Yes, it is craptastic. But it is a deal and the dreaded "default" hanging on the United States like a sword of Damocles is lifted.
The highlights of the deal, such as they are, as follows:
An immediate cut of $1 trillion in government spending over a 10-year period.
A $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling.
And my personal favorite,
The creation of a committee to come up with additional cuts worth at least $1.5 trillion to be voted on by the end of the year
Lets take the last component of the deal. Just who will each party nominate to be on this super committee of congress? I expect the Democrats to pick the ones that will most object to serious cuts. But the Republicans, will they put any Tea Party congress members on this committee? Or are they going to put Porkster types? That is going to make a difference as to what happens down the road. And what kind of process of future cuts will be had? Will defense be cut to shreds, a Democrat dream? Or will cuts be equitable and across the board? It is what is the great unknown about this legislation. The Republicans need to put hard-liners in this committee to insure equitable across the board cuts will be done.
The debt ceiling gets hiked. Once again the limit on the United States credit card increases. And once again, something is wrong about this whole process. Because all public debt is included in what we owe rather than each individual debt, we are having this debate every time we pass a budget.
And the $900,000,000,000 in cuts take place over a period of 10 years. Again, one of the arguments the Tea Party folks were making is that cuts needed to be front loaded. It is not real clear if that is what is happening.
And no matter what, this is a huge win for the Tea Party. No bribes occurred to switch votes. They insisted on transparency and, while not perfect, much more than in previous years on major pieces of legislation. Think the so-called health care "reform" plan. And it will not pass unless there are no new taxes. And that appears to be the case.
Amazing how our legislative and executive branches work in such situations. Wait til the bitter end and we get stuck with a crap sandwich. It is not a way to run a nation. We will see if this was all worth it in the next several days.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Here We Conservatives Go Again Not Fighting The Real Enemy
I just do not understand this juvenile debate between certain conservatives about keeping people out of the movement because of disagreements over certain aspects of agenda.
I read that the American Conservative Union, sponsors of CPAC are not going to invite GOProud, a group of gay and lesbian, conservative Republicans, the annual confab next year.
And I ask why are we not including those that are with us in the general conservative movement?
The fact that I believe conservatives need to unite against the common political enemy, the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrats.
Do I agree with all aspects of what GOProud does?
NO!
Any regular reader of this blog knows that I strongly oppose the redefinition of marriage.
Yet when one looks at the the type of legislation that GOProud supports, I do not see same-sex marriage on the list.
And actually my disagreement is that they support the "Fair tax" as opposed to a flat tax. But by and large, it is a conservative agenda. I do not see anything that promotes the homosexual left agenda. Yes, they do support same-sex marriage, but so what?
But, some of my conservative brethren that are more socially conservative seem to not understand that having a natural ally that GOProud is on the outs somehow gains voters. These social conservatives seem to not understand that there are always going to be some disagreements on major issues.
But I submit this to my So. Con. friends.
Two candidates for office, one Democrat, one Republican.
The Democrat is pro-same sex marriage. Pro-abortion. Anti-prayer in public schools. Wanting to use schools to promote the left-wing socialist utopia. And wants massive tax hikes. Institute more social spending.
The Republican is on the opposite side of every issue except same-sex marriage. Oh, and he is gay.
Oh, and this can change the balance of power either in a city, county, state house or congress.
Really, would you either not vote or vote for the Democrat because you just can not vote for a gay man that you really agree with on most issues?
I would feel a helluva lot better voting for that candidate than I did voting for Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger twice.
Again, we need to focus on the big picture.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, and his allies are thrusting the left-wing homosexual agenda and many who are do not think that way. They believe in individual responsibility. They believe that less government is also a way to promote a more tolerate public. And I believe that as well.
I welcome all allies in the movement. The conservative movement. A movement to rid our Great Land of the plague that is the modern Democrat party and the leadership of one Barack Hussien Obama.
I want to win this time. With a really solid conservative at the top of the ticket. I want that to be the most electable conservative Republican possible. And we need to stop fighting each other. We just did that with the John Boehner crap sandwich deal. And it eventually won. But when it came down to it, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans supported the effort. Not perfect, but better than what would have passed under the Democrat leadership. And would have had tax increases.
Lets put aside this childishness and get together to agree where we can and look at the very big picture.
CPAC, let GOProud be a part of and a sponsor of CPAC in 2012
I read that the American Conservative Union, sponsors of CPAC are not going to invite GOProud, a group of gay and lesbian, conservative Republicans, the annual confab next year.
And I ask why are we not including those that are with us in the general conservative movement?
The fact that I believe conservatives need to unite against the common political enemy, the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrats.
Do I agree with all aspects of what GOProud does?
NO!
Any regular reader of this blog knows that I strongly oppose the redefinition of marriage.
Yet when one looks at the the type of legislation that GOProud supports, I do not see same-sex marriage on the list.
And actually my disagreement is that they support the "Fair tax" as opposed to a flat tax. But by and large, it is a conservative agenda. I do not see anything that promotes the homosexual left agenda. Yes, they do support same-sex marriage, but so what?
But, some of my conservative brethren that are more socially conservative seem to not understand that having a natural ally that GOProud is on the outs somehow gains voters. These social conservatives seem to not understand that there are always going to be some disagreements on major issues.
But I submit this to my So. Con. friends.
Two candidates for office, one Democrat, one Republican.
The Democrat is pro-same sex marriage. Pro-abortion. Anti-prayer in public schools. Wanting to use schools to promote the left-wing socialist utopia. And wants massive tax hikes. Institute more social spending.
The Republican is on the opposite side of every issue except same-sex marriage. Oh, and he is gay.
Oh, and this can change the balance of power either in a city, county, state house or congress.
Really, would you either not vote or vote for the Democrat because you just can not vote for a gay man that you really agree with on most issues?
I would feel a helluva lot better voting for that candidate than I did voting for Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger twice.
Again, we need to focus on the big picture.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, and his allies are thrusting the left-wing homosexual agenda and many who are do not think that way. They believe in individual responsibility. They believe that less government is also a way to promote a more tolerate public. And I believe that as well.
I welcome all allies in the movement. The conservative movement. A movement to rid our Great Land of the plague that is the modern Democrat party and the leadership of one Barack Hussien Obama.
I want to win this time. With a really solid conservative at the top of the ticket. I want that to be the most electable conservative Republican possible. And we need to stop fighting each other. We just did that with the John Boehner crap sandwich deal. And it eventually won. But when it came down to it, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans supported the effort. Not perfect, but better than what would have passed under the Democrat leadership. And would have had tax increases.
Lets put aside this childishness and get together to agree where we can and look at the very big picture.
CPAC, let GOProud be a part of and a sponsor of CPAC in 2012
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Its Time To Eat The Crap Sandwich
As much as it pains to write this, it is time for the Republicans in congress to man up, vote for the so-called Boehner Plan and eat the crap sandwich.
For now.
Something has to get out of the House to the senate and make the senate majority leader, Sen. Dingy Harry Reid (D-Nev.) do something. Yeah, the something is that he will simply table the bill no matter what.
There is a real problem that we need to address.
One is already mentioned and that is Sen. Dingy Harry.
And there is the most obvious. And that is the person of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Honestly, we who want to see fundamental change know it ain't gonna happen as long as these two problems are in the way.
But before that change occurs, we have to do the best that we can.
And that is the crap sandwich known as the Boehner Plan.
Now, if we are able to tweak it to front-load the budget cuts now and not 10 years down the road, that will make this a less crappy sandwich.
There is a lot of division among the House Republicans. And that is to be expected when we are talking of such a monumental piece of legislation. Tea Party Republicans are rightfully concerned that the Republican leadership will get hosed by the Democrat senate leadership and by that the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself.
A good thing is this scorecard by two writers over at The American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord and Quin Hilyer.
Now Mr. Lord is saying that all that he scores as against the crap sandwich are the Reaganesque people. The Tea Party. And that those for it are not.
Mr. Hilyer's list of those supporting the crap sandwich are also some very conservative and yes, Tea Party folks. Sorry Mr. Lord but you can not say that Congressman Allen West is now all establishment. How about Thomas Sowell? Oh, throw in another Tea Party member, Congressman Kristi Noem (R-SD). Think she is just buckling under pressure? And radio talker Laura Ingraham. There is no one on talk radio that can be more anti-establishment than she. Yet she realizes as I am beginning to that something needs to happen and now.
Now I do not share the hyperbole of William Kristol over at The Weekly Standard. No, if you are voting against the crap sandwich out of principle, your not voting with the Dear Leader, President Obama and or the Democrat House leader Nancy Pelosi. That is why some are opposed to the Boehner Plan as is. If they can get some more front-loaded budget cuts, is that not a major accomplishment? I am with them on that point.
I urge you fence sitters and or opponents to read this balanced editorial over at National Review Online. And this paragraph shows that the House freshmen and Tea Party folks have made a difference:
The Boehner plan, even in modified form, is surely not the sort of compromise House freshmen envisioned passing when they came to Washington. But they have already made a difference. Without them, a clean debt-limit increase or a Gang of Six deal would have likely passed Congress. Without them, there would be no spending cuts at all. But a plan that does everything we conservatives think necessary to secure our fiscal future cannot be enacted in today’s Washington. The election of Barack Obama in 2008, and the Democratic retention of the Senate in 2010, had consequences that continue to this day.
Yes, congress is talking budget cuts. That would not happen if Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats were still ruining the nation, er running the show in the House. And what is not mentioned in the editorial is NO TAX INCREASES. Those are two things that are happening and make it more imperative to get this deal, yes this crap sandwich deal, done.
There is an election in 2012 and other fights between the Democrats, Republicans and the White House.
I leave you with this.
No matter what, this vote is a victory for those of us that believe the course of the republic has been wrong for, oh at least 80 plus years of progressive policies. It is going to force these leftist Democrats to defend the failure of their wonderful programs. In fact, it already has.
We need to support this very, very imperfect Boehner Plan and eat this crap sandwich. Because there are more fights on the way and we need to be as engaged in those as we are in this.
For now.
Something has to get out of the House to the senate and make the senate majority leader, Sen. Dingy Harry Reid (D-Nev.) do something. Yeah, the something is that he will simply table the bill no matter what.
There is a real problem that we need to address.
One is already mentioned and that is Sen. Dingy Harry.
And there is the most obvious. And that is the person of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Honestly, we who want to see fundamental change know it ain't gonna happen as long as these two problems are in the way.
But before that change occurs, we have to do the best that we can.
And that is the crap sandwich known as the Boehner Plan.
Now, if we are able to tweak it to front-load the budget cuts now and not 10 years down the road, that will make this a less crappy sandwich.
There is a lot of division among the House Republicans. And that is to be expected when we are talking of such a monumental piece of legislation. Tea Party Republicans are rightfully concerned that the Republican leadership will get hosed by the Democrat senate leadership and by that the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself.
A good thing is this scorecard by two writers over at The American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord and Quin Hilyer.
Now Mr. Lord is saying that all that he scores as against the crap sandwich are the Reaganesque people. The Tea Party. And that those for it are not.
Mr. Hilyer's list of those supporting the crap sandwich are also some very conservative and yes, Tea Party folks. Sorry Mr. Lord but you can not say that Congressman Allen West is now all establishment. How about Thomas Sowell? Oh, throw in another Tea Party member, Congressman Kristi Noem (R-SD). Think she is just buckling under pressure? And radio talker Laura Ingraham. There is no one on talk radio that can be more anti-establishment than she. Yet she realizes as I am beginning to that something needs to happen and now.
Now I do not share the hyperbole of William Kristol over at The Weekly Standard. No, if you are voting against the crap sandwich out of principle, your not voting with the Dear Leader, President Obama and or the Democrat House leader Nancy Pelosi. That is why some are opposed to the Boehner Plan as is. If they can get some more front-loaded budget cuts, is that not a major accomplishment? I am with them on that point.
I urge you fence sitters and or opponents to read this balanced editorial over at National Review Online. And this paragraph shows that the House freshmen and Tea Party folks have made a difference:
The Boehner plan, even in modified form, is surely not the sort of compromise House freshmen envisioned passing when they came to Washington. But they have already made a difference. Without them, a clean debt-limit increase or a Gang of Six deal would have likely passed Congress. Without them, there would be no spending cuts at all. But a plan that does everything we conservatives think necessary to secure our fiscal future cannot be enacted in today’s Washington. The election of Barack Obama in 2008, and the Democratic retention of the Senate in 2010, had consequences that continue to this day.
Yes, congress is talking budget cuts. That would not happen if Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats were still ruining the nation, er running the show in the House. And what is not mentioned in the editorial is NO TAX INCREASES. Those are two things that are happening and make it more imperative to get this deal, yes this crap sandwich deal, done.
There is an election in 2012 and other fights between the Democrats, Republicans and the White House.
I leave you with this.
No matter what, this vote is a victory for those of us that believe the course of the republic has been wrong for, oh at least 80 plus years of progressive policies. It is going to force these leftist Democrats to defend the failure of their wonderful programs. In fact, it already has.
We need to support this very, very imperfect Boehner Plan and eat this crap sandwich. Because there are more fights on the way and we need to be as engaged in those as we are in this.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
They Said If I Voted For John McCain. . .
Well, it is not so much that I voted for Sen. John "F--- You" McCain for president.
No sir, I voted for the vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin.
But that ol' Sen. "F--- You" McCain is back and dumping on us Tea Party folks because, well darn it, we are not rolling over and playing games in the Great Budget, Debt and Deficit Summer Saga.
And of course in a flourish, our 2008 Republican presidential nominee took to the floor of the senate to deliver his thoughts on those of us that actually want to see the people we elect to office do what we want.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain made the point of saying that we, you know, the establishment elders, know better than you yay-hoos! Here is what Sen. "F--- You" McCain said according to The New York Times:
Mr. McCain assailed the conservative Republicans in the House who are threatening passage of the debt cutting plan by the House speaker, John A. Boehner, calling their political logic “bizarro” and noting sarcastically that they have only been in office a short time.
“Maybe some people who have only been in this body for six or seven months or so really believe that,” he said. “Others know better. Others know better.”
What others know better? The same nit-wits that ran your successful-wait, my bad!-unsuccessful presidential campaign? Maybe like your pal, John Weaver? Yeah, he has his hitch on the back of another real winner, the former governor of Utah and ambassador to Red China, John Huntsman, Jr. Hmm, how about all the winners that sniped the gal that saved you from a total blowout, Mrs. Palin? Oh wait. Maybe you mean. . .yourself!
Look, in the end, maybe the plan that Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has, for dealing with the Great Budget, Debt and Deficit Summer Saga is the best that the Republicans can get.
But all those of us are asking is to get the max out of it. The most budget cuts that we can on the front end. That taxes will not be raised. That we can not keep raising the debt ceiling with no consequence.
But instead of Sen. "F--- You" McCain, The Wall Street Journal editorial page and The Weekly Standard ready to cave and cut a deal, maybe they need to get the fact we need to get the most we can. That is what the Tea Party folks want.
A bad deal is bad for the country as a whole, not just the Republicans, the Democrats and even the Dear Leader, President Obama himself.
So, back to Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
Why did he take his time to dump on those that are supposed to be allies? Why did he not take the time to rail against the Democrats that are still holding on to the fantasy of tax hikes? And why did he dump on Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle? Is there any guarantee that if there were two other candidates there would be Republican senators from Delaware and Nevada? And what is the point of having a Republican if he, in the case of Delaware, would probably side with the Democrats?
Because it is all about the Mavericky, you see.
Over at The Other McCain, Stacy McCain says it all about his Crazy Cuz John in the headline.
While a deal sounds great in theory, if all it does is kick the can down the road, then it is a crappy deal. And that, Sen. "F--- You" McCain, is not what the Tea Party folks ran on. They ran on not cutting deals for the sake of cutting deals.
This is way too important to just cut a deal so that maybe, maybe, the Obamawhore media won't dump on the GOP. So that the Democrats won't dump on the GOP. We have to get it right as best as we can. So excuse us if we are trying to do just that.
And remember, my friends, don't blame me! I voted for Palin!
No sir, I voted for the vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin.
But that ol' Sen. "F--- You" McCain is back and dumping on us Tea Party folks because, well darn it, we are not rolling over and playing games in the Great Budget, Debt and Deficit Summer Saga.
And of course in a flourish, our 2008 Republican presidential nominee took to the floor of the senate to deliver his thoughts on those of us that actually want to see the people we elect to office do what we want.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain made the point of saying that we, you know, the establishment elders, know better than you yay-hoos! Here is what Sen. "F--- You" McCain said according to The New York Times:
Mr. McCain assailed the conservative Republicans in the House who are threatening passage of the debt cutting plan by the House speaker, John A. Boehner, calling their political logic “bizarro” and noting sarcastically that they have only been in office a short time.
“Maybe some people who have only been in this body for six or seven months or so really believe that,” he said. “Others know better. Others know better.”
What others know better? The same nit-wits that ran your successful-wait, my bad!-unsuccessful presidential campaign? Maybe like your pal, John Weaver? Yeah, he has his hitch on the back of another real winner, the former governor of Utah and ambassador to Red China, John Huntsman, Jr. Hmm, how about all the winners that sniped the gal that saved you from a total blowout, Mrs. Palin? Oh wait. Maybe you mean. . .yourself!
Look, in the end, maybe the plan that Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has, for dealing with the Great Budget, Debt and Deficit Summer Saga is the best that the Republicans can get.
But all those of us are asking is to get the max out of it. The most budget cuts that we can on the front end. That taxes will not be raised. That we can not keep raising the debt ceiling with no consequence.
But instead of Sen. "F--- You" McCain, The Wall Street Journal editorial page and The Weekly Standard ready to cave and cut a deal, maybe they need to get the fact we need to get the most we can. That is what the Tea Party folks want.
A bad deal is bad for the country as a whole, not just the Republicans, the Democrats and even the Dear Leader, President Obama himself.
So, back to Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
Why did he take his time to dump on those that are supposed to be allies? Why did he not take the time to rail against the Democrats that are still holding on to the fantasy of tax hikes? And why did he dump on Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle? Is there any guarantee that if there were two other candidates there would be Republican senators from Delaware and Nevada? And what is the point of having a Republican if he, in the case of Delaware, would probably side with the Democrats?
Because it is all about the Mavericky, you see.
Over at The Other McCain, Stacy McCain says it all about his Crazy Cuz John in the headline.
While a deal sounds great in theory, if all it does is kick the can down the road, then it is a crappy deal. And that, Sen. "F--- You" McCain, is not what the Tea Party folks ran on. They ran on not cutting deals for the sake of cutting deals.
This is way too important to just cut a deal so that maybe, maybe, the Obamawhore media won't dump on the GOP. So that the Democrats won't dump on the GOP. We have to get it right as best as we can. So excuse us if we are trying to do just that.
And remember, my friends, don't blame me! I voted for Palin!
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
More On The Norway Terror Attacks
One of the aspects of Friday's brutal terror attacks in Norway is this. The fact that while police and emergency personnel were diverted by the government building bombing, those nearby the main thrust of the attack were essentially begging for arms before launching an assault of Utoya Island.
According to the article in The New York Times, rank-and-file police do not carry weapons of any kind.
In fact, it is against the law for an officer to carry a weapon. Rank-and-file officers need to ask permission of the police chief to access any gun.
Imagine if there is a situation in which an officer needs to have a weapon and does not and there is a loss of life.
That is exactly what may have happened here.
Had police officer Trond Berntsen had a gun, he may have been able to stop the carnage of Anders Behring Breivak. Again, he may have but ended up being one of the first to die on Utoya Island.
But the aspect that is troubling is the fact that crime, especially violent crime, is on the rise in Norway.
And there are still those that want to bury their heads in the sand.
Take this from Johannes Knutsson, a professor of police research at the Norwegian Police University College:
“I would prefer to live in a society where police normally work unarmed. It is a very forceful and symbolic sign to the citizens that this is a peaceful society.”
And to the next Anders Behring Breivak, or an Islamic terror group, it is a sign of weakness.
While Prof. Knuttsson has a sentiment that fits more 1950s America than a 2011 much smaller world, it may be the prevailing view among many still in Norway.
Does that mean more of this kind of terror is on the rise? That is hard to say.
But one thing may change.
And that is the police will end up being armed. And with bullets in their guns.
It is the reality of this world. It is sad, but true. Norway will be part of a world that is no longer the same. And that is the tragedy of this event.
And on the flip side of that is this crazy gal, Susan Brooks Thiselthwaite.
Suzie thinks, wait for it, that Anders Behring Breivak was driven to his evil deed by. . .eeeeevvviiiiilllll right-wing Christianity!
Oh, for background, Suzie is an ordained pastor in the United Church of Christ. Hmm, who else is in the UCC? Oh yeah, the "Rev." Jeremiah Wright. The former head pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. And the one-time home church of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Read what Suzie writes. She does not refer to herself as a Christian. Its they or them. And she uses the information provided by a member of the Norwegian police force calling Mr. Breivak a "right-wing fundamentalist Christian". Never mind that he has no church, does not cite his own Christian belief anywhere in a 1,500 plus page tome on why he did what he did. If Suzie was not so busy indicting many fellow Christians, she would have noted this from the manifesto:
A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?
If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian (p. 1307).
Yeah, some blogger seemed to find this out from the manifesto. Why did Suzie not find this out?
Because Suzie wants you to know that so-called right-wing Christians are pure eeeeevvviiiiilllll! Facts be damned.
While many of us are condemned for thinking that Islamic terrorists may have been behind the attack, so should Susan Brooks Thiselthwaite for using tragedy to score in her mind points against her own fellows and their relationship with Jesus Christ.
Hopefully, some lessons will be learned and followed by all sides.
Police should be armed in Norway. We should not be quick to jump to the conclusion that an act of terror is the work of Islamic terrorists. And we should not use tragedy to score brownie points for their own prejudices.
According to the article in The New York Times, rank-and-file police do not carry weapons of any kind.
In fact, it is against the law for an officer to carry a weapon. Rank-and-file officers need to ask permission of the police chief to access any gun.
Imagine if there is a situation in which an officer needs to have a weapon and does not and there is a loss of life.
That is exactly what may have happened here.
Had police officer Trond Berntsen had a gun, he may have been able to stop the carnage of Anders Behring Breivak. Again, he may have but ended up being one of the first to die on Utoya Island.
But the aspect that is troubling is the fact that crime, especially violent crime, is on the rise in Norway.
And there are still those that want to bury their heads in the sand.
Take this from Johannes Knutsson, a professor of police research at the Norwegian Police University College:
“I would prefer to live in a society where police normally work unarmed. It is a very forceful and symbolic sign to the citizens that this is a peaceful society.”
And to the next Anders Behring Breivak, or an Islamic terror group, it is a sign of weakness.
While Prof. Knuttsson has a sentiment that fits more 1950s America than a 2011 much smaller world, it may be the prevailing view among many still in Norway.
Does that mean more of this kind of terror is on the rise? That is hard to say.
But one thing may change.
And that is the police will end up being armed. And with bullets in their guns.
It is the reality of this world. It is sad, but true. Norway will be part of a world that is no longer the same. And that is the tragedy of this event.
And on the flip side of that is this crazy gal, Susan Brooks Thiselthwaite.
Suzie thinks, wait for it, that Anders Behring Breivak was driven to his evil deed by. . .eeeeevvviiiiilllll right-wing Christianity!
Oh, for background, Suzie is an ordained pastor in the United Church of Christ. Hmm, who else is in the UCC? Oh yeah, the "Rev." Jeremiah Wright. The former head pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. And the one-time home church of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Read what Suzie writes. She does not refer to herself as a Christian. Its they or them. And she uses the information provided by a member of the Norwegian police force calling Mr. Breivak a "right-wing fundamentalist Christian". Never mind that he has no church, does not cite his own Christian belief anywhere in a 1,500 plus page tome on why he did what he did. If Suzie was not so busy indicting many fellow Christians, she would have noted this from the manifesto:
A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?
If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian (p. 1307).
Yeah, some blogger seemed to find this out from the manifesto. Why did Suzie not find this out?
Because Suzie wants you to know that so-called right-wing Christians are pure eeeeevvviiiiilllll! Facts be damned.
While many of us are condemned for thinking that Islamic terrorists may have been behind the attack, so should Susan Brooks Thiselthwaite for using tragedy to score in her mind points against her own fellows and their relationship with Jesus Christ.
Hopefully, some lessons will be learned and followed by all sides.
Police should be armed in Norway. We should not be quick to jump to the conclusion that an act of terror is the work of Islamic terrorists. And we should not use tragedy to score brownie points for their own prejudices.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Should I Be Sorry That My First Thought Of Norway Terror Attacks Was That It Was Islamic Terrorists? HELL NO!
As a matter of fact, NO! I am not sorry that my first thought of the terrorist attack in Norway this past Friday was the work of radical Islamic terrorists.
As it turns out, the two attacks are apparently the work of one man. A Norwegian by the name of Anders Behring Breivik. And he is not an Islamic radical.
It appears that Mr. Breivik is more along the lines of Norway's Timothy McVeigh and this was their version of the Oklahoma City Murrah federal building bombing in 1995.
But lets review the immediate reports as events were unfolding.
Truck and or car bomb detonated in front of government buildings in the capital city of Oslo.
A definite signature mark of al-Qaeda.
Check.
Then within a very short period of time reports of gunfire on a youth camp on a nearby island.
Sign of a repeat of the terror attacks in Bombay, India in 2008.
And the fact is that is what a lot of media had suspected and or speculated.
Reading this dispatch from Reuters, they seemed to at least throw it out there that an al-Qaeda attack was a possibility.
And believe me, Reuters is not exactly the New York Post, or the eeeeevvviiiiilllll Fox News Channel.
Max Fisher over at The Atlantic, again not right-wing news central, began this piece with very obvious questions as to whether or not this was the work of al-Qaeda.
Keep in mind that this was a breaking story and when there are such events, one way to get to what is possibly going on is to look at similar past events. And that is what a lot of the media did in the unfolding of events.
If you look at this post by The Other McCain, he was getting information from a slew of sources, almost all leftywhore, aka mainstream, media sources. And of course when you look at how the attacks occurred, one could not at that moment remember Bombay 2008.
In fact, a group that has now since been discredited, Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, claimed responsibility of the attacks.
And yeah, think al-Qaeda.
Of course unless you believe that the right-wing in any given land is more of a threat than radical Islamics, then you would easily jump to the eventual conclusion.
That this was a right-wing, Christian fundamentalist, Freemason.
Yeah, we Freemasons are always working with lone-wolf whack jobs in out quest for world takeover. And don't forget we are Christianists only. Nah, pay no attention to the many Jewish Freemasons or those of no organized religion.
Before one believe any of the above, understand that Mr. Brevik probably was not a member of any church. And it is widely reported that Mr. Brevik had not been active in his local Lodge for sometime.
The reality is that Mr. Brevik was very much a lone-wolf whack job that was very much afraid of what he saw as an Islamicization of Western Europe.
And while there is a lot to back that up, doing what he did is no better than what the Islamicfacisists are doing throughout the world.
But back to the original question, until there are a slew of attacks like what happened in Norway, one always has to suspect Islamic radicals.
Unless there becomes a right-wing Christian version of al-Qaeda, with their version of Osama bin-Laden, one always has to suspect Islamic radicals.
I leave you with this from Aaron Goldstein of The American Spectator. He lays out the case as to why it would have been irresponsible not to have suspected Islamic radicals. The last paragraph says it all:
As the adage goes, "Not all Muslims are terrorists but nearly all terrorists are Muslim."
So I write an emphatic HELL NO to being sorry that I suspected Islamic terrorists in the Norway attacks this past Friday.
As it turns out, the two attacks are apparently the work of one man. A Norwegian by the name of Anders Behring Breivik. And he is not an Islamic radical.
It appears that Mr. Breivik is more along the lines of Norway's Timothy McVeigh and this was their version of the Oklahoma City Murrah federal building bombing in 1995.
But lets review the immediate reports as events were unfolding.
Truck and or car bomb detonated in front of government buildings in the capital city of Oslo.
A definite signature mark of al-Qaeda.
Check.
Then within a very short period of time reports of gunfire on a youth camp on a nearby island.
Sign of a repeat of the terror attacks in Bombay, India in 2008.
And the fact is that is what a lot of media had suspected and or speculated.
Reading this dispatch from Reuters, they seemed to at least throw it out there that an al-Qaeda attack was a possibility.
And believe me, Reuters is not exactly the New York Post, or the eeeeevvviiiiilllll Fox News Channel.
Max Fisher over at The Atlantic, again not right-wing news central, began this piece with very obvious questions as to whether or not this was the work of al-Qaeda.
Keep in mind that this was a breaking story and when there are such events, one way to get to what is possibly going on is to look at similar past events. And that is what a lot of the media did in the unfolding of events.
If you look at this post by The Other McCain, he was getting information from a slew of sources, almost all leftywhore, aka mainstream, media sources. And of course when you look at how the attacks occurred, one could not at that moment remember Bombay 2008.
In fact, a group that has now since been discredited, Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, claimed responsibility of the attacks.
And yeah, think al-Qaeda.
Of course unless you believe that the right-wing in any given land is more of a threat than radical Islamics, then you would easily jump to the eventual conclusion.
That this was a right-wing, Christian fundamentalist, Freemason.
Yeah, we Freemasons are always working with lone-wolf whack jobs in out quest for world takeover. And don't forget we are Christianists only. Nah, pay no attention to the many Jewish Freemasons or those of no organized religion.
Before one believe any of the above, understand that Mr. Brevik probably was not a member of any church. And it is widely reported that Mr. Brevik had not been active in his local Lodge for sometime.
The reality is that Mr. Brevik was very much a lone-wolf whack job that was very much afraid of what he saw as an Islamicization of Western Europe.
And while there is a lot to back that up, doing what he did is no better than what the Islamicfacisists are doing throughout the world.
But back to the original question, until there are a slew of attacks like what happened in Norway, one always has to suspect Islamic radicals.
Unless there becomes a right-wing Christian version of al-Qaeda, with their version of Osama bin-Laden, one always has to suspect Islamic radicals.
I leave you with this from Aaron Goldstein of The American Spectator. He lays out the case as to why it would have been irresponsible not to have suspected Islamic radicals. The last paragraph says it all:
As the adage goes, "Not all Muslims are terrorists but nearly all terrorists are Muslim."
So I write an emphatic HELL NO to being sorry that I suspected Islamic terrorists in the Norway attacks this past Friday.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Congressman Allen West Is Right About Congresman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz-She Is Vile And A Liar
This is why I love Congressman Allen West!
He will not take crap from anyone.
And he is showing Republicans how to stand up to the outright lies.
In this case, Congressman West told the truth about the Democrat National Committee chair Congressman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Congressman Wasserman-Schultz told total lies about Congressman West on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Not only that, but showing herself to be the total chicken s--- that she is waited until Congressman West was off the floor so he did not have a chance to respond.
Oh, but Congressman West did respond.
And how!
Here is the e-mail that Congressman West sent to Congressman Wasserman-Schultz and cc'ed the House leadership of both parties:
From: Z112 West, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 04:48 PM
To: Wasserman Schultz, Debbie
Cc: McCarthy, Kevin; Blyth, Jonathan; Pelosi, Nancy; Cantor, Eric
Subject: Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman-Schultz
Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional ,and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!
I am bringing your actions today to our Majority Leader and Majority Whip and from this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself forthright against your heinous characterless behavior……which dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign hqs, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.
You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!
Steadfast and Loyal
Congressman Allen B West (R-FL)As Emeril Lagasse would shout, BAM!
Now what Congressman West wrote is correct. Congressman Wasserman-Schultz is sporting for a personnel fight with a favorite of the Tea Party movement.
Now what specifically Congressman Wasserman-Schultz said against Congressman West was the following:
“The gentleman from Florida who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries. Unbelievable from a member from South Florida.”
Hmm, I think that you, Congressman Wasserman-Schultz, supported something that we call Obamacare. Right? Well Congressman Wasserman-Schultz, did not the vote to favor Obamacare automatically lop off $500,000,000,000 Medicare? Why, shucks! Yes it did! Hyuck, yuck, yuck.
Oh, my bad! You, Congressman Wasserman-Schultz voted for Obamacare because you followed you Saviour, former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and wanted to actually see what was in it.
So, what about that Congressman Wasserman-Schultz?
What also upsets Congressman Wasserman-Schultz is that Congressman West is actually voting for something that could actually bring our out-of-control federal spending under control.
That would be Cut Cap And Balance.
And I think that Keith Hennessey gives an easy-to-understand background as to what Cut Cap And Balance would do.
Allen West wants to bring fiscal sanity to Washington. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz wants to make the federal government larger and pay off a slew of Democrat constituencies.
But, when pushed by a liar, Congressman West did not back down. And that is what has the left's undies in a bunch.
Oh, you know how desperate the Democrats are to assault Congressman West?
Some are suggesting that Congressman West engaged in sexual harassment of Congressman Wasserman-Schultz.
Unfingbelievable!
But not really a surprise.
This shows that when the left is losing the debate, resort to the victim card.
My hope is that this does two things.
First, not detract people from the serious debate that is the economic future of the United States.
Second, it shows that Republicans can and should fight back when the left takes shots at them.
If that is what we get out of this, it will all be good.
He will not take crap from anyone.
And he is showing Republicans how to stand up to the outright lies.
In this case, Congressman West told the truth about the Democrat National Committee chair Congressman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Congressman Wasserman-Schultz told total lies about Congressman West on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Not only that, but showing herself to be the total chicken s--- that she is waited until Congressman West was off the floor so he did not have a chance to respond.
Oh, but Congressman West did respond.
And how!
Here is the e-mail that Congressman West sent to Congressman Wasserman-Schultz and cc'ed the House leadership of both parties:
From: Z112 West, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 04:48 PM
To: Wasserman Schultz, Debbie
Cc: McCarthy, Kevin; Blyth, Jonathan; Pelosi, Nancy; Cantor, Eric
Subject: Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman-Schultz
Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional ,and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!
I am bringing your actions today to our Majority Leader and Majority Whip and from this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself forthright against your heinous characterless behavior……which dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign hqs, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.
You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!
Steadfast and Loyal
Congressman Allen B West (R-FL)As Emeril Lagasse would shout, BAM!
Now what Congressman West wrote is correct. Congressman Wasserman-Schultz is sporting for a personnel fight with a favorite of the Tea Party movement.
Now what specifically Congressman Wasserman-Schultz said against Congressman West was the following:
“The gentleman from Florida who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries. Unbelievable from a member from South Florida.”
Hmm, I think that you, Congressman Wasserman-Schultz, supported something that we call Obamacare. Right? Well Congressman Wasserman-Schultz, did not the vote to favor Obamacare automatically lop off $500,000,000,000 Medicare? Why, shucks! Yes it did! Hyuck, yuck, yuck.
Oh, my bad! You, Congressman Wasserman-Schultz voted for Obamacare because you followed you Saviour, former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and wanted to actually see what was in it.
So, what about that Congressman Wasserman-Schultz?
What also upsets Congressman Wasserman-Schultz is that Congressman West is actually voting for something that could actually bring our out-of-control federal spending under control.
That would be Cut Cap And Balance.
And I think that Keith Hennessey gives an easy-to-understand background as to what Cut Cap And Balance would do.
Allen West wants to bring fiscal sanity to Washington. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz wants to make the federal government larger and pay off a slew of Democrat constituencies.
But, when pushed by a liar, Congressman West did not back down. And that is what has the left's undies in a bunch.
Oh, you know how desperate the Democrats are to assault Congressman West?
Some are suggesting that Congressman West engaged in sexual harassment of Congressman Wasserman-Schultz.
Unfingbelievable!
But not really a surprise.
This shows that when the left is losing the debate, resort to the victim card.
My hope is that this does two things.
First, not detract people from the serious debate that is the economic future of the United States.
Second, it shows that Republicans can and should fight back when the left takes shots at them.
If that is what we get out of this, it will all be good.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
What Is This Budget Debt Fight End Game?
I know that the current debate regarding the budget, debt ceiling hike and long term debt is mind-numbing.
Without a doubt, to quote our vice-president, Brain Surgeon Joe Biden, this is a BFD*.
But what is the end game?
What does the Dear Leader, President Obama want?
What do the congressional Republicans and presidential candidates want?
The short course is this.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, wants to pull the wool over the eyes of just enough nervous Nelly Republicans and get them to agree to tax hikes and alleged budget cuts that may, or may not happen, down the road. Oh, the tax hikes will be on the front end. And it could be as much as $1,000,000,000,000 in additional "revenue".
As an important aside, since when did we start referring to tax hikes as "revenue"? That is a mind-blowing Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. Talk about pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.
Here is a fact. A tax hike is a tax hike. It is not "revenue" but getting money from us, the tax payer. And we, the taxpayer, do not get to say no.
It is part of the disingenuous nature of this debate.
But back to what the Dear Leader, President Obama, wants.
He wants the tax hike up front because he will use that to promote more government programs to allegedly get unemployment down.
Remember the infamous immediate so-called "stimulus" bill shortly after the Dear Leader, President Obama, took office in 2009? We were told that it needed to be passed because not passing that would see a spike in unemployment. We were told pass the bill and unemployment would not pass eight percent. Yet today the unemployment rate is at 9.2%. And we are supposed to believe that if taxes are raised for a Stimulus II, it will lead to the desired result? And what would the result be? That unemployment won't hit 10%?
What the Dear Leader, President Obama wants is to increase the size of government. Period.
So, what do congressional Republicans want?
It gets a little tricky here.
In the House of Representatives, it is clear that they favor an approach called "Cut Cap And Balance". It would not be pretty to the 80-year Democrat party experiment to create Europe in the United States.
The following is from the Republican Study Committee in short on what Cut Cap And Balance would do:
1. Cut - We must make discretionary and mandatory spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half next year.
2. Cap - We need statutory, enforceable caps to align federal spending with average revenues at 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with automatic spending reductions if the caps are breached.
3. Balance - We must send to the states a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) with strong protections against federal tax increases and a Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA) that aligns spending with average revenues as described above.
And I'll point out that according to the Congressional Budget Office, 25c of every dollar is in the hands of the federal government. Makes number two of the above, making sure that it is not more than 18% of GDP for federal spending very important.
And to show how serious the House is about dealing with this monster of a problem, they voted tonight of a mostly party-line vote to move Cut Cap And Balance to the senate.
Now the weasels in the senate seem more interested in cutting a deal. Either the plan put forth by Sen. Mitch McConnell or the so-called Gang of Six plan.
The reality is that either plan does exactly what the Dear Leader, President Obama, wants. Gives him the ability to hike the debt ceiling and the tax hikes he wants upfront.
What way too many senate Republicans are doing is caving on why they are there in the first place. It is not to continue the 80 year failure that is the Democrat welfare state. It is to stop and cut it.
The House gets it. Too many in the senate do not.
The end game after all that is this.
The Democrats want to continue the march of the federal government to even more of control of our lives. Whether it is in health care or employment, it is a relentless march on their part.
The Republicans, for the most part, want to put a stop to it and this maybe the best chance in a lifetime to do just that.
Now is not the time to give up.
Conservatives need to be encouraged and wobblers need to be reminded of what a bad deal will cost them. And Democrats need to be put on notice that the spending party needs to end and now.
*BFD-Big f---ing deal!
Without a doubt, to quote our vice-president, Brain Surgeon Joe Biden, this is a BFD*.
But what is the end game?
What does the Dear Leader, President Obama want?
What do the congressional Republicans and presidential candidates want?
The short course is this.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, wants to pull the wool over the eyes of just enough nervous Nelly Republicans and get them to agree to tax hikes and alleged budget cuts that may, or may not happen, down the road. Oh, the tax hikes will be on the front end. And it could be as much as $1,000,000,000,000 in additional "revenue".
As an important aside, since when did we start referring to tax hikes as "revenue"? That is a mind-blowing Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. Talk about pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.
Here is a fact. A tax hike is a tax hike. It is not "revenue" but getting money from us, the tax payer. And we, the taxpayer, do not get to say no.
It is part of the disingenuous nature of this debate.
But back to what the Dear Leader, President Obama, wants.
He wants the tax hike up front because he will use that to promote more government programs to allegedly get unemployment down.
Remember the infamous immediate so-called "stimulus" bill shortly after the Dear Leader, President Obama, took office in 2009? We were told that it needed to be passed because not passing that would see a spike in unemployment. We were told pass the bill and unemployment would not pass eight percent. Yet today the unemployment rate is at 9.2%. And we are supposed to believe that if taxes are raised for a Stimulus II, it will lead to the desired result? And what would the result be? That unemployment won't hit 10%?
What the Dear Leader, President Obama wants is to increase the size of government. Period.
So, what do congressional Republicans want?
It gets a little tricky here.
In the House of Representatives, it is clear that they favor an approach called "Cut Cap And Balance". It would not be pretty to the 80-year Democrat party experiment to create Europe in the United States.
The following is from the Republican Study Committee in short on what Cut Cap And Balance would do:
1. Cut - We must make discretionary and mandatory spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half next year.
2. Cap - We need statutory, enforceable caps to align federal spending with average revenues at 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with automatic spending reductions if the caps are breached.
3. Balance - We must send to the states a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) with strong protections against federal tax increases and a Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA) that aligns spending with average revenues as described above.
And I'll point out that according to the Congressional Budget Office, 25c of every dollar is in the hands of the federal government. Makes number two of the above, making sure that it is not more than 18% of GDP for federal spending very important.
And to show how serious the House is about dealing with this monster of a problem, they voted tonight of a mostly party-line vote to move Cut Cap And Balance to the senate.
Now the weasels in the senate seem more interested in cutting a deal. Either the plan put forth by Sen. Mitch McConnell or the so-called Gang of Six plan.
The reality is that either plan does exactly what the Dear Leader, President Obama, wants. Gives him the ability to hike the debt ceiling and the tax hikes he wants upfront.
What way too many senate Republicans are doing is caving on why they are there in the first place. It is not to continue the 80 year failure that is the Democrat welfare state. It is to stop and cut it.
The House gets it. Too many in the senate do not.
The end game after all that is this.
The Democrats want to continue the march of the federal government to even more of control of our lives. Whether it is in health care or employment, it is a relentless march on their part.
The Republicans, for the most part, want to put a stop to it and this maybe the best chance in a lifetime to do just that.
Now is not the time to give up.
Conservatives need to be encouraged and wobblers need to be reminded of what a bad deal will cost them. And Democrats need to be put on notice that the spending party needs to end and now.
*BFD-Big f---ing deal!
Monday, July 18, 2011
Priorities, Priorities
Leave it to the good government of San Francisco to essentially gut the local judiciary and lay off about 40% of court workers.
I mean, this is the city after all that creates more ridiculous laws that now will not be enforced since, well there will not be many judges to hear the cases brought before them.
About 200 of 480 court workers, including 11 of 12 commissioners, which are lower-level judges that hear mostly misdemeanor cases, are getting the axe.
And 25 courtrooms will be shuttered as a result of this.
San Francisco is both a city and county which means they do not have any other bases of tax revenue that would possibly prevent this massive layoff of court workers.
Put that aside a moment and come to this thought.
All the crap that they want to legislate, such as selling McDonalds Happy Meals as is, whether or not parent can circumcise their male babies or not will not be able to be enforced because when will potential cases be brought before a court if so many are out of commission?
Maybe if the city and county worried more about creating a climate that promotes economic growth and jobs, there would be a stronger tax base that would keep the courts open.
Instead of worrying about how to regulate people's lives, except the homeless, the priorities need to be what helps create a strong economy.
That would be lower taxes, less regulation and an atmosphere that encourages entrepreneurs.
Maybe if the government of San Francisco city/county worried about those things, they would not have to close down nearly half of their judiciary.
I mean, this is the city after all that creates more ridiculous laws that now will not be enforced since, well there will not be many judges to hear the cases brought before them.
About 200 of 480 court workers, including 11 of 12 commissioners, which are lower-level judges that hear mostly misdemeanor cases, are getting the axe.
And 25 courtrooms will be shuttered as a result of this.
San Francisco is both a city and county which means they do not have any other bases of tax revenue that would possibly prevent this massive layoff of court workers.
Put that aside a moment and come to this thought.
All the crap that they want to legislate, such as selling McDonalds Happy Meals as is, whether or not parent can circumcise their male babies or not will not be able to be enforced because when will potential cases be brought before a court if so many are out of commission?
Maybe if the city and county worried more about creating a climate that promotes economic growth and jobs, there would be a stronger tax base that would keep the courts open.
Instead of worrying about how to regulate people's lives, except the homeless, the priorities need to be what helps create a strong economy.
That would be lower taxes, less regulation and an atmosphere that encourages entrepreneurs.
Maybe if the government of San Francisco city/county worried about those things, they would not have to close down nearly half of their judiciary.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Obamawhore Media Going After Conservative's Religions And Too Bad They Ignored A Real Kook
Well, well, well.
The Obamawhore media is sharpening the blade of the machete and going after two conservative Republicans and their particular church and or pastor.
Funny, the same Obamawhore media did not do diligence when all the chickens came home to roost for one "Rev." Jeremiah Wright.
The two conservative Republicans are Congressman Michelle Bachmann and Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
Congressman Bachmann is in for the GOP nomination for president while Gov. Perry is still thinking about it.
Well, let me discuss what has the Obamawhore media' panties in a bunch.
And I want to discuss Congressman Bachmann since she is an actual candidate.
Until recently, Congressman Bachmann was a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod church. Of the three major Lutheran denominations, it is the most traditional.
And apparently, they think that the Pope is the anti-Christ.
No, really according to this Joshua Green.
Compared to many Obamawhore media lackeys, he actually does a decent job in understanding the issue.
This is some really tough reading, but essentially it is a strict understanding of Martin Luther and what he came to understand about the papacy and the Roman Catholic church.
In the strictest sense, yes the WELS do believe that the Pope, no matter who he is, is the anti-Christ.
To cut to the chase, it is because any one who puts themselves ahead of Jesus Christ is the anti-Christ.
So, it relation to Evangelical Christians, who believe that the anti-Christ is a secular leader that will rise to rule a post-tribulation world, the WELS do not believe quite the same thing.
Infact, the WELS statement makes the point of not to blame all Roman Catholics. And, this is the following from the WELS website:
There are many things that the Lutheran and Catholic churches share: the Bible, the Creeds, the Lord's Prayer, the Lord's Supper, Baptism, and much of the liturgy used in worship. After Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church, those who followed him retained the things from the Catholic Church which were good and true. They rejected only the beliefs and practices that were not scriptural. A significant percentage of the members of our church are former Catholics, so we certainly have no bad feelings toward Catholic people. But we do not agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church that are not based on the Bible.
Significant differences between the Catholic Church and ours include: the papacy, the nature and role of Mary, invocation of the saints, the doctrine of purgatory, transubstantiation, use of the Apocrypha and tradition as sources of doctrine, and justification through a combination of faith in Christ and good works.
As Lutherans, we love to speak about the forgiveness of sin that we have in Christ. If people realize that they have complete forgiveness through Christ, they will see why there can be no purgatory for Christians. If they understand that we are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus, they will understand why we do not need to pray through saints as mediators.
All of our congregations provide obligation-free information classes that explain what we believe and why. All are welcome to attend.
For more information about the various differences between the Lutheran and Catholic Church bodies, read Catholicism Today, a Bible study available through Northwestern Publishing House.
In reality, it is what most Protestants believe.
I am a Protestant, therefore I am anti-Roman Catholic. No, not anti-Roman Catholic like those in the culture that salivate over the theology they do not understand. Mocking rather than educating. Hating instead of loving. I do not agree with a lot of the theology of the Roman Catholic church. Infact, as an Episcopalian, I refer to the Book of Common Prayer for affirmation of the above.
In the Articles of Religion, here is the following:
XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.
XII. Of Good Works.
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.
XXV. Of the Sacraments.
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.
That is standard Protestant Christian doctrine. True, my denomination has thrown much of the Articles of Religion out the window. But the point is those of us who read them and seek to be faithful to that makes us, by that understanding, anti-Roman Catholic.
That does not mean both the WELS and or the Episcopal Church are that exclusive that they do not welcome people that are curious and or thinking of becoming members.
But I ask why this media wants to discredit this particular denomination when they had the "Rev." Wright? A minister that believes in Black Liberation Theology? A belief that by nature is not religion based, but race based? Did this Obamawhore media really ask the questions of then Sen. Messiah Barack about where he disagreed with the Trinity United Church of Christ and Black Liberation Theology?
Crickets chirping.
I do not know if Congressman Bachmann believed that aspect of WELS teaching. In this piece from The Corner on National Review Online, Congressman Bachmann does not subscribe to that aspect of WELS teaching. Here is what Congressman Bachmann said about the issue in 2006:
“Well that’s a false statement that was made, and I spoke with my pastor earlier today about that as well, and he was absolutely appalled that someone would put that out. It’s abhorrent, it’s religious bigotry. I love Catholics, I’m a Christian, and my church does not believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, that’s absolutely false.”
I will take her at her word then. At least she seemed to be critical of an aspect of her church that she was not comfortable and asked questions about it. Did a man name Obama publicly question the rantings of the "Rev." Wright?
FWIW, while I am not running for office and if it comes up how I can be in the Episcopal Church, my criticisms have been written about it here. And I favor the churches leaving the denomination in droves. And I support the efforts of the Anglican Church of North America to be recognized as part of the Anglican Communion.
The rich irony is that this is what the left hopes to be a "gotcha" moment for Congressman Bachmann. That she is so loony, and she belongs to a loony church that hates Roman Catholics. Yet same media all but ignored another candidate and his relationship with a real kook and his crazy, racist and anti-Semitic ideas.
And I think that this will fail.
Because there is way too much at stake here.
This is about the overall future of the United States. It is not about what church and or denomination a candidate belongs or belonged to. It is about what a candidate believes is right for the whole of America. The America that is made of Roman Catholics, Jews, Islamics, non-monotheistic religionists.
Thus, look for the Obamawhore media to do more hit pieces like this because if Congressman Bachmann keeps gaining among Republicans and conservatives, she will against the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself.
And we can not have that.
The Obamawhore media is sharpening the blade of the machete and going after two conservative Republicans and their particular church and or pastor.
Funny, the same Obamawhore media did not do diligence when all the chickens came home to roost for one "Rev." Jeremiah Wright.
The two conservative Republicans are Congressman Michelle Bachmann and Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
Congressman Bachmann is in for the GOP nomination for president while Gov. Perry is still thinking about it.
Well, let me discuss what has the Obamawhore media' panties in a bunch.
And I want to discuss Congressman Bachmann since she is an actual candidate.
Until recently, Congressman Bachmann was a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod church. Of the three major Lutheran denominations, it is the most traditional.
And apparently, they think that the Pope is the anti-Christ.
No, really according to this Joshua Green.
Compared to many Obamawhore media lackeys, he actually does a decent job in understanding the issue.
This is some really tough reading, but essentially it is a strict understanding of Martin Luther and what he came to understand about the papacy and the Roman Catholic church.
In the strictest sense, yes the WELS do believe that the Pope, no matter who he is, is the anti-Christ.
To cut to the chase, it is because any one who puts themselves ahead of Jesus Christ is the anti-Christ.
So, it relation to Evangelical Christians, who believe that the anti-Christ is a secular leader that will rise to rule a post-tribulation world, the WELS do not believe quite the same thing.
Infact, the WELS statement makes the point of not to blame all Roman Catholics. And, this is the following from the WELS website:
There are many things that the Lutheran and Catholic churches share: the Bible, the Creeds, the Lord's Prayer, the Lord's Supper, Baptism, and much of the liturgy used in worship. After Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church, those who followed him retained the things from the Catholic Church which were good and true. They rejected only the beliefs and practices that were not scriptural. A significant percentage of the members of our church are former Catholics, so we certainly have no bad feelings toward Catholic people. But we do not agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church that are not based on the Bible.
Significant differences between the Catholic Church and ours include: the papacy, the nature and role of Mary, invocation of the saints, the doctrine of purgatory, transubstantiation, use of the Apocrypha and tradition as sources of doctrine, and justification through a combination of faith in Christ and good works.
As Lutherans, we love to speak about the forgiveness of sin that we have in Christ. If people realize that they have complete forgiveness through Christ, they will see why there can be no purgatory for Christians. If they understand that we are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus, they will understand why we do not need to pray through saints as mediators.
All of our congregations provide obligation-free information classes that explain what we believe and why. All are welcome to attend.
For more information about the various differences between the Lutheran and Catholic Church bodies, read Catholicism Today, a Bible study available through Northwestern Publishing House.
In reality, it is what most Protestants believe.
I am a Protestant, therefore I am anti-Roman Catholic. No, not anti-Roman Catholic like those in the culture that salivate over the theology they do not understand. Mocking rather than educating. Hating instead of loving. I do not agree with a lot of the theology of the Roman Catholic church. Infact, as an Episcopalian, I refer to the Book of Common Prayer for affirmation of the above.
In the Articles of Religion, here is the following:
XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.
XII. Of Good Works.
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.
XXV. Of the Sacraments.
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.
That is standard Protestant Christian doctrine. True, my denomination has thrown much of the Articles of Religion out the window. But the point is those of us who read them and seek to be faithful to that makes us, by that understanding, anti-Roman Catholic.
That does not mean both the WELS and or the Episcopal Church are that exclusive that they do not welcome people that are curious and or thinking of becoming members.
But I ask why this media wants to discredit this particular denomination when they had the "Rev." Wright? A minister that believes in Black Liberation Theology? A belief that by nature is not religion based, but race based? Did this Obamawhore media really ask the questions of then Sen. Messiah Barack about where he disagreed with the Trinity United Church of Christ and Black Liberation Theology?
Crickets chirping.
I do not know if Congressman Bachmann believed that aspect of WELS teaching. In this piece from The Corner on National Review Online, Congressman Bachmann does not subscribe to that aspect of WELS teaching. Here is what Congressman Bachmann said about the issue in 2006:
“Well that’s a false statement that was made, and I spoke with my pastor earlier today about that as well, and he was absolutely appalled that someone would put that out. It’s abhorrent, it’s religious bigotry. I love Catholics, I’m a Christian, and my church does not believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, that’s absolutely false.”
I will take her at her word then. At least she seemed to be critical of an aspect of her church that she was not comfortable and asked questions about it. Did a man name Obama publicly question the rantings of the "Rev." Wright?
FWIW, while I am not running for office and if it comes up how I can be in the Episcopal Church, my criticisms have been written about it here. And I favor the churches leaving the denomination in droves. And I support the efforts of the Anglican Church of North America to be recognized as part of the Anglican Communion.
The rich irony is that this is what the left hopes to be a "gotcha" moment for Congressman Bachmann. That she is so loony, and she belongs to a loony church that hates Roman Catholics. Yet same media all but ignored another candidate and his relationship with a real kook and his crazy, racist and anti-Semitic ideas.
And I think that this will fail.
Because there is way too much at stake here.
This is about the overall future of the United States. It is not about what church and or denomination a candidate belongs or belonged to. It is about what a candidate believes is right for the whole of America. The America that is made of Roman Catholics, Jews, Islamics, non-monotheistic religionists.
Thus, look for the Obamawhore media to do more hit pieces like this because if Congressman Bachmann keeps gaining among Republicans and conservatives, she will against the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself.
And we can not have that.
Friday, July 08, 2011
Who Is More Stupid, Casey Anthony Or Her 12 New BFFs?
I have tried to avoid comment on the Casey Anthony trial saga. I believe that she is guilty as hell and got a gift being able to walk out of jail next Sunday.
But if what who was once known as juror number three, Jennifer Ford, is suggesting, this jury played a very dangerous game of CYA.
Or these 12 people are as stupid as Miss Anthony is.
Allahpundit is spot on that this could be a subtle case of jury nullification. Although I think that it is not subtle at all.
What it sounds like is a combination of jury nullification and not totally understanding that they really had an out on lesser charges that they chose to acquit Miss Anthony on.
After all, the lesser charges included aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter. Neither charge carried a death penalty at all. Maybe a long time in jail, but no death penalty. This is the point of Radell Smith in this post over at www.examiner.com
In other words, yes it could very well be that the jury was not convinced about the first degree murder charge. But to not find Miss Anthony guilty on the lesser charges? No, all the jury seemed to be able to convict her on were the charges of lying to law enforcement.
Well, I want to know how they even found Miss Anthony guilty of lying to law enforcement if they could not convict her of any of the serious charges?
Afingmazing.
The aspect that the jury is only charged with deciding whether or not any defendant is guilty or not guilty of said charges. In this case, the judge would have decided the sentence. And even if the jury were to stick around for a penalty phase, they could have decided not to impose the death penalty.
I am sorry, but no one can say that Casey Anthony is Mom of the Year material. At the very least, Miss Anthony is a sociopath. At most, she is a parent that so callous she killed her daughter because her daughter, the true victim, Caylee, got in the way of the party life Miss Anthony was interested in.
But what can not be denied is that there is not one bit of justice for Caylee Anthony. Her short life is being thrown away because 12 people could not see through the fact that Casey Anthony at the very least committed child abuse. Maybe as bad as manslaughter. OK, maybe not first degree murder.
I totally believe that these 12 people were not worried about justice but whether or not they would be able to sleep at night. That they did not want to pass judgement on any charge beyond four misdemeanor counts of lying to law enforcement. It is symptomatic of the age we live in. Even one of those that ended up on the jury said that she can not be one to pass judgement on anyone.
We need to be able to be judgemental folks. Reasonably. These folks were not. And if a potential sentence is why they broke the way they did, why is there not any attempt to appeal on those grounds alone?
You be the judge.
Is Casey Anthony a stupid slut that gamed the system and saved her sorry hide?
Or are 12 people more worried about a possible death sentence rather than ruling on evidence, circumstantial and actual?
And here is a real burning question.
Who is Caylee Anthony's father? And how can he live with himself?
But if what who was once known as juror number three, Jennifer Ford, is suggesting, this jury played a very dangerous game of CYA.
Or these 12 people are as stupid as Miss Anthony is.
Allahpundit is spot on that this could be a subtle case of jury nullification. Although I think that it is not subtle at all.
What it sounds like is a combination of jury nullification and not totally understanding that they really had an out on lesser charges that they chose to acquit Miss Anthony on.
After all, the lesser charges included aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter. Neither charge carried a death penalty at all. Maybe a long time in jail, but no death penalty. This is the point of Radell Smith in this post over at www.examiner.com
In other words, yes it could very well be that the jury was not convinced about the first degree murder charge. But to not find Miss Anthony guilty on the lesser charges? No, all the jury seemed to be able to convict her on were the charges of lying to law enforcement.
Well, I want to know how they even found Miss Anthony guilty of lying to law enforcement if they could not convict her of any of the serious charges?
Afingmazing.
The aspect that the jury is only charged with deciding whether or not any defendant is guilty or not guilty of said charges. In this case, the judge would have decided the sentence. And even if the jury were to stick around for a penalty phase, they could have decided not to impose the death penalty.
I am sorry, but no one can say that Casey Anthony is Mom of the Year material. At the very least, Miss Anthony is a sociopath. At most, she is a parent that so callous she killed her daughter because her daughter, the true victim, Caylee, got in the way of the party life Miss Anthony was interested in.
But what can not be denied is that there is not one bit of justice for Caylee Anthony. Her short life is being thrown away because 12 people could not see through the fact that Casey Anthony at the very least committed child abuse. Maybe as bad as manslaughter. OK, maybe not first degree murder.
I totally believe that these 12 people were not worried about justice but whether or not they would be able to sleep at night. That they did not want to pass judgement on any charge beyond four misdemeanor counts of lying to law enforcement. It is symptomatic of the age we live in. Even one of those that ended up on the jury said that she can not be one to pass judgement on anyone.
We need to be able to be judgemental folks. Reasonably. These folks were not. And if a potential sentence is why they broke the way they did, why is there not any attempt to appeal on those grounds alone?
You be the judge.
Is Casey Anthony a stupid slut that gamed the system and saved her sorry hide?
Or are 12 people more worried about a possible death sentence rather than ruling on evidence, circumstantial and actual?
And here is a real burning question.
Who is Caylee Anthony's father? And how can he live with himself?
Betty Ford, R I P
Tonight is a bittersweet one as one of the most consequential First Ladies of the modern era, Elizabeth Ann Bloomer Warren Ford, better known as Betty Ford, died at the age of 93.
Yes, she was very much a liberal. No question about it. She was very much an advocate for the failed Equal Rights Amendment. Pro-abortion. Had very ahead of her time views of marijuana use. Pre-marital sex. Yes, she was in one sense a product of the dreaded 60s and 70s.
But what I believe the two things Mrs Ford will be remembered for in a positive way was her fight against breast cancer and admitting her alcohol and prescription drug abuse.
On September 26, 1974, Mrs. Ford was diagnosed with malignant breast cancer. She had a mastectomy and two days later, went public with what had happened. That was a first. And photos of then President Gerald R. Ford in the hospital room with her were splashed across newspapers from coast to coast.
That event began to create a public awareness of a condition that was in the shadows. Many a woman is alive today because of the courageous act of Mrs. Ford to be public about something so personal.
But what she will be most remembered for is her admission of being an alcoholic and prescription drug abuser.
That had to be the toughest thing to do in her life. Yet because of her frankness, talking about the recovery that she went through at the Long Beach Naval Hospital's drug and alcohol recovery program, she realized that there were no program's for women.
And the Betty Ford Center was born.
The Center was actually dedicated on October 3, 1982.
Since then, thousands of people began their journey to a life of sobriety and fullness.
That is the true legacy of Betty Ford.
Mrs. Ford will be remembered as opinionated, exceedingly honest, but what I take away that she helped many people who were living in shame and silence. Whether it was in her breast cancer fight or her own recovery from chemical dependency, Betty Ford was a trailblazer and a fighter.
Betty Ford, 1918-2011. Rest In Peace.
Yes, she was very much a liberal. No question about it. She was very much an advocate for the failed Equal Rights Amendment. Pro-abortion. Had very ahead of her time views of marijuana use. Pre-marital sex. Yes, she was in one sense a product of the dreaded 60s and 70s.
But what I believe the two things Mrs Ford will be remembered for in a positive way was her fight against breast cancer and admitting her alcohol and prescription drug abuse.
On September 26, 1974, Mrs. Ford was diagnosed with malignant breast cancer. She had a mastectomy and two days later, went public with what had happened. That was a first. And photos of then President Gerald R. Ford in the hospital room with her were splashed across newspapers from coast to coast.
That event began to create a public awareness of a condition that was in the shadows. Many a woman is alive today because of the courageous act of Mrs. Ford to be public about something so personal.
But what she will be most remembered for is her admission of being an alcoholic and prescription drug abuser.
That had to be the toughest thing to do in her life. Yet because of her frankness, talking about the recovery that she went through at the Long Beach Naval Hospital's drug and alcohol recovery program, she realized that there were no program's for women.
And the Betty Ford Center was born.
The Center was actually dedicated on October 3, 1982.
Since then, thousands of people began their journey to a life of sobriety and fullness.
That is the true legacy of Betty Ford.
Mrs. Ford will be remembered as opinionated, exceedingly honest, but what I take away that she helped many people who were living in shame and silence. Whether it was in her breast cancer fight or her own recovery from chemical dependency, Betty Ford was a trailblazer and a fighter.
Betty Ford, 1918-2011. Rest In Peace.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Texas Stands Up To Anti-Death Penalty Loons
The state of Texas carried out a death sentence tonight on convicted rapist and killer Humberto Leal. And yet there is more than the usual outrage on the left and some of those pushing for so-called comprehensive immigration "reform".
You see, Mr. Leal was an illegal alien when he committed the brutal rape and murder of Adria Sauceda in 1994. Mr. Leal was an infant when his family entered the United States illegally. While the now dead Mr. Leal was not at fault for what his parents did, mystically he wanted to use that to his advantage to avoid the needle.
Mr. Leal claims that because he was, get this, a Mexican national, he should have been advised that he could contact the nearest Mexican consulate and get legal advise.
As if American lawyers are not good enough for the cretin, Leal.
Let me note that Mr. Leal not only brutally raped Miss Sauceda but bludgeoned her to death.
And a jury, unlike 12 people in Florida recently, rightly convicted Mr. Leal of the crimes and he was sentenced to death under Texas law.
But the Dear Leader, President Obama and the former president, George W. Bush led the charge to stop the execution of Mr. Leal.
First, why you may ask?
Because Mr Leal was a Mexican national, again here in the United States illegally. And according to a treaty signed in 1964 that assures that foreign nationals must be told by the nation they are arrested in that they have a right to contact their embassy and or consulate.
It is the basis of the years of appeals that have prevented, until tonight, justice from being carried out.
Second, the arguments by the Dear Leader, President Obama and Mr. Bush are that this puts the lives of American citizens at risk in foreign lands if they are not told they have a right to contact the embassy and or consulate.
Third, and this I think is very important, is that Mexico does not have the death penalty. And they will not extradite American citizens that flee to their nation unless they are assured that said criminal will not be sentenced to death.
That is rich. I would like to ask how many Mexican citizens and or foreigners in Mexican jails die in the jails of unnatural causes? The Mexican government may not have the legal mechanics of a death penalty, but believe me, certain people meet the fate of the Grim Reaper in a Mexican jail.
Also, why does Mexico have any reason to interfere in American jurisprudence? And given aid and comfort by a sitting and former president?
Each nation must respect each other's laws. Mexico may not like that many American states have the death penalty, but it is well within those state laws and under the United States constitution. Just as we should respect that Mexico does not have the death penalty. Without that mutual respect, then national, state and local laws are meaningless.
And let us not forget the victim in this carnage, Adria Sauceda.
This is an account of Miss Sauceda's final hours.
Before you say, well she was drunk and putting out, she did not deserve to die this horrible death. And the law of the state of Texas was followed, like it or not.
Note that Miss Sauceda is Hispanic herself. So before one cries raaaaacism, that was nowhere near this case.
It was about a man that sexually assaulted then killed an teenage girl. A girl that did not get to live her whole life as Mr. Leal has for the past 16 years. Granted, they have been in a jail cell, but he was alive until 7:21pm, Texas time, this evening.
A couple of side notes.
In one of the most disgusting last-ditch efforts to thwart justice, the appeals lawyers came up with the novel reason Mr. Leal was so screwed-up in the head in the first place.
The now ace-in-the-hole.
The priest at his church molested him when he was a tike. This website has the story on this novel attempt to stop an execution.
As noted, it is something that could have come up in trial but did not. Must have been delayed memory syndrome. Due to the fact that Mr. Leal was a raging drunk.
This side note is toward Mr. Bush.
This is the man that ran as president as tough on crime. He faced a similar situation when faced with the execution of one Karla Faye Tucker.
Miss Tucker was convicted of murder in 1984 and sentenced to death. While in prison, Miss Tucker became a Christian and a model prisoner. Many people wanted to spare her life including Newt Gingrich and televangelist Pat Robertson and even then Pope John Paul II. But this was to no avail. And then Gov. Bush did nothing to stop the execution. In fact, according to now Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson, Mr Bush mocked her during a television interview. Ironic as Mr. Bush himself is a Born Again Christian.
So, then it was OK to execute a prisoner given all due process. Now, because a man that wanted to beat the rap claims that he was not told that, as a Mexican national, he was not told he could contact his embassy and or consulate for guidance, well Mr. Comprehensive Immigration "Reform" is in a huff against justice being carried out.
I miss the old George W. Bush that did not buckle to the pressure to spare a killer, yes reformed, from justice. The current one is unbecoming to say the least.
And, to end this saga, some of the last words uttered from Mr. Leal's mouth were the following:
Viva Mexico!
No Mr. Leal, Viva Justicia!
You see, Mr. Leal was an illegal alien when he committed the brutal rape and murder of Adria Sauceda in 1994. Mr. Leal was an infant when his family entered the United States illegally. While the now dead Mr. Leal was not at fault for what his parents did, mystically he wanted to use that to his advantage to avoid the needle.
Mr. Leal claims that because he was, get this, a Mexican national, he should have been advised that he could contact the nearest Mexican consulate and get legal advise.
As if American lawyers are not good enough for the cretin, Leal.
Let me note that Mr. Leal not only brutally raped Miss Sauceda but bludgeoned her to death.
And a jury, unlike 12 people in Florida recently, rightly convicted Mr. Leal of the crimes and he was sentenced to death under Texas law.
But the Dear Leader, President Obama and the former president, George W. Bush led the charge to stop the execution of Mr. Leal.
First, why you may ask?
Because Mr Leal was a Mexican national, again here in the United States illegally. And according to a treaty signed in 1964 that assures that foreign nationals must be told by the nation they are arrested in that they have a right to contact their embassy and or consulate.
It is the basis of the years of appeals that have prevented, until tonight, justice from being carried out.
Second, the arguments by the Dear Leader, President Obama and Mr. Bush are that this puts the lives of American citizens at risk in foreign lands if they are not told they have a right to contact the embassy and or consulate.
Third, and this I think is very important, is that Mexico does not have the death penalty. And they will not extradite American citizens that flee to their nation unless they are assured that said criminal will not be sentenced to death.
That is rich. I would like to ask how many Mexican citizens and or foreigners in Mexican jails die in the jails of unnatural causes? The Mexican government may not have the legal mechanics of a death penalty, but believe me, certain people meet the fate of the Grim Reaper in a Mexican jail.
Also, why does Mexico have any reason to interfere in American jurisprudence? And given aid and comfort by a sitting and former president?
Each nation must respect each other's laws. Mexico may not like that many American states have the death penalty, but it is well within those state laws and under the United States constitution. Just as we should respect that Mexico does not have the death penalty. Without that mutual respect, then national, state and local laws are meaningless.
And let us not forget the victim in this carnage, Adria Sauceda.
This is an account of Miss Sauceda's final hours.
Before you say, well she was drunk and putting out, she did not deserve to die this horrible death. And the law of the state of Texas was followed, like it or not.
Note that Miss Sauceda is Hispanic herself. So before one cries raaaaacism, that was nowhere near this case.
It was about a man that sexually assaulted then killed an teenage girl. A girl that did not get to live her whole life as Mr. Leal has for the past 16 years. Granted, they have been in a jail cell, but he was alive until 7:21pm, Texas time, this evening.
A couple of side notes.
In one of the most disgusting last-ditch efforts to thwart justice, the appeals lawyers came up with the novel reason Mr. Leal was so screwed-up in the head in the first place.
The now ace-in-the-hole.
The priest at his church molested him when he was a tike. This website has the story on this novel attempt to stop an execution.
As noted, it is something that could have come up in trial but did not. Must have been delayed memory syndrome. Due to the fact that Mr. Leal was a raging drunk.
This side note is toward Mr. Bush.
This is the man that ran as president as tough on crime. He faced a similar situation when faced with the execution of one Karla Faye Tucker.
Miss Tucker was convicted of murder in 1984 and sentenced to death. While in prison, Miss Tucker became a Christian and a model prisoner. Many people wanted to spare her life including Newt Gingrich and televangelist Pat Robertson and even then Pope John Paul II. But this was to no avail. And then Gov. Bush did nothing to stop the execution. In fact, according to now Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson, Mr Bush mocked her during a television interview. Ironic as Mr. Bush himself is a Born Again Christian.
So, then it was OK to execute a prisoner given all due process. Now, because a man that wanted to beat the rap claims that he was not told that, as a Mexican national, he was not told he could contact his embassy and or consulate for guidance, well Mr. Comprehensive Immigration "Reform" is in a huff against justice being carried out.
I miss the old George W. Bush that did not buckle to the pressure to spare a killer, yes reformed, from justice. The current one is unbecoming to say the least.
And, to end this saga, some of the last words uttered from Mr. Leal's mouth were the following:
Viva Mexico!
No Mr. Leal, Viva Justicia!
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Why I Am Not High On Pawlenty
I have to admit, I just have had a shrug every time people mention the former Minnesota governor, Tim Pawlenty and his presidential campaign.
I mean, he seems like a nice guy. Was a decent governor in Minnesota. Had a Democrat legislature his whole tenure. Governed as conservative as one could under the circumstances.
But something has nagged me about Mr. Pawlenty and why I shrug on the one hand and shudder that he could be the Republican presidential nominee against the Dear Leader, President Obama.
The fact is that Mr. Pawlenty was the first sitting Republican governor to endorse Sen. John "F--- You" McCain for the Republican nod in 2008.
I think that alone should be a disqualifier.
But National Review's Andrew McCarthy finds that Mr. Pawlenty also seems to endorse the McCain foreign policy as well.
Now, Sen. "F--- You" McCain is more often right than wrong, especially on the surge in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror.
But let us note that Sen. Goober, aka Lindsey Graham, Sen. "F--- You" McCain's shadow and butt-boy, says that congress should just "shut up"| and let the Dear Leader, President Obama, lie about our role in the Libya kinetic action.
No, congress should not shut up. The president owes it some kind of say in how we as a nation should proceed and what are we doing in the first place.
But it is not just on foreign policy that I have my doubts on Mr. Pawlenty.
Mr. Pawlenty is a believer in Globaloney Warming. Although now he claims that there is no such thing. Funny, Sen. "F--- You" McCain tried to dance that one to nowhere in 2008. And while he now lectures the Iowa voters how terrible the ethanol subsidies are, guess who signed a bill mandating a 20% mixture of gas and enthaol?
T-Paw, of course.
Now, he is running on our side on the issue of Globaloney Warming. But the record and the past need to be thoroughly threshed out.
These are but a few issues I have with T-Paw, as he is known.
But mostly to me, it is his very early support for Sen. John "F--- You" McCain for president.
It is a sign that he is tied way too much to the establishment wing of the GOP and not with the base.
But, maybe he can evolve.
Remember, Ronald Reagan was a Democrat.
I mean, he seems like a nice guy. Was a decent governor in Minnesota. Had a Democrat legislature his whole tenure. Governed as conservative as one could under the circumstances.
But something has nagged me about Mr. Pawlenty and why I shrug on the one hand and shudder that he could be the Republican presidential nominee against the Dear Leader, President Obama.
The fact is that Mr. Pawlenty was the first sitting Republican governor to endorse Sen. John "F--- You" McCain for the Republican nod in 2008.
I think that alone should be a disqualifier.
But National Review's Andrew McCarthy finds that Mr. Pawlenty also seems to endorse the McCain foreign policy as well.
Now, Sen. "F--- You" McCain is more often right than wrong, especially on the surge in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror.
But let us note that Sen. Goober, aka Lindsey Graham, Sen. "F--- You" McCain's shadow and butt-boy, says that congress should just "shut up"| and let the Dear Leader, President Obama, lie about our role in the Libya kinetic action.
No, congress should not shut up. The president owes it some kind of say in how we as a nation should proceed and what are we doing in the first place.
But it is not just on foreign policy that I have my doubts on Mr. Pawlenty.
Mr. Pawlenty is a believer in Globaloney Warming. Although now he claims that there is no such thing. Funny, Sen. "F--- You" McCain tried to dance that one to nowhere in 2008. And while he now lectures the Iowa voters how terrible the ethanol subsidies are, guess who signed a bill mandating a 20% mixture of gas and enthaol?
T-Paw, of course.
Now, he is running on our side on the issue of Globaloney Warming. But the record and the past need to be thoroughly threshed out.
These are but a few issues I have with T-Paw, as he is known.
But mostly to me, it is his very early support for Sen. John "F--- You" McCain for president.
It is a sign that he is tied way too much to the establishment wing of the GOP and not with the base.
But, maybe he can evolve.
Remember, Ronald Reagan was a Democrat.
Monday, July 04, 2011
HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!
Today is July 4, 2011, the 235th year of independence from the dread United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
There is no better way to celebrate the momenteous occasion that simply letting all read the founding document of this Great Land.
The 56 who signed this amazing document may have not realized the nation that they were setting forth to create. But I believe that they would be so amazed at the United States of America has become.
And now, the Declaration of Independence:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
There is no better way to celebrate the momenteous occasion that simply letting all read the founding document of this Great Land.
The 56 who signed this amazing document may have not realized the nation that they were setting forth to create. But I believe that they would be so amazed at the United States of America has become.
And now, the Declaration of Independence:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Are Evangelical Christians Really That Conservative?
According to David French in this piece at The Corner on National Review Online, maybe not so much.
Yes, on the so-called push-button issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, the Evangelical Christian are the strongest against abortion and same-sex marriage.
But on economics, the environment and illegal immigration, I hate to agree with Mr. French.
Look at the Southern Baptist Convention.
The world's largest and most traditionalist Baptist denomination will support a "clean" version of the so-called DREAM Act. It would be the nightmare act, but that is not the point. The point is that traditionalist Baptists are now on record supporting the children of illegal aliens gaining a "path to citizenship" if they meet certain criteria. The DREAM Act is but a back-door amnesty that is to wear down opponents to so-called comprehensive immigration "reform".
Again, the largest Protestant Christian denomination in the United States is essentially condoning the illegal actions of parents. Would they be so cavalier if this was some other issue?
The fact is that this issue is overtaking all denominations. And I hate to be so cynical, but I believe that all see new church members at the expense of national law and identity.
On the issue of the environment, I believe that we conservatives often times just express the opposition to the Globaloney Warming agenda and do not point out the fact that we conservatives do care about the environment and emphasize conservation over environmental extremism.
Say what you want about former President Theodore Roosevelt. In a lot of ways, he was a big-government kind of guy. But one thing he was spot on about is the creation of the National Parks system.
The problem has become the abuse of the National Park system. It has been used to create more National Park land to please a minority of people that make wild claims not based on science but emotional positions. The other problem is what appears to be a blurring of the difference between the two.
Conservation is a realistic approach to concerns about the way we are with the gift of land and sea that the Good Lord has given us. But, we conservatives need to speak to this as the best approach to being good stewards rather than essentially going back to the Stone Age as the radical environmentalists would like.
On the economy, I think that again there are many Evangelical politicians that do not really understand how the free market works and does not work.
One example is the Rev. Mike Huckabee.
As the Republican governor of Arkansas, he presided over some of the largest tax hikes ever imposed on the state. The excuse for this was that court decisions led to these tax hikes. He really did not want to do them. However, the Rev. Mike did think that another former governor, Massachusetts Republican Mitt Romney, should have ignored the Massachusetts supreme court decision on same-sex marriage.
But the fact is that the Rev. Mike did not mind increasing the size of government for what he liked. Rather than truly having a limited government that lived within it's means, he was a tax and spender.
Thus, it is a herculean task to educate, especially young people in general, that the free market and a free economy is the best way to lift all boats.
But where Mr. French is spot on is young Evangelical Christians in higher education.
As noted, some of those that these young Evangelicals are exposed to are theologians like Ron Sider, Shane Claiborne, and the new self-proclaimed leader of the Evangelical Christian left, Jim Wallis.
That is not a problem in and of itself. But the problem is when these young Evangelicals are not exposed to those who are more traditionalist. That talk about personal salvation. About good ol' fashioned sin. About what our responsibility is to one another. That is why there is a problem and Mr. French is right to point it out.
But I am an optimist.
As soon as these people get a taste of the real world, particularly in economics, they will come to understand that the pie-in-the-sky the Evangelical Christian left preaches is not all that it is cracked up to be.
Thus, we need to be more engaged with the Evangelical Christian modernists on the campus, not less. There are a lot of hearts and minds that need to be changed and some are on our own team.
Yes, on the so-called push-button issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, the Evangelical Christian are the strongest against abortion and same-sex marriage.
But on economics, the environment and illegal immigration, I hate to agree with Mr. French.
Look at the Southern Baptist Convention.
The world's largest and most traditionalist Baptist denomination will support a "clean" version of the so-called DREAM Act. It would be the nightmare act, but that is not the point. The point is that traditionalist Baptists are now on record supporting the children of illegal aliens gaining a "path to citizenship" if they meet certain criteria. The DREAM Act is but a back-door amnesty that is to wear down opponents to so-called comprehensive immigration "reform".
Again, the largest Protestant Christian denomination in the United States is essentially condoning the illegal actions of parents. Would they be so cavalier if this was some other issue?
The fact is that this issue is overtaking all denominations. And I hate to be so cynical, but I believe that all see new church members at the expense of national law and identity.
On the issue of the environment, I believe that we conservatives often times just express the opposition to the Globaloney Warming agenda and do not point out the fact that we conservatives do care about the environment and emphasize conservation over environmental extremism.
Say what you want about former President Theodore Roosevelt. In a lot of ways, he was a big-government kind of guy. But one thing he was spot on about is the creation of the National Parks system.
The problem has become the abuse of the National Park system. It has been used to create more National Park land to please a minority of people that make wild claims not based on science but emotional positions. The other problem is what appears to be a blurring of the difference between the two.
Conservation is a realistic approach to concerns about the way we are with the gift of land and sea that the Good Lord has given us. But, we conservatives need to speak to this as the best approach to being good stewards rather than essentially going back to the Stone Age as the radical environmentalists would like.
On the economy, I think that again there are many Evangelical politicians that do not really understand how the free market works and does not work.
One example is the Rev. Mike Huckabee.
As the Republican governor of Arkansas, he presided over some of the largest tax hikes ever imposed on the state. The excuse for this was that court decisions led to these tax hikes. He really did not want to do them. However, the Rev. Mike did think that another former governor, Massachusetts Republican Mitt Romney, should have ignored the Massachusetts supreme court decision on same-sex marriage.
But the fact is that the Rev. Mike did not mind increasing the size of government for what he liked. Rather than truly having a limited government that lived within it's means, he was a tax and spender.
Thus, it is a herculean task to educate, especially young people in general, that the free market and a free economy is the best way to lift all boats.
But where Mr. French is spot on is young Evangelical Christians in higher education.
As noted, some of those that these young Evangelicals are exposed to are theologians like Ron Sider, Shane Claiborne, and the new self-proclaimed leader of the Evangelical Christian left, Jim Wallis.
That is not a problem in and of itself. But the problem is when these young Evangelicals are not exposed to those who are more traditionalist. That talk about personal salvation. About good ol' fashioned sin. About what our responsibility is to one another. That is why there is a problem and Mr. French is right to point it out.
But I am an optimist.
As soon as these people get a taste of the real world, particularly in economics, they will come to understand that the pie-in-the-sky the Evangelical Christian left preaches is not all that it is cracked up to be.
Thus, we need to be more engaged with the Evangelical Christian modernists on the campus, not less. There are a lot of hearts and minds that need to be changed and some are on our own team.
Friday, July 01, 2011
Mark Halpern, The Dear Leader A D--- And Some Gal Named Michelle Goldberg
Hmm, the past couple of days have been interesting as an Obamawhore media flunky tells the truth about his god, the Dear Leader, President Obama. And The reaction is surprising and swift. And the strange rantings of another Obamawhore media flunky shows how strange things are in the U. S. of A in the Age o' Obama.
First, there is the Obamawhore media flunky, Mark Halperin.
He is on the state-sponsored "news" network, MSNBC quite often as a political "analyst". Read, explaining the Dear Leader, President Obama's ramblings to the masses. Or the three people still watching MSNBC.
On Wednesday, thinking that the microphone was off, a huge mistake on a good day, Mr. Halperin had this dialogue:
Mark Halperin: Are we on the seven second delay?
Mika Brzezinski: Lordy.
Halperin: I wanted to characterize how the president behaved.
Scarborough: We have it. We can use it. Go for it. Let's see what happens.
Brzezinski: We're behind you, you fall down and we catch you.
Halperin: I thought he was a dick yesterday.
Scarborough: Delay that. delay that. what are you doing? I can't believe -- I was joking. Don't do that. Did we delay that?
Halperin: I said it. I hope it worked.
Scarborough: My mom is watching! We'll know whether it worked.
Yeah, Mr. Halperin called the Dear Leader, President Obama, what many of us call him about 321,613 times a day.
A dick.
Now, according to dictionary.com, here are two meanings of the word:
2.n.
the penis. (Usually objectionable. Currently the most publicly used word for this organ.) : She told some dirty joke about a dick, but everybody just sat there and looked straight ahead.
3.n.
a stupid person, usually a male. (Rude and derogatory.) : What stupid dick put this thing here in the way?
Now I think that Mr. Halperin meant the latter. But this is the Dear Leader, President Obama, after all. When many say it in reference to the Dear Leader, President Obama, it is both.
And as soon as Mr. Halperin said it, a call from the White House "press" secretary, aks director of propaganda, Jay Carney, and POOF! He has been suspended indefinitely from further appearances on MSNBC.
Hey, Mark, maybe you can go on a few Fox News Channel shows in the meantime.
A little background as to why Mr. Halperin made his reference to the Dear Leader being a dick, it was the reaction to Wednesday's "press" conference.
Well, writing a slobbering book about how the Dear Leader became the leader of the Free World is not enough for some Obamawhore media flunkies.
Enter one Michelle Goldberg.
She is a writer for the obnoxious online Daily Beast. Miss Goldberg's bio is straight out of Obamawhore Media Central.
The money verbage comes right in the beginning:
Here’s why Mark Halperin is a disgrace. It’s not because he used a mild obscenity to describe our president on Morning Joe, disrespectful as that was. Rather, it was the circumstances of the slur. Right now, the Republican Party is threatening to blow up the world economy unless Democrats agree to savage cuts in spending while refusing any of the revenue increases that all serious economists say are necessary to actually address the national debt. Obama, whose greatest fault in office has been a misplaced faith in the GOP’s capacity for reasonableness, went on television and chided the party for this stance. Apparently, this struck Halperin as unreasonable. His response embodies all that’s rotten and shallow about D.C.’s pundit class, which fetishizes bipartisanship even as it only demands it of one political party.
Get it? It is the R E P U B L I C A N S that are on the precipice of "destroying" the world's economy. Nah, not Greece. Certainly not Ireland. Or Portugal or Spain. And "savage cuts" in the whale blubber that is known as the federal government. Yeah, sure Michelle. And please Michelle, call it tax hikes. At least that would be honest. Something you essentially accuse Mr. Halperin of not being. And yet, it is the Dear Leader, President Obama, who is Mr. Bipartisan according to Michelle.
Oy vey!
Michelle's last line is a friggin' doozy:
His response embodies all that’s rotten and shallow about D.C.’s pundit class, which fetishizes bipartisanship even as it only demands it of one political party.
Yes, and it may shock Michelle that the demand is always made of the R E P U B L I C A N S to be bipartisan. It always has to be the Republicans to agree to Democrat ideas and or demands. Only one Ronald Reagan turned that around. Yet before and since, the fetish of the pundit class is that the Republicans must give in to the Democrats. The leftywhore media loved it when former President George H. W. Bush broke the 1988 campaign promise of raising taxes. It did so much good that Mr. Bush 41 had his hat handed to him in 1992. And yeah, the Dems and candidate Bill Clinton turned his raising taxes against him.
And this is what is wrong with the Obamawhore media.
They are propagandists, enablers and have given up any pretense of playing it down the middle.
The irony is when one of the Obamawhores slip and speak truth to power, well that can not go unpunished. And scorn must be heaped upon this guy, Halperin. And the laugh is when a fellow traveller accuses Mr. Halperin of having some bipartisan fetish that she does not realize is one sided and has been for eons.
Really, it is just fun to nibble on the popcorn and watch these people implode.
First, there is the Obamawhore media flunky, Mark Halperin.
He is on the state-sponsored "news" network, MSNBC quite often as a political "analyst". Read, explaining the Dear Leader, President Obama's ramblings to the masses. Or the three people still watching MSNBC.
On Wednesday, thinking that the microphone was off, a huge mistake on a good day, Mr. Halperin had this dialogue:
Mark Halperin: Are we on the seven second delay?
Mika Brzezinski: Lordy.
Halperin: I wanted to characterize how the president behaved.
Scarborough: We have it. We can use it. Go for it. Let's see what happens.
Brzezinski: We're behind you, you fall down and we catch you.
Halperin: I thought he was a dick yesterday.
Scarborough: Delay that. delay that. what are you doing? I can't believe -- I was joking. Don't do that. Did we delay that?
Halperin: I said it. I hope it worked.
Scarborough: My mom is watching! We'll know whether it worked.
Yeah, Mr. Halperin called the Dear Leader, President Obama, what many of us call him about 321,613 times a day.
A dick.
Now, according to dictionary.com, here are two meanings of the word:
2.n.
the penis. (Usually objectionable. Currently the most publicly used word for this organ.) : She told some dirty joke about a dick, but everybody just sat there and looked straight ahead.
3.n.
a stupid person, usually a male. (Rude and derogatory.) : What stupid dick put this thing here in the way?
Now I think that Mr. Halperin meant the latter. But this is the Dear Leader, President Obama, after all. When many say it in reference to the Dear Leader, President Obama, it is both.
And as soon as Mr. Halperin said it, a call from the White House "press" secretary, aks director of propaganda, Jay Carney, and POOF! He has been suspended indefinitely from further appearances on MSNBC.
Hey, Mark, maybe you can go on a few Fox News Channel shows in the meantime.
A little background as to why Mr. Halperin made his reference to the Dear Leader being a dick, it was the reaction to Wednesday's "press" conference.
Well, writing a slobbering book about how the Dear Leader became the leader of the Free World is not enough for some Obamawhore media flunkies.
Enter one Michelle Goldberg.
She is a writer for the obnoxious online Daily Beast. Miss Goldberg's bio is straight out of Obamawhore Media Central.
The money verbage comes right in the beginning:
Here’s why Mark Halperin is a disgrace. It’s not because he used a mild obscenity to describe our president on Morning Joe, disrespectful as that was. Rather, it was the circumstances of the slur. Right now, the Republican Party is threatening to blow up the world economy unless Democrats agree to savage cuts in spending while refusing any of the revenue increases that all serious economists say are necessary to actually address the national debt. Obama, whose greatest fault in office has been a misplaced faith in the GOP’s capacity for reasonableness, went on television and chided the party for this stance. Apparently, this struck Halperin as unreasonable. His response embodies all that’s rotten and shallow about D.C.’s pundit class, which fetishizes bipartisanship even as it only demands it of one political party.
Get it? It is the R E P U B L I C A N S that are on the precipice of "destroying" the world's economy. Nah, not Greece. Certainly not Ireland. Or Portugal or Spain. And "savage cuts" in the whale blubber that is known as the federal government. Yeah, sure Michelle. And please Michelle, call it tax hikes. At least that would be honest. Something you essentially accuse Mr. Halperin of not being. And yet, it is the Dear Leader, President Obama, who is Mr. Bipartisan according to Michelle.
Oy vey!
Michelle's last line is a friggin' doozy:
His response embodies all that’s rotten and shallow about D.C.’s pundit class, which fetishizes bipartisanship even as it only demands it of one political party.
Yes, and it may shock Michelle that the demand is always made of the R E P U B L I C A N S to be bipartisan. It always has to be the Republicans to agree to Democrat ideas and or demands. Only one Ronald Reagan turned that around. Yet before and since, the fetish of the pundit class is that the Republicans must give in to the Democrats. The leftywhore media loved it when former President George H. W. Bush broke the 1988 campaign promise of raising taxes. It did so much good that Mr. Bush 41 had his hat handed to him in 1992. And yeah, the Dems and candidate Bill Clinton turned his raising taxes against him.
And this is what is wrong with the Obamawhore media.
They are propagandists, enablers and have given up any pretense of playing it down the middle.
The irony is when one of the Obamawhores slip and speak truth to power, well that can not go unpunished. And scorn must be heaped upon this guy, Halperin. And the laugh is when a fellow traveller accuses Mr. Halperin of having some bipartisan fetish that she does not realize is one sided and has been for eons.
Really, it is just fun to nibble on the popcorn and watch these people implode.
New Push For Two Californias
I know, a lot of people including many in the once Golden State already think there are two Californias.
So, someone wants to do something about it.And that someone is Riverside county supervisor Jeff Stone.
Mr. Stone is proposing creating a new state of Southern California. It would not really be a true state of Southern California as it would conveniently exclude the largest, Los Angeles. The new state would take in the more conservative parts of So Cal.
If you look at the map on the link, it is more southeastern California rather than a true So Cal.
But the point that Mr. Stone is making that this area is, how shall I write it, screwed by the powers of Sacramento.
When the state doles out the meager revenues, these counties are often at the short end of the stick.
But more important is that the proposed state of Southern California would break the liberal Democrat stranglehold on state government.
Because in the past, the legislative lines were drawn to favor the most liberal areas of California and the rest was divided up. Must of this region is more Republican and conservative. As it is now, they have no voice in what is going on in Sacramento. Thus California is essentially a one-party state.
The Democrats control the state legislature, all the constitutional offices and the Board of Equalization.
Does anyone really think this is a way to run a state of almost 40,000,000 people?
This is nothing new. Every few years, there is some idea of separating the state. There is still a strong divide between No Cals and So Cals.
As Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College, said recently this is a lot about how state money is divied up.
"Secession isn't really a serious and legitimate topic, but the distribution of tax revenue is," Mr. Pitney said in the linked article.
And that is what so much of this is about.
Will California be split apart? Probably not. But I am all for the conversation.
So, someone wants to do something about it.And that someone is Riverside county supervisor Jeff Stone.
Mr. Stone is proposing creating a new state of Southern California. It would not really be a true state of Southern California as it would conveniently exclude the largest, Los Angeles. The new state would take in the more conservative parts of So Cal.
If you look at the map on the link, it is more southeastern California rather than a true So Cal.
But the point that Mr. Stone is making that this area is, how shall I write it, screwed by the powers of Sacramento.
When the state doles out the meager revenues, these counties are often at the short end of the stick.
But more important is that the proposed state of Southern California would break the liberal Democrat stranglehold on state government.
Because in the past, the legislative lines were drawn to favor the most liberal areas of California and the rest was divided up. Must of this region is more Republican and conservative. As it is now, they have no voice in what is going on in Sacramento. Thus California is essentially a one-party state.
The Democrats control the state legislature, all the constitutional offices and the Board of Equalization.
Does anyone really think this is a way to run a state of almost 40,000,000 people?
This is nothing new. Every few years, there is some idea of separating the state. There is still a strong divide between No Cals and So Cals.
As Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College, said recently this is a lot about how state money is divied up.
"Secession isn't really a serious and legitimate topic, but the distribution of tax revenue is," Mr. Pitney said in the linked article.
And that is what so much of this is about.
Will California be split apart? Probably not. But I am all for the conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)