Ronald Reagan.
Thank you very much. Thank you, and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.
I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used "We've never had it so good!"
But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something upon which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today thirty-seven cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget twenty-eight out of the last thirty-four years. We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury - we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars, and we have just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase forty-five cents in its total value.
As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well, I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.
Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to." In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down - up to man's age-old dream - the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order - or down to the ant heap of tarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
In this vote-harvesting time they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a "greater government activity in the affairs of the people." But they have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves - and all of the things that I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say "the cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the twentieth century.
Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the president as our moral teacher and our leader, and he said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in power imposed on him by this antiquated document. He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best.
And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me - the free men and women of this country - as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" - this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
Now, we have no better example of this than the government's involvement in the farm economy over the last thirty years. Since 1955 the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming is regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we have spent forty-three dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.
Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater as President would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he will find out that we have had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He will also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress an extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He will find that they have also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The secretary of agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.
At the same time there has been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There is now one for every thirty farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how sixty-six shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace, and Billie Sol Estes never left shore!
Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but who are farmers to know what is best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmers goes down.
Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights are so diluted that public interest is almost anything that a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he is now going to start building public housing units in the thousands where heretofore we have only built them in the hundreds. But FHA and the Veterans Administration tell us that they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosures.
For three decades we have sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency. They have just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over thirty million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. When the government tells you you are depressed, lie down and be depressed!
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one! So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now if government planning and welfare had the answer, and they've had almost thirty years of it, shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? . . . the reduction in the need for public housing?
But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that seventeen million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet! But now we are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is ten times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It seems that someplace there must be some overhead.
So now we declare "war on poverty," or "you, too, can be a Bobby Baker!" How do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we are spending . . . one more program to the thirty-odd we have - and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs . . . do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain that there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We are now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps, and we are going to put our young people in camps, but again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we are going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person that we help $4,700 a year! We can send them to Harvard for $2,700! Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency!
But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who had come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning $250 a month. She wanted a divorce so that she could get an $80 raise. She is eligible for $330 a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who had already done that very thing.
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-good-ers, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always "against" things, never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so! We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted social security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They have called it insurance to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified that it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said social security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that social security as of this moment is $298 billion in the hole! But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble! And they are doing just that.
A young man, twenty-one years of age, working at an average salary . . . his social security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee $220 a month at age sixty-five. The government promises 127! He could live it up until his is thirty-one and then take out a policy that would pay more than social security. Now, are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis so that people who do require those payments will find that they can get them when they are due . . . that the cupboard isn't bare? Barry Goldwater thinks we can.
At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen to do better on his own, to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provisions for the nonearning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under these programs, which we cannot do? I think we are for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as announced last week, when France admitted that their medicare program was now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.
In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate planned inflation so that when you do get your social security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not forty-five cents' worth?
I think we are for the international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we are against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we are against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.
I think we are for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We are helping 107. We spent $146 billion. With that money, we bought a 2 million-dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, fifty-two are receiving foreign aid from us. No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!
Federal employees number 2.5 million, and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force is employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury, and they can seize and sell his property in auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chicot Country, Arkansas, James Wier overplanted his rice allotment. The government obtained a $17,000 judgment, and a U.S. marshal sold his 950-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work! Last February 19th, at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became president, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do!
As a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration. Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England. Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism upon a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation from government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I think that this is a contest between two men . . . that we are to choose just between two personalities. Well, what of this man they would destroy . . . and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear.
Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well, I have been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I have never known a man in my life I believe so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.
This is a man who in his own business, before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan, before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement plan, and a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provided nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods from the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.
An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona, and he said that there were a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. Then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in the weeks before Christmas, all day long, he would load up the plane, fly to Arizona, fly them to their homes, then fly back over to get another load.
During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know that I care." This is a man who said to his nineteen-year-old-son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life upon that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start!" This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all of the other problems I have discussed academic, unless we realize that we are in a war that must be won.
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer . . . not an easy one . . . but a simple one, if you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right.
We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave-masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!" Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace . . . and you can have it in the next second . . . surrender!
Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face. . . that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand - the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the cold war, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than dies on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin - just in the fact of this enemy? - or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain! Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance! This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength!" Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits - not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty." You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.
Thank you.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Monday, September 3, 2007
A book I read more than once
If any of you are into reading as I am I highly recommend "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. C.S. Lewis once said that someone who is truly interested in gleaning what they can from literature will not just have read many books, but will have books that they have read many times.
I have read this book no less than three times, and each time I have taken something else from it. It has done much to shape my worldview as it pertains to what "justice" is.
Dostoyevsky knew that justice and more importantly injustice were. He was sent to Siberia for a number of years due to his refusal to toe the line on soviet politics in his writings, the result of which is this and other beautifully written treatises, that we all can learn from.
I highly recommend this and other books (such as "Anna Karenina" and "The Brothers Karamazov") by this author. You will be a better person for having read them.
I have read this book no less than three times, and each time I have taken something else from it. It has done much to shape my worldview as it pertains to what "justice" is.
Dostoyevsky knew that justice and more importantly injustice were. He was sent to Siberia for a number of years due to his refusal to toe the line on soviet politics in his writings, the result of which is this and other beautifully written treatises, that we all can learn from.
I highly recommend this and other books (such as "Anna Karenina" and "The Brothers Karamazov") by this author. You will be a better person for having read them.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Would God allow Time travel?
Would God ever allow time travel. This is an interesting question. In order to answer it we have to try and look at time from God's perspective which is not an easy thing to do.
In 2 Peter 3:8 it says "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (KJV)
Time means nothing to God. He is outside of time. Try to picture the entire history of the world from beginning to end as a drawn time-line. It starts with Gods creation of the world, and ends with Gods destruction of the world. You can see Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses and all the rest. You can see what they did...or didn't do. Our limitation is that we can only see what is past and of that not much. Pretend you can see everything that has already happened. God is the beginning and the end "the Alpha and Omega". He has already seen all of Human history, so he can "look back" in this same way and see what to us is unknown future.
Now let's come back to the original question, would God ever allow time travel. No, because he alone can view the entire span of human existence. He alone can see the future as if it were past. That is part of what makes him God. He will not allow a human to mess with the space-time continuum for the same reason I won't let my kids touch the stove...all we would do is screw it up and hurt ourselves.
Now that we are aware of how God sees time, lets take that a step further...
Ephesians 1:4-6 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestined us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved" (KJV)
God knew from the beginning of the world everything that would happen and has already guided it to it's conclusion.
What is the implication? There is no such thing as "time". "Time" is an artificial construct to describe the situation humans find themselves in vis-a-vis our physical world. To God, who is not retarded by the artificial construct of time, the future has already happened...which means there is also no such thing as change. Think about that for a moment. There is no such thing as "change".
I don't know about you, but I find comfort in the fact that God is "timeless" and "changeless", and if something in History needs fixing, I'll leave the time travel to him anyway.
In 2 Peter 3:8 it says "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (KJV)
Time means nothing to God. He is outside of time. Try to picture the entire history of the world from beginning to end as a drawn time-line. It starts with Gods creation of the world, and ends with Gods destruction of the world. You can see Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses and all the rest. You can see what they did...or didn't do. Our limitation is that we can only see what is past and of that not much. Pretend you can see everything that has already happened. God is the beginning and the end "the Alpha and Omega". He has already seen all of Human history, so he can "look back" in this same way and see what to us is unknown future.
Now let's come back to the original question, would God ever allow time travel. No, because he alone can view the entire span of human existence. He alone can see the future as if it were past. That is part of what makes him God. He will not allow a human to mess with the space-time continuum for the same reason I won't let my kids touch the stove...all we would do is screw it up and hurt ourselves.
Now that we are aware of how God sees time, lets take that a step further...
Ephesians 1:4-6 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestined us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved" (KJV)
God knew from the beginning of the world everything that would happen and has already guided it to it's conclusion.
What is the implication? There is no such thing as "time". "Time" is an artificial construct to describe the situation humans find themselves in vis-a-vis our physical world. To God, who is not retarded by the artificial construct of time, the future has already happened...which means there is also no such thing as change. Think about that for a moment. There is no such thing as "change".
I don't know about you, but I find comfort in the fact that God is "timeless" and "changeless", and if something in History needs fixing, I'll leave the time travel to him anyway.
I thought this was funny
there are 2 headlines today on the network news site for my Job.
the first one is..."Democrat congresswoman says Iraq stragey isn't working"
The second one is "Scores of insurgents killed"
Does anyone else see the irony?
the first one is..."Democrat congresswoman says Iraq stragey isn't working"
The second one is "Scores of insurgents killed"
Does anyone else see the irony?
I thought this was good.
I know we have all gotten this one in an email at one time or another. It's funny, but at the same time. to a certain extent it's true.
The Plan for Peace:
1) The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past and present. You know Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Milosevic, Noriega, Hussein, and the rest of those "good 'ol boys", we will never"interfere" again.
2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea, The Middle East, and the Philippines. They don't want us there. In fact we won't send our troops anywhere unless we are attacked first. This includes places like Darfur. We will instead station the troops at our borders. No one is allowed to sneak through the holes fence anymore.
3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and head home. We'll pay for the trip. After 90 days any illegal alien found will be forcefully removed from the country. Any resistance to this will be met with deadly force regardless of who they are or where they are from. They're illegal They can go to France.
4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in at all, if you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum will never be available to anyone ever, We have enough Cab drivers and 7-11 clerks.
5) No foreign "students" over the age of 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes or they get a "D" or below, they are on a plane home.
6) The US will make a strong effort to become self sufficient energy-wise. This will include development of nonpolluting sources of energy in the long term; but will also require some drilling in ANWR in the short term. The caribou will have to cope for a bit.
7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other Oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their Oil. If they don't like it we'll go elsewhere. they can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week or so of the loss of sales to the US should do it.)
8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world we will not "interfere". They can pray to allah or whoever for seeds, rain, cement, or whatever else they want. Besides even when we send em stuff, the army steals it. The people who actually need it never get anything.
9) Ship the UN Headquarters to France or some deserted island. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides the UN building would make a good place to lock up illegal aliens. we could even torture some of them for fun.
10) All Americans must attend charm and beauty school. that way no one can call us "ugly Americans".
11) We speak ENGLISH. Learn it or leave.
"The statue of Liberty is no longer saying give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses longing to breath free. She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling "YOU WANT A PIECE OF ME?"
The Plan for Peace:
1) The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past and present. You know Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Milosevic, Noriega, Hussein, and the rest of those "good 'ol boys", we will never"interfere" again.
2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea, The Middle East, and the Philippines. They don't want us there. In fact we won't send our troops anywhere unless we are attacked first. This includes places like Darfur. We will instead station the troops at our borders. No one is allowed to sneak through the holes fence anymore.
3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and head home. We'll pay for the trip. After 90 days any illegal alien found will be forcefully removed from the country. Any resistance to this will be met with deadly force regardless of who they are or where they are from. They're illegal They can go to France.
4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in at all, if you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum will never be available to anyone ever, We have enough Cab drivers and 7-11 clerks.
5) No foreign "students" over the age of 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes or they get a "D" or below, they are on a plane home.
6) The US will make a strong effort to become self sufficient energy-wise. This will include development of nonpolluting sources of energy in the long term; but will also require some drilling in ANWR in the short term. The caribou will have to cope for a bit.
7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other Oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their Oil. If they don't like it we'll go elsewhere. they can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week or so of the loss of sales to the US should do it.)
8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world we will not "interfere". They can pray to allah or whoever for seeds, rain, cement, or whatever else they want. Besides even when we send em stuff, the army steals it. The people who actually need it never get anything.
9) Ship the UN Headquarters to France or some deserted island. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides the UN building would make a good place to lock up illegal aliens. we could even torture some of them for fun.
10) All Americans must attend charm and beauty school. that way no one can call us "ugly Americans".
11) We speak ENGLISH. Learn it or leave.
"The statue of Liberty is no longer saying give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses longing to breath free. She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling "YOU WANT A PIECE OF ME?"
Saturday, August 25, 2007
On a Heavier Note....
Original Article Here
Apparently Famine in Kenya is not all due to war and the evils of western Civilization.....or is it?
Apparently the "mother nature idiots" are being outsourced to the third world to cause problems over there.
According to the above article. A village in Kenya has had to have famine goods shipped in to feed them because they have been overrun with "vervet monkeys". These monkeys apparently come in and destroy the crops and have even killed livestock.
Here's the kicker "The town has been warned by the Kenya Wildlife Service not to harm or kill any of the monkeys, as it is a criminal offence"...
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! THEY'RE M-O-N-K-E-Y-S!!! Human beings are starving to death because they are not allowed to hurt the monkeys! So instead we ship more food into the village, which the monkeys promptly destroy.
I have a solution to the problem......SHOOT THEM! THEY'RE A BUNCH OF DAMN MONKEYS!
In fact, for $5,000 (plus expenses) I will go shoot them myself, it sounds like fun.
"OPEN LETTER TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KENYA"
To Whom it may concern:
For $5,000.00 in American currency (half up front, half on completion) plus expenses, I will be more than happy to utilize my skill with a firearm to personally mitigate the current monkey crisis, provided no questions are asked. You may reach at [deleted]. I eagerly await your reply.
The Dude
Apparently Famine in Kenya is not all due to war and the evils of western Civilization.....or is it?
Apparently the "mother nature idiots" are being outsourced to the third world to cause problems over there.
According to the above article. A village in Kenya has had to have famine goods shipped in to feed them because they have been overrun with "vervet monkeys". These monkeys apparently come in and destroy the crops and have even killed livestock.
Here's the kicker "The town has been warned by the Kenya Wildlife Service not to harm or kill any of the monkeys, as it is a criminal offence"...
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! THEY'RE M-O-N-K-E-Y-S!!! Human beings are starving to death because they are not allowed to hurt the monkeys! So instead we ship more food into the village, which the monkeys promptly destroy.
I have a solution to the problem......SHOOT THEM! THEY'RE A BUNCH OF DAMN MONKEYS!
In fact, for $5,000 (plus expenses) I will go shoot them myself, it sounds like fun.
"OPEN LETTER TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KENYA"
To Whom it may concern:
For $5,000.00 in American currency (half up front, half on completion) plus expenses, I will be more than happy to utilize my skill with a firearm to personally mitigate the current monkey crisis, provided no questions are asked. You may reach at [deleted]. I eagerly await your reply.
The Dude
Citizens in Action
Original Article Here
This is great! These guys went camping and caught a guy hanging around the womens latrine trying to "peep" at the women. One of the guys tackled him and then they tied him to a tree until the cops came.
BEAUTIFUL!!!
This is great! These guys went camping and caught a guy hanging around the womens latrine trying to "peep" at the women. One of the guys tackled him and then they tied him to a tree until the cops came.
BEAUTIFUL!!!
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The next Prez
I gotta be honest. I have no idea who I am going to vote for in the next election. There has been so much jockeying for position and we're still more than a year out. I cannot vote for Hillary...not because she's a woman. I have no problem with a female president, I think John Edwards should have just as much a chance as everyone else. My issue is that she endorses Socialized medicine and if you have been reading my blog at any length, you can see how that would conflict seriously with my view on economics. Not to mention that they have it in Canada and the UK, and it has been a disaster in both places.
On the other hand I don't really see any republicans I'd vote for either
.....I wonder if we could bring back Ross Perot?
On the other hand I don't really see any republicans I'd vote for either
.....I wonder if we could bring back Ross Perot?
Monday, August 13, 2007
Let the countdown begin.
Well, here we go. In a few months I'll be headed for Iraq. I think it'll be a good trip. If nothing else it'll be something to tell the grandkids about.
Since I received the news I've had a lot of time to think about it and after some soul searching, I've realized that under my bravado and patriotism, I really do believe in what we are trying to do over there. And here's the part that you won't get on the news...it's working.
Volumes have been spoken on this "surge" and whether or not it's going to work. I have to be honest; it is, and it is for obvoius reasons. When we went in the first time, the troops counts were determined based on the number of troops it would take to take an area. No thought was given to holding the ground. So we would clear out an area and move on, and as soon as we moved on the enemy wouold reoccupy the ground.
How do we fix this problem without having a military presence in Iraq for the next 30 years? Simple. We do what we have been doing since the beginning of the surge.
1) Allocate enough troops to take the ground.
2) Allocate the required number of troops to provide area security for ground already taken.
3) Allocate specialized troops to train the Iraqis (the good ones) to be able to take over
security so we can eventually move on.
4) Require the current Iraqi government to provide us with competent troops to train in defending their pwn country.
This will accomplish our stated objectives.
1) Eradication of the terrorist threat in Iraq.
2) Installation of a strong central government friendly to the free world that will not provide a
power vaccuum for terrorists to make a play for.
3) A way to end this conflict without a specific timeline.
Think carefully to yourself, whether you like Bush or not, if I am a terrorist, and the US announces that on such-and-such a date we will pull out and go home, what do I do?
The obvious answer is sit back and relax and wait for them to leave so that we can continue our operations. I have never understood how this is not obvious to everyone who wants to get out now.
Since I received the news I've had a lot of time to think about it and after some soul searching, I've realized that under my bravado and patriotism, I really do believe in what we are trying to do over there. And here's the part that you won't get on the news...it's working.
Volumes have been spoken on this "surge" and whether or not it's going to work. I have to be honest; it is, and it is for obvoius reasons. When we went in the first time, the troops counts were determined based on the number of troops it would take to take an area. No thought was given to holding the ground. So we would clear out an area and move on, and as soon as we moved on the enemy wouold reoccupy the ground.
How do we fix this problem without having a military presence in Iraq for the next 30 years? Simple. We do what we have been doing since the beginning of the surge.
1) Allocate enough troops to take the ground.
2) Allocate the required number of troops to provide area security for ground already taken.
3) Allocate specialized troops to train the Iraqis (the good ones) to be able to take over
security so we can eventually move on.
4) Require the current Iraqi government to provide us with competent troops to train in defending their pwn country.
This will accomplish our stated objectives.
1) Eradication of the terrorist threat in Iraq.
2) Installation of a strong central government friendly to the free world that will not provide a
power vaccuum for terrorists to make a play for.
3) A way to end this conflict without a specific timeline.
Think carefully to yourself, whether you like Bush or not, if I am a terrorist, and the US announces that on such-and-such a date we will pull out and go home, what do I do?
The obvious answer is sit back and relax and wait for them to leave so that we can continue our operations. I have never understood how this is not obvious to everyone who wants to get out now.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Hello All
To all 2 of my readers :)
I've had some stuff going on in the past few weeks that precluded me from posting. I found out I am going to be going to Iraq as a US Combatant among other things.
Rest assured I will be posting again in the future
I've had some stuff going on in the past few weeks that precluded me from posting. I found out I am going to be going to Iraq as a US Combatant among other things.
Rest assured I will be posting again in the future
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
The Declaration of Independence
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor
This is long but it's good. The original can be found here
"Our Lives, Our Fortunes, Our Sacred Honor"
It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind was from the southeast. Up especially early, a tall bony, redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who was ill at home.Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The temperature was 72.5 degrees and the horseflies weren't nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large, with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable. Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they would not be used today.The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut, so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson records that "the horseflies were dexterous in finding necks, and the silk of stockings was nothing to them." All discussing was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks.On the wall at the back, facing the president's desk, was a panoply -- consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they were taking it "in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!"Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency measure about which there was discussion but no dissension. "Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops at New York."Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows. They cut the phrase "by a self-assumed power." "Climb" was replaced by "must read," then "must" was eliminated, then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued what he later called "their depredations." "Inherent and inalienable rights" came out "certain unalienable rights," and to this day no one knows who suggested the elegant change.A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of wrangling, the document was put to a vote.Here in this hall Patrick Henry had once thundered: "I am no longer a Virginian, sir, but an American." But today the loud, sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted.There were no trumpets blown. No one stood on his chair and cheered. The afternoon was waning and Congress had no thought of delaying the full calendar of routine business on its hands. For several hours they worked on many other problems before adjourning for the day.
Much To Lose
What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, committed an act of treason against the crown? To each of you, the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock and Jefferson are almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however, know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What happened to them? I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere. Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half - 24 - were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, nine were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians. With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th Century. Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He signed in enormous letters so that his Majesty could now read his name without glasses and could now double the reward. Ben Franklin wryly noted: "Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately."Fat Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "With me it will all be over in a minute, but you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone." These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.
They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from hot-eyed fanatics yammering for an explosion. They simply asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was equality with the mother country they desired. It was taxation with representation they sought. They were all conservatives, yet they rebelled. It was principle, not property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them became state governors. One died in office as vice president of the United States. Several would go on to be U.S. Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and philosopher of the signers. (It was he, Francis Hopkinson not Betsy Ross who designed the United States flag.) Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks: "Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish the reign of peace and law. "The eyes of Europe are fixed upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the ever-increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repost. "If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens." Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to the Declaration. William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to see the signers' faces as they committed this supreme act of personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, "but in no face was he able to discern real fear." Stephan Hopkins, Ellery's colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: "My hand trembles, but my heart does not."
"Most Glorious Service"
Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered. · Francis Lewis, New York delegate saw his home plundered -- and his estates in what is now Harlem -- completely destroyed by British Soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners through the efforts of Congress, she died from the effects of her abuse. · William Floyd, another New York delegate, was able to escape with his wife and children across Long Island Sound to Connecticut, where they lived as refugees without income for seven years. When they came home they found a devastated ruin. · Philips Livingstone had all his great holdings in New York confiscated and his family driven out of their home. Livingstone died in 1778 still working in Congress for the cause. · Louis Morris, the fourth New York delegate, saw all his timber, crops, and livestock taken. For seven years he was barred from his home and family. · John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him, and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never saw them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever finding his family. · Dr. John Witherspoon, signer, was president of the College of New Jersey, later called Princeton. The British occupied the town of Princeton, and billeted troops in the college. They trampled and burned the finest college library in the country.
· Judge Richard Stockton, another New Jersey delegate signer, had rushed back to his estate in an effort to evacuate his wife and children. The family found refuge with friends, but a Tory sympathizer betrayed them. Judge Stockton was pulled from bed in the night and brutally beaten by the arresting soldiers. Thrown into a common jail, he was deliberately starved. Congress finally arranged for Stockton's parole, but his health was ruined. The judge was released as an invalid, when he could no longer harm the British cause. He returned home to find his estate looted and did not live to see the triumph of the Revolution. His family was forced to live off charity. · Robert Morris, merchant prince of Philadelphia, delegate and signer, met Washington's appeals and pleas for money year after year. He made and raised arms and provisions which made it possible for Washington to cross the Delaware at Trenton. In the process he lost 150 ships at sea, bleeding his own fortune and credit almost dry. · George Clymer, Pennsylvania signer, escaped with his family from their home, but their property was completely destroyed by the British in the Germantown and Brandywine campaigns. · Dr. Benjamin Rush, also from Pennsylvania, was forced to flee to Maryland. As a heroic surgeon with the army, Rush had several narrow escapes. · John Martin, a Tory in his views previous to the debate, lived in a strongly loyalist area of Pennsylvania. When he came out for independence, most of his neighbors and even some of his relatives ostracized him. He was a sensitive and troubled man, and many believed this action killed him. When he died in 1777, his last words to his tormentors were: "Tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it [the signing] to have been the most glorious service that I have ever rendered to my country." · William Ellery, Rhode Island delegate, saw his property and home burned to the ground.
· Thomas Lynch, Jr., South Carolina delegate, had his health broken from privation and exposures while serving as a company commander in the military. His doctors ordered him to seek a cure in the West Indies and on the voyage, he and his young bride were drowned at sea. · Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., the other three South Carolina signers, were taken by the British in the siege of Charleston. They were carried as prisoners of war to St. Augustine, Florida, where they were singled out for indignities. They were exchanged at the end of the war, the British in the meantime having completely devastated their large landholdings and estates. · Thomas Nelson, signer of Virginia, was at the front in command of the Virginia military forces. With British General Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown, fire from 70 heavy American guns began to destroy Yorktown piece by piece. Lord Cornwallis and his staff moved their headquarters into Nelson's palatial home. While American cannonballs were making a shambles of the town, the house of Governor Nelson remained untouched. Nelson turned in rage to the American gunners and asked, "Why do you spare my home?" They replied, "Sir, out of respect to you." Nelson cried, "Give me the cannon!" and fired on his magnificent home himself, smashing it to bits. But Nelson's sacrifice was not quite over. He had raised $2 million for the Revolutionary cause by pledging his own estates. When the loans came due, a newer peacetime Congress refused to honor them, and Nelson's property was forfeited. He was never reimbursed. He died, impoverished, a few years later at the age of 50.
Lives, Fortunes, Honor
Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact. And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark. He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship Jersey, where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with his answer: "No." The 56 signers of the Declaration Of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. "And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
My friends, I know you have a copy of the Declaration of Independence somewhere around the house - in an old history book (newer ones may well omit it), an encyclopedia, or one of those artificially aged "parchments" we all got in school years ago. I suggest that each of you take the time this month to read through the text of the Declaration, one of the most noble and beautiful political documents in human history. There is no more profound sentence than this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..." These are far more than mere poetic words. The underlying ideas that infuse every sentence of this treatise have sustained this nation for more than two centuries. They were forged in the crucible of great sacrifice. They are living words that spring from and satisfy the deepest cries for liberty in the human spirit. "Sacred honor" isn't a phrase we use much these days, but every American life is touched by the bounty of this, the Founders' legacy. It is freedom, tested by blood, and watered with tears. - Rush Limbaugh III
"Our Lives, Our Fortunes, Our Sacred Honor"
It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind was from the southeast. Up especially early, a tall bony, redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who was ill at home.Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The temperature was 72.5 degrees and the horseflies weren't nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large, with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable. Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they would not be used today.The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut, so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson records that "the horseflies were dexterous in finding necks, and the silk of stockings was nothing to them." All discussing was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks.On the wall at the back, facing the president's desk, was a panoply -- consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they were taking it "in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!"Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency measure about which there was discussion but no dissension. "Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops at New York."Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows. They cut the phrase "by a self-assumed power." "Climb" was replaced by "must read," then "must" was eliminated, then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued what he later called "their depredations." "Inherent and inalienable rights" came out "certain unalienable rights," and to this day no one knows who suggested the elegant change.A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of wrangling, the document was put to a vote.Here in this hall Patrick Henry had once thundered: "I am no longer a Virginian, sir, but an American." But today the loud, sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted.There were no trumpets blown. No one stood on his chair and cheered. The afternoon was waning and Congress had no thought of delaying the full calendar of routine business on its hands. For several hours they worked on many other problems before adjourning for the day.
Much To Lose
What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, committed an act of treason against the crown? To each of you, the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock and Jefferson are almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however, know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What happened to them? I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere. Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half - 24 - were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, nine were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians. With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th Century. Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He signed in enormous letters so that his Majesty could now read his name without glasses and could now double the reward. Ben Franklin wryly noted: "Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately."Fat Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "With me it will all be over in a minute, but you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone." These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.
They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from hot-eyed fanatics yammering for an explosion. They simply asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was equality with the mother country they desired. It was taxation with representation they sought. They were all conservatives, yet they rebelled. It was principle, not property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them became state governors. One died in office as vice president of the United States. Several would go on to be U.S. Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and philosopher of the signers. (It was he, Francis Hopkinson not Betsy Ross who designed the United States flag.) Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks: "Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish the reign of peace and law. "The eyes of Europe are fixed upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the ever-increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repost. "If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens." Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to the Declaration. William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to see the signers' faces as they committed this supreme act of personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, "but in no face was he able to discern real fear." Stephan Hopkins, Ellery's colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: "My hand trembles, but my heart does not."
"Most Glorious Service"
Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered. · Francis Lewis, New York delegate saw his home plundered -- and his estates in what is now Harlem -- completely destroyed by British Soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners through the efforts of Congress, she died from the effects of her abuse. · William Floyd, another New York delegate, was able to escape with his wife and children across Long Island Sound to Connecticut, where they lived as refugees without income for seven years. When they came home they found a devastated ruin. · Philips Livingstone had all his great holdings in New York confiscated and his family driven out of their home. Livingstone died in 1778 still working in Congress for the cause. · Louis Morris, the fourth New York delegate, saw all his timber, crops, and livestock taken. For seven years he was barred from his home and family. · John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him, and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never saw them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever finding his family. · Dr. John Witherspoon, signer, was president of the College of New Jersey, later called Princeton. The British occupied the town of Princeton, and billeted troops in the college. They trampled and burned the finest college library in the country.
· Judge Richard Stockton, another New Jersey delegate signer, had rushed back to his estate in an effort to evacuate his wife and children. The family found refuge with friends, but a Tory sympathizer betrayed them. Judge Stockton was pulled from bed in the night and brutally beaten by the arresting soldiers. Thrown into a common jail, he was deliberately starved. Congress finally arranged for Stockton's parole, but his health was ruined. The judge was released as an invalid, when he could no longer harm the British cause. He returned home to find his estate looted and did not live to see the triumph of the Revolution. His family was forced to live off charity. · Robert Morris, merchant prince of Philadelphia, delegate and signer, met Washington's appeals and pleas for money year after year. He made and raised arms and provisions which made it possible for Washington to cross the Delaware at Trenton. In the process he lost 150 ships at sea, bleeding his own fortune and credit almost dry. · George Clymer, Pennsylvania signer, escaped with his family from their home, but their property was completely destroyed by the British in the Germantown and Brandywine campaigns. · Dr. Benjamin Rush, also from Pennsylvania, was forced to flee to Maryland. As a heroic surgeon with the army, Rush had several narrow escapes. · John Martin, a Tory in his views previous to the debate, lived in a strongly loyalist area of Pennsylvania. When he came out for independence, most of his neighbors and even some of his relatives ostracized him. He was a sensitive and troubled man, and many believed this action killed him. When he died in 1777, his last words to his tormentors were: "Tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it [the signing] to have been the most glorious service that I have ever rendered to my country." · William Ellery, Rhode Island delegate, saw his property and home burned to the ground.
· Thomas Lynch, Jr., South Carolina delegate, had his health broken from privation and exposures while serving as a company commander in the military. His doctors ordered him to seek a cure in the West Indies and on the voyage, he and his young bride were drowned at sea. · Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., the other three South Carolina signers, were taken by the British in the siege of Charleston. They were carried as prisoners of war to St. Augustine, Florida, where they were singled out for indignities. They were exchanged at the end of the war, the British in the meantime having completely devastated their large landholdings and estates. · Thomas Nelson, signer of Virginia, was at the front in command of the Virginia military forces. With British General Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown, fire from 70 heavy American guns began to destroy Yorktown piece by piece. Lord Cornwallis and his staff moved their headquarters into Nelson's palatial home. While American cannonballs were making a shambles of the town, the house of Governor Nelson remained untouched. Nelson turned in rage to the American gunners and asked, "Why do you spare my home?" They replied, "Sir, out of respect to you." Nelson cried, "Give me the cannon!" and fired on his magnificent home himself, smashing it to bits. But Nelson's sacrifice was not quite over. He had raised $2 million for the Revolutionary cause by pledging his own estates. When the loans came due, a newer peacetime Congress refused to honor them, and Nelson's property was forfeited. He was never reimbursed. He died, impoverished, a few years later at the age of 50.
Lives, Fortunes, Honor
Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact. And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark. He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship Jersey, where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with his answer: "No." The 56 signers of the Declaration Of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. "And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
My friends, I know you have a copy of the Declaration of Independence somewhere around the house - in an old history book (newer ones may well omit it), an encyclopedia, or one of those artificially aged "parchments" we all got in school years ago. I suggest that each of you take the time this month to read through the text of the Declaration, one of the most noble and beautiful political documents in human history. There is no more profound sentence than this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..." These are far more than mere poetic words. The underlying ideas that infuse every sentence of this treatise have sustained this nation for more than two centuries. They were forged in the crucible of great sacrifice. They are living words that spring from and satisfy the deepest cries for liberty in the human spirit. "Sacred honor" isn't a phrase we use much these days, but every American life is touched by the bounty of this, the Founders' legacy. It is freedom, tested by blood, and watered with tears. - Rush Limbaugh III
Monday, July 2, 2007
Oliver Stone and the Terrorists
Original Story
Apparently Oliver Stone wanted to make a movie about Terrorist Sympathiser/Castro wannabe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. No doubt he wanted to show the world how this courageous man has led his people in a daring fight against the Evil Imperialist Empire of America. It would have been a beautiful saga of his sad childhood, and his fight to survive in the mean streets, along with his eventual rise to the governorship of the very same Tehran where he used to beg in the streets to make money so he could buy food for his ailing mother. And now he uses those street smarts and that uncanny intellect to show the world that Iran will not be a puppet of the EIEofA like the Isrealis, no matter how many Iraqi children he has to blow apart. *sniff* it's beautiful. What a surprise that a liberal Hollywood schmuk would think that this enemy of America is excellent fodder to make a movie about.
(By the way I made most of that up, he was born in Tehran and managed to run that city until being elected to run Iran, but other than that it was all "Dramatic License" as ol' Ollie would say.)
Here's the kicker!! Ahmadinejad turns him down! "We have already seen his documentaries - even though Stone is considered a member of the opposition group in the US, it is still part of the Great Satan," he said. (quote from original post) And the reason? "We believe American cinema is void of real art and culture and largely used as a mouthpiece,". At this point I'm about to blow a gasket! OH CRAP! I AGREE WITH AHMEDINEJAD! It is a mouthpiece for liberal lunacy, and apparently me and moudie are the ones who have noticed it. (He must have seen the preview for "Bareback Mountain" too). Well maybe he's not a total schmuk. Still, anyone who advocates wiping Irael off the face of the earth, probably shouldn't be allowed to have the tools to actually do that. That's sort of like your mom not letting you have a flame-thrower in the house, no good came come of it.
In all seriousness, though, the only reason we are allowed to continue is because we are friends of Israel, the minute we turn our backs on God's chosen people, au revoir, hasta la bye-bye. N'avec pas Mon Dieu la toute c'est perdu.
Apparently Oliver Stone wanted to make a movie about Terrorist Sympathiser/Castro wannabe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. No doubt he wanted to show the world how this courageous man has led his people in a daring fight against the Evil Imperialist Empire of America. It would have been a beautiful saga of his sad childhood, and his fight to survive in the mean streets, along with his eventual rise to the governorship of the very same Tehran where he used to beg in the streets to make money so he could buy food for his ailing mother. And now he uses those street smarts and that uncanny intellect to show the world that Iran will not be a puppet of the EIEofA like the Isrealis, no matter how many Iraqi children he has to blow apart. *sniff* it's beautiful. What a surprise that a liberal Hollywood schmuk would think that this enemy of America is excellent fodder to make a movie about.
(By the way I made most of that up, he was born in Tehran and managed to run that city until being elected to run Iran, but other than that it was all "Dramatic License" as ol' Ollie would say.)
Here's the kicker!! Ahmadinejad turns him down! "We have already seen his documentaries - even though Stone is considered a member of the opposition group in the US, it is still part of the Great Satan," he said. (quote from original post) And the reason? "We believe American cinema is void of real art and culture and largely used as a mouthpiece,". At this point I'm about to blow a gasket! OH CRAP! I AGREE WITH AHMEDINEJAD! It is a mouthpiece for liberal lunacy, and apparently me and moudie are the ones who have noticed it. (He must have seen the preview for "Bareback Mountain" too). Well maybe he's not a total schmuk. Still, anyone who advocates wiping Irael off the face of the earth, probably shouldn't be allowed to have the tools to actually do that. That's sort of like your mom not letting you have a flame-thrower in the house, no good came come of it.
In all seriousness, though, the only reason we are allowed to continue is because we are friends of Israel, the minute we turn our backs on God's chosen people, au revoir, hasta la bye-bye. N'avec pas Mon Dieu la toute c'est perdu.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Paris Hilton
Everybody gets so mad when you talk about Paris Hilton. The general consensus is "Why is she famous anyway? She's just independently wealthy and all she does is go clubbing. She doesn't even do anything". Well you answered your own question. Paris Hilton is famous because she is everthing that Americans want to be. Rich enough to never have to do anything at all...ever; and she got that way by being born. That is the new American Dream. It used to be that anyone could be rich, all you had to do was work hard and you could, now everyone just wants it handed to them. What does that say about our society.
Incidentally I think that that is why everybody hates the fact that she's famous. Because deep down they realize the reason and they hate that about themselves.
What do you think?
Incidentally I think that that is why everybody hates the fact that she's famous. Because deep down they realize the reason and they hate that about themselves.
What do you think?
Inspiring
When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
These words were written by Horatio Spafford in 1873, while he was crossing the Atlantic ocean by ship. He was on his way to retrieve his wife, who was in Wales at the time. Earlier, he and his wife and four daughters Annie, Maggie, Bessie and Tanetta had planned to go to Europe from the US on vacation. At the last minute, Horatio had to stay behind in Chicago on some business. On the way to Europe the boat that his wife and daughters were on was hit by a British ship and it sank. Only his wife suvived, all four daughters drowned within minutes. His wife Anna was saved by a passing ship and brought to Wales where she sent a telegram to her husband. "Saved alone. What shall I do". Horatio was on his way to get her, when the captain of the ship he was on informed him that they were passing over the very spot where all four of his daughters had drowned. It was then that he sat down and penned these words.
Now read them again:
When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Media Bias Part II
If you are lost please read the original blog post here
We have to be very careful how we go about it from here. We have members of Congress discussing a return of the "Fairness Doctrine". You can be sure that something Congress calls a "fairness Doctrine" will be anything but. Basically the idea is that if a point of view is presented, then the station airing the points of view must allow for equal amounts of time for rebuttal from the opposing point of view.
2 problems:
1) this is an infringement on free speech in that the government is, in effect, dictating what can and cannot be said on the public airwaves.
2) The airwaves, while being very useful for knowledge dissemination are still an economic proposition, and therefore must be treated as such. The people running talk radio, and for that matter TV, have invested their money on the airwaves and they rightfully expect a return on their investment. The way they do that is by selling ad time. (I'm sure this is nothing new but follow me here). The more people listen to a particular channel, or a particular show, the more the station can charge for the commercial time slot. (Again people are willing to pay more for a slot where more people will hear their commercial). How to they attract listeners? By putting programming on that those listeners want to hear (or in the case of TV what they want to see). If equal programming time must be given to all opposing points of view, then 2 things are happening, 1) the government is dictating what can and cannot be said or played on the radio or TV. (HELLO CHAVEZ?!!?) and 2) the station is being forced to air programming that is not in it's self interest and it's ad sales will drop.
Now if we follow this to it's logical economic conclusion, the station can do 1 of 2 things. It can air the programming it wants, giving equal time to opposing points of view costing them much more money, in terms of commercial airtime sales, lawyers to fight the time battles, etc. eventually going out of business. Or it can just air programming that is offensive to no one. I don't know if anyone listened to AM radio when the fairness doctrine was in effect before, but it was boring as heck. As a result....do you know anyone who listened to talk radio during the late 70's early 80's?
Now take a look at Congress; who is in favour of the "Fairness Doctrine"? The answer is, the people who have been negatively effected by Conservative talk radio. Liberal Democrats. (This is not a rant, it's just me stating my view of the facts) Now, why would the very same people who will carry the "1st Amendment" Banner to the front lines for a student who holds a sign saying "Bong Hits for Jesus" be in favour of the government dictating what can and cannot be said on the airwaves? Because it's politically expedient. Because the Television Media is slanted to the left (No one is arguing this), so if they can get Conservative views off the radio, what's left? Their agenda on CNN. (And boring oldies on AM radio).
We have to be very careful how we go about it from here. We have members of Congress discussing a return of the "Fairness Doctrine". You can be sure that something Congress calls a "fairness Doctrine" will be anything but. Basically the idea is that if a point of view is presented, then the station airing the points of view must allow for equal amounts of time for rebuttal from the opposing point of view.
2 problems:
1) this is an infringement on free speech in that the government is, in effect, dictating what can and cannot be said on the public airwaves.
2) The airwaves, while being very useful for knowledge dissemination are still an economic proposition, and therefore must be treated as such. The people running talk radio, and for that matter TV, have invested their money on the airwaves and they rightfully expect a return on their investment. The way they do that is by selling ad time. (I'm sure this is nothing new but follow me here). The more people listen to a particular channel, or a particular show, the more the station can charge for the commercial time slot. (Again people are willing to pay more for a slot where more people will hear their commercial). How to they attract listeners? By putting programming on that those listeners want to hear (or in the case of TV what they want to see). If equal programming time must be given to all opposing points of view, then 2 things are happening, 1) the government is dictating what can and cannot be said or played on the radio or TV. (HELLO CHAVEZ?!!?) and 2) the station is being forced to air programming that is not in it's self interest and it's ad sales will drop.
Now if we follow this to it's logical economic conclusion, the station can do 1 of 2 things. It can air the programming it wants, giving equal time to opposing points of view costing them much more money, in terms of commercial airtime sales, lawyers to fight the time battles, etc. eventually going out of business. Or it can just air programming that is offensive to no one. I don't know if anyone listened to AM radio when the fairness doctrine was in effect before, but it was boring as heck. As a result....do you know anyone who listened to talk radio during the late 70's early 80's?
Now take a look at Congress; who is in favour of the "Fairness Doctrine"? The answer is, the people who have been negatively effected by Conservative talk radio. Liberal Democrats. (This is not a rant, it's just me stating my view of the facts) Now, why would the very same people who will carry the "1st Amendment" Banner to the front lines for a student who holds a sign saying "Bong Hits for Jesus" be in favour of the government dictating what can and cannot be said on the airwaves? Because it's politically expedient. Because the Television Media is slanted to the left (No one is arguing this), so if they can get Conservative views off the radio, what's left? Their agenda on CNN. (And boring oldies on AM radio).
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Mathematical Proof that Women are Evil
GIVEN: Women = Time x Money
GIVEN: Time IS Money
GIVEN: Money is the root of all evil.
IF W= women
T= time
M= money
E= evil
THEN: W = T x M OR W=T(M)
since IF a=b then b=a AND Time IS Money
THEN: W=M2 (Squared)
Since Money is the root of all evil OR M=sqrt(E)
THEN W=(sqrt(E))2 (squareroot of E squared)
OR W=E
THEREFORE Women = Evil.....
INCONTROVERTIBLE MATHEMATICAL PROOF!!!!!!!
Thank You
GIVEN: Time IS Money
GIVEN: Money is the root of all evil.
IF W= women
T= time
M= money
E= evil
THEN: W = T x M OR W=T(M)
since IF a=b then b=a AND Time IS Money
THEN: W=M2 (Squared)
Since Money is the root of all evil OR M=sqrt(E)
THEN W=(sqrt(E))2 (squareroot of E squared)
OR W=E
THEREFORE Women = Evil.....
INCONTROVERTIBLE MATHEMATICAL PROOF!!!!!!!
Thank You
Monday, June 25, 2007
Here's to a real Hero
Original Story
Charles W Lindbergh died today at the age of 86. Most people probably don't know who he is. During the Battle for Iwo Jima in WWII, there was a poignant moment, when the first American flag was raised on Japanese soil. Charles Lindbergh was one of the ones who raised it. Most people don't know this man's name because another flag was raised a few hours later (the 2nd one was bigger) the photo of which has been seen by most Americans, and the men who raised it became celebrities...well the three that survived the battle anyway.
Lindbergh then went back down the mountain and continued to fight. He was shot in the arm, earning him a purple heart to go with his silver star, and sent home. While there was much fanfare about the 6 men who raised the second flag (Including the book and movie "Flags of Our Fathers") Charles Lindbergh went home and nobody knew his name, or the names of the other four Marines, who really fought up the hill and valiantly planted the American flag for the first time on enemy soil. Heroes like this ensure that people like me and you have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (and free government handouts). Semper Fi Mr. Lindbergh, Godspeed.
Charles W Lindbergh died today at the age of 86. Most people probably don't know who he is. During the Battle for Iwo Jima in WWII, there was a poignant moment, when the first American flag was raised on Japanese soil. Charles Lindbergh was one of the ones who raised it. Most people don't know this man's name because another flag was raised a few hours later (the 2nd one was bigger) the photo of which has been seen by most Americans, and the men who raised it became celebrities...well the three that survived the battle anyway.
Lindbergh then went back down the mountain and continued to fight. He was shot in the arm, earning him a purple heart to go with his silver star, and sent home. While there was much fanfare about the 6 men who raised the second flag (Including the book and movie "Flags of Our Fathers") Charles Lindbergh went home and nobody knew his name, or the names of the other four Marines, who really fought up the hill and valiantly planted the American flag for the first time on enemy soil. Heroes like this ensure that people like me and you have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (and free government handouts). Semper Fi Mr. Lindbergh, Godspeed.
The Finer Points of Murder
Original Story
Breaking news in Cuyahoga County Ohio. The body of Jessie Davis has been found, and her boyfriend Bobby Cutts has been charged with 2 counts of murder....wait a minute 2 counts? Yes, 2. It seems that Ms. Davis was pregnant with Mr. Cutts' child. My heart goes out to Jessie's family, especially her young son, who according to some accounts seems to have witnessed the murder. I cannot even contemplate the depravity of that situation.
What interests me about this is that Bobby Cutts has been charged with murder for not only Jessie, but her unborn fetus as well. That seems to me to be a remarkable double standard in a country where abortion is legal. Basically the law says that if Jessie had wanted to kill her unborn fetus then that's all well and good. But if anyone else kills it, it's murder. Fair is fair, either it's ok to kill a fetus or it's not, you can't have it both ways. If abortion is ok, then Bobby Cutts should be charged with one murder. If abortion is not ok, then he should be charged with two. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with it, but currently in America, abortion is legal, so according to the law, Mr. Cutts should be charged with only one murder.
Breaking news in Cuyahoga County Ohio. The body of Jessie Davis has been found, and her boyfriend Bobby Cutts has been charged with 2 counts of murder....wait a minute 2 counts? Yes, 2. It seems that Ms. Davis was pregnant with Mr. Cutts' child. My heart goes out to Jessie's family, especially her young son, who according to some accounts seems to have witnessed the murder. I cannot even contemplate the depravity of that situation.
What interests me about this is that Bobby Cutts has been charged with murder for not only Jessie, but her unborn fetus as well. That seems to me to be a remarkable double standard in a country where abortion is legal. Basically the law says that if Jessie had wanted to kill her unborn fetus then that's all well and good. But if anyone else kills it, it's murder. Fair is fair, either it's ok to kill a fetus or it's not, you can't have it both ways. If abortion is ok, then Bobby Cutts should be charged with one murder. If abortion is not ok, then he should be charged with two. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with it, but currently in America, abortion is legal, so according to the law, Mr. Cutts should be charged with only one murder.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Media Bias
Story on MSNBC
List of Media Political Donors
Well here it is, proof of what we all already knew. Media is biased. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, after all the media is run by humans and humans are biased. What is notable about this report is that of the 144 donors on the list 7 did not give to the Democratic party. that means that 95.1% of media donors gave to the democratic party or their affiliates (moveon.org etc). Maybe the conservative talk radio hosts have a point...the major media outlets are biased to a liberal point of view. Which is why it's not a shock to find that Hillary Clinton and Barbera Boxer want a "Legislative Fix" to the "talk radio problem".
One of the most important reforms Hilter put in place in his rise to the leadership of the National Socialist party was control of the media. The reasons are fairly obvious; control of the media is control of information and the addage is true "knowledge is power". Always beware of those who seek to destroy all opposing ideas; their own ideas won't hold water.
List of Media Political Donors
Well here it is, proof of what we all already knew. Media is biased. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, after all the media is run by humans and humans are biased. What is notable about this report is that of the 144 donors on the list 7 did not give to the Democratic party. that means that 95.1% of media donors gave to the democratic party or their affiliates (moveon.org etc). Maybe the conservative talk radio hosts have a point...the major media outlets are biased to a liberal point of view. Which is why it's not a shock to find that Hillary Clinton and Barbera Boxer want a "Legislative Fix" to the "talk radio problem".
One of the most important reforms Hilter put in place in his rise to the leadership of the National Socialist party was control of the media. The reasons are fairly obvious; control of the media is control of information and the addage is true "knowledge is power". Always beware of those who seek to destroy all opposing ideas; their own ideas won't hold water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)