And guess who they voted for, and will continue to vote for!!

Watch this 7 minute video

and be amazed. Any wonder why CBS pulled it?

6 comments View Entry

Okay, I don't get most folks today. I mean, how do they think? Pro-choicers say that a vaginal ultrasound is "invasive". Really? More invasive than how you got pregnant? More invasive than those toys women use for "self-gratification"? More invasive than an abortion? Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the government should have that much control over anybody, and they have W-A-A-A-A-Y to much control now. But c'mon, can't you at least find a reasonable argument? Not that there is one for wanting to kill another human being - one whose heart starts beating long before you even know for sure you're pregnant. Like at 22 days. But that's just how I think.

Then there's this whole stink about "birth control", and trust me, it stinks. I'm not against birth control. I happen to think there are great places where it should be implemented. Like when a welfare mother has her fifth kid by the fifth different father and still isn't married. According to a CDC report, "The risk that an unmarried woman will have a baby increased substantially between 1980 and 1991 and then was unchanged in 1992. Measured by the birth rate, this risk increased from 29.4 per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15–44 years in 1980 to 45.2 in 1991, a 54-percent rise. Other measures of nonmarital childbearing have also risen sharply since 1980. The number of births rose 84 percent, from 665,747 in 1980 to 1,224,876 in 1992. Because these increases occurred during a period of relatively stable fertility for all women and declining fertility among married women, the proportion of all births to unmarried women rose from 18.4 percent in 1980 to 30.1 percent in 1992."

Some later figures, courtesy of Children's Databank, show a larger picture, from 1960 to 2005 with much the same view. "The percentage of births to unmarried women has steadily increased in the past few decades, from 5.3% in 1960 to 36.8% in 2005. (See Figure 1) In 2004, the most recent year for which data are available by all ages, over a quarter of births to woman ages 25 to 29 (27.8%) and over half of births to woman ages 20 to 24 (54.8%) were to unmarried women."

What this tells me that no matter how much birth control is out there, having 57 different types of birth control available isn't the answer, even if the government mandates it. Where the problem lies is in morality and virtue. Let's take the comment of Foster Friese, for example. “You know, back in my days, they’d use Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.” What he said was absolutely correct, and as truthful as it gets in this world. Abstinence is the only surefire way to keep from getting pregnant, unless you still believe a woman can get pregnant from sitting on a toilet seat. But with the advent of more and more birth control products, absinence became a thing of the past, and a lot of morality and virtue with it. And, sadly, along with the loss of virtue and morality came the loss of respect for human life, especially life just 22 days old and still in the womb.

Now I know I'm going to get blasted by pro-choice and women's libbers and lefties of all kinds. "Frankly, I don't give a damn," to paraphrase an old movie line. I am all for a woman being independent, but I'll still stand when you come to my table, and open your doors given the opportunity. If you can do the smae job as a man, so be it, you deserve the same pay. But remember this, you were given, by the very anatomy you were granted, the added responsibility of bearing life. If you choose to ignore that responsibility and abandon your virtue for a night, or day, of pleasure, lust or love and do so without using one of the multitude of birth control options out there, that's not my problem. And I shouldn't be forced to pay for that birth control, or your abortion, just so you could have some fun.

I still believe that there are times when a woman is forced to "procreate" against her will - rape or incest - and since it was against her will, an abortion should be made a choice. Or when there is grave danger to mother and/or fetus by continuing a pregnancy, choices need to be made. Let's say the y chromosome doesn't fall off, and a child's quantity and quality of life is all but nil, or the mother or child will die during childbirth, then choices must be made. Sometimes a mother will value the life of her unborn so much she chooses life for the child, yet other times a mother will choose her own life. She and her family must live with those choices. But to have an abortion simply because a woman doesn't want a child shows a complete lack of morality and virtue, and totally ignores the responsibility given women as the bearer of life. Remember, it was you, the woman, who chose that "invasive" procedure that created the life within you, and to think you could have prevented it with one of many forms of birth control, or simply by practicing abstinence. So I ask you, where was your virtue, or your morality, or your sense of responsibility? Aspirins are cheap, life is not.

10 comments View Entry

This one is for Bob Perdue, an American extraordinaire. Rest Well, Marine.

Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-MD) can’t seem to remember to well these days, or he simply doesn’t care to. And he also seems to have forgotten what the law says. Why do I say this? Let me quote Congressman Hoyer. “The fact is, you don’t need a budget. We can adopt appropriations bills. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending.” Ahhh, what about Budget and Accounting Act of 1921? Or the hastily passed Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which established a timetable for the annual budget process, and is initiated each year by the presidential budget submission? The Budget Act specifies that the President’s budget should be presented to Congress on or before the first Monday in February, which is usually about the same time as the President’s annual State of the Union Address.

To continue, “Hoyer criticized the Republicans for not passing a budget for ‘a number of years’ when they were in control of the House, Senate, and the presidency under George W. Bush.” Add to it this, “‘So that this 1,000 days they haven’t passed a budget, the Republicans went for equal lengths of time without passing a budget. I think 05’ and 06’,’ Hoyer said.” Well, not quite, Steny old boy. According to an article published in The Hill dated 04/14/10, “House has passed budget resolution every year since Budget Act, according to study”. The hang-ups in the past, as now, have always been in the Senate, not with the House or the White House. Even though Obama sent a proposed budget to the Senate last year, they voted it down as they did the previous two years. Why? It was so poorly constructed that not even his own party could endorse it.

When the House Republicans passed a budget for fiscal year 2012 back in April 2011, not a single House Democrat supported the bill, and four House Republicans voted against it. But the budget bill went nowhere in the Democrat-controlled Senate. In fact, the last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009, and that budget was based on the one Bush presented to Congress.

It really isn’t any surprise that Obama’s budget sunk like a mobster with concrete shoes since no President’s budget has ever made the cut in its entirety, though most of them are only amended or altered slightly – until now that is. But when you take Steny’s next statement into consideration, it starts to become apparent where the real problem is. “‘Again, I remind you, when we had a Republican president and we controlled the House and the Senate, twice as many bills -- more than twice as many bills -- were signed by President Bush as has been signed by President Obama,’ Hoyer said.” Well, once again, not so, Steny man. In the 107th Congress, when Dems still controlled things, there were 397 bills signed into law. In the 108th, 498 laws were signed, followed by 492 in the 109th. The 110th slipped back a tad, at 460 laws, and the 111th dropped back to 383, but in checking the number of bills that got out of the Senate it’s a wonder that many got passed! That aside, a mere 92 laws have been signed under the 112th Congress, with only a year so far under their belts. There were 28 “jobs bills” presented by the Rep led House, yet not a single one of them has ever made it to the Senate floor. And that’s just the beginning. There are right now approximately 217 bills that have passed the House and been sent to the Senate that are now stalled in committee, dead, or simply never brought to the Senate floor for an action. Any way you do the math, there hasn’t been any full session of Congress that has slipped to 50% of the peak number of the last decade.

Hoyer isn’t the only one twisting the facts. Last Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), in reference to the last debt ceiling deal, stated, “We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year. It’s done, we don’t need to do it.” Not so, Harry. A “continuing resolution” is NOT a budget as defined by the law. It is merely a stopgap measure to keep the government from being forced to shut down. And the way the Dems in the Senate, not to mention the White House, are using the CR it is also to keep from facing the fact that most Americans are sick and tired of the continuing jumps in the depth of the National Debt.

Speaking to Reid’s remarks, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) stated, “It’s been more than 1,000 days since Senate Democrats have offered a budget plan to the American people. Now, once again, the Senate’s ineffectual Democrat majority balks at the task of leadership. He obviously continues in his belief that it would be politically foolish for his members to go on record in support of any long-term vision. Budget Control Act spending caps, crafted behind closed doors and rushed to passage at the 11th hour under threat of panic, do not even approach the definition of the budget process that the law requires.”

Which takes me back to Hoyer’s comments, and how inaccurate they are. Each and every time we have had a Senate fail to pass a budget on time (or at all) in the last four decades, it has been because of Dems who have slowed or blocked it – no matter which party controlled the White House. Now, I don’t mind politicians spouting off. I’ve grown used to it over the years. But when they blatantly and intentionally distort the truth to suit their own agendas or to justify their inactions or unconstitutional actions, they just plain piss me off. Kind of like Ginsberg, one of the most blatantly political on the SCOTUS, and her mouthing off about the Constitution she swore to “uphold” and to “protect”.

To quote Alexander Hope, “Painful as it may be to hear it, there's nothing special about the people of this country that sets them apart from the other people of the world. It is the Bill of Rights, and only the Bill of Rights, that keeps us from becoming the world's biggest banana republic. The moment we forget that, the American Dream is over.” At this point, every single one of the ten pieces that make up the “Bill of Rights” is under attack by our own Federal government. What will YOU do about it?

2 comments View Entry

Are you concerned about your privacy, or government snooping, or having the internet completely controlled?? I know you've heard about SOPA AND PIPA, and some of you have even heard about ACTA, but what about TPP?? Click the previous TPP for  an excellent article on the subject of this "treaty" that may affect us all, and without any say in the matter at all.

2 comments View Entry

In his ongoing attempt to redistribute the wealth in America, it was just reported that the Ayatollah Hussein will issue yet another Executive Order circumventing Congress and the Constitution. Beginning 1 February, 2012, the Justice Department and DHS will begin taking applications from hostage takers around the world. The application fee of $5,000 will be waived in some circumstances provided they sign an agreement to donate 30% of what they get in payments to the Ayatollah's campaign fund before 1 October, 2012. All such "donations" must be made in $5 and $10 increments.

Each applicant will be provided with a list of acceptable hostages by DHS and the Justice Department in conjunction with the EPA and ATF. Today's rotating press secretary, Dorke Nimrod, stated that he expects these lists to be comprised of "potential terrorists" such as Seniors, Veterans as well as all active military, anyone who voted against the Ayatollah, or plans to in the next election, and anyone below the Mason-Dixon Line, West of the states bordering the Atlantic, and East of the states bordering the Pacific that has not accepted the Ayatollah as the Supreme Commander or has questioned any single decision he has made, or still has 2 nickles to rub together.

If you happen to fall into one or more of the categories mentioned, along with others that will be kept secret until you are taken, Nimrod also suggested an alternative to being taken hostage by any of these licensed hostage takers would be to simply turn yourself in to local authorities for transportation to the nearest FEMA camp for reprogramming.

As Missa always says, we now return you to your regular scheduled programming.

6 comments View Entry

Just announced by the teleprompter and the rotating press secretary of the Ayatollah Hussein Administration.

Starting 1 February at midnight, Govrnment officials will begin gathering Senior citizens, instead of illegals, for deportation. This move is intended to reduce the costs of continuing Social Security and Medicare, thus saving the programs for all future non-citizens utilizing these programs.

After spending nearly $47 billion in a Federal study, researchers have determined that this is the easiest way to reduce costs since Seniors are easier to catch, and won't remember how to get back home.

Therefore, I wanted to take this opportunity to say good-bye. Then it dawned on me...

I'LL SEE MOST OF YOU ON THE BUS!!

10 comments View Entry

There is no great mystery why this nation's economy is crumbling, and unemployment is still at a staggering number (U-6, the REAL unemployment numer, is at 16.3%). The Ayatollah Hussein and his minions can argue all day long that there is a recovery in progress, but there isn't. And Congress can argue and stall along kicking the can down the road until there is no road, but nothing is going to change until they identify the real problem and do something about it. Let's try to define what the real problem is here these days, and why we have a failing economy. Yes, the FedRes is part of the problem, just as taking us off the gold standard helped to create the mess we're in. But they are only a small portion of the real problem. The real problem is our currency, even though it's only valuable by name, is leaving our shores. Consider these concepts. Foreign ownership of our companies is rising annually. Last year some 22% of all US companies were owned by foreign countries and/or companies. Yes, they give Americans jobs, but where do you think the profits go after taxes? Toyota, for example, made over $5 billion in profits from their US built sales after taxes. Over 75% of that profit went to Japan and their economy. That's just one company. Then add in the elephant in the room, our trade deficit - at $8 trillion last year. I haven't even mentioned the $380 billion a year that illegals send home every year. Well, until now anyway.

Yet the liberals in our government want to burden US owned companies even more with higher taxes and more regulations while foreign owned companies operating on our soils get special dispensations to "encourage development and growth", not to mention a lower tax rate. Yes, that's exactly what the Ayatollah Hussein said, and his liberal cronies in Congress applauded. No matter what they say or do, the Democrats and half the Republicans in Congress and this administration are willing to allow the exportation of our economy in order to achieve "globalization". And if we let it go much longer, we will have absolutely no chance to lower the national deficit, the national debt, the trade deficit, or recover our economy and all but wipeout unemployment until we stop sending all our money to a foolish government, to other nations around the globe via foreign owned companies, illegals, cheap, crappy foreign made products and by driving our remaining companies to other shores with high taxation and increasing regulations. The bottom line here is that if you don't vote in the primaries or in the general election this next year and help toss out the idjits who keep blocking House passed jobs bills, keep blocking the Keystone Project, fail to pass an annual budget and all the other crap that they are currently doing, don't come whining to me that things aren't going your way. Hell, they aren't going well for the whole damned country, and we'll be lucky to keep our nation another 5-10 years if we don't take the bull by the horns and make the necessary changes.

16 comments View Entry

This is from an earlier post, as mentioned within the post itself, but, after stumbling upon it again, I think this is what I’m looking for in a presidential candidate as well. Let me know what YOU think after reading it.

Conservative, or Progressive??

In a myspazz blog I posted some time back, I was informed that being a conservative meant I was not in favor of progress. Actually, the very opposite is the truth. While I am very conservative, I still want to see progress in many areas, and I think most conservatives are not all the different from me or how I think. So how did we, as conservatives, get labeled as non-progressive?? In order to fully understand, we must start with the very definitions of "conservative" and "progressive", and what those definitions have become in the "PC" world we now live in.

According to Webster's, conservative, from the 14th century, is; 1 : preservative
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism
b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as
(1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions
(2) : progressive conservative
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional
b : marked by moderation or caution (a conservative estimate)
c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
4 : of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism

And progressive, circa 1612, is; 1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress
b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities
c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression
2 : of, relating to, or characterized by progression
3 : moving forward or onward : advancing
4 a : increasing in extent or severity (a progressive disease)
b : increasing in rate as the base increases (a progressive tax)
5 often capitalized : of or relating to political Progressives
6 : of, relating to, or constituting a verb form that expresses action or state in progress at the time of speaking or a time spoken of
7 : of, relating to, or being a multifocal lens with a gradual transition between focal lengths (progressive bifocals)
8 : or, relating to, or using a method of video scanning (as for television or a computer monitor) in which the horizontal lines of each frame are drawn successively from top to bottom — compare interlaced

Basing my thoughts on the true meanings of the two words as they relate to modern conservatives and progressives, I'm going to attempt to define myself in those terms, even though I hate to use the term "define" as a way of describing myself, or how I think or feel. Yet define is what it is, and I'll leave the describing to others.

Am I a "preservative"? Back in the day, many of us laughed about drinking so much we were "preserved". Thankfully those days are long gone for me, though I still miss a good, cold beer on a hot day, or a drink or wine with a good meal. To a certain extent I am "preservative", as I don't believe things need to fixed if they aren't broken. Hence, if a law is a just one, it needs preserved, and if it isn't, it needs repealed. And at the rate Congress passes laws, most of them we could simply do without if we actually enforced those already on the books, repealing 85% of them would certainly bring more clarity to our legal system.

Do I have a "philosophy of conservatism"? Yes, I'd have to say so, as I am truly a "progressive conservative". That might explain why I admire the works of Teddy Roosevelt so much, even if I don't agree with all of his concepts. Do I tend to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions? NO! I don't buy into the "village" mentality when it comes to raising children, but that is an existing view across our land today. Am I satisfied with the current conditions? No, too much of our society is controlled and restricted today, while some portions of it aren't controlled or restricted enough. And all in the name of "progression" instead of personal responsibility. Do I want to maintain the current set of institutions? No, every institution, as we know them, is in need of modification or elimination, starting with education and taxation. Am I traditional, marked by moderation or caution, and marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners? Absolutely!!

Do I believe in progress? Certainly, but what many miss today is that progress also means the elimination of what was once considered a progressive movement. If something has outlived itself, it is no longer progressive and needs either modification or removal. The Constitution and Bill of Rights DO NOT fall into that category, but the IRS does. Simply because it has the progressive manner of "increasing in rate as the base increases" described as a "progressive tax" which penalizes success and marginalizes failure. Thus the concept of a flat or "fair" tax becomes a "progressive" concept, while "progressives" don't want any change to the current system. That makes me in favor of "moving forward or onward, advancing", and shows that my mentality is "characterized by progression", doesn't it?

Well, not according to my detractors, who call me imbecile, idiot, cracker, racist, bigot, Nazi and lots of things not fit for print, or for my family oriented blog and site. Funny thing is, they think they are the "progressives", though some admit to being liberals. And, as is my habit, I caution them twice about such behavior, then eliminate them from access to my blogs. So, before I continue, let me issue the first warning to those who would attempt to criticize me or those who agree with me now. Bring good arguments or don't comment at all, and no bashing, name calling, slanderous or libelous remarks, they won't be tolerated.

Now to expound on my view of the issues we all face today. I will attempt to address these issues in short, simple terms, as it would take an encyclopedia to fully explain how I stand on everything. There is no way I can list one thing as most important, which many of the pollsters try to do, as there are too many things that are equally of concern to me. Well, here goes.

Government and Congress

Today's Federal Government is a behemoth, unable to get out of its own way to accomplish anything useful, and that includes not only Congress, but the government as a whole. Many of the entitlement programs are no longer progressive, but rather are simply a tradition that fails to teach self-reliance, self-respect, self-reliance or independence, or much of anything else. And they are fraught with fraud and abuse. Continuing to send nearly twice as much as they take in is unconscionable, but it's still the way they operate and act as though there was nothing wrong with spending us into oblivion. One thing that is just appalling to me is that they think they can always borrow enough to get to the next step, borrowing billions and trillions on both short and long term treasury bonds and barely paying the accumulated interest when it comes due. Also, it's high time to have term limits, and limit the amount of time either house of congress can be in session. All they are doing now is campaigning, and collecting high salaries for doing it. If they were limited to 4 months to do the business of the government, and paid accordingly, along with another 2 months for national emergencies as they arise, imagine how quickly they could get things done. Limiting the members of the House to 5 staffers, and Senators to 10, along with the reduced salaries, would save us $100 million a year, and seems to me a good place to start. Then put them all on the same Social Security plan we have instead of full retirement after serving one term would save us another $150 million a year. Now toss in a balanced budget amendment... I said I'd make this short, so I'll quit here, but you get the idea.

Healthcare

There are dozens of plans out there that make sense, and don't cost the taxpayer a dime, yet provide for many of the uninsured in terms Husseincare doesn't even approach. Besides, the healthcare system isn't broken, it just needs tweaked, starting with allowing the states to make the necessary changes as per that state (as per the 10th Amendment) and reducing the number of illegal immigrants our system pays for. Toss in tort reform and we have the nucleus of a 'fix". The rest is just a matter of small things, like purchasing across state lines.

Foreign Policy

If you attack us, or one of our allies, we'll blast you to kingdom come. Those are the only reasons we should go to war. Or as Teddy paraphrased that old African saying, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." If we give you money, do as we say with it or we won't give you any more. You get one shot, and if you blow it, so sorry. We aren't an ATM for your personal use. If we offer assistance instead of money, take it or go it someplace else. That's how our banks operate, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

War is war, and people will die, even if they are civilians. Even if we try not to harm them, as long as the enemy uses them for cover they're going to get hurt or killed. Our enemies don't respect weaknesses, they only respect strength, and that's what we need to show them. Oh, and gays bleed and die just like the rest of us. Let them fight for this country if they wish. But like all military, their sex life is to remain an off duty activity and a private concern. If they have any sense about them, they won't talk about it on duty.

Immigration

Come here legally, and by the numbers, or face deportation. And don't expect to get anything for free if you aren't here legally except a free ride to jail, then to the border. We won't pay your ticket home, we didn't pay your way to get here. Don't like it? Stay home and fix your own country. Need help with that? See above. We have enough problems of our own, and we don't need you to add to them.

Economy

The economy will fix itself if we tax it less, allow business to grow and prosper, and stop regulating it out of business. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, like regulating futures and speculating on products we all need as matter of existence, like oil and foodstuffs. And NO business is too big to fail. If they participate in risky business practices, they deserve to fail. Bailing them out will only allow them to make more mistakes and require more tax money to keep them afloat. if they need capital, let them borrow it just like we do. If they need more than they can borrow conventionally, let them borrow directly from China instead of us co-signing and guaranteeing the loans for them. What many don't seem to understand is that the economy is based on what people have to spend, not how much they can be taxed and gouged.

Energy and the Ecology

Climate change is a hoax, we don't need to do go crazy trying to find a way to fix the weather. Do we need to find new ways to create energy, long term sustainable energy? Yes, of course, but at what cost? Do we need to reduce our dependence of foreign oil? Certainly, just as we need to reduce our dependence on anything foreign. How? By utilizing our own products and resources. Not by mandate, but by competition. If there was a way to create power safely, and do so at a price at or below the cost of oil, wouldn't we be stupid not to use it? Should we further damage our economy by enforcing mandates to utilize technology that just isn't ready to be used? No way. we need to take the time to develop alternative sources to the point they are reasonably priced and affordable in every household. Do we need to protect the ecology when discovering or developing our resources? Naturally. Just as we need to protect productive farmland and ranchland, as well as wilderness, from urban sprawl and greedy speculators. The technology already exists to protect drilling sites from being any more intrusive than necessary, and wildlife will adapt to much of it anyway. Just as they have adapted to every change they've faced in these lands for the last 500 years. Though we are now smart enough not to totally eradicate a valuable species, but to protect them instead, we must also understand that a species of snail darter with a total population of 3-400 that lives in one small part of a creek is of no real value to us in the grand scheme of things. Certainly not of enough value to force an entire area of farmers to abandon their crops and farms and reduce our food supply creating even more dependence on foreign grown food products which have proven unsafe to consume in many cases.

Oh, and carbon dioxide IS NOT a pollutant. It is required for plant life, which converts it to oxygen. Without it, plants have nothing to convert, so less oxygen is created, and we all gasp for air in the end. If anything, we need more carbon dioxide to further plant growth so we can have more oxygen to compete against the levels of real pollutants in the air.

Gun Control

Our Constitution defines that right beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the Founding Fathers stated "arms" as to include all accessories including ammo as that was a common understanding of the day. What good was a rifle or pistol without shot and powder? None, and now we have the two combined in one case, which is far safer, trying to limit ammo is in violation of the Second Amendment, period.

Racism and Bigotry

Even though I am accused of both, I abhor them. I harbor no ill feelings toward any man, or woman, except those who have personally come after me or mine, or threaten to do so as an individual or a group. My family has every race represented in it, and over 30 ethnic groups, and I love them all, well almost. Every family has one or two members that hurt other family members or take advantage of them. I have little or no use for them, and avoid them at all costs to prevent confrontations, but I will face them down when the opportunity arises. My wife is Hispanic, and I am raising a Hispanic boy and a half Hispanic girl. I've traveled the world, worked with hundreds of ethnic groups and every race of mankind. I have many friends among them, and am considered a friend by them. I've eaten with them, slept with them, and bled with them. And I've helped bury their dead. I've also aided in building new housing and facilities, bringing in medicines, vaccinations and food, as well as new technology for food growth and new seeds and plants, and improving or creating clean water accessibility. I ask you, are those the actions of a racist or bigot? All men are created equal, it's up to them to determine whether they stay that way or not. Each is equal before the law, and all crimes should be treated equally regardless of one's social standing or wealth, color, sexual preference, or sex. If you don't like the law in one state, move to one that has laws you like. Don’t try to shove your idea of what the law should be down the throats of the rest of us. (See the majority rule mentioned below.)

Religion

I am not a Christian in the literal sense of the word, but I do believe in the Creator, and my beliefs are parallel to that of Christianity in many ways. I believe that everyone has the right believe as they wish, but not to force those beliefs on others. No religion is superior to another, and religious and political philosophy should be kept separate. Hence, to me separation of church and state means the two are not one, as in Islam, and while religion may influence politics it is not to be ruled by religion, nor is religion to be ruled by politics. I have no problem with the Ten Commandments being placed in public places, as they are great rules to follow irregardless of what religion they are attributed to. I also believe that God by any name is still God, and Christmas trees are Christmas trees, not holiday trees. In other words, this is supposed to be majority rule, that's what the left says about electing Obama by a 10% majority, and the majority of this nation believes in one form of Christianity or another so eliminating their belief system is flying in the face of reason.

I mentioned that Islam is both a political and religious philosophy, but I didn't mention that is why it is such a dangerous religion, or rather an ideology. Throughout the text of the Qur'an are multitudes of phrases that indicate a desire to have Islam dominate the earth, and to either enslave or eradicate those who won't yeild to it. If it were just a religious philosophy, one could say it is simply an overzealous religion. But it is so much more, as to subscribe to Islam is to subscribe to their form of laws, Shariah. Under Shariah, women and girls have no real value, or rights, and cannot own property. Rather, they are all but owned, as man has all the rights. Gays are not allowed, and are actually killed under their laws. Once you become a Muslim, even if you're born to it, you are there for life. If you attempt to leave Islam, a warrant of death as an apostate is issued. No exceptions. Like many religions, there are those who are "non-practicing", but only Islam states that they either return to Islam or face the apostates fate. Given that choice, many return and follow the doctrines of the religion. Those are the things that make it dangerous, even if only 15% of the billion or so Muslims follow the most severe and strict laws of the religion.

Yes, Christianity and others had similar concepts about conversion and "savages" (infidels in Islam), but not for the entirety of the life of those religions. The same cannot be said of Islam. These are facts, not bigotry, and should not be confused with bigotry.

Education

Our current educational system is in bad shape. Too many regulations and too much union involvement. Kids aren't taught any more, they're taught to pass tests so the schools can get more funding. We need a more progressive approach to teaching our kids, and a return to actually teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, along with a healthy dose of responsibility and a modicum of common sense. Of course we'd have to teach the teachers first. As an example of what I'm talking about, let's look at driver's ed. Kids are taught to steer a car, stop at stop signs, follow the rules of the road, and obey the laws. Most don't once they get out on their own in a car, and since they only know how to steer and hit the brakes they aren't truly "drivers", only "missile guiders". Then there are those who can't even fill out a simple application for work, or make change without a computer. And some can't even do that right!! They aren't taught to think, they're taught to react. We've gone backwards in education, and have not progressed in 4 decades. It's time to change that, now.

Okay, this is long enough so I'll quit here. If you want my opinion on an issue i didn't list, just ask. Trust me, I have an opinion on almost everything. At least items of value. So what say you? Am I a conservative, a progressive, or a progressive conservative? And what are you?

30 comments View Entry

The following is a link to my seasonal greeting to all my friends.

The Reason for the Season

Please feel free to share this with your family and friends.

13 comments View Entry