Saturday, February 18, 2006

Clinton anti-freedom of Speech


In the Daily Times I recently read an article about former president Clinton speaking in Islamabad about the recent upheaval over the Danish cartoons. President Clinton condemned the publication of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) caricatures by European newspapers and urged countries concerned to convict the publishers. (Daily Times article) Obviously, freedom of speech is not as important as he might have previously claimed. I wonder, how would he have reacted if the cartoon had been of Jesus rather than Muhammad. I think we all know. I say, support the Danish.
In this world the liberals will protect your right to burn our flag. They will support your right to blasphemy God, sometimes calling it art and financing it. They will support your right to proliferate pornography. BUT, make a joke involving the 'peaceful' Muslims and you've crossed the line. IT seems in this day and age people get offended very easily and think that their right to not be offended supersedes the right to free speech. Sure, it might have been insensitive but, in all fairness, many of the cartoons were only satirizing many sad truths. Personally, the one of Muhammad with the bomb on his head, I found all too telling. All these suicide bombers doing it in the name of Muhammad, I mean come on people it's not like there wasn't a thread of truth in the satire. There have been cartoons making fun of Christians and, as a Christian, I can see the humor in some of them. Just because someone doesn't agree with your beliefs does not make them void of the freedom of speech. So, it's time for these 'peace loving' Muslims to settle down and GET OVER IT. Seems people get offended pretty easy these days and cry foul rather than realizing that in a society where the freedom of speech is valued, you may need to learn to deal with the occasional offense and learn not to take it personally or you will spend your life being incensed and offended. Sometimes we have to take responsibility for our own reactions instead of infringing on the rights of others. I have never seen the right to live without being offended in the Constitution.
Speaking of cartoons:
Mind you, some might find it offensive (has some language) but it really makes a point.

Friday, February 17, 2006

Hillary and the Military

An Email I Had to Share With You All
Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has already started her 2008 presidential campaign by aligning herself with the military and pretending to be tough on terror. Fortunately, the ultra-liberal Hillary has yet to brainwash all of the voting public in to believing that her symbolism is really substance. Many have never forgotten that when she was co-president for eight years she was quoted as saying: " I loathe the military"

The picture shows that this soldier has been thru Survival School and learned his lessons well. He's giving the sign of "coercion" with his left hand. These hand signs are taught in survival school to be used by POW's as a method of posing messages back to our intelligence services who may view the photo or video. This guy was obviously being coerced into shaking hands with Hillary Clinton. It's ironic how little she knew that he would so inform us about the photo---perhaps because she's never understood our military to begin with.

Cry Babies in the Corps - The PRESS corps that is

How many of you are sick of the whining of the DC press corps? You would think they were a branch of government that was let out of the loop. They are merely reporters and need to get over themselves, much like actors these days.
So, here is the whole story: The vice-president goes on a private hunting trip with no press or other official entourage except his physician's assistant, secret service, etc. He has a beer at lunch hours before he is hunting and accidentally sprays bird shot in the direction of a friend who did not announce himself. He then immediately turns his attention to the health of his friend getting him medical help, ambulance, etc. The woman with him was once a wildlife bigwig and is a local as well as an eyewitness. She is well credentialed to get the information out accurately. She makes sure, with the blessing of Mr. Cheney, that the local press gets the story which eventually makes it to the mainstream press. These press corps types think they are 'entitled' to the story first. They are nothing but 'the press' and have shown themselves to be biased against the current administration at every turn and, given this information before it was accurately reported in Corpus Christi, they would have put twists on it to make the administration look bad, THAT IS WHAT THEY DO. Then when Mr. Cheney goes to Fox News (referred to by a member of the leftist press as the 'F word network') because he feels comfortable with their handling of information, they are up in arms again that he didn't go to a less friendly less reliable source like CBS, ABC or NBC. You see, these sources obviously never studied journalism or the idea of 'unbiased' journalism might once in a while creep into their news shows. Would Clinton have gone to Fox? Why, when the others are his go to guys for twisting the news the way he wants it? ABC, NBC and CBS are the best friends the DNC has, free advertising and innuendo. Hey press corps, Mr Cheney is not stupid. He wanted the true facts to get out (just the facts man) not a bunch of rhetoric and inference. He answered all the questions with eloquence and Mr Hume asked all the questions needing to be asked. By the way, how's that story on Kennedy's handling of his little accident coming along? It took him how long to report it? It took him how long to check on the welfare of his mistress/staff member? How would you handle that? How would FOX handle that? Hmmmmm, unbiased journalism, what a novel idea. Now isn't there more important things to report on? Maybe Iran? OF course that would depend on your aim. Is your goal to report the news or twist the news to take down the current administration?
Personally, I think every newscast by the 'big three' should have a disclaimer, 'brought to you in cooperation with the DNC' in the corner of the screen, now THAT is truth in journalism.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

It's ACLU Thursday!!!!

The Anti-American Communistic Lawyers Union has some very confusing points of view that can mean only one thing. We are too stupid for our freedom.
Did you know that by making late term abortion illegal we 'force' women to endanger their lives with back-alley abortions? The fact that we deem birthing a baby until it's head almost leaves the birth canal and jamming a pair of scissors into the base of it's brain and scrambling and sucking it's brains out, murder makes us insensitive to the plight of a woman who waited until their 8th or ninth month to kill her baby. The ACLU wants to argue that our keeping her from killing this baby at this point is a violation of HER civil rights? Their favorite argument is that we are keeping a woman who could die from saving her own life, so I guess letting the baby come all of the way out of the birth canal without killing it would kill the mother?
Likewise, protecting our borders "causes' illegal immigrants to die in the desert. I'd say the stupidity of law breaking invaders causes them to perish in the desert. According to the ACLU we are 'forcing' these people to risk their lives and die. There is this system that allows you to 'legally' enter the US and if done this way you most likely will not die in the desert.
The fact that the entry of these criminals into our country illegally harms the civil rights of Americans is not of any consequence to the ACLU. They are the most un-American of groups and yet carry the name American in their monaker and receive our money to support their attempt to destroy our way of life, to take away our civil rights while defending the civil rights of deviants, criminals and the morally retarded at every turn. They attempt to take away the civil rights of every decent America loving, Christian in the US in order to defend the supposed civil rights of deviants.
They find the sight of a manger scene at Christmas morally reprehensible and yet defend those who would sodomize our sons. They think every child should have the right to view pornography in the public library but not the right to pray before their meal at school. Civil rights is not their concern, their concern is the complete eradication of our Christian history and all manner of decency.
I urge my readers to appeal to the Attorney General of the United States to call a Special Counsel to investigate possible criminal wrongdoing and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those responsible within the ACLU for any damage to top secret programs that have been enacted in furtherance of National Security and the war on terror; any funding directly or indirectly aiding a terrorist organization; giving representation, aid and comfort to admitted terrorists; invading the privacy of their own members; hindering the ability of the government to protect the citizens of the Untied States of America; and any attempt to destroy evidence of any of these acts.
John Stephenson has compiled an extensive list of reasons why they should be investigated at this link.

Friday, February 10, 2006

Black History Month?

Ok, I'm gonna say it. The most racist people in the US are Democrats, namely Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. If we are all equal and all Americans then why do these two boobs spend all of their time pointing out the differences? Why do they spend all of their time reminding Americans with black skin that in the past they weren't equal. Can you imagine White History Month being accepted? Why do we need Black History Month? Shouldn't it be American History Month and include great people of history regardless of their color? Democrats and, unfortunately, democrats of color will not allow for true equality because they insist on constantly separating the races. If what they wanted was true equality there would no longer be black history month nor would there be African-Americans or Mexican Americans, we'd just be Americans and isn't that true equality?

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

In the words of Theodore Roosevelt

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag....We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Enough Said?