As reported here, Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."
Can you say Socialism, anybody? Redistribution of your wealth is Clinton's number one goal in life. She wants to turn America into one huge "collective", where no one is "better off" than anyone else, which actually means that we'll all be worse off!
America stands for freedom of the individual, no matter how repugnant that may be to Clinton and those who think like her. I, for one, prefer the fact that if I take it upon myself, get off my lazy duff and work hard, I will be able to enjoy the rewards inherent in that hard work.
I just have to wonder, if she succeeds in her "Socialist Utopia", how much of her wealth will get redistributed my way?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Vandals burn flags at two cemeteries
This past weekend, our country observed Memorial Day, honoring those who had given the ultimate sacrifice to protect our nation and the freedoms we hold so dear. Well, most of us did, anyway. There were apparently some who thought that observing Memorial Day properly, by honoring America's fallen veterans by placing American flags on their grave stones and maybe taking a moment to silently reflect on their sacrifice was, well, not the thing to do. They decided that, instead, the thing to do was to steal the flags and burn them, and replace them with hand drawn Nazi swastika's.
In two separate incidents, one in Orcas Island, WA and one in Natick, MA, vandals stole commemorative American flags, burned them, and in the incident in Orcas Island, replaced American flags with the Nazi swastika's. In both cases, no known motive for these outrageous acts of vandalism exists, and some are speculating that it may have been teenagers out on a lark.
Well, let me tell whoever it was that perpetrated these acts something. I'm a veteran of the US Navy (and one of the folks who are getting a H/T for the above links is a veteran of the US Air Force), and these despicable acts of vandalism, which you probably got all giggly about when you were doing them, has me extremely angry.
Those veterans who were being honored by those little flags, sacrificed much more than their life so that you could live in a country that is the most free country on this planet. They sacrificed their time, in many cases a happy home life with their family, and ultimately their lives, so that the rest of us could go to school, get a job, buy a house, read whatever books and magazines we want, listen to whatever type of music we want, watch whatever TV show or movies we want, shop for and wear whatever clothes we want, go to Starbucks whenever the mood strikes us, engage in speech freely, worship as we please (or not, if that pleases us). The list goes on and on and on. And yet, you felt it was the right thing to do to, to "diss" those veterans, and burn those flags and replace them with swastika's.
If this was merely a prank, it was the wrong thing to do, and I hope someone rats you out. If this was some type of political statement to show your "displeasure" with our current President and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was still the wrong thing to do, and again, I hope that someone rats you out.
All of you who did these despicable acts of vandalism deserve to go to jail, and my sincere wish is that when you are caught, that the presiding judges will throw the book at you.
You clueless morons disgust me!
H/T hollie-is-right and agtiger
In two separate incidents, one in Orcas Island, WA and one in Natick, MA, vandals stole commemorative American flags, burned them, and in the incident in Orcas Island, replaced American flags with the Nazi swastika's. In both cases, no known motive for these outrageous acts of vandalism exists, and some are speculating that it may have been teenagers out on a lark.
Well, let me tell whoever it was that perpetrated these acts something. I'm a veteran of the US Navy (and one of the folks who are getting a H/T for the above links is a veteran of the US Air Force), and these despicable acts of vandalism, which you probably got all giggly about when you were doing them, has me extremely angry.
Those veterans who were being honored by those little flags, sacrificed much more than their life so that you could live in a country that is the most free country on this planet. They sacrificed their time, in many cases a happy home life with their family, and ultimately their lives, so that the rest of us could go to school, get a job, buy a house, read whatever books and magazines we want, listen to whatever type of music we want, watch whatever TV show or movies we want, shop for and wear whatever clothes we want, go to Starbucks whenever the mood strikes us, engage in speech freely, worship as we please (or not, if that pleases us). The list goes on and on and on. And yet, you felt it was the right thing to do to, to "diss" those veterans, and burn those flags and replace them with swastika's.
If this was merely a prank, it was the wrong thing to do, and I hope someone rats you out. If this was some type of political statement to show your "displeasure" with our current President and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was still the wrong thing to do, and again, I hope that someone rats you out.
All of you who did these despicable acts of vandalism deserve to go to jail, and my sincere wish is that when you are caught, that the presiding judges will throw the book at you.
You clueless morons disgust me!
H/T hollie-is-right and agtiger
Monday, May 28, 2007
Memorial Day
Today is the day where we observe Memorial Day, a day set aside to honor those who have fallen in the service of our nation, protecting and advancing those ideals of liberty and freedom we hold so dear. We need to keep in mind that of those who have served, all gave some, and some gave all, which is the ultimate purpose for this day.
Today, I would like to honor all those who have fallen, to say thank you for your sacrifice, by honoring one specific individual. I never had the opportunity to meet the young man who is the subject of this piece, yet I think he exemplifies the attitudes, and the willingness to sacrifice, of those who serve.
The young man I would like to honor today is a recipient of the US Navy Medal of Honor, for actions on the battlefield in Iraq, which was presented posthumously to his parents. The young mans' name is Cpl. Jason L. Dunham, of Scio, NY. Cpl. Dunham was born on November 10th, 1981, and succumbed to the wounds he received in battle on April 22nd, 2004. Cpl. Dunham served with K Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, based in Twentynine Palms, Calif.
The citation of the Medal of Honor, which was presented by President George W. Bush to his parents on January 11th, 2007 can be found here.
To Cpl. Jason L. Dunham I say a heartfelt thank you for your dedication to, and sacrifice for, your country, your Corps, and those you served with.
Semper Fi.
Today, I would like to honor all those who have fallen, to say thank you for your sacrifice, by honoring one specific individual. I never had the opportunity to meet the young man who is the subject of this piece, yet I think he exemplifies the attitudes, and the willingness to sacrifice, of those who serve.
The young man I would like to honor today is a recipient of the US Navy Medal of Honor, for actions on the battlefield in Iraq, which was presented posthumously to his parents. The young mans' name is Cpl. Jason L. Dunham, of Scio, NY. Cpl. Dunham was born on November 10th, 1981, and succumbed to the wounds he received in battle on April 22nd, 2004. Cpl. Dunham served with K Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, based in Twentynine Palms, Calif.
The citation of the Medal of Honor, which was presented by President George W. Bush to his parents on January 11th, 2007 can be found here.
To Cpl. Jason L. Dunham I say a heartfelt thank you for your dedication to, and sacrifice for, your country, your Corps, and those you served with.
Semper Fi.
Leaked phone-call case could cost McDermott $1 million
As reported here, Rep. Jim McDermott has had the luxury of winning big and cheaply in recent elections, facing only token opposition.
But that fortunate history could pose a problem for McDermott if the Seattle Democrat is forced to pay more than $1 million in legal fees and penalties to settle his long-running legal battle with House Minority Leader John Boehner.
Unlike colleagues who have been able to tap into campaign funds for legal costs, McDermott doesn't have enough cash in his coffers to cover his bills.
The prospect that McDermott soon will be liable for a huge payout became a real possibility earlier this month after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 5-4 against him. The defeat leaves him with one remaining legal recourse -- an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. McDermott and his lawyers have until July to decide, but legal observers say it's highly unlikely an appeal would be successful.
That would mean by midsummer, McDermott would have to ramp up a fundraising effort that has been gathering dust for nearly a decade. He must pay a court-ordered $60,000 fine and Boehner's legal fees, which attorneys estimate are $880,000 and counting. McDermott also would have to pay his own legal bills, which, after 10 years of fighting Boehner in federal court, are substantial.
Gee, that's just too bad, you know? To paraphrase an old rhyme, if you can't (or are unwilling) to pay the fine, don't do the crime.
How McDermott would settle the debt is unclear, and his aides say any talk about payment is premature.
"The most recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seriously undermines the First Amendment protections guaranteed by the Constitution, and we continue to review the significant constitutional issues involved," McDermott said in a statement last week after Boehner's lawyers recommended that settlement talks begin.
Just a reminder, Jim - the First Amendment protects people from limiting actions on speech undertaken by the government. What you did was to turn over an illegally obtained conversation to two newspapers, violating Rep. Boehner's right to privacy (a right actually not specified in the Bill of Rights, but mandated by Liberal judges on the Supreme Court, said right being something the Democrat's trumpet loudly and often, not realizing that it could one day come back to bite one of their own in the rear).
McDermott's office would not comment on whether campaign funds would be used.
But if money must be raised, McDermott could rely on a moderate national profile. He gained widespread attention for his appearance in "Fahrenheit 9/11" and as president of Americans for Democratic Action he has a potential national network of donors.
Jim McDermott has a "moderate national profile"? That's news to me, and to everyone in Washington State that has two brain cells to rub together! The fact that he appeared in Moore's propaganda flick demonstrates the fallacy of that statement. But if that isn't enough to convince you, let me just say that McDermott goes out of his way to try to out-Liberal Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, two of the most liberal Senators we have by anyone's standards.
Jim, do the right thing. Pay the fine and the legal costs.
But that fortunate history could pose a problem for McDermott if the Seattle Democrat is forced to pay more than $1 million in legal fees and penalties to settle his long-running legal battle with House Minority Leader John Boehner.
Unlike colleagues who have been able to tap into campaign funds for legal costs, McDermott doesn't have enough cash in his coffers to cover his bills.
The prospect that McDermott soon will be liable for a huge payout became a real possibility earlier this month after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 5-4 against him. The defeat leaves him with one remaining legal recourse -- an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. McDermott and his lawyers have until July to decide, but legal observers say it's highly unlikely an appeal would be successful.
That would mean by midsummer, McDermott would have to ramp up a fundraising effort that has been gathering dust for nearly a decade. He must pay a court-ordered $60,000 fine and Boehner's legal fees, which attorneys estimate are $880,000 and counting. McDermott also would have to pay his own legal bills, which, after 10 years of fighting Boehner in federal court, are substantial.
Gee, that's just too bad, you know? To paraphrase an old rhyme, if you can't (or are unwilling) to pay the fine, don't do the crime.
How McDermott would settle the debt is unclear, and his aides say any talk about payment is premature.
"The most recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seriously undermines the First Amendment protections guaranteed by the Constitution, and we continue to review the significant constitutional issues involved," McDermott said in a statement last week after Boehner's lawyers recommended that settlement talks begin.
Just a reminder, Jim - the First Amendment protects people from limiting actions on speech undertaken by the government. What you did was to turn over an illegally obtained conversation to two newspapers, violating Rep. Boehner's right to privacy (a right actually not specified in the Bill of Rights, but mandated by Liberal judges on the Supreme Court, said right being something the Democrat's trumpet loudly and often, not realizing that it could one day come back to bite one of their own in the rear).
McDermott's office would not comment on whether campaign funds would be used.
But if money must be raised, McDermott could rely on a moderate national profile. He gained widespread attention for his appearance in "Fahrenheit 9/11" and as president of Americans for Democratic Action he has a potential national network of donors.
Jim McDermott has a "moderate national profile"? That's news to me, and to everyone in Washington State that has two brain cells to rub together! The fact that he appeared in Moore's propaganda flick demonstrates the fallacy of that statement. But if that isn't enough to convince you, let me just say that McDermott goes out of his way to try to out-Liberal Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, two of the most liberal Senators we have by anyone's standards.
Jim, do the right thing. Pay the fine and the legal costs.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
I don't know ...
... whether to be amused by this, or annoyed.
I recently found out from a well placed, very anonymous, source that access to this blog is blocked by a local area hospital.
The reason? "Extreme". Yet, anyone can access this site.
Now, I considered writing a letter demanding an explanation, citing constitutionally protected political free speech, defamation, and some other choice things, with the hint of litigation if access to this blog wasn't allowed. But, two things stopped me from doing that.
One is that the identity of my anonymous source could possibly be revealed, resulting in some unpleasant moments, shall we say, for my source. I don't want that to happen.
The other is that, the hospital is a private entity, and therefore has control over what their employees can, and cannot, see or hear, so First Amendment protections do not apply.
In all actuality, the fact that they have blocked access to this blog - because of being "extreme" - I find rather interesting, as it means that "someone" has taken notice of what I write and feels threatened enough by what I write to try to prevent others from reading my posts.
I wonder, though, why they may feel that way? Oh, wait! They must be afraid that I might "convert" someone! That's gotta be it! ;)
I recently found out from a well placed, very anonymous, source that access to this blog is blocked by a local area hospital.
The reason? "Extreme". Yet, anyone can access this site.
Now, I considered writing a letter demanding an explanation, citing constitutionally protected political free speech, defamation, and some other choice things, with the hint of litigation if access to this blog wasn't allowed. But, two things stopped me from doing that.
One is that the identity of my anonymous source could possibly be revealed, resulting in some unpleasant moments, shall we say, for my source. I don't want that to happen.
The other is that, the hospital is a private entity, and therefore has control over what their employees can, and cannot, see or hear, so First Amendment protections do not apply.
In all actuality, the fact that they have blocked access to this blog - because of being "extreme" - I find rather interesting, as it means that "someone" has taken notice of what I write and feels threatened enough by what I write to try to prevent others from reading my posts.
I wonder, though, why they may feel that way? Oh, wait! They must be afraid that I might "convert" someone! That's gotta be it! ;)
A personal note
It's been a couple of weeks since I last posted, and so to the three or four regular readers that stop by now and then, I apologize for the lack of fresh stuff lately.
I've had a lot of things going on in my real life, that have precluded me from being able to post more regularly. Hopefully, things will calm down, so I can continue to awe you all with my incredible insight and my dazzling wit on a more regular basis. ;)
Okay, now that I've removed my tongue from being planted firmly in my cheek, let me just say thanks to those who actually do stop by to read what I write for your patience. I appreciate your patronage.
I've had a lot of things going on in my real life, that have precluded me from being able to post more regularly. Hopefully, things will calm down, so I can continue to awe you all with my incredible insight and my dazzling wit on a more regular basis. ;)
Okay, now that I've removed my tongue from being planted firmly in my cheek, let me just say thanks to those who actually do stop by to read what I write for your patience. I appreciate your patronage.
A new link
I've added a new link to our blogroll, done by a friend of mine, called The Marching Camp. Go on over and check it out. You'll be glad you did.
While there, check out this moving video by Darryl Worley (H/T Zero Ponsdorf over at Another Voice). I think this song fits well with Armed Forces Day.
While there, check out this moving video by Darryl Worley (H/T Zero Ponsdorf over at Another Voice). I think this song fits well with Armed Forces Day.
Today is Armed Forces Day
Today is Armed Forces Day, a day established to honor those who serve our nation in both peace and war. As a veteran of the US Navy, I want to say thank you so very much for your service to our nation. Freedom isn't free, and the sacrifices that you, and your families, make on our behalf are deeply appreciated by this writer.
So, again, to those men and women serving in the US Navy, US Army, US Marine Corps, US Air Force, and the US Coast Guard, thank you. Your service and sacrifice mean more to me than you will ever know.
So, again, to those men and women serving in the US Navy, US Army, US Marine Corps, US Air Force, and the US Coast Guard, thank you. Your service and sacrifice mean more to me than you will ever know.
Carter Condemns Blair's Support for Bush
As reported here, the man who led this nation into double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, is a friend to terrorists and political thugs, let Americans languish in Iranian hands for 444 days, and still thinks he's politically relevant states that, Britain's support for the war in Iraq was a "major tragedy" for the world, former President Jimmy Carter said Saturday as he criticized Tony Blair's unwavering support for President Bush.
Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, a Republican, the former Democratic president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient.", adding, "And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
No, Mr. Carter, the real major tragedy for the world was your embracing Yasser Arafat to the detriment of the Israeli's and American interests, and your abandonment of the Shah of Iran, allowing the thugs who currently rule Iran to not only over throw the Shah, but take American personnel prisoner, holding them for 444 days while you did nothing but wring your hands in defeat. Your so-called policies have directly led us to the place where we are regarding the Middle East, growing Islamofascism, and the continued problems faced by Israel posed by Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah, with the latter two (and probably all three) "organizations" receiving direct aid and support from Iran.
Tony Blair is more of a man of courage than you could ever hope to be, and for you to criticize him in such a shameful way takes a lot of gall.
Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, a Republican, the former Democratic president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient.", adding, "And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
No, Mr. Carter, the real major tragedy for the world was your embracing Yasser Arafat to the detriment of the Israeli's and American interests, and your abandonment of the Shah of Iran, allowing the thugs who currently rule Iran to not only over throw the Shah, but take American personnel prisoner, holding them for 444 days while you did nothing but wring your hands in defeat. Your so-called policies have directly led us to the place where we are regarding the Middle East, growing Islamofascism, and the continued problems faced by Israel posed by Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah, with the latter two (and probably all three) "organizations" receiving direct aid and support from Iran.
Tony Blair is more of a man of courage than you could ever hope to be, and for you to criticize him in such a shameful way takes a lot of gall.
The Immigration Bill: Comprehensive or Incomprehensible?
Congress is set to vote on the latest attempt to grant amnesty to the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants here in the US at comprehensive immigration reform.
Fred Thompson expresses his view on this latest attempt by Congress at this.
Fred Thompson expresses his view on this latest attempt by Congress at this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)