Saturday, July 30, 2005
There is no global leadership and all decisions are made at the local level. In other words, there are millions of small pockets of Islam who are doing whatever they think is right. There is no main authority making policy for this religion.
That really struck home when it was crowed all over the news this week that about 130 Islamic groups had issued a "fatwah" against the terrorists. Everybody was saying, "It's about time" and "This is just what is needed."
My reaction was, "So what?" From what I understand, these are all small, local groups. Even if every one of them had 1,000 members, that's only 130,000 people. Out of about 1.5 billion Muslims. Sure, it's a step in the right direction, but it's going to take a whole lot more than that to stop these terrorists.
There is no main, global body (like the Vatican, for instance) that can issue an international fatwah, thereby allowing tens-of-thousands of Muslim groups around the world to continue to support the terrorists.
And I don't think that that number is inflated by any means. If anything it seems to be very conservative judging by recent polls from the Muslim community. Yes, support for the terrorists has dropped in the Muslim community, but a lot of the poll numbers are still hovering around 50%. That's a lot of people who still support the terrorists!
Until this religion finds a leader who will bring the vast majority of Muslims together in condemning terror and reforming their religion, we are going to have to keep killing these people. Eventually, after a massive attack on the U.S., which will happen, we are going to have to kill them in very large numbers.
Republicans roundly condemned Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) for suggesting that we nuke Muslim holy sites if the terrorists nuke us, but that was a knee-jerk, politically correct reaction. Have any of them thought about what our reaction to Muslim terrorists nuking a US city should or would be?
Think about it: what should we do when it happens? I want an answer.
And I have no doubt that it will happen, whether next week or ten years from now. If we can't stop Mexican bean-pickers from sneaking across the border, what makes anyone think that we can stop a terrorist with a nuke?
Are we going to say that this was just a lone nutcase so as not to have to retaliate? Not to have to make the hard decision to end this war decisevely and let them nuke us again and again? Have we come that far in our political correctness? Or are we going to massively retaliate against these countries who are helping and supplying these people? There really will be no middle ground there.
The Left denigrates George Bush for trying to implant democracy in the Mideast, but that really is the only middle ground before-the-fact. If we can democratize these people before they nuke us, we won't have to make those hard decisions.
Why is abortion the key issue for the Democrat Party? Why are they so obsessed with it?
Ever since John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court, the Dems have been in a tizzy because he's Conservative, Catholic and his wife is a member of the anti-abortion group "Feminists for Life" (apparently it's OK to go after Republican nominees' wives now).
I can't really imagine a worse policy to build your entire platform on than vacuuming babies out of the womb or injecting formaldehyde into their brains if they're too big to fit into the vacuum nozzle.
Did they sit down one day and say, "Hey, I have an idea. Let's base our party's entire ideology on abortion."
They would let everything that they "believe in" (not that they really believe in anything more than power at any cost) crash and burn for the sake of saving Roe v. Wade. Why?
The closest I can come to an answer is that it's part of their "progressive" agenda that wants no progress anywhere, unless it involves a sexual issue. But even that isn't really an answer.
Some of the Democrats tacitly admit that it's wrong when they say that they would like abortions to be rare, but most of these groups see all abortions as a good thing. NARAL is absolutely obsessed with increasing the number of abortions and making it as easy as possible for everyone, including little girls.
Why? What could make a person think that way? Is it some deep-seated self-hatred, or have they really just never thought about why they're obsessed? Either way, it seems to me that these people have some very deep psychological problems.
Anyone care to enlighten me?
Friday, July 29, 2005
I'd hate to think that this "man of the people" might have choked on a Croissandwich and been cooking in his hot tub for the past 9 months.
Sorry about that image.
Lately I've been checking out the Lefty blogs. Not because I believe their points have any validity, but because insane people have always fascinated me. And these people are definitely insane.
And they are also, definitely, stupid.
The people who write the blogs are usually almost literate, but the comments on these blogs are an amazing display of illiteracy.
These people write at about the same level that I did when I was six years old. Capital letters are, apparently, optional; punctuation is random and the spelling is atrocious. Run-on sentences are the norm and, if there's a point, you really have to work to figure it out.
The extent of their imagination is, "Conservatives are Nazis!" and "Bush is stupid". They do nothing but repeat what everyone else says. I always get an image of one monkey in the cage starting to shriek and 50 more joining in until they're all going at it. Monkey-see-monkey-do. And they call Bush a chimp!
The "right-wing" blogs that I read are usually written by well-spoken people who, like myself, don't always get it right, but make the effort and usually do get the English language right. The comments are the same (unless they're from the Left, and then...see above).
The "right-wing" blogs analyze things and actually find new points to be made, while the Lefties do nothing but repeat what you've already heard a thousand times ("Karl Rove should be fired". Wow. That's deep.).
Coincidentally, The American Princess has posted some of her hate-mail over at her blog. Go on over to get a sample of what I'm speaking of.
The Left thinks that, because they have a couple thousand college professors, they are the intellectual elite. The truth is that the vast, vast majority of those on the Left are lazy, unthinking morons.
After all, if they can't be bothered to even try to get their writing right, what makes anyone think that they'd put any more effort into actually understanding the issues?
Thursday, July 28, 2005
If anyone dares to question the doctrine, no matter how silly, they are branded as blasphemers. Bernard Goldberg used to be no friend of the Right, but when he dared to say, in a Wall Street Journal article, that the MSM may be biased, he was branded a heretic and ousted from the church with the inevitable smear campaign that excommunication from the Church of the Left entails. In self defense, he then went on to write a book exposing all of their dirty laundry.
These are the people who are teaching our kids in public schools. People who have never learned to think, indeed who are punished for thinking, are supposed to be teaching our kids to think? Is it any wonder that test scores keep going down, even though we’ve doubled the amount of money given to the public education system in the past 15 years? Yes, doubled. And have any of the problems gone away? No, not one.
(That graph didn't come through very well, but what it shows is that, between local, state, federal and other (parent contributions?), we have went from 249.0 billion dollars in 1990-91, to 501.3 billion dollars in 2003-04!)
We keep giving more and more money to people who can’t, logically, put it to use in an efficient manner, because they have no logic! Luckily for them, there are enough people out there who also have no logic and keep giving them more money based on their annual promise that if they just had more money, they could reduce class-sizes and improve test scores.
But it never happens! When are people going to learn? If they hired a financial manager and they remained flat broke, or actually lost ground , do you think that they'd give him more money? Would they actually double his fee when he told them for fifteen years that, if he just had more money, he could make them rich? Hell, no. They'd either fire him or call the police to report a scam-artist!
So why do they keep falling for this scam?
What really needs to be done is to take a two-pronged approach: pass a school-voucher program, and tell the government schools, "not a dime more until you start improving things. You have enough money to do it now, so you'd better get started if you want to keep your job."
Either way, we need to get our children away from these unthinking people. We need to teach our kids to think, and these are the wrong people to do it.
Monday, July 25, 2005
- Why is it that a woman's "right to privacy" can involve killing perfectly viable human babies, but steroids are banned? Why aren't athletes running around with "Keep your laws off my body" signs?
- From what I understand of the recent Supreme Court "10 Commandments" ruling, it’s OK to display them, but only if they’re in a nice frame.
- The Supreme Court has become the Legislative Branch II.
- On Fox news this morning, one of the hosts mentioned that the terrorist attacks in London had the mark of Al Qaeda because they were set off simultaneously, and went on to say how difficult that is to pull off. They've been saying the same thing since the embassy bombings in Africa a few years ago. Have any of these people ever heard of a wristwatch? It's 10:00, push the button. How hard is that?
- The Left “supports the troops” as one great, big huggable group, mostly because they still believe that the military is made up of the "underclass" who had no choice but to join the military. But when a military recruiter shows up on campus, he's treated just a bit worse than would be Satan himself. Again, this shows the Left's love of "groups" and hatred of "individuals".
- "Neocons" are supposedly former liberals who have been "mugged by reality". So, name me one "former liberal" in the Bush administration who matters. Bush himself is called a "neocon", but do you think that he was ever a liberal? Or Karl Rove? Especially as defined by today's standards? Maybe a "classic liberal", but that defines about 90% of the Republican party today. Not the small sliver that has supposedly "taken over" the administration. I don't buy it. Methinks it's just a way to whip up even more hatred from the Left: "these people were once our comrades, but they have betrayed us!"
OK, that last one started turning into an actual post, so I thought I'd better quit.
I'll be posting more Random Musings like clockwork whenever I get around to it. If you like them, let me know. If you hate them, let me know. If you couldn't begin to even approach the idea of thinking about the mere possibility that you may have anything even approximating an opinion, feel free to forever hold your peace (Thank you Mr. Adams, who is now and forever sitting in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe conversing with his entree).
Saturday, July 23, 2005
“You’ll never believe this,” he told me. “The instructor, an imam, dismisses the class, then he spreads paper towels from the restroom on the floor and prays facing East in the classroom for fifteen minutes during school hours. Talk about a separation of church and state in the classroom,” he complained.
“But was that all? What about the course content?” I asked.
“That’s even worse. The instructor taught and insisted that Israel had stolen all its land prior to 1967. My family was actively involved in purchasing the land there during the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s for the Jewish National Fund and when I told him that in class he insisted it was ‘All lies!’” He also said, “When I told him I had official documents I could show the class, including copies of land sales agreements and deeds to the Jewish National Agency and the Jewish National Fund, he said they were probably ‘forgeries’ and he wouldn’t allow me to show them.”
This guy is a genuine Isalmofascist teaching in an American University. He spreads nothing but outright lies and hatred-propaganda (and paper towels) and, when called on any of it (which seems to happen pretty rarely), he calls them a liar or a propagandist.
And, apparently the vast majority of the students there just take his word at face value. They even harrass anyone who disagrees with the Imam!
And the Dean aparrently had no idea what was going on in that classroom!
It's a pretty long article, but it's endlessly fascinating. You really need to read it if you doubt that the anti-American left has taken over academia.
- As I noted below, they will never recognize any progress on anything having to do with any "isms" (i.e. racism, sexism, etc.). They are still at the 1962 status quo.
- They want no progress on solving the Social Security crisis, preferring instead to leave it as it is and have it crash and burn, thereby really leaving our grandkids a mess.
- They will tolerate no progress in our public schools. Instead they are willing to let our kids' intelligence plummet so that they can keep their education union's fat and happy. Republicans are supposed to be greedy, but they're willing to sacrifice our kids to keep the donations coming.
- Progress is the last thing that they want when it comes to cutting government waste. The more money that their Church of Governmentalism can take from you, the more power they have. They operate on the same principal as the medieval Catholic church did.
- They are absolutely apopoleptic about the progress of the "New Media" in informing the populace. They much prefer the pre-progress days of the Big Three networks and the New York Times regurgitating the Democrat Party talking points unchallenged.
- They like the U.N. just as it is and care to make no progress in the Oil-For-Food scandals, the rapes and prostitution committed by U.N. forces, or any of the other scandals that plague the useless "International Body".
- They prefer the foreign policy status quo of the Clinton years over the progress being made by the Bush administration for the simple reasons that, a) Clinton (and the rest of the Left) didn't want the United States to be any more powerful and, b) George Bush would get credit for any progress made. That's worth letting millions more people die in their eyes.
- This is the one that really proves the point that they are anything but "progressive": they have aligned themselves with Muslim fanatics who want the world to regress back to their 8th century values!
That's just a partial listing. I'm sure that my intelligent readers (i.e. those on the Right) will be able to come up with many, many more.
To the "Progressives", the ultimate in progress would be to allow gays to get married or 13-year-old girls to have abortions without telling their parents.
In their eyes, nothing else needs to be changed and, should anyone try to change something, they will be called Nazis.
There are really only 2 possibilities:
a) Sadaam was a threat to the United States
b) Republicans were right all along and he just wanted the focus away from his testimony in the Lewinsky case.
The Lefties should be forced to pick an answer here, but my guess is that they’ll come up with some painfully twisted logic to justify it without resorting to picking one of the above answers.
Logic dictates that those are the only two answers. Pick one.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Racism, sexism, ageism...name your ism. They no longer exist.
Sure, there are a few outcasts who still believe that peoples' race, age, gender, etc. make it Ok to discriminate against them, but for the vast, vast majority of Americans (although not for Middle Easters, South Americans, Asians, Europeans, etc.), discrimination is no longer based on their physical attributes.
I'm your typical Republican. I have friends from every "ism" that you can think of.
I don't care about your skin color. I don't care about your gender. I don't care about your age. I couldn't care less about where your ancestors came from. I really don't even care who you sleep with, as long as you're not shoving it in my face and trying to make me "celebrate" it.
What I care about is your character! Just as Martin Luther King Jr. said, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". The character that I see in black neighborhoods is severely lacking. White people who act that way disgust me, too.
They have been told for so long by people like Jesse Jackson that they are victims, that they believe that they no longer have to obey the law because it's "society's fault". And then they complain that they are arrested in inordinate numbers.
It's not skin color, gender or anything else that we have a problem with. It's their attitude.
Refusing to assimilate into society, even calling people who do assimilate "Uncle Toms", will do nothing but keep blacks in their own self-made ghettoes.
If you refuse to learn to speak proper English, don't whine about not being hired for a job. Communication is a huge part of the workplace. Don't expect the entire country to start speaking Ebonics because you want a job. That goes for Spanish, Somali, Laotian and Russian, too.
Once you get a job, keep it.
Yeah, I know that it's a "stereotype", but I can't count the number of black guys I’ve worked with who did nothing but look for an excuse to quit their job. One or two may be a stereotype, but I've seen hundreds.
And why is that? Is it because "whitey's out to get me"? Is it because the “System” is racist? Is it because racism is “institutionalized”? No, it’s because Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangel and all of the rest of the race pimps have given them an excuse not to work. They can just blame it on “racism” and everyone in their neighborhood will just nod their heads knowingly.
Anyone of any race in this country has the same opportunities that I have today. As long as they assimilate into American culture. That’s the way that it’s always been, and many cultures have done it before them and prospered.
But because there was real racism in this country 40 years ago, they still use the term “oppressed”. Don’t believe me? Tell me when the last lynching took place.
If they can’t get beyond that, don’t blame me.
Sexism. In this day and age, the term is just plain silly.
I know that women supposedly make less money than men for the same job, but the dirty little secret to all of these polls is that they lump “stay-at-home-moms” in with all of the other women, thereby bringing the wages of the whole gender down.
In addition, men are much, much more likely than women to be doing the dangerous jobs that, naturally, pay more than other jobs.
But the feminists who rely on these numbers to make a living (which is much better than what I make, I’d bet) will never tell you that.
Today, there are more women than men enrolling in college.
Small businesses started by women are far outpacing those started by men.
As always, the test of the Liberal BS-O-Meter is whether you believe what you’re told by them, or whether you believe what your own experience tells you.
Out of the last 4 jobs that I’ve had, 2 of my supervisors were women. That’s 50%, folks. And I’m in a blue-collar field. Tell me that women are underrepresented.
Men and boys have been so vilified as dumb brutes over the past 30 years in schools, in sitcoms, in commercials, in every part of American society, that many of them have just went along with the whole premise and become the stereotype (not unlike the racial stereotype).
Women and girls, on the other hand, have been told that they are superior to males, but have been oppressed by the “patriarchy”. They have been told that they are ‘victims” from the time they were old enough to understand the term, and many of them have taken that message to heart and used it for all it’s worth.
Somehow this particular class of “victim” gets preferential treatment in schools.
Somehow these “victims” aren’t drugged at nearly the rate that boys are for showing the natural tendencies of their gender.
Somehow these “victims” get the house and the kids in 90% of divorces.
Somehow these “victims”, who throw the first punch in most (yes, most) domestic disputes, are rarely the ones who get dragged off to jail and, somehow, the male is always seen as the “aggressive” personality.
Somehow these “victims” are eligible for all sorts of aid because they’re single-mothers, but those of us who are white, single-fathers are eligible for exactly nothing (whether I’d take it or not even if I were eligible, I don’t know. Struggling seems preferable to Government red-tape at this point).
In other words, this “minority” that is actually a small majority gets societal benefits that men could never dream of. But because of their status 30 years ago, they are still seen as oppressed.
Ageism. What a joke that is.
The Democrats would still try to make you believe that old folks are surviving on dog-food and living in poverty.
Once again, look around you. Don’t believe what the Left is telling you. What do you see?
Retirees in this country are among the wealthiest segment of the populace. I say, “good for them!” but I wish the AARP would quit making them out to be victims.
The AARP, while it may have been started with good intentions, has become just another Socialist lobbying group trying to redistribute your money to old people. Sure, some of these old-timers could use some help, and that’s fine.
But the AARP bitterly opposes means-testing for Social Security, which means that seniors who have, literally, millions of dollars are still getting their $500 a month from SSI. Sure, they worked for it. But do you think that they’d miss it if it weren’t there? But this supposed “greatest generation” isn’t willing to give it up for the good of the country. Even if they wanted to give it up, they can’t because of the AARP, who made sure that, legally, all seniors must get their check.
And, of course, the AARP opposes “privatizing” Social Security, even though their actual members wouldn’t be eligible for it. Why? Because if senior citizens were to, eventually, make it on their own, the AARP would have no reason to exist. And these age-pimps, like any other left-wing group, don’t want to actually solve the problem. That would put them out of power. And power, to these Leftists, is what life is about.
The AARP doesn’t get nearly enough bad press even among the “right-wing” talk shows, blogs, etc.
These people are one of the biggest lobbying groups in the country and their views are nothing short of Socialism. And, as with all Leftist groups, they couldn’t care less about their supposed “constituencies”, all they want is the power and the money. Mostly the power.
Again, 30 years ago, it may have been different. I’m sure that there were many, many senior citizens who were living in abject poverty.
But that was before the advent of the employer-sponsored 401(k) and the IRA (both thanks to the Republican Party) and being able to avoid the devastation of taxes on your savings.
And the people who stand for all of the above are trying to call themselves “progressives”, which seems to be the new term for Liberal. These people who say that they stand for “progress” are still living in the 1960’s. They believe that nothing has changed since then. They believe that there has been no “progress” even though we have progressed beyond all of the “isms”.
The only people who are keeping these “isms” alive are the race-pimps, the gender-pimps and the age-pimps who make their living and derive their power by making sure that these people keep their victimhood status instead of joining society as happy, productive people. People who actually appreciate this country and all that it has to offer them, if only they could get beyond the easy excuse of being a “victim”.
The so-called “progressive” liberals in this country are unable to “progress” beyond their hey-day of the ‘60’s. If they were to acknowledge the progress that this country has made, they would be useless and their “causes” would be shown for the shams that they are.
And then they would have no choice but to acknowledge that this country is far beyond any culture this earth has ever known.
Don’t hold your breath.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Hollywood has grown eye-poppingly angry with the rest of the country, mostly over Bush and Iraq, but partly, at least, because the left-coasters apparently thought they were somehow entitled to a string of Democratic presidents after Clinton.
Somehow, because they had convinced themselves that Clinton was such a "great" President, they thought that they deserved, nay, were entitled to another.
Could somebody please remind me what Clinton did to earn the title, "great"? Class? Anyone?
For the life of me, I can't remember one thing that he did that in any way helped this country.
But that "entitled to power" thing led me to another thought: does anyone believe that if it hadn't been George W. Bush, but another Republican who had beaten AlGore in 2000, that he wouldn't be putting up with the same demonization that president Bush is now?
It's just like Bush's Supreme Court nominee. It didn't matter who it was, the Left will attack him or her with all of it's might.
It didn't take NARAL 10 minutes to begin opposing Judge Roberts as SCOTUS nominee once his name was out there. They had their opposition papers all written up with a bunch of blank lines to fill in whatever nominee's name was announced. It didn't matter who it was. If they didn't show up for the announcement with a vacuum cleaner and a coat-hanger, they were too far right.
That's what it comes down to: these people believe that it is their Right under natural law to rule us peons. They are no different than the Nobles of Olde England who thought that it was their divine right to rule with no opposition. You know, the ones that we fought The Revolution to get away from. The fact that we actually have the temerity to oppose them enrages them to the point of insanity.
"A rit of fealous jage", as Inspector Clouseau once said. And it took an Englishman to actually make the French funny in that role.
Somehow that doesn't square with this:
Eric Rudolph, who bombed the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, two abortion clinics and a gay nightclub, wrote to his mom about born-again Christians: : "They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible." His letter was published by USA Today.
Now, I may be wrong, but doesn't it seem odd that a Christian "religious fanatic" would prefer books by a whacko 19th century German philosopher who proclaimed, "God is dead", over the Bible?
Which leads me to the funniest graffiti that I've ever seen on a Men's room wall:
And why blow up the Olympics? I don't remember the commandment that says, "Thou shalt not participate in boring sports events every four years".
Could it be that the Left has been lying to us for the past decade, and this guy was just a run-of-the-mill nutcase and not a "Christian terrorist" as we've been told ad nauseum?
They wouldn't do that, would they?
That's a serious question folks, and I expect some answers, because I have no idea.
They have hyped this story beyond any of the previous "scandals" that were supposed to bring this administration down. So what are they going to do when nothing comes of it?
Will it be possible for them to just let it fade away? I don't know and I don't see how they could, because they have committed everything to this story.
Any prognosticators out there care to give it a shot? I honestly can't see how this is going to end.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Well, let’s do just that.
If this were the Clinton administration, there would be a team of private investigators hunting everyone vaguely connected to this situation trying to dig up dirt on them.
Karl Rove would have a history of these "indiscretions" going back 20 years.
There would be endless stonewalling on even the simplest of questions.
There would be an illegal stack of FBI files in the White House that listed every one of the administration’s enemies (whether real or not). The administration would deny that they existed until forced to acknowledge them.
Any records relating to the investigation would be conveniently lost until the statute of limitations expired.
There would be endless legal maneuvering trying to say that Karl Rove couldn’t be prosecuted while this administration was in office.
Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald would be smeared every day as a religious fanatic who wanted nothing more than to bring the administration down.
Administration officials would be calling reporters and dropping hints that Fitzgerald’s underlings were gay.
Karl Rove would have lied to the Grand Jury and, when caught, argued the semantics of what he said endlessly, helped along by the MSM, which would be the propaganda arm of his party.
Yeah. Let's imagine.
In addition there was letter after letter calling for Karl Rove’s head and two anti-Rove cartoons.
Why did this story suddenly regain life after seeming to die down? Of course I have no proof, but do you think it’s possible that the Dems went to the ultimate spin machinists this weekend and asked Bill and/or Hillary what they should do about this faltering story?
The sudden re-emergence of the story and complication of the facts, in addition to the constant repetition has all the earmarks of the Clintons’ way of dealing with scandals.
The Clintons always tried to make the scandal as complicated as possible, knowing that most people who aren’t political junkies would just tune out and go back to watching “American Idol” or whatever drivel is currently on broadcast TV. And then they’d just repeat their sound bites endlessly through their allies in the MSM* until it became the accepted truth.
That seems to be exactly what’s happening here. What’s odd is that they didn’t try this with any of the past “scandals” (Memogate, Club Gitmo, etc.), but let them fade away once the facts came out.
Do you think that it’s possible that Bill and/or Hillary finally got fed up with watching these people “mishandle” these “scandals”, and with the damage they’ve been doing to the Democrat party and said, “Listen, here’s how you manage this thing.”? After all, if the Democrats fall any lower, they could run God as their candidate in 2008 and lose.
You hear plenty about President Bush’s “low” approval ratings, but never hear a lot about Democrats’ poll numbers, which make The President’s look absolutely rosy. One recent poll that I saw said that only 38% of Americans had “warm feelings” toward the Democrat party (compared to 46% that said the same about Republicans). That has to throw Hillary into an absolute panic. She can’t win with those kind of numbers, no way, no how.
There’s got to be a reason that they’re keeping the attack machine going even after all of the facts coming out are on Rove’s side. They haven’t done that before. Or at least since the 1990’s...
*WARNING: The MSM is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party. Any reproduction of material without the express written consent of the DNC may cause manifestation’s of Howard Dean’s “Tourette’s Syndrome”.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
As I've said before, I'm not particularly religious, but I have no problem with those who are. These people, however, have nothing but hatred and ridicule for anything that has anything whatsoever to do with Christianity (apparently Islam gets a pass).
These people have taken the tiny minority of ultra-religious Christians and stereotyped them as the mainstream of Conservatism. And the hatred is, literally, insane. It has no connection whatsoever to reality. They portray Christians as shrieking fanatics, hell-bent on making their message the policy of this country.
What fascinates me is that that very description describes exactly what these Lefties are trying to do. They are absolute shrieking fanatics who believe that they are the ones who are correct. But they, of course, don't see it that way. They can't see that their portrayal of supposed "Christian extremism" exactly mirrors their "Secular extremism", or that their brand of extremism can be easily documented while you actually have to hunt for any "Christian extremism".
If there were blogs in Russia in 1916, I believe that they would be no different than what we are seeing today. These people want a Communist revolution. I don't think that they even know that they want a Communist revolution, but they want a revolution that will bring about their vision of America, which amounts to the same thing.
These people are being manipulated by the Communists in this country and they're too stupid to even realize it. No, not "the Left", though it amounts to the same thing. These people are Communists. The frightening thing is that they don't even know it. They just buy the line that's given to them and don't bother to look into where it comes from. Standing up for "the little guy" just sounds like the right thing to do.
The question is: if they knew what they were standing for (Communism) would they change their stance?
Friday, July 15, 2005
These people have had the football pulled out from under them right before they kicked it so many times that they should rename it the "Charlie Brown" party. I suppose that we'd have to rename Republicans to the "Lucy Van Pelt" party, but I guess I could live with that.
I honestly believe that these people are completely incapable of learning. They are still in the 1980's mode when the MSM was the only place to get any information and they could twist any story to fit their agenda with no fear of opposition.
It seems like they forget, over and over again, that there are tens of millions of us out here now, checking their facts, checking timelines, recalling the original stories so that they can't rewrite history, recalling quotes and using actual logic to see if their story holds up.
It's like a little kid who gets so excited by the game that he forgets to go to the bathroom and pees all over himself (yeah, I know, kind of a gross analogy, but fitting, don't you think?).
When the story first started a few days ago, I thought, "Oh, oh, did they finally find something that they can spin enough to make stick against Rove"? But then, as the day went on, it started to have a very familiar tone to it all. Just like the Texas Air National Guard memos and Newsweeks Gitmo story. It was just too shrill and maniacally gleeful on the part of the Left.
And these Democrats in Congress...what can you say about these lying phonies? They have "feigned outrage" down to an art! Well, only if you define "art" as having all of the believablity of a Junior High School play.
Does anyone believe that they give anything even approaching a rat's ass about whether or not the charges that were leveled against Karl Rove were true? They weren't "outraged" or "concerned" for Valerie Plame's safety. The only people who actually believe that they are are their constituents in Moonbatville. And they're just as obsessed with harming President Bush as the rest of the Left.
Why would anyone vote for posers like that? How could your average, middle-America Democrat see them acting hurt and outraged over something that they obviously couldn't care less about, and still vote for them?
I'll never understand that, but then "phoniness" is about the worst sin you can commit in my book. Anyone who is that phony has to be doing it to hide some major flaw in their make up.
Yes, they'll always have the vote of the phonies on the Left, but how many times can the average voter see these guys work themselves into a lather only to watch them sheepishly say, "Never mind", before they lose complete respect for them?
"Charlie Brown, I''ll hold the football and you come running up and kick it..."
Thursday, July 14, 2005
There are indications that Osama Bin Laden was very shaken by America's response to 9/11. He apparently thought that we would continue Bill Clinton's policy of speaking endlessly (ala the U.N.) of stopping terrorism, but not actually doing anything about it.
I've heard reports that Osama was shocked by President Bush's almost immediate, decimating attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11. He must have been amazed when we went to Iraq, too. He was apparently counting on the fact that, like George H.W. Bush not actually going all the way to Baghdad in the first Gulf War, and Bill Clinton prattling endlessly, but only using force when there was no risk involved and/or it suited his political purposes, President George W. Bush would do the same.
That is what he meant when he spoke of America being "soft": we wouldn't resort to all-out war.
Be that as it may, why do you think that we haven't been attacked on American soil since 9/11?
I have a lot of respect for the CIA and the FBI, but do you think that, with 1 million illegal aliens coming across the border every year, that one, single suicide bomber couldn't make it across, find some explosives and blow up a mall?
That's absolutely illogical.
My guess is that Osama has seen the destruction that President Bush has rained down upon his forces and doesn't want to give him an excuse to go further.
But if he's patient, there's a very good chance that, in just 3 more years, there will be another Clinton in office (or just another Democrat) who will be adverse to using the military on any grand scale.
I've heard plenty of people who are frightened of what Hillary would do domestically, and rightly so. But can you imagine what this woman, this ex-hippie, military-hating feminist from the 60's would do if handed the "War on Terror"?
I really can't imagine what she would do. The one thing that I can imagine is that she wouldn't prosecute the war. She, personally, hates the military. Her base hates the military. There's no way on this earth that she'd fight this war.
That needs to be the message put out there even before she begins her campaign in earnest.
They say that Sandra Day O'Connor was a moderate (yeah, right) so, therefore, we should replace her with another moderate.
Does that mean that when William Rehnquist, a Conservative, retires, that the Left is going to want him replaced him with another Conservative?
What are the odds?
I also keep hearing that we should replace O'Connor with another woman. Or that we should get an Hispanic on the Court. Hell, why not a black, dyslexic, lesbian Easter Island descendant in a wheelchair?
I have an idea that's so crazy that it just might work: how about replacing O'Connor with the best man or woman for the job?
Political correctness has become so ingrained in this country that nobody ever thinks about that question anymore. Scary. And disgusting.
The Left wants President Bush to nominate a "moderate" (i.e. someone slightly to the Left of Karl Marx) to the court. Anyone else would be "too extreme".
Apparently Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn't "extreme" enough for the Democrats to scream bloody murder. She was only a lawyer for that notoriously moderate organization the ACLU!
Apparently, if you fight against everything that America stands for, that doesn't make you an extremist.
Liberal extremists good, Conservative extremists bad. Remember that next time any Democrat speaks the word, "moderate".
Apply liberally... Wipe of excess.
I've seen that on other containers of course, but this time I thought about what that really meant:
Apply more than is needed. Waste what's left.
Kind of sums them up once again, doesn't it?
As it stands now, he is under no such obligation.
Presidents in the past were never required to consult with Senators from the opposing party. Why should that change now?
Weren't these the same people who were complaining about "changing the rules in the middle of the game" when Senate Republicans threatened the use of the so-callled "nuclear option" a couple months ago?
The arrogance and hypocrisy of these people is absolutely dumbfounding.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
By this time in Bill Clinton's administration he and his administration had been investigated for years on his way to impeachment, and had had countless lies exposed.
George Bush is well into his 5th year in office.
The Left has called him "corrupt" , a "war criminal", a "Nazi", a "Fascist", the man who has established "gulags", a man who has committed atrocities on the level of Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin.
And yet, George W. Bush, nor anyone in his administration, have ever been under any kind of serious investigation by any official body.
Yet, the best the Left can come up with, after 5 years, is the possibility that Karl Rove may have lied when he said that he didn't give a reporter some information attributed to him. And, unless Mr. Cooper has it on tape, it can never really be proven either way.
Bill Clinton didn't even make it to his inauguration before having his lies exposed (Gennifer Flowers anyone?).
And his was supposed to be the "most ethical administration in history".
The Left is desperate. Their playbook from 2000 is to pay back Republicans for the Clinton scandals by "getting" Bush. Unfortunately for them, George Bush runs his administration the way that any good Christian would.
Damn those Christians!
He doesn't allow the subversive games and attacks from his people that defined the Clinton administration. He expects complete honesty from his people. He does what he thinks is right, no matter what the polls may say. He makes decisions that may be unpopular, but that he knows are right.
Compare that to Bill Clinton who wouldn't pick his nose without a "focus group" telling him whether that particular action would be viewed as Presidential and increase his poll ratings.
Go ahead oh ye in the MSM, but realize that it isn't anything approaching the story that you wish that it was.
A) The vast majority of Americans have no idea what the Left is actually accusing Rove of. They just don't pay that much attention, unfortunately.
B) You blew your wad with the WMD argument. Everybody knew that Hussein had WMD's. Until they didn't materialize. Your credibility disintegrated when you attacked Bush after you had agreed with him a few days earlier.
C) After all of your previous mistakes (i.e. Newsweeks Koran story, the CBS TANG memos, etc.) nobody really trusts you anymore.
So have at it. Attack Karl Rove all you want. It won't help. The worst that the MSM (and the Left) can do is to have Karl Rove step down. Big deal.
The Left thinks that Karl Rove is the "NeoCon" who controls everything in the administration, but he could disappear tomorrow and Bush's philosophy wouldn't change a bit.
The Left can't understand that there could be an administration which doesn't govern by popularity (i.e. polls) but by morals. Even Reagan couldn't make them understand that.
Polls are popularity contests, and the Left wants nothing more than to be popular. Just as any child does.
"State employees contributed $10.1 million worth of either lost pay or vacation time during the shutdown," Ludeman said. "You could also say the state lost $10 million worth of productivity on the part of those employees."
Now Cal Ludeman is the Employee Relations Commissioner in Minnesota, but he is a long time Democrat from way back.
What he is really trying to do is scare people into not supporting future shutdowns. Most of the money that he's talking about would have been paid out anyway.
How do you contribute "lost pay"? Does that make sense to anyone? Class? Anyone?
The only way that it makes any sense is if we're going to give them back pay (which I wouldn't doubt) so that they can get paid twice for the work that they would have had to do if they hadn't been "laid off".
And the vacation time that they were forced to take now would have been paid out eventually anyway.
And as far as losing $10 million worth of productivity from these people, the root of the word "productivity" is "produce". As with all Lefties and/or Democrats, Cal actually believes that the Government produces something!
Other than red tape and mounds of uneccessary paperwork, I can't think of one thing that the Government produces.
This whole "shutdown" has been a joke from the beginning. From what I can tell, the only things that were shut down wer highway rest areas, traffic cams and some licensing offices. Other than that, 80% of the Government was functioning as normal. That's right, 80%!
And the Left in this state spoke of it as if the Apocalypse were upon us.
So, shutting down 20% of the Government for 8 days "cost" us $16 million. What's wrong with that picture?
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Apparently all that it takes to be an individual in their world is to dress differently or have something pierced or tattooed. And, after a few years, they all do it and look the same anyway.
Individualism on the left is, like the rest of their philosophy, very shallow. It doesn't go beyond their clothing or tattoos.
The tattoos of these people symbolize what I'm trying to say very well: they, like beauty, are only skin deep. But they think that their tattoos make them individuals.
Sure, I could doodle some silly design and have it tattooed on my back, but that wouldn't make me much of an individual if I thought the same thing as all the rest of the Right and never disagreed with anything my side said or did.
On the Right, we don't care how you dress or whether or not you have any cool tattoos. To be an individual is to think. To look deeper into issues than what we get from the MSM or even talk-radio or our fellow bloggers.
We don't dress funny and parrot the party line and call that "individualism".
Occasionally I tune in to Air Unamerican just to see what the enemy is up to. There has been derision from the Right lately about their low ratings and attempts to figure out why those ratings are so low. Well, I can tell you exactly why Air Unamerican has no ratings: It's boring!
As I was driving into work yesterday I tuned in to Nick Coleman's local show on their network (He's also a columnist for the Red Star Tribunal who has been in a flame war with bloggers for the past year. The Star Tribune isn't biased, but one of their lead columnists has a show on Air Unamerican? Hmm).
This guy did nothing but repeat the Left's talking points over and over. I, literally, couldn't pay attention to it. My mind kept wandering, begging me to process something that it hadn't heard a million times before.
The only time that it caught my attention at all is when he compared Fred Barnes, of the Weekly Standard and Fox News, to the Nazis. And that only caught my attention because he pronounced it "nahzee" (kind of rhymes with "pansy"). It's a German word, but this dope didn't even know enough to use the German pronunciation of the letter "Z", which would sound like "tz" to us (as in, well, "Nazi").
99% of the people in this country pronounce the word as "notzee" (which is correct in German), but not Nick Coleman because he needs to be "quirky". It just screams like a 6-year-old, "Pay attention to me!!!"
But that's what the Left means when they speak of individualism.
Al Franken's show is the same: an endless repetition of the Left's talking points. In fact, if Franken was prohibited from using the phrase, "The war in Iraq is a distraction from the real war on terror", he wouldn't have a show. Not that he has much of one anyway.
The left's idea of individualism is nothing more than Rush's old phrase, "symbolism over substance". Doing something out of the ordinary makes you an "individual" (although they all do the same thing, eventually), but thinking or believing something other than what they're told to think is unheard of.
This post just expands on the one I put up a couple of days ago. It's all about "groupthink" and their herd mentality.
They are sheep, but they are vicious sheep.
Friday, July 08, 2005
How many times do we need to hear one of these raghead idiots scream "Allah Akhbar" (God is Great) before we realize that this a HOLY WAR?
If someone of the Christian persuasion were to proclaim that "God is great" during a prayer before a high school football game, the ACLU and the Left would treat it as a direct attack on America.
But when they say it while beheading someone, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're doing it for religious purposes!
Islam, this so-called "religion of peace", is a religion of murder. Anyone who has ever actually read the Koran knows that. The goal of Islam is to lie, steal, cheat and kill the infidel so as to take over the world. It's justified in the same way that Karl Marx said that "the end justifies the means".
Their vaunted prophet Mohammed was a pedophile and a sociopath who would have put any serial killer in this country's history to shame.
Don't believe me? Check this out. Yes, you can argue that the guy who put this website together is biased against Islam, but you can't read all of these articles and come to any other conclusion than Islam is one seriously screwed up religion from the word, "go". It is a "made-up" religion and has no real historical underpinnings.
If you haven't clicked on the above link yet, do it now. And bookmark it. It's a treasure trove against the Muslim's comrades on the Left. And they both have the same goal: the overthrow of Capitalism and Christianity.
They call us "Crusaders" in all of their news releases. What they (and most people in the West) have never been taught is that "The Crusades" were a reaction to the Muslims attempting to take over the Christian nations of the West.
Most people have never given a second thought as to why there are Muslims in Eastern Europe (e.g. Chechnya). It's because that's as far as the Crusaders let them go and/or couldn't kick them out of those countries.
That's as far as they got. Many centuries later, they're version of the Bible is still telling them to keep up the fight to take over the world.
This is not a small sliver of the Muslim population as the Leftist MSM would have you believe. The majority of Muslims believe that it is their God-given right to impose Islamic law on the rest of the world.
Think about it: how many Muslims have you heard come out and actually, with no reservations, say that 9/11 was wrong.
It's been almost 5 years and I haven't heard one.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Stop. Think about that statement. Really. Think about it.
In this age of political correctness, it seems odd to even think about that question, doesn’t it? Let’s look at it logically, though.
One preaches racial purity, while the other preaches racial impurity. One preaches segregation while the other preaches integration. Purity/Impurity. Segregation/Integration. These are antonyms. They mean the exact opposites of one another. Yet the KKK is considered a “right-wing” extremist group while the other is considered logically correct by the liberals and is not condemned by the general population.
Why aren't they both considered "extremist" positions?
Personally, I think that both groups are a bunch of idiots.
On one side you have a bunch of semi-literate morons with swastika tattoos and a public school education that they never paid any attention to.
On the other hand, you have a bunch of people who have never spent one moment with these ‘minorities’ whom they supposedly defend. That would be “icky”. We’ll stand up for them, but we’d never invite them to our cocktail parties. That would just throw the whole ambience off.
So, answer me this: why is "Diversity" good, but the KKK is bad"?
Yes, the KKK is bad (especially if you want to become a U.S. Senator), but so is "multiculturalism".
They both harm American culture.
The KKK for obvious reasons. Let me be the first Conservative in the history of the world (or so thinks the Left) to come out and say that racism is bad.
But the opposite is also bad.
The Left always speaks of how immigrants "enrich" our culture and, once upon a time, that may have been true, but that was when immigrants were expected to assimilate into our culture. Now immigrants are not only encouraged not to assimilate, but are told that it would be bad for them to do so because American culture is in need of change.
If an extremist opinion has an opposite, by definition, that position should also be considered extremist. Right?
Am I missing something?
Everything is Bush's fault! I'm honestly waiting for the day when our local news traffic reporter says the following: "There's a backup on Highway 10 just south of Hanson Boulevard and sources say that it's due to administration policies".
How would you like to have a conversation with these people?
"So, how ya doing?"
"Well, I'm doing a lot better than those poor, tortured prisoners in Guantanamo are, I can tell ya that much!"
"OK...how's the 'partner' and kid?"
"Well, my partner would be doing much better if we were allowed to get married so that he could be on my health insurance plan; and my child is fine for now, but if Bush gets his Social Security reform passed, he won't have much to look forward to."
"Whew...how about this weather?"
"Well, it's 20 below zero outside because Bush's attack on the environment is causing global warming." (Don't laugh, I actually heard one of them say that)
"Alrighty then. Hey, look at the time. I reallly need to go do something that doesn't involve talking to you."
I bet they're a lot of fun at family gatherings, too.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
A few days after 9/11/01 (no later than 9/15) I picked one at random and came across the following picture. I'm not superstitious, but this coincidence was almost eerie.
Yes, that's the Statue of Liberty and yes, those are the World Trade Center towers in the background.
I cut it out scanned it, added the caption, framed it and hung it on my wall. It's also been the wallpaper on my laptop ever since.
It's a very poignant reminder of why we are fighting.
Republicans, they believe, are “brain-dead” and “have never made an honest living” (Howard Dean). They are religious fanatics who revel in their own superiority and hate everyone who isn’t like them.
The reason that Democrats can believe this is because they see people as large groups. They can’t possibly believe that the actual individual Republicans they know and speak to every day believe these things, but somehow they believe that Republicans, as a large group, believe these things.
Isn’t that the definition of stereotyping?
Can they really believe that their Republican acquaintances and family members (there have to be some) don’t care if children go to bed hungry?
Do they really believe that the individual Republicans they know are racist? They may mistake disgust at a large portion of a certain group’s behavior as “hatred”, but that has more to do with the “content of their character” than the “color of their skin”. White people who act the same way disgust me, too.
Are the Republicans that they know really intolerant? I daresay that we tolerate more from them and their ideals being shoved down our throats than they ever do from us. We can no longer even speak our minds without fear of losing our jobs for something innocent that may be deemed “politically incorrect”.
Do the Republicans that they know treat women as inferior? I highly doubt it. They confuse the fact that we believe men and women are different with the belief that women are inferior. Republicans don’t create special programs for women because we believe that they are just as capable as men. Two of the most admired people in the Republican party are Condi Rice and Ann Coulter (Libs, fork the “evil eye” here).
Do they look at their Republican friends, family member and neighbors and see greed? They probably do when we speak of opposing taxes, but who is more greedy: those who want to keep their money to help their families, or those who want to forcibly take more money from you, thereby lessening your ability to take care of your family?
Mean-spirited? I can easily say that a far larger majority of the Republicans that I know are much nicer than the Democrats I know. Most of the Democrats I know are dour, cynical people with a very negative view of the world (see below). And I have yet to see the Republican equivalent of Dick Durbin, Al Gore MorOn.org or hundreds of other when it comes to meanness.
Is it possible that they think that we really prefer war to peace? I suppose that for someone who wouldn’t go to war for any reason, including their own survival, it would be possible to believe that. But when they speak to “Joe six-pack” Republican, do they believe that he actually revels in war? No, he just knows, as a mature adult, that sometimes violence is the only way to solve a problem.
Do they really see Republicans at work (assuming that they don’t work in academia, the public school system or a news outlet where there really are no Republicans), and think that they’re brain-dead and not making an honest living? My experience has been the opposite: most of the people I’ve seen who aren’t very good at thinking and who really don’t want to work have been farther to the Left.
Do they speak to religious people and think, “Man, what a fanatic!”? I, personally, know and work with some very religious people. They’re some of the nicest, most considerate people I know. They are not howling evangelists and not one has ever told me that I’m going to hell for anything. Quite frankly, they rarely share their religious views with me. The only reason that I know that they are religious is that I occasionally see one reading a Bible or some other religious book. That and we actually have (gasp!) a voluntary religious group before work-hours at my job.
I don’t believe that all Democrats are the same. That’s because I look at the ones that I know personally and they don’t all act like left-wing extremists. A large portion do, but many of them live and act more like Republicans than the Democrats for whom they vote. And of those, I believe that most would become Republicans if they could be persuaded to pay just a little more attention to what’s going on.
Instead of judging Democrats as a large group, I judge them, and all people, on an individual basis. When I do seem to make blanket assumptions about Democrats, I’m usually speaking of the ones in Washington (although not always. See below).
Democrats like Howard Dean may say the same, but when he speaks of “religious fanatics”, I highly doubt that he’s speaking of only the Washington crowd.
The one thing that the vast majority of Democrats that I know do have in common is an inferiority complex and a certain “entitlement” attitude. They all see themselves as the “little guy”. I know people whose families earn well over $100,000 a year that still see themselves as the “little guy” who are being taken advantage of by “these big Corporations”. Therefore they are entitled to whatever they can get from the government which, oddly enough isn’t a “big Corporation”, but is made up of us. The “little guy”. That’s like getting mad at Peter, so you hit Paul. But they never make that connection.
They believe that the government is being completely run by these Corporations and that they have absolutely no input in the process. They don’t seem to understand that individuals in Congress will usually listen if enough people get together on an issue to threaten their seat in Washington.
And what’s really odd is that they seem to enjoy thinking like this. Part of it is the whole “victimhood” thing whereby they blame someone else for their shortcomings, and another part of it is that they think that it makes them sound worldly and cool. It’s like a little kid swearing.
I have a sign in my department at work that says, “I Hate People”, and it’s mostly true. Just when I start to think that maybe people in general aren’t so bad, all I have to do is get on any road or go grocery shopping to reaffirm my disgust with a huge portion of the populace. Most of them are non-thinking idiots. I know that I probably shouldn’t say that because some Lefty will take that statement and generalize it, applying it to all Republicans, but it’s the truth.
And there is the difference between Democrats and Republicans (at least in my opinion).
I have very little faith in the general populace, but there are many individuals whom I care about, respect and love.
Democrats have very little faith in the individual, but see large groups as this huge, omnipotent barely tapped resource for good. “Good”, in this case, being tax money, with which their Church of Governmentalism can fund their own “faith-based initiatives” like welfare, etc. (Why did you really think that they hated Bush’s proposal so much? Christian faith-based initiatives are, once again, stepping on their turf).
Or maybe it’s just me.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
That is the main tactic that they use to try to point out Conservative hypocrisy.
If we’ve attacked Iraq because Hussein was a dictator, we should immediately attack Saudi Arabia and North Korea because they, too, are dictators. Anything else is hypocrisy.
If we haven't led perfect, saintly lives, we have no business speaking of "moral values". Anything else is hypocrisy.
Unless you've been to war, you're unfit to wage (or even speak about) war. Anything else is hypocrisy.
In other words, Conservatives are to be judged by the standard of perfection which no one, least of all Liberals, are able to attain.
On the bright side, it's nice to know that they think so highly of us that they believe we are able to attain perfection.
We judge them using the same standards that we judge anyone else by, because we know that perfection is divine and that man is not divine. Therefore, perfection is unattainable.
So we judge them using the criterion of whether their actions match their words.
When PETA fanatically "defends" the rights of animals and is then caught killing them and throwing the corpses in a dumpster, that is true hypocrisy.
When rich Liberals whine about us working people not giving enough to help the poor, while a small fraction of their combined wealth could put an end to poverty for the next century, that is true hypocrisy.
When the Clintons whine about a "vast right-wing conspiracy" that is trying to ruin them while hiring private investigators and illegally gathering information for the sole purpose of ruining people, that is true hypocrisy.
When they expect President Bush to appoint a "moderate" (i.e. someone who will agree with them most of the time) to the Supreme Court after Bill Clinton appointed former ACLU attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg (with very little fuss from the Senate, I may add), that is true hypocrisy.
When the Liberals whine about President Bush going to war without U.N. approval in Iraq after President Clinton went to war without U.N approval in the Balkans, that is true hypocrisy.
When virtually every person on this earth, including the liberals, professed to believe that Sadaam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction until a month after the Battle of Baghdad and, when we didn't find any, suddenly turned around and professed that they knew all along that Hussein didn't have any WMD's that's...well...that's insanity.
This morning I feared that the earth had left it's orbit and was hurtling towards the sun. It turns out that it had gotten chilly over night and my furnace had just come on.
Still have yet to see any dead bodies laying in the gutters, but I live in the hated suburbia. I'm sure that there are huge funeral pyres where they are burning the dead in the city. In fact, I thought that I had glimpsed one of those pyres to the south, but it turned out to be nothing more than fireworks.
How anyone could be celebrating "Patriotism" when the Government doesn't have all of the money that it wants is sickening. More later...if I'm still surviving.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Woke up this morning and the world hadn't ended.
Still haven't noticed any effects of the shutdown.
They've closed all of the rest stops along the interstates, so if I decide to go out of town I guess I'll have to stop at a gas station or something. Oh, the unfairness of it all!
Friday, July 01, 2005
I honestly don't think that people, even my fellow right-wing bloggers, realize what this is going to turn into.
This is going to turn into O.J., Michael Jackson, Laci Peterson and Aruba combined and raised to the Nth power.
The phrase "Borked" will be transformed into the name of whomever is Bush's nominee.
It won't matter who the nominee is, or what their views are. If they're anything to the Right of Karl Marx there is going to be a confirmation hearing that will never end and will demonize the nominee as worse than Satan himself.
(Oddly enough, "Anarchy in the U.K." just came on)
We need to find a way around the MSM. Bush needs to go on TV weekly to refute the charges of "Naziism" that will undoubtedly be spewed against this candidate.
Whomever the candidate turns out to be, you, yes you, need to refute the attacks and tell your friends, relatives and pets to e-mail their Senators and do the same.
This is going to be the ugliest thing you've ever seen. I promise you that.
What needs to be done is pointing out the endless obstructionism of the Demorat party.
Every President, every Senator, every Congressman has taken this oath of office.
I have yet to see the President or anyone in Congress take one step in defending our Constitution from the domestic enemies on the Supreme Court who are rewriting it to say what they want it to say.
Our Constitution is being erased and rewritten before our very eyes (I have a mental image of a kid with the tip of his tongue sticking out of the corner of his mouth, concentrating hard and just "going to town" with his eraser on a piece of paper). It is being made to say things that nobody in their right mind could possibly interpret it to say. It is being made to say things that no one else in 200 years had ever noticed before.
It is being used to do things that the Federal Government has absolutely no business getting involved in, thereby completely trampling states' rights in the worst way.
If that's not an attack on it, what is?
And nobody in Washington will lift a finger to defend it. The 3 branches of this government are supposed to be equal, yet the Executive and Legislative branches are completely cowed by the Judicial. I still find it odd that these power-hungry politicians are so willing to let the Judicial branch trample all over them.
As I've said before, if Democracies always turn into Dictatorships as has been posited, it will be the Judiciary dictating our lives.
For tonight, methinks I'll sit here blogging while I have a few cocktails. As Robert Plant once said, "Sippin booze is precedent/As the evening starts to glow" (name that tune). If I'm babbling incoherently by the end of the night, you know why. Ditto if I'm typing in all capital letters screaming about what a "&%^*(*(^%%#" Ted Kennedy is (name that profanity).
Man, what an exciting life I lead, huh? When you consider that I was once the "life of the party" type, it's truly odd that I'm happiest right here in my big, ol' quiet house. Alone, but far from lonely. After all, I have the voices. They're endlessly entertaining.
Haven't noticed any changes except, as one caller to one of our local talk shows said, "I haven't seen one "Wellstone" bumper sticker today".
No starved children and/or elderly in the gutters. Yet. The earth is still spinning on it's axis. For now.
Maybe tomorrow the world will end.