Abortion and Mental Health
Big news from the world of psychiatry: When you kill your child you are likely to become bummed out, or depressed as we say in Greentown.
A study published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry has found that women who have abortions are more likely to suffer psychological problems than those who don't.
"Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors and substance use disorders," reports David Fergusson, a scientist at New Zealand's Christchurch School of Medicine & Health Science.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/26/151524.shtml?s=ic
See, to me this is like a study that would find that when people have a leg amputated... they walk with a limp.
Oh really!
Some would place this malady at the feet of pro-lifers whose efforts to save fetuses might cause these women pause. But I thinnk it goes back to something as basic as say... maternal instinct? The guilt these ladies feel is born of a conscience that often rears its head when we commit an ugly act.
For me a more interesting study would be follow these same women and see if the ones who subsequently have a religious experience, repent and reject this form of birth control... see if they have better mental health.
Monday, February 27, 2006
The Second Amendment is Not for Sportsmen
Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at the National Wild Turkey Foundation annual convention and said:
"The attitude of people associating guns with nothing but crime, that is what has to be changed," Scalia told the audience of about 2,000.
"I grew up at a time when people were not afraid of people with firearms," said Scalia, noting that as a youth in New York City he was part of a rifle team at the military school he attended.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/26/164213.shtml?s=ic
That's fine Judge, but you might have mentioned that the founding fathers were not all that interested in shooting for sport. They understood that a well-armed society was a free society... free from tyrants both foreign and domestic.
We don't talk about it much in this country, but there may come a day when our freedom will depend upon another American Revolution. The founding fathers understood this better than we do today.
The Federal Government has, step by step, taken from the states the powers guaranteed to them by the 10th amendment. The Judicial Branch, the Congress, and the Executive Branch have all shown an incredible hunger for power and centralized authority.
You see, the second amendment is not about sportsmen. It's not just about maintaining a militia because that could be accomplished without our right to keep and bear arms. To understand the thinking behind this amendment, all you have to do is ask the question, "Why would the government choose to make a law that infringes on a law abiding citizen's right to own a gun?" Hmm?
I believe the founding fathers knew that freedom was fragile and feared this very thing. Perhaps they thought their children or their children's children might one day have to talk a little treason in order to secure their liberty. Is it that hard to imagine? It was none other than Thomas Jefferson who suggested that an occasional revolution was good for democracy.
So the next time the Supreme Court strikes down a state law because they've invented another clause in their "living constitution..."
...the next time Congress raises your taxes so that they can purchase a few votes... support a foreign country that hates us... or fund the healthcare and education of illegal aliens...
...the next time the ATF assassinates an innocent women with her baby in her arms...
Remember that the spirit of King George is alive and well and now operates in Washington. So be a good citizen. Write to your congressman... and buy a gun. I suggest you do it before the Supreme Court invents a reason to outlaw them.
Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at the National Wild Turkey Foundation annual convention and said:
"The attitude of people associating guns with nothing but crime, that is what has to be changed," Scalia told the audience of about 2,000.
"I grew up at a time when people were not afraid of people with firearms," said Scalia, noting that as a youth in New York City he was part of a rifle team at the military school he attended.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/26/164213.shtml?s=ic
That's fine Judge, but you might have mentioned that the founding fathers were not all that interested in shooting for sport. They understood that a well-armed society was a free society... free from tyrants both foreign and domestic.
We don't talk about it much in this country, but there may come a day when our freedom will depend upon another American Revolution. The founding fathers understood this better than we do today.
The Federal Government has, step by step, taken from the states the powers guaranteed to them by the 10th amendment. The Judicial Branch, the Congress, and the Executive Branch have all shown an incredible hunger for power and centralized authority.
You see, the second amendment is not about sportsmen. It's not just about maintaining a militia because that could be accomplished without our right to keep and bear arms. To understand the thinking behind this amendment, all you have to do is ask the question, "Why would the government choose to make a law that infringes on a law abiding citizen's right to own a gun?" Hmm?
I believe the founding fathers knew that freedom was fragile and feared this very thing. Perhaps they thought their children or their children's children might one day have to talk a little treason in order to secure their liberty. Is it that hard to imagine? It was none other than Thomas Jefferson who suggested that an occasional revolution was good for democracy.
So the next time the Supreme Court strikes down a state law because they've invented another clause in their "living constitution..."
...the next time Congress raises your taxes so that they can purchase a few votes... support a foreign country that hates us... or fund the healthcare and education of illegal aliens...
...the next time the ATF assassinates an innocent women with her baby in her arms...
Remember that the spirit of King George is alive and well and now operates in Washington. So be a good citizen. Write to your congressman... and buy a gun. I suggest you do it before the Supreme Court invents a reason to outlaw them.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
The Latest Immigration Legislation
McCain, considered a maverick Republican for opinions often differing from many GOP lawmakers, has just kicked off a national campaign promoting his new legislation co-authored with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
Their bi-partisan proposal would allow illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. legally as ''guest workers," having the opportunity to earn U.S. citizenship.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48982
Whenever I see a Republican cozying up to a national joke and embarrassment like Teddy Kennedy, the red flags appear instantly and I immediately wonder why anyone, let alone a Republican that seeks national office, would pursue such an association. I can only assume that McCain has spent a little too much time with Hollywood types who are old enough to remember when the Kennedy name still held its ridiculously unwarranted mystique. Poor clueless John.
Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado evidently failed to receive the memo which explained how our government had surrendered to Mexico (pronounced me-hee-ko) and wants to debate McCain on this issue. He states:
Your (McCain's and Teddy's) plan has its fans among big business. They want to continue reaping profits from cheap, low-skill labor while passing on social service costs of that labor to the taxpayer. They cloak their desire for open borders in their demand for one more amnesty, knowing full well that rewarding illegal behavior merely encourages more of the same.
Tancredo also has said:
It will not only encourage illegal immigration, but it will tell every single person who has done it the right way, who has waited in line, who has paid the fees, who has hired the lawyers, who has spent five or ten years trying to coming in, it's telling them they're nothing but suckers.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/tancredo.php
Well they are suckers, Tom. They've been reading too many books about America that were written back when we were a nation that respected laws.
As our country rapidly morphs into something very different from what we grew up in, and as our culture takes on an identity grounded in nothing, let's all give credit where credit is due... to those undaunted multiculturalist liberals and their leished fools like John McCain, who see nothing all that special about this country and recognize no advantage in preserving its unique character... that they never really liked anyway.
McCain, considered a maverick Republican for opinions often differing from many GOP lawmakers, has just kicked off a national campaign promoting his new legislation co-authored with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
Their bi-partisan proposal would allow illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. legally as ''guest workers," having the opportunity to earn U.S. citizenship.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48982
Whenever I see a Republican cozying up to a national joke and embarrassment like Teddy Kennedy, the red flags appear instantly and I immediately wonder why anyone, let alone a Republican that seeks national office, would pursue such an association. I can only assume that McCain has spent a little too much time with Hollywood types who are old enough to remember when the Kennedy name still held its ridiculously unwarranted mystique. Poor clueless John.
Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado evidently failed to receive the memo which explained how our government had surrendered to Mexico (pronounced me-hee-ko) and wants to debate McCain on this issue. He states:
Your (McCain's and Teddy's) plan has its fans among big business. They want to continue reaping profits from cheap, low-skill labor while passing on social service costs of that labor to the taxpayer. They cloak their desire for open borders in their demand for one more amnesty, knowing full well that rewarding illegal behavior merely encourages more of the same.
Tancredo also has said:
It will not only encourage illegal immigration, but it will tell every single person who has done it the right way, who has waited in line, who has paid the fees, who has hired the lawyers, who has spent five or ten years trying to coming in, it's telling them they're nothing but suckers.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/tancredo.php
Well they are suckers, Tom. They've been reading too many books about America that were written back when we were a nation that respected laws.
As our country rapidly morphs into something very different from what we grew up in, and as our culture takes on an identity grounded in nothing, let's all give credit where credit is due... to those undaunted multiculturalist liberals and their leished fools like John McCain, who see nothing all that special about this country and recognize no advantage in preserving its unique character... that they never really liked anyway.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Reasonable Businesmen
From the CEO of Dubai Ports World:
"The reaction in the United States has occurred in no other country in the world," the company's chief operating officer, Ted Bilkey, said in a statement. "We need to understand the concerns of the people in the U.S. who are worried about this transaction and make sure that they are addressed to the benefit of all parties. Security is everybody's business."
Now this Arab, Ted Bilkey, evidently is not the kind of Arab you've seen on TV lately. Seriously, I can't imagine how this corporation could be more reasonable and understanding. They are giving us time to check them out, and if they are open and forthcoming this should allay the fears of all but those who are politically motivated.
My understanding is that their government has been an ally in the war on terror. Our naval vessels use their ports and our military aircraft use their airports. True, the government recognized the Taliban prior to 9/11 and two of the hijackers were from this country, but the UAE has since been one of the few friends that we have in the region.
Besides, we are not turning the job of security over to these people. That job will still be in the hands of the United States Government and the people working the docks will still be Americans.
Why spit in the eye of an ally unnecessarily? We shouldn't discriminate against good people just because their name is Achbar, Mahmoud, or Ted.
Update:
Thanks to AICS at The Logic Lifeline, I have this by Krauthammer to recommend:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_24_06_CK.html
From the CEO of Dubai Ports World:
"The reaction in the United States has occurred in no other country in the world," the company's chief operating officer, Ted Bilkey, said in a statement. "We need to understand the concerns of the people in the U.S. who are worried about this transaction and make sure that they are addressed to the benefit of all parties. Security is everybody's business."
Now this Arab, Ted Bilkey, evidently is not the kind of Arab you've seen on TV lately. Seriously, I can't imagine how this corporation could be more reasonable and understanding. They are giving us time to check them out, and if they are open and forthcoming this should allay the fears of all but those who are politically motivated.
My understanding is that their government has been an ally in the war on terror. Our naval vessels use their ports and our military aircraft use their airports. True, the government recognized the Taliban prior to 9/11 and two of the hijackers were from this country, but the UAE has since been one of the few friends that we have in the region.
Besides, we are not turning the job of security over to these people. That job will still be in the hands of the United States Government and the people working the docks will still be Americans.
Why spit in the eye of an ally unnecessarily? We shouldn't discriminate against good people just because their name is Achbar, Mahmoud, or Ted.
Update:
Thanks to AICS at The Logic Lifeline, I have this by Krauthammer to recommend:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_24_06_CK.html
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Bachelor Tip for February
Yes, I've decided that as a public service I will give one tip to young bachelors each month. (Who better than I?) After all I've been on my own for a long long time and I've learned the ropes, mostly through trial and error. So here is my inaugural tip for bachelors, sure to improve their lives and chances for survival into old age:
Vacuum Quarterly.
Should I vacuum sooner if I can actually see dirt? Yes. But let's say you have Dorito crumbs in front of your La-Z-Boy. Don't vacuum, just pick them up.
You see, many people, mostly neurotic women, make the mistake of vacuuming once (or even twice) a month. My theory is that this only serves to wear out your carpeting... which is very very bad. Also vacuuming may be harmful to your lower back and over-vacuuming is just asking for back trouble... and no one wants that.
What if it's been three months and I still can't see the dirt? Use your best judgement. Vacuuming quarterly is just a handy guideline.
Well that's it! In March I'll have some practical tips on how often you really need to wash your clothes.
Yes, I've decided that as a public service I will give one tip to young bachelors each month. (Who better than I?) After all I've been on my own for a long long time and I've learned the ropes, mostly through trial and error. So here is my inaugural tip for bachelors, sure to improve their lives and chances for survival into old age:
Vacuum Quarterly.
Should I vacuum sooner if I can actually see dirt? Yes. But let's say you have Dorito crumbs in front of your La-Z-Boy. Don't vacuum, just pick them up.
You see, many people, mostly neurotic women, make the mistake of vacuuming once (or even twice) a month. My theory is that this only serves to wear out your carpeting... which is very very bad. Also vacuuming may be harmful to your lower back and over-vacuuming is just asking for back trouble... and no one wants that.
What if it's been three months and I still can't see the dirt? Use your best judgement. Vacuuming quarterly is just a handy guideline.
Well that's it! In March I'll have some practical tips on how often you really need to wash your clothes.
Douth Dakota's Abortion Ban
South Dakota's state senate voted on Wednesday for an abortion ban aimed at giving the conservative-tilting Supreme Court an opening to overturn rulings granting women the right to the procedure.
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060223/2006-02-23T004814Z_01_N22531791_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RIGHTS-ABORTION-DC.html
Fine. But barring a miracle worked on the heart of Justice Kennedy there are not enough votes on the Supreme Court to strike down Roe. While I believe abortion laws should me made by state legislatures and not by any branch of the federal government... timing is everything on this contentious issue.
Will this "going nowhere" law in South Dakota give ammunition to pro-abortion groups and reinvigorate them? Yes. Will it inspire the "pro-Roe" Justice Stevens to hold off on his retirement for a Democrat or a more liberal Republican president? Well, we can hope not. Scratch that. We can pray not. This is definitely a matter for prayer.
My personal belief is that, with the present members on the Court, an incremental step would have been much more effective and revealed more of the present member's leanings. My guess is that the law will be struck down by a lower federal court and the Supreme Court, at this time, will refuse to hear it.
I'm sure abortion is here to stay in the blue states. But without Roe, laws and attitudes... and hearts... are more free to be changed in the red states. I pray the Lord gives our side the wisdom necessary to get the job done.
South Dakota's state senate voted on Wednesday for an abortion ban aimed at giving the conservative-tilting Supreme Court an opening to overturn rulings granting women the right to the procedure.
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060223/2006-02-23T004814Z_01_N22531791_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RIGHTS-ABORTION-DC.html
Fine. But barring a miracle worked on the heart of Justice Kennedy there are not enough votes on the Supreme Court to strike down Roe. While I believe abortion laws should me made by state legislatures and not by any branch of the federal government... timing is everything on this contentious issue.
Will this "going nowhere" law in South Dakota give ammunition to pro-abortion groups and reinvigorate them? Yes. Will it inspire the "pro-Roe" Justice Stevens to hold off on his retirement for a Democrat or a more liberal Republican president? Well, we can hope not. Scratch that. We can pray not. This is definitely a matter for prayer.
My personal belief is that, with the present members on the Court, an incremental step would have been much more effective and revealed more of the present member's leanings. My guess is that the law will be struck down by a lower federal court and the Supreme Court, at this time, will refuse to hear it.
I'm sure abortion is here to stay in the blue states. But without Roe, laws and attitudes... and hearts... are more free to be changed in the red states. I pray the Lord gives our side the wisdom necessary to get the job done.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Clinton's Wiretaps
Back in the 90's when terrorism reared its ugly head in New York with the World Trade Center bombing and the attempted bombing of the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, Bill Clinton was on the job collecting information about terrorists. This huge Clinton surveillance scheme was VAAPCON, the Violence Against Abortion Providers Task Force.
Front Page Mag has a story by Lowell Ponte that might strike fear in the hearts of those who shared personal problems or sins with Roman Catholic Cardinal of New York John O’Connor... because Bill was listening.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21387
According to the U.S. Justice Department, VAAPCON “was charged with determining whether there was a nationwide conspiracy to commit acts of violence against reproductive health care providers.” The more than 900 targets of all this surveillance included the Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Women’s Coalition for Life, Feminists for Life, Americans United for Life, the 600,000-member Concerned Women for America, the National Rifle Association, the American Life League, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and even then-Roman Catholic Cardinal of New York John O’Connor.
Back in the 90's when terrorism reared its ugly head in New York with the World Trade Center bombing and the attempted bombing of the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, Bill Clinton was on the job collecting information about terrorists. This huge Clinton surveillance scheme was VAAPCON, the Violence Against Abortion Providers Task Force.
Front Page Mag has a story by Lowell Ponte that might strike fear in the hearts of those who shared personal problems or sins with Roman Catholic Cardinal of New York John O’Connor... because Bill was listening.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21387
According to the U.S. Justice Department, VAAPCON “was charged with determining whether there was a nationwide conspiracy to commit acts of violence against reproductive health care providers.” The more than 900 targets of all this surveillance included the Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Women’s Coalition for Life, Feminists for Life, Americans United for Life, the 600,000-member Concerned Women for America, the National Rifle Association, the American Life League, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and even then-Roman Catholic Cardinal of New York John O’Connor.
VAAPCON was also designed to help enforce FACE, the Clintons’ 1994 law called the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. FACE is a peculiarly anti-First Amendment law that denies the right to free speech to certain groups but not others. Union protestors could legally block an abortion clinic access with a picket line while carrying signs that read: “Abortion Workers on Strike for Higher Wages! Local 69, AFL-CIO.” But those same protestors could be arrested and imprisoned if their signs read, “Mothers, think twice before aborting your baby.”
“To put VAAPCON in perspective,” wrote investigative reporter Jack Cashill, “imagine the Bush administration targeting the Sierra Club, Robert Kennedy Jr., and Al Gore to deal with the issue of the Unabomber or environmentalist violence in general.”
In fact, such Bush spying might be less outrageous. When the Unabomber was apprehended, authorities found Al Gore’s anti-capitalist book Earth In The Balance by his bedside, heavily underlined. Democratic Congressman Bob Filner of California in one radio interview was unable to distinguish quotes from the Unabomber Manifesto and Gore’s ideological writing.
The entire article is worth your time. Ponte ends by writing:
Until leftist leaders speak out against VAAPCON and the Clintons’ other government surveillance activities aimed mostly at Christian groups, it is hard to take seriously their alarmist statements about today’s purportedly excessive government monitoring of international telephone calls that include Islamofascist terrorists.
Secular and Religious Fascism
On 9/11 the civilized, educated Muslim world sat silent, probably enjoying just a bit the West being hit so brutally. But now they are the ones under the gun in the Middle East where government by mob is becoming the law of the day and the list of extremist Muslim restrictions on free speech increases each day. Journalists are facing trial in a time where holding a second opinion might lead to their death. Any influence reasonable Muslims had in this region is quickly being ceded to those who will gladly embrace a religious police-state.
Our country has watched this kind of thing before and delayed acting until the cost of action was tragically high. The secular Fascism of Hitler grew out of control and was the cause of enormous death and suffering. In the Middle East the juggernaut of Religious Fascism threatens to do the same.
Just as during the Cold War, today Liberals love to dream that evil can be thwarted with the right words and that mankind can rise above its darker, ugly side with just the right coaxing. But it's the hawkish, conservative leaders that lead us through the storms... and all those brave young men... and women.
On 9/11 the civilized, educated Muslim world sat silent, probably enjoying just a bit the West being hit so brutally. But now they are the ones under the gun in the Middle East where government by mob is becoming the law of the day and the list of extremist Muslim restrictions on free speech increases each day. Journalists are facing trial in a time where holding a second opinion might lead to their death. Any influence reasonable Muslims had in this region is quickly being ceded to those who will gladly embrace a religious police-state.
Our country has watched this kind of thing before and delayed acting until the cost of action was tragically high. The secular Fascism of Hitler grew out of control and was the cause of enormous death and suffering. In the Middle East the juggernaut of Religious Fascism threatens to do the same.
Just as during the Cold War, today Liberals love to dream that evil can be thwarted with the right words and that mankind can rise above its darker, ugly side with just the right coaxing. But it's the hawkish, conservative leaders that lead us through the storms... and all those brave young men... and women.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
The United Arab Emirates and Our Security
So globalization has surfaced in the form of Dubai Ports World which is buying the British company (Peninsular and Oriental) which runs many big US ports. DPW has been described as a state-owned (U.A.E.) firm run like a private corporation. From what I've read this private transaction between DPW and P&O would leave Americans and Brits working and managing the ports in question with the American government in charge of security.
More importantly for me, with George Bush's record on fighting terrorism I trust his administration to make the right call here.
But...
Politically this transaction is a loser for whoever supports it. You could explain and reassure till you're blue in the face and it is still going to be used as a political football. As soon as I heard the Democrats climb onto this so-called "security issue" I knew the games had begun. The Dems are aching to look tough on a security issue... any security issue... and since reality is not an important element of their rhetoric this port situation will do just fine. Republicans in Congress have seen the writing on the wall and are following suit.
So stick a fork in it.
So globalization has surfaced in the form of Dubai Ports World which is buying the British company (Peninsular and Oriental) which runs many big US ports. DPW has been described as a state-owned (U.A.E.) firm run like a private corporation. From what I've read this private transaction between DPW and P&O would leave Americans and Brits working and managing the ports in question with the American government in charge of security.
More importantly for me, with George Bush's record on fighting terrorism I trust his administration to make the right call here.
But...
Politically this transaction is a loser for whoever supports it. You could explain and reassure till you're blue in the face and it is still going to be used as a political football. As soon as I heard the Democrats climb onto this so-called "security issue" I knew the games had begun. The Dems are aching to look tough on a security issue... any security issue... and since reality is not an important element of their rhetoric this port situation will do just fine. Republicans in Congress have seen the writing on the wall and are following suit.
So stick a fork in it.
Monday, February 20, 2006
My Favorite Presidents on President's Day
I'm not a historian, (or an historian as we'd say in Greentown) but these are my FAVORITES:
1) George Washington... He had bad teeth which is probably why he never smiled in his pictures. Great leader... a man of prayer... Just what we needed at the time.
2) Ronald Reagan... Best president of the 20th century. Saved us from a second term with Jimmy Carter... made the word "Conservative" respectable again and forever linked it with common sense and a strong defense... saved the economy with his tax cuts... and he won the Cold War.
3) Andrew Jackson... He married Susan Hayward in "The President's Lady" and teamed up with Yul Brynner in "The Buccaneer" (and he looked a lot like Moses who coincidentally also starred with Yul Brynner in the Ten Commandments)
The real Jackson was a warrior and a man's man... and he stood up to the Supreme Court when he said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" (Dang! I love this guy!)
Abraham Lincoln... He freed the slaves and led the nation through its darkest hours... and was so kind when he shared his apple with Shirley Temple in "The Littlest Rebel."
5) Theodore Roosevelt... He was a great leader and a great and colorful (and hugely popular) 20th century president... though I always thought he looked Japanese in those glasses in the old news reels. But whenever I hear his name I think of "Arsenic and Old Lace." Charge!
HONORABLE MENTION:
George "W" Bush... Not a true conservative, but he does seem to get the big issues right. And he defeated, and thus saved us from, two of the poorest war-time candidates for the presidency that have ever stood behind a lectern.
MOST OVERRATED:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt... Father of the welfare state. At Yalta he gave away half of Europe to Stalin, which paved the way for so much suffering. He is mistakenly given credit for leading us out of the Great Depression when actually that was accomplished by pilots from Japan.
John Kennedy... Twiddled his fingers as the Berlin Wall went up... ("Ich bin ein Berliner..." Yeah right)... Failed to support the freedom fighters in "The Bay of Pigs" slaughter... Then when his past weakness precipitated the missile crisis... and his spine finally stiffened...he almost stumbled into World War III.
WORST:
James Earl Carter... America didn't know what malaise was until Carter. Panama Canal give-away... Hostages in Iran... Double-digit interest rates and double-digit inflation... High taxes... and not a clue... Gloom. I'm sure there is more but I've no doubt blocked it out.
Bill Clinton... And just where do you begin with this national embarrassment?
Note: All the movies listed above are great movies which you must see... my favorite being "The President's Lady."
I'm not a historian, (or an historian as we'd say in Greentown) but these are my FAVORITES:
1) George Washington... He had bad teeth which is probably why he never smiled in his pictures. Great leader... a man of prayer... Just what we needed at the time.
2) Ronald Reagan... Best president of the 20th century. Saved us from a second term with Jimmy Carter... made the word "Conservative" respectable again and forever linked it with common sense and a strong defense... saved the economy with his tax cuts... and he won the Cold War.
3) Andrew Jackson... He married Susan Hayward in "The President's Lady" and teamed up with Yul Brynner in "The Buccaneer" (and he looked a lot like Moses who coincidentally also starred with Yul Brynner in the Ten Commandments)
The real Jackson was a warrior and a man's man... and he stood up to the Supreme Court when he said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" (Dang! I love this guy!)
Abraham Lincoln... He freed the slaves and led the nation through its darkest hours... and was so kind when he shared his apple with Shirley Temple in "The Littlest Rebel."
5) Theodore Roosevelt... He was a great leader and a great and colorful (and hugely popular) 20th century president... though I always thought he looked Japanese in those glasses in the old news reels. But whenever I hear his name I think of "Arsenic and Old Lace." Charge!
HONORABLE MENTION:
George "W" Bush... Not a true conservative, but he does seem to get the big issues right. And he defeated, and thus saved us from, two of the poorest war-time candidates for the presidency that have ever stood behind a lectern.
MOST OVERRATED:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt... Father of the welfare state. At Yalta he gave away half of Europe to Stalin, which paved the way for so much suffering. He is mistakenly given credit for leading us out of the Great Depression when actually that was accomplished by pilots from Japan.
John Kennedy... Twiddled his fingers as the Berlin Wall went up... ("Ich bin ein Berliner..." Yeah right)... Failed to support the freedom fighters in "The Bay of Pigs" slaughter... Then when his past weakness precipitated the missile crisis... and his spine finally stiffened...he almost stumbled into World War III.
WORST:
James Earl Carter... America didn't know what malaise was until Carter. Panama Canal give-away... Hostages in Iran... Double-digit interest rates and double-digit inflation... High taxes... and not a clue... Gloom. I'm sure there is more but I've no doubt blocked it out.
Bill Clinton... And just where do you begin with this national embarrassment?
Note: All the movies listed above are great movies which you must see... my favorite being "The President's Lady."
Iran's Threat and the Americas
Peter Heck, whose web site I highly recommend you bookmark, has an interesting piece that discusses the threat that a nuclear Iran poses for our hemisphere, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons into Venezuela and Cuba, pronounced "koo' ba." You can find Mr Heck's post here:
http://peterheck.com/betasite/fullBlog.php?entry=94
And, if you check out the featured audio you can listen to his radio show. Enjoy!
Peter Heck, whose web site I highly recommend you bookmark, has an interesting piece that discusses the threat that a nuclear Iran poses for our hemisphere, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons into Venezuela and Cuba, pronounced "koo' ba." You can find Mr Heck's post here:
http://peterheck.com/betasite/fullBlog.php?entry=94
And, if you check out the featured audio you can listen to his radio show. Enjoy!
Muslim Sensitivities
Yes the Muslims are a sensitive lot. Much has been said recently about how the press wishes to avoid hurt feelings by not publishing the infamous cartoons that caused the "cartoon riots," and that precipitated the death threats made by these poor sensitive Muslims. These are the same simple, sensitive folk that celebrated 9/11 and then bought videos of the event so they could re-live that day. Yes, this magic, colorful religion of suicide bombings, gang rapes, and beheadings has produced some of the most sensitive people on the planet.
But when these meek, gentle people possess nuclear weapons and turn Tel Aviv into a cinder, will it hurt their feelings if we retaliate? If we level Tehran will it cast a gloom over the Muslim world? Have we sufficient stockpiles of anti-depressants and mood elevators to treat so many sensitive people who are culturally prone to hurt feelings and being downcast?
Some would say that loving your neighbor and blessing those that persecute you... and turning the other cheek... is meant to be applied on a personal level and has no bearing on the actions of governments in their self-defense. But was Jesus aware of how sensitive these people are?
Yes the Muslims are a sensitive lot. Much has been said recently about how the press wishes to avoid hurt feelings by not publishing the infamous cartoons that caused the "cartoon riots," and that precipitated the death threats made by these poor sensitive Muslims. These are the same simple, sensitive folk that celebrated 9/11 and then bought videos of the event so they could re-live that day. Yes, this magic, colorful religion of suicide bombings, gang rapes, and beheadings has produced some of the most sensitive people on the planet.
But when these meek, gentle people possess nuclear weapons and turn Tel Aviv into a cinder, will it hurt their feelings if we retaliate? If we level Tehran will it cast a gloom over the Muslim world? Have we sufficient stockpiles of anti-depressants and mood elevators to treat so many sensitive people who are culturally prone to hurt feelings and being downcast?
Some would say that loving your neighbor and blessing those that persecute you... and turning the other cheek... is meant to be applied on a personal level and has no bearing on the actions of governments in their self-defense. But was Jesus aware of how sensitive these people are?
Friday, February 17, 2006
Liberals, Famous Muslim Comedic Legends, and Free Speech
...then Abou says to Mahmoud, "So how many virgins does it take to have a respectable Jihad?"
Yes, who hasn't had a good belly-laugh at this classic punch line. But Islam isn't just light-hearted fun. No, lately it has shined a light on the inconsistencies of the liberal's notion of free speech.
Liberals love free speech. Well, they love the free speech that they love. They love it when it involves the hate-filled demonstrations against the Bush Administration, but not when it is what they call hate-speech on a college campus. They loved the "P_ss Christ," but they don't publish the Danish Mohammed cartoons, even though a major news story of the day revolves around these drawings.
That shy and demure little wisp of a woman, Ann Coulter has a new article which the Left would no doubt call hate speech. She calls the enemies of the civilized world derogatory names. For Ann this is an uncharacteristic departure into the land of sarcasm and political incorrectness. Perhaps it was something she ate.
Nonetheless, I will not be a party to the publicizing or circulating of this ribald, vulgar, and insensitive piece. You can find it here: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2006/02/15/186732.html
...then Abou says to Mahmoud, "So how many virgins does it take to have a respectable Jihad?"
Yes, who hasn't had a good belly-laugh at this classic punch line. But Islam isn't just light-hearted fun. No, lately it has shined a light on the inconsistencies of the liberal's notion of free speech.
Liberals love free speech. Well, they love the free speech that they love. They love it when it involves the hate-filled demonstrations against the Bush Administration, but not when it is what they call hate-speech on a college campus. They loved the "P_ss Christ," but they don't publish the Danish Mohammed cartoons, even though a major news story of the day revolves around these drawings.
That shy and demure little wisp of a woman, Ann Coulter has a new article which the Left would no doubt call hate speech. She calls the enemies of the civilized world derogatory names. For Ann this is an uncharacteristic departure into the land of sarcasm and political incorrectness. Perhaps it was something she ate.
Nonetheless, I will not be a party to the publicizing or circulating of this ribald, vulgar, and insensitive piece. You can find it here: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2006/02/15/186732.html
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
The Altar of Multiculturalism
I may die of old age before my small town sees its first mosque. Forgive me, but that would suit me just fine. I'm already ticked off that my bank machine requires an extra keystroke to choose between English and Spanish. I put money into a tax system that pays billions in healthcare and education costs for illegal aliens so that I can save 15 cents on the piece of fruit I buy at the grocery.
And I've got a snippet of reality for my congressman... There are groups of individuals that are coming to this country not to immigrate, but rather to colonize this land. There are cultures colonizing our country that are incompatible with our culture. Do you think maybe we should apply the brakes to immigration until we figure out where Europe went wrong?
My questionaire for immigrants...
1) Can you speak English?
2) Is your religion historically peaceful?
3) Do you have a college degree or a marketable skill?
That's a start... and by the way the answer to all the above would have to be in the affirmative to qualify for immigration. If a person comes to this country they should have something to offer this country. Something positive.
This is important because thousands of cars have been torched in France and Australia. It's important because in Sweden and Norway, once peaceful societies, there is an epidemic of savage rapes and violence commited by third world youths whose only contributions are births and a drain on the welfare system. It's important because Europeans are fleeing European cities.
In Detroit hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants refuse to speak English... nor do they embrace America’s culture and separate from their former countries and cultures. In the southwest millions of legal and illegal immigrants refuse to learn and speak English, expecting every tranactional experience to be translated into their language.
There is not even selective immigration allowed in China, Russia, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and most other countries for that matter. Are they suffering race riots, car burnings, a language crisis, and other such problems? No, these problems are reserved for the sophisticated, liberal countries of the West.
People who come to America should come because they want to be Americans. We speak and conduct business in English. We love our country and our culture.
I've got nephews and nieces. I want them to be able to raise their children in the same culture that I was raised in. I don't want their future sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism.
Look at Europe. Look around America. Multiculturalism doesn't work. It's time to deal with that fact.
I may die of old age before my small town sees its first mosque. Forgive me, but that would suit me just fine. I'm already ticked off that my bank machine requires an extra keystroke to choose between English and Spanish. I put money into a tax system that pays billions in healthcare and education costs for illegal aliens so that I can save 15 cents on the piece of fruit I buy at the grocery.
And I've got a snippet of reality for my congressman... There are groups of individuals that are coming to this country not to immigrate, but rather to colonize this land. There are cultures colonizing our country that are incompatible with our culture. Do you think maybe we should apply the brakes to immigration until we figure out where Europe went wrong?
My questionaire for immigrants...
1) Can you speak English?
2) Is your religion historically peaceful?
3) Do you have a college degree or a marketable skill?
That's a start... and by the way the answer to all the above would have to be in the affirmative to qualify for immigration. If a person comes to this country they should have something to offer this country. Something positive.
This is important because thousands of cars have been torched in France and Australia. It's important because in Sweden and Norway, once peaceful societies, there is an epidemic of savage rapes and violence commited by third world youths whose only contributions are births and a drain on the welfare system. It's important because Europeans are fleeing European cities.
In Detroit hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants refuse to speak English... nor do they embrace America’s culture and separate from their former countries and cultures. In the southwest millions of legal and illegal immigrants refuse to learn and speak English, expecting every tranactional experience to be translated into their language.
There is not even selective immigration allowed in China, Russia, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and most other countries for that matter. Are they suffering race riots, car burnings, a language crisis, and other such problems? No, these problems are reserved for the sophisticated, liberal countries of the West.
People who come to America should come because they want to be Americans. We speak and conduct business in English. We love our country and our culture.
I've got nephews and nieces. I want them to be able to raise their children in the same culture that I was raised in. I don't want their future sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism.
Look at Europe. Look around America. Multiculturalism doesn't work. It's time to deal with that fact.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Al Gore Makes Friends
Last Sunday Al Gore traveled to a foreign – and hostile – country to denounce his commander-in-chief who is fighting a War on Terror initiated by citizens and expatriates of that nation, Saudi Arabia. In a surprise moment of solidarity the former Vice President announced that he would be legally changing his name to Al Jazeera Gore in honor of the Arabic language television network, and terrorist sympathizing, Al Jazeera. Mr Gore stated, "I've never met Al Jazeera, but he and I obviously have a lot in common."
Monday, February 13, 2006
The Leftist Democrat's Democrat
In every organization there is a person who speaks and conducts himself as most everyone in that organization would... if only they were honest or had the guts. I think for the Democrat Base that man is former Attorney General Ramsey Clark.
Clark served in the Justice Department for the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations and was national president of the Federal Bar Association in 1964–65.
Clark is the Loony Left personified. His latest client, Saddam Hussein, is currently benefiting from Clark's legal skills. By serving America's enemies Clark embodies the spirit of the Left... that spirit that scoffs at honor and allegiance... that spirit that treats this country as a suspect... that spirit that sees nothing all that special about the United States.
You're a loon, Ramsey. But you do not engage in subterfuge... so you're an honest loon. You're more honest than Oily-Al Gore who trashes America in the homeland of the 9-11 terrorists. You're more honest than the New York Times who publishes its country's counter-terrorism tools, making them less effective and us less safe. You're more honest than all those who say they support the troops, while encouraging their enemies.
Kennedy Critical of Cheney for Not Reporting Hunting Accident
Senator Ted Kennedy expressed outrage that Vice President Dick Cheney waited 24 hours before reporting the hunting accident which injured Austin Lawyer Harry Whittington.
The Massachusetts Senator, speaking from his home on Sunday, suggested that the Vice President was trying to avoid taking responsibility for the shooting. He added, "Cheney will probably sober up on Monday, put on a neck brace, and claim that he was in shock."
Senator Ted Kennedy expressed outrage that Vice President Dick Cheney waited 24 hours before reporting the hunting accident which injured Austin Lawyer Harry Whittington.
The Massachusetts Senator, speaking from his home on Sunday, suggested that the Vice President was trying to avoid taking responsibility for the shooting. He added, "Cheney will probably sober up on Monday, put on a neck brace, and claim that he was in shock."
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Take My Wives... please!
In case you missed it, The Weekly Standard had an article about a Dutch man named De Bruijn and his bisexual wife who were part of a wedding ceremony which brought another bisexual woman into their marriage.
Stanley Kurtz writes in the WS:
More important, the De Bruijn wedding reveals a heretofore hidden dimension of the gay marriage phenomenon. The De Bruijns' triple marriage is a bisexual marriage. And, increasingly, bisexuality is emerging as a reason why legalized gay marriage is likely to result in legalized group marriage. If every sexual orientation has a right to construct its own form of marriage, then more changes are surely due. For what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group marriage is to bisexuality. The De Bruijn trio is the tip-off to the fact that a connection between bisexuality and the drive for multipartner marriage has been developing for some time.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp
Peter Heck's web site (which I highly recommend you bookmark) was the first site I saw that explored the highly bizarre possibilities that could arise from adjusting the traditional meaning of marriage. What I first thought was simply Mr Heck's hyperbole may instead prove to be prophetic.
The problem with a slippery slope is not the fall, but the momentum that quickly gathers.
In case you missed it, The Weekly Standard had an article about a Dutch man named De Bruijn and his bisexual wife who were part of a wedding ceremony which brought another bisexual woman into their marriage.
Stanley Kurtz writes in the WS:
More important, the De Bruijn wedding reveals a heretofore hidden dimension of the gay marriage phenomenon. The De Bruijns' triple marriage is a bisexual marriage. And, increasingly, bisexuality is emerging as a reason why legalized gay marriage is likely to result in legalized group marriage. If every sexual orientation has a right to construct its own form of marriage, then more changes are surely due. For what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group marriage is to bisexuality. The De Bruijn trio is the tip-off to the fact that a connection between bisexuality and the drive for multipartner marriage has been developing for some time.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp
Peter Heck's web site (which I highly recommend you bookmark) was the first site I saw that explored the highly bizarre possibilities that could arise from adjusting the traditional meaning of marriage. What I first thought was simply Mr Heck's hyperbole may instead prove to be prophetic.
The problem with a slippery slope is not the fall, but the momentum that quickly gathers.
Jimmy Carter's Selective Memory
Poor old Jimmy. After the nasty little spectacle he made at Mrs King's funeral, the Washinton Times turned up evidence that he practiced domestic surveillance himself.
Former President Jimmy Carter, who publicly rebuked President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program this week during the funeral of Coretta Scott King and at a campaign event, used similar surveillance against suspected spies.
...in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam. The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060210-110722-2189r.htm
Mr Carter, who has suffered with chronic malaise since the 70's should not... I repeat, should not be confronted by the mainstream media with this inconsistency.
Poor old Jimmy. After the nasty little spectacle he made at Mrs King's funeral, the Washinton Times turned up evidence that he practiced domestic surveillance himself.
Former President Jimmy Carter, who publicly rebuked President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program this week during the funeral of Coretta Scott King and at a campaign event, used similar surveillance against suspected spies.
...in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam. The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060210-110722-2189r.htm
Mr Carter, who has suffered with chronic malaise since the 70's should not... I repeat, should not be confronted by the mainstream media with this inconsistency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
