OUCH!
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Trivial Pursuits
I had an epiphany. I never realized how much liberals trivialize human life until I listened to Barry Obama’s response to a question posed to him last Saturday by Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church. Pastor Warren asked Obama when he thought a baby has “human rights”. Barry was about as graceful as a one-legged tap dancer when he said that giving a specific answer was “above his pay grade”.
This answer is at the same time empty as well as insightful. It is empty in the fact that it displays a deep lack of compassion for the unborn. The left affords more sympathy to lab rats than it does to unborn children. They lessen the human element by turning it into a “woman’s choice” to do with her body what she wants. This puts the slaughter of an unborn child on the same level as getting breast enlargements or a facelift.
It is insightful because it reveals the true character of Barry the politician. Popular sentiment often dictates political positions. Candidates like to position themselves on the popular side of arguments. And so it goes with Barry. For example, the popular sentiment on the war in Iraq is that it was a mistake. Hence, Barry wants us out of Iraq.
Abortion is different. There is a great divide between those that oppose it and those that support it. Barry the politician realizes this and tries to steer clear of firmly planting his flag on one side or the other. However, he is being disingenuous. He has a clear position, but he doesn’t want the masses to know it.
In 2001 the Illinois state legislature introduced the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The bill was inspired by Jill Stanek, a Chicago nurse who personally witnessed babies that survived late term abortions being left to die alone in soiled linen closets. Barack Hussein Obama was the only legislator to speak against the bill. He argued that the bill was flawed because it could interfere with a woman’s right to choose. This argument was rendered moot when the federal government passed a nearly identical bill a few months later. However, this did not deter Barry. The bill was killed in 2003 by a committee that he chaired.
When Barry was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his opponent brought up his vote on this bill. Barry responded by saying that he would have voted for the federal bill because it contained an additional meaningless clause that stated the law would have no effect on abortion policy. Now he wants us to swallow this BS again. Not me. I’m going to do what I can to make sure he doesn’t go up a pay grade.
This answer is at the same time empty as well as insightful. It is empty in the fact that it displays a deep lack of compassion for the unborn. The left affords more sympathy to lab rats than it does to unborn children. They lessen the human element by turning it into a “woman’s choice” to do with her body what she wants. This puts the slaughter of an unborn child on the same level as getting breast enlargements or a facelift.
It is insightful because it reveals the true character of Barry the politician. Popular sentiment often dictates political positions. Candidates like to position themselves on the popular side of arguments. And so it goes with Barry. For example, the popular sentiment on the war in Iraq is that it was a mistake. Hence, Barry wants us out of Iraq.
Abortion is different. There is a great divide between those that oppose it and those that support it. Barry the politician realizes this and tries to steer clear of firmly planting his flag on one side or the other. However, he is being disingenuous. He has a clear position, but he doesn’t want the masses to know it.
In 2001 the Illinois state legislature introduced the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The bill was inspired by Jill Stanek, a Chicago nurse who personally witnessed babies that survived late term abortions being left to die alone in soiled linen closets. Barack Hussein Obama was the only legislator to speak against the bill. He argued that the bill was flawed because it could interfere with a woman’s right to choose. This argument was rendered moot when the federal government passed a nearly identical bill a few months later. However, this did not deter Barry. The bill was killed in 2003 by a committee that he chaired.
When Barry was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his opponent brought up his vote on this bill. Barry responded by saying that he would have voted for the federal bill because it contained an additional meaningless clause that stated the law would have no effect on abortion policy. Now he wants us to swallow this BS again. Not me. I’m going to do what I can to make sure he doesn’t go up a pay grade.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Birthday
Today is my birthday. I got my skates sharpened and bought a new pair of underwear. Yee-frickin-haa!
Monday, August 11, 2008
The Decline of Western Civilization
I took my kids shopping yesterday at a major retail chain. As is the norm, I gave them 5 minutes to explore the toy section. While waiting for my young ones to complete their perusal I noticed that there was an inflatable pool on clearance. I decided to take a closer look. On the cover of the box is your traditional American family: mom, dad and 2 kids frolicking in the pool. Upon closer inspection I noticed that the father had what appears to be a tattoo on his upper arm. I think to myself that this is not possible. It must be a blemish on the box. I checked another box. Sure enough, it’s there in the same spot. WTF!
This raises several questions which I just don’t have the time to get into. My primary issue is this whole mainstreaming of body art, whether it is in the form of tattoos or piercings. You can’t walk down Main Street or turn on the television without seeing someone who is conspicuously displaying a tattoo. And there is no divide between genders. An equal number of females and males seem to have tattoos.
Without delving into the history of tattoos too deeply they were used in ancient times to signify many things: membership in a particular tribe, to indicate a particular skill, to ward off evil spirits, etc. While there are those today that get tattoos to display allegiance to a group (i.e. any of the various military branches, motorcycle gangs, inner-city gangs, etc.) it has primarily become a fashion statement.
It’s not just Mongo from the Warlocks getting “Berzerker” tattooed across his forehead these days. You’ve got Suzy Homemaker getting a tribal tattoo just above the crack of her ass to show off to all the other soccer moms on Saturday.
Men and women, outside of the groups that I mentioned previously, who get tattoos “just because” lack self-confidence. They need something that draws attention to them. Something that will make them seem interesting. But what happens when the interest wanes? Will they get another one? Will they try to cover up the first mistake?
Don’t just think twice before getting a tattoo. Think several times. Because having someone inject ink just below the surface of your skin because it's "hip" doesn’t build character. It reveals a lack of it.
This raises several questions which I just don’t have the time to get into. My primary issue is this whole mainstreaming of body art, whether it is in the form of tattoos or piercings. You can’t walk down Main Street or turn on the television without seeing someone who is conspicuously displaying a tattoo. And there is no divide between genders. An equal number of females and males seem to have tattoos.
Without delving into the history of tattoos too deeply they were used in ancient times to signify many things: membership in a particular tribe, to indicate a particular skill, to ward off evil spirits, etc. While there are those today that get tattoos to display allegiance to a group (i.e. any of the various military branches, motorcycle gangs, inner-city gangs, etc.) it has primarily become a fashion statement.
It’s not just Mongo from the Warlocks getting “Berzerker” tattooed across his forehead these days. You’ve got Suzy Homemaker getting a tribal tattoo just above the crack of her ass to show off to all the other soccer moms on Saturday.
Men and women, outside of the groups that I mentioned previously, who get tattoos “just because” lack self-confidence. They need something that draws attention to them. Something that will make them seem interesting. But what happens when the interest wanes? Will they get another one? Will they try to cover up the first mistake?
Don’t just think twice before getting a tattoo. Think several times. Because having someone inject ink just below the surface of your skin because it's "hip" doesn’t build character. It reveals a lack of it.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
The Liberal Credo
"Do as I say, not as I do!"
Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi is on a crusade to save us. From what is she saving us? Apparently, from ourselves. For we are responsible for this impending doom known as global climate change. How is she going to save us? By going on a 5 week vacation.
San Fran Nan has shut off the lights in the House of Representatives and left the building. Except for some Republican stalwarts the shiftless lay-abouts of the 110th congress have fled to their various taxpayer subsidized retreats until after Labor Day.
Nancy pulled the plug early on this session of congress last week in order to block debate on offshore drilling. Last Sunday she appeared on “This Week with George Stephanopolous” and gave an empty and bumbling response to the question of why she would not allow a debate. Stephanopolous did a good job of keeping after her.
What’s the real reason she won’t allow a vote? She argues that offshore drilling will do serious harm to the environment. Is she right? Hardly. It’s all about image. She knows that she will lose. This is her attempt at saving face under the guise of saving the environment and it is all at our expense. Her answer is to have the President release 700 million barrels from the Strategic Oil Reserves. This is an old election year tactic that she knows hasn’t a snowballs chance in hell of happening. Why won’t it happen? Just before the 2000 election Republicans made the same demands from President Clinton that went absolutely nowhere.
She’ll continue to attempt to manipulate the voters by claiming she’s battling the threat of global climate change and that the Republicans are “hand maidens” of the oil industry.
There are real threats and there are imagined threats. Real threats are tangible and can be measured, such as radical Islamic terrorism. How can this be measured? Check out the gigantic hole in the middle of Manhattan.
What is an example if an imagined threat? Global climate change. This is an outright fantasy that exists in the minds of left-wing ideologues like Madame Speaker. And she whips it out and wields it like an axe to thwart any attempt at a reasonable debate on energy.
By the way, in case you’re wondering how Nan is spending her vacation, she’s going on a tour to promote her latest book, “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters”. Judging by the reviews at Amazon.com, Nan should have followed her own advice and saved some trees. But then again, that would be contrary to the old liberal credo of “Do as I say, not as I do”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
