Since we cannot get the poll section to work, we need to know what you think of baby names. CHOOSE WISELY !
-Lily Grace
-Amelia Grace
-Riley Marie
Tell us what you think. Remember, CHOOSE WISELY!
Monday, January 28, 2008
COME, LORD JESUS!
What a statement. The last three words of the Bible, and said with such enthusiasm! We know why John said these words (at least I hope we do), but I think maybe some have hijacked his passion. "Whatever do you mean, Skeeter?" Oh, I think you know what I mean. I am talking about the Rapture: that wonderful little idea where Jesus comes riding down on a cloud to take away believers. While that sounds fluffy and divine, is it true? My concern with this idea (notice I did not "truth") is that I do not believe for one second that it is Biblical. If my dad, Wayne, were able to read this he would have just had a stroke.
"No Rapture! Skeeter, how could you say such things? You better get right before you get left!" Well, do not worry about me. I will be fine. And if you cannot read with an open mind, stop now, but if you wish to read for the sole purpose of arguing later on, well then I am certainly up for that. I hope, though, we can engage, rather, in a healthy debate and not an arguement. Anyway, One of the reasons I disagree with the Rapture is based on the "interpretation" some have of Matthew 24:1-31. That is where Jesus talks about "Signs of the End of the Age". "Wars and rumors of wars...birth pains." They are here! Wars and rumors of wars! Hallelujah, Jesus is coming! Tim LaHaye certainly thinks so, and so does John Hagee. But are they right? No, I do not think so. Here is one of the reasons why: one of Jesus' favorite words in this section is "you". In thirty-one verses he used that word 14 times. One specific word appears in almost half of a very important section. Why is that important? Well, it is important because it is a personal pronoun. Jesus ALWAYS chose His words carefully. If anyone honestly assesses those verses he will clearly see that He is speaking to a specific group of people. He is talking to the disciples, not Tim LaHaye.
The Bible was written FOR us not TO us. WOW! What a bold statement. That is because it is true. Take Paul for instance: his letter to the Corinthians is adressed to the Corinthians not South Carolinians. The issues he writes about are specific to that city. While the lessons taught from that book can be very applicable to us today, Paul did not write with the intention of making sure that people 2,000 years from his time knew what to do in similar situations. If he did, he would have said so! Paul was always specific in his letters, never vague. The point is that it is completely wrong and unfair to assume that Jesus was saying those things in Matthew to us. What in the world did Peter or John care about people 2,000 years from their time? If LaHaye and Hagee insist on taking every word of the Bible literally maybe they ought to actually begin by doing just that. Not doing so is the height of hypocrisy. It is such a shame that men like LaHaye will call dissenters crazy. I think he does that because he knows that if a dissenting voice gains ground then his Left Behind empire could be brought down. That may sound harsh, but insulting people who disagree with you is no worse than the political mudslinging that we see in the secular society.
I do have more thoughts using the scriptures to add so we can continue this debate later on. I would LOVE to hear your thoughts.
"No Rapture! Skeeter, how could you say such things? You better get right before you get left!" Well, do not worry about me. I will be fine. And if you cannot read with an open mind, stop now, but if you wish to read for the sole purpose of arguing later on, well then I am certainly up for that. I hope, though, we can engage, rather, in a healthy debate and not an arguement. Anyway, One of the reasons I disagree with the Rapture is based on the "interpretation" some have of Matthew 24:1-31. That is where Jesus talks about "Signs of the End of the Age". "Wars and rumors of wars...birth pains." They are here! Wars and rumors of wars! Hallelujah, Jesus is coming! Tim LaHaye certainly thinks so, and so does John Hagee. But are they right? No, I do not think so. Here is one of the reasons why: one of Jesus' favorite words in this section is "you". In thirty-one verses he used that word 14 times. One specific word appears in almost half of a very important section. Why is that important? Well, it is important because it is a personal pronoun. Jesus ALWAYS chose His words carefully. If anyone honestly assesses those verses he will clearly see that He is speaking to a specific group of people. He is talking to the disciples, not Tim LaHaye.
The Bible was written FOR us not TO us. WOW! What a bold statement. That is because it is true. Take Paul for instance: his letter to the Corinthians is adressed to the Corinthians not South Carolinians. The issues he writes about are specific to that city. While the lessons taught from that book can be very applicable to us today, Paul did not write with the intention of making sure that people 2,000 years from his time knew what to do in similar situations. If he did, he would have said so! Paul was always specific in his letters, never vague. The point is that it is completely wrong and unfair to assume that Jesus was saying those things in Matthew to us. What in the world did Peter or John care about people 2,000 years from their time? If LaHaye and Hagee insist on taking every word of the Bible literally maybe they ought to actually begin by doing just that. Not doing so is the height of hypocrisy. It is such a shame that men like LaHaye will call dissenters crazy. I think he does that because he knows that if a dissenting voice gains ground then his Left Behind empire could be brought down. That may sound harsh, but insulting people who disagree with you is no worse than the political mudslinging that we see in the secular society.
I do have more thoughts using the scriptures to add so we can continue this debate later on. I would LOVE to hear your thoughts.
Friday, January 25, 2008
WE NEED A "NEWT" CANDIDATE
I was thinking, what if a new candidate stepped into the fray? I read an article by Michael Reagan today, and he brought up some points I would like to share for those who are looking for a TRUE Conservative to run for President. While none of the potential GOP candidates resemble Ronald Reagan in every way, they all represent some of his ideas. Romney: a fiscal Reaganite. McCain: national security issues (except the border!). Rudy: hard-liner when it comes to crime. And Huckabee: embodies Reagan's views on faith and religion.
Some of you may be asking why does Reagan even matter. Well, I will tell you: we NEED a Reagan conservative. We do not need anymore RINO's (Republican In Name Only) getting power, especially the most powerful position in the world. Reagan resurrected a country that was short of being crippled by a RINO (Ford) and a liberal who could not find his butt with a map and a compass (Carter). To me, someone who chooses the RINO stance is selling out for moderate votes. Well, Reagan did not want moderate votes. He wanted the votes belonging to the Republican base. He wanted to give the average, God-fearing American hope again, and he did! Too bad we have let a semi-RINO (Bush I), a liberal who would rather follow polls than listen to the people who elected him (Bubba Clinton), and a RINO who has loved big government like it's going out of style (Bush II) take us back to the Ford-Carter days.
"Skeeter, why all the frustration?" Because I don't want to have to choose between the lesser of two evils! I want a man who stands on principle, a man who is more than willing to re-light the lamp on that hill Reagan so eloquently spoke of so that we can once again shine for all the world to see. As a country, we have lost hope, and we need someone who embodies hope, someone who is realistic, yet at the same time idealistic. A man who BELIEVES in America and her sovereignty. A man who looks to the future, who prefers to look towards the sunlight rather than waller in the mud being slung around by today's candidates (mostly the liberals).
"Skeeter, who is this man?! Hurry up and tell us!." Well, you should know who I mean by looking at the title of this post. Newt Gingrich is the man I want, and he is the man we need. "But Skeeter, did he not cheat on his wife? Has he not done some less than pure things?" As a matter of fact, yes he has...and we should forgive him and move on. "But so did Clinton, right? Why should we not have done the same for him?" That is a darn good question, and here is the answer: because Newt has confessed his sins. He does not hide behind charisma, he does not tell lie after lie about it, and he certainly doesn't pull a Bubba Clinton and blame the other Party for his behavior (i.e., Clinton and his gang of left-wing nuts!). I respect a man who is honest. It takes character and integrity to admit when you are wrong, and Newt has got those qualities.
The other thing I love about the guy is that he looks forward. He is aware of the past, and he knows we need to learn from it. The key, though, is he believes we should apply the lessons and move forward. His website http://www.americansolutions.com/ and his book "Winning the Future" are terrific. Check them both out. I firmly believe you will buy into what the man is saying. If so, contact and SCREAM at the man to run for President! If not, we may just have to settle for the lesser of the two evils.
Some of you may be asking why does Reagan even matter. Well, I will tell you: we NEED a Reagan conservative. We do not need anymore RINO's (Republican In Name Only) getting power, especially the most powerful position in the world. Reagan resurrected a country that was short of being crippled by a RINO (Ford) and a liberal who could not find his butt with a map and a compass (Carter). To me, someone who chooses the RINO stance is selling out for moderate votes. Well, Reagan did not want moderate votes. He wanted the votes belonging to the Republican base. He wanted to give the average, God-fearing American hope again, and he did! Too bad we have let a semi-RINO (Bush I), a liberal who would rather follow polls than listen to the people who elected him (Bubba Clinton), and a RINO who has loved big government like it's going out of style (Bush II) take us back to the Ford-Carter days.
"Skeeter, why all the frustration?" Because I don't want to have to choose between the lesser of two evils! I want a man who stands on principle, a man who is more than willing to re-light the lamp on that hill Reagan so eloquently spoke of so that we can once again shine for all the world to see. As a country, we have lost hope, and we need someone who embodies hope, someone who is realistic, yet at the same time idealistic. A man who BELIEVES in America and her sovereignty. A man who looks to the future, who prefers to look towards the sunlight rather than waller in the mud being slung around by today's candidates (mostly the liberals).
"Skeeter, who is this man?! Hurry up and tell us!." Well, you should know who I mean by looking at the title of this post. Newt Gingrich is the man I want, and he is the man we need. "But Skeeter, did he not cheat on his wife? Has he not done some less than pure things?" As a matter of fact, yes he has...and we should forgive him and move on. "But so did Clinton, right? Why should we not have done the same for him?" That is a darn good question, and here is the answer: because Newt has confessed his sins. He does not hide behind charisma, he does not tell lie after lie about it, and he certainly doesn't pull a Bubba Clinton and blame the other Party for his behavior (i.e., Clinton and his gang of left-wing nuts!). I respect a man who is honest. It takes character and integrity to admit when you are wrong, and Newt has got those qualities.
The other thing I love about the guy is that he looks forward. He is aware of the past, and he knows we need to learn from it. The key, though, is he believes we should apply the lessons and move forward. His website http://www.americansolutions.com/ and his book "Winning the Future" are terrific. Check them both out. I firmly believe you will buy into what the man is saying. If so, contact and SCREAM at the man to run for President! If not, we may just have to settle for the lesser of the two evils.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
In reponse to DB's comment
DB...hell will freeze over before Hillary gets my vote. In fact, if she wins we are coming to Afghanistan to live with you and Jenni.
Where Have You Gone, Fred?
I'm mad. I'm a bit upset. I feel let-down. I feel snubbed. No, I have not failed to win the lottery. Well...in a way maybe I have. Last Saturday I happily went to my local polling place and cast my vote. I am not ashamed to say that I cast that vote for Senator Fred Thompson...and that is why I am mad. I was all about Fred. I got excited because he seemed to be the only true conservative running. Yet, he never seemed to be real excited about that fact. In fact, he never seemed to be excited about too much. I was a Fred-head, and now I sit here deflated. It feels like watching your favorite team start off slow, and continue to do so even though you are cheering relentlessly for them! Was there a method to his madness? Because whether he wants to acknowledge it or not madness is quite possibly what we are about to descend into.
What am I talking about? I am talking about John McCain. And to some extent, I am talking about Mike Huckabee. Take a look at this:
Vote to pass an amendment that would prohibit undocumented immigrants convicted of aggravated felonies, domestic violence, stalking, violation of protection orders, crimes against children, or crimes relating to the illegal purchase or sale of firearms, from gaining legal status.
McCain voted "no".
Did you read that right? McCain said, in essence, even though you may be ILLEGAl, and even though you have committed crimes, you need not worry about never becoming a U.S. citizen. In my house we call that permission; permission to committ crimes with no fear of real puishment other than prison. Prison is not enough. KICK THEM OUT AFTER THEY FINISH THEIR SENTANCE! McCain's vote in tantamount to betrayl.
S 3711: A bill to enhance the energy independence and security of the United States by providing for exploration, development, and production activities for mineral resources in the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes.
Here's a bill that would have promoted energy independence. Guess how he voted? You got it: NO! I call that caving to the tree hugger lobby.
Here's more:
06/06/2007 Declaring English the National Language Vote to pass an amendment that declares English as the language of “sole legal authority” for the business of the federal government, and declares that no person has a right to require officials of the United States government to use a language other than English. He voted "yes" on this one. But on one right before that...
06/06/2007
English as the Common Language Vote to adopt an amendment that declares English to be the common language of the United States. He voted "no". Let me get this straight: members of the government HAVE to learn English, but the average citizen does not have to. This ammendment would have made the lives of school teachers a lot easier, and businesses would have had an easier time, but ole Johnny boy doesn't care. I guess the Hispanic vote is more important than any other ones. What a crock!
As for the Huckster, check out this that came from his own mouth: “Some have suggested [increasing the tax on tobacco at the retail level]. If that ends up being your preference, I will accept that. Others have suggested a surcharge on the income tax; that’s acceptable; I’m fine with that. Others have suggested, perhaps, a sales tax; that’s fine. Yet others have suggested a hybrid that will collect some monies from any one or a combination of these various ideas, and if that’s the plan that the House and Senate agree upon, then you will have nothing but my profound thanks.” http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/mike_huckabee120.html. I have seen the video of him saying this to the Arkansas Legislature. Sounds inspiring, doesn't it?
That, essentially, is all I need to know. He also said he was a little wary of what he said was the NSA's policy of tapping the phones of average American citizens. That is a distortion of truth. Common citizens were not spied on! People suspected of terrorist ties were the only people that the NSA were allowed, LEGALLY, to "spy" on. They monitored their phone calls (those made or revieved by known terrorists) to see if they may have been concocting terrorist plots. That program was shut down by the dishonorable Senator from Nevada, Harry Reid and his fellow Lefties. By the way, guess who started the whole NSA wire-tapping program...the worst President in our history, Jimmy Carter. How ironic that he claimed to be an avowed Baptist who would lead in a Christian manner. Jim, support of abortion on demand is not a sweet Christian idea. Huckabee, another proud Baptist (no offense, Darrell), is saying the same stuff (except for abortion, thank God). To me, it may be a good idea to NOT vote for the man who is, to me, using his faith as a means to grab votes. Strong statement, I know, but I do believe it.
So, rather than being cynical, I am going to find me another candidate, and then I am going to do my best to get them elected. I hope you will do the same.
What am I talking about? I am talking about John McCain. And to some extent, I am talking about Mike Huckabee. Take a look at this:
Denying Legal Status for Immigrants Convicted of Certain Crimes
Bill Number: S Amdt 1184
Bill Number: S Amdt 1184
Vote to pass an amendment that would prohibit undocumented immigrants convicted of aggravated felonies, domestic violence, stalking, violation of protection orders, crimes against children, or crimes relating to the illegal purchase or sale of firearms, from gaining legal status.
McCain voted "no".
Did you read that right? McCain said, in essence, even though you may be ILLEGAl, and even though you have committed crimes, you need not worry about never becoming a U.S. citizen. In my house we call that permission; permission to committ crimes with no fear of real puishment other than prison. Prison is not enough. KICK THEM OUT AFTER THEY FINISH THEIR SENTANCE! McCain's vote in tantamount to betrayl.
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006
S 3711: A bill to enhance the energy independence and security of the United States by providing for exploration, development, and production activities for mineral resources in the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes.
Here's a bill that would have promoted energy independence. Guess how he voted? You got it: NO! I call that caving to the tree hugger lobby.
Here's more:
06/06/2007 Declaring English the National Language Vote to pass an amendment that declares English as the language of “sole legal authority” for the business of the federal government, and declares that no person has a right to require officials of the United States government to use a language other than English. He voted "yes" on this one. But on one right before that...
06/06/2007
English as the Common Language Vote to adopt an amendment that declares English to be the common language of the United States. He voted "no". Let me get this straight: members of the government HAVE to learn English, but the average citizen does not have to. This ammendment would have made the lives of school teachers a lot easier, and businesses would have had an easier time, but ole Johnny boy doesn't care. I guess the Hispanic vote is more important than any other ones. What a crock!
As for the Huckster, check out this that came from his own mouth: “Some have suggested [increasing the tax on tobacco at the retail level]. If that ends up being your preference, I will accept that. Others have suggested a surcharge on the income tax; that’s acceptable; I’m fine with that. Others have suggested, perhaps, a sales tax; that’s fine. Yet others have suggested a hybrid that will collect some monies from any one or a combination of these various ideas, and if that’s the plan that the House and Senate agree upon, then you will have nothing but my profound thanks.” http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/mike_huckabee120.html. I have seen the video of him saying this to the Arkansas Legislature. Sounds inspiring, doesn't it?
That, essentially, is all I need to know. He also said he was a little wary of what he said was the NSA's policy of tapping the phones of average American citizens. That is a distortion of truth. Common citizens were not spied on! People suspected of terrorist ties were the only people that the NSA were allowed, LEGALLY, to "spy" on. They monitored their phone calls (those made or revieved by known terrorists) to see if they may have been concocting terrorist plots. That program was shut down by the dishonorable Senator from Nevada, Harry Reid and his fellow Lefties. By the way, guess who started the whole NSA wire-tapping program...the worst President in our history, Jimmy Carter. How ironic that he claimed to be an avowed Baptist who would lead in a Christian manner. Jim, support of abortion on demand is not a sweet Christian idea. Huckabee, another proud Baptist (no offense, Darrell), is saying the same stuff (except for abortion, thank God). To me, it may be a good idea to NOT vote for the man who is, to me, using his faith as a means to grab votes. Strong statement, I know, but I do believe it.
So, rather than being cynical, I am going to find me another candidate, and then I am going to do my best to get them elected. I hope you will do the same.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinnerjacket and the adventures of Columbia University
Ah, fall is in the air, and oh how the mighty have fallen. According to some folks, Columbia University sunk to new lows yesterday when it allowed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at a forum on its campus. Numerous amounts of people protested against it, while some supported his being able to speak. Like it or not, it is now over with, and he is soon to address the United Nations (or, as I like to call it, the world's biggest joke) where he will spout lies and other insane platitudes about how unfair Iran is being treated. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The man is a lunatic who has said over and over how much he desires to see the West destroyed so that it can come under the rule of Sharia Law (if you do not know what that is, look it up. It aint pretty).
He has also been adament that if he has his way, Israel and every last Jew there will be pushed into the sea. In essence, he would love nothing more to see them all annihilated. Sounds like that dude from back in the 1930's and '40's. What was his name? Oh yeah. It was that mass murderer of the Jews Adolf Hitler. The same man that Neville Chamberlain appeased at Munich, and look where that got everybody. He also believes, firmly, that the Holocaust never happened. Really? Then where did those 6 million people go? Montana?
What's funny to me, though, is that it is apparent that those wonderful little liberals running for President have said that they would like to "talk" to him to see if they can iron out the differences between America and Iran. It would seem that these people have totally forgotten their history. It is either that or they are just so consumed with getting power that ignorance and blindness have taken control. I think it is a little bit of both. So much is at stake with this next Presidential election. We can elect someone like Obama who says that American troops in Afghanistan are air-raiding villages and killing civilans (an outright lie!) while at the same time saying that he wants to "talk" to Ahmadinejad to see what sort of agreement they can come to. Whose side is this man on? It is obvious that he is not looking out for your interests. Instead, he is only interested in power, and those that seek power are destined to pervert it.
Hillary is the same way. She would rather spit on a 4 Star General than believe that we are actually making progress in Iraq. She, in essence, is saying that Petraus is a liar, but she too would be willing to talk to Ahmadinejad to see if some resolution can be reached. Did you read that right? She is more concerned with power than America. She always has been, and if she is elected we are in for some serious trouble.
All that aside, what are we to make of Ahmadinejad's visit to America? What should we think about Columbia's decision to let such a lunatic speak? Well, if you ask me, that is not what we should be concerned about. Think about this for a second: Did you know that he was one of the ring-leaders of the Iranian Revolution of 1980? Did you know he was one of the men responsible for rushing our Embassy in Tehran where American citiznes were taken hostage? Did you know that this man is arming insurgents in Iraq with Iranian weapons, weapons that are being used to KILL American soldiers! Did you know that he is also sending Iranian soldiers into Iraq to KILL American soldiers? All of that has been confirmed MORE THAN ONCE by military intelligence! Have you heard any outrage over this from our "friends" on the Left? Nope, and you won't because they know that to do so would tick off their kook fringe Leftist base, and that would cost them votes. Again, THESE PEOPLE DO NOT CARE ABOUT AMERICA!
Did you also know that Ahmadinnerjacket is arming Hezbollah and Hamas, two groups who have professed to being committed to destroying Israel, two groups who use terrorism to attain their goals? They are the ones who blow women and children up while they ride on buses down the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. They are getting money and weapons from the Iranian President, the very man that liberals want to "talk" to.
So, what's the point? The point is that this man is guilty of crimes against humanity, and he is guilty of committing crimes against the United States military. His sorry tail should have been arrested the second he stepped foot on American soil, and he should have been put through the beginning stages of being charged in a War Crimes Tribunal conducted by the U.S. military. He should then be denied the right to a speedy trial, and then he should be shot while being hung in the middle of Times Square.
But wait a minute! Wouldn't that infuriate the Iranians and make them declare war on us? Probably, and we should respond in kind. Keep in mind we would not be alone in such a war. Israel has made it crystal clear that they will not tolerate the Iranians and their antics. They would be more than willing to fight, and they would be more than willing to put the nuclear option in the CENTER of the table. In my opinion, we are going to go to war with Iran. The hardliners and Islamic fundamentalists run that country, and they will not relinquish power without a fight. Such a war, though, will be like none other. Iran will be turned into a parking lot, and there will be no more putting terrorists on notice. The fight would then be taken to them at such a frightening pace it will make the carpet bombing of Germany look like a picnic with your parents.
These things will happen, I believe, if a Democrat is elected. Neville Chamberlain was a liberal, and his refusal to stand up to Hitler launched the world into a cataclysmic war. Millions of innocent men, women, and children died, and that isn't even including the number of soldiers who died. We must not allow this to happen. Get involved with your local elections. Get involved with local politics. Write your Congressmen and tell them to take a stand. Pick a candidate and get behind him with all that you have. We can win back the future, and I believe that if we act on our hopes we will win. Remember, those hostages in Iran came home as soon as Reagan took office. They knew he was serious, and Libya soon found out he wasn't playing when he had a few bombs lobbed into Ghadaffi's house. Have you heard from that guy since? Nope. Here's to hope, and here's to putting down rulers who have a silly name like "Ahmadinejad". What was his family thinking!
He has also been adament that if he has his way, Israel and every last Jew there will be pushed into the sea. In essence, he would love nothing more to see them all annihilated. Sounds like that dude from back in the 1930's and '40's. What was his name? Oh yeah. It was that mass murderer of the Jews Adolf Hitler. The same man that Neville Chamberlain appeased at Munich, and look where that got everybody. He also believes, firmly, that the Holocaust never happened. Really? Then where did those 6 million people go? Montana?
What's funny to me, though, is that it is apparent that those wonderful little liberals running for President have said that they would like to "talk" to him to see if they can iron out the differences between America and Iran. It would seem that these people have totally forgotten their history. It is either that or they are just so consumed with getting power that ignorance and blindness have taken control. I think it is a little bit of both. So much is at stake with this next Presidential election. We can elect someone like Obama who says that American troops in Afghanistan are air-raiding villages and killing civilans (an outright lie!) while at the same time saying that he wants to "talk" to Ahmadinejad to see what sort of agreement they can come to. Whose side is this man on? It is obvious that he is not looking out for your interests. Instead, he is only interested in power, and those that seek power are destined to pervert it.
Hillary is the same way. She would rather spit on a 4 Star General than believe that we are actually making progress in Iraq. She, in essence, is saying that Petraus is a liar, but she too would be willing to talk to Ahmadinejad to see if some resolution can be reached. Did you read that right? She is more concerned with power than America. She always has been, and if she is elected we are in for some serious trouble.
All that aside, what are we to make of Ahmadinejad's visit to America? What should we think about Columbia's decision to let such a lunatic speak? Well, if you ask me, that is not what we should be concerned about. Think about this for a second: Did you know that he was one of the ring-leaders of the Iranian Revolution of 1980? Did you know he was one of the men responsible for rushing our Embassy in Tehran where American citiznes were taken hostage? Did you know that this man is arming insurgents in Iraq with Iranian weapons, weapons that are being used to KILL American soldiers! Did you know that he is also sending Iranian soldiers into Iraq to KILL American soldiers? All of that has been confirmed MORE THAN ONCE by military intelligence! Have you heard any outrage over this from our "friends" on the Left? Nope, and you won't because they know that to do so would tick off their kook fringe Leftist base, and that would cost them votes. Again, THESE PEOPLE DO NOT CARE ABOUT AMERICA!
Did you also know that Ahmadinnerjacket is arming Hezbollah and Hamas, two groups who have professed to being committed to destroying Israel, two groups who use terrorism to attain their goals? They are the ones who blow women and children up while they ride on buses down the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. They are getting money and weapons from the Iranian President, the very man that liberals want to "talk" to.
So, what's the point? The point is that this man is guilty of crimes against humanity, and he is guilty of committing crimes against the United States military. His sorry tail should have been arrested the second he stepped foot on American soil, and he should have been put through the beginning stages of being charged in a War Crimes Tribunal conducted by the U.S. military. He should then be denied the right to a speedy trial, and then he should be shot while being hung in the middle of Times Square.
But wait a minute! Wouldn't that infuriate the Iranians and make them declare war on us? Probably, and we should respond in kind. Keep in mind we would not be alone in such a war. Israel has made it crystal clear that they will not tolerate the Iranians and their antics. They would be more than willing to fight, and they would be more than willing to put the nuclear option in the CENTER of the table. In my opinion, we are going to go to war with Iran. The hardliners and Islamic fundamentalists run that country, and they will not relinquish power without a fight. Such a war, though, will be like none other. Iran will be turned into a parking lot, and there will be no more putting terrorists on notice. The fight would then be taken to them at such a frightening pace it will make the carpet bombing of Germany look like a picnic with your parents.
These things will happen, I believe, if a Democrat is elected. Neville Chamberlain was a liberal, and his refusal to stand up to Hitler launched the world into a cataclysmic war. Millions of innocent men, women, and children died, and that isn't even including the number of soldiers who died. We must not allow this to happen. Get involved with your local elections. Get involved with local politics. Write your Congressmen and tell them to take a stand. Pick a candidate and get behind him with all that you have. We can win back the future, and I believe that if we act on our hopes we will win. Remember, those hostages in Iran came home as soon as Reagan took office. They knew he was serious, and Libya soon found out he wasn't playing when he had a few bombs lobbed into Ghadaffi's house. Have you heard from that guy since? Nope. Here's to hope, and here's to putting down rulers who have a silly name like "Ahmadinejad". What was his family thinking!
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Vick and Redemption
As I am sure you have all heard Michael Vick, the former quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons, will be sentenced next Monday for his role in federal dog fighting charges. The prosecutors are asking for 12-18 months in prison...FEDERAL prison. In case you forgot, Leavenworth is a federal prison, and you do not want to go there. Anyway, there are a few things about this case I would like to say. First of all, though the dog fighting charges are center stage, it is actually the gambling issue that is the real problem. Whether anyone will admit it or not, gambling can be very harmful to professional sports. The last thing commissioner Goodell and owner Arthur Blank want is for the word "gambling" to be associated in any way with football. The question that is being posed is if Vick was betting on dog fighting who is to say that he wasn't betting on football?
As the fervor mounts surrounding the countdown to Monday there are already tons of advocates out there already proclaiming how Vick should not be banned from the NFL. They say that he should be let back in when he gets out of jail because he has admitted his faults, and will have served time in prison. Question: can anyone recall how Vick admitted his wrongdoing? In case you don't know, he only admitted it AFTER his friends turned on him by copping pleas (some friends), and even then he only admitted it by accepting his own plea bargaign! How is that being forthright and honest? How is that accepting responsiblity? Lest anyone forget, he has, up until this week, been lying through his teeth about his involvement in the whole thing. That, my friends, is not contrition. While he may turn out to be truly sorry, he should not turn out like Clinton and apologize only after the fact. If Vick would just own up to his disgusting actions and his blatant lies, accepting full responsibility, then I believe everyone would be willing to give the guy another shot.
Vick's advocates come in all shapes and sizes. Their boundaries are not limited by race, sex, or age, which I think is a very good thing. However, there have been some people who have turned this into a racial issue, which is just utterly sad. Those folks claim that the Feds are attacking Vick over dog fighting because it is prevelant in black culture. Well, how about a history lesson. The first recorded events involving dog fighting are found in Roman culture, and they were known to be very popular in medieval Europe. Having said that, does it not seem pretty stupid to act like this is a black versus white thing? If anything it makes some white folk look pretty sad for starting it in the first place! Do people really think that there was a conspiracy coming from on high to get Michael Vick? The people that put forth such notions are the very people that are keeping this country stuck in a quagmire of fractured race relations. They do not want to see harmony. They want to see pity and preferential treatment. What a shame. All people are worth more than a handout, and to not give them a chance to succeed without someone doing it for them is to rob a human being a successful life.
The NAACP are saying that Vick should be let back on the field. Here is their reasoning behind that: "We further ask the NFL, Falcons and the sponsors not to permanently ban Mr. Vick from his ability to bring hours of enjoyment to fans all over this country." He should be let back in because he can play football? For some reason I doubt that Vick goes out there solely to entertain, and it would seem that the people who are so desperate for entertainment that they would excuse his actions are pretty disgusting. Michael Vick is an extremely talented human being. He has all the tools in the world to excel at his sport, and he has a HUGE stage to show that he is willing to make a positive difference in the world. For the NAACP to make the entertainment arguement they are only doing Vick a major disservice.
That being said, here is what I truly think: Vick deserves a second chance. He did something horrible and inhumane. He deserves to be punished for his crimes. He needs to spend some time at an animal shelter caring for dogs, and it may do him well to work for a vet for a while. I totally believe in the potential within Michael Vick. I do believe him when he says that he knows that he needs to change the company he keeps, and I am sure that since his "friends" have bailed on him he will speed up that process. This thing does not have to be a racial issue, or even a animal rights issue. It is so much more than that. The focus here is a human being gone astray that now, even though way down in the pit, has a chance to really make something of himself. Michael Vick, if he wants to, can really be an example of redemption. And honestly, I think he can do it. I think he WANTS to do it. I hope he does it. He is too young to throw it all away now.
P.S.: PETA, shutup. When you protest the murder of innocent human beings as much as you protest the killing of animals we will listen to you. Until then, shutup.
And Stephon Marbury, you shutup as well. Defending dog fighting only hurts Michael Vick, and it makes you look even more ignorant than you already are (if that's possible). You want to help Vick? Then help him finish college, help him find friends who will build him up and not mooch off of him until it's time to bail. If you can't do that, shutup.
As the fervor mounts surrounding the countdown to Monday there are already tons of advocates out there already proclaiming how Vick should not be banned from the NFL. They say that he should be let back in when he gets out of jail because he has admitted his faults, and will have served time in prison. Question: can anyone recall how Vick admitted his wrongdoing? In case you don't know, he only admitted it AFTER his friends turned on him by copping pleas (some friends), and even then he only admitted it by accepting his own plea bargaign! How is that being forthright and honest? How is that accepting responsiblity? Lest anyone forget, he has, up until this week, been lying through his teeth about his involvement in the whole thing. That, my friends, is not contrition. While he may turn out to be truly sorry, he should not turn out like Clinton and apologize only after the fact. If Vick would just own up to his disgusting actions and his blatant lies, accepting full responsibility, then I believe everyone would be willing to give the guy another shot.
Vick's advocates come in all shapes and sizes. Their boundaries are not limited by race, sex, or age, which I think is a very good thing. However, there have been some people who have turned this into a racial issue, which is just utterly sad. Those folks claim that the Feds are attacking Vick over dog fighting because it is prevelant in black culture. Well, how about a history lesson. The first recorded events involving dog fighting are found in Roman culture, and they were known to be very popular in medieval Europe. Having said that, does it not seem pretty stupid to act like this is a black versus white thing? If anything it makes some white folk look pretty sad for starting it in the first place! Do people really think that there was a conspiracy coming from on high to get Michael Vick? The people that put forth such notions are the very people that are keeping this country stuck in a quagmire of fractured race relations. They do not want to see harmony. They want to see pity and preferential treatment. What a shame. All people are worth more than a handout, and to not give them a chance to succeed without someone doing it for them is to rob a human being a successful life.
The NAACP are saying that Vick should be let back on the field. Here is their reasoning behind that: "We further ask the NFL, Falcons and the sponsors not to permanently ban Mr. Vick from his ability to bring hours of enjoyment to fans all over this country." He should be let back in because he can play football? For some reason I doubt that Vick goes out there solely to entertain, and it would seem that the people who are so desperate for entertainment that they would excuse his actions are pretty disgusting. Michael Vick is an extremely talented human being. He has all the tools in the world to excel at his sport, and he has a HUGE stage to show that he is willing to make a positive difference in the world. For the NAACP to make the entertainment arguement they are only doing Vick a major disservice.
That being said, here is what I truly think: Vick deserves a second chance. He did something horrible and inhumane. He deserves to be punished for his crimes. He needs to spend some time at an animal shelter caring for dogs, and it may do him well to work for a vet for a while. I totally believe in the potential within Michael Vick. I do believe him when he says that he knows that he needs to change the company he keeps, and I am sure that since his "friends" have bailed on him he will speed up that process. This thing does not have to be a racial issue, or even a animal rights issue. It is so much more than that. The focus here is a human being gone astray that now, even though way down in the pit, has a chance to really make something of himself. Michael Vick, if he wants to, can really be an example of redemption. And honestly, I think he can do it. I think he WANTS to do it. I hope he does it. He is too young to throw it all away now.
P.S.: PETA, shutup. When you protest the murder of innocent human beings as much as you protest the killing of animals we will listen to you. Until then, shutup.
And Stephon Marbury, you shutup as well. Defending dog fighting only hurts Michael Vick, and it makes you look even more ignorant than you already are (if that's possible). You want to help Vick? Then help him finish college, help him find friends who will build him up and not mooch off of him until it's time to bail. If you can't do that, shutup.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
