Not Wrong Yet

"Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing." ~ Abraham Lincoln

According to news reports, A top Bush administration official, Randall Tobias, has been named as one of the clients of the DC Madam, Deborah Palfrey.

-------------------------------Randall Tobias---------------------------

ABC News reported late Friday that Tobias said in a Thursday interview that he had used the Pamela Martin and Associates escort services for massages, but it reported that he said there had been "no sex."

Recently, I made some predictions regarding what may be found when the contents of the DC madam's "little black book" is made public. Now that a couple of names in her records have been leaked, it would seem to appear that maybe my predictions were wrong.

It would appear.

But let's not jump to conclusions here. For one thing, let's try to remember that ABC news is one of several news outlets that would like nothing better than to prove all Republicans corrupt. They are, after all, Liberally biased.

Let's also not forget that as of yet, only two names on the list have been revealed. There is no doubt that there are indeed Republicans listed in that book. But it by no means suggests that only Republicans are on it, or even that Democrat names don't outnumber Republican's.

I never suggested that there wouldn't be any Republicans listed. So the jury is still out concerning the accuracy of my predictions.

Here are some additional thoughts, however:

I want to get this one out of the way first: Mr. Tobias stated that no sex occurred during his visits to the Madam's escort service. If you believe that one, I have some land in Florida to sell you. Whether there was sex involved or not, he did the right thing in immediately resigning. On the other hand, not only should he not have patronized the escort service in the first place, he should have resigned before it became known he was a client. Now it simply appears as he only resigned to save the Bush administration embarrassment.

Which, of course, he did. That was stupid, in my opinion.

Now. It doesn't fit the Liberally biased media's agenda to reveal the names of Democrats on the list, so it isn't surprising in the least that no Democrat's names have as yet been revealed.

ABC will not reveal Democrats names. They will cover them up at all costs. But if, somehow, ABC accidentally leaks any Democrats names, You can bet the Democrats involved will not resign. Instead they will return triumphant to their posts to the thunderous applause of their constituency and colleagues.

The Democrats will exploit the Tobias story to bolster their ridiculous notion of a "culture of Corruption", indeed, the left wing blogs (although I don't visit or read them) are no doubt already celebrating yet another stunning victory.

So, my predictions have not been proven wrong. I stand by my original predictions.

They Were Heroes Once

"The real hero is always a hero by mistake; he dreams of being an honest coward like everybody else." ~ Umberto Eco

While channel surfing last night I happened across some Congressional hearing being chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman. I don't know the name of the committee, but it was about the fabrication of stories of heroism in Iraq, specifically, the friendly fire death of Former pro football player Pat Tillman and the capture and ultimate rescue of Jessica Lynch. As I've said before, I'm really not a news junkie, but I stopped and watched, and listened as former hero Jessica Lynch recounted her experience in Iraq.

Jessica says she is still confused about "why they chose to lie and make me a legend."

And so am I.

As I watched, the thought struck me that Ms Lynch was exactly right. Yes, the Armed services and the media lied about the circumstances of Jessica and Pat Tillman's heroism. Yes, Jessica was not the hero the media and the armed services hyped her to be. No, Pat Tillman didn't die as a result of enemy fire.

But I was also struck by the realization that for whatever reason, the powers that be decided that America needs these people to be heroes. They seem to believe that Pvt Lynch needed to bravely fight off her eventual capture, guns in both hands blazing, until she was at last overwhelmed.

They seem to believe America needed Pat Tillman to be shot by enemy soldiers while vainly fighting to save his comrades.

Why do we need to invent stories of heroism to sell the war to everyday non combatant Americans? Are there no "actual" heroes available?


I think Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, and those thousands of others are heroes. They are heroes just for enlisting. They are heroes for just going to Iraq. They are heroes by virtue of just being there, fighting so that we here in the states don't have to face terrorism in our own back yards.

Why do the armed services and/or the media have to invent stories to create larger than life super heroes out of men and women who are just doing their jobs? Do they really believe it necessary to sell the war at home? Do they believe it necessary to create legends instead of simply reporting the facts? There are plenty of real heroic acts in this war to report without embellishment. Many of them even more dramatic than the ones they report.

Isn't the images of terrorists sawing off the heads of innocent civilians and the results of suicide bombers enough to convince the public that terrorists need to be stopped? Who do they think is going to stop them if not soldiers?

Propaganda is a tactic employed by every government in every age since the world began. It is a profoundly effective way to influence troops and public opinion, either for purposes of motivating or for demoralizing.

So what?

Everyone who enlisted in this time of war is a hero to me. Not only the ones in actual life risking combat situations, but everyone who dons a uniform of the United States Armed services. Whether they are shooting at the enemy or simply requisitioning office supplies and filing papers for the everyday operations on bases here at home.

All are heroes.

They are the reason I can sit here in relative comfort and type these words without fear of being taken in the night and imprisoned and tortured and summarily executed for expressing my convictions. I have the freedom to agree or disagree with my government, or the news media, or anyone else because of the commitment of these brave men and women who consider it not only a right, but a privilege to serve.

Why invent heroes? Why?

And, as long as we're asking questions, why are we bothering to investigate these stories in the first place? What is being accomplished by downplaying the role of our soldiers in battle?

It seems to me that the Democrats conducting these hearings are attempting to discredit the current administration. It is a red herring. It is a blatant attempt to distract Americans from the real reason we are fighting this war. The real reason Tillman and Lynch were over there in the first place. They want to focus on the propaganda instead of why we make use of the propaganda:

To inspire and motivate our own people, and to demoralize our enemies.

And what they are succeeding in doing is precisely the opposite.

Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman and thousands of others are heroes. It matters not how they earned their accolades, only that they have earned them.

Ambassador Bill

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

Hillary Clinton has announced what role her husband will play in her Presidential administration.

No, it won't be interviewing candidates for positions as interns (literally) under him.

According to the Liberally biased AP, She wants to make him "a roaming ambassador to the world, using his skills to repair the nation's tattered image abroad".

Personally, I think this is a great idea! No, seriously. There is no doubt that Bill has great charisma, and is loved by dictators, despots, Socialists, and terrorist leaders around the world.

That's a good thing, isn't it?

Here's another possible good thing that can come out of Hilary's plans for her husband:

If Bill gets killed by the terrorists while he is trying to negotiate appeasement terms with them, the Democrats will finally see why we are fighting them.

After all, he is the Democrats hero, isn't he?

The Victimization Of Cho

“There is something rotten in the state of Denmark!” ~ William Shakespeare

One prediction I forgot to include on Tuesday when I offered my predictions on the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre is now too late to make because it is becoming evident that the process has already started.

The media will attempt to create victimhood status for Seung-hui Cho.

I realize it doesn't look like that's what they are doing yet, but give them time. They realize that any characterization of the shooter as a victim of social injustice at this time is too soon, and the public will not buy it. But let the shock wear off a little. Right now they are preparing us for the big announcement.

Already they are attempting to desensitize us to the fact that he murdered 32 innocent people by focusing instead on his insane pronouncements that rich people and Christianity are at fault for making him kill.

They will latch onto these statements and present them as inescapable fact to create a sense of guilt in rich people and Christians, and any other group of people they want to blame.

They will blame Christianity and man's inhumanity to man to excuse the murderous acts of any crazy person who commits murder.

It is never the perpetrator's fault. It is always society's.

I want to also point out that already, the Democrats are talking about legislation to prevent this type of thing from happening again, just as I predicted.

The only reason they haven't already introduced a bill making it illegal to shoot college students on college campuses, is because they haven't agreed among each other what the exact wording of the bill should be. They can't just say, "It shall be illegal to shoot college students on college campuses". That would be too simple and too transparent. They have to make sure it doesn't sound redundant.

After all, as I pointed out on Tuesday, murder is already illegal.

It is both amusing and frightening just how predictable these Liberals have become.

Tax Day!

Click to enlarge.

Multiple posting today. Scroll down for my thoughts on todays news.

More Predictions

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." ~ Isaac Asimov



The tragic events at Virginia Tech University yesterday has started me thinking again, (see previous post) and so, I have a couple more predictions to share.

Prediction number 1:

I will not go so far as to say at this point that I believe the shooter was a Muslim, but my prediction is, if it becomes known that the shooter was a Muslim, we won't hear it from the Mainstream media. We won't hear it on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, or read it in the New York Slimes, Washington ComPost, the L.A. Slimes, The Cleveland Claim Dealer, etc.

The media simply doesn't want to blame Muslims for anything. If the media is forced to acknowledge the shooter is a Muslim, they will find a way to blame his onslaught on Conservatism, or Christianity, or both.

However, you may hear it from FOX News.

Prediction number 2:

OK. This one is a no-brainer. The gun control left will renew their incessant call for outlawing guns. The right will renew their insistence that "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". And the right will be ...well...right. Left wingers will cite other countries that don't have high gun related death rates because of strict gun control laws, and Conservatives will point out true statistics that refute that myth.

Prediction number 3:

There will be copycat shootings in other schools within the next few weeks. Probably not Colleges. Most likely high schools.

Prediction number 4:

In short order, The Democratically controlled United States Congress will introduce legislation that will make it illegal to shoot students on College campuses. This is something that I have always referred to as "Typical Government Overkill".

Remember the case of Matthew Shepard, the gay young man who was beaten to death by a couple of gay bashing thugs in Wyoming? Congress reacted to his death by passing a law that effectively made it illegal to kill gays because they are gay.

The dragging death of James Byrd in Texas by a couple of white racists prompted Congress to pass a law making it illegal to kill people because of their color.

The preceding examples are labeled "hate Crime legislation" to distinguish them from just plain murder, which as we all know, is already illegal.

I might point out here, that the Democrats know that shooting college students on college campuses is already illegal, but this will prove to the gullible that Democrats are at least doing something to prevent violence.

Actually, to be fair, I shouldn't lay this unnecessary legislation on the Democrats doorstep alone. Many Republicans introduce equally redundant laws.

Oh well, I suppose that's what we pay them for, isn't it?

I Think

"I think, therefore, I am" ~ René Descartes

Imagine my surprise when I discovered I have been awarded a "Thinking blogger" award, from not one, but two of my fellow bloggers!
The Thinking Blogger Award

Ken, from "The Conservative Truth/ The Liberal Lie" , left the message for me in the comments section of my last post, as did Mary, from "Freedom Eden".

Actually, I'm not completely sure if I got the award because I make people think or because I think, myself. I will define it in my own way, thank you, and assume it means I think.

Who'da thunk?

The reason this comes as such a surprise to me is because there are some bloggers that apparently believe that I don't think at all.

I won't mention any names, but one in particular comes to mind who's initials are E.R. He repeatedly accuses me of getting all my blog entry ideas from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc. I assume this means he doesn't believe I have the capacity to think for myself. He often infers that I listen too much to Conservative talk radio.

Nothing could be further from the truth. While I enjoy listening to Conservative talk radio, unfortunately I rarely do anymore, due to the fact that I only listen to radio when I'm driving, and the old pick-up truck I've been driving doesn't have one.

Interesting enough, I recently responded to one of his typical accusations over at ELAshley's place, in which I charged that he is less likely to do any original thinking than I. I referred to the fact that his posts usually are copied and pasted from some overtly Liberal website somewhere, with very little actual commentary from him. I rarely do that.

ELAshley, by the way, is one of my choices for my bestowal of the thinking blogger award.

So, while I'm on that subject, I am expected to list The Official Participation Rules. They are as follows:

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think

2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme

3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote.

Here are my official choices for Thinking Blogger Award recipients:

1. Lone Ranger

2. Serial Extremist

3. The Flesh is Grass

4. Chicago Con

5. Trucker Philosophy

I would have liked to add Marshall Art to the list, but as far as I know, he doesn't have a blog. Yet.

Just to prove that I do indeed think, here is a thought upon which I often reflect, and it involves the quote I placed at the beginning of this post:

If, in the course of a discussion, Descartes were to state, "I think not", would he then cease to exist?

Ultra-Sensitivity And Over-Reacction

"There will be a time when loud-mouthed, incompetent people seem to be getting the best of you. When that happens, you only have to be patient and wait for them to self destruct. It never fails." ~ Richard Rybolt

Forgive me. I know I have an opinion about this whole Don Imus' insensitive remark thing, but I can't seem to get my mind wrapped around how I feel. I know I feel something but I can't seem to articulate what I want to say.

The way I usually handle this kind of dilemma is to just start typing and whatever comes out is closest to what I want to say, but is rarely everything I have to say.

The issue is so petty and so unimportant, I don't know why it causes me to be unable to sleep thinking about it.

The remark, which referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy headed ho's", was absolutely insensitive, and on that, I believe we all agree.

I think the issue is not so much in what was said, but in the intent behind it.

Did Imus use the term as an intentional insult, or was he simply using a common colloquialism used routinely by blacks in an non-derogatory way? It can be argued that he was echoing the same kind of euphemisms that blacks use in their own everyday conversation, in an unconscious attempt to relate to his black audience members.

I don't think so. Don Imus is, in my opinion, an elitist, condescending, egotist who cares about one person and one person only. Himself. He believes himself intellectually above the masses. He is an angry, hateful man.

I don't doubt for an instant that he was forced by his radio network to issue an apology or face serious repercussions.

Everything and everyone is fair game to Don Imus. So, in that respect, he probably shouldn't be faulted for singling out one particular race. He is, after all, an equal opportunity offender.

Does he really have that much disrespect for black people? Absolutely. However, he has that much disrespect for all people regardless of race, color, or creed. Does that excuse his inappropriate remark?

Not on your life.

He did apologize, by the way, and his apology sounded quite a bit more sincere than others, such as Dick Durbin's and Cynthia McKinney's "If I have offended anyone" apologies.

Curiously, they still have their jobs.

On the other hand, I also believe the civil rights leaders who claim to be offended aren't really offended at all, but would never miss an opportunity to use any so-called offensive remark to generate more publicity and inflame as much public outrage as they can. Their entire motive is to further widen the gap between whites and minorities in this country, and Imus played right into their hands.

Rev. Al Sharpton, who has himself used similar offensive terms in referring to white people and has yet to offer an apology, had Imus on his radio show ostensibly, so Imus could apologize, and ended up pretending further offense when Imus inadvertently referred to Sharpton and his black Congresswoman telephone guest as "you people".

Obviously, Imus wasn't referring to all black people when he said that, but Sharpton was quick to object strenuously at the intentionally mis-perceived phrase.

Howard Stern, an equally egotistic radio shock jock, who has himself experienced some conflict with Don Imus in the past, nevertheless rallied to his foe's side, saying, something like, He shouldn't have apologized. He should have said it's just a joke, F--- You.

Now, Imus has been fired by MSNBC, and speculation abounds about whether CBS radio will fire him as well. If he is fired, it won't hurt him. In fact, it may turn out to be advantageous to him. Satellite radio will hire him and probably at a much higher pay rate.

Another thing I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around is this seeming ultra sensitivity to just about everything these days. It seems to me that too many people are much too thin skinned, and object to the most petty of offenses. If I am called a "cracker" or a "peckerwood" by a black person, I don't feel the least bit offended, but maybe that's because I really don't understand what it is about those words that I am to be offended. I know they are supposed to be insults directed at whites mainly because of our color, but I don't know what the terms mean.

Lewis Farrakhan has referred to whites in general as "white devils". I find that slightly offensive, but certainly not enough to rise up in outrage and demand his immediate execution. He never apologized for that, as far as I know. Jesse Jackson used the term "Hymie town" in referring to New York City's large population of Jews. He never apologized. Sharpton himself has ignited race riots with his racist pronouncements. Riots in which lives were lost. I don't remember an apology for that.

I find the loss of life resulting from irresponsible and unmotivated racist remarks highly and outrageously offensive. My outrage is not, however, predicated on what color I am.

It's not only over sensitivity to racist remarks that has me troubled. There are also all kinds of other examples of ultra sensitivity and the resulting over-reaction. I am thinking specifically of situations involving the relatively new problem of deadly road rage.

This is over-sensitivity related, too.

Yesterday, a truck driver in Maryland deliberately rammed a car off the road, killing the two occupants of the vehicle. Reports from eyewitnesses say the drivers of both vehicles involved had been driving recklessly, shouting, and flipping each other off just prior to the incident. Needless to say, the driver of the pick up sped away and authorities are still searching for him.

Last night, another incident occurred in Virginia on I-95 which also may have been a case of road rage. It may not either, but in any case, a car was exceeding the speed limit by about 15 miles per hour and slammed into the side of a semi-trailer truck, forcing the truck off the road, where it overturned, killing the driver and blocking all lanes of traffic.

That angered me personally, because I was caught in the traffic jam myself. I felt no need to react violently. But then, I have learned to be patient in my declining years.

Hey! Here's a thought!

Perhaps the appropriate punishment for people who have difficulty with being able to be patient would be some practical education. They should be forced to learn patience the same way I learned how to be patient.

They should be forced to stand in the longest, slowest moving check out line at Walmart, and not complain.

What If They Held A Debate And No One Came?

"Curiouser and curiouser', Cried Alice (She was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English)" ~ Lewis Carrol

While the hot topic in the news is yet another of Don Imus' ignorant statements, (Imus has always been a jerk, and if anyone thinks he doesn't really think that way, seek professional help) there comes a rather curious story regarding the refusal of at least three major Democratic Presidential candidates to participate in a debate because....I guess...it was to be broadcast on FOX News.

Now this, I have to admit, I don't get. What are Hillary, Obama, and Edwards afraid of? Do they think that somehow, FOX will make them say something they don't want the public to know? Or is it that because FOX news is fair and balanced they fear they won't be allowed to get away with untruths that the other networks would allow? And how would FOX news be able to do that if they just allowed the candidates to speak without offering comment?

I have tried to come up with some perspective on this but I really have no idea what the motivation is to refuse FOX to broadcast this debate unless it is some childish attitude along the lines of "I don't like them so I won't go to their stupid party" kind of thing.

The debate will be co-sponsored by FOX News and the Congressional Black Caucus. On the surface it would seem the Democrats are cutting off their nose to spite their face, (after all, black voters are a big part of the Democrats base) but that wouldn't be true, either, according to the Liberally biased AP:

"Democrats have been under pressure from liberal activists to avoid Fox-hosted debates. Last month, the Nevada Democratic Party canceled a debate that Fox was to co-sponsor in August.

The institute, a nonprofit group whose directors include members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Fox News announced an agreement nearly two weeks ago to air Republican and Democratic presidential debates. But activists, including civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, immediately criticized the alliance and many called on Democrats to pull out."

Jesse Jackson criticizing other blacks? Who'd a thunk?

So the question remains: What do the Democrat Presidential candidates fear?

And does America really want a President that is afraid of something so innocuous as a news network?

Happy Easter!

"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

The angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay." ~ Matthew 28:1-6

Photo courtesy of Poison Pero

Happy Easter. For more of my thoughts about this day, see my other blog, "Gods way, My way"

Arrogance Knows No Bounds

"To excite opposition and inflame malevolence is the unhappy privilege of courage made arrogant by consciousness of strength." ~ Samuel Johnson

Arrogance knows no bounds. President Bush has appointed Republican fundraiser Sam Fox as U.S. ambassador to Belgium over the objections of the Democratic party, and especially, John Kerry.

According to the Liberally biased AP, "Democrats had denounced Fox for his donation to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential campaign. The group's TV ads, which claimed that Sen. John Kerry exaggerated his military record in Vietnam, were viewed as a major factor in the Massachusetts Democrat's election loss."

"Fox, a 77-year-old St. Louis businessman, gave $50,000 to the Swift Boat group. He is national chairman of the Jewish Republican Coalition and was dubbed a "ranger" by Bush's 2004 campaign for raising at least $200,000. He is founder and chairman of the Clayton, Mo.-based Harbour Group, which specializes in the takeover of manufacturing companies.

Fox has donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates and causes since the 1990s."


They even said what the President did may be illegal. I don't believe it is. He used the same strategy to appoint John Bolton ambassador to the UN.

Oh, horror of horrors! Fox actually donated to a group that supported one candidate over another! For shame! for shame!

One would think that Fox is a Republican or something. Farbeit from a Democrat President to ever appoint a Democrat fundraiser to an important office.

Really, the thing that astounds me over this thing is the arrogance of both the Democrats and the President.

First, While I think it was brilliant of the President to make use of the recess appointment strategy, I also think it was an intentional slap in the face of the Democrats. I don't think it was necessary to appoint Fox, in particular. I think there are probably many less controversial and better qualified prospects. I think it was a move calculated to anger the Democrats.

If a Democratic President did the same thing, I am quite sure I would be as outraged as the Democrats are now.

But I'm not outraged now. I am, after all, a Republican.

On the other hand, how dare the Democrats object to this appointment just because he donated money to Bush's Presidential campaign! The reason they don't want him to be ambassador is because they are still angry that Kerry got caught being a phony, and Fox was one of many who helped catch him.

Go ahead, Democrats! Take your ball and go home! Geeez.

The real arrogance comes from John Kerry. He still insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that he is a genuine war hero. The Swift Boat Veterans brought forth overwhelming eye witness testimony (which is admissible in any court in the land, with the possible exception of California's 6th district court.) that John Kerry is a phony, but still the Democrats still insist he is a hero.

A hero that undermines the troops and the war effort? That isn't a hero as far as I'm concerned.

Then there's the arrogance of Nancy Pelosi. Despite the administration telling her explicitly not to go to Syria, she went anyway. And what did she do while over there comporting with one of the worlds worst terrorists and dictators? From another AP article, "After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said."

This, according to a Washington Compost editorial, is a misrepresentation.

Misrepresentation? Let's call it what it is:

A lie.

That's arrogance, too.

Arrogance is not necessarily a bad thing. It often helps sports teams get motivated to win. It helps businessmen convince their bosses that they have what it takes to be promoted. It can be healthy.

But not in this case. President Bush showed arrogance, absolutely.

But, in comparison to the Democrats, his is minimal.

A Fungus Amung Us

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." ~ Sun-tzu

Well, a Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat again is making news today.

According to the AP, a news organization that seems to take a great deal of delight in any story, (or even non-story) that makes the Republicans and George W. Bush specifically, look bad, Michael Dowd, a "top Democratic strategist", is disappointed in Bush's leadership.

Dowd, (no relation to Maureen or even Elwood P?) labeled by the fawning AP as "a symbol of George W. Bush’s early success at positioning himself as a Republican with Democratic appeal" has come out with the statement that his faith in President Bush was "misplaced".

So, he never really switched parties in the first place. He just thought Bush was more Democrat than Republican. Or did he?

According to the Liberally biased AP, "He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides."

Who is he kidding?

Let's take these allegations one at a time.

President Bush failed to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war?

Bush has never ceased to call for a shared sense of sacrifice. From the very beginning of this conflict in Iraq, he has constantly referred to the struggle as a long road that we must travel to assure freedom throughout the world, and that it would take tremendous sacrifices for all Americans.

I guess the the Defeatocrats and the RINO appeasers in Congress who have constantly opposed and undermined his efforts don't consider themselves part of that America.

He failed to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq?

If President Bush has failed to build consensus, it hasn't been his fault. One need only to look at the Democrats in both Houses of Congress to see who has failed in that particular endeavor.

If anything, Bush has tried too hard to reach consensus with the Democrats, with his concessionary attitude toward those who would seek surrender in the war on Terror. You know, like Murtha and Kerry et al.

He ignores the will of the people? What people? Democrats? "Jihad" Jane Fonda? "Peace through surrender" Cindy Sheehan?

Most Americans want us to win in Iraq. It's true many Americans have changed their minds about how this war should be fought, but winning the war is still the ultimate goal of most of us. And that is precisely what he is trying to do, in spite of whining bleeding heart liberal sob sisters like Joe Biden and Chucky Shumer.

He didn't hold those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib accountable?

On what planet? Was Lindy not convicted? Was her boyfriend's sentence commuted? If so, I didn't hear about it. Hasn't everyone involved in that scandal been punished?

What more does Mr. Dowd want?

Mr. Bush approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides"?

Well, most people would consider that "my way or the highway" mentality a desirable quality of strong leadership.

That said, really the only reason his circle of aides could be shrinking is the number of baseless allegations of scandal ensuing from the left side of the aisle, aimed at discrediting the integrity of Bush's aides. Rather than distract America from the truly important issues, they simply resign. It isn't because they no longer believe in Bush or his mission.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say that Mr. Dowd is a Democrat plant, placed in Bush's inner circle to discredit him, thereby destroying the administration from within. But I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I don't think that way.

I do think, however, that Mr. Dowd is a fair weather opportunist who jumps from one side to the other depending on which party appears to have the political advantage over the other.

They call those kind of people "mugwumps". They are the ones who sit with their mugs on one side of the fence, and their wumps on the other.

If Bush has made any mistake it was in the hiring of this guy. Obviously, he failed to properly screen those who work on his campaigns.

Polyticks

"The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'." ~ Larry Hardiman

I don't normally sleep all through the night. I usually wake up at least once during the night to attend to "business". I'll spare you the nasty details. It's not just personal needs that drive my nocturnal habits, though. We have dogs. Five of them, to be exact.

At least one of the dogs, Chelsea, a fourteen year old Golden Retriever, has roughly the same middle of the night needs as I do, and a rather loud, persistent bark. I usually have to get up at least once to let her outside.

Give me some time. I will get to the point.

We live in a wooded area, on five acres, about a mile or more to the nearest cluster of businesses and, in this case, government buildings. I have only lived here since October, and I have always lived in metropolitan areas, so I was unprepared for my encounter with some of the less pleasant denizens of rural Virginia:

All four stages of Ixodes scapularis, the black-legged or deer tick with dime for size comparison.

Ticks. Deer Ticks, specifically.

Here's the point:

The other night, I awoke, as usual, about one o'clock in the morning, and stumbled through the dark towards the bathroom. As I walked, I scratched my belly, when I noticed what felt like a small growth on the right side, front, of my abdomen.

When I turned on the light, I was surprised to see what appeared to be a blood blister on my stomach. I prodded it, squeezed it, and finally succeeded in popping it...off. It wasn't a blood blister at all. It was a tick.

All the horror stories about ticks and the diseases they cause came rushing back to me like a good snort of scotch. Did I leave the head inside my skin? If I did, will it become infected? If it becomes infected, will it turn into Lyme's disease? Will I get really sick and will I eventually die a painful and torturous death?

So, at approximately 1:15 in the morning, I searched the internet to find information on Ticks and Lyme's disease.

Turns out I have little to worry about. According to what I read through bleary eyes, the deer tick only feeds three times in it's lifetime, which is two years. It cannot infect anything with any disease the first time it feeds. Only if it picks up the bacteria that causes disease on it's first feeding can it spread disease. If it happens to contract a bacteria that causes a disease during the first or second feeding, it may infect it's host on the second and third feedings. And then, usually, only the female tick infects anything. The male tick feeds for only a short time before dropping off. The female tick stays there until it engorges itself. The female is most likely to do the infecting.

One could say something derogative about females of every species here, but I will not stoop to that level.

"OK", said I, to myself as I perused the fountain of information before my eyes, "that's not as bad as I thought." But then came the really good news. It said even if it carries the bacteria, Ticks don't infect their host until it has been feeding for at least about 36 hours.

I know my little guest hadn't been on me for more than a few hours. I was safe.

I went back to bed and blissful, carefree, welcome, sleep.

About two hours later, when Chelsea (see? I told you I'd make things clear) began her obnoxious barking, wanting to go outside, I again got up and stumbled through the dark once more to let the canine octogenarian outside.

Again, scratching myself, I noticed another growth, this time on the other side of my belly on the side. Turning on the light, I found, to my chagrin, another tick there.

This time, however, armed with more knowledge about these parasites than I had before, I simply picked it off, disposed of it, and went back to bed.

In the morning, while scratching Beast's (our pug) belly, I found a tick on him.

We have, at our house, poly ticks.

By the way, in case you are wondering, many of the techniques for ridding ourselves of ticks don't work, according to the various web sites I studied. Petroleum jelly doesn't really suffocate them. They can still breathe. Burning them off is not advised. It can lead to more problems unrelated to infection.

They say the best way to get them off you is to pick them off with tweezers.

So now, my morning routine has a new wrinkle. Now, in addition to scratching myself and showering and making myself smell not so bad, and making a breakfast sandwich, I also check myself thoroughly for parasites.

So far so good. I haven't been invaded since that horrible night. But I still wake up at least once a night.

Abdul And Achmed Part 3

"We can't accommodate terrorism. When someone uses the slaughter of innocent people to advance a so-called political cause, at that point the political cause becomes immoral and unjust and they should be eliminated from any serious discussion, any serious debate." ~ RUDOLPH GIULIANI

The scene is a small room somewhere in the Middle East, probably Iraq or Afghanistan. There is a bank of television screens almost covering one wall, with news programs from all over the world showing on every screen. Achmed Hassan is monitoring the world news broadcasts as Abdul Mohammed enters.

Abdul: Praise Allah and Mohammed his prophet! Why do you look so happy, my friend?

Achmed: Allah has indeed been good to His faithful, my comrade, Our American ally, the New York Times, has reported the infidels will surrender at the end of August, 2008! We have won!

Abdul: Ah yes, my friend, I have heard this wonderful news already. Our ally, the Times, printed the news on Friday. Praise be it ever to Allah! But alas, the bill also calls for an increase in funding the murderers of Allah's faithful, the infidel soldiers.

Achmed: That is true, but that is only an excuse to call for the eventual withdrawal of Allah's enemies in Iraq. Trust Allah, my friend, the end is in sight. Allah has secured victory in this war against the Great Satan.

Abdul: Praise Allah if that is true, my friend, but the accursed infidel leader Bush has threatened to veto that bill. I fear the hope of victory is merely an illusion.

Achmed: Have you lost faith in Allah, my friend? Has He not promised we would be victorious against the Great Satan that and our people will rule the infidels?

Abdul: Forgive me, my comrade. You are right. I had forgotten Allah's promise of deliverance. the recent surge against us had raised doubts in me. I temporarily lost faith. May I be forgiven for my lack of faith in Allah. Allah is great! Bush will not prevail.

Achmed: Have faith, my friend, our allies in the American media and the Democratic party will find a way to pressure Bush into signing the bill. Do not underestimate the power of Allah and the American Democrats.

Abdul: Ah yes, my friend, and let me not forget again that Allah has the American press in his all powerful hand. They will not fail our cause. They will change Bush's evil plans, by the will of almighty Allah!

Achmed: Yes, my comrade, Allah is great! Now all we have to do is wait. That is indeed a blessing from Allah. I need a vacation.

Abdul: A Vacation? Oh no, my friend, We must never rest until Allah is victorius! We must continue to fight.

Achmed: Allah be praised! Yes the fight continues, but if we stop our attacks against the infidels until August 2008, we will lure the cowardly Democrats into thinking they are safe to go ahead and pull out of Iraq. And then our victory will be complete and final!

Abdul: Yes, and then we can wipe our enemies off the face of the map, as Allah has commanded.

Achmed: Allah be praised!

Abdul: Yes, Allah be praised!

What About Legal Immigrants?

"Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country." ~ Theodore Roosevelt

On my job, I often have to market to residents of Northern Virginia, an area that I refer to as "Immigrantville". That is because it seems there are more immigrants living there than natural born Americans.

Wow.

I don't even know how to phrase that statement without appearing biased against immigrants.

I have nothing against immigrants, and by that I mean legal immigrants.

I am descended from immigrants. And unless you are 100% Native American, so are you.

My ancestors emigrated to America from Scotland in the late 1600's and settled, to begin with, in what is now North Carolina. Later, in the 1800's, my Great Great Grandfather, together with his brother, migrated west, at last settling in Missouri, while his brother continued on his way to California. That was the last my ancestor ever heard of his brother.

My boss brought up the fact that most immigrants are very hard working people, willing to take the lowest paying menial jobs to support their families. Jobs that most Americans won't do, like picking grapes and lettuce, etc. for three or four dollars an hour. They don't get benefits and they sometimes work over 12 hours a day, seven days a week.

I won't disagree with that assessment.

He obviously has no problem with immigrants, either legal or illegal. The one thing he expresses frustration with is that so many immigrants are allowed to procure customer service positions in banks and restaurants and retail stores, etc.

How are we supposed to get proper customer service from people with whom we can't communicate? We can't explain what we want from them, and they can't communicate what they need from us.

Why would companies even hire people for positions in which they have to interact with people who don't speak or understand their language? It's insane!

It is unfair of us to paint, with a broad brush, a picture of lazy immigrants that suck up our tax money by sponging off welfare and getting free health care without pointing out the enormous contributions other immigrants have made, and are continuing to make to our economy. There is no doubt that they have enriched our country in many ways.

My current problem with immigrants, both legal and illegal, is their tacit refusal to even try to learn our language. Call me ignorant and boorish if you want, but I find it frustrating and annoying that I can't communicate with half or more of northern Virginia.

And our own government is compounding the problem. Instead of insisting that immigrants learn English, they instead are spending millions of our tax dollars attempting to communicate with them in their language.

What's wrong with this picture?

I try to look at it as if I am the immigrant and they are the nationals. If I move to another country, I would like to know at least enough of their language to be able to communicate with them. For me, that's not only common sense, it's the best way I know to prevent me from being victimized in some way. How many times have we stood by while immigrants talked to each other in their own language and wondered if they were talking about or making fun of us?

OK. Maybe I'm just paranoid. But paranoia has kept me from being swindled for many years.

If President Bush, or the Democrats, or anyone else want to offer any form of amnesty to illegal immigrants, I suppose we can't stop them, but is it too much to ask them if they would at least include a provision that they learn English in order to stay in this country?

Is that unreasonable?

There are more than enough reasons to protect our borders against illegal immigration. But when are we going to deal with the problem of legal immigrants? This is our country. We shouldn't have to change our customs and learn new languages to accommodate them. They are our guests, here because we have given them the right to choose to live here. But doesn't that right come with some accountability?

Release The Hounds!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Surge To Get Bush

"People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news." ~ A. J. Liebling

The Democrats are once again calling for the resignation of a Bush administration Cabinet member. This time it's Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that has somehow fueled the Democrats feigned outrage. I say feigned because if the Democrats were truly interested in doing what's right, they would all resign out of remorse for their failure to serve the American people.

William Jefferson would be gone. So would Alcee Hastings. So would Harry Reid. So would Hillary. So would...well, you get the idea. In fact, if all the Democrats were fired for unethical and/or illegal conduct, there would likely be few Democrats left in the halls of Congress. If any.

But I digress.

One thing that keeps leaping out at me is that this seems to be another attempt to oust a member of Bush's administration. One by one, the Democrats are attacking Bush's Cabinet and calling for their firing, resignation, or impeachment. Obviously, their aim is the eventual impeachment of the President. But since they have nothing on him (such as perjury before a Grand jury) they are content in trying to undermine his appointed office holders.

They went after Karl Rove, Condoleeza Rice, they got John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfield, they are continuing to go after Dick Cheney, and of course, President Bush himself. It is painfully obvious what their agenda is.

Of course, it has been pretty much common knowledge among Conservatives that the Democrats have been angling to get rid of Gonzales even before he was appointed AG.

Which influential Democratic leader said Gonzales was a poor choice for AG because he is Hispanic? I confess I don't remember who it was, but that's only because the Democrats say so many racist and outrageous things I can't keep track of them.

I came across an interesting article about this latest brouhaha. It references the LA Slimes article that ostensibly blows the whistle on poor old Alberto.

The problem is, apparently the LA Slimes left out some very important information that was also found in the e-mails from whence they got their incriminating circumstantial evidence of malfeasance on Gonzales's part.

The following paragraphs are a teaser intended to draw your attention to the aforementioned article:

The L.A. Times has a big story about internal White House e-mails regarding the Bush Administration’s decision to oust eight U.S. Attorneys. But as far as the actual firings themselves go, the real story appears to be that the White House had legitimate reasons for firing many of these folks.

The e-mails certainly don’t appear to corroborate the allegation Democrats keep repeating: that U.S. Attorneys were fired for going after Republicans, or for failing to go after Democrats. Instead, judging from the e-mails, it appears that the White House was genuinely concerned with performance issues, such as a failure to go after drug smugglers, and — hold onto your hat — an insufficient focus on illegal immigration cases. Yes: the White House fired a U.S. Attorney for going too easy on those illegal aliens!


The article referenced here simply points out more typical misinformation from the Liberal LA Slimes.

Now, this morning, the AP has picked up the ball and begun running with it. When I signed on to AOL this morning, this story hit me in the face. following is an excerpt from that article that exemplifies what the Democrats and again, their willing accomplices in the media are continually trying to do, which is to "get Bush". That is the real agenda here. They care nothing for these eight prosecutors.

It's customary for new presidents to bring in their own team of prosecutors when they take office. Democrats say the Bush administration singled out some of its own nominees because they chafed at the president's priorities and Republican efforts to influence political corruption investigations.

"Eight U.S. attorneys who did not play ball with the political agenda of this administration were dropped from the team," said Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois. "We have a right to ask what that political agenda was and whether or not it was a reasonable firing and dismissal."

This, I agree with, except if Durbin and his Democratic cohorts really wanted to know, all they would have to do is read the e-mails in their entirety, instead of reading only the parts the media chose to publish. Then they would see, and probably already have, that the prosecutors were fired for not doing their jobs. The same reason most people get fired in this country.

But see? That would only serve to prove there is nothing behind the latest charges of corruption in the Bush administration. They can't have that.

That wouldn't provide them with the ammunition necessary to impeach Bush, which, as I said, is their true agenda.

Personally, I think if the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media like The New york Slimes, The Washington Compost, and the LA Slimes, spent half as much energy supporting our troops and the war on terror as they do in trying to "get Bush", this war might well be won and over, and the international terror syndicate would be destroyed.

Making The Irresponsible Responsible

"He who reigns within himself and rules his passions, desires and fears is more than a king." ~ John Milton

Perhaps nothing makes us more aware of the growing problem of the irresponsibility and lack of discipline of our kids than when the kid in question is your own child.

While discussing my own son's behavior with my fiancee, she made the point that I am not as forceful in holding him accountable for his behavior as I should, and she is right. I'm not.

It is an ongoing battle for me to impose and enforce discipline on him when he needs to be disciplined. I blame myself for letting him get away with so much. I am, as she said, not firm enough.

But I am not the only one.

His mother, my ex-wife, was permissive to the point of absurdity. Her natural son, my stepson, was completely out of control when I met her. He was three years old at the time. I reluctantly accepted the role of his father even though I knew that it would eventually cause division in the marriage. I had no choice. I legally adopted him, and as his adoptive father, if I wanted the child to ever amount to anything at all, I knew he would have to be disciplined, whether she wanted him to be or not.

By the time his brother was born two years later, it had already become apparent that she was going to contradict me whenever I tried to discipline him. In spite of all the experts advice to take disagreements about the methods of discipline behind closed doors, away from the children, she disagreed with me right in front of the children, always taking the children's side against me.

It is no wonder they both grew up with so little respect for me.

Some of my regular readers know some of what has happened since then. Here is a refresher, and here.

He called me the other night from Florida. He is well, and still trying to gain a foothold in society without a support system of criminals.

His brother is a pretty good kid, overall, in spite of the fact that he is way to irresponsible for a kid his age. By this time, he should be graduating from school and be at least part time gainfully employed, but he's not. He seems to have little interest in procuring employment, getting an education, or even getting his driver's license. He is only interested in skateboarding, at which, I must say, he is very good.

At least he does have some aspirations.

He hopes to one day become a videographer or photographer specializing in skateboarding videos and photographs. He does have the talent and I support him in his pursuit of his dream. But I am concerned with his irresponsibility.

His mother no doubt had a tremendous influence during his formative years.

Lastly, I can't help but believe the public schools have contributed to this overall lack of discipline and irresponsibility. After all, my son is not the only kid around who has this problem. Many children of responsible, disciplinarian parents are also afflicted with this malady.

I don't know how it is happening, but I am convinced the schools are failing to teach children the importance of responsibility.

The schools say the parents have the responsibility to instill values in their children, and parents, to some extent, say part of that responsibility belongs to the schools.

Some leave it to the schools entirely.

I believe it should be a concerted effort between the two. The schools have our kids for much of the productive hours of the day, and during those hours, the parents have no control over what the teachers are teaching, or not teaching them.

What are the schools teaching our kids?

I work in an office with several young people, many of whom have graduated from high school within the last three years. Since I've been employed there, not one day have all employees been present and on time. Some one is always absent and/or late. I have never seen such irresponsibility in my life. Several have been fired for excessive absences and tardiness.

I don't know the family history of these young people but I am convinced the prevalence of irresponsibility in young people today cannot possibly be only the fault of inadequate parenting skills.

If it's true that the schools are failing the children, there remains the question of why?

One google search will help answer that question. Google the phrase "Parents sue school" (parentheses included), and your search will return 749 hits. Admittedly, some of the lawsuits include suits I deem necessary to keep Liberal ideology from being indoctrinated into our children's heads. But many of them are about parents who object to the schools disciplining their children.

Schools had to stop using corporal punishment long ago, due to pressure from feel good Liberal activists. Now, there are complaints about the use of suspensions and time outs.

Where will this insanity end?

It isn't entirely the schools fault that they don't instill personal responsibility and self discipline into our children. It is also a repercussion of the litigious society we live in these days.

The sad fact is the schools are simply afraid to discipline students anymore.

In the end, personal responsibility is always up to the individual, regardless of the factors that shape our personalities.

But we have to acknowledge that not holding children to accountability is certainly not helping the transition to adulthood.

Catching Up

"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." ~ Elbert Hubbard

I have been busy, and haven't had time to create new posts on here. I still don't have much time, but I do want to make a comment on a couple of things I've been thinking about.

The trouble is, I don't know what's been going on.

I habitually listen to talk radio whenever I drive somewhere, but never listen to it at home. But lately, since my car trouble, I have been driving a small pick-up truck that has no radio. (I sing my favorite songs as I drive.) At home, I watch TV, mostly movies, and reruns of old comedies, and not usually news. I am not a news hound. I do hear tidbits of news now and again while channel surfing, and most times what news I hear is from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX news.

I don't often hear news that isn't Liberally slanted, anyway.

Nevertheless. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the surge is working. I say that because I haven't been hearing as much of the casualty count in Iraq as I used to. Knowing how much the Liberally biased news media loves to trumpet the bad news of the war and ignore the good news, it seems to me that they have had precious little to say on the subject lately.

But, as I say, I may be wrong. I am sure my Liberal readers will be quick to correct me if I am.

Also, I have something to say about the latest Ann Coulter controversy.

I like Ann Coulter. I think she is a brilliant analyst and commentator. She has a unique way of pointing out absurdity. Especially Liberal absurdity. And she does it with humor, which, as many have pointed out, is a characteristic sadly lacking in most Conservative commentaries. I have also seen her point out absurdity in Conservatives at times.

This latest unfortunate choice of words was, in my opinion, a mistake on her part. Liberals love to catch a Conservative making a remark that they can blow up out of proportion and this time, they didn't have to use much powder.

Nevertheless it was just a joke. I don't care who you are, it was funny. As Coulter said, “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

That's funny, too.

However....

That is the kind of joke a small group of Conservatives make when standing around the water cooler at work or in the back room of a Conservative caucus or something. Out of the earshot of any media. For that reason, I agree. It was not an intelligent remark. No, I take that back. It was an intelligent remark, but not made at the right time and place.

And that brings up another point. Why is it that Conservatives are forever being crucified by the media for every little poor choice of words they use, when Liberals can literally run their mouths non-stop, making all kinds of intentional offensive comments, not only about Conservatives, but about the very people who support them, and very little fuss is made over them?

Look at the shameful way Hillary sucked up to black people at the church in Selma, Alabama. Did they think her affected accent was genuine? Or were they insulted, as they should have been?

I'm not even black but I was offended.

Ann Coulter tells a funny joke about John Edwards and the media goes ballistic and holds every Conservative in America personally responsible for the offense.

John Kerry insults the American soldiers in Iraq with a so-called joke that isn't even funny and he gets a pass.

Conservatives must choose every word very carefully if they are to avoid offending someone. Remember George Allen's use of a word no body knew the meaning of, until some enterprising Liberal decided to look up the definition? It may have cost him the election. If it didn't, it certainly contributed to it.

It has been said that Liberals often ignore the elephant in the room. Meaning they can't seem to see the obvious. This metaphor is used in reference to things like the war, or the abortion issue, et al.

I think the Elephant, in this case, refers to Republican and Conservative rhetoric so often ignored by the Libs and the news media until they say something thoughtless. Then, all of a sudden, the elephant is the biggest thing in the room.

So, I guess the question that begs to be answered is this:

Why is it that no one knows the elephant is in the room until the elephant farts?

Life Is Good

"For we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, for those that are the called, according to His purpose" --Rom. 8:28

Abouna, who is the newest addition to my blogroll, has an interesting post today entitled, "Why isn’t God treating me fair?"

In it, he says this:

"There are so many of us, going through life today, who cannot seem to understand why we are not getting the type of life that we keep wishing for."

Read the rest here.

I started to make a comment on it, but as usual, My comment went too long, so again, I am publishing my comment as a blog entry. Here it is:

I too, am one of those who never seem to get the breaks. I have a brother who is exactly the opposite. As I often say, he could fall through the hole in a privy and come up smelling like a rose. I, on the other hand, would climb, stinking to high heaven out of the privy, simply to slip and fall back in.

I have also often said, my life is an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel without the adventure.

He and I discussed this once. He said he never knew anyone who had so much bad luck and I said I never knew anyone with such good luck. But, I said, If he was ever faced with some catastrophe, he would fall apart. On the other hand, catastrophe's happen to me every day. They are like water off a ducks back to me.

God knows what each of us can handle. He will never give us more adversity than we can take.

On my new job, I had to man a booth at a local Home and garden show, for the purpose of procuring sales leads. My day in the booth was on a Sunday.

Friday at the show was a good day. the weather was beautiful. So was Saturday. My co-workers got lots of leads those two days. Sunday came with snow, ice and freezing rain. The home show was almost empty of potential customers that day. I got one lead.

My boss was complaining about the weather causing such a bad turnout. I jokingly informed him that the bad weather was my fault, because God doesn't want me to succeed.

He took it as a joke and laughed but the truth be known, I wasn't joking.

I believe and have believed for some time that since God knows me, and knows that I would not be a good steward of any thing He might bless me with, He has decided in His wisdom, that I should remain as I am, until I finally learn to be responsible with what He gives me.

Sometimes lessons take a lifetime to learn.

I am comfortable with that, knowing that I have treasures laid up for me in Heaven. Given that this life time is only a twinkling of an eye in comparison to an eternity with God, This life is only a minor inconvenience.

Of course, it could be argued that I do these things to myself, and there would be ample evidence to suggest this theory is true.

In just the last couple of years, I have made the same mistakes in not exercising good judgement in stewardship, to wit:

I had a great job as a Lawn service Technician. I was making the most money I made in my life. The boss liked me, and I was doing a very good job. My customers were pleased with my performance. I had very few complaints with my work, either from customers or management, and those I had were taken care of promptly. I was flying high and feeling secure with my future.

Then, I bought a new car. Brand new, right off the lot, with 5 miles on the odometer.

In short, I got cocky and began to feel as if I had control of my life.

That was a mistake.

Within a week I had wrecked the company van. That wasn't enough to knock me down a notch or two. So, the very next day on the job, I did it again.

(This is the actual picture of the actual first accident. That's me, talking to the police officer there on the right)

Two weeks after I had made a 5 year commitment to pay enormous monthly payments on a new car, I was laid off, with a promise that in a couple of months, I could possibly come back to work again. That didn't happen, needless to say. Now, before I even made my first car payment, I had no money to pay it with.

Now, this is the way God works with me:

Two months later, I finally got a job that paid me enough to pay the car payments, although I had to work a couple of weeks before I got my first paycheck. Mere hours before the finance company repossessed my car (which I had to use on my new job), I caught my car payment up.

God had both blessed me and taught me a valuable lesson.

God may not always be on time, but He's never late.

The new job was better than the old one. I made more money than the former, and the hours were better. The work was thousands of times easier. I had a two hour lunch period, and was completely on my own, with no boss hovering over me. On top of all that, my expenses were deductible and I ended up not having to pay a cent in taxes, and got a huge tax refund!

I caught up on all my other bills, and was even able to start saving money.

Then, I began feeling cocky again, and against my better judgement, went out one weekend night and blew about $300.00 on a night of pure base debauchery. I won't go into details.

And, within a week after this one night of self gratification and self worship (for this is indeed what it was), I suddenly and without warning, lost my job. I went from wealthy to nearly penniless in mere days.

These examples are indicative of my whole life.

I have yet to learn, apparently.

But it's OK, really. I have learned one thing, although it may not be the only thing I need to learn, and that is, I am terribly irresponsible with God's gifts. Will I ever learn to be a good steward? Yes, I think so. I believe it is God's purpose for me to learn this lesson. And I believe God always fulfills His purpose.

If nothing else, as long as I fail to learn God's lessons, I am assured of a long life. He won't let me die without fulfilling God's purpose for my life.

Or maybe He will. Maybe that will be the final lesson. I don't know.

I am content with the knowledge that God will keep me safe, though bruised and battered, until I have fulfilled His purpose for my life.

Life is good.