We Went Into Iraq for the Oil –

- is one of the great liberal lies. We have not taken one drop of oil out of Iraq. This is in line with the standard liberal cant: The US is evil, and anyone else is just an innocent victim.

Oil is one of the greatest liberal victories of all time. They must be very proud of themselves. Thank a liberal when you faint at the pump. Notice I don’t say Democrat. McCain is just as bad as any liberal where the subject of oil is concerned.

The predicament that we are in is really rather simple. We no longer allow any exploration or drilling in this country, even though there is plenty of oil. We even know generally where it is. We have the technology to extract it with minimal disturbance. We have built no refineries in the last 20 years or so. If we developed our own oil and built sufficient refineries we would see the price of oil drop by half or better quite quickly.

The oil companies that the liberals like to beat up on are captives of foreign interests, thanks to the very same liberals. They do not develop any more in the Middle East because the governments of the Middle East do not allow foreign ownership of oil resources. Even if our own companies did the developing, the Saudis or whoever would own the oil and sell it at whatever price to whomever they choose.

The repercussions of the libs strangling us over oil are far reaching. We cannot decide the price that is fair, we have no control over that. We cannot pursue foreign policy that is in our own best interests. The Saudis (home of Wahabi Islam) dictate much of our foreign policy. Foreign companies and countries own large portions of our major companies and maintain a huge network of lobbyists to pressure our politicians. Never mind McCain-Feingold, many of our politicians are so beholden to Moslem oil counties that they are merely puppets.

Never mind Afghanistan, we were determined to stop them after 9/11 and they were also a bit of an uncontrollable thorn to the Saudis. But consider that the only country we have taken out was run by a secular madman and the Saudis were quite happy for us to remove him. However, Iran is a much larger threat and we well know that they spend millions of their oil revenues to attack us and Israel. Consider that we sided against the Christian Serbs, who had a good bit of right on their side, to support the Moslems, who were invaders. These policies come from Saudi Arabia, not from our own interests.

Our foreign policy is dictated by those who hate us deeply.

As for me, I fully realize that if we pull our troops out of Iraq, the immediate consequence will be that the Iranians will own the country in less that a year. We can either abandon the people to tyranny, as we did to the South Vietnamese, or we can keep a military presence there for many years. Before you listen to the libs scream too loudly, remember that we are still a presence in Japan and Germany 60 years later.

I am of the opinion that we should take oil out of Iraq equal to the cost of this war. And enough every year to pay for the necessary support for their safety.

We keep hearing alternative this, that, and the other. Fine. Let’s start by developing enough nuclear power plants to replace all oil and gas fired plants immediately. In the long term, we also need to develop enough to replace coal fired plants as well. By the way, the coal fired plants are not nearly as dirty as the libs claim. As a general rule, whenever a lib speaks, make him prove any allegations with hard scientific data and keep a firm grip on your wallet. The libs lie like dogs and want to put us all into poverty so that we are government dependants rather than free citizens. I will believe that they are compassionate when the Kennedy’s, Kerry’s, Clintons, Obama’s, Feinstein’s, etc. etc. give some of their millions to charity. Like something higher than 1%, Many give less. And I do mean to charity, not to their own self-aggrandizing tax dodging foundations.

If you check the facts, you will see that conservatives, in general give significantly more to charity than do liberals. George Bush gives over 10% of his income to charity. Ted Kennedy, Obama, Clintons, etc. give mostly less than 1%. I will not trust a bunch who want to use the force of government to do to me what they do not willingly do themselves. Betcha Ted Kennedy pays a smaller percentage of total worth to taxes than I do.

After we have stabilized sufficient energy to keep going, I say well and good, go after alternatives. But - prove the science before jumping. We are doing entirely too many things stupidly just because we think that it is the feel-good politically expedient thing to do. I am all for alternatives that genuinely work to improve our lives and leave things clean. But only when they are proven better.

Compassion –

When the head rules the heart, you are a king. When the heart rules the head, you are a fool. Or words to that effect. Chaim Potok in The Chosen.

Liberals tend to see the world somewhat differently than conservatives. The liberal looks out and sees some inequity and wants the government to kiss it and make it all better. The conservative sees that people should be provided the opportunity to help themselves. The liberal wants government to help people. The conservative wants to enable people to help themselves. The majority in the middle doesn’t give a damn about anyone else. They just want more bread and circuses. The problem with the liberal approach is that using the force of law to make societal changes is like inviting in the wolf to cure your mouse problem. The wolf may get rid of the mouse, but now what do you do with the wolf?

One of the points that just about everyone seems to miss is that a government bureaucracy shares most of the characteristics of the corporation. Especially the bad ones. Any corporation/ bureaucracy will fight to stay alive and to grow. There will be more loyalty on the part of 99% of the employees of either to the parent organization than to any customer/client or code of morals.

One of the problems with letting compassion rule is that the long term consequences of any action are not considered. A small example: When the British started colonizing India they saw poverty, but not extreme, most people could get by. They also saw an appalling infant mortality rate. Being, on the whole, rather decent people the Brits decided to “do something”. They did. They managed to reduce infant death rates significantly. They did not reduce births. They did not expand the supply of food. The result was predictable - poverty and hunger became worse. Now I don’t say that saving the lives of infants is not a totally worthy goal. It is. But the consequences of meddling need to be taken into account.

I was there when LBJ declared war on poverty. We have fought the war. We lost. Humans are animals just like any other. When we are born, we only have the basic instincts for survival. We must be taught to be anything useful. If, in our compassion to “save the children”, we place no restriction on breeding, then people will do what they are paid to do. Breed. We now have several generations of welfare people who know nothing different. The survival strategy is to “dumb-down” and make no useful contribution to our society. The children who show any spark of initiative are persecuted by the other children. School smarts are punished by bullying. Local gangs are a way of life.

Conservatives are told that this is all their fault because they are greedy and do not want to share. Not so. This morass is created by liberals and their misguided compassion. Conservatives would like to see everyone succeed to the best of their abilities. The freedom to succeed also carries the freedom to fail. In the long term those who cannot or will not help themselves must be eliminated from the gene pool. We have rewarded and bred for incompetence and are reaping a rich harvest. I find it interesting that liberals seem to understand that our ecology is a complex thing, and that fiddling with one aspect may have undesirable results. And yet, the very same people do not seem to understand that human society has evolved in the same way to a very complex balance. Now, I agree that we are not simple plants. We can and do change our society to better suit the needs of the day. But we should devote a good deal more brain power to considering results before we charge in and put a band aid in place. If we need an environmental impact study - and follow its conclusions - before we build, why then is there no attention paid to the consequences of social meddling? In the recent immigration amnesty bill debacle, there was only one long term study done. Since it was done by a conservative organization, The Heritage Foundation, the libs just pooh-poohed it. The study showed that this amnesty bill would cost around 3 trillion. Pooh-pooh 3 trillion? They didn’t even see fit to do their own study. No decent scientific refutation of an established assertion. A puzzlement.

In human history, the incompetent became subservient to the producers or just died off. Mostly there was a balance. The main problem with the old way was that it tended to become hereditary. A hereditary caste system will inevitably fail as incompetent or spoiled children fail to measure up to their responsibilities. There is also the boiling frustration of superior people born lower caste who cannot rise to the level of their abilities.  Now - we not only kill off our best in war (it is the productive who serve voluntarily), but the majority of the productive middle-class people have reduced the number of children produced. Why is it the libs, who tell us to have fewer children because we are running out of resources, also tell us we can take in 20 million more illegals as citizens? If we cannot support 20 million more of our own, why can we support 20 million undesirables? Anyway, back to children. The people on the dole are breeding at an alarming rate. ZPG is nowhere near their horizon. More kiddies = more money. Birth control is economically undesirable. If we had tough schools that really taught useful knowledge and discipline and could manage to make productive citizens out of the children of these parasites then it would not be so bad. But if you breed parasites, you will only get more and more parasites that are better and better parasites and who do not contribute anything positive to our society.

I maintain that 10% of the populous is the cause of 90% of our expenditures. The lower 10% of the populous consumes the dole. Provides most of the medical costs. Constitutes the majority of the crime that costs us police time and effort. Is most of the jail population. Don’t give me any shit about discrimination being the cause. Don’t tell me my bigotry has jack to do with one punk killing another over a handful of dope because the libs wouldn’t let us train these people to be useful citizens. Don’t tell me I have anything to do with the weakening of schools so that nothing of value is taught there. I didn’t have a damn thing to with schools failing to maintain discipline or scholastic excellence. That’s all liberal compassion at work.

Libs have got it so that not only can we not paddle a young offender at school, parents are being told that if they paddle a kid at home they may be arrested as child abusers. Now child beating is one thing, but a couple of swats on a well deserving butt is one of the foundations of higher knowledge. Children are animals. They are not miniature people, they are unformed, incomplete people. It is child abuse not to teach, love and discipline as necessary to instill morals and proper behavior. An undisciplined, untrained child will surely become a totally egocentric adult who is totally impulse driven and whose only morality is to serve himself and satisfy his own desires. Sound familiar, “me generation”? Thanks, compassionate libs.

Now, just to give a kick to the other side. We would not see half the problems out there if it weren’t for some of these idiot, loudmouth libs. Most of the productive, reasonable conservative (probably reactionary) people are so caught up in their own lives that they don’t notice anything that is not directly in their faces. Normal human behavior. We do need the libs to point things out. We just need to put the brakes on their impulses until we understand the consequences.

Herself sez: Apologies for missing Thursday - I was “out and about” in greater downtown Hotlanna trying to get “things” straightened out for applying for SS and Medicare (yeah, I’m running a few months late). Anyhoo, it took up the ENTIRE day and I was so wiped out when I got home I totally forgot to post the Ol’ Curmudgeon’s blog,much less my own! But I think you will agree it was worth the wait!

Negotiation -

We were watching The Patriot with director’s commentary. For a fellow who made a movie about the American Revolution he had the standard liberal’s misunderstanding of what war is and what negotiation is.

Deep sigh. First off, negotiation requires that the parties at hand be willing to sit down at a table and discuss the issue(s) at hand. Secondly, in the liberal understanding of things they seems to think that both parties will each give a little bit and arrive at a mutually satisfactory settlement.

If the parties hold diametrically opposed views and/or one will not sit down to discuss the matter, then what? Kosovo comes to mind. The liberal view is that the parties should have just sat down and talked out their differences. Fact is, you had Moslem invaders that had been systematically persecuting native Christians for 400 years, and wanted to keep on doing so. You had native Christians (the Serbians) who wanted these invaders and persecutors out. As usual, the libs leading this country had us siding with the Moslems and bombing the Christians. But anyway, where is the negotiating room here? The Moslems weren’t going to leave peaceably. They were not going to stop persecuting the Christians. The Moslems had (as usual) no intention of giving any on that position. The Christians wanted freedom and the Moslems out of their hereditary lands. There was no give in their position.

Liberals seem to think that war is the same thing as a fist fight, and if everyone just went home and slept it off everything would be fine. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of war. War is not testosterone gone amuck. War is an instrument of national policy. War takes place when negotiations and diplomats have failed. If a nation has a goal which can not be achieved by diplomatic means it must either give up that goal or resort to war as the final choice.

For instance, the Germans of the 1930s entered into all kinds of negotiations and signed all kinds of agreements, which they happily broke and then entered into more negotiations and treaties, buying all kinds of time. Chamberlain was the liberal of his day and proudly proclaimed “peace for our time” after entering into the Munich Agreement which gave a chunk of Czechoslovakia to Germany in return for the German’s promise to be good boys and not do it again. After digesting the big bite for a year and consolidating their position, the Germans invaded Poland. The only way to stop a nation that will not negotiate honorably is war. Otherwise they will do what they please.

The Korean War took place when North Korea invaded South Korea. South Korea appealed to the United Nations for help. North Korea’s position was that they had conquered and would hold South Korea as theirs and would not give it up. The United Nations declared war upon North Korea and invaded to free the South Koreans. The United States troops sent to Korea were part of the UN forces. The United States did not declare a separate war upon North Korea. Contrary to the TV show MASH with its frequent soulful “why are we here” dialogs, most people understood quite well why we were there. It had nothing to do with “stopping the red stain” as Frank Burns so stupidly and piously intoned. Notice the standard Hollywierd liberal ploy of making all liberals reasonable and intelligent and all conservative positions stupid and ridiculous? It had everything to do with honoring the UN resolution to protect an ally who was being systematically conquered and pillaged. That is the same UN which the current crop of liberals wants to have running the planet nowadays. Especially if it puts the US in a bad position. BTW - if that had been a US war and we had finished it, instead of pulling out when the UN said to, we would not have the North Korean problem today. The people of North Korea would not be starving, they would be just as fat, sassy, and wealthy as the South Koreans are today.

Anyone who thinks that negotiation can be successful when one of the parties will not make treaties or hold to honorable terms will deserve what they get. Conquered. Or should we continue to let aggressors do as they damn well please until there is no freedom in the world? A nation that will not fight will not continue to exist. A people that will not fight will not keep freedom.

If we take war off the table, then there is nothing to make rogue nations such as Iran, North Korea, etc. even come to the table. We have to no reason to expect them to even go through the motions of negotiation, much less keep their word if there is no expectation of retaliation and punishment through war.

While no one in his right mind considers war desirable, it is still an instrument of policy that must be available. No pantywaist liberal abhors and hates war as much as the military does. The difference is that our military accepts the role of protector of freedom. The loudmouth pacifistic types seem only to protest those who protect freedom. I never see them protesting those who would take freedom away. When was the last time you saw the Code Pink people protest radical Islam? When was the last time you saw the peaceniks protest an aggressive dictatorship such as North Korea? When was the last time you saw protests against the murderous bombing of innocent civilians by Moslem terrorists such as we see every day on the news?

Them’s the facts, ma’am.

Children Need to be Children -

I agree. But I part company with the majority of wishy-washy parents who use that phrase as an excuse to either ignore or spoil their children (or both).

The majority of people in this country seem to think that children should be engaged in perpetual play, preferably of the politically correct kind. Nonsense. The majority of history has the role of children helping with the daily work of the family from the time they can stand and walk. Children worked on the farm in rural areas and worked in the family business in urban areas. They bonded quite closely with the rest of the family, learned valuable life skills, and generally loved their parents and extended family fiercely. This is quite a contrast with the current crop of spoiled darlings that gets away from their families as fast as possible.

In order to correct the horrors of early industrialization and child sweat-shop labor we passed laws to prevent the exploitation of minors and to enable them to stay in school long enough to get a decent education. We swung the pendulum too far, as usual. Most of the kiddies now don’t have any reasonable chores to do around the house, and, even if they do (and they actually do them), they are usually solo without participation of the rest of the family. Most parents are content to let their little darlings sit in front of a TV or a computer soaking up porn (either of the mind or the body). Then later the kids are mall rats with nothing to keep them out of trouble. The parents would be better served by not sitting down after dinner to watch their own boob-tube, but rather to do meal cleanup and household chores as a family unit and then help/supervise with all the kiddies homework - every night. And to develop a hobby which would involve the whole family in something involving constructive activities, preferably with a learning curve involving useful skills that can be passed on to the kidlets.

The idea that life is constant play and that we have to be entertained every waking moment of the day does not produce rational, balanced, loving adults. It produces totally selfish, weak individuals who look for someone else to do the providing. It produces people who cannot successfully relate to others, resulting in failed marriages and damaged children. It results in people who cannot make and hold to the commitment required to be a successful and loving partner and parent. In short, look around at the products of this type of poor parenting. What you see is what you will get if you raise your children this way. Not a pretty picture, is it?

AIDS is a government plot -

- to bring about the complete genocide of people of color.

So speaks Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s beloved pastor.

Let’s look at this rationally. There are three ways to get AIDS that I know of:

1. Blood transfusion or dirty infected medical instruments
2. Sharing dirty needles of infected people while injecting drugs
3. Sex with infected partner

OK. So we are going to give AIDS transfusions to all the people of color in the world and keep the blood supply for white people clean. Yeah, right. What kind of paranoid kook thinks that would work? What kind of rational US Senator and presidential hopeful sits there and listens to this kind of insanity every week?

Dirty needles and indiscriminate sex. Yeah, right. We all know that those black people are druggies and have no morals and screw anything in sight.

Deep sigh. If a white man had said those kinds of things he would correctly be branded as an idiot, an asshole, a racial bigot, and every other derogatory term in the left’s limited vocabulary. Since it is a black man (and a preacher at that), he gets a pass from the mainstream media and the libs who support Obama. Mr. Obama soft-pedals and dodges any questions on why he has not repudiated this kook,

People, wake up. Stupidity and bigotry do not belong to any particular race. Actually, that’s wrong. They belong to the human race.

If a Republican had intimated that the AIDS epidemic would be effective in the black communities because blacks are less moral than whites said Republican would have been fried by the media and the race baiters of this country. If a presidential candidate of the Republican persuasion were even remotely associated with such a pastor the press would be crucifying him. Why does Obama get a pass? Didn’t we fight the fight to get equal treatment for all people? Why do the libs get passes for outrageous and unacceptable behavior?

Wake up people. Equality means just that - treat all fairly and equitably. If you will fry the right - then apply the same standards to the left.

Seems to me that if Mr. Wright were a Christian of the type I’m familiar with he’d be telling his people not to participate in immoral conduct. If you don’t do drugs or have sex outside marriage the odds of getting AIDS are pretty well non-existent. Just a thought to consider.

By the way, this is only one of the lunatic statements of Mr. Wright. There are many, many more. One must question the integrity of Mr. Obama for having followed this man for 20 years, and for accepting his support until the story of this gentleman’s crazy statements was outed. Says more about Obama and the libs than it does about Mr. Wright - who is so very wrong.

Disney hypocrisy -

Hollyweird is hypocritical to the core of its bones, but danged if Disney doesn’t take the Oscar for butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths.The first example that I can remember is the Fantasia debacle. The 1940 Fantasia had a minor centaur character named Sunflower. This was a little black centaur who acted as maid to one of the white centaurs. The two or three scenes that I can remember with this little character were cut from the 1960 version. I suppose that being a maid was a “negative stereotype” and might hurt some tender feelings. Well, Disney has not only cut those scenes but is now denying that they ever existed. If you tell the lie loud, long, and with enough conviction, it becomes accepted as true.

Well, I can tell you that there were many black people working as servants in the 1950’s when I grew up. There was nothing demeaning in these people doing dignified work to support themselves and their families. Damn sight more dignified than taking the dole. I was raised by a “mammy”, and this was one of the finest women I have ever met. My Grandparents had a married couple who worked for them. The wife did mostly housework and cooking, the husband took care of the yard, the garden, and outside of the house. These fine people were a shining example of love and human dignity at its best. There is no stereotype of shame here unless it is the eye of some bigoted revisionist.

The other “we never did it” (sounds like your kids lying denials!) that I can remember is in the 1948 Melody Time. The Pecos Bill scenes have had all the smoking scenes excised in the DVD release.

Now, the interesting thing is that smoking cigarettes is banned only in flagship Disney films, complete with anti-smoking ads. This ban does not affect Miramax and Touchstone films that aimed specifically at the kiddy and teeny markets. Mother Disney also intends to launch a propaganda war against transfats and anything else THEY deem to be unhealthy. I thought that parents were responsible for teaching their kids and regulating their diets, not a bunch from Hollyweird. What a naïve notion. I believe I’d rather Disney cut flippant sexuality, cruelty, violence and other such. ‘Course that wouldn’t sell near as many movies, but might be more morally correct than politically correct. Believe it, if cigarettes would raise their revenues, they would be back in an instant.

I also find it interesting that Disney seems to have no problem with young boys idolizing and emulating a flitting Johnny Depp character - make no mistake, I think Depp is hysterically funny. I do have a problem with encouraging nelly behavior in the young. (This does happen. One of my grandsons is a bit of a wuss and loves to play Captain Jack Sparrow. I worry about that boy sometimes.) This is inappropriate role modeling as four is a bit young for any overtly sexual behavior. Of course, I am somewhat out of step since the so-called “progressives” seem to want sex ed in kindergarten.

Now, I don’t have a problem with smoking or not smoking onscreen. If it does not advance the plot or the mood, don’t do it. However, if making a period piece set in a smoking era, it may be artistically false not to show it.

People never seem to learn. The current anti-smoking hysteria and the efforts to outlaw same have their counterpart in history. Prohibition of alcohol leads to more drinking, less respect for the law and ultimately was the impetus for the growth and strength of organized crime. Congress made the Mafia what it is today. Thanks, guys! Keep it up Disney - we really need you to tell us all how to live!

Difference between Conservative and Liberal Thought-

The conservative wants you to behave in a civilized fashion (particularly in public) and think what you like. Your opinions are your own as long as you treat others in a courteous and considerate manner. Your success or failure is up to you. The only function of government is to protect you from the excesses of others and to insure that you have the opportunity to excel as much as you like.The liberal does not care how barbarically you act as long as you think the proper thoughts. You may curse as foully as you like. You may dress as offensively as you like. You may be as rude and offensive as possible. But you must think the correct way. Your success must be from the government. Your failure must be the result of the oppression of an evil society or because the government has not provided enough for you. The role of the government is to force people into the least common denominator behavior, to insure politically correct thinking, to punish success and to reward incompetence.

You do go on about Islam - -

Yes, I do. Islam is incompatible with freedom and democracy. It is, in fact, really illegal under American law.Whoa, hold it, what about freedom of religion? The government does not interfere with religion. Actually, it does. Ask the Mormon polygamists if the government has interfered with their free practice of religion. Ask the practitioners of Voodoo if they are allowed to freely torture animals to sacrificial death. Ask the White Supremacists if they can freely practice their beliefs. Ask the totally anti-gay crowd if their beliefs are being trampled. Ask the Branch Davidians.

Hate speech is against the law. The hallmarks of hate speech are:

1. Drawing a distinction between one’s own identity group and those outside it
2. Moral comparison based on this distinction
3. Devaluation or dehumanization of other groups and the insistence of personal superiority
4. The advocating of different standards of treatment based on identity group membership
5. A call to violence against members of other groups

The Qur’an and the other “holy books” of Islam qualify on all the above counts in spades. Even a cursory examination of the writings of Islam shows the contempt with which all non-Moslems are regarded.

Don’t take my word for it. Do your own research. But go to the sources, don’t just take the self-serving and lying of groups like CAIR. Remember that it is Sharia “holy” to lie to non-Moslems.

Preaching subjugation of anyone who does not believe as you do is not Constitutional. It is one thing to preach, as some of the more ignorant fundamentalists do, that someone who does not believe as you do will go to Hell after they die. It is another thing entirely to preach that you should send them there yourself.

Yeah, I would completely outlaw Islam in this country as it is unconstitutional. I happily work and live with Christians, Jews, Mormons (who are not Christians), Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses (likewise not Christians), Christian Scientists (neither Christian nor scientific), Buddhists, Sikhs, atheists and so on. But Islam is a cancer that cannot be reconciled with freedom and toleration. Their entire history is full of duplicity, lying, murder, rape, slavery, torture and persecution whenever they got the upper hand. Ask the three Jewish tribes around Medina about living in peaceful tolerant co-existence with Moslems. Ask the 270 million who have been murdered by Moslems. Ask the Jews who are blown up by Moslem terrorists daily. Ask the ghosts of 9/11. Ask the ghosts of those who are beheaded by Moslems - a holy act under Sharia law.

It is not that there have not been nutcases who purported to be Christian. There have. But nowhere in the Bible or the writings of the Church Fathers can you find any justification for murder. It is clear in any form of Christianity that is not some nut-cult that while God may hate the sin He loves the sinner. Whenever some nut-cult springs up that advocates hate it is condemned by Christians everywhere.

This is not true of Islam. In Islam Allah hates anyone not a bloodthirsty Moslem. Allah doesn’t even approve of non-murderous Moslems. Islam is a religion of hatred and oppression. Those who commit atrocities are not condemned by the rest of the Moslems. In fact, those few Moslems who do make some sort of feeble protest are regarded as apostates by the rest of the Moslem world.

Like I said, a cancer that should be eliminated from any free society.

Doubtless there will be those, either of Moslem persuasion or, more reprehensibly, American liberals who will accuse me of being hateful. It is not hateful to point out the truth about some group behavior. Is it hate speech to declare that the KKK is a hate group? Is it hate speech to declare that the Nazis were a hate organization? What I say would be hate speech if it were not true. It is. Check it out.

Oh yeah, the Harvard weaklings who gave in to the Moslem’s women only demand for the gym. If any male group had demanded male only times they would have been told to go away. If any Christian group had requested special treatment in the gym they would have been laughed at and ridiculed. But the limp libs at Harvard made the totally wrong move for Moslem women. The correct answer would have been abide by the current rules or don’t use the facility.

This is the same tactic Mohammed used over and over, take a little, take a little, take a little, then kill the people who didn’t finish him off, and start the same cycle all over again until there was no one left to oppose him. Ask the Arab polytheists who had Mecca before Mohammed took over. They tolerated him. He didn’t return the favor. Ask the Jews around Medina. Take a little, take a little, kill. That’s Moslem history. And their holy behavior. Not hate speech.

Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled - -

That’s Sean Hannity’s current favorite saying. I think I have to disagree with him.

It is bad enough that the left is running a beauty contest. That’s all it really is. Hillary’s only qualification for office is sleeping with the President. That makes Monica also qualified on the same basis. Even the most rabid Obama supporter does not seem able to name anything that he has actually accomplished. Even his most rabid detractors (when honest) have to admit he’s kind of a pretty fellow and speaks quite well. He can give one hell of an inspirational speech. I don’t see any other qualifications.

The left has preferred form over substance for quite some time now. But what on earth has possessed the right to pimp for someone like McCain? I do respect his military service. I do believe that he will be strong in the face of overt aggression. But people - look at his track record. McCain-Feingold has done nothing to achieve real campaign reform. It is somewhat questionable Constitutionally (I’m being charitable). He was for the immigration forgiveness nonsense - until 90% of the people in this country said “Hell NO”! He is no conservative fiscally. He is going to be the Republican candidate, even though he has a track record of kissing Dems and spurning members of his own party.

As to the President, about the only thing that the next one will do that is of major importance is appointing a Supreme Court justice or two. The leftward leaning judges seem to be able to swear to uphold the Constitution and then just ignore it and do what they wish.

We will get who we get. The Republicans have certainly not earned our votes. The Republican Majority Congress of the 90s and early 2000s did not curb spending and did none of the things that we conservative types put them in office to do. They spent like drunken bums, they had ridiculous scandals. The liberal press will ignore William Jefferson type Dems with freezers full of cash. The press will not hold any Dem to a reasonable standard. Republicans should realize that they will be held to a higher standard.

However - since the President will be a liberal, whether Hillary, Obama, or McCain, the thing that will be necessary to keep the country from going completely down the toilet is going to be the Congressional races. We must fight like hell to put reasonable, responsible, conservative people in the Congress or you can probably start studying your Koran now to avoid the rush. You might also brush up on your Spanish since the borders will be completely open and the illegals seems to think that we should learn their language. (The legals want to learn ours). The libs will pull the troops out as fast as possible and weaken the military as much as they can. Nature does abhor a vacuum and it will not be filled by reasonable people in the Middle-East - it will be filled by those who are not our friends.

If we don’t put the brakes on the leftward slide, your heart indeed should be troubled, for we will not last much longer as a proud and free people.

Standards is standards - -

Lately, with the hoo-raw over Barack Obama’s longtime pastor, I’m hearing this business of “Well, in the black community…” and a bunch of excuses about why this church, this preacher, and Obama should not be held to the same standards as anyone else. “It’s customary in the black community to…”.Look here, indeed a preacher can say pretty much whatever he wants to. However - while the various Aryan Nation, Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist groups can and do have their churches where hatred of others is preached, they are condemned not only all mainline Christians but also by all the liberals. I don’t know of anyone who would excuse the stupidity and hatred of these groups with a no-brain statement of “Well, in the white community this is just the custom…”

Now, this is proper and good. These white supremacist hate groups should be condemned. Why is it that instead of condemning black groups that preach hate the liberals start in with this “Well, in the black community…” bunch of excuses.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Should we not hold all people to the same standards? Did we not learn anything from the Jim Crow era? The evil of Jim Crow was not that black people were persecuted. That was a symptom. The underlying evil was that there were different standards for different groups. The civil rights movement was not about giving black people a different set of rights and standards, but to put in a level playing field so that all people had the same rights and standards.

The kicker that really fries me is the excuse that “well, this guy (Jeremiah Wright) has done a lot of good in the black community”. The standards of bad and wrong behavior do not change just because the perpetrator has also done a little bit of good. Let us point out that post WWI Germany was in terrible shape. The economy was wrecked, the people were defeated, broke, unemployed, hungry, despondent. Adolph Hitler got the economy of Germany going and eliminated hunger. His stirring speeches inspired and uplifted the people and restored a sense of nation unity and pride. Does any of this excuse the evil of the man? Does the fact that he gave the people hope excuse the hatred of his speeches?

Why is it that the libs want different moral standards for various minority groups? And even that is not consistent. Why are there different standards for blacks? And not for Greeks? Why are there not the same moral standards for all people, no matter what race, sex, gender, or whatever? Why do the liberals support different standards for Moslems?

The other thing that I find amusing is the press letting Obama get away with the ignorance position. After following this nut for 20 years Obama says that he never heard any of this stuff from the pew. Maybe he was asleep.

I can’t say that, we don’t have pews. But I can tell you that I have been a Christian for almost 40 years and within a month or two (or less) I would pretty well know where a priest stood on any issue. Am I that much more intelligent or awake than Obama? I don’t think so. I’ll bet you that he knew all along exactly where this fella’ stands. The libs and the liberal press have fallen all over themselves to embrace Obama and have not vetted him at all. Looks like their pig in the poke may bite them in the butt.

If the American people do not wake up real soon then there will not be a country to worry about.