Daddy's Little Girl

One of those emails that work their way around...

Thelma comes home from first grade and tells her father that they learned about the history of Valentine's Day. And, "Since Valentine's Day is for a Christian saint and we're Jewish," she asks, "will God get mad at me for giving someone a valentine?

Thelma's father thinks a bit, then says "No, I don't think God would get mad. Who do you want to give a valentine to?"

"Osama Bin Laden," she says.

"Why Osama Bin Laden," her father asks in shock?

"Well," she says, "I thought that if a little American Jewish girl could have enough love to give Osama a valentine, he might start to think that maybe we're not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little bit. And if other kids saw what I did and then they sent valentines to Osama,he'd love everyone a lot. And then he'd start going all over the place tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn't hate anyone anymore."

Her father's heart swells and he looks at his daughter with newfound pride. "Thelma, that's the most wonderful thing I've ever heard."

"I know," Thelma says, "and once that gets him out in the open, the Marines could blow the shit out of him."




Semper Fi Thelma,
Ooh Rah...

What is the President up to?

I have an idea, and I smell Rove...

By now, you've all heard the hub-bub about this deal with a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) controlling six major US ports. And many people are thinking to themselves, and out loud, "What the hell is Bush thinking?" I was thinking that myself when I first heard about it. But I think I have a hunch what's going on and I smell the brain of Karl Rove here...

Personally, I think this is a PR move by the Bush Administration. Think about this for a second…

He comes out saying we should not discriminate against this UAE company just because it’s an Arab company, and now he’s got Dems saying “We can’t trust the Arabs to run our shipping ports!” This makes the Dems look like bigots. The Dems are not defending Arabs as in the past, but they are questioning them. Interesting turn of events, wouldn't you say?

Now, later on, he can collapse under political pressure from Congress and save face with the Arab "allies in the war on terror" and show the world how democracy works. He can claim to the world that “the people have spoken” and pull out of the deal, thus saving face with Arab nations and while still not letting the deal go through. He is thinking about foreign policy right now by defending the UAE. And so much of foreign policy is posturing. Positioning the pieces on the board so to speak...

From what I understand, the Coast Guard and Dept. of Homeland Security will maintain security of the ports, just like they do now, so I don't see how we'll be more at risk than we are right now. We'll still only be inspecting 5% of the incoming crates anyway. That's the problem with port security, not who is managing the logistics of incoming and outgoing ships.

Additionally, think about this: Sometimes, in politics, you have to see the big picture. Yes, this deal is going to hurt the Repubs initially because it's a Republican President defending it. But think about it, Repubs in congress are coming out against this too, in a mid-term election year. This is giving the Repubs in the house an opportunity to show they're not lap dogs of the President and also it puts national security into the debate without being accused of playing a fear card. Right now, the Dems are playing that fear card. But the country knows, in matters of National Security, ultimately the Dems are weak.

As this plays out, if the President backs out due to political pressure from his own party, it makes the congressmen that stood up to him look strong. A position they need to be in for the upcoming mid term elections. Remember, it's all about the posturing at the right time. Placement of your pieces on the board, and then, at just the right moment, what do you have? Checkmate...

Just a hunch, but I could see that happening. The question is, is the president confident the congress will have enough votes to overturn his Veto? This should be interesting...

Scalia Dismisses 'Living Constitution'

And there was much rejoicing...

In a recent speech, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defended his long time Contitutional philosophy of originalism, meaning he believes in what the Constitution actually says, not what some would have it say. You can read the story here, I'll just post some quotes because this guy has articulated what I've been trying to say for years, making it obvious why he is a Surpreme Court Justice and I, am not.

On the notion of the Constitution being a living document:

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break." - "But you would have to be an idiot to believe that, the Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

He goes on to say that proponents of a "living Constitution" want matters to be decided "not by the people but by the justices of the Supreme Court."

Isn't that the truth...

"They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable,"

Isn't that exactly the case? Once the Supreme Court rules on an issue, the will of the people is no longer a consideration. This is why conservatives across the nation have been screaming about "activist judges." We as conservatives do not want judges making law from the bench. We want our elected officials to make the laws and the judges to enforce them. I'm fairly certain that's how the system was setup to begin with. Seems like I've read that somewhere... Oh yeah, in the Constitution!

Look people, there are things that just are not in the Constitution. Sorry ladies, but that includes the right to an abortion. That includes the right to gay marriage. That includes the right to a retirement plan, and it also includes the right to privacy. I've read it several times, none of those things are in there.

And the interesting thing of it is, The Constitution does provide a way to put things in there that the founding fathers left out. No, it's not by judicial decree. It's called the amendment process. If you want something in the Constitution that is not currently there, write an amendment and get it passed and ratified as the Constitution insists. Amazing how they thought of that isn't it?

Long live Justice Scalia! We need more like him.

Hunting With Dick

No, seriously...

This has to be one of the funniest political bumper stickers I've ever seen.

Poor old Dick, a horrible accident and now he's the Ted Kennedy of the Republican party.

I'm sorry, I know a man was shot in the face, but you know what, accidents happen. And I feel bad for the Vice President and for the lawyer that got shot. (I know, feeling bad for any lawyer doesn't come natural to me either, but I guess I am human after all.)

I can't believe I haven't heard any Dan Quayle jokes about this. We have a Republican Vice President, hunting quail and shoots a lawyer. That's screaming for a Dan Quayle joke.

Headline: VP Mistakes Lawyer for Quail - Dan Quayle?

I don't know, somebody out there that's funnier than I am, come up with something. This just seems to be a huge opportunity that is being missed.

Jimmy Carter Has Some Nerve

This guy makes me want to vomit...

If you follow politics at all, you undoubtedly heard about the beating President Bush took at Corretta Scott King's memorial service last week. Some people that were asked to give speeches. I wouldn't call them eulogies for they were far too political for that. From Ted Kennedy completely forgetting the wiretapping ordered by his brothers, to the Rev. Joseph Lowery bringing up WMD, to former President Jimmy Carter mentioning "illegal wiretapping" at the most opportune moment, it was open season on President Bush at what was supposed to be a memorial to a leader in the Civil Rights movement.

The former President Carter, the man who won a Nobel Peace prize for reaching a deal with North Korea in which they wouldn't produce nuclear weapons, apparently complained about the NSA's terrorist surveillance program at the announcing of his son's campaign for the Senate. Hey Mr. Carter, are the North Koreans living up to their end of the deal? Anyway, according to this Washington Times article at a rally for his son who is running for a senate seat in Nevada, he said:

"Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision -- we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people."

Funny, seems like a lot of Presidents have wiretapped individuals without a warrant, including Mr. Carter. It seems in 1977, President Carter and his Attorney General used warrentless wiretapping to monitor a couple of guys spying for Vietnam. And the evidence obtained in those wiretaps led to their conviction.

According to the Washing Times article, the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the warrentless wiretapping did not violate the man's rights. From the article:

-In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."-

Well, isn't that a daisy? "Inherent authority to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters." Sound familiar?

One point, and maybe a petty one, but what ever happen to the tradition of former presidents never criticizing sitting presidents? It was considered low rent for a former president to politically attack or criticize a sitting president. Notice, we've never heard any attacks on Clinton or Carter from President Bush? Hm, I wonder why that is...

My second point, where does Jimmy Carter get off criticizing any president? He has repeatedly been called the worst president in U.S. history. No need for me to go into his record here, I'm sure you're quite aware of it. And for him to say anything about warrentless wiretapping of anyone is completely absurd.

And to do it at a memorial service for Corretta Scott King? Not only is he a low class redneck for attacking a sitting president, he's really a low class redneck piece of political dung for doing it a memorial service.

Let me put this question out there, and I encourage you to answer it in the comments. What do you think the enemies of this country are thinking when they see on CNN that a former president of the United States is attacking President Bush for trying to listen in on their conversations? They have to laughing their asses off. Do you think this discourages our enemies? No, it only motivates them. It motivates them to keep fighting. It makes them believe that we as a nation are coming apart at the seems and if they can hold on, we will fold and they will have their victory.

Mr Carter, and democrats alike, I'm implore you to shut up! Keep your big mouths shut. If you don't believe in what this president is doing, then put up a candidate that can beat him. But to attack a sitting president in this fashion, in a time of war borders, I believe, on treason. You are clearly providing aid and comfort to our enemies. You are not helping our boys fighting this war. You are not helping our president lead this war. You are undermining him every step of the way. And for what purpose? To gain some political points with your lunatic fringe wing of your pathetic party. Why do you think Ronald Reagan kicked your ass in the election? Because you're an idiot. Hey Mr. Carter, your political career is over so unless you have something responsible to say, keep your freaking big mouth shut. You suck. Your administration sucked. And you are a disgrace as a former President and as a human being. You should be ashamed of yourself. Freaking loser.

Trying to start a Riot

Doubt I'll have much luck...

Ok, if you're a devout Christian, you may not want to read on because you will be offended. Consider yourself warned.

I hate to revisit a topic two posts in a row, but this is making me nuts. This rioting in some parts of the world over the publishing of cartoons is to me, a sign that World War III is just around the corner. I know, that seems to be a bit of an alarmist point of view, but please think about it. Here we have a Danish Newspaper publishing the cartoons in September and nothing happens. Then it seems the mass media gets a hold of it and spreads the word and 5 months later, we have how many embassies burned and how many people dead? If they can take a nothing story and inspire these people to react this way, why not continue to publish thing that will create even more turmoil and hatred between the two groups? Think about the circulation levels newspapers have during a World War. They stand to make some serious money.

Then it occurred to me, riots are news worthy. Just look at the coverage these riots are getting. It's everywhere. People are talking about it. It is a very disturbing story. The very idea that adult human beings would resort to such violence because of a cartoon just seems unbelievable to most of us.

The problem is, there were no riots in September when the cartoons were first released. It wasn't until the world media got a hold of these cartoons did all hell break loose. In my opinion, this just another case of the media creating the news opposed to just reporting it. My question is, would these riots be taking place if it were not for the world media elitists who claim to be the voice of the people pushing them into the mainstream? I'm thinking since nearly five months have passed since their original publication, that without the world media, this would have remained un-noticed.

Well, since I am success driven, and I'm trying to create a informative, entertaining, most of all successful blog, I'm going to follow the lead of the very successful mass media and publish what I consider to be a very offensive picture and see if I can create some buzz for my blog.

In case you haven't seen this, this is the picture on the cover of the current Rolling Stone Magazine.

And as a person that believes in Jesus Christ, I find this very offensive and I think this justifies the burning down of the Rolling Stone headquarters in New York. In case you don't know who this is, this is Kanye West, the idiot musician who proclaimed "George Bush doesn't care about black people" in the wake of hurricane Katrina.

Now, I am very offended by the very idea that anyone would publish an obvious mockery of the Lord Jesus Christ. And if you are as offended as I am, I say we should go to New York, find the Rolling Stone Headquarters and set fire to it. We could have a nice wiener roast, make s'mores, and sing campfire songs as we burn Rolling Stone magazines in protest.

What do you think? Who's with me? Doesn't this sound like a great idea?

No, it doesn't. Of course it doesn't. It is a completely ridiculous idea and anyone with half a brain realizes this. So, are these people rioting and burning flags and embassies just stupid? Or are they insane? My bet is a combination of the two.

Rioting Over a Cartoon Exposes Truth

And I think some folks are finally starting to see it...

I'm sure you've heard about the rioting in Denmark and the outrage coming from the Middle East over some cartoons that appeared in European news papers. Yes, Muslims are pissed off again. Imagine that...
Here's one of the cartoons:

Now that, is funny. If you don't think that is funny, then you have no sense of humor whatsoever.

This latest outrage from the Islamic community, in my opinion, only demonstrates perfectly what I've been trying to tell you for a while now. Muslims have no interest in co-existing with non-Muslims. They want to rule all and insist we bow down and respect their belief system while at the same time having no respect for ours. They're throwing a fit over Muhammad being portrayed in a cartoon. I'm sorry, but you people need to lighten up. I wish I had a nickel for every time somebody made fun of Jesus, or Moses, or the Ten Commandments.

Look people, this is the deal, and pay attention here:

Islam has no interest in tolerating or respecting others while at the same time demanding others tolerate and respect them. This is more than just anti-social behavior as it is rooted in their religious belief system. It's part of their teachings. They are taught to believe this way.

If Islam were just a religion, I could understand the need some have to defend it and call it a "religion of peace." But the truth is, Islam is more than a religion, it is a political philosophy that is used to rule people under its control. Islamic law is the foundation of all law in the Islamic world. And that would be fine except for the fact that Islamic law dictates that any non-believers are infidels and should be killed. Islamic law does not provide the fundamental structure of tolerance. They don't want to co-exist with non-believers. They want to kill them.

Sure, Christians can be political, but Christians don't stone their woman to death under the guise of religion. And they don't riot at the sight of someone making fun of Jesus, or the removal of the Ten Commandments from a public building. They may disagree with it and even "speak" out against it. But they don't grab guns and threaten people over it.

Why is that? Because we live with the knowledge that people are free to believe whatever they want. That is until those beliefs motivate them to do harm to people that disagree with them. Once you take a physical and violent action against someone, the religious argument goes right out the window and you will be punished for your violent action. In Islam, the violent action that we punish people for, is in fact encouraged by the leaders of that community. That is what makes Islam a political practice and not just a religious one.

What I don't understand, is why the left, albeit the extreme left, have such a strong hatred of Christianity and it's teachings, yet they seem to defend Islam as just a religion. The hypocrisy in that belief system is mind boggling to me. Perhaps this absurd rioting in Europe will open some eyes on the left.

Some Thoughts on Taxes, Social Security, and Freedom

You'll think I'm nuts...

I occasionally spend some time on the Sean Hannity Discussion Forum discussing politics and whatever else with other people. Sometimes it turns into some very good debate. During one such discussion of politics with a liberal that shall remain nameless, to prove a point that the left has no ideas, I came up with a few ideas of my own. A political platform if you will in case I should decide to run for President. (Scary thought I know) In furtherance of this discussion, I went off on a bit of a rant that I believe is quite thought provoking and well worth reading:



We definitely need to do something about the tax code because is really is a noose around the neck of Americans. Think about this. We have an agency of the federal government that can come to your house with guns and calculators and force you to prove yourself innocent. Does that sound right to you?

Think about a time in America when we didn't have social security numbers. Imagine, if you will, a time when the very idea of a number assigned to every American was a threat to freedom. Imagine if you will, a debate about if we should all be assigned a number. That debate did occur and a lot of people fought the idea of a social security number because they didn't want that number to be used for identification purposes. And what were the American people told? They were told that it would never be used for identification purposes. Well, try to get a drivers license without a Soc Sec card. Won't happen. Try to get a credit card, try to buy a car, try to get a job. Won't happen. Just today, to access my vision insurance information, I had to input my SSN onto a website. Even when I called with questions, I had to give my SSN to get the answers. And we were told it would never be used for identification purposes.

Think about this. Would you tell me how much money you make? Would you publish that on this board? I'm guessing probably not. And why? Because that is private information, right? Well, if that is private information, why are we forced by law to tell the government about every dime we earn? If we are guaranteed the right to privacy, which I'm told is in the Constitution but I've yet to find it, if privacy is a Constitutional right, then why on earth should we be forced to report to the government how much money we earn? I don't tell my kids what I make, but I have to tell the government? Somehow, that doesn't make me feel like a free man.

I know that last paragraph seems a bit radical to some, but put yourself in a time where we didn't report our incomes to a government and didn't have a number assigned to us. It really wasn't that long ago. And the sad thing is, that time is gone forever.

I know I went off on a bit of a rant there, but I'm trying to get people to think in terms of actual freedom. Not the freedom that we think we have, but the actual freedom we're supposed to have according to the Constitution of the United States.

One more thought to leave you with: Show me where in the Constitution the government is supposed to guarantee me a retirement plan. Can you find it?

Cindy "Shaheen" Arrested at Capitol Building

And I'm shocked! (note sarcasm)

What a loon! Well, our old friend and favorite moonbat is back, Cindy "Shaheen" Sheehan was arrested last night at the Capitol building before the State of the Union speech was given by the President. She was present as a guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-CA, (please make a note of that)

Here's a link to the story if you want to read it.

Now, somebody please tell me what kind of whack job member of Congress do you have to be to invite Cindy "Shaheen" to the State of the Union address? I noted last night in my State of the Union Notes that the governor of Virginia is accusing the right of being divisive. Tell me something; Does it get any more divisive than inviting a woman, who calls the president a murderer, to attend a Presidential speech? What point was this congresswoman trying to make? That she's an idiot? Well, she made that point loud and clear.

Listen, we can't take these anti-war Marxist-libs sitting down and just ignore their antics. We have to fight back. These anti-war cry babies need to get educated on what is at stake here. So, if you know any of them, please send them a link to the Nightmare so they can be educated, trained, and equipped to aid in the War on Liberalism!

UPDATE: I just learned something interesting about the Congresswoman from California, Lynn Woosly from my buddies at Terror-Watch.net. She too has called for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq but this is great: She supports legislation that calls for the creation of a "Department of Peace." That is quite possibly the funniest thing I've ever heard. Their department headquarters will be out in the woods at some old farm house painted pink with yellow flowers, where they will manufacture their own paper out of hemp. The dress code will consist of bell bottoms, sandals and ugly shirts that you can find at the Goodwill shop. Oh, and as prerequisite of employment, you must have at least one marijuana arrest on your record. Priceless.