Predisposed

I'm sure that anyone who checks in here on a regular basis has seen that I've been spending a lot of time on politics lately. For anyone reading this who might not have known my dad, let me just say that if he had had a soap box like this one, he would have been posting seven or eight times a day, and I'd dare to speculate that over 99% of them would have dealt with politics. Dad had a very strong opinion on pretty much everything, and it was usually a pretty well considered position (meaning he spent a lot of time thinking about this kind of thing). He also wasn't overly tolerant of differing points of view, but I like to think that I'm more open minded, and able to tolerate people who are wrong... OK, maybe I'm not so different after all. I'm not trying to say that I'm genetically predisposed to strong opinions, or to argument, but certainly my upbringing has left me that way. You see, really dad was open minded, he would listen to opposing points of view before he said that they were dead wrong and stupid. We were allowed to disagree with dad, just as long as we could support our position with facts and reason. Maybe I'm just a little tempered by mom also. Oh, she had (and still has) very strong opinions, but she was never nearly so quick to share them as dad was. When mom stood up and took a position, there was no question, she had given it some very serious thought for quite some time, and looked at it from as many angles as she could think of, and had come to the conclusion that she had it all nailed down, and changing her mind was going to be no small feat. You'd usually have to ask mom for her opinion, unless it was one of her hot button issues, but if you wanted to know what dad thought you needed only to be in his line of sight, and not to worry, he'd work to get you in his line of sight just so he could tell you. My brother and I used to get so embarrassed just going into a store, knowing that dad had pamphlets and handouts, and unsolicited advice for anyone and everyone who cast a glance in his direction, but that was just dad being dad, and looking back, I wouldn't have it any other way. Now don't get me wrong, this is only one side of my dad, he was, for the most part, a very happy person, and for all the hardships he faced in his life he never became bitter or miserable, he just kept praising God and handing out opinions. So, I hope you like reading my political commentary, 'cause I seem to be predisposed to writing it, and I'll leave you today with something my grandmother had on a sign in her kitchen: Everyone Is Entitled To My Opinion.

If You Can't Stand The Heat...

For anyone who doesn't know who Ann Coulter is, she is a conservative columnist and author (and admittedly sometimes a far right wing extremist loon) who makes some outlandish statements at times, just to make a point. While sometimes her comments seem to go too far, if you look at them in context you will see that she does usually succeed in getting her point across. That being said, she has taken a few shots at Democratic Presidential hopeful, former NC Senator John Edwards (look at some of my older blogs for my feelings on him). The other day Ms. Coulter was on MSNBC to promote her latest book (Godless: The Church Of Liberalism), which just came out in paperback, and I can't remember the name of the program, which doesn't really matter as it is the lowest rated show in all of cable news. John Edwards wife Elizabeth called in and spent a very long time whining about Ann attacking her husband. To hear the Edwards side of it, they are just normal, everyday people, who want to go about their daily lives and be left alone, but instead are being attacked for no reason by this horrible person, who just won't leave them alone. I feel that I shouldn't even have to say this, but apparently the Edwards need people to be saying it, because they just don't get it: He is running for President! He will have to face scrutiny from all sides, and as he is farther left than Ann is right, he has to expect someone like her to have some things to say about him, it's going to happen. Furthermore, after all of this started, Mrs. Edwards was offered a chance to come on "The O'Reilly Factor" and tell her side of things, but she declined, despite the fact that it is the highest rated show in cable news. I guess she knew that old Bill wouldn't sit there and let her drone on and on unquestioned like the stooges at MSNBC. Mrs. Edwards has also been battling Breast Cancer for some time, and I do pray for her and wish her well in that fight, but I have heard some say that we should not challenge Mr. Edwards on things he says and does because his wife has Cancer... again I say, He's running for President! We, as American people have not only the right, but the duty to question him, and say when we think he's wrong, because that is how our political system works, and the only way in which it can work. So, Senator Edwards, to you I say, If you can't stand the heat, don't run for President!

Whose Bill?

I've heard quite a bit today about the defeat in the Senate of "Bush's Immigration Reform Bill." While it's true that President Bush was this reprehensible piece of legislation's biggest cheerleader, it was not, strictly speaking, his bill. First of all, we need to remember that the executive branch cannot legislate, that is up to the legislative branch. Next we need to remember that this bill was written by a confab of Senators, most notably Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who has effectively ended his bid for President with this, and Senator Ted Kennedy (Far left extremist, D-MA). This is not to say that Bush isn't one of the losers in this situation, certainly he threw in his lot with the authors and supporters of this bill and shares in their disgrace. In truth, the disgrace they feel should be from supporting this bill in the first place. I did hear Senator Kennedy saying today that he just doesn't understand why the people wanted to stop this bill from going through, and why they would want to keep the borders open. Well, I'm thinking it's because we were smarter than they gave us credit for and realized that the bill would not have secured the borders as promised. We didn't want to spend billions of dollars on empty promises, while simultaneously granting amnesty to millions upon millions of illegals, and inviting millions upon millions of their family members to come and join them. But maybe that was the point, maybe the whole thing was just a giant stage show so that Congress could say, "Hey, at least we tried" while knowing that when the people learned the truth, they'd never get this monstrous bill to pass. This, of course, is also possible as it plays into the desires of the far left open borders crowd, and leaves them wide open to allow millions more illegals to flood into this country while our lawmakers shrug and talk about how they tried to find a solution, but the stupid American people just wouldn't let them do it. I've also heard it said today that this proves that President Bush is a lame duck President. The term "lame duck" refers to any elected official who has sought re-election and failed, but is still in office until the end of his or her term. Under that, literal, definition, Bush can never be a lame duck, as he can't run for re-election anyway. If, however, you are to use the term to mean someone who has become ineffective in their job, and no longer has the trust of the people to be able to get anything done, then surely it would apply to the congress as well. After all, congress has a lower approval rating than the President, and his is dismal. I guess the thing that gets me the most is that I know how different the coverage would have been if the bill had survived in the Senate (it still would have had to face the house), we would have heard all about how it was such a great victory for Senate Democrats, and they might have mentioned that the President was likely to sign it if it reached his desk, but since it failed, it's all his failure. Give me a break!

Fairness

Some members of Congress are talking once again about the "Fairness Doctrine." This is an idea that reared it's ugly head back in the '80s and was discarded, primarily, by President Reagan. The idea deals mostly with talk radio, which is mostly a conservative (or conservative leaning) dominated industry. This trend is market driven however, as the ultra liberal "Air America" was a dismal failure. The "Fairness Doctrine" takes aim at forcing talk radio to be fair to differing points of view, or allowing equal time to someone who disagrees with the position of the shows host. But how do we define fairness? Not all radio talk shows are equally conservative. And how do you balance it out? Does Howard Dean get to talk for one minute for every minute that Rush Limbaugh gets? And what then do you do with people like Rudy Giuliani? He is considered to be conservative on most Foreign policy, and security issues, but liberal on most social issues, so would he balance himself? For every minute he spends on Iraq, he has to talk for a minute on gay rights? And what about Hillary Clinton? No doubt she is a liberal through and through, yet she doesn't tow the line with the majority of liberals when it comes to Iraq, so what do you do with her? And when it comes to differing subjects, this brings up an interesting point. What brought the issue of the "Fairness Doctrine" to the fore at this point is the immigration amnesty bill that loonies on both sides are trying to ram down our throats. Senator Trent Lott, who is mostly considered to be a conservative has been blasting conservative talk radio for taking issue with this bill. So we have people on both sides trying to drive this (bad) bill, and people on both sides screaming objections, so how would the fairness doctrine even apply? The overall point to all of this is that Politicians think that we are too stupid to know what is going on, and so they only want us to be told things from their point of view. Of course, we are not so stupid, and pretty much do know what is going on, as long as it is not done in secret, which too much is. And since the mainstream media, major network news, a majority of Cable News, and a majority of the print press are all overwhelmingly liberal, conservatives need an outlet other than the internet, which also has plenty of liberal bias to spare. So lets cut the crap and stop giving lip service to fake fairness, and just be honest with the American people for a change... how's that for a wild idea.

Highway To Oblivion

Have you heard of the proposed NAFTA Super Highway? Most of us haven't. That is of course, not it's real name. In truth it doesn't have one. All the better to deny that it exists. If you Google it however, you will find plenty of proof that it does. So what is it? Well, it's exactly what it sounds like. It's a 10 lane super highway that runs from a seaport in Mexico, all the way to Canada, bypassing such trivialities as border inspections, and security concerns. All of this is being done under the guise of increasing security and prosperity for all three nations, but regardless of the hype and spin doctoring, what will result is a North American Union, modeled after the European Union, and destroying the sovereignty of all three nations. Whatever they choose to call it, it will be the end of our way of life. The spin doctors even tell us that it won't cost the taxpayers anything, because the money comes from pre-existing budget considerations. To the clear minded among us, this means that the money has already come from taxpayers, and that money diverted from other concerns will have to be made up at taxpayer expense. So it will cost us directly, regardless of what they like to say about it. There will be only one checkpoint within the USA, and that will be in Kansas City, and will be manned by personnel from Mexico, the US and Canada, so bringing immigrants into the US in the back of a truck will become the simplest of matters, and of course that goes from all kinds of contraband, and terrorists and their terror tools. I would encourage anyone and everyone to look into this for yourself, and then tell your congressman and senator, and for those of you in the path of this monstrosity, your state governments, to put a stop to it. All of the big concerns that we talk about today, security, immigration, taxes, social issues, and our very laws, and system of government itself will be utterly meaningless if this road is constructed.

On another note, while I welcome comments from anyone who wishes to leave them, as long as they are reasoned and not rude or crude, regardless of the viewpoint, they must also be in English as I will not publish a comment that I cannot read myself. Thanks.

Gee Thanks

The government of the great state of Florida has spent the last several weeks working overtime, mostly in intense debate, trying to come up with a plan to make property taxes in the state more bearable for residents, who have seen their home values and tax rates on an out of control upward trend for the past several years. And the solution they have offered is still pretty hotly contested, and will, at least in part, be left up to the voters to decide the issue. But they are remaining suspiciously silent on the greatest cause for concern for most Florida families, which is the skyrocketing cost of homeowners insurance. A great many insurance companies pulled out of Florida altogether following the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. This after years of sitting back, raking in cash by the boat load, and paying out next to nothing. And the ones that stayed, have jacked up prices to outrageous levels, leaving many Florida residents wondering if they can still afford to live here, and a great many others have already decided they can't and moved on to greener pastures. Those who have been "fortunate" enough not to have been dropped by their insurer, have seen their rates double on the low end, and some have even had their rates triple or more. How are people supposed to pay bills like that? Somebody, somewhere must be under the impression that all people who live in Florida are rich, and won't miss the money. They couldn't be more wrong. I guess this is, at least somewhat, related to what I was talking about yesterday. Greed. Insurance companies are greedy. I understand that they are a business and need to make money, but how about making a little less money, and doing the right thing for a change. Give the little guy a break why don't you? It won't be long before nobody can bear up under the burden, and then what? Does Florida become a ghost town from coast to coast as there is a mass exodus to more friendly financial climates? Only time will tell. For now, I'd like to hear some Florida Lawmakers start making a big deal out of what is the biggest deal on most of our minds.

Compassion

You hear a lot of democrats and other open borders people talking about compassion when it comes to illegal aliens in this country, but where is that compassion when dealing with the American people? The Democrats in the Senate tried to pass a new tax on oil companies this week, but fortunately it was blocked by Senate Republicans. The supporters of the tax argue that the oil companies can afford it, what with their record profits of the past couple of years, and the profits they expect going forward, and indeed they are correct on that count. The reason that this would have been a bad idea, and therefore why some Republicans took a firm stand against it, is that the tax, like all other costs, would have been passed directly to the consumer. We would have paid the tax for them every time we went to the pump. This measure wouldn't have cut into their profits at all. The idea was to use the money to finance research into alternative forms of energy, which is a laudable goal, but not something that the government should be paying for at all. The private sector should be stepping up and shelling out the big bucks to figure out what will work, in the hope of getting good returns sometime down the road. In fact, if there was more intelligence than greed at play in the minds of the big oil executives, they would be dumping truckloads of money into this research to get themselves on the leading edge, and ultimately make a lot more money, for a lot more years to come, but, in the end, greed is a very shortsighted master.

Prejudged

While watching all that has gone on with the Duke Lacrosse Rape case, and the trial and subsequent disbarment of the prosecutor, has gotten me thinking. There is an overwhelming tendency for people, and I wouldn't say it's unique to this country, to rush to judgement whenever there is a story about a crime, or some such activity. Take the Duke Lacrosse players as a prime example. None of us knew these young men, or the woman who was accusing them, and yet a great many people condemned them very publicly. In the case of the Black Panthers it was just blatant racism, but what is the excuse of more rational people? This is not a case of the trial being botched and people who may still have been guilty getting off scott free, or even of there simply not being enough evidence to go to trial, but most people still being left with the impression that they did it. This is a case of all the evidence pointing to these young men being completely innocent. Right now there is a woman missing in Ohio, and a lot of people are already convinced that her boyfriend, the father of her unborn child, must have something to do with it. And I'm not saying he didn't do it, but how can we rush to judgement and say that he is involved when there is still a lot of investigating left for the police to do? The fact is that we don't know. From what the news media is saying, it is clear that this man isn't exactly someone you would want to emulate, I mean, he's married and yet he has children with two other women, one of them being the one that is missing, but that doesn't make him guilty. However, listening to the news commentators, it sounds like he's on the verge of being convicted. I have to admit, they do take the time to say that he is not being considered a suspect by the police, and that we don't know anything for sure yet, which is of course what I'm saying, but you can clearly hear it in their voices that they don't really believe it. Most of them have already decided that he is definitely the one who did it, and maybe he did, but only time will tell. My point is that we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions, and not form solid opinions until we have enough information. And never let the media tell you what to think, that is never a good idea.

Take A Look

I want to take a minute today to encourage each and every person who reads this, to take a little time and look at former Tennessee Senator Fred D. Thompson, who is now pursuing a bid for the Republican nomination for President. I'm not going to tell you to vote for him, that's still too far away, but I'd like you to go to http://www.imwithfred.com/ and take a look at what he has to say, and do a little research into his voting record. So far I like what I see, but time will tell if he is the one or not. It will be interesting to see how things go once Fred is involved in the debates with the other candidates, and addresses all the tough questions in the same forum that all the others have already been subjected to. Right now I'm hoping that he wins, but again, we'll see if that holds up. Regardless of whether he wins the nod or not, his entry into the race will be good for this election, as I do believe that he will force the other candidates to answer the tough questions that they otherwise might manage to dodge. Go, Fred, Go!!

Good Riddance

Durham, NC, DA Mike Nifong announced today that he will resign in the aftermath of the Duke Lacrosse Rape case debacle. It's about time. In light of his criminal conduct in the handling of the case, he ought to be in prison, but a resignation is a good start, and besides, he is quite likely to be disbarred, so I guess we should take what justice we can get. When you consider that he had evidence that proved that the accused were not guilty, and did not hand it over to the defense, and not only continued the prosecution, but also continued to publicly state his certainty that these young men were guilty, you have to admit that he got off pretty easy. And besides all he put these boys through, if someone did indeed rape this girl, then they got away with it, in no small part because Nifong spent so much time going after people he knew were innocent. So, he can cry all he wants to, and claim that he never lied, and say whatever else he wants to say, just as long as he goes away.

What Courage?

Some would look at the stands that are taken by President Bush and see them as courageous, and indeed some of them are. It does take courage to stand up on Iraq even in the face of overwhelming pressure to simply admit defeat and leave. However, and I have said this before, US involvement in Iraq has been very poorly managed by the Administration, but they don't want to hear that, and that is not courage, but rather, stubbornness, which is far less virtuous. But if the President is willing to stand his ground so firmly on Iraq, with so many, from all over the political spectrum, at the very least calling for a change in strategy, if not a full out withdrawal, why won't he pardon Scooter Libby? I mean, the man is supposed to be his friend, and if you take a look at what has happened to him, has been completely railroaded. If you're not familiar with what has happened to Libby, here is the short version. First, a CIA operatives name was leaked by someone in the State Department, but she was not a protected agent, so that was not a crime anyway. In spite of the fact that no crime was committed, a special prosecutor was appointed. At the time that Libby was questioned, the special prosecutor already knew full well who the leak at come from, and it wasn't Libby, but proceeded to grill him for days anyway. Inconsistencies were found in his several days worth of testimony, and he was charged with perjury, even though there was no underlying crime to begin with, which makes the entire hearing a sham anyway. He was then sentenced to 30 months in prison, twice the recommended sentence by law, and the judge is trying to make sure he gets to jail before he has any chance to have his appeal heard. Clinton committed perjury during the Monica Lewinsky drama, but nothing was ever done, because there was a realization that the whole thing was a sham to begin with, so why doesn't Libby get the same pass? But, be that as it may, why doesn't George W. Bush have the courage to issue a pardon, and tell anyone who doesn't like it where to get off? He's willing to do this when he's wrong, so why not do it when he would be right? Come on Mr. President, let's give the guy a break.

"A" is for Murder

Today I just want to share what I think about an issue that is very polarized, and about which there can be very little middle ground. From the title of this post, it's not really a secret what my position is. Of course, I'm talking about abortion. My belief is that abortion is murder, and my reasoning is very simple. The baby is alive, and innocent, and "terminating" the pregnancy is nothing short of murder. I have heard many arguments from both sides during my life, but for me it all comes down to this one very simple fact, an innocent human life should be protected at all costs. I know that there are a lot of people who will look at this and say that they could agree except where the life of the mother in danger, or there is rape involved, but I would say that I could only see it as an option when the mothers life is in imminent danger, and the baby is not old enough to live outside of the mother, as for rape, as horrible as it is, the baby is not guilty of anything, and should not be subject to execution for the mans crime, I mean, honestly, even the rapist won't be executed for it, and he really is guilty of it. The thing that I can't even comprehend is how anyone can take the position that a baby that is old enough to live outside of the mother should be subject to murder, for any reason. For the moment this is all I have to say, but there is a very good chance that I will revisit this issue in the future.

Driving

So, what's with all the crazy drivers? I know, this is a question that we have all asked about a thousand times, and with good reason. Today I saw someone cross four lanes of traffic, all in one shot, and I'm talking about busy traffic too, not some abandoned road that no one uses. Apparently his turn signal wasn't working, as he did stick his arm out of the window to signal, which is pretty rare, but at the same time, he showed no regard for any of the other cars on the road as he shot across the road to get into his desired lane. I kind of held my breath, and thanked God that he made it without causing an accident. My daughter is a crazy driver, but she is seven, and can only drive in video games, so I guess that is OK. Of course, I would like to say that bad driving is a condition of age, either the young and inexperienced, or the ones that are too old, and can't react in time, but, even though those are two high risk categories, it's not a matter of certainty at all. For instance, the guy today was probably in his forties. My most memorable times that I've almost been killed by other drivers, it has been elderly people, who had no idea that anything happened at all, fortunately I was paying attention to what I was doing. I guess I've been rambling here today, not much of an over all point to make, other than, I guess, be on your guard and be careful.

Think Safety

I just wanted to take a minute and reflect after the sad news of the 18 year old girl, who was abducted, and her body found this week. This is a very sad event, and I want to make it clear that my intention here is not to blame her for any of this at all. What I want to say is this, pay attention to the world around you. Pay attention to other people. We live in a culture where it's very easy, even normal, to get lost in our own little worlds and not see what is happening around us. And even if we do notice that someone is acting strangely, we have been taught that it is rude to pay them any particular attention. Toss all of that out, pay attention, if it's rude to watch them, then go ahead and be rude, your life may well depend on it one day. If someone is hanging out around your car in a parking lot, and you are even a little suspicious, back off, go back to the store, if it seems really bad get store security to walk you to your car, or call the police if you feel it's the right thing to do. Always better to err on the side of caution. Keep your cell phone with you, if you don't have one, get one, you can get a prepaid cell phone fairly cheaply, and keep it handy. If someone is between you and your car, you can't call 911 from a phone in the glove box. While these tips won't make you invincible, they will make you just a little bit safer, and that can be the difference between life and death.

Protests

I'm sure that most of you have heard of the group that has been going around the country protesting at the funerals of our military people that have been killed in Iraq. Basically their message is that God hates our military and our country because of the sin of homosexuality. In the past week, one woman at one of these protests was arrested because her son was desecrating an American flag (contributing to the delinquency of a minor, I think the charge was) a fully legitimate charge in my opinion. Now, let's look first at this group's (supposedly a Christian group) message. What about homosexuality? The Bible does indeed say that it is a sin, but does it say that it is any worse of a sin that a host of others that the Bible names? Depends on your personal interpretation of the scripture, but in short, no, not really. So why did they pick that one? Why not prostitution, or drug use, or public drunkenness, or gluttony, or extra-marital affairs, or greed, or child abuse, or child molestation, or rape, or murder, or lying, or stealing... or any number of others that happen in the country every single day? I guess it can be easy to pick the ones we don't like, especially if it's one we don't ourselves engage in, but really, aren't they all the same? Aren't they all sin? Now, as for the rest of their message, could this be punishment for any of this sins listed? Doesn't seem likely as we now live under Grace. Also, I'd like to point out, that while some might get the two confused, this message that they are putting forth is a far cry from the late Rev. Falwell saying that some of these groups helped 9-11 to happen, you see all he was saying that our tolerance of blatant sin may have caused God to stop protecting our nation the way He once did, not that he was punishing us for those sins. So, basically, I really don't buy into any of their message, besides, even if they were right and God were going to punish us for one or more of these things, why would He do it to our soldiers in the field and not the people that are here actually doing it, or those defending them in the media and politics? But again, even if they were right, is it right for them to protest at these funerals? I'm not asking if they have the right, to some extent or another they probably do, but I want to know if it is the right thing to do, and I'll answer that with, I don't think so. How about if we let these people mourn for the loss of their loved ones. Show some respect, back off, and shut up! I have an idea for where you can put those "God hates you" signs. God is love, He hates sin, but doesn't hate any person. The Bible tells us that God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. So, in short, I think that these people are lunatics. They make me angry, and I find them disgusting. With the tactics that they employ, I don't even want to hear any defense for what they have to say, and any good point that they may ever have made, goes right out the window because of the things they do and say. I'm sick of seeing them in the news and hearing about them. I want them to shut up and try to do something useful for a change. I can't speak to the condition of their souls, but if they really are Christians, then they need to be taught what being a Christian means, because they have a severely warped view. They damage Christ every time they stage a protest, and I, for one, am sick of them!

The Debate

I watched the Republican Presidential Primary Debate this morning (on my DVR), and so I'll share my thoughts on that today. First off, even Texas Rep. Ron Paul made a few points that were worth considering, but then managed to show us that he is still far too out of touch with the base of the Republican party to even be considered a serious contender. Then there is Arizona Senator John McCain, who is proud to be more interested working with the likes of Ted Kennedy, and other far left liberal extremists, than in sticking to his principles and doing what is best of the country. Of course there is also former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who sounds good most of the time, but is nothing more than a flavor of the day Republican, willing to take any stance that will stand him in good stead with the political winds of the day. The three of these really have no chance, but the news media hasn't figured it out yet. And other than these and the next two I'm going to talk about, nobody else really was all that memorable at all. The first of the two possibilities for the nomination is former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is mostly considered to be the front runner. Rudy is smart, and has a pretty good grasp of what is going on in the world, and he stands for a lot of the things that republicans stand for, and is a good, strong leader, who would not be run over by congress, no matter what party is in control of it, but would, in my view, be smart enough not to alienate them at every turn like President Bush has done. I, however, can't vote for Mr. Giuliani in the primary due to his stance on Abortion, but if he does win the party nomination, he would surely stand head and shoulders above any of the current democrats fighting for that party's nod. The other one is not even considered a front runner, but in both of the debates so far, I have been quite impressed with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. He also seems pretty smart, and strong, and willing to stand up for what he believes in, which, hey, bonus for us, is quite conservative. Of the ten that were at the debate, if I had to pick one of them to vote for today, it would be Mr. Huckabee, but we'll see how it goes in the coming months. Of course, my biggest problem in the debate is that there were just too many people in it right now. It's hard to get a good reading on who is really good and who isn't when there are ten people trying to get their points across. Of course, my current favorite wasn't there. In fact, he isn't even a declared candidate just yet, but hopefully within the next month or so, and that would be former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. So far I have been very impressed by what he has had to say, and encourage you to check him out for yourselves. Again, the coming months will tell who I really want to support, but this is a brief overview as of today.

Me? A Racist?

OK, well I certainly never thought so, but I must be, after all, that's what President Bush said. He said that people on the right who are not in favor of the new illegal immigrant amnesty bill are racists. He is wrong of course. As I've said before, President Bush has never been serious about securing our borders, and that's why he loves this bill, because it really doesn't do that. Oh sure, it sounds good on paper, saying that the Z Visa's will not be issued to illegals until "Certain triggers" have been met. But what they don't tell you is that these triggers that they talk so much about are all about money. The fence doesn't have to be finished, or even started, as long as the trigger amount of money has been spent on it. The Border Patrol doesn't have to be up to what the bill allegedly calls for, just that the trigger amount of money has to be spent on it. So the fact is that the border doesn't have to be secured before legal status is granted to millions of illegal aliens. Now, for myself, as with most other grassroots conservatives, just want the borders secured first. We don't need a bill that tries to solve the whole issue at one time, we need the borders secured, and then we can deal with the ones that are already here. I'm not even against some sort of guest worker program, but not blanket amnesty like what this bill is proposing. So, no Mr. President, those of us who want a real solution to a real problem are not racists, we just want you to do the job you were elected to do, and not hurl insults at the people who elected you to do the job in the first place.

Take Some Time Out

Sometimes it can be easy to get caught up in everything that is going on the world. Between work, and responsibilities, trying to keep up with the news and current events, and all of the other things that are going on, sometimes we need to remember to take some time out and do something fun. Going to the Zoo can be something fun, especially if you have kids, and it usually doesn't take all that long. Living in Florida, we have some great options, like Sea World, which we love, but that is something that needs to be planned for an all day trip, while the zoo can be done in a morning, and still leave the rest of the day free for whatever you can't put off until later. Maybe you don't have any money, but still want to do something fun with the kids, you can check with your local movie theater, some of them have free kids movies in the morning during the summer, and some of them even give the kids free popcorn and small drinks. Always worth the time. There are also parks around here and there in most places, but it can be hot unless you go in the morning or evening. Whatever you decide to do, just take some time out from your busy schedule, and have some fun.

WHAT????

Have you heard what happened at Boulder High School in Boulder Colorado? If you get all your news from the mainstream media, I'm betting you haven't. We all know that schools have been teaching questionable (even objectionable) sex ed for quite some time now, but this goes WAY beyond that. The administration in Boulder invited a liberal group to address the students on the subjects of sex and drugs. They held the "session" in the school auditorium, and required the students to attend. And what were the students told? They were encouraged to use drugs. Yes, that's what I said, they encouraged the students to use illegal drugs. They also told the kids that it is natural to experiment with sex, and that it would be a wonderful thing for them to have indiscriminate sex with whomever they want, whenever they want, and that they should experiment with all kinds of sex, including same sex encounters. As if this weren't bad enough, and believe me, it is, they were further told that Condoms just get in the way of sex, and they would have a much better time without them! I'm not a fan of the "safe sex" mantra, as we all know that condoms are NOT 100%, but don't we want to kids that do have sex to, at the very least, use them? So while we have spent so much time worried about the "safe sex" teaching in our schools, it appears we didn't see the unlimited, unrestrained, not even remotely safe sex crowd sneaking in to corrupt our children. Of course when they started spouting this drivel the teachers jumped right up and took the kids out to protect them from this truly dangerous "teaching"... oh, wait, no that's not what happened. The teachers and administration sat right there and let it happened, not even bothering to counter! But of course the administration was all fired for letting this happen... oh wait, sorry, that didn't happen either, no one has been held accountable for this outrage. That's right, not one single person. The Governor of Colorado has been completely silent, lacking the moral courage (or any kind of courage) to even so much as make a statement. On top of all of this, the school district has invited these lunatics back for next year! Yeah, you read that right, they are having them back, but don't worry, all is well, only the kids (teenagers mind you) that want to be told that it's OK to have sex with anyone and everyone, and drink alcohol (forgot to mention that didn't I, but yeah, that too) and use drugs, will be in attendance, it won't be required. I hope you caught that, only kids that want to be told that they can do whatever they want, without limits, will attend next year. Like showing up at an AA meeting with a full wet bar and saying that no one is required to drink, it's just there if people want to. Even if they know they shouldn't, how many will really stay away? So was this in your local paper? Did you see it on the evening news? I didn't think so. But now you know. And you don't have to take my word for it, you can check with "Focus on the Family" or http://www.billoreilly.com/ if you want to check it out for yourself. I hope you are as outraged by this as I am!

What Do I Think?

I realize that in the writing that I have done, I have left out how I actually feel about some issues, most notably, the conflict in Iraq. So, let me clarify. I was never comfortable with invading Iraq in the first place. That's not to say that I was a vocal opponent, but I didn't think it was the best idea. I'm not just saying that war is horrible, and should be avoided whenever possible, though that is true, I'm also saying that I did not feel that invading Iraq was really in the best interest of the USA. I'm also not part of the "Bush lied" crowd, pretty much everyone thought that Saddam either already had, or would soon have, WMD's. It's just that I did not feel that Iraq posed the greatest threat to America in the world. I'm not going to deny that some good things have come out of the invasion of Iraq (and before I hear about that from anyone, the word invasion is not used here to be negative, just to be literal), nobody in their right mind misses Saddam, but the fact of the matter is that this action has been grossly mishandled. I hesitate to call it a war, as, in a war there is a clearly defined enemy army, and if this were truly a war, our military would have crushed the enemy, and this all would have been over a few days after it started. What we have now is little more than a glorified police action. Our troops have performed brilliantly, but planning has been lacking at best, as usually happens when politicians try to run military operations. While I still don't like our troops being there, I also don't think that just yanking them out without winning is the best thing to do. We need, and have needed for some time, a new strategy, but the biggest thing that we need to happen is for the Iraqi people to stand up and fight for their own freedom, instead of killing each other. We cannot win this for them, and if they will not stand up and fight, there is little left for us to do except leave. There is a very real danger that if we pull out and Iraq is not stable, it will increase the risk of terrorist attacks here at home, but on the other hand, if we bring our troops home, and spend the hundreds of billions of dollars that the Iraq debacle is sucking out of our economy on securing the border and other anti-terrorist causes, it could even itself out. I think that it has become clear that the Bush administration is going to drag this out until the end of the current term and dump it in the lap of the incoming President, so I guess we need to hear some realistic plans for dealing with the mess. Candidates? Republicans? Democrats? Anyone???