation was introduced to protect those victims who are considered minorities, and in particular, homosexuals.
But even in that scenario, isn't the fact that a violent crime was committed enough of a reason to prosecute? Why is labeling any violent crime a hate crime even needed?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was already a crime to assault, batter, and/or murder someone else, and whatever reason, except in cut-and-dried instances of self defense, motive isn't even required in the determination of guilt or innocence. It often helps to know why, but it is not necessary.
I've mentioned before that hate crimes legislation is an perfect example of what I call "government overkill". Which means the government spent a lot of time, energy, and tax payer money to pass a law that was essentially already on the books.
Government overkill happens when some one sues some government entity over some perceived negligence, justified or not. That's when government goes into full blown CYA mode, and over-reacts by proposing some legislation that creates some new law that is neither useful nor necessary.
Like hate crimes legislation.
Where the state used to prosecute the crime of murder, they now have to spend additional time and money to determine if said murder is a hate crime or simply a run of the mill murder.
I say, what's the difference? The victim is still just as dead, and the perpetrator is still just as guilty.
The second part of the article quotes the Obama website as follows:
Expanding “anti-discrimination” employment laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
I agree with the author that this is simply an attempt to place the decision of who to hire into the hands of the government. According to Mr Sears: "...[T]his is about forcing religious groups (including churches) and private organizations (like the Boy Scouts and businesses) to hire those whose open announcement of sexual behavior runs counter to the beliefs of the organizations. And when those organizations point to those beliefs...well, see 'Hate Crimes' above."
Let me add here, this is an egregious violation of the Constitution of the United States, particularly the establishment clause of the first amendment.
Third, and fourth, Obama declares, "Opposing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex “marriage,” while promoting the legalization of these and other same-sex relationships – granting them the same federal legal rights and privileges as other married couples."
And, "Securing full adoption rights for same-sex couples."
This third point is where Mr. Sears and I part company. While I agree that allowing same sex couples to marry is disgusting and sickening, I really don't have a problem with it if they choose to do so. Whatever floats their boat. As long as they don't try to shove their immorality down my and my children and grand children's throats, they can marry each other as many times as they want.
They are welcome to the same feeling of hopelessness and entrapment that married couples have had to deal with since time began. And, since homosexuality is depravity, they no doubt deserve it more.
But I draw the line at allowing homosexual couples to adopt children.
In my opinion, allowing homosexual couples to adopt children is child abuse. Let them play house if they want to. More power to them. But leave innocent impressionable children out of the picture.
Give them a chance to grow up mentally healthy without all that additional unnecessary trauma.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Fix The Environment, Bankrupt The People
"Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status." ~ Laurence J. Peter
Not too long ago, I posted a blog entry about my new found expertise in mechanical repair. In the piece, I casually mentioned the problems caused by all these new-fangled emission control devices auto makers are forced to put into new cars now.
There is the EGR valve, which, if it goes bad, costs somewhere around thirty-five dollars to replace, and that is if you do the job yourself. Then there is the Mass Air Flow Sensor (MAF), which costs well over $150.00. That's the price of only the part. If you hire someone to do it for you that price goes up. And up. And up.
Then, there's the PCV valve. And the catalytic converter. I'm not a mechanic, but I'm fairly sure these two items were among the first pollution control additions that the Federal government foisted upon automakers.
And there's more. Much, much more.
These "improvements", in turn, have spawned a host of additional expensive and unnecessary additions that have done little besides drive the cost of automobiles far past the point of affordability, at least for Obama's beloved middle and lower classes.
Now, Barack Hussein Obama is removing the restrictions on states to impose further "green house gas" reducing devices on automobile manufacturers and mechanics.
This, in the name of protecting the environment. Who's going to protect my bank book?
In the meantime, someone has to cover the additional expenses to comply with further Government meddling with the private sector.
Who do you think will benefit the most from these new regulatory changes? Hmmmm?
Well, it certainly won't be the middle classes.
Last night, a guest commentator on some TV news program said he knows of a trucking contractor who complained that implementing these new changes would cost him $20,000 just to be in compliance, putting him effectively out of business.
This legislation proposal would allow California and 17 other states to set stricter limits on auto emissions, according to this article, "That has provoked considerable anxiety in the auto industry. Carmakers fear that they will be forced to spend billions of dollars to comply with the California emissions rules, which are distinct from -- and more rigorous than -- federal fuel standards passed in 2007. The federal standards would raise the national fleet average to 35 miles a gallon by 2020."
"The California rules don't strictly limit mileage. But by setting caps on carbon emissions, they would effectively require vehicles to reach as much as 42 m.p.g. by 2020, according to some estimates. Currently, only two mass-produced vehicles, the Toyota Prius and the hybrid Honda Civic, average at least 42 m.p.g.
To reach that level on a fleetwide basis, automakers would likely have to invest in costly new technologies such as hybrid drive trains. Industry estimates put the per-vehicle cost of compliance as high as $5,000".
Get that? That's FIVE TH-TH-TH-THOUSAND dollars MORE than it already costs them to manufacture a car!
Anyone here want to pay $5,000 more dollars for your next new car?
That's the minimum.
Rest assured the automakers will add to that amount to realize that much more profit. I have often stated I could never be mistaken for an economist, but you don't have to be head mechanic at Jiffy Lube to understand that is a s**tload of money.
I have heard, though I'm not sure, that most companies of any kind make a profit on their goods and services an average of 2.5% over costs. What is 2.5% of $5,000? Does anyone here wish to pay that much more for their next new car? $5,000 PLUS Profit?
Aren't automoble prices already over the top? Have you ever wondered how much less expensive new cars would be if there were no emission and/or pollution control devices installed in them at all?
And there is, again, as I mentioned previously, the additional costs of repairs to these devices.
Is this how Obama is going to fix the economy?
Could someone please explain for me how raising and spending more tax dollars and driving up the costs of goods and services precipitously will solve the country's economical problems?
I'm now fifty-seven years old, and I have never seen a time when spending my money to repair my cars ever made me rich.
Not too long ago, I posted a blog entry about my new found expertise in mechanical repair. In the piece, I casually mentioned the problems caused by all these new-fangled emission control devices auto makers are forced to put into new cars now.
There is the EGR valve, which, if it goes bad, costs somewhere around thirty-five dollars to replace, and that is if you do the job yourself. Then there is the Mass Air Flow Sensor (MAF), which costs well over $150.00. That's the price of only the part. If you hire someone to do it for you that price goes up. And up. And up.
Then, there's the PCV valve. And the catalytic converter. I'm not a mechanic, but I'm fairly sure these two items were among the first pollution control additions that the Federal government foisted upon automakers.
And there's more. Much, much more.
These "improvements", in turn, have spawned a host of additional expensive and unnecessary additions that have done little besides drive the cost of automobiles far past the point of affordability, at least for Obama's beloved middle and lower classes.
Now, Barack Hussein Obama is removing the restrictions on states to impose further "green house gas" reducing devices on automobile manufacturers and mechanics.
This, in the name of protecting the environment. Who's going to protect my bank book?
In the meantime, someone has to cover the additional expenses to comply with further Government meddling with the private sector.
Who do you think will benefit the most from these new regulatory changes? Hmmmm?
Well, it certainly won't be the middle classes.
Last night, a guest commentator on some TV news program said he knows of a trucking contractor who complained that implementing these new changes would cost him $20,000 just to be in compliance, putting him effectively out of business.
This legislation proposal would allow California and 17 other states to set stricter limits on auto emissions, according to this article, "That has provoked considerable anxiety in the auto industry. Carmakers fear that they will be forced to spend billions of dollars to comply with the California emissions rules, which are distinct from -- and more rigorous than -- federal fuel standards passed in 2007. The federal standards would raise the national fleet average to 35 miles a gallon by 2020."
"The California rules don't strictly limit mileage. But by setting caps on carbon emissions, they would effectively require vehicles to reach as much as 42 m.p.g. by 2020, according to some estimates. Currently, only two mass-produced vehicles, the Toyota Prius and the hybrid Honda Civic, average at least 42 m.p.g.
To reach that level on a fleetwide basis, automakers would likely have to invest in costly new technologies such as hybrid drive trains. Industry estimates put the per-vehicle cost of compliance as high as $5,000".
Get that? That's FIVE TH-TH-TH-THOUSAND dollars MORE than it already costs them to manufacture a car!
Anyone here want to pay $5,000 more dollars for your next new car?
That's the minimum.
Rest assured the automakers will add to that amount to realize that much more profit. I have often stated I could never be mistaken for an economist, but you don't have to be head mechanic at Jiffy Lube to understand that is a s**tload of money.
I have heard, though I'm not sure, that most companies of any kind make a profit on their goods and services an average of 2.5% over costs. What is 2.5% of $5,000? Does anyone here wish to pay that much more for their next new car? $5,000 PLUS Profit?
Aren't automoble prices already over the top? Have you ever wondered how much less expensive new cars would be if there were no emission and/or pollution control devices installed in them at all?
And there is, again, as I mentioned previously, the additional costs of repairs to these devices.
Is this how Obama is going to fix the economy?
Could someone please explain for me how raising and spending more tax dollars and driving up the costs of goods and services precipitously will solve the country's economical problems?
I'm now fifty-seven years old, and I have never seen a time when spending my money to repair my cars ever made me rich.
Monday, January 26, 2009
The First Amendment: Obama's Next Victim?
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," ~ Barack Hussein Obama
*Cross Posted at American Descent*
Hey, Folks! Remember when President George W. Bush told America to stop listening to Keith Olbermann? Remember when Bush told you to pay no attention to Chris Matthews? Remember when he told us that we couldn't get anything done if we spend too much time listening to Al Franken?
I'll wait while you search your data base.
Conservative talk radio is all a-twitter over President Barack Hussein Obama's suggestion that we stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
At first, I didn't understand all the commotion. He only made an off-hand remark, right? He didn't mean it to be taken seriously, right?
But then I thought, "Well, why shouldn't they be upset?" After all, Conservative talk radio's livelihood consists of alerting their listeners to the outrageous words and actions of the Liberals. Conservative talk radio hosts take it very personal when some Liberal merely suggests censoring them.
But this latest outrage goes beyond something a mere Liberal says.
This is the newly elected President of the United States of America!
This is the guy that only last Tuesday took an oath to "protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States".
Suddenly he wishes to revoke a first amendment right. Only four days into his administration he has already broken his oath of office.
Focus on the word, "defend" here.
Telling us to not listen to Rush Limbaugh isn't defending free speech. It is using the power of his office to attempt to intimidate Rush Limbaugh into shutting up.
Well, I guess we all know Rush isn't going to shut up, and in fact, he will only shout louder.
This thing has the possibility of snowballing into an all out assault on every Americans right to free speech. If Rush doesn't shut up, as Mr. Obama suggests, what might the President do?
Will he dare to ask Congress to take legislative action against dissent?
Sounds implausible, I know, but look what he's done already:
Signed executive orders to close GITMO, suspend trials of the detainees, spend our tax money to fund abortions in other countries over the objections of we who find the practice exceedingly abhorrent.
The man has sent a message of hope to terrorists and abortion providers (terrorists in their own right, I might add). In his first four days!
He has four more years to work on revoking all of our liberties and putting his Marxist agenda into place.
I'd say he has made a significant start.
Part 2:
On a lighter side:
Ever since the economy tanked, and consequently my income has dropped to about 1/5 of what I was making previously, I have been seeking other sources of income.
I was told long ago, (back when the earth was cooling) by many people who I respect, that I should try to obtain an occupation doing something at which I'm good.
I'm not really good at much. I often say "I know something about everything, but I don't know everything about anything". But I believe I am good at writing. So, with that in mind, I've been submitting articles to the local newspaper in hopes that they will not only publish my opinion pieces, but actually pay me for them.
So far, not one penny.
And what's really been aggravating, they haven't even published anything of mine in their "letters to the editor" section. I consider that personally insulting, since some of the letters they publish appear to have been written by idiots.
After submitting several (to my mind) exceptionally Pulitzer prize deserving articles without results, I got frustrated and just stopped sending articles. I also stopped checking the opinion pages to see if, by chance, they might have actually published something of mine.
So, Imagine my surprise when my wife alerted me to a letter written to the editor responding to an article I wrote! I know it was one of mine because the writer mentioned me specifically by name. First and last.
I never saw it published.
But, since the newspaper indicated which issue it appeared in, I was able to search the archives and find my article online on the Fredericksburg website.
To my disappointment, not only did they edit some of my best lines out of it, they also published it under "letters to the editor", hence, I will receive no compensation for my efforts. None except pride that I actually was published.
The letter that referenced me began, "Stores are paying the price for assault on Christmas, Christians
In his Jan. 11 letter titled "Happy 'holy day'! Not so secular, after all," Mark ****** states that he is more saddened than angry that some businesses have been intimidated into disallowing their employees from saying "Merry Christmas."
Mr. ****** goes on to say that the omission of the phrase "Happy Holiday" during other holidays appears to bolster the point that there is a specific assault on Christians through an assault on Christmas..."
He went on to equate the loss of revenue this Christmas season to stores not saying "Merry Christmas", a stretch of logic to say the least, but at least he seems to agree with my premise.
The entire article I submitted can be found in my blog archives. I wrote it on this blog first, and then, after editing parts out that pertain only to my blog readers, I divided the entire post up into two separate articles and sent them both to the paper. They in turn, edited it down further, leaving out what I consider the best line in the piece, which read, "So, I guess the joke's on them."
Although annoyed that they consigned this excellent opinion piece to the humdrum "letters to the editor" section, I am nonetheless revitalized to resume my efforts in earnest.
Wish me luck, and if motivated to do so, offer me constructive advice and/or suggestions of some publications that publish unsolicited articles for syndication.
*Cross Posted at American Descent*
Hey, Folks! Remember when President George W. Bush told America to stop listening to Keith Olbermann? Remember when Bush told you to pay no attention to Chris Matthews? Remember when he told us that we couldn't get anything done if we spend too much time listening to Al Franken?
I'll wait while you search your data base.
Conservative talk radio is all a-twitter over President Barack Hussein Obama's suggestion that we stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
At first, I didn't understand all the commotion. He only made an off-hand remark, right? He didn't mean it to be taken seriously, right?
But then I thought, "Well, why shouldn't they be upset?" After all, Conservative talk radio's livelihood consists of alerting their listeners to the outrageous words and actions of the Liberals. Conservative talk radio hosts take it very personal when some Liberal merely suggests censoring them.
But this latest outrage goes beyond something a mere Liberal says.
This is the newly elected President of the United States of America!
This is the guy that only last Tuesday took an oath to "protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States".
Suddenly he wishes to revoke a first amendment right. Only four days into his administration he has already broken his oath of office.
Focus on the word, "defend" here.
Telling us to not listen to Rush Limbaugh isn't defending free speech. It is using the power of his office to attempt to intimidate Rush Limbaugh into shutting up.
Well, I guess we all know Rush isn't going to shut up, and in fact, he will only shout louder.
This thing has the possibility of snowballing into an all out assault on every Americans right to free speech. If Rush doesn't shut up, as Mr. Obama suggests, what might the President do?
Will he dare to ask Congress to take legislative action against dissent?
Sounds implausible, I know, but look what he's done already:
Signed executive orders to close GITMO, suspend trials of the detainees, spend our tax money to fund abortions in other countries over the objections of we who find the practice exceedingly abhorrent.
The man has sent a message of hope to terrorists and abortion providers (terrorists in their own right, I might add). In his first four days!
He has four more years to work on revoking all of our liberties and putting his Marxist agenda into place.
I'd say he has made a significant start.
Part 2:
On a lighter side:
Ever since the economy tanked, and consequently my income has dropped to about 1/5 of what I was making previously, I have been seeking other sources of income.
I was told long ago, (back when the earth was cooling) by many people who I respect, that I should try to obtain an occupation doing something at which I'm good.
I'm not really good at much. I often say "I know something about everything, but I don't know everything about anything". But I believe I am good at writing. So, with that in mind, I've been submitting articles to the local newspaper in hopes that they will not only publish my opinion pieces, but actually pay me for them.
So far, not one penny.
And what's really been aggravating, they haven't even published anything of mine in their "letters to the editor" section. I consider that personally insulting, since some of the letters they publish appear to have been written by idiots.
After submitting several (to my mind) exceptionally Pulitzer prize deserving articles without results, I got frustrated and just stopped sending articles. I also stopped checking the opinion pages to see if, by chance, they might have actually published something of mine.
So, Imagine my surprise when my wife alerted me to a letter written to the editor responding to an article I wrote! I know it was one of mine because the writer mentioned me specifically by name. First and last.
I never saw it published.
But, since the newspaper indicated which issue it appeared in, I was able to search the archives and find my article online on the Fredericksburg website.
To my disappointment, not only did they edit some of my best lines out of it, they also published it under "letters to the editor", hence, I will receive no compensation for my efforts. None except pride that I actually was published.
The letter that referenced me began, "Stores are paying the price for assault on Christmas, Christians
In his Jan. 11 letter titled "Happy 'holy day'! Not so secular, after all," Mark ****** states that he is more saddened than angry that some businesses have been intimidated into disallowing their employees from saying "Merry Christmas."
Mr. ****** goes on to say that the omission of the phrase "Happy Holiday" during other holidays appears to bolster the point that there is a specific assault on Christians through an assault on Christmas..."
He went on to equate the loss of revenue this Christmas season to stores not saying "Merry Christmas", a stretch of logic to say the least, but at least he seems to agree with my premise.
The entire article I submitted can be found in my blog archives. I wrote it on this blog first, and then, after editing parts out that pertain only to my blog readers, I divided the entire post up into two separate articles and sent them both to the paper. They in turn, edited it down further, leaving out what I consider the best line in the piece, which read, "So, I guess the joke's on them."
Although annoyed that they consigned this excellent opinion piece to the humdrum "letters to the editor" section, I am nonetheless revitalized to resume my efforts in earnest.
Wish me luck, and if motivated to do so, offer me constructive advice and/or suggestions of some publications that publish unsolicited articles for syndication.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The Freedom of Choice Act Offers Neither.
"The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." ~ Barack Hussein Obama
In the comments of my last post, Father Gregori wrote, "Mark, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Obama signed the Freedom of Choice Act into law today (sometime this morning)".
You are wrong, Father, but you aren't far off. He hasn't signed it yet, because it hasn't been passed yet. According to the Library of Congress web site, The last major action is this:
"1/22/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary".
If Democrats succeed (and they may already have, I'm not sure) in achieving a filibuster-proof Senate, that means it's only a matter of time before the FOCA becomes Federal law, and it will be signed by President Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.
But what does the passage of this law mean? How will it effect Americans?
Opponents of the law say it will, among other things, force health care providers to perform abortions even if they are opposed to abortion for moral and ethical reasons. While there is no direct reference to this in the bill, it does indirectly appear to make that particular provision.
Basically what the bill does, is remove all restrictions to all abortions in the United States of America.
All of them.
That would appear to give credence to the opponent's argument.
The bill prohibits any local, state. or federal government from restricting any woman from getting an abortion.
There are no exceptions.
Therefore, it is implied, but not specifically stated, underage girls can obtain an abortion without the knowledge or approval of their parents. After all, if, as the bill states emphatically, any woman anywhere, at any time, can obtain an abortion if she so desires, she can get one without her parents approval and knowledge with the blessings of the federal Government.
Women can cross state lines to get an abortion under this law, although, if all states and all localities have to provide abortions, there would be, of course, no reason to cross state lines.
Will Catholic hospitals and other health care providers who have moral and ethical objections to abortions be forced to abandon their principles to comply with this new law? Well, that question is not specifically addressed in this legislation, but, again, if any woman, anywhere, at any time, and for any reason will be legally allowed to abort her baby, it would appear that any and all health care providers will be federally mandated to provide the facilities and staff necessary.
Regardless of religious convictions and ethical concerns.
Does this sound like freedom or liberty to you? It doesn't to me.
Why not? You might well ask.
What of a parents right to raise her child as she sees fit? Doesn't a parent have the right to admonish and correct the child if such parent believes the child is preparing to do something that is, to the parent, morally reprehensible?
Has the federal government become the parent? What of the parents rights? Are they gone?
What of the health care providers? Never mind any moral or ethical objections. What if they simply don't want to perform abortions whatever the reason?
Is that Freedom of choice?
Don't Health care providers and Parents have the freedom to choose how they want to govern their lives?
And then there's the babies. Babies have no choice either way. They neither choose to be born or choose to live. If you were an unborn baby, how would you choose? Life or death?
As Trader Rick observed, The Freedom of Choice Act is a "mis-named piece of filth".
There is neither freedom or choice in this legislation.
It is contrary to the very freedoms upon which this country was founded.
In the comments of my last post, Father Gregori wrote, "Mark, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Obama signed the Freedom of Choice Act into law today (sometime this morning)".
You are wrong, Father, but you aren't far off. He hasn't signed it yet, because it hasn't been passed yet. According to the Library of Congress web site, The last major action is this:
"1/22/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary".
If Democrats succeed (and they may already have, I'm not sure) in achieving a filibuster-proof Senate, that means it's only a matter of time before the FOCA becomes Federal law, and it will be signed by President Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.
But what does the passage of this law mean? How will it effect Americans?
Opponents of the law say it will, among other things, force health care providers to perform abortions even if they are opposed to abortion for moral and ethical reasons. While there is no direct reference to this in the bill, it does indirectly appear to make that particular provision.
Basically what the bill does, is remove all restrictions to all abortions in the United States of America.
All of them.
That would appear to give credence to the opponent's argument.
The bill prohibits any local, state. or federal government from restricting any woman from getting an abortion.
There are no exceptions.
Therefore, it is implied, but not specifically stated, underage girls can obtain an abortion without the knowledge or approval of their parents. After all, if, as the bill states emphatically, any woman anywhere, at any time, can obtain an abortion if she so desires, she can get one without her parents approval and knowledge with the blessings of the federal Government.
Women can cross state lines to get an abortion under this law, although, if all states and all localities have to provide abortions, there would be, of course, no reason to cross state lines.
Will Catholic hospitals and other health care providers who have moral and ethical objections to abortions be forced to abandon their principles to comply with this new law? Well, that question is not specifically addressed in this legislation, but, again, if any woman, anywhere, at any time, and for any reason will be legally allowed to abort her baby, it would appear that any and all health care providers will be federally mandated to provide the facilities and staff necessary.
Regardless of religious convictions and ethical concerns.
Does this sound like freedom or liberty to you? It doesn't to me.
Why not? You might well ask.
What of a parents right to raise her child as she sees fit? Doesn't a parent have the right to admonish and correct the child if such parent believes the child is preparing to do something that is, to the parent, morally reprehensible?
Has the federal government become the parent? What of the parents rights? Are they gone?
What of the health care providers? Never mind any moral or ethical objections. What if they simply don't want to perform abortions whatever the reason?
Is that Freedom of choice?
Don't Health care providers and Parents have the freedom to choose how they want to govern their lives?
And then there's the babies. Babies have no choice either way. They neither choose to be born or choose to live. If you were an unborn baby, how would you choose? Life or death?
As Trader Rick observed, The Freedom of Choice Act is a "mis-named piece of filth".
There is neither freedom or choice in this legislation.
It is contrary to the very freedoms upon which this country was founded.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Obama's First Presidential Mistake
"Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word." ~ Charles De Gaulle
One day in office and Obama has already broken one campaign promise. Remember? He promised Planned Parenthood the first thing he would do as President would be to work towards passage of the Freedom Of Choice Act, a particularly horrific piece of legislation that would make it legal for underage minor girls to obtain abortions without the knowledge or permission of their parents. It would also force Catholic hospitals and other religious hospitals to provide abortions against their religious principles. And many more equally egregious provisions.
Anyway, Obama hasn't whispered a word about FOCA so far. Hence, he has broken one promise already. How many more promises has he broken and how many more broken promises will be forthcoming?
But, I will not focus on his broken campaign promises. Everyone knows candidates make many promises they can't keep while running for office. I only mention it here because it further illuminates the fact that Obama is a mere man, not a God, as his followers appear to believe.
What Obama has actually done is much more egregious, and, potentially dangerous for every American citizen, including Liberals.
He signed an executive order which suspends all trials of "alleged" terrorists currently being held at GITMO in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This suspension is supposed to last a period of 120 days, I believe, during which the process of trying the detainees will be reviewed as to whether they are legal or not.
Regardless of the conclusion of the reviewing panel, Obama has sent a message to every terrorist organization in the world. That message is:
America is weak.
America, under her new President Barack Hussein Obama, will hesitate before retaliating for any future attacks. America will become again, the "Paper Tiger" that Osama bin Laden said we were.
Obama's executive order, which on the surface, appears gracious, fair, and benign, will embolden our enemies, and invite more attacks on America.
What's next?
Suspension of the Patriot act?
Perhaps he should just order an air strike on America. The result would be the same.
One day in office and Obama has already broken one campaign promise. Remember? He promised Planned Parenthood the first thing he would do as President would be to work towards passage of the Freedom Of Choice Act, a particularly horrific piece of legislation that would make it legal for underage minor girls to obtain abortions without the knowledge or permission of their parents. It would also force Catholic hospitals and other religious hospitals to provide abortions against their religious principles. And many more equally egregious provisions.
Anyway, Obama hasn't whispered a word about FOCA so far. Hence, he has broken one promise already. How many more promises has he broken and how many more broken promises will be forthcoming?
But, I will not focus on his broken campaign promises. Everyone knows candidates make many promises they can't keep while running for office. I only mention it here because it further illuminates the fact that Obama is a mere man, not a God, as his followers appear to believe.
What Obama has actually done is much more egregious, and, potentially dangerous for every American citizen, including Liberals.
He signed an executive order which suspends all trials of "alleged" terrorists currently being held at GITMO in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This suspension is supposed to last a period of 120 days, I believe, during which the process of trying the detainees will be reviewed as to whether they are legal or not.
Regardless of the conclusion of the reviewing panel, Obama has sent a message to every terrorist organization in the world. That message is:
America is weak.
America, under her new President Barack Hussein Obama, will hesitate before retaliating for any future attacks. America will become again, the "Paper Tiger" that Osama bin Laden said we were.
Obama's executive order, which on the surface, appears gracious, fair, and benign, will embolden our enemies, and invite more attacks on America.
What's next?
Suspension of the Patriot act?
Perhaps he should just order an air strike on America. The result would be the same.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Real Racism In America
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
Now that the party is over, and the adulation of the Almighty Obama has abated somewhat, and little remains but the shouting, one thing has become painfully clear:
Racism is alive and thriving in the United States of America.
I listened to NPR radio over the weekend. I listened to news report after news report, all NPR commentators absolutely giddy over the fact that Barack Hussein Obama has been elected President.
Well, not exactly.
They were actually expressing a euphoric excitement over the fact that a black man had been elected President. Judging by the level of the fervor, and the sheer number of times his race was mentioned, it wouldn't matter to them if a drug crazed mass murdering gang leader had been elected, as long as he was a black drug crazed mass murdering gang leader.
Dr. Martin Luther King, black civil rights leader (and Republican), once said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
On the surface, it would appear that this nation has now achieved Dr. Kings goal with the election of Barack Hussein Obama, a man who is at least half black.
But, look deeper. That doesn't appear to be the case, after all.
Obama has, throughout his lifetime, surrounded himself with, befriended, and associated with men and women of deplorable character. Men like William Ayres, an admitted unrepentant domestic terrorist.
"Reverend" (and I use the term loosely) Jeremiah Wright, an anti-Semitic, America hating, racist, so-called pastor.
Tony Rezko, a convicted corrupt real estate swindler and slum lord.
Frank Marshall Davis, a card carrying member of the Communist party, who Obama reveres as one of his primary mentors.
Radically Liberal Catholic minister Father Michael Phleger, another America hating cleric.
Many, many other people of at least questionable character, several of whom are now part of Obama's cabinet.
Obama's own wife, Michelle, who stated on at least two occasions publicly, and who knows how many times privately, that she wasn't proud of America until her husband was considered worthy of a Presidential run. She also said America is a downright mean country.
Now she's America's first lady.
For shame, for shame.
A man is judged by the company he keeps. Obama keeps bad company.
But, if that isn't enough, what about Obama's own character?
After those same associations with men and women of questionable and unquestionably bad character became a political liability, he discarded them like a used condom. A man with character stands by his friends regardless. Especially if he believes they have been misjudged and/or impugned, as Obama has repeatedly stated.
How did Obama react to the criticism of his associates again?
Four times he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIP) as a State Senator in Illinois. That, in a nutshell, means he voted to allow newborn babies to die alone and untended. Four times!
He supports infanticide. I doubt Dr. King would have advocated that. A man of character doesn't kill babies.
Then there's the issue of Obama's courting and accepting campaign contributions from foreign contributors. Accepting contributions from foreigners (as in, not American citizens) is bad enough (and illegal), but many came from nations that actively support terrorism. Terrorism against America and her allies. A man of character would reject those contributions.
He trained workers for ACORN, an organization that not only practices voter fraud, they perfect it. A man of good character would distance himself from an organization like that, but not Obama. He embraced them.
Obama has advocated Marxist principles and suggested that America's Constitution is outdated. He has equated our Constitution with Nazi principles. An American President that espouses Marxist and anti-American philosophies is a President without character.
I am going to leave out the various subversive organizations and people that he represented as an attorney at law. Legal representation of scum is not automatically evidence of bad character.
But it has been, and can be argued that accepting those kinds of cases on a regular basis constitutes such evidence. And he has accepted many.
Now we come around again to my stated point:
Racism in America.
Barack Hussein Obama was not elected because of the content of his character. He was elected because he is black.
That is racism.
Many people would call that reverse racism, but that term would suggest whites are the only race capable of discriminating against other races. That is not true.
Racism is racism. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines racism as:
1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
2. racial prejudice or discrimination.
See? Blacks are as capable of racism as whites.
I'll repeat. Obama wasn't elected because he had good character. He was elected because of the color of his skin.
I don't think that was what Dr. King had in mind.
Now that the party is over, and the adulation of the Almighty Obama has abated somewhat, and little remains but the shouting, one thing has become painfully clear:
Racism is alive and thriving in the United States of America.
I listened to NPR radio over the weekend. I listened to news report after news report, all NPR commentators absolutely giddy over the fact that Barack Hussein Obama has been elected President.
Well, not exactly.
They were actually expressing a euphoric excitement over the fact that a black man had been elected President. Judging by the level of the fervor, and the sheer number of times his race was mentioned, it wouldn't matter to them if a drug crazed mass murdering gang leader had been elected, as long as he was a black drug crazed mass murdering gang leader.
Dr. Martin Luther King, black civil rights leader (and Republican), once said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
On the surface, it would appear that this nation has now achieved Dr. Kings goal with the election of Barack Hussein Obama, a man who is at least half black.
But, look deeper. That doesn't appear to be the case, after all.
Obama has, throughout his lifetime, surrounded himself with, befriended, and associated with men and women of deplorable character. Men like William Ayres, an admitted unrepentant domestic terrorist.
"Reverend" (and I use the term loosely) Jeremiah Wright, an anti-Semitic, America hating, racist, so-called pastor.
Tony Rezko, a convicted corrupt real estate swindler and slum lord.
Frank Marshall Davis, a card carrying member of the Communist party, who Obama reveres as one of his primary mentors.
Radically Liberal Catholic minister Father Michael Phleger, another America hating cleric.
Many, many other people of at least questionable character, several of whom are now part of Obama's cabinet.
Obama's own wife, Michelle, who stated on at least two occasions publicly, and who knows how many times privately, that she wasn't proud of America until her husband was considered worthy of a Presidential run. She also said America is a downright mean country.
Now she's America's first lady.
For shame, for shame.
A man is judged by the company he keeps. Obama keeps bad company.
But, if that isn't enough, what about Obama's own character?
After those same associations with men and women of questionable and unquestionably bad character became a political liability, he discarded them like a used condom. A man with character stands by his friends regardless. Especially if he believes they have been misjudged and/or impugned, as Obama has repeatedly stated.
How did Obama react to the criticism of his associates again?
Four times he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIP) as a State Senator in Illinois. That, in a nutshell, means he voted to allow newborn babies to die alone and untended. Four times!
He supports infanticide. I doubt Dr. King would have advocated that. A man of character doesn't kill babies.
Then there's the issue of Obama's courting and accepting campaign contributions from foreign contributors. Accepting contributions from foreigners (as in, not American citizens) is bad enough (and illegal), but many came from nations that actively support terrorism. Terrorism against America and her allies. A man of character would reject those contributions.
He trained workers for ACORN, an organization that not only practices voter fraud, they perfect it. A man of good character would distance himself from an organization like that, but not Obama. He embraced them.
Obama has advocated Marxist principles and suggested that America's Constitution is outdated. He has equated our Constitution with Nazi principles. An American President that espouses Marxist and anti-American philosophies is a President without character.
I am going to leave out the various subversive organizations and people that he represented as an attorney at law. Legal representation of scum is not automatically evidence of bad character.
But it has been, and can be argued that accepting those kinds of cases on a regular basis constitutes such evidence. And he has accepted many.
Now we come around again to my stated point:
Racism in America.
Barack Hussein Obama was not elected because of the content of his character. He was elected because he is black.
That is racism.
Many people would call that reverse racism, but that term would suggest whites are the only race capable of discriminating against other races. That is not true.
Racism is racism. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines racism as:
1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
2. racial prejudice or discrimination.
See? Blacks are as capable of racism as whites.
I'll repeat. Obama wasn't elected because he had good character. He was elected because of the color of his skin.
I don't think that was what Dr. King had in mind.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Too Big To Succeed
"The greatest of faults, I should say, is to be conscious of none." ~ Thomas Carlyle
This weekend in Washington, DC, the media's love-fest with their Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, manifested itself in a giant celebratory act of contrition to the Great and Powerful One by people from all across the globe.
Not just Americans, either. Our enemies are rejoicing, as well. Countries like Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba. And organizations such as al Qaida, Hezbollah, and Hamas. (I wonder, do Liberals see anything suspicious in that at all?) They all are simply ecstatic over the election of a man who they no doubt believe will acquiesce to their demands of capitulation.
The Obama faithful gathered on the mall in front of the Lincoln Memorial and the crowd stretched all the way to beyond the Washington Monument. They came from all walks of life. They came as Baptists, Catholics, Atheists, Muslims, Jews. They came as citizens and non-citizens alike. They came as blacks, whites, and every hue in between. Young and old, rich and poor. Famous and infamous. The powerful and the destitute. All came to prostrate themselves at the feet of The One who will heal all the world's ills.
On Rush Limbaugh's show today, Rush suggested that the media has made Obama "too big to fail". Although I usually agree with Limbaugh's opinions, this time I'll have to respectfully disagree.
I believe the Liberals and their willing cohorts in the media have created a president who is too big to succeed. They have created a hero who cannot meet their lofty expectations.
In short, They have created in Obama, a God who cannot meet expectations.
Even if he ended Global warming, (as if such a thing actually existed) it would not be enough. The people would shout, "It's too cold!"
Even if he brought peace to the world, it would somehow be too little, too late. The people would complain, "We are bored!"
Even if he ended all unemployment in America, still that would not be enough. The people would insist, "I didn't get the job I wanted!"
Even if he made every man, woman and child in the United States instant millionaires, (through redistribution of wealth) the people would cry, "We want more! You promised us more!"
The press and the Democrats have convinced the average American that Obama is bigger than life. He will solve all the worlds problems. He will bring everlasting joy and happiness to America. He will right all the wrongs perpetrated upon us by that scoundrel, George W Bush.
America will be loved by the world once again.
All hail Barack Hussein Obama!
All hail!
But he can't do those things. No mortal can. And --although I am sorry to be the one to break the news to Liberals-- Obama is merely mortal.
Yes, I know. Sad but true.
The media, in their zeal to get The Chosen One elected, have only set America up for one huge disappointment.
Right now, before Obama has had a chance to start making his promised changes to America, the Liberals and their willing accomplices in the media are gloating. They believe they have won a great victory.
Let them gloat.
Once Americans finally see what the man, Obama, is really able to accomplish, they will see him as nothing more than a man. And, possibly worse than that. A very fallible, mortal man who makes things much, much worse than they were before.
That is, of course, if he actually follows through with all his lofty promises.
More likely, he will do what his Democrat predecessors have done:
Absolutely nothing of significance.
Then, once the people have seen what their hero worship hath wrought, I will gloat.
This weekend in Washington, DC, the media's love-fest with their Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, manifested itself in a giant celebratory act of contrition to the Great and Powerful One by people from all across the globe.
Not just Americans, either. Our enemies are rejoicing, as well. Countries like Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba. And organizations such as al Qaida, Hezbollah, and Hamas. (I wonder, do Liberals see anything suspicious in that at all?) They all are simply ecstatic over the election of a man who they no doubt believe will acquiesce to their demands of capitulation.
The Obama faithful gathered on the mall in front of the Lincoln Memorial and the crowd stretched all the way to beyond the Washington Monument. They came from all walks of life. They came as Baptists, Catholics, Atheists, Muslims, Jews. They came as citizens and non-citizens alike. They came as blacks, whites, and every hue in between. Young and old, rich and poor. Famous and infamous. The powerful and the destitute. All came to prostrate themselves at the feet of The One who will heal all the world's ills.
On Rush Limbaugh's show today, Rush suggested that the media has made Obama "too big to fail". Although I usually agree with Limbaugh's opinions, this time I'll have to respectfully disagree.
I believe the Liberals and their willing cohorts in the media have created a president who is too big to succeed. They have created a hero who cannot meet their lofty expectations.
In short, They have created in Obama, a God who cannot meet expectations.
Even if he ended Global warming, (as if such a thing actually existed) it would not be enough. The people would shout, "It's too cold!"
Even if he brought peace to the world, it would somehow be too little, too late. The people would complain, "We are bored!"
Even if he ended all unemployment in America, still that would not be enough. The people would insist, "I didn't get the job I wanted!"
Even if he made every man, woman and child in the United States instant millionaires, (through redistribution of wealth) the people would cry, "We want more! You promised us more!"
The press and the Democrats have convinced the average American that Obama is bigger than life. He will solve all the worlds problems. He will bring everlasting joy and happiness to America. He will right all the wrongs perpetrated upon us by that scoundrel, George W Bush.
America will be loved by the world once again.
All hail Barack Hussein Obama!
All hail!
But he can't do those things. No mortal can. And --although I am sorry to be the one to break the news to Liberals-- Obama is merely mortal.
Yes, I know. Sad but true.
The media, in their zeal to get The Chosen One elected, have only set America up for one huge disappointment.
Right now, before Obama has had a chance to start making his promised changes to America, the Liberals and their willing accomplices in the media are gloating. They believe they have won a great victory.
Let them gloat.
Once Americans finally see what the man, Obama, is really able to accomplish, they will see him as nothing more than a man. And, possibly worse than that. A very fallible, mortal man who makes things much, much worse than they were before.
That is, of course, if he actually follows through with all his lofty promises.
More likely, he will do what his Democrat predecessors have done:
Absolutely nothing of significance.
Then, once the people have seen what their hero worship hath wrought, I will gloat.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
A Hiccup
"I could never think well of a man's intellectual or moral character, if he was habitually unfaithful to his appointments." ~ Nathaniel Emmons
Years ago, I found myself in the position of owing the IRS about $3,000 dollars. After filling out my income tax form one year, I realized I was going to have to pay the IRS almost a thousand dollars, and I didn't have it. So, I simply didn't file my taxes.
The same thing happened the next year. And the next. After three years the IRS sent me a bill for the back taxes and the penalties, including interest owed, and I eventually paid it in full.
Now. I knew I was delinquent. I knew I was wrong. I knew I would have to pay someday. There was absolutely no misunderstanding about what I was doing.
It was not an accident. It was not, as Harry Reid would say, a "hiccup". It was a willful decision on my part to avoid paying taxes.
If an ordinary citizen (and an admitted economic moron) knows not paying taxes is illegal, how could anyone believe a man who should be somewhat of an expert on money matters, could "accidentally" fail to pay his taxes?
Al Capone spent the rest of his life in Prison for the same thing Tim Geithner did.
How could we trust a man like that to be the Secretary of the Treasury?
Is it any wonder a party that would nominate, promote and celebrate the election of a Socialist as President would overlook the obvious flaws in his choice of a tax cheat for Treasury Secretary?
Actually, he's a typical Democrat. He thinks taxes should be paid by everyone.
Everyone but him.
UPDATE:
I was listening to NPR radio today, and the newsbabe was already offering excuses for Mr. Geithner. She said it wasn't surprising that Mr Geithner was confused as it's easy to be confused with all the changes in the tax laws.
She actually suggested Geithner was simply confused!
I would think Mr Geithner, being the chairman of New York's Federal Reserve, would be able to successfuly navigate the tax laws, even if he doesn't have an accountant doing them for him.
Years ago, I found myself in the position of owing the IRS about $3,000 dollars. After filling out my income tax form one year, I realized I was going to have to pay the IRS almost a thousand dollars, and I didn't have it. So, I simply didn't file my taxes.
The same thing happened the next year. And the next. After three years the IRS sent me a bill for the back taxes and the penalties, including interest owed, and I eventually paid it in full.
Now. I knew I was delinquent. I knew I was wrong. I knew I would have to pay someday. There was absolutely no misunderstanding about what I was doing.
It was not an accident. It was not, as Harry Reid would say, a "hiccup". It was a willful decision on my part to avoid paying taxes.
If an ordinary citizen (and an admitted economic moron) knows not paying taxes is illegal, how could anyone believe a man who should be somewhat of an expert on money matters, could "accidentally" fail to pay his taxes?
Al Capone spent the rest of his life in Prison for the same thing Tim Geithner did.
How could we trust a man like that to be the Secretary of the Treasury?
Is it any wonder a party that would nominate, promote and celebrate the election of a Socialist as President would overlook the obvious flaws in his choice of a tax cheat for Treasury Secretary?
Actually, he's a typical Democrat. He thinks taxes should be paid by everyone.
Everyone but him.
UPDATE:
I was listening to NPR radio today, and the newsbabe was already offering excuses for Mr. Geithner. She said it wasn't surprising that Mr Geithner was confused as it's easy to be confused with all the changes in the tax laws.
She actually suggested Geithner was simply confused!
I would think Mr Geithner, being the chairman of New York's Federal Reserve, would be able to successfuly navigate the tax laws, even if he doesn't have an accountant doing them for him.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
How Much Is That Burris In The Senate?
"Crime does not pay ... as well as politics." ~ Alfred E. Newman
So now, Roland Burris will be allowed to serve as United States Senator for the state of Illinois, occupying the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Hussein Obama.
Other than being appointed by soon-to-be-ex Governor Rod "show me the G**D***** money" Blagojevich, I haven't heard anything about whether Burris is actually qualified to serve.
Certainly he has as much qualifications to serve as Obama did.
So, apparently, Mr Burris is relatively untainted by the corruption that typifies Chicago politics. The press hasn't dug anything poisonous up on Burris yet, and they probably won't.
After all, he is a Democrat, isn't he?
But, what I want to know is this:
How much did Burris pay for his appointment?
So now, Roland Burris will be allowed to serve as United States Senator for the state of Illinois, occupying the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Hussein Obama.
Other than being appointed by soon-to-be-ex Governor Rod "show me the G**D***** money" Blagojevich, I haven't heard anything about whether Burris is actually qualified to serve.
Certainly he has as much qualifications to serve as Obama did.
So, apparently, Mr Burris is relatively untainted by the corruption that typifies Chicago politics. The press hasn't dug anything poisonous up on Burris yet, and they probably won't.
After all, he is a Democrat, isn't he?
But, what I want to know is this:
How much did Burris pay for his appointment?
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Thursday, January 01, 2009
A Response To Comments Read Elsewhere
"America is therefore the land of the future, where, in the ages that lie before us, the burden of the World's History shall reveal itself." ~ Georg W. Hegel German philosopher (1770 - 1831)
Over at Marshall Art's blog, an interesting comment thread is lengthening, as I write, originating with a post by Marshall regarding Christmas in Bhagdad.
I started to add a couple of observations to the thread, but, as I am wont to do, my comment became so wordy, I decided to post my comment over here. Not to steal Marshall's thunder, mind you. It's just that the comment became so lengthy, I feared the word limit would be reached before I finished my thought. Here is my comment in it's rather verbose entirety:
I wouldn't say I (as a Christian) am "hacked" (Marshall's word) that some businesses have been intimidated into disallowing their employees from saying "Merry Christmas".
I'd say I'm more saddened by that than angry.
The problem so many Christians have with it is they see it as a direct assault on Christianity by non-Christians on one of the two most holy days of the year, namely the advent of Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity.
As an aside here, non-Christians and Christians alike celebrate a decidedly non-Christian holiday and neither seem to have a problem wishing each other a "Happy Halloween". In fact, that so-called "holiday" has increased in popularity the last couple of decades to the point where it is celebrated with almost as much fervor as Christmas.
But, on the subject of secularizing Christmas, I have two points:
First, it might be appropriate to point out (as I have already on other blogs) the very word "holiday" consists of a contraction of the two words, "Holy Day". Thus, when one is wishing you a "Happy Holiday", they are, in effect, wishing you a "Merry Christmas".
So. I guess one could say, "The jokes on them".
Second, I find it interesting that other holidays aren't treated as if they are offensive to anyone. Even Easter, which is even more holy than Christmas (in my opinion) isn't regarded as particularly offensive to non-Christians. Nobody wishes you "Happy Holiday" on Easter. Neither do they wish you "Happy Holiday" on St Valentines Day, St Patrick's day (two other holidays, which, like Easter, have their origins in Christianity), Memorial Day, Independence day, Labor day, Halloween, or Thanksgiving. This omission of the phrase "Happy Holiday" during these other holidays would appear to bolster the point that there is indeed an assault on Christians through an assault on Christmas.
Should Christians start promoting St Patrick's day and St Valentine's day as specific Christian holidays, I have no doubt the non-Christians would bring up similar objections to the specific greetings.
In addition to comments centering around the secularizing of Christmas, the thread also addresses America's support (or lack of support) of Israel during the latest flare-up of hostilities between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
(If you don't get the connection, go to Marshall Art's blog and follow the argument).
Israel has been accused (by some commenters in the aforementioned thread) of being the aggressor, and of initiating the hostilities between the Palestinians and Israel. They have also suggested America should not be allies with Israel.
It is my contention that the Israelis are retaliating for years, if not decades, of hostile unprovoked attacks on them. They are simply defending themselves and their homeland.
Although, whether that statement is true or not is a moot point. Regardless of Israel's culpability, even if Israel is completely in the wrong to attack Gaza. It would not be a precedent in Israel's long history.
As a (some would say "fundamental") Christian, I believe any country that turns it's back on Israel loses God's blessing.
Over at Marshall Art's blog, an interesting comment thread is lengthening, as I write, originating with a post by Marshall regarding Christmas in Bhagdad.
I started to add a couple of observations to the thread, but, as I am wont to do, my comment became so wordy, I decided to post my comment over here. Not to steal Marshall's thunder, mind you. It's just that the comment became so lengthy, I feared the word limit would be reached before I finished my thought. Here is my comment in it's rather verbose entirety:
I wouldn't say I (as a Christian) am "hacked" (Marshall's word) that some businesses have been intimidated into disallowing their employees from saying "Merry Christmas".
I'd say I'm more saddened by that than angry.
The problem so many Christians have with it is they see it as a direct assault on Christianity by non-Christians on one of the two most holy days of the year, namely the advent of Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity.
As an aside here, non-Christians and Christians alike celebrate a decidedly non-Christian holiday and neither seem to have a problem wishing each other a "Happy Halloween". In fact, that so-called "holiday" has increased in popularity the last couple of decades to the point where it is celebrated with almost as much fervor as Christmas.
But, on the subject of secularizing Christmas, I have two points:
First, it might be appropriate to point out (as I have already on other blogs) the very word "holiday" consists of a contraction of the two words, "Holy Day". Thus, when one is wishing you a "Happy Holiday", they are, in effect, wishing you a "Merry Christmas".
So. I guess one could say, "The jokes on them".
Second, I find it interesting that other holidays aren't treated as if they are offensive to anyone. Even Easter, which is even more holy than Christmas (in my opinion) isn't regarded as particularly offensive to non-Christians. Nobody wishes you "Happy Holiday" on Easter. Neither do they wish you "Happy Holiday" on St Valentines Day, St Patrick's day (two other holidays, which, like Easter, have their origins in Christianity), Memorial Day, Independence day, Labor day, Halloween, or Thanksgiving. This omission of the phrase "Happy Holiday" during these other holidays would appear to bolster the point that there is indeed an assault on Christians through an assault on Christmas.
Should Christians start promoting St Patrick's day and St Valentine's day as specific Christian holidays, I have no doubt the non-Christians would bring up similar objections to the specific greetings.
In addition to comments centering around the secularizing of Christmas, the thread also addresses America's support (or lack of support) of Israel during the latest flare-up of hostilities between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
(If you don't get the connection, go to Marshall Art's blog and follow the argument).
Israel has been accused (by some commenters in the aforementioned thread) of being the aggressor, and of initiating the hostilities between the Palestinians and Israel. They have also suggested America should not be allies with Israel.
It is my contention that the Israelis are retaliating for years, if not decades, of hostile unprovoked attacks on them. They are simply defending themselves and their homeland.
Although, whether that statement is true or not is a moot point. Regardless of Israel's culpability, even if Israel is completely in the wrong to attack Gaza. It would not be a precedent in Israel's long history.
As a (some would say "fundamental") Christian, I believe any country that turns it's back on Israel loses God's blessing.
Even the United States.
God has made it clear that the Israeli's are His chosen people, and has promised to bless them and protect them forever.
Any country that does not support Israel becomes the enemy of God.
The fact that Israel is not a "Christian" Country has no bearing on the fact that the Israeli's are still God's Chosen people.
Currently, Israel is no more a Jewish country than it is a Christian country.
Israel is about 90% atheist now.
But this also doesn't change the fact that the Israeli's are still God's Chosen people.
If one reads through the history of the Hebrews found in the Old Testament, one will see the Hebrews were continually rebelling against God, and, as a result of that rebellion, enemies of the Hebrew children would sweep into Israel and conquer them, often decimating much of their population, and carrying captives off into slavery. Over and over again, the Hebrews (now known as Israelis) rebelled against God, were punished by God for their rebellion and, after repenting, were welcomed back into God's favor.
It was, and is, a cyclic behavior.
The following is an important observation:
Never were the Hebrew Children completely wiped off the face of the earth, as their enemies usually were, eventually.
Not that the elimination of the Jews hasn't been attempted many times throughout history. As recently as the last century, Hitler tried to annihilate them.
Like Hitler, all the other tribes and empires that have attempted to destroy God's people have failed. At the same time, most, if not all of Israel's enemies, have been relegated to the waste bin of History. Most are now non-existent save in the dust covered chronicles of history.
Radical Muslims are in the process of trying to destroy them now.
Mankind never learns, it seems.
Listen:
God will protect His people regardless of whether they follow Him or stray. They will continue to abandon Him, and they will continue to repent, and He will continue to welcome them back into His grace. That is His promise to them.
He has not made that promise to America.
Any country, including The mighty United States of America, that fails to understand this concept will eventually lose God's blessing. And will be destroyed.
If America abandons Israel to embrace Israel's enemies, it will ultimately bring about the end of The United States, and the beginning of the end for the rest of the world.
That is not opinion. It is God's promise.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Celebrating Christmas
"God rest ye merry gentlemen.
Let nothing you dismay
Remember, Christ, our Saviour
Was born on Christmas day
To save us all from Satan's power
When we were gone astray" ~ Unknown
It's Christmas, and I feel obligated to once again point out that Jesus is the reason for the season.
My little piece of family here in Virginia celebrates Christmas in all the traditional ways.
We have Christmas lights strewn along the front of the house.
We have little white wire lighted reindeer seemingly feeding on the front lawn.
Two spiral abstract style Christmas trees, brightly lit with multi-colored lights and a plastic star on the tops.
A wreath on the door. With red lights.
A nativity scene positioned beneath a yard flag depicting an angel, illuminated by a spotlight so everyone who passes can see.
Santa Claus rocking back and forth on skis.
Of course, brightly colored Christmas lights decorating an evergreen tree out in front of it all.
Indoors, we have a tree.
Mistletoe and holly.
More lights.
Angels and gingerbread houses and snowmen and even a toy stuffed dog wearing a Santa Claus hat that sings "Jingle Bell Rock" when you press it's paw.
We will enjoy a sumptuous feast of turkey, ham, and all the trimmings. We will watch Christmas movies on TV, such as "White Christmas", "It's a Wonderful Life", "Miracle on 34th Street", a brief viewing of that infernal 24 hour marathon of "The Christmas story" on TBS, and several versions of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol".
We will listen to a day long marathon of Christmas music, featuring songs about winter, snow, snowmen, sleighs, Santa Claus, red nosed reindeer, but very few about Jesus.
And we will exchange Christmas presents, usually silly but extravagant things we don't need and sometimes don't really want. We will feign surprise or gratefulness or both.
I get philosophical this time of year. If I didn't have a family obligation to participate in all these Christmas distractions, I wouldn't. I think the appropriate way to celebrate would be to focus on the birth of Jesus, even though, as it has been pointed out, Jesus likely wasn't actually born on December twenty-fifth.
I think I'd put up a nativity scene but nothing else. And then, in a spirit of giving, perhaps spend the day volunteering at a homeless shelter or other non-profit beneficial organization.
There's really nothing wrong with all these non-nativity related seasonal distractions. After all, many have their origins in traditional Christmas celebrations.
The name "Santa Claus" is a contraction of the words, "Saint Nicholas" who was a Christian saint, for one example.
So, when you celebrate your Christmas in your own personal unique tradition, try to remember the reason for the season.
You know, it's a tragedy that we even have to remind people.
Let nothing you dismay
Remember, Christ, our Saviour
Was born on Christmas day
To save us all from Satan's power
When we were gone astray" ~ Unknown
It's Christmas, and I feel obligated to once again point out that Jesus is the reason for the season.
My little piece of family here in Virginia celebrates Christmas in all the traditional ways.
We have Christmas lights strewn along the front of the house.
We have little white wire lighted reindeer seemingly feeding on the front lawn.
Two spiral abstract style Christmas trees, brightly lit with multi-colored lights and a plastic star on the tops.
A wreath on the door. With red lights.
A nativity scene positioned beneath a yard flag depicting an angel, illuminated by a spotlight so everyone who passes can see.
Santa Claus rocking back and forth on skis.
Of course, brightly colored Christmas lights decorating an evergreen tree out in front of it all.
Indoors, we have a tree.
Mistletoe and holly.
More lights.
Angels and gingerbread houses and snowmen and even a toy stuffed dog wearing a Santa Claus hat that sings "Jingle Bell Rock" when you press it's paw.
We will enjoy a sumptuous feast of turkey, ham, and all the trimmings. We will watch Christmas movies on TV, such as "White Christmas", "It's a Wonderful Life", "Miracle on 34th Street", a brief viewing of that infernal 24 hour marathon of "The Christmas story" on TBS, and several versions of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol".
We will listen to a day long marathon of Christmas music, featuring songs about winter, snow, snowmen, sleighs, Santa Claus, red nosed reindeer, but very few about Jesus.
And we will exchange Christmas presents, usually silly but extravagant things we don't need and sometimes don't really want. We will feign surprise or gratefulness or both.
I get philosophical this time of year. If I didn't have a family obligation to participate in all these Christmas distractions, I wouldn't. I think the appropriate way to celebrate would be to focus on the birth of Jesus, even though, as it has been pointed out, Jesus likely wasn't actually born on December twenty-fifth.
I think I'd put up a nativity scene but nothing else. And then, in a spirit of giving, perhaps spend the day volunteering at a homeless shelter or other non-profit beneficial organization.
There's really nothing wrong with all these non-nativity related seasonal distractions. After all, many have their origins in traditional Christmas celebrations.
The name "Santa Claus" is a contraction of the words, "Saint Nicholas" who was a Christian saint, for one example.
So, when you celebrate your Christmas in your own personal unique tradition, try to remember the reason for the season.
You know, it's a tragedy that we even have to remind people.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
So, What Else Is New?
"Sure there are dishonest men in local government. But there are dishonest men in national government too." ~ Richard M. Nixon
Not surprisingly, another scandal revolving around Democrat corruption and Barack Obama has surfaced.
Now, Illinois Governor Rod (political opportunist) Blogojevich, has been arrested for attempting to sell the U.S. Senate seat recently vacated by Barack Hussein Obama, otherwise known as "President-elect Obama".
(Aside) I read several Liberally-biased mainstream media news reports about this scandal and not one of them mentioned the Governor's political party (He's a Democrat). Is that surprising?
One other point: The very fact that the Liberally-biased media actually reported this story rather than bury it tells us this is a major scandal that will not go away quickly.
Already, Conservative talk radio hosts are drawing conclusions that Obama is connected, even directly involved, in the Governor's scheme.
They are also implicating Jesse Jackson jr. (or is it the third?), albeit a little more subtly.
While I don't doubt Obama is probably connected to this latest scandal, so far there is no evidence to support that hypothesis.
Up to now, All we know for sure is that both Blogojevich and Obama came up through one of the most corrupt political machines in the country.
We know Obama has some disturbing connections with domestic terrorists, real estate swindlers, America hating, anti-semite, racist preachers, and hordes of other criminals and ne'er-do-wells.
For those reasons alone, it is not at all inconceivable that there may be a definite connection between Obama and Blogojevich. It is inconceivable that all these things were going on right under Obama's nose without his knowledge. And, as Lone Ranger says, "Even if this modern miracle were true, do we want a guy so clueless in charge of keeping this country safe and prosperous?"
I have to admit though, I'm rather annoyed by the Conservative pundits trying so desperately to link Obama with Blogojevich without a shred of evidence, other than catching Obama in a lie about whether he talked to the Governor.
So what if he talked to the Governor? That could mean he merely discussed his thoughts about his Senate replacement with the Governor, or it could mean that together they hatched some nefarious plan to sell the seat and split the profits.
With Obama, nothing remains out of the sphere of possibility.
Of course, Obama made things look worse for himself by denying he even talked with the Governor. Just two weeks prior to the stunning announcement of Blogojevich's arrest, David Axelrod stated, on tape, that Obama had talked to the Governor about his choice to fill the vacated seat.
In my opinion, Hannity, Levin (my personal favorite), and the others only need to wait until some real connection appears, as it likely will. Then, let him have it.
No doubt there will be plenty more scandals with more teeth in them than this before the fiasco of an Obama presidency runs it's course.
There's no need to get ahead of themselves.
Not surprisingly, another scandal revolving around Democrat corruption and Barack Obama has surfaced.
Now, Illinois Governor Rod (political opportunist) Blogojevich, has been arrested for attempting to sell the U.S. Senate seat recently vacated by Barack Hussein Obama, otherwise known as "President-elect Obama".
(Aside) I read several Liberally-biased mainstream media news reports about this scandal and not one of them mentioned the Governor's political party (He's a Democrat). Is that surprising?
One other point: The very fact that the Liberally-biased media actually reported this story rather than bury it tells us this is a major scandal that will not go away quickly.
Already, Conservative talk radio hosts are drawing conclusions that Obama is connected, even directly involved, in the Governor's scheme.
They are also implicating Jesse Jackson jr. (or is it the third?), albeit a little more subtly.
While I don't doubt Obama is probably connected to this latest scandal, so far there is no evidence to support that hypothesis.
Up to now, All we know for sure is that both Blogojevich and Obama came up through one of the most corrupt political machines in the country.
We know Obama has some disturbing connections with domestic terrorists, real estate swindlers, America hating, anti-semite, racist preachers, and hordes of other criminals and ne'er-do-wells.
For those reasons alone, it is not at all inconceivable that there may be a definite connection between Obama and Blogojevich. It is inconceivable that all these things were going on right under Obama's nose without his knowledge. And, as Lone Ranger says, "Even if this modern miracle were true, do we want a guy so clueless in charge of keeping this country safe and prosperous?"
I have to admit though, I'm rather annoyed by the Conservative pundits trying so desperately to link Obama with Blogojevich without a shred of evidence, other than catching Obama in a lie about whether he talked to the Governor.
So what if he talked to the Governor? That could mean he merely discussed his thoughts about his Senate replacement with the Governor, or it could mean that together they hatched some nefarious plan to sell the seat and split the profits.
With Obama, nothing remains out of the sphere of possibility.
Of course, Obama made things look worse for himself by denying he even talked with the Governor. Just two weeks prior to the stunning announcement of Blogojevich's arrest, David Axelrod stated, on tape, that Obama had talked to the Governor about his choice to fill the vacated seat.
In my opinion, Hannity, Levin (my personal favorite), and the others only need to wait until some real connection appears, as it likely will. Then, let him have it.
No doubt there will be plenty more scandals with more teeth in them than this before the fiasco of an Obama presidency runs it's course.
There's no need to get ahead of themselves.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
From My In Box
"I awoke in the grey of the morning, and as I lay waiting for dawn, the long lines of the desired poem began to entwine themselves in my mind, and I said to myself, 'I must get up and write these verses, lest I fall asleep and forget them!' So I sprang out of bed and in the dimness found an old stump of a pen, which I remembered using the day before. I scrawled the verses almost without looking at the paper." ~ Julia Ward Howe
Someone sent this to me by e-mail. It is one of the best versions of the Battle Hymn of the Republic I have ever heard. Apparently, Patriotism is still alive and well in some of America's schools.
Not all the words are sung in this version, so I've pasted the complete lyrics below:
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His truth is marching on.
I have seen Him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps;
His day is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His day is marching on.
I have read a fiery Gospel writ in burnished rows of steel;
“As ye deal with My contemners, so with you My grace shall deal”;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,
Since God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Since God is marching on.
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet;
Our God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free;
[originally …let us die to make men free]
While God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! While God is marching on.
He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is wisdom to the mighty, He is honor to the brave;
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of wrong His slave,
Our God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.
It was this spirit that the egregious attack on Pearl Harbor, 67 years ago today, failed to quell, and the same spirit exists today in the breasts of our countrymen.
Remember Pearl Harbor.
Someone sent this to me by e-mail. It is one of the best versions of the Battle Hymn of the Republic I have ever heard. Apparently, Patriotism is still alive and well in some of America's schools.
Not all the words are sung in this version, so I've pasted the complete lyrics below:
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His truth is marching on.
I have seen Him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps;
His day is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His day is marching on.
I have read a fiery Gospel writ in burnished rows of steel;
“As ye deal with My contemners, so with you My grace shall deal”;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,
Since God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Since God is marching on.
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet;
Our God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free;
[originally …let us die to make men free]
While God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! While God is marching on.
He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is wisdom to the mighty, He is honor to the brave;
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of wrong His slave,
Our God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.
It was this spirit that the egregious attack on Pearl Harbor, 67 years ago today, failed to quell, and the same spirit exists today in the breasts of our countrymen.
Remember Pearl Harbor.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Some Good Quotes
"True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country." ~ Kurt Vonnegut
"I am old enough to see how little I have done in so much time, and how much I have to do in so little." ~ Sheila Kaye-Smith
"Every man desires to live long, but no man would be old." ~ Jonathan Swift
"Life would be infinitely happier if we could only be born at the age of eighty and gradually approach eighteen." ~ Mark Twain
"Is that a birthday? 'tis, alas! too clear;
'Tis but the funeral of the former year." ~ Alexander Pope
"To get back my youth I would do anything in the world, except take exercise, get up early, or be respectable." ~ Oscar Wilde
"The first forty years of life give us the text; the next thirty supply the commentary on it." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
"I fear vastly more a futile, incompetent old age than I do any form of death." ~ William Allen White
"A person is always startled when he hears himself seriously called an old man for the first time." ~ Oliver W. Holmes, Sr.
"Whatever poet, orator, or sage may say of it, old age is still old age." ~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
"Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional." ~ Chili Davis
"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." ~ Mark Twain
"If I have any beliefs about immortality, it is that certain dogs I have known will go to Heaven, and very, very few persons." ~ James Thurber
"The old dog barks backward without getting up. I can remember when he was a pup." ~ Robert Frost
"The prospect of dying doesn't bother me. It's the gettin' on with it" ~ William E. Maness (my grandfather)
"Everyone has senior moments. What scares me is when senior moments stretch into senior hours." ~ Me
In case you're wondering--I'm 57.
I think.
"I am old enough to see how little I have done in so much time, and how much I have to do in so little." ~ Sheila Kaye-Smith
"Every man desires to live long, but no man would be old." ~ Jonathan Swift
"Life would be infinitely happier if we could only be born at the age of eighty and gradually approach eighteen." ~ Mark Twain
"Is that a birthday? 'tis, alas! too clear;
'Tis but the funeral of the former year." ~ Alexander Pope
"To get back my youth I would do anything in the world, except take exercise, get up early, or be respectable." ~ Oscar Wilde
"The first forty years of life give us the text; the next thirty supply the commentary on it." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
"I fear vastly more a futile, incompetent old age than I do any form of death." ~ William Allen White
"A person is always startled when he hears himself seriously called an old man for the first time." ~ Oliver W. Holmes, Sr.
"Whatever poet, orator, or sage may say of it, old age is still old age." ~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
"Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional." ~ Chili Davis
"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." ~ Mark Twain
"If I have any beliefs about immortality, it is that certain dogs I have known will go to Heaven, and very, very few persons." ~ James Thurber
"The old dog barks backward without getting up. I can remember when he was a pup." ~ Robert Frost
"The prospect of dying doesn't bother me. It's the gettin' on with it" ~ William E. Maness (my grandfather)
"Everyone has senior moments. What scares me is when senior moments stretch into senior hours." ~ Me
In case you're wondering--I'm 57.
I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
