Here I may be stepping on toes, but it seems to me that all the bruha about the Confederate flag is somewhat overdone. After all, the stars and strips were used in a slave nation for 99 years, but our current flag seems to not bother anyone. I suppose the question in both cases is: did the nation sufficiently stand for other things besides slavery? I do believe that such a case might be made for both the Federalists and the Confederates. And, of course, so might the opposite viewpoint be taken.
I remember from my history that Robert E. Lee released his slaves at the outbreak of the war, declaring that this war would not be fought over slavery. I also remember Lincoln spending the first two years of the war fighting against the rights of the states to secede before he decided to give the emancipation proclamation. Virginia had signed into the constitution with the provision, that should it decide, it would have the right of secession. Lincoln overruled that right and history has judged him fortuitously.
But is there not a case to be made for the loss of self determination of states? I do think that is the good part of Confederate flag waving.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Musical Chairs
Big government is like playing musical chairs; sooner or later they are going to stop the music and this time they might get your chair. No one else will care for they are too grateful for the chair the government has benevolently given them. Then you will be bereft and begging for relief, which is the point of pig government anyway.
"That government is best which governs least." Thomas Jefferson.
A pox on both parties when they talk about streamlining and getting things done; my private horror is that they might actually be able to get it done- whatever it is.
Our forefathers were fortunately much wiser; it occurs to me that is a poignant argument against evolution, for nowhere do we see the men of wisdom that we had the fortune to start this country with. They distrusted government so much that they created a government deliberately unwieldly and difficult to accomplish anything.
But the aim of both parties these days seems to make federal government ten times stronger than it ever was. Witness Hillary's campaign spending plans or Bush's spending plan to improve the economy- both will increase government control.
"That government is best which governs least." Thomas Jefferson.
A pox on both parties when they talk about streamlining and getting things done; my private horror is that they might actually be able to get it done- whatever it is.
Our forefathers were fortunately much wiser; it occurs to me that is a poignant argument against evolution, for nowhere do we see the men of wisdom that we had the fortune to start this country with. They distrusted government so much that they created a government deliberately unwieldly and difficult to accomplish anything.
But the aim of both parties these days seems to make federal government ten times stronger than it ever was. Witness Hillary's campaign spending plans or Bush's spending plan to improve the economy- both will increase government control.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Monday, July 09, 2007
Today's Myths
I know I have not posted recently- life gets in the way- but now it is summer and with my time off, I thought to give time to something that I have tried conceptualizing for years. Every single generation in our history has had more than its share of myths. In the 1800s one of the more famous ones was phrenology, where doctors could supposedly tell someone’s character from the bumps on his head. Then it was very common to find true believers in phrenology, something that most of us laugh at today.
Another myth was the use of leeches to suck the “bad” blood out. They were used on Lincoln and according to articles I have read may have actually contributed to his death. All people knew leeches were good for you. Doctors were frequently given the nickname “Leech”. All people were wrong and we laugh at their folly today.
Yet we do not laugh at our own myths for we do not usually see them. Sometimes part of our society is skeptical about certain myths as some were skeptical about phrenology; other times most of society accepts its myths as a truism such as the myth of leeches.
What are the myths of our present generation? They can be difficult for those who are caught in their snare to see, and as I say, I have been trying to figure them out for years. This summer I propose to write on some of the following (my thanks to my wife, who helped me enlarge the list considerably):
1. Global warming is caused by human activity.
2. Public education works.
3. Islam and Christianity can peacefully coexist.
4. Our generation is smarter than any before.
5. Christians cannot think and are delusional.
6. Clinton was a great president if you ignore his personal life.
7. Meaning comes from the reader or the listener, not the writer or the speaker.
8. The needs we have today are different than past generations.
9. Christ really was a good teacher, but we really cannot trust what the Bible says about Him.
10. Cleaning up the outside of our lives will automatically clean up the inside.
11. Government is good; more government is better.
12. Integrity, whatever it is, does not matter anymore.
13. There is neither good nor evil- more commonly expressed as denial of evil.
14. Life begins at birth, not conception.
15. Fairness equals sameness.
16. Toleration of others means embracing their lifestyles.
17. Death is oblivion.
Stay posted! I will try to cover at least a couple a week.
Another myth was the use of leeches to suck the “bad” blood out. They were used on Lincoln and according to articles I have read may have actually contributed to his death. All people knew leeches were good for you. Doctors were frequently given the nickname “Leech”. All people were wrong and we laugh at their folly today.
Yet we do not laugh at our own myths for we do not usually see them. Sometimes part of our society is skeptical about certain myths as some were skeptical about phrenology; other times most of society accepts its myths as a truism such as the myth of leeches.
What are the myths of our present generation? They can be difficult for those who are caught in their snare to see, and as I say, I have been trying to figure them out for years. This summer I propose to write on some of the following (my thanks to my wife, who helped me enlarge the list considerably):
1. Global warming is caused by human activity.
2. Public education works.
3. Islam and Christianity can peacefully coexist.
4. Our generation is smarter than any before.
5. Christians cannot think and are delusional.
6. Clinton was a great president if you ignore his personal life.
7. Meaning comes from the reader or the listener, not the writer or the speaker.
8. The needs we have today are different than past generations.
9. Christ really was a good teacher, but we really cannot trust what the Bible says about Him.
10. Cleaning up the outside of our lives will automatically clean up the inside.
11. Government is good; more government is better.
12. Integrity, whatever it is, does not matter anymore.
13. There is neither good nor evil- more commonly expressed as denial of evil.
14. Life begins at birth, not conception.
15. Fairness equals sameness.
16. Toleration of others means embracing their lifestyles.
17. Death is oblivion.
Stay posted! I will try to cover at least a couple a week.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Israel The Hated Nation
Israel The Hated Nation
The end times are coming. Already a beautiful pastel of colors is being splashed across the world canvas to describe in vivid detail that which is appearing with the famed four horsemen. Iran swears on the destruction of Israel; their leader is only waiting for the appearance of the 12th Iman to signal its destruction. Meanwhile the “civilized” (yes, Iran, I do mean the slur) world (yes world I do mean the quotes) is appalled at Israel’s inappropriate response. I even read one commentator (a US birdbrain) who suggested that Israel contrived the whole situation, that they are using the two soldiers who were taken from Israeli soil as an excuse to bomb Lebanon. This birdbrain evidently is incapable of factoring in the thousands of bombs landing on Israel, driving many millions to leave their homes and their businesses to live for weeks in bomb shelters.Why is it that the world does not understand that Moslems are being driven in their hatred not by themselves, but by another? This "other" defies all reasoning and peace proposals; only left are summurizations of destruction. I wish we were better than this, yet we are not.It is precisely this other that has yet to be identified. Is it the 12th Iman? Or is it some future pope- which a Christian I have intermittent contact with suggests, and it has been suggested (by Protestants only obviously) for centuries? Much speculation has gone into the identity of this man, and all I can say is that the Bible promises that he will be revealed in due time.
Currently the US support of Israel is anemic at best. Bush and all of his zealous support for Israel is being derided by nearly half the country. This past week there were even attempts by some to oust Condi Rice by trying to pretend she was not in tune with what the administration. I do not think it worked but it is perhaps only a matter of time.
If there is one place that I do not support Bush it is in the Iraq war. I simply believe that over a long period of time people get the government that they deserve. The Iraqi people have been here for thousands of years; their government has not evolved beyond the basic bestial dictator model. Why? To me the answer is obvious: the people are so factionous that they cannot survive under any other model of government. Bush is attempting to bring democracy to this people and while I laud his attempts to do so, it seems to me that he so obviously is shortchanging our founders, namely Jefferson, Adams, and Monroe (both Christians and non Christians).
It took thousands of years of thinking and reasoning for us to get to the point of responsibly handling democracy, even with this great slate of leaders we had. Even today, the D'Toqueville ascription of the great experiment still exists; we may well self ignite and destroy ourselves- such is the abomination of democracy (for further info ask France, who had everything and voted it away).
May I add one point? I do hope fervently that my analysis is wrong and that Bush is right. He certainly has a great goal- but one I do fear is doomed to failure. It does relate to my twenty year problem with neocons, but there are many other things about Bush that I do admire.
There is a ten nation confederation governing the world; it is not the ten nation confederation of Europe much ballyhooed by Lindsey and others in the seventies. It is instead the ten nation confederacy (the same confederacy I thought in the seventies to be much more likely to hold economic power- boy, did the Late Great Planet Earth miss that one!) holding virtually all the oil pools of the world (the US has much more oil, but it also has wacko environmentalists who have stopped its development these past thirty years).
This is the same ten nation confederacy prophesied about in Daniel. May I point out that this confederacy has already blackmailed both France and Germany to its cause, to the embarrassment of its leaders?All this has been foretold beforehand. It will become apparent as time unfolds. What exciting times to live in! To think that I may live to see the changing of the ages, the coming of our Christ.Nevertheless, it needs to be said plainly that there is a coming time when those in the world will all appear to be against Israel. Iran will march against Israel, the tiny nation the size of greater Sacramento, and will send something towards Judea that should call all to flee. At that time Judea better look out; moreover the world better look for the coming of the Son. I suggest the skeptical do a reading of Jeremiah, particularly the 50th and the 51st chapter (please do read Jeremiah 51: 24).
Finally, it needs to be said that when I became a Christian in 1972, I was warned by a prescient godly man to watch Iraq and Iran. Why is it that 35 years later the world is watching Iraq and Iran?
Great explanation of Isreal by Charles Krauthammer here.
The end times are coming. Already a beautiful pastel of colors is being splashed across the world canvas to describe in vivid detail that which is appearing with the famed four horsemen. Iran swears on the destruction of Israel; their leader is only waiting for the appearance of the 12th Iman to signal its destruction. Meanwhile the “civilized” (yes, Iran, I do mean the slur) world (yes world I do mean the quotes) is appalled at Israel’s inappropriate response. I even read one commentator (a US birdbrain) who suggested that Israel contrived the whole situation, that they are using the two soldiers who were taken from Israeli soil as an excuse to bomb Lebanon. This birdbrain evidently is incapable of factoring in the thousands of bombs landing on Israel, driving many millions to leave their homes and their businesses to live for weeks in bomb shelters.Why is it that the world does not understand that Moslems are being driven in their hatred not by themselves, but by another? This "other" defies all reasoning and peace proposals; only left are summurizations of destruction. I wish we were better than this, yet we are not.It is precisely this other that has yet to be identified. Is it the 12th Iman? Or is it some future pope- which a Christian I have intermittent contact with suggests, and it has been suggested (by Protestants only obviously) for centuries? Much speculation has gone into the identity of this man, and all I can say is that the Bible promises that he will be revealed in due time.
Currently the US support of Israel is anemic at best. Bush and all of his zealous support for Israel is being derided by nearly half the country. This past week there were even attempts by some to oust Condi Rice by trying to pretend she was not in tune with what the administration. I do not think it worked but it is perhaps only a matter of time.
If there is one place that I do not support Bush it is in the Iraq war. I simply believe that over a long period of time people get the government that they deserve. The Iraqi people have been here for thousands of years; their government has not evolved beyond the basic bestial dictator model. Why? To me the answer is obvious: the people are so factionous that they cannot survive under any other model of government. Bush is attempting to bring democracy to this people and while I laud his attempts to do so, it seems to me that he so obviously is shortchanging our founders, namely Jefferson, Adams, and Monroe (both Christians and non Christians).
It took thousands of years of thinking and reasoning for us to get to the point of responsibly handling democracy, even with this great slate of leaders we had. Even today, the D'Toqueville ascription of the great experiment still exists; we may well self ignite and destroy ourselves- such is the abomination of democracy (for further info ask France, who had everything and voted it away).
May I add one point? I do hope fervently that my analysis is wrong and that Bush is right. He certainly has a great goal- but one I do fear is doomed to failure. It does relate to my twenty year problem with neocons, but there are many other things about Bush that I do admire.
There is a ten nation confederation governing the world; it is not the ten nation confederation of Europe much ballyhooed by Lindsey and others in the seventies. It is instead the ten nation confederacy (the same confederacy I thought in the seventies to be much more likely to hold economic power- boy, did the Late Great Planet Earth miss that one!) holding virtually all the oil pools of the world (the US has much more oil, but it also has wacko environmentalists who have stopped its development these past thirty years).
This is the same ten nation confederacy prophesied about in Daniel. May I point out that this confederacy has already blackmailed both France and Germany to its cause, to the embarrassment of its leaders?All this has been foretold beforehand. It will become apparent as time unfolds. What exciting times to live in! To think that I may live to see the changing of the ages, the coming of our Christ.Nevertheless, it needs to be said plainly that there is a coming time when those in the world will all appear to be against Israel. Iran will march against Israel, the tiny nation the size of greater Sacramento, and will send something towards Judea that should call all to flee. At that time Judea better look out; moreover the world better look for the coming of the Son. I suggest the skeptical do a reading of Jeremiah, particularly the 50th and the 51st chapter (please do read Jeremiah 51: 24).
Finally, it needs to be said that when I became a Christian in 1972, I was warned by a prescient godly man to watch Iraq and Iran. Why is it that 35 years later the world is watching Iraq and Iran?
Great explanation of Isreal by Charles Krauthammer here.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Our present governor
Our present governor has finally got it! I have said for a decade, that either party who was wise enough to make transportation a center issue of his campaign would own the campaign. But in the midst of threatened new rolling blackouts in California it occurs to me that our feckless leaders would be wise to “lead” in a new direction as well. Why not purpose a giant bond to build 10 new megawatt plants? Such a politician would be counted visionary (yawn- this issue has been around for ten years and we are still waiting for “visionary leadership”) I have noticed from my study of history that there are very few leaders who really are; most are clowns jumping out in front of the parade, pretending to go in the parade’s direction.
But as a voter of 53 who has never voted for more than a handful of bond issues, I do plan on voting for better roads. Oh duh!
But as a voter of 53 who has never voted for more than a handful of bond issues, I do plan on voting for better roads. Oh duh!
Friday, June 30, 2006
Hamden Decision
Hamden Decision-
This decision makes it clear that we still have a large liberal problem on the Supreme Court. As a habitatant of Sacramento, I loathe the day that we appointed Kennedy to the Supreme Court- something just felt wrong, I judged his acceptance by the liberal’s silence, as they did not condemn him. Therefore I felt instantly apprehensive. Thankfully, gone forever are the days of the Democratic Congress!
If I may, I would like to intercede at the very core process of our government at this point. The Supremes need forever to be banned from considering international law as a part of their reasoning; it seems self-evident as the Constitution specifically limits the SC to decisions, but evidently Kennedy understands it not. Why did he not declare his allegiance to international law rather than the Constitution when he was confirmed?
What I purpose is an amendment guiding the SC specifically to guarding their decisions based on the Constitution, and forbidding them to cite international law. Let us exclude the law of Syria, Russia, and France from our country’s consideration once and for all.
This decision makes it clear that we still have a large liberal problem on the Supreme Court. As a habitatant of Sacramento, I loathe the day that we appointed Kennedy to the Supreme Court- something just felt wrong, I judged his acceptance by the liberal’s silence, as they did not condemn him. Therefore I felt instantly apprehensive. Thankfully, gone forever are the days of the Democratic Congress!
If I may, I would like to intercede at the very core process of our government at this point. The Supremes need forever to be banned from considering international law as a part of their reasoning; it seems self-evident as the Constitution specifically limits the SC to decisions, but evidently Kennedy understands it not. Why did he not declare his allegiance to international law rather than the Constitution when he was confirmed?
What I purpose is an amendment guiding the SC specifically to guarding their decisions based on the Constitution, and forbidding them to cite international law. Let us exclude the law of Syria, Russia, and France from our country’s consideration once and for all.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
David Keller- A Reply
The New York Times has only two reasons for publishing its latest purported scandal of the Bush administration. Either it must hate the Bush administration, or it must want Al Queda to win in America. The second alternative is so unreasonable as to defy any logic; therefore we must focus on the first alternative.
Can we show from sources that the New York Times does despise the Bush administration and favor a Howard-Dean-Replacement? Yes, it is a slam-dunk pronouncement, and the editor’s reply, trying to protect himself from the sharp outbreak of criticism by denouncing conservative hacks who have taken umbrage with him has exposed his true partisan motives.
As a libertarian, I have no problems with partisan motives; I have every problem with someone who claims to be doing something for other prurient interests, i.e.- he considers the people’s right to know as triumphing American’s right to be protected from terrorists. This postulate is fallacious, coming from an American newspaper; there is only one reason to print it- the hope that it will further damage the Bush administration.
One of the reasons that the editor, Bill Kellor, gives for justifying his article is a parenthetical response saying that conservatives should not reply to his article, as it only magnifies the wrong that he did in publishing it in the first place: “(I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)” Evidently Mr. Kellor wants to publish and be ignored by his opponents- what a paradise that would be for a journalist!
Someone recently pointed out that the NYT and John Murtha are the best weapons that Republicans have. I agree that Republicans have made a mess, but what alternative are we to choose? The alternative of the Times, which is give the enemy all news of every secret program you are using, or John Murtha’s alternative of fighting the war in Iraq from Okinawa, 5,000 miles away?
Neither is a thinking alternative, and thus I predict Republicans will dominate for the next decade. The shrill voice of the weird opponents cuts through to the sensible voter, and they will not buy into the fantasy. I read in a blog today where one crazy declared that Bush had won neither election- as long as such ideologues are in control of the Democratic Party, (Go Howard Dean!) the nation is probably safe from their influence.
Sergeant Boggs has made a most strong point on his blog. How have we made the world safer for our soldiers because of the Time’s article? Giving the enemy new information about how we are trying to catch them is indeed treasonous. The Times should be sent, entire staff, to Iraq for two years of service so that they may reap the fruits of the seeds they have sown. They might come back with quite a different attitude toward terrorism, once they have to suffer the monies they have exposed being dedicated to their own destruction.
Can we show from sources that the New York Times does despise the Bush administration and favor a Howard-Dean-Replacement? Yes, it is a slam-dunk pronouncement, and the editor’s reply, trying to protect himself from the sharp outbreak of criticism by denouncing conservative hacks who have taken umbrage with him has exposed his true partisan motives.
As a libertarian, I have no problems with partisan motives; I have every problem with someone who claims to be doing something for other prurient interests, i.e.- he considers the people’s right to know as triumphing American’s right to be protected from terrorists. This postulate is fallacious, coming from an American newspaper; there is only one reason to print it- the hope that it will further damage the Bush administration.
One of the reasons that the editor, Bill Kellor, gives for justifying his article is a parenthetical response saying that conservatives should not reply to his article, as it only magnifies the wrong that he did in publishing it in the first place: “(I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)” Evidently Mr. Kellor wants to publish and be ignored by his opponents- what a paradise that would be for a journalist!
Someone recently pointed out that the NYT and John Murtha are the best weapons that Republicans have. I agree that Republicans have made a mess, but what alternative are we to choose? The alternative of the Times, which is give the enemy all news of every secret program you are using, or John Murtha’s alternative of fighting the war in Iraq from Okinawa, 5,000 miles away?
Neither is a thinking alternative, and thus I predict Republicans will dominate for the next decade. The shrill voice of the weird opponents cuts through to the sensible voter, and they will not buy into the fantasy. I read in a blog today where one crazy declared that Bush had won neither election- as long as such ideologues are in control of the Democratic Party, (Go Howard Dean!) the nation is probably safe from their influence.
Sergeant Boggs has made a most strong point on his blog. How have we made the world safer for our soldiers because of the Time’s article? Giving the enemy new information about how we are trying to catch them is indeed treasonous. The Times should be sent, entire staff, to Iraq for two years of service so that they may reap the fruits of the seeds they have sown. They might come back with quite a different attitude toward terrorism, once they have to suffer the monies they have exposed being dedicated to their own destruction.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Joe Leiberman
Joe Leiberman
Joe is under attack from the liberal media- not from his Democratic base. This is a legitimate conclusion based on the fact that Leiberman has a 15 point edge over his opponent (whom I cannot even name), and article after article is being written about Leiberman going 3rd party should he lose in the primary. Is there another election in history where a 15 point spread is thought to be a close election? Test: when was the last “close” election in a presidential race won by a 15 point margin?
The bias of the liberal media is self-evident. Thank God for those who expose it regularly (Brent Bozell), but it is most interesting to see a party intent on self destruction try to expunge one of their own stalwarts. As I have seen this last month unfold with news stories (and I was dubious over the stories which predicted strong Dem wins this November), I want to predict that Repubs seem to have the upper hand for the next decade. I did read an article, very interesting, which postulated that “political prostitutes” are responsible for the up or down of either party. I do wonder if the political prostitutes are creating most of the mess of the Repubs now? Repubs were very used to being ideologues; now it is the Dems place to be ideologues.
But what do I know? I have always been a libertarian, and wish fervently for government to quit bossing me around. I do appreciate their help, when public interest is clearly delineated, as in freeways and student loans, but otherwise “Don’t tread on me” seems to be a great American ideal.
Joe is under attack from the liberal media- not from his Democratic base. This is a legitimate conclusion based on the fact that Leiberman has a 15 point edge over his opponent (whom I cannot even name), and article after article is being written about Leiberman going 3rd party should he lose in the primary. Is there another election in history where a 15 point spread is thought to be a close election? Test: when was the last “close” election in a presidential race won by a 15 point margin?
The bias of the liberal media is self-evident. Thank God for those who expose it regularly (Brent Bozell), but it is most interesting to see a party intent on self destruction try to expunge one of their own stalwarts. As I have seen this last month unfold with news stories (and I was dubious over the stories which predicted strong Dem wins this November), I want to predict that Repubs seem to have the upper hand for the next decade. I did read an article, very interesting, which postulated that “political prostitutes” are responsible for the up or down of either party. I do wonder if the political prostitutes are creating most of the mess of the Repubs now? Repubs were very used to being ideologues; now it is the Dems place to be ideologues.
But what do I know? I have always been a libertarian, and wish fervently for government to quit bossing me around. I do appreciate their help, when public interest is clearly delineated, as in freeways and student loans, but otherwise “Don’t tread on me” seems to be a great American ideal.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
The New York Times is absolutely idyllic
The New York Times has done it again. Yawn. Has anything ever changed? The NYT supported “Uncle Joe” Stalin, and supported him avidly through the 1930s. The NYT told us that we were defeated in Vietnam, though today we learn that the Tet Offensive in 1968 was wildly successful. This was the battle that Walter Cronkite donned his helmet and declared we had lost the war. Thank God for unbiased reporting in the likes of Dan Rather! North Vietnamese tell us today that it took them over three years to recover from the battle loss, and that it was not until 1971, that they began to take control again. I am very tired of this pathetic un-American newspaper trying to usurp the democratic powers that be. Remember, if NYT had its way, we would all be Communist today.
In line with that, I have created a list of ten suggested bumperstickers for people to put on their cars; they are not too complex, as Americans are not too deep, but they just tend to know a lemon when they see one.
NYT recommends you vote for
Stalin: Ho Chi Minh: Hillary Clinton
NYT: Support Your Local Al Queda
NYT: Security is triumphed by your right to know before you get blown up
NYT: Next time you meet a terrorist, thank the NYT.
NYT: Terror before Security
Bush: Security before Terror
NYT: You liked us supporting Uncle Joe?
You’ll love us supporting terrorists!
NYT: Moslems really want peace;
Pay no attention to the Osama behind the curtain.
NYT: Osama was a misunderstood 40th child.
NYT: Dems can reason with Al Queda
NYT: We will tell you what to think
Pay no attention to other media
Please add your ideas; NYT needs all the help it can get. May I just say again, the NYT has not ever accused the US of wrongful doing; merely they suggest that there may one day be wrongdoing; therefore they give all secrets away to the enemy and have the audacity to call themselves patriotic Americans.
In line with that, I have created a list of ten suggested bumperstickers for people to put on their cars; they are not too complex, as Americans are not too deep, but they just tend to know a lemon when they see one.
NYT recommends you vote for
Stalin: Ho Chi Minh: Hillary Clinton
NYT: Support Your Local Al Queda
NYT: Security is triumphed by your right to know before you get blown up
NYT: Next time you meet a terrorist, thank the NYT.
NYT: Terror before Security
Bush: Security before Terror
NYT: You liked us supporting Uncle Joe?
You’ll love us supporting terrorists!
NYT: Moslems really want peace;
Pay no attention to the Osama behind the curtain.
NYT: Osama was a misunderstood 40th child.
NYT: Dems can reason with Al Queda
NYT: We will tell you what to think
Pay no attention to other media
Please add your ideas; NYT needs all the help it can get. May I just say again, the NYT has not ever accused the US of wrongful doing; merely they suggest that there may one day be wrongdoing; therefore they give all secrets away to the enemy and have the audacity to call themselves patriotic Americans.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
The Difference in Lying
The Difference in Lying
In 1975 the US media proved beyond all doubt that Nixon was lying, and that he was a scoundrel. Most of the Republican party deserted him at that point; some including Billy Graham, did not. May both be blessed because of their beliefs!
In 1992, Bill Clinton got elected, and though he does not yet know in his fifties what the meaning of is is, he molested and denigrated women, albeit all were Democrats. At least he was consistent.
But the question I want answered is why my fellow compatriots declare Bill Clinton the best president ever and why they neglect his obvious self denigration and self gathering? How can they be so blind? In history only Chamberlain was so blind, working furiously for peace seven years after Churchill told him of coming evil. If only Chamberlain had listened- what kind of different world would we have now? I am not dismayed by Democrats opposition (I am not, nor have ever been a Republican, though I sleep next to a converted Republican every night), I am just dismayed by their lack of fidelity. Evidently they still think Stalin and Castro heroes, as in the past, but they cannot realize evil as evil. Of such I will forever shrink from.
In 1975 the US media proved beyond all doubt that Nixon was lying, and that he was a scoundrel. Most of the Republican party deserted him at that point; some including Billy Graham, did not. May both be blessed because of their beliefs!
In 1992, Bill Clinton got elected, and though he does not yet know in his fifties what the meaning of is is, he molested and denigrated women, albeit all were Democrats. At least he was consistent.
But the question I want answered is why my fellow compatriots declare Bill Clinton the best president ever and why they neglect his obvious self denigration and self gathering? How can they be so blind? In history only Chamberlain was so blind, working furiously for peace seven years after Churchill told him of coming evil. If only Chamberlain had listened- what kind of different world would we have now? I am not dismayed by Democrats opposition (I am not, nor have ever been a Republican, though I sleep next to a converted Republican every night), I am just dismayed by their lack of fidelity. Evidently they still think Stalin and Castro heroes, as in the past, but they cannot realize evil as evil. Of such I will forever shrink from.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Chris Thompson Perhaps an Unlikely Hero?
Chris Thompson- Perhaps an Unlikely Hero?
I do need to tell you that I had many misgivings about our war with Iraq chiefly because I have a Biblical view of those that hate the Jews, and figure if a people have 4,000 years to work a government out to their best interest, how can we relatively new democrats tell them different? I just did not think these people had the capability of working out a better government; I hope I was wrong, and there is accumulating evidence that I was.
Chris is my wife’s nephew- long ago (and in a galaxy far away) I remember spinning him around with my arms and carefully setting him back on the ground. When I saw him two weeks ago he was taller than me, returned from the war and going strong in his new job for GM.
Chris definitely impressed me because of one of the last times I saw him before the Iraq war he had the opportunity to early out. He knew that, and I reminded him of it, but he decided to re-up knowing full well that it was very probable he would be sent to Iraq. He spent his year over there, and I confess I wanted very much to debrief him, finding out all that he saw. What he came back with was less than a positive viewpoint, less than I wanted to hear, but we did not have time to go into particulars. I do remember that he threatened to write a book at the time- Chris?
Nevertheless he worked his time responsibly and rebuilt a nation torn to shatters by its evil leader. My hope is that he is able to put this into perspective and see the wonderful work that he did do. He left his wife and daughters for an unseemly time, lost his job in the process, and gave up much income. Heroic? Yes.
But that is just an opinion of an unlikely uncle who used to swing him around. I should have told you, Chris, the last time I saw you what I think of your wonderful work.
I do need to tell you that I had many misgivings about our war with Iraq chiefly because I have a Biblical view of those that hate the Jews, and figure if a people have 4,000 years to work a government out to their best interest, how can we relatively new democrats tell them different? I just did not think these people had the capability of working out a better government; I hope I was wrong, and there is accumulating evidence that I was.
Chris is my wife’s nephew- long ago (and in a galaxy far away) I remember spinning him around with my arms and carefully setting him back on the ground. When I saw him two weeks ago he was taller than me, returned from the war and going strong in his new job for GM.
Chris definitely impressed me because of one of the last times I saw him before the Iraq war he had the opportunity to early out. He knew that, and I reminded him of it, but he decided to re-up knowing full well that it was very probable he would be sent to Iraq. He spent his year over there, and I confess I wanted very much to debrief him, finding out all that he saw. What he came back with was less than a positive viewpoint, less than I wanted to hear, but we did not have time to go into particulars. I do remember that he threatened to write a book at the time- Chris?
Nevertheless he worked his time responsibly and rebuilt a nation torn to shatters by its evil leader. My hope is that he is able to put this into perspective and see the wonderful work that he did do. He left his wife and daughters for an unseemly time, lost his job in the process, and gave up much income. Heroic? Yes.
But that is just an opinion of an unlikely uncle who used to swing him around. I should have told you, Chris, the last time I saw you what I think of your wonderful work.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Dick Morris The Toe
Dick Morris- The Toe Fetish Prognosticator
Dick Morris has today trepeditiously predicted the demise of the Congress to Democrat hands. Let us remember that this is the man who supported Hillary and Bill when the country thought they were really bizarre, only to learn that poor Dick was at least as equally as bizarre. I think, on the whole, this is a welcome prediction, and that the Republicans will stay in power in both houses. But I have been wrong before; most spectacularly when I predicted the last of the “seven dwarves” could not be elected, as he had far too many scandals to overcome. Instead he got elected and proved to all America that there is no limit to the number of scandals that one may create.
Dick Morris has today trepeditiously predicted the demise of the Congress to Democrat hands. Let us remember that this is the man who supported Hillary and Bill when the country thought they were really bizarre, only to learn that poor Dick was at least as equally as bizarre. I think, on the whole, this is a welcome prediction, and that the Republicans will stay in power in both houses. But I have been wrong before; most spectacularly when I predicted the last of the “seven dwarves” could not be elected, as he had far too many scandals to overcome. Instead he got elected and proved to all America that there is no limit to the number of scandals that one may create.
Tolerance in America
Tolerance in America
My wife has had her new SUV keyed twice in 8 months. The first time she had no identifying marks declaring her conservative views; she just had no license plate as yet. (A profound liberal told her how to remove the scratches from the keying.) The second time she declared herself a conservative in that she had a bumpersticker (in the interests of full disclosure, I bought it for her) that declared “Support the Troops”. The bumpersticker was stolen as the car was keyed yet again.
What incenses me is not the damage to the car; I am sure that my wife much more worries about that, but it is not my car. Rather what incenses me is that there are so many people springing up in America who seem to deny tolerance; how ironic it is that they are coming from the party who prides itself on tolerance. Mark my words: there is a party of intolerance, and it is not the Republicans.
My niece lives with her husband in the same town: they fear to express their conservative views with bumperstickers because such cars inevitably have their windows broken. What kind of US are we headed towards which has such intolerance? Give me examples of conservative intolerance (I am sure you can) and I will always condemn it.
In the words of the great and famous Rodney King: “Can’t we all just get along?”
Evidently not, but it is not the fault of conservatives; liberals make a point of slicing and dicing those they disagree with. Can anyone say “Brownshirts”?
My wife has had her new SUV keyed twice in 8 months. The first time she had no identifying marks declaring her conservative views; she just had no license plate as yet. (A profound liberal told her how to remove the scratches from the keying.) The second time she declared herself a conservative in that she had a bumpersticker (in the interests of full disclosure, I bought it for her) that declared “Support the Troops”. The bumpersticker was stolen as the car was keyed yet again.
What incenses me is not the damage to the car; I am sure that my wife much more worries about that, but it is not my car. Rather what incenses me is that there are so many people springing up in America who seem to deny tolerance; how ironic it is that they are coming from the party who prides itself on tolerance. Mark my words: there is a party of intolerance, and it is not the Republicans.
My niece lives with her husband in the same town: they fear to express their conservative views with bumperstickers because such cars inevitably have their windows broken. What kind of US are we headed towards which has such intolerance? Give me examples of conservative intolerance (I am sure you can) and I will always condemn it.
In the words of the great and famous Rodney King: “Can’t we all just get along?”
Evidently not, but it is not the fault of conservatives; liberals make a point of slicing and dicing those they disagree with. Can anyone say “Brownshirts”?
Sunday, June 11, 2006
We can go to the moon but not Yosemite
We can go to the moon but we can’t go to Yosemite
The latest report is that the major thoroughfare to Yosemite is due to be closed for more than a year. There is no report that I have seen as debilitating as this one. JFK wanted us to go to the moon, and within ten years, Democrats got us to the moon, over 800,000 miles away. Yet today, the news is that Democrats cannot clear 600 feet of highway and that a major thoroughfare to Yosemite may have to remain closed for over a year. I just wonder if Democrats are really so inept as they cannot solve 600 feet of problem how are they ever going to fix the nation’s problems? We have really gone a long way down since JFK’s vision.
The latest report is that the major thoroughfare to Yosemite is due to be closed for more than a year. There is no report that I have seen as debilitating as this one. JFK wanted us to go to the moon, and within ten years, Democrats got us to the moon, over 800,000 miles away. Yet today, the news is that Democrats cannot clear 600 feet of highway and that a major thoroughfare to Yosemite may have to remain closed for over a year. I just wonder if Democrats are really so inept as they cannot solve 600 feet of problem how are they ever going to fix the nation’s problems? We have really gone a long way down since JFK’s vision.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter
This lady I absolutely love! Her wit and readiness to argue I have watched for years. She has a deep hit accompanied by a great sense of humor, and even if she hits too hard, she is usually right on. She did go too far when she said the four New Jersey ladies were enjoying their husband’s deaths, but her point that these women are politicizing their grief is well made. I read on Hugh Hewitt yesterday where he issued a blanket proclamation that she went too far on her comments on the 9/11 widows. I disagree with Hugh on account of the particular widows that Ann targeted were obviously giving themselves wholeheartedly to a liberal political agenda. I do think cogently, and cogent thinking here leads one to the conclusion, whether liberal or conservative, if you give yourself to a political agenda, you are open to criticism. So give the lady a break! After all she is fighting the great candidate who has openly supported lesbianism in the past as an editor for her college newspaper. Her response today is very articulate and she is standing by her initial statement. Ann Coulter for president? Not sure I would go that far, but she is a steadfast ally in our time of need.
This lady I absolutely love! Her wit and readiness to argue I have watched for years. She has a deep hit accompanied by a great sense of humor, and even if she hits too hard, she is usually right on. She did go too far when she said the four New Jersey ladies were enjoying their husband’s deaths, but her point that these women are politicizing their grief is well made. I read on Hugh Hewitt yesterday where he issued a blanket proclamation that she went too far on her comments on the 9/11 widows. I disagree with Hugh on account of the particular widows that Ann targeted were obviously giving themselves wholeheartedly to a liberal political agenda. I do think cogently, and cogent thinking here leads one to the conclusion, whether liberal or conservative, if you give yourself to a political agenda, you are open to criticism. So give the lady a break! After all she is fighting the great candidate who has openly supported lesbianism in the past as an editor for her college newspaper. Her response today is very articulate and she is standing by her initial statement. Ann Coulter for president? Not sure I would go that far, but she is a steadfast ally in our time of need.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
I love Thomas Sowell
I love Thomas Sowell! Oh, he is so inspiring because he is a black wonderfully articulate professor of renown who happens to be (OH, THE LIBERAL NIGHTMARE!) a conservative. I am an educator and so the best book I think he has ever written is Inside American Education, but I have followed his newspaper columns for years. Today I read a column about a book that he has reviewed and is recommending for all to read, especially if you would like to debunk liberal myths. I ordered the book and am looking forward to reading it. One of Sowell’s premises is that people, regardless of color, should be made to stand or fall on their own merits. This I do applaud!
The bad news is the book has not yet been released.
The bad news is the book has not yet been released.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
The Gathering Storm
I should think the storm over today’s emphasis on Canada’s arrest of 17 terrorist suspects should jar Americans. Enough fertilizer was purchased to more than double Oklahoma City. Though its major premise I agree with(article) that we are asleep at the wheel again. Yet I doubt that Americans will ever see the danger as plainly as they should until too late. I ask the question: how many countries does it take to perpetuate a war? The answer is as it always has been: One. In 1981 Israel devastated the nuclear program of a new entry, Iraq, into the quagmire. Iraq, and Saddam Hussein, had promised forever to extinguish Israel, as has every one of the Arab states around Israel. I do wonder if the world even knows that, as I think it is one of the most underreported facts in all of history. Every Arab state is utterly dedicated to the demise of Israel, and they have repeatedly openly stated so. It surprised England to no end, those who had soon signed on to the Balfour Declaration, long before the advent of WW2. Churchill himself expressed amazement at the quantity of resistance to the new Jewish influence on the part of the Arabs.
Yet it fulfilled God’s exact prophecy. Israel was to be scattered, judged heavily, and then regathered for the End Time. Today we are told of an egoist in Iran who believes the time has come for a confrontation with Israel. He would develop nuclear weapons deeply underground, and is far enough away from Israel to not worry about a sufficient attack, nevermind the fact that Israel is politically in a position not to attack; the whole world is waiting to condemn them for any wrong action. He prophesies of a coming end time war in which Islam will forever conquer; I would submit that he is absolutely wrong. The war will come, but the Victor is Christ, and no other. Of such is the final conflict.
Yet it fulfilled God’s exact prophecy. Israel was to be scattered, judged heavily, and then regathered for the End Time. Today we are told of an egoist in Iran who believes the time has come for a confrontation with Israel. He would develop nuclear weapons deeply underground, and is far enough away from Israel to not worry about a sufficient attack, nevermind the fact that Israel is politically in a position not to attack; the whole world is waiting to condemn them for any wrong action. He prophesies of a coming end time war in which Islam will forever conquer; I would submit that he is absolutely wrong. The war will come, but the Victor is Christ, and no other. Of such is the final conflict.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
History and the Pull of Losers
History and the Pull of the Losers
I am afraid I have been reading for too much history lately. Today in my reading of Churchill, I learned how Joseph Kennedy supported Hitler until late in his career (at least as late as 1939). One of Joseph’s comments incited Churchill to an answer, in years which he was trying to bite his tongue. Of course there were many others during this period who supported Hitler, including Lindbergh and the “never say enough appeasement” Neville Chamberlain. All of which is to say nothing I suppose. But I have been fascinated with the way history has acted towards losers. May I point out that we elected the son of one, JFK, president?
I just read a great piece from Jimmy Carter, and it reminded me of all the reasons I respect him, as well as the all the reasons why he must remain a loser. You see though I have a great problem with Jimmy Carter, he loves the Lord, the same Lord which I love. I do not doubt that love for an instant, and I commend him for all of his forthright efforts to eradicate disease and help Africa to become better. I look forward to spending eternity with him, where I have no doubt whatsoever that we will stand shoulder to shoulder working in the labors which our Lord will give us.
BUT, as for the present world, he and I must have a very different view. In his article he correctly attributes the beginning of the great movement of Christians to the Republican Party to 1979. He has noticed that that is the year in which conservatives seemingly forever captured the heart and soul of the Southern Baptist Conference. I became a Christian in 1972, and at that time, I saw about an equal number of Democrats and Republicans in the church. He laments; I celebrate. Most Christian organizations have a history of being eaten by the world views that they are supposed to challenge. Consider the Methodists and the Presbyterians, and their early history with the United States. They were at one time considered the radicals, hated by their peer organizations, and yet today are the very staid churches which excite the least comment, let alone change to Jesus Christ. My own viewpoint is that the longer the church exists, the less chance it has to shine for Jesus. I thanked God for the Southern Baptists, although I am not one, that they fought the trend of history, and that they shined brightly for the One that they are called to represent.
The problem, as I see it, is that we are coming upon the time when the Greatest Deceiver of all time will live on the face of the earth. Pericles, Churchill, nor anyone else will convince the world of his evil until it is almost too late. At that moment, if I understand scripture aright, the Lord himself will rescue us from self-destruction. I do think, in large measure, the philosophy of Jimmy Carter will be put forever to rest. There is much enviable in that philosophy, its earnest efforts to help the needy notwithstanding, yet it must remain an ungrown fruit, destined to fall off the branch long before ripening, starved in its infancy, in the face of the Truth. It is based forever in humanitarianism without God.
I am sorry that Jimmy Carter does not see that; yet I pray that he will live to see the coming of our Lord, and the usher of the New Age.
Just so you know, at the age of 18, I registered non-partisan and in the intervening years I have remained forever so. Neither party have I ever endorsed, and I lament for the country that is told there are two answers for every problem, exactly two answers, only two answers, one good and one evil. I think such a system, though I know not a better one, has created much mischief in our pursuit of righteousness.
I am afraid I have been reading for too much history lately. Today in my reading of Churchill, I learned how Joseph Kennedy supported Hitler until late in his career (at least as late as 1939). One of Joseph’s comments incited Churchill to an answer, in years which he was trying to bite his tongue. Of course there were many others during this period who supported Hitler, including Lindbergh and the “never say enough appeasement” Neville Chamberlain. All of which is to say nothing I suppose. But I have been fascinated with the way history has acted towards losers. May I point out that we elected the son of one, JFK, president?
I just read a great piece from Jimmy Carter, and it reminded me of all the reasons I respect him, as well as the all the reasons why he must remain a loser. You see though I have a great problem with Jimmy Carter, he loves the Lord, the same Lord which I love. I do not doubt that love for an instant, and I commend him for all of his forthright efforts to eradicate disease and help Africa to become better. I look forward to spending eternity with him, where I have no doubt whatsoever that we will stand shoulder to shoulder working in the labors which our Lord will give us.
BUT, as for the present world, he and I must have a very different view. In his article he correctly attributes the beginning of the great movement of Christians to the Republican Party to 1979. He has noticed that that is the year in which conservatives seemingly forever captured the heart and soul of the Southern Baptist Conference. I became a Christian in 1972, and at that time, I saw about an equal number of Democrats and Republicans in the church. He laments; I celebrate. Most Christian organizations have a history of being eaten by the world views that they are supposed to challenge. Consider the Methodists and the Presbyterians, and their early history with the United States. They were at one time considered the radicals, hated by their peer organizations, and yet today are the very staid churches which excite the least comment, let alone change to Jesus Christ. My own viewpoint is that the longer the church exists, the less chance it has to shine for Jesus. I thanked God for the Southern Baptists, although I am not one, that they fought the trend of history, and that they shined brightly for the One that they are called to represent.
The problem, as I see it, is that we are coming upon the time when the Greatest Deceiver of all time will live on the face of the earth. Pericles, Churchill, nor anyone else will convince the world of his evil until it is almost too late. At that moment, if I understand scripture aright, the Lord himself will rescue us from self-destruction. I do think, in large measure, the philosophy of Jimmy Carter will be put forever to rest. There is much enviable in that philosophy, its earnest efforts to help the needy notwithstanding, yet it must remain an ungrown fruit, destined to fall off the branch long before ripening, starved in its infancy, in the face of the Truth. It is based forever in humanitarianism without God.
I am sorry that Jimmy Carter does not see that; yet I pray that he will live to see the coming of our Lord, and the usher of the New Age.
Just so you know, at the age of 18, I registered non-partisan and in the intervening years I have remained forever so. Neither party have I ever endorsed, and I lament for the country that is told there are two answers for every problem, exactly two answers, only two answers, one good and one evil. I think such a system, though I know not a better one, has created much mischief in our pursuit of righteousness.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
In defense of intelligence
I hate to write this article; long I have sought to see the demise of the FBI, the CIA, and, in the Clinton years, the DEA. It used to be one of the rare issues that I looked at and agreed with liberals: our country has no business formulating agencies trying to destroy other governments or the freedom of our own citizens. I ask the question: would we be better off not having these agencies at all?
But my article today is not along this plotline at all; instead it is supportive of the intelligence, particularly of the CIA, concerning Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Today it is common truth that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Virtually all commentators say that the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction was wrong.
But let me take the opposing view here and actually support agencies whose history I despise. We know that Saddam refused entry for UN inspectors for years. We know that while the UN inspectors were left at the front gate, trucks lined up and something was loaded on those trucks before the UN inspectors were allowed into the facility. We know that this happened over and over, and we know there were weapons which Saddam was hiding from inspectors.
Israel has satellite pictures which show the truck convoys going from Iraq to Syria, wherever and whatever it was that Saddam was hiding. And that is the million dollar question: what is it that Saddam was hiding? What is left in Syria now? The only mistake in intelligence that I, as an outside observer, can see is that evidently Saddam had to hide it all. We presumed he had not gotten rid of it all yet. In fact his own soldiers assumed WMDs were to be used against coalition forces, and they were surprised when Saddam informed them there were no WMDs to be used. We know this now from recently released papers and testimony from Saddam’s subordinates.
So I think the two questions we should be better focused on are 1) what did he hide, 2) and where did he hide them? It is not as partisan hacks charge with their infamous charge: Clinton lied and nobody died. As an article I recently read so aptly put it: Important assumptions turned out wrong; but mistakenly relying on faulty intelligence is a world apart from lying about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)