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!

It IS Fun to Shoot Some People

Ya, I agree...it is...what's the problem? :)

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!

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.

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.

Half Empty SOB's

You know, what the hell is wrong with people! The Iraqi vote is a perfect situation to see bias, inappropriate mean spirited hoping for failure bias, in action. Just look at the various media and news sources...some talk about the positive step this is for a nation, the great quotes from Iraqis coming out of the voting booth, the positive feelings they now have along with different attitude towards the insurgents and those who think democracy has no place in this part of the world. AND THEN, there are those who just have to spin it negative. Oh sure this is great, but blah, blah, blah. Who is the biggest offender today? None other than John Kerry.

Un-f'ing believable! Gee, way to spread the spirit of democracy John! People having a voice in their own future when previous they mostly just feared for the lives and expected no future is huge! It's contagious, it can make others in the region believe that dramatic change can also happen for them. Most of all if people believe they have a future, one that can be prosperous and safe for generations to come...they will in fact die to get it and protect it...that's the real trick and that's what will also result in US and the brits pulling out.

So, when Kerry's says this is "significant" and "important" but said they should not be "overhyped" that is just flat out wrong and I believe an unforgivable political stance and nothing more. It is clear to me that in fact what the region, the world, needs is for us to HPYE the hell out of this. The hype should be: Do you live under an evil dictator, under a murdering regime? You to can destroy and remove the evil and employ a system of choice and free will! It's called democracy, give it try!

More evidence of success haters for political gain....of course Pelosi is in this camp....but the Bush haters will now do what Dem Senator Harry Reid did....he doesn't acknowledge the tremendous step that just took place in Iraq for what it really is and then says the president must give timelines, dates and such. It will be easy to say "see, we didn't reduce troop levels to 50k by June of 06' like Bush said". Whatever...you jackass! How about this quote from Reid: "It's time that America stood tall again as the real superpower that we are; time that we led the world on dealing with these terrible threats and building a durable peace instead of just hanging back and letting others show the way." Ah, excuse me Harry, ah can you point me to another leader who has helped spread democracy more than Bush in the last 2 years? Or another world leader who has shown they're dedicated to destroying those who would destroy us more than Bush? Who is leading, showing the way while Bush has been hanging back?

Like I said in a previous post...we are going to stir up the trouble makers to act because their existence requires that we tolerate their existence. Bush has his faults and isn't the most eloquent (although Peloci's ABC's comment is incredibly disrespectful) but he won't tolerate their existence and scares the crap out of our enemies. Those who would kill us have no choice but to try and appeal to the Kerry's, Reid's and Peloci's and those who agree with them in America by stepping up their terror...because if the majority feel like Bush and me they're toast!

You can't fight the will of a people!

For those of you who think this vote in Iraq is of little importance, I actually believe this could be a turning point for the entire region and the world. It's clear from the stories you here about Iraq's facing death by voting and so putting their lives on the line for a chance at a free system just as Americans have done thru our history and in Iraq. The NYTimes has one such story in their International addition today which goes:

For an instant, Ms. Musawi, a 22-year-old physical therapist, thought it might be too dangerous to go to the polls. "And then, hearing those explosions, it occurred to me - the insurgents are weak, they are afraid of democracy, they are losing," Ms. Musawi said, standing in the Marjayoon Primary School, her polling place. "So I got my husband, and I got my parents and we all came out and voted together."

The Times quotes 80-year-old Rashid Majid: "We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy. We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system. If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will kill them."

And a 33 yr old election worker: "Do you hear that, do you hear the bombs?" said Hassan Jawad, a 33-year-old election worker at Lebanon High School, calling over the thud of an exploding shell. "We don't care. Do you understand? We don't care." "We all have to die," Mr. Jawad said. "To die for this, well, at least I will be dying for something."

I found this NYTimes piece on WSJ best of the web by Taranto, and I found his introduction to his commentary on this election appropriate in lumping together a few evil men with some not so obviously evil to some, his intro goes like this:

Yesterday was a great day to be an American, and an even better day to be an Iraqi. Notwithstanding the best efforts of Osama bin Laden, Barbara Boxer, Jacques Chirac, Ted Kennedy, Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, millions of Iraqis cast their first free ballots. The scenes of joyous Iraqis embracing freedom were as moving as watching Germans dance on the Berlin Wall 15 years ago--and all the more impressive given that Iraqi voters faced real physical danger from terrorists seeking a return to tyranny.

Treasonous Kennedy!

Apparently many found Kennedy's words the other day approaching treason as I do. There's plenty of examples but thanks to my dad for sending me the blog post of the managing editor of the Washington Times from Thursday...

None dare call it treason
For many Americans Sen. Ted Kennedy has long been a caricature of liberal elitism, the bloated shell of what once was the youthful beauty of change. He has long lost the ability to shock with his antics, whether it's his questionable private behavior, returning the outreach of the Bush family with cheap shots galore or playing so loose with the facts in his public pronouncements that Jane Fonda looks like an intellectual heavyweight by comparison.

But wait, there's fire in the old warhorse yet. In a speech in Washington today, Mr. Kennedy became the first senator to call for the early withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Drawing a parallel with the Vietnam war (why is it that liberals are so hot to champion U.S. failure?), he declared that "the U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution. We need a new plan that sets fair and realistic goals for self-government in Iraq, and works with the Iraqi government on a specific timetable for the honorable homecoming of our forces."

In other words, let's ignore the sacrifice of those who have died to defeat a brutal dictator and to establish a fledgling democracy in the heart of the Middle East, and get the hell out as quickly as we can. Now that's statesmanship. Three days before courageous Iraqis risk their lives to vote in their first-ever democratic election. Now that's timing. To appease the Saddam holdovers who are brutally killing and maiming their own women and children to return to power. Now that's the American way.

And this is the man regarded by many as the senior statesman of the Democratic Party.
-- Fran Coombs, Managing Editor

More...from WSJ's Taranto Best of the Web on Friday...just a small piece:

A successful election in Iraq will be a triumph for the Bush doctrine and the strongest rebuke yet to those Democrats who learned from Vietnam that America is a force for ill in the world. Ted Kennedy is, as The Wall Street Journal puts it today, "cheerleading for America to fail" because his ideology leaves him unfit to cope with American success. If he has his way, democracy in Iraq will suffer the same fate as Mary Jo Kopechne.

Friday Roundup!

Cheney's attire at an Auschwitz ceremony questioned! What a total F'ing non story..give me a break!

Love of Beer Free's Avalanche Victim! This was pretty funny and you have to give the guy credit for figuring out a way to get rid of the snow..clearly his love of beer and the given in his mind that it wouldn't go anywhere other than down his throat prevented him from considering just pooring the beer on the snow. Instead he had to wait for the trip thru his GI track! :)

Insurgents warn Iraqis not to vote. It's very important that no matter what the turnout, no matter what technical problems are encountered, no matter how imperfect this vote is, that it happen. People seem to ignore the success of Afghanistan and how truly universal the thirst for freedom and to be represented by those of your choosing in a government structure is. It's also worth noting that prior to voting Iraqis are required to show an id.....it's time we did the same. The number of things infinitely less important than voting require you to prove your identity with a drivers license (or other id) and nobody complains about it! So ask yourself...who opposes having people prove their identity (well, ok this is not a great proof but as least its something) at the polling place? Anybody, anybody know? The DEMOCRATS!!! Why? People show their ids for all kinds of things so the claim that it's intimidating is insane. So what possible argument makes sense? It's pretty obvious why the lefties don't want this simple check to be done...they believe that those who actually shouldn't be voting are likely to vote Democrat. I also completely believe that they also like how easy it is to commit voter fraud today.

Democrats would have everything in Iraq and around the world fail if it hurts Bush! Well, that's at least the headline I create after reading the speech by Edward (let her drown) Kennedy. Just days before another historic (Afghanistan being the first) election in the middle east Kennedy sure knows how to give some encouragement doesn't he. And I love this in his speech; "The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation." Oh really? Apparently a nation being "independent" in his definition has no relation to the plight of the citizens who live in that nation. And as the WSJ's Taranto points out Kennedy doesn't seem to know his century boundaries very well since the 21st century began more than four years ago, when Iraq was under Baathist occupation. If some republican made a blunder like that it would be big time fodder for our biased media.

Academic Cancer Continues

A Colorado University prof says those who died in the 9/11 attacks were not innocents, and calls those who directed the planes that day were "combat teams" and not terrorists. This is exactly what's wrong with academia and overly left liberals. Those with no real American spirit and patriotism would say this is good diversity of thought and belongs in our education system. Bullshit! This guy spouts complete lies about our having thrown the first stone, but worse is that this is an attitude of sympathy towards a terrorist who has no clue about history (accurate or otherwise) and has a completely brainwashed and naive understanding of the world. These terrorists have the idea that Americans are evil drilled into their heads. We are not a perfect democracy, we make mistakes, but their has been no American Hitler who has orchestrated the purposeful killing of 100 let alone 500,000 children in the middle east. However, might that be justified under some scenario? You bet, I don't think anyone involved in dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki felt good about civilians who were about to be vaporized, but in the end that act saved countless lives far beyond the cost. You just have to decide if you want to be on the side who gets to make that choice or not. If you're not with us, you're with them!

Please, please don't hurt us!!!!!

Oh my, have you heard? A sharp warning from Iran! They will respond to any "unwise measure". "With reliance on enormous popular support, diplomatic capacity and full military capability, the Islamic Republic of Iran will firmly respond to any unwise measure or plan," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a statement responding to "recent comments by US officials". Really? You have enormous popular support from whom? And, I'm sorry maybe you can explain the specter of fear we should have from your "diplomatic capacity". And lastly, you even coming within an inch of having a "full military capability" is exactly the reason there is saber rattling going on!

Kerry & Boxer, WHAT A JOKE!

Could you imagine, regardless of the Iraq war, if a senator from Mass and Cal had been the only NO votes on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to endorse a black women DEMOCRAT for Sec State? It would be the biggest race scandal in decades! You really must read the transcripts of the exchanges between these two and Condi Rice. It was just old partisan foley, a retread of the same old anti-Bush mantra...they only took this stance with Rice and voted NO in order to show their base that they oppose everything Bush! Their exchanges looked childish and bitter to me and would to anybody being honest about it. Boxer in particular was also prone to falsehoods that James Taranto of the WSJ weblog points out in his piece today. During one exchange where Boxer just has to say one more time that Bush lied about WMD's in order to use force in Iraq, Rice very calmly explains to the senator that it wasn't just WMD's providing some detail. To which Boxer replies:

Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.

Well, Boxer is either stupid, or didn't read the authorization to use force in Iraq, or didn't understand it, or is just ignoring the facts to support her weak position...or all the above. Directly from the authorization to use force (which by the way is about 3 pages max):

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; . . .

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Actual reality and facts don't matter to Boxer....she just wants to be on record, and in the media, as opposing anything Bush to make her base (primarily leftist wackos and gays) happy. Of course her base will laud her for it as they are blind to the childish and bitter display the actual video of the exchanges between Boxer and Rice show. Boxer is at best unknowing or ignorant, at worst a liar with none of a virtue that Rice has in spades....integrity.

UPDATE
And apparently more comi a-hole wacko Dems want to get their mug and vile words out to the media so that their anti-american a-hole constituents see them combating everything Bush!

CONFIRMATION...Boxer is an illiterate bee-atch!
A friend informed me of a petition Boxer has on her website about the Rice hearings.....still asking the old, dead, conspiracy theory questions. I can only conclude Boxer can't actually read since the 911 commission report along with plenty of other senate and non-White House produced material on Iraq, the intelligence leading up to the war and everything that has gone on answer these questions fully! Oh, and look how many "Americans" have signed her petition, just over 60k...that's about the number of gay couples in SF who applied for marriage licenses (I made that last part up!).

Ashamed to be American? LEAVE!!!!!

I find it interesting all the leftist who are so ashamed for someone here or abroad to think they may have either voted for Bush or agree with anything he does. Do you recall all the Clinton scandals and how strongly those on the right felt he had no morals, no ethics, and couldn't be trusted? Did you see these right wingers wearing bracelets or shirts to make sure their feelings on this were thrust into your face or to make sure you knew they didn't vote for him? Did they organize to try and influence the entire country to not spend a single dollar, on anything, on inauguration day as a protest? Of course not! But that's what's going on with the left! They want you to know as they pass you by on the street that Bush is not their president with a bracelet.....others are asking you not to spend a red cent on that day! Great idea, hurting the economy is really going to galvanize people to your cause. This is like the idiots who mess up traffic on SF streets or bridges...all this form of "civil disobedience" does is move people further from your view and ensures they detest whomever the group is that organized the stunt. Fortunately the no-spend group called NoOneDamnDime.com have, at best, about 1/10th the number of people who visit just one of the 20 super malls here in the Bay Area participating in their protest...and that's for the entire US!!! Hahahaha...IDIOTS!!!!

But really what I would like to encourage is self exile for these fools. There is no logical argument for being unsupportive of a president across the board, or for being embarrassed to be an American. If you no longer feel proud to be an American, or you're not an American first above all else, regardless of our missteps or mistakes, then you're not a patriot and you should give away all your US based possessions to UNICEF (another joke of a charity by the way) and get the hell out. If you contact me I will personally pay for your airfare....I have form you must fill out denouncing your citizenship, but that shouldn't be hard for you to do!

Dems Continue Enemy Aid & Comfort

You won't see anything in the press about how well Alberto Gonzales is handling the grilling mostly by Democrap senators. The press also want give you any of flavor of the questioning that clearly is rooted in concern for our enemies over our citizens. The tone in this hearing is that torture is condoned by the administration and by Gonzales.....you'll note that much of the press got it wrong saying that Gonzales wrote a memo to the president that terrorist prisoners were not protected by the Geneva convention. The fact is that Gonzales received the memo from the Justice Department and then gave his opinion (which is correct) of the memo to the president. Of course the press seems to ignore when people are doing their jobs and not trying to figure out how to torture people with impunity. The president's statement on this memo was;

"I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, Al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.
Of course, our values as a Nation...call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment...As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."

Of course this is interpreted by the left as an edict to torture terrorist and suspected terrorist prisoners. IDIOTS!....powerlineblog.com has a nice piece on this and points out one of Gonzales' responses to the idiocy he is being subjected to, in this case from Senator Lindsay Graham:

"Senator, there is a lot to respond to in your statement. I would respectfully disagree with your statement that we're becoming more like our enemy. We are nothing like our enemy, Senator. While we are struggling, mightily, trying to find out what happened at Abu Ghraib, they are beheading people like Danny Pearl and Nick Berg. We are nothing like our enemies, Senator."

Jew Hating Duke!

First.....hahahaha...did you think I was serious with that last post? No forking way I'm going to do a bunch of mushy raw raw happy posts...we got some f'd up people and situations and we need to start kicking some ass! A good place to start is Duke University....this falls under the category of "you have to be f'ing kidding me"! Check this op/ed by a two Duke PHD candidates in the WSJ. I can't imagine, even for a second, how the president of Duke can with a straight face defend this obvious duplicity. I don't care about free speech....when you run an organization that can choose to help, or not, a group who is stupid, hateful, evil and dangerous grow some BALLS and tell them to go F themselves. When you defend your support for their using university facilities as demonstrating "the importance of the principle of free expression" you either have no boys hanging down there or you sympathize with those in question!

What to do?

After some time off from plunking my thoughts on political topics in this blog, along with the new year and the obligatory resolutions I always say I'm not going to make, I'm trying to decide what to do! Getting all fired up about the obvious media bias, the whining dems, the politically correct strangle hold on the country, et al is just too exhausting. I'm thinking of mixing up my rants and throwing in a few raves....we could use more positive thinking. Sh*t, there I go again, now I have yet another resolution....post more positive material. So let's see..no drinking M-Th, don't eat 5k calories for lunch, work out more regularly (get my bench press back into the 400lbs range--that's right Mike!), be in a better mood after work (which really means be the happy joking tickling dad and husband my family loves), and post upbeat material to my blog. Great I now know what to do.....hmmm....its going to be hard to switch gears.....don't expect miracles from my next post, but it will be different.

Marriage is biologically defined

Today a judge heard arguments by lawyers representing the City of San Francisco and gay advocacy group who seek to have California's one-man, one-woman matrimony law declared unconstitutional. Well this is complete folly and if I lived in SF I would be pretty ticked off that the city was spending money on this. Make no mistake, I'm completely against changing the definition of marriage, which by the way has its roots in religious doctrine pre-dating our laws by thousands of years. Personally I don't even care what our federal or state laws are based on, I don't want the definition of marriage to be changed from one-man and one-women on the grounds that biology doesn't work in a same sex definition.

But before I go into biology this is of course also rooted in religion and the bible. What bible you ask....well I use Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary which is available online on numerous websites. The online database provides definitions from the most comprehensive source of biblical data. Just a brief sample; Authorized, King James, Darby, Martin Luther 1545, Louis Segond, Riveduta Luzzi, Alexandrian, etc., and so on and...... So, the common thread from these is that this is a union between a man and a women, and there is also the element that procreation was something that was to only happen within the marriage.

Ok, now to biology...so while I'm not a bible thumper I like the existing definition because of a combination of the religious definition and how it relates to procreation of the human species. You can call me what you like, but I believe to be homosexual is to not be normal. I don't care if someone is born that way. I don't hate you if you are. You don't scare me. You don't have a better or less of a chance of being my friend. However, members of a species that either can't procreate, or won't, are not normal. So its a defect to the species. If defective members of species do procreate the question is do they increase the defect in the population. At some point either the species dies out or procreation becomes purely a survival exercise. And one could argue if it's the later it may also die since without the absolute bond of the family unit taking the offspring from birth to procreating the lineage is weakened. Ok, I'm waxing like we are talking about and ampeba but I believe this relates to human existence.

I could go on and on...digging a hole in some areas and a bridge in others...but just for a minute convert the idea of same sex relations to a non human species and what would it mean to the survival of that species.

Back to these legal action...I always love when someone uses completely illogical jumps to argue their case....take for example: "The assertion that marriage is inherently heterosexual can no longer be maintained now that there are a number of jurisdictions that allow same-sex couples to marry," Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said in a packed courtroom. That's almost funny considering how many judgments by a jurisdiction right here in my backyard, the 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court, which is the most reversed court in the nation. Ms. Minter also thinks her argument was strengthened by mentioning that guy marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Canada, Belgium and South Africa. Oh, gee...enough said!

It's interesting that the plaintiffs admit that same sex unions are getting the same rights (for the most part) as those of a married couple...but they want the label as well! WHY? You might ask...because they want to slowly but surely be considered normal and not a defect. They don't use these words but that's the end goal.

Signatures be damned

Hindrocket of PowerlineBlog has a post with a great letter from the father of a marine serving in Iraq and it puts the recent SecDef "autopen" controversy in perspective. I reprinted the letter on Powerline in it's entirety and of special note is yet another example of Dubya's compassion that goes unreported by the media.

"If [our son] had been killed, we would have been first informed by a visit - in dress blues - from a condolence team typically consisting of two Marines and one Navy Chaplain. We know many families who've received that knock on the door. No letter is required. No words are required. A simple peek thru the view hole in the door and the sight of dress blue blouses, white covers and white gloves tells you all you ever need to know. A letter of condolence from the SecDef is, honestly, not even worth opening. Families are much more interested in hearing from the men who served with their son and from their families. We share the constant knowledge and fear that it could be our door bell being rung. Sec. Rumsfeld doesn't know our son. He's a Lance Corporal. He directs a machine gun team. He is a vital link in the line that protects our way of life. He doesn't fight for his country, he doesn't fight for the SecDef, he doesn't even fight for his mom and dad. He fights for the guys on either side of him and for his team. He fights to secure his objective of the moment, which he may or may not understand or agree with. Sec Rumsfeld doesn't need to take time from his day to sign a form letter of condolence and he certainly doesn't need to take time to figure out what the LCpl was doing when he was killed or what kind of a man he was. His job is to make sure the LCpl didn't die in vain and that only as few LCpl's as possible will have to die to end this war in a successful manner.

Don't get me wrong, we would appreciate the condolence letter from the SecDef, as well as one from the White House and from our Senator and Representative, from the Mayor and Governor. But none would bring back our son. And they are all form letters, signatures be damned. A letter from his 1stSgt, from the men we know in his unit would be a treasure and a comfort.
I don't know what happens in other branches, or even other units. But in 2/4, I know the 1stSgt's personally contact the surviving family with letters, emails and phone calls of condolence.

By the way, we know families of fallen Marines who've been flown to sites where President Bush was speaking. He met with them privately after his event, never any press coverage, and the families have said that - after being given an agenda for their time with the President and being told that he's on a very tight schedule - Mr. Bush talked to every family member as long as they wanted to talk, never hurried anyone, cried with family, hugged everyone and they all felt like he had nothing else to do for the rest of the day but bring comfort to them. For that, George W. Bush has my eternal respect and gratitude. And there was NEVER one word of publicity surrounding any of these meetings with families. (I have pictures to dissuade doubters.)

Bottom line, we support Sec Rumsfeld. The people who are making a big deal about this have their heads up their collective a****. They need to have a serious priority check on what people in positions of responsibility should be doing with their time. They should also chat with some military families if they could figure out how to contact them."

Another BAD message for minorities

The Washington Post has been running a series on "the changes in the middle of the U.S. workforce" with the latest installment called A Tenuous Hold on the Middle Class. This dribble is a travesty! The minorities in this country who continue to listen to a message of "whatever your situation is it isn't your fault" is going to keep them in that situation. This article is full of glass half empty attitude and includes statistics that show economic progress for blacks (used in this article along with the african american label for you PC a-holes) but the article dismisses these each time. It takes an example of one black family where their combined income of $60k (and with her being a college grad) has them barely making it. They live in a dangerous neighborhood that the author calls a "concrete complex", as if the "man" makes the poor folks apartment buildings out of concrete and the rich white folks apartment buildings out of nice squishy stuff. The author points out all things that are so tough for this family without questioning whether any of the choices this couple made contribute. They have $80k in debt that includes a student loan, auto loan and credit cards. The student loan is noble enough, but did they buy more car than they should have? Is a struggling family making a wise choice to run up credit card debt? The author points out the husband has no degree and the couple has two kids. Well, did they have kids prior to making their education and a job a first priority? Did they think about how they would support a family before having a family? Does someone have them chained to these particular jobs and apartment in Florida? I could list 100 questions that might expose a poor choice that leads to their situation.

I could find a family of any race that has a similar or more unfair sounding story. A couple both with english lit Phd's with 4 kids and low paying hourly jobs...gosh shouldn't a Phd guarantee a middle or upper middle class lifestyle? This is the problem....this is not a hand out country...you earn your way and the better choices you make the better off you will be. Until the black, and other minority groups, start thinking like Bill Cosby they will forever be stuck in a barely getting by state. Personal responsibility and knowing that your future is yours to make and not provided for you is the key to economic success...and the same values extend to family and social choices, and structure, that make for a happy and healthy home which is key for raising kids that will propagate the same success.

Celebrity Pundit Intellect, an Oxymoron!

Chevy Chase, Woopy Goldberg, Sean Penn, Bono, Barbara Streisand........all so well spoken, so enlightened, so above the common man and all so completely F'ING stupid. It's interesting how fame and money is, for some, like smoking pot. Right about the time the munchies kick in you also start blathering about atomic structure, or a wireless battery, or some other great product idea all of which is of course total nonsense. (Pop, I only know this from reading about it in my youth!). It's interesting that the fame part seems to be the final ingredient that sends these Celundits (my new word) into the delusional state of suddenly believing that you're not only an expert on numerous subjects you know nothing about, but also that people need to know what you think you know. It must be the fame part since I have plenty of business associates far wealthier than all but the richest celebrities and they don't suffer this affliction. You also won't see many wealthy company executives holding press conferences or turning their latest speech into a political lecture. This affliction, while extending to the music world and a lesser extent to the professional athlete maybe has another component. I will speculate that many (NOT ALL, so don't get in a hissy) actors really don't struggle or work all that hard at what they do. When they do finally make it to the double digit millions per film lets face it the several months spent making a movie is an experience many would pay money for. So maybe its also coupled to a subconscious guilt that you know your being paid an insane amount of money for really a silly endeavor.

Chevy Chase is the latest to go off the deep end....although his celebrity and net worth these days is probably on the extreme low end of this affliction....maybe he thinks he is still a super star and wealthy so one delusion feeds the other. On Tuesday Chase gave an F bomb tirade about our president at an awards ceremony staged by People for the American Way. Apparently many in attendance were taken aback by this and thought it inappropriate. That's interesting since the "People for the American Way" should really be called "People for changing the American Way to Something Not American" You only need to know that during the event Susan Sarandon and Alec Baldwin were given Defender of Democracy awards. Ah, are you people smoking crack? Anyway a way funny parody interview with Chevy Chase inspired by his very intellectual tirade.