Friday, September 28, 2007

Hillary's Health Plan or George's War

First let me say, Hillary is not yet President, so this health plan that Congress wants more money for, is already in place, and we all know her health plan failed years ago, so Talk Radio, quit rabble rousing. Oh, that's right, that's what Talk Radio does! George's War, on the other hand has once again run short of funding. I think this George Bush rhetoric is getting just ridiculous. I know two people that are great Bush fans that wouldn't be funding all my stupid ideas. As a matter of fact, when I was a kid and even a young adult, okay, even now my parents, especially my mother who is a devout Bush fan . . . still mentions things like "don't bite off more than you can chew" and "consider the cost." Well, I wish all the Bush fans would share their wisdom with their leader. And really, when it comes down to it, it's all about money, anyway. You are never going to convince me that Hillary cares about my individual health needs. Didn't Bill go elsewhere to have his personal needs met? And we all know the Bush wars, now, even have the democrat candidates unable or afraid to promise the troops will be home by 2013. Here is what I think is going to keep happening while Bush rides out his lame duck term and Congress tries to look like a force to be reckoned with, when we all know, they are just politicians wanting to be re-elected. I think it's hysterical that Congress continues to use phrases like "no more blank checks" and "we aren't just going to rubber stamp it." They say that and they mean that, because so far, Bush has gotten everything he's demanded and their non-compliance has been to attach spending bills that Bush claims to not want. Hey, it's still our tax dollars getting abused and whether it's a never ending war that we are financing or more health care for our kids, either way, either party, our government has already taken control of the children's future.
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. Y'shuah . . . New Testament

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

21st Century Moccasins

I don't usually promote a product or a specific name brand, but like all people, this particular topic is close to home and singles my ethnicity out for special treatment, so I'm setting aside politics and cynicism for today to say, "Go NIKE!" Nike has designed a shoe for the Native American, and offering them at wholesale costs on the reservations. I think that is just great! A shoe manufacturer has realized what my dad and I have known all along. The foot of the Native American tends to be wider and higher, on average, than most other nationalities and groups. I remember as a kid having to wear such ugly "clod hoppers" because I had a wide foot and a high instep and arch. I realized by junior high that the cowboys wore boots and the Indians wore moccasins because there was just no getting my foot in and out of boots without a zipper! Along the way, I soon discovered that moccasins and sandals were the footwear of my choice, yet barefoot was and still is, best of all. I went through my phase of a different pair of shoes for every outfit, because shoes were so uncomfortable and I wore them so "hard," I tried to never have to wear the same pair consecutively. Now at the threshold of 50, my shoe wardrobe consists of moccasins and sandals, and one pair of zippered boots for chores in winter. For my wedding, I created an illusion of shoes by designing ribbons to wind around my feet and tie at the ankle, so my feet were technically not bare, yet I didn't have to deal with miserably fitted shoes for the ceremony and reception.
I think it's great in this age of social tolerance and racial equality; that if we can't have our land back, the buffalo herds can no longer roam freely, the teepee has been replaced by housing of the Department of Interiors, and shirt and shoes are required, thanks to NIKE, we Native Americans can now, at least, stand comfortably in the established culture.
Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established. a Proverb of Holy Scripture

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Free Speech Affords Us the Freedom to Listen

I don't agree with President Ahmadinejad, but then again, on most issues, I don't agree with President Bush. I guess my question is: If I truly thought someone was "off the beam . . ." Wouldn't it make sense to listen to their ramblings and rants and potential threats? We already know from our own American history in the past 6 years, just how many emotional issues have been made into policy and how many "rants" have become the foundation for changing the laws of America and disregarding or reinferring the results doesn't really change the facts. So when we listen to the rants, we at least know the intent and direction for which to prepare. And sometimes when you keep someone talking, it keeps them from taking action . . .

Since I believe the Scripture that states " we reap what we sow." I am absolutely in favor of allowing and legislating freedom. I listen to the older conservatives as they seem to want to choose bondage for the rest of us, while enjoying their own freedom or realizing many of them do, in fact, enjoy bondage and fear. See, nobody is going to admit their own desires or agenda for others.

I happen to believe, as powerless as Amadinejad is, we need to be aware of what Iran's Ayatollah is up to, as he is the one with the power.

I don't agree with Ahmadinejad, but I do like knowing what he's thinking, just in case the Ayatollah allows him to establish some of Iran's direction. What if, without free speech made available in America, Ahmadinejad had to resort to tapes and videos, like the strategically timed videos from binLaden? What if we realized that often times the best way to remain aware of what an "enemy" is doing is to listen to the lunatics? We do when they are "home grown" making all sorts of predictions that we, the people will have to pay for." If we are going to participate globally, as our leader wants, then we must include the global voices that want to be heard, even when we disagree with them; especially when we disagree with them or perceive them to be threatening. I am getting more and more convinced that free speech, regardless of the origin or political spectrum, gives insight into what must be considered in the global direction, all leaders seem to want to lead us toward.
. . . and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. the Revelation . . . New Testament

Monday, September 24, 2007

In the News

Well, today has been a busy day! The UAW has declared a strike, and President Ahmadinejad spoke in America at Columbia University. And somehow, I just feel that the real point and issue has been lost in both of these headline grabbing events.
What I noticed?
First, the 73,000 UAW members that walked off the job is nowhere near the number of members just a few short years ago. I read that the main concern is health care for the pension collectors. The information I read indicated there was over 300,000 retired workers collecting retirement and needing health care. Look at the figures, alone. There are far fewer people working than there are collecting. Oh, I know, the words of all the retirees. "I paid into it." Well, when you paid into it, there were more workers than retirees and people didn't live so long, requiring so much medical coverage. So, technically, the circumstances that the present retirees want covered, didn't even exist when they were working, but . . . there's no telling them that, so I hope the "strikers" aren't out too long, because they are nowhere near what they used to be. A union over 1 million strong. Those were the old days.
Now let's address this little wild man from Iran, President Ahmadinejad. We should remember from the Tehran embassy capture in the seventies, that a president doesn't have much power in Iran. The power belongs to the Ayatollah, and we know that. He has said some outrageous things, but one thing really hit me. He said Israel would be wiped off the map without violence and I have been concerned about that very thing. The Roadmap to Peace guarantees that Israel loses it's presence by concession of the land and that wasn't the plan of President Ahmadinejad, but from the mind of President Bush. I have a difficult time looking at and listening to Ahmadinejad make outrageous comments, but I also have great difficulty listening to talk radio and even the present administration, as they give this little bully, who sounds so similar; so much attention, knowing he's not the power in Iran.
So what gives?
I've read about two major "power plays" in the news today, and the reality is: there is no power in the statement being made by these power plays? So, while we are all watching the GM workers strike and listening to every negative commentary about Ahmadinejad, I have to wonder . . . What is really going on, where the power lies?
Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: Holy Scripture

Friday, September 21, 2007

The Talk Doesn't Match The Information

It's been awhile since I've talked about talk radio, so it's time. I'm going to make this short today, as Yom Kippur begins an hour before sunset and I am not yet prepared, so here's what I have to say about what talk radio is talking about.
I listened to Dr. Bill's interview this morning with a man that was his speech writer when Dr. Bill was Education Secretary for President Reagan. First it was fun to listen to the "alumni" list and realize how many of them are still in republican politics today, only they have higher positions. It was as if, many of them just took an eight year break to go into the corporate world, then right back to power in Washington. Anyway, these two gentlemen began discussing the breakdown of the American family, yet the "crime rate has declined." They determined that the crime rate has possibly declined because there are so many more people in prison. I was wondering if they read the same headlines I do. But then, I realized, our government is fighting crime by pre-emptive arrests. You know, they can now prevent crime by arresting for intent. So, I keep reading all the arrest headlines, but there's less crime. So, our brilliant, powerful government is just arresting and imprisoning people to prevent crime?
Next through the news I got to hear about how our President just isn't getting noticed properly for our strengthened economy . . . What strengthened economy? Guys that used to assemble cars for $18.00 an hour are now working the produce section in the super market for $6.50, and he can't have 40 hours a week or overtime , because there's another guy that's got the same position, so full time is now 28-32 hours. Keeps everyone off of the unemployment role so those statics look good. Home foreclosures are at an all time high and you might be thinking, yes, but most of those people shouldn't have qualified to begin with. And I would agree, but then selling all those homes with shaky mortgages is what helped fuel this "strong economy" just a couple of years ago! Oh, by the way, the dollar has sunk to an all time low up next to other currency now, too. Strong economy? Don't forget all the recalls? Are the jobs to process all the returns, counted in this strong economy and employment stats?
I have to address one more topic, just because it's been on my mind for ages and some of these blogs have eluded to it, but I really think there may be some validity to my republican conspiracy theory. I think the republicans want Hillary in the White House. There is no clear front runner amidst the republicans. I have already heard a religious right leader say he would not vote for Giuliani, even if it was a vote against Hillary, so . . . I just don't think Fred Thompson actually will have much of a platform, he's mostly just presence. Huckabee is conservative, but not far enough out front. Romney has some issues to overcome, and I no longer think it's just a coincidence. I think the republicans want the sweeping victory of the House and Senate two years after Hillary takes office, and everybody knows a President that has to clean up behind a war is a one termer, regardless of party, so, there you have my theory. They are telling us one thing, while the facts seem to indicate otherwise.
A false balance is abomination to YHVH . . . a Proverb of Holy Scripture

Thursday, September 20, 2007

"SMILE" Say Money!

When I was a kid and everyone that got their picture taken was supposed to "smile and say CHEESE," my Grandma used to tell us to SMILE and say Money! I remember her fondly as I read about the new money and SMILE! What's with this deal? New money every time we turn around to avoid counterfeiting??? I couldn't begin to tell you if the currency I receive in change or even for that matter, the currency I offer in payment is legitimately issued by our government or copied by a counterfeiter, and I am a numismatist! How would the average person that hasn't looked at dates and mint marks and details for years, recognize a counterfeit bill? Why, if our government is trying to make currency difficult to copy; continue to change it? It all looks like MONOPOLY money, now!
I am including a link that left me intriqued and questioning . . .
Originally, the five wasn't going to be redesigned. But that decision was reversed once counterfeiters began bleaching $5 notes and printing fake $100 bills with the bleached paper to take advantage of the fact that some of the security features were in the same locations on both notes.
To thwart this particular scam, the government is changing the $5 watermark from one of Lincoln to two separate watermarks featuring the numeral 5. The $100 bill has a watermark with the image of Benjamin Franklin.
The security thread embedded in the $5 bill also has been moved to a different location than the one embedded in the $100 bill.
. . . The next bill to get a makeover will be the $100. It will feature the most advanced safeguard yet, a new security thread composed of 650,000 tiny lenses that will magnify micro-printing on the bills to give the effect of having the images move in the opposite direction than the bill is being moved.
The government is only about one-third of the way through the redesign of the $100 and hopes to have that process completed by this time next year. Extra effort is going into the $100 makeover since this bill represents more than 70 percent of the $776 billion of currency in circulation, two-thirds of which is held overseas.
Why redesign the $5 bill to differentiate between $5 and $100, if the $100 bill is next on the agenda? Why do I, and many others think this really isn't about stopping or controlling counterfeit bills, but rather; about moving towards a cashless society and/or tracking every bill in everyone's pocket or purse?
Show me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's. And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. New Testament

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Who Knew?

Earlier this week or maybe it was last week, an alleged criminal fatally shot a police dog. I think that is a sad situation. I realize these dogs are trained to protect the officer that they work with, as well as simply being loyal animals that are trained to be placed in harm's way. These animals do not choose to wear a badge or carry a gun, but they are working dogs, and they are in a dangerous line of work. So, for the police dog, I am sad, for the officer that was his handler, I am sorry, but what I want to address is something that came as a complete surprise.

I have heard the conservatives gripe about PETA and "those liberals," but it has not been PETA or "those liberals" that have made the decisions that have caught my attention. The decisions of these past few days have been made by a conservative government, and specifically a conservative governor.

First, people wanted to donate puppies, which is nice, but of course the powers that be, didn't want that, because the special dogs were purchased in Europe to the tune of $15,000.00, so the request became, "please send money." Then came the announcement that there would be a memorial service for this dog, and the time and place were publicized for the past few days, and at the end of the public service announcement today, I noted hearing that the $15,000.00 had already been raised and the excess would be donated to "the police dog fund." Now, this started because some well meaning people wanted to give a sad policeman a puppy. We were told the police budget had not included replacing the dog, of course, so now our police department has excess over the budget from the kind hearted already burdened tax payers of this community. But that's not all. Now, please keep in mind there's been no mention of PETA, and I think "liberals" is a bad word in this part of the country, but after all the donations, and the memorial service, our governor; the conservative governor of Missouri granted the request that flags fly at half mast. Again, I'm sorry for the dog, but the reports these last few days asking for money, pretty much indicate these dogs are born and bred to live and die this life, they know nothing else. And I'm sorry for the police officer, dogs are referred to as man's best friend. And I have animals that I trust more than most of the people I know, but really . . . People die every day and the flag remains at the top of the poll. Isn't it just paradoxical that the conservatives are so sure the liberals want animals to have more rights than people, and it is the young conservative governor, with a conservative daddy in Washington, declaring more respect for a dog than most people will get at the time of their death?

And G~d said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over . . . all the earth, and over every thing . . . upon the earth. Torah of Holy Scripture

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Petraeus, Politics, and Promises

I could begin this blog with "Not to sound like a skeptic, but . . ." There's really no reason to do that any more. I am skeptical about nearly everything that gets presented to the taxpaying citizens of this country. I read an interesting article in the Opinion Journal by Karl Rove about health care. He tells us how our health should not be in the hands of the government, and yet our government continues to tell us that our safety and well being can be entrusted nowhere else. What gives? I personally think the recent unannounced visit to Iraq by our President, just days before this big September report, was interesting at the very least and not at all coincidental with the meeting in Australia. I think there was a last minute effort on the President's part to compare notes and "reassure." Before General Petraeus even began to give his report, most people were decided in their predetermined, partisan reaction. Democrats called him a mouth piece and the republicans called him a warrior or soldier, until the ad from Then, the republicans were up in arms, making reference to the fact that this ad was a campaign to "kill the messenger." Well, republicans, which is it? How can he be a messenger without being a mouth piece? President Bush is the Commander in Chief, so technically, even generals, especially generals answer to him, and we have a history of the Iraq war to prove it. When generals disagree, it's time to come home and retire, because the war will go on, by order of the Commander in Chief.
So, now we have some vague promise of troop reduction in Iraq in the "not so distant" future. Will the troops be needed in Iran, by then? I do agree with the fact that we cannot announce a departure date, and I applaud the fact that President Bush finally has made a comparison to Viet Nam, with the pull out date and Saigon. Actually there are many parallels between Iraq and Viet Nam, so it's about time he realizes what he's done!
Do I think there will be a troop down sizing? Depends on the politics; not the war, at the time. Iraq made three of 18 benchmarks in July, then suddenly by September there are supposed to be 9 of the 18 accomplished. So, it only took two months to accomplish 6 benchmarks that have been out of reach for over 4 years? Really! If the Iraqi government has accomplished all those benchmarks due to the troop surge, then their government, by definition, would be a military state; armed and protected by another government's military, as their own militia continues to fail.
The simple truth is just painful. We can't just announce a departure date and we really don't have the manpower or the money to continue. Our President has changed his terminology from "victory" to "success." This war is not the will of the people that are stuck paying for it while their children die in it. Many of us were never for this horribly, misguided mess in Iraq, but I for one, realize; there is no way to get our troops home safely by making an announcement of a pull out. That fact was always unaffected by General Petraeus's report.
For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them. Torah of Holy Scripture

Monday, September 17, 2007

Socialized Medicine

Hillary, Barack, and John all have our health in the forefront of their campaigns. I have to tell you, though, I really find it hilarious that so many senior citizens are up in arms about all these "liberal democrat's ideas that are nothing but socialism!" Medicare and Social Security are the backbone of any socialist society, and yet American senior citizens just can't understand that. I've made reference before to the system and the uproar from those that are the most benefitted, but I feel that it is high time to truly understand this burden of respect and care that has been thrust upon the working class of America all in the name of tax laws, nationalism, and respect. In 1935, the young generation "respectfully" left the farm and said forget it. Since there was no one to take over the family business of farming, this young heady generation gladly paid a miniscule percentage of their city wages to support their aging country parents. The ratio was 16 workers to 1 recipient, and although the percentages have changed all the way around, many of those original working class are now and have been collecting for over 20 years. So, they should remember the fact that what they were paying in, was not for them to collect. Their parents collected what they contributed so they could go to town! Now, we come to the next generation which is also now collecting, because "they paid into it." Well, apparently "they" weren't listening in school or were absent that day. Social Security was never established for the payor to be building a personal retirement nest egg. Social Security was for the elderly without income, and that was when the work force outnumbered the collections. Then along came Johnson with his "Great Society" plans and medicare was added to the already lucritive pot of reward for living long enough to no longer have to contribute. With medicare added, now the simple formula of collecting 13 Social Security checks could multiply many times over, by extending the life expectancy of the average American. With medicare added, living 13 months after retirement, rapidly turned into 13 years, and beyond. But these people knew, they hadn't really contributed all that money and they knew what they had contributed had already been spent by the previous generation, and they knew they didn't have nearly the number of children that their parents had, and yet . . .
So now, these same people are up in arms because they are just sure that one of those democrats, if elected, plans to implement socialized medicine.
The way I see it, the big concern is not socialized medicine, because the seniors have had it for some time. I don't understand how so many of our nation's seniors can live by the benefits of history's democrats, yet donate and vote against the same political standard that brought so many of their benefits about. Are the senior citizens afraid that socialized medicine would mean they have to share their medicare rights with everyone?
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. New Testament

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

9/11, Six Years Later

It's been six years since that fateful day, and my heart goes out to those that continue to mourn the loss of loved ones and friends lost in the tragedy of that day. As our nation gathers in various places in remembrance, I find myself taking inventory.
Why has the United States allowed itself to become so divided? If we were right in our response, why hasn't victory truly been declared? Why have we refused to admit we changed our culture in response to 9/11, which was supposedly the stated purpose of the enemy? How do we figure they didn't win, if our Western culture is no longer the same? That day that nearly 3,000 lives were lost, a new direction was founded. We have continued to lose loved ones in military service, our freedom, our hopes, our children's and grandchildren's securities, our trust in our government and our tolerance. I'm not talking about the "pseudo-tolerance" for every group that's making noise, I'm talking about acceptance of others and their differences. I've come to realize when a group of people are motivated by anger, their anger must be maintained to keep them moving. When people are motivated by fear, the fears must get larger and more intense for the people to continue to respond fearfully. And when people are motivated by sorrow or vengeance, every time they are reminded, the wound or determination is fresh again.
In the last six years, theories have been formulated, arguments documented, and debates continue over the actions of this country since the event of 9/11. But everything that is done, continues to divide, rather than unite, and serves to reduce the respect, we, the Western culture, the leader of the free world, once enjoyed and valued.
While our nation's leaders make reference to Osama bin Laden as being in hiding or nearly impotent in power, he continues to have the entire American administration looking under every rock and checking every citizen, or so they tell us that's why they are doing it.
As righteousness tendeth to life: so he that pursueth evil pursueth it to his own death. a Proverb of Holy Scripture

Monday, September 10, 2007

Have You Noticed?

It seems that "stands" and convictions and reactions to decisions are decided before the information is actually presented and the data collected. Have you noticed that whatever the news or issue is, the reaction is absolutely only dependant upon the political leaning already embraced by the individual? If a republican has presented an idea, a democrat is automatically opposed simply by virtue of party. If there is a black issue, Oprah and Al Sharpton are automatically involved, regardless. Black hip hop can use racial slur words, but whites cannot and if there is a black person involved, then it simply depends upon which end of the circumstances he or she is standing. I was shocked that Rev. Al thought the judgment against Michael Vick regarding the NFL was too extreme. If Michael Vick were white, Rev. Al would not even have been involved. Has Oprah reached out to the falsely accused Duke lacrosse team members? And we all know that was political. What ever happened to giving a false police report? The woman that accused these athletes has been removed from the responsibility of giving false information, and it's all landed upon the shoulders of the prosecutor. Not to say, he wasn't wrong, but was he the only one in the wrong . . . ?
Aren't you tired of the fact that the "facts" are totally dependant upon the political party, networking connections, or complexion of those presenting the facts? Surely the facts are deeper than that.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. a Proverb of Holy Scripture

Friday, September 07, 2007

The Powers and Authority

This is going to sound a bit like a sermon today, but then . . . According to the religious right, the interpretation of Romans 13: 1 means that G~D has placed George W. Bush over America, because he is the best leader for this time. Well, Romans 13: 1 doesn't exactly say that, but that's the interpretation, none the less. It does say that leaders are put in place by G~D, and so that makes me wonder. Maybe G~d has allowed George W. Bush to be our leader, because he is the embodyment of the American spirit, arrogant and aggressive. So he best reflects the direction we have chosen. But, by the same token, if George W. Bush is ordained of G~D for his job, then was Saddam Hussein put in place, and is Ahmadinejad also in his position by the same authority? Wow! Does that mean Arafat rose by the same means and what about Osama bin Laden? Does G~D really put all these leaders in place by HIS divine authority, or does he simply allow mankind the freedom to be as mean or dumb as we choose? Or was Paul, in Romans 13: 1, simply telling a congregation that their spiritual leader had authority over them. I guess, this popular interpretation will remain rampant until the second coming, but just one more thought on this appointed and ordained authority. If Romans 13:1 was written to the church in Rome to endorse the authority of the Roman government, we have to realize that was the same government that ordered the death sentence for the Messiah, as well as the author of the book of Romans. So maybe, just maybe, what G~D allows for earthly governmental leadership has nothing to do with HIS definition of righteousness.
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of G~d: the powers that be are ordained of G~d. Romans 13: 1 . . . Come now, and let us reason together . . . Holy Scripture

Thursday, September 06, 2007


I have to be honest here, I haven't written to any of the republican candidates, yet, but I do have a couple of observations, I'd like to make . . . then I'll ask questions. I've been rather ambivalently interested in Fred Thompson's campaign. He's really economized on the campaign trail with great media coverage, while having not officially thrown his hat in the ring. Very economical strategy, and while the rest of the candidates are spending fortunes and warming up to tear each other apart, he's remained a safe distance. This plan could be a promising strategy. Only time will tell, but he's certainly kept himself from being picked apart in the first six months that the others have "declared" themselves to be fair targets in open season! He's had top coverage with the declared candidates, yet not had to spend "valuable financing" or participate in the "line up comparisons."
Mitt Romney is an interesting individual. Well, actually, I don't know much about him politically, but he's got the same pensive look in his eyes as Franklin and Billy Graham. So, I'm guessing that means his religion is important to him. I have taken a more superficial view of Mitt Romney and his wife. I just personally have this thought that if Ken and Barbie were brought to life, they'd be Mr. and Mrs. Mitt Romney. Sorry, I just don't listen to him with any depth. It seems to me, that to be President of the United States is just next on the list of this man's agenda.
I've been trying to stay aware of Rudy's campaign, I think mostly because he seems a formidable candidate against Hillary, but I have one concern that just will not go away. When I first began to listen to Rudy, I was really considering something I had never considered before. I was thinking of voting republican, but in listening to this man that almost caused me to convert, I have heard a very disconcerting message that he continues to repeat. I have a real problem with a man that is pro-war and pro-gun control, and considers his religion a private matter. It just has a bizarre unbalanced ring to me. I couldn't believe I hadn't recognized this fact sooner. He just truly sounds like the present administration. If he is pro military power, yet pro gun control, we the people are just one step away from losing the right to defend ourselves for our own safety.
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of YHVH our G~d. Holy Scripture

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Now that Thinking Has Been Declared Illegal . . .

I'm not for a minute, advocating that hatred is acceptable, but . . . I am questioning how it has become acceptable and applaudable that attitude and supposed intent can be prosecuted. I am literally talking about prosecuting something that was said or inferred. Not only has the USA, a.k.a. Babylon the Great, actually prosecuted someone that "was allegedly planning" something, but the present administration of the USA has actually wielded enough superiority and influence, that another country is now legislating "potential crimes" and hateful attitudes. By the way, this country is no stranger to government gone overboard. This country is Germany. A jury in America or Guantanamo has found Jose Padilla, guilty of something that he was not arrested for and has not been held for, but he's guilty for what he supposedly supported and what he thought about doing. He was not found guilty for the alleged "dirty bomb" and the charges were dropped regarding his status as an enemy combatant; yet a jury has still found him guilty of charges that were not even mentioned at the onset of his detainment . . . "Let freedom ring . . ." Everyone that has listened to the news or read the headlines today has been informed that Germany has arrested men that had spoken hatred toward the US and were making "plans" to do something.
Please, people, if there are any that are still thinking and not just getting in line behind the paranoid programming. Our nation has declared it illegal to think about things that "they" claim are dissent. None of these people, on trial or being held, actually committed a crime, because supposedly our government or the German government intercepted "their plans" and saved the world. If you really believe this, then you probably voted for the present administration both times and are nearly despondent that our current President cannot serve yet another term, but for those that are still doing the unthinkable . . . and thinking. What are those of us that disagree going to do with those that have determined not just free speech, but free thought to be subject to allegations that result in potential life sentences and being held without charges and without legal representation? Does the present administration really believe that man can look upon the alleged intent of another man and pass judgment?
for man looketh on the outward appearance, but YHVH looketh on the heart. Holy Scripture

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Wait Just a Minute Here

It's time for another update about our candidates and to be fair, I'm going to start receiving info from some of the republicans as well. I don't want to just post reasons to not vote for the three democrat front runners, but this past week, they certainly gave me yet another reason to cast my vote another direction. I read and declined to view the video from the Obama camp about where the Bush government has failed the people and his sentiment regarding "I am my brother's keeper." You know, I just don't feel like being kept. He sounds dangerously similar to the Bush administration regarding our safety and I've just had more than enough of that. I certainly don't want four more years of being "kept for my own good" by the other party!
On to Hillary. She's really got a great thing going. Her husband is making appearances discussing how he is really not involved in the issues of her campaign. Is that not just paradoxically precious? He's on Oprah discussing his non involvement in the political process. And you know, people will fall for that, AGAIN. Hillary made an interesting comment through her week-end stumping. The only way to change the system is from within. RIGHT! When did that ever happen? You get in the system and the system changes you. Does anyone really think Paul Revere or George Washington believed they would change the system from within? Say, what did the slaves get accomplished from within? If I remember my history class correctly, all great change came from revolution and abolition.
Now, I've kind of been drawn to John Edwards, UNTIL . . . he's going to tell us all when to go to the doctor. I realize his wife is battling breast cancer, and she has my sympathy and my heart goes out to his fear, but that doesn't mean he has the right to tell the rest of us when to get a mamogram! He said if we were going to be part of the system, and of course all of our taxes will be raised to accomodate this health plan. But what if some of us are just willing to pay our taxes and decline the "benefit of the system?" I don't believe in using doctors, and I'm not alone on this. Even those that utilize the medical system don't want to be told when and where to go and to be sent. Is he going to take away my freedom of religion to take care of my health?
I don't want to vote republican. So why, is my only choice on the democrat ticket, to be "kept" by Obama, be sent to the doctor by Edwards, or vote for one more woman that's had sex with Bill Clinton?
It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling. a Proverb of Holy Scripture

Blog Archive