.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, March 26, 2007


180 Degrees Off

I pity the poor, poor liberals these days. (not really) They are in such disarray since their beloved Democrats seized power in Congress. They are learning that all is not as it seems in politics. Their brief honeymoon with their devoted followers was brief indeed. Now the lefties are heaping their venom towards their own kind. Of course, they still have plenty left for their right side of the aisle as well.

Not satisfied with the Dems push to condemn all things Iraq, their socialistic supporters feel (there's that word again, feelings are just SO important with lefties), that they are not going far enough in stopping the war and redistributing American incomes properly. Failing to win support for a non-binding resolution condemning the war in Iraq, they plowed ahead and passed a bill requiring troops to start coming home by a certain date and to all be home by a certain date in 2008. As stupid as this sounds to a rational thinker, it isn't enough for the extreme liberals. They demand the Democrats bring all troops home immediately! Just who exactly IS the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces? It sure isn't Congress!

And if their demands aren't enough there's always the Hollywood elitists who somehow think that they have the knowledge of how to properly govern this country. They are busy screaming about how wrong this war in Iraq is and how we, read US Government, are not doing enough things to help the poor. We need to provide national health care and jobs for everybody, or at least a living wage, and handouts to those who are less fortunate? We need to provide for all of Africa's needs while we absorb all the illegal aliens Mexico can send over and also provide them with free, to the illegals, medical care and schooling and Social Security benefits? We need to control every single aspect of your daily lives because we are the government and we know best, how could you even think otherwise? We need to stop catering to the individual because it takes a village to raise a child? Excuse me?

The ridiculous Sean Penn, what a spokesman, had this to say at an Oakland TownHall meeting about Iraq. "Let's make this crystal clear: We do support our troops, but not the exploitation of them and their families," he said. "The money that's spent on this war would be better spent on building levees in New Orleans and health care in Africa and care for our veterans. Iraq is not our toilet. It's a country of human beings whose lives that were once oppressed by Saddam are now in Dante's Inferno."

Sean thinks America should spend its money on New Orleans levees, health care and in Africa instead of protecting our nation against Islamic Jihadists. We can both agree that more money should be funneled towards our veterans but the agreement stops there.

According to our Constitution, yes we still have the same one as we have always had, states that the federal Government's job is to protect and defend our borders against intruders and those who would do us harm, both foreign and domestic. Whether you agree with our current role in Iraq or not, we are the de facto power in the world and the world looks upon us to help solve their problems. We went into Iraq to solve the United Nations problem of a renegade regime that no one had the balls to confront. Eighteen resolutions stated that Saddam must comply with the agreed upon terms or else. After a few or elses and seeing no consequences, Iraq openly defied the UN and America called their bluff. Perhaps Saddam should have taken us at our word.

Now that we are there, we cannot abandon the Iraqi people and leave them helplessly in turmoil. We should be committed to assisting their new government as long as they are also helping themselves to independence. We told them we would and we should honor our word. This is proper action by our government, the defense of our interests, the Iraqis. This is closer to proper government actions than transferring money from one group of people to another. Defense from radical extremists whose stated intentions are to kill us IS a constitutional function of government.

Why do people think that not spending money in Iraq would mean a boon of money to spend on health care or something else? Health care is YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY. It is not up to the government to ensure that your medical needs are paid for. It is not up tp the government to be your nanny. There is not a cache of money waiting to be released from defense spending to spend on social programs. Social programs suck and they don't work! And that money doesn't actually grow on trees, they get it from us.

If you think I want to spend my money, through taxes, to help anyone get health care because they "feel" like they cannot afford it themselves, they are nuts. It's not anyone's problem but their own. Besides, if you want a glimpse of socialized health care in this country, simply look at Walter Reed Hospital. Defend me but don't mother me.

If socialist types want to help the poor and the so-called "less fortunate", there is nothing stopping them from doing so. They can donate all the money and time they desire at a private charity or church, they don't need to use the power of government to take money from me to give to someone who they "feel" is more deserving. Churches and charities exist for that very purpose and they don't extort money from unwilling participants to do their job.

Stop twisting the responsibilites of the government and take some personal responsibility upon yourself. Freedom isn't free. It takes hard work and sacrifice and sometimes it takes lives. Our military knows this and they are out there doing their job. It's time more citizens of this country took it upon themselves to do their jobs. And quit whining about the government not doing theirs.

I think Sean Penn and his fellow socialists are exactly 180 degrees off course.

And that's my nickel today.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007


Animal Activism

God, I can't believe these iditoc, so-called animal activists! Killing a baby polar bear rather than allowing humans to feed it. How does this make sense? They have managed to twist the meaning of animal rights to include the right to die. Not really the "right" to die but a "demand" to kill.

This cute litte, cuddly, adorable baby bear and his brother were abandoned by its mother. Left to die by starvation. The brother did just that. Finally the Berlin Zookeepers intervened and saved Cute Knut, as he became known.

"Feeding by hand is not species-appropriate but a gross violation of animal protection laws," animal rights activist Frank Albrecht was quoted as saying by the mass-circulation Bild daily, which has featured regular photo spreads tracking fuzzy Knut's frolicking.

"The zoo must kill the bear."

.How ridiculous is that? I wonder if he would have the same opinion if it were someone facing death row or a life in prison. Is it better for him to die rather than to live like that? In that unnatural state?

How does this man feel that mankind can be the enforcer of nature's laws? We do things every single day that alter the course of our or someone else's lives. Most of the time we do this without ever knowing what we changed. Every decision we make has the potential to be a gross violation of nature's laws. How can he possibly know that killing this poor defenseless bear bear is what is best for him? How can he know?

He cannot. Yet he "feels" like he knows what is best and that is all the real reason he needs. It's about imposing his will, where his will isn't wanted. He is, after all, an "animal rights activist" and his wisdom should not be questioned.

Just wondering, were the people who were calling for Terry Schiavo to be pulled off of life support "human rights activists"? After all, feeding by intravenous tube is not really "species-appropriate" either.

My nickel.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?