In My Right Mind

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

My Photo
Location: Universal City, Texas, United States

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, June 30, 2005

A Response To A Traitor's Lament

Well, well, well. So, the NY Times publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., is disappointed that another media organization is cooperating with a lawful court order, is he?

Drudge reports:

"Time Inc. said Thursday it would comply with a court order to deliver the notes of a reporter threatened with jail in the investigation of the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name...

Statement from Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of The New York Times and chairman of The New York Times Company: Thu Jun 30 2005 10:08:04 ET

We are deeply disappointed by Time Inc.’s decision to deliver the subpoenaed records. We faced similar pressures in 1978 when both our reporter Myron Farber and the Times Company were held in contempt of court for refusing to provide the names of confidential sources.

Mr. Farber served 40 days in jail and we were forced to pay significant fines. Our focus is now on our own reporter, Judith Miller, and in supporting her during this difficult time.

Developing... "

Let's see if we understand you properly Mr. Sulzberger Jr. You think that it is perfectly ok to endanger the life of a government servant, (not to mention the lives of his family members, you know, his wife and children, mother and father, brothers and sisters etc.), by blowing his cover in highly circulated typeset for the whole world to see, (psst....terrorists included!). Yet, it is somehow a travesty of justice if, the slimy snake of a snitch on your payroll has to do any amount of time in prison for refusing to cooperate with a federal court?

Do you hate this country that much Mr. Sulzberger Jr.?

The problem with the poor agent who, along with his family members, now have a death warrant on their heads, (courtesy of Time Inc.), is that he works for the CIA. Oh, well, that explains it! He's one of those evil minons of the "Great Satan", America. He deserves to be killed. Right?

I'm sure that Mr. Sulzberger Jr. has been given the appropriate clearance, and has access to all of the intelligence that the CIA has. Of course, he also sits in on all of the CIA's mission planning sessions as well. That's why he can confidently approve of risking this agent and his family's life, by blowing his cover. After all, it is the journalist's duty to ensure that any chance to thwart the evil American government's actions, are his sacred duty as a "good American".

I don't know whether or not Mr. Sulzberger Jr. is just, yet another "useful idiot" who has drank the anti-establishment kool aid that the leftists have been doling out to the weak-minded since the 1960's, or if he is one of the kool aid mixers. Either way, his disappointment is anti-American.

Mr. Sulzberger Jr., maybe you have forgotten what happened to us on 9/11. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you think we deserved it. If so, that is your right.

However, much to your dismay, I hate to have to inform you that it is the mission of the CIA, to ensure that you will always have the freedom and safety to exercise your right to want to betray those who are actually risking all to support your freedom. Apparently, you and those who follow your warped viewpoint, are the sort of people that are prone to "bite the hand that feeds them." Shame on you all!

Since the atrocity of 9/11, the CIA has been about the business of thwarting the very terrorists who attacked us. These agents are risking their very lives to ensure that we have the intelligence that we need to defeat these blood-thirsty, demon-possessed, morons that are threatening our very freedom and way of life.

I could care less about your disappointment Mr. Sulzberger Jr, and even less about Ms. Judith Miller's discomfort through her "difficult time".

And that is my right!

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Government-Regulated Free Speech

What? Do you think this is still 1776? Surely, you don't think that you have speech that is free from governmental control? Are you kidding? Get Real!

At the risk of sounding like a "nutcase alarmist", if things go the way the Federal Election Committee (FEC) wants, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), formerly known as the McCain-Feingold Act, will be extended to the Internet. The main target will be bloggers with political content on their sites. This will mean government regulation of the Internet, (I can already hear the collective sighs of thousands, upon thousands of netizens in my mind’s ear). In particular, it wants government regulation of free speech on the Internet.

Of course, for starters, the government’s controlling tentacles would only be groping for control of those bloggers who post items with political content on their blogs. But, this only opens the door for later conquests of the Internet by the government. Once it has absorbed these bloggers into its collective control, it's just a matter of time before it turns its attention elsewhere. In the end, the government just might start to see the Internet as one giant opportunity of tax revenue windfall for for the taking.

I should hope not! The Internet has been, at least since its inception, a wonderful refuge from governmental interference. The exception to this has been in the case of the trafficking of child pornography. However, I think it is safe to say that most moral and decent netizens don't really mind the government's intrusion there. I mean really. Who, besides sick, perverted, criminals would argue for the protection of the trafficking and abuse of children from governmenal control?

All of that being said, what right does the federal government have to control a person's exercise of free speech on the Internet? Why is this even an issue to begin? Especially, in the "land of the free and of the brave"? I'll tell you why. It is in their best self-interest for politicians to protect their cherished positions of office. If they suppose for even one moment, that Internet bloggers might sway voters away from them, they will react with legislative vengeance to squash that threat - let the blogger's constitutional free speech rights be damned!

What's really perplexing to me is the fact that radio talk show hosts like, for instance, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, or radio programs like "Air America", or NPR, all have their freedom of speech protected from governmental interference. Heck, even all of the major news networks on television (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Fox News, PBS etc.) are safe from governmental control and scrutiny, (and don't even try to tell me that most of the media isn't partisan-biased toward the Democrat Party).

So, then why is it that the FEC wishes to focus on the ordinary, non-corporate netizen like me and other bloggers? So what if I favor one candidate or another? It is highly unlikely that someone as insignificant as me is actually going to influence elections anyway. I say, back off from my constitutional right of free speech!!!!

Just recently, the Supreme Court has managed to endanger our most basic right to ownership and control of personal private property . What's next? Freedom of speech? Then what? Do we all just sit back and watch as slowly, but surely, the rest of our constitutional rights are "watered down" and then finally taken from us?

You may think I'm "nuts" and that I am just over-reacting here. After all, surely the government would never do that! The government is in the business of protecting our freedom and rights. Right?

Not necessarily. It was the intention of our nation's founders that our nation's government be "by the people and for the people". But, I submit to you, that if we don't watch out, we can find ourselves servants to our government and not the other way around!

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Wait A Minute, There Must Be Some Kind of Misunderstanding Here.

I wasn’t including my private property in my eminent domain ruling!

Oh, the irony if this move against Justice Souter’s home is successful.

Do you that think we might see a quick move by Souter to repeal the decision that he and his cronies on the Supreme Court made earlier, regarding the protection of a person's private property against seizure from a greedy government, now that the ramifications of his decision are hitting a little too close to home?

I Care More! No, I Care More!! No, I Care Moorrre!!!

According to an article posted on the Evening Standard’s This Is London web site, Bono, lead singer from the Irish rock group U2, appears to have his messianic complex all in a wad. It seems that Sir Paul McCartney has been given "Top Bill" by being selected to be the opening and closing act of the upcoming Live8 concert:

"A Live 8 source said Sir Paul's headline slot had ruffled a few feathers. 'Some of the more fragile egos are upset,' he said. 'Bono, in particular, was quick to demand a share of the opening number and sees what he has done politically over the years as a bit more relevant to Live 8 than what Paul has to offer. Remember, these are the biggest rock stars around. Whatever order they sing in there is going to be friction."

Ok, these entertainers expect us to believe they genuinely care about the plight of the millions starving in Africa when they can’t even get over themselves long enough to get along with one another while they are performing for the benefit of Africa? This is another example of the hypocrisy and shallowness of the "loony left" in the entertainment world. Does anyone still seriously doubt that these entertainers are more interested in "face time" on the stage to demonstrate their concern for the poor?

There is a solution that would improve the plight of millions of starving, abused, and downtrodden people in Africa, but these entertainers would not even want to consider it. The best way to help these unfortunate people in Africa is military action. Good old pre-emptive strikes against the thug regimes that are keeping these people down under their oppressive boot heels. Talk about a chance for the world to be united in a cause!

For those who want to hold hands around the world and "make a change", how about this; how about each nation contribute its fair share of troops to march into Africa, kill the bloody dictators and gangs that are holding the starving in Africa captive, and set these people free. Then all of the aid donated would actually make a difference. But, alas this is not to be.

Bono would rather whine about the choice of Paul McCartney as headliner act, because after all, "he sees what he has done politically over the years as a bit more relevant to Live 8 than what Paul has to offer." Exactly, what have you accomplished Bono?

Do you think, because you flown over to Africa and shook hands with some of the unfortunate people there that you are really making a difference? If you, and the supporters of your cause are making any real difference, why can’t we see it? Why is there still starving millions over there, despite the proclaimed "success" of Live Aid and Band Aid?

I think we know the answer to these questions. Bono, his peacenik friends, along with the other "hippy-dippys" who follow this movement, all think "it’s the thought that counts". No actual solution is necessary. We can’t threaten the thugs that are causing all of the trouble in the first place. No, we must "take the high road" and "lead by example".

Well, I submit to you, Bono, that for the starving children in Africa tonight, the thought doesn’t really count. Nourishment does. Freedom from fear does. But, you aren’t prepared to do anything about that are you?

This Land Was Your Land, But Now It's My Land

Libertarian talk show host Neal Boortz had this on his website today:


Well, let's give credit to the Mayor and city officials of Freeport, Texas. They sure recognize an opportunity when it presents itself. These political predators didn't wait 24 hours after the Supreme Court's eminent domain decision before they struck .. .with a vengeance. Freeport officials have now ordered their city attorneys to prepare the documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property owned by two seafood companies. One of the seafood companies, a shrimp processing plant that has been there for well over 50 years, will have to cease business and close. While the seafood company owners are frowning, there's a big smile on the face of Dallas developer Hiram Walker Royall. He can now use the government to seize some property from a private landowner, and then buy that property from Freeport for a lot less than he would have had to pay the private owners. He'll then get to proceed with his plan for a nice privately owned marina.

Only in America --- thanks to our Supreme Court.

I don’t know about you, but this makes my blood boil!

Thanks to the Supreme Court's ruling on eminent domain, last Thursday, June 23 2005, the right of the common man to own his or her private property is now on shaky ground. The Supreme Court, with yet another questionable interpretation of the Constitution, has managed to take away one of our basic freedoms, arguably the most important.

In their infinite wisdom, they have interpreted the clause found in Amendment 5 of the Constitution that addresses the protection of a citizen's private property from seizure by the government on a whim, extending the meaning of the stipulation "for public use" to include tax revenue potential. This means that if the government sees a chance to get more tax revenue from your property, it can seize your property for "the good of the public".

Or, if somebody has his eye on your private property for commercial use, all he has to do if you won't sell it to him, is convince the local government that he can use the property in a way that will generate more tax revenue than your property is currently yielding. Then he can simply standby and wait, while the government seizes your property from you and sells it to him. The beauty of this deal is that there is little or nothing that you can do about it. All of this because, the Supreme Court has decided "for public use" can simply mean the opportunity for the government to gain even more tax revenue from your private property.

This isn't the first time the Supreme Court has made a highly questionable interpretation of the Constitution generating outcry from the public they are suppose to serve. "Separation of Church and State" has been the justification for such federal government intrusions as the banning of the display of the Ten Commandments on public property, prayer in public schools, denial of the use of government land by the Boy Scouts etc. However, if you read the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, nowhere do you find the phrase "separation of Church and State". It simply isn't there.

But hey, just because something isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, doesn't mean that it can't be added de facto to support how particular Supreme Court Justices wish to interpret the Constitution. Just as the phrase "separation of Church and State" can't be found anywhere in Amendment 1 of the Constitution, neither is the mention of tax revenues in conjunction with "for public use" in Amendment 5. What we have here is yet another example of abuse committed by a branch of the Government that is functioning independent of any restraint.

The Founding Fathers of this country decided that the best way to keep a check on the government's power over the people it was instituted to serve, was to divide it into three branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. These three branches have their own individual roles and responsibilities and are suppose to provide for a system of checks and balances that serve to prevent one branch from becoming too powerful and overriding the other two.

As such, the balance of power in the government worked as intended until activist judges in the Supreme Court began the practice of legislating from the bench. By bypassing the Legislative Branch, these judges ensured that not only could they interpret the Constitution however they pleased, but they could also make their Constitutional interpretations the "law of the land." Probably the most famous example of this is the decision that the Supreme Court handed down in the Roe vs. Wade case in 1973.

The damage caused by this abuse of power remains to be seen, but we definitely have an imbalance of power now. These activist judges have not only hijacked the Legislative Branch's role in passing laws, their actions have also served to politicize the Supreme Court. We shouldn't have to fight for either a liberal or conservative majority in the Supreme Court. This is a perversion of what the Supreme Court's role was designed to be.

Justices are put there to safeguard the intent of the Constitution, regardless of their personal political opinion. Judges are supposed to be impartial, objective. When they allow their own opinions, agenda, prejudices to influence their decisions, they abuse the public trust.

It's time to fix this problem, and restore the three branches to their intended limits. Considering the abuses committed by the Supreme Court so far, maybe it's time to limit the term of its membership. Can we really afford to give some activist judge a lifetime stab at interpreting the Constitution according to his or her own political agenda?

If the issue of activist judges within the Supreme Court isn't dealt with, and the balance of power between the three federal branches of government restored soon, loss of the right of ownership of private property will be just the beginning of freedoms the government will rob from us.

Monday, June 27, 2005

2 + 2 = Global Warming

Just when you thought liberals had exhausted all avenues of opportunity to screw up the education of this nation’s children, along comes the bright idea to infuse the subject of math with socialist liberal themes and messages. New York University’s Diane Ravitch, introduces the new cutting edge in the liberal contribution to our children’s indoctrination, oops… I mean education: “Ethnomathametics”.

In an article she wrote over at the Opinion Journal, Ms. Ravitch describes ethnomathematics and the motives behind it:

"Now mathematics is being nudged into a specifically political direction by educators who call themselves "critical theorists." They advocate using mathematics as a tool to advance social justice. Social justice math relies on political and cultural relevance to guide math instruction. One of its precepts is "ethnomathematics," that is, the belief that different cultures have evolved different ways of using mathematics, and that students will learn best if taught in the ways that relate to their ancestral culture. From this perspective, traditional mathematics--the mathematics taught in universities around the world--is the property of Western civilization and is inexorably linked with the values of the oppressors and conquerors. The culturally attuned teacher will learn about the counting system of the ancient Mayans, ancient Africans, Papua New Guineans and other "nonmainstream" cultures."

"Partisans of social-justice mathematics advocate an explicitly political agenda in the classroom. A new textbook, "Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers," shows how problem solving, ethnomathematics and political action can be merged. Among its topics are: "Sweatshop Accounting," with units on poverty, globalization and the unequal distribution of wealth. Another topic, drawn directly from ethnomathematics, is "Chicanos Have Math in Their Blood." Others include "The Transnational Capital Auction," "Multicultural Math," and "Home Buying While Brown or Black." Units of study include racial profiling, the war in Iraq, corporate control of the media and environmental racism. The theory behind the book is that "teaching math in a neutral manner is not possible." Teachers are supposed to vary the teaching of mathematics in relation to their students' race, sex, ethnicity and community."

This is rich. How do they come up with stuff? Little Johnny and little Sally might not know how to balance a checkbook, but, by golly they’ll know where they’re told to stand on global warming and other liberal issues! Is it really any wonder our public school system is in trouble and heading in a downward spiral?

This is just another example of blatant liberal plans for the systematic brainwashing of America’s children, from Kindergarten to the voting booth, with their socialist claptrap. If this is not a deliberate attempt to push a liberal socialist agenda, then it would serve to indicate that when it comes to American Education, the idiots are running the asylum. Basically, we have allowed a bunch of idiots who have been educated beyond their mental capacity to be in charge of the education of our nation’s most valuable asset: her children.

If this nation is serious about ensuring that “no child is left behind”, then I would suggest we start by leaving the liberals behind. Here are just some of liberal educational ideas that have directly contributed to the downfall of American public education:

- Outcome Based Education: the loopy idea that no one gets an “A” because it might hurt other children’s feelings who didn’t get an “A”, even though they didn’t study enough or do the hard work to earn one.

- Creative Spelling: there’s no need to hurt little Johnny’s feelings just because he spells poorly, or better yet, it’s not that he misspells words, that’s just his creative self-expression.

- “Sally Has Two Mommies” and other liberal themes injected into reading curriculum.

- Evolution taught as fact, rather than a theory in science classes.

- Sex Education: hey, let’s praise homosexuality, pass out condoms, demonstrate how put on condoms, and supply kids with the locations of nearest abortion clinics, and oh, by the way, did I mention praise homosexuality?

As long as we continue to allow academicians with a socialist political agenda to experiment with our public school education, we are going to continue to graduate students who aren’t fully prepared to be successful in the job market. Even worse, the nation’s next leaders will be a class of citizens who are not only poorly educated, but parrots of the dangerous anti-American, socialist propaganda that has been systematically drilled into their heads.

It’s high time we throw out all of the idiotic liberal agenda that is poisoning the minds of our young, and return to the basics of education: reading writing and arithmetic. While we’re at it, let’s teach critical thinking skills so that we don’t allow idiotic liberal drivel to infect our public education again a few generations down the road.

Sunday, June 26, 2005

The Ultimate Rock Concert To End Poverty, Take 2

It was twenty years ago that Bob Geldof, front man for the Irish rock band The Boomtown Rats, organized "Live Aid" to help raise money to alleviate the poverty situation in Ethiopia. In terms of the monies donated, "Live Aid" was a huge success! In terms of the monies actually delivered to the very poor that it was aimed at, well, that was a dismal failure.

As it turns out, it doesn’t matter how much food and supplies you raise for the poor and the starving in the continent of Africa. If you don’t get rid of the dictatorial regimes that are standing in the way of actually delivering said food and supplies to the intended starving recipients, it does absolutely, no good. In other words, real aid, comes from a well thought out plan that actually delivers results…not just good intentions. After all, "the road to hell is paved with ...."

I guess, who better than those in "show business" to put on such a "dog and pony show" as "Live Aid" was. The big question is, why is Bob Geldof trying it again? Sir Geldof obviously didn’t learn anything from his first try. Apart from providing a platform for every entertainer in the music industry to parade his/her "concern for the poor" to the world on stage, what actual difference did they make the first time around? None.

But, hey, we’ll just wait twenty years and try it again. This time, our target will be the leaders of this world. Surely, they will listen to rock stars! Uh, Bob. Excuse me, Sir Bob? Maybe you should listen to the advice offered from a fellow rock star, who has stated that your "Live 8" scheme won’t work. You see, your peer, Noel Gallagher, is astute enough, to at least recognize that rock stars don’t actually make the world go around. Is he the only one among your peers that is smart enough to notice this and stop this madness?

As much as I would love to see the poor in Africa have enough to eat, as well as be provided a good education and a prosperous future, I am not looking at "Live 8", nor any rock musician, as the guarantor of that.

By the way, Bono you definitely "rock" at singing and playing some great rock music, but, it ends there. You’re just a rock star. Ok? Isn’t that enough? Can't you and your peers just get over yourselves enough to lose you messiah complex? You're freaking your fans out!!!!

Saturday, June 25, 2005

No Timetable For The Benefit Of Terrorists

Much to journalists around the world’s dismay, Bush has declared that we are not going to release any timetable for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. This is yet another reason I am glad we have George W. Bush for our President right now and not John Kerry. If Kerry was president right now, he would be relying on a "global consensus" to inform his military decisions. In other words, the U.S. would be a puppet, and the rest of the world would be constantly pulling our strings.

If you think UN security forces are ineffective, try U.S. forces under the control of the rest of the world’s opinion and whim. There is no shortage of anti-American sentiment these days. Most of this, is based on sheer jealousy. During the Cold War, there were two super powers in the world. After the Soviet Union collapsed, that created a rather unique situation. Now, the U.S. is the only super power left, and that has caused the rest of the world, particularly Europe, to distrust and hate us. Nations that once depended on our protection now spit in our general direction.

I’m sure the rest of the world would just love for America to ultimately fail in Iraq. Why else would they be demanding a timeline for withdrawal? Obviously, if we announced when we were going to withdraw our troops from Iraq, the terrorists, (I refuse to call al-Qaeda terrorists, and other terrorists pouring into Iraq, to thwart Iraq’s freedom from across the Syrian border "insurgents"), would be able to lay low until we left. Then, after the threat of our military was gone, they could then proceed to undermine the very freedoms that our brave men and women soldiers have fought so hard to secure for the people of Iraq.

It is to America’s credit that her current leader is a man of great courage and conviction. George W. Bush is not worried about how popular his decisions are with the rest of the world. He has "drawn a line in the sand" and he intends to stick by his convictions, by God, no matter what!

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a real Texan in the White House, (not the wimpy kind we had with Lyndon Baines Johnson), but an honest to goodness, Texan cowboy. The kind of guy who "says what he means, and means what he says". Thanks to President Bush, Osama and his blood-thirsty minions, now know that America is not the "paper tiger" that Clinton made us out to look like under his watch. Osama, you smug bastard, it looks like you miscalculated. Where's that pesky Allah when you need him?

So, no. We are not going to announce any timeline for the departure of our troops from Iraq. We will leave when we are ready to leave. That is, we will leave Iraq when we can leave Iraq a free country. Free from tyranny. Free from violence. Free to decide for itself what it wants to be as a new nation and culture. If this doesn’t suit world opinion, well that's just too bad!

Hat tip: President George W. Bush.


Phil from Florida was kind enough to point out an error I made in my post entitled: "Rove Owes No Apology":


I noticed a slight inaccuracy in your blog "Rove Owes no Apology".

"From their constant repetition of the mantra “selected not elected” to protest Bush’s election to President, to their assertion that the minority party should have a say (their justification for the recent filibusters against Bush’s nominees for Supreme Court Justice position) the Democrats have been playing politics."

President Bush hasn't yet had an opportunity to nominate anyone for a Supreme Court position. These nominations are for other judicial positions needing to be filled.

... Just remember that it's only the truth that matters in the end, but, it's the truth that seems so hard for most folks to recognize. Liberals are just so delighted with themselves that they couldn't care less whether it's the truth or not.

Thanks Phil. I don't always get it right and I appreciate you keeping me straight on my facts.

The IRS Is Looking Out For You

Boy, it sure is a good thing the IRS has finally figured out that there are such things as hackers trolling around out here in cyberspace, and that they just might find information stored in the IRS database of some use. You know the kind of information I mean. Information like: names, bank account numbers, social security numbers.

No need to worry, because, from now on the watchword for the IRS will be "data security". Oh well, look at the bright side. An audit by the IRS is now the least of our worries.

So, what do you get when you cross the IRS with the Internet?

The ease of electronic filing, a faster refund, and identity theft thrown in at no extra charge!

Friday, June 24, 2005

Just As I Am, I Will Miss Billy Graham

I have been thinking for some time, about just how short this life is, and what we take for granted. It’s ok for me to do this you understand. I am in that "mid-life crisis" zone of my life. While, most men at this time of their life tend to have an illicit sexual affair, (because, they need some sort of proof that they are still "manly"), I, being the nerd that I guess that I am, tend to focus more on just how fast time has flown by, as well as just how short life really is anyway.

I must confess that I am afraid of several things that I know will, unfortunately, occur (whether I like it or not):

My father and/or mother will die.
Paul Harvey will die.
Billy Graham will have to stop preaching his crusades.

I must sigh a sigh of relief, that the first two fears are not yet an issue. But, that leaves the third. Unfortunately, I may not be so lucky there.

I was just watching the Fox News channel’s "Hannity & Colmes" show. They had an interview, first with the son and daughter of the Reverend Billy Graham, and then an interview with Rev. Billy Graham himself. I was sad to learn that the upcoming Crusade in New York, might very well be his last.

Unfortunately, when one thinks of evangelists nowadays, the first word that comes to mind is "crook". That’s a shame. As a devout Christian, I must say that I am ashamed of the bad example that some who claim to be sent "in the name of Christ", have set for those who have innocently come seeking God. Billy Graham has never been one of those.

Billy Graham has been preaching the same simple gospel since he first started. He preached his first sermon in New York back in 1947. I can remember as a young man in the 70’s watching the Billy Graham Crusades on television with my Grandmother. I also remember that I always wanted to watch his program.

It’s not really clear to me why that was so. After all, there wasn’t any rock music to draw a teenager like me in with. George Beverly Shea was the singer on Graham’s crusades that I remember the most, and he was definitely far from being a pop or rock singer. It’s funny, but now, every time I hear the hymn "How Great Thou Art", I can’t help but hear in my mind Mr. Shea singing it.

No, I think that it was Rev. Graham’s sermons that held my attention. But, even when one considers his sermons, what could possibly be the attraction? After all, it’s not as if Graham’s sermons were on par with the intellectual level of, say, a speech given by someone as astute as C. S. Lewis. As much as I admire intellect, it was definately the simplicity of Rev Graham’s message that was the attraction. Salvation, the ultimate point of Christ's sacrifice, is not, thank God, all that complex.

As far as I can tell, Billy Graham has never been about making money. He’s never been about miraculous healings, nor any other attention getting agendas. Instead, Rev Graham has always been about preaching the salvation message of the Kingdom of God.

All I can say, is that I have always been able to hear the name "Billy Graham Crusade" and I have always been able to relax, and trust that it is what it has always claimed to be. Graham’s crusades don’t stir controversy.

I know that I will miss him. He has been a blessing in my life, as well as in the lives of countless others. I can only assume that God has another witness designated to take his place.

Rev Graham, if you need to retire please know that even though we will miss you greatly, we wish you the best and are praying for God’s blessings to be showered down upon you and yours. Thank you for your service sir, and we apologize if we have ever taken it for granted.

A Material Girl, Her Daughter, And A Credit Card

Pop music star, Madonna has decided that it is high time that she take an active role in providing her 8 year old daughter Lourdes, with some financial education and training. Is she going to open up a savings account in her daughter’s name at a local bank? No. Well then, is she going to hire financial experts to teach her daughter? Nope. Not even close.

It seems, that Madonna has decided that the best way to teach her child to be responsible with money is to give her, her very own credit card with a $10,000 limit. Yeah, that’s the ticket! That’s right, Madonna, turn your little "material girl" loose on a $10,000 dollar shopping spree. Once she works her way out of a $10,000 debt she should get the message of financial responsibility loud and clear. Oh, wait. That’s right, you aren’t poor, and could easily afford to bail her out. Uh, tell me again, just how this plan of yours is going to work?

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Rove Owes No Apology

Ah, the enigma that is the loony left in this country. They can issue anti-American statements all day long, but how dare you question their loyalty and patriotism to this country. They can make slanderous accusations against the military, comparing them to jack-booted Nazis, but don’t you doubt for one minute that they “support the military”.

As if these two absurd self-contradictory assertions weren’t enough, we can now add on yet another ludicrous assertion that liberals expect us to give them a pass on. It goes something like this, “how dare you accuse me of saying exactly what I said, or acting like I acted. You’d better apologize and make that post haste!”

Karl Rove, President Bush’s senior adviser and chief political strategist, made a few remarks criticizing the liberals about their response to 9/11 in a speech he delivered yesterday in Manhattan that has the Democrats seeing red and demanding an apology.

Here are some of the highlights from Rove’s speech:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,"

"I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble."

"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

That last remark, of course, refers to Senator “Turban Durbin’s” comparison of our military’s treatment of the blood thirsty terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba with the prisoner handling tactics and techniques of Nazis in their death camps, Soviets in their gulags, and Pol Pot in his killing fields.

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer responded to Rove’s remarks in typical liberal spin:

"In New York, where everyone unified after 9/11, the last thing we need is somebody who seeks to divide us for political purposes."

The last thing we need is someone trying to divide this country for political purposes? Mr. Schumer, you, along with your party, have been doing that very thing, non-stop, since the end of the 2000 election. Every since the Democrats lost the election of 2000 and its majority of both the house and the senate, they have become the party with a permanent case of colic. These sore losers have done nothing but whine and cry for the last five years.

From their constant repetition of the mantra “selected not elected”, (to protest Bush’s election to President), to their assertion that the minority party should have a say, (their justification for the recent filibusters against Bush’s nominees for Supreme Court Justice position), the Democrats have been playing politics. Powered by their hatred for Bush, as well as their indignation at losing their power hold in Congress, liberals have managed to unleash numerous anti-American, and anti-military statements. Their political posturing has been particularly irritating since 9/11.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, Karl Rove has hit the proverbial "nail on the head" when it comes to describing the liberals' attitude and agenda in response to 9/11 and the nations war against terror. And, they are squirming with discomfort. The Democrats are so furious with Rove that they are drafting a letter to be sent to President Bush in an attempt to get Bush to pressure Rove into issuing an apology.

Oh, please. Rove apologize for telling the truth? If anyone needs to issue an apology it is the Democrats themselves. They owe the nation a sincere apology for putting their lust for power, and their hateful opposition to Bush ahead of this country’s security and the safety of the very military that is giving their all to keep America safe. They need to apologize for their attempts to divide this country into two America’s. Mr. Schumer, it is you and your party that needs to apologize for “trying to divide this country for political purposes.”

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Right Wing Hostile Takeover of PBS and NPR?

Oh no! The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is trying to take over the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and spread their propaganda via PBS and NPR affiliates nationwide. Whatever shall we do? Never fear, Underdog is here! Ok, maybe not Underdog but, 16 Democratic Senators have stepped up to help keep public radio and television free from partisan political viewpoints.

These senators are petitioning Bush to fire Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the current head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for trying to slip partisan political agenda into the
corporation’s radio and television programs. Here is an excerpt of their protest letter to President Bush:

"We urge you to immediately replace Mr. Tomlinson with an executive who takes his or her responsibility to the public television system seriously, not one who so seriously undermines the credibility and mission of public television."

That sounds pretty serious. I mean anytime you mess with such a sacred public institution like PBS or NPR, something must be done to preserve its purity and protect its dignity. So, what did this wicked man do to threaten our public television and public radio experience?

“The Democrats' letter follows a series of disclosures about Mr. Tomlinson that are now under investigation by the corporation's inspector general, including his decision to hire a researcher to monitor the political leanings of guests on the public policy program "Now," the use of a White House official to set up an ombudsman's office to scrutinize public radio and television programs for political balance, and payments approved by Mr. Tomlinson to two Republican lobbyists last year.”

Shame on Mr. Tomlinson! What was he thinking? Did he seriously think he wouldn’t get caught eventually? After all, everyone knows that the best way to inject a partisan agenda is by ensuring that a fair balance of political viewpoints are being presented.

Who do these Senators think they’re fooling? They must think that the American public is very stupid. Hey Senators! Yoo-hoo! Over here! I’ve got a message for you all. Speaking of injecting a partisan agenda into public broadcasting programs, PBS and NPR have been mouthpieces for your party’s liberal agenda for decades. It’s been a sweet deal for the left. They have been able to get their agenda out to the public, unchallenged, and all on the tax payer’s dime.

The real truth behind these Senators’ crusade is that they see their dominance over the public airwaves being threatened. Liberal ideas don’t sell very well when they’re entered into a marketplace of ideas where there are alternative viewpoints presented, or especially when liberal ideas are challenged. The left prefers avenues where they control the agenda. Places where their view is the only one broadcasted. Places like PBS, NPR, ABC, CBS, CNN etc.

Of course, the big question burning in my mind right now is, do we even need to keep funding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting with our tax dollars? I mean what purpose are they really serving the public (besides shoving liberal propaganda down viewer’s throats)?

You could make the argument that at least in the pre-cable/satellite TV days, they were an extra viewing choice. For example, when I was growing up in the 70’s if you didn’t want to watch ABC, CBS, or NBC there was always PBS. Wow, a fourth channel! Wasn’t life grand? But, I never chose to watch it. PBS never had anything on of interest to me. After all, what good is Sesame Street to a teenager into rock music and girls?

Whatever purpose these tax payer funded public broadcast mediums once served, they are no longer needed. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has been abusing tax payers funds to push a liberal agenda out to the public under the guise of providing programs of interest to the public. What Mr. Tomlinson is trying to achieve has been long overdue, but really, in these days of cable and satellite TV, PBS is no longer needed to serve as a viewing alternative to ABC, CBS and NBC. I think it’s time we cut the Corporation for Public Broadcasting off from tax payer funds. If it wants to survive, let it take its place among the plethora of other viewing and listening choices out there in the market place of ideas. Oh, yeah. Oops. I forgot. Liberals don’t do very well where there is a diversity of ideas and choices.

By the way, the sixteen senators are: Charles E. Schumer of New York, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Jon Corzine and Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey, Bill Nelson of Florida, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

It’s time for those constituents who are tired of having the partisan, liberal agenda being funded by their tax dollars to send these Senators a message and inform them that their constituents’ rubber boots for wading in BS are only knee length!

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

How's My Driving?

Soldier! Lay down that weapon and concentrate on what the rest of the world must be thinking about you.

Leave it to the “intellectual left” pinheads in this country to place form over substance. It’s not about how we fight the war on terror so much as it is on how we fight to maintain a good image in the eyes of the international community.

Washington Times columnist, Diana West’s latest column posted at points out that liberals in this country believe that it’s high time we let all of the prisoners go at Gitmo and close it down. After all, we are causing serious damage to the world’s image of us:

“Why? It’s an “international embarrassment,” says Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who should know. His colleague, Sen. Richard Durbin, (D-Ill.), is himself so internationally embarrassed that he compared the terrorist detainee facility to Nazi death camps, Communist gulags and Khmer Rouge killing fields.”

I don’t know about you, but I sure am glad we don’t have liberals running military planning over at the Pentagon. Here we are in the thick of hunting down and eradicating demon-possessed, bloodthirsty, hate filled vermin -who by the way, are bent on killing all of us in the name of Allah - from the face of the earth and the liberals want us to pause and reflect on how the other nations of the world must think about us and how we are behaving. International embarrassment? Bah!

First of all, if anyone is ensuring that we are the laughingstock of the international community (and more specifically, terrorists and the rest of the Muslim world) it’s the liberals themselves. Just consider the amount of damage old Senator “Turbin Durbin” has done. Imagine the chuckles going on amongst the staff of al Jazeera, and their Arab listeners, not to mention al Qaeda themselves. Thanks a lot Dick!

Secondly, why should we give a flip what the rest of the world community thinks? Let’s see, are they fighting with us side by side to root this human vermin out? I think not. But, liberals would have us believe that we should let the anti-America ranters in Europe, and the Arab world play “armchair general” with us. I don’t think so! Unless those hotshots want to commit their blood and guts to this fight they can just “talk to the hand”. It is the U.S. military fighting this war against terrorists not UN forces, and certainly not U.S. forces subjugated to UN forces.

Of course, then there’s the appeasement approach toward gaining a better image. You know, the “if we would just close Gitmo and free all of the prisoners we are holding there why, it would go a long way toward improving diplomatic relations between us and Muslim world” option. This idiotic idea comes to us from the liberal House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi. West opines:

“That’s because closing the detention center would “give us a clean slate in the Muslim world,” as Nancy Pelosi said, revealing an ignorance of history so vast and untamed that facts alone would perish there. Clean slate – like on Sept. 10.”

Perhaps one of the most outrageous liberal solutions in West’s column comes from NY Times columnist Tom Friedman:

“And so what if closing Gitmo lets hundreds of jihadists out of their prison cages and into their terror cells? “Sure a few may come back to haunt us,” writes Friedman. But being haunted – which presumably requires some additional number of American dead to do the haunting – is apparently a risk worth taking in order to win the war.”

Uh, did he just say what I think he said? Exactly just how would letting terrorist prisoners free to kill again another day help us win the war against them? I doubt very seriously, that this would be Mr. Friedman’s position if he suddenly found himself a part of a Marine regiment, or an Army battalion in Iraq.

No image makeover would be complete without the advice of a prominent American Muslim. For this, West’s column turns our attention to the esteemed American University professor Akbar Ahmed:

“After all, reverence and respect, even surrender, only go so far. More sensitivity is needed as well. In a recent meeting with Daniel Sutherland, head of the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties division of the Department of Homeland Security, American University's Akbar Ahmed had some suggestions, beginning, according to an online report in the Pakistani Daily Times, with pretty much eliminating Muslim profiling at airports. This, of course, would do nothing to spare my own white-haired mother and white-haired mother-in-law from the next checkpoint body search, but the boost to world image would be colossal. "You simply cannot humiliate Muslims like this," Akbar said, describing a "peak level of anger" in "the young generation on the edge." Just one more pat-down and they'll blow. He also suggested "more social and cultural contacts" between government officials and American Muslims, and an unspecified reading list on Islam.”

Is it just me, or is professor Ahmed the comedy relief portion of the liberal’s “Save America’s Image Show”? Way to go professor. Way to foster more goodwill and understanding on the behalf of today’s young Muslims – by painting them as hot-headed, would be terrorist who are waiting to snap at any minute now if the right button is pushed!!!

The bottom line in all of this is that the wacky left in this country believe that our military needs to worry more about what the Muslim community and the rest of the world thinks about how we are treating these murderous terrorists than, on how we actually go about the business of ensuring they don’t turn America, from “sea to shining sea” into one big bloodbath.

If it wasn’t for the valuable intelligence we need from these vermin at Gitmo and all of the other prisons we have them jailed in, I’d be for appeasing the left and ceasing the taking of prisoners. In fact, I’d suggest we adopt “a take no prisoners” approach to these murderous terrorists and send them home to Allah in fiery rampage of American justice! But that's just me.

Monday, June 20, 2005

Sure They Care

Sure, Liberals Care About the Welfare of the Poor.

Star Parker's latest column posted on Town Hall's web site addresses the ACLU, teacher unions and People for the American Way's fight to stop Florida's Opportunity Scholarships and the threat it poses to the freedom of school choice when it comes to the quality of education parents can obtain for their children:

"The constitutionality of Florida's Opportunity Scholarship Program is being challenged because it affords the opportunity to use a voucher, financed by public funds, to pay to attend a private school, including religious schools. This option may be exercised when a public school is found to be failing. Parents can pull their child out of the school, pick a different public school, or use a voucher to finance attendance at a private school."

Keep in mind that this is even in spite of the positive results the program has produced. As Ms. Parker points out:

"Performance data show dramatic improvement in test scores and graduation rates in Florida since the implementation of the Opportunity Scholarship Program. A study conducted in 2003 showed direct correlation between school improvement and the option to take a voucher and go to another school. Harvard researchers report that the Florida program is more successful than the federal No Child Left Behind program."

Ok, let me see if I can get this straight. The Liberal Left doesn't want the Opportunity Scholarship Program to continue, even though it is very successful, and beneficial to Florida children's educational needs, because opening up a diverse set of educational options threatens government school attendance. Hey! Wait a minute! I thought liberals were for diversity?!?!

So, what gives? What could be behind this anti-diversity attitude coming from the left towards our children's educational opportunities? Ms. Parker makes the following astute observation:

"Should Florida's Opportunity Scholarship Program be found unconstitutional, it will be yet another defeat of the poor and disenfranchised at the hands of a pretentious and self important elite. Opportunity scholarships are an important ticket out of failing public schools for the poor. Yet, these elites, a good portion of whom can themselves afford options to public schools if they so chose, for their own ideological reasons, want to preclude choice for poor families."

Ah ha! So that is what is going on? This is just a good example of good old fashion liberal elitism. What's good enough for their children isn't necessarily good enough for the children of parents less fortunate economically than they.

After all, liberals can't have the ones who are to be eternally grateful to them for their "compassionate concern" receive an education that could potentially raise them up beyond their state of need and become equals. How are liberals to maintain their corner of the market on compassion if they allow the poor to elevate their status beyond the state of permanent dependence?

You see, once you get beyond the liberal rhetoric, and actually examine what they fight for, (or in this case, fight against), it becomes clear that their "concern for the poor of this country" is nothing more than a "dog and pony show".

Liberals need to be able to count on votes from the poor. Without an underprivileged class to make promises of hand outs to, who would vote for liberals? Without the poor to feel sorry for, how could the Hollywood left, and other entertainment stars show off their compassionate concern to the rest of America by donating their millions of dollars to liberal socialist programs?

Public education, (which liberals have been fiercely defending, both tooth and nail), has been ailing for quite some time now. Public schools have become nothing more than institutions that propagate liberal propaganda.

Dangerous programs like Outcome Based Education attempt to churn out students who will be poorly educated, possess a false sense of self esteem, and utterly unprepared for success in the job marketplace. Sexual Education programs draw students' attention toward sexual practices and behavior which promotes promiscuity that will no doubt produce more abortions, more teen pregnancies, more single mothers trapped in poverty, all of this guarantees the perpetuation of a poor, underprivileged class, a class of people ripe for manipulation.

Socialism, (the government of choice for liberals), needs a dependent class of people in order for it to thrive. You can't steal from the rich and middle class and promise to give their money to the poor and needy if there aren't any, um...well, poor and needy. The larger the poor population, the more socialism thrives.

The better the quality of education a person has, the better the opportunities that person has to better his economic position. What better way to ensure a permanent lower class than to ensure that free public education is poor and ineffectual?

Why wouldn't liberals feel threatened by educational free choice? It is essential for the survival of their ideology that the children of families that are less fortunate economically have no other choice for education than government schools.
Government schools that just happen to be dominated by liberal philosophies on education. Students must be brainwashed with liberal ideas from day one to ensure they graduate with a paper diploma, an "I'm a victim" attitude, poor, forever dependent, with their hands out to the liberals for help.

Unless you believe that providing an education that teaches one to trade his or her dignity for constant hand outs from the government equals compassion on the part of liberals, it's not hard to see past the lies of their rhetoric and discover what the liberal movement is really all about.

There is an ancient Chinese Proverb that goes: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." The poor in this country have an electoral choice affecting their future. They can vote for the Democrat party, remain poorly educated and dependent on the government for their one fish a day, or they can vote for the Republican party, gain the opportunity to obtain a better quality, "government free" education, become self sufficient, retain their dignity and enjoy fish for a lifetime.

Sunday, June 19, 2005

First Post

This is my first post.