Tuesday, April 22, 2008

It Ain't What I've Been Told

A fascinating letter to the editor appeared in this morning's local paper.

Saturday over a cup of coffee, an Investor's Business Daily editorial caught my eye.

All that I have read in most newspapers and heard on TV and radio is that President Bush has cost us our respect, and allies and our global standing has gone to pot.

"But a look at U.S. ties shows Bush to be a master diplomat who is strengthening U.S. relations all over."

Prime Minister Gordon Brown says "the world owes President Bush a debt of gratitude in leading the world in our determination to root out terrorism." I had read that when Brown came to power, our relations with Great Britain would go down the tubes.

How about President Sarkozy in France, Prime Minister Berlusconi in Italy, even Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany? They are all Bush fans. So are the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Canada. Add Estonia, Poland and the Czech Republic, Romania, and Albania.

Tens of thousands cheered him in Africa. Then there are the Asian countries, the Arab states of Morocco, Jordan and Bahrain, plus India, Brazil, Chile. Even Russia and China still talk.

Of course our Democratic Congress is trying not to vote for free trade in Columbia so they will turn against us.

My question to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama and the liberal media is who is left that our president is alienating? Perhaps a few anti-American dictators! Who else?

Seems to me President Bush has done an outstanding job creating friendships by attacking terror, supporting democracy and promoting free trade.

James A. Wagner
Barrington


I haven't seen that issue of IBD, so I'll have to assume that the list is lifted from the editorial he cited. I'm sure that there are pockets of Bush bashers in each of those countries on the list. I mean, we've seen protests on the news in the past. And I doubt we're the only country with those who see only what they want to see. Also, none of this means Bush is now the best prez ever. In addition, it doesn't change the fact that world opinion, even good opinions, should NOT dictate to us our path. Perhaps I'll try to find the editorial in question. It might be online. I'd like to see it for myself. In any case, it's refreshing to hear what is likely a more reasoned observation than we are accustomed to hearing from naysayers in this country. I never bought the "world opinion" hype anyway.

UPDATE:

Note that I've corrected a point to better reflect my meaning. It's where I've italicized the word "NOT". Without that word, the entire meaning is wrong and would make me appear to be a liberal weenie. That would be unfortunate.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

The Cost Of War

This Larry Kudlow piece touches on one aspect of a point I've always tried to make in discussions regarding the justifications for the war in Iraq specifically and the war on terror in general. Here, he focusses on the literal cost of the war, that is, the moolah. I thought it was a good point to make to those who believe that the money spent in Iraq is a major factor in whatever economic woes the left believes have now befallen us. Yet, as Kudlow points out, the cost is quite minimal. Even in our current situation, our economy is still strong. Right now we're experiencing a mere hiccup in the grand scheme of things. Elect the wrong candidate (that being Hillary or Barry) and we're likely to go from hiccup to coughing up blood. (Yes. With Barry's notion of taxation, it can get that bad. Hill's no better.)

But I, like many, am also concerned about the costs in terms of lives lost or negatively altered due to injury. This, however, to the chagrin of the Bush-bashers and other lefties unable to see clearly, is still, by any standard applied, far lower than anyone could have predicted. And the unfortunate numbers of lost and injured are higher than they likely would normally be were it not for our compassionate regard for collateral damage. This reduces the lefty argument to "any life lost is too many". And I agree. The three thousand lost on 9/11 was definitely too many. The lives lost in the first WTC attack was too many. The life of Leon Klinghoffer was too many.

So the question to the lefties is this: What's it worth to you to insure that we lose no more, that this evil is put down and made impotent, that those under the yoke of Islamofascism have at least some of the benefits we enjoy, including the benefit of being able to defend themselves against oppressive scumbags like Hussein, the Taliban, and others like them?

Where's The Tolerance Here?

I need a little help with this one please. Is there anyone who can explain how the desires of these lesbians trumps the Constitutional rights of the photographers they sued? Anyone? This is absolutely unAmerican in the most basic sense! There is no way that anyone is obliged to do business with anyone wishing to celebrate their sexual deviancy. We have the right of free association. That means we can refuse to associate with anyone as much as associate with anyone. And the fact that what was asked of the photographers conflicts with their religious beliefs, this story is just another example of the downsides that 2% of the population intends to force upon the nation. I have no doubt that these sorry individuals could have easily found a photographer of lesser conscience to commemorate their so-called "special day". They were simply out to demonize Christians who were unwilling to ignore God's Will in favor of theirs. We need to pray for lost souls such as these while also standing against the insanity of their selfish and wicked agenda.

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Repurcussions

This piece from AmericanThinker.com shows how bad policy, paricularly liberal policy, such as Roe v Wade, can and does easily morph into far more regrettable situations. All the more reason to reverse that pathetic and immoral decision A.S.A.P. and cut the crap about when life begins and when one is a person. It's all subterfuge anyway.

And Speaking Of Morons...

...is Jimma gonna launch a few missles from Gaza as part of his suck-up-to-Hamas tour? He honored a dead terrorist, he honors the living terrorists. This guy needs to be in a home for the senile. He is an absolute national embarrassment. He makes me miss Billy Carter, who at this point seems to be the Carter that should have been running for prez instead of this buffoon Jimma. Jeez, what a moron!

People of Faith? Yeah. Right.

The title of this post is sure to rankle a few. I mean, how dare anyone question the faith of another, right? Well, it's not such a dangerous dare to which anyone should step up, particularly when deciding for whom one should cast a vote. Inspired by this AmericanThinker.com article, I find it laughable, as well as pathetic, that Dem candidates now seek to promote themselves as people of faith. This is in response to the success the GOP has had in attracting the religious voter to their ranks. That it is an obvious ploy to win an election is not lost on those of us on the right. That some on the left pretend it's sincere is no surprise.

Let's be honest, here. The possibility that the Republicans have used faith for the exact same purpose is not unthinkable, nor can we assume it's improbable. Political strategists would shape their strategies to appeal to toe-nail chewers if they thought they formed a big enough voting block.

But personally, I can't say as I feel a ton of sincerity coming from the Dems as this type of pronouncement only came about since George W. Bush spoke of Christ as his favorite philosopher. Until then, the Christian voter was looked down upon. They were backward, superstitious knuckle-draggers with whom the average American held nothing in common. When it became apparent that they were the average American, the Dems scrambled to find ways of attracting them, of acting as if they were the same as them and speak the same language. The only one who actually kinda got away with this ploy was Jimma Carter. But he IS a moron, so he doesn't count.

Now the fun part is to put Barry and Hillary to the test and see how they can reconcile their positions with their supposed great faith. With Barry, we already have problems with his alleged faith. He not only is a member of one of the most liberal denominations around, a denomination with a very questionable interpretation of Scripture, but a member of a very Afro-centric congregation, one that puts allegiance to Africa above allegiance to the USA, and one that has an equally befuddled interpretation of Scripture if playing the victimhood game is any indication.

Anyway, as the linked article shows, they have both failed to reconcile their position on abortion with their faith. They barely acknowledge that the question is ever asked. Unless...unless one remembers that with the left, there are no absolutes, their is no knowledge of truth since it's in the eyes of the beholder, apparently, and that like the US Constitution, Scripture is a living, breathing and easily changable text where words have no specific meaning, and entire books within it are questioned for accuracy, infallibility or authority.

By the way, can we question how their religion will be forced down our throats as Bush was questioned himself? Will the White House be dictating according to their religion as it was feared of Bush? Oh yeah. I forgot. Only the left is capable of separating faith from public life. Yeah. Right.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

How Threatening Did He Have To Be?

This piece at AmericanThinker.com relates more about the Pentagon report regarding the links between Sadam Hussein and terrorist groups, including Al Queda. President Bush spoke of targeting any nation that supported terrorism. At the time, Sadam was very chummy with a variety of terrorist outfits. To say he supported them is now a grand understatement. It is inconceivable that anyone would look at Sadam as having been "contained" to an extent that would make our actions unwarranted. According to the linked small bit of info, it seems that our action was reasonable, to say the least, even two administrations previous, and certainly during Clinton's. All those Dems who insisted during the Clinton years that Hussein was a threat worthy of overthrow could have pretended they had real spine had they not flip-flopped after Nov. 2000. Unfortunately now they appear to have only been concerned with sounding tough. Can you imagine standing for a position in which you don't really believe for the purpose of political points only to find out that it was the correct position all along?

Saturday, April 12, 2008

New Blog To Peruse

I've added another blog to the list under "Right Ones" from a gent named Bob Weir. I first noticed Mr. Weir through essays he's written that appear in AmericanThinker.com. I've emailed him regarding some of his pieces I found particularly interesting to me, and he has now emailed me with the heads up regarding his blog. I like his insights and he writes well. I'll have to check out one of his novels one day soon. Give him a read.

Monday, April 07, 2008

I Don't Think It Means What You Think It Means

I've been hearing the word "prophet" used to describe the not-so-Rev. Wright. I find it disturbing. So does Dennis Prager. If you read his column at Townhall.com, you'll see yet another list of the abhorent statements made by this worrisome man of the soiled cloth. One is also encouraged by his abettors to listen to or read the text of the entire sermon wherein he spews the aforementioned "prophetic" statements.

No thanks. For the life of me I cannot see how context can smooth over the grainy surface of an outright lie. I do not wish to have my intelligence so insulted. I doubt such a review could possibly convince me.

But back to "prophet". According to Merriam Webster, we define the word thus:

"1: one who utters divinely inspired revelations: as often capitalized : the writer of one of the prophetic books of the Bible bcapitalized : one regarded by a group of followers as the final authoritative revealer of God's will
2: one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet
3: one who foretells future events : predictor
4: an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group
5: Christian Science a: a spiritual seer b: disappearance of material sense before the conscious facts of spiritual Truth"


From all I can tell, they have to mean definition #4. Shame on anyone who uses #1,2 or 3. Yet, by the many quotes offered by Prager in his piece, it seems that too many are indeed trying to compare Wright to something he is not.

Besides, for the average Jew or Christian, a prophet had direct communication from God, as one man would speak directly to another. And the communication from God would generally be, ah, prophetic, in that some future event would be foretold and then it would play out as advertised. So the use of the term as it is being applied to preachers like Wright can only mean either or both of two things:

a) A method of marketing whereby one hopes to encourage a belief by the listener of the "prophet's" infallibility.
b) A measure of a man's ego that he should view himself as a prophet.

I'm hoping it's #4, but the mere use of the word has to conjure thoughts of real prophets and therefor the use elevates the user to a higher level of regard, in the same class as the Biblical prophets. In any case, no matter which definition is meant by the use of the word, the fact that Wright blatantly lied from the pulpit makes him the sorriest prophet ever, and it speaks poorly of those who defend him. Whatever good he might have done throughout his ministry, such dangerous and damaging rhetoric stains it all.

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Allow Me To Vent

Tonight was bowling night. Crappy night but I maintained my average (206). I was meeting a friend afterwards but had about an hour and a half to kill, so I went to a Denny's near his crib and had a light meal, coffee and a few chapters of "Louise de la Valliere" by Dumas.

Now Denny's is a place where those who party go to get a meal late. You see them there at all hours. Heck, back in the day, it's where I went. So you know there's always some sit-down place to go where you've got a pretty good idea of what you'll get food quality-wise. But here's my question:

What's with all the losers who bring small children out so late? Now, this was only 9:30 PM, but when I left an hour later, they were still there. This one couple in particular got to me. The tramp, I mean, "woman", was the type that is not the hottest babe on the block, but the somewhat Goth look with the piercing in the middle of her lower lip didn't appeal to me personally. I put her older daughter at about 9 or 10 at the most, but definitely a kid of school age, though the younger one might not be in school yet. Hard to say. Her beau, with whom she swapped spit several times as if it was a cheap motel, had the current look, shaved head, noticable stubble, way too many tats. No doubt on the fast track to upper management. The kids, who appear to likely have had different fathers (though the smaller might have been his for all I know), seemed fairly well behaved, though the older on spoke loudly while seated two tables removed. At those ages, our kids were in bed by this time of night.

I just don't get it. Just why must these losers go out when those kids need to be asleep to be alert during class? I'm more than pleased that they decided not to kill the kids pre-birth. But jeez-Louise! have a little common sense! Eat a freakin' bag of chips if you're hungry! Try cooking! It just rankles me to no end the way kids are treated by some people. I've no reason to suspect they are otherwise abusive, but this sort of crap is abusive enough. Where's the structure? Good gosh it just pisses me off!

OK. I'm done now. Thank you.