President Obama's "peace and harmony" foreign policy is more reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain than Winston Churchill. In typical do-gooder fashion, this inexperienced leader either naively believes we can truly have "peace in our time" through dialogue with our enemies, egotistically believes he can win over our enemies by apologizing for our "past, misguided leaders," or is trying to undermine this nation's superpower status.
The president on Thursday addressed his plan to close Gitmo and ban "torture" methods used in the Bush years to extract key information from terrorists that saved the lives of many, many Americans during the past 7 1/2 years. Apparently, Obama is more concerned with this country's reputation in the world than with its security. What he doesn't seem to understand is that no matter how we try to get foreigners to like us, the rest of the world will always hate us. Just read "Hating America" by John Gibson.
Obama called the Gitmo problem a mess left him from the previous administration. It's getting tiresome hearing everything being blamed on Bush. He isn't president anymore; Obama is the man. He needs to heed his own words, quit looking to the past and just do his job. He needs to admit he made a mistake by hastily calling for Gitmo's closure without a detailed plan to handle all the inherent problems.
But then, it has become very clear, even in just 100 days into his presidency, that Obama can't --- or won't -- admit he's wrong about anything.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Ill-conceived plan
Say what?
President Obama earlier this week was seen railing against the huge federal deficit, saying it is unsustainable and that interest rates will be driven upward if foreign countries stop buying our debt -- something China already is strongly considering.
“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”
What? Has the president suddenly come to his senses and become an advocate of fiscal responsibility, after following the lead of his predecessor, George W. Bush, and driving the deficit to mind-boggling levels that will only grow larger in the near future?
Don't get all giddy with joy. The president was not repenting of his free-spending practices, but instead using one of his favorite tricks -- saying something that sounds good to everyone, then using it as a springboard to launch one of his socialist programs or to expand his powers through increased government. This time, he was using his rhetoric to support his upcoming health care reform.
“Most of what is driving us into debt is health care, so we have to drive down costs,” he said.
So he plans to install a health care program like ones that exist in European countries, like Sweden. It will consolidate the health-care insurance industry under just a few of the bigger insurance companies, like Blue Cross and United Health, at the expense of smaller insurers. Individuals will have fewer choices and, unable to afford policies that cover the costliest procedures and care, droves will find themselves on the federal program, which will pay less for procedures, thereby denying the most expensive care to the masses. Only the rich will be taken care of in this kind of program as they will be able to afford it.
Every citizen deserves health care, but insure the uninsured and leave the rest of us alone. We shouldn't let Obama distract us with rhetoric while he drags down the entire U.S. health care system to a level where the government decides who gets the procedures they need or who lives and who dies.
President Obama earlier this week was seen railing against the huge federal deficit, saying it is unsustainable and that interest rates will be driven upward if foreign countries stop buying our debt -- something China already is strongly considering.
“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”
What? Has the president suddenly come to his senses and become an advocate of fiscal responsibility, after following the lead of his predecessor, George W. Bush, and driving the deficit to mind-boggling levels that will only grow larger in the near future?
Don't get all giddy with joy. The president was not repenting of his free-spending practices, but instead using one of his favorite tricks -- saying something that sounds good to everyone, then using it as a springboard to launch one of his socialist programs or to expand his powers through increased government. This time, he was using his rhetoric to support his upcoming health care reform.
“Most of what is driving us into debt is health care, so we have to drive down costs,” he said.
So he plans to install a health care program like ones that exist in European countries, like Sweden. It will consolidate the health-care insurance industry under just a few of the bigger insurance companies, like Blue Cross and United Health, at the expense of smaller insurers. Individuals will have fewer choices and, unable to afford policies that cover the costliest procedures and care, droves will find themselves on the federal program, which will pay less for procedures, thereby denying the most expensive care to the masses. Only the rich will be taken care of in this kind of program as they will be able to afford it.
Every citizen deserves health care, but insure the uninsured and leave the rest of us alone. We shouldn't let Obama distract us with rhetoric while he drags down the entire U.S. health care system to a level where the government decides who gets the procedures they need or who lives and who dies.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Clever as serpents
Despite the liberal media's attempts to diminish the importance of the Tea Party Movement and to paint a Republican face on it, the Democratic Party is not taking the grass-roots activism lightly. It has prepared at least one memo aimed at combatting this growing threat and you can read it at http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/_memos/tds_SM_AL_teaparty.pdf.
The Democrats realize that they are not going to win over the tea party crowd, as it does tend to be a conservative group. But they do think the movement can be diluted and the damage limited by "agreeing" in principle with the protesters and by pointing out that the clearinghouses for the tea parties are major organizations that hold views opposed to them.
President Obama displayed the first strategy in a Georgetown speech when he said it's time to return to a responsible economic culture. "He embraced tradition, order and
authority. He quoted the New Testament and argued that it is time that the
U.S. built its economic house on rock and not sand."
The president seems very adept at using rhetoric that sounds good to his audience or critics, but his actions and political agenda often are at war with his words. It sounds a lot like the tactic used by the serpent in the Garden of Eden. It is the opinion here that he underestimates the resolve of those involved in this movement, and his clever rhetoric cannot mask the destruction he is doing to our economy, liberties and to the U.S. Constitution.
As for the tea party crowd being in bed with those whom it disagrees, wasn't that the case when the Americans and British fought beside the Russian communists to defeat a greater evil -- Nazi Germany?
We must not let these tactics dissuade, distract or divide us. We must fight beside anyone who supports our cause, but we must not be satisfied with any solution other than getting rid of elitist, greedy, power-hungry politicians bent on bigger government, out-of-control spending and progressivism and turning this country back to the principles, morals and values first set forth by its founders, like Jefferson, Franklin and Adams.
The Democrats realize that they are not going to win over the tea party crowd, as it does tend to be a conservative group. But they do think the movement can be diluted and the damage limited by "agreeing" in principle with the protesters and by pointing out that the clearinghouses for the tea parties are major organizations that hold views opposed to them.
President Obama displayed the first strategy in a Georgetown speech when he said it's time to return to a responsible economic culture. "He embraced tradition, order and
authority. He quoted the New Testament and argued that it is time that the
U.S. built its economic house on rock and not sand."
The president seems very adept at using rhetoric that sounds good to his audience or critics, but his actions and political agenda often are at war with his words. It sounds a lot like the tactic used by the serpent in the Garden of Eden. It is the opinion here that he underestimates the resolve of those involved in this movement, and his clever rhetoric cannot mask the destruction he is doing to our economy, liberties and to the U.S. Constitution.
As for the tea party crowd being in bed with those whom it disagrees, wasn't that the case when the Americans and British fought beside the Russian communists to defeat a greater evil -- Nazi Germany?
We must not let these tactics dissuade, distract or divide us. We must fight beside anyone who supports our cause, but we must not be satisfied with any solution other than getting rid of elitist, greedy, power-hungry politicians bent on bigger government, out-of-control spending and progressivism and turning this country back to the principles, morals and values first set forth by its founders, like Jefferson, Franklin and Adams.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
A Great Deception?
Why is President Obama afraid?
There are multiple lawsuits in multiple courts, trying to get the president to produce a legal birth certificate that would prove he is a natural-born citizen of the United States. By law, he should have had to produce the document before the Electoral College released his votes in December that officially made him president, but all anyone has ever seen was a bad online copy of what the Obama camp said was his Hawaiian birth certificate.
Meanwhile, attorneys representing Obama have defended the president from having to produce any such document at a cost of more than a million dollars.
Why would Obama or his proponents incur such costs fighting court battles, when a legal birth certificate could be obtained for $25-50? One explanation is that there is a coverup going on, a deception prepetrated to get this man elected to the highest office in the land to push an agenda that will suck the power from the people and U.S. Constitution, consolidate it in the federal government and prepare the country for a gobal currency and one-world government.
Could it be that President Obama doesn't really care about us because he is not one of us?
There are multiple lawsuits in multiple courts, trying to get the president to produce a legal birth certificate that would prove he is a natural-born citizen of the United States. By law, he should have had to produce the document before the Electoral College released his votes in December that officially made him president, but all anyone has ever seen was a bad online copy of what the Obama camp said was his Hawaiian birth certificate.
Meanwhile, attorneys representing Obama have defended the president from having to produce any such document at a cost of more than a million dollars.
Why would Obama or his proponents incur such costs fighting court battles, when a legal birth certificate could be obtained for $25-50? One explanation is that there is a coverup going on, a deception prepetrated to get this man elected to the highest office in the land to push an agenda that will suck the power from the people and U.S. Constitution, consolidate it in the federal government and prepare the country for a gobal currency and one-world government.
Could it be that President Obama doesn't really care about us because he is not one of us?
Prophecy come alive
With North Korea working on a way to deliver nukes, Iran working on creating them and the Taliban working on capturing them, it's easy to overlook an important upcoming meeting between two key world leaders. When Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington next week to meet with President Obama, it could mean far more than just an opportunity to discuss Mideast peace initiatives. It could also open the door to fulfill Biblical prophecies in either the books of Ezekial or Daniel.
King Abdullah of Jordan has said that either Obama gets through to Netanyahu and a peace agreement is begun that would create a sovereign Palestinian state and assuage, at least temporarily, the Muslim world, or there likely will be an Arab-Israeli conflict that will suck in other countries. Obama's credibility with Muslims is on the line, he said.
“All eyes will be looking to Washington,” he said. “If there are no clear signals and no clear directives to all of us, there will be a feeling that this is just another American Government that is going to let us all down.”
If the Israelis and Palestinians cannot work out their differences and there is conflict, it is quite possible and maybe even likely that it could be the fulfillment of Ezekial 38 and 39, in which the great Hebrew prophet prophesied that a coalition including Russia and the Arab states would attack Israel. Only the hand of God would protect the Jews.
If on the other hand, a peace agreement does evolve from this meeting, could it signal a peace accord predicted in Daniel that would be struck between a powerful world leader and Israel that many Christian dispensationalists believe would usher in the final seven years of human history as we know it, ending in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ?
There is not enough evidence yet, nor even the preconditions, to charge Obama with the Antichrist tag, but his actions during his first 100-plus days in office certainly give pause to wonder. He is such a smooth talker -- one critic said his smooth rhetoric makes him very dangerous -- he says anything that sounds good and right then does just the opposite (in other words, he lies) and he is bent on power and transnationalism, which certainly fosters seeds for a one-world government.
It is my guess that Obama has Palestinian leanings and, while he may say he supports Israel, he would be quite willing to throw it under the bus if he thinks he can get some sort of Mideast peace accord. No matter how this plays out, we likely are entering a dangerous and momentous time in history.
King Abdullah of Jordan has said that either Obama gets through to Netanyahu and a peace agreement is begun that would create a sovereign Palestinian state and assuage, at least temporarily, the Muslim world, or there likely will be an Arab-Israeli conflict that will suck in other countries. Obama's credibility with Muslims is on the line, he said.
“All eyes will be looking to Washington,” he said. “If there are no clear signals and no clear directives to all of us, there will be a feeling that this is just another American Government that is going to let us all down.”
If the Israelis and Palestinians cannot work out their differences and there is conflict, it is quite possible and maybe even likely that it could be the fulfillment of Ezekial 38 and 39, in which the great Hebrew prophet prophesied that a coalition including Russia and the Arab states would attack Israel. Only the hand of God would protect the Jews.
If on the other hand, a peace agreement does evolve from this meeting, could it signal a peace accord predicted in Daniel that would be struck between a powerful world leader and Israel that many Christian dispensationalists believe would usher in the final seven years of human history as we know it, ending in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ?
There is not enough evidence yet, nor even the preconditions, to charge Obama with the Antichrist tag, but his actions during his first 100-plus days in office certainly give pause to wonder. He is such a smooth talker -- one critic said his smooth rhetoric makes him very dangerous -- he says anything that sounds good and right then does just the opposite (in other words, he lies) and he is bent on power and transnationalism, which certainly fosters seeds for a one-world government.
It is my guess that Obama has Palestinian leanings and, while he may say he supports Israel, he would be quite willing to throw it under the bus if he thinks he can get some sort of Mideast peace accord. No matter how this plays out, we likely are entering a dangerous and momentous time in history.
Friday, June 20, 2008
A Smoking Gun
Instead of focusing on such worthy targets of change -- like rampant drug use, sexual abuse, abortion -- the leftist game plan is being used by at least one group on the Internet to attack ... God.
Godisimaginary.com has posted 50 "proofs" that God does not exist, except in the heads of silly Christians. Christian belief in Jesus and God is compared to children's belief in Santa Claus and is no more real, the site's proponents insist. They then ask others to join them in eradicating belief in God, much as they rid the country of smoking or got women the right to vote.
"There once was a time in America when no woman could vote. Yet, somehow, even though women could not vote, they all have the right to vote today. How did that happen?
"There was once a time in America where the large majority of people smoked cigarettes. Smoking was allowed everywhere -- even on airplanes and in public restrooms. Yet today, smoking is banned in most public spaces, including airplanes. How did that happen?
"The way to change the world is to change people's minds. As more and more people openly discuss the fact that 'God' and 'Allah' are completely imaginary, the world becomes a better place. The people who believe in 'religion' look sillier and sillier. Eventually, religion becomes a fringe activity that is meaningless."
I have a simple question for these atheists. If God is imaginary, as they say, then why are they expending so much time and energy to debunk the belief in Him?
Could it be that they hate Christianity so much because it sheds light on their own sinfulness and their need for forgiveness that only God can provide through His Son, Jesus Christ? That would mean that they are not the masters of their own destiny and, indeed, have no real control of their lives.
Godisimaginary.com has posted 50 "proofs" that God does not exist, except in the heads of silly Christians. Christian belief in Jesus and God is compared to children's belief in Santa Claus and is no more real, the site's proponents insist. They then ask others to join them in eradicating belief in God, much as they rid the country of smoking or got women the right to vote.
"There once was a time in America when no woman could vote. Yet, somehow, even though women could not vote, they all have the right to vote today. How did that happen?
"There was once a time in America where the large majority of people smoked cigarettes. Smoking was allowed everywhere -- even on airplanes and in public restrooms. Yet today, smoking is banned in most public spaces, including airplanes. How did that happen?
"The way to change the world is to change people's minds. As more and more people openly discuss the fact that 'God' and 'Allah' are completely imaginary, the world becomes a better place. The people who believe in 'religion' look sillier and sillier. Eventually, religion becomes a fringe activity that is meaningless."
I have a simple question for these atheists. If God is imaginary, as they say, then why are they expending so much time and energy to debunk the belief in Him?
Could it be that they hate Christianity so much because it sheds light on their own sinfulness and their need for forgiveness that only God can provide through His Son, Jesus Christ? That would mean that they are not the masters of their own destiny and, indeed, have no real control of their lives.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
This country's biggest threat
The most insidious enemy the U.S. faces is not militant Islam. Neither is it communism, global warming, the economy-ravaging price of oil, or even an invasion by extra-terrestrials.
No, the biggest threat this nation faces is from within. I like to call it "The Attack of the Do-Gooders." You know, those people who think they are acting to preserve Mother Nature, protect those less fortunate or different and defend minority rights so they push for or enact legislation that chisel the garment off Lady Liberty and tie her hands behind her back. They fight for seemingly good causes and are convinced they are doing good -- hence the nickname -- but in reality, they are stripping us of our freedoms, exacerbating problems and eroding the strong foundations of this democracy.
Now they have a standard-bearer whom they can rally behind, a man of great rhetoric but little substance. Barack Obama is great with cliches and might be just as good leading revival meetings, but he has few specific strategies and the ones he does have lead to higher taxes, less freedom and more dependence on foreign oil. And on the foreign policy stage, he is a nightmare. Pulling troops out of Iraq might be a popular move, but it will lead to increased chaos in the Middle East and an increased security risk to the U.S.
The Republican alternative is not a lot better, at least on the domestic front. But John McCain at least is strong on foreign policy and will fight the environmentalists to make us less dependent on Opec.
In lieu of another Jefferson, Adams or Lincoln emerging to turn back the Do-Gooders, that might be the best we can hope for right now.
No, the biggest threat this nation faces is from within. I like to call it "The Attack of the Do-Gooders." You know, those people who think they are acting to preserve Mother Nature, protect those less fortunate or different and defend minority rights so they push for or enact legislation that chisel the garment off Lady Liberty and tie her hands behind her back. They fight for seemingly good causes and are convinced they are doing good -- hence the nickname -- but in reality, they are stripping us of our freedoms, exacerbating problems and eroding the strong foundations of this democracy.
Now they have a standard-bearer whom they can rally behind, a man of great rhetoric but little substance. Barack Obama is great with cliches and might be just as good leading revival meetings, but he has few specific strategies and the ones he does have lead to higher taxes, less freedom and more dependence on foreign oil. And on the foreign policy stage, he is a nightmare. Pulling troops out of Iraq might be a popular move, but it will lead to increased chaos in the Middle East and an increased security risk to the U.S.
The Republican alternative is not a lot better, at least on the domestic front. But John McCain at least is strong on foreign policy and will fight the environmentalists to make us less dependent on Opec.
In lieu of another Jefferson, Adams or Lincoln emerging to turn back the Do-Gooders, that might be the best we can hope for right now.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Cuckoo's nest
Sometimes, I think we're all living in an insane asylum that is run by the inmates and the rest of us are too busy going about our daily pursuits that we don't notice or don't care. Then, when the crazy rules that are made pierce our personal bubble and affect our lives, we wonder, "Where did that come from?"
Last week, the nut jobs in the Senate passed a bill that grants illegal aliens access to Social Security. Under this legislation, illegal immigrants who are breaking the law just by being here will be able to support themselves with menial jobs and send SSI benefits to their families south of the border. Two years after they get said benefits, they undoubtedly will be eligible for Medicare -- or more likely Medicaid -- benefits.
Then just a few days ago, a California state legislator proposed a bill declaring it a misdemeanor to spank your child, 4 years old or younger. Now, kids of that age should receive no more than an I-mean-business swat on the rear, but a ban on ALL spanking? Even Gov. Schwarzenegger backs the legislation, saying taking away play time is a better discipline than spanking. Evidently, Arnold hasn't seen a particularly strong-willed child; his muscle-bound physique probably played more of a role in his children behaving than he thinks.
So, it looks like this state will soon be overrun by bratty kids and illegal aliens who send donations back home to Mexico courtesy of the American work force -- that is, if we haven't already been overrun by both. Maybe we just never realized it.
Last week, the nut jobs in the Senate passed a bill that grants illegal aliens access to Social Security. Under this legislation, illegal immigrants who are breaking the law just by being here will be able to support themselves with menial jobs and send SSI benefits to their families south of the border. Two years after they get said benefits, they undoubtedly will be eligible for Medicare -- or more likely Medicaid -- benefits.
Then just a few days ago, a California state legislator proposed a bill declaring it a misdemeanor to spank your child, 4 years old or younger. Now, kids of that age should receive no more than an I-mean-business swat on the rear, but a ban on ALL spanking? Even Gov. Schwarzenegger backs the legislation, saying taking away play time is a better discipline than spanking. Evidently, Arnold hasn't seen a particularly strong-willed child; his muscle-bound physique probably played more of a role in his children behaving than he thinks.
So, it looks like this state will soon be overrun by bratty kids and illegal aliens who send donations back home to Mexico courtesy of the American work force -- that is, if we haven't already been overrun by both. Maybe we just never realized it.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Abraham Who?
I think, in today's political climate, even Abraham Lincoln might have failed as president. Now, I'm not saying that George W. Bush is another Lincoln, but I do believe he has tried to do a noble and smart thing in Iraq, only to see those in this country who hate him -- for what they thought was stealing an election in 2000 -- undermine his success there more than the insurgents that are killing scores of Iraqis in Baghdad.
The cloud of Vietnam is again hanging over our heads, blown there by the hot air of the Democrats, who would rather lose this war than win it. They rant about how many lives Bush has sacrificed in Iraq for nothing, yet fail to realize that, should we lose, we will lose far more lives to an emboldened enemy somewhere else in the world, and will have to fight the terrorists right here at home.
They vilify Bush for not having a coherent strategy, yet they offer none themselves, other than to redeploy troops out of Iraq. But that would be an acceptance of defeat, embolden the terrorists for future actions of violence and open Iraq to all-out civil war. Iran and Syria would then move in and put their stamps on that country's destiny and the Iraqis would end up worse off than they were under Saddam.
Wake up, Democrats! Wake up, pacifists! We need to win this war, not just for the Iraqis, but for the sake of the Western world, us, our children and our children's children.
The cloud of Vietnam is again hanging over our heads, blown there by the hot air of the Democrats, who would rather lose this war than win it. They rant about how many lives Bush has sacrificed in Iraq for nothing, yet fail to realize that, should we lose, we will lose far more lives to an emboldened enemy somewhere else in the world, and will have to fight the terrorists right here at home.
They vilify Bush for not having a coherent strategy, yet they offer none themselves, other than to redeploy troops out of Iraq. But that would be an acceptance of defeat, embolden the terrorists for future actions of violence and open Iraq to all-out civil war. Iran and Syria would then move in and put their stamps on that country's destiny and the Iraqis would end up worse off than they were under Saddam.
Wake up, Democrats! Wake up, pacifists! We need to win this war, not just for the Iraqis, but for the sake of the Western world, us, our children and our children's children.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
I'm ashamed of my profession
It is said that sports is just a reflection of our society. That was never more true than on Sunday night during Game 2 of the World Series. Rather than report the news, the game announcers -- Joe Buck and Tim McCarver -- decided to MAKE the news, as so often happens in the media when reporting world events.
Buck and McCarver honed in on a spot on the pitching hand of Detroit Tigers pitcher Kenny Rogers and surmised that Rogers was using pine tar to alter the flight of his pitches to gain an advantage against the St. Louis Cardinals batters. They said members in the St. Louis clubhouse who were watching the telecast would tell manager Tony La Russa, who would undoubtedly complain to the umpires. Well, as they were instucted by their eyes in the booth, members in the Cardinals clubhouse did inform La Russa, who informed the umps, who checked Rogers, who had previously cleaned his hand of dirt, pine tar or whatever was on his hand. And with hands clean, Rogers went on to pitch seven more innings of great baseball.
Not to be dissuaded from trying to make a big deal out of nothing, Buck and McCarver continued to harp on the dirty hand the rest of the game, Chris Myers had a "sideline" report, both managers were quizzed as to what was going on during and after the game, Rogers was deluged by postgame questions from the print media which was quick to pick up on the controversy that their media brothers had so cleverly dreamed up to pump up interest in this Series, and ESPN kept it alive until Game 3 on Tuesday night. It even was mentioned again just before Game 3 and will undoubtedly surface again the next time Rogers pitches, if not sooner.
Enough already. When will the media in this country stop making the news and go back to their responsible role of reporting it?
Sadly enough, the answer is: Probably never.
Buck and McCarver honed in on a spot on the pitching hand of Detroit Tigers pitcher Kenny Rogers and surmised that Rogers was using pine tar to alter the flight of his pitches to gain an advantage against the St. Louis Cardinals batters. They said members in the St. Louis clubhouse who were watching the telecast would tell manager Tony La Russa, who would undoubtedly complain to the umpires. Well, as they were instucted by their eyes in the booth, members in the Cardinals clubhouse did inform La Russa, who informed the umps, who checked Rogers, who had previously cleaned his hand of dirt, pine tar or whatever was on his hand. And with hands clean, Rogers went on to pitch seven more innings of great baseball.
Not to be dissuaded from trying to make a big deal out of nothing, Buck and McCarver continued to harp on the dirty hand the rest of the game, Chris Myers had a "sideline" report, both managers were quizzed as to what was going on during and after the game, Rogers was deluged by postgame questions from the print media which was quick to pick up on the controversy that their media brothers had so cleverly dreamed up to pump up interest in this Series, and ESPN kept it alive until Game 3 on Tuesday night. It even was mentioned again just before Game 3 and will undoubtedly surface again the next time Rogers pitches, if not sooner.
Enough already. When will the media in this country stop making the news and go back to their responsible role of reporting it?
Sadly enough, the answer is: Probably never.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Five years later
On this fifth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I'd like to think America and, indeed, the world, is a safer place. I'd like to think that the country is still as united against terrorism and Islamic facism today as it was in the aftermath of that fateful day. I'd like to think that the bleeding hearts in this country have pulled their heads out of the sand and see clearly the threats posed by the jihadists and Iran, the terrorist state run by a maniacal dictator that reminds us of another madman that created such mayhem 70 years ago.
Yes, I'd like to think these things but I can't. Instead, I see an America divided along partisan lines. I see one party so blinded by hate of the man it could not beat in two elections that it has fomented an insurgency of its own, attacking the president wherever and whenever it can. Rather than heal, it seeks to divide. Rather than fight those who want only the destruction of us and Israel, it fights to regain its one-time hold on the seats of government, and security and fate of the world be damned. Rather than see the opportunity of accomplishment in Iraq and the Iranian threat to international peace and security, it sees only a way to attack President Bush, painting on him a small mustache and swastikas on his sleeves.
I also see a world blinded by resentment and jealousy toward the U.S., and it too hates President Bush, even going so far as to make a mockumentary entitled, "Death of a President."
Yes, I see all this, and I fear that we haven't learned anything yet. I fear it'll take another 9/11 or worse to wake up the leftists in this country. I fear the Harry Reids, Nancy Pelosis and Barbara Boxers of the world will gain control of this country's wheel and steer us toward an unprecedented disaster and a much more dangerous world for our children and grandchildren.
Actually, I just fear.
Yes, I'd like to think these things but I can't. Instead, I see an America divided along partisan lines. I see one party so blinded by hate of the man it could not beat in two elections that it has fomented an insurgency of its own, attacking the president wherever and whenever it can. Rather than heal, it seeks to divide. Rather than fight those who want only the destruction of us and Israel, it fights to regain its one-time hold on the seats of government, and security and fate of the world be damned. Rather than see the opportunity of accomplishment in Iraq and the Iranian threat to international peace and security, it sees only a way to attack President Bush, painting on him a small mustache and swastikas on his sleeves.
I also see a world blinded by resentment and jealousy toward the U.S., and it too hates President Bush, even going so far as to make a mockumentary entitled, "Death of a President."
Yes, I see all this, and I fear that we haven't learned anything yet. I fear it'll take another 9/11 or worse to wake up the leftists in this country. I fear the Harry Reids, Nancy Pelosis and Barbara Boxers of the world will gain control of this country's wheel and steer us toward an unprecedented disaster and a much more dangerous world for our children and grandchildren.
Actually, I just fear.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Another cross to bear ...
Like water eroding a hillside to the point where the house that sits atop the hill slides into the ravine below, the trickle of human secularism so prevalent in the political left is eroding the Christian foundation that was the underpinning of the birth of this great nation in the 18th and 19th centuries. Here is another example:
"In San Diego, the Mount Soledad cross was dedicated in 1954 as a memorial to Korean War veterans, and a private association maintains a veterans memorial on the land surrounding it.
Mayor Jerry Sanders has argued that the cross, sitting atop Mount Soledad in La Jolla, is an integral part of the memorial and deserves the same exemptions to government-maintained religious symbols as those granted to other war monuments.
In May, U.S. District Court Judge Gordon Thompson Jr., ordered the city to take down the 29-foot cross before Aug. 2 or pay daily fines of $5,000.
Thompson's ruling, which he described as "long overdue," found the cross to be an unconstitutional display of government preference of one religion over another."
Why is such a fuss made over Christian symbols? Could it be that they remind the secularists that there are absolute rights and wrongs and that they may indeed be sinners in need of a savior? If they can rid the country of Christian symbols, maybe the religious base will erode and the whole religion -- at least in this country -- will become of little consequence and then they all can live as they please, full of sin and free of guilt as there would be nothing left to prick their consciences.
May God forbid that that happens. It boggles my mind that so many feel threatened by Christianity. Heaven forbid that people should want to live peacefully side by side, loving each other and God openly, the way we originally were intended to.
It's time for the Christians to take a stand. Christians also have an inalienable right to life without persecution, liberty to express their faith publicly, and to pursue happiness through a Godly lifestyle.
"In San Diego, the Mount Soledad cross was dedicated in 1954 as a memorial to Korean War veterans, and a private association maintains a veterans memorial on the land surrounding it.
Mayor Jerry Sanders has argued that the cross, sitting atop Mount Soledad in La Jolla, is an integral part of the memorial and deserves the same exemptions to government-maintained religious symbols as those granted to other war monuments.
In May, U.S. District Court Judge Gordon Thompson Jr., ordered the city to take down the 29-foot cross before Aug. 2 or pay daily fines of $5,000.
Thompson's ruling, which he described as "long overdue," found the cross to be an unconstitutional display of government preference of one religion over another."
Why is such a fuss made over Christian symbols? Could it be that they remind the secularists that there are absolute rights and wrongs and that they may indeed be sinners in need of a savior? If they can rid the country of Christian symbols, maybe the religious base will erode and the whole religion -- at least in this country -- will become of little consequence and then they all can live as they please, full of sin and free of guilt as there would be nothing left to prick their consciences.
May God forbid that that happens. It boggles my mind that so many feel threatened by Christianity. Heaven forbid that people should want to live peacefully side by side, loving each other and God openly, the way we originally were intended to.
It's time for the Christians to take a stand. Christians also have an inalienable right to life without persecution, liberty to express their faith publicly, and to pursue happiness through a Godly lifestyle.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
The United States of ... Mexico?
It took more than 100 years, but Mexico is finally trying to reclaim part of the land taken by the U.S., and it is doing it without firing a shot -- well, at least so far. Mexico is doing it by taking advantage of our porous borders and flooding our country with illegal immigrants who are uninsured and hike up our insurance rates and medical costs by making American taxpayers pay for them when they get sick or into an accident.
They want all the benefits of American citizens but are shouldering none of the taxpayer burden, they want to be granted amnesty and be placed ahead of other immigrants who are working through the laws of the land to become legalized citizens, yet many refuse to even learn English.
Liberals beat the drums for them, insisting we offer them and/or their children bilingual education. This is just plain ridiculous. If they want to be in America, let them come here legally, learn our language and obey our laws. Otherwise, go back home.
But they continue to stream across the borders -- along with who knows how many terrorists -- while our distinguished Congress debates how to best secure our borders and absorb the millions who have already come into the U.S. Whatever compromise these idiots devise, you can be sure it won't solve the problem and will have the teeth of a 100-year-old woman without dentures.
Actually, there's an easy way to solve the problem and secure the borders. Let the Second American Revolution include not just the United States, but Mexico, too. Once we take over that country, they ALL become U.S. citizens and Mexico's southern borders would be a heck of a lot easier to protect than its northern ones.
A Voice in the Wilderness
They want all the benefits of American citizens but are shouldering none of the taxpayer burden, they want to be granted amnesty and be placed ahead of other immigrants who are working through the laws of the land to become legalized citizens, yet many refuse to even learn English.
Liberals beat the drums for them, insisting we offer them and/or their children bilingual education. This is just plain ridiculous. If they want to be in America, let them come here legally, learn our language and obey our laws. Otherwise, go back home.
But they continue to stream across the borders -- along with who knows how many terrorists -- while our distinguished Congress debates how to best secure our borders and absorb the millions who have already come into the U.S. Whatever compromise these idiots devise, you can be sure it won't solve the problem and will have the teeth of a 100-year-old woman without dentures.
Actually, there's an easy way to solve the problem and secure the borders. Let the Second American Revolution include not just the United States, but Mexico, too. Once we take over that country, they ALL become U.S. citizens and Mexico's southern borders would be a heck of a lot easier to protect than its northern ones.
A Voice in the Wilderness
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Be careful what you ask for ...
Well, I hope the bleeding-heart liberals are happy. Give the Palestinians a promise of their own homeland and free elections and -- surprise! -- they put the militant-extremist group Hamas in power, the same group that is sworn to nothing less than the extermination of the state of Israel. Ariel Sharon must have had a premonition this was going to happen and that's what gave him his stroke.
There are two possible solutions to this whole mess -- the Palestinians, Iran and Syria -- but neither is socially or politically acceptable. We could just tell Israel to take care of the situation militarily and turn our heads the other way. Then, if the Muslim countries get involved, we have Israel's back. Or, we could just tell the militant countries that any aggression will be met with a nuclear response. The bet here is that all it would take is the threat of nukes and they would back down. After all, we're the only country on earth that has used the nuclear option before and it has to be in their minds that we just might be crazy enough to do it again.
Either way, problem solved.
There are two possible solutions to this whole mess -- the Palestinians, Iran and Syria -- but neither is socially or politically acceptable. We could just tell Israel to take care of the situation militarily and turn our heads the other way. Then, if the Muslim countries get involved, we have Israel's back. Or, we could just tell the militant countries that any aggression will be met with a nuclear response. The bet here is that all it would take is the threat of nukes and they would back down. After all, we're the only country on earth that has used the nuclear option before and it has to be in their minds that we just might be crazy enough to do it again.
Either way, problem solved.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Reduce the fat
The Senate yesterday approved a bill -- barely -- that would reduce the national debt $40 billion by making changes in Medicare and Medicaid, among other programs. While changes in these programs can work to reduce the deficit, why doesn't Congress first cut the salaries and pensions for its members and eliminate other waste that is rampant throughout the gigantic federal bureaucracy? Then, maybe cuts elsewhere will be more palatable to everyone.
Second American Revolution
Two hundred and twenty-nine years ago, our Founding Fathers, speaking for thirteen disgruntled colonies shackled by taxation without representation, penned these famous words in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Today, we Americans are governed by an out-of-touch Congress, which pays lip service to helping the poor, elderly, middle-class, minorities, disabled and disenfranchised but in actuality cares only about protecting the individual wealth and tenure of its members. Legislators, for the most part, legislate not to protect our freedoms but rather to further their own agendas -- i.e., do what is necessary to get re-elected so they can continue earning their fat salaries and pensions.
But something is wrong when legislators can funnel their wealth overseas and thereby avoid huge tax bills, then tell those who are getting social security or SSI disability that there is a limit they can make before they begin to lose their benefits. Would it really be wrong for a person on SSI to get $1,000 a month from the government and to earn another $1,500 a month on their own? That would amount to $30,000 a year -- and it really might not even be that much after Uncle Sam taxes the $18,000 earned income -- a figure that is far below the comparatively fat salaries earned by legislators. According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, "Lawmakers who left Congress last January are receiving pensions ranging from as little as $14,165 a year for six years' service to as much as $114,102 a year for more than 30 years' service." ... But no, the cap on how much a person can make before they begin losing their benefits is $620. So, unless that person can earn at least $2,600 a month (to match the $1,500+620+taxes), they would be better off not working at all and just live off the taxpayers. Who does that hurt? The rich? ... No, it hurts the middle class and the poor.
This is just one inequity heaped upon us by a government that restricts our freedoms more and more every year. It is time to speak out against this tyranny. It is time to voice our displeasures, no matter which side of the aisle we are on! It is time for another revolution!!! But a Second Revolution should be one waged not with the sword but with the tools furnished us by our Founding Fathers. We need to work within the system, to speak up, to dissent, to protest, to write emails and letters, run for office ourselves, to turn up the heat collectively on our representatives, to use the power of our votes to upset the status quo.
So rise up, speak up and TAKE ACTION!!!
A Voice in the Wilderness
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Today, we Americans are governed by an out-of-touch Congress, which pays lip service to helping the poor, elderly, middle-class, minorities, disabled and disenfranchised but in actuality cares only about protecting the individual wealth and tenure of its members. Legislators, for the most part, legislate not to protect our freedoms but rather to further their own agendas -- i.e., do what is necessary to get re-elected so they can continue earning their fat salaries and pensions.
But something is wrong when legislators can funnel their wealth overseas and thereby avoid huge tax bills, then tell those who are getting social security or SSI disability that there is a limit they can make before they begin to lose their benefits. Would it really be wrong for a person on SSI to get $1,000 a month from the government and to earn another $1,500 a month on their own? That would amount to $30,000 a year -- and it really might not even be that much after Uncle Sam taxes the $18,000 earned income -- a figure that is far below the comparatively fat salaries earned by legislators. According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, "Lawmakers who left Congress last January are receiving pensions ranging from as little as $14,165 a year for six years' service to as much as $114,102 a year for more than 30 years' service." ... But no, the cap on how much a person can make before they begin losing their benefits is $620. So, unless that person can earn at least $2,600 a month (to match the $1,500+620+taxes), they would be better off not working at all and just live off the taxpayers. Who does that hurt? The rich? ... No, it hurts the middle class and the poor.
This is just one inequity heaped upon us by a government that restricts our freedoms more and more every year. It is time to speak out against this tyranny. It is time to voice our displeasures, no matter which side of the aisle we are on! It is time for another revolution!!! But a Second Revolution should be one waged not with the sword but with the tools furnished us by our Founding Fathers. We need to work within the system, to speak up, to dissent, to protest, to write emails and letters, run for office ourselves, to turn up the heat collectively on our representatives, to use the power of our votes to upset the status quo.
So rise up, speak up and TAKE ACTION!!!
A Voice in the Wilderness
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)