Retired (good thing for us) Army General (and Democratic Vice Presidential hopeful ) Wesley Clark, recently took an opportunity to attempt to marginalize the service record of the de-facto Republican Presidential candidate, John McCain. It seems that Clark feels that, "McCains military record was overblown since he did not make major combat decisions." This is as opposed to Barack Hussein NObama's nonexistent -military record - and his inability to make any decisions as a Senator, generally voting "Present" when voting on bills before the Senate. Clark also said that, "I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president." I think it puts him a few steps closer to being qualified, than NObama! NObama has never served a single day in any function of the military -not active duty, not reserves, not even ROTC in school. How does that total lack of personal experience qualify him to become Commander in Chief of our military forces? If YOU were going into combat, would you want NObama making life or death decisions for YOU ... or your loved ones?
Excuse me for thinking that any President should have some military experience - or at the very least training - as preparation for the single most powerful position in the United States, but that's the mindset that I have. Perhaps it's from my own 20 years, 23 days, 14 hours, and 27 seconds in the military, during which time I was relatively comfortable in the knowledge that my leaders - from the White House to the field commanders - had both knowledge of, and experience in, the military art and science of conducting war.
I am not going to glorify war as a means of human interaction but, suffice it to say, war has been, and will continue to be, with us until the concept of pacification infects the entire world. Until such time, a strong military will be required in order to insure that the word pacifist does not become synonymous with the word VICTIM.
For one military man to belittle the service of another military man - without just cause, and purely for personal political gain - is an egregious act of selfishness. But then, what else can we expect from people with political ambitions? And, anyone that reaches the lofty position of General in the military has done so more by way of political networking than honest effort.
Shame on you Wesley Clark! You weren't captured and imprisoned in the defense of your country because you were so well insulated from the actual battles of Vietnam. If it had been you captured, perhaps your Jane Fonda attitude would be somewhat different.
I'm Gil, and I approve this Blog!
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
HOMOPHOBIA - It's More Than Just a Word, It's a MISNOMER!
The generally accepted definition of 'homophobia' is "an unfounded and irrational fear of homosexuals." I'd like to coin a new, if somewhat clumsy, word to more accurately reflect the feelings most 'straights' have about those who engage in physical love with members of the same sex - homocontemnor is that word, and it means (using the same flexibility demanded by the term 'homophobia'): "having contempt for those who engage in physical love with members of the same sex." Most people have no 'fear' of homosexuals. What most people do have is distaste, disdain, and contempt for that lifestyle.
Whether you agree with me or not makes absolutely no difference (none, nada, zip, zero, zed).That IS the truth of the matter. It seems that the two things which have suffered most from our politically correct society are the language ... and the truth. Did I just commit a 'hate crime'? No - there is no hatred there, just a statement of the facts as I see them.
Whether you agree with me or not makes absolutely no difference (none, nada, zip, zero, zed).That IS the truth of the matter. It seems that the two things which have suffered most from our politically correct society are the language ... and the truth. Did I just commit a 'hate crime'? No - there is no hatred there, just a statement of the facts as I see them.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
"Hate Crimes" - WHAT A CONCEPT!
Our national legislators, in their infinite disregard for the will of the people, and the constraints of our Constitution, defined offenses against certain groups/classes as "hate crimes". To emphasize the importance of such acts, the Congress included additional penalties for these newly-defined crimes. The additional crime is now composed of thought, attitude and/or state of mind during the commission of the true criminal act. Hate crimes are crimes that are "motivated in whole or in part by a bias against the victim's perceived race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disability." Criminal acts are rarely committed out of love for the victim, and crimes against persons and property have always carried penalties.
When I say 'always,' I can only refer back as far as beginnings of recorded human history. Hammurabi, the ruler of Babylon from 1795-1750BC, was credited with the creation of the oldest known written set of laws. These laws were known as Hammurabi's Code or, alternatively, as the Code of Hammurabi (a rose by any other name, etc ...). Numbering a mere two hundred and eighty-two items, the Code was obviously written for much simpler times, and the punishments were also much simpler. Hammurabi's Code prescribed death as the preferred method of punishment for the majority of violations. Harsh? Perhaps by today's standards, but we must look at everything in its historical perspective. Life itself was harsh - from the beginning of time until the 19th century (for 'civilized' nations, anyway). Until the mid-1800s slavery was an accepted way of life throughout the world! Penalties have become much less draconian in the United States during the last 100 years ... which helps to explain our overcrowded prisons. I saw a statistic today claiming that the USA incarcerates 180,000 times the number of people that China does ... and if you think you know WHY, raise your hand. If you said, "China has a much, much higher execution rate than the USA", you are correct. And, if that statistic is accurate, it would mean that in the entire nation of China there are fewer than 16 people in prison (everybody who believes that, please leave the room!).
But, returning to my subject ... we, the people, are supposedly guaranteed "equal protection under the law", yet we have several classes of citizens who are more equal than most of us. Citizens with special protections. They are protected by crimes against race (unless that race is caucasian), religion (unless that religion is Christian), ethnicity (unless you are a WASP born in the United States), sexual orientation (unless your orientation is heterosexual), and disability (I hope that one, at least , cuts in all directions). Our liberal, activist judges have already marginalized freedom of speech by classifying the use of some words as hate crimes (whatever happened to "sticks and stones"?). I certainly don't encourage the use of those words, but they are just words! Can you call a 300 pound man "lard ass", but not call him a "lard ass faggot" if he's gay without going to jail? If the word is the only crime, then its use should carry no greater punishment than a jay-walking ticket ... "Twenty-five dollar fine for using an offensive word! Next case." If the crime is more serious, like murder, and the person was killed specifically for being a black, Jewish, wheel-chair bound, Malaysian lesbian, then prove 'the willful taking of a human life without just cause' in court. Then sentence the convict to die, and execute them. What will we do about the 'hate' part of the crime? Remove the TV from their cell? Take away their birthday? Execute them a second time? Serious crimes already provide for serious punishments! No matter how bad an attitude is, the attitude itself should not be a crime. It's the intentional physical act that may constitute a crime. It's not the word used, it's the deed carried out. Where will the dilution and erosion of our Constitution end ... before or after it no longer exists in any recognizable form?
When I say 'always,' I can only refer back as far as beginnings of recorded human history. Hammurabi, the ruler of Babylon from 1795-1750BC, was credited with the creation of the oldest known written set of laws. These laws were known as Hammurabi's Code or, alternatively, as the Code of Hammurabi (a rose by any other name, etc ...). Numbering a mere two hundred and eighty-two items, the Code was obviously written for much simpler times, and the punishments were also much simpler. Hammurabi's Code prescribed death as the preferred method of punishment for the majority of violations. Harsh? Perhaps by today's standards, but we must look at everything in its historical perspective. Life itself was harsh - from the beginning of time until the 19th century (for 'civilized' nations, anyway). Until the mid-1800s slavery was an accepted way of life throughout the world! Penalties have become much less draconian in the United States during the last 100 years ... which helps to explain our overcrowded prisons. I saw a statistic today claiming that the USA incarcerates 180,000 times the number of people that China does ... and if you think you know WHY, raise your hand. If you said, "China has a much, much higher execution rate than the USA", you are correct. And, if that statistic is accurate, it would mean that in the entire nation of China there are fewer than 16 people in prison (everybody who believes that, please leave the room!).
But, returning to my subject ... we, the people, are supposedly guaranteed "equal protection under the law", yet we have several classes of citizens who are more equal than most of us. Citizens with special protections. They are protected by crimes against race (unless that race is caucasian), religion (unless that religion is Christian), ethnicity (unless you are a WASP born in the United States), sexual orientation (unless your orientation is heterosexual), and disability (I hope that one, at least , cuts in all directions). Our liberal, activist judges have already marginalized freedom of speech by classifying the use of some words as hate crimes (whatever happened to "sticks and stones"?). I certainly don't encourage the use of those words, but they are just words! Can you call a 300 pound man "lard ass", but not call him a "lard ass faggot" if he's gay without going to jail? If the word is the only crime, then its use should carry no greater punishment than a jay-walking ticket ... "Twenty-five dollar fine for using an offensive word! Next case." If the crime is more serious, like murder, and the person was killed specifically for being a black, Jewish, wheel-chair bound, Malaysian lesbian, then prove 'the willful taking of a human life without just cause' in court. Then sentence the convict to die, and execute them. What will we do about the 'hate' part of the crime? Remove the TV from their cell? Take away their birthday? Execute them a second time? Serious crimes already provide for serious punishments! No matter how bad an attitude is, the attitude itself should not be a crime. It's the intentional physical act that may constitute a crime. It's not the word used, it's the deed carried out. Where will the dilution and erosion of our Constitution end ... before or after it no longer exists in any recognizable form?
Friday, June 27, 2008
No Child Left Behind
It's a wonderful sentiment! But, it is also a sad reality that not all children are capable of keeping up. Some are simply destined to be left behind, regardless of the best efforts of parents, educators, and the Federal Government. Education is like any other competition, there are some winners and some losers. Just as all children are not equipped with the physical strength, speed and stamina to win a foot race, not all children are equipped to excel at intellectual endeavors. To increase the chances of the slower students reaching some acceptable level of academic achievement, our government has instituted an unrealistic policy of "No Child Left Behind". The implementation of this policy is simply nothing more than "special" education, and another unwarranted lowering of the educational standards by which we used to measure varying levels of achievement. We are falling short of much of the world in the areas of science and mathematics. Our educational system, with the able assistance of the Federal Government, has reduced the emphasis on what were once referred to as "the hard sciences", and insinuated classes on various "diversities" instead. Education is gradually being replaced by indoctrination.
Who pays the ultimate price for this folly? The high school graduates themselves, and the business world into which they are thrust, or the institutes of higher learning.
Businesses complain that high school graduates are not prepared to enter the work force, because they lack the basic skills to be successful. The business world must either "go begging" for acceptable employees, or invest large sums of money in remedial education for new hires, or 'in-source' employees from outside the country. Colleges have lowered the minimum acceptable SAT entry scores for certain "minority groups", and must provide even more basic 101-level (perhaps 100-level?) courses, to insure that many students stand even the slightest chance of completing their degree.
Potential employers want people who can do the job they are being paid to do. If the employees feel good about themselves that's an added bonus, but it's not what they're being paid for - ability is what they need to bring to the workplace. Whether or not Heather has six mommies, and Tommy has 3 dads doesn't mean diddly-squat to the people who pay the wages and salaries!
What they want, require, and deserve, is a good return on their investment in the employee.
All people are NOT created equal! Accept that as a fact, and perhaps we can get back in the education game. Only a few will be captains of industry, several will attain upper management positions, quite a few will be middle management, many will achieve supervisory status, and the vast majority will be production workers. Our society needs more blue collar workers than we do white collar workers. We need mechanics, police officers, military personnel, mail carriers, custodians, farmers, ranchers, sales associates, bus drivers, truckers, and technicians of all types. Our society needs them much worse than we need politicians, CEO's and CFO's. It is the production worker that keeps our country mobile, fed, healthy, entertained, and communicating! But, those production workers must have a practical education. They need to master those hard sciences in order to be effective in their chosen field(s) of endeavor!
But, complacency seems to be the motto of the majority of Americans. Social indoctrination is the order of the day, and education has been relegated to the category of "nice to have, if we can work it in". Nothing is free, and we will soon pay the price of complacency.
Who pays the ultimate price for this folly? The high school graduates themselves, and the business world into which they are thrust, or the institutes of higher learning.
Businesses complain that high school graduates are not prepared to enter the work force, because they lack the basic skills to be successful. The business world must either "go begging" for acceptable employees, or invest large sums of money in remedial education for new hires, or 'in-source' employees from outside the country. Colleges have lowered the minimum acceptable SAT entry scores for certain "minority groups", and must provide even more basic 101-level (perhaps 100-level?) courses, to insure that many students stand even the slightest chance of completing their degree.
Potential employers want people who can do the job they are being paid to do. If the employees feel good about themselves that's an added bonus, but it's not what they're being paid for - ability is what they need to bring to the workplace. Whether or not Heather has six mommies, and Tommy has 3 dads doesn't mean diddly-squat to the people who pay the wages and salaries!
What they want, require, and deserve, is a good return on their investment in the employee.
All people are NOT created equal! Accept that as a fact, and perhaps we can get back in the education game. Only a few will be captains of industry, several will attain upper management positions, quite a few will be middle management, many will achieve supervisory status, and the vast majority will be production workers. Our society needs more blue collar workers than we do white collar workers. We need mechanics, police officers, military personnel, mail carriers, custodians, farmers, ranchers, sales associates, bus drivers, truckers, and technicians of all types. Our society needs them much worse than we need politicians, CEO's and CFO's. It is the production worker that keeps our country mobile, fed, healthy, entertained, and communicating! But, those production workers must have a practical education. They need to master those hard sciences in order to be effective in their chosen field(s) of endeavor!
But, complacency seems to be the motto of the majority of Americans. Social indoctrination is the order of the day, and education has been relegated to the category of "nice to have, if we can work it in". Nothing is free, and we will soon pay the price of complacency.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
NObama in Wonderland
Barak NObama's latest cure for the USA's ever-increasing fuel cost problem is simple: ADD A 50 CENT PER GALLON TAX TO THE PRICE! This is a man who is obviously not in touch with the problems of working-class America. He believes that by making it even more costly, the American public will drive less, thereby reducing our demand for this OPEC commodity. What he FAILS to understand is that many of us who have to work for a living, unlike our elected officials, are already being crippled by the escalating cost of fuels. We must fuel our vehicles to get us to our work, that we may earn a living and support our families ... and our government! We're paying more at the pump daily, and so are those who transport goods to our retail outlets. Consequently, everything we need to live is costing us more.
Everything from the cost of groceries at the supermarket, to clothing, to the delivery of the evening newspaper to rural areas. In fact, home delivery to rural/unincorporated areas may become a thing of the past, since the delivery person is paying an exorbitant price for fuel, and may not even be making minimum wage. Other services will be forced to increase their prices as well, in order to make a reasonable profit and remain in business.
The challenge for our next elected leader will be to minimize the impact of the downward slide of the US dollar. Our government needs to tap into our own fuel reserves, and resurrect our refineries. Let the 'greenies" whine! The survival of this nation, and it's people, is far more important than a spotted owl becoming temporarily homeless. The owls can move ... and they won't burn a drop of fuel doing it!
NObama's solution sounds familiar though ... it reminds me of the French phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche", or, "Let them eat cake." (For anybody who may not remember the consequences of that statement, it fueled the French Revolution, and the subsequent beheading of Marie Antoinette in 1793 for treason.) How far can the American people be pushed before we revolt? That has yet to be seen - and I hope not to see it in my lifetime, but ...
We deserve the leadership we elect ... and may God save us from our emotions! Use your intellect to vote, not your emotions.
I'm Gil, and I approve this Blog!
Everything from the cost of groceries at the supermarket, to clothing, to the delivery of the evening newspaper to rural areas. In fact, home delivery to rural/unincorporated areas may become a thing of the past, since the delivery person is paying an exorbitant price for fuel, and may not even be making minimum wage. Other services will be forced to increase their prices as well, in order to make a reasonable profit and remain in business.
The challenge for our next elected leader will be to minimize the impact of the downward slide of the US dollar. Our government needs to tap into our own fuel reserves, and resurrect our refineries. Let the 'greenies" whine! The survival of this nation, and it's people, is far more important than a spotted owl becoming temporarily homeless. The owls can move ... and they won't burn a drop of fuel doing it!
NObama's solution sounds familiar though ... it reminds me of the French phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche", or, "Let them eat cake." (For anybody who may not remember the consequences of that statement, it fueled the French Revolution, and the subsequent beheading of Marie Antoinette in 1793 for treason.) How far can the American people be pushed before we revolt? That has yet to be seen - and I hope not to see it in my lifetime, but ...
We deserve the leadership we elect ... and may God save us from our emotions! Use your intellect to vote, not your emotions.
I'm Gil, and I approve this Blog!
Saturday, June 21, 2008
United Nations - Those Who Would Rule The World
Our left-wing loonies, most of whom worship at the temple of the United Nations in New York City, are supporting the following, extracted from the United Nations "Declaration of Human Rights" (emphasis added to Article 29 (3)):
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
I'm not claiming that there are no good aspects to the UN's UDoHR, there are many ... but they are, for the most part, vaguely worded and easily interpreted in any manner the reader desires. Am I the only person who has wondered (sometimes aloud to others) if the EU, and NAFTA (the obvious precursor to the North American Union, or perhaps just the American Union) are the first two steps to world domination by the UN? The third, and final step, would be the formation of the Asian Union - which, given the significant antagonism and distrust between most of the Asian countries, will be the greatest challenge of this unification project. It is much easier to exercise control over 3 entities than 192 independent ones. BUT, once the Asian Union has been accomplished through 'diplomacy' (read: intimidation and ostracism), there is only one obvious Puppet Master. What controlling body would be more apparent than the UN? There would be only one independent state left in the world - The Vatcian - assuming the UN allows them to retain their independent status , rather than incorporating the Vatican into Italy. You can use your own imagination for drawing further conclusions ... my imagination is fatigued!
NObama Ahead (Liberal Liars Can Figure Too)
A recent Newsweek poll reports that, "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has opened up a double-digit lead over Republican John McCain two weeks after he clinched the nomination, a new poll published on Friday showed." The left-inclined mainstream media is doing all that it can to deter Republicans and conservatives from either voting at all (by instilling the , "with NObama having such a serious lead why bother to vote for McCain?" thoughts), or by attempting to influence them into jumping ship and joining the left-wing, Kumbaya/America Last crowd.
If conservative-traditionalists and Republicans can't see through this ploy by the mainstream media, and fail to turn out in record numbers for the election, it will prove to be the darkest day in American history. A day many of us may not live to regret!
I'm Gil, and I approve this Blog!
If conservative-traditionalists and Republicans can't see through this ploy by the mainstream media, and fail to turn out in record numbers for the election, it will prove to be the darkest day in American history. A day many of us may not live to regret!
I'm Gil, and I approve this Blog!
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Change For Change Sake
My primary concern is that our citizens will elect a person who really doesn't seem to care for the country as the 'head caretaker' should. Every time we hold a national election history is made. But this election is unusually significant, in that the Democrats presented voters with the first opportunity to select either a female or a ... what ... not white, not black ... I suppose the most accurate way to describe Obama would be "a man of color" as their candidate for the highest office in the land. Okay, fine. They have proven that we are neither conclusively sexist or racist in our selection of candidates - that it is possible for a woman, or a non-white/non-black, to come to the forefront of politics in our country. Unfortunately, in making that point, they have also proven that people vote with their emotions rather than their brains.
Change is the only constant in our world. But, to put our country in jeopardy simply to initiate a change is totally irresponsible. Not all changes are good, nor are all changes bad. But, when you have serious pre-election indicators that Candidate "X" would not be a strong supporter of our culture and our Constitution, voting for such a person is (at least in the moral sense) an act of treason! If the security, integrity, and prosperity of the American citizen is not foremost in the mind and heart of the candidate, then that candidate should be summarily dismissed as a viable prospect for the office of President of the United States of America. People should not feel compelled to vote for anybody just because the election of that person would be a "first." Prior to 1992 we hadn't had a President who was elected based on charisma alone, and who looted the White House upon departure. Until 2000 we hadn't had a mentally insufficient President, but we have since had firsts in both those categories.
Some day this country will have a non-white or female President, but we must not feel obligated to elect the first one offered by any political party! Condoleeza Rice would probably make an excellent President - she has Cabinet-level government experience, she's brilliant, and she's both female and black! But, she did not run for President. Who did? A woman who could not control her own husband (yet thought she could control an entire government), and a non-white male who apparently thinks there are 60 United States (and shows no outward signs of affection, or even respect for our great nation). And where did those additional 10 states come from ... Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria perhaps?!?
Obama is an inspiring orator ... much of the time. Like ALL politicians, he panders to the audience he faces, saying the words they want to hear, even though those words may be diametrically opposed to what he said in the last speech he made. Repeat after me - "silver-tongued Devil" - it's more than just a phrase, it's a statement about character! We don't know exactly what he does stand for, because he usually votes "Present" in the Senate ... which is the same as not voting at all! But, we can be fairly certain of what he doesn't stand for - honesty and integrity in government, and security and prosperity for Americans. When you go to the polls this November, VOTE FOR AMERICA!!
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
Change is the only constant in our world. But, to put our country in jeopardy simply to initiate a change is totally irresponsible. Not all changes are good, nor are all changes bad. But, when you have serious pre-election indicators that Candidate "X" would not be a strong supporter of our culture and our Constitution, voting for such a person is (at least in the moral sense) an act of treason! If the security, integrity, and prosperity of the American citizen is not foremost in the mind and heart of the candidate, then that candidate should be summarily dismissed as a viable prospect for the office of President of the United States of America. People should not feel compelled to vote for anybody just because the election of that person would be a "first." Prior to 1992 we hadn't had a President who was elected based on charisma alone, and who looted the White House upon departure. Until 2000 we hadn't had a mentally insufficient President, but we have since had firsts in both those categories.
Some day this country will have a non-white or female President, but we must not feel obligated to elect the first one offered by any political party! Condoleeza Rice would probably make an excellent President - she has Cabinet-level government experience, she's brilliant, and she's both female and black! But, she did not run for President. Who did? A woman who could not control her own husband (yet thought she could control an entire government), and a non-white male who apparently thinks there are 60 United States (and shows no outward signs of affection, or even respect for our great nation). And where did those additional 10 states come from ... Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria perhaps?!?
Obama is an inspiring orator ... much of the time. Like ALL politicians, he panders to the audience he faces, saying the words they want to hear, even though those words may be diametrically opposed to what he said in the last speech he made. Repeat after me - "silver-tongued Devil" - it's more than just a phrase, it's a statement about character! We don't know exactly what he does stand for, because he usually votes "Present" in the Senate ... which is the same as not voting at all! But, we can be fairly certain of what he doesn't stand for - honesty and integrity in government, and security and prosperity for Americans. When you go to the polls this November, VOTE FOR AMERICA!!
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
Monday, June 16, 2008
And Then There's This ...
Watch Texas Senator Kirk Watson squirm. The question Chris Matthews asks has yet to be answered by anyone!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o
- Accomplishments? NONE!
- Promises? Many.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Obama Will Dismantle Our Military - Goodbye USA
The Democrat who desires to be our next President, Barak HUSSEIN Obama, has promised to reduce our military defense capability, to something roughly equivalent to that of Jamaica. The only thing he hasn't said is to whom he plans to surrender our country.
For details click -->> http://msunderestimated.com/2008/03/01/obamas-plans-for-our-military-video/
How unbelievably stupid are we Americans, that this man could ever even be considered for our country's highest office, much less nominated, by one of the two larger political parties?? Does the phrase "sleeper cell" not come to mind? Would the last one to leave please close the doors and turn off the lights ...
For details click -->> http://msunderestimated.com/2008/03/01/obamas-plans-for-our-military-video/
How unbelievably stupid are we Americans, that this man could ever even be considered for our country's highest office, much less nominated, by one of the two larger political parties?? Does the phrase "sleeper cell" not come to mind? Would the last one to leave please close the doors and turn off the lights ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)