Modern Leftists should start flipping coins when it comes to deciding their positions on major issues--they'd be right a lot more often.
Global warming's done. It will probably take decades to undo the damage that Al Gore has done, along with the activist media, but you'll see, in another 10 years or so, it'll be another looming global disaster to talk about, 'cause Folks--we ain't gonna die from the Earth's warming...
As a matter of fact, this winter was one of the coldest on record. The ice pack that was receding in Antarctica, you know, the one that took 100 years to shrink to it's levels last year, it's back to it original size after only one really cold winter.
This article is really going to depress the Greenies. They'll be so sad that we're not going to fry because of our cars and Barbecues...
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature%20Monitors%20Report%20Widescale%20Global%20Cooling/article10866.htm
That's right, it's been so cold this winter, that the net increase in temperature has all but been wiped out. Scientists are just as bad as everyone else when it comes to speculation. Remember, if scientists can't see it, they really don't know, just like you and me, and the thing they're really bad at is figuring out causality, which is what the global warming issue is really about--blaming us Capitalists meat-eaters for everything. Always be suspicious of any scientific study that tells what the exact cause of anything is. Remember the whole cholesterol-causes-heart-disease thing? It was wrong. Fat is bad for you? Wrong again...Neither of these statements were ever shown to be true in labs, and actually the opposite has been shown.
Again, the Leftist are on the wrong side.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Friday, February 29, 2008
John Stewart!!!
Where are you, John!? I'm still waiting to be invited onto your show! (echo...)
Why do you hate America, John? Perhaps you'd be better off in Cuba as a propagandist--five bucks a day, I hear!
Why do you hate America, John? Perhaps you'd be better off in Cuba as a propagandist--five bucks a day, I hear!
There's nothing new with Obama
It's the same old thing. Over and over...
Barak Obama trumpets change, but so far, the things he has to say are just what the Democrats have been saying for fifty years: Big Business is bad, the poor need more entitlements, the American military does nothing but make the world a worse place...yada, yada, yada...
Obama is nothing more than Jimmy Carter employing a voice honed to auditory perfection by cigarette smoke. Plus, he has the advantage of being able to claim whatever race happens to gain him the most votes; he's half black, half white, so, for now, until the general election when white conservatives may have a gander at his policies, he's black and proud.
I see nothing different in Mr. Obama than in any of the other Democrats who've run in my lifetime. He believes that the best way to solve America's problems is to increase taxes and throw money at people and institutions that have proven time and again to have no idea how to properly spend it. He doesn't think that the poor should ever have their training wheels taken off, and it's this type of thinking that keeps the poor that way generation after generation.
Mr. Obama--educate the poor. Tell them how it is, and that there is no glory in victimhood. If you really want to bring change to your party, and in turn to this country, if hope is really your message, tell the people that through education, hard work, family values and optimism, in America, all things are possible, if not easy...
Barak Obama trumpets change, but so far, the things he has to say are just what the Democrats have been saying for fifty years: Big Business is bad, the poor need more entitlements, the American military does nothing but make the world a worse place...yada, yada, yada...
Obama is nothing more than Jimmy Carter employing a voice honed to auditory perfection by cigarette smoke. Plus, he has the advantage of being able to claim whatever race happens to gain him the most votes; he's half black, half white, so, for now, until the general election when white conservatives may have a gander at his policies, he's black and proud.
I see nothing different in Mr. Obama than in any of the other Democrats who've run in my lifetime. He believes that the best way to solve America's problems is to increase taxes and throw money at people and institutions that have proven time and again to have no idea how to properly spend it. He doesn't think that the poor should ever have their training wheels taken off, and it's this type of thinking that keeps the poor that way generation after generation.
Mr. Obama--educate the poor. Tell them how it is, and that there is no glory in victimhood. If you really want to bring change to your party, and in turn to this country, if hope is really your message, tell the people that through education, hard work, family values and optimism, in America, all things are possible, if not easy...
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
William F. Buckly Jr. 1925-2008
A short time ago, I announced the spiritual death of conservatism in America. Now, conservatism has died bodily...
William F. Buckly Jr. was found dead in his study on Wednesday. Possibly he was working on a column or yet another book.
I remember Buckly, back in the days of the Firing Line show. Then, I didn't know who he was or what he stood for, but I knew the guy was damn smart. Actually, I thought he was an Englishman, so lofty was his language.
Buckly paved the way for so many in what we call the Conservative Movement. More and more though, I'm trying to avoid that terminology, for it's too narrow, too cliche. What I believe this "movement" entails, are parameters for unlinear but right (correct) thinking. It's not a cult, it's not popularism; it's what works best for the Republic.
He penned some 55 books, many of them spy novels. Buckly himself was a graduate of Yale University and a former CIA agent.
The best thing about William F. Buckly Jr. was that, despite his intellect, he was never rude or demeaning. He always took the time to listen to some one's point of view and on only one occasion did he lose his public cool; during a television show airing a debate between he and Gore Vidal. I can forgive him for that to be sure...
What pains me is the thought of the gleeful dances and hand-wringing some on the left are doing. Buckly routinely had to fight through crowds of angry leftists at book signings, even though he surely would have been the first to stop and help any one of them were they injured or in need of assistance. The thought reminds me of a very liberal acquaintance of mine back in college, whom upon hearing of Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's diagnosis, uttered "Good" under his breath. Yes, this is the Left that has a monopoly on compassion.
Buckly combined everything, in my mind, that an American Conservative should strive for: Intellect, patience, humor, joy, education and strength.
I'm not sure we have anyone left to carry his mantle. He was Rush Limbaugh's mentor. He was a titan in the fight against encroaching atheism, socialism, and cynicism.
William F. Buckly Jr, I wish that I would have been able to meet you before you passed from this world, and I hope that I can accomplish one iota of what you did.
Go now to God for your rest...
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Bill's lost lesson from, The Prince
I once heard that Bill Clinton used to sleep with a copy of Niccolo Machiavelli's classic treatise on politics, The Prince, under his pillow. I wonder though, if he missed one of Machiavlli's chapters.
In chapter three, Machiavelli states, "Thus the Romans, seeing inconveniences from afar, always found remedies for them and never allowed them to continue so as to escape a war, because they knew that war may not be avoided but is deferred to the advantage of others."
And that is precisely what occurred during the Clinton administration. Bill Clinton became a victim of his own 1960's indoctrination. That word, the V-Word; Vietnam, would forever paralyze him when it came to the use of military force. Thus, Clinton did not fully understand the State. The welfare of his State--America--was not the primary directive of Bill Clinton, it was his own ego and his longing for legacy.
He refused to act against Al-Qaeda, though America was repeatedly attacked both overseas and on our own soil. There was the first attack upon the World Trade Center. A huge truck bomb was placed under one of the towers in hopes that upon the tower's collapse, the second tower would also be brought down. We should remember that the only reason many more people did not die on 9/11 is because there was a thirty minute window in which people were evacuated. The terrorists who perpetrated the first attack hoped to kill 250,000 people. As it was, 6 people died, hundreds were injured, and who knows how much property damage was done. Clinton's administration refused to admit that Al-Qaeda was involved, and all the time, that dancing, giggling court jester known as the mainstream media brought the King his wine and played him merry music...
Next were the attacks on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. The towers served as barracks for US troops. 19 US soldiers were killed by another truck bomb. Clinton quickly promised to bring the bombers to justice. A few low-level conspirators were beheaded by the Saudi government, however the administration placed little pressure on the Saudis to move forward with investigations. It was never mentioned in meetings between Clinton and Saudi officials during future diplomatic meetings. Currently, 14 individuals have had US indictments placed on them, but none of them are in US custody.
By then, terrorists around the world sensed Clinton's weakness. They proceeded to bomb three embassies in Africa, killing over 200 people. This became known as the "wag the dog" scenario, with Bill launching some Tomahawk cruise missiles into Afghan encampments thought to house Osama Bin Laden. By then, no one could deny Al-Qaeda's and Bin Ladin's involvment.
Finally, the American war destroyer, Cole, was rammed by a ship carrying jihadists and a huge amount of explosives. The resultant detonation ripped a gaping hole in the ships port side, and took the lives of 17 sailors. Again, Clinton used grandiose words like, "despicable" and "cowardly" but left out more appropriate remarks such as "act of war."
Here's a segment of an article written by journalist Byron York for the National Review in 2006. York quotes former Clinton advisor Dick Morris throughout the portion:
In early August 1996, a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing, Clinton had a long conversation with Dick Morris about his place in history. Morris divided presidents into four categories: first tier, second tier, third tier, and the rest. Twenty-two presidents who presided over uneventful administrations fell into the last category. Just five — Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt — made Morris’s first tier.
Clinton asked Morris where he stood. “I said that at the moment he was at the top of the unrated category,” Morris recalls. Morris says he told the president that one surprising thing about the ratings was that a president’s standing had little to do with the performance of the economy during his time in office. “Yeah,” Clinton responded, “It has so much to do with whether you get re-elected or not, but history kind of forgets it.”
Clinton then asked, “What do I need to do to be first tier?” “I said, ‘You can’t,’“ Morris remembers. “‘You have to win a war.’“ Clinton then asked what he needed to do to make the second or third tier, and Morris outlined three goals. The first was successful welfare reform. The second was balancing the budget. And the third was an effective battle against terrorism. “I said the only one of the major goals he had not achieved was a war on terrorism,” Morris says. (This is not a recent recollection; Morris also described the conversation in his 1997 book, Behind the Oval Office.)
But Clinton never began, much less finished, a war on terrorism. Even though Morris’s polling showed the poll-sensitive president that the American people supported tough action, Clinton demurred. Why?
“He had almost an allergy to using people in uniform,” Morris explains. “He was terrified of incurring casualties; the lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him. He lacked a faith that it would work, and I think he was constantly fearful of reprisals.” But there was more to it than that. “On another level, I just don’t think it was his thing,” Morris says. “You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you’d get was a series of grunts.”
Full article here:http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzhjODk1ODg4M2NiODU4Yzc3YWE1OTA1MDNmYWQ5M2Y=
So here we are, with George Bush taking the heat for what Bill Clinton should have done long before. Machiavelli's lesson went unlearned, with Clinton deferring war to a later date and a later president and costing America a savage blow as the Twin Towers fell.
In chapter three, Machiavelli states, "Thus the Romans, seeing inconveniences from afar, always found remedies for them and never allowed them to continue so as to escape a war, because they knew that war may not be avoided but is deferred to the advantage of others."
And that is precisely what occurred during the Clinton administration. Bill Clinton became a victim of his own 1960's indoctrination. That word, the V-Word; Vietnam, would forever paralyze him when it came to the use of military force. Thus, Clinton did not fully understand the State. The welfare of his State--America--was not the primary directive of Bill Clinton, it was his own ego and his longing for legacy.
He refused to act against Al-Qaeda, though America was repeatedly attacked both overseas and on our own soil. There was the first attack upon the World Trade Center. A huge truck bomb was placed under one of the towers in hopes that upon the tower's collapse, the second tower would also be brought down. We should remember that the only reason many more people did not die on 9/11 is because there was a thirty minute window in which people were evacuated. The terrorists who perpetrated the first attack hoped to kill 250,000 people. As it was, 6 people died, hundreds were injured, and who knows how much property damage was done. Clinton's administration refused to admit that Al-Qaeda was involved, and all the time, that dancing, giggling court jester known as the mainstream media brought the King his wine and played him merry music...
Next were the attacks on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. The towers served as barracks for US troops. 19 US soldiers were killed by another truck bomb. Clinton quickly promised to bring the bombers to justice. A few low-level conspirators were beheaded by the Saudi government, however the administration placed little pressure on the Saudis to move forward with investigations. It was never mentioned in meetings between Clinton and Saudi officials during future diplomatic meetings. Currently, 14 individuals have had US indictments placed on them, but none of them are in US custody.
By then, terrorists around the world sensed Clinton's weakness. They proceeded to bomb three embassies in Africa, killing over 200 people. This became known as the "wag the dog" scenario, with Bill launching some Tomahawk cruise missiles into Afghan encampments thought to house Osama Bin Laden. By then, no one could deny Al-Qaeda's and Bin Ladin's involvment.
Finally, the American war destroyer, Cole, was rammed by a ship carrying jihadists and a huge amount of explosives. The resultant detonation ripped a gaping hole in the ships port side, and took the lives of 17 sailors. Again, Clinton used grandiose words like, "despicable" and "cowardly" but left out more appropriate remarks such as "act of war."
Here's a segment of an article written by journalist Byron York for the National Review in 2006. York quotes former Clinton advisor Dick Morris throughout the portion:
In early August 1996, a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing, Clinton had a long conversation with Dick Morris about his place in history. Morris divided presidents into four categories: first tier, second tier, third tier, and the rest. Twenty-two presidents who presided over uneventful administrations fell into the last category. Just five — Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt — made Morris’s first tier.
Clinton asked Morris where he stood. “I said that at the moment he was at the top of the unrated category,” Morris recalls. Morris says he told the president that one surprising thing about the ratings was that a president’s standing had little to do with the performance of the economy during his time in office. “Yeah,” Clinton responded, “It has so much to do with whether you get re-elected or not, but history kind of forgets it.”
Clinton then asked, “What do I need to do to be first tier?” “I said, ‘You can’t,’“ Morris remembers. “‘You have to win a war.’“ Clinton then asked what he needed to do to make the second or third tier, and Morris outlined three goals. The first was successful welfare reform. The second was balancing the budget. And the third was an effective battle against terrorism. “I said the only one of the major goals he had not achieved was a war on terrorism,” Morris says. (This is not a recent recollection; Morris also described the conversation in his 1997 book, Behind the Oval Office.)
But Clinton never began, much less finished, a war on terrorism. Even though Morris’s polling showed the poll-sensitive president that the American people supported tough action, Clinton demurred. Why?
“He had almost an allergy to using people in uniform,” Morris explains. “He was terrified of incurring casualties; the lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him. He lacked a faith that it would work, and I think he was constantly fearful of reprisals.” But there was more to it than that. “On another level, I just don’t think it was his thing,” Morris says. “You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you’d get was a series of grunts.”
Full article here:http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzhjODk1ODg4M2NiODU4Yzc3YWE1OTA1MDNmYWQ5M2Y=
So here we are, with George Bush taking the heat for what Bill Clinton should have done long before. Machiavelli's lesson went unlearned, with Clinton deferring war to a later date and a later president and costing America a savage blow as the Twin Towers fell.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Obama: Prophet of the left
Can there be any doubt as to the leanings of our country at this point in time, given the numbers that election polls are showing?
The nation has surrendered, bowled over by a deluge of negative war and Bush stories. There will be no talking sense to our people now; we'll have to learn the hard way--again. The Bolshevik Revolution took place in 1913. Who would have thought that almost 100 years later, some would still have to argue as to whether socialism works? The farther into a socialistic quagmire a country wades, the closer to its own destruction it comes. It's so easy to see what happened to the Communists and how many of the once-great European nations have faded: Germany: Double-digit unemployment for over a decade; France: Massive immigration issues made worse by a staggering economy; Britain: high unemployment and a depleted national identity. All this despite the fact that Europe's military budget was minuscule thanks to US overseas deployment. Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, North Korea, Australia. All of them suffer from similar problems, and yet the hypnotic effect of government give-aways pulls them closer to the edge of oblivion. It's like a chunk of rotting meat in a bear-trap, the aroma pulling the bear closer until the jaws snap shut--then it's too late.
It appears that Obama, transcendent and messianic, will be our next president. He has already secured the Holy Grail of the presidential run: Media Approval. Yes, the most liberal senator there is, will be our president...
The nation has surrendered, bowled over by a deluge of negative war and Bush stories. There will be no talking sense to our people now; we'll have to learn the hard way--again. The Bolshevik Revolution took place in 1913. Who would have thought that almost 100 years later, some would still have to argue as to whether socialism works? The farther into a socialistic quagmire a country wades, the closer to its own destruction it comes. It's so easy to see what happened to the Communists and how many of the once-great European nations have faded: Germany: Double-digit unemployment for over a decade; France: Massive immigration issues made worse by a staggering economy; Britain: high unemployment and a depleted national identity. All this despite the fact that Europe's military budget was minuscule thanks to US overseas deployment. Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, North Korea, Australia. All of them suffer from similar problems, and yet the hypnotic effect of government give-aways pulls them closer to the edge of oblivion. It's like a chunk of rotting meat in a bear-trap, the aroma pulling the bear closer until the jaws snap shut--then it's too late.
It appears that Obama, transcendent and messianic, will be our next president. He has already secured the Holy Grail of the presidential run: Media Approval. Yes, the most liberal senator there is, will be our president...
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Why I'm still supporting John McCain
About a year ago, I stated to some that I saw McCain as being a person that would appeal to the widest spectrum of people as a presidential candidate. This was not an endorsement of McCain, it was merely an observation and I believe that it has proven to be true. I must of course admit that the wide support for John McCain, as with almost everything in this flip-flopping nation, has to do with the media coverage he gets. As we can now see after the New York Times most recent innuendo posing as journalism, the media may be turning on him. They were content to let Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh do their work for them in the recent past, but now that Limbaugh and Hannity have relaxed a bit on McCain, the leftists in the media are cranking up their attack-machine with extreme prejudice.
Back in September, I wrote a blog supporting McCain for president. Here it is: http://neoconessay.blogspot.com/2007/09/mccain-at-least-he-has-spine.html
I stand by that, despite what my favorite conservative talk-show hosts say. McCain seems to have one thing going for him that few people do, not to speak of politicians: An ability to be honest with himself. I know that conservatives have some major issues with McCain. I have at least one: His seeming affection for globalism, mostly driven by the environmentalist agenda. That's a big problem for me. The rest of the world will inevitably drag America down to their level. That's the way these things always work. America must lead, not follow or try to fit in. Plus, global-warming is the biggest scam since Amway.
But let's look at the positive things that McCain brings to the table:
1) He is extremely consistent in his speeches about the necessity of maintaining the fight against Al-Qaeda and fundamentalist Islam. This in itself separates him from almost every liberal I know.
2) Though he doesn't control the legality of abortion, he has, for twenty-five years of record, been anti-abortion. Again, I don't know any liberals that take this stance.
3) For better or worse, he does what he says. Many say that what he says and does proves to be wrong, but McCain's honesty with himself, I believe, at least makes it possible that he could see errors he has made and correct them in the future.
4) McCain doesn't suck-up to anyone. He just doesn't. In fact, he has a temper, which his conservative critics have used in their arguments against him. I say good; we need a president with some fire. We haven't had one in a long, long time. It's one of Bush's weaknesses--he's too nice. He never turns up the heat on those that attack him because he believes that by being "classy" the bad people will make themselves look like the idiots they are. But in a world who's knowledge is controlled by the media, it doesn't work out that way. They can cover up their mistakes too easily and they can cover the mistakes of the people they favor--something they did with Bill Clinton for two terms.
5) I don't think McCain worships power. This fact, in effect, makes him more powerful.
6) He plainly states that we must control our border.
The argument that conservatives should not vote for McCain because to do so would bring destruction to conservatism and also to this country, does not hold water. McCain, quite obviously, is not a socialist of the caliber of Clinton or Obama.
I fear the narcotic effect of socialism, how it can drag a nation's people down, chipping away at their will for greatness bit by bit, and all the time, the people can't see it. Government-run health-care will do just that. It will make things worse, but the people will be unable to perceive this, and unable to give away something they think they're getting for free.
Please, do the right thing, conservatives. I know you know that McCain is not as bad as the Democratic candidates. McCain himself has plainly stated in recent speeches how awful Obama and Clinton could be, so we shouldn't assume that he wants to play nice with the Dems.
Back in September, I wrote a blog supporting McCain for president. Here it is: http://neoconessay.blogspot.com/2007/09/mccain-at-least-he-has-spine.html
I stand by that, despite what my favorite conservative talk-show hosts say. McCain seems to have one thing going for him that few people do, not to speak of politicians: An ability to be honest with himself. I know that conservatives have some major issues with McCain. I have at least one: His seeming affection for globalism, mostly driven by the environmentalist agenda. That's a big problem for me. The rest of the world will inevitably drag America down to their level. That's the way these things always work. America must lead, not follow or try to fit in. Plus, global-warming is the biggest scam since Amway.
But let's look at the positive things that McCain brings to the table:
1) He is extremely consistent in his speeches about the necessity of maintaining the fight against Al-Qaeda and fundamentalist Islam. This in itself separates him from almost every liberal I know.
2) Though he doesn't control the legality of abortion, he has, for twenty-five years of record, been anti-abortion. Again, I don't know any liberals that take this stance.
3) For better or worse, he does what he says. Many say that what he says and does proves to be wrong, but McCain's honesty with himself, I believe, at least makes it possible that he could see errors he has made and correct them in the future.
4) McCain doesn't suck-up to anyone. He just doesn't. In fact, he has a temper, which his conservative critics have used in their arguments against him. I say good; we need a president with some fire. We haven't had one in a long, long time. It's one of Bush's weaknesses--he's too nice. He never turns up the heat on those that attack him because he believes that by being "classy" the bad people will make themselves look like the idiots they are. But in a world who's knowledge is controlled by the media, it doesn't work out that way. They can cover up their mistakes too easily and they can cover the mistakes of the people they favor--something they did with Bill Clinton for two terms.
5) I don't think McCain worships power. This fact, in effect, makes him more powerful.
6) He plainly states that we must control our border.
The argument that conservatives should not vote for McCain because to do so would bring destruction to conservatism and also to this country, does not hold water. McCain, quite obviously, is not a socialist of the caliber of Clinton or Obama.
I fear the narcotic effect of socialism, how it can drag a nation's people down, chipping away at their will for greatness bit by bit, and all the time, the people can't see it. Government-run health-care will do just that. It will make things worse, but the people will be unable to perceive this, and unable to give away something they think they're getting for free.
Please, do the right thing, conservatives. I know you know that McCain is not as bad as the Democratic candidates. McCain himself has plainly stated in recent speeches how awful Obama and Clinton could be, so we shouldn't assume that he wants to play nice with the Dems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
