Raving Conservative


Friday, September 30, 2005

Make Atheism a Federally Recognized Religion

Everybody! Write to your Senators to request that the federal government officially recognize Atheism as a religion! Here's why: Seperation of Church and State.

Think about it. Atheists are imposing their religious views on America by insisting that the public square only be allowed to have displays and use language that ignores God by citing Seperation of Church and State. However, if Atheism becomes a federally recognized religion then any court or legislative decision to ban religious expression and symbolism becomes government sponsorship of a religion - Atheism! So banning religious expression becomes a violation of Seperation of Church and State!

This will solve a whole lot problems regarding the current trend of the courts to restrict freedom of religious expression.

Welfare and Racism

What would you say if I told you that welfare is a racist and sexist program that is being used by liberals to keep minorities and women down and dependent on the Democratic Party? You would probably call me crazy, so before I make that assertion let me explain my way of thinking on this subject.

Let me begin by saying that the stated, and the actual original intention of welfare is to take care of people who cannot care for themselves financially. That is to make sure that single women with children do not end up on the streets, and that families who lose all income for an extended period of time to carry them through until they get back on their on feet. This is a good and noble ideal. It is a good way to use welfare to help people in a temporary situation. Take note that temporary job loss is covered by unemployment, the elderly have social security, and that disabled people get disability, neither of which is part of welfare.

The problem is that it gets used as a permanent solution to a lack of income, and is designed in such a way that unscrupulous individuals can abuse it for basically lifetime income. Couple this with a group of people who know they can develop a power base by convincing people that they need to be cared for by the government and you get an adder in your bed.

Before I say what’s coming next let me explain that I do not believe that the majority of welfare recipients are knowingly or consciously abusing the system or sponging off the government.
There are now at least two generations of Americans who have grown up believing that welfare is the solution to their financial woes. And why not? Even two parent households have trouble affording large broods of children. Single mothers have it even worse with the insane cost of daycare. Did you know that in a household with two working parents and three children that the cost of childcare is more than at least one parent’s income in most families? That means that if the parent with the lowest paycheck simply quit working that the family would be better off financially. On top of that the children would have the benefit of having a loving parent around at all times to raise them properly. Given this expense how can a normal single mom with two kids make it in the world without welfare? How can a poor family with five or more children make it on even one parent’s income? These ideas of helplessness have been ingrained into the consciousness of America, and they are just not true.

Also, there is an attitude that at least two generations have been trained into with the help of liberal educators in conjunction with liberal politicians and activists. That attitude is “My country owes me for X.” My poor education, my lack of opportunities, my great, great , great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents being slaves, take your pick, there as many excuses for why the government owes every one of us as our imaginations will allow.

The end result is that there are many people living on welfare who not only don’t need to, but are actually much worse off for it.

Every town and city has a rich area and a poor area. Let me get you in on a dirty little secret . . . welfare never got anybody into the rich part of town. Welfare has done a great job of keeping people in the poorest parts of town, and that is exactly where the liberals want them.

Consider this; the vast majority of people on welfare are minorities, and with race being a non-issue the largest group of people on welfare becomes women. Now if welfare is keeping minorities and women in the poorest neighborhoods that means that it’s actually a racist and sexist program that prevents minorities and women from bettering their own lives.

Everybody hits tough times at some point in their lives. Many people are forced to use welfare to get back on their feet after some tragedy or another. But the ones that eventually leave the poor part of town and get into the middle class or even the wealthy part of town are the ones who worked hard, got off welfare, and moved up in the world. This is why conservatives keep talking about giving people a hand up instead of a hand-out.

There are great ways to give people a hand up too. There are numerous free scholarships and grants for poor people seeking an education to community colleges, universities, and trade schools. The government offers low interest student loans to everybody. All that anyone needs to get these aids the ability to get into a school. College isn’t for everybody, that’s why trade schools are so great. In weeks, months, or a couple of years anyone can learn a trade that will earn them a high paying job. So educational opportunity is the first and most important thing people need to improve their quality of life, and we all have it.

Second, we need to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to get a great primary education. Give people the opportunity and most will take advantage of it. Some people waste that opportunity. Some people neglect their primary education so badly that they get out on their own without the ability to get a better education. It is my experience that these are the people who grow up expecting mom, pop, or Uncle Sam to take care of them because for some reason they are owed it. That’s okay. Anyone whose sole ambition in life is to be taken care of by the government should absolutely have that care given to them . . . while they are busy serving in the infantry. It doesn’t take an education to learn how to shoot a gun. And while they’re earning their keep maybe they’ll decide to take advantage of all the free educational opportunities the military offers so that when they eventually do get out they can get a good job and have a successful life.

Single moms present a special problem. I would never want any mother to be unable to care for her children, and I certainly don’t want any mother of any kind to risk seeing combat and getting killed. Think of the children, they deserve their momma and they deserve the opportunity to grow up and be successful. So I suggest free daycare for needy families with all parents in the workforce.

Childcare is really only needed until the children go to school. Once they are in school we have a wealth of opportunities for the betterment of the children until their parents get off work. They’re called after school programs. Sports, academic clubs, band, study hall, all available and all could be free until around five-o-clock when the parents get off work or get out of school themselves if they are in college or trade school. Studies have shown that children who are involved in after-school activities are less likely to get involved in gangs, have kids of their own while still in high school or even sooner, have higher self esteem, and are more successful in life. This would all require the law to be changed to allow one daycare provider to care for more than just five children. Allowing more children per care provider would lower the cost of childcare across the board by reducing overhead in the form of worker salaries.

Finally, some people are on welfare because they live in a factory town and the factory that employed eighty percent of the workforce has shut down. In the long run it really is cheaper to just relocate the people to a place where they will have opportunities. To facilitate this we already welfare homes in place in most large cities that people can stay in for a short period of time while they get settled into a new area, but what we don’t have is a way to get them there in the first place. Let’s move them there. Also, some people would be better served by moving to a small town with a low cost of living. Jobs are usually lower paying, but housing is usually so cheap it offsets the lower income. More research needs to be done in this department.

I have suggested some very viable and affordable alternatives to long term welfare. These are ideas that would help people better themselves and have a more successful life. Give them a leg-up to a better life, not a hand-out to keep them in check. But none of these will ever happen as long as liberals get their way. Liberal politicians depend on a large demographic of desperately poor people to maintain power for themselves. That way they can get votes by promising to give the poor better government aid and by accusing conservatives of trying to take away what is rightfully theirs.

The welfare system is one of the reasons that I have become convinced that the Democratic Party, the party of liberals, is as racist and sexist as the south was shortly after the civil war. When you decide to stand up to “The Man” for all he has done to keep you down, look to the liberals in our capitol, and bring the fight right to their doorstep. Vote conservative, change the world.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Forest Poem

Verdant forests spread as far as the eye can see
Like shimmering emeralds that glimmer brilliantly
The crown jewel of the Great Land
Planted by an unseen hand
Trees and moss and shrubs and flowers
Bloom and wind through bough and bower
Birds chirp and the wolf howls it's sorrow
Primeval sounds of yesterday and tomorrow
Streams wind through hill and glen
Through the woods into the fen
to pause awhile, and start again

I was inspired on walk today. Alaska has magnificent forests. Sorry the poem isn't better, I'm out of practice.

Tom Delay Indicted

How do you play dirty politics? This way.

“It was only months ago that Ronnie Earle attended a Democrat Party fundraiser in which he openly discussed an ongoing investigation in front of a room full of party activists, and then singled out and attacked a potential target of the investigation. Earle’s unapologetic politicization of the probe prompted the Houston Chronicle to opine that Earle’s behavior has ‘damaged the credibility of his investigation with a stunning display of prosecutorial impropriety."
NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds

When anyone starts talking about something they are doing to a room full of activists it usually means it is politically motivated. I'm not saying that Tom Delay shouldn't answer for it if he did in fact commit a crime. But the timing is awfully convenient for the Democrats since the midterm elections are coming up and they hope to discredit and defame as many top Republicans as they can in their desperate bid to try to regain power in Congress and the Senate.

Compare this to the way the Republicans gained power in the nineties. The Republicans pushed a tough agenda that did a lot of good for America, criticized any stupid move the Democrats made, (and the Democrats, complacent after fifty years in power, gave them plenty of ammo) and beat the streets to activate their voting base and recruit new voters. Hmm, Creating good policies, criticizing your opponents, and recruitment on one hand, and defamation by using filthy lawyer tricks on the other. I wonder who's tactics will earn my vote? I know! The sleazeballs, no, wait I mean the men with honor!

This is not new. Back in the presidential election of 1992 George H.W. Bush was 3 points ahead in the polls. Then a lawyer sympathetic to the Democrats issued a news release stating that he was going to indict the president on charges three days before the election. As a result Bill "I think with my penis" Clinton won the election by six points. Interestingly enough, if there hadn't been two strong conservative candidates running in that election this dirty trick still wouldn't have worked since conservatives got 57% of the vote between them. No charges were ever brought against the President.

If this stunt works or is percieved to have worked then Ronnie Earle will have earned himself a federal judgeship during the next Democratic Presidency, and that is all he really wants anyway.

Judge Roberts Confirmed!

Judge John Roberts is now Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts! This is a great victory for conservatives, and for liberals as well though they don't know it. I'll explain later.

The biggest surprise for me was the number of votes John Roberts recieved. I never thought he would get more than 70 votes because the Senate Democrats have made such a habit of opposing President Bush's nominees to the top judicial positions in the nation. The fact that he got 78 votes says to me that there are 8 more open minded Democrats in the Senate than I thought there was. What was not a surprise was the people who voted against him. Ted Kennedy has always been opposed to anyone he even suspects might be conservative and has spearheaded several successful efforts to stop people he thinks are too conservative from being confirmed to lifetime judicial appointments. Then there is the rest of the Psycho-Gaggle, Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, and John Kerry all voted no as well. How unsurprising.

Barak Obama was a bit of a surprise for me. After all of his rhetoric during and after his successful campaign to become a senator he spent a lot of time talking about geting past the partisanship. I had hoped that he meant all partisanship, but apparently he only meant Republican partisanship. This is a dissappointment, but not totally unexpected. It seems like every Democrat who gets to the nation's Capitol falls in line with the Psycho-Gaggle. That is why, despite my fierce sense of independence, I became a Republican a few years ago (I was once an Independent) and cannot ever bring myself to vote for a Democrat in a national election. It seems like no matter what I think of the Republican candidate, and it's usually good, but occasionally bad, I cannot trust the Democratic candidate not to turn into a Ted Kennedy clone.

Judge Roberts confirmation as Chief Justice is a great victory for us all because he is a brilliant conservative judge. He is also restrained in his rulings and will not overturn past rulings just because he does not like them. This is good for conservatives because he will be a reliable ally on the courts when various Freedom of Religion cases come before the courts, as well when Eminent Domain comes back to the Supreme Court. In the last decade the Supreme Court has really overstepped its' bounds in these cases and we have an ally in the fixing. It is good for liberals because Chief Justice Roberts in unlikely to overturn precedent in other hot-button issues like abortion where there has been no clear violation of the Constitution from his viewpoint even though he disagrees with it (though I hope he does). As much as I would have liked a Scalia or Thomas clone I am exstatic with Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation, and you should be too.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Why Abortion is Unconstitutional

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . .”

These words penned by our founding fathers in the declaration of independence lay the basis for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are quoted many times by human rights activists in their attempts to legalize an ever broadening array of behaviors that are questionable at best. However, there is one behavior that these words, backed by good scientific research, absolutely forbid. That behavior is the act of aborting a human fetus.

Some of you reading this are already scoffing, but I will prove to you that what I am asserting is absolutely true and beyond any reasonable reproach.

Abortion rights activists say a lot of things that sound reasonable before you really look into them. “My body my business” is one of the most famous. Let’s say for a minute that I agree with this statement wholeheartedly and have no argument against it at all. There is still one problem. Genetic research has shown beyond all doubt that a human fetus is in fact not part of the mother’s body at all. To begin with, the fetus has a distinct genetic code that is separate from the mother’s, though part of it is derived from hers. This difference is so important that the placenta acts as a barrier against the mother’s immune system to prevent her own body from killing the fetus as if it were a bacterial infection. That’s right. The mother’s own body recognizes that the fetus is not part of her body. So, different genetic code, mother’s body wants to reject it, the fetus is therefore NOT her body at all, but an entirely different one.

Okay then, is the fetus in fact human? Abortion rights activists argue that the fetus is not human until it is born. Other than the fact that this is obviously a ridiculous statement, and the fact that some judges bought it is a magnificent failure in the legal system, there is also scientific evidence to negate this argument as well. Once again, genetics is the hero. Genetic research has shown that the DNA of the fetus is distinctly human from the moment of conception. DNA testing is legal proof of identity in court, and is used in all manner of cases from rape and murder to paternity. It establishes species and identity with irreproachable legality. This precedent therefore makes a human fetus legally human as well as genetically human. The unborn fetus is human.

Finally, is the fetus actually alive? Even this is also an obvious “yes” there are those, specifically abortion rights activists and abortion clinic workers of all kinds, who would argue otherwise. Let’s define a living cell the way research scientists do. A living cell is any cell which actively engages the processes of life. The basic processes are consumption and use of energy, creation and expulsion of waste, and reproduction. A living organism is an organism comprised of living cells. Given this definition, a human fetus is alive from the moment of conception, not birth. Stimulation research further backs this up. It has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that an unborn fetus reacts to sound and touch in the same way a birthed baby does. It has even been shown that a fetus can feel physical pain. This research not only shows physical life, but mental awareness as well. The fetus is alive.

So, I have established that a human fetus in fact a living human being. Now, in America all living human beings have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For a mother to abort this living human being, to kill it, is to deny this person the right to life specifically, but also the right to any liberty that human could have had, and all happiness that human could have pursued. To deny these basic rights to any human person in America is unconstitutional. Human rights activists have been saying this for years to try to put an end to the death penalty. But these same hypocrites claim it is a mother’s right to deny these rights to her unborn baby.

It is the job of the U.S. courts to uphold the constitution, and in the arena of abortion they have failed utterly. These babies are proven to be living human beings separate from their mothers, and that gives them the same basic rights as the rest of us. To deny them these rights is a crime, and if aborting the baby is the way it happens the crime is murder.

On a final note, there is solid legal precedence to support all of these assertions in court. I have already mentioned how DNA evidence is used to establish individual human identity, and to establish species identity in the courts. This gives precedence to declare an unborn fetus to be a human being that is separate, though attached to the mother. There is also a new law that has been upheld as constitutional that’s sets a legal precedence for fetal rights. The Laci Peterson law states that anyone who kills a pregnant woman is also guilty of killing the unborn baby. This constitutionally upheld law sets a legal precedence for declaring a human fetus to be a living human being. The science and the legal precedence that have been set lay a firm undeniable foundation for the courts to recognize what pro-lifers have known all along. That an unborn baby is just as alive, and just as human as you or I, and thereby protected by the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that our founding fathers established as the foundation of our own government.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

The No-God Religion

WARNING! There is a group of religious fanatics using legal action to force the entire country to act as though their religion is the only valid one! They are backed by wealthy donors who are equally fanatical in their religion and have been using judges sympathetic to their religion to force it down the rest of our throats despite Seperation of Church and State!

I'm writing of course, about athiests.

Religion is a set of beliefs regarding the spiritual realm that guides our actions. The biggest religions in the world are Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, Hinduism, and Atheism. Each one has it's own lore about God and the origin of life and the universe. Each one has followers who are so fanatical they will do everything in their power to force their religion down other people's throats or to stifle other religions. Only one is currently being openly sanctioned by any branch of the U.S. government.

Atheism, the religion of the nonexistence of God and all things spiritual is running through the courts demanding that all public expressions of other faiths be removed from the public square. By removing all expressions of faith we are left only with the spiritually sterile, which is the core of Atheism. By this logic forcing all religion out of public life and the government is actually the government sponsoring the religion of Atheism. I do believe this violates Seperation of Church and State.

The only way to assure that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", as the first sentence of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states, is to allow the free expression of all religions as the people see fit. The courts should not tell us what symbols we can use on our public monuments. The Courts should not declare certain statements in national codes like the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional violations of Seperation of Church and State. Doing so violates the First Amendment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the court system supposed to protect the Constitution, not violate it in a gross and obscene manner?

These religious fanatics have ben convincing sympathetic judges that their cause is just and correct. More dishonestly they have convinced sympathetic judges that thier Religion of No-God is not actually a religion. It is my personal opinion that every court decision that restricts the free expression of religion in private life, public life, and government is sposoring the Atheist religion and violates the First Amendment. Religious icons, sayings, slogans, and expressions are perfectly Constitutional, laws regarding the use of such expressions of faith are UnConstitutional. It's time every court decision regarding expressions of faith was thrown out so we can all enjoy the freedoms the Constitution is supposed to guarantee us.

ANWR Oil Drilling

It's interesting how activists can keep people in the dark about basic facts when they are against something that actually makes sense to do. I was at a museum in Temecula California today and when one of the volunteer workers there found out I was from Alaska she asked me what Alaskans thought of the ANWR oil exploration project. I told her that almost everybody in Alaska approved of it, explained the economic impact for Alaska, and asked if she wanted to know anything else about it. She then asked about what Alaskans thought of the environmental impact of drilling for oil in ANWR and expressed the same concerns that the know-nothing environmental activists have been screaming ever since the project was suggested.

Here's what I explained to her:

First: The section of ANWR that is being explored for oil is tiny. To give you a sense of scale it is about the size of this symbol * as compared to your monitor. ANWR is vast, bigger than all of Texas, and drilling in such a puny portion of it will not destroy the reserve.

Second: The caribou herds and other wildlife will not be harmed by the drilling or the resulting pipelne. History has shown that wildlife actually increases around pipelines in Alaska. History has shown that pipelines do not interfere with the various migrations in Alaska. There will be no negative impact of building more oil and natural gas pipelines in Alaska.

Third: Alaskans understand the damage a major oil spill can cause, and it is why we are so careful to scrupulously maintan the oil pipeline we already have. It is highly unlikely there will be any major spills from the pipeline or the oil rigs themselves.

Fourth: The same knuckleheads opposing the oil exploration project also demand we develop alternative energy sources, but turn around and oppose the alternative energy sources we develop. Case and point: A smorgasboard of Massachussetts Democrats who complain about the burning of fossil fuels and and oil exploration have decided to oppose the building of offshore windmills, not based on any scientific evidence, but because they worry that such a windmill farm will ruin their view of the ocean from the Hamptons. They claim that a windmill farm will disrupt whale and fish migrations, disrupt shipping, etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The deep ocean is like a vast desert where very little actually lives as compared to the shallower coastal areas and the continental shelf. Oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico have become artificial reefs were life flourishes where once there was very little, providing a boon the Gulf ecosystem. Offshore windmill farms in Europe are proving to be the same. The windmills are placed far apart so as not to disrupt shipping lanes or provide choke points for whale and fish migrations. The fact is that hese windmill farms provide clean, renewable energy while creating a reef where life blooms and flourishes without disruption of anything. They are also built far out at sea where the visual impact is minimized.

The people who oppose such a wonderful, clean, renewable energy source that enhances rather than damages the environment are the same ones who oppose drilling in ANWR. These people are cretins who care less about the environment than they do about themselves and their own selfish desires. They oppose good things simply because they don't like the people who support them. In other words, they are playing politics with our environment, our economy, and our lives. If you don't like this then vote them out of office. You can also remember to vote for me when I run for president in about twenty years. Unlike certain morons, I actually listen to the scientists, not the activists, and you should vote for other people who do the same. You'll find the right thing gets done far more often that way.

About the lady I was spreaking to, she is one of those wonderful people who has an open mind and is willing to listen to facts when she hears them. She now thinks drilling for oil in ANWR is a wonderful thing that will help the economy in America, and in Alaska in particular. She now understands the actual environmental impact and believes everything will be okay. And you know what? She's right.

Monday, September 26, 2005

Gun Control, Alaska Style

I love Alaska! The concealed carry law is, get this, pack heat if you want to! Just keep it out of bars, government buildings, and any private establishment with posted "No Firearms" signs. That's right, in Alaska anyone of legal age to own a gun can carry it concealed on their person without restriction.

In Alaska people don't like gun control laws very much, but there is still a difference between the liberals and the conservatives on this point. The liberals carry .357's or smaller, and the conservatives carry .44's and bigger. Welcome to the Last Frontier!

There are those who would think that a bunch of unregulated people packing heat at random would encourage violent crime, but that is not so. Alaska has a very low rate of violent crime, an even lower instance of violent crime with guns, and is remarkably safe overall. There is one common thread to violent crime in Alaska though, whether it involves guns or not, and that is alcohol. Alcohol, far more than guns contributes to violent crime with and without guns in Alaska.

How can this be? Put simply, if you don't know who's packing then neither do the criminals. Who is a criminal more likely to victimize, someone who is almost assuredly not armed, or someone who may very well be armed? I submit that it is the former! that is why states that allow people to carry concealed weapons are safer than states that do not.

There is a fundamental problem with concealed carry laws. Criminals do not respect the law, therefore they do not respect concealed carry laws, gun control laws, or any other law designed to prevent criminal activity. We can only punish these vile people as severely as the Constitution allows for the health and safety of honest citezens. Honest citezens will obey laws that restrict their freedoms even if they disagree with them, criminals couldn't care less.

When any legislature is considering a law they should consider the effect it will have on decent, honest folk, as compared to how it will affect criminals. If it sounds like a good idea but, after careful analysis, seems to benefit crooks then it should be discarded. Most gun control laws do just this. I offer Alaska up as proof that allowing people to carry concealed weapons actually restricts volent crime. At the same time I do believe it is a very good idea that people who want to carry weapons should take a gun safety class that also teaches them what the laws surrounding weapons are in their area. I think hunter's safety courses save lives. It is responsible to teach people how to be responsible with their freedoms, but it is irresponsible to take those freedoms away in a futile attempt to stop crooks from being crooks.

Helping Persecuted Jews

Did you know that in many countries Jews are a persecuted people? In these countries not only do non-jews commit various atrocities against Jews, but many times the government or religious establishment in the area sanctions such acts. Persecution of Jews is especially bad in areas with large Muslim populations like the Middle East, the former Soviet states, and the Balkans. It is one reason why so many Jews are returning to Israel from all over the world, but not everyone can do it on his or her own.

To this end you should know that there are many charitible organizations helping afflicted Jews return to the Holy Land. These organizations are both Christian and Jewish. They use their resources to get Jews out of countries where they are persecuted and bring them to Israel. It is a noble and expensive endeavor, and in some places it is a risky one, but these loving people and their donors are doing a good work for God's Chosen People. The following is a list of websites for organizations doing this work, as well as others who offer aid to Jews remaining in those areas, I encourage you to check them out.


If you know of others please let me know and I will post their websites in this article.

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Charity Vrs. Welfare

Now would be a good time to discuss the how wonderful charity is, and how damaging welfare can be if mismanaged. Before you write this posting off as anti-welfare I want you to know that I do believe it has it's place, but also that it is much smaller than the role it currrently serves. I will post my thoughts on how to build a better, cheaper welfare system that actually helps people escape poverty rather trapping them in it later.

Charity is a wonderful thing. As an evangelical Christian I believe the fortunate are called to help the less fortunate. Jesus Christ himself said we should care for the poor, the sick, the eldrly, widows, and orphans. So I consider it my most pleasurable God-given duty to give generously to those in need. It is right to buy a meal for a beggar, or to give him clothing, or a warm blanket. It is right to give money to a good charity to help people who need help. It is right to take a scared young pregnant girl whose parents have kicked her out for getting pregnant into your home for her own safety and health as well as her unborn child's. Personal charity has direct and often lasting effects on those who recieve it, and it should be given freely by all. We are almost all blessed enough to give here in America.

Welfare on the other hand, at least the way it is currently being used sems to promote broken families, fatherless children, and a continuing chain of poverty. It's one thin for the government to step in with financial aid when, say, a housewife with five children loses her husband in a horrible accident, he wasn't insured, she has no job skills, and daycare would cost more than she could make anyway. She will need some very specific, possibly long-term help to keep her family fed, sheltered, and clothed. I am happy to have some of my tax dollars go to such a cause. But an able-bodied person who can work but chooses not to should not be paid to be an unproductive member of society. Those who can work should work, those who can't deserve care! And the impersonal manner in which it is given, and the expectation of getting it is wrong too. One final sin of the welfare system is that so much money is wated in failed oversights, a bloated beaurocracy, and the list goes on. Welfare doesn't need reform, it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up into an entirely new entity.

Tax dollars paying people to be lazy is not charity, and it is not a noble cause. The billions going into hurricaine relief right now, that's charity. The private donations to charitable organizations is charit. Personal action to help other people is the noblest form of charity. The difference isn't just where the money, goods, or time goes, it's also the personal touch, the private sacrifice willingly made that changes the spirit of what is given from entitlement to charity that seeks to make charitible contributions go farther and work better than welfare systems.

Truth be told, if I wasn't such a softie I would be calling for the eradication of welfare entirely, but my charitible nature sees that it can be used as an instrument for good, for true charty if it is used right. Besides, as I already said, I love charity. It is one of the ways we can show love for complete strangers as well as people we know. So do your part, when you see a need and you can fill it then do so. It is individuals doing the right thing together that changes the world for the better.

Saturday, September 24, 2005

Hurricaine Rita Fizzles

CLASS 5 HURRICAINE DEVASTATES TEXAS AND LOUISIANA! If you have been paying attention to the news this is the headline you were expecting a few days ago. Yet, evan as it became apparent that this would not be the case as hurricaine Rita slowed to a class 4, then a class 3 storm, the newspeople would not relent in their predictions of possible disaster and perhaps even another major city being destroyed.

Give me a break. We get class 3 hurricaines all the time. Even New Orleans would have been fine if Katrina had only been a class 3. However, the media chose to ride the wave of concern following the devastation of New Orleans and promote Rita as the next major disaster. This was ghoulish, but plausible as long as Rita was a class 5, heck it was a powerful class 5 at that, but once all that power fizzled out and it started to get weaker fast the responsible thing would have been to treat it like any normal huricaine. Of course there was no way that would happen. Sensationalizing the normal makes news, and news is ratings. Besides, the major news organizations had so much invested in this "devastating storm" that couldn't afford to back off.

This happens with every hurricaine. The fact is that most of these storms don't devastate anything, though they are destructive. Personally, I don't think anything below a class 4 hurricaine needs to be the primary story of the week, or two weeks on the national level. There is so much going on that important stuff gets ignored in favor of telling Alaskans, Mainers, Oregonians, and other people in such places hurricaines don't hit all about a storm in the Gulf of Mexico. However, to be fair, I must acknowledge that there is a giant segment of the American populaton in the area that hurricaines do hit, and they are very interested in these storms. So, naturally, the local news is all over these storms, and the national news covers them because it is these people who are riveted to their television screens, in other words, ratings, duh!

Truth be told, I ususally don't bother with much news during a hurricaine week. I catch just enough to know how strong it is and where it's going. I don't loose any news this way either. Hurricaine weeks are lost weeks for television news. Thank God for newpapers, magazines, and the internet.

I don't want to minimize any hurricaine. I just think it's important to acknowledge the fact that they happen regularly and that the areas they affect are usually designed to withstand them, so all but the most powerful hurricaines should have a minimum impact on the areas they hit. There will be damage, and people may die, and this is sad. But it is not a national disaster. The destruction of New Orleans is a disaster. Hurricaine Andrew was a disaster. The 9/11 attacks were a disater. Pearl Harbor was a disaster. Hurricaine Rita was hyped up as a disaster, then turned out to be, well, not a disaster. Yet, even as it became more and more apparrent that Rita would not be the devastating storm it was predicted to be the news people just had to behave as if it was a cloud of nukes descending upon some poor city that was bound to be crushed under waves and flooded out by the rains. Come on, feeding panic never helped anyone, don't do it unless it really needs to be done.

Friday, September 23, 2005

Actor's Opinions Don't Matter Much

Goodness where to start on this one. How about with a personal story?

I took an acting class in college (University of Colorado at Colorado Springs)against my father's advice. He warned me that the type of people I would encpounter there would be on the edge of sanity and be extremely judgemental. I thought he was just being closed-minded, and boy was I wrong. Not only did half the class seem to be on anti-psychotics, they were a close-knit bunch of ultra liberal loonies who taught me to dislike artsy-fartsy folks with a passion. Here's how it all came to a head:

One of our assignments was to write a monologue and then choose an excerpt from that monologue to perform in class. I wrote my monologue, and got a great grade for it. It was a story about a young man taking revenge on a gang that murdered his girlfriend, and it ended with a shootout. It was good, I am a talented fiction writer with a lot of imagination. The problem came when it became time to perform it.

I chose the ending, the shootout as my performance piece. We were encouraged to bring small props if they were appropriate. I had a realistic looking BB pistol, the kind that only takes one pump and can't even penetrate the skin if a dart is fired from it, and I chose that as my prop. Big mistake. Despite showing everyone exactly what it was so they would know it was not real and it was not loaded, going so foolishly far as to point it at myself and fire it for their benefit, there were some people in the class who apparently felt threatened. I never did get to perform my monologue that day. I wound up leaving the class early and vowing to drop it after getting into an argument with someone(not related to the toy gun). I was fed up by then anyway.

I wound up being arrested for illegal posession of a deadly weapon, meanacing, and unlawful conduct, all for trying to excell in my acting class. It was near Valentines Day, and some of the people who I will identify only by their mental disorders, Bipolar, Schiztophrenic, and Psychotic went to the teacher with paranoid delusions about something called the Valentines Day Massacre, which I had never heard of at the time. They said they were afraid I was going to take my toy gun and shoot everyone in the class dead. I would laugh at the absolute absurdity of this if it weren't for the fact that the police actually took them seriously, rather they took the professor seriously, the students complained to her, and she called the police so they wouldn't drop her class, which they threatened to do.

Thousands of dollars later I ran out of money for my lawyer and plea bargained the charges down to unlawful conduct, left for California, and joined the Army.

These people are "normal" actor types. Since actors are this loony, this insane and depraved, I cannot put much stock in what most of them say. Maybe if they had the genius to actually create art like a writer or a painter I could take them more seriously. But being nothing more than puppets whose strings are pulled by writers and directors I just can't take what they say seriously at all. The best actors are devoid of personality, empty jars who the director can fill with the person he wants them to portray. So while I may admire the plays and movies they play in, I just want them to keep their mouths shut and do what their told like a good puppet. I don't care about their opinions because they probably belong to someone else anyway. Or, if they are their own, they are the product of a twisted mind.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005


It has come to my attention that there are some people who want to call me a racist because of two of my previous postings: The Race Card, and More on the Race Card. How nice. See, there are other people who accuse me of being a (expletive deleted) lover. Why, you ask? I may be white, but my lovely wife is black. So the black supremicts hate me for being white, and the white supremists hate me for being married to a black woman. That's okay, I don't like racists of any color personally.

Grow up. It's not your grandaddy's world we live in anymore.

Huricaine Fat

Finally! Our elected officials are looking for ways to trim fat from the federal budget! Unfortunately it took wiping out an entire city with more now at risk to get them talking.

There's a financial principle that our leaders would be wise to heed. ALWAYS save at least ten percent of your income for emergencies. Had the government been doing this all along we would have had the money in savings to pay for the war in Iraq, and also to pay for the damage Katrina did. Of course, doing this involves actually exercizing some restraint. Financial restraint is not something politicians are good at.

Truth be told it's our own fault that that our elected officials don't exercise financial restraint. We reward them for sending pork barrel projects and the money that comes with them into our states and cities by reelecting them. We punish them for their failure to do so by replacing them. This makes us, the voters the hypocrites for demanding financial restraint from the government as a whole while demanding all the federal money we can get for ourselves from our local representatives. If we are going to get this beast under control we need to be willing to sacrifice for a while.

The spate of huge out-of-the-norm federal expenses over the last five and a half years should be a wake-up call to America that we need to control how our money gets spent more now than ever. We cannot not spend freely to help disaster victims. We cannot not fund a war if we want to win it. Therefore, we cannot spend every penny we get then borrow more when there is no war or disaster sucking up federal funds. To solve this problem I propose the following be put into federal law:

The federal spending budget may not exceed 90% of total revenues at any time. Starting immediately, 5% of revenues will be dedicated to paying back the national debt. All of the remainder shall be saved, only to be used to pay for local disaster relief and wars. Upon repayment of the national debt the funds dedicated to said effort shall be redirected into savings. All federal borrowing, exept as needed to pay for wars or disaster relief shall be frozen until such time as the national debt is paid off. Future borrowing may only be authorized to pay for wars or disaster relief once savings are depleted. Federal spending levels shall be frozen until such time as expenditures no longer exceed 90% of total income.

This will force the federal government to use what it has more wisely until the budget is balanced at 90% of income. This will force our elected officials to look for and eliminate corruption and waste in the beaurocracy. It will also force them to trim out much of the pork. I'm not completely anti-pork myself. Pork can be a real boost to local economies and a real help to state and local governments when things get tough. I just think that we have to keep it under control so it doesn't break the bank. Tell me, is it too much to ask to save the pork barrel for truly important projects and not waste money on frivolous items? I contend that it is not!

Unfortunately, what I have suggested here stands no chance at all of passing the Congress even if we did have a President that I believe would actually sign such a bill into law. We have learned much from the disasters we have faced, but we are not using these lessons to secure our future. I only pray that we wake up in time to act before it's too late.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Gay Bait

I was doing some reading, and I came across a statement so rude, callous, and vile it should make any American with any sense of decency angry that there are people out there who really think this way. ". . . even you've got to admit that fags trying to pretend they're straight is pretty funny." This makes my blood boil, not only by itself, but because of the context it was used in. I'll fill in the rest later in this article.

First I want to make sure you, dear reader, know exactly who said this. You might think it was somebody like Fred Phelps, the hatemonger who pickets the funerals of AIDS victims, or perhaps some other gay-hate group, but you would be wrong. This is a statement made by Will & Grace executive story editor Jon Kinnally, a gay activist. Yes, a gay man made this statement.

Here is the full story. A man named Mike Haley, a ex-gay saw an episode where ex-gays are mercillessly mocked and made out to be a bunch of fakes. He wrote a very respectful letter to Mr. Minnally requesting a meeting to discuss why the show Will & Grace would be so cruel to a group of people and to put a face on who they showed such hatred for. The following is Mr. Kinnally's full letter in response, as found on pp. 29-30 of The Homosexual Agenda by Alan Sears & Craig Osten.

Dear Mr. Haley
I recieved your letter dated June 9, and was very interested in your point of view. The issues you raised are the same ones that we on the Will & Grace writing staff debate on a daily basis. Our decision to present the story on the ex-gay ministry was solely in the interest of creating the most comedic episode possible. And it was certainly not our intention to offend you in any way. But come on, Mike, even you have to admit thta a bunch of fags trying to pretend their straight is pretty funny.
In response to your request for a meeting, well, I think I can read between the lines on that one. I'm about 6'1", brown hair, green eyes, and I'm into rollerblading, baking cookies, and cleaning up afterwards. My dislikes include game-playing, negative attitudes, and condoms.
If any of this interests you, I can be found every Sunday at the Brunch and Beer Bust at the Motherlode in West Hollywood. I do hope you show, because like you, I am an expert on Homosexuality, and in my opinion this "hard-to-get thing" you're playing is Hot, Hot, Hot!

Isn't it amzing that the very same people who demand tolerance of their choice of lifestyle feel absolutely no compulsion at all to respect anyone else? This guy can't be happy with mocking people who have escaped the homosexual lifestyle on television, he has to make a personal attack on just such a man who took the time to express his concerns about the way ex-gay were being treated by gays! Good God! Does the hypocrisy ever stop?

Let me say right now that I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle. I believe it is a choice, as proven by the simple fact that gay people have stopped being gay and that straight people have turned gay. The only black man I know of who has turned white is Michael Jackson! I know of no one else of any race who has become something other than what they were born as. I know of no men who have become women without radical mutilating sugery and loads of drugs, and the same goes for women who have become men. None of these transsexuals has been able to change the X or Y chromosome that still identifies them as male or female though. Genetics can't be radically changed, so if there were such a thing as a gay gene then there would be no ex-gays, and since it is biologically impossible to make a baby with someone of your own gender then the gay gene would have been bred out of humanity thousands of years ago at the very least, so there would be no homosexuals at all.

Still, people have the right to make their own choices, right or wrong, and must live with the consequences. Right decisions cause good to happen even if it can't be seen at first. Wrong decisions cause harm, even if it can't be seen at first. My sympathy for homosexuals is only because of the harm they are doing to themselves and the joy they are denying themselves by their choice. I do not sympathise with their activist cause, and am actually completely opposed to it. I am very willing to fight against a movement based on lies and hypocrisy. If you think I'm full of it, then don't take my word for it. Here are some references for you to check out yourself: The Homosexual Agenda by Alan Sears & Craig Osten. The report from the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography 1985-86. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. The Overhauling of Straight America by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (This is the original document where the gay agenda and the strategy for making it happen was laid out by the founders of the the movement themselves, enjoy!). After the Ball by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. and feel free to contact any ex-gay ministry, and yes gay activists and homosexual sympathisers bash every one of them without mercy. Here's the website for one such ministry http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/h-exgay.htm
And an ex-gay ministry hate site http://www.afsc-fan.org/dangers.htm
Enjoy your reading, prepare to be angered and disgusted, or perhaps just saddened. It depends on the amount of fire in your belly.

Monday, September 19, 2005

More on the Race Card

Apparently all it takes to be branded a racist by certain black leaders is to disagree with them or ask them to be responsible. I am talking specifically about Malik Zulu Shabazz, the leader of the New Black Panther Movementand member of the Nation od Islam. I had the priviledge of listening to him spout off a whole lot of hatred on the Sean Hannity show today, during which time this racist called Sean Hannity a racist for doing just as I have described. Let me elaborate.

This lunatic was spouting off Luis Farrakhan's absurd theory that the U.S. government blew up the levees to try to murder black folks. His only evidence was vague unsubstaniated claims of an insider in Washington (he refused to substantiate his own claims, always signal number one of a bald-faced lie), and a supposed twenty foot crater at the base of the levee that burst. Let's assume for a second that there is a crater since I know of no evidence supporting or denying this claim. Mr. Shabazz obviously needs a lesson in basic hydrodynamics and erosion. It is almost certain that a sudden onslaught of hundreds of thousands of tons of water slamming into and then coursing through a narrow passageway that wasn't there before would dig out a pretty big hole, or crater if you prefer. Water is the number one source of soil erosion, followed by wind. A sudden influx of water into an area that doesn't normally have that much will always erode large amounts of soil. You can learn this in any basic soils class, which he obviously has not taken.

This same man, when asked if he still believed what he had claimed in the past that Jews had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks responded that he has found no evidence to the contrary. No evidence to the contrary? Other than the fact that Jews died when the towers fell, there is also ZERO evidence to support the claim that Jews knew about the plot ahead of time. Yet this racist, anti-semite puke chooses to justify his hateful stance by saying no one has disproven his claims? What an (expletive deleted) (expletive deleted) who needs to (expletive deleted) then go (expletive deleted) and get out of our lives!

When Sean Hannnity called him on this and reminded Mr. Shabazz of his civic responsibilty as a leader to act responsibly and not make claims that could incite violence unless they are firmly grounded in fact, he actually had the cajones to call Sean Hannity a racist! Now this tactic may work with some sniveling liberal who hates himself for being white and wants to make it up to everyone else by badmouthing himself, but a strong man like Sean Hannity would not tolerate such an absurd and hateful claim. He defended himself by stating rightly that he has never made any racist remarks and called Mr. Shabazz out as an anti-semite who is a follower of notorious racist Luis Farrakhan. I offer the following as proof, posted on www.adl.org on July 19, 2004 .

"The New Black Panther Party attempted to disrupt a July 7 interfaith vigil organized by the Jewish Community Council of Greater Washington, local religious leaders and elected officials in Washington, D.C. New Black Panther National Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz shouted at demonstrators, who had gathered to protest ethnic cleansing in Sudan, “God condemns you. ... Nobody on the face of the earth wants to agree with you or unite with you. ... The Zionist has no right to open his mouth anywhere on the planet.”"

So not only is this man a racist anti-semite liar, he is also anti-Christian (Christians comprise the majority of Zionists in the world), and anti-first ammendment! This is what a civil rights leader is today? What happened to great men like the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.? Where are the sane peaceful dreamers and leaders today? I'll tell you where, they are right under your nose, but you wouldn't know it for all the medeia attention they don't get. For an example of what a true responsible black leader is and does I suggest you check out the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson. The contrst between this man and other more famous civic leaders will amaze you. Don't be surprised if most of what you find about the man from our "impartial" left-wing press is negative. A good conservative black leader has no place in their agenda and is free to be ridiculed in ways they wouldn't dare ridicule Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Luis Farrakhan, et al. I for one think he and others like him are exactly what America needs right now, and I am convinced the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. would agree with me.

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Fishing Alaska Vrs. Fishing California

I went on my first California charter fishing boat today, which is not to say that I went on went on my charter fishing boat ever, I do it all the time back home in Alaska. Being an environmentalist, a real one with a real education in environmental science, NOT some loony know-nothing activist, I took it as an opportunity to study the difference between the two places and see if I could determine is California's oversized population was having more of an impact on the fish populations than Alaska's tiny one. Only one problem with that plan, the boat I was on went down to Mexico. Still, since it was barely in Mexico I consider my obersavions to still be pertinent.

The first thing I noticed was that the fish were significantly smaller in California/Mexico. The rockfish that we were catching were the same and some similar species to the ones I catch in Alaska, but they were generally about one third of the size of the rockfish in Alaska. My first impulse was to use this as evidence that the southern rockfish were being overfished and were smaller due to depletion, but more careful analysis suggest this may not be true. Southern California and Mexico have significantly warmer water than Alaska does. People spend all dy playing in the water in the southern beaches, but people die of hypothermia after about four minutes in the water in Alaska. This is significant because there is a rule about the oceans that many people do not know. Warmer water has more biodiversity, but colder water has far more biomass. It is very possible that the only reason these southern rockfish are so much smaller than the Alaskan ones is because they don't get nearly as much food. Arctic seas are positively brimming with fish, sea birds, and oceanic mammals. Temperate and tropical seas have more variety and more colorful fish, but there are naturally far less of them. It must also be noted that for a small population, Alaskans harvest an incredible amount of fish every year both commercially and recreationally, as well as for subsistence. The average Alaskan harvests far more fish per year than the average Californian.

The second thing I noticed was the amount of fish caught per person on the boat. Halibut excluded it was just about the same. Five to ten fish per person. (I caught twelve myself, but released four that were too small by my standards.) Halibut included there are many more fish actually caught in a day in Alaska, but most of them are small Halibut. Since only two Halibut may be kept the total fish count remains the same at the end of the day.

Third, on the topic of Halibut, there do not seem to be too many Halibut in southern California. There have alays been far fewer Halibut in warmer waters than in colder ones, so this means nothing. What I did get a chuckle out of was the one halibut that was caught, It was only four inches long. I get annoyed if I catch a halibut under twenty pounds back home in Alaska, and the only Halibut caught on the boat today could be weighed in onces. Absolutely hilarious.

The final thing I took into account was El Ninos. I used to live in California several years ago, and went through a big El Nino. For those of you who don't know, El Nino is what we call it when the cold arctic waters get diverted away from the western coast of the Americas to Asia, and the warmer tropical waters flow away from Asia and to the west coast of the Americas. During these years almost all of the fish populations crash, proving the fact that warm ocean water cannot sustain large fish populations to begin with. Adjusting for regional differences caused by nature itself I must say that there still seem to be plenty of fish in the sea even in the most populated state in the Union. The fisheries managers know what they're doing when they set the legal limits on commercial and recreational fishing. Thier goal is to keep the maximun possible healthy populations of fish while allowing the maximum possible possible harvest, and they are able to achieve this.

I guess the point of this is to look into the claims the environmental activists make about how we are slaughtering everytnig on the planet and need to cease and desist it all entirely. While I think the evidence shows that many fish species are depleted on a global scale, I also think it is due more to the over-harvesting of these animals by a few specific countries. The bigest offender is Japan, whose appatite for seafood seems completely insatiable. They have depleted their own waters to the point that they not only overfish international waters with anton disregard for the destrction they are causing, but are notorious for poaching the national waters of other countries as well. I will go into this in greater detail in another article.

In summary, I think we're doing a pretty good job managing our fish populations here in America. Of course there is always room for improvement, but we have many well paid scientists, and many more poorply paid scientists working on this every day. In the meantime, obey the law when you're fishing and you will not be part of any problem. Take care, and fish on!

Friday, September 16, 2005

The Race Card

Am I the only who sees that the only people who care about race are either liberals, demagogues, or their unwitting followers?

Take what is going on with the Katrina disaster. Louis Farrakhan, one of the most racist men in America (Yes, a black man can be a racist) is spouting insanity about the U.S. government blowing up the levees in New Orleans to try to murder African-Americans. He is using his hatred of white people to fuel his demagougery that inspires him to try to whip up racial tensions in whomever he can fool into thinking his way. In other words, he's a hateful liar who wants Black people to kill white people. I consider this man to be the equivalent of the Grand Wizard of the KKK, and they both suck.

Too many extreme liberal politicians to count are using the initial failure of the hurricaine relief effort to spout off a message that conservatives don't care about minorities, especially black people. They are doing this purely for personal gain and it has no foundation in reality. This is liberal demagougery, and it is nothing more than a selfish attempt at a power grab. It's just plain ghoulish to try to use other people's pain for personal gain. It smacks of selfishness and a complete lack of care for the very people they are trying to get support from.

The Reverend Jesse Jackson, and I hate to say bad things about a man who has done so much good, but he makes a carreer out demagougery, and he's doing it now. His claims that racial bias played a part in the slow start to hurricaine relief efforts are just plain false. On the plus side though, he did pay for charter busses to get people out of the city. He does bring aid and comfort most of the time when he gets involved in a tragedy,but he also brings strife in the form of messages that whip up racial tensions that need not exist. I think the man's heart is in the right place, and he has done some very good things in his life, but I think that he believes in a situation in America that no longer exists. The white man is not bringing the black man down anymore. I hope I'm not wrong about Jesse Jackson, I would hate to think that he is knowingly manipulating the African-American population into a mindset that brings them down as effectively as racists white men once did.

The Reverend Al Sharpton is a useless wannabe Jesse Jackson. Everything I ever hear this man say has something to do with racism. I honestly believe he is using his platform purely for personal gain. He has been made rich through accusing Americans of hating black people. He is a selfish demagogue.

There are a variety of people going on about how whites/conservatives/ Republicans hate or don't care about black people and even minorities in general. These people need to wake up and smell the reality. There are so few true racists anymore that making such an accusation against such a huge group of people is just ridiculous. Whites/conservatives/Republicans care about everyone equally. Just because we don't believe in handouts and reparations for slavery that many of our ancestors bled or died to end doesn't mean we hate or disregard anyone. Wanting a secure border does not make us racists against Hispanics. Wanting tough penalties for criminals does not make us racist against blacks as some have been crazy enough to claim. Most of us don't give a first thought, much less a second one to race in anything we do. People are people, and the sooner everyone figures that out, especially these people who keep injecting race and racism into everything that happens, the better off evryone will be.

Thursday, September 15, 2005


The sheer hypocrisy of it all astounds me. That one group of people could be so protective their religous institutions but so destructive of others. I'm talking of course about the Muslims.
Remember when the U.S. military coldn't wipe out nests of terrorists because they were hiding in mosques? Remember how the Iraqi government, local Iraqi's, and just about every Muslim in the Arab world was ready to go up in arms if the U.S. military damaged a mosque in the process of rooting out murdering terrorists? Well that standard obviously doesn't apply to Muslims when they encounter someone else's holy places.
The instant the Palestinians moved into the abandoned Jewish West Bank settlements they began to burn down every synagogue they could find. Desecrating places dedicated to the most High God that they too claim to worship in an act of hatred and bigotry that would boggle the mind if it weren't just so damn typical. Would you like to see just how hyppocritical they are? Burn down a mosque and see what happens. I guarantee the entire local community and much of the surrounding countryside will be up in arms, I mean this literally, to avenge the desecration of their holy place. The fact that the Israelis are not doing the same thing speaks volumes about the truly high quality of the Jewish people.
To understand this action you have to understand the teachings of Islam, and not just selected quotes from the Quo'ran. You need to read Mohammed's further writings on his religion. Read the entire Quo'ran. Then you must also read the history of Islam as both the Muslims and their neighbors have recorded it. To summarize the dark side of the teaching of Mohammed and his successors I state as follows: Mohamed himself mandated the eradication of the Jews. Mohammed himself demanded that all Muslims wage unceasing Jihad on all "infidels". "Infidels" are everybody who is not a Muslim. Islam claims all lands once hed by Muslims to be holy unto Allah and demands that such lands be reclaimed through Jihad if they are ever lost. Islam teaches that you may commit any sin against an "infidel" and Allah will excuse it, all rules of conduct apply only to other Muslims. I could go on for pages, but I will stop here and encourage you do the research and see it all for yourself. It will definitely give you a new perspective on Islam.
It is this last teaching of Mohammed that is most disturbing. If you can commit any atrocity you want just because someone does not belive in your religion what do you get? A great example is what the Nazis did to the Jews in World War Two, this is calssic unchecked bigotry, and it was allowed by the Nazi cult of Aryanism. Unchecked bigotry is also allowed in Islam. Consider this a warning.
Being an evangelical Christian I take the Bible very seriously and literally. The Bible says that all of the nations will align themselves against Israel in the last days. In case you haven't been paying attention, most of the nations of the world are already aligned against Israel. This is why most of the world, particularly in the UN supported the bigoted terrorist regime of Yasser Arafat and opposed Israel. This is why there is very little international outrage at the descration of Jewish holy sites in the West Bank. You can rest assured that if any Jew desecrates a mosque anywhere the whole world be outraged. The hypocrisy of it all is infuriating, frustrating, and depressing.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

A Solution to the Border Problem

After much careful thought over the past month I have come to a solution to the problem of illegal immigrants crossing our southern border. It involves some compromises, but the long term benefit would be substantial.
Step one: Seal off the border. Make it completely impassible by using a razor wire barrier fifty to one-hundred yards wide along the entire border. Use helicopters armed with netguns. Dismantle all watering stations. Arrest everyone caught crosing the border illegally and deport them immediately without a hearing. No illegals of any kind will be allowed.
Step two: Amnesty for every illegal immigrant currently in the United States. There are so many that once we seal off the border and make it impassible it would be a waste of time and resources to try to hunt down every illegal immigrant already here and ship them away. There are just too many of them here, and if we make them legal then they might get real jobs and start contributing to our economy.
Step Three: Amnesty is conditional upon completing a free two year citezenship course in which they will all be required to learn to speak, read, and write English, learn Civics, and American History. Upon successful completion of the course they will e granted citezenship. This one-time-only program will be made available to all foriegn nationals currently residing in the U.S. They're here, we might as well give them the tools to cope and be successful. Failure to complete the course wil result in immediate deportation.
Step four: Never offer amnesty again.
Step five: Immediate deportation without hearings of any illegal immigrants found in the U.S. from the closing of amnesty on.
Step six: We have a principle that says we need to allow political refugees into the country. This should be honored, however we should keep close control of the program. I suggest building fenced, guarded communities in remote locations within the U.S. as holding areas for refugees who come here using the proper channels. I also suggest opening up some very easy channels for people from the countries we are accepting refugees from at the moment. Current examples would be refugees from Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan. Bear in mind that we are not the only refugee friendly nation in the world and we are by no means required to just let everyone in here who wants to escape from a nasty country. We should partner up with other free nations to place these people in friendly countries. It's caled humanitarianism.
This is a plan I think any reasonabe person would agree is workable. There will be Reconquistas, petty criminals, and just plain morons who will claim this plan is racist against Mexicans, or Cubans, or God-knows-who. This is to be expected since not all people are reasonable. There are people like me who don't like the idea of rewarding people who broke our laws by sneaking into this country illegally, and some will say that I am wrong to suggest amnesty once the borders are tightly sealed, and there are some who will grudgingly accept what must be done. It is my hope that if this plan were to be followed that America's newest citezens-to-be would make an honest living, pay their taxes, get involved in their communities, and take pride in their new country. Some won't, there are deadbeats in any group. I believe most will. People come here for two reasons; the first is to make a better life for them and their families. I like these people, they are usually decent hard working folks. The second is to try to dismantle America somehow. Most of these people will either wind up dead, in prison, or decide to go back home once they realize their dream of conquest has been crushed. In the end, we will have a stronger, safer country filled with productive citezens and almost nobody hiding from immigration trying desperately to avoid being caught and deported. It's a dream, but I think it's a dream worth chasing.

Reconquista Go Home!

Have you heard of the Reconquista? They are a group of people who illegally cross the American border for the sole purpose of working to remove our southern border states from our glorious Union.
Let me deatail what's happening for you. There are certain Mexicans who believe that every bit of land the U.S. won during the Mexican/American war rightfully belongs to Mexico. Their goal is to get enough of their people into California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona to get a big enough voting bloc to cede these states from the Union and make them part of Mexico. In the process of doing this they rarely bother to get gainful employment once in the U.S., preferring instead to freeload off of our social security and medicare systems. For some incomprehensible reason they actually get these benefits despite the fact that they are here illegally and should be deported. Another way they take care of themselves is to turn to a life of crime as gangsters, drug dealers, and thieves. You should expect this from people who don't respect the law.
Allow me to tell how to identify a possible Reconquista in your area, and be warned they are both male and female. First, as I already said, they will not have a job. Second, they refuse to learn English. Third, they don't bother to teach their dozen or so children English either. Fourth, they will surround themselves Mexican pride paraphanelia, I'm talking more than just a Mexican flag in their window. Fifth, They are here illegally of course! Sixth, despite having come to America they will have an entire laundry list of problems with our country, and often will state reasons why Mexico is so much better than the U.S. Seventh, despite their badmouthing of our home they will usually not bother to go back home. Finally, if a Mexican immigrant is constantly in trouble with or evading the law he or she is likely to be a Reconquista.
The reconquista will spout on about their right to be in our country and about how the state they are living in used to be part of Mexico, usually in Spanish. They have no right to be here, they broke the law by coming here, and they don't care because what they really want is to take four great states and merge them with Mexico. Yeah, okay, GET RID OF THEM!
I cannot give any statistics on the number of reconquista who come acros our southern border versus the desperate people looking to genuinely build a new life in a better country. However it is my understanding that they are not a small minority, and may actually make up more than half of the Mexican illegal immigrants. This is a serious national security problem and it should be dealt with by sealing off the southern border! Newsflash, Islamic terrorists and drug dealers aren't the only scum sneaking into our counrty. There is also a much larger group called the Reconquista, and our government either doesn't know or doesn't care that they exist. Newsflash for the politicians, the Reconquista won't vote for you because they cannot vote for you. Their kids that they train to think just like they do will not vote for you unless they they think you are weak enough to look away as they try to steal your home from you. Remember this when you refuse to do anything to control our borders.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

The Culture of Death Strikes Again

It's happening. The mindset that allows people to actually believe abortion is not murder and that allows people to dehumanize the unborn is expanding into infants. A recent news article spoke of a father who killed his five month old son by leaving the poor kid in the car all day long on a blisteringly hot day, and actually excused his actions and said he should not be charged with any crime. This is an outrage!
First the details. The man claims he left the kid in the car because a change in routine caused him to forget that the child was there. Apparently his two older children normally take the bus to school and he drops the infant off at day care. On this particular day the older children apparently missed the bus because the father drove them to school, then forgot that he still had the baby in the car all day at work and for several hours after he got home. He says that he was so busy with work that he actually went all day without any alarms going off in his head about his own baby boy being cooked to death in a swelteringly hot car. This is known as negligent homicide in legal terms.
Now for the really outrageous part. The newspaper claims that this man should not be held responsible for his baby's death because, get this . . . HE WORKS FOR SOCIAL SERVICES! What kind of sick and depraved logic is this? Any person who is supposed to be looking out for the welfare of other people's kids needs to be held doubly responsible for how he cares for his own children! This baby killing idiot needs to be fired and charged with negligent homicide, child abuse, and every other crime that applies to him killing his helpless little baby!
It is well known at this point that there is a liberal bias in most of the media today. It is also well known that liberals overwhelmingly support abortion. It was primarily liberals who wanted to see Terry Schiavo die a horrible lingering death by starvation and dehydration. And now a liberal rag of a newspaper is excusing the murder of a FIVE MONTH OLD BABY! Folks, I'm telling you, if we don't get things under control here this is just the beginning of what could be a serious devaluation of human life. The same people who call me a monster for demanding that murderers, rapists, terrorists, child molestors, and drug dealers be put to death are more than happy to see the innocent die for sheer convenience, and to excuse the murder of innocents because by negligent turds like this man! Wake up and smell the homicide people, it smells like death, and it's perfume to some folks.

Monday, September 12, 2005

Best Friends Network Vrs. PETA, Knockout!

A lesser known story of the hurricaine Katrina disaster is the heroic efforts of the Best Friends Network to rescue abandoned animals in the affected areas. While animal rescue is nothing at all compared to human rescue efforts it bears noting what a true bunch of animal lovers do when duty calls.
I first found out about the Best Friends Network about a year ago when I needed to find a new home for my adorable young schnauzer, name of Oscar. He had epilepsy and seperation anxiety, and I could not give him the kind of care he needed. I was advised by several people to simply have him euthanized. I could not do this. That was when Colonel Shiroma informed me of a pet rescue group he was a member of. It was the best Friends Network, and they were a true Godsend. They helped me find the perfect family for Oscar, and he is doing very well.
The Best Friends Network is a no-kill alternative to the Humane Society. They have a pet ranch/sanctuary in Utah where they take in pets and livestock that are next to impossible to place in a home and care for them for life. Many of these animals do get adopted by loving families evetually. They're not glory seekers or media whores. They just do what they believe is right. Most importantly, they never, ever kill any animal that comes into their care.
Contrast this with PETA. PETA is one big media whore that seeks to be as controversial as possible, claims to put animals on the same plane as humans, and opposes all forms of animal use from food, to pets, to medicine, to you name it. Yet these so-called animal lovers kill half or more of the animals that are turned over to them for care by people who believe the animals will be loved and cared for. For a bunch of people who believe meat is murder they sure do commit a lot of murders(Their standard, not mine). To top it off, they are not lifting a finger to help the beleagured animals of the hurricaine Katrina disaster. Animal lovers my eye!
Since actions speak much louder than words it can only be concluded that true animal lovers gravitate to groups like the Best Friends Network while loony activists who don't love animals as much they love just annoying people gravitate to groups like PETA. If you are an animal lover and you want to join or finance a group who really does good things for animals give your time and money to the Best Friends Network and leave PETA for the loons.

Judge Roberts Confirmation, Early Prospects

The confirmation hearings for Judge Roberts began a few hours ago and so far everything has been so predictable it would be boring if it weren't so vital to our future. Ted Kennedy in his continuing bertrayal of his two better brothers legacy continues to assault all things non-extreme left. The Republicans seem to echo each other in their statemnts regarding the role of the judiciary, states rights, and federal responsibilty. The other Democrats sound almost lockstep in thier demands for answers to questions that should not be decided before the case has actually been heard. In other words, expect overwhelming Republican support (no surprise here) and majority Democrat oppsosition during these hearings (also not a surprise).
Suprisingly, the most stand out person so far, in my opinion at least, has been Senator Feingold, a Democrat. The reason he stands out so much is because so far he sounds like the most open minded, fair, and responsible Democrat on the judiciary commitee. Unlike his fellow Democrats he has not alluded to demands for pre-judgement of cases according to his personal ideology. He has not demanded Judge Roberts vow to rule in line with precedent that he believes iolates the Constitution, or any other ridiculous thing the other Democrats seem to want. He has mentioned his concerns, which are understandable if not neccessarily what I would be most concerned with, and he actually said outright that out of his criteria for confirmation Judge Roberts has already passed every test but that of "judicial excellence", which he hopes to determine through the hearings. I can see how he stays a senator in a swing state, heck, even I developed some extra respect for him today. I hope doesn't go and blow it now by going goofy during the question and answer section.
One thing that I keep hearing about over and over from the Democrats if the "right to privacy". This sounds innocuous enough. We all like our privacy and the sense of safety it provides, but this is not how privacy has been used in the courts lately. Privacy has been the big argument for abortion groups to try to undermine any keeping of abortion statistics, parental notification for minors who are seeking abortions, an pretty much everything else that might inform people about some basic facts about abortion. I won't go into those facts here, but I will in a later posting. Just consider this; what are these people so afraid of us knowing? Stay tuned for the answer at later time.
So "right to privacy" is nothing but code for "right to abortion on demand". Great, now what about what a judge is actually supposed to do? This is where the Republicans are focused, and I think rightly so. A judge is supposed to decide cases based upon the Constitution, precident, and existing law. The more liberal the court becomes the less it does this and the more itlegislates from the bench based on personal philosophy and desires. I point to the recent eminent domain decision as case and point. But this is not the only case. In cases involving the seperation of church and state since the sixties the court overturned dozens of precidents that actually went so far as to declare America to be a Christian Nation, and defended public expressons of faith, any faith, and stuck to the words of the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Of course the Supreme Court seems to think it can restrict the free exercise of religion as it wishes. This is not surprising with former top lawyers/activists for groups like the ACLU on the court, thank you very much Republicans for betraying America by actually voting to conirm a certain someone who matches this description rather than voting her down. I swear, If the Democrats can vote down a respected judge like Robert Bork then the Republicans should feel free to vote down liberal activists like Ruth Bader-Ginsberg.
Of course, to hear what is being said so far we can all expect certain Democrats to try to Bork Judge Roberts of fillibuster him simply because they don't want a brilliant,conservative, Supreme Court justice who believes in the Founding Fathers original intent when they wrote the Constitution over two-hundred years ago. Any politician from any party who does this is showing his true colors, and they are not red, white, and blue. Remember this the next time you go to the voting booth.

Sunday, September 11, 2005

Big Government for Public Schools

Here's a thoroughly unsurprising observation. The people who are most opposed to school voucher programs are overwhelmingly big government liberals. It figures that people who think the government belongs in every aspect of our lives would oppose an idea that would help America and improve our children's education if it means less government in the classroom.
If the government controls the schools then the government controls what is taught. If the government controls what is taught then the government can shape our children's development. If the government can shape our children's development then whoever controls the government can use our public schools to get our children thinking like they do. I don't know about you, but I want my children to think like their mommy and daddy think and your children to think like their mommy and daddy think, and for all people young and old to have enough of a mind of their own to think for themselves. I don't see this happening in our current public school system, unless you think universal liberalism, moral relativism, and anti-religious dogma is the way things should be. If this describes you then you may not want to read anything I have to say as it will tend to tick you off.
Put in simpler terms, he who controls the schools controls the future. I wish this wasn't true. I wish every parent was so involved in their kid's lives that they could fully instill them with the values of their family. This doesn't happen in many households, and the ones where this does happen have another problem; the parents are fighting against the schools. These poor children have one message being taught at school six to eight hours a day, then they go home where their parents try to teach them another message fifteen minutes to eight hours a day. Either way, the kids are either led by the school or confused by conflicting messages. (Yes I know there are households where the valus taught at public schools line up perfectly with the family's values. You should be very happy with the status quo.) I don't know about you, but the idea of some politician deciding what my kids are taught and what values my kids are instilled with at school worries me. Fifty-plus years of liberal dominance in the education system has not helped our children learn, it has had the opposite effect.
Of course, politicians tend to love power. Big government gives politicians a lot of power. Hence the fierce resistance from big government liberal politicians whenever anything that would reduce their power, like replacing the public school system with a voucher system so parents could choose their children's schools based on quality of education, course curricula, and values regardless of income comes before the public. Just so you know, these same big government liberal politicians have an amazing tendency to send their children to private schools. Maybe they just don't want your children to have the same advantages their children get. That would just be unfair to children born to money, power, and priviledge. It's unfair to expect them to compete with common folk who get accepted to elite private schools based on personal merit rather than who their mommy or daddy is. I hope the sarcasm here isn't lost on you.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, DOWN WITH PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Privatize them all and give the parents vouchers to pay for the schools they want their kids to go to. Some people oppose this idea because they genuinely belive the public school system wors just fine and doesn't need to be overhauled. To these people let me say that I respect your opinion and I welcome your dissent based on your pure motives. On the other hand, to you big government types who are simply mortified at giving people a real choice and losing you stranglehold on the shaping of our children's minds, we all know who you are the instant you open your mouths. Your tired arguments have little to no basis in fact. And, most condemningly, it's your fault we need to overhaul the public school system in the first place. People like me wouldn't be campaigning to change the system if you hadn't messed it up to begin with.
Finally, to all of you out there who wonder what we can do to improve the quality of our children's education so we quit spitting out illiterate dunderheads who can't even do long division so they can fail at college thanks to their lack of basic academic skills. To those of you who wonder why most high school graduates can't name the capitals of ten states or five countries. To those of you who are disgusted by the utter lack of knowledge and understanding young people have about history and civics. To those of you who want to do something, anything about the complete lack of discipline and respect children seem to have. To all of you I say ignore the big government liberals. Think for yourselves. Do some research. When you do I am firmly convinced you will reach the same conclusion I have. Public schools must go. They must be replaced by private schools, and all of that government money currently being wasted on an ineffective public school system should be turned into vouchers that parents can use to pay for their children to get the quality education they deserve.

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Replacing the Chief Justice in Dignity

It has been several days since the unfortunate passing of Chief Justice Rhenquist. I must confess that I had hoped he would live to serve another twenty years on the Supreme Court. In my mind this man was one of our great justices, a true believer in the the Consitution as the founding fathers have written it, and a good and just man. His passing is a tragedy for America because it takes a man who has been vital preventing judicial tyrrany out of the Supreme Court.
It occurs to me that the best way to honor the Chief Justice's memory is to pick a successor who will be as decent, knowledgable, logical, and true to the Constitution as he was. I think President Bush has done this by naming John Roberts as his successor. I am not an expert on John Roberts, in fact I never heard of him until President Bush nominated him to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Sinc his nomination I have heard and read many thing about the man that make me think he is just what we need on the Supreme Court. For a more knowledgable account of the man I reccommend going to http://www.aclj.com/ and reading what they have to say about him at the American Center for Law and Justice.
This also reopens the issue of who should replace Sandra Day O'Connor. I said it before and I say it again. Replace her with Janice Rogers Brown! This is a smart move both judicially and politically. Judiciously she is a conservative woman who is also just plain brilliant. She, like the remaining conservative Supreme Court Justices actually understands the the original intent of the Costitution as it is written, and will not betray the American people with judicial activism. Politically, she is a woman to replace a woman. She is African American. She has already been confirmed to a federal appeals court. If the Democrats want to fight her nomination or try to fillibuster her again they will be committing political suicide by alienating both women and minorities. There are some Senators who will try to do just this. When they show just how racist and sexist they are I say we vote them out of office regardless of party affiliation. There is no legitimate rerason not to confirm this amazing woman to the Supreme Court.
Doing this also opens up Janice Browns seat on the federal appeals court. If I were President I would name Miguel Estrada to replace her on this seat. He is a brilliant conservative judge who would serve America very well as long as he chooses to serve. Then, when Justice Stevens retires or dies, which, considering his age could be any day either way ( I would be surprised if he decided to keep working for another three and a half years) Presdent Bush could nominate Miguel Estrada to take his seat on the Supreme Court. After two-hundred and thirty years or so it's about time we had a Latino on the court. The fact that Miguel Estrada is also a brilliant jurist and a staunch conservative who knows and understands the Constitution is what makes him the man for this historic job.
I do not agree with everything President Bush does. His cronyism is dismaying. His timing for going into Iraq was horrendous even though it needed to be done. He spends money like Ted Kennedy on a bender. The way he keeps secrets that don't need keeping is just plain stupid and is a mistake a man of his intelligence should not make. Despit this, I believe he has been a great President in almost every other aspect of great importance. He has led through a recession and back into great prosprity. He has stimulated the job market. He has cut taxes. He has stimulated debate on Social Security reform that will eventually, hopefully lead to a solution for the looming problems there. He has handled several major disasters with expertise. He has been honest when he has not ben busy keeping secrets. And most importantly, he has been rebalancing the government by placing conservatives in every major court position that comes available. This, more than anything else, is why I voted for Bush. This is important work, and only a conservative President with lots of courage will do it. We have that in President Bush. I belive he will honor Chief Justice Rhenquist's memory, and his promise to the American people with his future court appointees. While I have told you what I think would be the best course of action for nominations to the Supreme Court I do not demand it from the President. He has shown that he can be trusted to do this right, even if he picks someone I might not have.
Rest In peace Justice Rhenquist. America will miss you. Your memory will be honored.

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

Hurricaine Katrina Relief, Good Job America

The true spirit of America has once agin decided to shine forth in all its' glory. The American people have proven the basic goodness and decency of our country by their generous outpouring of funds, materiel, and volunteerism to help the people whose lives have been devastated by hurricaine Kartina. For my part I just want to thank you all for giving hope to the hopeless and aid to the helpless.
I must confess that I was disturbed by the slowness of the initial relief efforts on the part of the government. I spent a lot of time fuming about the lack of an immediate large response by the military to bring aid to the affected areas and guns to take care of those lunatics who have been busy raping, murdering, and attacking both refugees and relief workers. I witheld my criticism not out of support for the government, but in order to learn all of the facts before I started blasting people for the apparrent lack of preparedness. Now that I know the facts I am glad to report that relief efforts were being prepared on the federal level a full two days prior to the hurricaine's landfall. I am glad to announce that the president actually made the mayor of New Orleans issue a mandatory evacuation order for the city. I am glad to know that our federal emergency management system has been working very well throughout this whole process. At the same time I cannot help but grieve for those people who lost their lives because of the amount of time it took to get this relief into the affecdted areas, and I wonder what we can do to make our disater response work faster.
On the other hand, I am furious that the mayor of New Orleans didn't 1: Have the brains or concern for the welfare of the people of his city to issue the evacuation himself. 2: That this same mayor did not bother to either enforce or aid in the evacuation effort. I see picture of busses, lots of them sitting flooded and usless in New Orleans. Where these busses when the evacuation order was given? Why were they not bieng used to get people out of the city? How many lives might have been saved if they had been used this way? How much easier would the relief efforts have been early on if those busses were out of harms way during the disaster itself so they could be used to evacuate people quickly? How many broken families would never have been seperated if all of those thousands of city, school, and charter busses had been used right? We will never know the answer to any of these questions with any certainty, but I can say for certain that they would have helped dramatically in every one of these areas.
What is the point of issuing a mandatory evacuation order if you refuse to enforce it? To my mind that is nothing more than utter carelessness and a complete lack of concern for your people. Had this evacuation actually been enforced by the mayor of New Orleans thousands of lives could have been saved. The blood of those innocents is on his hands.
Fortunately, the Amercan people are not characterized by the incompetence of a few elected officials and government beaureaucrats. When our countrymen need us we always anwer the call to aid. When our fellow man in other countries need us we also answer that call to aid. Our generosity as a people, and the love we show thorugh acting when help is needed is one of the big reasons God chooses to bless our nation. I believe that God blesses people so they cen be a blessing for others. I am convinced that we as Americans, the freest, wealthiest people on Earth, are doing very well at blessing others. Thank you, and God bless you all.

Listed on BlogShares