What a joke....Dean having been the head of the DNC for just days calls on the head of NY's Republican Party because he said "the Democrats simply have refused to learn the lessons of the past two election cycles, and now they can be accurately called the party of Barbara Boxer, Lynne Stewart and Howard Dean." So he does a word association and Dean wants his head? Gee, lets review.....how many of the highest ranking Dems called Bush a liar? Stupid? etc. How many Dems link or associate, in some statement, Nazi's with Republicans? You can find plenty of derogatory, negative and false direct statements and associations on both sides. A double standard as usual for the Dems who don't like it when it hits too close to home. So why is the conviction of Lynne Stewart for conspiracy, providing material support terrorists, and defrauding the United States government close to home? Well, just look at the media slant on Google news for "lynne stewart" along with the orgainzations and people who cry foul over her conviction.
Gee, on the other hand I guess Dean (and anyone else who think this was bad) is saying they think Ms. Stewart was a traitor and is guilty!
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
SS Reform or Socialism?
Nice piece by Pete Du Pont on Social Security Reform and the sentiment behind those that oppose a privatized and individual controlled portion! Du Pont's position is summed up by this statement; "Social Security argument is an old and familiar one: government decisions versus individual ones, government control of assets versus individual ownership. In short, socialism versus individualism". Those opposed to changing SS offer no alternative other than to raise taxes of one type or another to pay for the system down the line. Fact of the matter is I know of nobody in their 40's who is relying on their down the road SS check to mean squat. We all invest pre and post tax dollars. I don't think I know anybody that hasn't contributed to their employers 401k plan or does IRA's every year. All of the companies I have worked for have had 100% employee participation in their 401k programs. So why on earth would someone oppose a change like this? Because they think the government can make better investments? That's a joke, so can't be that. Is it a reduced benefits argument? Shouldn't be.....of course if we put in less we will get less out...but the same amount invested even in conservative investments will yield me more so I have a net gain. I got one of those letters from the SSA recently...shows my SS earnings from the first year I had them. They show you the SS payment you would get if you were to retire today (pretending your at retirement age). Then using the life expectancy for white male in the US (75 yrs, man that's low) and total what they would pay me, its peanuts compared to what even an Index 500 investment would yield me divided by that number of payments.
So, I really can't see any logical reason for people to oppose SS reform unless its purely political at our expense, or they believe what Du Pont (and I) postulates which is that this puts more wealth into the individuals hands and so he says:
When you increase an individual's wealth, he becomes less dependent on government, and his attitude towards government changes. Socialists can't allow that, for it erodes their fundamental principle that social justice can only be achieved when important segments of the economy are under government control.
And that is why today's very liberal Democratic Party is so vehemently arguing against personal ownership of Social Security market accounts. The government's Social Security system is socialism's last redoubt, and must be preserved at all costs.
So, I really can't see any logical reason for people to oppose SS reform unless its purely political at our expense, or they believe what Du Pont (and I) postulates which is that this puts more wealth into the individuals hands and so he says:
When you increase an individual's wealth, he becomes less dependent on government, and his attitude towards government changes. Socialists can't allow that, for it erodes their fundamental principle that social justice can only be achieved when important segments of the economy are under government control.
And that is why today's very liberal Democratic Party is so vehemently arguing against personal ownership of Social Security market accounts. The government's Social Security system is socialism's last redoubt, and must be preserved at all costs.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Chris Rock, is he bad for black America?
My previous post got me thinking about the word "cracker". Chris Rock who uses it often, although not as often as the F bomb, and his recent pathetic opinions he unfortunately decided to share got my blood boiling. First the word cracker which I learned about on the English department of Virginia Tech's website. While its historic roots are interesting its the more recent use of the word that ticked me off. Apparently this is a term blacks use to describe whites who are thought to be racist. So Rock considers pretty much all whites racist? Then you add his comments about abortion as if he is making a statement about freedoms in general being a wonderful thing in this country. Dude, don't you know young and impressionable blacks hear what you spew? Lastly, he talks about the Oscar's like its a joke, an uncool event that no cool, black or straight male watches. Maybe this is all an attempt at humor but I think as with most humor there's usually a connection with the material and the joke teller. This is exactly the kind of role model black America (or America in general) doesn't need....and whether you think a popular performer or athlete should be role models or not doesn't matter...they are and especially for young blacks since too many don't have a male authority figure at home.
If a white performer had spouted off with this sort of thing the outrage, the public cry for his removal from the Oscars and also shunnig in general they would be subject to would be career changing. So liberal press, liberal actors, and black leaders where is your spine???????
Update 1: ok, I decided to change the title of this post to a question instead of a statement....maybe Drudge is manufacturing the picture to make a story, we'll see...and while I think Rock is funny I still pose the question. Who sets a good example for young black men in particular?
Update 2: I don't know if Drudge took bits from Rock's act to build contraversy around Rock's statements about the Oscar's directly. But, this will I'm sure boost ratings of the show. I do think its a bit duplicite that the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) issued a statement in defense of of Rock. "Chris Rock isn't making fun of gays -- he's poking fun at the Oscars," "It's shtick" said their executive director. If Jeff Foxworthy was to be the host and made the gay comment what would GLAAD say?
Update 3: I have seen nothing knew to make me change my mind about Rock...in fact when I look at what he says (either to press or from his acts) I get more bothered. Rock acts as if he is the result of a black ghetto upbringing as evidenced by the undertone of nearly everything he says. He of course isn't from that poor or harsh a childhood but yet he talks like a bitter black man who becomes racist towards whites. Its all over his act and everything that comes out of his mouth. Rock said of the Oscars "you don't see a lot of black people nominated, so why should I watch it?'' Is that funny? Is that humorous banter or a racist statement. I know he's an F-ing comic, but it bothers me when someone belongs to a group that constantly claims racism but yet they say and act in a racist way towards the very group they bemoan. It's also ridiculous that its ok for a black person to make black steorotype jokes or use the n-word and its not ok for me...now who doesn't have a sense of humor?
If a white performer had spouted off with this sort of thing the outrage, the public cry for his removal from the Oscars and also shunnig in general they would be subject to would be career changing. So liberal press, liberal actors, and black leaders where is your spine???????
Update 1: ok, I decided to change the title of this post to a question instead of a statement....maybe Drudge is manufacturing the picture to make a story, we'll see...and while I think Rock is funny I still pose the question. Who sets a good example for young black men in particular?
Update 2: I don't know if Drudge took bits from Rock's act to build contraversy around Rock's statements about the Oscar's directly. But, this will I'm sure boost ratings of the show. I do think its a bit duplicite that the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) issued a statement in defense of of Rock. "Chris Rock isn't making fun of gays -- he's poking fun at the Oscars," "It's shtick" said their executive director. If Jeff Foxworthy was to be the host and made the gay comment what would GLAAD say?
Update 3: I have seen nothing knew to make me change my mind about Rock...in fact when I look at what he says (either to press or from his acts) I get more bothered. Rock acts as if he is the result of a black ghetto upbringing as evidenced by the undertone of nearly everything he says. He of course isn't from that poor or harsh a childhood but yet he talks like a bitter black man who becomes racist towards whites. Its all over his act and everything that comes out of his mouth. Rock said of the Oscars "you don't see a lot of black people nominated, so why should I watch it?'' Is that funny? Is that humorous banter or a racist statement. I know he's an F-ing comic, but it bothers me when someone belongs to a group that constantly claims racism but yet they say and act in a racist way towards the very group they bemoan. It's also ridiculous that its ok for a black person to make black steorotype jokes or use the n-word and its not ok for me...now who doesn't have a sense of humor?
Free Speech My A$$
Or as Chris Rock might say "F-- Y--, its free speech you cracker"! I use to like Chris Rock, thought he was funny even though he drops the F bomb way too much. Then I see the stuff The Drudge Report quotes Rock as saying about the Oscars (which he is/was to host) and other topics he clearly has informed opinions on. I've lost all respect and interest in him and anything he's associated with. I'm sure if the Academy fires him he will be throwing the "free speech" F bomb left and right...probably even say its related to race! Many liberals don't understand how the reaction to their opinion has nothing to do with free speech. Case in point the Berkeley couple who like to hang stuffed soldier uniforms from their Sacramento rental property with anti-American slogans along with various flags that also garner harsh reaction. They think all the press, the people in the community calling them names, etc. is somehow an attempt to stifle their freedom of speech! WHAT, are you idiots?...nobody (at least no sane people) are saying you can't put up your effigy, or flags, or promote your hatred of Bush or his politics! In fact the people who now hate you, are calling you names and so on are probably more concerned about that freedom than you are. You're confusing bad public reaction to your idiotic behavior with the government showing up and telling you to stop. Your ok with your stupid and obviously unpopular opinion hanging on the front of your rental house (but not the one you live in..chicken sh*t) but you're not ok with the reaction it fosters! What has that to do with free speech?
Academy...fire Rock's A$$
Academy...fire Rock's A$$
Global Left......history isn't on their side
Not exactly the theme of this nice piece by Hanson of the NRO titled "The Global Throng", but it's one take away for me. Not that every American effort that is owned by a conservative is successful but Hanson does a nice job highlighting many examples that the angry global left denounced at every turn. You'll note that as the doom and gloom always predicted by the left didn't materialize they would just shift their next negative prediction to the next phase of success. I think there is a lot more to this "teeth gnashing" in the form of pure jealousy than Hanson suggests. The American left can be explained a number of ways, but I think the global left is jealous of America's power and wealth. The jealousy becomes blind (and then illogical) for the global left because of a intellectual superiority delusion they have. It's makes them crazy that Bush and those who voted for him are stupid because of the caricature they have of those voters. They believe that Americans are sheep, easily led by Bush into anything. They think beer, chili, Nascar, Baseball, BBQ, Country Music and religion all represent mindless followers. It drives them nuts that America is led by and full of bumbling morons. How can these dolts be the core of most powerful, inventive and successful country on earth?
It's also interesting how the local American left has (or attempted to make) the rest of the world thinking a bunch of bible thumpers make up the Republican party. Its also amazing that during the 2004 campaign the left manage to create a position that believing in god, worshiping and having it be an important part of your life was somehow weird, scary and so on. Give me a break....faith was bad. This exposes the lefts political leaders for the charlatans they are. You'll see Hillary Clinton along with the entire DNC crowd making an effort to embrace religion and those who base their core values on their faith as we move towards the next elections. The left not understanding that those who love American culture and embrace it can see thru the charade will be the undoing of this strategy as well.
Kudos to the anonymous commenter on my Questions For Leftist Wackos..... post who pointed out this piece on NRO.
It's also interesting how the local American left has (or attempted to make) the rest of the world thinking a bunch of bible thumpers make up the Republican party. Its also amazing that during the 2004 campaign the left manage to create a position that believing in god, worshiping and having it be an important part of your life was somehow weird, scary and so on. Give me a break....faith was bad. This exposes the lefts political leaders for the charlatans they are. You'll see Hillary Clinton along with the entire DNC crowd making an effort to embrace religion and those who base their core values on their faith as we move towards the next elections. The left not understanding that those who love American culture and embrace it can see thru the charade will be the undoing of this strategy as well.
Kudos to the anonymous commenter on my Questions For Leftist Wackos..... post who pointed out this piece on NRO.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Happy B-Day Abraham!
Today is the birthday of our 16th president Abraham Lincoln....he spoke and wrote inspiring words on many occasions that still today can make you swell with pride to be an American...Powerline has a great piece on Lincoln and a particularly good speech Lincoln made in 1858. It's worth a read! I think its important for us to remember the founding principles of our country and the interpretations of those principles by great men such as Lincoln as we contemplate the geopolitical issues facing us today.
Natural Selection
If you watch the press releases and news conferences of researches and medical organizations that work on AIDS and HIV you will see a common theme....to make it sound like some new discovery or statistic is something the general public should be concerned about! The demographic of those responsible for spreading the vast majority these killer conditions is made clear by the very people who continually try to sound the alarm for all of us. Somehow those of us who don't engage in unprotected sex, promiscuous behavior that is still not all that unusual in the gay community and/or needle drug use should be concerned about this? Why? I'll give those who have spent years trying to make the high risk communities aware of the dangers and how to protect yourself a lot of credit...but you know what...I'm sick and tired of seeing this issue portrait as a major health concern. IT ISN'T. The majority of population has an ethical or moral core that takes them completely out of the picture. This is preventable for every person who wants to avoid it. In the end this is just natural selection at work...that may be a cruel way to look at it but I'm not interested in spending brain cycles or tax money on those who don't want to be saved.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Questions for Leftist Wack Jobs like Jim Bliss
Should anybody be bothered by the Sacramento (and Berkeley) home owner with the US soldier uniform stuffed with an American flag hung from a noose on his house? Should he be forced to do anything?
Should anybody be bothered by General Mattis' "fun to shoot some people" comment? Should he be forced to do anything?
Should anybody be bothered by what fake-American-Indian -who-doesn't-know-jack-about-Ethics prof Churchill said about 9/11 victims?
Do you think your employer would put you on a warning if were lecturing people in the lunch room about how 9/11 victims were in fact not victims and akin to Nazi's?
Should anybody be bothered by the bigoted and racist cartoons made by widely published liberal cartoonist of Condi Rice? Should they be forced to do anything?
Should anybody be bothered by gay marriage? Should anybody be bothered by group marriage? How about marriage to a goat?
Should anybody be bothered by Anheuser Busch Super Bowl commercial titled "Thank You"?
Should anybody be bothered if we target men of middle eastern descent for the most thorough airport searches?
Should anybody be bothered if those who don't legally live in the US, or pay taxes in the US, receive any benefit paid for by US taxes?
Should anybody be bothered by General Mattis' "fun to shoot some people" comment? Should he be forced to do anything?
Should anybody be bothered by what fake-American-Indian -who-doesn't-know-jack-about-Ethics prof Churchill said about 9/11 victims?
Do you think your employer would put you on a warning if were lecturing people in the lunch room about how 9/11 victims were in fact not victims and akin to Nazi's?
Should anybody be bothered by the bigoted and racist cartoons made by widely published liberal cartoonist of Condi Rice? Should they be forced to do anything?
Should anybody be bothered by gay marriage? Should anybody be bothered by group marriage? How about marriage to a goat?
Should anybody be bothered by Anheuser Busch Super Bowl commercial titled "Thank You"?
Should anybody be bothered if we target men of middle eastern descent for the most thorough airport searches?
Should anybody be bothered if those who don't legally live in the US, or pay taxes in the US, receive any benefit paid for by US taxes?
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Islamic Americans Against Terrorism?
I'm not a regular fan of the Fox show "24" but I happen to be surfing last night and watched just a few minutes when I thought it was going to a commercial...instead it was a public service announcement by the shows star Kiefer Sutherland and it went like this:
"Hi. My name is Kiefer Sutherland. And I play counter-terrorist agent Jack Bauer on Fox's 24. I would like to take a moment to talk to you about something that I think is very important. Now while terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges facing our nation and the world, it is important to recognize that the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism. So in watching 24, please, bear that in mind."
My reaction was immediate...WHAT??????....first I knew this must have come from a lobby group, and sure enough apparently pressure came from the apparent author of the spot...CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). So I went to the CAIR website and looked for evidence this "denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism". Go ahead, see if you can find much or ANYTHING that you can call "firmly" condemning terrorism against Americans by Muslims or done in the name of Islam!
I have heard many ask for this condemnation from Muslim Americans since 9/11...but have seen very very little. You would think they would be taking an anti-terror stance to the point where the majority of their website and public communication would have this focus...NOPE. Look at their site....its predominately cry baby stuff about ID checking, civil rights, concern over torture by our troops, etc......
Then ask yourself where was the outrage when "24" had a whitebread blond girl become a suicide bomber? Where was the outrage when a Latino was a drug dealer/terrorist? And so on. When the truth hits home the homies come out bitching and crying. Problem is I (and I'm sure many others) don't listen when its not backed up by actions. It's logical to see why CAIR would/should take a strong stance against terror...so why don't they? Is it because those in this organization don't uniformly agree on this? Do they fear being the victim of terror from within their own ranks if they take that stance?
Postscript....I have no idea if CAIR speaks for 5, 1000 or all Muslim Americans.....if they don't speak for a majority or significant group then my point still stands....get some leaders who will say this front and center on main stream media!
"Hi. My name is Kiefer Sutherland. And I play counter-terrorist agent Jack Bauer on Fox's 24. I would like to take a moment to talk to you about something that I think is very important. Now while terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges facing our nation and the world, it is important to recognize that the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism. So in watching 24, please, bear that in mind."
My reaction was immediate...WHAT??????....first I knew this must have come from a lobby group, and sure enough apparently pressure came from the apparent author of the spot...CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). So I went to the CAIR website and looked for evidence this "denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism". Go ahead, see if you can find much or ANYTHING that you can call "firmly" condemning terrorism against Americans by Muslims or done in the name of Islam!
I have heard many ask for this condemnation from Muslim Americans since 9/11...but have seen very very little. You would think they would be taking an anti-terror stance to the point where the majority of their website and public communication would have this focus...NOPE. Look at their site....its predominately cry baby stuff about ID checking, civil rights, concern over torture by our troops, etc......
Then ask yourself where was the outrage when "24" had a whitebread blond girl become a suicide bomber? Where was the outrage when a Latino was a drug dealer/terrorist? And so on. When the truth hits home the homies come out bitching and crying. Problem is I (and I'm sure many others) don't listen when its not backed up by actions. It's logical to see why CAIR would/should take a strong stance against terror...so why don't they? Is it because those in this organization don't uniformly agree on this? Do they fear being the victim of terror from within their own ranks if they take that stance?
Postscript....I have no idea if CAIR speaks for 5, 1000 or all Muslim Americans.....if they don't speak for a majority or significant group then my point still stands....get some leaders who will say this front and center on main stream media!
Monday, February 07, 2005
One way America can be stronger!
It's interesting how some people see things in polar opposite ways. Those who are completely dismayed by Bush's reelection are "supposedly" going to move to Canada. Why? Well as one put it "America is turning into a country very different from the one I grew up believing in". While I'm only 43 I would agree with part of this statement. Growing up in the 60's it was simpler, safer and more idealistic. But here's where I'm confused by these wanna-be-Canadians who also say "tolerance, compassion and peaceful idealism they felt once defined the nation". Really? So you think that the country as a whole and/or the government was more tolerant? Compassionate? Of whom and what? This seems like it's micro-focused statement on Gays or some other group like Muslims! As a whole there is no question that people are more tolerant of what I just label alternative lifestyles. That doesn't mean the accept or approve. However, in an effort to make it safer here at home in the wake of 9/11 law enforcement should be more busy in looking at what people are doing and have the right to do so. If the FBI wants to be alerted when someone buys certain bulk items, or rents a group of trucks, etc...I'm just fine if they know and even if they then get a judge to agree to more invasive surveillance. You can argue that's overstepping some freedom, but I say bulls***.
This is where I pick apart this idea of "peaceful idealism". Liberals have their heads in the sand to think that everyone who either wants to kill us because we are not like them, or because we pissed off in some way in the past can all be pacified by "peaceful idealism". Global peace and co-existence while ideal isn't rooted in reality...at least not for a while. I'm not willing to have a bunch of peacenik borderline communists put my families life in jeopardy because we might embarrass a person of middle-eastern decent by prying into their life a bit....or because they think airport lines and searches are inconvenient.
So look, you don't like the way something works then use our system to invoke change....or you can go to Canada or some other place where the system isn't as comprehensive as our in terms of citizen participation and effect....but just don't threaten to go...get the hell out of here now, and we WILL be stronger upon your departure!
This is where I pick apart this idea of "peaceful idealism". Liberals have their heads in the sand to think that everyone who either wants to kill us because we are not like them, or because we pissed off in some way in the past can all be pacified by "peaceful idealism". Global peace and co-existence while ideal isn't rooted in reality...at least not for a while. I'm not willing to have a bunch of peacenik borderline communists put my families life in jeopardy because we might embarrass a person of middle-eastern decent by prying into their life a bit....or because they think airport lines and searches are inconvenient.
So look, you don't like the way something works then use our system to invoke change....or you can go to Canada or some other place where the system isn't as comprehensive as our in terms of citizen participation and effect....but just don't threaten to go...get the hell out of here now, and we WILL be stronger upon your departure!
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Should 3 year olds be learning about gay parents?
Hell No! But apparently the folks over at PBS think so. Why, I have no clue. The vehicle they chose was a show my 3 yr old daughter watches on occasion called Arthur. An entire series of Arthur episodes coined the "postcard" series has one of Arthur's friends named Buster (who is a bunny) meet Muslims, Christians, Jews, Mormons, African-Americans, Norwegian-Americans, Latinos and cloggers...and a lesbian couple and their children. The U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings tried to stop that episode from airing although it supposedly did today on KQED in SF. I don't know that Spellings should have stopped that episode, but I do know I don't want PBS (who some of my tax dollars support) putting out any childrens programming that deals with gay or human sexuality AT ALL.
This of course is done under the label of "teaching tolerance" but that's BS. This is an effort to promote to 3-5 yr olds (the audience of this show) that kids having parents that are of the same sex is normal. The other episodes that show ethnic and religiously diverse families is fine. But 3-5 yr olds have no business even trying to understand the existence of homosexuals! Kids aren't born being intolerant of anyone and its not for anybody but the parents to educate them on these matters. If a child happens to even become aware that a friend has 2 parents of the same sex and it comes up, the parents are the ones to deal with this. And if a parent believes gay relations are in fact a sin, not normal, strange, etc...that's their business. I know some of you can't believe you can teach a child that and at the same time be good decent people who also can be tolerant...but that's because you are in fact not tolerant of those very people!
Tolerance is something all good people (liberal, conservative, god fearing, atheist, fat, thin, black, white, etc.) practice...but acceptance and approval of a lifestyle is not the same thing as tolerance. I don't hate someone because they're gay. They have every right and privilege I do....we need no special laws for them....equal treatment under the law already exists. To extend beyond that is without question to fall off the slippery slope. I can think of no argument for why its not ok for a man to have 6 wives, or 3 men to all be married to each other if its ok for just 2 of the same sex! Why only 2?
The gay lobby (I hear there is one) has this all wrong...they think that a 5 yr old on the play ground picks on the kid who has 2 mommies and no daddy because nobody gave him tolerance training? Wrong, they do it because either they don't understand it or because a parent told them it was strange, wrong, a sin or whatever. BUT IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO EXPLAIN IT TO THEM. I have a child in Kindergarten and have plenty of nieces and nephews all spread from k-8 in Bay Area schools. I haven't heard of any epidemic of kids even being aware of any fellow students who have gay parents let alone an issue with teasing those kids. I can't speak for what goes on in high schools, but it doesn't matter. So why do gays want material to be hitting this age group? Why? Show me some data that there is a problem with kids anywhere close to this age! It is very clear that they want to spread the idea with kids that this is normal. They have a right to do whatever they want but his isn't something the schools or government owns or that most will tolerate in main stream media...the parent owns it. I know I can turn off PBS, but my tax dollars also support it. If my tax dollars can't support my childs private catholic school then they damn well better not support any gay lifestyle material period! If you mess with the kids of someone who doesn't like you or your agenda, boy watch out....you will be in the crosshairs for sure if you weren't already!
This of course is done under the label of "teaching tolerance" but that's BS. This is an effort to promote to 3-5 yr olds (the audience of this show) that kids having parents that are of the same sex is normal. The other episodes that show ethnic and religiously diverse families is fine. But 3-5 yr olds have no business even trying to understand the existence of homosexuals! Kids aren't born being intolerant of anyone and its not for anybody but the parents to educate them on these matters. If a child happens to even become aware that a friend has 2 parents of the same sex and it comes up, the parents are the ones to deal with this. And if a parent believes gay relations are in fact a sin, not normal, strange, etc...that's their business. I know some of you can't believe you can teach a child that and at the same time be good decent people who also can be tolerant...but that's because you are in fact not tolerant of those very people!
Tolerance is something all good people (liberal, conservative, god fearing, atheist, fat, thin, black, white, etc.) practice...but acceptance and approval of a lifestyle is not the same thing as tolerance. I don't hate someone because they're gay. They have every right and privilege I do....we need no special laws for them....equal treatment under the law already exists. To extend beyond that is without question to fall off the slippery slope. I can think of no argument for why its not ok for a man to have 6 wives, or 3 men to all be married to each other if its ok for just 2 of the same sex! Why only 2?
The gay lobby (I hear there is one) has this all wrong...they think that a 5 yr old on the play ground picks on the kid who has 2 mommies and no daddy because nobody gave him tolerance training? Wrong, they do it because either they don't understand it or because a parent told them it was strange, wrong, a sin or whatever. BUT IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO EXPLAIN IT TO THEM. I have a child in Kindergarten and have plenty of nieces and nephews all spread from k-8 in Bay Area schools. I haven't heard of any epidemic of kids even being aware of any fellow students who have gay parents let alone an issue with teasing those kids. I can't speak for what goes on in high schools, but it doesn't matter. So why do gays want material to be hitting this age group? Why? Show me some data that there is a problem with kids anywhere close to this age! It is very clear that they want to spread the idea with kids that this is normal. They have a right to do whatever they want but his isn't something the schools or government owns or that most will tolerate in main stream media...the parent owns it. I know I can turn off PBS, but my tax dollars also support it. If my tax dollars can't support my childs private catholic school then they damn well better not support any gay lifestyle material period! If you mess with the kids of someone who doesn't like you or your agenda, boy watch out....you will be in the crosshairs for sure if you weren't already!
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Pro-life, Pro-abortion Babble!
I didn't really plan on posting twice today, but Taranto's re-print of a part of the discussion between Tim Russert and John Kerry on Meet the Press Sunday is just too humorous. I should point out this is the kind of nonsense and illogical babble that the media would have gone nuts over if it was Bush and not Kerry who spewed this crap....for you Kerry voters....really read this and tell me if the leader of the most powerful nation in the free world should be a F'ing fence sitter on ANYTHING!!!!! Dialog from Meet the Press:
Russert: Why and how do you believe the Democrats can broaden the base with pro-life Democrats when the party seems to require down-the-line voting in terms of abortion rights?
Kerry: We have pro-life Democrats today. Harry Reid is a leader. He is pro-life. We have others who are pro-life. I think what I was saying, Tim, is that, you know, you can't be doctrinarian [sic in transcript] negative against somebody simply because they have that position. There's more to it. Now, does that change the position of the Democratic Party in defending the right to choose? No, absolutely not. Not in the least.
But you can't be--I mean, let me put it this way. Too many people in America believe that if you are pro-choice that means pro-abortion. It doesn't. I don't want abortion. Abortion should be the rarest thing in the world. I am actually personally opposed to abortion. But I don't believe that I have a right to take what is an article of faith to me and legislate it to other people. That's not how it works in America.
So you have to have room to be able to talk about these things in a rational way. We also need--I mean, I thought Hillary gave a good speech the other way in which she talked about the need--and many of us have talked about this for a long period of time. The discussion is not about being pro-abortion. The discussion is about how you truly value life. Valuing life is also valuing choice. Valuing life is the exception for the life of a mother or rape or incest. I mean, there are all kinds of values here.
Russert: Why and how do you believe the Democrats can broaden the base with pro-life Democrats when the party seems to require down-the-line voting in terms of abortion rights?
Kerry: We have pro-life Democrats today. Harry Reid is a leader. He is pro-life. We have others who are pro-life. I think what I was saying, Tim, is that, you know, you can't be doctrinarian [sic in transcript] negative against somebody simply because they have that position. There's more to it. Now, does that change the position of the Democratic Party in defending the right to choose? No, absolutely not. Not in the least.
But you can't be--I mean, let me put it this way. Too many people in America believe that if you are pro-choice that means pro-abortion. It doesn't. I don't want abortion. Abortion should be the rarest thing in the world. I am actually personally opposed to abortion. But I don't believe that I have a right to take what is an article of faith to me and legislate it to other people. That's not how it works in America.
So you have to have room to be able to talk about these things in a rational way. We also need--I mean, I thought Hillary gave a good speech the other way in which she talked about the need--and many of us have talked about this for a long period of time. The discussion is not about being pro-abortion. The discussion is about how you truly value life. Valuing life is also valuing choice. Valuing life is the exception for the life of a mother or rape or incest. I mean, there are all kinds of values here.
Dean=defeat in 2008?
Many conservatives relish the idea of primal screamer Howard Dean becoming the new Chairman of the DNC since they assume he's a liability and will turn off centrist or right leaning Dems...I'm not sure, except that if Dean keeps going the way he is they may be right. Over the weekend at some lefty gathering Dean apparently said "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." A common theme running thru many of my posts, especially prior to the elections, is the vitriolic nature of Democrats....while they don't have a monopoly on this they, in my observation, have this problem far more than Republicans. I've been conservative ever since I could vote (which I did for the first time 25 years ago) and don't recall a more widespread and nasty hatred of a candidate by a party until the 2004 campaign. I have been a political junky only for about 10 years and many of my friends and family are conservative like me....I recall no such "hatred" among us towards Clinton for example. If this sick obsessive hatred toward the right continues the left is doomed.
Taranto's WSJ best of the web today points to blogger Steve Merryman who observed:
Bush-Hatred is like porn for Liberals.
Like porn of the flesh, it's the thrill of political extremes that titlllates the Left. In this political peep show, our president is not merely misguided; he's "deranged." He's not simply striving for an unattainable goal; he's a "boy in a bubble" acting with "callow hubris."
Just as porn appeals to the desire to flaunt societal convention, those on the left must feel great excitement in spewing their sweaty conspiracies, the wackier the better. Nothing is too sinister for this president to attempt. There is no taboo of political discourse the Left is not willing to trample in their need to satisfy their desire. This is the tawdry atmosphere in which it is acceptable, even encouraged, to write such things as "Full blown civil war, if it comes to that, will serve Bush's purpose, too. All the better if Syria and Iran leap into the fray . . ." and "The only meaning 'freedom' can have in Iraq right now is freedom from the US occupation . . ." Addiction to porn can render one incapable of engaging in real relationships. One wonders if the left can put such sordid obsessions aside and enter into a real conversation with the American people ever again.
Taranto's WSJ best of the web today points to blogger Steve Merryman who observed:
Bush-Hatred is like porn for Liberals.
Like porn of the flesh, it's the thrill of political extremes that titlllates the Left. In this political peep show, our president is not merely misguided; he's "deranged." He's not simply striving for an unattainable goal; he's a "boy in a bubble" acting with "callow hubris."
Just as porn appeals to the desire to flaunt societal convention, those on the left must feel great excitement in spewing their sweaty conspiracies, the wackier the better. Nothing is too sinister for this president to attempt. There is no taboo of political discourse the Left is not willing to trample in their need to satisfy their desire. This is the tawdry atmosphere in which it is acceptable, even encouraged, to write such things as "Full blown civil war, if it comes to that, will serve Bush's purpose, too. All the better if Syria and Iran leap into the fray . . ." and "The only meaning 'freedom' can have in Iraq right now is freedom from the US occupation . . ." Addiction to porn can render one incapable of engaging in real relationships. One wonders if the left can put such sordid obsessions aside and enter into a real conversation with the American people ever again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)