When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of theKansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, butThis is what they heard;
'Heavenly Father, We come before you today To ask your forgiveness and To seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good' But that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium And reversed our values.
We have exploited the poor andCalled it the lottery.
We have rewarded laziness And called it welfare. We have killed our unborn And called it choice.
We have shot abortionists And called it justifiable. We have abused power And called it politics.
We have coveted our neighbour'sPossessions and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air With profanity andPornography and called itFreedom of speech and expression.
We have ridiculed the timeHonoured values of ourForefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us, Oh, God,And know our hearts today;Cleanse us from every sinAnd set us free.Amen!'The response was immediate.
A number of legislators walked Out During the prayer in protest. In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev . Wright isPastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 Of thoseCalls responding negatively.
The church is now receiving International Requests for copies of this prayer from India , Africa and Korea .Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio Program, 'The Rest of the Story,' and received a larger response to this program Than any other.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Republican Debate on U Tude
I wonder what questions the candidates will be asked tonight - since it's UTube, and if it's like the last time, it will be really stupid -
I know if I were a candidate for the presidency and I was asked a inane question by some screw- off in a dorm some where, I would be pissed -
Keep the faith - the battle is joined!
I know if I were a candidate for the presidency and I was asked a inane question by some screw- off in a dorm some where, I would be pissed -
Keep the faith - the battle is joined!
Monday, November 26, 2007
Liberals can Not be Happy
There seems to be a law that states" if you are a liberal, smiling or laughing or giving thanks is prohibited!" To illustrate this I wrote a note to all of my contacts in the family and what friends I have managed gather over the years, describing what I thought America means to me on this past Thanksgiving day -
I got one response, I didn't expect any as this was just a statement, from a relative in California. She is a very nice person and I have know her all my life, although we haven't seen each other for twenty years or more.
I had stated that America was the best place in the world to be and I love my country which has given me everything. I said we have everything. Opportunity, security and chooses in our lives. I said we should give thanks for all of the those who gave their lives so the rest of us can enjoy such God given gifts.
The response stated she could not except my view of America - everything is wrong - the war is tearing us apart and as a result, everyone hates us. Were not in this war because we were attacked , it's about oil and big business. There is fear in America that we are outcasts and that we have attacked and killed innocent people in Iraq. After all they love there country too and we smashed it, took it away from them.
She ended by saying we have to have a truce -!? Wait a minute, I just stated how I love my country and I was thankful for living here - she had to run down the country and explain why she thinks America is wrong headed. What is wrong with just saying 'I am glad to be in America too' and leave it at that!!!!! No, the liberal has to go negative.
I guess when someone says 'I love my country' it's a signal to explain how wrong they are - nobody should feel that way especially if you live in America. That really ticks me off -
In any event, keep the faith, the battle is joined!
I got one response, I didn't expect any as this was just a statement, from a relative in California. She is a very nice person and I have know her all my life, although we haven't seen each other for twenty years or more.
I had stated that America was the best place in the world to be and I love my country which has given me everything. I said we have everything. Opportunity, security and chooses in our lives. I said we should give thanks for all of the those who gave their lives so the rest of us can enjoy such God given gifts.
The response stated she could not except my view of America - everything is wrong - the war is tearing us apart and as a result, everyone hates us. Were not in this war because we were attacked , it's about oil and big business. There is fear in America that we are outcasts and that we have attacked and killed innocent people in Iraq. After all they love there country too and we smashed it, took it away from them.
She ended by saying we have to have a truce -!? Wait a minute, I just stated how I love my country and I was thankful for living here - she had to run down the country and explain why she thinks America is wrong headed. What is wrong with just saying 'I am glad to be in America too' and leave it at that!!!!! No, the liberal has to go negative.
I guess when someone says 'I love my country' it's a signal to explain how wrong they are - nobody should feel that way especially if you live in America. That really ticks me off -
In any event, keep the faith, the battle is joined!
Sunday, November 25, 2007
How and Why JEWS and WASPs Function
Little wonder why America has had such a history of progress towards innovations and the need to succeed.
This article show how the Jews and Western civilization, including Britain, worked well together to build the most prosperous nations and civilization in history - failed societies around the world hate the Jews and any country that has adopted a market economy such as America and Britain. The simple truth is ; Success is hated by those that aren't successful.
Too simple you say, look at Harry Reid or John Murtha and their kind - they have no vision for the future and anyone that does must be hated. It's all about power.
*Jews and Wasps*
BY WALTER RUSSELL MEADNovember 16, 2007New York Sun
"I say there are two sides in the struggle:" wrote Osama bin Laden in one of the bombastic manifestoes that have so signally failed to unite the Islamic masses under his leadership. "One side is the global Crusader alliance with the Zionist Jews, led by America, Britain and Israel, and the other side is the Islamic world." President Ahmadinejad sees it the same way: America, Britain, and Israel are out to destroy everything that gives meaning and decency to the world.This isn't just about power. The United States, says bin Laden, has "the worst civilization witnessed in the history of mankind." Greedy, licentious, exploitative — we are a danger to man and an offense to God.
The Syrian parliamentarian and critic of Hollywood culture Muhammad Habash describes the "project" of American culture to "crush the weak, oppress the weak, crush them, climb all over their corpses."On this point, our enemies are less original than they suppose. A common hatred of Britain, America, Jews, and liberal capitalist modernity emerged in the 19th century and played a major role in the history and culture of the last 100 years.
Today's anti-Americans, anti-Semites, and anti-Zionists — whether they are ex-Marxists, thuggish populists like many supporters of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez or fanatical jihadis holed up in Waziristan — have embraced a set of images and beliefs that haunted the European imagination for hundreds of years.
This hatred is the product of the great story of modern world history: the rise of a global system of power, commerce, finance, culture, and ideology resting first on the power of Britain and now on that of America. As horrified Spanish, French, German, Japanese, and Soviets looked on, since 1688 the British have been on the winning side in every great power conflict in which they have fought — with the single exception of the American Revolution. In other words, the two great English speaking powers have either separately or together won every major war since the 17th century, and the global system resting on their military and commercial prowess remains the foundation of international order today.
Those who have fought and opposed this system attacked both its geopolitical ambitions and its ideological foundations. Where the Anglophones considered themselves to be fighting for freedom and tolerance, their enemies saw an economic and social system based on exploitation, greed, and a ruthless will to power.
European suspicion of the allegedly harsh and inhuman character of the dreaded "Anglo-Saxon" model of capitalism echoes these concerns.Jews and Wasps have their differences, but the rest of the world saw us as fighting on the same side long before America's support of Israel became a major world issue. French Jacobins attacked Britain as "Carthage" — a cruel, commercial, maritime, and Semitic empire that opposed the noble agrarian Latin world. By the Dreyfus controversy, French anti-Semites increasingly saw specific linkages between the supposedly rootless and cosmopolitan Jew and the terrifying Anglo-American economic machine.
Throughout Europe the Boer War was seen as evidence that Jewish plutocrats secretly manipulated British politicians to launch a war against virtuous farmers to protect Jewish interests in South African gold. "Oncle Sam" became "Oncle Shylock" in French nationalist propaganda during the 1930s.
Fascist leaders attacked both Churchill and Roosevelt as tools of the Jews, pointing to the significant presence of Jews among their closest advisors and friends. Stalinists shared both the hatred of liberalism and the identification of liberal capitalism with evil, cosmopolitan, and unmistakably Jewish values. As the Soviet apologist Genrikh Volkov put it, American capitalism reflected a "Shylock passion to utilize for the sake of profit not only a man's blood but also the living soul and his beating heart."
The critics have seen something real. Despite a steady undercurrent of anti-Semitism, both Britain and America have long histories of tolerance and more than tolerance for Jews. From the time of Oliver Cromwell, when medieval laws against Jews began to lapse, Jewish immigrants played a growing role in the commercial and cultural life of the English speaking world. Benjamin Disraeli's father received an honorary degree from Oxford in tribute to his scholarly achievements.
Disraeli himself, though baptized a Christian, was openly proud of his Jewish heritage even as he headed the ultra-traditionalist Tory Party.Other European courts tolerated wealthy "court Jews" as financiers. Disraeli was seen as the ideological heir of Edmund Burke and helped construct an ideology of English identity that remains strong today. In the 20th century, men like Isaiah Berlin and Milton Friedman were leading influences in the development of "Anglo-Saxon" political and economic liberalism.Where critics see a conspiracy, I see a confluence. On the one hand, as Max Weber observed, Judaism like Protestantism provides a solid foundation for success at capitalist enterprise.
On the other, it turns out that cultural and religious tolerance are necessary qualities for capitalist success.Capitalism requires careers that are open to talent: successful investment banks need to be run by the best brains rather than the best pedigrees. At the same time, capitalism produces social change. Competition leads companies to invest in new technologies. Great social cataclysms like the industrial and information revolutions change the way people live.
Urbanization uproots farmers and peasants in the tens and ultimately hundreds of millions and sends them into alien new cities. Within and across national frontiers, vast migrations of people course across the landscape.Some cultures, some societies, tolerate this kind of diversity and upheaval better than others.
Jewish society, with a culture shaped by millennia of exile, encountered capitalist modernity with the ability to maintain a sense of identity and continuity in the face of change and has generally adapted well to the new conditions.Wasps, with cultural roots in a form of Protestant Christianity that is individualistic and future-oriented, have also managed to negotiate the challenges of liberal modernity relatively smoothly.
For different reasons, we are at home in the same kind of world, and the "Anglo-Judaic" synthesis remains the despair of our enemies.
Mr. Mead, author of "God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World," which was just released, is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
This article show how the Jews and Western civilization, including Britain, worked well together to build the most prosperous nations and civilization in history - failed societies around the world hate the Jews and any country that has adopted a market economy such as America and Britain. The simple truth is ; Success is hated by those that aren't successful.
Too simple you say, look at Harry Reid or John Murtha and their kind - they have no vision for the future and anyone that does must be hated. It's all about power.
*Jews and Wasps*
BY WALTER RUSSELL MEADNovember 16, 2007New York Sun
"I say there are two sides in the struggle:" wrote Osama bin Laden in one of the bombastic manifestoes that have so signally failed to unite the Islamic masses under his leadership. "One side is the global Crusader alliance with the Zionist Jews, led by America, Britain and Israel, and the other side is the Islamic world." President Ahmadinejad sees it the same way: America, Britain, and Israel are out to destroy everything that gives meaning and decency to the world.This isn't just about power. The United States, says bin Laden, has "the worst civilization witnessed in the history of mankind." Greedy, licentious, exploitative — we are a danger to man and an offense to God.
The Syrian parliamentarian and critic of Hollywood culture Muhammad Habash describes the "project" of American culture to "crush the weak, oppress the weak, crush them, climb all over their corpses."On this point, our enemies are less original than they suppose. A common hatred of Britain, America, Jews, and liberal capitalist modernity emerged in the 19th century and played a major role in the history and culture of the last 100 years.
Today's anti-Americans, anti-Semites, and anti-Zionists — whether they are ex-Marxists, thuggish populists like many supporters of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez or fanatical jihadis holed up in Waziristan — have embraced a set of images and beliefs that haunted the European imagination for hundreds of years.
This hatred is the product of the great story of modern world history: the rise of a global system of power, commerce, finance, culture, and ideology resting first on the power of Britain and now on that of America. As horrified Spanish, French, German, Japanese, and Soviets looked on, since 1688 the British have been on the winning side in every great power conflict in which they have fought — with the single exception of the American Revolution. In other words, the two great English speaking powers have either separately or together won every major war since the 17th century, and the global system resting on their military and commercial prowess remains the foundation of international order today.
Those who have fought and opposed this system attacked both its geopolitical ambitions and its ideological foundations. Where the Anglophones considered themselves to be fighting for freedom and tolerance, their enemies saw an economic and social system based on exploitation, greed, and a ruthless will to power.
European suspicion of the allegedly harsh and inhuman character of the dreaded "Anglo-Saxon" model of capitalism echoes these concerns.Jews and Wasps have their differences, but the rest of the world saw us as fighting on the same side long before America's support of Israel became a major world issue. French Jacobins attacked Britain as "Carthage" — a cruel, commercial, maritime, and Semitic empire that opposed the noble agrarian Latin world. By the Dreyfus controversy, French anti-Semites increasingly saw specific linkages between the supposedly rootless and cosmopolitan Jew and the terrifying Anglo-American economic machine.
Throughout Europe the Boer War was seen as evidence that Jewish plutocrats secretly manipulated British politicians to launch a war against virtuous farmers to protect Jewish interests in South African gold. "Oncle Sam" became "Oncle Shylock" in French nationalist propaganda during the 1930s.
Fascist leaders attacked both Churchill and Roosevelt as tools of the Jews, pointing to the significant presence of Jews among their closest advisors and friends. Stalinists shared both the hatred of liberalism and the identification of liberal capitalism with evil, cosmopolitan, and unmistakably Jewish values. As the Soviet apologist Genrikh Volkov put it, American capitalism reflected a "Shylock passion to utilize for the sake of profit not only a man's blood but also the living soul and his beating heart."
The critics have seen something real. Despite a steady undercurrent of anti-Semitism, both Britain and America have long histories of tolerance and more than tolerance for Jews. From the time of Oliver Cromwell, when medieval laws against Jews began to lapse, Jewish immigrants played a growing role in the commercial and cultural life of the English speaking world. Benjamin Disraeli's father received an honorary degree from Oxford in tribute to his scholarly achievements.
Disraeli himself, though baptized a Christian, was openly proud of his Jewish heritage even as he headed the ultra-traditionalist Tory Party.Other European courts tolerated wealthy "court Jews" as financiers. Disraeli was seen as the ideological heir of Edmund Burke and helped construct an ideology of English identity that remains strong today. In the 20th century, men like Isaiah Berlin and Milton Friedman were leading influences in the development of "Anglo-Saxon" political and economic liberalism.Where critics see a conspiracy, I see a confluence. On the one hand, as Max Weber observed, Judaism like Protestantism provides a solid foundation for success at capitalist enterprise.
On the other, it turns out that cultural and religious tolerance are necessary qualities for capitalist success.Capitalism requires careers that are open to talent: successful investment banks need to be run by the best brains rather than the best pedigrees. At the same time, capitalism produces social change. Competition leads companies to invest in new technologies. Great social cataclysms like the industrial and information revolutions change the way people live.
Urbanization uproots farmers and peasants in the tens and ultimately hundreds of millions and sends them into alien new cities. Within and across national frontiers, vast migrations of people course across the landscape.Some cultures, some societies, tolerate this kind of diversity and upheaval better than others.
Jewish society, with a culture shaped by millennia of exile, encountered capitalist modernity with the ability to maintain a sense of identity and continuity in the face of change and has generally adapted well to the new conditions.Wasps, with cultural roots in a form of Protestant Christianity that is individualistic and future-oriented, have also managed to negotiate the challenges of liberal modernity relatively smoothly.
For different reasons, we are at home in the same kind of world, and the "Anglo-Judaic" synthesis remains the despair of our enemies.
Mr. Mead, author of "God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World," which was just released, is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Jimmy Carter Sucks Up to the Jews
Jimmy Carter is still a monster and always will be - the question is why does he hate this country so much and loves mass killers and tyrants?? And he wants to broker peace in the Middle East? He wants the Jews to die - Is he A Marxist? Worse??
This article tells it all - the man is insane -
Jewish Groups Spurn Jimmy Carter’s Olive Branch
Former President Jimmy Carter’s attempts to mend fences with the Jewish community have been rebuffed by leading Jewish organizations and Jewish legislators in Congress.
Carter’s relations with much of the organized Jewish community have been strained since the publication of his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” and his remarks about the Jewish lobby’s influence on U.S. foreign policy.
Carter attempted to repair those relations by inviting Jewish groups to discuss ways that he could help with the upcoming Middle East conference.
As President, Carter brokered the Camp David Accords, which led to a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt in March 1979.
But while Carter invited most of the major Jewish groups, only a small handful of organizations — all of which favor a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians — sent a representative, the Jewish publication Forward reported.
“I didn’t want to be used,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, who turned down Carter’s invitation.
“I didn’t think anything constructive could come out of the meeting.”
Foxman also said: “He is entitled not to support Israel, but he is not entitled to come out and fuel anti-Semitic canards.”
A few hours after the meeting, Carter took part in a closed-door session with Jewish legislators on Capitol Hill. They voiced their displeasure over Carter’s book, published in November 2006, which argues that Israel’s “colonization” of Palestinian land has been a primary obstacle to peace.
“I told him that the Jewish community, [which] has great respect for his work around the world, is extremely hurt, disappointed and frustrated from his views and that he cannot serve as an honest broker,” Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, told Forward.
The lawmakers told the former president he needs to apologize, but Carter did not do so.
Forward observed that the reception Carter received from the Jewish groups “suggests that the resentment is still strong and that it may pose an obstacle for him as he attempts to offer his help in brokering peace in the Middle East.”
This article tells it all - the man is insane -
Jewish Groups Spurn Jimmy Carter’s Olive Branch
Former President Jimmy Carter’s attempts to mend fences with the Jewish community have been rebuffed by leading Jewish organizations and Jewish legislators in Congress.
Carter’s relations with much of the organized Jewish community have been strained since the publication of his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” and his remarks about the Jewish lobby’s influence on U.S. foreign policy.
Carter attempted to repair those relations by inviting Jewish groups to discuss ways that he could help with the upcoming Middle East conference.
As President, Carter brokered the Camp David Accords, which led to a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt in March 1979.
But while Carter invited most of the major Jewish groups, only a small handful of organizations — all of which favor a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians — sent a representative, the Jewish publication Forward reported.
“I didn’t want to be used,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, who turned down Carter’s invitation.
“I didn’t think anything constructive could come out of the meeting.”
Foxman also said: “He is entitled not to support Israel, but he is not entitled to come out and fuel anti-Semitic canards.”
A few hours after the meeting, Carter took part in a closed-door session with Jewish legislators on Capitol Hill. They voiced their displeasure over Carter’s book, published in November 2006, which argues that Israel’s “colonization” of Palestinian land has been a primary obstacle to peace.
“I told him that the Jewish community, [which] has great respect for his work around the world, is extremely hurt, disappointed and frustrated from his views and that he cannot serve as an honest broker,” Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, told Forward.
The lawmakers told the former president he needs to apologize, but Carter did not do so.
Forward observed that the reception Carter received from the Jewish groups “suggests that the resentment is still strong and that it may pose an obstacle for him as he attempts to offer his help in brokering peace in the Middle East.”
Best Energy Policy: Stop the Democrats
This isn't something new by a long shot - the problem has been around for a long time - it's just now it has gotten to a point where we are in trouble and the future looks bad.
The environmentalists that demand we all must make sacrifices to save energy don't care what or who has to make the sacrifices. They live in a world where a camp fire is all the need to stay warm and hard tack is enough to eat. They have no clue as to the needs of the rest of us, 99.8% of the population, nor do they care.
The real question is how does such a small group of people have such power to control our lives? What ever happened to majority rule, minority rights? What hold do they have on the liberal Democrats that are the power brokers that make us all live by their agenda? The Democrats are the ones that have killed an bill that allows new drilling leases, new refineries, coal fired or nuclear power plants.
Isn't time that we take back our rights to have a voice in what effects us and our families as the majority? Isn't time we demand majority rule? What in God's name is holding us back? We all see where this is going and yet we do nothing but whirring our hands in despair.
For the foreseeable future the best way to get our energy needs in line with the demand is to not vote Democrat - they are the ones that are holding us hostage by siding with the environmentalist nut jobs. No one wants to destroy the earth. Get real.
They, the liberal Democrats, have no common sense or will to do the right thing for the country. Again, it's all about power.
We must stand together against the tyranny of the few. They want to do us harm and future generations will suffer the most - that is, our children. Think about it while you read the article below!
Keep the faith - the battle has been joined.
*Turning a cold shoulder*
November 25, 2007 - Wash. TimesBen Lieberman -
Millions of Americans are shelling out more than $3 per gallon for gasoline as they hit the roads this Thanksgiving, while those staying home will be racking up big heating bills. Worse, this costly double whammy could last all winter.
This ought to prod the federal government to do the right thing on energy. More likely, Washington will continue contributing to the problem.Despite high energy costs in recent years, so far we've avoided an overly expensive winter. Either energy prices backed off a bit before it got cold, as they did last winter, or we had remarkably mild temperatures, as happened the winter before.
But this year we head into the cold months with high prices and a real possibility for the most expensive heating season ever.Nearly 60 percent of America's homes are heated with natural gas, and current wholesale prices are more than triple the price a decade ago. Though the rise in gasoline prices has attracted most of the attention in recent years, the rise in natural gas has been almost as bad.
Natural gas expenditures this winter are expected to be 10 percent above last winter's levels, according to the Energy Information Administration. That's bad enough, but if temperatures turn out colder than normal, it will be one for the record books.Washington deserves much of the blame. Tough measures in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments targeted new coal-fired power plants, and few have been built since.
But America's electricity needs kept expanding, so growing demand has largely been met by building natural gas-using facilities. In less than two decades, plants that use natural gas to generate electricity have gone from relatively minor players to providing 20 percent of our electricity needs. About 25 percent of our natural gas supply now goes to electric utilities, rather than residential and other uses.
Naturally, this added demand has raised the price.At the same time federal policy drove up demand for natural gas, it has also suppressed supply. Tremendous reserves of natural gas, both onshore and offshore, have been placed off-limits due to various environmental restrictions.
A report from the Interior Department estimates there is 187 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on federally controlled lands, enough to serve America's residential needs for nearly 39 years. Another Interior report estimates that we can find even more natural gas offshore.However, only some of this energy is accessible.
A 2004 Energy Department report identified "more than 30 environmental policy and regulatory impediments to domestic natural gas production." Interior estimates 27 percent of our onshore natural gas is completely off limits, and another 60 percent is subject to significant restrictions. Similar constraints also limit offshore natural gas production.With Washington simultaneously increasing demand for natural gas while putting the squeeze on supply, it is little wonder prices have skyrocketed. For natural gas-using homeowners, this has meant higher energy bills, especially in the winter.
Another 7 percent of Americans use heating oil, mostly in the Northeast. Along with gasoline, it is made from petroleum and is at or near record prices. Like natural gas, restrictions on domestic production have contributed to the price increases, as have regulations making it difficult to build more refineries.Most of the rest of America's homes use either electricity or propane for heating, both of which have also gone up.Yet Washington is poised to crack down further on the energy sources used to heat our homes.
The pending energy bill would place additional regulatory restrictions on domestic natural gas and oil production. And a number of bills designed to fight global warming would strictly limit energy use and further increase prices.
Rather than untangle its red tape, Washington's answer to high winter energy prices has been the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Under LIHEAP, the federal government doles out money for state distribution to those who can't pay their energy bills.But that doesn't address the underlying problem.
A better approach would follow the same ethical advice given to doctors — first do no harm. Before the feds give out money to make energy more affordable, they should cease doing the things that have made it so unaffordable in the first place.
Ben Lieberman is a senior policy analyst in the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).
The environmentalists that demand we all must make sacrifices to save energy don't care what or who has to make the sacrifices. They live in a world where a camp fire is all the need to stay warm and hard tack is enough to eat. They have no clue as to the needs of the rest of us, 99.8% of the population, nor do they care.
The real question is how does such a small group of people have such power to control our lives? What ever happened to majority rule, minority rights? What hold do they have on the liberal Democrats that are the power brokers that make us all live by their agenda? The Democrats are the ones that have killed an bill that allows new drilling leases, new refineries, coal fired or nuclear power plants.
Isn't time that we take back our rights to have a voice in what effects us and our families as the majority? Isn't time we demand majority rule? What in God's name is holding us back? We all see where this is going and yet we do nothing but whirring our hands in despair.
For the foreseeable future the best way to get our energy needs in line with the demand is to not vote Democrat - they are the ones that are holding us hostage by siding with the environmentalist nut jobs. No one wants to destroy the earth. Get real.
They, the liberal Democrats, have no common sense or will to do the right thing for the country. Again, it's all about power.
We must stand together against the tyranny of the few. They want to do us harm and future generations will suffer the most - that is, our children. Think about it while you read the article below!
Keep the faith - the battle has been joined.
*Turning a cold shoulder*
November 25, 2007 - Wash. TimesBen Lieberman -
Millions of Americans are shelling out more than $3 per gallon for gasoline as they hit the roads this Thanksgiving, while those staying home will be racking up big heating bills. Worse, this costly double whammy could last all winter.
This ought to prod the federal government to do the right thing on energy. More likely, Washington will continue contributing to the problem.Despite high energy costs in recent years, so far we've avoided an overly expensive winter. Either energy prices backed off a bit before it got cold, as they did last winter, or we had remarkably mild temperatures, as happened the winter before.
But this year we head into the cold months with high prices and a real possibility for the most expensive heating season ever.Nearly 60 percent of America's homes are heated with natural gas, and current wholesale prices are more than triple the price a decade ago. Though the rise in gasoline prices has attracted most of the attention in recent years, the rise in natural gas has been almost as bad.
Natural gas expenditures this winter are expected to be 10 percent above last winter's levels, according to the Energy Information Administration. That's bad enough, but if temperatures turn out colder than normal, it will be one for the record books.Washington deserves much of the blame. Tough measures in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments targeted new coal-fired power plants, and few have been built since.
But America's electricity needs kept expanding, so growing demand has largely been met by building natural gas-using facilities. In less than two decades, plants that use natural gas to generate electricity have gone from relatively minor players to providing 20 percent of our electricity needs. About 25 percent of our natural gas supply now goes to electric utilities, rather than residential and other uses.
Naturally, this added demand has raised the price.At the same time federal policy drove up demand for natural gas, it has also suppressed supply. Tremendous reserves of natural gas, both onshore and offshore, have been placed off-limits due to various environmental restrictions.
A report from the Interior Department estimates there is 187 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on federally controlled lands, enough to serve America's residential needs for nearly 39 years. Another Interior report estimates that we can find even more natural gas offshore.However, only some of this energy is accessible.
A 2004 Energy Department report identified "more than 30 environmental policy and regulatory impediments to domestic natural gas production." Interior estimates 27 percent of our onshore natural gas is completely off limits, and another 60 percent is subject to significant restrictions. Similar constraints also limit offshore natural gas production.With Washington simultaneously increasing demand for natural gas while putting the squeeze on supply, it is little wonder prices have skyrocketed. For natural gas-using homeowners, this has meant higher energy bills, especially in the winter.
Another 7 percent of Americans use heating oil, mostly in the Northeast. Along with gasoline, it is made from petroleum and is at or near record prices. Like natural gas, restrictions on domestic production have contributed to the price increases, as have regulations making it difficult to build more refineries.Most of the rest of America's homes use either electricity or propane for heating, both of which have also gone up.Yet Washington is poised to crack down further on the energy sources used to heat our homes.
The pending energy bill would place additional regulatory restrictions on domestic natural gas and oil production. And a number of bills designed to fight global warming would strictly limit energy use and further increase prices.
Rather than untangle its red tape, Washington's answer to high winter energy prices has been the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Under LIHEAP, the federal government doles out money for state distribution to those who can't pay their energy bills.But that doesn't address the underlying problem.
A better approach would follow the same ethical advice given to doctors — first do no harm. Before the feds give out money to make energy more affordable, they should cease doing the things that have made it so unaffordable in the first place.
Ben Lieberman is a senior policy analyst in the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).
Saturday, November 24, 2007
What are Cats for Anyway?
It sure is embarrassing to walk in and find the Lu occupied even if it's a cat - he has water available in several areas of the house as we have four dogs in the house most of time and they need water all the time. He pays no attention to them and they find him a bore. He won't run from them.
Why he needs to use the water closet is a mystery, but he does, and if that's the only thing he did that is weird, we would lucky indeed. The truth be known, he does a lot of things that are weird.
- go figure - it's a cat, everything they do is weird.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Liberal Democrats Fear Christmas
The following, from Move America Forward, is just a snapshot of the true colors of the Marxist left Democrats in this country - They hate Christmas time as it strengthens the majority in this country to defend America's rights to the freedom of religion and free speech among others -
If the liberals ever hope to turn this country over to the Marxist socialists, they must destroy Christianity and stop free speech - the worst part in all this is most people don't believe this could happen in America. I find it almost impossible myself but the signs are every where.
We must keep are guard up and be ready to stand up for America and it's heritage.
Keep the faith - the battle is joined!
In Cambridge, Massachusetts, the elections commission executive director, Marsha Weinerman, shut down the Boy Scouts care package drive that collected comfort items and toiletries for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ms. Weinerman said the Boy Scout's program was "too pro-war." Move America Forward mobilized our supporters who deluged Weinerman's office with thousands of emails and phone calls protesting her inexcusable conduct.
In Berkeley, California the anti-military organization, Code Pink, vandalized the Marine Recruiting Center and is waging a harassment campaign to shut down the recruiting office. They called our troops "traitors," "predators," and "murderers." Move America Forward mobilized hundreds of pro-troop supporters to show up in defense of the Marines, and we made national headlines for outnumbering Code Pink in their own backyard.
Several movies have just come out that slam the efforts of our troops in Iraq including the new movie "Redacted" which falsely depicts U.S. troops as bloodthirsty rapists.
If the liberals ever hope to turn this country over to the Marxist socialists, they must destroy Christianity and stop free speech - the worst part in all this is most people don't believe this could happen in America. I find it almost impossible myself but the signs are every where.
We must keep are guard up and be ready to stand up for America and it's heritage.
Keep the faith - the battle is joined!
In Cambridge, Massachusetts, the elections commission executive director, Marsha Weinerman, shut down the Boy Scouts care package drive that collected comfort items and toiletries for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ms. Weinerman said the Boy Scout's program was "too pro-war." Move America Forward mobilized our supporters who deluged Weinerman's office with thousands of emails and phone calls protesting her inexcusable conduct.
In Berkeley, California the anti-military organization, Code Pink, vandalized the Marine Recruiting Center and is waging a harassment campaign to shut down the recruiting office. They called our troops "traitors," "predators," and "murderers." Move America Forward mobilized hundreds of pro-troop supporters to show up in defense of the Marines, and we made national headlines for outnumbering Code Pink in their own backyard.
Several movies have just come out that slam the efforts of our troops in Iraq including the new movie "Redacted" which falsely depicts U.S. troops as bloodthirsty rapists.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Mother Nature at Her Best
Nine of the guys and gals in two hours - midnight to two in the morning and the best part was she no problems with the delievery.What fun they are until they get to the point where they start to want everything right now.
We sold all but one and just today we sold the last one - we were getting a lttle nervious - but all's well that ends well - they all have gone to good homes where they will be hunted and trained in Agility and field.
This is the last batch for us as they are too much to handle when our business demands all of our time.
Smart talk until the next time - sigh
Keep the faith -
America: Hope of the World
I sincerely hope everyone is have a great day, enjoying the fruits of their labors -
I feel very strongly about this day and every day that I am privileged to live in this great country of ours - America has given me everything - freedom to choose, opportunity to be more than I thought, security in knowing that tomorrow will be another chance to do the right thing.
Please take a moment to give thanks for all of the great blessings that have been bestowed on us by those that have gone before, especially those that gave the full measure, their lives, so we can enjoy the best of everything.
As the song lyric goes in Bobbie McGee, " - - freedom means having nothing else to lose - - "
Enjoy the day and God bless America!
I feel very strongly about this day and every day that I am privileged to live in this great country of ours - America has given me everything - freedom to choose, opportunity to be more than I thought, security in knowing that tomorrow will be another chance to do the right thing.
Please take a moment to give thanks for all of the great blessings that have been bestowed on us by those that have gone before, especially those that gave the full measure, their lives, so we can enjoy the best of everything.
As the song lyric goes in Bobbie McGee, " - - freedom means having nothing else to lose - - "
Enjoy the day and God bless America!
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Hillary's Staged Debate
The last Democratic debate was a complete sham - all of the questions that were asked were Democrat operatives - the whole thing was staged, the whole damn thing.
What's worse I've haven't read anything to this effect in any of our local newspapers. As the conventional wisdom goes, had this been a Republican debate, and they staged the whole thing, it would be front page stuff - but since it was liberal Democrats, it's just routine lies and deception. In any event, the media had no intention of printing anything that would in any way embarrass Hillary. They know better than to cross the Clintons.
As was expected, CNN folded like a paper bag under the pressure applied by the Clinton machine to make sure they didn't ask any questions that demands a straight answer, and they didn't. Journalism at it's best.
I would really like to know what the average guy in the street thinks about their candidate. Does the fact that Hillary can't answer even the most straight forward question about her position on anything that concerns this country, have some effect on Democrats as to her qualifications to be president? Does it matter at all?
Well, don't despair, the fight has been joined by the best -
Keep the faith.
What's worse I've haven't read anything to this effect in any of our local newspapers. As the conventional wisdom goes, had this been a Republican debate, and they staged the whole thing, it would be front page stuff - but since it was liberal Democrats, it's just routine lies and deception. In any event, the media had no intention of printing anything that would in any way embarrass Hillary. They know better than to cross the Clintons.
As was expected, CNN folded like a paper bag under the pressure applied by the Clinton machine to make sure they didn't ask any questions that demands a straight answer, and they didn't. Journalism at it's best.
I would really like to know what the average guy in the street thinks about their candidate. Does the fact that Hillary can't answer even the most straight forward question about her position on anything that concerns this country, have some effect on Democrats as to her qualifications to be president? Does it matter at all?
Well, don't despair, the fight has been joined by the best -
Keep the faith.
Monday, November 19, 2007
The Liberal Left hates Individual Freedom
Here is a great article on how we all benefit from innovation and invention - that is why individual freedom is the most important factor in producing wealth for all of us - this is how we all move from income class to another.
Those that can't see a future will not prosper - it is not any one eles's responsibility to make sure everyone has a bright future. As the saying goes, the poor and the weak will always be with us.
The liberal, of course, see this as an opportunity to take from the productive and give to the unproductive, make a whole class of individuals dependent. Marxist socialism at it best.
Is Inequality a Useful Measure of Prosperity?
By Josh Hendrickson
Dani Rodrik recently claimed on his blog that market fundamentalists view "recent trends in wealth and income inequality through pink eye glasses."Similarly, Paul Krugman has written an entire book on inequality and even claims there has been a return to the Gilded Age. These claims are clearly lacking as they are framed through a false dilemma and are predicated on a weak measure of prosperity.
Those who are concerned with income inequality often present their argumentas though there are two choices. One can either side with the market fundamentalists whose "blind faith" claims that the market will work itself out or they can side with "realists" who believe government intervention is necessary to correct for this market failure.
However, this is a false dilemma. As Arnold Kling so eloquently explained, there are many of us who concede that markets fail, but we are much more concerned with government failure. And there is certainly reason to believe that the government will fail to equalize economic outcomes. For example, the most frequent solution to income inequality, and the one advocated by Krugman in nearly every interview about his book, is higher taxes on those at the top of the income scale. While this may give the appearance of lessening inequality, in actuality it does very little. Essentially, it is equivalent to twisting the ankle of the fastest runner in the world in an attempt to make other runners faster.
In no way does this make other runners faster. Even looking beyond the likelihood of government failure, there is a far more important reason for lacking trepidation about income inequality. First, income inequality is a static measure of well-being. Looking at an individual's or group's share of income at a given point in time tells us very little. In fact, even looking at the trends in income inequality is futile.
The fact that individual's rarely remain in the same income group throughout their lives suggests that looking at a group defined as "poor"or "middle class" or "rich" is irrelevant. Second, and perhaps most importantly, is the simple fact is that income inequality is a poor measure of prosperity. In reality, economic growth and innovation will do more to help the poor and the middle class than any conceivable government policy. In Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter discusses the benefits of capitalism at long length.
Perhaps his most important argument is the one in which he explains why invention and innovation benefit those with lower incomes a great deal more than those who are rich. He points out that, "it is the cheap cloth, the cheap cotton and rayon fabric, boots, motorcars and so on that are the typical achievements of capitalist production, and not as rule improvements that would mean much to the rich man." Imagine, for example, washing clothes without a washing machine. To whom did the washing machine benefit more? It was the individuals who could not hire others to wash their clothes. Unfortunately, Schumpeter's message seems to have fallen on deaf ears among the supposed market realists.
They have become too focused on imperfect measures of prosperity and, to make matters worse, they advocate policies that merely propose an aesthetic solution. Those of us with "pink eyeglasses" are not necessarily market fundamentalists; we merely recognize the fact that there are better measures of prosperity and that there is more to fear from the government than from markets.
Josh Hendrickson teaches economics at Wayne State University. He also maintains the blog entitled, "The Everday Economist."
Those that can't see a future will not prosper - it is not any one eles's responsibility to make sure everyone has a bright future. As the saying goes, the poor and the weak will always be with us.
The liberal, of course, see this as an opportunity to take from the productive and give to the unproductive, make a whole class of individuals dependent. Marxist socialism at it best.
Is Inequality a Useful Measure of Prosperity?
By Josh Hendrickson
Dani Rodrik recently claimed on his blog that market fundamentalists view "recent trends in wealth and income inequality through pink eye glasses."Similarly, Paul Krugman has written an entire book on inequality and even claims there has been a return to the Gilded Age. These claims are clearly lacking as they are framed through a false dilemma and are predicated on a weak measure of prosperity.
Those who are concerned with income inequality often present their argumentas though there are two choices. One can either side with the market fundamentalists whose "blind faith" claims that the market will work itself out or they can side with "realists" who believe government intervention is necessary to correct for this market failure.
However, this is a false dilemma. As Arnold Kling so eloquently explained, there are many of us who concede that markets fail, but we are much more concerned with government failure. And there is certainly reason to believe that the government will fail to equalize economic outcomes. For example, the most frequent solution to income inequality, and the one advocated by Krugman in nearly every interview about his book, is higher taxes on those at the top of the income scale. While this may give the appearance of lessening inequality, in actuality it does very little. Essentially, it is equivalent to twisting the ankle of the fastest runner in the world in an attempt to make other runners faster.
In no way does this make other runners faster. Even looking beyond the likelihood of government failure, there is a far more important reason for lacking trepidation about income inequality. First, income inequality is a static measure of well-being. Looking at an individual's or group's share of income at a given point in time tells us very little. In fact, even looking at the trends in income inequality is futile.
The fact that individual's rarely remain in the same income group throughout their lives suggests that looking at a group defined as "poor"or "middle class" or "rich" is irrelevant. Second, and perhaps most importantly, is the simple fact is that income inequality is a poor measure of prosperity. In reality, economic growth and innovation will do more to help the poor and the middle class than any conceivable government policy. In Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter discusses the benefits of capitalism at long length.
Perhaps his most important argument is the one in which he explains why invention and innovation benefit those with lower incomes a great deal more than those who are rich. He points out that, "it is the cheap cloth, the cheap cotton and rayon fabric, boots, motorcars and so on that are the typical achievements of capitalist production, and not as rule improvements that would mean much to the rich man." Imagine, for example, washing clothes without a washing machine. To whom did the washing machine benefit more? It was the individuals who could not hire others to wash their clothes. Unfortunately, Schumpeter's message seems to have fallen on deaf ears among the supposed market realists.
They have become too focused on imperfect measures of prosperity and, to make matters worse, they advocate policies that merely propose an aesthetic solution. Those of us with "pink eyeglasses" are not necessarily market fundamentalists; we merely recognize the fact that there are better measures of prosperity and that there is more to fear from the government than from markets.
Josh Hendrickson teaches economics at Wayne State University. He also maintains the blog entitled, "The Everday Economist."
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Big Labor and NEA are Bad for Education
This from the Heritage Foundation - It's clear that the NEA and big labor organizations do not want parents to control what their children learn - the public school system has an agenda that is completely different from local and national community - Their agenda is to get more money and work less and that is why NEA and Big Labor work so well together. They have the same work ethic.
This article is to the point and a sad commentary on today's education.
A coalition led by big labor helped defeat a landmark school-choice ballot initiative in Utah, Heritage education expert Dan Lips writes in The Salt Lake Tribune. The defeat of the state-wide school choice plan—which was signed by Gov. John Huntsman earlier this year but blocked pending a referendum—marks a “victory for the National Education Association—and other special-interest groups that oppose allowing parents to decide where their children attend school.”
This article is to the point and a sad commentary on today's education.
A coalition led by big labor helped defeat a landmark school-choice ballot initiative in Utah, Heritage education expert Dan Lips writes in The Salt Lake Tribune. The defeat of the state-wide school choice plan—which was signed by Gov. John Huntsman earlier this year but blocked pending a referendum—marks a “victory for the National Education Association—and other special-interest groups that oppose allowing parents to decide where their children attend school.”
Monday, November 12, 2007
Liberals : Not Samrtest in the Room
A true liberal will always believe they are the smartest person in a group of people, no matter where they are -
Common sense tells us this is nonsense - a liberal Democrat has no idea what or who they are so how can they be in the same room with other people. If they think they are in the same room it's only a figment of imagination because they live in a different dimension, they come from a different planet.
I love this little saying, it fits them to a tee -" Stability is more essential to success than brilliance" When a liberal is after power and control of other people, it's brilliance they rely on to bring them through - ha - dah - no wonder they look and sound the fool in the real world.
Hillary at the latest debates? hmmmmm
Common sense tells us this is nonsense - a liberal Democrat has no idea what or who they are so how can they be in the same room with other people. If they think they are in the same room it's only a figment of imagination because they live in a different dimension, they come from a different planet.
I love this little saying, it fits them to a tee -" Stability is more essential to success than brilliance" When a liberal is after power and control of other people, it's brilliance they rely on to bring them through - ha - dah - no wonder they look and sound the fool in the real world.
Hillary at the latest debates? hmmmmm
Monday, November 05, 2007
Hillary is NOT FIT to Lead
I think Dick Morris has seen Hillary from the inside - he was in the Clinton White House for years - I have also read reports from Secret Service agents that were there as well and the stories they tell are beyond the pale - she is truly a serpent from hell - read on -
Dick Morris comments on Hillary Clinton -
Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton.
She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our country (that's you and me!) when it comes to the war on terror.
1 She wants to close GITMO & move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.
2. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qeada phone calls to/from the USA .
3. She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
4. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qeada cells & supporters in the USA .
5. She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists, even though such tactics might save American lives.
I can't think of a single bill Hillary has introduced or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our country in the War on Terror. But, I can think of a lot of comments she has made that weakens our country& makes it a more dangerous situation for all of us ........She goes hand in hand with the ACLU on far too many issues where common sense is abandoned.
She is a disaster for all Americans. (my high lite)
Dick Morris comments on Hillary Clinton -
Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton.
She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our country (that's you and me!) when it comes to the war on terror.
1 She wants to close GITMO & move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.
2. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qeada phone calls to/from the USA .
3. She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
4. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qeada cells & supporters in the USA .
5. She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists, even though such tactics might save American lives.
I can't think of a single bill Hillary has introduced or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our country in the War on Terror. But, I can think of a lot of comments she has made that weakens our country& makes it a more dangerous situation for all of us ........She goes hand in hand with the ACLU on far too many issues where common sense is abandoned.
She is a disaster for all Americans. (my high lite)
Giuliani Stands for American Rights
This is a great article from the NewsMax online - the Marxist in congress want this to pass as it would weaken America among the world order, giving others power over what we can and can't do - a large plank of the liberal agenda -
keep the faith -
Giuliani Opposes Law of the Sea Treaty
Rudy Giuliani has become the latest Republican presidential candidate to denounce the controversial Law of the Sea Treaty now working its way through the Senate.
The treaty, called LOST by opponents, would empower a United Nation-affiliated organization to control the world’s oceans.
On Wednesday the Senate Foreign Relations committee voted 17-4 to send the treaty to the full Senate for ratification.
U.S. participation in the treaty, which has been signed by 154 other countries, has been held up since 1982 when concerns about deep-sea mining rights arose during the Ronald Reagan administration.
President Bush favors signing the treaty, and the Pentagon has called fears about ceding U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. unfounded.
But in a statement posted on Giuliani’s campaign Web site on Oct. 30, he said: “I oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. I believe the treaty is well intentioned, and I appreciate the hard work of U.S. negotiators who sought to resolve problems in the treaty first identified by President Reagan.
"I also understand the arguments of those — particularly in our military — who claim that this treaty will enhance America’s ability to guarantee freedom of the seas for all peace-loving nations.
“But I believe that the treaty is fundamentally flawed. I cannot support the creation of yet another unaccountable international bureaucracy that might infringe on American sovereignty and curtail America’s freedoms. I oppose ratification of this treaty as along as it fails to address these concerns.”
GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee had previously come out in opposition to the treaty.
The Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty, an organization that opposes LOST, has charged that it would force the U.S. to give up certain controls of its territorial waters. It said in a press release: “The emerging debate about the Law of the Sea Treaty will enable the electorate to choose between those who favor … greatly empowering world government agencies and unaccountable international bureaucracies on the one hand and those who are intent on preserving and promoting American sovereignty and interests on the other.”
Despite passage of the treaty by the Senate committee, it faces stiff opposition from Republicans in the Senate.
“This treaty will not be adopted,” said Sen. Kyl, R-Ariz. “There aren’t the votes to pass it.”
keep the faith -
Giuliani Opposes Law of the Sea Treaty
Rudy Giuliani has become the latest Republican presidential candidate to denounce the controversial Law of the Sea Treaty now working its way through the Senate.
The treaty, called LOST by opponents, would empower a United Nation-affiliated organization to control the world’s oceans.
On Wednesday the Senate Foreign Relations committee voted 17-4 to send the treaty to the full Senate for ratification.
U.S. participation in the treaty, which has been signed by 154 other countries, has been held up since 1982 when concerns about deep-sea mining rights arose during the Ronald Reagan administration.
President Bush favors signing the treaty, and the Pentagon has called fears about ceding U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. unfounded.
But in a statement posted on Giuliani’s campaign Web site on Oct. 30, he said: “I oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. I believe the treaty is well intentioned, and I appreciate the hard work of U.S. negotiators who sought to resolve problems in the treaty first identified by President Reagan.
"I also understand the arguments of those — particularly in our military — who claim that this treaty will enhance America’s ability to guarantee freedom of the seas for all peace-loving nations.
“But I believe that the treaty is fundamentally flawed. I cannot support the creation of yet another unaccountable international bureaucracy that might infringe on American sovereignty and curtail America’s freedoms. I oppose ratification of this treaty as along as it fails to address these concerns.”
GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee had previously come out in opposition to the treaty.
The Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty, an organization that opposes LOST, has charged that it would force the U.S. to give up certain controls of its territorial waters. It said in a press release: “The emerging debate about the Law of the Sea Treaty will enable the electorate to choose between those who favor … greatly empowering world government agencies and unaccountable international bureaucracies on the one hand and those who are intent on preserving and promoting American sovereignty and interests on the other.”
Despite passage of the treaty by the Senate committee, it faces stiff opposition from Republicans in the Senate.
“This treaty will not be adopted,” said Sen. Kyl, R-Ariz. “There aren’t the votes to pass it.”
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Conservatives are Gaining Ground
When Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate to lambaste Rush Limbaugh for what he said on his radio show, I was very angry at his total lack of common sense and knowledge of the Constitution.
But it really wasn't about what Rush said that tipped Harry over the edge, it was the fact that someone, anyone really, has the right to say anything without approval from Harry Reid and other liberal intellectuals.
Freedom of speech is only good as long as you say what is accepted as the truth - if you challenge that hypothesis, you loose the right to free speech.
Harry knew that what he was saying on the floor of the senate was a lie but it was such a good lie that he just couldn't let it pass by. Senator Reid has made a career out of telling stories that might have some tread of truth to them, then twisting and distorting it to gain some political ground on an opponent or to just cause trouble for someone that opposes him a debate. It's called 'misinformation'. The Soviets used this to great advantage. That the liberal Democrats use it is no surprise.
Truth to a liberal is never an advantage - the liberal can not use the truth to liberate but they can only use it to destroy by distorting it.
I've said this before, if a liberal has to tell truth, he becomes a conservative by definition. But this never posed a problem for Harry, also not a surprise - he took a simple true statement of Rush Limbaugh's and distorted to fit his agenda of character assassination. The media too used the lie. Another Big surprise -
For weeks this floated around the country before it passed away like most lies when the truth became known - any wonder why Rush calls the media the "drive by media"? They take a story and use it and abuse it for as long as they can do some damage with it, and when the damage is done, or they recognize the the story doesn't have traction anymore, they move on to the next story leaving in their wake a path of destruction. This is the true matra of the liberal journalist.
Harry knew the media would use the lie as well - it's so easy, and they have such a strong desire to inflict pain on anyone that doesn't agree with their emanate right of opinion. It's not about right and wrong - it's about control of other people for their own purpose.
What hurt Harry on this romp in fantasy land is that the credibility of the liberal Democrat isn't what it use to be and, perhaps more importantly, the media monopoly on information has been forever broken - conservative radio, television, as well as magazines and newspapers has grown to such an extent, the drive-by media can't just float any lie that it wants and make it fly.
So conservatives have some bright spots now that we didn't have just five years ago. We have reason to think we are gaining ground on the spoilers, the cut throats and the Marxists destructors that lurk in our universities, schools, work places and our governments.
So take the heart, the fight has been joined and we are making a difference -
Keep the faith -
But it really wasn't about what Rush said that tipped Harry over the edge, it was the fact that someone, anyone really, has the right to say anything without approval from Harry Reid and other liberal intellectuals.
Freedom of speech is only good as long as you say what is accepted as the truth - if you challenge that hypothesis, you loose the right to free speech.
Harry knew that what he was saying on the floor of the senate was a lie but it was such a good lie that he just couldn't let it pass by. Senator Reid has made a career out of telling stories that might have some tread of truth to them, then twisting and distorting it to gain some political ground on an opponent or to just cause trouble for someone that opposes him a debate. It's called 'misinformation'. The Soviets used this to great advantage. That the liberal Democrats use it is no surprise.
Truth to a liberal is never an advantage - the liberal can not use the truth to liberate but they can only use it to destroy by distorting it.
I've said this before, if a liberal has to tell truth, he becomes a conservative by definition. But this never posed a problem for Harry, also not a surprise - he took a simple true statement of Rush Limbaugh's and distorted to fit his agenda of character assassination. The media too used the lie. Another Big surprise -
For weeks this floated around the country before it passed away like most lies when the truth became known - any wonder why Rush calls the media the "drive by media"? They take a story and use it and abuse it for as long as they can do some damage with it, and when the damage is done, or they recognize the the story doesn't have traction anymore, they move on to the next story leaving in their wake a path of destruction. This is the true matra of the liberal journalist.
Harry knew the media would use the lie as well - it's so easy, and they have such a strong desire to inflict pain on anyone that doesn't agree with their emanate right of opinion. It's not about right and wrong - it's about control of other people for their own purpose.
What hurt Harry on this romp in fantasy land is that the credibility of the liberal Democrat isn't what it use to be and, perhaps more importantly, the media monopoly on information has been forever broken - conservative radio, television, as well as magazines and newspapers has grown to such an extent, the drive-by media can't just float any lie that it wants and make it fly.
So conservatives have some bright spots now that we didn't have just five years ago. We have reason to think we are gaining ground on the spoilers, the cut throats and the Marxists destructors that lurk in our universities, schools, work places and our governments.
So take the heart, the fight has been joined and we are making a difference -
Keep the faith -
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
