|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Feedback can be sent to "engineer at somethingaintright dot com"
|
OLD POSTS
* * THE DIXIE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST * THE DUGGAR FAMILY ON THE "TODAY SHOW" * * * * * * THE "I SUPPORT THE TROOPS" LIBERALS * IT ISN'T OBAMA WHO NEEDS TO WORRY ABOUT ASSASSINATION * JOHN EDWARDS TO SUE THE UNITED STATES * * Liberals are Backward Thinkers on Race * * * * The National Day of Race Reconciliation and Recompense * * Taylor's Death a Grim Reminder for us all * TED KENNEDY IS THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS OF AMERICAN POLITICS AND CULTURE * We Need New Black Leadership in this Country * WHY AM I SKEPTICAL ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING? THE WRECK OF WILLIAM J CLINTON *
|
Why the Liberal Democrats don't like this McCain selection: (Have you noticed that there are very few pundits congratulating her and the Republicans for breaking through their glass ceiling?): She is a conservative (This will herd in many of the right wing voters, like myself, who don't like McCain) She is an outsider from beyond the beltway (McCain had to go all the way to Alaska to find an attractive women who hadn't been groped by Bill Clinton- Seriously, she might bring some dangerous ideas to Washington) She is religious (We all know that conservatives want to establish a Christian-based caliphate in America) She is anti-abortion (She believes in human rights for babies and actually carried a handicapped baby to term-That is not good news for the liberal eugenicists) Her handicapped baby was fathered by John Edwards (Just kidding) Her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant (Doesn't she support Planned Parenthood? Can you say trailer-trash? She probably smokes Marlboros-no wait, that's Obama) She is pro-gun (This will further marginalize the anti-gun rights kooks) She is a hunter (Can you say redneck?) She is not an animal rights nut (She actually likes human babies more than animals) She is not a global warmer (She must be blind to the melting glaciers in her own state. This will marginalize the power the enviro-nazis have in Washington) She is from an oil state and believes in developing domestic oil sources (The liberals really don't want the US to be more energy dependent. They want us to conserve and give the government a chance to grow larger through energy policies) She is a real feminist (An extremely successful woman; not a victim of evil men and a devotee to the liberal feminists' strict left wing orthodoxy) She has too many kids (The US is using up too much of the world's resources-That's also a lot of diapers in our landfills) Her selection shows that Obama's selection (an old rich white guy insider) is not about change She is patriotic (We are the World. The United States' success must be tempered) Her son is in the military (Give peace a chance-We are only antagonizing the bad guys) She may attract some of the anti-Obama Hillaryists (There are many scorned women out there. Plus these voters understand that it might guarantee an all female final with Hillary in 2012 or 2016) She didn't run for president (The Republicans will be able to capitalize on what Biden said about Obama during the Democrat primaries) She will probably win the vice-presidential debate (Somebody might actually watch it this time-and Biden won't be able to appear to be a bully against a woman) She is attractive (An overwhelming majority of Americans who vote are men. Also-If she runs someday against Hillary we know who will win that side-by-side debate when you put them next to each other on television) She is young (This equalizes the average age on both tickets so Obama won't necessarily corner the youth vote.) She will have coattails (Her appearances in Congressional races should help the Republicans) The liberals cannot attack her lack of experience Worst off all; she probably shops at Wal-Mart Why the Liberal Democrats like this McCain selection:
Alaska has few electoral votes (Obama's choice was obviously an attempt to influence the electoral-rich Pennsylvania vote-This is change?) She is basically an unknown no-name Up until now the vice-presidential
choice rarely influences voters xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx WHY AM I SKEPTICAL ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING? 4 questions must be answered before I am convinced that we are in a global warming crisis 1. Is global warming
happening? 2. Is it a bad thing? 3. Is man causing it? 4. Can we stop it? Right now global warming is a political issue, not a scientific issue. I am convinced it is being used by the liberals merely to level down the productivity of the United States. It is one big plan for the redistribution of wealth around the world. Environmentalists are watermelons; green on the outside and red (communist) on the inside. Also, please remember: 70 years ago the global crisis was that we were running out of oil. 60 years ago the global crisis was that we were all going to die in a nuclear holocaust. 50 years ago the global crisis was that we were destroying the ecosystem with pesticides. 40 years ago the global crisis was that we were destroying the world with pollution. 30 years ago the global crisis was that we were entering a global ICE AGE!! 20 years ago the global crisis was that we were destroying the oceans, rain forests, and ozone layer. 10 years ago the global crisis was that we were destroying the world with toxic waste. Now we are in a global crisis because of global warming Ask me why I am skeptical? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx THE WRECK OF WILLIAM J CLINTON The suspension of Hillary's campaign suspension has inspired me to write (plagiarize) a song about the failed legacy of her husband Bill. Remember in the 90s when he was the wonder boy of the Democrat Party? Wow, have things changed! His successors (Hillary and Al), and the candidate who sought his endoresement (Kerry) have all crashed and burned. This has caused the Democrat Party and mainstream media to unceremoniously jettison the Clintons. The song is sung to the tune of, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald." Apologies to Gordon Lightfoot
The
legend lives on from Arkansans on down With
a Vice-President Gore 75 pounds more The
man was the pride of the Democrat side Concluding
two terms with under 50% percent The
vote in O-O made a Florida sound The
dawn came late and the decision did wait When
Hillary's time came the old bat came on deck Old
Bill wired in he had water coming in Does
anyone know where the love of God goes They
might have cracked up and gone too far left The
fat grey lady sings and the streets all burn And
farther below historians know In an
old union hall in Detroit they prayed The
legend lives on from Arkansans on down xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TED KENNEDY IS THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS OF AMERICAN POLITICS AND CULTURE The recent announcement of Ted Kennedy's likely terminal illness and assumed pending Senate resignation has led many to proclaim that it is not a good time to pile on criticism. But since his name is in the news I feel it is as good a time as any to discuss the influence he has had over American politics and society. Though this blog entry will be highly critical of the man, I honestly pray for comfort for him and his family as they deal with his illness. His almost certain upcoming death will cause his fans on the left to sanctify him, while those on the right will mostly maintain a begrudging and respectful silence. But I don't think what Kennedy represents should be glossed over for sentimental reasons. It is my belief that Kennedy is a representation of much that is wrong with American politics and society. A wrong that reveals to me my own embarrassment as a member of the voting American public. I just don't see any reason to stay silent over his personal and professional shortcomings just because of his unfortunate condition. And I really don't think this is part of today's highly fueled partisan political process. I actually believe that it is due to the information age that we now live in. In the future we will continue to see more and more boundaries crossed as information becomes more accessible to the public, and politicians have less and less control over what is written about them. Kennedy is an elite part of the ruling class who was handed the vacated senate seat of his brother John, and maintained it for almost 50 years through the use of his family's fortune and name, as well as through the use of an election process that has been manipulated and massaged over the years by our ruling class to promote voter apathy and almost guarantee the reelection of the incumbents. His hubris is so great that he has even mentioned his wife's name as the special appointee to finish his term when he dies. A Kennedy has been in that Senate seat since 1953, and Ted thinks that legacy should continue! His elitist hubris is legendary and typical of our ruling class. His now almost 50-year tenure in the Senate is not one of public service, but of ego and self-enrichment. He claims to be an advocate of the poor but he is more of a self-proclaimed ruler. H. L. Mencken had a quote for this type of politician. He said, "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it." From his above-the-law exploits at Chappaquiddick, to his 1980 failed run for the presidency against his own party's incumbent. He is the antithesis of his brother's famous line, "Ask not you're your country can do for you…" (My comment about his challenge to Jimmy Carter is not a contradiction to my anti-incumbent feelings. The position of president is term limited). His renowned liberal voting record would make a European socialist proud. From his stance on gun control, special right for homosexuals, multiculturalism, affirmative action, minimum wage, special rights for immigrants, support of Orwellian hate crime legislation, pro-abortion "rights" (even though he is Catholic), and opposition to domestic oil drilling in favor of alternative power sources such as wind power. (Unless of course you try to put wind turbines too close to his home on Cape Cod.) Meanwhile, his constituents continue to reelect him because our voting class has been seduced by today's media driven culture of celebrity over character, and style over substance. I am embarrassed to be a member of the voting class that continues to reelect these satraps. His renowned personal failings do not make his Catholic church very proud; alcoholism, womanizing, divorce and remarriage are a few of his more public excesses (Not that the rest of our august Senate body are saints.). But old Teddy serves to remind us of our own religious shortcomings. We use religion to lean on when we are in trouble, but we rarely even try to live up to its standards in our daily lives. He embarrasses us because he is a very public composite of us all. He is America's seven deadly sins: lust (womanizing), greed (excess), gluttony (overeating), sloth (incumbency), wrath (liberal intolerance), envy (run for presidency), and pride (incumbent hubris). Oh, and by the way.
Look for the Democrats to exploit this horrible illness at their Democrat
Convention in Denver. Much like they exploited the untimely death of Minnesota
Senator Paul Wellstone 2002 (Their uber-liberal selection, former vice-president
Walter Mondale, lost that race to Republican Norm Coleman). xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx IT ISN'T OBAMA WHO NEEDS TO WORRY ABOUT ASSASSINATION. HISTORY TELLS US IT IS THE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE.
I started thinking about political assassinations and it dawned on me that, contrary to popular opinion, political assassinations are usually left-wing gunmen targeting right-wing politicians. Now I know the first thing someone might counter with is, "What about the two Kennedys? Weren't they Democrats?" Yes, they were both Democrats. But that was back in the day when you could still be a conservative and belong to the Democrat Party, and both Kennedys were conservative, and both of their assassins were left-wingers. Liberals like to believe that they are the open-minded peace-lovers, and that conservatives are intolerant, violence-prone, extremists. So if you believe the liberal model, then most assassins should be right-wing extremists. But look at what we discover when we start reviewing the political leanings of some famous assassins. John Wilkes Booth- President Lincoln's assassin. Definitely a right-winger who harbored anti-Lincoln feelings over centralized federal power. Charles J Guiteau- President Garfield's assassin. Garfield was a Republican, and Guiteau was a lawyer and sometime member of the Oneida Community, a 19th century free-love commune. I would label him as left-leaning. John Shrank-Shrank made an attempt on Teddy Roosevelt who was campaigning for a third term as a member of the Bull Moose Party. I could not find much information on Shrank. He was a Bible-toting saloonkeeper who said he did it because he didn't like the idea of a guy running for a third term as president. Probably a right wing anti-government type. Leon Czolgosz- President McKinley's assassin. A follower of the turn of the century anarchist movement. A definite left-winger. Guiseppe Zangara - Zangara made an unsuccessful attempt on Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He stated that he sought the assassination of all capitalists, presidents, and kings. A definite left-winger. Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola - Two members of the socialist Puerto Rican Nationalist Party who made an attempt to assassinate President Truman. Collazo was pardoned by leftist President Jimmy Carter in 1979 and was later honored by communist Fidel Castro. Definite left-wingers. Lee Harvey Oswald- President Kennedy's assassin. The liberals want desperately to believe that Kennedy's death was an X-Files' type conspiracy of a rogue right wing secret government agency, but the truth is out there. Oswald was a lone left-wing gunman. He had spent time in Communist Russia and was disappointed with what he found. He later tried to go to Cuba to find true communism. Kennedy was a strong anti-communist and Oswald wanted him dead. The Nation of Islam Assassins- The Nation of Islam ordered the killing of Malcolm X over a power struggle, and sent three unknown assassins to do the job. You don't get much further left than the Nation of Islam. Sirhan Sirhan-Robert Kennedy's killer. This was a political killing for Robert's support of Israel. But Sirhan was also known to be a disaffected immigrant who felt that he was a victim of anti-Arab American bigotry, which robbed him of the chance at the American dream. He was also a fan of Egyptian leader Nasser who was known to some as the "Castro of the Middle East." James Earl Ray-Martin Luther King, Jr's assassin. Ray's crime appeared to be purely racially motivated. Racist feelings cross both political boundaries equally, but the mainstream media wants you to believe only right-wingers are racists. We will call him right-leaning. Samuel Byck- Byck made an unsuccessful attempt at assassinating President Nixon. His plan was to hijack a plan and crash it into the White House. He was killed in a police shootout aboard the plane. Byck was a left-winger who was concerned with the plight of the poor and even tried to join the Black Panthers Sarah Jane Moore- Moore attempted to assassinate President Ford- Moore had stated that Nixon's selection of Ford as his vice-president was part of the government's war on the left. Definite leftist. Squeaky Fromme- Fromme also made an attempt on President Ford. She was a member of the Manson Family and an environmentalist. Strong leftist leanings. Mark David Chapman- Killer of leftist John Lennon. Chapman was a complex character. He was reportedly angered over Lennon's old claim that the Beetles were more popular than Jesus (right wing), but also stated that he thought Lennon was a phony (He was a fan of Catcher in the Rye) because of his duplicitous lifestyle of preaching no worldly possessions while at the same time possessing tremendous wealth (left wing). John Hinckley, Jr - Hinckley attempted to assassinate the right wing President Reagan. He was an unemployed musician and drifter. His political leanings are hard to figure out. Mehmet Ali Agca- Agca
shot Pope John Paul II. He was quoted as saying, "To me [the Pope]
was the incarnation of all that is capitalism." Definite leftist.
Francisco Martin Duran- In 1994 Duran made a bungled effort on President Clinton's life by firing rifle rounds at the White House from the street. He was a delusional right-wing gun nut who was angered over the assault weapons ban. John Allen Muhammad- Muhammad was the mastermind behind the DC beltway sniper attacks in 2002. Muhammad was a black separatist and former member of the left wing Nation of Islam. Let's review Booth-right
wing
Or, 68% leftist, 21% rightist, and 10% unknown. So just who is more prone to the violence of an assassination, a right-winger or a left-winger? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx JOHN EDWARDS TO SUE THE UNITED STATES
Edwards, a former trial lawyer, will represent himself in Edwards vs. the People of the United States in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit. Edwards stated, "The primaries were obviously a case for reverse discrimination. We (Edwards, Clinton and Obama) were all basically the same. One-term senators with similar, very liberal ideas. The only reason I lost was that I was the token white male in that race." Edwards continued, "I contend that I was the more qualified candidate of the three because I was once a candidate for vice-president. So why was I the first to have to drop out? Is it because I am a white male? That is a slap in the face of my daddy, who was a millworker. Did I ever tell you that my daddy was a millworker?" When asked what he thought his chances were, Edwards noted, "I've sued the American Red Cross before and won and I will also go all out with this one. I have exploited the tragic death of my own son to win lawsuits for other people before and now I even have my wife's breast cancer to exploit in front of a jury." When the reporters showed more signs of skepticism, Edwards persisted, "What do you expect me to do? I could run again, but not as a white southern male. I could ask the best doctors to change me from a white male to an Asian, but Asians are not a historically protected group like women and blacks. I have even considered publicly announcing my homosexuality. They're a protected group. I have pondered over this for a couple of months and a lawsuit seems to be the best way to go." When asked what he would do with all that money, Edwards stated, "I will certainly no longer ever have to be embarrassed by settling for a $400 haircut again. And I definitely won't have to ever stand ashamed in front of the cameras and claim that a third place presidential primary finish in a three-person race in my own birth state is a victory." In closing, Edwards
said, "There are two Americas. This lawsuit will create one America.
One America that works for me." xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Jr., the former pastor of Barack Obama's home church, the Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, has been keeping a low profile since the political flap over his "hate America first," and "blame Whitey" sermons. The church reports that he resigned as head pastor and then left on a sabbatical to Africa. But Something Ain't Right has learned something different. We found the pastor in Birmingham, Alabama. He has been sent by his church on a missionary trip to the Confederacy in order to mend the racial divide. Pastor Wright is working hard to mend the racial divide and establish the Dixie United Church of Christ in Birmingham, Alabama. A White church based upon the same values of the Trinity United Christian Church (taken from Trinity's website):
When asked how he will translate his Chicago church's mantra of "Blame Whitey First" to a bunch of White Southerners (or in Barack's words, "typical white people"), Wright Said, "That will be easy, we will just substitute Jews, Browns and Asians as the focus of hatred and blame shifting in our new church."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I don't
often post other people's material (it makes mine look bad), but this
one was so good I couldn't resist. A black sports columnist takes on the
black KKK.
There's a reason I call them the Black KKK. The pain, the fear and the destruction are all the same. Someone who loved Sean Taylor is crying right now. The life they knew has been destroyed, an 18-month-old baby lost her father, and, if you're a black man living in America, you've been reminded once again that your life is in constant jeopardy of violent death. The Black KKK claimed another victim, a high-profile professional football player with a checkered past this time. No, we don't know for certain the circumstances surrounding Taylor's death. I could very well be proven wrong for engaging in this sort of aggressive speculation. But it's no different than if you saw a fat man fall to the ground clutching his chest. You'd assume a heart attack, and you'd know, no matter the cause, the man needed to lose weight. Well, when shots are fired and a black man hits the pavement, there's every statistical reason to believe another black man pulled the trigger. That's not some negative, unfair stereotype. It's a reality we've been living with, tolerating and rationalizing for far too long. When the traditional, white KKK lynched, terrorized and intimidated black folks at a slower rate than its modern-day dark-skinned replacement, at least we had the good sense to be outraged and in no mood to contemplate rationalizations or be fooled by distractions. Our new millennium strategy is to pray the Black KKK goes away or ignores us. How's that working? About as well as the attempt to shift attention away from this uniquely African-American crisis by focusing on an "injustice" the white media allegedly perpetrated against Sean Taylor. Within hours of his death, there was a story circulating that members of the black press were complaining that news outlets were disrespecting Taylor's victimhood by reporting on his troubled past No disrespect to Taylor, but he controlled the way he would be remembered by the way he lived. His immature, undisciplined behavior with his employer, his run-ins with law enforcement, which included allegedly threatening a man with a loaded gun, and the fact a vehicle he owned was once sprayed with bullets are all pertinent details when you've been murdered. Marcellus Wiley, a former NFL player, made the radio circuit Wednesday, singing the tune that athletes are targets. That was his explanation for the murders of Taylor and Broncos cornerback Darrent Williams and the armed robberies of NBA players Antoine Walker and Eddy Curry. Really? Let's cut through the bull (manure) and deal with reality. Black men are targets of black men. Period. Go check the coroner's office and talk with a police detective. These bullets aren't checking W-2s. Rather than whine about white folks' insensitivity or reserve a special place of sorrow for rich athletes, we'd be better served mustering the kind of outrage and courage it took in the 1950s and 1960s to stop the white KKK from hanging black men from trees. But we don't want to deal with ourselves. We take great joy in prescribing medicine to cure the hate in other people's hearts. Meanwhile, our self-hatred, on full display for the world to see, remains untreated, undiagnosed and unrepentant. Our self-hatred has been set to music and reinforced by a pervasive culture that promotes a crab-in-barrel mentality. You're damn straight I blame hip hop for playing a role in the genocide of American black men. When your leading causes of death and dysfunction are murder, ignorance and incarceration, there's no reason to give a free pass to a culture that celebrates murder, ignorance and incarceration. Of course there are
other catalysts, but until we recapture the minds of black youth, convince
them that it's not OK to "super man dat ho" and end any and
every dispute by "cocking on your bitch," nothing will change.
HBO did a fascinating documentary on Little Rock Central High School, the Arkansas school that required the National Guard so that nine black kids could attend in the 1950s. Fifty years later, the school is one of the nation's best in terms of funding and educational opportunities. It's 60 percent black and located in a poor black community. Watch the documentary and ask yourself why nine poor kids in the '50s risked their lives to get a good education and a thousand poor black kids today ignore the opportunity that is served to them on a platter. Blame drugs, blame
Ronald Reagan, blame George Bush, blame it on the rain or whatever. There's
only one group of people who can change the rotten, anti-education, pro-violence
culture our kids have adopted. We have to do it. The "keepin' it real" mantra of hip hop is in direct defiance to evolution. There's always someone ready to tell you you're selling out if you move away from the immature and dangerous activities you used to do, you're selling out if you speak proper English, embrace education, dress like a grown man, do anything mainstream. The Black KKK is enforcing the same crippling standards as its parent organization. It wants to keep black men in their place - uneducated, outside the mainstream and six feet deep. In all likelihood, the Black Klan and its mentality buried Sean Taylor, and any black man or boy reading this could be next. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I'm a little tired of hearing lectures from Hollywood and media elitist liberals about the evils of racial profiling (A highly effective counter terrorism and anti-crime tool.). They themselves have been profiling for years by cleansing their own ethnic-sounding names. It appears, with some exceptions, that you cannot be successful in Hollywood, other celebrities industries, or in the mainstream media if you have a Jewish, Polish, Italian, Greek, Hispanic, or Asian sounding name. Here is a partial list of some well-known celebrities and their birth names. I don't know the political leanings of each of them; this is just to show what a racist and close-minded industry forces them to do. Alan Alda - Alphonse d'Abruzzo Jason Alexander - Jay Scott Greenspan Woody Allen - Stewart Konigsberg Jennifer Aniston - Jennifer Linn Anastassakis Jackie Chan - Kong-Sang Chan Kirk Douglas - Issur Danielovitch Demsky Bob Dylan - Robert Zimmerman Erik Estrada - Henry Enrique Estrada George Gershwin - Jacob Gershowitz Kathy Lee Gifford - Kathryn Epstein Elliott Gould - Elliot Goldstein Mary Hart - Mary Johanna Harum Rita Hayworth - Margarita Cansino Larry King - Larry Zeigler Michael Landon - Eugene Orowitz Jerry Lewis - Joseph Levitch Sophia Loren - Sophia Scicoloni Penny Marshall -Carole Penny Maschiarelli Dean Martin - Dino Crocetti Ricky Martin - Enrique Jose Martin Morales George Michael - Georgios Kyriacos Panayiotou Juice Newton - Judy Cohen Natalie Portman - Natalie Hershlag Winona Ryder - Winona Laura Horowitz Charlie Sheen - Carlos Irwin Estevez Martin Sheen - Ramon Estevez Gene Simmons - Chaim Witz Jon Stewart - Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz Raquel Welch - Jo Raquel Tejada Gene Wilder - Jerome Silberman
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Al Gore shared a Nobel Peace Prize with the United Nations Climate Change Panel "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." Up until this year, the peace prize was given, "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Over the 100 or so years the award has been given, they had made some good choices, but over the last 40 years it has turned mostly into a political tool used to shape the worldview as the liberal Nobel Committee sees things. It has gone to such notable peace makers as Yasser Arafat, the mother of all terrorists (in order to embarrass Israel), and to Mikhail Gorbachev, following the collaps of the brutal dictatorship known as the Soviet Union (in order to downplay the role that Presidents Reagan and Bush had in that cause). The United Nations, an agency of the UN, or a person working for the UN have been awarded the Peace Prize 8 times in the last 50 years. This was done because the Nobel Committee believes in the noble intent of the UN, and doesn't let its mostly miserable record of maintaining peace sway their decision. Now, just for one moment, put your brain asleep about Gore's goofy claims regarding global warming, and try to figure out why he was selected for this prestigious award. Gore's efforts are not leading to the world wide promotion of peace, but rather an attempt to limit human activity (carbon production). That is, limiting the activity of common folk such as you and me (Those who are not in the same tax bracket as he is and can afford to purchase "carbon credits."). The Nobel Committee of elitist European liberals is simply trying once again to make a political statement by poking the eye of the US and other "global warming deniers." But whatever you do, don't blame Al for the award. He didn't nominate himself. All he has done is fashioned himself into a modern day global warming Cassandra while leading a duplicitous rich and famous lifestyle of carbon spewing private jets and limousines while traveling around the world from his energy hogging mansion to various luxury hotel suites to spread his message, while simultaneously promoting his mostly debunked propaganda movie. And besides, he did not have too much competition this year. Although there were 181 nominees, there wasn't much to choose from. Before we close, let's review some of the more interesting 2007 nominees: Taliban- For their record on women's rights John Edwards- For his efforts to help the indigent by hiring poor people to be servants inside his mansion Atlantic City Mayor Bob Levy- For avoiding conflicts within his city by running away and hiding for two weeks. Iran and North Korea- For the peaceful use of nuclear technology The private security
company Blackwater USA- For their efforts at Iraqi crowd control xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx THE DUGGAR FAMILY ON THE "TODAY SHOW" The Duggar Family (of 19) from Arkansas was interviewed a few weeks ago on the "Today Show" and the family was given the typical liberal inquisition by their elitist host. The Duggar Family handled themselves nicely and politely despite being framed as a bunch of backward, Bible-thumping hicks. Though I expected that type of treatment by the mainstream media, the two main series of questioning they underwent really got me thinking about liberal stupidity and hypocrisy. The two issues that the host raised were, whether or not a family of that size was using up too many resources (food, housing, laundry, gas, etc), and whether or not each of the children was getting enough individual parenting time. Let's start with the issue of resources and liberal stupidity. The roots for that topic come from two misguided scientific theories; Global Warming and Malthusian population growth. Though most of you know about the asinine theory on Global Warming and how Al Gore and others probably think that the Duggar family is leaving too large of a carbon footprint, you might not know much about Malthus. Robert "Thomas" Malthus was a doomsday scientist of the mid-19th century who believed the world was condemned to mass starvation and famine because of limited resources and an exploding prosperity-driven population. History has since disproved this theory. Prosperity tends to lead to a dwindling population, and technology has made us better farmers, preservers of food, and more efficient transporters. There are now about 5 or 6 billion people on this planet who are generally well fed. There are large populations in Asia and Africa that are in endless cycles of famine, but that is due to corrupt governments, the mismanagement of the local resources, and the destruction of local food markets by guilty westerners who send too much food aid and drive local farmers out of business. Despite all the empirical evidence that disproves Malthusian thinking, this theory is always at the backs of the minds of our liberal environmentalists and manifests itself every generation with more goofy theories like global warming. The second issue revealed the liberal hypocrisy of selfish motives when it comes to raising families of no more than two self-esteem filled kids. Having one or two kids does not give parents more time to spend on their kids. It gives them more time to spend on themselves. They focus on their careers in order to make a lot of money so that they may guiltily spend it on their kids and make up for their absentee parenting. If you asked the kids of these small family units if they would rather have swimming pools, dance lessons and video games or see mom and dad more often, they would pick the latter. These moms and dads want the status of being parents without the hard, boring, and grinding work of raising kids. So they resort to parent substitutes such as daycare and Ritalin. These parents are the descendants of the 'me-generation;' a valueless, narcissistic generation that fears a suffocating large family. Despite the fact that these large families tend to be teeming with love, unselfishness and respect for one another. An interview such as this is not about questioning the motives of a large family like the Duggars. It is a method of self-questioning the self-interests of the liberal inquisitionist. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx THE "I SUPPORT THE TROOPS" LIBERALS If you are a liberal who is against the war but "supports the troops," I wish you would learn to be intellectually honest with yourself. Do you really support the troops? If you really do, how are you showing your support? Can you answer, "yes" to any of these questions? 1. Have you ever sent a soldier a care package? 2. Are you a pen pal to a lonely soldier? 3. Do you wish them well as they leaving on deployment? 4. Do you welcome them home at the airport? 5. Do you comfort their wives and families? 6. Do you thank the wounded when you see them? 7. Do you congratulate the neighborhood kid who just enlisted? 8. Do you give money to various charities that help the soldiers and their families? 9. Do you read their blogs or ask them personally to find out what is really going on in Iraq and Afghanistan? 10. Have you ever complained about the pay our enlisted soldiers receive? You know, just like you do with our teachers? 11. Can you name any heroes from the war? I know you heard about the gang at Abu Graib (Charles Graner, Lindy England, et al), and you could probably name Jessica Lynch who really wasn't a hero. And you could probably remember Pat Tillman's tragedy, but what about the heroes. Do you remember our two Congressional Medal of Honor winners? (SFC Paul Smith and CPL Jason Dunham). How about SGT Leigh Ann Hester, the Kentucky Reservist who was the first female soldier to win the Silver Star since WW II?
Did you fail that test? Here is another chance to find out if you support the troops. Can you answer "no" to all of these questions?
1. Have you ever participated in a war protest march? I know, you claim that this is your free speech way of protesting the war. But how do you think the soldier feels when he sees pictures of these marches in the newspapers and on the internet? Does that help their morale? 2. Have you joined the "war in unwinnable" chorus? What affect do you think that has on the soldier fighting in the streets of Baghdad? 3. Have you ever protested a military recruiting station or college ROTC program? It is a volunteer military, afterall. Don't you believe in the freedom of choice? 4. Have you ever protested at a military funeral? Is that an indelible memory that a grieving father deserves? 5. Are you looking forward to the next combat death milestone (4,000)? I know that you think that this will help prove that your anti-war opinions are correct, but these are people, not statistics. 6. Do you complain about the quality of healthcare for our wounded soldiers just to try to embarrass the current republican administration? 7. Do you think that our citizens and immigrant residents who are enlisting are the dregs of our society who have on other career options? I know, they are so desperate that they believe that the GI Bill is worth the risk of being killed or maimed by an IED. 8. Do you think that the barbaric acts perpetrated by some of our enemies (beheadings, suicide bombings at the marketplace) are morally equivalent to some of our interrogation techniques, or the actions of some rogue soldiers at Abu Graib? 9. When you hear about one of our soldiers killing an Iraqi civilian, is your knee-jerk reaction one of belief that all our soldiers are cold-blooded killers? 10. Are you convinced that the opinions of a few malcontented soldiers that are paraded by left-wing groups are representative of most soldiers? 11. Do you think that supporting the troops does not mean supporting victory, but instead turning the troops into a group of victims from George Bush's war? You can conduct a political
protest in America but just be aware of your audience. The soldiers who
are losing morale and the enemy who is becoming emboldened by your "support
of the troops." xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx What are some of the
reasons that the American liberals are leading the world's battle against
global warming? 2. This issue is a never-ending source of political power-This problem will never be completely fixed so the liberals will get political mileage out of this issue until the end of the world arrives. Politicians (all types, not just liberals) don't look for the issues that will help people. They look for the issues that will give them political power. 3. They are communists-Big government is the gateway to income redistribution. The liberals feel that they must punish the achievers by leveling them down and propping up the failures and underachievers. Liberals use environmentalism to hide their communism. They are watermelons; green on the outside and red on the inside. 4. They believe in the doctrine of fairness (aka envy and covetousness)-It isn't fair that the US is such a big producer. The US should not be so prosperous while there is suffering in this world so we must level down their productivity. Somehow by holding them back, this is supposed to help the low achievers. This is part of their zero-sum economic model. They believe that there is only so much in this world and the US has too much of it. This is absurd. Wealth can be created. 5. It is very profitable
for scientists. The government loves to pay scientists for research that
proves that we are on an environmental precipice and the only solution
is bigger government. If a scientist is given a million dollars a year
to find global warming, he is going to find global warming. And speaking
of global destruction, remember the whole in the ozone, acid rain, and
the coming ice age. Whatever happened to all that? 7. Environmentalism is their religion-They have stopped worshipping God and started worshipping His creation. Since the liberal doesn't believe in Heaven, the only way they can satisfy that human need to live forever (which we all have) is to live vicariously through nature. If you save that tree it will still be here when I die. The greatest sin you can commit is pollution. If you pollute, you must pay off your sin by decreasing your standard of living and level of production. Think Unabomber. Our technological society is harming mother earth and must be stopped. 8. Liberals don't trust the voters- Political decisions like this one foster an atmosphere of litigation. The liberals want lawyers and judges making follow-on decisions, not voters. 9. Marching against global warming in the US is chic and safe. Try having a street protest in China, another top polluter, and see what happens. They like to call themselves courageous for bringing up this issue, but the US is the safest place to protest anything. Go hold a street protest in Venezuela, Russia or Albania and see what happens. 10. Liberal celebrities live such a vacuous life that they have to attach on to such issues. This gives them a feeling of actually accomplishing something. Have you noticed that liberals are not very consistent about this issue? Half of the political and celebrity crowd that are on this save the planet bandwagon live in huge mansions, own private jets, travel in limousines and only go to the finest hotel suites. Their war on global warming is producing more global warming. These limousine liberals
create a bigger carbon footprint in one week than an average Joe creates
in one year, and then preach to Joe to make changes to his lifestyle.
Why the inconsistency? There are two reasons. They are elitists and don't
need to follow the same rules as the common man. Let them eat cake. And
deep down inside many of them really don't believe in this issue and understand
that it is merely an attempt to gain political power. Mandating cut backs is not going to work. We have never been a self-limiting type of culture. We tend to trust technology to make life better, not rationing. We already have a technological answer to our energy needs and that is nuclear power. But the environmentalist will flip when he hears that. Nuclear power is even more evil that oil. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx LIBERALS ARE BACKWARD THINKERS ON RACE Since it is Black History Month I guess a blog entry on race would be appropriate. I have always wondered why liberals are considered to be progressives when it comes to race and conservatives are considered backward thinkers. Consider this: Liberals support the separate but equal Black History Month. Liberals support institutional racism with Equal Opportunity programs and quotas. Liberals support segregation through all-black colleges, black television, black magazines, Congressional Black Caucus, etc. Liberals use the term African-Americans. Weren't blacks called Africans when they first got here? Then "Coloreds," "Niggers," "Negroes," etc. Let's stop with the name-calling. We are all Americans. Liberals love to relive our past shame of slavery. Are they fond of that era? Liberals use the terms Uncle Toms and house niggers to refer to conservative blacks. Liberals love to stereotype the southerners as racists when the south has been a mixed race community for a long time and the liberals live in gated white communities. Liberals support political gerrymandering based on race. This helps keep them folks in their own neighborhoods Liberals do not believe that the black man can be self-reliant. Liberals support abortion, which is more common in the black community. Liberals are fond of racism. I honestly think that deep down inside they believe that minorities are inferior. But the biggest reason is that the liberals want racism and need racism to exist in this country and are the biggest perpetuators of racism in this country. If the flames of racism of not stoked in this country, the white liberals will lose their political power and the black liberals will lose their livelihood. Conservatives are the
group that is working to minimize racism in this country. First, because
it is wrong, and second, it is a way to eliminate some of the political
power of the liberals. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx THE NATIONAL DAY OF RACE RECONCILIATION AND RECOMPENSE Two weeks ago undercover New York City policemen shot and killed an unarmed black man who was out celebrating his bachelor's party. The five police officers (of mixed races) fired 50 bullets apparently after the suspected had used his car as a weapon against one of the officers, and the officers had been previously, but mistakenly, told about the presence of a gun in his car. The victim, Sean Bell, died after being struck 4 times. Two other men who were with him were also wounded. It is an unspeakable tragedy for the family and friends of Sean Bell and it is not my intent is not to make light of his situation. My goal is to address the ridiculously predictable public reactions to such tragedies. The Reverend Al Sharpton (America's premiere race hustler) arrived on the scene faster than the ambulances and started his demagogic ranting about racism for the cameras. New York city's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, led the guilt-ridden in the condemnation of the police officers just as the formal investigation was just getting under way (Personally, I find it difficult to question the split-second life and death decisions that police officers and soldiers have to make, but I'm not running for public office.). This is the unfortunate, but all too common reaction whenever there is a tragic incident involving a black victim and white perps (Black perps never shoot white victims). The perps are condemned as guilty racists without the benefit of a trial, and before the investigation discovers the facts of the events. These conclusions are drawn because we have been conditioned to belief that all white people are racists and all blacks are victims. Meanwhile, the victims and their families are left to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives after the self-proclaimed liberal black leaders have left town. They only stay around long enough to build up enough name recognition to support another year's worth of income from speaking engagements. If this is going to happen every time we have such an incident, why don't we do something to speed up the process? Let's skip the theatrical indignities of the self-promoting race hustlers, and the vexation the white people face over their collective guilt about slavery. This is how it will work. Every time a white person has a racist thought in their mind, they can pay their penitence in the form of a cash donation made directly into the bank accounts of the Reverend Sharpton and the Reverend Jesse Jackson. The white people will be forgiven of their race sins and our two national race merchants will no longer have to perform in front of the camera in order to make a living. Then each year on the 28th of November (the anniversary of the Tawana Brawley incident) we can wipe the slate clean and enjoy one day of innocense. This date will be known as the National Day of Race Reconciliation and Recompense. It can be symbolized on your calendar with a little megaphone. You might now be saying, "I am not a racist!" But you are. Here are a few indicators of racism: - Do you ever question
affirmative action? How much will you have to pay? I haven't figured that one out yet, but it will probably be less than a dollar per incident. Even with that small amount, our Reverends of the Most Holy Church of Profiteering will become fabulously wealthy due to the amount of racism in this country. Though I can't tell you how much you will pay, I do know that we will have different rates for different people. Think of it as affirmative action for bigots. Here are the categories. The ones at the top will pay more. - Jews What will the reverends do with the money? I don't know. Even though both of these race merchants claim to be reverends, they don't seem to have a church, or make efforts to help the poor, the widowed, the sick, and the imprisoned. Their titles just seem to serve the purpose of giving them some sort of moral authority. Perhaps they can open a fly-by-night divinity college to credential more charlatan leaders who also need a title to in order to compensate for their personal failures. Or perhaps they will use the money to demonstrate and call out for justice against the overwhelming amount of black on black crime in this country. But I doubt it. They don't make a living solving problems in the black community, only perpetuating them. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Actor Michael J Fox, a victim of Parkinson's disease, made a series of political commercials supporting a series of Democrats for national office. He shook uncontrollably in front of the camera from the ravages of his disease as he delivered this message. If you vote Republican, you end stem cell research and the hope for a cure for his disease. If you vote Democrat, you give him and other victims hope. This is the second disease or malady that the Democrats have handpicked to politicize. The first was the AIDS virus (more on that later). In the good old days disease was a bipartisan issue. Maladies such as polio, cancer, or muscular dystrophy were tackled with varying degrees of success with the combined efforts of both Democrats and Republicans. In the mid 1980s this all changed when the democrats started politicizing AIDS. It continues today with their politicization of Parkinson's disease and other neurological disorders such as dementia, Alzheimer's and paralysis (Remember when Democrat vice-presidential candidate Senator John Edwards said that stem cell research would help paralysis victim Christopher Reeves walk again? PRAISE THE LORD!) Why did the Democratic Party known for its limitless compassion for society's victims start handpicking specific ailments? And if they are interested in helping cure diseases, why don't they choose more common killers such as cancer or cardiovascular disease? The reason is that they are not interested in the ailments or cures. They merely use these dreadful situations as a means to promote veiled agendas. The veiled agenda behind the Parkinson's commercial was abortion rights. The agenda behind their support of AIDS victims was homosexual political support (money and votes). So why would they use disease as a way to promote certain rights? Diseases produce victims and victims ensure solid propaganda campaigns. How could you dare vote against the message the Michael J Fox is bringing forth? He is handsome, charismatic, apparently likeable, a talented actor, and suffering through a terrible disease. Doesn't he deserve hope? The liberals are using Mr. Fox as a human shield to deflect criticism over their abortion agenda. The amendment Mr. Fox lends his support to in Missouri for instance, is merely an attempt to protect abortion rights. The proponents of abortion are giving victims such as Mr. Fox false hopes for cures through stem cell research. The stubborn fact is that currently there is no scientific evidence pointing to a cure for neurological ailments through the use of stem cells that are harvested from aborted babies. If this is true, why do some people want to continue the research? Simply as a backdoor attempt to ensure that abortion is protected. How are you going to harvest these stem cells and give hope if abortion is outlawed? The abortion debate
in this country is slowly swinging to the pro-life side and the liberals
know this. Even liberals such as the Clintons are placing themselves in
the political middle of the debate by stating that abortions should be
"safe, legal and rare." (Rare? What other Constitutional right
do you have that should be rare? And what about the truly helpless victims
of abortion, the babies? -But those are different arguments.) So if you
are losing the public argument because your argument does not stand up
to intellectual rigor, you must shut down the opposition. What better
way than to bring out victims? How dare you doubt the authenticity of
Mr. Fox' suffering. Historically, one method to deal with killer diseases was through quarantine. Plague, smallpox, and typhoid were all dealt with varying degrees of success by quarantining the victims so that they would not infect others. Well homosexuals were in the middle of a rights struggle and they viewed quarantine as an attempt to promote further discrimination against them. How many ten of thousands of our young men were given a death sentence in this country because it was politically incorrect to quarantine those who already had the virus? How long did our emergency blood supply lay unscreened while this politically sensitive issue was being wrestled with? Democrats who were anxious for the political support of the gay community made homosexuals a special protected class, and this sentenced many of them to death and imperiled all of us. This dangerous support of the fight against AIDS in exchange for homosexual votes and money even continues today. How much of our limited disease research monies are being spent on AIDS? This is money that could also be spent on the big killers in this country such as cardiovascular disease and cancer. AIDS was not and never has been one of the biggest killers in the country. It is primarily a homosexual disease that was a result of homosexual life choices and activities. Beware of liberals who claim to be protecting victims of diseases. They are without conscience of the depths that they will sink to victimizing the victims and pushing forth their political agendas. They give false hope to victims of neurological ailments just so they can protect abortion, and they help spread terminal viruses in exchange for votes and political contributions. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx THE LANGUAGE OF THE ABORTION DEBATE. There is demagoguery on both sides of the issue but the abortion supporters certainly win the battle of euphemisms. The conservatives use the term "pro-life." Are you pro-life? Well who isn't? They should really come up with a better term to describe themselves. The liberals use the terms "pro-choice," "reproductive rights," and "reproductive health." They know that you cannot use the term "pro-abortion" and expect to gain political support. And you certainly can't call it was it is, pro-death. So the liberals started using the innocuous term "pro-choice." The really twisted part about using the term pro-choice is that they are not interested in choices. Have you ever seen a pro-choicer encouraging or supporting women who make the choice to carry their baby to term? If you are only insisting on one choice, then by definition you are not pro-choice. Lately the term pro-choice has been losing political traction so they are switching to the terms "reproductive rights" and "reproductive health." I won't even go into the stupidity of those terms. As long as we are on the topic of choice, what choice does the male partner have when the woman decides to have an abortion? Oh yeah, remember him? He doesn't get any choice. A mother who doesn't want to support a baby is free to choose an abortion, regardless of what the father wants. A father who doesn't want to support a baby has no choice. If he doesn't, he is jailed as a deadbeat dad. Is that a double standard? The pro-abortionists will never use the term "baby." They call it a "fetus." A baby is a human that grows inside his mother. A fetus is a mass of tissue that temporarily occupies space inside a women's womb. It is easier to kill a fetus than a baby. There is more to the language of abortion but I think you see my point. You have been hearing most of these terms and arguments for most of your life and have probably just accepted them without any critical consideration. Listen carefully to how each side frames their discussions. ABORTIONS FOR MINORS. Giving minors abortion rights (that is, without parental consent) is not protecting them. It is helping to exploit them. When discussing these rights, the pro-abortion side typically uses a romantic example about a desperate pregnant teenager. 15-year-old Mary gets pregnant with her 16-year-old boyfriend Billy. They can't tell their parents because their parents are intolerant, religious right-wingers who will stop Mary from aborting her baby. Mary will be shamed into carrying the baby to term and everybody in the little town will know that she is a little slut. She will have to raise the baby or give it up for adoption. To avoid this shame Mary is forced to either have an illegal abortion, or try to cover up the pregnancy and deliver the baby in a dumpster. Each of these choices, I might add, provides the baby with the same net result from his perspective. But what is more often the truth in teenage pregnancies is that the boyfriend is an adult male guilty of statutory rape. The quick abortion with no loose ends that the pro-abortionists want for the minor female ends up protecting these predator males. The girl is whisked in and out of the clinic and the incident is forgotten. Meanwhile the predator male who raped her is free to move on to rape other minor females. So for the feminists, supporting abortion rights becomes more important than protecting our teenage girls from predatory males. ABORTIONS ABROAD. The liberals do not stop there with their support of abortion. They also want to make sure that poor women in other countries are given abortion rights and money for abortion clinics from the UN (That is your tax money.). The fact that many of these countries use abortion solely to kill female babies doesn't worry them. Mainline feminist organizations like the National Organization for Women are silent on female feticide issues. To condemn it would be admitting that the fetuses are actually babies. ABORTION AND THE FEMINISTS. Why are feminists so ravenously pro-abortion? For many of them, pregnancy is the last hurdle they must overcome in order to make themselves feel equal to men. They can get the government to re-wire society with goofy laws and court decisions to give them an artificial feeling of equality, but they can't force nature to re-wire and change who gets pregnant. They need abortion to equalize the mean, cruel trick nature played on them. Other feminists are pro-abortion because they don't want children to interrupt their current lifestyle or to permanently change their bodies. And the most ghastly reason for other feminists to support abortion is the fact that abortion is big business. There is a great deal of money to be made in the abortion trade, especially with the abortion factories (abortuaries) run by the non-profit group Planned Parenthood. You hear liberals complain about the unfairness and greed of huge corporations such as Microsoft, Wal-Mart, and "big tobacco." But you never hear them mention the "big abortion" business. ABORTION AS A POLITICAL ISSUE. I am convinced that some abortionists can only see the world in terms of who approves of abortion and who doesn't. President Bush, who has apparently treated women with dignity and respect throughout his entire life and has helped free millions of women in two countries (Iraq, Afghanistan), is evil simply because he is against abortion. Former President Clinton, who sexually harassed a subordinate, has admitted to at least two cases of adultery against his wife, and has been accused of rape, is adored by feminists because he supports abortion. It is interesting to note what abortion has done to the Democratic Party. As recently as 1972, democratic presidential candidates were anti-abortion. The Democratic candidate in 1972 was George McGovern. McGovern was so liberal that some of the major labor unions in this country did not even support him. But he was anti-abortion. His second running mate, Sargent Shriver, was also against abortion. In fact he was Catholic and a member of Opus Dei. Once the Supreme Court ruling Roe v Wade was handed down the Democrats started to change. President Carter started the wishy-washy stance of "I'm personally against it, but it is the law of the land" when he was running in 1976 and 1980. But by 1984, you had to be extremely pro-abortion in order to run for national office as a democrat. Former anti-abortion democrats who switched to a pro-abortion stance include Gore, Gephardt, and Kennedy. THE ABORTION DEBATE. Why is abortion still such a divisive issue in this country 30 years after it was legalized? I can think of two reasons for this. First, the conservatives are angry because there was never a vote on the issue. It was a Supreme Court ruling. We need the legislature to vote on the legality of abortion in order to legitimize it one way or the other. Second, the liberals are always on edge over abortion because they know the decision was based on some very shaky legal ground that could easily be overturned the next time an abortion decision comes before the court. Roe v. Wade was decided stating the "right to privacy," a woman's right to choose. Well there is no right to privacy mentioned in the Constitution. So any attempt to even limit abortions gets the democrats in an uproar because they know it won't take much of a legal breeze to knock over their legalized abortion house of card. And speaking of constitutional rights, some of the liberal politicians are trying to moderate their pro-abortion stance by saying that abortion should be legal and rare. Rare? What other constitutional rights do you think should be rare? Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, voting? BIRTH CONTROL. If you explain to the liberals that there are just too many birth control options today to justify abortions they always bring up the issue of a pregnancy caused through rape by a stranger. These case |
