Care and Compassion, Enforced

I've finally boiled it down. I see the political process in America. The democrats expand the governmental care and the republicans enforce it. Have you noticed that regardless of the political accusations through a campaign, regardless of how "unreasonable" the legislation has been from the other party; nothing ever seems to get UNDONE after the election? There are few taxes that actually face elimination at their "sunset." And there are few laws that get repealed after the election, regardless of the rhetoric about the previous administration through the campaign. It seems this democrat/republican balance is simply to keep the citizenry off balance. The democrats vote in taxes and more governmental care. The republicans move for more aggression and a stronger invasive government. And you know what it all boils down to? A government that provides and protects; controls and enforces. That's why "the powers that be" preserve the two party system in this self-proclaimed superpower!
Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him. a Proverb of Holy Scripture

Fear in Fundamentalism

I find most fundamentalists of any religion to be frightening. It's not that I really am afraid of their edicts and warnings, but rather I find their ideology frightening, because they truly believe they know what is best for everyone, and they seem to believe it is their life calling to force it on the rest of us. Many of us believe quite strongly in our faith of choice. I believe devoutly in Scripture and I am pretty literal in my interpretation, but . . . I do not believe I should force anyone to believe as I do, and I absolutely do not believe in any way, shape or form, that religious beliefs should be politically implemented. I believe the Bible, the entire Bible, so I am neither Christian nor Jew. What I do understand about politics from Scripture, however is; elected democracies and theocratic republics do not have license to use G~D's punishments to implement their laws in the name of their god. Therefore, war is no more divinely inspired than when Rome ran rampant. Capital punishment is simply murder when the laws are regulated by man. Actually, Holy Scripture makes no reference to a prison system, other than those belonging to Egypt, Babylon, and Rome. But nothing for the people of G~D to be incarcerating combatants. I can't comment on the Koran, because I don't live by it, but if the Muslim leaders are promising virgins and other lustful rewards for jihad, then that just doesn't sound much like holy edicts. That sounds like self-focused fundamentalism. I spent an hour of my life listening to an evangelical fundamentalist rant about needing conservative judges and all this American immorality, and the fundamentalist Muslims. First, I thought to myself, this person has the same description of America as the Jihadists. I kept that thought to myself and asked them if they would like to have to live with my interpretation of Scripture? They said absolutely not, but of course, didn't see the correlation with what they were proposing, politically. Unfortunately, there is no point to be made with fundamentalists of any religion. It is their way or we are all simply wrong, and require correction.
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. New Testament

The Vote Against

Time for another political rant about the candidates. The GOP is already acting like Hillary will be the "other" candidate. Granted Obama's substance lacks, and his style has become familiar, so he's really not new politics any more and the polls reflect it. Edwards is hanging in there, but it doesn't look likely that he is suddenly going to over take the other two, but I do remember in 2004, the democratic leader was basically never heard from again after Iowa, so I can't say; but what I find very disconcerting is the HATE VOTE. There are the number of GOP constituents that are not terribly happy with their candidates but are quite vocal about voting AGAINST HILLARY. It's like whoever gets the GOP nomination can disappoint them in many social and values issues, but the main concern seems to be . . . Can he beat Hillary? I'm quite uncomfortable with the 2008 election for many reasons, but to elect someone, simply based upon disdain for someone else sounds like the recipe for failure. What is that old preponderance . . .Is the enemy of my enemy, my friend? Most often, a relationship based upon a mutual contempt goes nowhere productive! What if the next president of the United States is elected simply because 51% of the people dodn't like Hillary? Does that really make sense for a world super power? I don't intend to vote for Hillary. I don't like the fact that she is running on "experience" when her experience she touts is only to have lived in the top notch government housing of the United States and the state of Arkansas. She is only a one term Senator that has been re-elected to that office, but is obviously dividing her time and priorities, just months after she was re-elected, so how honest is this claim to experience? It seems to me she is experienced at receiving the benefits of other's hard work and a husband's popularity. That is hardly leadership experience.

Why does anyone think Giuliani can beat Hillary, anyway? He ran against her in 2000 for the Senate seat. And do we really want a President that is for war and gun control? The lesser of Two Evils is still not good. I just cannot be motivated to vote for someone, as a vote against someone else.

For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of G~d. New Testament

Politics, the Cloak of Prejudice

After hearing a new voice on talk radio last night, I turned it off. There is just so much I can take. I heard a gentleman, and I'm using that term graciously, named Richard Roberts. He was speaking about the fires in California, and against the ideology of the liberals. He was also comparing the helplessness of New Orleans through Katrina, to the capable do it yourself attitude of those in California. He even commented on how Biloxi was in the same "boat" if you will as New Orleans, but Biloxi helped themselves and didn't keep crying for more. And up until there, he had me listening and interested, because although I don't think the liberals have ruined everything in America, I had found the citizens of Biloxi and those in the fires to be heroic. When Katrina hit, my husband and I purposely sent our donations specifically to Biloxi, as they weren't whining in the news every 30 minutes for days and months. I didn't read that the mayor of Biloxi told the President that the federal government was doing enough.
But back to my present rant.
After Mr. Roberts told us how much he knew and how involved he was, he began taking calls. A gentleman called and simply stated the fires were still blazing and this pundit became outrageously rude and offensive. I couldn't believe the way he spoke with the gentleman that had called and the names that he called the man. That was when I had had enough and began to realize, we may call it red vs. blue, but this disdain and contempt for the opposite colors truly covers a myriad of social issues. Red and Blue divide our country in most stereotypical ways. We already know that black or Jewish republicans are the general exception. We know that most democrats are working class or government subsidized. Red is corporate, blue is the color of the collar. Red is usually associated with more material assets, while blue frequently is associated with paycheck to paycheck, or some sort of check. There are many more divided issues that are clearly associated with these colors and parties. I think what I have noticed the most, though; in this time of political correctness and tolerance is this. Although discrimination is frowned upon and frequently forbidden in most social issues, it's still okay for red to hate blue and blue to hate red. And that covers a multitude of prejudices.
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: Torah of Holy Scripture

Americans - Do We Really Love to Hate?

I am so sick of politics! Considering the fact that my maiden name is Kennedy, that seems just unthinkable. Now, here I am, proving the title of the blog, by listening to news/talk radio just to hear the propaganda that is being used to influence those that can't really think for themselves, but respond beautifully to aggressive, attacking influence. I don't like the influence that news/talk radio is having on powerless people that have control issues. News/talk radio has just legitimized hatefulness and rudeness, and gathered a following that simply embraces this concept. This is the group of people that love to hate Saddam, and love to hate Ahmadinejad, and love to hate American liberals! Although I wouldn't vote for Hillary, I find it sad that she is loathed by the news/talk groupies as strongly as Saddam Hussein is hated by those same people. I probably won't be voting for John Edwards, either, but I am glad that he is holding corporate medical power in accountability, with what the conservatives call frivolous law suits. I don't consider John Edwards work to be frivolous at all! Although I don't like his plans for legally required insurance, I do appreciate the fact that he does hold doctors accountable. I have a problem, also with Condi. She is just playing Israel and pressuring Olmert, while juggling her boss's marching orders to preach hatred toward elusive terrorists. If America has the right to impose sanctions on a country for supporting terrorism, why did we handle Lebanon, last year, with such kid gloves when they have elected Hezbollah to their Parliament? Can somebody please make sense of this? See, loving to hate and breeding contempt . . . What's the deal with that? And I am not happy with the present administration, which does inspire my views to be negative and against, rather than pro and positive. I don't like the fact that our nation is now motivated by anger, hate and negativity, rather than love and peace. I don't like it at all. I am absolutely offended that both parties are using a fire in California for political gain. The conservatives are blaming the environmentalists and the liberals are blaming the war in Iraq. I thought the governor chose his words carelessly and sounded like he was blaming G~D, referring to the wind, heat, and lack of rain. And here, this week's Torah reading covered Sodom and Gomorrah . . . so where do we all back up and regroup? I pointed out the comparison at the time of Katrina and the account of Noah. I, personally do believe our nation is way off base with all of our hatefulness and arrogance. Do I think the people of California are personally responsible? No, but I do think we need to look at our direction and I do think we need to consider the wake up calls, America has received.I read the stats. Six thousand Americans die every day, on average. That means, so far, there has been no tragedy or crisis that has exceeded that average, so . . . it's time to wake up and evaluate. I prayed yesterday about how to intervene for California, and you know, I simply asked, as I'm sure many others have. I hear now that the fires are less intense and people are able to return home. And even though news/talk radio, on their moral high road, is choosing to leave G~D out of the equation, I hear them say, the fires are less intense. That's exactly what Abraham did, in this week's Torah reading. He asked on behalf of others.I'm tired of America going in the direction of greedy aggression. I am ready to be headed in a positive direction. How can we get rid of this idea that power is in hateful greedy aggression?
He that loveth not knoweth not G~d; for G~d is love. New Testament

Legalized Rudeness

You know, most of the rest of the world refers to "rude Americans" and you know what . . . most of the rest of the world is correct. I haven't been everywhere on the globe, but in my travels, I have found America to be the rudest, arrogant lot of humanity that I have dealt with. And it's throughout our society. We have been treated very graciously in Israel, France, Greece, the Philippines, Haiti, Great Britian, and many Islands, but in America from airports to telemarketers, it seems to just be the trend to be rude. I've been offended for some time by talk radio and their name calling. I think politicizing everything is simply the excuse to be hateful and rude. It would seem it's perfectly acceptable to hold the members of the "other party" in contempt and treat them as such. That is just outrageous! But that is Americana in the 21st Century. I've always made it a point to be kind to telemarketers. I think they have a very difficult job and unlike many, at least they are working. And people do need siding and windows and many things. I do try to answer some surveys, if I have the time, and if I'm not keeping some other person waiting. I learned that when a staunch republican kept me waiting while they took a "pro-life" survey. All I could think while I listened to their blather, was "how rude!" But back to my latest gripe about the rudeness of America. My husband and I have discovered the latest trend of rudeness. Telemarketers that call with their script at the dinner hour, because that's when people are home . . . actually hang up on those that they do call and bother to give them the courteous time of day! Can you believe it? We don't hang up on them, when they start their schpeel. But, after listening to them, when we tell them we aren't interested, they actually hang up on us. How rude! I'm listening to talk radio as I type and I haven't counted the number of times this pundit has used a swear word or mispronounced a "liberal's" name with some sort of ugly connotation, but it's been numerous, and again I think, how rude!
We have become such a hateful and rude society and it's socially acceptable and horribly politically correct and it's from both parties and all walks of life. Does that seem proper, considering John McCain said that America is a Christian nation, and all the conservatives say that this nation was founded on Biblical principles?
America, we are proving the rest of the world to be correct and considering the claims of the conservatives, rudeness just seems totally inapporpriate.
Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel . . . New Testament

Values Voters

Values voters scare me to death, but I guess when it comes right down to it, we are all values voters. So let's analyze, for a moment, some of the varied values on which people determine who will receive their vote. There is so much diverse extremism in our country right now, I just don't want the candidate of the voters that want to determine everyone's values to win! I have come to believe that the morality monitors and the gay rights people have made perfect political "bed fellows." They just feed off of each other's animosity and attention, and both groups are "core values voters" in that they just want their values in everyone's face! I find it interesting that Romney won the values voters. How do the conservative values voters know he will still feel the same way about life and choice after the next election? He's changed since the last one! And I though Brigham Young was famously noted for his disbelief regarding marriage between one man and only one woman! But for those that have their values on appearance, a Romney White House should be a clear and obvious choice. I, personally think the Romneys look like Ken and Barbie brought to life. Mrs. Romney looks great after five kids and battling MS. So maybe the conservative values voters would like a big gorgeous family in the White House. It's certainly been awhile. Rudy is at the bottom of the list because of his leanings toward the rights of the other end of the spectrum of values voters. Rudy is pro-choice and gay rights, and frankly those people don't need to be in my face either, but I don't like Rudy's war plans. My voting values tend to lean toward the candidate that remembers the foundation of freedom. I am a deeply religious person, but the religious right don't agree with my beliefs, and I certainly don't want theirs. I'd be glad to share mine, but I want the freedom to believe as I choose and others to choose their beliefs. I don't want to hear anymore about the details of partial birth abortion, because the entire argument has been overdramatized, and by the same token, I don't want to hear that pre-born babies don't have any rights. The same pro-choice people will protect some spotted owl egg or pregnant predator on the endangered species list, so that just makes no sense either. Moral or a-moral values voters just make no sense in a constitutional republic that espouses freedom. Actually, the laws shouldn't make any difference for those that feel strongly about living according to their conscience.
The integrity of the upright shall guide them: but the perverseness of transgressors shall destroy them. a Proverb of Holy Scripture

The Melting Pot is Boiling Over

I read today that the President has asked for $46 billion more for war, and Congress "isn't going to rubber stamp" the request. Then you know the rest. Bush says Congress should care about our troops in harm's way and Congress says Bush needs to end the war and tend to the home front. So, while Congress blusters their usual impotent threats, and Bush continues to be his usual pushy self, I'm going to address immigration. We know Congress will bluster for awhile, then Bush will get his funding with some crazy earmark added on and nothing will be solved, but we will pay more taxes to cover this MESS. So, let's talk immigration.
I received yet more "immigration SPAM" from someone who doesn't work, and that just infuriates me. So, I've decided to address this subject from an historical perspective. When the colonists arrived, who fed them? Hint: It's been discussed for years and years through the holiday in November. And how did those immigrants treat their host citizens? No wonder the European descendants are a bit worried about how the immigrants will ultimately treat them. But let's move on in our history lesson. Once America had been colonized, those involved in the Revolution spoke of wiping out the Indian lands and crops right along with fighting the British. I learned in school that George Washington referred to Native Americans as savages. That was before the days of political correctness, of course. Then, once the settlers had control of the land, they had slaves to work the land. Once the slaves were freed, migrant workers became the backbone of the agricultural work force which brings us to the modern day dilemma. Much of the migrant farm work through history has been done by Mexicans who were not legal immigrants. And it would appear by our society, that many of the immigrants are no longer interested in doing migrant farm work. So, our government, in it's inane grandiosity has created a dilemma that will only serve to cast a greater burden on it's already overtaxed and dissatisfied citizens. First, we must all face the fact that the illegal immigrants aren't leaving. Since they aren't leaving, they will need some way to live, but employers are facing huge fines and imprisonment for hiring them, so that is only going to create more hardships on the American citizen. The next thing we must realize is the fact that without being deported and without being able to be employed, they will need to be subsidized and supported, again more hardships on the taxpaying work force, which brings me to the next point. Americans don't want the jobs the illegal immigrants and migrant workers have been doing. I could give a list of Americans that just plain don't want to work at all. So, with a nation full of professional speakers, as in politicians, lawyers, and pundits, college degreed computer operators, corporate executives, and disabled SPAMMERS, who is going to pick the lettuce and wash the dishes?
The labour of the righteous tendeth to life . . . a Proverb of Holy Scripture

Let's Talk Taxes: There is NO FAIR TAX Plan

Now, we all know that the Republicans have promised smaller government and anyone with any sense knows that won't happen. If we truly ever achieve smaller government, there will be fewer politicians in power, so why, with all the perks of being a politician, would any politician ever actually downsize government? They'd have to get real jobs and earn an honest living . . . What are the odds of that happening? And we do know by now, that democrats like programs, and with more programs, come more taxes. At least they are upfront about their plans. I don't recall ever hearing a democrat promise to reduce government. For a country that is supposed to be based upon Biblical principles, let me share the primary governments mentioned in Scripture that dealt with their subjects through taxation. There was Pharaoh in Egypt and Caesar in Rome, hardly the "good guys" of the Bible! I heard George Noory interview a former IRS auditor that clearly stated the Federal Tax laws are not in the constitution and the way the IRS operates is directly opposed to the tax laws set forth in the US Constitution. She also explained that the various taxes that get placed upon the people are the ones that are actually covering expenses, like road taxes on the gasoline and sales tax on merchandise and tax, tax, tax. Which got me really thinking about this "fair tax" plan. Right now, there is no official federal tax plan for the citizens of the United States. The problem that many people face with the IRS, is having voluntarily signed the form to agree to the regulations, then either not abiding by the many, many regs, or not understanding the regs in completing and signing the form. If the politicians can get the people to VOTE the fair tax in, before the people realize the present federal taxation isn't even legal, then there will be an official federal tax plan. The big push for the Fair Tax plan is not to reduce government, and not to make things better for the people, it's to legitimize what the feds have been doing to "we the people" for lo these many years.
And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own . . . Torah of Holy Scripture

Animal Control, Animal Rescue: People Control

Well, Ellen Degeneres tried to do a very nice thing, but . . . I've read the reports and I just don't get the mentality of the animal rescue and PETA people. You'd think, with all the animal abuse in the news of late, that some animal rescue mission would be happy to know an animal has found a good and happy home, but NO, that's just not enough control for some people that fancy themselves to be animal rescuers. You talk about missing the point. Although I don't understand or agree with a number of headlines about Ellen Degeneres, I really think she was just trying to do a very nice thing and these people running the animal rescue are more concerned with CONTROL, than with animal rescue. It wasn't like Ellen gave the dog to Michael Vick. There were two young girls in the home that really got attached to Iggy. And the girls were what, pre-adolescent? Isn't this age discrimination? It wasn't like they were going to pull the dog's ears or try to feed it silly putty. I've read the comments from Marina Batkis, co-owner of Mutts and Moms, the nonprofit dog-rescue organization and I just think she sounds like an absolute control freak. She sounds like the typical animal rights person that is all about people control! I would not threaten the woman, I wouldn't attempt to reason with her, because that is obviously beyond her scope, I would simply recognize that she has a "not for profit" status to be unreasonable and find an organization that is really in business or service to find homes for abandoned pets.
Ellen tried to do a very nice thing. Two young girls are very sad, and this one situation seems to completely change the message of pet adoption. I, personally, wouldn't deal with the likes of this situation. I truly think Mutts and Moms need to find their niche in an area that welcomes such stringent control, like the present administration.
A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel . . . a Proverb of Holy Scripture

COLA for Those Entitled

I realize I will sound like a disrespectful baby boomer and frankly, I just don't care anymore. I'm sick of the idealized American history and I'm truly sick of the fact that every generation tells it like they want it to be remembered, but has nothing to do with reality. And I'm sick of anti immigration e-mails from people who don't work. This coming year marks the first year of the boomers to reach 62 years of age. This is how the boomers will really break the establishment, when the majority collects! But the establishment won't really care, as they have already enjoyed the power of being old. That's right, mere age has established this "right." I cannot believe, for the life of me, just how many Americans choose to set for themselves a date or time in which they want to be paid to be unproductive and have actually twisted the facts in their own minds enough to convince themselves they have earned it. They believe it is their right. Check the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Being paid to be useless is not one of the rights of an American, unless of course that goes into the category of the right to the pursuit of happiness . . .
When Social Security was first established it was for all those abandoned on the farm, while their sons and daughters moved on to an easier life without looking back. And that generation that left the farm is the generation that continues to collect today, claiming to have "paid into it." And along side, collecting are their older children repeating the mantra they have heard all their lives. But wait. The first generation that collected didn't pay in, the first generation to pay in, didn't pay in for their own collection, but rather established pensions and retirement plans, because Social Security was not created to be a retirement plan. Now we have some third generation collectors already on the dole, with their pensions and investments and for some, the boomers will be the third generation of Americans to believe they have earned the right to be paid to do nothing, and in some families, the fourth to collect. I read about the first boomer to sign up and she sounds like everyone else that "has it coming" . . . America, the land of entitlement.
Let me give you a bit of American history that you probably won't read anywhere else. The people on the farms before and through the depression worked hard. Tractors weren't abundant and families were large, and they had it better than the pioneers, and the pioneers had it better than the colonists, and they all had it better than the Native Americans ended up. But the young generation that left the farms in the 30's have had it easier than any generation in America ever did or ever will. They didn't have to have two incomes to survive as their grandchildren do. Just as the conveniences were arriving, they were on to greener pastures, which was not pasture at all, but city concrete. They had much smaller families to tend to and most managed to do very well for themselves . . . and they inherited the farms that they had left, which sold for a pretty penny and didn't interfere with pensions and Social Security. And now they are receiving a Cost Of Living Allowance which is a greater percentage than their withholding ever was.
And we wonder why the budget can't be balanced. How many generations of Americans can't or just won't do simple math?
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground . . . Torah of Holy Scripture

Pundits Make Me See Red

I find it interesting that the color, red, used to be associated with Communism and now it's associated with being republican. Of course, it's always been associated with anger or aggression, and that brings me to the task of the pundits! Every time I listen to news/talk radio, I think to myself that I've just never heard someone so starved for attention. Why does every pundit sound like they were a neglected child or a precocious child. I have to literally stifle a smug snicker when I hear the republicans carry on about Al Gore's childhood, and his perceived need for attention. I don't see the difference, well, with the exception that Al now seems to speak as an adult, where as these pundits are still name calling like the third grade play ground. I shouldn't lump all the pundits in the same category, but recently there has been a real barrage of comments that seem to just aim for incitement. I think they are all just trying to keep up with Rush. I actually heard Ms. Coulter on Mark Levin's show say that she was jealous of Rush. Well, she solved that problem, now didn't she? Interestingly she didn't come up with her "convert the Jews" comment when speaking with Mark. She saved that for a lower rated show and got a ton of mileage out of it. Just what she needed to promote her new book. I saw the front cover. So, are Christian girls in private schools allowed to dress like Ann? And are all these future submissive wives taught to have such sharp tongues? And since when is it ok to for Christians to have contempt for anyone, even a liberal? Well, enough about Ann. She can manage to get attention her own way, without my blog feeding that. I'll move on to Sean H., because I just can't deal with him at all. I don't think his bantoring message goes with his theme song, and he knows his loyal listeners are operating on raw aggressive emotion, rather than logic, and he uses it. They love his arrogance! I heard the intro into his show. Something about just giving him 3 hours of the day. You know, I don't know many religious people that give G~D that kind of time in a given day . . .
Dr. Bill has spent an inordinant amount of time bashing former President Carter, so I'm guessing he just can't quite get going with his aggression, like the younger pundits, or perhaps by repetition, he's somehow going to educate his listeners.
Well, let me say this about President Carter. He had a very nonagressive foreign policy because I beleive he espoused the faith that "turns the other cheek," and yes he gave an interview to Playboy addressing adultery. Aren't believers supposed to share their beliefs with nonbelievers? I think his interview reached as many living rooms as the average door knocking evangelical can in a life time.
This news/talk mantra that just feeds the raw aggressive emotions of it's listeners is about like tossing raw meat into a lion cage and I think it's leading our society into a barbaric mentality of "us or them."
. . . and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. New Testament

What If We Followed Our Own Advice?

They used to call that "practicing what ya preached." I've been reading that Dr. Rice is telling Israel how it needs to be, and making some pretty strong statements regarding the American administration's expectations. I mean, really, her boss is out in about 15 months and his vision or dream just isn't coming to fruition in the Middle East, so she's going to get things moving. Now, I realize America would never admit this, but in all the stories about this, it seems she is indicating that Israel is being held responsible for the lack of progress in President Bush's Roadmap to Peace. Isn't that the typical, age old "blame the Jews" that has always run rampant in the world? And now America is doing it, too, only in a more difficult way to identify as such . . . Anyway, I read that Condi is going to be dealing with all those concerned this week and one more time before the big Annapolis Summit that is one month from today. So this is a high pressure deal and the big prize seems to be turning Jerusalem into Berlin. Half for Israel and half for Palestine. Since the religious right can't seem to see the handwriting on the wall, let's bring this same strategy closer to home.
Americans are up in arms about all the illegals from Mexico that don't have to leave and now can't be employed without getting the employers in trouble, so they'll have no choice but welfare and charity agencies. Just as Israel gained the territory in question in the Six Day war, we "won" Texas from Mexico. President Bush is convinced that Israel's land concession will resolve the conflict of the Middle East. Why not give the same concept the same confidence here? So, let's take our own advice and just give Texas back for the illegals to inhabit. Say, there would be an added benefit to giving Texas back, we'd not have any more Presidents from that state.
But let every man prove his own work . . . New Testament

So . . . What's Going On, Behind the Diversion?

I am not the usual conservative talk radio fan. As a matter of fact, I do not consider myself a political conservative at all. I like to listen to see the direction the pundits are leading the sheeple. I've really been tickled at the number of pundits and the number of times I've heard these conservative spokespersons proclaim their jealousy of Rush and also claim to be in competition with him. I truly didn't want to blog about this topic because I just don't want to give Rush any more of the attention he seems to so desperately seek. And I'm certainly not going to mention the covetous pundits talking about him and giving him mention on their shows or through their interviews. That move, in and of itself, just screams "staged" to me. When the pundits give something attention, it's to draw our focus. Anyway, when the regime and the spokespersons put themselves out on the limb this far, I just have to wonder what is going on behind the scenes. Does this diversion have anything to do with Bush trying to stop an execution in Texas based upon International Law? Do the Bush followers know he gives such credence to the International Court? Oh, I'm sure any one of them could explain this special concern and support his decision. This guy was the governor of Capital Punishment Central; Texas. He did commute an execution in an interesting situation, and did not grant clemency in another that one would think would have moved him. So, I know his followers can explain the "logic" but those of us that aren't brainwashed are wondering. I still don't know why conservatives with their "values" hold Mr. Limbaugh in such esteem, or Mr. Bush for that matter, but they do and I would like to know what this latest situation is about. And for the sake of sanity why in the world the democrats are chasing this bait . . . None of us want to see anyone lose free speech, even Rush Limbaugh, but why the dems are making such a "federal case" of this, I just don't know. I want to know what else is going on. Is it the Texas deal or is there even more going on behind the scenes? Is this to keep the evangelicals diverted from the fact that the Roadmap to Peace involves Israel giving half of Jerusalem to the PA? I want to know what we're not hearing and not being told. And I want to know why both parties are participating.
Let no man deceive you with vain words: New Testament

Legislators . . .

Well, I'm going to sit back with the democrats and watch the republicans sweat and scramble over Larry Craig. I just don't understand him at all, and I really don't care if he's gay or he isn't. What concerns me is his apparent desire for preferential treatment and the fact that he has now decided to go back on his word. Who in the world does he think he is? Oh, that's right a United States Senator! Isn't that what he told the arresting officer? I still take issue with the fact that in the age of this supposed fight on terrorism, two people that were off their meds have been killed in an airport, a woman had to take her bra off to go into an Idaho courthouse, and cops have time to hang out in the bathroom and learn the lewd hand signals. Do any of these scenarios, make anybody feel safer from terrorism? So, Mr. Craig has been a part of the body of government that makes and determines the laws, we citizens must abide by, for over 25 years between the House and Senate, and he doesn't understand about guilty and not guilty? Please . . . Then he promises to step down, then he backs up and says perhaps he'll stay if he can withdraw his guilty plea, then a judge says, no way, you already pled, and he's going to stay anyway. Well, so much for thinking a politician will keep his word, and he's not even campaigning. He's not even willing to keep a non-campaign promise. I'd really like to know just how many bills became law that this man sponsored. It does kind of make me wonder how much legislation and how many values standards he has set for the rest of us, that he would expect special treatment in his own case. It will be interesting to see how the republicans weather this . . . or is this just one more piece of the puzzle in the "conspiracy theory" to throw the 2008 elections???
A prudent man foreseeth the evil . . . a Proverb of Holy Scripture

Dems Duped By Limbaugh

I'll make this as short and simple as possible. If the democrats actually succeed at some sort of legislation against Rush Limbaugh ranting and raving and spouting whatever, we all lose our free speech, which is what the Republicans already want. I don't agree with Rush about anything that I can think of right now, but he does have the right to speak, and considering the fact that he has sponsors, he obviously has people listening. So what if he did say something questionable, it's certainly not the first time that he has chosen to be shocking or controversial. Democrats, you have a chance to get the strategic upper hand with this health bill, don't do the republicans' dirty work by destroying the First Amendment!
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. a Proverb of Holy Scripture

Peace and Safety

I think I am just sick of hearing about Peace in the Middle East that will be won by war. How does anyone in their right mind figure death and destruction are precursors to tranquility, other than by occupation and oppression?
And I absolutely cannot express how disgusted I am by the airlines and airport security. I know it isn't right to wish evil upon anyone, but they are so deserving of the bankruptcies and losses that they are experiencing. There is no business in the world that treats its customers like airline passengers get treated and stay in business, with the possible exception of doctors. And just how safe are we now that Airport Security is killing sick people, and talk radio blames the victim.
Don't kid yourself. This is about controlling us, not fighting terrorism, and they are going to control us with fear and authority. Anyone that would dare speak out against the present regime (I mean administration) regarding the Middle East is assumed to have links to alQaida, and should fear the label of enemy combatant. I, personally, don't think disagreeing with this madness necessitates or proves alliance with a terrorist organization. I, personally, think it simply demonstrates discernment, which is horribly lacking in the supporters of the present administration.
Now, on to the airports. They are delaying, detaining, and killing American citizens, all for the presumed propaganda of safety, and lets not forget about the new dress codes that are being enforced to fly the unfriendly skies. Remember when the term stewardess was synonymous with sex symbol? I think with age and weight discrimination issues, it's just a matter of certain people with some assumed authority, perhaps having issues! Let's face it, some of the modern flight attendants are no match for a Hooter's waitress. But that is mere trivia compared to the fact that two people that we are aware of, have actually be killed in the name of airport security, and both of those people apparently had health issues. It's enough of a travesty that some coroner is willing to put his name and professional reputation on the line to say the cause of death was inconclusive, but there were signs of struggle, in the last case. If that were any other type of case, "signs of struggle" would be presursor to filing some sort of manslaughter or murder charges. I just don't know of too many doctors, undertakers, or politicians that admit to "not knowing" something they were contracted to determine. So what gives? And how long do we tolerate this insanity.
George W. Bush's Road Map to Peace will not bring peace to the Middle East. Regardless of what his followers believe, George W. Bush is not the Messiah.
And the airlines, that are now exercising their assumed authority over weary travelers may just find themselves to be at the mercy of the government that keeps bailing them out. Then they will find themselves dealing with what we have had to endure, dealing with them.
I just truly hope that very soon Americans will realize, there is no reason for more Americans to die for peace and safety.
For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them . . . New Testament

My Personal View

I don't use medicine, I don't take prescriptions. I haven't had so much as a Tylenol in my home for years, but I am really considering supporting the candidate that wants to bring America, socialized medicine. I already pay a ton of taxes for things I don't use, and several Americans live and die believing in modern medicine, so I'd rather pay my taxes and let the powers that be "provide" for everyone, rather than to have to deal with more legislation that requires me to provide for myself, something I don't want. For the life of me, I can't understand why all these republican grandmas don't want the same valuable health care for their grandchildren, that they demand at a cost to their taxpaying children. Why not have medicare for everyone? Why are they so verbally and politically opposed to governmental provided health care, when that is what they have? Or, could it be, they fear that if everyone had their health coverage, they couldn't spend every other afternoon in some doctor's office? Could it be that they would actually have to make an appointment in advance and not use all of this medicare appointed funding all to themselves for self diagnosis and access to more pharmaceuticals? I will let you know which candidate tells me, American medical coverage will not be legislated to be provided by the small business man or the individual families just struggling to survive, while the insurance "fat cats" get wealthier . . . I will let you know which candidate plans to use their power to provide for all that want it, the same benefits afforded Congress, Senate, and seniors!
A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things. Holy Scripture

A Pet Peeve of Mine

I have, for some time, wanted to blog about disability in the United States, or rather, the vast number of individuals that feel they are too ill or infirm to earn a wage, but . . .
And I will cover that topic very soon, but today, I have a bone to pick with Dr. Bill Bennett. I noticed this last week when he had yet another "song contest." I can't even remember what the last one was, I think about Sandy Berger, when the Libby deal was going on, and this time it is focused on President Ahmadinejad. I would think the former Secretary of Education wouldn't be encouraging playground bully behavior, and it truly offends me. I don't understand why a teacher would play the diversion game between Berger and Libby, and I certainly don't understand why he wants his listeners to participate in such juvenile antics. I really thought he wanted to appeal to a more sophisticated or educated crowd than say Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Let's consider the facts for just a moment. Dr. Bill is on first thing in the morning, he's addressing the movers and the shakers. His target audience would be those with some place to be, I would think. I have always guessed his target audience to be members of the professional work force getting ready and driving, whereas Limbaugh and O'Reilly are on in the middle of the day, when their audience, is either supposed to be giving their attention to the responsibilities of employment, or don't have to worry about employment for one reason or another. I expect Limbaugh and O'Reilly to strive to keep their audience stirred about something, but I just expect Dr. Bill to appeal to our logic, and this "mean, ugly song contest" just reeks of rude immaturity. What would the Secretary of Education think of parents who teach their children to make up ugly songs about someone they don't like? What is going to happen when some child of one of these "lyricists" goes to school and repeats all that to a brown skinned child? Why would all the political influence in our country continue to feed the concept of rude Americans and continue to fuel the divisiveness between hatred and tolerance? Why does the anamosity of the conservatives have to be as outrageously illogical as the so-called tolerance of the liberals?
I really am not at all impressed by the name calling on Talk Radio and I find these juvenile "mean songs" just embarrassing.
A fool's lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes. a Proverb of Holy Scripture