Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss) is really a bad seed in the ongoing "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. He is, as noted in an earlier post, a career politician. He has been in Washington 35 years, and he is proud of it.
What, you may ask makes him such a bad seed?
Now, Sen. Lott does not like the fact that conservative talk radio is informing the voters on the immigration bill-scam. In the New York Times http://nytimes.com, he is quoted as saying there is a "problem" with talk radio. A problem? Sen. Lott seems to forget that when he became the latter-day chairman of the Strom Thurmond for president and it drew a huge outrage with the usual left-wing suspects, it was conservative talk radio, and only conservative talk radio, that came to his defense. Even though he went all over the left-wing media merry-go-round, he ended up losing as Senate Republican leader and we got, Sen Bill Frist from Tennessee. Sen. Frist is a genuine nice guy type that was way in over his head, but had Sen. Lott not made a foolish comment about how better off the United States would have been if Sen. Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948 as a racist Dixiecrat, a lot of things would have been different.
Now, conservative talk radio and I am sure us nagging bloggers, are a problem because they are not being, to use a Don Imus quote, butt-boys for Sen. Lott and just accepting this immigration bill-scam. Does this mean that Sen. Lott would support the "Fairness doctrine" when the Democrats certainly will bring it up to make it law? Has Sen. Lott realized that if it where not for conservative talk radio and especially Rush Limbaugh, Republicans would have never been able to harness the public's anger to vote the GOP to control both houses of congress in 1994. That was then. Now those of us who blog or listen to conservative talk radio are a problem.
No, Sen. Lott, YOU are the problem. Sen. Lott, you have been insulated from the real world for so long, you really think that the world is the District of Columbia and then everything else is "fly over" country to you. Again, 35 years is long enough for anyone to be in a job.
So, Sen. Lott, you can thank me personally for getting the people riled up and deluging your e-mail and switchboards.
E-mail: seantorlott@lott.senate.gov
Washington office phone number: 202-224-6253
Mississippi office phone number: 601-965-4644
You and I, the voters, need to give Sen. Lott hell and remind the good senator who he works for-us.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Thursday, June 14, 2007
And They Wonder Why There Is No Support For "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"
What a beautiful job our politicians are doing back in the nation's capital. I mean, one can not take away from this that it really takes a lot to have a president coming in at only 29% popularity but congress is bringing up the rear with a rip-roaring 23%. So, the question is, why do the dweebs in the White House and congress keep trying to pass a bill called "comprehensive immigration reform" when the overwhelming majority of the American people do not support it in the current form? Why does the Democrat congress keep thinking that they are going to get the United States forces out of the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror without actually voting to cut off the funds, the only way they can do it? This is all that our elected officials seem to be able to talk about, and that is probably why in any given poll, roughly 70% of Americans think the nation is on the wrong track. If these people were in the private sector, heaven forbid, Donald Trump would just have to hit the play button on the taperecorder saying the immortal words, "You're fired!"
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Its Time To Gear Up Against The "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" Bill-Scam
Unfortunately, it appears that the president and allies in the senate are trying to revive the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam with very little changes that an overwhelming number of Americans want.
While many on the blogosphere and conservative talk radio are trying to buck up the senators who may be wobbly on this, I think it is time that Americans let President Bush know personally that we do not need a comprehensive bill now. We need border enforcement, speeding up the building of the whole, not part of, the fence on the southern border. We need to enforce the laws we have now in regard to employers who hire illegals knowingly. See how all of this works for a year, come back and stagger the rest of the bill. If an illegal has been here five years or less, they have to go home, no if ands or buts. Then there will be a willingness to give the rest an opportunity for citizenship. But as it is now, this bill has so many holes that Swiss cheese looks more stable than what the senate is offering.
Also, when the senate comes back with a better bill, make sure not to write it up in the dark of night. Sunshine, senators, sunshine. Any bill done the way this has been done is doomed to failure. As noted, look at the Department of Homeland Security.
Here is the contact information for the White House:
E-mail: president@whitehouse.gov
White House switchboard: 1-202-456-2461
I think because the emphasis has been on keeping senators in line, we have forgotten that deluging the president may be the only way to get this out of the senate and done right.
But, don't stop keeping pressure on the senate and your senators. Since I am here in California, here is Diane Feinstien's and Barbara Boxer's contact info:
Diane Feinstein:
Washington office phone number 1-202-224-3841
California main office number 1-415-393-0707
Barbara Boxer:
Washington office phone number 1-202-224-3553
California main office number 1-415-403-0100
Hey, they are both liberal Democrats but they do represent all of us.
Call the White House, the senators and let them know this impending train wreck must be derailed now.
While many on the blogosphere and conservative talk radio are trying to buck up the senators who may be wobbly on this, I think it is time that Americans let President Bush know personally that we do not need a comprehensive bill now. We need border enforcement, speeding up the building of the whole, not part of, the fence on the southern border. We need to enforce the laws we have now in regard to employers who hire illegals knowingly. See how all of this works for a year, come back and stagger the rest of the bill. If an illegal has been here five years or less, they have to go home, no if ands or buts. Then there will be a willingness to give the rest an opportunity for citizenship. But as it is now, this bill has so many holes that Swiss cheese looks more stable than what the senate is offering.
Also, when the senate comes back with a better bill, make sure not to write it up in the dark of night. Sunshine, senators, sunshine. Any bill done the way this has been done is doomed to failure. As noted, look at the Department of Homeland Security.
Here is the contact information for the White House:
E-mail: president@whitehouse.gov
White House switchboard: 1-202-456-2461
I think because the emphasis has been on keeping senators in line, we have forgotten that deluging the president may be the only way to get this out of the senate and done right.
But, don't stop keeping pressure on the senate and your senators. Since I am here in California, here is Diane Feinstien's and Barbara Boxer's contact info:
Diane Feinstein:
Washington office phone number 1-202-224-3841
California main office number 1-415-393-0707
Barbara Boxer:
Washington office phone number 1-202-224-3553
California main office number 1-415-403-0100
Hey, they are both liberal Democrats but they do represent all of us.
Call the White House, the senators and let them know this impending train wreck must be derailed now.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Politicizing Emergency Information
How pathetic has liberalism, er socialism, gotten in the United States? Well, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel http://sunsentinel.com, a Broward county commissioner wants to stop having emergency information, especially regarding hurricanes, broadcast over radio station WOID 610. Why, you may ask? Because that station has the utter gaul to broadcast. . .RUSH LIMBAUGH! and SEAN HANNITY!
It would be a roll-in-the-aisle, knee slapping good time except this absolute nitwit, Broward County commissioner, Stacy Ritter, said "They have every reason to speak, but we don't have to do business with them." True enough, but why did they "do business" with WOID in the first place?
Because, firstly, WOID was willing to pay top dollar and because they have both an AM and FM signal and, this should be the most important aspect of the deal, they are the stations in the area that have the strongest and widest signal strength.
Now, two other stations in the area are willing to cut a deal so that the emergency information, mostly news conferences, can be broadcast.
So, because the socialist Broward county commissioners suddenly don't want emergency information reaching the widest audience because the station they cut a deal with broadcasts conservative radio talk show hosts, they will be held liable if in the next hurricane people did not get the emergency information because that station does not reach as wide an area or could have been knocked off the air. Also, the same socialists who babble about the broadcast bands being licensed and part of the "public airwaves" are in effect, contradicting themselves.
More than likely, cooler heads will prevail as the vote on this ridiculous measure is being delayed one week.
Here is a clue to Stacy Ritter and her comrades.
Weather or other disasters are not liberal or conservative. Democrat or Republican. They affect everyone and this attempt by some socialists to tie conservative talk radio and if they will allow needed information in an emergency shows how deranged the left in the United States has become.
If this reflects the politics of Broward County, Florida, thank God I am in California!
It would be a roll-in-the-aisle, knee slapping good time except this absolute nitwit, Broward County commissioner, Stacy Ritter, said "They have every reason to speak, but we don't have to do business with them." True enough, but why did they "do business" with WOID in the first place?
Because, firstly, WOID was willing to pay top dollar and because they have both an AM and FM signal and, this should be the most important aspect of the deal, they are the stations in the area that have the strongest and widest signal strength.
Now, two other stations in the area are willing to cut a deal so that the emergency information, mostly news conferences, can be broadcast.
So, because the socialist Broward county commissioners suddenly don't want emergency information reaching the widest audience because the station they cut a deal with broadcasts conservative radio talk show hosts, they will be held liable if in the next hurricane people did not get the emergency information because that station does not reach as wide an area or could have been knocked off the air. Also, the same socialists who babble about the broadcast bands being licensed and part of the "public airwaves" are in effect, contradicting themselves.
More than likely, cooler heads will prevail as the vote on this ridiculous measure is being delayed one week.
Here is a clue to Stacy Ritter and her comrades.
Weather or other disasters are not liberal or conservative. Democrat or Republican. They affect everyone and this attempt by some socialists to tie conservative talk radio and if they will allow needed information in an emergency shows how deranged the left in the United States has become.
If this reflects the politics of Broward County, Florida, thank God I am in California!
Keep The Grahams In Your Prayers
Ruth Graham, the wife of America's best known evangelist, Billy Graham, is appearantly almost ready to go home with the Lord as Reuters is reporting. Mrs. Graham was truly a soul mate to the Reverend Graham and she will be missed.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Civil War In Gaza
I refer you to the recent and fluid events in the Gaza strip. The event is the civil war between the Fatah, a secular party that once ruled the Palestinian territories with an iron fist and Hamas, a religious party that was elected to control of the parliament and wants to rule with an iron fist and once it does, vent its fury in full force at Israel.
Most importantly, this proves a point I have made in many postings. Tomorrow, Israel could no longer exist. That would not stop the Arabs from fighting each other. Arabs have been at each others throats for centuries and Israel or no Israel, this would go on.
Fundamentally, this current battle is between Islamics that are secular and those that are religious, no matter if they are Sunni, Shia, or any other sect of Islam. But, without a doubt, there is no way that this civil war can be blamed on Israel. Oh sure, those who are predisposed to will try, but it is not successful.
Overall, the problem is that these Palestinian people believe they are mature enough to have there own nation, but since they have had a chance, time and time again they have shown incompetence, corruption and now civil war.
Thus, rather than unifying and showing that they are mature and will work with Israel to create a two-state solution and fulfillment of the 1947 United Nations mandate that created a Palestinian and Jewish state. No, Fatah became corrupt and incompetent and Hamas took advantage of that to sweep to power. But, that is not enough as they want to assume the position of Fatah and, as noted earlier, once that is achieved will turn on Israel.
Oh, as an aside to the anti-Israelis who often will say that the poor Palestinians do not match Israel in military power, they are showing that guns and explosives and hand to hand combat do quite well and would serve a Hamas-dominated government that will, no doubt, declare war on Israel.
The American media is having a hard time with this. They can not say this is a civil war and what is going on in Iraq is not in the same way. I mean, no doubt the war in Gaza is between two distinct forces, Fatah and Hamas. In Iraq, it is so multifaceted there is not a way to tell some of the players without a scorecard.
So, no matter who wins this civil war in Gaza, Israel loses, Jordan loses, Egypt loses, the United States loses and I am afraid the civilized world loses. This is not a good thing.
Most importantly, this proves a point I have made in many postings. Tomorrow, Israel could no longer exist. That would not stop the Arabs from fighting each other. Arabs have been at each others throats for centuries and Israel or no Israel, this would go on.
Fundamentally, this current battle is between Islamics that are secular and those that are religious, no matter if they are Sunni, Shia, or any other sect of Islam. But, without a doubt, there is no way that this civil war can be blamed on Israel. Oh sure, those who are predisposed to will try, but it is not successful.
Overall, the problem is that these Palestinian people believe they are mature enough to have there own nation, but since they have had a chance, time and time again they have shown incompetence, corruption and now civil war.
Thus, rather than unifying and showing that they are mature and will work with Israel to create a two-state solution and fulfillment of the 1947 United Nations mandate that created a Palestinian and Jewish state. No, Fatah became corrupt and incompetent and Hamas took advantage of that to sweep to power. But, that is not enough as they want to assume the position of Fatah and, as noted earlier, once that is achieved will turn on Israel.
Oh, as an aside to the anti-Israelis who often will say that the poor Palestinians do not match Israel in military power, they are showing that guns and explosives and hand to hand combat do quite well and would serve a Hamas-dominated government that will, no doubt, declare war on Israel.
The American media is having a hard time with this. They can not say this is a civil war and what is going on in Iraq is not in the same way. I mean, no doubt the war in Gaza is between two distinct forces, Fatah and Hamas. In Iraq, it is so multifaceted there is not a way to tell some of the players without a scorecard.
So, no matter who wins this civil war in Gaza, Israel loses, Jordan loses, Egypt loses, the United States loses and I am afraid the civilized world loses. This is not a good thing.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Baca, Hilton, Sharpton. . .The Three Stooges
I am sorry, but I must comment on the Paris Hilton jail saga.
Firstly, I for one am glad that she was sent back to jail. For all too long, Miss Hilton acted like a spoiled, rich brat. Miss Hilton was crying out for tough love and all she got were enabling parents, especially her mother. Well, jail is a very tough place and shows no love, but that is what happens in the end to people like Miss Hilton. She may have cried "Mommy!" last Friday, but no one, not even the sheriff of Los Angeles county, Lee Baca, could save her.
And, speaking of Mr. Baca, he has acted like an incompetent boob throughout this sordid affair. Mr. Baca was personally involved in letting Miss Hilton go home with a large ankle bracelet and serve her sentence at a palatial mansion. According to all involved, Miss Hilton is "suffering" a medical condition apparently very top secret. What is it? A contagious disease? Hives? A bad monthly? No one will say, which is a bad sign. Mr. Baca is NEVER that involved in run of the mill shortening of sentences.
Oh, and here is a news flash. Many people are processed at the County Jail Twin Towers, but go home that night and are given time served. That has been going on for many a moon and it has not changed.
So, as Mr. Baca is getting himself more dirty in this affair, who rears his ugly head but the racist of the year, the "Reverend" Al Sharpton. It just does not get any better than this.
"Reverend" Sharpton actually flew out here to Los Angeles, but had a meeting with Sheriff Baca. A meeting? He should have been arrested right there by Mr. Baca himself! And why is the "Reverend" Sharpton interjecting himself in this affair? Well, because of course he sees this as not only a bad action because Miss Hilton is rich, but because of course this would never happen to a black American. Please, "Reverend" Sharpton! Get a clue! As noted above, people are processed, released and given time served, even though they never spent but a few hours as a guest of the county of Los Angeles. Are blacks and other minorities treated differently? Probably, but not because of race, because they do not have access to the best lawyers money can buy.
So, will this three-ring circus ever end?
Yes, but we will be subjected to these three stooges for a long time to come and that is the tragedy of this situation.
I, for one, wish they would all just go away. . .
Firstly, I for one am glad that she was sent back to jail. For all too long, Miss Hilton acted like a spoiled, rich brat. Miss Hilton was crying out for tough love and all she got were enabling parents, especially her mother. Well, jail is a very tough place and shows no love, but that is what happens in the end to people like Miss Hilton. She may have cried "Mommy!" last Friday, but no one, not even the sheriff of Los Angeles county, Lee Baca, could save her.
And, speaking of Mr. Baca, he has acted like an incompetent boob throughout this sordid affair. Mr. Baca was personally involved in letting Miss Hilton go home with a large ankle bracelet and serve her sentence at a palatial mansion. According to all involved, Miss Hilton is "suffering" a medical condition apparently very top secret. What is it? A contagious disease? Hives? A bad monthly? No one will say, which is a bad sign. Mr. Baca is NEVER that involved in run of the mill shortening of sentences.
Oh, and here is a news flash. Many people are processed at the County Jail Twin Towers, but go home that night and are given time served. That has been going on for many a moon and it has not changed.
So, as Mr. Baca is getting himself more dirty in this affair, who rears his ugly head but the racist of the year, the "Reverend" Al Sharpton. It just does not get any better than this.
"Reverend" Sharpton actually flew out here to Los Angeles, but had a meeting with Sheriff Baca. A meeting? He should have been arrested right there by Mr. Baca himself! And why is the "Reverend" Sharpton interjecting himself in this affair? Well, because of course he sees this as not only a bad action because Miss Hilton is rich, but because of course this would never happen to a black American. Please, "Reverend" Sharpton! Get a clue! As noted above, people are processed, released and given time served, even though they never spent but a few hours as a guest of the county of Los Angeles. Are blacks and other minorities treated differently? Probably, but not because of race, because they do not have access to the best lawyers money can buy.
So, will this three-ring circus ever end?
Yes, but we will be subjected to these three stooges for a long time to come and that is the tragedy of this situation.
I, for one, wish they would all just go away. . .
Linda Chavez Falls Into The Trap
One of my favorite conservative activists is Linda Chavez. Yes, she did not become of member of the Bush 43 cabinet because of her own problems with a maid of hers that she did not pay Social Security taxes and all of that, but everyone is entitled to mistakes and even being misguided. So, when she wrote a recent column for National Review http://nationalreview.com, that essentially painted most opponents of the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam as racists and anti-Mexican, the ears perked up. I feared she fell into the trap of Sens. John "F--- You" McCain and Lindsay Graham who decided rather than to listen to the opposition to the bill, they would embark on a scorched-earthed policy of demonising the opponents instead of taking them head on.
Alas, after reading the original column, my fears were correct. It is actually alright to support the bill-scam. I have expressed through many postings why I am opposed and that it is not good to be in the Pat Buchanan camp that looks at this issue through very racist terms. I support legal immigration, from all parts of the world for it does more to invigorate the American experience, if done correctly, than not.
So, Mrs. Chavez wrote a follow up that clarified some of her original points but to some it was half-hearted. I for one will forgive her because I am with Ward Connerly, who is the leading champion of a colorblind, non-race conscience American society. Mr. Connerly, in a rebuttal on the National Review website says it best. Conservatives like to cannibalize their own. Touche!
I will say this. Some people opposed to this bill-scam are racist. They not only do not like Mexicans, but you can fill in the blank of what group and they will be against those people. They are not the majority.
Where I think Mrs. Chavez went off the cliff is by not taking those opposed to the bill-scam head on. One of the few supporters of the bill is radio talker Michael Medved http://michaelmedved.com. He takes on those opposed every day on his radio program. I could not disagree with him more on this issue, but I look at Mr. Medved as I do Mrs. Chavez, as allies, not enemies. If Mrs. Chavez was taking on the opponents point by point, she would have had a much stronger case to promote the bill-scam.
But, Mrs. Chavez did not, and that led to more of the cannibalizing that Mr. Connerly pointed to.
Now, the bill-scam is on life support going down for the third time. I think that is good. We can now seriously address the national security concerns and have a staggered approach to potentially allowing those who have been here a long time the path to citizenship. In a much earlier post, I suggested that those who have been here five years or less get the bus back to the border and can never become citizens. Ever. Those that have been here longer can maybe have a path to citizenship. I for one do not support the guest worker element as is. It must be for only two years and no more. Then, either want to become a citizen or go home.
This bill-scam was done in a bad way and defended in even a worse manner by people who know better.
But, as Mrs. Chavez fell into the bad defender part, she has tried to expand on her approach which I still may disagree with, but she is talking about the real concerns, not demonising those opposed. I will cannibalize Mrs. Chavez. I thank her for her clarification and hope that we would be more together than not.
Alas, after reading the original column, my fears were correct. It is actually alright to support the bill-scam. I have expressed through many postings why I am opposed and that it is not good to be in the Pat Buchanan camp that looks at this issue through very racist terms. I support legal immigration, from all parts of the world for it does more to invigorate the American experience, if done correctly, than not.
So, Mrs. Chavez wrote a follow up that clarified some of her original points but to some it was half-hearted. I for one will forgive her because I am with Ward Connerly, who is the leading champion of a colorblind, non-race conscience American society. Mr. Connerly, in a rebuttal on the National Review website says it best. Conservatives like to cannibalize their own. Touche!
I will say this. Some people opposed to this bill-scam are racist. They not only do not like Mexicans, but you can fill in the blank of what group and they will be against those people. They are not the majority.
Where I think Mrs. Chavez went off the cliff is by not taking those opposed to the bill-scam head on. One of the few supporters of the bill is radio talker Michael Medved http://michaelmedved.com. He takes on those opposed every day on his radio program. I could not disagree with him more on this issue, but I look at Mr. Medved as I do Mrs. Chavez, as allies, not enemies. If Mrs. Chavez was taking on the opponents point by point, she would have had a much stronger case to promote the bill-scam.
But, Mrs. Chavez did not, and that led to more of the cannibalizing that Mr. Connerly pointed to.
Now, the bill-scam is on life support going down for the third time. I think that is good. We can now seriously address the national security concerns and have a staggered approach to potentially allowing those who have been here a long time the path to citizenship. In a much earlier post, I suggested that those who have been here five years or less get the bus back to the border and can never become citizens. Ever. Those that have been here longer can maybe have a path to citizenship. I for one do not support the guest worker element as is. It must be for only two years and no more. Then, either want to become a citizen or go home.
This bill-scam was done in a bad way and defended in even a worse manner by people who know better.
But, as Mrs. Chavez fell into the bad defender part, she has tried to expand on her approach which I still may disagree with, but she is talking about the real concerns, not demonising those opposed. I will cannibalize Mrs. Chavez. I thank her for her clarification and hope that we would be more together than not.
How WE Can Help To Win The Peace In Iraq
On today's Hugh Hewitt radio show http://hughhewitt.com, Hugh had one Maj. Eric Egland and he is the head of an organization called Troops Need You. What is so important that Maj. Egland has written a book, "The Troops Need You, America!" that outlines direct steps all Americans can take to help insure victory. The book has been read by Gen David Petraeus. The book is based on suggestions by United States soldiers on the front lines in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror and there are several areas in which the average American can donate and bring potential peace and the beginning of a troop draw down in the Iraq theatre.
This is a very important organization and it will be linked here http://TroopsNeedYou.com and on the links on the side of the welcome page to this blog.
I am glad there is SOMEONE who talks victory and lets those of us who support the troops know there is something constructive that can be done to lead to the victory and the draw down that every American wants to see for our brave men and women fighting the terrorist enemy there instead of the streets of the United States.
For all too long, there has been no talk of direct sacrifice that can help the war effort and I think that has led to a dwindling of support not just for the troops but the mission in general.
Hopefully, Maj. Egland will reverse that effort.
PLEASE SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR TROOPS NEED YOU ANYWAY YOU CAN!
This is a very important organization and it will be linked here http://TroopsNeedYou.com and on the links on the side of the welcome page to this blog.
I am glad there is SOMEONE who talks victory and lets those of us who support the troops know there is something constructive that can be done to lead to the victory and the draw down that every American wants to see for our brave men and women fighting the terrorist enemy there instead of the streets of the United States.
For all too long, there has been no talk of direct sacrifice that can help the war effort and I think that has led to a dwindling of support not just for the troops but the mission in general.
Hopefully, Maj. Egland will reverse that effort.
PLEASE SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR TROOPS NEED YOU ANYWAY YOU CAN!
Back From Camping, Rearin' To Go!
I came back from our weekend camping trip and I will write a lot more about that later, but as usual there is just so much to write about from Friday to today, so later this week look for a camping post.
One thing I will say. EVERYONE should go camping at least once a year if you can and I will say that I found it rejuvenating restorative. Look for that post for a detailed explanation.
One thing I will say. EVERYONE should go camping at least once a year if you can and I will say that I found it rejuvenating restorative. Look for that post for a detailed explanation.
Friday, June 08, 2007
NO BLOGGING UNTIL SUNDAY
Today, Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and I are taking a weekend off and going camping near the Sierra Nevada mountains. Therefore, no blogging until Sunday at the earliest, maybe Monday. HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND!
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Writing Bills In The Dead Of Night+No GOP Support=DEFEAT!
In a last-ditch effort to save the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam, the United States senate voted against ending debate 45-50 as they needed 60 votes to cut off debate and voting on amendments that might have rescued this hideous legislation. HOORAY!
Here are some facts.
Tonight, key Democrats voted against cloture and most of the Republican senators, save for the usual suspects as in Sens. "F--- You" McCain, Graham, Spector, and the worst man to be the minority whip, Trent Lott.
Oh, as for Sen. Lott, he went on a temper tantrum that was, dare I say, almost comical. To me, the most telling line was the following:
"I'm getting calls, but would I dare say to my constituents "Have you no faith in me after 35 years?" Thirty-five years in congress?! That to me is an astounding case for term limits and to make congress a part-time body as the founders had intended. Because Mr. Lott has been in Washington as a congressman and senator for 35 years, I am afraid that he does not get why the American people were so against this bill-scam.
As the headline says, senators should never go about such legislation behind closed doors, cutting deals and writing a 360 page, dead on arrival bill-scam like this. When this is done, we are given such lines as Sen. Graham saying the bill is not perfect, but it is the best bipartisan chance to be had. Really? If this is the best, FORGET IT!
The bill-scam did not address the concerns that most Republican opponents had, and that is concerning national security. The z-visa is an invitation to amnesty, and to abuse and that potential terrorists could easily obtain that and commit unspeakable crimes against the United States. Also, why isn't the 1986 bill being enforced? Had that been more enforced, maybe we would not have been facing this titanic struggle to get a handle on our borders. On the Laura Ingraham radio show http://lauraingraham.com, former attorney general under President Reagan, Edwin Meese said that at least in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill, they were honest and called it an amnesty. Using cutesy language to say that it is not when it is did not help gain support.
The Republicans who supported the bill, save for Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz), were busy demonizing opponents as know-nothings, nativists, racists, unrealistic, bigots, asking moronic questions as "How are we going deport 12 million illegal aliens?" when most opponents want current laws enforced and the border security strengthened. When proponents resorted to such tactics, that is always a bad sign that they know this is not a good bill.
This seals the fate of Sen "F--- You" McCain in his hunt for the GOP presidential nomination. He will NOT be the nominee and may even have the wisdom to get out before a single caucus or primary vote is cast. Sen. McCain has a very bad habit of trying to cut deals with Democrats and always gets burned. Sen. McCain may not see that, but he like Sen.,Lott have been in Washington way too long.
Talk radio and blogs, large and small, helped stop this from seeing the light of day. There are so many that deserve credit, but a lot has to go to Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com, actually took the time to read the bill and being a lawyer was able to find the many defects in the bill. Laura Ingraham gets kudos for talking up the fact that current laws are not being enforced and should be and our borders strengthened. Unlike some, I will not bash Michael Medved http://michaelmedved.com for supporting the bill. He believes that something is better than nothing. Every conservative can be wrong on something.
So, maybe this will make the light of day, but if it is done right, and national security is the focus, I think there is a good chance. BUT, it can not see the light of day in its current form. Maybe this time, congress got the message, especially the Republicans.
Here are some facts.
Tonight, key Democrats voted against cloture and most of the Republican senators, save for the usual suspects as in Sens. "F--- You" McCain, Graham, Spector, and the worst man to be the minority whip, Trent Lott.
Oh, as for Sen. Lott, he went on a temper tantrum that was, dare I say, almost comical. To me, the most telling line was the following:
"I'm getting calls, but would I dare say to my constituents "Have you no faith in me after 35 years?" Thirty-five years in congress?! That to me is an astounding case for term limits and to make congress a part-time body as the founders had intended. Because Mr. Lott has been in Washington as a congressman and senator for 35 years, I am afraid that he does not get why the American people were so against this bill-scam.
As the headline says, senators should never go about such legislation behind closed doors, cutting deals and writing a 360 page, dead on arrival bill-scam like this. When this is done, we are given such lines as Sen. Graham saying the bill is not perfect, but it is the best bipartisan chance to be had. Really? If this is the best, FORGET IT!
The bill-scam did not address the concerns that most Republican opponents had, and that is concerning national security. The z-visa is an invitation to amnesty, and to abuse and that potential terrorists could easily obtain that and commit unspeakable crimes against the United States. Also, why isn't the 1986 bill being enforced? Had that been more enforced, maybe we would not have been facing this titanic struggle to get a handle on our borders. On the Laura Ingraham radio show http://lauraingraham.com, former attorney general under President Reagan, Edwin Meese said that at least in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill, they were honest and called it an amnesty. Using cutesy language to say that it is not when it is did not help gain support.
The Republicans who supported the bill, save for Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz), were busy demonizing opponents as know-nothings, nativists, racists, unrealistic, bigots, asking moronic questions as "How are we going deport 12 million illegal aliens?" when most opponents want current laws enforced and the border security strengthened. When proponents resorted to such tactics, that is always a bad sign that they know this is not a good bill.
This seals the fate of Sen "F--- You" McCain in his hunt for the GOP presidential nomination. He will NOT be the nominee and may even have the wisdom to get out before a single caucus or primary vote is cast. Sen. McCain has a very bad habit of trying to cut deals with Democrats and always gets burned. Sen. McCain may not see that, but he like Sen.,Lott have been in Washington way too long.
Talk radio and blogs, large and small, helped stop this from seeing the light of day. There are so many that deserve credit, but a lot has to go to Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com, actually took the time to read the bill and being a lawyer was able to find the many defects in the bill. Laura Ingraham gets kudos for talking up the fact that current laws are not being enforced and should be and our borders strengthened. Unlike some, I will not bash Michael Medved http://michaelmedved.com for supporting the bill. He believes that something is better than nothing. Every conservative can be wrong on something.
So, maybe this will make the light of day, but if it is done right, and national security is the focus, I think there is a good chance. BUT, it can not see the light of day in its current form. Maybe this time, congress got the message, especially the Republicans.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
CONGRATULATIONS ANAHEIM DUCKS!
Well, finally, Southern California has Lord Stanley's Cup as the Anaheim Ducks beat the Ottawa Senators at the Honda Center in Anaheim tonight in the National Hockey League finals. The score was 6-2.
I am a Los Angeles Kings fan and in some way this is bittersweet, but I am just glad that it will be here, in So Cal for at least one year.
When the Disney Company owned the Ducks, they made hockey a joke by naming the team the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, after the hockey movie of the same name, the Mighty Ducks. Well, Disney got out of the sports business, something they had no knowledge of, with the sale last season to Orange County businessman Henry Samuelli. Thankfully he dropped the moronic "Mighty" and they became the Anaheim Ducks. Changed the uniform and it must have had some effect on the team.
All that I know is that something that not even the mighty Wayne Gretzky could do when he was on the Los Angeles Kings has been done. The Stanley Cup is in So Cal, and I for one, can not be happier.
Now, if only my World Series prediction holds up. . .
I am a Los Angeles Kings fan and in some way this is bittersweet, but I am just glad that it will be here, in So Cal for at least one year.
When the Disney Company owned the Ducks, they made hockey a joke by naming the team the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, after the hockey movie of the same name, the Mighty Ducks. Well, Disney got out of the sports business, something they had no knowledge of, with the sale last season to Orange County businessman Henry Samuelli. Thankfully he dropped the moronic "Mighty" and they became the Anaheim Ducks. Changed the uniform and it must have had some effect on the team.
All that I know is that something that not even the mighty Wayne Gretzky could do when he was on the Los Angeles Kings has been done. The Stanley Cup is in So Cal, and I for one, can not be happier.
Now, if only my World Series prediction holds up. . .
Obama And The "Quiet Riots"
Maybe it is just me, but I do not get the excitement about Illinois senator Barack Obama. I mean, maybe he is just of such an intellectual mind that I miss the point. Maybe his speeches are just, well over my head.
But, I was taken aback when yesterday, Sen. Obama referred to the "quiet riots" in the black community.
I had to wait to post this and do the research for I thought that he was referring to the 80s metal band, Quiet Riot. But, alas, he was not.
In a speech before a primarily black audience, he constantly referred to both the Los Angeles riots of 1992 in reaction to the not guilty verdicts in the Rodney King beating case and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
The quote is as follows:
Those "quiet riots" that take place every day are born from the same place as the fires and destruction and the police decked out in riot gear and the deaths. They happen when a sense of disconnect settles in and hope dissipates. Despair takes hold and young people all across this country look at the way the world is and believe that things are never going to get any better.
Now, I do not get it? Is Sen. Obama using that as a call to arms or is it just lofty rhetoric? I mean, are all young people feeling this way? I, for one, do not think that is the case. I also do not think it is a call to arms, but it is a bizarre way of trying to explain things.
Sometimes, it is not what you say but how you mean it. That is what I would like the DDBMSM to ask Sen. Obama in the next Democrat presidential debate. I mean, the trudging out of the Los Angeles riots and the disaster that was Hurricane Katrina is not a good thing if Sen. Obama is trying to reach out beyond the Democrat base. The fact is, starting with Katrina, it was local and state govenmental incompetance. New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, who unbelievably was reelected in the aftermath, and Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco were way in over their heads. No question, so was FEMA chief, Micheal "Brownie" Brown. As far as the Los Angeles riots are concerned, Rodney King was the wrong candidate to rally around. As Mr. King has shown since his original arrest, he is nothing but a punk and this is what many blacks so rallied to? I have never and never will understand why he became the poster child for blacks to rally around concerning police abuse.
I think that Sen. Obama should have used better examples rather than incompetant state and city leaders in Louisiana and a discredited punk who probably does belong in jail.
Most importantly, Sen. Obama should cool the overheated and lofty rhetoric and offer concrete solutions to the problems that not only would affect black Americans but all Americans.
But, I was taken aback when yesterday, Sen. Obama referred to the "quiet riots" in the black community.
I had to wait to post this and do the research for I thought that he was referring to the 80s metal band, Quiet Riot. But, alas, he was not.
In a speech before a primarily black audience, he constantly referred to both the Los Angeles riots of 1992 in reaction to the not guilty verdicts in the Rodney King beating case and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
The quote is as follows:
Those "quiet riots" that take place every day are born from the same place as the fires and destruction and the police decked out in riot gear and the deaths. They happen when a sense of disconnect settles in and hope dissipates. Despair takes hold and young people all across this country look at the way the world is and believe that things are never going to get any better.
Now, I do not get it? Is Sen. Obama using that as a call to arms or is it just lofty rhetoric? I mean, are all young people feeling this way? I, for one, do not think that is the case. I also do not think it is a call to arms, but it is a bizarre way of trying to explain things.
Sometimes, it is not what you say but how you mean it. That is what I would like the DDBMSM to ask Sen. Obama in the next Democrat presidential debate. I mean, the trudging out of the Los Angeles riots and the disaster that was Hurricane Katrina is not a good thing if Sen. Obama is trying to reach out beyond the Democrat base. The fact is, starting with Katrina, it was local and state govenmental incompetance. New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, who unbelievably was reelected in the aftermath, and Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco were way in over their heads. No question, so was FEMA chief, Micheal "Brownie" Brown. As far as the Los Angeles riots are concerned, Rodney King was the wrong candidate to rally around. As Mr. King has shown since his original arrest, he is nothing but a punk and this is what many blacks so rallied to? I have never and never will understand why he became the poster child for blacks to rally around concerning police abuse.
I think that Sen. Obama should have used better examples rather than incompetant state and city leaders in Louisiana and a discredited punk who probably does belong in jail.
Most importantly, Sen. Obama should cool the overheated and lofty rhetoric and offer concrete solutions to the problems that not only would affect black Americans but all Americans.
A Cheney For The Senate?
An interesting posting on The Politico http://politico.com has raised some speculation that Lynne Cheney, the wife of Vice-President Dick Cheney is being floated as a possible replacement for the late Wyoming senator Craig Thomas. Sen. Thomas died on Monday after a battle with leukemia.
In a save for the Republicans, Wyoming law allows the governor to select a candidate from the party that the seat was held under. While the Wyoming governor is a Democrat, he will pick from three names supplied from the Wyoming GOP within 15 days from this past Monday. That replacement will run in 2008.
Now, would that not be interesting? I think it would be, but one thing is for sure. Mrs. Cheney is truly an intellect compared to another female senator who happens to be running for president, Hilary Clinton (D-New York). Mrs Cheney has a PhD and has served in government before.
But, for what it is worth, I do not think Mrs. Cheney would accept unless the Wyoming Republican party convinces her that she would be the only candidate that could hold the seat. And even then, that would be a lot of convincing.
I for one do not know of any other candidates other than those in the post on The Politico.
Although, SENATOR Cheney would drive SENATOR Clinton crazy, so. . .maybe?
In a save for the Republicans, Wyoming law allows the governor to select a candidate from the party that the seat was held under. While the Wyoming governor is a Democrat, he will pick from three names supplied from the Wyoming GOP within 15 days from this past Monday. That replacement will run in 2008.
Now, would that not be interesting? I think it would be, but one thing is for sure. Mrs. Cheney is truly an intellect compared to another female senator who happens to be running for president, Hilary Clinton (D-New York). Mrs Cheney has a PhD and has served in government before.
But, for what it is worth, I do not think Mrs. Cheney would accept unless the Wyoming Republican party convinces her that she would be the only candidate that could hold the seat. And even then, that would be a lot of convincing.
I for one do not know of any other candidates other than those in the post on The Politico.
Although, SENATOR Cheney would drive SENATOR Clinton crazy, so. . .maybe?
More DDBMSM Disconnect
Last night at St Anselm's College in New Hampshire, the 11 Republican candidates for president, minus one Fred Thompson, had a debate and the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream Media (DDBMSM) said that former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani won the debate. But. . .
Pollster extraorindare Frank Luntz had one of his famous focus group and the focus group said that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won the debate. According to the focus group, he gave the kind of answers that did not seem scripted and that they were sincere.
So, what is going on here?
Clearly, the DDBMSM is backing Mr. Giuliani for the GOP nod. They like the fact that he pretty much does not want to talk or deal with the so-called social issues. That is too bad because should he win the nomination and win the presidency, he will have to deal with them one way or the other. Clearly, he is muddled on the second amendment and has still not given a coherent answer on the subject. As far as a general Republican view on government in general, it is somewhat traditional for smaller government, less social welfare spending. But again, to me he just sounds like a watered-down Democrat.
Like it or not, Mr. Romney does not give the answers that the DDBMSM wants to hear. They are conservative answers and they do not want to see another conservative become the nominee and possible president. It is why they hated Ronald Reagan. And, to a lesser extent Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush and now their laser has been beyond the hate of Ronald Reagan towards George W. Bush. Mr. Romney admits that he was not always a Reagan guy, but he has lived a little life, made some money in the private sector and with that has come to the realization that Mr. Reagan was more right than wrong. Thus, he sounds more sincere. Also, he has a constant smile and that means genuine optimism. So did Mr. Reagan. And, I think that voters want a serious, yet optimistic president.
So, how does a focus group get it wrong and the DDBMSM get it right?
Obviously, it is the other way around. The focus group got it right and the DDBMSM got it wrong.
I agree with Dean Barnett http://hughhewitt.com, that the more people see of Mr. Romney, the more people like him and are drawn to him. These debates help Mr. Romney and endear him more to the voting pool.
Like the Republicans in Washington who think those of us opposed to the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam are racists and no-nothings, the DDBMSM don't get the Republican base and even Republican-leading voters. Thus, as they are trying to shove a bad bill down our throats, they are trying to shove a candidate in Mr. Giuliani down our throats. But, honest observers know that is not the case and that is why Mr. Romney is moving forward and former Sen. Fred Thompson sees his opportunity to get in the race.
Pollster extraorindare Frank Luntz had one of his famous focus group and the focus group said that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won the debate. According to the focus group, he gave the kind of answers that did not seem scripted and that they were sincere.
So, what is going on here?
Clearly, the DDBMSM is backing Mr. Giuliani for the GOP nod. They like the fact that he pretty much does not want to talk or deal with the so-called social issues. That is too bad because should he win the nomination and win the presidency, he will have to deal with them one way or the other. Clearly, he is muddled on the second amendment and has still not given a coherent answer on the subject. As far as a general Republican view on government in general, it is somewhat traditional for smaller government, less social welfare spending. But again, to me he just sounds like a watered-down Democrat.
Like it or not, Mr. Romney does not give the answers that the DDBMSM wants to hear. They are conservative answers and they do not want to see another conservative become the nominee and possible president. It is why they hated Ronald Reagan. And, to a lesser extent Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush and now their laser has been beyond the hate of Ronald Reagan towards George W. Bush. Mr. Romney admits that he was not always a Reagan guy, but he has lived a little life, made some money in the private sector and with that has come to the realization that Mr. Reagan was more right than wrong. Thus, he sounds more sincere. Also, he has a constant smile and that means genuine optimism. So did Mr. Reagan. And, I think that voters want a serious, yet optimistic president.
So, how does a focus group get it wrong and the DDBMSM get it right?
Obviously, it is the other way around. The focus group got it right and the DDBMSM got it wrong.
I agree with Dean Barnett http://hughhewitt.com, that the more people see of Mr. Romney, the more people like him and are drawn to him. These debates help Mr. Romney and endear him more to the voting pool.
Like the Republicans in Washington who think those of us opposed to the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam are racists and no-nothings, the DDBMSM don't get the Republican base and even Republican-leading voters. Thus, as they are trying to shove a bad bill down our throats, they are trying to shove a candidate in Mr. Giuliani down our throats. But, honest observers know that is not the case and that is why Mr. Romney is moving forward and former Sen. Fred Thompson sees his opportunity to get in the race.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Dems Get That Old Time Religion
Last night on CNN, the three leading Democrats for the presidential nomination, Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-New York), former senator John Edwards and current Sen. Barack Obama had a discussion on-hold on to your hats-religion.
Oh, how the Daily Kos crowd must have been quaking in their boots that Democrats would talk about God.
But don't worry, know the sponsor of the event and you will know what kind of track this went on.
It was sponsored by Sojourners/Call To Renewal, a left-wing evangelical group led by Rev. Jim Wallis. Yes, there are left-wing evangelicals. They are the type who think that liberation theology that swept the Roman Catholic church in Central America during the 1980's was good.
The "Call To Renewal" is actually to wipe out poverty, a noble and wanting goal, and a "social justice" type of group.
So, lets review the candidates and their denominational ties.
Hilary Clinton is a Methodist and one who buys into the "social justice" that many Methodist leaders promote. However, and I am sure that she was not fibbing here, she did say that a strong faith saved her marriage to former president Bill Clinton. I am sure she needed a lot of that faith.
John Edwards is a Southern Baptist. He pretty much can not really articulate what that means or anything that does not sound canned or put to a focus group. He could not really answer on whether or not gays and lesbians should be "allowed" to marry. One can make a rational case that as a Christian, no, but that there can be a civil union type of compromise. Otherwise, he showed he was really into the whole "social justice" gospel of the Rev. Wallis.
Barack Obama. Sen. Obama belongs to the most liberal denomination in American Christendom-the United Church of Christ. If there is a denomination that makes the Episcopal Church look like, well Southern Baptists, it is the UCC. Also, the church that he calls home in Chicago is led by a radical minister.
So, Sen. Edwards would be most likely to take tough stands on issues of faith, right? Well, since there were no real questions on that, one can take away that the Democrats are trying to show Middle America that they too are good, God-fearing people that God is not a Republican. By talking about it on CNN, which fights with MSNBC for the cable news cellar, they must think that the publicity will help their campaigns among conservative religious voters.
Here is the problem. I think that it is not just "social issues" or whether or not one backs same-sex marriage or not, or supports abortion on demand up to the ninth month or opposes it. One's faith can only be out there for all to see in any given situation. Any candidate on either side can only admit that they try to live up to their understanding of their faith in the best way. But, some do it better than others. And in general, Democrat voters and the front running candidates are very uncomfortable about God. They fear this "religious right" that does not exist. They fear a theocracy in the making if any Republican wins the White House. And that is the problem.
For all of his faults, former President Jimmy Carter may have been the last Democrat to be open and freely explaining his faith and putting in action.
A television show is not the way for the Democrats to get that old time religion. It is with words and actions. We shall see how that plays out.
Oh, how the Daily Kos crowd must have been quaking in their boots that Democrats would talk about God.
But don't worry, know the sponsor of the event and you will know what kind of track this went on.
It was sponsored by Sojourners/Call To Renewal, a left-wing evangelical group led by Rev. Jim Wallis. Yes, there are left-wing evangelicals. They are the type who think that liberation theology that swept the Roman Catholic church in Central America during the 1980's was good.
The "Call To Renewal" is actually to wipe out poverty, a noble and wanting goal, and a "social justice" type of group.
So, lets review the candidates and their denominational ties.
Hilary Clinton is a Methodist and one who buys into the "social justice" that many Methodist leaders promote. However, and I am sure that she was not fibbing here, she did say that a strong faith saved her marriage to former president Bill Clinton. I am sure she needed a lot of that faith.
John Edwards is a Southern Baptist. He pretty much can not really articulate what that means or anything that does not sound canned or put to a focus group. He could not really answer on whether or not gays and lesbians should be "allowed" to marry. One can make a rational case that as a Christian, no, but that there can be a civil union type of compromise. Otherwise, he showed he was really into the whole "social justice" gospel of the Rev. Wallis.
Barack Obama. Sen. Obama belongs to the most liberal denomination in American Christendom-the United Church of Christ. If there is a denomination that makes the Episcopal Church look like, well Southern Baptists, it is the UCC. Also, the church that he calls home in Chicago is led by a radical minister.
So, Sen. Edwards would be most likely to take tough stands on issues of faith, right? Well, since there were no real questions on that, one can take away that the Democrats are trying to show Middle America that they too are good, God-fearing people that God is not a Republican. By talking about it on CNN, which fights with MSNBC for the cable news cellar, they must think that the publicity will help their campaigns among conservative religious voters.
Here is the problem. I think that it is not just "social issues" or whether or not one backs same-sex marriage or not, or supports abortion on demand up to the ninth month or opposes it. One's faith can only be out there for all to see in any given situation. Any candidate on either side can only admit that they try to live up to their understanding of their faith in the best way. But, some do it better than others. And in general, Democrat voters and the front running candidates are very uncomfortable about God. They fear this "religious right" that does not exist. They fear a theocracy in the making if any Republican wins the White House. And that is the problem.
For all of his faults, former President Jimmy Carter may have been the last Democrat to be open and freely explaining his faith and putting in action.
A television show is not the way for the Democrats to get that old time religion. It is with words and actions. We shall see how that plays out.
Why Mike Huckabee Will NOT Be President
In tonight's Republican presidential debate on CNN, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee made a fatal error.
According to Fox News http://FoxNews.com, Mr. Huckabee said that today was Ronald Reagan's birthday. NOT! Everyone who knows anything about Ronald Reagan know that the Gipper's birthday is February 6, 1911 and he was born in Tampico, Illinois.
Sorry, Mike, but if ya don't know that, I know ya ain't gonna be the Republican nominee for president
According to Fox News http://FoxNews.com, Mr. Huckabee said that today was Ronald Reagan's birthday. NOT! Everyone who knows anything about Ronald Reagan know that the Gipper's birthday is February 6, 1911 and he was born in Tampico, Illinois.
Sorry, Mike, but if ya don't know that, I know ya ain't gonna be the Republican nominee for president
Another Left Wing Assault On Free Enterprise
Now a lawsuit filed by a lesbian in San Francisco, yes I know, isn't it an oxymoron, against the date matching service eHarmony is an assault on free enterprise cloaked in discrimination.
Linda Carlson either did not realize or is just ignorant but she should know that eHarmony is designed to match heterosexuals in relationships and eventually marriage. eHarmony claims that there are 29 scientific dimensions to compatibility and use it to match potential people, male with female, in hopes that a relationship will develop and marriage will occur.
Well, Miss Carlson tried to enter "women seeking women" and of course was denied on the website. There is no same-sex categories. She even wrote a letter to eHarmony citing that according to California state law, they were engaging in sexual discrimination. Of course, eHarmony did not change its policy based on a letter and the fact that they are not discriminating against gays & lesbians.
According to the Reuters article www.reuters.com/articleId=USN3122132120070531, in a statement made by e-Harmony, they said:
"The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research , to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages. Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It's just not a service we offer now based on the research we have conducted."
So, there it is, e-Harmony is a service designed to match heterosexuals in the hopes of marriage based on a scientific theory.
Miss Carlson said, I kid you not, "Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in the day and age." Hmm.
It is, by design, a business targeting a specific group of people. Miss Carlson may not be aware, but there are a lot of gay and lesbian websites that target that audience for dating and relationship services. Some of these on on sites that also offer dating and relationship services to heterosexuals as well. That is the way they are designed and that suits their mission.
It is the worst kept secret that the founder of eHarmony, Dr. Neil Clark Warren, is an evangelical Christian and the eHarmony site is tacitly, but not specifically, designed for Christians. Again, nothing wrong with that.
Here is the problem with Miss Carlson and her lawyer, Todd Schnider. This is a company and a business that has the right to cater to who they want to use their product. If there was not another site open to same sex relationships, there is the possibility of a case. But there are hundreds.
The real thrust of the lawsuit is twofold. 1) It is force any business to have to specifically cater to same-sex, even if they can prove that what their business is would not really be related to same-sex relationships. 2) It is also designed to go after Christians and what many believe. No matter where you are on the issue of homosexuality, no one can forcibly change one's beliefs just as no one can forcibly put those beliefs on any one else.
Because this is California, I am afraid this ridiculous lawsuit will see the light of day and may have to work it's way through the court system before one of the courts say that it is enough. Free enterprise should win over political correctness run amok.
Linda Carlson either did not realize or is just ignorant but she should know that eHarmony is designed to match heterosexuals in relationships and eventually marriage. eHarmony claims that there are 29 scientific dimensions to compatibility and use it to match potential people, male with female, in hopes that a relationship will develop and marriage will occur.
Well, Miss Carlson tried to enter "women seeking women" and of course was denied on the website. There is no same-sex categories. She even wrote a letter to eHarmony citing that according to California state law, they were engaging in sexual discrimination. Of course, eHarmony did not change its policy based on a letter and the fact that they are not discriminating against gays & lesbians.
According to the Reuters article www.reuters.com/articleId=USN3122132120070531, in a statement made by e-Harmony, they said:
"The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research , to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages. Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It's just not a service we offer now based on the research we have conducted."
So, there it is, e-Harmony is a service designed to match heterosexuals in the hopes of marriage based on a scientific theory.
Miss Carlson said, I kid you not, "Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in the day and age." Hmm.
It is, by design, a business targeting a specific group of people. Miss Carlson may not be aware, but there are a lot of gay and lesbian websites that target that audience for dating and relationship services. Some of these on on sites that also offer dating and relationship services to heterosexuals as well. That is the way they are designed and that suits their mission.
It is the worst kept secret that the founder of eHarmony, Dr. Neil Clark Warren, is an evangelical Christian and the eHarmony site is tacitly, but not specifically, designed for Christians. Again, nothing wrong with that.
Here is the problem with Miss Carlson and her lawyer, Todd Schnider. This is a company and a business that has the right to cater to who they want to use their product. If there was not another site open to same sex relationships, there is the possibility of a case. But there are hundreds.
The real thrust of the lawsuit is twofold. 1) It is force any business to have to specifically cater to same-sex, even if they can prove that what their business is would not really be related to same-sex relationships. 2) It is also designed to go after Christians and what many believe. No matter where you are on the issue of homosexuality, no one can forcibly change one's beliefs just as no one can forcibly put those beliefs on any one else.
Because this is California, I am afraid this ridiculous lawsuit will see the light of day and may have to work it's way through the court system before one of the courts say that it is enough. Free enterprise should win over political correctness run amok.
Monday, June 04, 2007
It's June, TIme For A Swoon?
OK, I know a lot of you do not like baseball, I am sure, so you may skip this post as it is an assessment of the pennant races after the first weekend of June, a good marker as to where the division leaders are and where they are going.
I will give my assessment by league and division starting with the only major league, the National League, and the only division that matters, the West.
The Los Angeles Dodgers are in first place and I see only two teams that have a serious chance of derailing the Dodgers division hopes. Oh, the Dodgers will be in the playoffs either as the division winner or the wild card. The Arizona Diamondbacks, with their absolutely hideous new jerseys and hats are a serious contender, but I am not sure that they will be there at the end. They have great potential, new ownership and a winning attitude. But, that probably won't be enough this year. The San Diego Padres are the only other teams that can give the Dodgers trouble and they might. When the Dodgers play the Padres, it is now the real rivalry replacing the Dodgers and Giants. Oh, by the way, how many World Series have the San Francisco Giants won? Answer later.
In the National League central division, the Milwaukee Brewers are finally showing their true potential as they are leading the division. Otherwise, the rest of the division is a mess and I think the Brewers will win it and make the playoffs. BTW, what has happened to the St. Louis Cardinals? Have they consumed more Anhauser Busch adult beverage products than they should be? I mean, manager Tony LaRussa was busted for drunk driving in the preseason and the tragic death of Josh Hancock, in which he was apparently driving drunk. Maybe the commissioner, Satan himself, Bud Selig should look into this as he is taking the steroids controversy so seriously.
In the National League East, the New York Mets are on fire and will win this division going away and finally, and not a moment too soon, bring the dominance of the Atlanta Braves to a merciless end. Can't take another team seriously in this division any more than the NL central. Thus, the wild card will come from the now dominant NL West, as it should.
Switching over to the junior circuit, the American League, and starting in the AL West.
The Anaheim* Angels are leading the division and it should win with ease. The Oakland A's just seem like they catch up and then fall behind. Seattle and Texas, forget it. The Anaheim* Angels will safely win the West and make the playoffs.
The American League central is very interesting. It is the best division the AL (sorry Dean Barnett) http://hughhewitt.com and there is a dog fight for the lead between the Cleveland Indians and Detroit Tigers. The Tigers went into Jacobs Field and split a crucial series over this past weekend. Also, can't rule out the Minnesota Twins. I think Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com will be happy for this prediction. The Indians are going to win the AL central and either the Detroit Tigers or Minnesota Twins are the wild card.
The AL East is great. The Boston Red Sox are running away with the division (Dean Barnett will be HAPPY with this!) and the dreaded, hated New York Yankees are wallowing near the cellar. This is a no brainer. The Bosox are going to win running away. I also do not think the Yankees will even make .500. And I like Joe Torre, but I am afraid he will not last to the end of this season.
So, here I go with who will be in the World Series and who will win:
National League: Los Angeles Dodgers
American League: Cleveland Indians.
World Series Champions: Los Angeles Dodgers (sorry Hugh Hewitt!)
I am sure this will stir some controversy. I look forward to readers choices.
*-In this blog, the Angels WILL NEVER be referred to as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. The only Los Angeles baseball team is the Dodgers. I like the Angels, but they left Los Angeles in 1966 and can not say they are Los Angeles 40 years later no matter what their owner, Arte Moreno, or Satan himself, Mr. Selig have to say about it!
Oh, and for you San Francisco Giant fans, you have NOT won a World Series since moving out west in 1958. Maybe the Giants should not have wasted so much money on one, questionable player, Barry Bonds, and spread the money around to get a winner for once!
I will give my assessment by league and division starting with the only major league, the National League, and the only division that matters, the West.
The Los Angeles Dodgers are in first place and I see only two teams that have a serious chance of derailing the Dodgers division hopes. Oh, the Dodgers will be in the playoffs either as the division winner or the wild card. The Arizona Diamondbacks, with their absolutely hideous new jerseys and hats are a serious contender, but I am not sure that they will be there at the end. They have great potential, new ownership and a winning attitude. But, that probably won't be enough this year. The San Diego Padres are the only other teams that can give the Dodgers trouble and they might. When the Dodgers play the Padres, it is now the real rivalry replacing the Dodgers and Giants. Oh, by the way, how many World Series have the San Francisco Giants won? Answer later.
In the National League central division, the Milwaukee Brewers are finally showing their true potential as they are leading the division. Otherwise, the rest of the division is a mess and I think the Brewers will win it and make the playoffs. BTW, what has happened to the St. Louis Cardinals? Have they consumed more Anhauser Busch adult beverage products than they should be? I mean, manager Tony LaRussa was busted for drunk driving in the preseason and the tragic death of Josh Hancock, in which he was apparently driving drunk. Maybe the commissioner, Satan himself, Bud Selig should look into this as he is taking the steroids controversy so seriously.
In the National League East, the New York Mets are on fire and will win this division going away and finally, and not a moment too soon, bring the dominance of the Atlanta Braves to a merciless end. Can't take another team seriously in this division any more than the NL central. Thus, the wild card will come from the now dominant NL West, as it should.
Switching over to the junior circuit, the American League, and starting in the AL West.
The Anaheim* Angels are leading the division and it should win with ease. The Oakland A's just seem like they catch up and then fall behind. Seattle and Texas, forget it. The Anaheim* Angels will safely win the West and make the playoffs.
The American League central is very interesting. It is the best division the AL (sorry Dean Barnett) http://hughhewitt.com and there is a dog fight for the lead between the Cleveland Indians and Detroit Tigers. The Tigers went into Jacobs Field and split a crucial series over this past weekend. Also, can't rule out the Minnesota Twins. I think Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com will be happy for this prediction. The Indians are going to win the AL central and either the Detroit Tigers or Minnesota Twins are the wild card.
The AL East is great. The Boston Red Sox are running away with the division (Dean Barnett will be HAPPY with this!) and the dreaded, hated New York Yankees are wallowing near the cellar. This is a no brainer. The Bosox are going to win running away. I also do not think the Yankees will even make .500. And I like Joe Torre, but I am afraid he will not last to the end of this season.
So, here I go with who will be in the World Series and who will win:
National League: Los Angeles Dodgers
American League: Cleveland Indians.
World Series Champions: Los Angeles Dodgers (sorry Hugh Hewitt!)
I am sure this will stir some controversy. I look forward to readers choices.
*-In this blog, the Angels WILL NEVER be referred to as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. The only Los Angeles baseball team is the Dodgers. I like the Angels, but they left Los Angeles in 1966 and can not say they are Los Angeles 40 years later no matter what their owner, Arte Moreno, or Satan himself, Mr. Selig have to say about it!
Oh, and for you San Francisco Giant fans, you have NOT won a World Series since moving out west in 1958. Maybe the Giants should not have wasted so much money on one, questionable player, Barry Bonds, and spread the money around to get a winner for once!
Thank You For The Apology, Rudy
That is what is wonderful about the blogosphere. As I write asking why would the Rudy Giuliani campaign try a hit smear on fellow Republican Mitt Romney, the Giuliani campaign offers Mr. Romney a rightful apology http://latestpolitics/blog.com.
The apology for trying to frighten GOP voters to a Salt Lake City Tribune smear in Monday's edition is welcome and necessary to keep Mr. Giuliani's voters from continuing and spreading such bad rumors.
Again, leave the smearing to the Democrats as we know they will.
The apology for trying to frighten GOP voters to a Salt Lake City Tribune smear in Monday's edition is welcome and necessary to keep Mr. Giuliani's voters from continuing and spreading such bad rumors.
Again, leave the smearing to the Democrats as we know they will.
Why Is Guiliani Cheap Shotting Romney?
It is with disgust that I report that a low-level Rudy Giuliani staffer tried to sniff the conservative New York Sun http://latestpolitics.com to the story I referred you to in an earlier post on a supported Mormon prophecy that a Mormon would ride in on a white horse to save the United States constitution.
It was a smear job in the Salt Lake City Tribune, the liberal newspaper in the "Vatican of The LDS" http://sltrib.com and I refer you to it to judge for yourself.
The fact that the Giuliani campaign in anyway is trying to steer people to this hit piece is very disturbing. But, the good sign is that the Giuliani camp is taking Mr. Romney's candidacy very seriously, but stooping without a doubt to a dirty trick.
I think that the Giuliani people should leave that to the Democrats. After all, they are the ones and the left wing blogs that are infatuated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and their teachings.
Here is a little primer on judging a candidate.
If you find, as a Republican in this case, that you agree with one of the 11 candidates the most, you should throw you support and when you get the chance, vote for that candidate. The candidate's religion has nothing to do with how you vote for that candidate. I am a Protestant Christian and I have voted for Roman Catholic candidates. If I was in Connecticut in the 2006 mid term elections, I would have crawled over broken glass to vote for Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat and an Orthodox Jew. The same theory goes for the Democrats as well.
I hope that the Giuliani campaign fires the staffer and repudiates such dirty tricks and if they can, talk about Mr. Romney on the real, current issues, not a repudiated "prophecy" about a Mormon on a white horse saving the United States constitution.
It was a smear job in the Salt Lake City Tribune, the liberal newspaper in the "Vatican of The LDS" http://sltrib.com and I refer you to it to judge for yourself.
The fact that the Giuliani campaign in anyway is trying to steer people to this hit piece is very disturbing. But, the good sign is that the Giuliani camp is taking Mr. Romney's candidacy very seriously, but stooping without a doubt to a dirty trick.
I think that the Giuliani people should leave that to the Democrats. After all, they are the ones and the left wing blogs that are infatuated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and their teachings.
Here is a little primer on judging a candidate.
If you find, as a Republican in this case, that you agree with one of the 11 candidates the most, you should throw you support and when you get the chance, vote for that candidate. The candidate's religion has nothing to do with how you vote for that candidate. I am a Protestant Christian and I have voted for Roman Catholic candidates. If I was in Connecticut in the 2006 mid term elections, I would have crawled over broken glass to vote for Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat and an Orthodox Jew. The same theory goes for the Democrats as well.
I hope that the Giuliani campaign fires the staffer and repudiates such dirty tricks and if they can, talk about Mr. Romney on the real, current issues, not a repudiated "prophecy" about a Mormon on a white horse saving the United States constitution.
More Mormon Bashing From Salt Lake City
In a bizarre hit piece, the Salt Lake City Tribune http://sltrib.com, a supposed Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints "prophecy" says that a Mormon will ride on a white horse and save the United States constitution.
WOW! I did not know that. I mean, I know a minimal amount about the Mormon faith so I am not an expert. But the fact that the Tribune hit piece did not have any Mormon of seriousness backing this "prophecy." In fact, all went out of their way to question it because that it was "revealed" 10 years after the death of Joseph Smith, the church founder. Yes, Mr. Smith ran for president in 1844, but was lynched shortly thereafter. So, why wait 10 years to prophesy about it?
Most serious churchmen and scholars doubt the validity of the so-called prophecy and thus it is not something talked about.
Also, it should be noted that Salt Lake City is a rarity in today's media world. It is a two newspaper town and the Tribune is the liberal newspaper. The Deseret Morning News is owned the the LDS. Clearly, one can only come to the conclusion that the Tribune is looking to come up with an all but dismissed myth of Mormonism to discredit GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
It is a lousy "story" and meant to make a candidate running for president, Mr. Romney, have to defend his religion. Why do we not see the same stories on Roman Catholic candidates, Rudy Giuliani comes to mind? How about John "F--- You" McCain and the Episcopal Church?
I bring it to you attention to show that the DDBMDM is gunning for Mr. Romney because he is seen as the conservative of the three GOP front runners and they will do all they can to derail that candidacy. So far, they are doing a very bad job and showing their outright bias.
WOW! I did not know that. I mean, I know a minimal amount about the Mormon faith so I am not an expert. But the fact that the Tribune hit piece did not have any Mormon of seriousness backing this "prophecy." In fact, all went out of their way to question it because that it was "revealed" 10 years after the death of Joseph Smith, the church founder. Yes, Mr. Smith ran for president in 1844, but was lynched shortly thereafter. So, why wait 10 years to prophesy about it?
Most serious churchmen and scholars doubt the validity of the so-called prophecy and thus it is not something talked about.
Also, it should be noted that Salt Lake City is a rarity in today's media world. It is a two newspaper town and the Tribune is the liberal newspaper. The Deseret Morning News is owned the the LDS. Clearly, one can only come to the conclusion that the Tribune is looking to come up with an all but dismissed myth of Mormonism to discredit GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
It is a lousy "story" and meant to make a candidate running for president, Mr. Romney, have to defend his religion. Why do we not see the same stories on Roman Catholic candidates, Rudy Giuliani comes to mind? How about John "F--- You" McCain and the Episcopal Church?
I bring it to you attention to show that the DDBMDM is gunning for Mr. Romney because he is seen as the conservative of the three GOP front runners and they will do all they can to derail that candidacy. So far, they are doing a very bad job and showing their outright bias.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Fred And The Young Wife
In reading today's edition of the New York Post, America's great newspaper, I stumbled on a story about the newest Republican presidential candidate, Fred Thompson and his wife Jeri. Make that his 40 year old wife! Now, I am not a prude, but Mr. Thompson is 64 years old. And that, my friends is a 24 year difference and that makes Mr. Thompson defiantly old enough to be her father.
According to the article http://nypost.com the future Mrs. Thompson was making the moves on Mr. Thompson when he was a senator from Tennessee. At that time, Mr. Thompson was divorced from his first wife since 1985, so it is not like he dumped one for the other. He was on the market, so to speak, for a while.
But, there is still a segment of the American populace that will not look at a clearly 64 year old looking, albeit ruggedly handsome, man with a 40 year-old trophy wife that has been one of the driving forces behind his late entry into the GOP presidential fray. I, for one, am not one of them. But. . .
Will there be anyone to dare ask the question? What is a 64 year old doing with a 40 year old wife, whom he married in 2002 and has two very young children?
The only reason I bring it up is that if any GOP opponent would use that in anyway as a last act of desperation, and Mr. Thompson is in fact the Republican nominee, does one not think that the Democrats will do the same and only viciously? Absolutely!
In an election that has the potential to be as close as 2000 and 2004, there can be no skeletons in any one's closet or even something that should be innocuous as the marital state of Mr. Thompson and the considerable age difference between he and Mrs. Thompson.
I hope that it does not become an issue because it would show the other side to be in sheer panic and bush-league desperation.
Here is the final analysis.
If Mr. Thompson is the nominee, I will vote for him. He will be superior to anything that the Democrats put up unless they go to the graveyard to dig up one of their heroes of the past such as Roosevelt, Truman or JFK.
I hope that issues will drive this election, but you never know. Remember, it was a last minute smear regarding George W. Bush and a drunk driving conviction in the 1970's that clearly cost him the popular vote and nearly the presidency. At least if this should become an issue, it will be right out front and no last minute smear job.
According to the article http://nypost.com the future Mrs. Thompson was making the moves on Mr. Thompson when he was a senator from Tennessee. At that time, Mr. Thompson was divorced from his first wife since 1985, so it is not like he dumped one for the other. He was on the market, so to speak, for a while.
But, there is still a segment of the American populace that will not look at a clearly 64 year old looking, albeit ruggedly handsome, man with a 40 year-old trophy wife that has been one of the driving forces behind his late entry into the GOP presidential fray. I, for one, am not one of them. But. . .
Will there be anyone to dare ask the question? What is a 64 year old doing with a 40 year old wife, whom he married in 2002 and has two very young children?
The only reason I bring it up is that if any GOP opponent would use that in anyway as a last act of desperation, and Mr. Thompson is in fact the Republican nominee, does one not think that the Democrats will do the same and only viciously? Absolutely!
In an election that has the potential to be as close as 2000 and 2004, there can be no skeletons in any one's closet or even something that should be innocuous as the marital state of Mr. Thompson and the considerable age difference between he and Mrs. Thompson.
I hope that it does not become an issue because it would show the other side to be in sheer panic and bush-league desperation.
Here is the final analysis.
If Mr. Thompson is the nominee, I will vote for him. He will be superior to anything that the Democrats put up unless they go to the graveyard to dig up one of their heroes of the past such as Roosevelt, Truman or JFK.
I hope that issues will drive this election, but you never know. Remember, it was a last minute smear regarding George W. Bush and a drunk driving conviction in the 1970's that clearly cost him the popular vote and nearly the presidency. At least if this should become an issue, it will be right out front and no last minute smear job.
Peggy Noonan Ain't Happy With Bush And Company
One time Reagan speechwriter par excellence, Peggy Noonan, wrote in today's Wall Street Journal http://opinionjournal.com that conservative Republicans and the Bush administration are now officially at a parting of the ways and primarily over the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill scam. I am afraid that Miss Noonan may be right and it is a waste of the "political capital" that President Bush so confidently talked about after winning reelection in 2004.
I am so amazed that such a complex bill worked on in the dead of night with more holes than Swiss cheese has got the president and lackeys so much against Mr. Bush's natural allies, the conservative base. Now there is no question that we conservatives are somewhat divided between the round 'em up and ship them home types, ones that want to tweak it to allay national security concerns, and the libertarian who cares about borders types. But, bottom line is the opposition is at least 70% of the Republican electorate and I would say at least a majority of Democrat voters. You can not pass a bill that only has 26% support of voters and sell it as the best thing since sliced bread.
As Miss Noonan points out in her column, had the Bush administration came in with smaller, understandable bills doing one big individual thing, then there may have been a consensus on finding a way to make illegals not illegal. But, alas Mr. Bush and lackeys really do think that this approach will eventually, maybe in a generation or two, bring Hispanics to the Republican party. NOT.
So, Mr. Bush and "allies" like Sens. John "F--- You" McCain, Lindsay Graham and others can not really defend this dreck. So, they are turning against the people they need the most. You and I-conservative Republicans. We are called alarmist, wanting to see people die, and worst of all nativist racists. I tell you, name calling is the refuge of those that know they are wrong on something.
Miss Noonan is basically saying that we conservative Republicans need to distance ourselves from the president and find a candidate that will best unite disparate conservative forces as Ronald Reagan did in 1980. Well, in an odd way, I think that Mr. Bush has done that with this push on the illegal immigration bill scam. Even those that are for it will not put all their political capital on the line. Some, like Sen John Kyl, a real conservative that I do not envy at this point, barely won reelection in 2006. He will, when he realizes the hostility from many who have supported Mr. Bush all the way turning on him on this. When he concedes, and he will, the bill will be officially dead.
Conservatism will not be dead however. It will unite behind a candidate for president and will come back stronger than ever.
I am sorry that Miss Noonan has been separated from the Bush administration since 2005, but I will agree with this analysis. Both George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush have squandered in different ways their legacies. Read the whole piece and see if you agree.
I am so amazed that such a complex bill worked on in the dead of night with more holes than Swiss cheese has got the president and lackeys so much against Mr. Bush's natural allies, the conservative base. Now there is no question that we conservatives are somewhat divided between the round 'em up and ship them home types, ones that want to tweak it to allay national security concerns, and the libertarian who cares about borders types. But, bottom line is the opposition is at least 70% of the Republican electorate and I would say at least a majority of Democrat voters. You can not pass a bill that only has 26% support of voters and sell it as the best thing since sliced bread.
As Miss Noonan points out in her column, had the Bush administration came in with smaller, understandable bills doing one big individual thing, then there may have been a consensus on finding a way to make illegals not illegal. But, alas Mr. Bush and lackeys really do think that this approach will eventually, maybe in a generation or two, bring Hispanics to the Republican party. NOT.
So, Mr. Bush and "allies" like Sens. John "F--- You" McCain, Lindsay Graham and others can not really defend this dreck. So, they are turning against the people they need the most. You and I-conservative Republicans. We are called alarmist, wanting to see people die, and worst of all nativist racists. I tell you, name calling is the refuge of those that know they are wrong on something.
Miss Noonan is basically saying that we conservative Republicans need to distance ourselves from the president and find a candidate that will best unite disparate conservative forces as Ronald Reagan did in 1980. Well, in an odd way, I think that Mr. Bush has done that with this push on the illegal immigration bill scam. Even those that are for it will not put all their political capital on the line. Some, like Sen John Kyl, a real conservative that I do not envy at this point, barely won reelection in 2006. He will, when he realizes the hostility from many who have supported Mr. Bush all the way turning on him on this. When he concedes, and he will, the bill will be officially dead.
Conservatism will not be dead however. It will unite behind a candidate for president and will come back stronger than ever.
I am sorry that Miss Noonan has been separated from the Bush administration since 2005, but I will agree with this analysis. Both George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush have squandered in different ways their legacies. Read the whole piece and see if you agree.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Hey, Have You Heard About The Peace Index?
Today in my perusing the Drudge Report www.drudgereport.com I stumbled on a story about The First Global Peace Index. The index ranks 121 countries from first being the best and 121 being the worst.
No surprise but a Scandinavian country came in first, Norway. Take a guess at what was 121? Why, Iraq of course. Ready for a laugh? The United States came in 96th. Ninety-sixth?! I mean, we should be thankful that we are ahead of Zimbabwe, 106th on the list even though many of its people are fleeing to anywhere thanks to the dictator Robert Mugabe. And good ol' Venezuela, with that paragon of virtue and socialism, Hugo Chavez came in at 102. Israel, which has never sought war with its neighbors is third from the bottom at 119. Only Sudan and as noted Iraq are worse.
The study was made a group called the Economist Intelligence Unit and here is some of the criteria they used to come to the conclusions.
Peace is correlated to indicators such as income, schooling and the level of regional integration.
Peaceful countries of shared high levels of transparency of government and low corruption.
Small stable countries which are part of regional blocs are most likely to get a higher ranking.
Now, using that criteria, it should not come as a surprise that four of the top ten countries in the "peace index" are in Scandinavia. They are Norway, as noted number one, Denmark, number three, Finland, number six and Sweden number seven. They are also some of the most homogeneous countries on earth. In fact, all of the top ten nations in the top ten are very highly homogeneous. Therefore, they will obviously have a more peaceful and willing group than nations that are not homogeneous. Only number eight, Canada, does not have a strong overwhelmingly homogeneous, dominant group.
So, what does that mean? More racially pure nations are more likely to be peaceful? I do not know. The bottom ten are all nations with strong religious or ethnic tensions.
I think this whole "peace index" is a joke. The criteria makes the outcome predetermined and allows for those that would like to make Scandinavian socialism the world model, well it just backs up their already preconceived notions.
The fact that the United States is ranked 96 is a joke. We do, most of the time, have a transparent government. Is there corruption? Of course but what other nation would put those who are corrupt and caught on trial of a jury of their peers? For corruption alone, Mexico, which ranks 79 should be behind the United States. Is there income disparity? Yes, but this is the one nation where anyone can start at the bottom and become middle class and maybe even rich. Can't say that about Peru, yet it is ranked 70. Schooling? Now there is where we should get low marks. Only in the United States will a student spend more time in a classroom learning about sex than civics. Political correctness over a classical education that has been proven to work in the past. The fact that the United States is the sole superpower means that we have more responsibility. Sometimes, like it or not, we are the policeman of the world. Can't say that about Norway.
This "peace index" is really nothing more than propaganda and really not a true indicator of what constitutes real peace. The index rankings can be found here: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-30-2
No surprise but a Scandinavian country came in first, Norway. Take a guess at what was 121? Why, Iraq of course. Ready for a laugh? The United States came in 96th. Ninety-sixth?! I mean, we should be thankful that we are ahead of Zimbabwe, 106th on the list even though many of its people are fleeing to anywhere thanks to the dictator Robert Mugabe. And good ol' Venezuela, with that paragon of virtue and socialism, Hugo Chavez came in at 102. Israel, which has never sought war with its neighbors is third from the bottom at 119. Only Sudan and as noted Iraq are worse.
The study was made a group called the Economist Intelligence Unit and here is some of the criteria they used to come to the conclusions.
Peace is correlated to indicators such as income, schooling and the level of regional integration.
Peaceful countries of shared high levels of transparency of government and low corruption.
Small stable countries which are part of regional blocs are most likely to get a higher ranking.
Now, using that criteria, it should not come as a surprise that four of the top ten countries in the "peace index" are in Scandinavia. They are Norway, as noted number one, Denmark, number three, Finland, number six and Sweden number seven. They are also some of the most homogeneous countries on earth. In fact, all of the top ten nations in the top ten are very highly homogeneous. Therefore, they will obviously have a more peaceful and willing group than nations that are not homogeneous. Only number eight, Canada, does not have a strong overwhelmingly homogeneous, dominant group.
So, what does that mean? More racially pure nations are more likely to be peaceful? I do not know. The bottom ten are all nations with strong religious or ethnic tensions.
I think this whole "peace index" is a joke. The criteria makes the outcome predetermined and allows for those that would like to make Scandinavian socialism the world model, well it just backs up their already preconceived notions.
The fact that the United States is ranked 96 is a joke. We do, most of the time, have a transparent government. Is there corruption? Of course but what other nation would put those who are corrupt and caught on trial of a jury of their peers? For corruption alone, Mexico, which ranks 79 should be behind the United States. Is there income disparity? Yes, but this is the one nation where anyone can start at the bottom and become middle class and maybe even rich. Can't say that about Peru, yet it is ranked 70. Schooling? Now there is where we should get low marks. Only in the United States will a student spend more time in a classroom learning about sex than civics. Political correctness over a classical education that has been proven to work in the past. The fact that the United States is the sole superpower means that we have more responsibility. Sometimes, like it or not, we are the policeman of the world. Can't say that about Norway.
This "peace index" is really nothing more than propaganda and really not a true indicator of what constitutes real peace. The index rankings can be found here: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-30-2
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Joe Biden Is Pretty Smart After All
I have to give credit to Sen. Joe Biden (D-Delaware) as he has announced that he will be at the debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and to be moderated by Fox News Channel. HT Politico http://politico.com.
Of course it may turn out to be a laugh fest because the only other announced Democrat candidates that will be there is congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel. But whether it turns out to be a joke or not shows a serious problem for the Dems in general.
So what if they are questioned by people from Fox News? I mean, if they think that Brit Hume, Wendell Goller and Chris Wallace did not ask good, penetrating questions of the Republicans in South Carolina, they can ask for three liberals-and there are liberals-from Fox to be the inquisitors. How about Juan Williams, Mara Elliason and Morton Kondracke? I do not think one would call any of the three conservative hacks. In fact, Mr. Williams and Miss Elliason work for-get this-National Public Radio.
The problem is that the Dems would rather make Fox News Channel a boogieman and mock it rather than going into the belly of the beast, so to speak, and take them on. This shows absolute cowardice on the part of people like John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson. They mock Fox News and want the American people to believe that they will take on the Islamofacists with both cannons and better than President Bush and or any Republican candidate. This proves that wrong.
Every candidate needs to get his or her message out to the widest audience possible and Fox News Channel, like it or not, is the number one cable news channel in the United States. Not all the viewers are conservative Republicans. Some of middle of the roaders and they will be the ones they will have to convince to vote for them. When these candidates, pressured by moveon.org and its ilk say they will not participate in a debate because it is sponsored by Fox News Channel, they will turn off some people who may actually vote for them. People will look harder at the Republicans because, for all our rightful indignation of the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream Media, we know to reach as wide an audience as possible, we have to be part of, not rejecting a part of the process.
So, I think that some people may watch to see whether Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich will make the most hilarious comment or statement, but I will watch to see a very serious candidate, Sen. Joe Biden, and what he has to say and how he stands up to being questioned by people from Fox News Channel. It is too bad that the rest of the serious Dems do not feel the same.
Of course it may turn out to be a laugh fest because the only other announced Democrat candidates that will be there is congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel. But whether it turns out to be a joke or not shows a serious problem for the Dems in general.
So what if they are questioned by people from Fox News? I mean, if they think that Brit Hume, Wendell Goller and Chris Wallace did not ask good, penetrating questions of the Republicans in South Carolina, they can ask for three liberals-and there are liberals-from Fox to be the inquisitors. How about Juan Williams, Mara Elliason and Morton Kondracke? I do not think one would call any of the three conservative hacks. In fact, Mr. Williams and Miss Elliason work for-get this-National Public Radio.
The problem is that the Dems would rather make Fox News Channel a boogieman and mock it rather than going into the belly of the beast, so to speak, and take them on. This shows absolute cowardice on the part of people like John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson. They mock Fox News and want the American people to believe that they will take on the Islamofacists with both cannons and better than President Bush and or any Republican candidate. This proves that wrong.
Every candidate needs to get his or her message out to the widest audience possible and Fox News Channel, like it or not, is the number one cable news channel in the United States. Not all the viewers are conservative Republicans. Some of middle of the roaders and they will be the ones they will have to convince to vote for them. When these candidates, pressured by moveon.org and its ilk say they will not participate in a debate because it is sponsored by Fox News Channel, they will turn off some people who may actually vote for them. People will look harder at the Republicans because, for all our rightful indignation of the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream Media, we know to reach as wide an audience as possible, we have to be part of, not rejecting a part of the process.
So, I think that some people may watch to see whether Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich will make the most hilarious comment or statement, but I will watch to see a very serious candidate, Sen. Joe Biden, and what he has to say and how he stands up to being questioned by people from Fox News Channel. It is too bad that the rest of the serious Dems do not feel the same.
Welcome Fred Thompson
It appears that all the talk is real and former Tennessee Republican senator Fred Thompson is going to enter the race for the Republican nomination for president. I say welcome aboard and lets get down to where Mr. Thompson stands on the issues.
From his record in the senate, Mr. Thompson is a solid conservative, scoring an overall rating of 86% from the American Conservative Union. That does marginally top Sen. John "F--- You" McCain by one point, but Mr. Thompson was in the senate a lot less time than Sen. McCain. So overall, Mr. Thompson had a stronger conservative voting record than does Sen. McCain.
Mr. Thompson is on the right side on the critical issues important to conservatives and Republicans and those maybe on the fence. Mr. Thompson is pro life, for the War Against Terror (but I am sure he will have a different approach than President Bush has had and even on the issue of the Iraq theatre), for tax cuts, for appointing constitutional jurists, not legislators from the bench, but there is one very serious, not fatal, but serious flaw particularly for conservatives. Mr. Thompson was for the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform", the last scam pulled over the American people by congress. That will already have lost Mr. Thompson some support from conservative Republicans.
What is so different about Mr. Thompson from the others running for the GOP nod? Two words: Ronald Reagan.
Yes, many people look to Mr. Thompson to restore the Reagan way to the Republican party. After all, like Mr. Reagan, Mr. Thompson is an actor, who just today quit his day job as New York district attorney Arthur Branch on the NBC hit show "Law and Order." He speaks plainly and is seen as committed to his positions, like Mr. Reagan was. But, what many do not remember is that in the fateful election of 1980, many were still leery of electing Mr. Reagan. After all, the media savaged him so that the polling in that election cycle showed incumbent President Jimmy Carter ahead or even with Mr. Reagan until the last week of the campaign. Does anyone think that the media, even more polarized today, will not do the same to Mr. Thompson? Go over to Hugh Hewitt's site, http://hughhewitt.com, for a great take on the Reagan years.
I think that Mr. Thompson is a great candidate and if he should become the Republican nominee has the potential to do what Mr. Reagan did-appeal to a certain group of people who, even now, are still Democrats but not happy with the direction of their party. One aspect will be the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill scam. Mr. Thompson has expressed strong displeasure with it. Under their breathes, so are some rank-and-file Democrats.
In essence, What Mr. Thompson, win or lose the nomination, will do is make the winner appeal outside of the conservative base and get some centrist voters back into the GOP fold. It is the oldest axiom of American politics. Win your base for the nomination and move to the center, not dissing the base, to win the general election. It is how great coalitions are built and that is what we need now more than ever.
So, Fred Thompson, welcome to the Republican race for president. I think you will do a lot of good for the party and the country.
From his record in the senate, Mr. Thompson is a solid conservative, scoring an overall rating of 86% from the American Conservative Union. That does marginally top Sen. John "F--- You" McCain by one point, but Mr. Thompson was in the senate a lot less time than Sen. McCain. So overall, Mr. Thompson had a stronger conservative voting record than does Sen. McCain.
Mr. Thompson is on the right side on the critical issues important to conservatives and Republicans and those maybe on the fence. Mr. Thompson is pro life, for the War Against Terror (but I am sure he will have a different approach than President Bush has had and even on the issue of the Iraq theatre), for tax cuts, for appointing constitutional jurists, not legislators from the bench, but there is one very serious, not fatal, but serious flaw particularly for conservatives. Mr. Thompson was for the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform", the last scam pulled over the American people by congress. That will already have lost Mr. Thompson some support from conservative Republicans.
What is so different about Mr. Thompson from the others running for the GOP nod? Two words: Ronald Reagan.
Yes, many people look to Mr. Thompson to restore the Reagan way to the Republican party. After all, like Mr. Reagan, Mr. Thompson is an actor, who just today quit his day job as New York district attorney Arthur Branch on the NBC hit show "Law and Order." He speaks plainly and is seen as committed to his positions, like Mr. Reagan was. But, what many do not remember is that in the fateful election of 1980, many were still leery of electing Mr. Reagan. After all, the media savaged him so that the polling in that election cycle showed incumbent President Jimmy Carter ahead or even with Mr. Reagan until the last week of the campaign. Does anyone think that the media, even more polarized today, will not do the same to Mr. Thompson? Go over to Hugh Hewitt's site, http://hughhewitt.com, for a great take on the Reagan years.
I think that Mr. Thompson is a great candidate and if he should become the Republican nominee has the potential to do what Mr. Reagan did-appeal to a certain group of people who, even now, are still Democrats but not happy with the direction of their party. One aspect will be the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill scam. Mr. Thompson has expressed strong displeasure with it. Under their breathes, so are some rank-and-file Democrats.
In essence, What Mr. Thompson, win or lose the nomination, will do is make the winner appeal outside of the conservative base and get some centrist voters back into the GOP fold. It is the oldest axiom of American politics. Win your base for the nomination and move to the center, not dissing the base, to win the general election. It is how great coalitions are built and that is what we need now more than ever.
So, Fred Thompson, welcome to the Republican race for president. I think you will do a lot of good for the party and the country.
Revolution In Venezuela-Where Is The MSM?
Today I took a cursory look at several websites of the true Axis Of Evil-the mainstream media, aka the Dinosaur, Drive-by, Mainstream Media (DDBMSM) looking for some kind of coverage of the mounting protests in Venezuela. Of course on the sites I checked, it was not even a headline except for Fox News Channel, which has been covering this major story. But, I wonder is it because the story is about a dictator, Hugo Chavez, closing down an opposition broadcast network that keeps the DDBMSM from talking about it?
The Chavez regime found a loophole, or possibly made one up, to close down the Radio Caracas Television this past Sunday at the stroke of midnight. He claims it is a "sovereign" decision and is threatening another opposition network, Globovision, with the same fate. Oh, if you are in Venezuela, you can turn on RCT but it will be a new government propaganda channel. To put it in perspective, it would be like President Bush using some kind of loophole to close down CBS and replace it with an NPR or PBS like network or even total government propaganda.
So, where is the coverage by the DDBMSM, other than Fox?
It is either buried deep inside of the main news section in a newspaper and nary any coverage on the broadcast organs of the true Axis Of Evil.
For some reason, closing down a television station seems to have riled the people to take to the streets and fight the goon squads of President Chavez. It does not matter, we should be doing everything we can to see that these people at the very least get the RCT back on the air. It had been the oldest private broadcast network in Venezuela. Because it dared to question and even openly oppose the Chavez regime and its near total dictatorial powers, poof, it is off the air.
One has to wonder the lack of coverage is due to a sympathy by these outlets that are losing readers, listeners, and watchers in droves. Lets face it, it would be much easier for the DDBMSM to not have anyone competing with them in the news and opinion medium. They liked having the monopoly for many years. But, technology did to the DDBMSM what other things could not. The Internet and blogs like this are giving them a run and they do not much like it.
I do not think that most would like to see any American president close down a network like Mr. Chavez has done. But the lack of coverage of the people of Venezuela finally standing up and saying no brings conspiracy theories out of the woodwork.
I think there is a revolution going on in Venezuela and the DDMSM needs to be out in front covering it.
The Chavez regime found a loophole, or possibly made one up, to close down the Radio Caracas Television this past Sunday at the stroke of midnight. He claims it is a "sovereign" decision and is threatening another opposition network, Globovision, with the same fate. Oh, if you are in Venezuela, you can turn on RCT but it will be a new government propaganda channel. To put it in perspective, it would be like President Bush using some kind of loophole to close down CBS and replace it with an NPR or PBS like network or even total government propaganda.
So, where is the coverage by the DDBMSM, other than Fox?
It is either buried deep inside of the main news section in a newspaper and nary any coverage on the broadcast organs of the true Axis Of Evil.
For some reason, closing down a television station seems to have riled the people to take to the streets and fight the goon squads of President Chavez. It does not matter, we should be doing everything we can to see that these people at the very least get the RCT back on the air. It had been the oldest private broadcast network in Venezuela. Because it dared to question and even openly oppose the Chavez regime and its near total dictatorial powers, poof, it is off the air.
One has to wonder the lack of coverage is due to a sympathy by these outlets that are losing readers, listeners, and watchers in droves. Lets face it, it would be much easier for the DDBMSM to not have anyone competing with them in the news and opinion medium. They liked having the monopoly for many years. But, technology did to the DDBMSM what other things could not. The Internet and blogs like this are giving them a run and they do not much like it.
I do not think that most would like to see any American president close down a network like Mr. Chavez has done. But the lack of coverage of the people of Venezuela finally standing up and saying no brings conspiracy theories out of the woodwork.
I think there is a revolution going on in Venezuela and the DDMSM needs to be out in front covering it.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Cindy Sheehan Thrown To The Wolves
It is with some pleasure that I read that anti-war loon Cindy Sheehan has decided her welcome mat has been pulled out from under her and called it quits as an anti-war advocate. But, where there is some sadness is that it is a case study as when a person such as herself decided to criticize some of her most ardent backers, the anti-war Democrats, they turned on her and threw her to the wolves.
It is what the left does. They take advantage of a clearly grieving mother who's son, Casey Sheehan, had been killed in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror. In her grief, she became an ardent critic of the war in the Iraq theatre and a rallying point for those who have been against it from the beginning. But, as she became the rallying point she also went off the deep end and started to pontificate on issues that had nothing to do with the war in the Iraq theatre and also bought into some of the wild conspiracy theories about the terror attacks of 9/11. She wrote a lot on her blog and some of her commentary was way out there.
So, she realized that the Democrats were really craven on the issue of the Iraq theatre. Many ran against the war, won their elections, and then when push came to shove, they played a dance of political kabuki theatre. The Democrats had a perfect opportunity of putting their money where their mouths were and cut off all funding for the Iraq theatre and the troops would have to come home. But, in their kabuki dance, they in the end gave President Bush what he wanted and no timeline to pull the troops out of Iraq.
Mrs. Sheehan became as much of a critic of the Democrats and with rightful indignation. They essentially went back on their selling point to win back control of congress-stopping the war in the Iraq theatre. But, alas, this put a crimp in the Democrat plans to take the White House and keep control of congress. So their allies began a campaign against Mrs. Sheehan and she saw the writing on the wall. She gave up.
Mrs. Sheehan is going to sell the so-called "peace house" in Crawford, Texas near the Western White House. She is going home to put back the pieces of her life and try to have a relationship with her surviving children and maybe put back her marriage. And all for what did she do this sacrifice? The people who heaped adulation on her in the end turned on her. She may have loony ideas, but she is not a masochist.
Here is the lesson . The left likes people for their cause as long as they play their game. When they stop or realize that they are being taken for a ride, they are chewed up and spit out like cheap chaw. There is no room for honest disagreement, as I believe that Mrs. Sheehan had. When they are on the road to power, they can not have a nail in the road to hit that tire. And that nail was, Mrs. Sheehan.
So, now she will try to put her life back together and for that I hope she will. And I hope she has learned a lesson about her "friends."
It is what the left does. They take advantage of a clearly grieving mother who's son, Casey Sheehan, had been killed in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror. In her grief, she became an ardent critic of the war in the Iraq theatre and a rallying point for those who have been against it from the beginning. But, as she became the rallying point she also went off the deep end and started to pontificate on issues that had nothing to do with the war in the Iraq theatre and also bought into some of the wild conspiracy theories about the terror attacks of 9/11. She wrote a lot on her blog and some of her commentary was way out there.
So, she realized that the Democrats were really craven on the issue of the Iraq theatre. Many ran against the war, won their elections, and then when push came to shove, they played a dance of political kabuki theatre. The Democrats had a perfect opportunity of putting their money where their mouths were and cut off all funding for the Iraq theatre and the troops would have to come home. But, in their kabuki dance, they in the end gave President Bush what he wanted and no timeline to pull the troops out of Iraq.
Mrs. Sheehan became as much of a critic of the Democrats and with rightful indignation. They essentially went back on their selling point to win back control of congress-stopping the war in the Iraq theatre. But, alas, this put a crimp in the Democrat plans to take the White House and keep control of congress. So their allies began a campaign against Mrs. Sheehan and she saw the writing on the wall. She gave up.
Mrs. Sheehan is going to sell the so-called "peace house" in Crawford, Texas near the Western White House. She is going home to put back the pieces of her life and try to have a relationship with her surviving children and maybe put back her marriage. And all for what did she do this sacrifice? The people who heaped adulation on her in the end turned on her. She may have loony ideas, but she is not a masochist.
Here is the lesson . The left likes people for their cause as long as they play their game. When they stop or realize that they are being taken for a ride, they are chewed up and spit out like cheap chaw. There is no room for honest disagreement, as I believe that Mrs. Sheehan had. When they are on the road to power, they can not have a nail in the road to hit that tire. And that nail was, Mrs. Sheehan.
So, now she will try to put her life back together and for that I hope she will. And I hope she has learned a lesson about her "friends."
Lindsay Lowlife
Well, I guess I have fallen victim to the pop culture beyond Rosie and her antics on The View. I will refer you to Lindsay Lowlife, aka Lindsay Lowhan.
Young Miss Lowlife, how she will be referred to here, has a very serious problem. She is an adict. To what? Fame, booze and drugs. In and of itself, no one should really care. That is her business. But over this past weekend, Miss Lowlife made her descent into Hell l every one's business.
Miss Lowlife, who is 20 years old, and already in trouble for underage drinking and a stint in rehab, was at one of her club haunts in the Los Angeles area. She had a driver, supposedly, but that did not stop her from taking off from one of the clubs with her friends, sans the "driver." That was a bad mistake. For young Miss Lowlife had a hit and run car accident. But, she knew she did something wrong for she tried to leave the scene of the crime. That, my friends, is called hit and run. She was busted by the police for drunk driving. But, ah, that was not enough for our young Miss Lowlife.
The very next day, she went out partying again. She was caught on the front page of the New York Post http://nypost.com passed out.
Where are Miss Lowlife's parents? Well, it seems that dad Michael does care and wants to talk to Miss Lowlife. Mr. Lowlife should know as he just got out of jail recently for alcohol related charges. Where is mom, Dina? Well, she is playing cover up, trying to explain to the world that Lindsay is just a misunderstood teenage girl. Oh, and she is often seen partying with her daughter. Nothing like keeping it in the family?
You may wonder, why am I so harsh on this young girl and her family?
Because they are a symptom of what is wrong in our culture today. Having a mom going out with her underage daughter and carousing used to get called a mom like that a slut. And that was not good. For some people, it is not a bad thing that Dina Lowlife is out with her daughter. After all, Lindsay is 20 years old, almost 21 and then will be able to do anything-legal-she wants. Dina is being her friend. No, Dina should have been being a mom first and foremost. And dad, well he is nothing but a hanger on and now feels remorse. I am glad he does, if it is real. But, I am not sure.
Yes, we all do dumb and stupid things when we were young, even I. But, I had parents who would tell me when I was wrong. They instilled something missing today-guilt. Yes, there is bad guilt but there is good guilt that can make you think about something you did wrong. It can make a bad choice possibly into a good decision. But without that parental guidance, a child like Lindsay grows up like she has become. And, that is a problem for society. A society in which very impressionable young girls look up to Lindsay, Britney Spears and the brain surgeon, Paris Hilton. Why they are looked up to, I do not know, but they are and all three have gone on very destructive paths and have enabling parents that do not seem to know that they are going down a very sad path.
I hope that Miss Lowlife will be serious this time as she will apparently go into rehab for a second time. Maybe for Miss Lowlife, she will have to get out of the fame and slink back into the real world for a while and realize that there are consequences for her actions. Maybe Paris Hilton will be able to share her experience as a guest of the County of Los Angeles and it will be eye-opening for both of them. I really wish both well.
If they both can kick their addictions, that will be something for young girls to look up to.
Young Miss Lowlife, how she will be referred to here, has a very serious problem. She is an adict. To what? Fame, booze and drugs. In and of itself, no one should really care. That is her business. But over this past weekend, Miss Lowlife made her descent into Hell l every one's business.
Miss Lowlife, who is 20 years old, and already in trouble for underage drinking and a stint in rehab, was at one of her club haunts in the Los Angeles area. She had a driver, supposedly, but that did not stop her from taking off from one of the clubs with her friends, sans the "driver." That was a bad mistake. For young Miss Lowlife had a hit and run car accident. But, she knew she did something wrong for she tried to leave the scene of the crime. That, my friends, is called hit and run. She was busted by the police for drunk driving. But, ah, that was not enough for our young Miss Lowlife.
The very next day, she went out partying again. She was caught on the front page of the New York Post http://nypost.com passed out.
Where are Miss Lowlife's parents? Well, it seems that dad Michael does care and wants to talk to Miss Lowlife. Mr. Lowlife should know as he just got out of jail recently for alcohol related charges. Where is mom, Dina? Well, she is playing cover up, trying to explain to the world that Lindsay is just a misunderstood teenage girl. Oh, and she is often seen partying with her daughter. Nothing like keeping it in the family?
You may wonder, why am I so harsh on this young girl and her family?
Because they are a symptom of what is wrong in our culture today. Having a mom going out with her underage daughter and carousing used to get called a mom like that a slut. And that was not good. For some people, it is not a bad thing that Dina Lowlife is out with her daughter. After all, Lindsay is 20 years old, almost 21 and then will be able to do anything-legal-she wants. Dina is being her friend. No, Dina should have been being a mom first and foremost. And dad, well he is nothing but a hanger on and now feels remorse. I am glad he does, if it is real. But, I am not sure.
Yes, we all do dumb and stupid things when we were young, even I. But, I had parents who would tell me when I was wrong. They instilled something missing today-guilt. Yes, there is bad guilt but there is good guilt that can make you think about something you did wrong. It can make a bad choice possibly into a good decision. But without that parental guidance, a child like Lindsay grows up like she has become. And, that is a problem for society. A society in which very impressionable young girls look up to Lindsay, Britney Spears and the brain surgeon, Paris Hilton. Why they are looked up to, I do not know, but they are and all three have gone on very destructive paths and have enabling parents that do not seem to know that they are going down a very sad path.
I hope that Miss Lowlife will be serious this time as she will apparently go into rehab for a second time. Maybe for Miss Lowlife, she will have to get out of the fame and slink back into the real world for a while and realize that there are consequences for her actions. Maybe Paris Hilton will be able to share her experience as a guest of the County of Los Angeles and it will be eye-opening for both of them. I really wish both well.
If they both can kick their addictions, that will be something for young girls to look up to.
Good To Be Back
I had a pretty good Memorial Day weekend up in the heart of Blue America-San Francisco. I hope that you did too.
I will say that while San Francisco is very liberal and quirky, it has a certain undescribable charm that draws someone like myself to go there and observe. One is not disapointed by the fact one will see a homeless person in the downtown area almost everywhere that one looks. Or that there are so many different subcultures that it would take a very long entry to go into such detail.
But, everyone should go there. There is really something for anyone, even a conservative such as myself. I for one took in a Giants baseball game at AT&T Park. The Giants were playing the Colorado Rockies. Barry Bonds did not hit a home run, which is good since he will earn the title of home run king in the most dishonest of ways pumping up his body with baseball illegal steroids. The Giants lost, of course, and that is music to this Dodger fan's ear. But I will say that I really like AT&T Park. It is like an old style baseball park with non-symmetrical dimensions and a lot of charm. No World Series championship, but lots of charm.
The next day, Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and I went to church at Grace Cathedral. For all you Episcopalians in the Los Angeles area, take note. Grace Cathedral is what a cathedral should be-not the monstrosity that calls itself a "Cathedral Center." It was a great service and not overly politically correct, considering that the Diocese of California is one of the most liberal Episcopal dioceses in the United States.
After church we went to Golden Gate Park which has to be the Central Park West. It is a real achievement to have what they have there. And, we only scratched the surface in what we saw.
I would say, no matter how conservative you are, go to San Francisco sometime. Maybe some of that conservatism can rub off on them. . .NOT!
Anyway, there is so much to blog about and I am glad to be back.
I will say that while San Francisco is very liberal and quirky, it has a certain undescribable charm that draws someone like myself to go there and observe. One is not disapointed by the fact one will see a homeless person in the downtown area almost everywhere that one looks. Or that there are so many different subcultures that it would take a very long entry to go into such detail.
But, everyone should go there. There is really something for anyone, even a conservative such as myself. I for one took in a Giants baseball game at AT&T Park. The Giants were playing the Colorado Rockies. Barry Bonds did not hit a home run, which is good since he will earn the title of home run king in the most dishonest of ways pumping up his body with baseball illegal steroids. The Giants lost, of course, and that is music to this Dodger fan's ear. But I will say that I really like AT&T Park. It is like an old style baseball park with non-symmetrical dimensions and a lot of charm. No World Series championship, but lots of charm.
The next day, Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and I went to church at Grace Cathedral. For all you Episcopalians in the Los Angeles area, take note. Grace Cathedral is what a cathedral should be-not the monstrosity that calls itself a "Cathedral Center." It was a great service and not overly politically correct, considering that the Diocese of California is one of the most liberal Episcopal dioceses in the United States.
After church we went to Golden Gate Park which has to be the Central Park West. It is a real achievement to have what they have there. And, we only scratched the surface in what we saw.
I would say, no matter how conservative you are, go to San Francisco sometime. Maybe some of that conservatism can rub off on them. . .NOT!
Anyway, there is so much to blog about and I am glad to be back.
Friday, May 25, 2007
NO BLOGGING UNTIL TUESDAY
There will be no blogging until Tuesday, May 29 as Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and I go deep into the belly of the beast, in the intestine in Blue America, San Francisco.
I will have a full report as I, not the missus, will be attending a Giants game at AT&T Park and that all in itself should be an adventure.
Please have a safe Memorial Day and remember two things. To pray for those soldiers who went before us to make this land safe and free and to pray for those now throughout the world in the War Against Terror.
I will have a full report as I, not the missus, will be attending a Giants game at AT&T Park and that all in itself should be an adventure.
Please have a safe Memorial Day and remember two things. To pray for those soldiers who went before us to make this land safe and free and to pray for those now throughout the world in the War Against Terror.
The Diffrerence Between Racism And National Security
In this intense debate over the "comprehensive immigration bill" scam, a very bad trend has occurred that needs to be addressed. It is that those who favor the Bush-Kennedy-McCain approach are rearing the ugly head that those who oppose the bill-scam as is are racists and some conservatives are not only falling for it but taking the bait.
What I mean is that the ones that are buying into it are pundits like Pat Buchanan who basically are arguing that "white America" will soon be a minority. There is a column today in National Review Online http://nationalreview.com that argues that same thing. Why is anyone who calls them selves a conservative taking the race approach? Is this what we really want to argue about over the immigration bill-scam? NO, not by a long shot. The issue is national security first, then after a period of time we can have sane immigration policies. Those of us that are trying to have this debate on that basis, which is almost anyone on the blogosphere, need to denounce those who want to argue race statistics.
When Geraldo Rivera says that "white America is afraid of a brown tide" I absolutely believe that is wrong. But if there is a wave of Islamic men entering our nation illegally, we are afraid and need to act accordingly.
Legitimate concerns beyond that is those that actually want to become citizens are slow, if ever, to assimilate into the American society. They want to be catered to and are encouraged by liberals to make it an issue of race and or language. Also, while we are offering a "path to citizenship," a lot of those who are here illegally from Mexico do not want to become citizens. Has anyone looked at the Bracero program, which is a guest worker program that was done in the 1950's?
I do not worry about the fact that people who are coming here are from primarily third-world countries, but that they do not want to become AMERICAN like our forebarers. They do not want to speak English, they do not want to blend in with whites, blacks, other Hispanic groups. They want to be separate. Also, nothing, not one aspect of this legislation addresses a critical issue, especially here in California involving health care.
Hospital emergency rooms are closing down at an alarming rate because many illegals use the public hospitals, have no means to pay and hospitals are providing services that they will never be paid for. After all, they do need to make some money. Also, because they are illegal, they may not get the proper immunizations and maybe carrying third world predominate diseases such as TB.
I do not think I write this in racist, but realistic terms. That is the experience in Southern California. Many of those who do not get it do not get out of the rarefied air of the Washington beltway.
I want, once the borders north and south are more secure than now, sane, legal immigration and to uphold the American dream for all who want to come here, be citizens or guest workers, and enjoy the fruits of liberty. But, if the national security issues that are legitimate are not looked at, then this bill-scam should die and go back to square one. But, we should never fall into the trap the left sets for us by making this an issue of race alone. It is not and the left knows it. But to buttress their case, they bring up Pat Buchanan and while he should be loosening his white hood, he is an embarrassment to those of us wanting sane, secure, legal immigration.
What I mean is that the ones that are buying into it are pundits like Pat Buchanan who basically are arguing that "white America" will soon be a minority. There is a column today in National Review Online http://nationalreview.com that argues that same thing. Why is anyone who calls them selves a conservative taking the race approach? Is this what we really want to argue about over the immigration bill-scam? NO, not by a long shot. The issue is national security first, then after a period of time we can have sane immigration policies. Those of us that are trying to have this debate on that basis, which is almost anyone on the blogosphere, need to denounce those who want to argue race statistics.
When Geraldo Rivera says that "white America is afraid of a brown tide" I absolutely believe that is wrong. But if there is a wave of Islamic men entering our nation illegally, we are afraid and need to act accordingly.
Legitimate concerns beyond that is those that actually want to become citizens are slow, if ever, to assimilate into the American society. They want to be catered to and are encouraged by liberals to make it an issue of race and or language. Also, while we are offering a "path to citizenship," a lot of those who are here illegally from Mexico do not want to become citizens. Has anyone looked at the Bracero program, which is a guest worker program that was done in the 1950's?
I do not worry about the fact that people who are coming here are from primarily third-world countries, but that they do not want to become AMERICAN like our forebarers. They do not want to speak English, they do not want to blend in with whites, blacks, other Hispanic groups. They want to be separate. Also, nothing, not one aspect of this legislation addresses a critical issue, especially here in California involving health care.
Hospital emergency rooms are closing down at an alarming rate because many illegals use the public hospitals, have no means to pay and hospitals are providing services that they will never be paid for. After all, they do need to make some money. Also, because they are illegal, they may not get the proper immunizations and maybe carrying third world predominate diseases such as TB.
I do not think I write this in racist, but realistic terms. That is the experience in Southern California. Many of those who do not get it do not get out of the rarefied air of the Washington beltway.
I want, once the borders north and south are more secure than now, sane, legal immigration and to uphold the American dream for all who want to come here, be citizens or guest workers, and enjoy the fruits of liberty. But, if the national security issues that are legitimate are not looked at, then this bill-scam should die and go back to square one. But, we should never fall into the trap the left sets for us by making this an issue of race alone. It is not and the left knows it. But to buttress their case, they bring up Pat Buchanan and while he should be loosening his white hood, he is an embarrassment to those of us wanting sane, secure, legal immigration.
DING! DONG! Rosie's Gone!
ABC has announced that paragon of the "truth", Rosie O'Donnell, has left her "women's" talk fest, "The View" earlier than the announced date of her leaving http://FoxNews.com. All I can say is what took so long?!
After her blowup with fellow host Elisabeth Hasselback, who is the token conservative, the "victim" Rosie had supposedly taken the day off yesterday and today the network announced that she is gone for good.
After months of Miss O'Donnell harassing Mrs. Hasselback over her conservative views and defense of the war in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror, Mrs. Hasselback just had it and let it rip. It was a beautiful sight to see.
What made it beautiful was that in the end, Miss O'Donnell played the victim card, referring herself at one point as the "big, fat lesbian". AAAHHH, that is so bad! We are so sorry for you Rosie!
PLEASE! She is not a victim. She just did not realize that Mrs. Hasselback had it. Mrs. Hasselback finally told her the truth about herself, that she asks rhetorical questions and does not back them up. And, according to Miss O'Donnell, Mrs. Hasselback should have done more to defend her when she appeared of FNC's "Hannity and Colmes." Hello?! That is not Mrs. Hasselback's job, especially when she does not agree with her.
This is a case study on how the left reacts when they are called out on facts. They resort to calling themselves victims and slink off into the night and can not be challenged on their positions.
Well, maybe Miss O'Donnell can now take a well deserved rest, get checked out, remedicated and show up back on Air America. That is the perfect place for her.
After her blowup with fellow host Elisabeth Hasselback, who is the token conservative, the "victim" Rosie had supposedly taken the day off yesterday and today the network announced that she is gone for good.
After months of Miss O'Donnell harassing Mrs. Hasselback over her conservative views and defense of the war in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror, Mrs. Hasselback just had it and let it rip. It was a beautiful sight to see.
What made it beautiful was that in the end, Miss O'Donnell played the victim card, referring herself at one point as the "big, fat lesbian". AAAHHH, that is so bad! We are so sorry for you Rosie!
PLEASE! She is not a victim. She just did not realize that Mrs. Hasselback had it. Mrs. Hasselback finally told her the truth about herself, that she asks rhetorical questions and does not back them up. And, according to Miss O'Donnell, Mrs. Hasselback should have done more to defend her when she appeared of FNC's "Hannity and Colmes." Hello?! That is not Mrs. Hasselback's job, especially when she does not agree with her.
This is a case study on how the left reacts when they are called out on facts. They resort to calling themselves victims and slink off into the night and can not be challenged on their positions.
Well, maybe Miss O'Donnell can now take a well deserved rest, get checked out, remedicated and show up back on Air America. That is the perfect place for her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)