WOW is this right on the mark - I have maintained and written about this many times - It explains how and why the left is who they are - it's long but stay with it until the end -
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5288
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
PIRATE HUNTER - by Richard Zacks
This is a great book - Zacks has a style that captures the true spirit of the time and characters. I loved this book, and as you might remember his other book, The Pirate Coast, was just as good. This will be just a short over view so as to give you just a hint of the actual fun of reading the whole thing. This is the true story of Captain Kidd. I hope I do it justice
When someone mentions Captain Kidd, what's your first thought? - - pirate! Right? If that was your first thought, you are wrong. Zacks has done some fantastic research on Kidd which shows him to be a pawn in the greater scheme of things during the late 17th century.
Pirates were a real problem during this time period. The East India Company, which controlled most of the commercial shipping out of England, complained bitterly to the English government something had to be done to stop the piracy.
England was about to go to war again so sending a war ship was not high on the priority of things that needed to be done. Many of the members of the Commons and House of Lords, especially, had a stake in the success of the East India Company so the next best thing was to commission a private individual to seek out the pirates and destroy them. This meant the government was giving it's permission to attack the pirates in it's name. William Kidd obtained such a commission and went to sea in the adventure Galley, a ship that he had built to his own specification.
Kidd had just gotten married to widowed woman of means, and had everything to loose by going to sea to hunt pirates, but he was restless and decided that this would be good for his reputation. He loved the sea as well, and was a very good commanding a ship.
A private ship of this nature was very democratic institution. Captain Kidd always put to a vote such things as to where they should go to find pirates. In fact, this ship was more democratic that of the English government. Of course, in those days, that's not saying much.
As things turned out months later, Kidd's crew mutinyed after several ships that they had stopped turned out not to be pirates but legitimate commercial vessels, but the crew wanted to take them anyway. Kidd said no to them all and wound up without a crew because of those decesions.
It just happened that there was real pirates in the area that were taking every ship that came along, torturing and raping the passengers as well as stealing the cargo. William Kidd got blamed for many of these atrocities. The word spread fast and he became a hunted man.
William Kidd spent several years talking to anyone that would listen to him in every port that was available to him, but most ports were closed to him as the Royal Navy was out to get him now that they thought he has turned pirate. His government commission didn't protect him as the rumor had it that he had turned pirate instead of pirate hunter. The real pirates had it made as most everything they did was blamed on Kidd. Many of kidd's former crew members that mutinyed and joined pirate ship falsely testified against him later to protect themselves.
Captain Kidd was convinced that he had to go back to New York where he sailed from in the beginning to clear his name so he could live a normal life. Unfortunately for him, his reputation as a pirate had proceeded him, as well as the rumors of tons of gold, silver and coins, pieces of eight, he had hidden some place.
Upon his arrival he was greeted with guarantees for his safety so he could explain how he has been wrongly accused of piracy. But greed for the treasure of Captain Kidd was to strong for the local official that held his guarantee of safety from arrest. After some testimony before the city council members, the chief official decided he needed to find out where Kidd had hidden his loot and baring that, get Kidd back to England to be tried as a pirate to curry favor with the King.
Kidd was arrested and eventually shipped back to England. After a year in solitary confinement without any visitors, he was allowed his young servant that he had on his ship that spoke no English and a local woman, but no lawyer. They took all of his money and documents when they arrested him in New York, and when it came time to defend himself against the charge of murder and piracy, he had nothing to prove his innocence. The government wanted it that way as there were four members of parliament that had back Kidd when he left New York three years earlier to go pirate hunting. It was the last thing that they want for Kidd to tell all he knew.
When someone mentions Captain Kidd, what's your first thought? - - pirate! Right? If that was your first thought, you are wrong. Zacks has done some fantastic research on Kidd which shows him to be a pawn in the greater scheme of things during the late 17th century.
Pirates were a real problem during this time period. The East India Company, which controlled most of the commercial shipping out of England, complained bitterly to the English government something had to be done to stop the piracy.
England was about to go to war again so sending a war ship was not high on the priority of things that needed to be done. Many of the members of the Commons and House of Lords, especially, had a stake in the success of the East India Company so the next best thing was to commission a private individual to seek out the pirates and destroy them. This meant the government was giving it's permission to attack the pirates in it's name. William Kidd obtained such a commission and went to sea in the adventure Galley, a ship that he had built to his own specification.
Kidd had just gotten married to widowed woman of means, and had everything to loose by going to sea to hunt pirates, but he was restless and decided that this would be good for his reputation. He loved the sea as well, and was a very good commanding a ship.
A private ship of this nature was very democratic institution. Captain Kidd always put to a vote such things as to where they should go to find pirates. In fact, this ship was more democratic that of the English government. Of course, in those days, that's not saying much.
As things turned out months later, Kidd's crew mutinyed after several ships that they had stopped turned out not to be pirates but legitimate commercial vessels, but the crew wanted to take them anyway. Kidd said no to them all and wound up without a crew because of those decesions.
It just happened that there was real pirates in the area that were taking every ship that came along, torturing and raping the passengers as well as stealing the cargo. William Kidd got blamed for many of these atrocities. The word spread fast and he became a hunted man.
William Kidd spent several years talking to anyone that would listen to him in every port that was available to him, but most ports were closed to him as the Royal Navy was out to get him now that they thought he has turned pirate. His government commission didn't protect him as the rumor had it that he had turned pirate instead of pirate hunter. The real pirates had it made as most everything they did was blamed on Kidd. Many of kidd's former crew members that mutinyed and joined pirate ship falsely testified against him later to protect themselves.
Captain Kidd was convinced that he had to go back to New York where he sailed from in the beginning to clear his name so he could live a normal life. Unfortunately for him, his reputation as a pirate had proceeded him, as well as the rumors of tons of gold, silver and coins, pieces of eight, he had hidden some place.
Upon his arrival he was greeted with guarantees for his safety so he could explain how he has been wrongly accused of piracy. But greed for the treasure of Captain Kidd was to strong for the local official that held his guarantee of safety from arrest. After some testimony before the city council members, the chief official decided he needed to find out where Kidd had hidden his loot and baring that, get Kidd back to England to be tried as a pirate to curry favor with the King.
Kidd was arrested and eventually shipped back to England. After a year in solitary confinement without any visitors, he was allowed his young servant that he had on his ship that spoke no English and a local woman, but no lawyer. They took all of his money and documents when they arrested him in New York, and when it came time to defend himself against the charge of murder and piracy, he had nothing to prove his innocence. The government wanted it that way as there were four members of parliament that had back Kidd when he left New York three years earlier to go pirate hunting. It was the last thing that they want for Kidd to tell all he knew.
The sad part was Kidd didn't even know who the parliament members were as the commission only had their signatures, he had never met them. All that Kidd wanted was to clear his name and rejoin his wife and daughter back in New York. It was not to be.
His former shipmates accused him of killing the ring leader of the mutiny. According to testimony of other members of the crew, Kidd killed the man by accident during a heated debate over who should run the ship.With the judge and five lawyers arrayed against him, he had no chance.
It was over before it started. Kidd was given access to court paid lawyers, but soon lost them as the case looked hopeless and he had no money or friends that could help him.
With over-whelming evidence against him from other captured pirates, that later went free, he was sentenced to hang for his crimes. William kidd held fast to his claim of innocence even until the day they hanged him, May 23, 1701.
They hung him at low tide by the river Thames, where they let him ride out three tides at the end of the rope. After this they took his body and placed it in a cage for all to see that traveled that river.
Captain Kidd remain in that cage for years as a sign for all to see the consequences of piracy.
Get this book, you will love it!!
Monday, February 27, 2006
We are Global
Get this - Westinghouse is owned by the British and they want to sell it to the Japanese which in turn want to spin off some of the subsidiaries to the Chinese. Why? Nuclear technology.
Westinghouse is big into nuclear technology and the Japanese are as well. The Chinese want as much new and cutting edge stuff as they can get as they are playing catch-up ball with the rest of the developed world. They also want to build bombs and develope missiles systems to show everyone that they are not just a big odd-ball bully, but a real player on the international stage. Where is the outrage about this?
Where is all this going? Everyone has their shorts in a bundle over the United Arab Emirates buying 24 of our ports. We have over 300 port of entry locations. That means we have to control everything that comes into these port, especially containers. We aren't getting the job done now. Why not have someone that knows the business of containers and has a proven record of siding with the US on terrorism do the job? Containers are big business to the UAE. It's big business and money is the international equalizer. Besides this is about the business end of things and not the port itself for goodness sakes!
The UAE controls container shipping through out the world. It is one of the biggest assets of their business. It is in their business interest to have ports in this country. They ship into this country all the time along with every other country in the world.
The United States inspects about 5% of the total containers that enters this country. It doesn't make sense to make 24 ports a national emergency.
Is the UAE a worse threat than our open boarders?
Congress wants to investigate and wave their arms while they rant about our security. I have heard it all before and it's all about control.
This whole up-roar is just about politics. Just think for a minute about the billions of dollars that foreign governments pour into this country because they know that we are the last stable country in the world. So they buy bonds and they buy every capital asset that they can get there hands on. Westinghouse for example. They buy our down town buildings and our air ports and transportation systems. They buy our ships and bridges and colleges. They are everywhere!! How much should we worry about our ports? I'm not sure.
And it's not just the Brits and the Japanese, but the Russians, the Irish, the Dutch, the Swedes and many others that have extra capital that they want to secure for future use. Where else better to put it than the United States. We are the future.
We live in a global economy and if we actually knew how much of our land and companies are owned by foreign entities, we would have a different outlook on the UAE buying a few of out ports.
Keep in mind also, we have a bunch of gas stations and oil refineries in the this country that are owned by Hugo Chavez, a known communist that hates us with a passion.
The puppet masters are at work. The beat goes on -
Westinghouse is big into nuclear technology and the Japanese are as well. The Chinese want as much new and cutting edge stuff as they can get as they are playing catch-up ball with the rest of the developed world. They also want to build bombs and develope missiles systems to show everyone that they are not just a big odd-ball bully, but a real player on the international stage. Where is the outrage about this?
Where is all this going? Everyone has their shorts in a bundle over the United Arab Emirates buying 24 of our ports. We have over 300 port of entry locations. That means we have to control everything that comes into these port, especially containers. We aren't getting the job done now. Why not have someone that knows the business of containers and has a proven record of siding with the US on terrorism do the job? Containers are big business to the UAE. It's big business and money is the international equalizer. Besides this is about the business end of things and not the port itself for goodness sakes!
The UAE controls container shipping through out the world. It is one of the biggest assets of their business. It is in their business interest to have ports in this country. They ship into this country all the time along with every other country in the world.
The United States inspects about 5% of the total containers that enters this country. It doesn't make sense to make 24 ports a national emergency.
Is the UAE a worse threat than our open boarders?
Congress wants to investigate and wave their arms while they rant about our security. I have heard it all before and it's all about control.
This whole up-roar is just about politics. Just think for a minute about the billions of dollars that foreign governments pour into this country because they know that we are the last stable country in the world. So they buy bonds and they buy every capital asset that they can get there hands on. Westinghouse for example. They buy our down town buildings and our air ports and transportation systems. They buy our ships and bridges and colleges. They are everywhere!! How much should we worry about our ports? I'm not sure.
And it's not just the Brits and the Japanese, but the Russians, the Irish, the Dutch, the Swedes and many others that have extra capital that they want to secure for future use. Where else better to put it than the United States. We are the future.
We live in a global economy and if we actually knew how much of our land and companies are owned by foreign entities, we would have a different outlook on the UAE buying a few of out ports.
Keep in mind also, we have a bunch of gas stations and oil refineries in the this country that are owned by Hugo Chavez, a known communist that hates us with a passion.
The puppet masters are at work. The beat goes on -
Saturday, February 25, 2006
She's only 60 - A New Life
I'm off to a suprise birthday party up in the 'nort country - back again on Sunday evening with more random acts of good sense and country hospitality - later - The Slickster!
Friday, February 24, 2006
Democrats Check the Wind
I believe that this port-of-entry debate is a good thing - President Bush has decided that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) should have the right to bid on this contract. They are our allies and have shown to be trustworthy. But because they are from the middle east and a Muslim country, they must get special scrutiny.
The opposition, believe it or not, is mostly Democrats and a few Republicans. Two days ago the Democrats were screaming that we weren't treating the Arabs with respect. Al Gore gave a speech in Saudi Arabia that focused on our prisoner of war camps and how America was mis- treating Muslims in general. The thrust of his speech was about how America is the real threat to world piece. The former Vice President of the United States, a liberal Democrat, told his audience, in Saudi Arabia, America is a horrible place. What a patriot!
Now it seems the liberal camp is protesting that the Arabs shouldn't have any control of our ports as they are the enemy and shouldn't be trusted with such important American security interests.
I have to go with President Bush on this one. He has been the driving force behind the war on terror for the last 5 years and should have the most insight on what is a security risk and what isn't. He has information from so many different sources on which to base his decision, it only makes sense that he has the final word. Also, no matter what he would have said, it would have been the wrong according to the angry left.
All the Democrats had to do was see which side of the situation the President came down on, and then take the opposite tack to make it a story. The hypocrisy of the liberal stand isn't lost on anyone that will take a few moments to understand where the Democrats are coming from.
The opposition, believe it or not, is mostly Democrats and a few Republicans. Two days ago the Democrats were screaming that we weren't treating the Arabs with respect. Al Gore gave a speech in Saudi Arabia that focused on our prisoner of war camps and how America was mis- treating Muslims in general. The thrust of his speech was about how America is the real threat to world piece. The former Vice President of the United States, a liberal Democrat, told his audience, in Saudi Arabia, America is a horrible place. What a patriot!
Now it seems the liberal camp is protesting that the Arabs shouldn't have any control of our ports as they are the enemy and shouldn't be trusted with such important American security interests.
I have to go with President Bush on this one. He has been the driving force behind the war on terror for the last 5 years and should have the most insight on what is a security risk and what isn't. He has information from so many different sources on which to base his decision, it only makes sense that he has the final word. Also, no matter what he would have said, it would have been the wrong according to the angry left.
All the Democrats had to do was see which side of the situation the President came down on, and then take the opposite tack to make it a story. The hypocrisy of the liberal stand isn't lost on anyone that will take a few moments to understand where the Democrats are coming from.
How long ago was it that they were demanding an investigation into the NSA intercepts on the incoming calls from countries that have shown to have connections to known terrorist in this country. Then leaking top secret information to the New York Times, known for it's bias against the President, in an effort to destroy the intercept operation which would aid the Muslims in their efforts to enter this country. Nothing new here.
Now the Democrats are demanding that we have to stop the Muslims from getting control of our ports as they are a threat to our security. Which is it? Can they have it both ways? They want us to stop snooping on the Arabs on the one hand, but then two days later, the Arabs are our enemy. The puppet masters really have the Democrats dancing to their tune.
This is nothing new for the liberal left and the Democrats, switching agendas in the middle of a tirade is just another tactic employed to show how they can be out front on any subject, no matter what it is. They are now on the cutting edge of national security. How can you care about security for a country that you hate.
Ever since 9/11, the Democrats have fought the President on every single move he made to try and defend this country. The Democrats have displayed their hateful rhetoric for this country on numerous occasions, even from the floor of the United State Senate. They hide nothing.
The liberal agenda has always been defeat for America. No matter what they say today or tomorrow, that agenda has not changed.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Gumbel Gets a Pass From the Media
I have been watching for some reaction to Bryant Gumbel's statement of a few days back concerning the lack of black athletes at the Olympics and, by the way, how worthless the Winter Olympics are.
As you probably remember, he thought the Winter Olympics really weren't worth watching as they don't have real athletes, more or less world class athletes, especially since the only athletes there were white and because of this, Gumbel said, it look like a Republican convention.
I haven't heard anything on the local TV news and I don't remember seeing anything in our local paper. Nothing. hmmmmm I guess it isn't news when a national media personality makes a racist statement. As I stated previously, Rush Limbaugh didn't have the right credentials to escape a media blitz when he didn't even make a racist remark. He just had the audacity to state the obvious about the NFL's bias for the employment of black quarter backs.
Everyone has the right to free speech, right? Or is it a right only when you talk about accepted culture; ideas that are dictated by those that have the power to change the way we all think. Those that can dictate a philosophy based on fear of reprisal for deviating for the norm.
The media can print anything it wants, it doesn't have to be true, and most of the time it isn't. How would you like to have your name on the front page of the paper where they have you associated with false and damaging statements that you never made?
What recourse would you have? Deny the obvious? Who's right? You or the morning edition of a daily that has a circulation of 300,000. The media doesn't lie, everyone knows that. They have an obligation to deliver the news and to tell the truth as best they can, even if their idea of the truth happens to destroy you and your family.
Will they correct their mistake of attacking you with false statements? Of course they will. Look for it on page 22 on the bottom right hand corner. Don't look for a head line that says 'we screwed up'. The damage is done and the media accomplished what they wanted to do. It's your responsibility now to rebuild your life someplace else, or be reborn by joining the accepted culture.
Forget about everything else except what you are suppose to be. It's so much easier to have others tell you what to think.
As you probably remember, he thought the Winter Olympics really weren't worth watching as they don't have real athletes, more or less world class athletes, especially since the only athletes there were white and because of this, Gumbel said, it look like a Republican convention.
I haven't heard anything on the local TV news and I don't remember seeing anything in our local paper. Nothing. hmmmmm I guess it isn't news when a national media personality makes a racist statement. As I stated previously, Rush Limbaugh didn't have the right credentials to escape a media blitz when he didn't even make a racist remark. He just had the audacity to state the obvious about the NFL's bias for the employment of black quarter backs.
Everyone has the right to free speech, right? Or is it a right only when you talk about accepted culture; ideas that are dictated by those that have the power to change the way we all think. Those that can dictate a philosophy based on fear of reprisal for deviating for the norm.
The media can print anything it wants, it doesn't have to be true, and most of the time it isn't. How would you like to have your name on the front page of the paper where they have you associated with false and damaging statements that you never made?
What recourse would you have? Deny the obvious? Who's right? You or the morning edition of a daily that has a circulation of 300,000. The media doesn't lie, everyone knows that. They have an obligation to deliver the news and to tell the truth as best they can, even if their idea of the truth happens to destroy you and your family.
Will they correct their mistake of attacking you with false statements? Of course they will. Look for it on page 22 on the bottom right hand corner. Don't look for a head line that says 'we screwed up'. The damage is done and the media accomplished what they wanted to do. It's your responsibility now to rebuild your life someplace else, or be reborn by joining the accepted culture.
Forget about everything else except what you are suppose to be. It's so much easier to have others tell you what to think.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Where Does the Angry Left Come From?
I have always wondered why liberals are so negative about everything. I have visited several liberal websites that seem to have a fair amount of traffic and they all seem to have a very negative out look. The Daily Kos is the most popular, I think, and supposedly the most read blog of them all, conservative or liberal.
If you read a conservative blog, like Power line, and then read the Daily Kos, the contrast is striking. I can understand that the liberals do not like President Bush. He stands for everything they can't understand, and therefore hate him. The most basic things about George Bush that draws the fire and ire of the liberals is his Christian faith, he is a conservative republican and he is from Texas. There isn't anything that he could do that would produce a positive response for the liberal media.
Their discourse is centered on a supposition of failure in everything that happens in this country, even if it isn't a failure. It's hard to understand how they can be so negative when everything is going so well; the economy is moving ahead at a faster pace then the experts thought it would and unemployment is at a ten year low. But it doesn't seem to matter to the angry liberal left, they attack every aspect of capitalism as the source of all of our problems.
To view the war as a mistake, after what happened in New York and Washington, is a mystery to me. No matter what media you read or watch, the left has something negative to say about the war and the premise under which we declared war on the terrorist in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even when things are going well, they refuse to acknowledge any news that relates to progress toward freedom and democracy, or how an entire nation, with our help, is struggling to rebuild itself after decades of oppression. Their reporting shows nothing but contempt and anger for our country and our efforts.
Maybe it's a self-loathing thing. Maybe it's a "Martyrdom Cult" that they belong to. I guess they rationalize their success by hating those that are more successful than they are and condemning the system that doesn't reward everyone equally. They drive the new care and live in the big house out in the country, but when they look in the mirror all they see is failure. It can't be their fault, it has to be someone else's fault, and they hate them for it.
I am very confused. How can so many people have a world view that is so dramatically different from reality. Do they see themselves as failures even when they have achieved most of their personal goals? Some professionals might call this a psychosis of some kind. Some refer to it as a paranoid schizophrenia.
History will show that from the very beginning of this nation, there were people that took it upon themselves to disrupt the efforts of our forefathers as they struggled to develop a government that would guarantee all of the rights to the individual that were denied them in the country they left to come here.
These same people that escape the tyranny of a monarchy, are the same ones that fought to remain under the status quo of a distant King. They had to be brought kicking and screaming into the new world. They hated self direction and taking responsibility for their own action, just like they do now, but now it's called the 'nanny state' where everyone gives up their right to self determination.
Apparently they are condemned to be who they are until the end of time. I really don't understand them. How can they always be angry and hateful? They hate who I am and what you are, and they hate themselves for what they have become.
They deny the past that brought them success, and believe in future that doesn't exist. How can anyone survive without a future or a past?
If you read a conservative blog, like Power line, and then read the Daily Kos, the contrast is striking. I can understand that the liberals do not like President Bush. He stands for everything they can't understand, and therefore hate him. The most basic things about George Bush that draws the fire and ire of the liberals is his Christian faith, he is a conservative republican and he is from Texas. There isn't anything that he could do that would produce a positive response for the liberal media.
Their discourse is centered on a supposition of failure in everything that happens in this country, even if it isn't a failure. It's hard to understand how they can be so negative when everything is going so well; the economy is moving ahead at a faster pace then the experts thought it would and unemployment is at a ten year low. But it doesn't seem to matter to the angry liberal left, they attack every aspect of capitalism as the source of all of our problems.
To view the war as a mistake, after what happened in New York and Washington, is a mystery to me. No matter what media you read or watch, the left has something negative to say about the war and the premise under which we declared war on the terrorist in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even when things are going well, they refuse to acknowledge any news that relates to progress toward freedom and democracy, or how an entire nation, with our help, is struggling to rebuild itself after decades of oppression. Their reporting shows nothing but contempt and anger for our country and our efforts.
How did they get this way? What happened along the way in their lives to bring about such a dramatic force for viewing life in the most prosperous and generous country on earth from the inside of a spider hole? They accept all of the positive aspects of living here like freedom of speech, as well as all of the other freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, and yet they will attack the very foundation that give them the right to be who they are.
I continually wonder why so many people in this country have such a negative out look on life. They have all of the tools that anyone could want to make a good life for them selves, all they have to do want it bad enough. But for so many, for some reason, it's not enough to have the opportunity to achieve a good life, they must find fault with the process that gave the opportunity to succeed. They don't understand why they find their life to be in such disorder, even in success, but to relieve the stress of succeeding, they blame others for creating a process of opportunity that is unequal.Maybe it's a self-loathing thing. Maybe it's a "Martyrdom Cult" that they belong to. I guess they rationalize their success by hating those that are more successful than they are and condemning the system that doesn't reward everyone equally. They drive the new care and live in the big house out in the country, but when they look in the mirror all they see is failure. It can't be their fault, it has to be someone else's fault, and they hate them for it.
I am very confused. How can so many people have a world view that is so dramatically different from reality. Do they see themselves as failures even when they have achieved most of their personal goals? Some professionals might call this a psychosis of some kind. Some refer to it as a paranoid schizophrenia.
History will show that from the very beginning of this nation, there were people that took it upon themselves to disrupt the efforts of our forefathers as they struggled to develop a government that would guarantee all of the rights to the individual that were denied them in the country they left to come here.
These same people that escape the tyranny of a monarchy, are the same ones that fought to remain under the status quo of a distant King. They had to be brought kicking and screaming into the new world. They hated self direction and taking responsibility for their own action, just like they do now, but now it's called the 'nanny state' where everyone gives up their right to self determination.
Apparently they are condemned to be who they are until the end of time. I really don't understand them. How can they always be angry and hateful? They hate who I am and what you are, and they hate themselves for what they have become.
They deny the past that brought them success, and believe in future that doesn't exist. How can anyone survive without a future or a past?
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Cat Brain Power?
Dave is a cat like no other - he has no rules except self preservation. His one goal in life is to eat him self to death. Like most cats, he has no friends. He lives with a female his same age, 12 or 72 years old, which ever you prefer, but they almost never cross paths except at meal time.
He ventures outside once in a while to see what food is left over from the outdoor cats; we have three volunteers that stick to us like glue and have for the last 10 or so years.
What makes Dave so unique is his power to concentrate, or maybe his ability to completely close off the rest of the world while he tries to understand what is going on. Maybe he's just stupid.
People have a tendency to give cats intellectual super powers. I can assure you that they do not have any such ability. They react to their environment and instincts. If the sun comes out they gravitate to it and when goes away, they find a heat source some place else. When they are hungry, they look for food in familiar places. If they can not find heat or food, they curl up and go to sleep. When they wake up, the process starts all over again.
When Dave stairs at you like he is doing in the above picture, you know that he isn't thinking about anything. He doesn't think. His instincts give him some alternatives for situations that he encounters, but they are so limited in scope that he doesn't react in any determined way unless they have to do with survival; seeking a source of heat and food and fight or flight. If these elements are not in demand, Dave just stairs into space or goes to sleep. His is not trying to determine if the universe is growing or shrinking.
Everyone has heard how cats are more cerebral than dogs or most any domesticated animal. I think that is nonsense. Just because they can strike a regal pose doesn't mean they have the cranial capacity to out wit a dog. I believe if they really want to test their intellectual skills on another animal, the one to pick would the chicken. I think they are pretty well matched as they are both just fighting half a battle in the wit department
Don't get me wrong, I like cats mainly because they don't make any demands on you other than for food. Heat is given in the winter for the indoor cats and the outdoor ones, mother nature provides them with the necessary vitals for survival. We also provide houses and heating pads. We are out of control or mother nature has control of us.
They are beautiful and they are very athletic, when they feel like it, especially when a dog is on their tail roaring around the house. Not to worry though, it's all a game for them. It's funny how the dog never catches cat.
We have three dogs and two cats in the house. A great source of entertainment but the house is wreck most of the time, and we wouldn't have any other way.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Canada On the Right Foot Now
Good news - Canada has turned over a new leaf. With the elections of a new Prime Minister and a new ruling government, the Canadians have decided that they have had enough of the totally corrupt liberal left.
It seems that liberals are the same no matter where they live. If a government is in the throws of collapse, chances are it is liberal left socialist government. Canada had one of the worst. History is full of examples of complete societies that have crushed under the heel of a socialist philosophy. They have never been successful.
On a daily basis, stories about money laundering, graft, fraud, shake-downs of local officials and direct dealing with organized crime was SOP, standard operating procedure. Hundreds of millions were taken from the public coffers which disappeared into the bank accounts of former Prime Minister Paul Martin and his crime friends that were running the government.
Canada sounds a lot like the state of Louisiana. Sixty years of liberal Democrats running the government is a good reason why it is in total collapse. The liberals stole the people in that state blind as well as the billions that they stole from the rest of the country. It's a way of life for them.
One such scene in Canada a few years back was the 450 million that was ear-marked for the tsunami victims. Months after Martin said that it was on the way, it never showed up - where did it go? - I have not heard if it ever did arrive. The story never make it into the media outlets around here as liberals around the world take care of their own. I picked it up from Canadian blogs.
Paul Martin did everything he could to cause problems for the United States. He would promise something to George Bush's face and then turn around and do just the opposite. If it took a bold faced lie to make something happen to hurt America, that's what he would do and did.
Because of liberal hate for armed forces, Canada has no military to speak of. If they had a disaster on the same scale as Katrina, they would have to ask America for help, and we would. They rely on America for their national security.
But now the new government has declared that it is a friend of the United States. They sent new ambassadors to the United Nations and to this country. They decided that to be a good neighbor they have to participate in world affairs as partners for freedom and democracy. They have decided to take responsibility for their own destiny.
It isn't hard to see that the new government in Canada is conservative. Taking responsibility for it's own actions, putting freedom and democracy as central pillars of it's world view, are traits that one will never see from a liberal left wing organization. Paul Martin proved that.
But closer to home, the liberals in this country are doing the same thing as Paul Martin. Al Gore and Bill Clinton are showing the world that their goal in life is to destroy America. The lies that they are using to describe America in foreign countries is treason.
Liberals are the same the world over is a fact. Total disdain for the rule of law and hate for freedom and democracy. That coming from a former President and Vice President of this country is unforgivable.
It seems that liberals are the same no matter where they live. If a government is in the throws of collapse, chances are it is liberal left socialist government. Canada had one of the worst. History is full of examples of complete societies that have crushed under the heel of a socialist philosophy. They have never been successful.
On a daily basis, stories about money laundering, graft, fraud, shake-downs of local officials and direct dealing with organized crime was SOP, standard operating procedure. Hundreds of millions were taken from the public coffers which disappeared into the bank accounts of former Prime Minister Paul Martin and his crime friends that were running the government.
Canada sounds a lot like the state of Louisiana. Sixty years of liberal Democrats running the government is a good reason why it is in total collapse. The liberals stole the people in that state blind as well as the billions that they stole from the rest of the country. It's a way of life for them.
One such scene in Canada a few years back was the 450 million that was ear-marked for the tsunami victims. Months after Martin said that it was on the way, it never showed up - where did it go? - I have not heard if it ever did arrive. The story never make it into the media outlets around here as liberals around the world take care of their own. I picked it up from Canadian blogs.
Paul Martin did everything he could to cause problems for the United States. He would promise something to George Bush's face and then turn around and do just the opposite. If it took a bold faced lie to make something happen to hurt America, that's what he would do and did.
Because of liberal hate for armed forces, Canada has no military to speak of. If they had a disaster on the same scale as Katrina, they would have to ask America for help, and we would. They rely on America for their national security.
But now the new government has declared that it is a friend of the United States. They sent new ambassadors to the United Nations and to this country. They decided that to be a good neighbor they have to participate in world affairs as partners for freedom and democracy. They have decided to take responsibility for their own destiny.
It isn't hard to see that the new government in Canada is conservative. Taking responsibility for it's own actions, putting freedom and democracy as central pillars of it's world view, are traits that one will never see from a liberal left wing organization. Paul Martin proved that.
But closer to home, the liberals in this country are doing the same thing as Paul Martin. Al Gore and Bill Clinton are showing the world that their goal in life is to destroy America. The lies that they are using to describe America in foreign countries is treason.
Liberals are the same the world over is a fact. Total disdain for the rule of law and hate for freedom and democracy. That coming from a former President and Vice President of this country is unforgivable.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Bryant Gumbel a Racist?
What's the problem with Bryant Gumbel? He thinks the Winter Olympics are a waste of time. He laughed at the statement that these were the greatest athletes in the world. How can that be, he said, there aren't any black people participating. Shani Davis is black and he did take a gold metal yesterday in speed skating.
What was he saying here? The only real athletes are black? It's stupid to hold any kind of contest where black people don't excel because it won't be a contest? The event will be meaningless? Is it because he couldn't come to terms on a contract with NBC and left the organization? Or is it much more serious than that.
Don't use that word - Oh no, not that one - that one is reserved for whites only. The media side-stepped it completely except for some local radio talk shows and then only ever so lightly.
What if a white national personality had said the same thing, what do you think would have happened to him? Remember Rush Limbaugh's statement about the black quarter a few years ago? He said that he was over rated because the conference was focusing on the black quarter backs as there weren't enough of them in the league.
Remember the fire storm that brought on? Television and the print media had a field day for weeks.
Remember Jimmy the Creek's blunder, a sports analysts on television, made a statement about black athletes that was considered off limits? Was it true? Doesn't matter! He's Gone.
And what the heck is wrong with Shani? Here is the only black athlete to win a gold metal in Winter Olympics and he is acting like a jerk!!! He wins his gold metal but he can't take a minute of his time to display his countries flag on a victory lap. What a nice center piece for the black community. More anger and more rage.
He isn't the only one that is acting like a small spoiled child. One of the other speed skaters can't put aside some tiff or other that he has with Shani long enough to at least present some show of congeniality for the home crowd.
I, for one, am tired of putting up with this show elitism. I think NBC should just not interview them after their races. If they want to be jerks, let them do it on their own time.
I won't watch anymore speed skating.
What was he saying here? The only real athletes are black? It's stupid to hold any kind of contest where black people don't excel because it won't be a contest? The event will be meaningless? Is it because he couldn't come to terms on a contract with NBC and left the organization? Or is it much more serious than that.
Don't use that word - Oh no, not that one - that one is reserved for whites only. The media side-stepped it completely except for some local radio talk shows and then only ever so lightly.
What if a white national personality had said the same thing, what do you think would have happened to him? Remember Rush Limbaugh's statement about the black quarter a few years ago? He said that he was over rated because the conference was focusing on the black quarter backs as there weren't enough of them in the league.
Remember the fire storm that brought on? Television and the print media had a field day for weeks.
Remember Jimmy the Creek's blunder, a sports analysts on television, made a statement about black athletes that was considered off limits? Was it true? Doesn't matter! He's Gone.
And what the heck is wrong with Shani? Here is the only black athlete to win a gold metal in Winter Olympics and he is acting like a jerk!!! He wins his gold metal but he can't take a minute of his time to display his countries flag on a victory lap. What a nice center piece for the black community. More anger and more rage.
He isn't the only one that is acting like a small spoiled child. One of the other speed skaters can't put aside some tiff or other that he has with Shani long enough to at least present some show of congeniality for the home crowd.
I, for one, am tired of putting up with this show elitism. I think NBC should just not interview them after their races. If they want to be jerks, let them do it on their own time.
I won't watch anymore speed skating.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
The True Face of Bias
Just one more little note on the media's inability to regain creditably. They really never had any to start with, of course, we just never had anything to compare it to until talk radio and the blogs came along. Thank Rush Limbaugh for this when he started back in 1988, I believe.
The national press seems to over look the fact that they have a double standard. The truth be known, they don't believe they have a bias. Trying to destroy conservatives and Republicans is not being biased, it's doing the right thing. They truly see nothing wrong with that.
When Harry Whittington was shot by Vice President Cheney last week in a hunting accident, the press went into a feeding mode that hasn't been seen in recent memory. All other stories were dropped.
The white house press conference was a good example of a national press corp out of control. One of the reporters, David Gregory of NBC, asked the press secretary a question before the cameras were on, so the secretary told him should wait until they were on the air to ask questions. The reporter just exploded with outrage. "Do think I only care about being on camera? Have you forgotten who I am? I am part of the national press and therefore above such ordinary ego driven handicaps. Just answer the question or I will have you replaced," or something like that - heh
The press secretary, McClellan, tried to calm him down, but he would have none of that. This was serious stuff. This reporter just knew that there was more lying by administration on this shooting, and that a cover-up was at hand. The media saw chance to get Cheney and they would not be put off - their questions were viscous and relentless.
Let's compare this with the media coverage of the Vincent Foster suicide during the Clinton administration's first term. The coverage was very professional and straight forward. The main stream press was very sympathize and soft peddled the coverage. How sad it must be for the Clintons. Poor troubled Vincent.
When the first details were release nine days after the death, nobody raised a question about the public's need to know. Even though there were, thirteen years ago, and still are, questions that never got answered, the whole thing was dropped.
What about Ted Kennedy? That girl died and nobody cared. How long was it before he reported the crash to the police? Do you think he needed to think this through? Hey, all he had to do to was go on television and make a statement and all was forgiven. No story there so let's move on to more important things.
The Clintons had more than twenty scandals during their two terms. Nobody cared.
All of these were crimes against the people of this country and everybody knew it, but the press decided that it was best to turn a blind eye to the scandals as it would put a damper on a Democratic President. Now we can't have that, can we. Let the good times roll.
It isn't too difficult to see the difference in coverage of the events. This same bias has been the standard ever since Bush got elected in 2000. Actually the main stream press was almost as vicious in their attacks on Reagan.
The press will use any device at it's disposal to reek havoc on the Republicans and George Bush in particular, even if it means putting the nation at risk. There are no limits.
Do me a favor, when you read the daily paper, any daily anywhere in the country, see who wrote the report. If it was any of the wire services like the Associated Press, Knight Ridder or Reuters you can be assured it will be biased or just plain wrong.
Look how it is written. Be aware of the tone that the writer uses, especially if it is on the front page. The pictures that they use will be a laugh as well. Most of the time the captions won't match the pictures. They just us the picture to illustrate a bias.
You will notice that it will read like an editorial. The writer will have an opinion. I can assure you this bias will appear in all sections of the newspaper, even the comics and the entertainment sections.
The national press seems to over look the fact that they have a double standard. The truth be known, they don't believe they have a bias. Trying to destroy conservatives and Republicans is not being biased, it's doing the right thing. They truly see nothing wrong with that.
When Harry Whittington was shot by Vice President Cheney last week in a hunting accident, the press went into a feeding mode that hasn't been seen in recent memory. All other stories were dropped.
The white house press conference was a good example of a national press corp out of control. One of the reporters, David Gregory of NBC, asked the press secretary a question before the cameras were on, so the secretary told him should wait until they were on the air to ask questions. The reporter just exploded with outrage. "Do think I only care about being on camera? Have you forgotten who I am? I am part of the national press and therefore above such ordinary ego driven handicaps. Just answer the question or I will have you replaced," or something like that - heh
The press secretary, McClellan, tried to calm him down, but he would have none of that. This was serious stuff. This reporter just knew that there was more lying by administration on this shooting, and that a cover-up was at hand. The media saw chance to get Cheney and they would not be put off - their questions were viscous and relentless.
Let's compare this with the media coverage of the Vincent Foster suicide during the Clinton administration's first term. The coverage was very professional and straight forward. The main stream press was very sympathize and soft peddled the coverage. How sad it must be for the Clintons. Poor troubled Vincent.
When the first details were release nine days after the death, nobody raised a question about the public's need to know. Even though there were, thirteen years ago, and still are, questions that never got answered, the whole thing was dropped.
What about Ted Kennedy? That girl died and nobody cared. How long was it before he reported the crash to the police? Do you think he needed to think this through? Hey, all he had to do to was go on television and make a statement and all was forgiven. No story there so let's move on to more important things.
The Clintons had more than twenty scandals during their two terms. Nobody cared.
All of these were crimes against the people of this country and everybody knew it, but the press decided that it was best to turn a blind eye to the scandals as it would put a damper on a Democratic President. Now we can't have that, can we. Let the good times roll.
It isn't too difficult to see the difference in coverage of the events. This same bias has been the standard ever since Bush got elected in 2000. Actually the main stream press was almost as vicious in their attacks on Reagan.
The press will use any device at it's disposal to reek havoc on the Republicans and George Bush in particular, even if it means putting the nation at risk. There are no limits.
Do me a favor, when you read the daily paper, any daily anywhere in the country, see who wrote the report. If it was any of the wire services like the Associated Press, Knight Ridder or Reuters you can be assured it will be biased or just plain wrong.
Look how it is written. Be aware of the tone that the writer uses, especially if it is on the front page. The pictures that they use will be a laugh as well. Most of the time the captions won't match the pictures. They just us the picture to illustrate a bias.
You will notice that it will read like an editorial. The writer will have an opinion. I can assure you this bias will appear in all sections of the newspaper, even the comics and the entertainment sections.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Two Faced Media
This is a very good article on the media's bias and arrogrance - They were all-powerful once but now they are in free-fall -
Charles Krauthammer's
Charles Krauthammer's
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Cheney Told the Truth -
Well, the big news is still Dick Cheney. The media has come completely unhinged, again. Maybe this is our big chance to destroy the Vice President, rubbing their hands together in glee - The media was in a feeding frenzy at the White House press conference. The question they wanted to know was why did he try and kill his friend ? -
One answer they came up with was he drunk and just shot him just for the fun of it. Another was he shot him as a warning to "Scooter" Libby that if he says the wrong thing, he would be next.
The one that I like is he was hunting with the foreign minister of Sweden, I believe it was Sweden, a woman, and his wife was hunting about a mile away in a different field. The rumor is he was having an affair with this woman and lost control of his emotions and popped his old buddy that was lurking in the bushes.
How could this be an accident the media asked. Everyone knows that Cheney is a heartless cold blooded killer that was just waiting to make a hit, and what an easy target at that. 78 years old and plum- tuckered from walking around the field all day lugging that cannon that you need to shoot quail - a 28 gauge shot gun. In terms everyone will recognize, the 28 gauge shot gun is similar to someone using a large fly swatter in the kitchen to kill a swap.
Cheney saw his chance when the old fool popped out of the brush in front of him, and nailed him. Whoa - 'got him' he roared as the old boy toppled over in the pucker brush. Laughter all around. Everyone congratulated him for making a good clean shot.
And then he waited twelve hours before reporting it to the press, and when they did it call the local paper and not the big gun in DC - The press knows that Dick is lying about something; just like the war in Iraq and WMD's. Maybe a special prosecutor is the answer. Form a grand jury to attack this monster.
I guess it went something like that, according to the main stream media, but maybe there is another side to the story.
It was an accident. Pure and simple. The local sheriff said today there will not be any charges filed against the Vice President. It's a cover up -
The main stream talking heads were waiting for the old boy to die and speculated on what charges Cheney would get, manslaughter or negligent homicide when the victim died. But alas, twas' all for not - Cheney's friend will be out about in a few days after being in intensive care for the first two days while they treated his wounds, and the last several days for protection from the press. He did suffer a mild heart attack while in the hospital but got a clean bill of health from the hospital yesterday.
One question remains and it is this, "Would you rather go hunting with Dick Cheney or driving over short bridges with Ted Kennedy"?
One answer they came up with was he drunk and just shot him just for the fun of it. Another was he shot him as a warning to "Scooter" Libby that if he says the wrong thing, he would be next.
The one that I like is he was hunting with the foreign minister of Sweden, I believe it was Sweden, a woman, and his wife was hunting about a mile away in a different field. The rumor is he was having an affair with this woman and lost control of his emotions and popped his old buddy that was lurking in the bushes.
How could this be an accident the media asked. Everyone knows that Cheney is a heartless cold blooded killer that was just waiting to make a hit, and what an easy target at that. 78 years old and plum- tuckered from walking around the field all day lugging that cannon that you need to shoot quail - a 28 gauge shot gun. In terms everyone will recognize, the 28 gauge shot gun is similar to someone using a large fly swatter in the kitchen to kill a swap.
Cheney saw his chance when the old fool popped out of the brush in front of him, and nailed him. Whoa - 'got him' he roared as the old boy toppled over in the pucker brush. Laughter all around. Everyone congratulated him for making a good clean shot.
And then he waited twelve hours before reporting it to the press, and when they did it call the local paper and not the big gun in DC - The press knows that Dick is lying about something; just like the war in Iraq and WMD's. Maybe a special prosecutor is the answer. Form a grand jury to attack this monster.
I guess it went something like that, according to the main stream media, but maybe there is another side to the story.
It was an accident. Pure and simple. The local sheriff said today there will not be any charges filed against the Vice President. It's a cover up -
The main stream talking heads were waiting for the old boy to die and speculated on what charges Cheney would get, manslaughter or negligent homicide when the victim died. But alas, twas' all for not - Cheney's friend will be out about in a few days after being in intensive care for the first two days while they treated his wounds, and the last several days for protection from the press. He did suffer a mild heart attack while in the hospital but got a clean bill of health from the hospital yesterday.
One question remains and it is this, "Would you rather go hunting with Dick Cheney or driving over short bridges with Ted Kennedy"?
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Bike Ride in February
What a beautiful day today! The sun was out and the temperature hit 50 this afternoon. It was the perfect opportunity to get the bike out and do some fun riding.
It was a short ride but very refreshing. Riding the wind trainer for hours on end, even though I watch tapes of the Tour, it still isn't my idea of a creative afternoon.
Happy Valentines Day -
It was a short ride but very refreshing. Riding the wind trainer for hours on end, even though I watch tapes of the Tour, it still isn't my idea of a creative afternoon.
Happy Valentines Day -
Monday, February 13, 2006
The Treachery of Al Gore
Did anyone hear the speech that Al Gore gave while he was in Saudi Arabia? He attacked the United States by stating, among other things that were unfounded, we rounded up Arabs without cause, Saudi's in partiality, and held them and abused them after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the Twin Towers.
Is it just me or have I jumped into some kind weird time warp where everything is turned up side down. Where people that have everything they could possibly want, but aren't satisfied until that they have destroyed they very foundation vehicle that propelled them to where they are today.
Why would Al Gore stand before the very people that had first hand knowledge and participated in the killing of 3000 American citizens, and lie, bold faced, about what went on in America after 9/11? What does he hope to gain from do this? How does he see this as helping him to regain power in American politics?
From where I stand, in a time of war, against an enemy that is more treacherous and world wide than any that we have faced in the past, Al Gore's behavior is an act of treason. He is inciting the enemy with lies to attack us. As the former Vice President of the United States, he is lending creditable authority to his false testimony about the actions of the United States following 9/11, and by not condemning the action of the terrorists world wide, he is giving his approval to their actions by what he didn't say.
The man is insane. There can be no other explanation. What's worse, there are many more of the same caliber in the Senate of the United States. In the eyes of these people, the constitution is a worthless piece of paper. It means nothing. They prove this every time they open their mouths to condemn this country, no matter what the situation may be. America is always wrong. America is always the problem. There is no hope. Give up. Surrender.
The liberal Democrats cannot conceive of any other approach to gain the favor of their base. They are driven by only fear and hate for the present while revelling in some grandiose nonexistent and unattainable future. That's all they have to offer in the way of a philosophy for progress.
Zig Ziglar has a great little ditty for the Democrats if only they will have the guts to make it happen, "Make failure your teacher, not your undertaker". I don't think they have a clue.
I wonder if Al Gore has a suit that he likes more the any of the others in his closet.
Is it just me or have I jumped into some kind weird time warp where everything is turned up side down. Where people that have everything they could possibly want, but aren't satisfied until that they have destroyed they very foundation vehicle that propelled them to where they are today.
Why would Al Gore stand before the very people that had first hand knowledge and participated in the killing of 3000 American citizens, and lie, bold faced, about what went on in America after 9/11? What does he hope to gain from do this? How does he see this as helping him to regain power in American politics?
From where I stand, in a time of war, against an enemy that is more treacherous and world wide than any that we have faced in the past, Al Gore's behavior is an act of treason. He is inciting the enemy with lies to attack us. As the former Vice President of the United States, he is lending creditable authority to his false testimony about the actions of the United States following 9/11, and by not condemning the action of the terrorists world wide, he is giving his approval to their actions by what he didn't say.
The man is insane. There can be no other explanation. What's worse, there are many more of the same caliber in the Senate of the United States. In the eyes of these people, the constitution is a worthless piece of paper. It means nothing. They prove this every time they open their mouths to condemn this country, no matter what the situation may be. America is always wrong. America is always the problem. There is no hope. Give up. Surrender.
The liberal Democrats cannot conceive of any other approach to gain the favor of their base. They are driven by only fear and hate for the present while revelling in some grandiose nonexistent and unattainable future. That's all they have to offer in the way of a philosophy for progress.
Zig Ziglar has a great little ditty for the Democrats if only they will have the guts to make it happen, "Make failure your teacher, not your undertaker". I don't think they have a clue.
I wonder if Al Gore has a suit that he likes more the any of the others in his closet.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
UNHOLY ALLIANCE - David Horowitz
I Just finished the book Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American left by David Horowitz. What a fantastic book. I got it at the library, but it is so good I went out and bought it.
This book details the trail of the liberal left though the twentieth century and to it's philosophical foundation now in the twenty first century. It describes who they are and how they think.
More importantly, it follows their development from the early days of the communist domination in Europe and China, and it's invaluable fall when the Berlin Wall came down, to the anti-war terrorist from the sixties that are now the neo-communist in our universities.
This book is a must read for everyone that believes America is the last great hope. With this information, it makes clear who is in control of the left and the Democratic Party. When Democratic politicians and university professors speak about freedom and democracy in America, you now know they are talking about freedom and democracy only for themselves, not the unwashed masses.
This book details the trail of the liberal left though the twentieth century and to it's philosophical foundation now in the twenty first century. It describes who they are and how they think.
More importantly, it follows their development from the early days of the communist domination in Europe and China, and it's invaluable fall when the Berlin Wall came down, to the anti-war terrorist from the sixties that are now the neo-communist in our universities.
This book is a must read for everyone that believes America is the last great hope. With this information, it makes clear who is in control of the left and the Democratic Party. When Democratic politicians and university professors speak about freedom and democracy in America, you now know they are talking about freedom and democracy only for themselves, not the unwashed masses.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Doing is Believing
I strongly believe that President Bush is on the right track when I read things like this, "People may doubt what you say, but they will always believe what you do", especially when the results effect you and your family directly.
Any poll taken these days will show at least 42% of the population doubting what the President says is true, but, if the above statement is founded in truth, than there must be a huge population that believes what he is doing is right, as they will join the 58% that already believes he is doing the right thing for the country.
Is that possible? Can the entire population believe that this country is worth saving?
Any poll taken these days will show at least 42% of the population doubting what the President says is true, but, if the above statement is founded in truth, than there must be a huge population that believes what he is doing is right, as they will join the 58% that already believes he is doing the right thing for the country.
Is that possible? Can the entire population believe that this country is worth saving?
Friday, February 10, 2006
Good News Is No News
Remember I wrote several days ago about the fantastic unemployment numbers of last month were at 4.7%, and how the main stream media completely ignored them? Well, now the numbers are even better and they received the same treatment.
The newest figures show that the unemployment rate is at a six year low. That means that even during the dotcom bubble of the late nineties, when it seemed that everyone was making tons of money and times couldn't get any better, before the big crash that is, these new numbers show that times are better now, and it isn't all smoke and mirrors like it was back then. The market lost nearly three trillion dollars when the dotcoms went under.
The report said that the underlying figures indicate that these numbers are solid. This rate is based on manufacturer's growth indicators of goods and services, plant expansion and the purchase of capital equipment.
This is really good news. Right? Not according to the media. The newspaper in our town of Madison, Wisconsin, The State Journal, had a 4 inch column at the bottom of the last page of the paper. And remember, this paper is the 'fair and balanced one' that I mentioned in my earlier post.
Who's side are they on? Aren't they suppose to tell us that our country is growing and that we have a great future because more people are employed and that the economy is booming?
No, sorry, that's not how it works. That's good news and it can be directly connected to George Bush's efforts to rebuild America with his tax cuts. This in turn means bad news for the Democrats, so the liberal news media won't consider it newsworthy.
The newest figures show that the unemployment rate is at a six year low. That means that even during the dotcom bubble of the late nineties, when it seemed that everyone was making tons of money and times couldn't get any better, before the big crash that is, these new numbers show that times are better now, and it isn't all smoke and mirrors like it was back then. The market lost nearly three trillion dollars when the dotcoms went under.
The report said that the underlying figures indicate that these numbers are solid. This rate is based on manufacturer's growth indicators of goods and services, plant expansion and the purchase of capital equipment.
This is really good news. Right? Not according to the media. The newspaper in our town of Madison, Wisconsin, The State Journal, had a 4 inch column at the bottom of the last page of the paper. And remember, this paper is the 'fair and balanced one' that I mentioned in my earlier post.
Who's side are they on? Aren't they suppose to tell us that our country is growing and that we have a great future because more people are employed and that the economy is booming?
No, sorry, that's not how it works. That's good news and it can be directly connected to George Bush's efforts to rebuild America with his tax cuts. This in turn means bad news for the Democrats, so the liberal news media won't consider it newsworthy.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Why isn't It Okay Now?
Let's look at the big picture on the NSA intercepts for just a bit. - The question that I have is why are we discussing the legality of this process in the first place? The Clinton administration did this very thing in the nineties when they kicked in the door of the CIA spy Hiss without a warrant! The deputy Attorney General, in the Janet Reno Justice Department, testified in congress that it was necessary for national security and everybody said okay. Hugs and kisses all around. Clinton used it also to gather information on his Republican rivals. Nobody cared.
Now it's not okay. Why is that? Even Republicans are starting to have second thoughts about the program. Why is this not a cut and dried operation to help us stop terrorist from killing us?
With all of the past history that is available to everyone, as one considers all of the people and departments that were involved in such operations for the past eight years, even the conservatives start to whine that maybe they should take another look at this before the media starts to attack them for supporting the President. They will be attacked by the media for wanting to protect the country? Why is that?
What has changed since President Bush came into office? Why all of a sudden do we need an investigation? Why do some Democrats see this as an impeachable offense? The Democrats say this is totally illegal and a breech of faith with the American people. Why do the liberals continue with this rant even in the face of testimony given by Attorney General Gonzales stating that it was within the law and the limits of the Constitution. He stated that past Presidents have used this same program. Of course, the good Senators setting on this investigative panel know this as well, but it doesn't matter.
Nobody said a word when Clinton did it. I wonder why nobody said a word when Janet Reno's storm troops kicked in the door of those people that were taking care of that Cuban kid some years ago without a warrant. Reno's thugs sent the kid packing back to the 'workers paradise' and Fidel Castro. Good Lord!!
Where was the out cry? Where were the outraged Senators demanding investigations? Maybe the good Senators really don't care what happens to the country as long as they can have the spot light for a little while. If anything goes wrong, they always know they can blame it on Bush. No matter how negligent the good Senators are, the media will always be waiting to help kick a good man when he's down.
When the Democrats and the media are all singing from the same sheet of music, the harmony is to die for. Now that the Democrats are out of power, they still all sing off the same sheet of music, only now the words are different.
Hey, the liberal puppet masters have always written the score for the Democrats, and they know what strings to pull to get the right tune.
Now it's not okay. Why is that? Even Republicans are starting to have second thoughts about the program. Why is this not a cut and dried operation to help us stop terrorist from killing us?
With all of the past history that is available to everyone, as one considers all of the people and departments that were involved in such operations for the past eight years, even the conservatives start to whine that maybe they should take another look at this before the media starts to attack them for supporting the President. They will be attacked by the media for wanting to protect the country? Why is that?
What has changed since President Bush came into office? Why all of a sudden do we need an investigation? Why do some Democrats see this as an impeachable offense? The Democrats say this is totally illegal and a breech of faith with the American people. Why do the liberals continue with this rant even in the face of testimony given by Attorney General Gonzales stating that it was within the law and the limits of the Constitution. He stated that past Presidents have used this same program. Of course, the good Senators setting on this investigative panel know this as well, but it doesn't matter.
Nobody said a word when Clinton did it. I wonder why nobody said a word when Janet Reno's storm troops kicked in the door of those people that were taking care of that Cuban kid some years ago without a warrant. Reno's thugs sent the kid packing back to the 'workers paradise' and Fidel Castro. Good Lord!!
Where was the out cry? Where were the outraged Senators demanding investigations? Maybe the good Senators really don't care what happens to the country as long as they can have the spot light for a little while. If anything goes wrong, they always know they can blame it on Bush. No matter how negligent the good Senators are, the media will always be waiting to help kick a good man when he's down.
When the Democrats and the media are all singing from the same sheet of music, the harmony is to die for. Now that the Democrats are out of power, they still all sing off the same sheet of music, only now the words are different.
Hey, the liberal puppet masters have always written the score for the Democrats, and they know what strings to pull to get the right tune.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
The Democrats Defile King Funeral
Have the liberal Democrats totally lost what little mental capacity they have left? What possible advantage do they think they could derive from turning Coretta Scott King's funeral into a grab for the political spot-light.
What kind of mindless ego maniac would display themselves, before the world, as being more interested degrading someone for some short lived personal advantage, rather than showing only sympathy and recognition for a leading member of the black community? That is just what Jimmy Carter and the Rev. Joe Lowery did.
I can understand Jimmy Carter doing what he did, condemning President Bush for the NSA wire intercepts, and his remarks about racism. Carter is, and by any other name wouldn't be, a complete Democrat, which means he is totally unprepared to meet the public, has no sense of propriety and common decency, totally lacking in native intelligence and has never realized he has always been out of the main stream of the American way of life. Jimmy Carter is and always has been, a fool for the Marxist liberal puppet masters.
For Jimmy Carter to stand up in front of all those former Presidents and the entire black community and talk about wire tapping when it was the Democrats, Bobby Kennedy, that wire tapped Martin Luther King to get evidence that he was cheating on his wife so they could compromise him by breaking up his marriage and destroy his mission, is beyond the pale. Always remember these people have no limits.
And then there is the Rev. Joe Lowery. I have never heard of this guy but what a piece of work. He used the funeral to talk about weapons of mass destruction. Again, what in the world are these people doing out in polite society? Have they no shame? How does he fit into the black community? He appears to be more liberal Democrat than a black American. It was obvious he didn't give a damn about Mrs. King. He did care about the standing ovation he got when he attacked the President that was sitting in the front row.
What we witnessed yesterday was further evidence of the total disintegration of the Democratic Party. They just can't shake off the mantel of being the biggest losers in the country. They have no moral aptitude and they have absolutely no future. They are faithless except when it comes to hate, here the hateful are believers.
To fend off their self loathing, they seeth with hate for the faithful because they see what they have accomplished and the hateful know, in the darkest regions of their heartless chests, they could never match the accomplishments of the faithful.
So what's left for them to do but grind their teeth in anger as they waste away, flailing wildly, twisting in the wind of progress.
What kind of mindless ego maniac would display themselves, before the world, as being more interested degrading someone for some short lived personal advantage, rather than showing only sympathy and recognition for a leading member of the black community? That is just what Jimmy Carter and the Rev. Joe Lowery did.
I can understand Jimmy Carter doing what he did, condemning President Bush for the NSA wire intercepts, and his remarks about racism. Carter is, and by any other name wouldn't be, a complete Democrat, which means he is totally unprepared to meet the public, has no sense of propriety and common decency, totally lacking in native intelligence and has never realized he has always been out of the main stream of the American way of life. Jimmy Carter is and always has been, a fool for the Marxist liberal puppet masters.
For Jimmy Carter to stand up in front of all those former Presidents and the entire black community and talk about wire tapping when it was the Democrats, Bobby Kennedy, that wire tapped Martin Luther King to get evidence that he was cheating on his wife so they could compromise him by breaking up his marriage and destroy his mission, is beyond the pale. Always remember these people have no limits.
And then there is the Rev. Joe Lowery. I have never heard of this guy but what a piece of work. He used the funeral to talk about weapons of mass destruction. Again, what in the world are these people doing out in polite society? Have they no shame? How does he fit into the black community? He appears to be more liberal Democrat than a black American. It was obvious he didn't give a damn about Mrs. King. He did care about the standing ovation he got when he attacked the President that was sitting in the front row.
What we witnessed yesterday was further evidence of the total disintegration of the Democratic Party. They just can't shake off the mantel of being the biggest losers in the country. They have no moral aptitude and they have absolutely no future. They are faithless except when it comes to hate, here the hateful are believers.
To fend off their self loathing, they seeth with hate for the faithful because they see what they have accomplished and the hateful know, in the darkest regions of their heartless chests, they could never match the accomplishments of the faithful.
So what's left for them to do but grind their teeth in anger as they waste away, flailing wildly, twisting in the wind of progress.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
The Barrett Report
Has anyone heard about the David Barrett Commission Report? Supposedly this report was stated back in 1995 and was to investigate Clinton's Housing Secretary, Henry Cisneros. Along the way it turned up all kinds of dirt on the Clinton Presidency.
Cisneros is a criminal that paid hush money to his mistress, committed tax fraud and lied to the FBI. What' the big deal. That's pretty standard stuff for the Clinton White House. I don't see any reason to get up set about this but bunch of liberal senators and congressmen are trying to block the report just because some friend of Clinton's ripped off the public. Clinton did that himself all the time.
I guess if one looks closer at the report, it also details some other issues that implicate other schisters in the Democratic Party and, of course, the White House. Go figure!
Apparently the Clintons, Bubba and Hillary, were using the IRS to attack their political enemies. Bill and Hillary? Tell me it isn't so! They were using it like a big stick. If someone didn't play along on some crooked deal that the Clintons cooked up, they would threaten to have them investigated.
I guess it isn't any secret that the Clintons had over a thousand FBI and IRS files in the basement of the White House. The charge was made many times but it didn't matter to the press, most of the files were on Republicans, that is "enemies of the state'.
Well, the Barrett report details this program and all of the participants on both sides of the IRS files. The IRS was directed at that time by a friend of Hillary's, Margaret Milner Richardson. It also seems that the Justice Department was involved as well with Janet Reno at the helm. And we all know what a sweet heart she was. Just ask the Branch Davidians (sp) or the Cuban kid down in Florida for starters.
It appears the IRS and the Justice Department joined forces, on the orders of the Clintons, to attack these women that had brought charges against 'slick willy' for attempted rape and sexual assault.
These cases involving Billy and his girl friends weren't the only things that Barrett found while plumbing the Housing Department. There is a lot more ugly details that could cause problems for the 'queen of the belt-way'.
This was brought to light by the Center for Individual Freedom organization. It definitely requires further attention as to why the good members of the Senate are blocking this tax- payer funded report, and how it will effect certain members of that august body.
Cisneros is a criminal that paid hush money to his mistress, committed tax fraud and lied to the FBI. What' the big deal. That's pretty standard stuff for the Clinton White House. I don't see any reason to get up set about this but bunch of liberal senators and congressmen are trying to block the report just because some friend of Clinton's ripped off the public. Clinton did that himself all the time.
I guess if one looks closer at the report, it also details some other issues that implicate other schisters in the Democratic Party and, of course, the White House. Go figure!
Apparently the Clintons, Bubba and Hillary, were using the IRS to attack their political enemies. Bill and Hillary? Tell me it isn't so! They were using it like a big stick. If someone didn't play along on some crooked deal that the Clintons cooked up, they would threaten to have them investigated.
I guess it isn't any secret that the Clintons had over a thousand FBI and IRS files in the basement of the White House. The charge was made many times but it didn't matter to the press, most of the files were on Republicans, that is "enemies of the state'.
Well, the Barrett report details this program and all of the participants on both sides of the IRS files. The IRS was directed at that time by a friend of Hillary's, Margaret Milner Richardson. It also seems that the Justice Department was involved as well with Janet Reno at the helm. And we all know what a sweet heart she was. Just ask the Branch Davidians (sp) or the Cuban kid down in Florida for starters.
The kicker here is when the IRS would attack someone and they would fight back, Reno would bury it at the Justice Department. Slick Willy was really on top of his program, or was it Hillary? hmmmm The depth of these criminals would be impossible to determine.
It doesn't take much to connect the dots here as to why John Kerry, Dick Durban, Byron Dorgan and Henry Waxman, Democrats all, got involved to try and stop this report from being made public. - - these guys are thicker then thieves.It appears the IRS and the Justice Department joined forces, on the orders of the Clintons, to attack these women that had brought charges against 'slick willy' for attempted rape and sexual assault.
These cases involving Billy and his girl friends weren't the only things that Barrett found while plumbing the Housing Department. There is a lot more ugly details that could cause problems for the 'queen of the belt-way'.
This was brought to light by the Center for Individual Freedom organization. It definitely requires further attention as to why the good members of the Senate are blocking this tax- payer funded report, and how it will effect certain members of that august body.
Monday, February 06, 2006
The Steelers Win - darnit
As Super Bowls go it wasn't one of the best, especially since I wanted the Seahawks to win. But as the whistle blows a play dead, so the refs blew the Seahawks some bad calls.
Holmgren was, by any standard, not up to the task of coaching a team at this level last night. That isn't to say he isn't a good coach because I believe he is, it's just last night he seemed to be making some errors in play calling at critical times, like at the end of the first half and the end of the game.
But the thing that kind of darkened the game for me was some very obvious errors in the refereeing. The call at the goal line when the quarterback for the Steelers, Roethlisberger, tried to run the ball in but was stopped short of the line where he fell on the ball and then, in full view of the cameras, pushed the ball across the line. His forward motion stopped short of the goal line and since he was carrying the ball waist high it never broke the plane of the goal line. Several camera angles showed this to be true but in the 'instant reply review' the head ref said it did.
A shot on the side lines of the Steelers coach and Roethlisberger laughing and shoving each other said a lot to me about what happened at the goal line.
Second was the touch down catch that was called back because the receiver used his hands to redirect himself against the defender as he reached for the ball was not a good call by any standard. And the block by Hasselbeck on the runner after he throw the interception drew a penalty because he hit the runner low was totally incorrect.
In any case, the Steelers were more organized through out the game and earned the win. It's just would have been better to have the Steelers win without the interference of bad calls by the refs. And of course it would have been even better if the Hawks would have won - heh
Holmgren was, by any standard, not up to the task of coaching a team at this level last night. That isn't to say he isn't a good coach because I believe he is, it's just last night he seemed to be making some errors in play calling at critical times, like at the end of the first half and the end of the game.
But the thing that kind of darkened the game for me was some very obvious errors in the refereeing. The call at the goal line when the quarterback for the Steelers, Roethlisberger, tried to run the ball in but was stopped short of the line where he fell on the ball and then, in full view of the cameras, pushed the ball across the line. His forward motion stopped short of the goal line and since he was carrying the ball waist high it never broke the plane of the goal line. Several camera angles showed this to be true but in the 'instant reply review' the head ref said it did.
A shot on the side lines of the Steelers coach and Roethlisberger laughing and shoving each other said a lot to me about what happened at the goal line.
Second was the touch down catch that was called back because the receiver used his hands to redirect himself against the defender as he reached for the ball was not a good call by any standard. And the block by Hasselbeck on the runner after he throw the interception drew a penalty because he hit the runner low was totally incorrect.
In any case, the Steelers were more organized through out the game and earned the win. It's just would have been better to have the Steelers win without the interference of bad calls by the refs. And of course it would have been even better if the Hawks would have won - heh
Sunday, February 05, 2006
News Papers Out of Touch
Just a quick note on something that is a national disgrace, I've mentioned this many times, newspapers that shamelessly expose a biased agenda.
Case in point, the day before the Presidents speech and the day of the speech, the morning paper in Madison, Wisconsin, The Wisconsin State Journal, did not have a single reference to the speech. The only place that had any mention of it was in the TV guide section. Isn't a State of the Union speech the most important speech of the year?
And something else, this is the paper that is supposedly the paper that at least makes an attempt to be 'fair and balanced'. The other paper in Madison, The Capital Times, can be considered to be just a 'Marxist rag'. They make no effort to conceal their intent.
Here is one more little item that gets my goat just a little, unemployment has dropped to a four year low, 4.7%, and the only place that it is mentioned is on the last page of the financial section, at the bottom, in one short paragraph. This major good news for the country.
Also, one of the major indicators that predicts future health in the economy is the purchase of capital goods, that is machines and heavy equipment, was ahead of expectations. This, of course, wasn't mentioned at all - Why hold back good news? Biased just a little maybe?
Why is it that most everything that you read these days, in the news paper, are only items that fits someone's agenda, and not the truth - Aren't news papers supposed to be sources of information? What good are they if they aren't believable? Go figure!
Anyway - let's go watch the Super Bowel and enjoy the rest of the day.
Case in point, the day before the Presidents speech and the day of the speech, the morning paper in Madison, Wisconsin, The Wisconsin State Journal, did not have a single reference to the speech. The only place that had any mention of it was in the TV guide section. Isn't a State of the Union speech the most important speech of the year?
And something else, this is the paper that is supposedly the paper that at least makes an attempt to be 'fair and balanced'. The other paper in Madison, The Capital Times, can be considered to be just a 'Marxist rag'. They make no effort to conceal their intent.
Here is one more little item that gets my goat just a little, unemployment has dropped to a four year low, 4.7%, and the only place that it is mentioned is on the last page of the financial section, at the bottom, in one short paragraph. This major good news for the country.
Also, one of the major indicators that predicts future health in the economy is the purchase of capital goods, that is machines and heavy equipment, was ahead of expectations. This, of course, wasn't mentioned at all - Why hold back good news? Biased just a little maybe?
Why is it that most everything that you read these days, in the news paper, are only items that fits someone's agenda, and not the truth - Aren't news papers supposed to be sources of information? What good are they if they aren't believable? Go figure!
Anyway - let's go watch the Super Bowel and enjoy the rest of the day.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
The Saturn 5
While I was sorting through some pictures that I took some years ago down in Florida at the Kennedy Space Center, I ran across this shot of the business end of the Saturn 5. What a magnificent piece of genius.This picture is nice but to see it up close is absolutely fantastic. Of course, it helps that I love this kind of stuff anyway, and having some background education of what it takes to build even the most basic machine to perform a task, this was breath-taking to say the least.
The Saturn 5 was considered to be the Eighth Wonder of the World. It reportedly had only a 2% system failure rate. Given that there are thousands of systems on this monster, and that they all have to perform their tasks perfectly and at the right time under tremendous pressures, is almost beyond my comprehension.
What a fantastic country that we live in! I couldn't be more proud of what we have accomplished over the last 250 years. I wonder what the next 250 will bring?
Friday, February 03, 2006
Iraq On The Move - (slowly but surely)
If you're tired of the same old rehash of the Iraqi conflict from the lame stream media, this account will give you a different view point.
It is a little long but packed with first hand observations and contracts with the troops and the Iraqi people. This kind of information is a must if you want to understand both sides of the debate.
http://www.taemag.org/issues/articleID.18977/article_detail.asp
It is a little long but packed with first hand observations and contracts with the troops and the Iraqi people. This kind of information is a must if you want to understand both sides of the debate.
http://www.taemag.org/issues/articleID.18977/article_detail.asp
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Happy In America
For all of the carping that's been going on in the media about how bad off everybody is, a new poll out today found 85% of participants said that they were happy to be in America.
Of course, this could take in a lot of people with different motivations for being glade they are in America.
How about the Neo-Communist left war protester that just loves this country because they can call for the destruction of the government and condemn the entire population as sheep in the grip of a fascists butcher and mass murderer, George Bush, the President of the United States, and get away with it. In almost any other country, they would be shot for treason. I would like to see them go to Venezuela and call Hugo Chavez a mass murderer and communist thug. What do you think would happen? What a country!
How about the editors and reporters that make up the main stream media. What a great country we live in with it freedom of the press guaranteed by a rock solid rule of law. This rule of law allows the media to tell any story that they want to, no matter how untrue and destructive to the country. This law protects them, for the most part, from prosecution for aiding and abetting the enemy when this country is at war. They know exactly what they are doing and expect to get away with it. What a country!
How about our leaders in congress. They stand up in front of the world on the floor of the Senate, and proclaim all sorts of indignation about how the president of the United States has the audacity to want to destroy an enemy that has just murdered 3000 of our citizens just because they hate us and our freedom.
Where else, but this country, could a member of congress lie bold face about who he is and what he has accomplished, conduct secret negotiations of surrender with the enemy while we are at war, lie about war atrocities that never happened, lie about his accomplishments while serving in the military, and then run for President of the United States and almost win. What a country!
We have it made in this country. We have freedom of religion, speech, assembly and many others that we take for granted everyday of the week. We have everything that we need to sustain us in a life style that is matched in no other part of the world. What a country!!
This is from a Janis Joplin song, Bobbie McGee "- - freedom means having nothing else to lose"
Of course, this could take in a lot of people with different motivations for being glade they are in America.
How about the Neo-Communist left war protester that just loves this country because they can call for the destruction of the government and condemn the entire population as sheep in the grip of a fascists butcher and mass murderer, George Bush, the President of the United States, and get away with it. In almost any other country, they would be shot for treason. I would like to see them go to Venezuela and call Hugo Chavez a mass murderer and communist thug. What do you think would happen? What a country!
How about the editors and reporters that make up the main stream media. What a great country we live in with it freedom of the press guaranteed by a rock solid rule of law. This rule of law allows the media to tell any story that they want to, no matter how untrue and destructive to the country. This law protects them, for the most part, from prosecution for aiding and abetting the enemy when this country is at war. They know exactly what they are doing and expect to get away with it. What a country!
How about our leaders in congress. They stand up in front of the world on the floor of the Senate, and proclaim all sorts of indignation about how the president of the United States has the audacity to want to destroy an enemy that has just murdered 3000 of our citizens just because they hate us and our freedom.
Where else, but this country, could a member of congress lie bold face about who he is and what he has accomplished, conduct secret negotiations of surrender with the enemy while we are at war, lie about war atrocities that never happened, lie about his accomplishments while serving in the military, and then run for President of the United States and almost win. What a country!
We have it made in this country. We have freedom of religion, speech, assembly and many others that we take for granted everyday of the week. We have everything that we need to sustain us in a life style that is matched in no other part of the world. What a country!!
This is from a Janis Joplin song, Bobbie McGee "- - freedom means having nothing else to lose"
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
State of the Union is Good!
If you watched the run-up to the State of the Union address last night, one would think that George Bush hasn't a friend in the world - everyone in this country is unhappy with there lives because everything in this country is going bad. If it isn't the economy, it's health care or education or immigration or the war in Iraq.
But isn't it strange that the consumer confidence rating is higher in January of the this year than in the past 31/2 years. Unemployment is at an level not seen since the seventies,4.9%. Fuel prices don't seem to even register with a majority of people as anyone can witness by traveling on the interstate, they are packed. People that smoke are still buying cigarettes at over $3 a pack. The Bars are still over flowing and restaurants are being built faster than gas stations.
What struck me, though, was the reaction of the liberal left in the chamber to all of the major points that the President made. Here are a few of the programs that the Democrats don't care about. They watched, for the most part, unsmiling and fearful.
Social Security; the Democrats gave the President a standing ovation when he said that his attempt to reform social security failed. The left in this country is glade that the system will collapse on our collective heads in another twenty years.
The Patriot Act; the Democrats sat on their hands when the President challenged the chamber to renew the act. Here the Democrats don't care about security of this country. It isn't in their best interests to vote for anything that will help the president or the country avoid another attack. They want it to happen because they can use it against the President.
The War on Terror; when the president mention the NSA intercepts and that he had congressional authority to protect this country, the Democrats sat on the their hands and defied the world to make them show any emotion for their county.
Tax Cuts made permanent; the Democrats sat on their hands and looked like they just lost future deposits in their Swiss bank accounts. They want your money more than you do!
In the end, the Democrats complete lack of commitment to this country and what it stands for will not be lost on the general public. The question that every one will have to ask themselves is "how is it possible that the liberals can hate everything the President does no matter how successful it may be. They have to hate Christians. They have to hate freedom and democracy. They have no choice then but to hate America.
What is their plan for the future? What is their plan for the present that is so much better than what President Bush is doing? Can the Democrats subsist completely on hate?
But isn't it strange that the consumer confidence rating is higher in January of the this year than in the past 31/2 years. Unemployment is at an level not seen since the seventies,4.9%. Fuel prices don't seem to even register with a majority of people as anyone can witness by traveling on the interstate, they are packed. People that smoke are still buying cigarettes at over $3 a pack. The Bars are still over flowing and restaurants are being built faster than gas stations.
But ask most Democrats and they will tell you everything is going to hell as they close the door of their $600,000 mansion in your face. They deny the present and claim there is no future.
I believe the President gave a great speech. Forceful and to the point. There was a little drop-off near the end, but for the most part, it spoke to the majority of the American people.What struck me, though, was the reaction of the liberal left in the chamber to all of the major points that the President made. Here are a few of the programs that the Democrats don't care about. They watched, for the most part, unsmiling and fearful.
Social Security; the Democrats gave the President a standing ovation when he said that his attempt to reform social security failed. The left in this country is glade that the system will collapse on our collective heads in another twenty years.
The Patriot Act; the Democrats sat on their hands when the President challenged the chamber to renew the act. Here the Democrats don't care about security of this country. It isn't in their best interests to vote for anything that will help the president or the country avoid another attack. They want it to happen because they can use it against the President.
The War on Terror; when the president mention the NSA intercepts and that he had congressional authority to protect this country, the Democrats sat on the their hands and defied the world to make them show any emotion for their county.
Tax Cuts made permanent; the Democrats sat on their hands and looked like they just lost future deposits in their Swiss bank accounts. They want your money more than you do!
In the end, the Democrats complete lack of commitment to this country and what it stands for will not be lost on the general public. The question that every one will have to ask themselves is "how is it possible that the liberals can hate everything the President does no matter how successful it may be. They have to hate Christians. They have to hate freedom and democracy. They have no choice then but to hate America.
What is their plan for the future? What is their plan for the present that is so much better than what President Bush is doing? Can the Democrats subsist completely on hate?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
