October 31, 2009

Why Don't We Learn?!

To keep a promise, Obama has released a list of visitors that will be accompanying him at the White House. He wants his administration to be the most transparent in history. He says that every American has the right to know what is going on inside the White House. However, in typical Saddam Hussein fashion, you know Obama will move the evidence of what is going on to a secret spot. Obama's assertion is that every other administration before him has had a closed-door policy about what goes on inside the White House. His further assertion is that because of
these so-called "closed door" policies, that everything that was done was done if ill-intent. Therefore, if we open up the white house doors and throng the people throughout the building, Obama feels he will gain more trust from the American citizens. (Note: he doesn't believe his policies will create trust from Americans or he'd have an open door policy on them as well).

When Obama was sworn in, he called on all government agencies to err on the side of openness and release information
whenever possible, which directly contradicts orders by the previous administration to look for reasons to withhold information whenever possible. Just because you have the legal right to withhold information, doesn’t mean you should..."

This was the policy of the Clinton Administration. Military secrets aren't secrets! Just sell them to the Chinese! How about erring on the side of caution and common sense?! Thanks to this policy, you can
expect our enemies to always be one step ahead of us. All news outlets will be projecting everything as Obama sits naively in the Oval Office. Well, actually I wouldn't call it naivety - he knows exactly what he's doing. He hates America so badly that he wants to strangle it into submission. His economic policies were just the start. Now, he wants everyone to have information, whether they should have it or not. "Just because you have the legal right to withhold information, doesn't mean you should." Right!! Just because the information you have might cause the deaths of thousands is no reason to withhold it. Share! Be open about it!

The flag of openness and sharing is the white flag. After surrender, you are completely vulnerable to the enemies wishes. I'm afraid the white flag is now flying above the white house.

October 29, 2009

Can't We All Just Get Along?


President Obama signs "monumental" legislation in the fight against "hate crimes." Crimes that seem to stem from some inherrant hate are being called "hate crimes." This term, arguably, got its start in the early 1980s (http://www.cahro.org/html/origin
_of_hate_laws.html). Since that
time, law-makers on all levels of Government have set out to put a prohibition on so-called hate--especially when that hate leads to crime. Should criminals be held accountable for their actions? Absolutely! However, the classification of the crime is important. I guess the question boils down to, "Is it OK to hate?"

The ideas of "like" and "hate" are applicable to many aspects of our lives. I like Florida and the fish it bestows while I'm fishing. I like hooking a Snook along rock jetties. But you know what? I hate falling into deep water with a fast current. Am I wrong in hating that? If you say it just depends on the situation, then you've made hate a relative term, which I would agree with. In doing so, relativism cannot be pushed onto someone else. In other words, what I may hate another may like. So, does that make hate a bad thing? No, of course not.

Beyond the inanimate, is it OK to hate humans? I guess as a society we would generally agree it is not OK to hate humans. However, is it OK to hate what humans do? Sure. Hating what they do is hating the inanimate. If another person was attacking, I'd hate being attacked. Am I a criminal now because I hate it? No. Again, the same principle applies, even with humans.

Therefore, to criminalize hate is taking the wrong action. If hate is criminalized, what is stopping law-makers from criminalizing all forms of hate? It will soon be illegal to hate Socialism, etc. The fact of the matter is hate is not a crime. The beatings, killings, etc. - those are the crimes. And, last I checked, we already have laws and penalties against murder, assault, and so on.

This is just more time wasted by our Government. Although, if hate is now a crime, then all those that hate George W. Bush should now be in jail.

October 25, 2009

Trick-or-Trick: The Liberal Halloween

We are under a week away from one of the most anticipated holidays for kids across America. On Saturday, witches and goblins will traipse through your yard just to get a piece of candy. However, since we've began an era of change and hope, I think we should enjoy a Halloween that is more politically sensitive.

First, let's make sure our Halloween decorations are well-tamed. Traditional Halloween decor echoes those things that make us scared. Usual displays will include a spider or two in their webs. Now, we all know that hanging up spiders for public display is just exploiting them for personal gain. Our friends at PETA would have a cow...well, maybe not a cow, but a marijuana plant. Let's take down the spiders and leave the webs up to show that the spiders shouldn't have gotten involved in sub-prime lending. Next, skeletons will shake their bones as the wind blows cold. Skeletons however carry the idea of death and decay. To achieve the same results, but in a more friendly manner, replace the skeletons with dummies of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi; and by dummies I mean the real people. Now, any automated displays just use electricity which increases our pollution. The keep the EPA at bay, we will replace them with a solar powered tape recorder of one of Joe Lieberman's speeches. Hey, you may not have any trick-or-treaters while the speech is playing, but at least you'll achieve the height of scariness.

During the Halloween time of year, many will flock to haunted houses in an attempt to dare to leave the establishment with dry pants. The Federal Government wanted to participate this year and has set up a haunted house of their own. It's called "Your Average Day in Congress." As you approach the House of Representatives, you'll actually see them voting "yes" on Obama-care. This isn't an act! As you run to escape, you stumble into the Senate Chambers to witness them approving a tax increase. It is so scary that George Voinovich is in the corner, crying. Robert Byrd comes from the side in a white sheet, "pretending to be a ghost." It is a nightmare you can't wake up from! But, what if they did have an actual haunted house? What would it be like?

As you approach the decrepit house, you notice Bob Dole standing at the entrance cluching a sickle in his hand. He speaks--"Bob Dole wouldn't go in there! Bob Dole would run away!" Absolutely astounding! You've already got your money's worth! As you make your way into the first room, it is a clown room. People hate clowns and these clowns are of no exception. They were able to save money on make-up by hiring real clowns - the Federal Circuit Judges. After you duck and dive their bench-driven legislation, you go through a black curtain into an operation room. In this room, the care you desperately need is given to the illegal immigrant and their 10 children. Before you leave, you are given their bill. The room ahead is dim with an occasional strobe light flash. There's not much in it. It is rather empty. Like an angler fish dangles the little light in front of its mouth for prey, you can't help but be drawn to the strobe. The room has a sign that says, "The Promises of Liberalism." You read it just before the room puts its jaws around you and you run to the next room. The room is rather reflective. You think you are in a room of mirrors. It is one pantsuit after another. "This must be the Hillary Clinton room", you think. But look carefully, this is actually just John Edward's wardrobe. As you come to the end of the haunted house, one last task awaits you. You must escape through Al Gore's teeth, dripping with global warming. Or, quickly take the Bill Clinton "Knock before you come in" secret escape door to the left. You will land comfortably in what Bill affectionately refers to as "silicon valley."

Now it's Halloween. In true Liberal fashion, kids will march up to each house and demand candy for nothing more than from a cute phrase. This year, if you leave your light off, you will be put in jail for non-compliance. Remember, the more candy you give, the more you affect the kid's health. More unhealthy kids means more health care needed. I think you get the point.

I think I'll stay in this Halloween and put a bowl of candy out with a sign that says, "Please take one." Many will be law-abiding and only take one. However, there will be those that will break the law and steal as much as they want. Therefore, to fix the problem, we are going to ban the law-abiding from taking one piece of candy in the future. Hey, it works for gun control, right?!

Happy Halloween

October 23, 2009

Obama's On The Line

Just when you thought our Government couldn't think of anything else to hand out, now they are offering phone service to those "less fortunate." Need I remind you they are "less fortunate" for ultimately two reasons: personal choice and decades of failed Government programs. Let's take a look and decode this Government program and expose it for what it really is.

The picture is a screen shot of the webpage. Note the slogan: "Safelink Wireless is a government supported program that provides a free cell phone and airtime each month for income eligible customers." Where does the Government get its money? Hmmm, that's right, our taxes. Therefore, who is actually supporting this program? Hmmm, that's right, we are! Don't be fooled when you read anything that says "government supported." The government can only support that which it has funding for. So, unless they just create money, every government supported program is funded by our tax dollars. We go to work and make a salary only to have it pillaged by the government through taxes. So, remember the next time you are paying your cell phone bill that you already paid for millions of others.

This service is available if you are at least at or below 135% of the poverty level. So, instead of saving money to pay off debt to get out of poverty, the government is going to exploit these folks; give them something "free"; and keep them impoverished and wanting more. You don't help the poor by giving them something free. You help them by teaching them and empowering them to rise above that to which they've become accustomed. The guy on the street that asks you for money will show up the next day and ask for more money. Soon, tax payers will be paying for cable, cars, houses, vacations, etc. all in the name of "compassion" for the "poor." I hope those that consider themselves poor, would stand against this out of principle.

Ultimately, there is a bigger issue with this. Let's think for a minute--The Government has a wireless phone service. It is free and marketed to millions. So, each conversation that takes places happens on a Government line. Do you get this?! Your conversations will be property of the Government; and rest assured they will be listening. Just as the Cash-4-Clunkers website said that if you register for the program, your computer becomes property of the Federal Government, now your speech will be property of theirs as well. Listen folks, the freedom of speech is only guaranteed by a Constitution that is actually defended. If you sell out to Socialism, you sell your freedom of speech. But, who cares, right?! As long as you get more stuff for free!

October 20, 2009

The Religion of Liberalism

By Chris Dumford

It is interesting that in the arena of the political and cultural wars taking place in America today, few people actually stop to realize that what is actually occurring is a theological battle. Though some may wish to ignore or deny the fact that America was founded upon a Judeo-Christian ethic, the simple truth is that most of our founding fathers laid claim to being Christians.

Christianity is and was more than just a title. It permeates every aspect of a true Christian’s life including their values, principles and how they define every aspect of morality, society and even principles of Government. They view the Bible as God’s Word and that it is the filter and standard by which all judgments of values, principles and government should be filtered. This means that many ideas are held to be concrete (i.e. black and white) and that society both as individuals and as a whole answer to a higher power. This holds largely true to the ideology of our founding fathers.

As an example of the failure of modern Americans to historically examine the development of theological thought in America and its impact on the development of our nation, some modern liberals have championed Thomas Jefferson as the hero of secularism. They do this by reshaping Jefferson’s Unitarian Theology into a secular philosophy held by many of the Constitutional delegates that framed the Constitution. Though some may argue that Jefferson and others rejected the concepts of Divine miracles and foundational Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, they fail to see two aspects that dismantle their attempt to link Jefferson with some ideology that America is in reality not founded upon Judeo-Christian concepts, but rather secular concepts (i.e. sanitizing America from any public acknowledgement of the existence of God) because some of the chief framers of the Constitution was not all true Christians. The first failure in this stretching of Jefferson’s position is that many liberals who take this view know little or nothing of basic theology or its impact in the public arena in Christian America. This history began in Europe.

The first European settlers in America were the Congregationalists and Separatists who fled England. Congregationalism argued that the church needed to remove liturgy and formalism and to get back to their Calvinistic roots. They believed that the church could be reformed from within and advocated that changes take place from within the Church of England.

Separatists, on the other hand believed that the entire church was corrupt and could not be salvaged. They argued that congregations should be independent of ecclesiastical government and that preachers and pastors could preach without being granted licenses by the government. They believed that any body of believers could congregate, elect their own leaders as they saw fit, and establish any covenants and doctrinal views that they believed were Biblical. This ran counter to the mainline European and especially English view that all authority to determine theological positions and to appoint Pastors and Bishops to the various ecclesiastical positions within the Episcopal body were vested ultimately in the King (a true state church).

Due to the conflict between Congregationalist/Separatist thought and Episcopal thought, the Congregationalists and Separatists fled to America. Both groups ultimately settled in Massachusetts. In 1620, some of these landed in Plymouth and upon arrival, they wrote the first governing document in the New World. This first governing document was called the Mayflower Compact and defined the very reason for the establishing a new life in the Americas. It reads thusly,

“IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620…”

It is clear that the original settlers had the ideology of establishing a new colony for the advancement of the Christian faith. Notice that the original settlers believed that the role of government was not only for the advancement of the Christian faith, but also, was not established for individual liberties, but rather for the good of the colony as a whole. In their theological view, the advancement of the Christian faith did not include an official state church concept since that was the very reason they were fleeing England, but neither did they hold that government should be sanitized from any recognition of God as the Supreme ruler as evidenced by the language contained in this first governing document.

By the late 1600’s, there was a marked turn away from traditional Calvinist views that man was wholly subjected in his actions and future eternal state to the unconditional election of God and His Divine Decrees. This turning away from Calvinist ideology had its roots in such groups as the Anabaptists. This view held that man had a will that could either accept Jesus Christ as his personal Savior, or reject Him. This will was based on the concept that man has the freedom to reason out Biblical truth and was wholly responsible and was held accountable for his decisions by God. Ultimately, this led to the age of enlightenment. In this new theological bent, God could be reasoned out based on scientific or natural observations. This view did not reject the existence of God, or His Sovereignty, but rather redefined Him outside of the views presented in the Bible. This led to the rise of Deism. Jefferson, like other Unitarians of his day, being of a strong scientific mind was naturally drawn to this ideology. Jefferson did not hold to an agnostic or atheistic view at all. He saw himself as a deeply spiritual man, although a mainline Christian would define him as heretical in some of his views.

Some of his theology is evident in his drafting of the Declaration of Independence. In the first paragraph, Jefferson writes that all men are endowed by their Creator with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Notice two things about this sentence. The first is that Jefferson recognized that God was Sovereign. God not only was the grantor of life, but also of liberty. Both of which placed God as the ultimate Sovereign over man (and by reason of the Declaration of Independence, the King of England).

Second, notice the terminology. Both life and liberty held vast theological aspects in relation to the Creator. In the realm of life, it was believed by most people in that day that life emanated from God. All accepted that life began at conception based on the theological view that man was a living soul. Though there was a debate amongst theologians regarding the merits of Traducianism, Creationism and Pre-existence when it came to the origin of the soul, what all agreed upon, was that life began at conception. This is concluded because the soul was either traduced at conception, created at conception or was pre-existent and was infused at conception.

The concept of liberty as it related to a Divine Creator was founded upon the principles espoused in the book of Galatians in that liberty was that spiritual aspect that liberated man from the constrictions of theological law and placed him within the realm of grace. Man was now wholly responsible in his actions relating to God and to society as a whole. God had extended grace, but man could choose to accept it or reject it. If he accepted the proffering of grace, then he was liberated from the condemnation and eternal penalty of sin. He then served God by means of the regeneration and leading of the indwelling Holy Spirit, or in the Deistic theological sense, through the conscience and reason. In essence, in either case, with freedom comes responsibility. This responsibility was deemed to be answerable to a higher Sovereign and to the moral conscience of society.

Though Jefferson himself was a Deist, many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were self professed Congregationalists who would not have accepted any governing document that rejected the existence of God. These included,

Samuel Huntington - Connecticut Roger Sherman - Connecticut

William Williams - Connecticut Oliver Wolcott - Connecticut

Lyman Hall - Georgia Samuel Adams - Massachusetts

John Hancock - Massachusetts Josiah Bartlett - New Hampshire

Robert Treat Paine - Massachusetts William Ellery - Rhode Island

William Whipple - New Hampshire

By the time of the writing of the Constitution, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists argued from theological perspectives. The arguments of the Anti-Federalists (Patrick Henry and James Madison being chief among them) indicated that there was a strong bent toward recognizing, even in the Age of Enlightenment of 1787, that America was indebted to God for its existence. Some modern liberal writers have extrapolated these arguments to prove that the triumph of the Federalists indicates their direct intention of producing and espousing a secular government. Some of these writers include Cornell University professors Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore who take this view. Daniel L. Dreisbach, Doctor of Philosophy of Oxford University wrote a rebuttal to Kramnick and Moore in which he dismantles their arguments (http://www.leaderu.com/common/godlessconstitution.html) and shows that the framers did not intend to produce a secular culture or government, but rather left the issue up to the states.

Dreisbach writes,

“The U. S. Constitution's lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer's personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as "godless" or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God…”

It is interesting to note the number of practicing Congregationalists who signed the Constitution of the United Sates,

Roger Sherman - Connecticut Abraham Baldwin - Georgia

Nathaniel Gorham - Massachusetts John Langdon - New Hampshire

Nicholas Gilman - New Hampshire

Modern Liberalism has unshackled itself from the ideology that society as a whole is responsible to God as held by virtually all of the founding fathers in one form or another and as openly espoused by the above named signers. Liberals have replaced this with a new religion that indeed violates their very premise that separation of church and state (not stated in the Constitution) means separation of the state from God. This religion first must redefine the constitution as a living document and it has become their Bible (albeit an ever changing one). That is, that there is no historical precedent by which the Constitution and its aims should be defined, but rather that it is to be stretched, molded or redefined at the whims of each succeeding generation. Thus, each generation, instead of being constrained by a document that covertly has its roots in Christianity with an historical precedent for interpretation, now places the document within their own constraints. The Constitution thus becomes subservient to them, instead of them being subservient to the Constitution.

How does this come about. First, there must be an argument for humanism. The Government must be separated from any form of authority that is higher than it. This places man as the supreme authority. God must be erased from all public expression and man now becomes a god.

Second, all historical precedents must be ignored. Since extreme liberalism tends to be supported by largely atheistic groups, they must redefine the history of our culture, our nation and the beliefs of our founding fathers in order to highjack society through the redefining of our governing documents and the tenets of previous society.

Third, in order to claim the high ground, there must be a series of moral tenets established. These are established in order to foist them on society and in order to encourage the acceptance of these tenets, they must appear to be good and morally just. These tenets redefine Biblical immorality as alternate lifestyles, murder of the unborn as the right to choose, free speech as hate speech, traditional marriage as commitment between any two people regardless of gender etc. All of these are purely based on humanist preferences that do not come from above man, but emanate from man. With enough marketing and public exposure, society will inevitably come to accept these tenets as truth.

Once that the Government is removed from answering to God, and once all evidence that it ever did is removed from public display, and once man is now his own deity, he can then reshape his government as he sees fit to embrace his new religion.

The end result is that life and liberty have been redefined. Life can now be defined not as the view held by the founding fathers, which is that life begins at conception, but rather at birth. We can now kill the unborn under some unwritten ethereal, morally just concept of the right to choose under an implied right to privacy embedded in the Constitution (somewhere?).

Liberty is no longer based on responsibility to God and to society as a whole but rather it is based on individual preferences and rights. Instead of being held to a choice of accepting or rejecting the grace of God and being answerable to Him, we now can choose what we like best as our own sovereign and answer only to ourselves as individuals.

In their zeal to redefine the concepts of liberty, liberals are now replacing the long held practices and laws of a former largely Christian society with individual rights. Where once, the Constitution was believed to be a document defining the power of Federal Government and limiting it to those articles contained therein, and devolving all other power to the states, the Constitution is now held as the new Bible of the individual. It no longer defines the power of the Federal Government, but rather defines the religious (i.e. moral and social rights) tenets of the individual.

Where once, certain practices held as immoral behavior based on a Biblical principles, were largely outlawed by almost every state in the Union (in keeping with the premise espoused by Dreisbach that the states had the right to impose law based on any religious views held by the constituency), now these state laws regarding so called alternative lifestyles, free choice etc. are being overturned by some unprecedented court ruling and now the rights of the individual supersede those of society as a whole. Liberty therefore is not defined within the constraints of being answerable to a higher Sovereign and the moral fabric of society, but rather it now means liberty from these constraints. All protected by the Constitution! Thus, morality and rights are transported from that which is good for society as a whole, to that of individual liberty.

In order to accomplish this, liberals have established their own ecclesiastical presbytery known as the courts. If popular opinion and state law refuses to acknowledge their new religion, then they will have it forced upon the populace through the courts who have unknowingly (or even more frightful, knowingly) have grasped the theology that the Constitution is subservient to us, instead us being subservient to it.

An example of this shift in the courts can be seen in two landmark events in our history. When the issue of slavery was finally settled in 1865, the courts did not rule that the Constitution covered the right for blacks to vote nor to be free, but rather recognized that as originally intended by the forefathers, blacks were excluded from voting and slavery was legal. Neither sociological practice either were stated or implied in the Constitution and as a result, the rights of blacks were left up to the states. As a result, some circuit court did not decide to put forth some ruling allowing blacks freedom and the right to vote, thereby infringing upon the rights of the states. Rather, the Constitution was amended to include the right for blacks to vote and making slavery illegal thereby superseding the rights of the states as the founding fathers intended through the amendment process.

The same can be said regarding women’s suffrage. As late as the 1920’s the ideology that the Constitution was not a so-called living document was still understood. It took a Constitutional amendment to grant women the right to vote.

What is taking place now, is that district courts are ruling that the Ten Commandments, Intelligent Design, prayer in school, public displays of religious symbols and public motto’s such as that of our own state of Ohio (With God All Things are Possible), are now un-Constitutional in opposition to their long held existence in society. To get there, they must follow the three-step plan to the new religion of liberalism.

In the end, what has transpired is a new religion based on a written ever-changing and expanding standard (a living, breathing Constitution) that has replaced the Bible. This new religion contains a new definition of morality that covers any new concept that becomes popular in society and upholds personal liberty and replaces the traditional Judeo-Christian moral law. It is defended by a new ecclesiastical body (the courts) that are set up as the ruling body (much like the Sanhedrin or the Areopogites) to determine the validity of their new definition of morality and theological tenets. Finally, it has as its sovereign a new god, that being themselves.

It is interesting that many liberals accuse the religious right of attempting to establish a theocracy, yet truly, if anyone is violating the concept of the separation of church and state, it is the liberals with their new theocracy.

This Would Be Easier If You'd Just Stay Still!


The DNC, despite the economy, is expected to bring in about 3 million dollars tonight at an Obama centered fund raiser. In the remarks Obama will say tonight, he will state, "But we as a country should never again be faced with such a potential calamity because of the reckless speculation and deceptive practices of a short-sighted and self-interested few." Does this mean only Conservatives will be in office from now on? Come on, Obama, I expect you to keep your promise...yeah right!

You can't put restrictions on the Market. If you restrict the Market, the Market cannot function and thus you are left with a Government ran economy. The Market, by nature, will take care of itself. It will weed out bad business on its own. We don't need the all-stealing-hand of Government to "fix" the Market.

Obama will go on to say tonight, "So if there are folks from the industry here tonight, I ask you to join with us in passing what are necessary reforms; don’t fight them. It’s important for our country. And in the long run, it will be good for your industry to have a level playing field in which everyone knows the rules " Don't fight what the Government is doing! Just lay back and take it! Take the higher taxes; take the unconstitutional regulations; take the communism! By the way, everyone knowing the rules doesn't equate a level playing field. It may equate a level starting point, but the playing field will never be level because each of us have our own abilities and talents that will take us in different directions; and cause us to reach for different goals. All a level playing field is to Obama is another way to gain control for his "self-interest few." But, I guess this is the hope for change everyone wanted.

October 18, 2009

Iran: A Friendly Middle Eastern Country


A suicide bomber has attacked in Iran and killed 5 Revolutionary Guard Commanders. Iran says that the "great Satan", the United States backed by Great Britain, are responsible. This is a reasonable accusation since American and Great Britain are known for their suicide bombers. Iran threatens, "Not in the distant future we will take revenge...will clear this region from terrorists and criminals." I hope Iran understands that would mean executing a good portion of their own country. Don't be fooled; you know this was done by Iran just to have a reason to come after the US.

Kerry: Don't Be To Hasty With The Troops

John Kerry gives his Presidential expertise on troop levels in Afghanistan. The same expertise that won him the election in 2004. When Al-Qaeda sees our Government weakened by liberal policies, they will use that opportunity to increase their attacks on us in Afghanistan. Kerry is quick to say no to the troop surge in Afghanistan because in his mind, it won't work. This same mantra was slung towards Bush during the Iraqi troop surge. However, after the evidence came in, even Democrats couldn't ignore its success.

Hillary Clinton said, "We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it’s working." when she spoke to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Dick Durbin stated, "The surge has resulted in a reduction of violence in many parts of Iraq." Senator Carl Levin had to be strong and fight his emotions to say, "The military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq…appear to have produced some credible and positive results." Brian Baird, D-WASH, said, "We are making real and tangible progress on the ground, for one, and if we withdraw, it could have a potentially catastrophic effect on the region."

John Kerry has removed himself from the logical base, if it even exists, of his fellow Congressmen. There is a reason he lost the election - why do people still care what he has to say?

Peace will ultimately be achieved through strength. If we show weakness now, we will ultimately waste all of what our troops have fought for. But, perhaps that is what John Kerry wants. Right now, he's working on invitations to send to all of the troops to have a medal burning party at his Massachusetts mansion. But, this would cause a surge in pollution from the smoke. I don't envy you John Kerry. I'd be a nervous wreck.

October 17, 2009

All Too Easy

They can't write this stuff any better!

New Orleans mayor, Ray "full competence" Nagin visits Cuba to learn how to deal with storms. It has only been a few years since hurricane Katrina sacked and pillaged New Orleans; and it
has only been a few years since Nagin did absolutely nothing to help his people. He quickly blamed the Bush Administration for not acting quickly enough - which begs the question Ray, if you think the Fed is in control of everything, then step down from being mayor - your position is worthless.

Nagin wishes to see how the Cubans deal with their storms. Nagin, once again, throws common sense into the slammer in favor of being lead by the seeing eye-dog of ignorance. "I wonder what these people do when it rains really hard?" he probably ponders while sipping on a mixed drink purchased by those ransacked tax payers. His mind stammers on, "Back home, we just open an umbrella and hope it doesn't get windy. Shoot, I don't know! Hurricanes. Thunderstorms. Earthquakes. We're all going to get wet somehow." But, to top it off, Obama shows up in New Orleans and gives a speech. Obama has been versed in Meteorology and begins to give an expose on hurricanes.

"And (in) the days after it did, this nation and all the world bore witness to the fact that the damage from Katrina was not caused just by a disaster of nature, but also by a breakdown of government, that government wasn’t adequately prepared and we didn’t appropriately respond.”

The damage from Katrina (naturally occurring hurricane) was caused by a breakdown in government?! WHAT?!?!? How is this guy taken seriously?! A government breakdown caused the hurricane damage? Heck, if China's government ever breaks down, the continent of Asia will just sink into the ocean. Yeah, makes sense. The government that didn't appropriately respond what Nagin's government that ignored the warnings from the White House days prior and refused to do anything about getting their people out. Nagin dropped the ball and his people lost their lives. I'm not one for name calling, but this whole story reeks of idiocy.

New Orlean's neighbor, Mississippi, didn't seem to suffer from the same government inadequacies. So, Katrina's damaged was caused a strategic strike of government breakdown? Thank heavens that Louisiana doesn't fully suffer from such incompetence. Governor Bobby Jindal will lead that state into a brighter tomorrow.

October 10, 2009

Alfred Nobel's Name Laid to Waste

"to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind"

Alfred Nobel, as stated above, wished this award to be given to the one who gave the greatest benefit on mankind during that year. This expectation was established in his will in 1895. It was a monetary award, initially designed to be given in the areas Chemistry and Physics, Medical Science, Literature, and Peace. It was first awarded in 1901. This award wasn't designed to be a flippant reward of cultural defamation. However, we now know that this Prize is as valuable as the stocks of October 29th, 1929.

After much deliberation and evaluation with the highest of academic integrity, the Norwegian counsel decided to award Barack Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize. The counsel justified their decision by stating it is because of Obama's "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples." What efforts are they referring to exactly? To strengthen international diplomacy, all one needs to do is to promise not to defend yourself through war. Today, a strengthened international diplomatic atmosphere translates into a weak America. Unfortunately, that is how it is perceived in the media. Ronald Reagan had it right when he pushed for diplomacy by believing peace was achieved through strength. Hence the results of the Cold War. --You know that section of American History your teacher glosses over because they can't wait to skip ahead to the Clinton's? Obama has done nothing but to make America weak. During the Bush Administration, America's imaged was propagandized as negative by the media. And, from that, our congressmen decided to jump on the bandwagon and begin to criticize America. At least now they have their wish. Unemployment is still rising, despite what Ben Bernanke claims about the "end" of the recession. America has no vision and no leadership to take us there. Ronald Reagan marched America forward to be that shining city on a hill. Obama just seeks to make excuses and apologies to the rest of the world.

Now that the Nobel Prize is worthless, it won't be long until other sacred awards/medals become worthless. We could give Jack Murtha a Medal of Honor. We could give John Kerry a Purple Heart...oh wait, we did (which he later burned if you remember.) We could give Michael Moore a Presidential Citation for bravery. Why stop with the Nobel Prize?--just trash them all! But, through it all, rest assured, even with the millions of dollars Obama has, what ever amount this Prize affords him, his brother in the dirt hut won't see a penny of it. Wow. So deserving of this award he is.