Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
"Are you calling Democrats Nazis?!?"
"Well it depends on what you mean by 'parsing', 'devalued', 'twisted', 'dumbed', 'reduced', 'forcing', 'insolvent', 'created', 'opportunity', 'need', 'change', 'centralised', 'redistributionization', 'national socialist German workers party'..."
Friday, December 19, 2008
Salvation Army Told to Stop Rattling Collection Tins... It Might Offend Other Religions
After 130 years of raising money at Christmas time, the Salvation Army is now telling members to quit rattling their collection tins.It may offend other religions.
The Daily Mail reported:
For 130 years they have been part of Christmas, filling the air in towns across the land with music and carols. But one thing is missing from the repertoire of Salvation Army bands this year - the percussion of rattling tins. Members have been forbidden to shake their charity tins - even if it's done in time to the music - in case it harasses or intimidates people. One said she had been told it might also offend other religions.
Apparently it's offensive to some religions to be FORCED to hear the rattling of charity tins...
... and yet... it's NOT offensive to find Muslim Prayer Rooms in a mall? What's next... a mosque? And as one commenter mentioned HERE... how long before they stop serving pork at the food court to appease Muslims.
What about our public schools?
I find it offensive that one religion is getting more "privileges" than others to somehow avoid offending anyone from that religion. And yet I don't see any special places for children from other religions. The usual argument against this is that other religions don't have rituals that are performed in the middle of the day or need to be in private. So? You can't say you're being fair to all religions if you single one out and give them their own rooms and excuses to leave classrooms or take time out of their own education to go off and conduct religious practices. I seriously doubt that if I call my son's school and tell them he needs to leave the room at exactly 11:13am to pray that they will provide for it. Now, granted... he doesn't NEED to do that, so they could easily win the argument that he doesn't need to do such a thing.
The fact is... people are embarassed. They say that any child can pray over their lunch if they want, yet those who witness such an act feel uncomfortable and uneasy when they see it. I hear educators say that any child can conduct whatever type of prayer they need... they won't stop them. Really? I doubt that because if one of the teachers doesn't agree with what the child is doing, he or she will find a way... ANY WAY... to interupt that child and distract him from his prayer.
One school of thought (pardon the pun) is that by building these special rooms, they are protecting the individual (Muslims) from ridicul and helping those who are uncomfortable watching such religious practices (non-Muslims) not be offended. Well, that's just dandy. Let's see how many religions we can name that DO require the same type of seclusion and/or time to worship whatever god they worship. It isn't ONLY Muslims.
Either religion is or it is not allowed in our schools... you can't say it's okay for Muslims but not Catholics or Jews or Mormons or Budist or... sigh... you do it for all or you do it for none.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
How soon before Obama destroys our progress in Iraq and when will the Left admit to the worst congress ever?
Either way, he's going to piss a lot of people off! Imagine the outrage of those who have struggled for so long and the families of dead soldiers if we pull out too soon and have to start all over again. Imagine the outrage from the liberal left when Obama says we must continue doing what we're going now and not withdraw until some "unknown" date. Of course, they'll stand behind his decision... even if it's the exact decision President Bush has made or would make. Hypocrisy is a nasty, filthy word.
Milestone in Baghdad
The barbarism in Mumbai and the economic crisis at home have largely overshadowed an otherwise singular event: the ratification of military and strategic cooperation agreements between Iraq and the United States.
For the United States, this represents the single most important geopolitical advance in the region since Henry Kissinger turned Egypt from a Soviet client into an American ally. If we don't blow it with too hasty a withdrawal from Iraq, we will have turned a chronically destabilizing enemy state at the epicenter of the Arab Middle East into an ally.
True, the war is not over. As Gen. David Petraeus repeatedly insists, our (belated) successes in Iraq are still fragile. There has already been an uptick in terror bombings, which will undoubtedly continue as what's left of al-Qaeda, the Sadrist militias and the Iranian-controlled "special groups" try to disrupt January's provincial elections.
This is a cute little photo analyst of the WORST CONGRESS EVER.
$165 Billion: Budget deficit, fiscal 2007
$1000 Billion: Budget deficit, fiscal 2009 (estimated)
4.5%: Unemployment rate: November 2006
6.7%: Unemployment rate: Today.
$50 Trillion: Net worth of the United States, November 2006
$44 Trillion: Net worth of the United States: Today.
12,157: Dow, November 2006
8,600: Dow, Today.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Let's talk about the concept of restricting children from being children. Teachers want little boys to act like little girls and little girls to act like little boys. No wonder we have so much gender confusion. Boys must "understand what it must be like to suffer as a woman"... and little girls must take up arms against boys to prove their masculinity. It's up to the parents to teach their boys to be respectful of girls... and to teach their girls to be strong without feeling animosity towards boys. It's a bizarre line we tend to step over and it makes no sense to me why we can't teach both men and women to be independent and not let anyone else break them down into piles of waste. You don't have to experience tremendous neglect to be a bigger person. You don't have to HATE in order to be better than you are now. You don't have to turn your back on others just to prove a point.
In all aspects, our education system tries to tear the family unit apart by either making children disrespect their parents or making boys and girls hate each other based on their natural and inevitable development. In the mean time, it back fires. I've seen and heard the garbage coming from teen aged boy's mouths... absolute disrespect for women and all they want to do is subject them to the humiliations they feel will make them into men. I've also seen and heard the garbage coming from teen aged girl's mouths... the desire to make every boy want them so bad that the male brain explodes. It's a continual circle of disrespect and shoulders shrug to say "that's the way it has always been and that's the way it will always be... eventually they will grow up to LEARN respect for each other". No... not always.
Its' a constant battle between male and female and the family unit is to blame often for not teaching their kids how to respect other people. But ultimately, even when parents do teach their children how to behave and how to care for others, the education system tears it down by finding suggestive ways to encourage the ongoing struggle between the sexes, the races, the religions, the family members, the classes... it is an unbelievable undercutting of humanity.
All of this can only lead to not only the family unit falling apart, but our country falling into socialism by causing individuals to be nothing more than one voice against a mass of voices owned and controlled by the government. The more time goes by, the more the true intentions of liberals and democrats come to light. At one point I would not have made such a wide general statement and perhaps I shouldn't do so now. But just like the fall of journalist and the revelation across the country that they are owned by liberals and democrats, so shall these same liberals and democrats show their true faces. Eventually those who were once proud to say they fell into that category will turn their backs on the extremists and either form their own group or cross the isle to become republicans and/or conservatives.
It isn't a matter of being liberal or democrat or conservative or republican... it's a matter of being an American with values that reach to the sky not fester in the gutter.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Who cares what Oprah thinks, right? Problem is... MANY people DO care what she thinks.
There may come a day when Sarah Palin wants to have an interview with Oprah but I have a feeling when that day comes, it will be on Sarah's terms.
Oprah was hypocritical during the campaign for the white house claiming she didn't want to have any political bias by having a candidate on her show. Let's see... how many times did she have Obama on her show BEFORE the campaign began? How many times did she feel compelled to have Palin on her show?
Remember this statement by Oprah? Remember the amount of comments under this statement by her viewers who were very upset that she didn't have Sarah on her show yet had Barrack on her show?
“The item in today’s Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over.” – Oprah Winfrey, September 5, 2008
And what about this?
Oprah Winfrey Hits Campaign Trail for Obama
“When you listen to Barack Obama, when you really hear him, you witness a very rare thing. You witness a politician who has an ear for eloquence and a tongue dipped in the unvarnished truth.”
Seems Oprah was endorsing Barrack Obama way back in December of 2007. Her statement above does clearly show that she said she was in support of Obama and that she didn't want to make her show a platform for any candidate. That is what she said and that is what she did. The problem with this statement is that she had Barrack on her show a few times already so keeping Sarah Palin OFF her show was a way of letting Barrack use her show as a platform. She was not "fair" in her approach to the candidates. If nothing else, she could have had them both on her show on separate dates and asked them the same general questions making this statement of hers a little more believable.
Now Oprah is finally using her show as a platform for our new President, Barrack Obama.
Oprah 'Unleashed' After Her Candidate's Win
"During this long campaign, I made a vow at the beginning I would not use my show as a platform, and I kept my mouth shut and supported Barack Obama as a private citizen," she told her audience during a live taping of the show Wednesday morning. "Today, though, the election is over and I'm unleashed."
The problem with all of this is that by her outrageous endorsement of Obama and the fact she had him on her show and did NOT have Palin on her show, she very much endorsed him with her show. She claims that she was endorsing him PRIVATELY. Sorry Oprah... once you're famous, your private life doesn't really stay private.
Oprah Calls Obama "The One"
Winfrey said, "For the very first time in my life, I feel compelled to stand up and to speak out for the man who I believe has a new vision for America," and told the audience of 15,000 said, "I am here to tell you, Iowa, he is the one. He is the one!"
If this isn't an over the top endorsement, I don't know what is. Now, it wasn't said on her show, that is true... but people aren't stupid. They can see that Oprah was star struck over Obama and would do anything to help him get elected... even if that meant keeping Sarah off her show.
Some might think that comparing having Sarah (a V.P. candidate) to Barrack (a Pres. candidate) on Oprah's show is like comparing apples to oranges. That may be true but in light of Oprah's desire to see women in higher political offices, etc. it seems that having Barrack on her show (our first black presidential candidate) and having Sarah on her show (the first female v.p. candidate in a quite a long while) would definitely constitute "covering all her bases" when it comes to bringing on important people in our political world. Clearly it didn't matter that Sarah was a woman or that if she were V.P. it would be a great statement for the advancement of women in politics. This clearly didn't matter enough for Oprah to at least interview Sarah. Now that Sarah has lost, Oprah wants her on her show with all the bells and whistles to go along with it.
And isn't this interesting...
Hmmm... do you think Oprah left the show because Wright is a racist or because she may lose her loyal viewers if they found out that Oprah agrees with Wright. It's just another one of those questions left unanswered.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright has become a household name due to his association with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. However, Obama's not the only famous figure to attend Wright's church. Oprah was a member of Trinity church, where Wright preached, from 1984-1986, and she continued to attend off and on through the early 1990s. Then she stopped, and as Newsweek reports in its latest issue, Wright himself was a major reason.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Secretary Colin L. Powell
February 14, 2002
QUESTION: I'm wondering, when I talk to my friends about the U.S., we think about how do you feel about representing a country commonly perceived as the Satan of contemporary politics?
SECRETARY POWELL: Seen as what?
QUESTION: As the Satan of contemporary politics.
POWELL: Satan? Oh. Well, I reject the characterization. Quite the contrary. I think the American people, the United States of America, presents a value system to the rest of the world that is based on democracy, based on economic freedom, based on the individual rights of men and women. That is what has fueled this country of ours for the last 225 years.
I think that's what makes us such as draw for nations around the world. People come to the United States. They come to be educated. They come to become Americans. We are a country of countries, and we touch every country, and every country in the world touches us.
So, far from being the Great Satan, I would say that we are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women from the armed forces of the United States to other parts of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression. We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism. We saved Europe in World War I and World War II. We were willing to do it, glad to do it. We went to Korea. We went to Vietnam. All in the interest of preserving the rights of people.
And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say" "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are. So, far from being the Satan, I think we are the protector of a universal value system that more and more people are recognizing as the correct value system: democracy, economic freedom, the individual rights of men and women to pursue their own destiny. That's what we stand for, and that's what we try to help other countries achieve as well.
This is a great response to an insane accusation. How can we be considered the Satan of contemporary politics... and what the hell are contemporary politics anyway? If anyone is in league with Satan, the terrorist organizations trying to kill innocent people across the world are the ones to wear this label.
In one of his last sermons before his death, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini warned of "three threats" to his vision of Islam: the US, the Jews and women.
Two decades later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thinks he has the United States and the Jews in hand - and is moving on the third "enemy."
Women were the first to demonstrate against Khomeini's regime with a mass rally in Tehran on March 8, 1979 - less than a month after the mullahs had seized power. Over the next decade, the authorities imprisoned hundreds of thousands of women for varying lengths of time, and executed thousands.
But women continued to fight a regime that deemed them subhuman. Their resistance prevented the mullahs from abrogating pre-revolutionary laws limiting gender discrimination. Thus, women succeeded in keeping their right to vote and win public office.
That sounds like something Satan would want. Satan would be the one to approve of this type of behavior. Khomeini is the one who states it is "his vision" and Ahmadinejad believes in this vision and has moved on to "dealing" with women. Women, as the article states, are deemed subhuman. Anyone or any group who feels it is their right to treat another person as subhuman is not them self human.
In this country, every legal American citizen has the same rights as every other. No where in our laws does it state that we can treat one person from another in a different light. And, as a matter of fact, this slides over into how we treat people who are not American citizens. If that were not true, we would not come to the aide of so many who ask for it.The fact many people from other countries (lets look towards Europe) feel some sort of evil intention towards America only shows how self righteous they are... why... because many of them would not defend their country and do anything they could to keep it the way it is. They are self serving, self righteous, jealous individuals who point their fingers outwards to avoid eye contact that will reveal them for what they are.
I'm truly sorry if there are people from these same countries who do not fall into this category because they are put there just out of association. But as is true here in America... often the loudest most obnoxious people are the ones that DO NOT speak for all of us and therefore we are all lumped into some horrible ball of garbage. I've noticed lately that those who are the loudest in other countries feel the same as the loudest from America... thus it looks like the WHOLE WORLD feels one way. Really? I don't think so.
What we have happening is a group of loud mouths who think they speak for everyone when in reality they don't speak for anyone but their own self interests. If they had their way, everyone would live exactly the way they felt was right and, in my book, that's a dictatorship. Communism is not my way of life.
Monday, December 8, 2008
President Ronald Reagan gives a thumbs-up to supporters at the Century Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles as he celebrates his re-election, Nov. 6, 1984, with first lady Nancy Reagan at his side. Reagan's win over Walter Mondale, 525 to 13 in the electoral vote and 59 percent to 41 percent in popular votes, was unquestionably a landslide election.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
How many people think America is a Democracy? It's amazing to me but not surprising. I didn't graduate from High School knowing much of anything about how our government and how our country works. I just sighed and rolled my eyes when we had to discuss things like that. I don't even know if the teacher was telling me what I needed to know or filling my head with mush. I just didn't pay that much attention.
America is not a Democracy... we are a Republic.
There are few people who really care about what's going on with our government, especially those coming out of High School. Oh, there are those graduating who know far more than I do, but the majority of them just want to graduate so they can get on with their lives. So many Americans don't understand why they SHOULD care about how our government is changing.
As Zo says here... freedom of speech is more about being able to speak out against our government if they become or may become oppressive without the fear of being put in jail or silenced to death. So many Americans think freedom of speech is the ability to just say whatever you want, no matter how shocking (and the more shocking the better) to anyone who will listen. That isn't what it's all about.
The subject of gun control is a sensitive subject indeed. Democrats want to ban them... take them out of the hands of American citizens because guns are dangerous. Guns can and sometimes do have a part in criminal activities... but taking them away from citizens will not make that fact any less than it is now.
If they make owning a handgun or any other gun illegal, it will inevitably make it EASIER for criminals to get their hands on guns. It makes no difference if you can buy them at the local gun store or in a back alley. Making a person register their gun has no affect on criminals. When was the last time a criminal went in to a store, registered for a gun, sat back during the waiting process to actually buy the gun and then went out to rob a bank?
They don't go to the store... they go to the alley.
Making guns illegal will change nothing for criminals... instead there will be more guns made available to them illegally because those selling them will have a lot more on hand.
Banning guns causes law abiding citizens to become criminals merely because they want to protect themselves against the "real" bad guys. Not criminals in that they commit horrible crimes, but instead criminals in the eyes of those who ban guns and cause people to use the same sources criminals use to purchase them.
I agree with Zo in that a person should get the proper training when it comes to shooting a gun and thus, owning one. I also agree that the government has no business knowing whether I own one gun or twenty. So long as I am knowledgeable in the use of them, then how many I have is my business and no one else's.
I love the mention of trees in this video... liberals continue to tell us that America is a horrible country because we harm the environment. They forget to mention that we are the leading country when it comes to taking care of the environment. We don't chop down trees and build without consideration of the environment and future generations of Americans. We replant trees in areas where they are cut down... we harvest what is needed and we continue this process generation after generation.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
This year's election has brought to light what so many of us have known for a long time. Journalism is dead.
TRUE journalism is dead.
The exact hour when the cancer took hold and began it's twisted erosion of our media is unclear but it wasn't too long ago that it began to fester.
I remember singing along to Dirty Laundry several years ago and the lyrics were more true than I imagined at that time. Today, the lyrics tell a haunting story of "told ya so".
"Dirty little secrets Dirty little lies We got our dirty little fingers in everybody's pie We love to cut you down to size"
When journalists and those who pay them to come up with wonderfully outlandish articles go out of their way to get as much dirt as they can from those individuals who really aren't bad people, it shows their lack of integrity. When they go out of their way to paint pretty little flowers around the feet of terrorists, it shows their lack of intelligence.
If those in charge of what journalists can and can not report dictate to them that if they do not bring them dirt on those who are not dirty and clean up those who are filthy, they are themselves guilty of creating monsters in the real world.
Journalists have sadly sunken to the level of lawyers... we all know the jokes about lawyers and how underhanded they are. And we all know it isn't true of all lawyers... somewhere along the line they got a reputation and all were placed in a stereo-type they may never outlive. Thing is... this year's election has placed the lawyer above the journalist.
Congratulations to those journalists who sunk so low that other "good" journalists must hang their heads in shame and feel embarrassed to speak their own profession.
They hung themselves by their own hypocritical words.