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.
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.
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 one 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.
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 one 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)