Sunday, June 28, 2009
Guns, Liberals and Mullahs: Which Two Don't We Need?
As the events in Iran unfolded over the past two weeks one of the most disturbing images to be “smuggled” out of that country is the video of the shooting death of a young protestor, Neda Agha Soltan, at the hands of government forces seeking to crack down on unrest and secure the sham re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President of the world’s only existing theocratic country. The force and brutality ordered by the Mullahs to be used on their own people was extreme even by the standards of other mainly Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Chad. It should serve as a reminder to all people everywhere why a theocracy should NEVER exist, whether that theocracy is Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish or Christian. (OK you lefties before you scream, “what about Israel” go look up the definition of “theocracy”.) It should also serve as a graphic example of why that kind of forceful movement by the government against its own people can NEVER happen here. But, the reason it can’t happen here and the acknowledgement of that reason is cursed by every Liberal everywhere.
A terse sentence of a mere 27 words crafted by our Founding Fathers over 230 years ago is why this sort of imposition of force has never been attempted by the US Government and likely never will. We know those 27 words as the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The right to “keep and bear arms” by virtue of its position in the Bill of Rights appears to have been, in the minds of the Founding Fathers, second only to the provision which guarantees the freedoms of religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly and petition of redress. In fact, the right “to keep and bear arms” comes before ALL these other uninfringeable rights:
1. The military not being quartered in your home without your consent
2. Being secure in your person, papers, houses, and effects and secure from unreasonable search and seizure
3. Protection from double jeopardy and the ability to refuse to testify against yourself
4. Not being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law
5. A speedy and public trial by jury and the ability to confront witnesses against you as well as present witnesses of your own.
6. To have the assistance of counsel for your defense
7. Not being subject to excessive bail nor have cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on you.
Don’t you think the framers of the Constitution had a reason for putting all these rights in the order they did? Of course they had a reason- - -it was because they held the rights of freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly to be first, foremost and uninfringeable and didn’t trust any central government not to try to take away those rights from individual persons or states- -thus, the need for a militia and the right to "keep and bear arms".
Yet, if the Liberals in this country had their way the Second Amendment would be repealed tomorrow. The very section of the Constitution that keeps what is happening in Iran from happening here is what Liberalism and virtually all its proponents would take away if they could.
We have let BHO and his legions of liberal lackeys set an agenda for Socialist takeover of industry in this country. They succeeded with the auto industry and are close to succeeding with domestic energy (taxing an industry into government submission is just another form of Socialism) and will pull out every stop to do the same with Healthcare. Are we going to sit back and let them take away our ability to defend ourselves against an oppressive government, too? I hope not.
Oh, just in case you think "The Sage" is some sort of gun-nut living in an open carry state and agitating for rebellion- - -let me state for the record- - -I don’t own a gun and never have but I’m sure thinking about buying several now. And I’m willing to bet the folks dodging government bullets on the streets of Teheran tonight are wishing they had a few guns of their own, as well. Nothing good can happen in a country where only the Government has the right to “keep and bear arms”.
ALL POLITE DEBATE AND VARYING POINTS OF VIEW ARE ENCOURAGED AND WELCOMED. PLEASE USE THE “COMMENT” LINK BELOW TO OFFER YOUR THOUGHTS.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
BHO’s Healthcare Plan: A Payoff to Contributors?
In 1959 during the early stages of our “Cold War” with the Soviet Union my 9th grade “Civics” teacher, Jim Davidson, a fiercely patriotic North Carolinian, had very concise definitions for all the “isms” we were learning about. Here’s what “Big Jim” as we called him away from class taught us about one of those “isms”.
Socialism: “an economic system in which the State either owns or tightly controls those industries, businesses or enterprises that are deemed to be socially important. Ownership of private property is valued under this economic system and the ownership of private enterprises not deemed to be socially important is encouraged. The people are allowed to keep the fruits of their own efforts and labors, although they are almost always heavily taxed by the State in order to fund programs and enterprises it considers to be socially important."
“Big Jim” was ahead of his time. I doubt that in 1959 he could have actually foreseen the rising tide of Socialist economics within Democratic governments like Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, New Zealand and Canada (to name a few) yet he painted an accurate picture of the face of Socialism today none-the-less. I don’t know where Jim Davidson is now or even if he’s still alive but I’m certain that if he is alive, somewhere he’s raving, stomping and flailing his arms as he ponders what BHO and the American Trial Lawyers Association (the plaintiffs bar) want to do to the most socially important segment of our society today- - -health care. In a nutshell here’s what BHO and his merry band of ambulance chasers and slip-and-fall artists want to do.
Under the campaign cry of controlling health care expenses and reducing the costs of delivering quality health care to all Americans, Obamacare would:
1. Place tight controls and price caps on what drug companies can charge for their products. (This will reduce pharmaceutical company revenues but do nothing to similarly limit the cost of developing, testing and bringing new drugs to the market).
2. Place price caps on services and tests- - -x-rays, MRIs, EKGs, Cancer screening, blood analysis etc. - -offered by hospitals. (This will force the hospitals to shift the unpaid portion of the costs for these services to patients on private plans).
3. Place price caps on services performed by your physician. (This will force physicians to also shift unpaid costs to patients on other plans and will do nothing to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance)
Now here’s the really outrageous part. In his speech before the AMA in Chicago earlier this past week, BHO had the audacity to tell the doctors assembled there that his plan- -ObamaCare- - would limit their incomes as well as those of drug companies and hospitals while doing nothing to limit their costs of delivering services. Then he told them he had “no intentions of placing caps on medical malpractice lawsuits”. BHO must have hoped they would swallow what he had to say because he seemed a little surprised when he was politely booed. But he shouldn’t have been surprised because in an unprecedented display of political chutzpah and arrogance he stood there and told the medical establishment of the US that he was going to take money from their wallets but leave the wallets of Trial Lawyers untouched. What he didn’t explain was, “why?” The “why” should be obvious.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org ) a group which, since 1990, has tracked political contributions, their donors and their recipients by industry here’s what Lawyers and their Lobbyists contributed to Federal Candidates and Parties during the 2008 election cycle - - -$270,571,798 . That’s right, over 270 million dollars!! (See: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2008&ind=K)
Of that amount 74% went to Democratic candidates and 26% to Republicans. From that group of contributors the largest contribution was made by the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the American Trial Lawyers Association) who gave 95% of their money to Democrats and 5% to Republicans. And of that $270.5 million contributed by Lawyers and their Lobbyists during the entire 2008 campaign cycle, here’s how it broke down with the Presidential front runners:
1. Barack Obama (D) $45,009,722
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $17,658,296
3. John McCain (R) $11,414,758
There’s an old joke that has a man and woman sitting at a bar. The man asks the woman if she’d sleep with him for $50. “Of course not”, the woman responds indignantly. “Well”, he presses on, “would you sleep with me for $10,000?” The lady thinks for moment and says, “For $10,000 of course I would.” Moving closer to her still he asks, “What about $500?” “I’d have to think about that”, she tells him. The guy gets a big grin on his face, rubs his hands together and says, “Great, we’ve clearly established what you are- -now all we have to do is argue about your price!”
In making what appears to be a political payoff to the Trial Lawyers, BHO has clearly established what he is- -in addition to being a Socialist- - AND he has clearly stated his price.
ALL POLITE DEBATE AND VARYING POINTS OF VIEW ARE ENCOURAGED AND WELCOMED. PLEASE USE THE “COMMENT” LINK BELOW TO OFFER YOUR THOUGHTS.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
BHO: A Product of His "Heritage"?
As this is being written BHO’s “reaching out to the Muslim world” speech in Cairo, delivered in his uniquely gifted oratorical style, is still fresh in the world’s press and on the “Arab street.” He is still in Europe and has not yet laid his agenda before all the Heads of State he intends to. But one thing is clear already . . . in the struggle against radical Islam the United States of America will have to “go it alone” with nothing more than lip-service help from our European friends and allies.
Germany’s Chancellor Merkel told BHO just yesterday that her country would NOT take any of the Guantanamo detainees and it is expected that French President Sarkozy will tell him the same today. Why? Because both of these “leaders” are afraid that to do so will inflame the Muslims in their countries and lead to unprecedented violence. Sarkozy and Merkel are not alone. The Brits- -who have all but turned their country over to radical Muslims- -certainly aren’t going to help especially under the Labour Party (liberal) government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The Spaniards have been out of the game ever since the train bombing which was exactly the goal the radicals wanted to achieve. The Italians- - -well they’re the Italians- - - so no one expects any help from them for any purpose what-so-ever. Perhaps only the Danes and the Dutch have a clear sense of the threat posed by radical Islam in Europe and have a moral willingness to help the US but those folks are still reeling from the “cartoon riots” and the Van Gogh murder in their respective nations.
No, the US is going to have to carry the burden of defeating radical Islam by itself and we simply don’t have a President who is up to the task of leading us in this struggle.
Now before anyone turns this into something it isn’t and does something stupid like accusing “The Sage” of hate speech, racism, right wing radicalism and the like- -thus intentionally derailing the real debate- - let me state for the record: BHO seems to be a very decent man. He clearly loves his family. He appears in every respect to be a very good husband to Michelle and an excellent father to their two beautiful daughters. He’s smart. He’s a gifted orator. And he has a good sense of humor as evidenced by his observation of an Egyptian hieroglyph with big ears as being “my relative”- - -a truly funny, likeable and charming moment. BHO on a personal level seems to be the kind of guy most of us would like to invite to our backyard for a cookout and swap jokes with while downing a cheeseburger and a beer. Unfortunately, none of that has a hill of beans to do with being an effective President. And, sadly, for that job- -especially for the role of “protector-in-chief” he is woefully ill-prepared. Worse yet, he is naïve.
BHO has told us all that in nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court she will bring a certain amount of empathy to her rulings because of the “richness of her heritage as a Latina woman . . . raised by a single mother. . .” and so on. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito made similar references to his “Italian heritage” during his confirmation hearings. And so we are told that not only is it alright for our public officials to be a working product of their heritage but that we should expect them to act in a way defined by their experiences and heritage. OK, that sounds logical and fair enough. Seems like we should be able to equally apply that standard to liberals and conservatives alike
So then, on that premise, what can we expect from BHO’s heritage, the product of a pacifist, single mother and an absentee, take-no-responsibility father? When it comes to our nation’s security what should we anticipate from a man whose heritage has taught him to always turn the other cheek and to walk away from bullies? (Have you read his books?)
In November of 2002, a scant 15 months after 9-11-2001, London’s “Guardian” newspaper published a “Letter to America” from Osama Bin Laden. In the letter OBL stated that Islam- - implying that not just some Muslims but all practitioners of the faith of Islam- - -was at war with America. He then goes on to list a litany of grievances and finally puts forth a list of “non-negotiable” demands the US must meet in order to gain peace with Islam. Among those demands are: America must adopt Islam and Sharia law [as opposed to the US Constitution] as its guiding principles of law and daily life; America must veil its women and its men must grow beards; America must abandon Israel; America must withdraw from all Arab lands and repay the people of those lands for the resources America stole from them. If not, America can expect more acts of violence on its shores says the Saudi born OBL.
In the 6 ½ years since that letter OBL has not retreated an inch from those demands. And it’s naive to think he and his radical brethren ever will. Yet, in crafting his Cairo speech for the “Muslim world” (an excellent speech in some respects yet missing opportunities in others) BHO seems to think that quoting a passage or two from the Qur’an, pronouncing a few religious terms with a correct Arabic accent and relating his own experiences with Islam will somehow “pacify” the radicals and gain the backing of the so-called “moderate Muslims”. He couldn’t be more wrong!
BHO and his self-assured band of Blackberry toting Progressives in strategizing how to deal with the evil threat that comes from the growing radicalization of Islam in mosques everywhere- -especially in Europe and America- -need to do two things. Read OBL’s “Letter to America” at: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver )
and commit its ‘demands’ to memory. Then, “Google” the name Neville Chamberlain , the British PM who thought Europe could appease Hitler, and get familiar with his sad legacy because a similar legacy seems fated to be shared by BHO and could become part of his daughters’ heritage. I can’t imagine any “protector” wanting that. Can you?
In the meantime- - -while BHO and his “jivy-league minions” try to appease those who will not be appeased- -the rest of us will pray for the improbable but prepare for the likely.
ALL POLITE DEBATE AND VARYING POINTS OF VIEW ARE ENCOURAGED AND WELCOMED. PLEASE USE THE “COMMENT” LINK BELOW TO OFFER YOUR THOUGHTS.
Germany’s Chancellor Merkel told BHO just yesterday that her country would NOT take any of the Guantanamo detainees and it is expected that French President Sarkozy will tell him the same today. Why? Because both of these “leaders” are afraid that to do so will inflame the Muslims in their countries and lead to unprecedented violence. Sarkozy and Merkel are not alone. The Brits- -who have all but turned their country over to radical Muslims- -certainly aren’t going to help especially under the Labour Party (liberal) government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The Spaniards have been out of the game ever since the train bombing which was exactly the goal the radicals wanted to achieve. The Italians- - -well they’re the Italians- - - so no one expects any help from them for any purpose what-so-ever. Perhaps only the Danes and the Dutch have a clear sense of the threat posed by radical Islam in Europe and have a moral willingness to help the US but those folks are still reeling from the “cartoon riots” and the Van Gogh murder in their respective nations.
No, the US is going to have to carry the burden of defeating radical Islam by itself and we simply don’t have a President who is up to the task of leading us in this struggle.
Now before anyone turns this into something it isn’t and does something stupid like accusing “The Sage” of hate speech, racism, right wing radicalism and the like- -thus intentionally derailing the real debate- - let me state for the record: BHO seems to be a very decent man. He clearly loves his family. He appears in every respect to be a very good husband to Michelle and an excellent father to their two beautiful daughters. He’s smart. He’s a gifted orator. And he has a good sense of humor as evidenced by his observation of an Egyptian hieroglyph with big ears as being “my relative”- - -a truly funny, likeable and charming moment. BHO on a personal level seems to be the kind of guy most of us would like to invite to our backyard for a cookout and swap jokes with while downing a cheeseburger and a beer. Unfortunately, none of that has a hill of beans to do with being an effective President. And, sadly, for that job- -especially for the role of “protector-in-chief” he is woefully ill-prepared. Worse yet, he is naïve.
BHO has told us all that in nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court she will bring a certain amount of empathy to her rulings because of the “richness of her heritage as a Latina woman . . . raised by a single mother. . .” and so on. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito made similar references to his “Italian heritage” during his confirmation hearings. And so we are told that not only is it alright for our public officials to be a working product of their heritage but that we should expect them to act in a way defined by their experiences and heritage. OK, that sounds logical and fair enough. Seems like we should be able to equally apply that standard to liberals and conservatives alike
So then, on that premise, what can we expect from BHO’s heritage, the product of a pacifist, single mother and an absentee, take-no-responsibility father? When it comes to our nation’s security what should we anticipate from a man whose heritage has taught him to always turn the other cheek and to walk away from bullies? (Have you read his books?)
In November of 2002, a scant 15 months after 9-11-2001, London’s “Guardian” newspaper published a “Letter to America” from Osama Bin Laden. In the letter OBL stated that Islam- - implying that not just some Muslims but all practitioners of the faith of Islam- - -was at war with America. He then goes on to list a litany of grievances and finally puts forth a list of “non-negotiable” demands the US must meet in order to gain peace with Islam. Among those demands are: America must adopt Islam and Sharia law [as opposed to the US Constitution] as its guiding principles of law and daily life; America must veil its women and its men must grow beards; America must abandon Israel; America must withdraw from all Arab lands and repay the people of those lands for the resources America stole from them. If not, America can expect more acts of violence on its shores says the Saudi born OBL.
In the 6 ½ years since that letter OBL has not retreated an inch from those demands. And it’s naive to think he and his radical brethren ever will. Yet, in crafting his Cairo speech for the “Muslim world” (an excellent speech in some respects yet missing opportunities in others) BHO seems to think that quoting a passage or two from the Qur’an, pronouncing a few religious terms with a correct Arabic accent and relating his own experiences with Islam will somehow “pacify” the radicals and gain the backing of the so-called “moderate Muslims”. He couldn’t be more wrong!
BHO and his self-assured band of Blackberry toting Progressives in strategizing how to deal with the evil threat that comes from the growing radicalization of Islam in mosques everywhere- -especially in Europe and America- -need to do two things. Read OBL’s “Letter to America” at: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver )
and commit its ‘demands’ to memory. Then, “Google” the name Neville Chamberlain , the British PM who thought Europe could appease Hitler, and get familiar with his sad legacy because a similar legacy seems fated to be shared by BHO and could become part of his daughters’ heritage. I can’t imagine any “protector” wanting that. Can you?
In the meantime- - -while BHO and his “jivy-league minions” try to appease those who will not be appeased- -the rest of us will pray for the improbable but prepare for the likely.
ALL POLITE DEBATE AND VARYING POINTS OF VIEW ARE ENCOURAGED AND WELCOMED. PLEASE USE THE “COMMENT” LINK BELOW TO OFFER YOUR THOUGHTS.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Open Letter to the GOP
Dear GOP:
What the Hell is wrong with you people? Has the Party suddenly become collectively blind and stupid? Or has it contracted a consumptive case of Alzheimer’s thus failing to recognize even its most basic and core values? I’m going to opt for “blind and stupid” because I don’t want to think the “Party of Lincoln”- - -the party that freed the slaves, won the war and preserved the union- - -has forgotten its values.
Huh, you say? What the heck is this guy talking about? Let me be painfully direct: on the Sotomayor nomination the Party has allowed itself to fall into the trap of making her nomination all about race, gender and identity politics- - -just exactly the sharp-stick filled pit BHO and his merry band of “jivy-league” minions hoped you would fall into and hopelessly impale yourselves. Worse yet, you were led like sheep into the abyss by those two bleating windbags- - -Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck- - -under the less-than-watchful eye and limited intellect of Michael Steele. Pitiful. But it's not too late, I hope. You just need to drop this false foo-fa-raw over the ability of a “. . .Latina woman . . . being able to reach a better decision than a white male lacking the same experiences” and move on to what really counts. Like the law.
How does she view the US Constitution? Is it a living, breathing document capable of guiding us yet today? Or, is it archaic and in need of total overhaul as many on the Left insist? Does she believe the Courts should make law and policy or simply interpret law as the founding fathers intended? Does she think US Courts should look to European Courts for ‘precedents’ like so many liberals would have us do? Does she believe the Constitution guarantees ‘freedom of religion’ as our founders intended or does she see it as ‘freedom from religion’ as today’s atheists would have us believe? Do her rulings indicate she believes in opportunity for all or, instead, that opportunity for some can be achieved only by disenfranchising others? Is she a respecter and student of US history or is she a revisionist?
Interestingly enough, other than the widely publicized speech at Duke and the equally publicized ruling regarding the New Haven Fire Fighters, I cannot find, anywhere, her stated opinions or rulings that would give answers to any of the questions I’ve asked. But, with all your resources at GOP headquarters you should be able to do so. Just don’t let Limbaugh and Beck do the work for you. Remember, it’s Limbaugh who recently said that “80% of her cases have been overturned. . .” The facts are that of the 230 or so cases she has heard while on the Federal bench, only five (5) have gone on to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Of those five, three (3) have been overturned. That’s a 60% ratio (not 80%, Rush) of the ‘cases reviewed’ but only a scant 1.3% of the cases which she’s adjudicated- - -so far.
So how about it, GOP? Can you climb out of the trap BHO set for you? Can you start doing your jobs? Can you ask the tough but fair and meaningful questions that need to be asked of her during the confirmation process? Can you do it without resorting to distortion, innuendo or bad math? Can you stay away from the slippery slope of gender and identity politics? Can you find room for ideas and sensibilities that aren’t fed to us all by Limbaugh and regurgitated by Beck without choosing the “conservatism-lite” menu of McCain? I hope so. Because if you can’t, this registered Republican of some 46 years may just be forced to find a new political ‘home’. The Libertarian Party is looking better all the time.
What the Hell is wrong with you people? Has the Party suddenly become collectively blind and stupid? Or has it contracted a consumptive case of Alzheimer’s thus failing to recognize even its most basic and core values? I’m going to opt for “blind and stupid” because I don’t want to think the “Party of Lincoln”- - -the party that freed the slaves, won the war and preserved the union- - -has forgotten its values.
Huh, you say? What the heck is this guy talking about? Let me be painfully direct: on the Sotomayor nomination the Party has allowed itself to fall into the trap of making her nomination all about race, gender and identity politics- - -just exactly the sharp-stick filled pit BHO and his merry band of “jivy-league” minions hoped you would fall into and hopelessly impale yourselves. Worse yet, you were led like sheep into the abyss by those two bleating windbags- - -Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck- - -under the less-than-watchful eye and limited intellect of Michael Steele. Pitiful. But it's not too late, I hope. You just need to drop this false foo-fa-raw over the ability of a “. . .Latina woman . . . being able to reach a better decision than a white male lacking the same experiences” and move on to what really counts. Like the law.
How does she view the US Constitution? Is it a living, breathing document capable of guiding us yet today? Or, is it archaic and in need of total overhaul as many on the Left insist? Does she believe the Courts should make law and policy or simply interpret law as the founding fathers intended? Does she think US Courts should look to European Courts for ‘precedents’ like so many liberals would have us do? Does she believe the Constitution guarantees ‘freedom of religion’ as our founders intended or does she see it as ‘freedom from religion’ as today’s atheists would have us believe? Do her rulings indicate she believes in opportunity for all or, instead, that opportunity for some can be achieved only by disenfranchising others? Is she a respecter and student of US history or is she a revisionist?
Interestingly enough, other than the widely publicized speech at Duke and the equally publicized ruling regarding the New Haven Fire Fighters, I cannot find, anywhere, her stated opinions or rulings that would give answers to any of the questions I’ve asked. But, with all your resources at GOP headquarters you should be able to do so. Just don’t let Limbaugh and Beck do the work for you. Remember, it’s Limbaugh who recently said that “80% of her cases have been overturned. . .” The facts are that of the 230 or so cases she has heard while on the Federal bench, only five (5) have gone on to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Of those five, three (3) have been overturned. That’s a 60% ratio (not 80%, Rush) of the ‘cases reviewed’ but only a scant 1.3% of the cases which she’s adjudicated- - -so far.
So how about it, GOP? Can you climb out of the trap BHO set for you? Can you start doing your jobs? Can you ask the tough but fair and meaningful questions that need to be asked of her during the confirmation process? Can you do it without resorting to distortion, innuendo or bad math? Can you stay away from the slippery slope of gender and identity politics? Can you find room for ideas and sensibilities that aren’t fed to us all by Limbaugh and regurgitated by Beck without choosing the “conservatism-lite” menu of McCain? I hope so. Because if you can’t, this registered Republican of some 46 years may just be forced to find a new political ‘home’. The Libertarian Party is looking better all the time.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Let's Challenge Hollywood To Be Truthful
We went to see "Angels and Demons" over the weekend. Good movie- -not great. Tom Hanks is solid. Ewan McGregor is excellent as the "Camerlengo" (Papal Chamberlain). Crisp Ron Howard direction. The screen play/adaptation is quite true to Dan Brown's novel thus pretty inaccurate about Catholic ritual. So, between this movie and "The DaVinci Code" you really have to wonder what's behind Dan Brown's 'mean-on' for Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular? You also have to wonder why Hollywood thinks it’s ‘open season’ on Christianity and feels free to impugn Christians but simply doesn’t have the guts to take on any other religion- -except maybe for Judaism. Finally, you have to question if Hollywood understands the kind of world it’s helping to create by doing so.
Of the world’s great religions Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and the lesser known Shinto and Bha'i, only one of them- -Islam- - teaches it’s alright to kill/murder other human beings and actually offers a reward- - -a place in heaven with 72 virgins- - - for those who follow through on it. (Question, what does a female suicide bomber get as a reward- -72 young virgin boys or does she have to be a lesbian to reap full benefit of the reward?)
Christianity and Judaism on the other hand are quite firm and very explicit on this subject going so far as to cite the teaching in two places in the Old Testament. The Book of Exodus, Chapter 20, Verse 13 states the Sixth Commandment very precisely, “Thou shall not kill.” The same commandment is repeated verbatim in the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 5, Verse 17- - -“Thou shall not kill.” Notice that it doesn’t say, “Thou shall not kill except for. . . .” or, “Generally speaking you probably shouldn’t kill. . .” No, the Sixth Commandment is plain and clear- - -you cannot kill. Buddhists, Shintos and Bha'is all have similar teachings and hold human life in the highest regard. But not Islam. It’s call to Jihad and to the murder of non-believers is well known in every corner of the world. Yet, Hollywood and it’s left leaning citizenry insist on taking on and maligning the Judeo-Christian sense of religion and morality upon which this country was founded. Why?
Could it be the Hollywood elite and powerful are simply gut-less and afraid of taking on Islam lest some Ayatollah somewhere issues a Fatwa calling for their deaths as was done with Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh? [They succeeded in the case of Dutch film maker, Van Gogh, but not with British author Rushdie.] After all it’s pretty hard to imagine the Pope calling for the Death of Dan Brown or the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem putting a price tag on the head of Ron Howard. And, a vision of the Dalai Lama urging his followers to behead Tom Hanks on sight is impossible to conjure up. Thus taking shots at Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism seems to be the safer path for those “brave” Hollywood types. Not much chance of physical retribution for their actions.
Maybe it’s about time for Americans to say “enough” and issue a challenge. A challenge to all the folks in Hollywood and the movie industry around the world challenging them to either have the courage and moral integrity to expose radical Islam for what it is through the power of feature films and documentaries or- - - -shut the Hell up!! And to so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims everywhere in the world, challenging them to either take a vocal and highly visible stand- -in huge numbers- -against radical Islam or admit to being the purposeful hypocrites they appear to be. Unfortunately, I think liberal Hollywood lacks the clarity of purpose and spiritual integrity to do what’s right in this battle of cultures and ideologies. Instead they will continue to do what’s currently politically correct and ideologically expedient. Moderate Muslims will simply continue to lack backbone and courage. And the world will continue to be a dangerous place as a result.
Of the world’s great religions Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and the lesser known Shinto and Bha'i, only one of them- -Islam- - teaches it’s alright to kill/murder other human beings and actually offers a reward- - -a place in heaven with 72 virgins- - - for those who follow through on it. (Question, what does a female suicide bomber get as a reward- -72 young virgin boys or does she have to be a lesbian to reap full benefit of the reward?)
Christianity and Judaism on the other hand are quite firm and very explicit on this subject going so far as to cite the teaching in two places in the Old Testament. The Book of Exodus, Chapter 20, Verse 13 states the Sixth Commandment very precisely, “Thou shall not kill.” The same commandment is repeated verbatim in the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 5, Verse 17- - -“Thou shall not kill.” Notice that it doesn’t say, “Thou shall not kill except for. . . .” or, “Generally speaking you probably shouldn’t kill. . .” No, the Sixth Commandment is plain and clear- - -you cannot kill. Buddhists, Shintos and Bha'is all have similar teachings and hold human life in the highest regard. But not Islam. It’s call to Jihad and to the murder of non-believers is well known in every corner of the world. Yet, Hollywood and it’s left leaning citizenry insist on taking on and maligning the Judeo-Christian sense of religion and morality upon which this country was founded. Why?
Could it be the Hollywood elite and powerful are simply gut-less and afraid of taking on Islam lest some Ayatollah somewhere issues a Fatwa calling for their deaths as was done with Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh? [They succeeded in the case of Dutch film maker, Van Gogh, but not with British author Rushdie.] After all it’s pretty hard to imagine the Pope calling for the Death of Dan Brown or the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem putting a price tag on the head of Ron Howard. And, a vision of the Dalai Lama urging his followers to behead Tom Hanks on sight is impossible to conjure up. Thus taking shots at Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism seems to be the safer path for those “brave” Hollywood types. Not much chance of physical retribution for their actions.
Maybe it’s about time for Americans to say “enough” and issue a challenge. A challenge to all the folks in Hollywood and the movie industry around the world challenging them to either have the courage and moral integrity to expose radical Islam for what it is through the power of feature films and documentaries or- - - -shut the Hell up!! And to so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims everywhere in the world, challenging them to either take a vocal and highly visible stand- -in huge numbers- -against radical Islam or admit to being the purposeful hypocrites they appear to be. Unfortunately, I think liberal Hollywood lacks the clarity of purpose and spiritual integrity to do what’s right in this battle of cultures and ideologies. Instead they will continue to do what’s currently politically correct and ideologically expedient. Moderate Muslims will simply continue to lack backbone and courage. And the world will continue to be a dangerous place as a result.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Parents of 'Panty-Less' Teen Teach Wrong Lesson
The lead paragraph of a TBO.com news story published online on May 16 summed up quite well what is shaping up to be the basis of a strong “culture war” debate in the Tampa Bay area and perhaps nationally as well. Here’s how the article starts out. “You remember the famous scene with Sharon Stone in "Basic Instinct," right? 'Nuff said. A 16-year-old teenager at Sickles High School in [Tampa] Florida is now facing the same "problem," as a result of going "commando" so as to avoid panty lines in a yearbook picture. Unfortunately, it's now resulted in the Sickles High School "yearbook crotch photo" incident.”
It seems the 16 year old who is the focus of the story, when deciding what to wear for the pottery club yearbook photo, opted for a green form fitting mini-dress. Worried that she might display ‘panty-lines’ she decided to pre-empt the problem by not wearing any panties at all. She then compounded the folly of her decision by being less than lady like in her seated pose and unintentionally doing her best Britney Spears imitation.
As expected none of this came to light until the yearbooks were printed and distributed at which time the “oops” was discovered subjecting the “unfortunate” teen to a lot of ridicule from her peers- - -so the story goes. And, just as unfortunately but also just as predictably, the teen’s parents have threatened to file a lawsuit unless the school- -at the school’s expense- - rounds up the yearbooks, corrects the photo and redistributes the redacted publication. In the meantime the ‘victimized’ teen is being allowed to stay home apparently too embarrased to show her face at the school.
This is so wrong on so many levels I don’t know where to begin. So let me just say that it would have been a cold day in Hell that anyone of my daughters would have been purposefully portrayed by their mother and me as an “unfortunate victim” for reaping the consequences of her own stupid decision.
No matter how “embarrased” she might claim to be she would be in school, all day, each day. She would also be “grounded” for at least 30 days. Every morning before leaving for school she would be subject to an “underwear check” from her Mom and again when she got home. Then, the cost of a one week “charm school” class focusing on how to be a “lady” would be deducted from her allowance/savings. Any lawyer attempting to represent her in an action against the school, the photographer, or the yearbook publisher would be physically rebuked, publicly named and actively reviled. In short, my daughter would have been allowed to learn the lesson that stupid decisions make you the “unfortunate” but deserved bearer of lousy and often embarrasing consequences but NOT an “unfortunate victim”.
For more detail go to: http://www.huliq.com/3257/80958/yearbook-crotch-photo-embarases-sickles-high-school-student
It seems the 16 year old who is the focus of the story, when deciding what to wear for the pottery club yearbook photo, opted for a green form fitting mini-dress. Worried that she might display ‘panty-lines’ she decided to pre-empt the problem by not wearing any panties at all. She then compounded the folly of her decision by being less than lady like in her seated pose and unintentionally doing her best Britney Spears imitation.
As expected none of this came to light until the yearbooks were printed and distributed at which time the “oops” was discovered subjecting the “unfortunate” teen to a lot of ridicule from her peers- - -so the story goes. And, just as unfortunately but also just as predictably, the teen’s parents have threatened to file a lawsuit unless the school- -at the school’s expense- - rounds up the yearbooks, corrects the photo and redistributes the redacted publication. In the meantime the ‘victimized’ teen is being allowed to stay home apparently too embarrased to show her face at the school.
This is so wrong on so many levels I don’t know where to begin. So let me just say that it would have been a cold day in Hell that anyone of my daughters would have been purposefully portrayed by their mother and me as an “unfortunate victim” for reaping the consequences of her own stupid decision.
No matter how “embarrased” she might claim to be she would be in school, all day, each day. She would also be “grounded” for at least 30 days. Every morning before leaving for school she would be subject to an “underwear check” from her Mom and again when she got home. Then, the cost of a one week “charm school” class focusing on how to be a “lady” would be deducted from her allowance/savings. Any lawyer attempting to represent her in an action against the school, the photographer, or the yearbook publisher would be physically rebuked, publicly named and actively reviled. In short, my daughter would have been allowed to learn the lesson that stupid decisions make you the “unfortunate” but deserved bearer of lousy and often embarrasing consequences but NOT an “unfortunate victim”.
For more detail go to: http://www.huliq.com/3257/80958/yearbook-crotch-photo-embarases-sickles-high-school-student
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
What Your Wife Told Me and Hundreds More On Mother's Day.
On the currently popular TV show, “Desperate Housewives” there is a recurring scenario in which the women of Wisteria Lane gather for their weekly poker game and, more importantly, their weekly gripe session. As cards are dealt and coffee is consumed, the 5 protagonists relate anecdotes describing- -sometimes in painful detail- - their banal lives, each being more desperate than the others, of course.
As expected, one of the most often repeated themes of their gripes is that of the stupid, selfish, insensitive, dopey, over-sexed, moronic, clueless husband/boyfriend who has somehow managed to be, yet again, the source of their desperation. It is a scene every male in America in a committed relationship with a woman knows exists in their circle of friends, if not through card games then via such seemingly innocent gatherings as book clubs, charity work or community activism. And every man is glad he is not there to hear what’s being said. Instead we have always taken comfort in the fact that such gatherings are what pass for “social contact” in well defined local circles of close knit friends and the comments are unlikely to travel beyond the limited number of people involved directly in that group. Like the five Desperate Housewives, for instance.
But, guys, if you still think your reputation among your wives/girlfriends is pretty much contained within “poker-club” or “book-club” and immune from spreading to the wider world, such as your workplace, you are clearly clueless about something called “Social Media” in general and “Face Book” in particular. Wikipedia defines social media, in part, as “…a fusion of sociology and technology, transforming monologue (one to many) into dialog (many to many)…” Whereas “book-club” or “poker-club” and the like is/was a form of monologue, Face Book and its cousins My Space and Twitter are definitely about dialog and “many to many” communication. So, gentlemen let me tell you what I learned about you- -none of whom I know- - and what I think of you thanks to Social Media this past Mother’s Day.
It began with a post from a FB “friend” of mine a college educated, 40ish woman, married with two children. I’ll call her “Pea”. I’ve never met Pea but became her FB friend a few months ago through a mutual friend we have in common. We have maintained our FB friendship because of like politics, a similar sense of humor and shared conservative values. Pea opened a “thread” of communication in which she grayly viewed Mother’s Day as “just another day”. Her posting was immediately available for all 80 of her ‘friends’ (including me) to see and to add comments. It didn’t take long before her female friends started adding their thoughts about Mother’s Day, family and husbands, each comment immediately being made available to every other commenter and every other ‘friend’ of Pea. I decided to “sit it out” and be a passive observer as one after another of Pea’s friends weighed in about her own lousy Mother’s Day. I was the proverbial “fly on the wall” at the book club. I was invisible but none-the-less seated at the poker table with the Desperate Housewives, all thanks to my Face Book account and my “friend” Pea. No subject escaped my eyes. None of the many profanities- -including countless f-bombs - - eluded me. No pang of unfulfillment went un-noticed. And, boys, here’s what you need to know.
Pal, if you think a pair of bejeweled Japanese chopsticks is an endearing gift to a smart woman, you’re a moron. Amigo, if you think a pig-out brunch is a treat to a woman who already thinks her ass is too big, you’re an idiot. Mon ami, if you think a $99 bauble from McJewlers is gift enough for a woman who stretched her vagina out bearing your 3 brats, you really are clueless. Friend, if you thought a Hallmark card and a few posies would bring tears of joy to her eyes instead of tears of frustration, you get the dope of the year award. And by the way bubba, if you thought you didn’t have to honor your princess bride at all on Mother’s Day because she’s not your mama, there’s no hope, you are just plain retarded. Oh, and did I forget to mention that every one of your wives is very well acquainted with the f-word and capable of using it as every other word in a complete sentence with a clueless you as the subject?
Surprised? You shouldn’t be. Because if you haven’t figured out by now that your 40ish, Gen-X wife is not really a radicalized feminist but just another person who wants to be loved, appreciated and respected, you really are brain-dead. And finally, if you still think your short-comings are known only to the precious few in the book-club or at the poker table in what ever town you live- - -wise up and shape up. I’m the “Sage of Tampa” and I know about you and thanks to Face Book it won’t be long before everybody else will, too. It’s a brave new world, chum. Start living in it.
As expected, one of the most often repeated themes of their gripes is that of the stupid, selfish, insensitive, dopey, over-sexed, moronic, clueless husband/boyfriend who has somehow managed to be, yet again, the source of their desperation. It is a scene every male in America in a committed relationship with a woman knows exists in their circle of friends, if not through card games then via such seemingly innocent gatherings as book clubs, charity work or community activism. And every man is glad he is not there to hear what’s being said. Instead we have always taken comfort in the fact that such gatherings are what pass for “social contact” in well defined local circles of close knit friends and the comments are unlikely to travel beyond the limited number of people involved directly in that group. Like the five Desperate Housewives, for instance.
But, guys, if you still think your reputation among your wives/girlfriends is pretty much contained within “poker-club” or “book-club” and immune from spreading to the wider world, such as your workplace, you are clearly clueless about something called “Social Media” in general and “Face Book” in particular. Wikipedia defines social media, in part, as “…a fusion of sociology and technology, transforming monologue (one to many) into dialog (many to many)…” Whereas “book-club” or “poker-club” and the like is/was a form of monologue, Face Book and its cousins My Space and Twitter are definitely about dialog and “many to many” communication. So, gentlemen let me tell you what I learned about you- -none of whom I know- - and what I think of you thanks to Social Media this past Mother’s Day.
It began with a post from a FB “friend” of mine a college educated, 40ish woman, married with two children. I’ll call her “Pea”. I’ve never met Pea but became her FB friend a few months ago through a mutual friend we have in common. We have maintained our FB friendship because of like politics, a similar sense of humor and shared conservative values. Pea opened a “thread” of communication in which she grayly viewed Mother’s Day as “just another day”. Her posting was immediately available for all 80 of her ‘friends’ (including me) to see and to add comments. It didn’t take long before her female friends started adding their thoughts about Mother’s Day, family and husbands, each comment immediately being made available to every other commenter and every other ‘friend’ of Pea. I decided to “sit it out” and be a passive observer as one after another of Pea’s friends weighed in about her own lousy Mother’s Day. I was the proverbial “fly on the wall” at the book club. I was invisible but none-the-less seated at the poker table with the Desperate Housewives, all thanks to my Face Book account and my “friend” Pea. No subject escaped my eyes. None of the many profanities- -including countless f-bombs - - eluded me. No pang of unfulfillment went un-noticed. And, boys, here’s what you need to know.
Pal, if you think a pair of bejeweled Japanese chopsticks is an endearing gift to a smart woman, you’re a moron. Amigo, if you think a pig-out brunch is a treat to a woman who already thinks her ass is too big, you’re an idiot. Mon ami, if you think a $99 bauble from McJewlers is gift enough for a woman who stretched her vagina out bearing your 3 brats, you really are clueless. Friend, if you thought a Hallmark card and a few posies would bring tears of joy to her eyes instead of tears of frustration, you get the dope of the year award. And by the way bubba, if you thought you didn’t have to honor your princess bride at all on Mother’s Day because she’s not your mama, there’s no hope, you are just plain retarded. Oh, and did I forget to mention that every one of your wives is very well acquainted with the f-word and capable of using it as every other word in a complete sentence with a clueless you as the subject?
Surprised? You shouldn’t be. Because if you haven’t figured out by now that your 40ish, Gen-X wife is not really a radicalized feminist but just another person who wants to be loved, appreciated and respected, you really are brain-dead. And finally, if you still think your short-comings are known only to the precious few in the book-club or at the poker table in what ever town you live- - -wise up and shape up. I’m the “Sage of Tampa” and I know about you and thanks to Face Book it won’t be long before everybody else will, too. It’s a brave new world, chum. Start living in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)