I had the most interesting discussion today with someone on a Facebook group; this person made the following statement regarding Barack Obama's opposal to a ban that would make partial birth abortions illegal:
"Okay, let's tackle the abortion issue. When I said nobody supports partial birth abortion, I meant just that. Don't confuse the law that wants to ban it with the actual act itself...."
I was dumbfounded. I find it amazing that there are people in this world that actually live by this sort of logic; by this sort of idealogy.
It's simple logic here.....if someone (and in this case, Barack Obama) wants to BAN a law that would PREVENT the act of partial birth abortions, then whether or not the person has verbally said he or she supports partial birth abortion is IRRELEVANT.....the statement is in the action!
If the man opposes a law that would BAN partial birth abortions, that man is supporting a person's so-called "RIGHT" to partial birth abortion. Why else would he take the trouble to publicly OPPOSE the ban? It's ridiculous to even try to argue that someone would say "Well gee....I don't like the ban on partial birth abortion.....and I also don't support partial birth abortion." It doesn't work that way........the ban doesn't involve anything else BUT partial birth abortion and to say that though he opposes the ban AND at the same time is NOT for partial birth abortion is absolutely ludacris.
On the topic of abortion, and for all you pro-choicers out there (including, God-forbid, the possible McCain VP pick Tom Ridge), explain to me please what IS abortion, anyway....if it isn't taking away someone's life. It is just the removal of some superferlous tissue; some annoyance in the form of a blob inside a woman's body? Ok, ok....the big argument here is "When does it become a life, etc. etc. Some scientists have determined, or so they say, that at a certain week in the pregancy it is officially a life. Some doctors claim that it is until the "fetus" is exiting the birth canal....THEN it is a child. (So, to all you partial birth supporters out there......when does it become a child to YOU?)
Here's my argument....here's my case. Regardless of whether or not you are a Christian; regardless of when you believe that a fetus "becomes a child".....regardless of any of the "fine print," would you, or would you not agree that the so-called "tissue" inside the woman's body will, after the usual span of 9 months, exit into the world and grow up as a human? You'd probably say yes, correct? So, wouldn't taking that fetus and throwing it away being essentially throwing away that fetus' chance at life outside the womb? Hmm?? There you have it.......regardless of what you think.....that is something that one HAS to admit. Regardless of when a person believes a fetus becomes a life.....(and let's use Barack Obama here)....he has to admit that if his mother had decided that that "lump of tissue" inside her was, well, just a little annoyance easily removed, then the now presidential candidate would NOT have exited the womb into the world to grow and up one day run for president. (darn) RIGHT? Right.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
"Some Gave All," and let us honor them with the presentation of the facts.
"Some gave all."
I received this message from my grandfather, and I found it to be extremely eye-opening. I want as many people as possible to read this, as it sheds light once again upon the fact that so very often we are fed "facts" that are simply NOT true. As a service to all the men and women serving in the U.S. military (including my brother) protecting the freedoms not only of this country but of others as well, I ask you all to read this and even research it if you would like (you will find the link for the Congressional Research Service at the end of this email), and understand once and for all that we need not believe everything we hear from the media. We need to understand that in order to obtain the truth, we need to be researching the primary sources, not just the paper thrown on your doorstop each morning.
-Mary
-Mary
"True Death Stats for Servicemen"
The source for the data is a report prepared for Congress, link at the bottom. Please take time to read the email and the source document.
Military Losses, 1980 thru 2007
Whatever your politics, however you lean, and however you feel about the current
administration, this report should open some eyes.
As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from
1980 through 2006 - by any cause.
1980 .......... 2,392 ( Carter Year )
1981 .......... 2,380 ( Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 ( Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 ( Reagan Year)
1989 ......... 1,636 ( George H W Year )
1990 .......... 1,508 ( George H W Year )
1991 .......... 1,787 ( George H W Year )
1992 ......... 1,293 ( George H W Year )
1993 .......... 1,213 ( Clinton Year)
1994 ........ 1,075 ( Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 ( Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 ( Clinton Year)
1997 .......... 817 ( Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2, 252 ( Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 1,984 ( Clinton Year)
2000 ...........1,983 ( Clinton Year)
2001 ............ 890( George W Year )
2002 .......... 1,007 ( George W Year )
2003 .......... 1,410 ( George W Year )
2004 .......... 1,887 ( George W Year )
2005 ............ 919 ( George W Year )
2006.............. 920 ( George W Year )
2007............. 899 ( George W Year )
Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,107 deaths
George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths
If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton 's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war! (Unless you include Bosnia or the disgrace of Mogadishu , Somalia when Clinton failed to respond to terrorists : remember 'Blackhawk Down'?)
And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities! From what? How? I think that these figures indicate that many members of our Media and our politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report. Of course we all know that they present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. But why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get their agenda? Obviously there is one shared agenda. Could it be from the most powerful Democratic family of the decade?
If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton 's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war! (Unless you include Bosnia or the disgrace of Mogadishu , Somalia when Clinton failed to respond to terrorists : remember 'Blackhawk Down'?)
And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities! From what? How? I think that these figures indicate that many members of our Media and our politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report. Of course we all know that they present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. But why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get their agenda? Obviously there is one shared agenda. Could it be from the most powerful Democratic family of the decade?
Do you want further proof of the media spin and bias? Consider the latest census of Americans. It shows the following FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by race:
European descent .........................69.12%
Hispanic...........................................12.5%
Black ................... ..........................12.3%
Asian................. .............................. 3.7%
Native American.................................1.0%
Other...................................................2.6%
Many media lead us to feel the military death ratio is off balanced compared to the distribution by race in America.
Here are the fatalities by RACE over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom.
Do the comparison yourself.
European descent (white) ............74.31%
Hispanic........................................10.74%
Black ............................................ 9.67%
Asian.............................................. 1.81%
Native American............................. 1.09%
Other............................................... 0.33%
I was surprised again. Our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for political gain). Nothing more. It's all about politics.
I hope that during the time between now and November, intelligent Americans can decipher: the facts from the spin, the spinners from the leaders, those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, and the dividers from the uniters.
Over the next months, let's be good listeners and see and hear who tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our nation. Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice? Who spins the facts and who is genuine.
(These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf )
'History does not entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid.' - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Thursday, August 7, 2008
“The complacency of fools will destroy them.”
I had the blessing of a rare phone call from my brave brother fighting in Iraq last night; and his comments about the things going on over there moved me to anger when I think about how uninformed the world as well as the American people are when it comes to forming their opinions of our presence in the middle east, and the job our brave soldiers do on a daily basis.
It angers me when the media, knowing that the majority of the population doesn't have a soldier in the family to inform them otherwise, decides to report whatever they please concerning the war; regardless of whether or not it is fact-based.
It angers me that pompous politicians like Harry Reid make comments about the war from their comfortable seats on Capitol Hill, without ever bothering to dig deep and get the facts.
It angers me when people like Barack Obama, who has somehow managed to squeeze a gigantic following in this campaign out of his mere 143 day record in the Senate, go over there to Iraq, SEE that our troops are performing at superhuman levels and are making the surge work (the evidence of which is shown in the greatly decreased violence in most Iraqi provinces, the decrease in troop casualties, and an end to virtually most ORGANIZED terror activities!) and yet they come back to the states and LIE about it so they get a better public opinion...
Well folks, it's not about getting a good opinion from the uninformed American public and the WORLD; to be quite honest, I don't care if the world hates us at all. Let them hate! It is their loss. We are doing the right thing by defending our freedoms and annihilating the threats to freedom for others.
Let's take a trip back in time and remind ourselves of the countries (Excuse me if this sounds egotistical, but it is most certainly true.) that would not exist as sovereign nations today had it not been for American efforts and sacrifice; even if those countries have forgotten this and "imploded" on their own.
If it wasn't for the U.S.:
Most of Europe would be speaking German
China and/or Japan would control most of Asia and the Pacific Island countries
The middle East would be completely and totally overrun by the (thankfully) late Hussein, the current threat, Ahmadinejad, and a handful of other radical groups.
The list goes on! I could spend all day on the different conflicts in which we have participated in defending a country's sovereignty, freedoms, and rights.
Back in 2001 OUR freedoms were threatened, and the world tells us that WE are wrong for fighting for OUR safety? It is absolutely ridiculous. I have had the opportunity to live abroad, and host students from around the world in my home, and I find it AMAZING that some of these people from countries that WE defended; countries that WE helped pull away from the evil grasps of fascism, radicalism, marxism, socialism, extremism and communism, have the GALL to stand up and say that they dislike (even at times HATE) the U.S. and its leaders for going into two countries that openly aided, harbored, and FUNDED terrorists who carried out the gruesome 9/11 attacks on our nation. I'd say over 3,000 people dead is reason enough to FIGHT BACK. I wanna say "What business, if any, is it of the ignorant anti-American crowd?"
Call us the world police; go right ahead. If no one else will STAND UP FOR FREEDOM anywhere and everywhere, why shouldn't the U.S. use its resources to help defend that freedom of the oppressed people and in turn secure the safety of future generations of Americans? I want to share here in this blog a piece written by an American. It is a piece reflecting a variation of a speech that General Patton supposedly gave; a speech portrayed in the movie. This piece, however, reflects modern times and fits the issues perfectly.
"...."Now I want you to remember that this war on terror as well as our presence in the Middle East, is necessary and inevitable. To those who can’t understand that, they need to spend more time on the History Channel, and LESS time in the dang chat rooms. In this time of nuclear weaponry, we cannot afford to WAIT for the fight to come to US. You NEED to understand that. This political correctness stuff’s a bunch of crap. This generation is so stinkin' spoiled and lazy, they wouldn’t know a REAL threat to their freedom, until it interrupted the power source to their X-Box, and killed a half a million people! “The complacency of fools will destroy them.” That’s written in the Bible. My God, I really wonder where we’d be today if some of our current members of congress were residing during World War II."
Contemplate that.
It angers me when the media, knowing that the majority of the population doesn't have a soldier in the family to inform them otherwise, decides to report whatever they please concerning the war; regardless of whether or not it is fact-based.
It angers me that pompous politicians like Harry Reid make comments about the war from their comfortable seats on Capitol Hill, without ever bothering to dig deep and get the facts.
It angers me when people like Barack Obama, who has somehow managed to squeeze a gigantic following in this campaign out of his mere 143 day record in the Senate, go over there to Iraq, SEE that our troops are performing at superhuman levels and are making the surge work (the evidence of which is shown in the greatly decreased violence in most Iraqi provinces, the decrease in troop casualties, and an end to virtually most ORGANIZED terror activities!) and yet they come back to the states and LIE about it so they get a better public opinion...
Well folks, it's not about getting a good opinion from the uninformed American public and the WORLD; to be quite honest, I don't care if the world hates us at all. Let them hate! It is their loss. We are doing the right thing by defending our freedoms and annihilating the threats to freedom for others.
Let's take a trip back in time and remind ourselves of the countries (Excuse me if this sounds egotistical, but it is most certainly true.) that would not exist as sovereign nations today had it not been for American efforts and sacrifice; even if those countries have forgotten this and "imploded" on their own.
If it wasn't for the U.S.:
Most of Europe would be speaking German
China and/or Japan would control most of Asia and the Pacific Island countries
The middle East would be completely and totally overrun by the (thankfully) late Hussein, the current threat, Ahmadinejad, and a handful of other radical groups.
The list goes on! I could spend all day on the different conflicts in which we have participated in defending a country's sovereignty, freedoms, and rights.
Back in 2001 OUR freedoms were threatened, and the world tells us that WE are wrong for fighting for OUR safety? It is absolutely ridiculous. I have had the opportunity to live abroad, and host students from around the world in my home, and I find it AMAZING that some of these people from countries that WE defended; countries that WE helped pull away from the evil grasps of fascism, radicalism, marxism, socialism, extremism and communism, have the GALL to stand up and say that they dislike (even at times HATE) the U.S. and its leaders for going into two countries that openly aided, harbored, and FUNDED terrorists who carried out the gruesome 9/11 attacks on our nation. I'd say over 3,000 people dead is reason enough to FIGHT BACK. I wanna say "What business, if any, is it of the ignorant anti-American crowd?"
Call us the world police; go right ahead. If no one else will STAND UP FOR FREEDOM anywhere and everywhere, why shouldn't the U.S. use its resources to help defend that freedom of the oppressed people and in turn secure the safety of future generations of Americans? I want to share here in this blog a piece written by an American. It is a piece reflecting a variation of a speech that General Patton supposedly gave; a speech portrayed in the movie. This piece, however, reflects modern times and fits the issues perfectly.
"...."Now I want you to remember that this war on terror as well as our presence in the Middle East, is necessary and inevitable. To those who can’t understand that, they need to spend more time on the History Channel, and LESS time in the dang chat rooms. In this time of nuclear weaponry, we cannot afford to WAIT for the fight to come to US. You NEED to understand that. This political correctness stuff’s a bunch of crap. This generation is so stinkin' spoiled and lazy, they wouldn’t know a REAL threat to their freedom, until it interrupted the power source to their X-Box, and killed a half a million people! “The complacency of fools will destroy them.” That’s written in the Bible. My God, I really wonder where we’d be today if some of our current members of congress were residing during World War II."
Contemplate that.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Ridin' the gravy train towards the middle......
Once again the "Ultra-Liberal" of the left dons his flip-flops. WHAT a surprise!
This isn't called changing one's mind.......it's called going with the flow of public opinion. Obama is quickly realizing that his radical ways and leftist ideas are really only flying with a select croud....the truly uneducated and those who believe several thousand studio hours equals some certificate to broadcast what's "good for the country" to the public. (Hollywood). That leaves quite a crowd; those known generally as "grass roots America," and McCain is very quickly closing in on, if not surpassing (according to a few polls) the messiah himself.
"We can't drill our way out of the problems we're facing," he said, tapping the podium for emphasis. (June 20th, 2008, Fox News)
"Barack Obama thinks the U.S. should tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to alleviate high gas prices." (August 4th, 2008, Fox News)
Ok, so will someone please explain to me how this works......one day a bigger supply of oil would not help us out of this problem, and the next day, "The campaign today said Obama now believes that the current oil prices constitute the same affect as an emergency" and he now says that we should tap into our strategic oil reserve. How does this work?? How is pulling a few barrels of oil out of our reserve any bit different than DRILLING for the billons of barrels that we have at our disposal at a pinpoint of land (2,000 acres out of millions, to be exact) that we have in ANWR and the thousands of miles of stretches of offshore that we have available to us far beyond the visibility of ANY enviromentalist wacko walking the beaches in ultra-liberal California or Florida...etc. Even if the visual aspect doesn't play in to their opposing the offshore drilling, for crying out loud, as if Katrina wasn't enough proof that those rigs are spillproof! The largest, most destructive hurricane that area has possibly EVER seen, and not a drop spilled into the pristine waters off the shores of our southern states.
The point is, (going back to my original subject) Obama is ridiculous if he thinks the American people are dumb enough to not catch his ever growing list of flip-flops. They are (his interesting attempts at moving towards the middle), at every turn, becoming more and more blatent and more and more obvious! It is as if he isn't even trying to cover up the fact that he and his campaign hold (on average) 2-4 different positions on every issue! Obama is trying to bring extremism to this country....and is quickly failing. This is obvious when one considers the plain and simple fact that IF his leftist extremism was working in his obvious goal of turning the United States into the newest member of the "countries that tried socialism/communism/facism and failed" club, then why is he now scrambling to retract his words in such a way that he DOESN'T appear to be a bumbling bafoon in order to move towards the center and attract that "grass roots America" crowd he thought he had in the bag? It is not because America is not ready for this new radical ideas; it is not that they are being dooped by the media (au contrair......if anything, the media is trying to doop Joe Public into thinking Barack is "change we can believe in"); but rather it is the plain and simple fact that this country was built on certain ideals; ideals that Obama's policies will all but erase; ideals such as "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".......this he would only agree to as long as it said "Life, Liberty, as long as their pursuit of happiness is approved by me" Sheesh.
This isn't called changing one's mind.......it's called going with the flow of public opinion. Obama is quickly realizing that his radical ways and leftist ideas are really only flying with a select croud....the truly uneducated and those who believe several thousand studio hours equals some certificate to broadcast what's "good for the country" to the public. (Hollywood). That leaves quite a crowd; those known generally as "grass roots America," and McCain is very quickly closing in on, if not surpassing (according to a few polls) the messiah himself.
"We can't drill our way out of the problems we're facing," he said, tapping the podium for emphasis. (June 20th, 2008, Fox News)
"Barack Obama thinks the U.S. should tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to alleviate high gas prices." (August 4th, 2008, Fox News)
Ok, so will someone please explain to me how this works......one day a bigger supply of oil would not help us out of this problem, and the next day, "The campaign today said Obama now believes that the current oil prices constitute the same affect as an emergency" and he now says that we should tap into our strategic oil reserve. How does this work?? How is pulling a few barrels of oil out of our reserve any bit different than DRILLING for the billons of barrels that we have at our disposal at a pinpoint of land (2,000 acres out of millions, to be exact) that we have in ANWR and the thousands of miles of stretches of offshore that we have available to us far beyond the visibility of ANY enviromentalist wacko walking the beaches in ultra-liberal California or Florida...etc. Even if the visual aspect doesn't play in to their opposing the offshore drilling, for crying out loud, as if Katrina wasn't enough proof that those rigs are spillproof! The largest, most destructive hurricane that area has possibly EVER seen, and not a drop spilled into the pristine waters off the shores of our southern states.
The point is, (going back to my original subject) Obama is ridiculous if he thinks the American people are dumb enough to not catch his ever growing list of flip-flops. They are (his interesting attempts at moving towards the middle), at every turn, becoming more and more blatent and more and more obvious! It is as if he isn't even trying to cover up the fact that he and his campaign hold (on average) 2-4 different positions on every issue! Obama is trying to bring extremism to this country....and is quickly failing. This is obvious when one considers the plain and simple fact that IF his leftist extremism was working in his obvious goal of turning the United States into the newest member of the "countries that tried socialism/communism/facism and failed" club, then why is he now scrambling to retract his words in such a way that he DOESN'T appear to be a bumbling bafoon in order to move towards the center and attract that "grass roots America" crowd he thought he had in the bag? It is not because America is not ready for this new radical ideas; it is not that they are being dooped by the media (au contrair......if anything, the media is trying to doop Joe Public into thinking Barack is "change we can believe in"); but rather it is the plain and simple fact that this country was built on certain ideals; ideals that Obama's policies will all but erase; ideals such as "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".......this he would only agree to as long as it said "Life, Liberty, as long as their pursuit of happiness is approved by me" Sheesh.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
McDon't
Surprise surprise; big government has weedled us (or is at least successfully trying) out of yet another one of our everyday freedoms.
The Los Angeles city council recently announced a proposal to ban fast food from a certain south L.A. district, in the hopes of reducing the growing problem of obesity in that particular area.
Sounds decent, right? After all, obesity is a silent killer, right? Obesity can cause many a life-threatening condition, right? Of COURSE obesity is BAD.....and trying to prevent it is a noble cause....the PROBLEM here is the fact that the government is taking this into their own hands and essentially taking the responsibility and the choice away from the individual. "From cradle to grave"...this notion savors strongely of socialism. It's ridiculous that in the name of the higher or common good, the government has the right to tell us where we can and can't eat. Shouldn't a person be able to choose whether or not they want to clog their arteries with an order of McDonalds a day? Honestly, I personally think that habit is disgusting, but it is not up to me, or anyone else, to make someone give it up simply because the government has deemed it "bad for you." The same idea goes with smoking in public. I agree 100% that smoking is gross, disgusting, and terrible for your health. However, it's been proven that second-hand smoke can't cause cancer itself, so why is it that smokers can't exercise the freedom to blacken their lungs?
Now by battling this point, there might be the individual or two that would say "Well, if we should have the freedom to do what we want with our bodies, why is abortion so wrong?" It's WRONG because you don't let the other individual have a choice! Does that baby (fetus...whatever you want to call it...) get to enter the world and have a go at it? No, because another individual took that opportunity away from them. My point is (going back to my original subject)....if an individual wants to ruin their health by eating everyday at McDonalds, so what? That's their choice. They are harming no one but themselves, and it is their responsibility to make changes ON THEIR OWN if they want to improve their health. We don't need the government to do that for us.
The Los Angeles city council recently announced a proposal to ban fast food from a certain south L.A. district, in the hopes of reducing the growing problem of obesity in that particular area.
Sounds decent, right? After all, obesity is a silent killer, right? Obesity can cause many a life-threatening condition, right? Of COURSE obesity is BAD.....and trying to prevent it is a noble cause....the PROBLEM here is the fact that the government is taking this into their own hands and essentially taking the responsibility and the choice away from the individual. "From cradle to grave"...this notion savors strongely of socialism. It's ridiculous that in the name of the higher or common good, the government has the right to tell us where we can and can't eat. Shouldn't a person be able to choose whether or not they want to clog their arteries with an order of McDonalds a day? Honestly, I personally think that habit is disgusting, but it is not up to me, or anyone else, to make someone give it up simply because the government has deemed it "bad for you." The same idea goes with smoking in public. I agree 100% that smoking is gross, disgusting, and terrible for your health. However, it's been proven that second-hand smoke can't cause cancer itself, so why is it that smokers can't exercise the freedom to blacken their lungs?
Now by battling this point, there might be the individual or two that would say "Well, if we should have the freedom to do what we want with our bodies, why is abortion so wrong?" It's WRONG because you don't let the other individual have a choice! Does that baby (fetus...whatever you want to call it...) get to enter the world and have a go at it? No, because another individual took that opportunity away from them. My point is (going back to my original subject)....if an individual wants to ruin their health by eating everyday at McDonalds, so what? That's their choice. They are harming no one but themselves, and it is their responsibility to make changes ON THEIR OWN if they want to improve their health. We don't need the government to do that for us.
Friday, July 25, 2008
In the arms of God
I thought I'd take a break for a bit from my usual rantings, and share with everyone this email that I received today. In the email, the late Tony Snow's parting words are shared....and it is amazing. See for yourself:
Commentator and broadcaster Tony Snow announced that he had colon cancer in 2005. Following surgery and chemotherapy, Snow joined the Bush Administration in April 2006 as press secretary. Unfortunately, on March 23, 2007, Snow, 51, a husband and father of three, announced the cancer had recurred, with tumors found in his abdomen,- leading to surgery in April, followed by more chemotherapy. Snow went back to work in the White House Briefing Room on May 30, but has resigned since, 'for economic reasons,' and to pursue 'other interests.' He died last week.
Here’s Tony’s wonderful testimony:
'Blessings arrive in unexpected packages, - in my case, cancer. Those of us with potentially fatal diseases - and there are millions in America today - find ourselves in the odd position of coping with our mortality while trying to fathom God's will. Although it would be the height of presumption to declare with confidence 'What It All Means,' Scripture provides powerful hints and consolations. The first is that we shouldn't spend too much time trying to answer the 'why' questions: Why me? Why must people suffer? Why can't someone else get sick? We can't answer such things, and the questions themselves often are designed more to express our anguish than to solicit an answer. I don't know why I have cancer, and I don't much care. It is what it is, a plain and indisputable fact. Yet even while staring into a mirror darkly, great and stunning truths begin to take shape. Our maladies define a central feature of our existence: We are fallen. We are imperfect. Our bodies give out. But despite this, - or because of it, - God offers the possibility of salvation and grace. We don't know how the narrative of our lives will end, but we get to choose how to use the interval between now and the moment we meet our Creator face-to-face. Second, we need to get past the anxiety. The mere thought of dying can send adrenaline flooding through your system. A dizzy, unfocused panic seizes you. Your heart thumps; your head swims. You think of nothingness and swoon. You fear partings; you worry about the impact on family and friends. You fidget and get nowhere. To regain footing, remember that we were born not into death, but into life,- and that the journey continues after we have finished our days on this earth. We accept this on faith, but that faith is nourished by a conviction that stirs even within many non-believing hearts... an intuition that the gift of life, once given, cannot be taken away. Those who have been stricken enjoy the special privilege of being able to fight with their might, main, and faith to live fully, richly, exuberantly - no matter how their days may be numbered. Third, we can open our eyes and hearts. God relishes surprise. We want lives of simple, predictable ease,- smooth, even trails as far as the eye can see.... but God likes to go off-road. He provokes us with twists and turns. He places us in predicaments that seem to defy our endurance; and comprehension - and yet don't. By His love and grace, we persevere. The challenges that make our hearts leap and stomachs churn invariably strengthen our faith and grant measures of wisdom and joy we would not experience otherwise. 'You Have Been Called'. Picture yourself in a hospital bed. The fog of anesthesia has begun to wear away. A doctor stands at your feet, a loved one holds your hand at the side. 'It's cancer,' the healer announces. The natural reaction is to turn to God and ask him to serve as a cosmic Santa. 'Dear God, make it all go away. Make everything simpler.' But another voice whispers: 'You have been called.' Your quandary has drawn you closer to God, closer to those you love, closer to the issues that matter... and has dragged into insignificance the banal concerns that occupy our 'normal time.' There's another kind of response, although usually short-lived an inexplicable shudder of excitement, as if a clarifying moment of calamity has swept away everything trivial and tiny, and placed before us the challenge of important questions. The moment you enter the Valley of the Shadow of Death, things change. You discover that Christianity is not something doughy, passive, pious, and soft. Faith may be the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. But it also draws you into a world shorn of fearful caution. The life of belief teems with thrills, boldness, danger, shocks, reversals, triumphs, and epiphanies. Think of Paul, traipsing through the known world and contemplating trips to what must have seemed the antipodes ( Spain ), shaking the dust from his sandals, worrying not about the morrow, but only about the moment. There's nothing wilder than a life of humble virtue, - for it is through selflessness and service that God wrings from our bodies and spirits the most we ever could give, the most we ever could offer, and the most we ever could do. Finally, we can let love change everything. When Jesus was faced with the prospect of crucifixion, he grieved not for himself, but for us. He cried for Jerusalem before entering the holy city. From the Cross, he took on the cumulative burden of human sin and weakness, and begged for forgiveness on our behalf. We get repeated chances to learn that life is not about us, that we acquire purpose and satisfaction by sharing in God's love for others. Sickness gets us part way there. It reminds us of our limitations and dependence. But it also gives us a chance to serve the healthy. A minister friend of mine observes that people suffering grave afflictions often acquire the faith of two people, while loved ones accept the burden of two peoples' worries and fears. 'Learning How to Live'. Most of us have watched friends as they drifted toward God's arms, not with resignation, but with peace and hope. In so doing, they have taught us not how to die, but how to live. They have emulated Christ by transmitting the power and authority of love. I sat by my best friend's bedside a few years ago as a wasting cancer took him away. He kept at his table a worn Bible and a 1928 edition of the Book of Common Prayer. A shattering grief disabled his family, many of his old friends, and at least one priest. Here was an humble and very good guy, someone who apologized when he winced with pain because he thought it made his guest uncomfortable. He retained his equanimity and good humor literally until his last conscious moment. 'I'm going to try to beat [this cancer],' he told me several months before he died 'But if I don't, I'll see you on the other side.' His gift was to remind everyone around him that even though God doesn't promise us tomorrow, he does promise us eternity, - filled with life and love we cannot comprehend, - and that one can in the throes of sickness point the rest of us toward timeless truths that will help us weather future storms. Through such trials, God bids us to choose: Do we believe, or do we not? Will we be bold enough to love, daring enough to serve, humble enough to submit, and strong enough to acknowledge our limitations? Can we surrender our concern in things that don't matter so that we might devote our remaining days to things that do? When our faith flags, he throws reminders in our way. Think of the prayer warriors in our midst. They change things, and those of us who have been on the receiving end of their petitions and intercessions know it. It is hard to describe, but there are times when suddenly the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, and you feel a surge of the Spirit. Somehow you just know: Others have chosen, when talking to the Author of all creation, to lift us up, - to speak of us! This is love of a very special order. But so is the ability to sit back and appreciate the wonder of every created thing. The mere thought of death somehow makes every blessing vivid, every happiness more luminous and intense. We may not know how our contest with sickness will end, but we have felt the ineluctable touch of God. What is man that Thou art mindful of him? We don't know much, but we know this: No matter where we are, no matter what we do, no matter how bleak or frightening our prospects, each and every one of us who believe, each and every day, lies in the same safe and impregnable place, in the hollow of God's hand.' Tony Snow
Commentator and broadcaster Tony Snow announced that he had colon cancer in 2005. Following surgery and chemotherapy, Snow joined the Bush Administration in April 2006 as press secretary. Unfortunately, on March 23, 2007, Snow, 51, a husband and father of three, announced the cancer had recurred, with tumors found in his abdomen,- leading to surgery in April, followed by more chemotherapy. Snow went back to work in the White House Briefing Room on May 30, but has resigned since, 'for economic reasons,' and to pursue 'other interests.' He died last week.
Here’s Tony’s wonderful testimony:
'Blessings arrive in unexpected packages, - in my case, cancer. Those of us with potentially fatal diseases - and there are millions in America today - find ourselves in the odd position of coping with our mortality while trying to fathom God's will. Although it would be the height of presumption to declare with confidence 'What It All Means,' Scripture provides powerful hints and consolations. The first is that we shouldn't spend too much time trying to answer the 'why' questions: Why me? Why must people suffer? Why can't someone else get sick? We can't answer such things, and the questions themselves often are designed more to express our anguish than to solicit an answer. I don't know why I have cancer, and I don't much care. It is what it is, a plain and indisputable fact. Yet even while staring into a mirror darkly, great and stunning truths begin to take shape. Our maladies define a central feature of our existence: We are fallen. We are imperfect. Our bodies give out. But despite this, - or because of it, - God offers the possibility of salvation and grace. We don't know how the narrative of our lives will end, but we get to choose how to use the interval between now and the moment we meet our Creator face-to-face. Second, we need to get past the anxiety. The mere thought of dying can send adrenaline flooding through your system. A dizzy, unfocused panic seizes you. Your heart thumps; your head swims. You think of nothingness and swoon. You fear partings; you worry about the impact on family and friends. You fidget and get nowhere. To regain footing, remember that we were born not into death, but into life,- and that the journey continues after we have finished our days on this earth. We accept this on faith, but that faith is nourished by a conviction that stirs even within many non-believing hearts... an intuition that the gift of life, once given, cannot be taken away. Those who have been stricken enjoy the special privilege of being able to fight with their might, main, and faith to live fully, richly, exuberantly - no matter how their days may be numbered. Third, we can open our eyes and hearts. God relishes surprise. We want lives of simple, predictable ease,- smooth, even trails as far as the eye can see.... but God likes to go off-road. He provokes us with twists and turns. He places us in predicaments that seem to defy our endurance; and comprehension - and yet don't. By His love and grace, we persevere. The challenges that make our hearts leap and stomachs churn invariably strengthen our faith and grant measures of wisdom and joy we would not experience otherwise. 'You Have Been Called'. Picture yourself in a hospital bed. The fog of anesthesia has begun to wear away. A doctor stands at your feet, a loved one holds your hand at the side. 'It's cancer,' the healer announces. The natural reaction is to turn to God and ask him to serve as a cosmic Santa. 'Dear God, make it all go away. Make everything simpler.' But another voice whispers: 'You have been called.' Your quandary has drawn you closer to God, closer to those you love, closer to the issues that matter... and has dragged into insignificance the banal concerns that occupy our 'normal time.' There's another kind of response, although usually short-lived an inexplicable shudder of excitement, as if a clarifying moment of calamity has swept away everything trivial and tiny, and placed before us the challenge of important questions. The moment you enter the Valley of the Shadow of Death, things change. You discover that Christianity is not something doughy, passive, pious, and soft. Faith may be the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. But it also draws you into a world shorn of fearful caution. The life of belief teems with thrills, boldness, danger, shocks, reversals, triumphs, and epiphanies. Think of Paul, traipsing through the known world and contemplating trips to what must have seemed the antipodes ( Spain ), shaking the dust from his sandals, worrying not about the morrow, but only about the moment. There's nothing wilder than a life of humble virtue, - for it is through selflessness and service that God wrings from our bodies and spirits the most we ever could give, the most we ever could offer, and the most we ever could do. Finally, we can let love change everything. When Jesus was faced with the prospect of crucifixion, he grieved not for himself, but for us. He cried for Jerusalem before entering the holy city. From the Cross, he took on the cumulative burden of human sin and weakness, and begged for forgiveness on our behalf. We get repeated chances to learn that life is not about us, that we acquire purpose and satisfaction by sharing in God's love for others. Sickness gets us part way there. It reminds us of our limitations and dependence. But it also gives us a chance to serve the healthy. A minister friend of mine observes that people suffering grave afflictions often acquire the faith of two people, while loved ones accept the burden of two peoples' worries and fears. 'Learning How to Live'. Most of us have watched friends as they drifted toward God's arms, not with resignation, but with peace and hope. In so doing, they have taught us not how to die, but how to live. They have emulated Christ by transmitting the power and authority of love. I sat by my best friend's bedside a few years ago as a wasting cancer took him away. He kept at his table a worn Bible and a 1928 edition of the Book of Common Prayer. A shattering grief disabled his family, many of his old friends, and at least one priest. Here was an humble and very good guy, someone who apologized when he winced with pain because he thought it made his guest uncomfortable. He retained his equanimity and good humor literally until his last conscious moment. 'I'm going to try to beat [this cancer],' he told me several months before he died 'But if I don't, I'll see you on the other side.' His gift was to remind everyone around him that even though God doesn't promise us tomorrow, he does promise us eternity, - filled with life and love we cannot comprehend, - and that one can in the throes of sickness point the rest of us toward timeless truths that will help us weather future storms. Through such trials, God bids us to choose: Do we believe, or do we not? Will we be bold enough to love, daring enough to serve, humble enough to submit, and strong enough to acknowledge our limitations? Can we surrender our concern in things that don't matter so that we might devote our remaining days to things that do? When our faith flags, he throws reminders in our way. Think of the prayer warriors in our midst. They change things, and those of us who have been on the receiving end of their petitions and intercessions know it. It is hard to describe, but there are times when suddenly the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, and you feel a surge of the Spirit. Somehow you just know: Others have chosen, when talking to the Author of all creation, to lift us up, - to speak of us! This is love of a very special order. But so is the ability to sit back and appreciate the wonder of every created thing. The mere thought of death somehow makes every blessing vivid, every happiness more luminous and intense. We may not know how our contest with sickness will end, but we have felt the ineluctable touch of God. What is man that Thou art mindful of him? We don't know much, but we know this: No matter where we are, no matter what we do, no matter how bleak or frightening our prospects, each and every one of us who believe, each and every day, lies in the same safe and impregnable place, in the hollow of God's hand.' Tony Snow
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Iran is not a threat...er...wait..it is...no, it's not...I mean, yes...uh....
"He [Obama] said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to both Israel and the United States." (Obama Defends Proposal for Iran- AOL World News)
Wait wait wait just a second....is this not the very same man who not but a few months ago made it quite public that he did not think of Iran is a serious threat, and would in fact sit down unconditionally at the table with the terrorist state and negotiate "diplomatically" with this unthreatening nation? Yet off he goes, sucking up to Israeli leaders in the hopes they'll believe his sincerity in defending their nation against attacks from Iran.
"I think that what I said in response was that I would at my time and choosing be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America."
I would really like to know how being "willing to meet" with a leader who has not only posed a threat to that surrounding area and the world in general, but who has continuously made it perfectly clear that regardless of any measures taken in regards to his nuclear program has no intention of backing down, could result in anything productive? I personally think that this would not only show the world that America has lost all concept of reality, but it would also show IRAN that all it has to do in order to continue straight on with any and every program that it wishes is to entice such a candidate as Barack Obama into thinking that talking diplomatically is a viable option. No one LIKES military action. No one gets up in the morning and says "Gee, I hope we get to bomb the heck out a country today!" No one hopes that one day their son or daughter will grow up to be shot down over a Middle Eastern desert! Of course not! Everyone, in a utopian world, should be able to solve anything and everything by bringing both sides to the same table. However, logically one must realize that in a world in which that would work, we wouldn't have a need for it anyway. Diplomacy is a good idea, when one is talking about the regular goings on between two civil countries, and not when one is not dealing with an unstable state run by a terrorist regime.
ANYWAY, I really got away from the point; which is, ladies and gentlemen- Obama's consistant love affair with the flip-flop! Amazingly this man has about 16 different positions on virtually everything out there, easily allowing him to take whichever one fits his current situation, be it geographically or politically; morally or, ...not. (whichever fits his mood) At the moment he is using this side of his rubber beach-going shoe :) to convince the state of Israel that her peaceful people will no longer be bullied by the constant Iranian threats aimed (literally!) in their general direction, while back home he maintains that "Iran doesn't necessarily pose a serious threat" to appease the anti-war crowd of Hollywood, Inc. and Associates. So which is it?
My favorite flip-flop thusfar from Obama's joke-of-a-tour has been Iraq. This guy is amazing! Kaiey Couric, of all people, backs him into a corner, trying FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES to get him to take a stand on his position on the surge, to no avail. This was the conversation in a paraphrased nutshell:
"So did the surge work?"
-"No."
"But violence is down, right?"
-"Well, yes. And Sunni leaders have started working with us instead of the enemy"
"So you agree that the surge had something to do with that?"
-"No."
"But you said violence in Iraq is down"
-"Yes but all the money we spent on the surge could have been used to boost the economy at home" (waaaay to go, Joe Politician)
"But the troop surge brought visible results, didn't it?"
-"Now Katie, you've asked me that four different ways and I've given you the same answer four different times."
GOOD LORD! The man must either believe that its better to save face than to admit his mistake, or he must literally be sitting next to General Petraeus in Iraq daydreaming about how to unscrew that ridiculous smile he had to paste on for the media roadies.
"But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without preconditions and meeting without preparation."
So, are ya gonna read Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's blog for a couple minutes prior?
"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama defended his proposal to negotiate with Iran Wednesday and said he would use "big sticks and big carrots" to persuade the country's leaders not to develop nuclear weapons."
Apparently Obama thinks we live in a cartoon. And might I mention, (bless our ol' government's heart).......since the "big carrots" approach has worked soooooooo well with North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, AS WELL AS Iran, and other such totalitarian terrorist states, let's keep on knocking our heads against that same wall! Again I return to my "logic" post a few days back, where I said that you'd think if a person kept on trying the same method and saw that it wasn't working, that person would move on to plan B. Well, Mr. Obama (God help us if the Presidential title ever graces that surname), just try and talk to Iran, just for kicks...and let's see how far we get. It's amazing that I am even having this conversation just 7 short years after the most terrible attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, GENERATED by terrorists nations exactly (if not in part by) like Iran! Keep it up, Obama, as well as the rest of you lefties out there, and see how far we get.
Wait wait wait just a second....is this not the very same man who not but a few months ago made it quite public that he did not think of Iran is a serious threat, and would in fact sit down unconditionally at the table with the terrorist state and negotiate "diplomatically" with this unthreatening nation? Yet off he goes, sucking up to Israeli leaders in the hopes they'll believe his sincerity in defending their nation against attacks from Iran.
"I think that what I said in response was that I would at my time and choosing be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America."
I would really like to know how being "willing to meet" with a leader who has not only posed a threat to that surrounding area and the world in general, but who has continuously made it perfectly clear that regardless of any measures taken in regards to his nuclear program has no intention of backing down, could result in anything productive? I personally think that this would not only show the world that America has lost all concept of reality, but it would also show IRAN that all it has to do in order to continue straight on with any and every program that it wishes is to entice such a candidate as Barack Obama into thinking that talking diplomatically is a viable option. No one LIKES military action. No one gets up in the morning and says "Gee, I hope we get to bomb the heck out a country today!" No one hopes that one day their son or daughter will grow up to be shot down over a Middle Eastern desert! Of course not! Everyone, in a utopian world, should be able to solve anything and everything by bringing both sides to the same table. However, logically one must realize that in a world in which that would work, we wouldn't have a need for it anyway. Diplomacy is a good idea, when one is talking about the regular goings on between two civil countries, and not when one is not dealing with an unstable state run by a terrorist regime.
ANYWAY, I really got away from the point; which is, ladies and gentlemen- Obama's consistant love affair with the flip-flop! Amazingly this man has about 16 different positions on virtually everything out there, easily allowing him to take whichever one fits his current situation, be it geographically or politically; morally or, ...not. (whichever fits his mood) At the moment he is using this side of his rubber beach-going shoe :) to convince the state of Israel that her peaceful people will no longer be bullied by the constant Iranian threats aimed (literally!) in their general direction, while back home he maintains that "Iran doesn't necessarily pose a serious threat" to appease the anti-war crowd of Hollywood, Inc. and Associates. So which is it?
My favorite flip-flop thusfar from Obama's joke-of-a-tour has been Iraq. This guy is amazing! Kaiey Couric, of all people, backs him into a corner, trying FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES to get him to take a stand on his position on the surge, to no avail. This was the conversation in a paraphrased nutshell:
"So did the surge work?"
-"No."
"But violence is down, right?"
-"Well, yes. And Sunni leaders have started working with us instead of the enemy"
"So you agree that the surge had something to do with that?"
-"No."
"But you said violence in Iraq is down"
-"Yes but all the money we spent on the surge could have been used to boost the economy at home" (waaaay to go, Joe Politician)
"But the troop surge brought visible results, didn't it?"
-"Now Katie, you've asked me that four different ways and I've given you the same answer four different times."
GOOD LORD! The man must either believe that its better to save face than to admit his mistake, or he must literally be sitting next to General Petraeus in Iraq daydreaming about how to unscrew that ridiculous smile he had to paste on for the media roadies.
"But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without preconditions and meeting without preparation."
So, are ya gonna read Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's blog for a couple minutes prior?
"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama defended his proposal to negotiate with Iran Wednesday and said he would use "big sticks and big carrots" to persuade the country's leaders not to develop nuclear weapons."
Apparently Obama thinks we live in a cartoon. And might I mention, (bless our ol' government's heart).......since the "big carrots" approach has worked soooooooo well with North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, AS WELL AS Iran, and other such totalitarian terrorist states, let's keep on knocking our heads against that same wall! Again I return to my "logic" post a few days back, where I said that you'd think if a person kept on trying the same method and saw that it wasn't working, that person would move on to plan B. Well, Mr. Obama (God help us if the Presidential title ever graces that surname), just try and talk to Iran, just for kicks...and let's see how far we get. It's amazing that I am even having this conversation just 7 short years after the most terrible attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, GENERATED by terrorists nations exactly (if not in part by) like Iran! Keep it up, Obama, as well as the rest of you lefties out there, and see how far we get.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5417331&page=1
Here's the Obama quote, guys. AMAZING. His brilliant response to whether or not the surge worked....uh...um.
Oh, and for more 143 day fun, take a look at the statement in the paragraph 5th from the bottom........and please take note of the "batting average." What?!?!
Here's the Obama quote, guys. AMAZING. His brilliant response to whether or not the surge worked....uh...um.
Oh, and for more 143 day fun, take a look at the statement in the paragraph 5th from the bottom........and please take note of the "batting average." What?!?!
Baby Senator's College Tour
Guys..I've been so lazy about this blog! I talk enough about all this that I seem to forget I've got an internet platform to put this stuff visually out there! My apologies :)
Did anyone catch Obama's response to the media's question today while in Jordan about whether or not he would have voted for the surge now, knowing now how it has worked to bring down violence and casaulties among both Iraqi and American armies? "No. Uh, um, adjective, random big word, bla bla bad Bush administration, etc. etc. uh *pause*...yeah, so that's basically why."
I want anyone who heard it comment and try to EXPLAIN it to me......as I don't believe that anyone, right or left, who heard it could really understand what the heck it was he was trying to say. Oh wait, he wasn't trying to say anything....he was trying to divert! HEAVEN forbid that Mr. 143-days-in-the-Senate who hasn't done anything but impede the success of the military efforts in the Middle East actually come out and admit the same! The VERY THING he and his coherts voted against is working....surprise suprise.
My favorite part of this little Middle Eastern "college tour" as Rush so correctly calls it, is the fact that not only is this guy, by trying to negociate troop withdrawel timetables with Iraqi leaders, ALREADY ACTING as though he were elected president, the man now seems to think that the presidential term lasts 5 years! "Uh, well these are the people with whom I am expecting to be working with for the next 8-10 years." Excuse me?
Did anyone catch Obama's response to the media's question today while in Jordan about whether or not he would have voted for the surge now, knowing now how it has worked to bring down violence and casaulties among both Iraqi and American armies? "No. Uh, um, adjective, random big word, bla bla bad Bush administration, etc. etc. uh *pause*...yeah, so that's basically why."
I want anyone who heard it comment and try to EXPLAIN it to me......as I don't believe that anyone, right or left, who heard it could really understand what the heck it was he was trying to say. Oh wait, he wasn't trying to say anything....he was trying to divert! HEAVEN forbid that Mr. 143-days-in-the-Senate who hasn't done anything but impede the success of the military efforts in the Middle East actually come out and admit the same! The VERY THING he and his coherts voted against is working....surprise suprise.
My favorite part of this little Middle Eastern "college tour" as Rush so correctly calls it, is the fact that not only is this guy, by trying to negociate troop withdrawel timetables with Iraqi leaders, ALREADY ACTING as though he were elected president, the man now seems to think that the presidential term lasts 5 years! "Uh, well these are the people with whom I am expecting to be working with for the next 8-10 years." Excuse me?
Logic, anyone?
An interesting though occurred to me this morning. Once again, election time has come. Once again, the country is divided virtually down the middle in regards to the upcoming candidates, with what seems to be a tendency to lean more towards the left than anywhere else. Towards which idealogy, may I ask, is the congress with the worst approval rating in U.S. history (.09%, to be exact) most associated? The socialist liberal left! What a minute, isn't the beloved patron of so-called "change" a member of this school of thought? Isn't the democratic candidate, i.e., the media poster child patron saint of leftist extremism, (subtle though he may be in conveying his ideas), of the SAME IDEALOGY? Despite this set of facts, this country is literally a hop, skip and a jump away from electing one Barack Obama, considered by many, even among the liberal schools of thought, to be a politician of extreme leftist tendencies. This begs the question- do people truly not understand the workings of the U.S. government? People whine and complain about their current lives- they cry out for change (with such high demanding that one would think they live in a third world country in need of a revolution), and yet their candidate of choice hails to the same side of the line as most of the current Congress! Take oil prices for example. Seems to me that I recall that it has been the liberal dominated Congress that has consistantly resisted the exploration and harvesting of oil resources in our northern extremes and in our watery oceanic borders, while their republican and conservative counterparts, including the President himself, have made it clear that we need to stop relying on foreign imports to sustain our country, but rather that we should responsibly use the ones that we already have. Congress maintains, however, that we will continue to import oil, and essentially blow away (no pun intended) billions of dollars on wind energy, and continue to pour money into hybrid, ethonal and battery techniques that continually fall short despite their hype. How is it, then, that this country is so precariously perched on the edge, ready to dive into voting for a candidate with virtually no track record (100+ days in the Senate hardly makes one an expert) and with staunch beliefs that liberalism (which, come folks, is really socialism with a smile and a nice suit...read your history books once in a while) is the one and only way to run this country and get us out of this so called "rut" that we are in with the current administration? Talk about more of the same..if you want to see more of the same or worse---be my guest, vote for the candidate of "change." How is it that Barack Obama's form of liberalism is any different than Nancy Pelosi's, Harry Reed's, or Ted Kennedy's? Have we seen great things from these men and women riding on their liberal beliefs in Congress? Once again, people need to truly study how it is that their country operates--how is it that President Bush (allbeit NOT my favorite president for many reasons) has taken 6 years in Iraq and Afghanistan when so many people whine that we should already be out of there? I can tell you why, and very simply, too. Have you ever tried walking up a sand dune? You take one step upwards towards your goal, and fall three back. It is almost as if someone is pulling you down, isn't it? You and I both know that the United States (if only for the time being, God help us) has the most advanced, powerful, effective military IN THE WORLD, and yet look at how long it has taken them to make things work in Iraq. Might I remind the readers who has frequently, if not CONSTANTLY opposed the President's decisions about the war on Terror? You guessed it- the liberal left incarnate in the U.S. Congress. There's a saying associated with the U.S. Marines: "United States Marines: When it absolutely positively has to be destroyed overnight." We have the capability, people, to literally complete a mission, or an operation, or a war, in any time period needed, if only allowed to do so. A general was once asked about the ability that the U.S. had to have won the Vietnam war. His reply? "In any two week period you want to mention." Amazing, isn't it? We are like a racecar at the starting line, whose one and only function is to rev its engine. Yet the country willingly, WILLINGLY (and that is the sad part) wants to elect a man who will do nothing less than further the regurgetated, reiterated, age old ideas of a utopian society, which really only boils down to one thing- socialism, followed quickly by communsion. Churchill once said "Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty, and communism is socialism with a gun in your back." What would he say about Obamaism? "Obamaism is the single greatest enticement of the American people into an era of complete stupidity that ever was?I digressed greatly, but my point remains--many people seem to think that by electing a president of the same school of thought as the current Congress is going to make things any better! Barack Obama is, if not to a more extreme extent, the most liberal candidate this country has ever seen, and the congress we currently have "working" for us, is by far ALSO the most liberal this country has ever seen. Where is the logic in this? Posteriorly, logic played a grand part in voting patterns. In earlier times, this would have been a simple equationin thought; "Well, if plan A doesn't work, and our candidate is also a plan A, how will electing him make any change in our equation? It wouldn't- it would remain the same, just as 1+0= 1. Today people seem to think 1+0=2. Literally.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Today, I heard someone summarize the rational behind Bin-Laden's attacks on September 11 in this way: "He did not like the expansion of Western Culture into the rest of the world; we are infiltrating and "diffusing" into the world making everything a homogenized state. (Hmm....sensing any Anti-American sentiment here?) Therefore he attacked the United States' center of finance to cripple said expansion. He wants to put a stop to western expansion. And really, that's all it's about. We have wasted trillions of dollars that we could have used to build better schools and better the education system, etc. etc., on this so-called 'war'"
I'm going to give the guy some credit here, in that he is partially correct in saying that Bin-Laden would love nothing more than to see western influence come to a halt, but let us consider a few things:
Does the simple fact that any and every person NOT a proclaimed Muslim is considered an INFIDEL, have anything to do with what Bin-Laden planned out? I believe that it had EVERYTHING to do with the attacks, above and beyond any other reason! Can anyone give me a quick run-down on the Qu'ran's instructions on what to do with said infidels? EXACTLY.
Sure, western influence, "diffusion" and expansion are part of what Islam considers to be something worth exterminating, but the fact that one can walk down the streets in any given country and MOST LIKELY come across a McDonalds at SOME point during their walk had very little to do with the years upon years of planning the intricately, brilliantly laid out attacks that rained down upon us on that day. Bin Laden doesn't simply want to slow expansion down; in fact, if it were up to him, he would see each and every one of us "infidels" die. EVERY SINGLE ONE, mind you. Not some, not a couple of buildings in a big city, not a few targets here and there, but rather destruction of every square inch of this country.
Secondly, and more importantly, WHY Bin-Laden attacked us is IRRELEVANT in deciding whether or not this war is justified. I could safely say that even if he had attacked us simply because he didn't like the way we manufacture GUM, I would STILL support this war.
The fact of the matter is we got attacked! End of discussion; no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Thirdly, I would like to point something out. Taking into consideration the fact that the terrorist in question has made it perfectly clear even BEFORE the attacks that he wishes nothing but ill for the United States, I would say that it's a pretty safe bet that had we not used all those "billions and trillions of dollars" to beef up security, deploy troops to stabilize a terrorism-harboring country, and sent units out to keep Al-Qaeda at bay while we hunt Bin-Laden down, we would have been attacked YET AGAIN. So I asked this person who so bluntly stated that money used for war should have been used on bettering the U.S. on the "inside:"
Would you prefer to stand idly by, essentially "pleading the fifth" in the face of such disaster while you use that war money to build your schools and civic centers and places of higher education, only to watch THEM TOO fall to the evil hand of terrorism when Bin-Laden attacks AGAIN?
Something in me says I'd choose to LIVE rather then have my freedoms taken away from me as I sit in a brand new school building.
I'm going to give the guy some credit here, in that he is partially correct in saying that Bin-Laden would love nothing more than to see western influence come to a halt, but let us consider a few things:
Does the simple fact that any and every person NOT a proclaimed Muslim is considered an INFIDEL, have anything to do with what Bin-Laden planned out? I believe that it had EVERYTHING to do with the attacks, above and beyond any other reason! Can anyone give me a quick run-down on the Qu'ran's instructions on what to do with said infidels? EXACTLY.
Sure, western influence, "diffusion" and expansion are part of what Islam considers to be something worth exterminating, but the fact that one can walk down the streets in any given country and MOST LIKELY come across a McDonalds at SOME point during their walk had very little to do with the years upon years of planning the intricately, brilliantly laid out attacks that rained down upon us on that day. Bin Laden doesn't simply want to slow expansion down; in fact, if it were up to him, he would see each and every one of us "infidels" die. EVERY SINGLE ONE, mind you. Not some, not a couple of buildings in a big city, not a few targets here and there, but rather destruction of every square inch of this country.
Secondly, and more importantly, WHY Bin-Laden attacked us is IRRELEVANT in deciding whether or not this war is justified. I could safely say that even if he had attacked us simply because he didn't like the way we manufacture GUM, I would STILL support this war.
The fact of the matter is we got attacked! End of discussion; no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Thirdly, I would like to point something out. Taking into consideration the fact that the terrorist in question has made it perfectly clear even BEFORE the attacks that he wishes nothing but ill for the United States, I would say that it's a pretty safe bet that had we not used all those "billions and trillions of dollars" to beef up security, deploy troops to stabilize a terrorism-harboring country, and sent units out to keep Al-Qaeda at bay while we hunt Bin-Laden down, we would have been attacked YET AGAIN. So I asked this person who so bluntly stated that money used for war should have been used on bettering the U.S. on the "inside:"
Would you prefer to stand idly by, essentially "pleading the fifth" in the face of such disaster while you use that war money to build your schools and civic centers and places of higher education, only to watch THEM TOO fall to the evil hand of terrorism when Bin-Laden attacks AGAIN?
Something in me says I'd choose to LIVE rather then have my freedoms taken away from me as I sit in a brand new school building.
What about you?
Friday, January 11, 2008
Opening Post- Welcome to All!
January 11th, 2008
First of all, thank you to everyone taking the time to stop by, read the blog and exercise the FREEDOM given to use by our founding fathers; a freedom that we should strive ALWAYS to protect, to uphold, and to exercise; and that is FREEDOM OF SPEECH. We as Americans were passed down an amazing gift; a gift that began with the pen strokes of a few great men in Independence Hall on July 4th, 1776. We were given the gift of freedom. Blood and tears were shed; lives were destroyed and changed forever, and in some cases even LOST for the great cause that is our God-given freedom. I want you to, before reading any other post on this site, read CAREFULLY the excerpt from the Declaration of Independence that I have posted here, with my comments. Read it, ponder it, take it in, and apply it to anything and everything that you read on this site. Think of it as the motivation behind the drive that causes me to wake up every day a proud, patriotic American, despite the politically correct world in which we live; willing, beyond all criticism, to stand up for her freedoms.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
God has blessed the people of this great land with freedoms that are undisputable and irrefutable-The internationally coveted “American Dream” concept is based on this principle; the same concept for which millions of people flock to American Consulates all over the world on a daily basis, regardless of global opinion of our nation. It is indeed a gift that all should have, but few are blessed with. We are among those few, and we should remember that it is our responsibility to use this freedom wisely, and strive to help others experience the joys of said freedom.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
When the above mentioned human RIGHTS are violated; when they are threatened, whether by horribly destructive means such as September 11th, or in subtle means such as a socialistic presidential candidate, it is the right of the holders of these freedoms to fiercely protect said freedoms, and never forget the decades upon decades of sacrifice it took to achieve them. It is our duty to protect these freedoms above all. This same concept applies to our presence in Iraq, and in any other country lacking the ability to protect their basic human freedoms on their own. First of all, WE WERE ATTACKED. Engrave that in your hearts and minds. Memorize it. Watch re-runs of the newscasts if you must, but REMEMBER that day. Iraq and its dictatorship harbored the same terrorists groups responsible for these attacks. And they would have continued to harbor them to this day had the United States not taken action. Of course, one is not in the wrong for stating that it was not Saddam Hussein who personally “pushed the button” directing the attacks on September 11th, but consider this: Who attacked us on December 7th, 1941? Japan! And against that country alone did we fight in World War II? Of course not! We fought against all who sought to do the same to our great land and to others around the world. Iraq, as well as a few other countries I could quickly name off here, harbored (and some) still harbor the same ill desire: the complete and total destruction of the United States. Second of all, we are one of the most blessed nations in the world. In general, most of us live long lives of economic and personal ease, free of fear and free of destruction. We do not wake up every morning wondering if on our walk to school we will step on a land mine and lose our leg, or worry if our daily commute to the market will result in the loss of our lives. We worry not about whether the military will show up on our doorstep to arrest us for speaking freely in public. Prison camps, torture cells and rape rooms are not a part of our daily vocabulary. WE ARE BLESSED. Should we not, if we have such abundant resources and domain, seek to help such people in their time of need, just as we would hope for if for any reason our country should one day fall to such a terrible leader? Yes, terrorism still exists in the world. But yet again, so do theft, child molestation, abuse, and other such horrible things, but do we scream that the existence of law enforcement is pointless? Yes, Iraqis, Americans, and their allies have lost their lives in the pursuit of one common thing: Freedom. But remember this: since when did freedom ever come without a price?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
